Republicans are calling on their Democrat opponents to distance themselves from a leftist group accused of propping up the Ku Klux Klan in order to fundraise against it. Kevin Martin, a Republican challenging Rep. Lucy McBath in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, called the Southern Poverty Law Center a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” because the group allegedly funded members of the Ku Klux Klan. “Any current politician or any candidate that has any association with them needs to … step as far away as possible from them,” Martin told the Daily Signal in a phone call Friday. If any candidate “received any sort of funding or financing” from the SPLC, “they need to return those funds and denounce the group altogether,” he added. On April 21, a federal grand jury indicted the SPLC for allegedly directing donor money to support the very white supremacist groups the SPLC raised money by claiming to oppose and for allegedly lying to a bank about the nature of shell companies it launched in order to fund the “field sources” in the Ku Klux Klan and other groups. The SPLC claims it was paying these “field sources” as informants to undermine the groups, but the indictment claims the SPLC paid for Klan robes, reimbursed a cross-burning, and paid to convince Klan members not to leave. The SPLC has pleaded not guilty to 11 counts, including wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to conceal money laundering. The SPLC has asked a judge to throw out the charges on grounds of “vindictive prosecution,” saying President Donald Trump’s administration targeted the SPLC for its criticism of the administration. Critics have also called the group “anti-Christian,” accusing it of putting mainstream conservative and Christian organizations on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC claims these groups vilify people “typically for their immutable characteristics.” While the SPLC defended itself from the “anti-Christian” charge for years by noting that it didn’t put Focus on the Family on the map, it reversed that policy and put the group on the map last year. “They better ask mercy of God on them for what they have been falsifying,” Martin said. The SPLC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and does not endorse political candidates, but its 501(c)(4) affiliate, the SPLC Action Fund, endorsed Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., Martin’s opponent. The SPLC Action Fund endorsed Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., and contributed $700,000 to his 2020 campaign, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., Ossoff’s challenger in the general election, demanded the senator pay that cash back. “It seems to me that he’s got a very big problem,” Collins told Fox News. Neither Ossoff nor McBath responded to the Daily Signal’s requests for comment. In addition to Ossoff and McBath, the SPLC Action Fund endorsed these Democrats in Congress: Alabama Reps. Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell; Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost; Georgia Reps. Sanford Bishop and Hank Johnson; Louisiana Reps. Troy Carter and Cleo Fields; and Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson. “I am familiar with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s longstanding work to combat racism and hate in America,” Thompson told the Daily Signal when approached for comment. “I support that work and have no issue with the organization.” None of the other Democrats endorsed by SPLC Action Fund responded to the Daily Signal’s requests for comment. The SPLC Action Fund did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Americans are routinely told that our nation is hopelessly divided, irredeemably flawed, and perhaps even in terminal decline. Public polling reflects this pervasive frustration, pessimism, and anomie. If someone halfway around the world only followed the polls, he might be forgiven for believing our republic is all but over. But something remarkable is happening during the 2026 World Cup, which is jointly hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Fans from all across the world have arrived in America—and they are absolutely loving it. We too often take our way of life for granted, but many soccer tourists now here cannot stop marveling at what they see. The unlikely symbol of this phenomenon is “Freddy,” a young German soccer fan who has become an internet sensation while documenting his first road trip across the U.S. Freddy’s viral social media posts have attracted tens of millions of impressions because they reflect something both rare and refreshing: genuine, boy-like wonder. As he has crisscrossed the American South, Freddy has gushed at everything from Waffle House and Taco Bell to Buc-ee’s; Bass Pro Shops; sprawling football stadiums; and the impressive size of regular, middle-class American homes. Americans, accustomed to taking all these things for granted, have watched with glee as a slack-jawed foreign visitor experiences it all for the first time. But Freddy the German is hardly alone. Scores of other World Cup visitors from Europe, Asia, and elsewhere have flooded social media with similar observations. They have wandered through Walmart and Costco as if they were touring cultural landmarks. They have posted videos about yellow school buses, small-town diners, Texas barbecue, oversize grocery stores, and the sheer abundance and variety that characterize everyday life in the most prosperous country on planet Earth. Elsa the Swede has fallen in love with ranch dressing. And even the Transportation Security Administration took notice, posting on social media: “If you’re visiting for a very large sporting event & you happen to discover RANCH while you’re here … please pack it in your CHECKED BAG on the way home.” These reactions, bursting with youthful exuberance, are amusing. But they also point toward a profound insight: Sometimes it takes an outsider to recognize what insiders can no longer see. The average American rarely pauses to consider how extraordinary our country remains today. We gripe about suburban sprawl while living in homes that would be considered luxurious by the standards of much of the world. We roll our eyes at chain restaurants that millions of foreign tourists eagerly seek out. We treat abundance as ordinary because abundance is all most of us have ever known. That familiarity breeds a certain blindness. But the World Cup tourists are not blind. They see an America that remains dynamic, entrepreneurial, and welcoming. They encounter strangers eager to offer travel advice. They find communities proud to share local traditions. They discover a country that is far friendlier than the caricatures would suggest. The America they are experiencing bears little resemblance to the negative stereotypes they had long imbibed back home. America, like every country, has problems. The risk of prolonged decline is very real. Patriotism also does not require pretending that everything is perfect. But it does require perspective—and, above all, gratitude. As we approach our long-awaited America 250 celebration next weekend, Americans would do well to remember that ours remains the most successful experiment in republican self-governance in human history. The U.S. is still the world’s leading economic, military, and cultural power. And most importantly, as we prepare to celebrate the immortal words of 1776, it remains a nation founded upon timeless truths about human nature and human dignity. That last point matters. Our republic was founded on the biblically rooted proposition that human beings possess God-given rights, and that legitimate government exists to secure those rights and advance the common good. In other words, America is great because America is good. Not perfect. Not above reproach. But fundamentally good. We see that goodness reflected in the generosity that has met so many awestruck foreigners visiting during the World Cup. It is reflected in the spirit that built the businesses, attractions, and communities now spellbinding them. The foreign visitors who are spending this summer discovering America have unintentionally delivered an important message to those privileged enough to call this great land home. They have reminded us that our country remains worthy of admiration. They have reminded us that gratitude is often more appropriate—as it is here—than despair. As we prepare to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, that lesson could not be timelier. There are plenty of reasons for concern. But there is also still reason to hope. The world still sees something special in the land of the free and the home of the brave. We Americans should see it too. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Gavin Newsom has discovered the limits of his own revolution. After the California governor’s opposition failed to keep a union-backed wealth tax off the ballot, he had to explain himself to voters he has spent years training to believe billionaires are the problem. He chose Substack. There, in the same political breath, Newsom opposed a California billionaire tax while calling for a national billionaire tax. Same target. Same moral language. Same argument about concentrated wealth. One difference: the national tax helps Newsom audition for president, while the California tax might make his own billionaires leave. That is why the California initiative is dangerous to him. It takes him seriously. Newsom is not opposing the tax because it violates his principles; he is opposing it because it proves them. Nationally, Newsom wants Washington to tax the ultra-rich as part of a grand “economic reset.” Billionaires, he says, have too much power. The tax code favors them. Concentrated wealth threatens democracy. America needs a new bargain. But when a California ballot measure proposes a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California billionaires, Newsom suddenly becomes Milton Friedman with better hair. Now incentives matter. Now tax policy affects behavior. Now capital is mobile. Now wealthy people are not a captive herd tied to the Capitol lawn, waiting to be milked. Newsom made the case against his own slogan. Billionaires can move. Wealth is movable. What sounds like justice from a national podium can become a fiscal panic when applied to California. And this was not merely a dispute over the rate. When opposition mounted, the union behind the measure offered to lower the proposed tax to 2%. Newsom still opposed it. So, the problem was not 5%, or even 2%. The problem was taxing billionaires in the one place Newsom needs them to stay. He could not tell his own base the truth. He could not say that state wealth taxes punish success, drive out capital, and shrink the tax base. That would sound too much like the conservatives he mocks. So, he offered the best fig leaf he could find. The measure was too narrow, too earmarked, too much the work of one interest group. It did not fund enough schools, housing, clinics, universities, or public safety programs. But that was not the real objection. That was the alibi. His real objection was simpler: billionaires can leave. Wealth is movable. California cannot spend applause, and Sacramento cannot replace fleeing capital with revolutionary slogans. That is why this tax is not merely another left-wing spending measure; it is a trap. It asks Newsom to govern as if his own speeches were true. If billionaires are the problem, tax them here. If extreme wealth endangers democracy, seize some of it now. If every Sacramento promise needs money, why wait for Congress? Why not make California the model? Newsom knows the answer. California already depends on the very wealth its politicians denounce. The state moralizes against billionaires while budgeting around them. It attacks inequality while relying on capital gains. It denounces success while spending the proceeds of success. It talks like a commune and taxes like a desperate empire. That is the old Jacobin dilemma. The Jacobins rose by teaching the crowd that private fortune was proof of public injustice. Property had to answer to virtue. The suffering of the many could be blamed on the excess of the few. It transformed envy into morality and confiscation into justice. But once that appetite is fed, it does not remain obedient. If wealth is immoral, why spare this fortune? If public need justifies seizure, why exempt that class? If the rich are enemies of the people, why wait? The men who stir up class fury always assume they will stay in charge of it. History is not kind to that assumption. California is not revolutionary France. Newsom is not Robespierre. Robespierre did not have to worry about Palo Alto moving to Austin. Newsom’s problem is more modern. He wants Jacobin language without the Jacobin tax collector showing up in Sacramento. He wants the crowd angry enough to cheer a national billionaire tax, but not angry enough to pass one in his own state. The richest state in America has tent cities under freeways. Silicon Valley sits beside open-air misery. Sacramento speaks endlessly of compassion while the middle class is priced out, the poor become clients of government, and the rich insulate themselves or leave. California is where progressive theory gets mugged by arithmetic. A federal billionaire tax lets Newsom pose as tribune of the people. A California billionaire tax forces him to govern a state whose finances depend on the people he condemns. The Jacobins learned too late that you cannot teach people to hate property and expect property to remain safe, productive, and available for your plans. Newsom’s lesson is less bloody but just as plain. You cannot call billionaires the enemy and then act surprised when voters ask you to govern as if you meant it. Newsom wants a billionaire tax for America because it sounds righteous from a presidential podium. He is fighting one in California because Sacramento cannot pay its bills with applause. The moment the policy threatens his own tax base, the revolutionary discovers prudence. The tribune becomes an accountant. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

This is an adapted excerpt from Timothy S. Goeglein’s recent book (with Craig Osten) “What Really Matters: Restoring a Legacy of Faith, Freedom, and Family,” released April 8 from Fidelis Publishing. The late James Q. Wilson, former professor of government at Harvard University, once said, “It is not money, but the family that is the foundation of public life. As it has become weaker, every structure built on that foundation has become weaker.”  Those words came to mind when I reviewed some sobering and disturbing statistics from Pew Research and others on the views of Christians when it comes to marriage and cohabitation—especially young Christians.  It has been stated many times that the downfall of every great civilization, as well as institution, comes from within—not from aggressive external attacks but from moral compromises made along the way that slowly weaken its foundation.  As our society has debuckled itself from the institution of marriage, with catastrophic results, it seems now many churches are doing the same thing—choosing to conform to the culture rather than transforming it. As a result, the church’s voice in our culture becomes weaker—to the point of irrelevance—and our children are paying the price. This is evident in these statistics, especially when it comes to today’s young adults.  In 2019, Pew reported 58% of white evangelicals said cohabitation was acceptable as long as the couple eventually plans to marry.  Alarming as that statistic is, it is more sobering among young evangelicals. Nine years ago, a General Social Survey reported more than 40% of evangelicals between the ages of 20 and 29 thought cohabitation was acceptable even if they had no plans to marry.  In addition, a new survey from David Ayers at the Institute of Family Studies found nearly half of evangelical Protestants between the ages of 15 and 22 who are not presently cohabitating or married believe they will likely cohabit with a member of the opposite sex sometime in the future.  The study also found that 65% of evangelicals between the ages of 23 and 44 who had already cohabitated plan on doing so again. This not only impacts our church’s witness when it comes to marriage and family but also accelerates the continued fragmentation of the family unit—the stabilizing factor in all civilizations—regardless of faith.  Why has this happened? In the rush to be seen as “culturally relevant,” “tolerant,” and “nonjudgmental,” many Christians and churches have pushed aside the Biblical teachings regarding marriage and family. While it is commendable for churches to try to reach the unchurched, many have chosen to avoid so-called “hot topics”—especially when it comes to human sexuality—leaving a vacuum our culture is eager to fill.  A generation of young believers is learning more about sex and marriage from popular culture than from their churches. When the world—and not churches—is the main educator on these issues, these are the results. Jim Daly, the president of Focus on the Family, has written, “It will be up to us to show a fraying culture that marriage is so much more than ‘just a piece of paper’ or an association of any two or more persons who profess to love each other. It is a sacred union of a man and a woman that confers myriad benefits on the spouses, their children, and society at large—benefits that cannot be replicated by any other relationship. I would go so far as to say a society cannot flourish, or even long survive, without stable marriages at its core.” And I would add that when churches no longer view marriage as sacred, but just as another optional arrangement, churches themselves cannot flourish. Why? Because when churches no longer treat marriage any differently than the culture—blindly accepting cohabitation as the “new normal”—they have lost their way—and their influence. They especially damage their credibility with rising generations of young Christians and other people of faith. Children still look to adults and institutions for guidance, and when those adults and institutions silently concede their rightful leadership, our children will do the same. It is time for those of us who believe in the sanctity of marriage to no longer sit on the sidelines while our children learn about marriage from the Kardashians or “The Bachelor.” Instead, we must emphasize the beauty and sanctity of marriage; why it is spiritually, emotionally, and physically beneficial to not cohabit with someone of the opposite sex; and why waiting will be ultimately to their benefit. With this vision of marriage prioritized in our churches, we can once again not only have stable families but also a church possessing the moral authority to be a clear and convincing voice reestablishing a flourishing society and the dignity of love. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Companies have been dialing back their LGBTQ+ Pride messaging since President Donald Trump took office last year, and analysts say that contributes to a less divisive marketplace. “This is both a market correction and a cultural correction,” Allen Mendenhall, a senior adviser for The Heritage Foundation’s Free Enterprise Initiative, told the Daily Signal. “After years of performative corporate activism, companies are rediscovering that their customers—particularly families—do not want firms serving as vehicles for ideological agendas.” “Businesses are increasingly rejecting pressure from activist investors and corporate bureaucracies in favor of listening to consumers and respecting longstanding moral and religious convictions,” he added. “Top-down cultural engineering is losing its grip.” Many companies have adopted Pride messaging as a result of the environmental, social, and governance investing movement. Investors used ESG standards to direct their dollars, and they often relied on the Human Rights Campaign‘s Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies based on their pro-LGBTQ+ policies and statements, to determine where money went. Yet Trump issued executive orders combating so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion, noting that discrimination in favor of racial minorities and those who identify as LGBTQ+ still violates federal civil rights laws. This has inspired many companies to opt out of HRC’s index, though some had already begun to do so in 2024. The Human Rights Campaign recently surveyed consumers who identify as LGBTQ+, finding that these consumers identified five companies perceived as pulling back their commitment to the LGBTQ+ community: Target, Walmart, Amazon, Chick-fil-A, and Home Depot. The Daily Signal reached out to each of the companies below for comment, but only Amazon and Puma responded. 1. Amazon Amazon launched a “Pride Out Loud” campaign in 2021, and LGBTQ+ consumers named it as one of the more pro-LGBTQ+ brands between 2017 and 2022, according to the HRC survey. The online retailer made news for withdrawing its sponsorship of Pride Amsterdam last year, however. The company declined to comment on how many Pride events it has ceased sponsoring and stated that it supports employee-led groups that seek to sponsor such events. “We’re committed to building a workforce that helps us build the best range of products and services for the most globally diverse customers in the world,” an Amazon spokesperson told the Daily Signal. “We support our employees with opportunities that allow them to grow, thrive, and connect internally and in their communities.” 2. Facebook/Meta In 2018, Facebook launched a “Happy Pride” page for creators and introduced LGBTQ+ themes for Facebook Messenger in 2021. The company dropped those themes last year, while embracing policy changes that allowed more criticism of transgender ideology on Facebook. The company also appeared to release fewer posts celebrating Pride. 3. Home Depot Home Depot has reportedly dialed back its Pride messaging, removing a DEI section from its website and withdrawing its sponsorship for Toronto Pride. 4. McDonald’s In 2022, McDonald’s released a statement celebrating Pride, offering “gender reassignment support,” announcing a “House of Pride” parade, and hosting a float in Chicago’s parade. McDonald’s exited the HRC index last year, however, and seems not to be pushing Pride messaging.  5. Nike Nike launched a “Be True” product line focused on Pride messaging, but appears to have dialed it back in 2024, and while the company still sells “Be True” products, observers noted that it did not launch a new 2026 product line. 6. PepsiCo In 2022, PepsiCo ran a Pride Month marketing campaign and donated $100,000 to “LGBT+ safe spaces hit hard by COVID-19.” This year, PepsiCo scaled back sponsorship of NYC Pride. 7. Puma While the athletic wear company Puma launched a Pride collection last year, it does not appear to have done so this year. “PUMA continues to view diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as an integral part of its company culture,” Anne Putz, senior director of corporate communications, told the Daily Signal. She noted the company’s support for the LGBTQ+ event Christopher Street Day in Nuremberg, Germany, near the company’s headquarters. “At the same time, PUMA is currently undergoing a transformation, during which we are further sharpening our product portfolio,” Putz added. “This strategic focus does not change the importance we attach to DEI, which remains firmly embedded in our culture.” 8. Target Target appears to have faced backlash for its loud LGBTQ+ marketing back in 2023, and it removed itself from the HRC Corporate Equality Index last year. 9. Walmart Walmart has reportedly dialed back its Pride messaging and opted out of the HRC index. 10. YouTube Last year, YouTube Creator and Artist Stories published a celebration of Pride, but it appears not to have done so this year. A Warning “On one hand, many major companies have scaled back overt ideological messaging and refocused on core business priorities that serve their customers and shareholders,” Doug Napier, executive chairman and CEO of 1792 Exchange, told the Daily Signal. “However, others that publicly pledged to exit the activism business continue to support divisive causes, revealing a gap between rhetoric and genuine commitment.” “Corporate leaders must implement structural changes that prioritize integrity and core business functions over radical social causes,” he added.