Milton Friedman once warned that “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” When the education of children is at stake, such a mistake is costly indeed. Tennessee’s SB 2441 is the latest in a growing wave of legislation that promises to hold virtual schools “accountable” by mandating their automatic closure when test scores remain low. The logic sounds unassailable: if a school is failing, shut it down. But this tidy reasoning conceals a troubling reality. “Default closure” rules consistently punish the schools that serve the students most in need, harming the very students the law is intended to help. Consider what happens in practice. A virtual school enrolls students who are already years behind: teenagers recovering from illness, kids fleeing bullying, young people with disabilities or unstable home lives who have already bounced through multiple traditional and nontraditional schools. These students arrive far below grade level. The school meets them where they are and begins the slow, unglamorous work of rebuilding their confidence and their academic foundations. Then the state’s accountability formula kicks in, compares these students to statewide benchmarks, and brands the school a failure. Under a default closure regime, the school is shuttered, and the very students it was created to serve are sent back to the system that already failed them. This is not a hypothetical. Rainshadow Charter High School in Reno, Nevada, lived it. Rainshadow’s mission was to serve the hardest cases: students other schools had given up on. Three-quarters of its transfer students arrived credit deficient. Because Nevada calculated graduation rates on a four-year timeline, students who needed a fifth year to finish were counted as dropouts. The school earned the state’s lowest rating, and Nevada law required closure after three consecutive years at that level. But when district staff recommended shutting Rainshadow down, it was students and parents who fought back. One student described going from a 0.0 GPA at his previous school to the highest grades he had ever earned. Another, who is dyslexic and had been bullied relentlessly at her prior district school, said that Rainshadow was the first place she felt welcomed. As education policy expert Max Eden explained, “a charter school that looks awful on paper might be exceeding all expectations with the students it serves, and therefore charter school accountability can be a double-edged sword that makes it harder for those schools to exist.” Fortunately, in Rainshadow’s case, the local school board listened to families and declined to close the school. But under the kind of automatic closure provision in Tennessee’s SB 2441, the families’ voices would be irrelevant. The formula would decide. This is the central flaw of default closure laws. Such laws are premised on the idea that political pressure from parents should not be allowed to prevent or delay accountability. But stripping parents of any say in whether their children’s school survives is not accountability. It is the opposite. It is a system that is accountable to no one except a spreadsheet. The Center for Education Reform has documented how this top-down, test-score-driven approach to accountability has produced what scholars call “institutional isomorphism,” the tendency of schools to look and act more and more alike. When the only metric that matters is standardized test performance there are only so many ways to make test scores go up. Schools that might serve students differently—through vocational training, therapeutic support, project-based learning, or flexible pacing—are either deterred from opening or forced into a cookie-cutter mold that defeats the purpose of school choice in the first place. The better alternative is bottom-up accountability—a system in which parents, not bureaucrats, decide which schools deserve to survive. Arizona provides a useful model. Despite granting 15-year charters with relatively light regulation, the vast majority of charter school closures in Arizona happen within the first five years—not because a state official pulled the plug, but because families voted with their feet. Schools that fail to serve their students lose enrollment and close naturally. Schools that serve students well, even if their test scores are modest by statewide standards, retain the families who chose them for a reason. The net result is that the performance of Arizona’s charter school sector on the National Assessment of Education Progress not only far exceeds Arizona’s district schools but also outperforms every other state. This is not an argument against accountability, but rather for real accountability. Real accountability is bottom-up, not top-down. It entails trusting parents, who see their children come home from school every day, more than distant officials who see only data points. Parents know things that standardized tests cannot capture: whether their child is safer, more engaged, more hopeful, more likely to get out of bed in the morning and go to school. These things matter. They matter enormously for students who have already been written off. Tennessee lawmakers should ask themselves a simple question before adopting a default closure policy: if a virtual school is the last option standing for a student who has failed everywhere else, and that student’s parents believe the school is working, on what moral basis does the state override their judgment? Some states, such as Arizona and South Carolina, categorize traditional public and charter schools that serve students in persistently low-performing areas or children with unique needs (students who had dropped out of school but are now returning, for example) as “alternative schools.” State officials can then evaluate schoolwide performance at such schools on a different scale than other traditional or charter schools. However, the most effective approach to improving quality is to expand the quality options available for families to select. Instead of imposing technocratic rules, Tennessee lawmakers should dramatically expand access to the Tennessee Education Freedom Scholarships. Default closure rules are built on a seductive but false premise: that we can regulate our way to quality. We cannot. Quality comes from freedom, experimentation, and a competitive market that evolves organically based on the decisions of the parents who make decisions in the best interests of their children. If Tennessee truly wants to help struggling students, it should empower their parents, not silence them. The post School ‘Default Closure’ Rules Hurt the Children They’re Meant to Help appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As a longtime advocate for free enterprise, economic growth, and policies that put American workers and small businesses first, I’ve cheered President Donald Trump’s decisive crackdown on trade abuses that have flooded our markets with cheap, often unsafe goods from Chinese platforms like Shein and Temu.  These companies have exploited the U.S. de minimis policy exemption, which allows shipments under $800 to enter the United States duty-free and with little oversight. That exemption has undercut U.S. manufacturers by evading the Trump administration’s sorely needed tariffs and contributed to job losses in American factories. Addressing the de minimis policy and China’s exploitation of it was long overdue. Thankfully, the Trump administration last summer signed an executive order closing the exemption, a step in the right direction.  I also commend Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., for their steadfast work holding China’s unfair trading practices accountable.  They’ve done this by pushing to close the de minimis loophole to calling for investigations into counterfeiting and IP theft by Chinese platforms to advocating broader reforms to revoke preferential trade status and safeguard American jobs.  As  Cotton recently stated, “The de minimis loophole has allowed Chinese companies like Shein and Temu to flood our market with junk, opioids, and other illegal products, often created from stolen American intellectual property.”  In the rush to crack down on bad actors in online commerce, however, there is a real danger of overshooting the mark. If we are not careful, well-intentioned reforms could punish the very people our economy depends on: law-abiding American marketplaces and the millions of small sellers who rely on them.  These American platforms aren’t like Shein and Temu. They aren’t faceless foreign corporations churning out cheap goods by the container load. They host average Janes and Joes on Main Street–veterans looking for supplemental income, moms and dads building side businesses, and retirees turning hobbies into modest paychecks. You can find vintage records, handmade furniture, gently used tools, or family heirlooms passed to appreciative buyers.  Entire U.S. small businesses are built around selling their products on these platforms. This is the heart of everyday American commerce: personal, creative, and rooted here at home. That world couldn’t be more different from the flood of mass-produced, dirt-cheap imports from Chinese-based companies like Shein and Temu.  One side is about foreign factories racing to the bottom on price, dodging rules, and undercutting American workers. The other is pure American hustle: starting new businesses, turning what they’ve got lying around into extra cash, keeping dollars in our own neighborhoods instead of shipping them overseas.  Regular folks aren’t customs or trade experts. Forcing them to provide exact origin details or guess where their tag-less sweater was made just scares them away from listing items on these marketplaces in the first place.   Congress and the administration should clarify tariff treatment for used goods and streamline customs processing for legitimate low-risk shipments.  Unsuspecting Americans?should not face?surprise fees or endless paperwork, sometimes leading them to decide it’s easier to throw things away than deal with the hassle.  We should fully support Trump’s efforts, bolstered by leaders like Cotton and Scott–ramping up enforcement against massive, high-volume foreign shippers flooding our markets; demanding transparency from overseas platforms hiding behind loopholes; and shutting down outright cheating that’s warped fair competition. But a blunt, one-size-fits-all approach piling red tape on small-time, rule-following American sellers and everyday buyers risks undermining the very entrepreneurship conservatives seek to protect.  At its core, this is about getting government right the conservative way: by being precise and surgical while avoiding friendly-fire damage. We must nail the de minimis abusers who exploit the system, but we also must preserve the freedom and flexibility that allow everyday Americans to participate in online commerce without Washington standing in their way.  In other words, let’s crack down on Beijing’s cheating–but not punish the American side hustler trying to make an honest buck in the process. Smart reform is within reach. We just need to work thoughtfully to make it happen.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Cracking Down on China’s Trade Cheating the Right Way appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court ruling against his tariffs actually affirms his authority to levy additional national security tariffs, and announced a 10% global tariff on Friday. In a 6-3 decision Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump did not have legal authority to impose his tariffs in Canada, Mexico, and China.  Trump had cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to declare emergencies in imposing his tariffs on the three countries. The court ruled on Friday that the law “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” In a briefing at the White House following the ruling, Trump praised Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the dissenting opinion, for saying that the majority opinion might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order future tariffs. “A president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past period of a year under the various tariffs authorities,” Trump said. “So we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.” “Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232, and existing Section 301 tariffs, will remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect,” he said. Trump said he will sign an executive order Friday to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122. The statute grants authority to impose temporary tariffs for certain reasons such as trade imbalances. “The Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs,” Trump said. “They merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA tariffs, and essentially it’s a use to get a fee.” Trump said he has alternative options that will bring in more revenue. “I’m going to go in a different direction,” he said. “Probably the direction that I should have gone the first time, but I read the language, I’m very good at reading language, and it read our way 100%. But now I’ll go the way I could have gone, originally, which is even stronger than our original choice.” Trump said the conservative justices who voted against him are “an embarrassment to their families.” Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett—both Trump appointees—joined the chief justice and the court’s three liberal justices in the majority. “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he said. The post Trump Announces Alternative Tariff Plan After Supreme Court Ruling appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Early voting for the March 3 Texas primary elections is open now. It began Tuesday, Feb. 17, and runs through Friday, Feb. 27. Most days have no lines, hours are flexible, and all you need is a photo ID. While the primary chooses party nominees for November, one proposition on the ballot is a defining moment for Texas: Proposition 10–“Texas should prohibit Sharia Law.” This non-binding proposition is your chance to send a clear message to Austin lawmakers before the 2027 legislative session: Texas will never allow a foreign legal system to undermine our Constitution. A strong YES vote is essential for every Texan who believes in liberty, equal rights, women’s safety, and the rule of American law. Sharia is not just personal religious practice. It is a comprehensive political and legal doctrine drawn from the Quran, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence that claims supremacy over all man-made laws, including the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. While our founding documents protect natural rights, equality, consent of the governed, and separation of religion from state power, Sharia demands the opposite. Direct conflicts include: Death penalties for apostasy and blasphemy versus our First Amendment freedoms. Women receive half the inheritance and half the courtroom testimony value of men, plus allowance of polygamy and honor-based violence, versus Texas equality laws. Second-class “dhimmi” status for non-Muslims versus our ban on religious tests or discrimination. Cruel corporal punishments (amputation, stoning, flogging) versus the Eighth Amendment. Sharia’s claim to override secular law versus the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Texas has already taken strong steps. Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation targeting Sharia-compliant compounds and discriminatory practices. Federal lawmakers from Texas, including Reps. Chip Roy and others are pushing for national action. But Proposition 10 raises the stakes. A large YES vote will push the Legislature to deliver real protections: banning Sharia in family courts and contracts, increasing scrutiny of foreign-funded groups, and ensuring no parallel legal systems take root in our state. Recent data shows significant percentages of American Muslims support implementing Sharia here. Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks openly pursue “civilization jihad” through gradual legal and cultural infiltration. Texas–with its strong economy, conservative values, and key position–is a prime target. We stopped dangerous projects like EPIC City through vigilance. Proposition 10 is the next line of defense. Voting YES on Prop 10 accomplishes three critical goals: It declares that American law is the only law in Texas–no exceptions, no compromises. It builds unstoppable momentum for binding legislation in 2027. It tells the rest of the country that Texas remains the firewall for constitutional governance. As the BanSharia.com campaign states: Save Texas, Save America. Opponents will claim “Islamophobia” and say this attacks religious liberty. They are wrong. The First Amendment protects personal belief and private worship, not the establishment of a rival legal system that treats the Constitution as inferior. We defend faith and reject supremacy doctrines. Our Founders studied these threats and designed our republic to withstand them. This proposition is non-binding, but Texas voters know the power of these messages. Strong showings in past cycles drove real action on borders, taxes, and education. A large YES turnout during early voting will do the same. Our children’s freedom, women’s rights, and the constitutional republic are on the line. Texas must lead. Save Texas–and help save America. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Texas’ Proposition 10 a Critical Test Case for Prohibiting Sharia Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The House of Representatives appears likely to vote next week on whether to advance a resolution restricting President Donald Trump’s authority to go to war with Iran. The United States has continued to mobilize forces in the Middle East, and Trump has threatened “bad things” if the Iranian regime does not negotiate on its nuclear program. Next week, Ro Khanna, D-Calif., will attempt to advance his War Powers Resolution on the House floor. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is a cosponsor of the resolution. “Trump officials say there’s a 90% chance of strikes on Iran. He can’t without Congress,” Khanna wrote Wednesday on X. “[Massie] & I have a War Powers Resolution to debate & vote on war before putting U.S. troops in harm’s way. I will make a motion to discharge to force a vote on it next week.” The War Powers Act of 1973 establishes a process for members of Congress to force a vote on whether to rein in the president’s ability to use military force. Massie and Khanna’s resolution, introduced in June, would prohibit “unauthorized hostilities” against Iran. Although the resolution is unlikely to become law, the vote on whether to advance the resolution will put members of Congress on the record. In January, a war powers resolution vote to rein in Trump’s powers to conduct war with Venezuela failed 215-215, with Republican Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie joining all Democrats in voting for it. But some members have already indicated they do not intend to support the Iran resolution. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., who sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has already ruled out supporting Massie and Khanna’s resolution. “This resolution would restrict the flexibility needed to respond to real and evolving threats and risks signaling weakness at a dangerous moment,” Gottheimer writes in a joint statement with Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.  GOTTHEIMER AND LAWLER JOINT STATEMENT ON IRAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION pic.twitter.com/laP3KxCGCG— Congressman Mike Lawler (@RepMikeLawler) February 20, 2026 Additionally, Bacon has said in a statement he believes Trump should use military force against Iran. The White House did not immediately respond to a request from The Daily Signal for comment on the House war powers resolution or the likelihood of war with Iran. The post House to Vote on Trump’s War Powers appeared first on The Daily Signal.