A cold winter is well underway in the American Midwest, and the ice is taking many forms. The weather has been dark and forbidding, but the other frozen form is in the shape of assisted suicide. On Dec. 12, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, signed into law a bill that makes his state the 13th jurisdiction in the nation (assisted suicide is already lawful in 11 other states and the District of Columbia) to permit physician-assisted suicide, euphemistically referred to as medical aid in dying, or MAID. As a nation with a concentration of liberal public policies on its West and East coasts, the United States now has its first heartland state to embrace a practice that is spreading around the world. Coincidence or not, the assisted suicide debate is taking place against a background of soaring health care costs and governments operating at historically high deficits. Illinois is not an exception to the general trend, with a projected budget deficit of $267 million in 2026 that could rise as high as $2 billion in fiscal year 2027. Much of the deficit is attributed to spiking pension costs for retirees. Illinois is in the second-lowest tier for total fertility among the states, hovering in the range of 1.50 to 1.59 children per woman. Its law imposes no limits of substance on abortion. The pressure under the new MAID law to choose death near the end of life is likely to be as intense there as it has proved to be everywhere else assisted suicide has been legalized. Meanwhile, across the pond, the grueling, yearlong debate in the British Parliament grinds on. There, resistance from disability groups and medical institutions has remained consistent with the rare result that, to date, the House of Lords has proved itself capable of mounting serious opposition to an aid-in-dying bill that has lost altitude at each stage of what was expected to be a smooth path to passage. The leading figure in advocacy for the revolutionary bill is Lord Charles Leslie Falconer, a 74-year-old member of the Labour Party who has served in a variety of high positions in the British government, most notably as lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice under Prime Minister Tony Blair from 2003 to 2007. The legislation formally known as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill is pending in what is called the Committee Stage of the extended process. During this stage, bills are scrutinized line by line, and lords may offer amendments as they see fit. As of Dec. 19, the fourth day of reviews and votes on the amendments, peers had introduced more than 1,000 amendments to the bill, leading to the prospect that the traditionally required debates and votes on the amendments would forestall any vote on final passage. If that occurs, the clock would run out on the bill in this session of Parliament and it would be defeated. The situation has been likened to a filibuster, and it has prompted some members of the lords who oppose the bill to urge that a final vote be allowed to occur out of concern that a tactical defeat of the bill by the unelected House of Lords would put that body at risk of severe reform or even abolition. However, the amendments being offered concern serious topics that were left unaddressed when the House of Commons passed the bill last June by the relatively narrow margin of 314 to 291. One persistent theme is the long record of assisted suicide bills threatening the lives of the poor, the disabled, and other vulnerable members of society. On Dec. 19, Baroness Sue Gray, former chief of staff to the current and very liberal Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, criticized the bill sharply as a menace to the vulnerable, saying there was “nothing in the Bill that would stop a person accessing an assisted death for reasons that were nothing to do with their illness but simply because they had been too worn down for too long by problems that could have been solved with the right care, attention and funding.” She cited the homeless as at particular risk, with their numbers rising across the United Kingdom. Supporters of the assisted suicide measure broadly contend that 90% or more of the amendments being discussed are not substantive and many are designed merely to deter movement through the Committee Stage. At this point, the amendments’ substance is debated but no individual votes are held on them. Supporting groups like Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision are striving to convert the arguments from the content of the bill to the procedures involved in reaching a final vote. The House of Lords has already scheduled up to 10 Friday debates on the bill in 2026, which will carry the fight to the threshold of the March deadline for passage or expiration. Opponents of assisted suicide seem as determined as ever to defeat the bill, and they have garnered support from an array of forces that is difficult to stereotype—even as assisted suicide proponents deplore the participation of many in the debate, including U.K. religious leaders. Care, Not Killing is an alliance of individuals and groups that champion the disabled and human rights, including health care providers and faith-based organizations. It has focused on research- and policy-based arguments against the assisted suicide bill, pointing to the evolution of practices in other countries where assisted suicide and euthanasia have advanced. It states, “The pressure people will feel to end their lives if assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized will be greatly accentuated at this time of economic recession with families and health budgets under pressure. Elder abuse and neglect by families, carers and institutions are real and dangerous and this is why strong laws are necessary.” Lord David Alton, a lifelong advocate for the right to life of the unborn (an issue where further liberalization of the law is also being pursued), cites a particularly stark example of the pressure and coercion that can be imposed on certain patients. He quotes the late Baroness Warnock’s statement that “if you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives—your family’s lives—and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service. … Maybe it has to come down to saying: ‘Okay, they can stay alive, but the family will have to pay for it.’ Otherwise, it will be an awful drain on public resources.” Baroness Warnock, who passed away in 2019, gained worldwide fame over her involvement in establishing the British policy on embryo research that created the 14-day rule, a construct under which new human life could be subjected to experimentation and destruction up to two weeks after fertilization. Other key amendments to be debated and voted on in the House of Lords deal with vital matters like the scope of eligibility for assisted suicide, how and when the subject may be broached with patients who have not raised it, the value of the six-month-left-to-live rule, the conscience rights of objecting health care personnel and institutions, and other matters. For example, the bill as introduced defines, in line with similar measures around the globe, a terminal illness as a patient that “(a) has been diagnosed by a registered medical practitioner as having an inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment (‘a terminal illness’); and (b) as a consequence of that terminal illness, is reasonably expected to die within six months.” Clauses like this are widely cited but deserve far deeper scrutiny. Examples of patients outliving their diagnosis are numerous, and there is the related question of how a given diagnosis may inhibit treatments that may be expensive or that come into being during this “reasonable” six-month interval. A cursory look at new drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2025 lists eight with application for cancer treatment out of 41 total approvals year to date. What was reasonable as the year began regarding any particular condition may be obsolete as the year ends. Medical science is providing increased hope and increased options at an unprecedented rate. Assisted suicide ends options and ignores the fact that (and here the contribution of artificial intelligence analysis of mass amounts of data may prove invaluable) we live in an age of exploding medical possibilities (in tandem with challenges regarding cost and other factors that will challenge us to reach consensus). The long and short of it is that assisted suicide represents science and ethics gone off the rails. The tendency of these laws to grow in scope, to expand the idea of terminal conditions, or abandon them altogether, continues. Canada is a mere 16 months away from potentially adding mental illness as a criterion for eligibility for assisted suicide. Data on suicide and mental illnesses in Western nations shows a negative trend that is worrisome even in the absence of a debate over assisted suicide as a solution. The events in Illinois, and another domino about to fall in New York state, show how quickly protections for life can crumble. Today there truly is heartbreak in the heartland. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. Originally published by The Washington Stand The post Assisted Suicide Comes to the American Heartland appeared first on The Daily Signal.

WASHINGTON, Dec 31 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday his administration was removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, but he added in his social media post that federal forces will “come back” if crime rates go up. Local leaders in those cities and Democrats have said the deployments, which have faced legal challenges, were unnecessary. They have accused the Trump administration of federal overreach and of exaggerating isolated episodes of violence at mostly peaceful protests to justify sending in troops. Trump, a Republican, has said troop deployments in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis and Portland were necessary to fight crime and protect federal property and personnel from protesters. “We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” Trump wrote. “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” Trump started deploying troops in June amid protests against his hardline immigration policies including efforts to ramp up deportations. He also deployed troops to Washington and took control of local police in response to what he said was rampant crime using his unique authority as president over the U.S. capital. Military officials have been winding down and scaling back the deployments in recent months as litigation has left them in limbo. (Reporting by Kanishka Singh and Ryan Patrick Jones; editing by Diane Craft) The post Trump Says He’s Pulling National Guard From Chicago, LA, and Portland appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When Jan. 1 rolls around, New York City will have its first self-avowed socialist mayor. As a New York resident and a keen observer of Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s rise to power, I thought it worthwhile to write what I expect of him in the new year. A lot is riding on Mamdani’s success for the Left. He’ been touted as the way of the future for the Democratic Party. He’s the Barack Obama for a new generation, just as the old Obama becomes passe. Whereas Obama carefully laid the groundwork for the radical turn in American government and institutions leading up to the Great Awokening of 2020, my feeling is that Mamdani will be more open and aggressive in the way he promotes his agenda. Obama insisted he was neither a Muslim nor a socialist. His replacement proudly says he’s both and is hardly concerned about being lumped in with some seriously radical folks. He wants to show everyone that real socialism is going to be tried this time, and it will work great when the cameras are rolling. While Mamdani can’t run for president, given that he wasn’t born an American citizen, he will almost certainly have a huge amount of influence in state and national politics. The media will amplify his every action, downplay his setbacks, and tout every policy as a remarkable and incredible success. Gov. Kathy Hochul, who was already browbeaten into endorsing him, will have a difficult time refusing Mamdani’s demands. Any attempt by New York state leaders to constrain his ability to act will likely be treated as a betrayal of the energized voters who put him in office. What will the Zohran Mamdani era mean for Democrats?Nothing good ever came from socialism—and I suspect Americans will quickly sour on his misguided ideas.? @NEWSMAX pic.twitter.com/C8wolpb6Yn— Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) December 31, 2025 Universal childcare, free buses, and even the government-run grocery stores he promised will need significant funding and approval from the state government. Will Democrats who effectively run the state be able to tell him “no” when the money runs out or isn’t there to begin with? And if at any point the city, state, or federal government refuses to foist over money to pay for his numerous programs, he’ll have a built-in excuse for why they failed and enemies to pin the blame on when they do. Though I’d almost certainly bet on Mamdani’s project ultimately failing in New York, let’s not set the bar too low here. This is perhaps in part why President Donald Trump held his fire when Mamdani came to visit the White House. It never helps to be hysterical. The expectation should be that things will work out. After all, New York is one of the great cities of the world, the heart of American finance, and has proven to be quite functional when managed successfully. You can be sure that if the city doesn’t immediately turn into a real life “Escape from New York” the day Mamdani enters office it will be spun as proof that his critics were wrong. That shouldn’t be the standard. If Mamdani’s socialist ideas are so great and can make an unaffordable blue city a suddenly affordable socialist paradise, his standard for success shouldn’t just be modern Venezuela with worse weather. I suspect that Mamdani won’t be pleased just to keep the free buses running on time. His 400-person transition team is so filled with loonies that you could post a list of the names on a wall, throw a dart at it, and expect to find someone who demands the police be abolished on a committee for safety, a transgender rabbi working on a committee for health, or a literal career criminal among a crowd of Democratic Socialists of America organizers, radical academics, and staffers of the previous disastrous regime of former Mayor Bill de Blasio. The best thing that could be said about Mamdani’s transition team is that perhaps he is simply awarding campaign loyalists and will simply jettison them later when he doesn’t need them. More likely, he will be using the New York government apparatus as a training ground for his activist army. But there are other signs that Mamdani really means to carry through with the far-left’s war against human nature. In early December, Mamdani announced that he will stop shutting down homeless encampments in the city. In 2022, the soon-to-be former Mayor Eric Adams wisely decided to shut down the homeless encampments that were popping up in the city and provided opportunities for those on the street to enter homeless shelters. I hesitate to elevate this move the level of “wisdom.” It was simply common sense. Pockets of homeless people, where drug use was rampant, were popping up through the city. Mamdani apparently saw that and thought that he’d rather turn New York into San Francisco, where open air drug markets and tent cities are the norm. This doesn’t seem like a person who will suddenly tack to the center and work on bringing high quality, competent governance to the city. That would be the shrewd thing to do. Promise socialism but make sure it works by not following through and pretending it did. That outcome seems unlikely. I’d expect Mamdani to use every tool at his disposal to ensure that the perception is that he’s ushering in an irresistible tide of socialism in America. He will do television appearances, he’ll make slick social media posts about how he’s stopping Trump, and he’ll do his part to ensure that the Democratic Party’s socialist faction emerges triumphant in 2028. He will also push through with his most high-profile programs and make a grand show demonstrating that they “work” as the city slowly deteriorates. That’s what I predict is in store for the Big Apple’s new mayor. The city is in for some interesting times. The post What’s in Store for Mamdani’s ‘New Era’ in New York appeared first on The Daily Signal.

An indicted member of Congress topped one watchdog’s list of top ethics violators of 2025 that also includes nonprofits and the mayor of the nation’s capital.  The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a conservative-leaning watchdog group, is closing out the year with a short list based on numerous ethics complaints against individuals and groups.  Here are the four who made the ethics group’s dishonor roll for 2025. 1. Cherfilus-McCormick Indicted  FACT filed a complaint against Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., in early 2025 with the Office of Congressional Conduct alleging her family-owned company, Trinity Healthcare Services, got $5.8 million in overpayments from the state of Florida’s Department of Emergency Services.  Much of that money came through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. So, FACT also referred the matter to the Department of Justice.  The state agency and Trinity reached a settlement to repay the money over a 15-year period.  In November, a federal grand jury indicted Cherfilus-McCormick on 15 counts. Her arraignment was reportedly scheduled for Monday but was rescheduled for Jan. 20.  After the charges, Cherfilus-McCormick asserted, “This is an unjust, baseless, sham indictment—and I am innocent.” “The timing alone is curious and clearly meant to distract from far more pressing national issues. From day one, I have fully cooperated with every lawful request, and I will continue to do so until this matter is resolved,” Cherfilus-McCormick continued. “I am deeply grateful for the support of my district, and I remain confident that the truth will prevail. I look forward to my day in court. Until then, I will continue fighting for my constituents.” Cherfilus-McCormick’s office did not respond to inquiries for this story.  2. DC Mayor Goes to Qatar FACT made a complaint this year about a 2023 trip by Washington D.C. Mayor Murial Bowser to Doha, Qatar. The FACT complaint alleged that Bowser’s office first mischaracterized the funding source of the trip, as well as costs for hotels, flights, and hospitality. The complaint also said the trip lacked documented public purpose or transparent disclosure. The trip was funded by the Qatar government for a climate conference.  ABC 7 News in Washington first reported that the government of Qatar paid $61,930 for Bowser and four staff members to fly to the Middle East in 2023. Bowser has defended the trip and said she takes trips around the country and the world to help the D.C. economy.  The Justice Department is reportedly investigating the visit, but Bowser is not a target. Bowser’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this story.  3. Stacey Abrams-Tied Nonprofits FACT filed several complaints against two nonprofits tied to twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.  FACT notes that one of those organizations, the New Georgia Project, shut down, which is “a closure FACT cites as validation of the serious financial concerns raised in its filings,” the group said.  The Daily Signal reached out to the New Georgia Project by the email and phone number listed on the website that still exists. The group’s most recent press release was in September 2024.  The other Abrams-tied group is Fair Fight Action, which still operates. No one from the organization responded to phone and email inquiries.  A spokesperson for Abrams did not immediately respond to email inquiries from The Daily Signal for this story. FACT alleged the organizations misused their tax-exempt status by blurring the lines between charity and political activism. FACT’s complaints argued that the two organizations engaged in campaign-like activity and political advocacy without proper disclosure. 4. Whitehouse Alleged Conflicts In February, FACT filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that individuals with interests before the Senate paid $7 million to a nonprofit Ocean Conservancy run by Whitehouse’s wife Sandra Whitehouse. Ocean Conservancy has gained $14 million in government grants since the senator’s wife began working there in 2008, according to FACT.  “The concern is that these contributions came from parties potentially impacted by legislation or oversight, constituting a serious conflict of interest, especially if Whitehouse’s official actions or influence played any role in directing the funding,” FACT says in the ranking.  Whitehouse’s spokeswoman notes that the Senate Ethics Committee reviewed the matter and dismissed the complaint.  “FACT’s dark-money donors can’t be too pleased that the group’s highlight of the year is an erroneous complaint that was long ago dismissed by Senate Ethics,” Whitehouse communications director Meaghan McCabe told The Daily Signal. The post Watchdog Points to 4 Biggest Ethics Violators of 2025 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE CENTER SQUARE—The U.S. House Oversight Committee called on Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to testify regarding alleged fraud throughout the state.  Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., called on Walz and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to testify at a hearing scheduled for Feb. 10.  “American taxpayers demand and deserve accountability for the theft of their hard-earned money,” Comer said. “Congress has a duty to conduct rigorous oversight of this heist and enact stronger safeguards to prevent fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, as well as strong sanctions to hold offenders accountable.” Fraud allegations first surfaced in November when reports stated millions of taxpayers’ dollars were stolen from the state’s welfare system and sent to a Somali-based terror group.  The allegations intensified last week when independent journalist Nick Shirley posted a video that claimed to reveal $110 million in fraud at Minnesota child care centers.  The committee will also convene a hearing Jan. 7 with Minnesota Reps. Kristin Robbins, Walter Hudson and Marion Rarick, Republicans in the state House of Representatives. Comer said these state lawmakers issued warnings about the alleged fraud in Minnesota but were ignored by the Walz administration.  “Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison have either been asleep at the wheel or complicit in a massive fraud involving taxpayer dollars in Minnesota’s social services programs,” Comer said. “American taxpayers demand and deserve accountability for the theft of their hard-earned money.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday that it has frozen the sending of taxpayer dollars to Minnesota day care centers. The department sends $185 million each year to child care centers in Minnesota.  “This misconduct cannot be swept aside, and Congress will not stop until taxpayers get the answers and accountability they deserve,” said Comer. Originally published by The Center Square. The post Oversight Committee Calls Walz to Testify on Suspected Minnesota Fraud appeared first on The Daily Signal.