Brand-new polling conducted by TIPP Insights for my League of American Workers reveals a commanding +14% lead for Michael Alfonso in the Republican primary for the U.S. House of Representatives race in Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District. Alfonso earned the endorsement of President Donald Trump, who recognizes serious political talent and philosophical alignment in this young outsider candidate. His family roots trace to Cuba, where his grandparents escaped the tyranny of Castro and the communist takeover of the island. After settling in Wisconsin, Alfonso experienced a typical “Northwoods” childhood that included hockey, football, and a deep love for the country that became a refuge for his family. Speaking of family, Alfonso married his high school classmate Evita Duffy, daughter of Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy and current Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. In fact, Michael is running for the very seat formerly held by his father-in-law, and current polling shows Alfonso with a substantial lead in the race, +14% over his nearest competitor. Granted, the primary is not until August, and none of the candidates yet has high name recognition in the district. Still, Alfonso appears poised to continue gaining support as he campaigns vigorously and spreads the word about the president’s endorsement in a district Trump won by +20% in 2024. Beyond that validation, Alfonso himself has a compelling story to tell. He paid his own way through the University of Wisconsin–Madison by working blue-collar jobs in construction and paving. Those jobs are demanding anywhere, but especially so in the harsh winter climate of the 7th District. After graduation, he worked full time in those industries before pivoting to media and politics. In media appearances, both he and his telegenic wife display formidable on-camera skills, seemingly a prerequisite in today’s digital political era. More importantly, the message conveyed by Alfonso—whether in person across the district or through a camera lens—is unabashedly America First. For example, Alfonso’s platform states that “mass immigration, including programs like H-1B, hurts American workers and undercuts wages. Michael Alfonso will protect our workers and national identity.” With that kind of life story and political agenda, Michael Alfonso strikes a chord in the patriotic communities amid the northern forests and lakes. In fact, the new poll of 504 registered voters (with a 4% margin of error) shows that when voters are informed about the Trump endorsement, 62% say they are “more likely” to support Alfonso, while only 7% are “less likely,” with 29% saying it makes “no difference.” When informed about the identity of his locally popular in-laws, 58% of district voters say they are “more likely” to vote for Alfonso. There are challenges, to be sure, even in this deeply red district. For instance, President Trump remains well regarded there, especially compared to other parts of the state, such as Milwaukee, but his job approval margin stands at only +5%, at 49/44%. Certainly, the mostly working-class residents of the 7th District find the high prices of a wartime era difficult to manage. Nonetheless, among Republicans in the district, Trump remains enormously popular, with a +68% net approval rating at 79-11%. Current U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany is also highly popular in the district, with a +18% overall rating and +68% among GOP voters there. Tiffany will vacate the seat at the end of the current term because he is running for governor of Wisconsin—and he polls very well in my early surveys of that key race. In 2024, the America First movement earned significant electoral gains among young voters, especially young men. For that nascent trend to continue accelerating, the patriotic populist cause needs smart, media-savvy, compelling young champions—and Michael Alfonso is emerging as just such a leader. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump said the question of defunding Planned Parenthood again for another year is a “very thorny issue.”  The Daily Signal asked Trump on Monday if he wants Congress to extend the one-year defund of Planned Parenthood that was passed in the “One, Big Beautiful Bill” and is set to expire July 4, America’s 250th birthday.  Planned Parenthood funding resumes July 4. I asked @POTUS if he would like Congress to stop it. “Congress is now negotiating. We've been very good for the people that want it, for the people that are here, and we'll see how that goes. It's been a very thorny to put it. To put… pic.twitter.com/MYzOnfboNX— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) May 11, 2026 Trump said the issue is “under negotiation right now.” “Congress is now negotiating,” he said. “We’ve been very good for the people that want it, for the people that are here, and we’ll see how that goes.” “It’s been very thorny,” he added. “To put it mildly, it’s been a very thorny issue.” Trump did not respond to a follow-up question on whether he would like to extend the defund.  The pro-life movement has prioritized the prevention of taxpayer funding of abortion clinics. A coalition of pro-life leaders penned a letter urging the Senate to cut abortion funding in the 2026 budget reconciliation package. To the disappointment of the pro-life movement, Congress recently moved forward with a second “skinny” reconciliation bill that only included Department of Homeland Security funding to end the shutdown of the agency. Members want a larger third package to include various policy priorities, including an extension of the Planned Parenthood defund, additional funding for the Department of War, and possibly a measure to require voter identification.  Speaker Mike Johnson has assured some members of Congress and pro-life leaders that he will try to stop the resumption of Planned Parenthood funding, The Daily Signal reported.  “He said he’s doing everything he can to make sure that happens,” Pro-Life Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., told The Daily Signal. “I have a great deal of respect for Speaker Johnson. I do believe he will do everything he can.” Johnson has said he hopes to use reconciliation to defund Planned Parenthood again. “We’ve been very creative in how we’ve used that, and we’re intending to do that again,” he said at the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Gala on April 29.

Pericles, a leader of the first democracy in Athens, gave a famous speech extolling Athenian greatness at a funeral for fallen soldiers. “Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves,” Pericles boasted in Thucydides’ account of the speech. Athens served as the “school” of Greece, Pericles noted. “We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality.” Pericles inspired many, including President Ronald Reagan, whose description of America as “a shining city on a hill” echoes Pericles. Liberal democracy, however, contains unavoidable dilemmas concerning granting liberal freedoms to illiberal factions. These difficulties have appeared recently in American political debates; we must resolve them thoughtfully. While Pericles took entirely justified pride in the liberality of Athens, we can only speculate where his boundaries would have ended. If, for example, the Spartans had purchased farmland adjacent to Athenian naval bases, would Pericles have felt alarmed? The New York Post reported on Chinese interests purchasing farmland near 19 different American military bases, raising concerns about both espionage and sabotage. However Pericles would have felt about this situation, both federal and state policymakers in the U.S. have been taking action to curtail these potential threats. Like Athens, American freedoms are a part of what makes our nation great—including religious freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court has in recent decades interpreted the First Amendment as requiring neutrality towards religious groups. The Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) allows neither discrimination in favor of nor against groups based upon religion. The religious neutrality stance embraces the liberal spirit of the First Amendment. Neutrality towards religious institutions and religious tolerance have served as guiding principles of the education choice movement for decades. Recently, however, the tensions between these principles and state actions to protect against foreign adversaries have collided in Texas. Governor Greg Abbott successfully pushed a private school choice measure through the Texas Legislature in 2025. In the same year Governor Abbott designated the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as foreign terrorist organizations under authority granted by state law. Governor Abbott took similar action against the Chinese Communist Party in 2024. Litigation has ensued regarding the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, and regarding delays made by the state agency administering the new choice program in allowing Islamic schools to participate in the choice program. At the time of this writing, the designation cases remain unresolved, whereas Muslim schools have already successfully sued in federal court for inclusion in the choice program. A federal judge ruled, “The Constitution does not permit the State to open a public benefit program to private schools and then close the door when Muslim schools seek to enter. Government may not deny a generally available benefit because of a school’s religious character, because of the faith it teaches, or because public officials disfavor the religious community seeking equal treatment.” The ruling referenced “neutral rules and lawful eligibility standards” but concluded that Texas officials had engaged in prohibited discrimination. Texas authorities can however take steps to balance the tension between First Amendment jurisprudence and the desire to protect against foreign influence. The ruling of the federal judge regarding neutral rules and lawful eligibility standards points towards workable solutions. First, authorities could require schools to sign a sworn statement affirming a lack of affiliation with foreign adversaries. Second authorities could investigate those sworn statements in cases of reasonable suspicion. Finally, lawmakers could consider adding language to the Texas legislation from other choice programs to create neutral legal safeguards. The nation’s second-oldest voucher program—the Cleveland Scholarship Program in Ohio—contains language ensuring neutral legal safeguards. Passed in 1995, that program requires that participating schools “not advocate or foster unlawful behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.” This language treats schools neutrally regarding their religious affiliation, but it simultaneously prohibits problematic practices by any school, whether religious or secular, as a condition of participation. Another example comes from the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program, enacted in 2011. This law requires specific civics education and makes any school advocating for the violent overthrow of the American government ineligible to participate. Even Pericles would have deeply felt uneasy if adversarial city states such as Sparta and Corinth had invested in Athenian schools in the hopes of getting Athenians to adopt their viewpoints, or worse still, to despise Athenians or Athens itself. Pericles was a champion of freedom, but he was not a fool. We likewise must balance tensions between our fundamental principles of religious tolerance and prudence regarding security.

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday announced Ohio Department of Public Safety Director Andy Wilson is his pick to serve for the remaining six months of outgoing Attorney General Dave Yost’s term. Last Thursday, Yost made his resignation official, effective June 7. He’ll leave his current post to work for Alliance Defending Freedom. Wilson previously served as DeWine’s senior advisor for criminal justice policy in his first term. He became the public safety director in December 2022. In a statement, Yost appeared pleased with DeWine’s choice for his successor, calling it “a wise selection.” He also highlighted Wilson’s experience as a county prosecuting attorney, and also in his current role, noting that “our offices have frequently collaborated to keep Ohioans safe.” AG Yost today issued the following statement regarding the appointment of Andy Wilson as Ohio’s 52nd Attorney General: pic.twitter.com/nkLUAD05Gi— Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (@OhioAG) May 11, 2026 Wilson’s appointment also was applauded by State Auditor Keith Faber, who is the Republican nominee for attorney general. In a statement on X, Faber noted Wilson was a “solid pick,” and spoke of his own run for the position. Andy Wilson is a solid pick by the Governor as interim Attorney General. I’m looking forward to spending the next six months continuing my conversations with Ohioans about the kind of leadership I’ll bring to the office if I’m elected in November.— Keith Faber (@KeithFaber) May 11, 2026 Ohio Republican Party Chairman Alex Triantafilou echoed that sentiment in his own X post, noting Wilson “will do a great job” until Faber “is elected in November.” While it was rumored that DeWine would appoint Faber, who could then run as an incumbent, such a pick would have set off a flurry of appointments needing to be filled. Secretary of State Frank LaRose is the Republican nominee for auditor, while Treasurer Robert Sprague is the Republican nominee for secretary of state. Former state Rep. Jay Edwards is the Republican nominee for treasurer. Faber has also spoken about the work he is doing in his current role to combat concerns of fraud. Yost could not run again for his current role due to term limits. He briefly ran for governor, but dropped out last year after Vivek Ramaswamy, now officially the Republican nominee, received high-profile endorsements, including from the Ohio Republican Party and President Donald Trump. DeWine and Yost have both served as attorneys general, with Yost succeeding DeWine in that role. Before serving as the attorney general, Yost was the state auditor, the role Faber currently holds.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Democrats are scheming to pack a court after justices clearly upheld the law in opposition to their agenda. No, it isn’t the U.S. Supreme Court, for once. Instead, it’s Virginia’s highest court—and Democrats’ lawless scheme is positively Machiavellian. When the Virginia Supreme Court rightly struck down Old Dominion Democrats’ constitutional amendment on redistricting, Democrats responded by… scheming to effectively nuke the Virginia Supreme Court. According to a bombshell report from The New York Times published Sunday, Democrats who represent Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives held a private discussion with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. Democrats’ Cockamamie Scheme Democrats on the call discussed “an unusual gambit to replace the entire state Supreme Court, with a goal of reinstating their gerrymandered map,” the Times reported. The strategy would involve “having Democrats in Richmond lower the mandatory retirement age for state Supreme Court justices.” The General Assembly, controlled by Democrats, would have to lower the mandatory retirement age from 75 to 54, the age of the youngest current justice. Since the General Assembly appoints the justices, the Democrat majorities in both chambers would then fill vacancies with sympathetic Democrat lawyers. This strategy would essentially nuke the Old Dominion’s highest court, removing every single member and replacing them with yes-men. A Sign of Desperation Democrats’ Machiavellian manipulation has been on display throughout this entire process, but this scheme still represents a horrifying escalation. In 2020, Virginians overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to create a bipartisan committee to handle redistricting. The bill passed the Legislature before and after an election, and then Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved it, 65.7% to 34.3%. Last year, “moderate” Abigail Spanberger initially said she had no plans to reconsider redistricting, but—after a hefty political campaign contribution from Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder’s pro-redistricting PAC—she abruptly reversed course. Spanberger’s effort immediately hit a snag, however. In order to reverse a constitutional amendment, you need… another constitutional amendment. Virginia’s Constitution requires the Legislature to pass a new constitutional amendment before and after a general election—to give the people the ability to vote out the Legislature if they oppose the amendment—and a popular referendum to confirm the amendment. Even though Democrats knew this, they rushed a vote before Election Day last year. This clearly violated the rules because millions of Virginians had already voted, so the Legislature’s approval for redistricting couldn’t count as the vote before an election. Even so, Democrats acted as though that vote counted, held another vote this year, and rushed the amendment before the general public. They drew the maps to have Northern Virginia fit into five different congressional districts in a blatant attempt to squeeze out Republicans. Democrats pulled out all the stops. They adopted arguably deceptive language suggesting the ballot initiative was about “fairness.” They enlisted former President Barack Obama to gaslight Virginia voters with nauseating ads about returning to a “level playing field.” Virginia Dems overall strategy? Redraw maps to connect Northern Virginia to central Virginia to dilute Republican votes. But the new maps would also put more white voters in the 2 majority-minority districts Virginia has now. 3/7 pic.twitter.com/ZSCcfYbluD— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) April 11, 2026 Despite all this, Virginians narrowly approved the measure, 51.7% to 48.3%. Republicans went to court to challenge the legality of this scheme, but Democrats repeatedly argued that the courts should not block it before it went to the voters. Democrat Attorney General Jay Jones praised the Supreme Court of Virginia for allowing the April 21 vote to proceed while considering the case. Ultimately, the Virginia Supreme Court flatly stated the truth: the redistricting amendment clearly violated the constitution, and cannot go into effect. Even more revealing, the justice who wrote the opinion was none other than D. Arthur Kelsey, who had been appointed to an appeals court by Democrat Gov. Mark Warner in 2002. Jones hyperbolically claimed that the decision “silences the voices of the millions of Virginians who cast their ballots.” (2/2) This decision silences the voices of the millions of Virginians who cast their ballots in every corner of the Commonwealth, and it fuels the growing fears across our nation about the state of our democracy. Read my full statement here: https://t.co/enp32V4Bii— Attorney General Jay Jones (@AGJayJones) May 8, 2026 In an utterly farcical move, Democrats sought to appeal the case—a state constitution case decided by the state‘s highest court—to the U.S. Supreme Court, which arguably has no jurisdiction whatsoever. It also didn’t help that Jones’ office misspelled “Virginia” and “senator” in the filing… My goodness — “Sentator” really??? https://t.co/S6EzwPpnLY— Jason Miyares (@JasonMiyaresVA) May 9, 2026 Nuking the Virginia Supreme Court Of course, even if Democrats can convince the Virginia Legislature to set the retirement age at the absurdly low number of 54 and vote to pack the Virginia Supreme Court—a tall order—it would be far too late. The commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections identified a date past which state election officials cannot change redistricting maps: May 12. In other words, Virginia Democrats would have to pass the retirement age legislation, enforce it, appoint new justices, confirm them, and have them reverse the Virginia Supreme Court decision… in less than 48 hours. Yet the very fact that Democrats still mentioned this plan, and seem to seriously be considering it, speaks volumes. One of them, U.S. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, was willing to go on the record to The New York Times, urging his fellow Democrats to “have a strong stomach right now.” Let’s get this straight: Democrats ignored the state constitution in their blatant power grab, flagrantly lied to get the measure across the finish line, undermined their own ability to complain when the Supreme Court threw out racial redistricting, and now are talking about court-packing in order to resurrect their illegal scheme. Democrats are willing to destroy any institution if it will check their blatant grasp for power. Yet this strategy seems far more likely to backfire. Do Democrats truly have no shame?