When the Congressional Black Caucus and 260 left-leaning organizations sent letters trying to prevent me from testifying before Congress, they claimed to be opposing efforts to “undermine civil institutions” and to prevent the use of “government power to silence people.” This is deeply ironic because the House Judiciary Committee had invited me to testify on how the Southern Poverty Law Center, which demonizes conservatives and Christians in an effort to silence their opinions, influenced the Biden administration, leading to government attacks on nonprofits, such as the notorious FBI memo targeting “radical-traditional Catholics.” I testified alongside leaders of organizations that had been targeted for violence after the SPLC put them on a “hate map” with Ku Klux Klan chapters. The hearing, “Partisan and Profitable: The SPLC’s Influence on Federal Civil Rights Policy,” focused on a key aspect of my writing and reporting, work that has distinguished me as an expert on the SPLC’s tactics. When Roy’s subcommittee announced the hearing, Democrats and leftist groups sent at least three letters condemning it. The Congressional Black Caucus Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., sent a letter expressing “grave concern” about the hearing, claiming that it is “not a good-faith exercise of oversight” but rather a “deliberate effort to intimidate and discredit an institution that has spent decades defending civil rights, exposing hate, and advancing opportunity for all Americans.” (Note how her framing endorses the SPLC’s “hate” accusations.) Clarke claimed the hearing aimed “to chill and silence all who challenge this Administration’s efforts to roll back civil rights and normalize discrimination.” The Congressional Black Caucus leader said the hearing represented “our government being weaponized to perpetrate cycles of oppression,” a weaponization “rooted in anti-black racism, discrimination, fear, and control.” She said the hearing “undermines the very civil institutions that give everyday people voice, protection, and power,” and said a discussion of the SPLC’s negative influence is “dangerous, violates fundamental democratic norms, and must be rejected unequivocally.” Nowhere did she even suggest that the SPLC might also be undermining any “civil institution.” Congressional Black Caucus LetterDownload The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights organized 258 left-leaning groups to condemn the hearing, including unions like the AFL-CIO and activist groups like the Center for American Progress and the Human Rights Campaign. The letter claims that the hearing “is not about any single organization—it is about a broader effort to use government power to silence people.” “At stake is whether people—regardless of their viewpoint—can express themselves without fear of government retaliation,” the letter states. “If we don’t speak out against these attacks, it will clear the path for the dismantling of freedom of speech and civil rights and the repression of dissent.” National Council of Nonprofits Two more left-leaning organizations condemned the hearing. “While the title of today’s hearing may name only one organization, its potential to chill the speech of organizations throughout our sector is much greater,” wrote Akilah Watkins, president of Independent Sector, and Diane Yentel, president of the National Council of Nonprofits. “It is part of a pattern of actions to subject perceived political opponents to harassment in the name of oversight.” While Watkins and Yentel condemned political violence, they added, “We are equally opposed to hate in all its forms.” National Council of Nonprofits LetterDownload My Response If these Democrats and activist groups truly cared about “repression of dissent” and the chilling of free speech, they wouldn’t line up so readily to defend one of the worst offenders in American society. The SPLC isn’t some noble civil rights group that represents the little guy in court. It’s a massive behemoth—with a $786 million endowment—that routinely defames mainstream conservatives and Christians, comparing them to the Ku Klux Klan by putting them on a “hate map” with the worst hate groups in American history. A terrorist used this map to target the Family Research Council in 2012, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk came mere months after the SPLC added Turning Point USA to the “hate map” in May. Among its many ties to the Biden administration, the SPLC advised Justice Department prosecutors on the “anti-LGBTQ movement.” The SPLC brands as “anti-LGBTQ hate groups” a broad swath of peaceful, law-abiding nonprofits, such as the law firm Alliance Defending Freedom; nonpartisan groups of doctors like Do No Harm and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine; and even lesbian and gay groups like Gays Against Groomers. To use Clarke’s words, these are “the very civil institutions that give everyday people voice, protection, and power.” They just happen to represent conservatives, Christians, and others who disagree with the SPLC. Therefore, these leftists seem not to consider them parts of “civil society.” During the hearing, the Democrats’ witness refused to say whether she stands by the SPLC’s accusations against these groups. Yet Clarke praised the SPLC’s record of “exposing hate,” suggesting she has no such compunction. ?REVEALING@RepBobOnder asks Democrat-invited witness Amanda Tyler whether she stands by the SPLC's "hate group" accusations against @ADFLegal, @TPUSA, @FRCdc, @FocusFamily, @prageru, and @CIS_org.Tellingly, she refuses to adopt or defend the accusations. pic.twitter.com/yNLiGzTVUM— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 17, 2025 By protecting the SPLC from scrutiny, the Congressional Black Caucus and its 260 allied leftist groups are abetting the chilling of speech, specifically conservative speech. Furthermore, none of these letters expressed an iota of concern about the Biden administration using the SPLC to target conservatives, suggesting they’re fine with government silencing people—just so long as it’s not their people. I’d like to thank Chairman Chip Roy, R-Texas, for refusing to buckle to these hypocritical attacks, and letting me expose how the SPLC undermines civil institutions and collaborated with the government to silence people. It seems some on the Left don’t want me to be able to share this message. The post The Orwellian Excuse the Congressional Black Caucus Gave for Trying to Block My Congressional Testimony appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday classifying marijuana as a less dangerous substance, despite concerns from GOP lawmakers that the move will “send the wrong message to America’s children.” Trump signed an order changing the classification of marijuana from a Schedule I drug, which includes the most dangerous substances such as heroin, LSD and ecstasy, to a Schedule II drug, which the DEA describes as having “a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.” “This reclassification order will make it far easier to conduct marijuana-related medical research, allowing us to study benefits, potential dangers, and future treatments,” Trump said. “It’s going to have a tremendously positive impact.” The order also asks Congress to reconsider its classification of hemp-derived CBD to help seniors access CBD products. “Some people are literally dying in there, dying with tremendous pain and this, in many cases, literally stops it,” he said, “and they have their senses about them, as opposed to painkillers, which don’t allow that, don’t allow them to die with dignity.” Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, and House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., led 24 other members in writing a letter to Trump urging him to oppose the rescheduling of marijuana. Led by Sen. Ted Budd of North Carolina, 22 Republican senators did the same. When The Daily Signal asked Trump how he’d respond to Republicans saying the order will normalize drug usage for youth, he said he’d “let one of the doctors respond to it, because they can do it a lot better than me.” “But I can only tell you that when you see polls, 82% of the people want this,” he told The Daily Signal. “When I have friends that are really, really sick and they’ve gone through … I guess you could say … unfortunately, I don’t want to become too involved in it, because I don’t want it happening. But these are people that really know what’s going to [happen], very smart people.” “This is one of the most successful people in the country and a very brilliant guy,” he continued, pointing to cancer victim and philanthropist Howard Kessler. “And when they go through this horrible ordeal of cancer or other things, and they realize that this is something that makes them feel better without all of the side effects of some of the drugs, where you’re just totally knocked out and out of it. But I’d like to have one of the doctors maybe respond, because you people do it better than anybody.” Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse under Health and Human Services, took over to respond. “We have had cannabis scheduled for how long, and it hasn’t protected neither the adolescents nor the adults,” she said. “We have 20 million people in the United States with cannabis use disorder.” “This is not legalizing it,” she continued. “It’s making easier to do research so that we can use it when it is indicated and optimal.” This is an opportunity to do more research on cannabis to see “if it’s as good as many people say,” she said. The House members told Trump that “Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug will send the wrong message to America’s children, enable drug cartels, and make our roads more dangerous.” The senators said rescheduling marijuana endangers “America’s workplace and America’s roads,” and gives “a massive tax break to marijuana companies.” Trump repeatedly said he doesn’t condone recreational drug usage, and that he will not use medical marijuana. “I don’t want it,” he said. “I’m not going to be taking it, but a lot of people do want it, a lot of people need it.” Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Larkin said the order increases the likelihood that more people will use marijuana. “The real beneficiaries of today’s rescheduling decision are not Americans or patients suffering from pain, but the Chinese transnational criminal organizations, which control 75% of the illegal marijuana industry,” he said. “This means America’s enemy, the Chinese Communist Party, benefits as well.” “An unsafe drug like cannabis cannot be placed in any category but Schedule I,” Larkin continued. “It’s up to policymakers to classify this harmful drug correctly.” The post Trump Reclassifies Marijuana as Less Dangerous Drug appeared first on The Daily Signal.

California and Rhode Island judges won our October and November “Dishonorable Conduct Award” for their judicial misbehavior.   The December award winner, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, is a super legislator who identifies as a federal judge. In a ruling in July, Judge Talwani, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts—call us shocked tried to override Congress’ constitutional authority over the federal purse and force taxpayers to subsidize Planned Parenthood.   Some judges who have tried to use injunctions to change the law were ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court. Talwani was so out of line, even the very liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit caught it first. In a Dec. 8 order, administratively stayed her injunction.  Congress created the Medicaid program in 1965 and provides most of the funding, appropriating $407 billion for the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30 States administer the program, which reimburses healthcare providers for covered medical services. While Congress has long prohibited the use of Medicaid funds to directly pay for abortions, taxpayers indirectly subsidize abortions when clinics receive Medicaid reimbursement for other services. Money, after all, is fungible.  The Budget Reconciliation Act, signed into law in July 2025, makes entities providing abortions ineligible for Medicaid reimbursement for any medical services for one year.  The national Planned Parenthood Federation and two of its state affiliates sued, making arguments, which under a simple and straightforward reading of the law, are complete nonsense.  They claim, for example, the law applies to entities, like some Planned Parenthood affiliates, which advocate for abortion but do not perform them. The law, however, defines a “prohibited entity” as one “provid[ing] …  abortions.”  Planned Parenthood piled one bogus argument on top of another. By applying to entities that do not provide abortions (it doesn’t)—they said—the law effectively prohibits them from even associating or affiliating with those that do. Because affiliation is supposedly “expressive,” this somehow violates the First Amendment.  The law, however, is crystal clear. It prohibits Medicaid reimbursement to entities providing abortion. Period. It is pure fantasy to claim that Medicaid also prohibits reimbursement to entities that only associate or affiliate with those providing abortions. Planned Parenthood just made that up out of thin air.   Planned Parenthood also claimed  this Medicaid exclusion was a prohibited “bill of attainder,” which the Supreme Court has defined under our Constitution as a law that “punishes without trial specifically designated persons.”  While the law describes a category of entity that may not receive Medicaid reimbursement, it does not designate or name any individual or organization in particular.  Planned Parenthood claimed the law indirectly identified them by applying to “affiliates” which, as everyone knows, is how Planned Parenthood is organized. Had Congress not passed the Budget Reconciliation Act, of course, Planned Parenthood would no doubt have argued that the Medicaid exclusion does not apply to any of its state affiliates. They can’t have it both ways.  Talwani bought—or at least claimed to have bought—every bogus legal argument Planned Parenthood was selling and issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the Medicaid exclusion to Planned Parenthood and all of its affiliates In her opinion, Talwani insisted the Medicaid exclusion amounts to “punishment” and agreed with Planned Parenthood that it literally prevents them from serving Medicaid patients at all. This is obviously false for multiple reasons. The law says nothing about who Planned Parenthood may serve, but only whether Medicaid will pay for the services they provide. There are many bizarre conclusions and leaps of illogic in Talwani’s opinion, but we will mention just one more.  She claimed the Medicaid exclusion does not have a “non-punitive legislative purpose.” How about making sure that taxpayers do not subsidize abortions? As mentioned, federal law has for decades prohibited Medicaid funds from being used to directly pay for abortions. A budget reconciliation law in 2017 contained a similar Medicaid exclusion; attempts like this to prevent indirect abortion subsidies are nothing new.  Besides, under the Constitution, it is totally within the discretion and authority of Congress—not a lone federal district court judge—to decide what programs it will appropriate money for and what services it will or will not pay for.    Talwani acknowledged that many healthcare providers participate in the Medicaid program but do not provide abortions. Planned Parenthood chose to do so but wants to be treated as if it doesn’t. It is evident that neither Planned Parenthood nor Talwani like the Medicaid exclusion and wish Congress had not enacted it.  It’s not surprising that Talwani’s injunction was promptly put on hold; it hardly qualifies as a judicial decision at all. It’s a policy move, something judges have no authority to do. If she doesn’t like it, then she should resign her judicial seat, run for Congress and try to change that policy decision. Instead, Judge Talwani abused her power as a federal judge to interfere in a legislative choice made by Congress and signed into law by the duly elected president of the United States.  It is hard to conceive of a more anti-democratic action than that, which is why we have given her the December “Dishonorable Conduct” award. The post December’s Dishonorable Conduct Award Winner: Judge Indira Talwani  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

White males who have faced discrimination should file a federal complaint, the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says. In a video posted on social media Thursday, EEOC Acting Chairwoman Andrea Lucas advised potential victims of discrimination to file complaints in a timely manner.  “Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex?” Lucas said. “You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws.” The Trump administration has opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in the government, and terminated DEI federal grants. A person has a deadline of 180 days from the alleged discrimination to make a complaint, according to the EEOC.  “Contact the EOC as soon as possible. Time limits are typically strict for filing a claim,” Lucas continued. “The EOC is the federal agency charged with enforcing federal antidiscrimination law against businesses and other private sector employers.” Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex?You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the @USEEOC as soon as possible.The EEOC is committed to identifying, attacking, and eliminating ALL race… pic.twitter.com/BYjbld5zdv— EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas (@andrealucasEEOC) December 17, 2025 “The EOC is committed to identifying, attacking, and eliminating all forms of race and sex discrimination, including against white male applicants, and employees,” Lucas clarified.  The EEOC website says the 180-day deadline can be extended up to 300 days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis, and would have to first hear the case. Although the EEOC has frequently taken up discrimination cases on behalf of minority groups, earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that someone who belongs to a “majority group” can sue for discrimination, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. That case involved a straight woman who alleged she was passed over for employment due to her sexual identity, but the “majority group” principle would likely apply for a white male. During his first term, President Donald Trump appointed Lucas–a former labor and litigation lawyer at the firm of Gibson Dunn–to the EEOC, and the Senate confirmed her in 2020. After Trump returned for a second term in January, he designated her as the acting chair of commission. [Lucas is not related to The Daily Signal reporter who wrote this news story.] Lucas has not been confirmed by the Senate as chair. But, as previously noted in The Daily Signal, as acting chair she forced major law firms to stop using DEI to discriminate based on race.  She further ordered the EEOC to be evenhanded in its enforcement priorities. Lucas made it easier for employees to report DEI discrimination and made it a priority to protect Americans from religious discrimination. This is move is a Trump administration “stunt,” said Markus Batchelor, national political director at People For the American Way, a liberal activist group. “Stunts like this demonstrate the lengths Trump is willing to go to dismantle institutions meant to do good and make them tools that once again unbalance the scales in favor of privilege and white supremacy,” Batchelor told The Grio. “A call for ‘color-blind, merit-based’ employment falls flat from a White House that is overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and unqualified to govern.” The post EEOC Urges White Males to Report Discrimination—And Promptly appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Department of Homeland Security’s “Worst of the Worst” website is growing. DHS has added the names, photos, and criminal backgrounds of an additional 5,000 illegal aliens to the searchable platform, bringing the number of listed criminals to 15,000.   “This new update represents just a small sample of the total number of arrests we’ve made—70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens that have been charge or convicted of a crime in the United States,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.   The website is searchable by state and city, providing Americans with the knowledge of “which dangerous criminal illegal aliens the Trump administration has removed from their communities,” McLaughlin said.   DHS first rolled out the new website in early December and announced plans to continue adding the identities of arrested criminal illegal aliens to the website over time. The platform does not include every arrest Immigration and Customs Enforcement has made but aims to inform the American people of the “worst of the worst” criminals now in custody or deported.   The criminal histories of those listed on the website include terrorism, rape, homicide, assault, kidnapping, and robbery.   New additions to the website include Mexican national Oscar Chan who was arrested in Reno, Nevada and has multiple criminal convictions, including kidnapping, sexual assault, and rape with a weapon.   Cuban Luis Iglesias Martinez was arrested in Dallas, Texas. He has criminal convictions for homicide and aggravated assault.   Alexandr Remorenko is a criminal illegal alien from Russia who was arrested in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania and has a long list of criminal convictions, including rape, sexual assault, incest with a minor, sexual exploitation of a minor, sodomy, aggravated assault, enticement of minor for indecent purposes, and contributing to delinquency of minor.  Multiple lawmakers have drawn attention to the new “Worst of the Worst” website and are using the platform to highlight the criminal illegal aliens who have been removed from their communities under the Trump administration.   Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., for example, is daily “highlighting a dangerous illegal in Alabama who has been arrested and convicted.”  Under President Trump’s leadership, @Sec_Noem and @DHSgov are Making America Safe Again.Each day, I’ll be highlighting a dangerous illegal in Alabama who has been arrested and convicted.ADIOS SILVIA!More info here: https://t.co/6fzc9OwYIA pic.twitter.com/gRKsCSXqtc— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) December 9, 2025 Since January, DHS reports over 600,00 illegal aliens have been arrested.    The post EXCLUSIVE: Identities of 5,000 Criminal Illegal Aliens Added to Searchable DHS Website   appeared first on The Daily Signal.