Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Sami Winc: Your thoughts on this birthright citizenship decision by the Supreme Court? Victor Davis Hanson: Well, what the minority of [Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, [Neil] Gorsuch, and, to a certain extent, [Brett] Kavanaugh—he had a qualified dissent—was that they are originalists, and they said if you look at the Fourteenth Amendment, it came in the aftermath of the Civil War and the increasing pacification of Native American tribes. So what are we going to do with people who were traditionally not considered citizens of the United States? And so we said if you were a former slave and your parents were here, then you were a citizen; i.e., you didn’t just come in. A court case sometime later reinterpreted that as anybody born here could be a citizen, but it emphasized the original wording of the amendment that says, “and not subject to the jurisdiction of another country.” But, in fact, everybody knows that if you come in here and you’re a foreign national, you are subject to the jurisdiction of another country. What do I mean by that? I mean if Mexico has an extradition or a hold on somebody and they come in here, and they come to us and say, “We’re going to extradite him back to Mexico as a Mexican national,” we say, “Okay.” If Mexico says Victor is going to be extradited, I’m not subject to their jurisdiction. And so, to simplify things, every single person knows three things about this. Number one, it was never the intent—never the intent—of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment to give automatic birthright citizenship. Number two, everyone knows it is widely abused and not sustainable. People are flying in from China in their third trimester, having a baby, and flying back with the baby so that that baby—who might not know English or anything about the United States—at any time in his or her life, if things get bad in China, can come over here or can come over here and sponsor their children. The same is true south of the border. So everybody knows it’s an unsustainable, crazy idea that has greenlighted a very pernicious habit of coming here in your third [trimester]. Three, everybody knows while there are a number of nations that technically allow it, usually they require both parents—we don’t—to be citizens, or at least one. So if you come into the United States and you’re born on this—you know, most countries, I think the majority, require either one parent or two to be a citizen. And if you’re born in France, you can only be a French citizen if one of your parents is French. Some require two, but it’s not the norm. It’s not that it doesn’t exist anywhere else, but it’s not the norm for a person to be born here to two foreign nationals. Born here in the United States—or anywhere—it’s not the norm. A lot of people say, well, a lot of Latin American countries are doing it. But, yes, it’s still not the norm. So just to recap: Everybody knows it was not the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment to have this “anchor baby” malady we have. Number two, we know it’s not sustainable because we’re handing out citizenship to people—we have no idea who they are. They have no affinity with the United States. The parents don’t. They can leave. Number three, most countries—not all, but most countries—understand that and don’t do it. So then the question is why, in a conservative court with a 6-3 majority, would you have two justices defect—Amy Coney Barrett, and John Roberts? That, I think, is a political decision. I think that they understand that this is, right up with the Dobbs case, one of the most controversial cases that would radically change things immediately. It would tell the Dreamers, for example—not all of the 20 million—but it would say to some Dreamers who are now in their 30s or 40s, you came when you were two, and so you’re not a citizen, but you were born here. You’re not a citizen. You think you’re a citizen. You’re not. I shouldn’t say Dreamers. I should say a lot of immigrants right now, as we’re talking, have parents who are either illegal or legal aliens, and they will be born immediately, and now they’re going to be told, “You’re not a citizen. You have no right to be here unless you apply for a green card or something.” So I think the court, like in the case of abortion, they could outsource it to the states so they could get the heat off them. They can just say, “You know what? We’re not banning or we’re not approving abortion. Under our federalist system, we’re allowing regional control.” They can’t with this. It’s going to be a fundamental change, and we have 53 million immigrants here, and we have a million coming every year, and the Democratic Party would go ballistic. So I’m just conjecturing. I have no evidence, but I think that in their way of looking at saving the court’s reputation—not allowing it to be viewed as biased, perception-wise—they were going to rule in favor of the left on this issue, and they were going to rule in favor of the right on the trans issue and say that states, locales, regions, and organizations have a perfect right to say if you’re not a biological female, you’re not going to compete in female sports. And that was controversial. The problem with all of this is that’s not the purpose of the Supreme Court: to adjudicate what’s politically feasible or tolerable. Number two, [Elena] Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and [Sonia] Sotomayor—they don’t defect. They’re lockstep. They would be dead in Democratic circles. They wouldn’t be able to go speak. The left—the socialist, the Democratic-socialist-communists now—they’re intolerant. They would not, if Sotomayor or Kagan voted for this, all their speaking invitations would be withdrawn. They would be persona non grata. And so they stay that way. They’re enforced by—the Democrats enforce cohesiveness and unanimity. We don’t on the conservative side. So we get these constant defections. And we’re always told that they’re to save the court or the reputation of the Supreme Court or not to be partisan. But this is not a partisan issue. This is something that affects the well-being of the United States. Then they criticized Trump—I think Kavanaugh did, but others on the left—and said that he had issued an executive order stopping it, which precipitated the lawsuit. And he can’t do that. And they cited evidence where you have constitutional edicts in the Constitution—or by way of an amendment—that cannot be overturned by a presidential order. They need an act of Congress or maybe even another amendment, which is about impossible because you require three-quarters of the state legislatures and, I think, two-thirds of Congress. But what they’re missing here, I think, is when they are saying you want to change the law, you have to bring either an amendment or maybe an act of Congress. And the conservatives are saying we don’t want to change the law—not at all. We want you to obey what is written in the law. The law says that if you were born in the United States and you’re subject to the jurisdiction of another country, you’re not going to be a citizen. And everybody knows that if you come across the southern border from Venezuela and you’re here and Mr. Chávez or Mr. Maduro—or whoever the government is—says, “I want you extradited because you’re a citizen,” that will be adjudicated. Nobody will doubt that. And so what I’m getting at is the conservatives were saying, well, we don’t need an amendment. We just need an act of Congress to enforce the law or something like that. The other thing is, very quickly, it wasn’t too handled by conservatives. All I think they should have said is we just want reciprocity. If China allows somebody to be born in China to be an automatic citizen of the People’s Republic, OK, maybe we’ll extend the same. What they’re saying is we have been taking on tariffs, technological appropriation, all of these issues, and we’re taking on birthright citizenship. So any country that does not allow birthright citizenship whose people come over here and take advantage of our allowance shouldn’t do that. If they did something like that and broadcast that fact, I think they would have gotten a lot more support. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

As America celebrates its 250th birthday, a growing political movement isn’t just sitting out the party but actively working to tear down the constitutional system. It’s not a “both-sides” issue: a 2025 Gallup poll found that only 36% of Democrats say they are extremely or very proud to be American, while 92% of Republicans say so. What sort of Democrat isn’t proud of the greatest country on earth? The same sort of Democrat who’s on the ascent in the New York and Colorado primaries. Don’t buy the messaging: the only “democratic” thing about the Democratic Socialists of America is its rapid infiltration of the United States’ left-leaning major party. The only “American” thing about it is how vehemently the DSA hates America. The Democratic Socialists Against America To adopt a phrase from Christian theology, the DSA is “in but not of” America. Its ideology traces back to “Progressivism,” a transplant from 19th-century Europe—and a movement at odds with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Under Progressivism, our God-given inalienable rights become privileges ordained by the fickle whims of government elites. The people’s will takes second place to “scientific expertise,” and technocratic experts determine policy. Democratic socialism takes this one step further, expanding government power over more and more aspects of American life. This focus on government expertise has enshrined leftist positions—from critical race theory (the notion that America is systemically racist and requires fundamental change) to climate alarmism, to transgender ideology—in government and culture, giving the impression that truth and justice must be “woke.” These forces demonize President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the woke bureaucratic consensus, comparing the enforcement of immigration law after four years of open borders to the Gestapo. This “woke” superstructure is shifting the ground of elite opinion, making open socialism more and more attractive to those who have been primed to see President Donald Trump as the modern incarnation of Adolf Hitler. While woke leftists may think their approach is sensible or moderate, their hyperbolic reaction to Trump has fostered an environment in which the Democratic Socialists of America can flourish. DSA candidates have won Democrat primaries, most recently in New York and Colorado, often ousting longstanding Democrat members of Congress. The Democrat Party may have had the antibodies to resist the far Left decades ago, but Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has weakened its immune system and helped infect it with an anti-capitalist fever. The DSA Platform The DSA makes no bones about its radical agenda. Its web page on “working-class democracy” calls for extending “full voting rights” to “noncitizens.” It calls for expanding the number of seats in the House of Representatives, ending the Senate filibuster, abolishing the Electoral College, and “reducing the power of the Supreme Court.” These structural changes amount to a wholesale rejection of the Founders’ approach to limited government, abolishing any checks or balances that might frustrate the Left’s agenda. What would the DSA do with such unchecked government power? The platform calls for establishing a “Green New Deal” in the name of combatting climate change, implementing socialized medicine, making higher education “free,” and reducing the work week to 32 hours—”with no reduction in pay or benefits.” It would allow “workers to freely migrate between countries to seek employment” and extend “immediate amnesty for all immigrants.” Darializa Aliva Chevalier, the 32-year-old DSA member who ousted a five-term incumbent in a New York Democrat primary last month, fleshed out this immigration policy. Chevalier opposes all deportations, even if an illegal alien committed a violent crime. She also founded the anti-Israel group Columbia University Apartheid Divest. In 2024, the group posted a statement on Instagram declaring, “We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.” After a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the group posted “Marg bar Amrika,” which translates to “Death to America.” Rejecting the Woke Ideology Behind DSA Few Democrats are chanting, “Death to America!” in the streets today, but this post grows out of the same noxious ideology that claims America is systemically racist, sexist, homophobic, or what-have-you. The woke narrative claims that America is systemically evil, and that only a fundamental revolution in each of America’s institutions will bring about “justice.” If states require ID to vote, it’s a “threat to democracy!” If moms and dads oppose racially divisive lessons in school, they’re abetting “white supremacy.” If we don’t want to pay more in gas prices, we’re contributing to the “climate crisis.” The DSA brings these woke arguments to their logical conclusion. The result is horrifying, but it’s also revealing. If Americans are rightfully proud of our country and its history on this 250th anniversary, we must reject the ideology that animates the DSA. We must dedicate ourselves to limited, constitutional government. We must remember the virtues of capitalism. We must oppose the leftist ideology seeping through so much of the legacy media, Hollywood, and academia. Two hundred and fifty years ago, America was founded on the premise that our rights come from God, not government. Socialism, however “democratic” it may claim to be, rejects that fundamental premise. Americans must emphatically reject it, especially at this historic milestone. Let’s celebrate the 250th anniversary, and throw such a big party that even those DSA haters can’t help but wish they could join us.

On May 2, 2026, teams from Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming came together at the Idaho State Capitol to battle for the “We the Students: Mountain West Civics Cup.” The event was a regional high school competition aimed at engaging students in the study of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.    Mountain States Policy Center staged the event with the help of a $50,000 grant from the Heritage Foundation as a winner of an America’s 250th Innovation Prize. The prize is a national program recognizing creative projects that strengthen civic education and public understanding of American founding principles as part of the United States’ 250th anniversary in 2026.  The event saw the teams compete in a mix of fast-paced quiz-style questions and applied leadership challenges, advancing from virtual preliminaries to in-person state rounds and a livestreamed regional final.  Xavier 1, a team from Xavier Charter School in Twin Falls, Idaho—comprised of Vita Wyatt, Grace Achurry-Guerry, Olivia Aiello, and Eleanor Nunnelley—won the 2026 “We the Students” Civics Bowl, taking home a grand prize of $7,000.  https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Cip2nhZdk/ The Daily Signal spoke to Mountain States Policy Center about their project at the time of the award and discussed the impact they hope it achieves.   “It is important to celebrate America, especially given our 250th birthday,” Chris Cargill, president of Mountain States Policy Center, told the Daily Signal.   “ Mountain West Policy Center is looking forward to honoring these kids and allowing an opportunity of civic education for them.” Cargill continued.    Founded in 2022 and based in Coeur d’Alene and Boise, Idaho, Mountain States Policy Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on research and outreach that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty, and limited government across the Mountain West.   It is the first multi-state policy organization of its kind in the region, serving Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana, and Wyoming by educating policymakers, media, young leaders, and the public on how free markets and limited government can drive prosperity and opportunity.   The “We the Students: Mountain West Civic Cup” will continue to be an annual event in hopes of renewing involvement in American civics. “Our goal is to make sure every student knows that the civic cup is not just a one-year thing,” Cargill said.  “We hope to continue the Civic Cup each and every year after this, and to get more and more people excited about American history and civic involvement, as well as involved in their government. If we can engage more folks each year and make them excited to be American, we feel like we will be victorious.”   Mountain States Policy Center’s work extends beyond policy research to include public events, leadership programs, and educational initiatives aimed at fostering civic knowledge and engagement. The Civics Cup complements these efforts by strengthening students’ understanding of the foundations of American self-government and encouraging civil discourse and competition.  Other America’s 250th Innovation Prize Round Two winners included: Constituting America Harlan Institute The Moving Picture Institute Wedgwood Circle   Round One winners of the America’s 250th Innovation Prize: Creative Studio to Release Video Series for America’s 250th Anniversary  Faith Group Wins Innovation Prize for America’s 250th Celebration ‘A First of Its Kind’: Bestselling Author Crafts American Fable Collection Catholic Nonprofit Develops Resources to Inspire Patriotism Virginia Nonprofit Wins Prize to Create US History Documentaries for Nation’s 250th Anniversary

It’s too darn hot across the pond, but Europe’s ruling elites have decided that to remain holier than thou their people need to forgo grubby, American air conditioning. That’s the talk of the internet this Fourth of July week as much of Western Europe recovers from a hellacious heat wave that has claimed the lives of thousands of people. Europeans are burning up in a hell of their own making, yet somehow, some way, they found a way to blame America for their troubles. Paris Deputy Mayor Audrey Pulvar just couldn’t take all the snide comments from Americans comfortably posting and meme-ing on their couches in cool, 72-degree air from the Atlantic to the Pacific. “Dear American journalists and social media ‘influencers’: for days, some of you have been criticizing and making fun of Paris because the city does not have A/C in every room. OMG, this is so rich!” she posted on Instagram on Friday. I’d really like to know which meme set her off. I hope it was this one. The European mind cannot comprehend this pic.twitter.com/72lIwbvfzw— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) June 30, 2026 Pulvar’s ranting at those bully Americans with their abominable, newfangled air conditioning units invented in 1902 continued. “As the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, you bear a significant amount of responsibility for global warming and the consequences we, in France, are experiencing,” she wrote. “Your cities ‘90% air-conditioned’ are not unrelated to this. In Paris, we take responsibility.” Are they really taking “responsibility” when their insane policies get thousands of people killed during summer heatwaves? Far more than those killed by gun violence in the U.S., a topic they frequently like to harp on. Instead of considering that little complication, Europe’s ruling class has decided to put blinders on and ignore the misery of their people so they can “save” the planet. We're not banning A/C. We're making sure future summers need it less. https://t.co/18cl2RpRtU— French Response (@FrenchResponse) June 29, 2026 They really do tell themselves that suffering through summer will make heat waves go away. Now, some have argued that the European aversion to air conditioning is just a product of there being so many old buildings and all that. That may have some part to play, but from the reaction of Pulvar and many others to the criticism it’s clear that this is about something much more existential and emotional. Underneath all the other reasons Europeans forgo air conditioning, you have what amounts to a moral, even religious imperative. The larger European aversion to air conditioning is akin to a kind of secular religious dogma, collectively enforced. And the European Left is particularly zealous on this front, of course. What’s particularly absurd about the European anti-air conditioning attitude is that even accounting for their religious aversion to producing carbon emissions, A/C units are the tiniest of concerns on that front. They really want to tell themselves that heat waves and summers didn’t exist before Americans messed everything up and that by collectively suffering, they can heal the climate wounds of the whole world. The problem with this narrative they tell themselves is that the heat problem has struck Europe many times before and will strike many times more if every A/C in the world disappears tomorrow. I remember the brutal summer of 2003 when tens of thousands of people died across Europe. It was awful, and tragic. The answer to this would have been to make widespread air conditioner use a priority as it was in America. The Wall Street Journal noted that widespread adoption of air conditioning in homes has accounted for most of the decline in “hot-day-related fatalities” since the 1960s. We had a problem and we solved it. Now it’s Europe’s turn. Drop the absurd regulations. Make air conditioning more available and thus much cheaper for regular people to acquire. Sure, other suicidal European policies come into play, like the restrictionist energy policies that made them reliant on Russia for energy needs. But if they had more homes with air conditioning they would at least have the choice to keep cool in times of great need. Unfortunately, they haven’t changed and here we are. But I’d like to strike a note of optimism. Much like on the immigration and speech issues that now bedevil much of Europe, I think most Americans want them to finally get this right, if only to make summer European vacations a lot more pleasant. And maybe now is the right time for a change. After all, thousands of regular people from all over Europe are visiting the U.S. for the World Cup. Some seem to be amazed about the nice people and nice things they’ve encountered here, including the air conditioning blasting in literally every building. French guy experiencing air conditioning in America. These videos from the Europeans in America are so funny. I can’t stop laughing. Watch til the end!! His caption: “I pledge allegiance to the ice of the United States of America!” othermichaelphelps on TTWorld Cup is… pic.twitter.com/TZp5JhD1a3— PNW Thistle (@PNWthistle) June 20, 2026 OK, maybe we take things a little too far on that front, but I’ll bet there are more than a few European visitors who’d like to bring at least half of our A/C obsession back home with them. And they should. Many lives depend on it.

Fox News Channel closed out June by beating two broadcast networks in weekday primetime viewers while also easily outpacing its cable news rivals. According to Nielsen data released this week, Fox News drew 2,628,000 weekday primetime viewers in June, compared with 2,419,000 for NBC and 2,049,000 for CBS. Fox News also led all of cable news for the second quarter of 2026, averaging 2.5 million primetime viewers and commanding nearly 60% of the cable news audience in both total day and primetime, ahead of CNN and MS NOW combined. Beating Broadcast TV Even though cable TV channels are available in far fewer homes than the broadcast giants, Fox News outdrew two networks that have dominated American television for decades. CBS posted its worst second quarter of the 21st century in primetime, drawing under 3.3 million viewers. “CBS Mornings” averaged 1.7 million viewers, the lowest in the program’s history. “CBS Evening News,” now anchored by Tony Dokoupil, drew 3.9 million viewers, its second-lowest second-quarter total this century. In June, both CBS and NBC recorded their lowest weekday primetime totals of the century in the 25-54 age demographic, with 261,000 and 396,000 viewers, respectively. Meanwhile, Fox News’ lineup kept humming. ‘The Five’ Finishes First “The Five” extended its run as the most-watched cable news program for the 19th straight quarter, drawing 3.6 million viewers. That’s more than CBS’ “NCIS: Origins,” CBS’ “CIA,” and ABC’s “Inside the NBA.” “Special Report with Bret Baier” beat the “CBS Evening News” outright in 18 major markets, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Washington, D.C. “FOX & Friends” beat “CBS Mornings” in 23 markets. And then there’s late night, where Greg Gutfeld’s show beat every broadcast late-night program, including Stephen Colbert (whose “Late Show” ended in May), Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon. “Gutfeld!” averaged 2.8 million viewers in the 10 p.m. hour, more than any of the others. Cable TV Competition For the quarter overall, Fox News commanded nearly 60% of the cable news audience in both total day and primetime, easily beating CNN and MS NOW. According to the Nielsen data, Fox News averaged 1,575,000 total day viewers for the quarter, more than double CNN’s 500,000 and MS NOW’s 655,000. In primetime, Fox News drew 2,493,000 viewers, compared with 716,000 for CNN and 1,063,000 for MS NOW. Fox News also led both networks in the 25-54 demographic across total day and primetime for both the quarter and the month. Top-Performing Shows Fox News placed 13 of the top 15 shows in cable news by total viewers for the second quarter, according to Nielsen. “The Five” (5 p.m.): 3,575,000 viewers “Jesse Watters Primetime” (8 p.m.): 3,232,000 viewers “Gutfeld!” (11 p.m.): 2,837,000 viewers “Hannity” (9 p.m.): 2,799,000 viewers “Special Report with Bret Baier” (6 p.m.): 2,723,000 viewers Outside primetime, “The Ingraham Angle” averaged 2.6 million viewers at 7 p.m. for the quarter, and “Fox News @ Night” with Trace Gallagher averaged 1.5 million viewers at 11 p.m. During the day, “America’s Newsroom,” “The Faulkner Focus,” “Outnumbered,” “America Reports,” and “The Story with Martha MacCallum” each led their respective time slots. On weekends, “My View with Lara Trump” ranked as the most-watched primetime program on Saturdays with 1.4 million viewers, while “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo led all weekend programming with 1.9 million viewers.