I always liked the premise of the TV show “The Sopranos,” a guy stuck between “the Family” and his family. I never watched much because I didn’t have the spare change to pay for HBO, but I catch up on episodes here and there. One of the returning themes I enjoyed was the tension between the crew and the New York Lupertazzi family. I was reminded of this theme as Fox News reported that the FBI investigation into Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas and her business empire was started under President Joe “the Big Guy” Biden. As leaks from investigators speaking on condition of anonymity began to probe into alleged associations and use of a political office to attain financial benefits, I was left chuckling under my breath. “Well, they ought to know,” I thought. The senator’s statement posted to social media following the raid takes the position that famous New York Mob attorney Bruce Cutler used to take each time Rudy Giuliani would bring in his real-life mob boss client, John Gotti. Lucas posted on X: “Today’s actions by Federal agents are about far more than one state senator; they are about power and who is allowed to use it on behalf of the people. What we saw fits a clear pattern from this administration: when challenged, they try to intimidate and silence the voices who stand up to them.” She added: “I am not backing down, and I will keep fighting for the people of Portsmouth and the Commonwealth of Virginia.” Notice the missing declaration of “I didn’t do it.” Congressman Bobby Scott also issued a statement: “Like all Americans, Senator Lucas has a right to due process and a presumption of innocence.” I recall the same congressman calling for a criminal investigation into President Donald Trump after reports surfaced that alleged Trump tried to ask election officials in Georgia to “find” votes for a victory in 2020. Presumption of innocence, huh? Scott also added, “This is occurring just two weeks after Senator Lucas helped lead the successful effort by Virginia voters to reject President Trump’s attempt to rig the midterm elections.” He left out the $70 million from everywhere but Virginia that was spent on that referendum and the likelihood that it won’t survive the Virginia Supreme Court. Senator Lucas’ dispensary, the Cannabis Outlet, is no stranger to controversy. In 2022, the store was caught selling bars made out of the cereal Lucky Charms that were laced with Delta-9 THC. It’s anyone’s guess what the FBI investigation might find this time. As James Spurlock reported in March for Bacon’s Rebellion, “She [Sen. Lucas] also serves on the Education and Health Committee, which oversees the Departments of Medical Assistance Services, Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, and Health. She serves as CEO and President of, Lucas Lodge, LLC, which is regulated by DBHDS and has been funded by Medicaid since 2005. It provides residential, transportation, and day-support services to individuals with intellectual disabilities in the City of Portsmouth.”  That doesn’t make it hard to see places the FBI might want to investigate. We haven’t even mentioned that Lucas’ Cannabis Outlet would benefit enormously under SB 542, a bill that she co-sponsored this session. It sets up a legal marijuana marketplace and taxing authority which, after a back-and-forth with Gov. Abigail Spanberger, is on the governor’s desk waiting to be signed into law. No conflicts of interest there. Sure, her supporters say the investigation is because Trump lost a referendum vote. But could it instead be because she was muscling in on Joe “The Big Guy” Biden’s territory of using his government position to make money.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced Thursday he is resigning from his role, effective June 7. He will serve as the vice president of strategic research and innovation with Alliance Defending Freedom. Yost has served as Ohio’s top law enforcement official since 2019 and was preceded by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. He previously served as state auditor. He also briefly ran for governor for the 2026 election to replace the term-limited DeWine but withdrew last May after Vivek Ramaswamy earned key endorsements from the Ohio Republican Party and President Donald Trump. The attorney general shared the news over X, linking to a statement from ADF’s Kristen Waggoner, which described Yost as a “proven champion of freedom.” I begin a new chapter June 8 as VP of Strategic Research and Innovation at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit law firm that’s won 18 cases at SCOTUS in the last 15 years.I’ve been honored to serve Ohio, and will continue to fight for freedom! https://t.co/zTsTLdycAC— Dave Yost (@DaveYostOH) May 7, 2026 “We are honored to welcome Attorney General Yost to ADF at this defining moment,” Waggoner said in the statement. “General Yost is a proven, bold advocate of First Amendment freedoms who brings decades of government, policy, and litigation experience to the fight for truth—in the courtroom and the public square. As censorship accelerates and God-given rights face unprecedented attack, ADF is advancing on new fronts, and we are fortunate to have a leader of General Yost’s stature and conviction standing with us. He doesn’t just understand these issues—he has spent his career fighting for them.” Yost also chimed in about what’s at stake and how ADF is involved. “This is a moment of unprecedented change and uncertainty, and the stakes for our foundational freedoms could not be higher. ADF isn’t just responding to these threats—it’s leading the charge,” he said. “I’ve been passionate about religious liberty, free speech, parental rights, and human dignity for a long time, and to now bring my legal and advocacy skills to bear alongside the best constitutional lawyers in the world is an extraordinary opportunity. I’m honored to join this renowned organization.” Yost’s role will involve expanding ADF’s research capability and developing “innovative approaches to advancing freedom globally.” Both ADF and Yost have highlighted the importance of fighting for conservative causes, including protecting women and girls from competing against biological males in sports. In January, Yost spoke to The Daily Signal about how Ohio could be affected by two pending Supreme Court cases on transgender athletes. Ohio Auditor Keith Faber’s name has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Yost, especially as he is the Republican nominee for attorney general. However, Jack Windsor, host of “The Windsor Report,” said on his Thursday program that Faber may want to remain in his current post to crack down on fraud concerns. Windsor said possible replacement picks might include Ohio Deputy Attorney General for Law Enforcement Carol O’Brien or Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Mary Mertz. Mertz served as first assistant attorney general during DeWine’s tenure as attorney general. A source close to the situation just told me that Gov. DeWine will not appoint Auditor Faber AG upon Yost’s exit. Instead, he expects the appointee to be either Ohio Deputy AG for Law Enforcement Carol O’Brien (left) or ODNR Director Mary Mertz (right). #Ohio #OhioNews pic.twitter.com/GKKTrKQk8f— jackwindsor (@jackwindsor) May 7, 2026 DeWine issued a statement Thursday thanking Yost for his many years of service to the state of Ohio. “I am grateful for Attorney General Yost’s long career in public service, from serving as Delaware County Auditor, Delaware County Prosecutor, Auditor of State, to Attorney General of Ohio. I wish him the best in his next endeavor,” DeWine said. “Having served as Ohio Attorney General, I know how important this office is and the great work done by its employees. I will give the appointment of someone to serve as Attorney General thoughtful and deliberate consideration.”

On May 8, 2025, a few minutes after his election, Pope Leo XIV opened his pontificate with “la pace sia con tutti voi” (peace be with you all). In many ways, these words can be understood as a kind of agenda for the Holy Father in the last year: cultivate peace and thus bolster unity within the Church. Leo’s biography can help explain much about the rhetoric and style of the current pontificate. Robert Francis Prevost was born in Chicago on Sept. 14, 1955; he entered the Order of St. Augustine, studied mathematics at Villanova, was ordained a priest in 1982, and trained in canon law. Crucially, he matured pastorally far from ecclesiastical salons, instead having much of his experience in Peru. His time in poor communities helped him develop the skills needed for the mediation of local problems, cultivating relationships with clergy and laity in the “real world.” Only after many years did the second, Roman phase of his professional trajectory begin. Pope Francis called him in 2023 to lead the Dicastery for Bishops, the office that weighs decisively on the choice of pastors across the world. A few months later, the cardinal’s scarlet arrived. Knowing this background, it is easy to see why the conclave found in him a figure capable of linking mission, law, government, and concrete knowledge of the local churches in leading the Catholic Church. Leo XIV reaches his first anniversary already having developed a recognizable lexicon, an intense agenda, a diplomatic profile, a complex relationship with U.S. (and world) politics, and an approach to artificial intelligence. The question is whether he can transform this initial coherence into a stable architecture undergirding a pontificate. Read coldly, the first year delivers a pope less spectacular than some expected and more structured than others had predicted. Its strength lies in disciplined continuity: It unites the Peruvian mission, juridical formation, curial experience, and Augustinian spirituality. From the moment he presented himself to the faithful as pope, Leo XIV has demonstrated a balanced approach to the complex figure of his predecessor. He took up the symbols of the pontifical office, starting with the red mozzetta, which Francis never wore. In the first year there was also a reshaping of the external signs. The use of the Apostolic Palace, the presence of the mozzetta in some solemn moments, and the return to Castel Gandolfo have caused discussion because they touch on the way in which the papacy makes itself visible. Read as a whole, these gestures restore to the Petrine ministry a formal framework after years in which the communicative power was concentrated above all on Francis’ personal closeness. These restorations of tradition also have practical, institutional benefits. A pope who regularly uses traditional places makes the relationship between person and office more predictable. The distinction is important because it protects the pontificate from excessive dependence on the temperament of the individual Pontiff. Leo seems to be moving precisely on this threshold: He preserves pastoral closeness while putting the public grammar of the role back in order. Francis’ pontificate was strongly marked by the personality of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Leo’s approach to his predecessor has thus far avoided a major rift on synodality, closeness to the poor, and the missionary dimension of the Church. At the same time, Leo XIV has opened doors that sometimes felt locked during the previous pontificate. He has shown himself to be more open to popular movements and the liturgical tradition. In quiet ways, he has been mending ecclesial areas that have been perceived as marginal or opposed in recent years. Crucially, Leo’s method addresses doctrinal tensions by bringing them back to a more guarded perimeter of communion. It is here that the Augustinian shows his signature: unity as daily work on fractures, beyond the ceremonial slogan. The great goal of Leo XIV’s pontificate is therefore to restore unity in the Church. The task, however, is particularly arduous. This goal has determined the speed with which the pope implemented reforms. He acts only after a long process. When considering any action, the Holy Father listens to everyone, thinks carefully, and prays at length. As a result, he has seemed to many onlookers to be slow to make decisions. But once he has made a decision, Leo has decided firmly, and he has expected his decisions to be implemented. Characterized by careful and deliberate reform, the revival of institutional symbols, and unflinching clarity of communication, Leo XIV’s pontificate is unmistakably coming into its own. The pope’s direction is “Leonine.” It’s early for final judgments, but the direction seems clear.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.opens in a new tab Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal.    Gerrymandering, or the protocol where states allot congressional seats by population, is in the news recently, and some states do it transparently politically, depending on the makeup of their state legislatures. Others go through the operation, sometimes genuine, sometimes not so much, of having a nonpartisan body redistrict.  It’s very important because it’s based on the census, as well as within the state. The number of seats that the state is granted by the U.S. Census is then further determined by how you draw the lines for congressional districts. And as you know, birds of a feather flock together, so you can do it regionally in a way that would favor one or the other party.  Now we’re in a gerrymandering war where some of the states are trying to redistrict and improve either the Democratic or Republican turnout. Here in California, 40% of the state voted a little bit over, maybe 41%, for Donald Trump. And if this new redistricting protocol goes into effect, which it will by November, it’s likely that even though we have 53 congressional seats, we may only have seven or eight Republicans in the House.  We could go down, in other words, not getting 40%. We never get that. We get about 17% to 20%. We could go down to eight or 9% of the state’s House of Representatives members would be Republicans, even though 40% of the state shows that it’s Republican by their voting in national elections. But this is what’s interesting.  Now that we’re in this war, the Democrats, I don’t quite think, have known what is going to go on. There were some recent studies by various pollsters about what would happen if all of the states decided to engage in redistricting, gerrymandering, based on the relative control of the state legislatures. And it came up with a very surprising result. And that is, if the Republican red states or purple states that have Republican majorities decided to redistrict and Democrats did the same, an all-out war, there would be about 262 Republicans and only 173 Democratic seats.  And that’s not the end of it. We have had a massive population transfer of somewhere between 1 and 3 million people a year recently go from blue states and blue cities to red states and red cities. And that alone, according to many people, within just four years, is going to radically change the census allotment of congressional representatives.  Forget about redistricting. It’s the whole number that each state is granted, and that will have an effect on the Electoral College, which has a formula that your senators and representatives determine your electors that will select the next president. And in that calculus, people are suggesting they may lose, they being blue states, anywhere from 10 to 15 [seats].  Some quite outlier polls say they could lose 20 seats, and that’s not the end of it. A third factor people are not taking into consideration is the Supreme Court just outlawed racial gerrymandering. It’s a question of whether that will be enacted in time for the November elections. It seems like it can.  Maybe not for the June primaries, but that will affect Democrat seats as well as the census and as well as just normal gerrymandering. But if you don’t have these special seats that are carved out to ensure Black people are the only two candidates, the Democrats could lose another 10 to 15 seats.  If you add it all up, you’re talking about a permanent switch of 40 to 50 seats in the House of Representatives, and it doesn’t end there. If you look at the longer-term demographics, whether you use number of births per 100,000 population, or you look at by family, what is the fertility rate of the average state—is it 2.1, which is necessary for the replacement population—it turns out that with very few exceptions, the red states are usually reproducing about 1.6 to 1.9 in a few cases, and the Democrats are about 1.5 down to almost below [one]. So long term, people in blue states, for a variety of reasons, we don’t have time to get into them, I think you know what they are. There’s less emphasis on traditional religion, on traditional nuclear families, etc. They tend to be more urban than some of the rural states in the West, Midwest, and South. But in any case, the long-term prognosis for the Democratic Party is not good.  It could lose 50 to 60 permanent seats, and then you would have a sort of California-type one-party rule nationwide, except it might have implications for the Senate as well. What am I getting at? It seems to me that the Democrats have lost confidence in their agenda.  In other words, they don’t believe that you, the voter, really do want an open border, or you want 53 million foreign-born without audits that ensure acculturation, integration, assimilation. And the same is true of critical race theory or critical legal theory or the emphasis and fixations on transgenderism or the Green New Deal.  It seems it would have been disastrous had we enacted the full agenda of the Left, given what the status of oil is, and we’re the largest producer of oil and gas in the history of civilization right now.  You put it all together, and that message of the Democrats is not appealing. And so, of course, in the short term, their strategy has been: We’re not Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a fascist, and we’re going to go demonstrate against Tesla and ICE and “No Kings,” and we’re going to try to put him in jail and impeach him on third time— all of that.  But long term, it suggests that they have two choices. They either have to change their culture and go back to more traditional lifestyles to improve their demographics and to go back to the assimilationist model, as I think the Republicans have—I don’t see that happening—or they would have to lower taxes and cut back entitlements in these blue states to retain their high earners and their upper-middle-class people, who are for the most part leaving. They’re not going to do that.  As the historian Livy said about Rome’s problems in the Late Republic, the medicine for them is worse than the disease. They don’t want a society where a man and woman are married fairly early with two to three children. They really don’t want a society that is racially blind, and they don’t like the idea that a lot of red people stay in their states.  They welcome them to leave. And the result of all that is when they look at these long-term prognoses I just went over, they get very angry. And so what is the reaction? Is it to change the agenda to win you over the vote? No. It’s to change the system.  And so if you want to know why they want to get rid of the Electoral College, or why they want the census to count residents that could be here, in many cases are here illegally, maybe 30 million, if you want to know why they want to pack the Supreme Court, if you want to know why they want the National Voters Compact to de facto get rid of the Electoral College, if you want to know why they want to pack the Supreme Court, it is that their message right now does not appeal to 51%, and the demography on which a democracy and a constitutional republic are based is not in their favor.  So their only alternative is to find radical changes in the system of governance to allow their unpopular agenda to be, what, de facto popular. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

A district court judge ordered the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which bills itself as America’s largest Muslim civil rights group, to hand over donor information to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. CAIR “will produce documents sufficient to identify the identities of any foreign donor who has given donations… of $5,000 or more to” the CAIR Foundation and to the Washington Trust Foundation, an entity established to support CAIR, Judge Alan D. Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas wrote in the order Thursday. Abbott celebrated the order on X. “I demanded CAIR give us its donor list, donee list, and details for [CAIR Executive Director] Nihad Awad’s travel to 9 countries hosting Islamic terror,” the governor wrote. “A federal court granted my request.” CAIR emphasized that Abbott had requested more information than the judge ordered CAIR to hand over. “Contrary to Greg Abbott’s claim, a federal court just rejected his attempt to go on a McCarthy-era fishing expedition into our civil rights work,” CAIR told The Daily Signal in a statement Thursday. “Mr. Abbott wanted the names of every American who has donated to CAIR over the past ten years, but the court ruled that he can only review the names of any foreigners who may have donated to us from 2021 to 2024 above a certain monetary limit,” the group noted. “So be it.” “That Governor Abbott would try to celebrate and distort an order in which the vast majority of his discovery was rejected underscores his ‘proclamation’ is nothing more than bad political theater,” CAIR added. “Blatantly lying about a court ruling is unacceptable.” CAIR a Foreign Terror Group? The case traces back to November, when Abbott, a Republican, formally designated CAIR a foreign terrorist organization, authorizing state actions against the group. CAIR condemned the designation as “defamatory” and “lawless,” and filed a lawsuit in response. Abbott’s proclamation notes the FBI’s previous finding that CAIR was founded as a “front group” for “Hamas and its support network,” and that CAIR was an “unidentified co-conspirator” in the 2009 terrorism financing case involving the Holy Land Foundation. It mentions the FBI suspending formal contact with CAIR in 2008 and the Biden administration removing CAIR’s name from documents in 2023 as a means of distancing itself from the group. CAIR vehemently contested Abbott’s claims. “We have consistently condemned all forms of unjust violence, including hate crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide and terrorism. In fact, we condemn terrorism so often that ISIS once put a target on our national executive director,” the group said. CAIR has long disputed claims of the kind Abbott cited. “CAIR is not ‘the Wahhabi lobby,’ a “front-group for Hamas,’ a ‘fund-raising arm for Hezbollah,’ ‘part of a wider conspiracy overseen by the Muslim Brotherhood’ or any of the other false and misleading associations our detractors seek to smear us with,” the organization notes. CAIR admits that it was included on a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case, but notes that there were more than 300 other organizations on the list. CAIR accused Abbott of violating its free speech and free association rights under the First Amendment, and its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Abbott denied these accusations, and filed a motion to compel “discovery,” the process by which parties to a suit can demand documents from one another to prove their side of the case. Albright’s Order Judge Albright, an appointee of President Donald Trump, went through each of Abbott’s requests ordered CAIR to hand over documents related to them. As CAIR noted, the judge granted limited access to CAIR documents. Abbott had demanded the identities of all CAIR donors in the past ten years who gave $5,000 or more, but the judge only granted the part of his order relating to foreign donors. The Supreme Court has long upheld Americans’ rights to donate to charitable causes anonymously, but the same rights do not extend to foreign donors. Judge Albright also ordered CAIR to hand over documents identifying any foreign recipient of $2,500 or more from the CAIR Foundation or the Washington Trust in any single year between Jan. 1, 2021, and Dec. 31, 2024. He also ordered CAIR to search for and produce documents requesting or receiving foreign funds and documents identifying the travel itineraries of CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad to specific foreign countries during which he met with individuals regarding CAIR, the Washington Trust Foundation, Hamas, or the Muslim Brotherhood. Abbott had requested similar documents from two other leaders. Albright ordered CAIR to perform a “reasonably diligent search” and produce documents regarding solicitation or receipt of foreign funds from any foreign source. While CAIR frames the orders as a partial victory, the judge did require the Muslim group to hand over a large amount of evidence.