The following is a preview of Daily Signal Politics Editor Bradley Devlin’s interview with Jeremy Carl, President Donald Trump’s nominee for assistant secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the State Department, on “The Signal Sitdown.” The full interview premieres on The Daily Signal’s YouTube page at 6:30 a.m. Eastern on Feb. 18. Last week, Jeremy Carl, President Donald Trump’s nominee for assistant secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the Department of State, testified on his nomination in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Carl has spent the better part of the last year of his life pursuing this State Department post, at great personal and professional expense. And, fresh off of the hearing in which Senate Democrats sought to destroy his reputation, Carl joined “The Signal Sitdown.” Carl was nominated to be assistant secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the Department of State in June 2025. While he previously served in the first Trump administration in the Department of the Interior, he has been tapped for the foreign policy role due to his experience working on multilateral foreign policy issues. For a decade, he was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, working under former President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State George Shultz. Eight months later, Carl is still waiting to be confirmed to a role that would put him at the nexus of American foreign policy and international organizations like the United Nations. Carl explains what’s wrong with organizations like the United Nations, why international bureaucrats are willing to turn a blind eye, and what America can do to ensure its interests are protected in these forums. Democrats in Washington have also been willing to turn a blind eye to the issues plaguing these international organizations, and they were not very interested in unpacking those issues at Carl’s hearing last week. Instead, Democrats on the committee turned the hearing into a hullabaloo by repeatedly accusing Carl of racism, sexism, antisemitism, and a grab-bag of other forms of bigotry. At several instances, these Democrat senators would make these accusations without asking him a question or giving him an opportunity to defend himself. When they did ask him questions, they would simply cut him off before he could fully answer. Carl responds to the effort to tarnish his character and takes “The Signal Sitdown” inside the Senate confirmation process like few can. The post Jeremy Carl Joins ‘The Signal Sitdown’ Following Tense Senate Hearing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Former CNN host Don Lemon has pleaded not guilty to federal charges for his role in the invasion of a Minnesota church last month, claiming he was merely covering the “protest” as a journalist, but the church’s pastor says Lemon was “in on the terror.” Jonathan Parnell, the pastor of Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, had been attempting to read aloud from the Bible when agitators opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement disrupted the Jan. 18 service. He wrote about the event for WORLD magazine Tuesday. Parnell recalled that “several individuals scattered throughout the sanctuary rose together and, like a flash mob, converged with chants and clenched fists.” When the mob shouted, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” that led worshippers to flee, “fearing it was an active shooter situation.” The agitators “had stormed into the house of God, a place of peace and refuge, and they defiled it with rage.” “In that instant, I interpreted what was going on: this was about provocation, intimidation, and spectacle,” the pastor wrote. “They were here to incite violence. The spiritual dimension of it all came into focus. A malevolent darkness was behind this—the same darkness behind the murder of pre-born children, and the mutilation of children’s bodies, and the manipulation of children’s minds. Those were all evils our children had escaped, so now the weapon was terror.” “The agitators screamed in our faces and said we weren’t a real church,” he recalled. “They harassed individuals for their ethnicity and ‘uttered all kinds of evil’ against us falsely. They spewed lies upon lies, and our refusal to retaliate seemed only to frustrate them.” Charges Against Church Invaders A federal grand jury indicted nine people, including Lemon, on two charges: violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which also protects access to churches; and violating the Ku Klux Klan Act, which criminalizes efforts to deprive Americans of their fundamental rights—in this case the right to the free exercise of religion. According to the indictment, between 20 and 40 agitators, who claimed to be opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement because one of the church’s pastors worked for ICE, refused to leave when asked and shouted, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!” The indictment also mentions that agitators screamed at crying children, blocked parents from getting to their children in Sunday School, and that one agitator told a child that his parents were Nazis and going to hell. The indictment states that Lemon strategized with the group’s leaders Nekima Levy Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen before the invasion, and notes that Lemon said the group planned to “disrupt business as usual” at the church. Lemon appeared to hide the target location on his livestream, before the disruption. Once inside, Lemon allegedly confronted Parnell, while other agitators blocked the pastor in, and asked him questions to further the agitators’ narrative. When people finally exited the church, Lemon observed that they were “frightened,” “scared,” and “crying.” He said that was understandable because the experience was “traumatic and uncomfortable,” which he added was the purpose of the incident. ?WHY LEMON WAS CHARGEDCan we please stop lying around here? Here's the grand jury indictment laying out why Don Lemon was charged.At the pre-op briefing Chauntyll Louisa Allen briefed Lemon and the other conspirators about where and what they were doing.On camera, Nekima… pic.twitter.com/gHuN6Q4ZM9— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) January 31, 2026 Parnell’s View of Lemon Parnell did not mention Lemon by name, but he did recall the interaction, noting, “The man questioning me certainly seemed disappointed” by his cool response. “I told him, plainly, that we had gathered to worship Jesus and that he should leave. He did not leave. He was in on the terror,” Parnell recalled. “He continued to accost members of our congregation, eventually moving outdoors, but still on our property.” Many—including elected Democrats—have defended Lemon, claiming that President Donald Trump’s administration brought charges to intimidate him and prevent him from acting as a journalist, covering ICE. Yet Lemon hadn’t been covering ICE actions, nor was he covering a protest on public property. Renee Carlson, who represents Cities Church as general counsel for True North Counsel, noted that being a journalist does not give someone license to invade a church building or disrupt services. “The First Amendment does not allow premeditated plots or coordinated actions to violate the sanctity of a sanctuary, disrupt worship, and intimidate small children,” Carlson said in a statement shortly after the invasion. “There is no ‘press pass’ to invade a sanctuary or to conspire to interrupt religious services.” Returning to the Gospel The pastor cited Matthew 16, when Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. “Hell had barged into our local church that morning, boasting to have shut us down, but hell doesn’t have the final say,” he wrote. “Nobody does, except God alone.” Parnell concluded his article by presenting the forgiveness of the gospel. Of the church invaders, he wrote, “God willing, they will answer for what they have done in a court of earthly justice. But if they turn from their sins and trust in Christ, they need not fear the court of heaven. All of their sins can be wiped away.” The post Minneapolis Pastor Says Don Lemon Was ‘in on the Terror’ of Church Invasion appeared first on The Daily Signal.

REUTERS–Some U.S. troops are leaving Syria as part of a “deliberate and conditions-based transition,” a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday. The Wall Street Journal reported the United States was withdrawing all of its roughly 1,000 troops from Syria. “U.S. forces remain poised to respond to any ISIS threats that arise in the region as we support partner-led efforts to prevent the terrorist network’s resurgence,” the senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said. “However U.S. presence at scale is no longer required in Syria given the Syrian government’s willingness to take primary responsibility for combating the terrorist threat within its borders,” the official added. Last week, the U.S. military said it completed a withdrawal from a strategic base in Syria, handing it over to Syrian forces, in the latest sign of strengthening U.S.-Syrian ties that could enable an even larger American drawdown. This story was first published by Reuters The post Some US Troops Departing Syria, Official Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

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. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I think all of us have had some news of Marco Rubio’s very impressive speech at the Munich Security Conference. Remember, this is where the Europeans have pushed back on criticism. A year ago, JD Vance tried to enlighten them that they were on a path word toward civilizational decline, and one of the manifestations of that was debt, energy problems, borders, censorship, and they didn’t react well to that. They didn’t react very well either when Donald Trump said it was a concern of Europe and the United States that Greenland be defended, especially in the age of these new hypersonic missiles coming into the West from the Arctic Circle, from either China or Russia. That didn’t go down well because of the way that they felt Trump was bullying them. But this was a different speech. It had three or four components that were very persuasive. You got a standing ovation at the end. The first was Rubio made it clear that we are—in the age of DEI—we are a European country in the sense that our legacy was Europe and in, particularly, Great Britain. But our laws, our language, our literature, our institutions, they’re Western. That was kind of a controversial thing to say when people on the DEI woke side say, “No, we’re indigenous people,” or “We’re from Africa” or something. But what he was trying to say is that we feel that you are kindred, you’re kindred civilization, you’re our mother’s civilization. He gave a lot of examples about cities in America. New Amsterdam—Amsterdam, Netherlands—was New York. And he tried to point out how we came to be. And then he moved on that he wasn’t criticizing them in the traditional fashion, but he was saying that we made the same mistakes. The only difference, as he implied, he inferred—he was not explicit, he was implicit—was that you haven’t got really yet a continent of Donald Trumps just wage a counter revolution. But yes, we had let in 10 million people on an open border. Yes. We destroyed meritocracy for four or five years with DEI. Yes. We bought into critical legal and critical race theory that made exemptions based on one superficial appearance from the normal application of the law. Yes, our defenses were not what they should be, that we have neglected, especially the prior four years in maintaining a predominant or superior American fleet, Air Force, and Army. And yes, he said in addition that you can’t have a society, it won’t function if you don’t have fossil fuels or nuclear power, especially in Europe. It doesn’t have the … most of Europe is to the north of us. It doesn’t have the advantages that we do. And even with our southern states, solar and wind are too undependable to predicate an entire economy on them. The third thing he did was: He was saying that we want a strong NATO. Maybe we’re inelegant sometimes, but the more that a 500 million-person Europe can defend itself, the better it is for us. And a couple of reasons. We’re a distant power across the Atlantic Ocean, but we can offer lift capacity, logistics, nuclear deterrence. And we want to work with Europe, but because they’re on the continent and there’s a war raging in Russia, they have to be the frontline troops. We’re there to help them. But we can’t take the primary role because we have obligations for the West worldwide. And that brought up one of the fourth things that he said was if Europe would arm itself with a population of 500 million plus—we’re only about 340 million—then that would free up some of our resources to address common European and common American threats, such as China in the Pacific or Iran, or problems in the Middle East. After all, we have to keep the Straits of Hormuz, the South China Sea, the Red Sea open and that benefits Europe. But we can’t do that if we have a disarmed Europe where we are tied down in Europe and in Asia. And then, of course, implicitly said we had the same common enemies. So it was a big success. He got a standing innovation. A lot of people don’t like to be told the truth in Europe, but they understand that economically, financially, militarily, and politically, they are in a crisis, and it needed somebody to deliver this message. What was nice about the timing was that JD Vance, as I said, and Trump had given the tough love version, and he came and gave the good cop version. I could mix my metaphors. One final note: It really enhanced the position of Marco Rubio because he’s sort of become Trump’s fireman. When there’s a problem that seems unsolvable or that people, whether it’s in Panama or whether it’s in the Middle East, or whether it’s in the Western hemisphere, people call on Rubio. And I think we should watch that very carefully because I think we’re going to enter into the 2028 race, not with a Vance, Rubio Vice President, but with two strong candidates. Then, I don’t know. If the nomination is decided, I think it’s up for grabs. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: Rubio Tells Europe What It Needs to Hear appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The U.S. Postal Service system of handling and delivering mail ballots often leads to rejected or late ballots, election security advocates contend.   The Election Integrity Network issued two recent reports on the handling of mail ballots by postal employees, and the use of regional mail processing centers across state lines. The reports claim that current practices could either result in delayed ballots or confusion over postmarks during an election.  In the 2022 election, 549,824 mail ballots were rejected, about 1.5% of all absentee/mail-in ballots, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found. Common reasons for rejected ballots include non-matching signatures and missed deadlines. “From the outside, those are just ‘undeliverable’ or ‘missing’ ballots in a large system,” an Election Integrity Network report released Monday says. “For each voter, it is the loss of the one voice they have in their own government.”  For its part, the U.S. Postal Service counters that local election officials are responsible for matters such as enforcing deadlines, using barcodes, identifying eligible voters, and ensuring correct addresses for ballots.  Further, the USPS is held accountable by the Postal Regulatory Commission, as well as through congressional oversight, said USPS spokeswoman Cathy Purcell. “The report’s statements concerning the Postal Service reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the Postal Service’s role, which is to process, transport, and deliver mail, including Election Mail. The Postal Service plays no role in the administration of elections,” Purcell told The Daily Signal. Part of the problem, noted the Election Integrity Network’s more lengthy report from last week, is the U.S. Postal Service lumps election mail in with all mail, shipped to regional shipping centers that are sometimes out of state where the postmarks are then issued.   Thus, even if a voter mails their ballot on the day of the deadline, it might travel out of state to a distribution center and be postmarked the next day, the report contends. “The USPS should immediately stop delaying election mail by using the new system, and start handling all of it locally without sending it to the regional processing centers,” the report says.   The report contends the USPS is effectively America’s largest “precinct” because it has the largest number of individuals handling election mail with little or no citizen oversight.  “There are so many problems with the U.S. Postal Service. I don’t think we should have universal mail-in voting with so many vulnerabilities,” Ned Jones, executive director of the Election Integrity Network, told The Daily Signal. “It often leaves the state and comes back. In the processing is where it gets the postmark.”  The report from last week was based on data gathered by the EIN’s Vote-By-Mail/USPS National Working Group, with members from more than 20 states, Jones said.   Purcell said that “state boundaries have nothing to do with the efficient movement of mail.” She said a Post Office clerk can, when close to an election date, expedite delivery of a ballot to an election office, “without sending the ballot to the processing plant for cancellation and sorting.”    “We employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail, including ballots,” she said. The network’s report also says that unreliable barcode tracking has frequently missed scans for ballots. “The USPS tracking system isn’t very good. It’s all done by machine and many scans are missed,” the report states. “Unbelievably, the last scan before delivery is not as the letter carrier delivers the mail, to the voter or back to the election office, but in the processing center before the letter carrier gets it.” Purcell stressed the USPS educates voters to mail ballots in a timely manner well before deadlines.   “The long-standing Postal Service guidance on mailing ballots has been to mail your ballot before Election Day and at least one week before the deadline by which it must be received by your election office,” Purcell said. “The postmark date on a mail item doesn’t always match the day you mailed an item.” She said the Postal Service strongly recommends the use of barcodes, but cannot mandate local election offices use them. She further noted, “It is the responsibility of the election office to maintain accurate names and addresses if it chooses to employ vote-by-mail.”  The information comes as the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a major case about whether to continue counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.   The Election Integrity Network report made several recommendations.   “The USPS should develop a system that accurately maintains a ‘chain of custody’ for all election mail, and reconcile ballots delivered, plus undeliverable ballots returned to the election office, for every election jurisdiction,” the report says.   It also says the Postal Service “should have a system that prevents election mail from being delivered to a voter who is no longer at their registration address.”  In December 2024, after that year’s election, the Postal Service noted it handled almost 100 million ballots, and 99.8% were delivered within a week. The USPS said the average delivery time from a voter to election officials was only a day.   However, in April 2025, the USPS Office of Inspector General found about 40 million ballots lacked tracking data, and found “confusion in the field” about temporary mail flow changes for the election season.  The post Largest ‘Precinct’: Why Some Mail Ballots Travel Across State Lines Before Counting Begins appeared first on The Daily Signal.