For years, most Americans’ retirement savings plans have been locked out of certain investment choices, including some of the market’s best-performing assets. That makes it harder to save for retirement. Fortunately, though, this is about to change, giving savers new—and better—options for their investments. At issue are not only the many rules and regulations surrounding what can go into 401(k)s and similar savings plans, but also the flimsy legal framework governing fiduciaries—the ones who manage your money. Many investment options are excluded, either by law or by common practice, as fiduciaries try to avoid both legitimate and frivolous lawsuits. Asset classes like private equity, digital assets, and real estate effectively became the purview of “accredited investors” with very high net wealth and government workers with public pensions. Most Americans—those private-sector workers on Main Street—were left out. For folks with a typical 401(k) retirement plan, this meant lower returns on their investments. U.S. private equity has delivered the highest long-term returns compared to public equities and other asset classes—even after fees—averaging 3 percentage points (about 20%) better annual growth than the S&P 500. The disparity has been exacerbated in recent years because of volatile inflation and interest rates, which have crushed bonds. The Biden administration oversaw the bond market’s worst four-year run in a century. The traditional 401(k) allocation, which is heavy in fixed-income assets, performed very poorly, especially compared to private equity. The groundwork for a sea change was laid last August, with President Donald Trump’s executive order that directed agencies to clean up the rules around investment savings and provide a more robust legal framework for fiduciaries. The Department of Labor has now responded with historic reforms that will empower savers and keep the trial lawyers at bay. The reforms make it easier for retirement plans to consider private-market exposure, while clearly outlining how fiduciaries still must prioritize prudence within their clients’ portfolios. It’s a healthy balance to help achieve the highest risk-adjusted rate of return. The move has bipartisan support, with 57% of voters favoring expanding retirement investment options, and 61% supporting private equity access, specifically. Put simply, Main Street wants access to Wall Street, and that access has become increasingly difficult under the current regulatory morass. Restricting the average American to investing in publicly traded companies has been increasingly stifling. From 1997 to 2024, the number of publicly traded companies was cut by more than half, from about 8,800 to less than 4,000. Consequently, it has become more difficult for savers to diversify and protect their investments. Additionally, the S&P 500’s gains in 2024—and more recently—were driven in substantial part by just seven large-capitalization technology companies, further underscoring the need for alternative investments in retirement portfolios. Retirement planning should change as the economy does. With companies taking longer to go public, private firms now represent about 87% of all U.S. companies, up from 62% in 2002. This regulatory reform creates a level playing field with an asset-neutral framework, meaning no asset class is inherently prudent or imprudent. That’s important for savers because not all bonds, stocks, or private equity are created equal. To treat every mutual fund or bond fund as if it’s a prudent investment based solely on their asset class is absurd. It’s like saying Spirit Airlines—which went out of business—and American Airlines—which remains profitable—were equally prudent investments. Despite this proposed rule change being both popular and sensible, people like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., are decrying the change as a Wall Street ploy. Ironically, her own state’s public pension fund has greatly benefited from investing in private equity, earning almost 17% annual returns for the last decade, the fourth best among 200 U.S. public pension funds. Better returns on investment shouldn’t be confined to government workers or Wall Street elites. It’s long past time for the average American to have access to these savings options, and fiduciaries shouldn’t fear frivolous lawsuits when doing their best for their clients. More regulatory reform is needed, such as avoiding overly burdensome liquidity requirements that might still effectively ban certain assets or investment trusts, but the current change from the Department of Labor is a huge step in the right direction for the average American. Originally Published by TheDerrick.com.

Three relatively recent events arguably serve as the most prominent landmarks for the dramatic shift in corporate governance we are currently witnessing. First, after roughly 100 years of essentially unchallenged dominance, Delaware’s role as the undisputed home of corporate charters ran into an iceberg in the form of Elon Musk. On Jan. 30, 2024, a Delaware court struck down Musk’s executive compensation package despite it having been approved by shareholders. This was arguably one of the factors leading to a “Dexit” movement that continues to reverberate loudly more than two years later. Second, after roughly 90 years of responding to inquiries from corporations regarding their plans to exclude otherwise statutorily authorized shareholder proposals from company proxy statements, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced on Nov. 17, 2025, that it was no longer providing such guidance, though it also said that it would not object to any exclusion grounded on as little as a corporation’s bald claim of a reasonable basis. Third, after at least 50 years of a leftist one-way ratchet that started as corporate social responsibility and progressed into ESG and DEI turned corporations into the equivalent of campaign posters for Democrats, executive orders from President Donald Trump (along with anti-ESG laws from several states) have significantly undercut the ESG and DEI industrial complex (made up of asset managers, proxy advisors, and CEOs pining for affection at the World Economic Forum). There is certainly more than one way of framing this shift, but to the extent it can be loosely organized around freeing corporations from activist pressures, one obvious question is whether the correction has spilled into overcorrection. Specific questions related to issues on that front might include these four: Does Texas’ offering corporations incorporating there the options to limit shareholder derivative lawsuits to holders of 3% of the corporation’s stock, and to limit shareholder proposals to holders of 3% or $1 million of the corporation’s stock, insulate management and controlling shareholders too much? Is limiting shareholder voice via proposal or lawsuit at this time precisely the opposite of what anyone wanting to walk corporations back from the leftist ledge they were standing on should want—given that conservative shareholders were just beginning to make effective inroads to arguably entrenched leftist corporate bureaucracies? Do apparent wins on the part of the anti-ESG movement to insulate corporate management from activists signal an end to any meaningful role for corporate values beyond maximizing the bottom line? If not, how should values beyond profit maximization be balanced against concerns of activist overreach going forward? As the culture war that divides our nation shows no signs of abating, does the recent corporate governance realignment increase or decrease the likelihood that corporations may serve some type of unifying role by seeking to find ways to connect with the broadest customer base while engaging a broad swath of stakeholders without the pressure of activists imposing mob rule? One place where we might find some answers to these questions is The Heritage Foundation’s upcoming panel discussion taking place on June 25, 2026, titled “Back to Business: Refocusing Corporations on ROI.” Panelists include Justin Danhof, director of policy, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; James R. Copland, senior fellow and director of legal policy, Manhattan Institute; and Lawrence A. Cunningham, presiding director, John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, University of Delaware. Panelists will have an opportunity to discuss the issues flagged above and as set forth on the event page. More generally, they will discuss “the evolving role of shareholder engagement in modern corporate governance,” including “fiduciary duty, shareholder rights, corporate neutrality, and long-term value creation.” Regardless, one thing seems certain: Neither proponents nor opponents of ESG and DEI and their various offshoots have any intention of conceding to the other side, and any claims of victory by either side are likely premature. Whether the recent and on-going corporate governance realignment will reduce tensions and improve outcomes remains to be seen. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Democrats of 2026 bear an uncanny resemblance to Democrats of 1861 when it comes to seeking to nullify federal law. In 1861, Democrats led efforts to “secede” from the Union to oppose Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who opposed the expansion of slavery into the Northern Territories, an expansion expressly forbidden by Congress in the Missouri Compromise. In 2026, Democrats are again trying to nullify federal law to prevent another Republican from enforcing immigration laws duly enacted by Congress. This week, the Justice Department filed an important lawsuit against Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and the state’s infamous attorney general, Jay Jones. The lawsuit explains how two laws that Spanberger signed directly conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause. In an echo of the nullification battles preceding the Confederacy, Virginia had sought to dictate exactly how the federal government would enforce the law. The Virginia Lawsuit The lawsuit describes Virginia’s laws as “blatantly unconstitutional” because they violate “the principles of intergovernmental immunity that flow from the Supremacy Clause.” One law seeks to dictate exactly what federal immigration officers wear—or do not wear, in the case of face coverings. The other law seeks to void all federal immigration contracts with state and local law enforcement, unless the federal government meets certain requirements. In both cases, Virginia is dictating how the federal government enforces immigration law, a direct inversion of the Constitution. The lawsuit lays out five different ways these laws violate the supremacy clause, and asks the court to block their enforcement. The “moderate” Democrat Abigail Spanberger is far from alone, however. The lawsuit notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently struck down a California law requiring federal immigration officials to display identification. How Did We Get Here? President Joe Biden’s policies enabled millions of illegal aliens to enter the country, and Donald Trump won reelection in large part due to this immigration crisis. Yet Democrats have demonized Trump’s efforts to deport some of the illegal aliens who entered in the Biden years, and the Department of Homeland Security has reported that federal agents face increased threats from this demonization. Between Jan. 20 and Dec. 31, 2025, Homeland Security officials reported 275 assaults against agents compared with 19 during the same period in 2024, for an increase of 1,347%. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents reportedly experienced 66 vehicular attacks in that same period, a 3,200% increase from the two in 2024. In response to these threats, ICE agents have taken to wearing masks to protect their identities, and Democrats have continued to ratchet up the rhetoric. The governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the gestapo, Adolf Hitler’s secret police. Others have echoed that rhetoric, describing Trump’s efforts as authoritarian or “fascist.” After ICE surged in Minneapolis, agitators began swarming ICE agents. Two anti-ICE agitators lost their lives at the hands of immigration enforcement, emboldening activists further. On Jan. 18, anti-ICE agitators even invaded a church during a service. At one point, they chanted, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!” The agitators face federal charges, but Democrats and a local prosecutor have defended many of them, claiming they had a right to protest. Neo-Confederate Rhetoric Comparing ICE to the gestapo is bad enough, but many Democrat politicians have taken this opposition a step further. Walz, the Democrat governor of Minnesota, threatened to deploy his state’s National Guard troops against federal agents, in what would have been a direct military confrontation against the federal government. When a reporter asked about the prospect of state troops facing federal agents, Walz gave this response: “We’ve never been at war with our federal government.” His statement suggested he meant “we’ve never been at war” with the administration before. Of course, Walz was far from alone in opposing immigration law. Governors like JB Pritzker of Illinois, or Gavin Newsom of California, or Tina Kotek of Oregon, openly say that immigration law should not be enforced in their jurisdictions. Even Virginia’s so-called moderate governor has joined this neo-Confederate effort to oppose the enforcement of immigration law. While Virginia’s nullification laws, like those of California, are not likely to survive in court, it is quite revealing how far Democrats are willing to go. Trump won reelection in 2024 in part because Biden opened the border. Now, Democrats are engaging in the same nullification tactics they did before the Civil War—just to stop Trump from deporting a fraction of the Biden-era illegals. I urge the American people not to buy the Democrats’ rhetoric. They’re no longer getting their way, and they’re throwing a tantrum. Unfortunately, this kind of tantrum can have serious consequences.

For many years, I was a progressive-leaning vegan chef in Los Angeles. I cared deeply about the environment and believed politics and regulation were the best tools for protecting it. Then I became a farmer. And a conservative. I did not become conservative because I stopped caring about the environment. My commitment to the environment is what led me there. When you walk the same pastures every day, your perspective changes. You watch when the birds return. You notice when the creek is running low during a dry spell. You watch as that creek and a worn-out field learn to hold water again. When you steward one piece of land for many years, eventually, it teaches you. The land taught me that stewardship belongs in the hands of the people closest to it. My path to conservatism was not paved by economics or foreign policy. It was paved by fence lines, calving seasons, and a growing understanding that if you want to protect something, you first have to know it. I started to realize that many of the people making decisions about the land had very little relationship with it. I am not questioning their intentions. I am questioning whether someone who has never depended on the land should have more say over it than the people whose lives are tied to it. The people who first taught me about healthy soil and healthy ecosystems were not all conservatives. But as I spent more time in agriculture, I realized that the people rebuilding grasslands, restoring wildlife habitat, protecting water, and trying to leave something better for their children were, more often than not, conservatives. Maybe that is why those two words, conservative and conservation, sound so much alike. Maybe they were never meant to be separated. Whether we talk about natural resources or our customs and institutions, both ideas begin with the same instinct: to preserve what is good. Conservatism, at its heart, is about preserving goodness and beauty. We want to preserve families, faith, local communities, inherited freedoms, and civilization-sustaining traditions. We understand that inheritance matters and that we have an obligation to pass something worthwhile to the next generation. Why should that instinct stop at the edge of the pasture? In many ways, America’s farmers and ranchers have always understood this. The overwhelming majority of the people who work the land lean conservative. They know when the springs stop flowing, when the topsoil begins to disappear, when pollinators become scarce, and when a pasture finally comes back to life after years of careful management. Their children drink that water. Their livestock graze those grasses. Their future depends on leaving the land healthier than they found it. Many environmental policies are written far from the landscapes they seek to manage. Rural Americans have experienced firsthand how well-intentioned ideas can create unintended consequences when they ignore the wisdom of the people who actually live with those ecosystems every day. I am not saying those people do not care about the land. I am saying there is a different kind of knowledge that comes from depending on it. The answer is not to abandon conservation or the people that hold fast to it. The answer is to bring it home. There is another ancient command from the Book of Genesis that sits alongside tending the garden: “Be fruitful and multiply.” For most of human history, those two ideas would have been understood as inseparable. A healthy people depended on healthy soil, clean water, abundant wildlife, and nourishing food. The fertility of the earth and the fertility of the family were simply different expressions of the same abundance. Today, we talk about collapsing birth rates as though they exist in isolation. We worry about infertility, chronic disease, and children growing up sicker than their parents. At the same time, we watch our soils lose organic matter, our food become increasingly industrialized, and our landscapes absorb an ever-growing load of synthetic chemicals. These are not separate crises. This is one crisis. The Make America Healthy Again movement is beginning to reconnect ideas that never should have been separated in the first place: healthy soil, healthy food, healthy bodies, healthy families, and healthy communities. A civilization that cannot regenerate its land should not be surprised when it struggles to regenerate itself. I often hear conservatives speak passionately about preserving faith, family, and freedom. They are right to do so. But those things do not exist apart from the world around us. Families need healthy food. Communities need clean water. Nations need productive farmland. Children deserve to inherit a country that can still feed them. If conservatives believe that creation is God’s handiwork, then stewardship is one of our first responsibilities. Conservatives cannot concede the care of the earth to progressive politics. Taking care of America’s land is an act of gratitude and obedience. We have the moral high ground, and we must defend it. Conservatism is not simply about conserving ideas. It is also about conserving the conditions that allow civilization itself to flourish. What exactly are we conserving if our fields can no longer produce food, our rivers can no longer sustain life, and our children inherit a world less abundant than the one we received? The first commands God gave humanity were to tend the garden and to be fruitful and multiply. Those were never separate callings; they were always two parts of the same story. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

I spent the past weekend in San Antonio at the Turning Point USA Women’s Leadership Conference. While I was on the older end of the bell curve, I was encouraged by what I heard and saw from a largely Gen Z and millennial crowd. A host of speakers discussed a variety of topics appealing to the physical, mental, and spiritual development of women. From what it looks like to be a godly woman to what it looks like to be a healthy woman (which are not separate), attendees were given a road map of how to live a purposeful life. Throughout the weekend, one thing was made abundantly clear: Feminism is dead. RIP. The video introducing the conference demonstrated the destruction feminism has wrought on American society. It opened by describing the bold, brave women who forged a new path preceding and during the founding of America, as well as the women of the frontier and those who were called to service to rebuild the country in the years after the Great War. These women did not take up their mantle because of feminism. They were empowered to act because it was their duty to the Lord, the nation, and their families. Feminists like to act as if women were helpless victims before their ideology came along to save them. That is simply not true. Since the dawn of time, women have served as educators, healers, and—most importantly—mothers. As Erika Kirk said in the video, “Strength has never been defined by self-interest. It was found in sacrifice. In service to something higher than self.” Feminism changed that. From its inception, it has fought to re-order God’s design and promote self-interest as a virtue. It encouraged women to take over roles, attitudes, and spaces designed for men. As Charlie Kirk once said, feminism was about wanting women to become men and, eventually, not to need men at all. While many people define feminism differently, from its inception, the core of the ideology has been rooted not in service and obedience to God, but in power. It has always denied the fact that the most powerful tool a woman possesses is her biology—her ability to usher in new life—and the unique attributes that accompany that gift. When her biology is devalued, dismissed, or discarded, a woman may seek to fill that void through other avenues like career or activism. Our current culture demonstrates what happens when women believe that freedom consists of rejecting the responsibilities that they once embraced with pride like homemaking and caretaking. Contemporary women are awash with resentment, anger, and bitterness. These sentiments were on full display not only in segments of the video, but outside the walls of the hotel amongst the loud and caustic women protesters who surrounded the entrances. They threatened attendees and behaved in a way that has become a stereotype of modern liberal women: hysterical and unhinged. Or as my friend and colleague Scott Yenor likes to say, “medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome.” These women were not unattractive because of their physical characteristics (although outside appearance often reflects inner states). They were unattractive because they are filled with hatred over God’s design for their lives, married or single, mothers or childless. And they were a far cry from the bright and uplifting young women I met at the conference. The women inside the halls, elevators, and gathering spaces were well put together, with care for their appearance. They were not all models, but they were pretty because their hearts were seeking not mere human words of encouragement, but God’s wisdom and truth. That kind of love radiates from the inside out. Luckily the number of women inside the building far outnumbered those outside. This is reflective of the culture at large, at least within the conservative movement. As feminism seems to be increasing on the political Left, it is sharply decreasing on the Right. More young women are waking up to the failed promises of feminism and embracing a modern womanhood that, while it may look different from women in the past, seeks to first fulfill one of God’s principal commandments to mankind: to be fruitful and multiply. Alex Clark, one of the leading voices in Turning Point as well as in the MAHA movement, spoke to how young women, even in what she called their “single season,” can heed the call of God. Clark said that women can’t be expected to just “sit under an overpass and wait for our husband to fall from the sky.” She encouraged women to live their lives. Travel, learn to cook, read good books, get healthy. In essence, become the woman a man would want to marry. That is the difference between the path of feminism and the path of a woman seeking God. The means, like personal growth and development, may look similar. It is the intentions and ends that are different. One seeks to satisfy self. The other seeks to satisfy God. So, the question is not what action a woman should take, but whom it serves. Feminism is not dead because women no longer seek purpose—it is fading because it misidentified where that purpose comes from. It promised fulfillment through autonomy and self-elevation, but what it often produces is restlessness and dissatisfaction. What I witnessed in San Antonio was not an absence of ambition, but its redirection—away from the self and toward something higher. The future will not belong to the loudest voices demanding liberation from responsibility, but to those who willingly embrace it.