Democrats sure know how to pick ’em. The donkey party’s new poster boys are not the kind of people whom most Americans would carry on their shoulders. “Maryland Dad” Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been a virtual Democrat role model since the Trump administration deported him to El Salvador on March 15. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., rushed to Abrego Garcia’s side. Maryland’s junior senator visited him at a Salvadoran prison where they peered deeply into each other’s eyes over margaritas. Other Democrats made the pilgrimage to cozy up to Kilmar and “bring him home.” Never mind that the Salvadoran already was home. After all, Democrats never mention this “Maryland Dad” did not just attend PTA meetings. Abrego Garcia is an illegal alien who invaded America in 2011. Two separate federal proceedings ruled him a member of MS-13, the deadly Salvadoran prison gang. His wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, repeatedly told police that Abrego Garcia routinely slapped, hit, and otherwise abused her. Before long, police-cam video surfaced of Abrego Garcia apparently smuggling humans. Tennessee state troopers caught him driving eight illegal aliens from the Tex-Mex border to Maryland, presumably to work illegally. Abrego Garcia drove a vehicle owned by illegal alien Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, a convicted and deported human smuggler. Even worse, a June 6 federal court filing stated: “ … the Government also learned that the defendant solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor, beginning in approximately 2020.” In other words: “solicitation of child pornography.” None of this has cooled Democrats’ passion for Abrego Garcia. They still love him and rallied for his release after Obama-nominated federal Judge Paula Xinis transferred him from Tennessee to Maryland. ICE agents arrested him, but Democrat activists and judges are fighting ferociously to keep him in America, rather than the garden spot that Team Trump envisions for him: Uganda. Not to be outdone, Nyo Myint is a Burmese illegal alien whom the Trump administration deported to South Sudan. According to DHS, he was convicted of “first-degree sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting.” Myint impregnated a 26-year-old with “diminished mental capacity.” Most Americans would have two words for a border breacher who raped a woman who could not fight back. The politest are: “Good riddance.” But not Brian Murphy! The Biden-appointed jurist insisted that Myint and seven other illegal-alien thugs booted to South Sudan—including armed robbers, child rapists, and killers—receive brand-new “reasonable fear” hearings, just in case anything makes them nervous. Democrat hearts also flutter for Harjinder Singh, an Indian illegal alien who infiltrated America in 2019. President Donald Trump’s ICE revoked his work authorization on Sept. 14, 2020. President Joe Biden’s ICE restored it on June 9, 2021. Singh scored two out of 12 on a verbal test and correctly identified just one of four highway signs. UPDATE: Harjinder Singh, an illegal alien from India who killed three innocent people, FAILED an English Language Proficiency assessment. Singh provided correct responses to just 2 of 12 verbal questions and only accurately identifying 1 of 4 highway traffic signs. And yet,… pic.twitter.com/AwndMrW9Vm— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) August 20, 2025 So what? Democrat-led Washington state and California gave this English-language illiterate the commercial driver’s licenses that empowered him to drive an 18-wheel truck through Port St. Lucie, Florida, on Aug. 12. That’s when he attempted an illegal U-turn through an “Official Use Only” lane. Unable to stop, a passenger van smashed into Singh’s truck, killing all three aboard. Singh reacted as nonchalantly as if he had dropped a bubblegum wrapper onto the sidewalk. Never mind! A Change.org petition bears 3.2 million non-MAGA signatures begging to “reduce the sentence” for Singh. “While accountability matters,” the petition weeps, “the severity of the charges against him does not align with the circumstances of the incident.” Pro-Democrat journalists have stood silently by Singh, literally. Newsbusters reports that, through Aug. 26, the ABC, CBS, and NBC morning and evening news broadcasts had not even mentioned Singh’s fatal wreck. The no-borders Democrats have become the party of illegal-alien wife beating, kiddie porn, rape of the mentally handicapped, and vehicular homicide. Keep it up, Democrats! If you aspire to join the Whigs, Know Nothings, and the Confederacy in the Smithsonian Museum of American History, you are on the right path. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Illegal-Alien Poster Boys Confirm Democrats’ Taste for Mayhem 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. Recently, there’s been more revision about World War II. Tucker Carlson had on his show the other day a chemistry professor from Cornell University, David Collum, that was sort of resonating what a prior blogger, Darryl Cooper, had said about World War II, in the vein of Diana West, Pat Buchanan, all the way back to Herbert Hoover. The gist of it was: We should have never allied with the Soviet Union, and we should have either let Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin fight it out or, in the case of David Collum, he suggested that we might have wanted to fight with Hitler, or, in other words, he said we were on the wrong side. But he gave three examples—that’s all I wanna look at—three examples that I think disprove his thesis. No. 1, he said the Soviets had killed 15,000 to 20,000 prisoners of war when they inherited them after freeing them—American POWs—from German prisoner of war camps in the East. That’s not true. There was a joint Soviet-American commission. There were agreements that the Soviets would return American prisoners. There were disagreements about whether the Allies would return Russian prisoners to Russia because some of them had been captured fighting, most of them, for Germany, and Stalin wanted to kill them or work them to death, and they wanted asylum. But other than that, eventually, most of the Americans found their way back to Allied lines and were repatriated. Were there some that we don’t know about today? Yes. But over a four-year period, there were a lot of Americans that were captured and held in German prisoner of war camps, were shot on the battlefield, were blown—we didn’t know what happened to them. But the idea that we would allow 15,000 to 20,000 American POWs in Russian hands to die is not true. It can’t be substantiated. It’s just a suggestion. Another reason why we shouldn’t have allied, according to Collum, we shouldn’t have allied with Russia. The other thing he said, very interesting, was Gen. George Patton wanted to fight with Hitler against Stalin. He did not. At the end of the war on May 9, 1945, George Patton was exhausted. He’d been up every single day for almost a year, with about three hours of sleep. He was tired. He had been fighting over the Falaise Gap. He’d been fighting over the Bulge. Everything he fought—for gas, for food, for Third Army—didn’t come easy. And he said at various times, as proconsul of Bavaria and in charge of a whole state of Germany that was near starvation, that “I can’t operate as a proconsul unless I use German bureaucrats to run the power, to run the water, to run the electricity, to run the sewage. And they’re, no doubt, all Nazis. But I’m going to do it anyway.” That led to further statements. He said—as the Red Army violated the Yalta agreements and the Potsdam agreements and did not hold free elections or free communications and transportation and intercourse between occupied Russian territory and occupied allied territory. A new proto—I guess you would call it—a proto-Iron Curtain had already emerged. And Patton, at one point, said to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and others, “I know we’re going to be in a war, cold or hot, with the Soviet Union. We’re here. Let’s not go back the United States. Let’s confront them, militarily, to make them honor their agreements. And if we don’t have the manpower or the wherewithal”—Russia had 500 divisions, the Allied had about 200—“we can always use veterans from the German army.” That’s about as close to lunacy as he said. It was an unfortunate remark. But he didn’t say, “While Hitler was alive, we should have joined the Nazis to fight Stalin.” The other thing that he said, Mr. Collum, was that we in the United States should have allied—or we had the wrong ally. We should have joined Hitler. And that might have precluded the Holocaust. I don’t think anybody in the United States—Stalin was a monster. He killed 20 million people. We understood that he was the enemy of our enemy. We made a real politic decision to help Stalin kill Hitler, and then we’d deal with Stalin later. You could argue it was an Iran-Iraq 1980-1989 war dilemma. That we armed Saddam Hussein to stop the Iranians. Except, these are not good things to do, but they’re part of real politics. But Hitler was a special case. As far as the Holocaust, the moment he went into Poland, Day One, he started rounding up and killing Jews. There were probably, in occupied Europe and Poland, somewhere between 50,000 to 80,000 Jews that were rounded up and killed, as the ghetto system started to emerge. Hitler killed 50,000 people who had cognitive debilities, they had mental debilities. They were what the Nazis called “retarded.” Fifty thousand killed. When he went into Russia in June 1940, the first thing he did was unleash the Einsatzgruppen to kill Jews. My point: Well before the organized death camps at Auschwitz or Breitenau or Treblinka, he was killing Jews. They were the logical succession to this ad hoc Holocaust, before it was the formal Holocaust that industrialized the mass death project. So, the idea that we would ally ourselves with Hitler, and if we did ally ourselves with Hitler, it would’ve stopped the Holocaust, is absurd. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post WWII Revisionists Went Too Far With ‘We Should’ve Sided With Hitler’ Claim appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Monday, President Donald Trump moved to fire Lisa Cook, a Joe Biden-nominated member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. He moved to fire Cook for “cause,” and that cause is clear enough: According to William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Cook allegedly committed mortgage fraud by lying about her principal place of residence for purposes of securing more favorable interest rates—and then failed to report her rental income from the properties, to boot. Trump’s move is the first time a president has ever tried to fire a Fed governor for cause, and Trump’s usual detractors have criticized him for his latest perceived violation of institutional norms. But Trump has acted appropriately; he is fully within his constitutional and statutorily delegated authority to remove Cook—whether for “cause” or not. Let’s return to first principles. The modern administrative state operates as a fourth branch of government, unmoored from direct political accountability. Its very existence, to say nothing of its present metastasis, is in irreconcilable tension with the American founders’ vision of a clearly delineated tripartite separation of powers between Congress, executive branch and judiciary. Article II of the Constitution vests the entirety of the “executive power” in the hands of the president of the United States. And as Chief Justice William Howard Taft (himself a former president) made clear in Myers v. United States (1926), this includes the power to remove executive branch officers. While the New Deal-era case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) carved out a dubious exception for so-called independent agencies, constitutionalists have long understood Humphrey’s as an aberration in need of reversal. Indeed, the Supreme Court has been chipping away at this edifice. In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the John Roberts’ court held that Congress cannot insulate a lone executive officer—in that case, the director of the bureau—from at-will presidential removal. In Collins v. Yellen (2021), the court extended that logic even further, holding that restrictions on the president’s ability to remove the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency are also unconstitutional. It is true that in Trump v. Wilcox, a case from earlier this year in which the court green-lit Trump’s dismissal of a Biden-nominated member of the National Labor Relations Board, the court did opine that arguments about the legitimacy of for-cause removal provisions for labor board members do not necessarily implicate similar for-cause restrictions for members of the Fed’s board of governors. The court’s brief two-page order in Wilcox described the Fed as a “uniquely structured … entity.” But is it? Or perhaps more precisely—can it legitimately be? Members of the Fed’s board of governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They exercise significant policymaking authority, affecting the economy, interest rates and the value of the dollar. That is executive power under any reasonable understanding of the term. Even more to the point, if the Fed is not part of the executive branch such that the president is able to wield plenary removal power, then where exactly is it? Surely, the Fed is not part of Congress or the judiciary. The Wilcox order opines that the Fed “follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” but this analogy is specious. The First and Second Banks of the United States didn’t actually serve modern central bank functions. And the Fed, birthed in 1913, was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, the godfather of the modern administrative state. Legally, the Fed is more analogous to the rest of the administrative state. Ultimately, Trump must be able to fire members of the Fed’s board of the governors—or else the Fed is structured in an unconstitutional manner. There is no tenable middle ground here. What about the relevant authorizing statute? The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which brought the Fed into existence, sets staggered 14-year terms for governors and doesn’t expressly provide for at-will removal. But it also doesn’t specify what constitutes a legitimate “cause” for a governor’s removal. Congress could have specified that “cause” requires, as Cook’s counsel Abbe Lowell now argues, a Fed governor to first be indicted or convicted of a crime. But Congress didn’t specify that. “Cause” absent such specification is an inherently subjective criterion. And what could be more legitimate of a cause for removing a governor of the nation’s central bank—which is, among other things, the lender of last resort to the country’s financial institutions—than the alleged defrauding of financial institutions? The allegations raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the Fed. It is in the national interest to preserve that legitimacy. Let’s also not forget: Term length does not equal tenure protection. Saying governors serve “for 14 years” is not the same as saying they cannot be removed within that time period. Courts have made this distinction plenty of times before—consider, for instance, the (legitimate) 2017 dismissal of James Comey, who was less than four years into what was to have been a 10-year tenure as FBI director. The lawsuits will come anyway. So be it. Those fights are worth having. Trump’s first term was plagued by internal sabotage from bureaucrats and agency officers who fancied themselves a coequal branch of government. It is imperative that Trump’s second term not repeat that tragic mistake. And the first for-cause removal of a sitting Fed governor sends an unmistakable message: The American people, through their elected president, will once again take the reins of government. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Yes, President Trump Has the Authority to Fire Lisa Cook appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Border czar Tom Homan eviscerated Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday for lacking the “integrity” to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s efforts to keep his state safe. During a summit held by Politico, Newsom accused ICE on Wednesday of being a “private police force” that is showing its allegiance to President Donald Trump over the U.S. Constitution. Homan told “America’s Newsroom” that the California governor is an “embarrassment” and vowed to continue his crackdown on illegal immigrants with heinous criminal records. “It’s disgusting. He’s an embarrassment to the position he holds,” Homan said. “If he had an ounce of integrity, if [Democrat Los Angeles Mayor] Karen Bass had an ounce of integrity, they’d be thanking President Trump for making California safe again. You just listed all the bad people we’ve taken off streets. We’re going to be there today, we’re going to be there tomorrow, we’re not going anywhere. President Trump made a promise to the American people that we’re going to make this country safe again, and that includes L.A. That includes California.” ICE has made about 200,000 arrests and deported about 350,000 illegal immigrant criminals since Trump took office in January, Homan said. The border czar stated that Newsom can “just sit back and watch” as ICE agents make his state safer. “Gov. Newsom can just sit back and watch us make his state safe again because they’ve done nothing. We’ll do it for them,” Homan continued. U.S. Border Patrol and ICE have made 5,000 arrests in Los Angeles since the beginning of their operation in June, the Department of Homeland Security reported on Tuesday. The agents arrested gang members, child predators, murderers, and other heinous illegal immigrant criminals off California’s streets. Newsom has attacked the Trump administration for cracking down on the presence of illegal immigrants in his state. After a raid on a marijuana farm resulted in violence, Newsom framed ICE’s search as an assault on innocent children and labeled Trump as “scum” for allowing agents to allegedly make kids watch their parents be “taken from the fields.” Bass signed a sanctuary order in July to prohibit local officials’ cooperation with ICE. This article originally appeared at the Daily Caller News Foundation. The post Tom Homan Tears Into Newsom for Not Thanking Trump for Cleaning Up His Mess appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—President Donald Trump’s recent policy decisions regarding China could backfire amid trade negotiations with Beijing’s communist regime, China analysts told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Trump announced on Monday that he would allow 600,000 Chinese students to study in the U.S., less than a week after the White House launched an official account on the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok. While the president cast the move as a win-win for America, it caused a rare backlash among a swath of his supporters, and some experts warn it could send a dangerous signal to Beijing. “China is more than happy to send 600,000 potential spies here,” China expert and author Gordon Chang told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We do not, at this crucial moment, need to feed China’s already inflated sense of self-importance.” Trump defended the move Tuesday, saying the students would be fully vetted and arguing they are vital to the survival of American universities. Over 277,000 Chinese international students were admitted to U.S. colleges between 2023 and 2024—many of whom pay full tuition—according to the Institute of International Education. “We’re getting along very well with China. And I’m getting along very well with President Xi [Jinping]. I think it’s very insulting to say students can’t come here because they’ll go out, they’ll start building schools, and they’ll be able to survive it,” Trump said. “I like that their students come here, I like that other countries’ students come here. And you know what would happen? If they didn’t, our college system would go to hell very quickly.” Trump’s announcement does not represent a policy change but maintains existing rules, according a White House official who spoke to Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich. “President Trump isn’t proposing an increase in student visas for Chinese students. The 600,000 references two years’ worth of visas. It’s simply a continuation of existing policy,” the official reportedly stated. The White House declined the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for further comment. Still, Trump’s decision marks a reversal from earlier plans to aggressively revoke visas from Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party. In June, the president also signed a proclamation that sought to block Harvard University from admitting new international students under the visa program, citing national security concerns. “Our adversaries, including the People’s Republic of China, try to take advantage of American higher education by exploiting the student visa program for improper purposes and by using visiting students to collect information at elite universities in the United States,” Trump said in the proclamation. The proclamation was ultimately blocked by a federal judge. Concerns about Chinese espionage have been underscored by recent incidents on U.S. campuses. At Stanford University, students uncovered a pattern of Chinese Communist Party agents attempting to access sensitive research. And in June, two Chinese nationals at the University of Michigan were arrested for allegedly smuggling biological materials into the country. Beijing welcomed Trump’s move on Wednesday, urging Washington to follow through on the president’s commitments and stop “groundlessly harassing, interrogating, or repatriating Chinese students and earnestly protect their legitimate and lawful rights and interests.” Chang said Beijing’s eagerness to send its students to the U.S. reflects the CCP’s nefarious ambitions. “China wants students to come here, believing the flow of talent to America benefits the regime. How do we know this? Beijing would not permit students to come here if it thought we were the net beneficiaries,” Chang said. Steve Yates, a senior research fellow for China and national security at The Heritage Foundation, said he was surprised by Trump’s announcement, given the administration’s broader efforts to curb Chinese influence in the U.S. He added that ongoing trade talks between the two countries likely played a role in the decision. “When you look at everything from the Abraham Accords to the Russia-Ukraine negotiations to the North Korea talks and even how he’s trying to set up the not-too-distant future conversation with Xi Jinping—there’s a deeper logic,” Yates, who also served as deputy national security adviser under former Vice President Dick Cheney, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It could be that the administration is building out what elements are on the table—ones where they feel like they can move and accommodate in the areas where they can’t.” “I think that this access to American education topic is falling into that category of what is building out the tool chest for the give and take negotiations,” Yates added. Chang, however, said the optics and timing of the president’s announcement may work against his own interests. “Trump’s comment, in the middle of a discussion of trade matters, makes it appear that China is doing Trump a favor by sending its students to America,” said Chang. “This perception means that in trade negotiations, Beijing will try to extract some concession from the administration for allowing the flow of students to continue.” Trump’s decision on Chinese students coincides with the administration’s delay in enforcing a ban on TikTok. Congress passed a law in April 2024 banning the app unless it is sold to a non-Chinese owner within a year. Trump had already extended the deadline in January, April and June, and has indicated another extension may come in mid-September. “My main concern is that the CCP is a very different challenge than all others on the planet at the moment. It is a more comprehensive challenge … and I don’t know that this transactional, bilateral negotiation approach captures that just yet,” said Yates. “I am concerned about how one might perceive the direction of these moves on the TikTok account, not compelling the sale of [parent company] ByteDance to an American owner, and the seeming retreat from thorough vetting of who exactly is getting the privilege to come to American universities.” Chang echoed similar concerns, highlighting the broader strategic implications of the administration’s decisions. “President Trump should enforce the law and just ban TikTok. If he does not ban the app, he will be reinforcing Beijing’s notion that Trump has acknowledged his submission to China,” Chang said. “Trump certainly does not feel he has submitted to the Chinese, but it does not matter what Trump thinks. What matters is what the Chinese think, because what they think determines how they act.” This article originally appeared at the Daily Caller News Foundation. The post Trump’s Welcome of 600,000 Chinese Students Plays Into Beijing’s Hands, Experts Say appeared first on The Daily Signal.