It’s likely you know someone who struggles with infertility. Globally, nearly 1 in 6 couples deals with fertility issues. Despite myriad causes for infertility, couples’ options have remained limited to one primary solution: IVF and pharmaceuticals. Couples are stuck treating the symptoms, rather than the causes, of infertility. For the first time, a presidential administration is taking action, and you can play a crucial role in directing what approach it takes. As part of the mission to “Make America Healthy Again,” the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury have now proposed a rule that would allow employers to voluntarily offer a fully customizable fertility benefit. Part of the federal rule-making process includes an opportunity to submit a public comment. These comments give the American people an opportunity to chime in on the regulatory process by offering reasons in support or against proposed rules. Because agencies are required to review every public comment, this is a great way to influence policy that will have a huge impact on access to fertility care. Public comments are not limited to policy wonks. They are an opportunity for everyday Americans to have their voices heard. The Excepted Fertility Benefits rule will help to restore the health of moms, babies, and families across the country. By including fertility benefits in an “excepted benefits” category—like dental or vision care—employers will be able to offer fertility care outside of their main health plan, with far fewer regulatory requirements. If implemented, the rule will make it far easier for employers to offer root cause fertility benefits. In particular, Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM), which seeks to address the root causes behind infertility such as endometriosis, hormonal imbalances and male-factor infertility. And thanks to the Trump administration, RRM might become more accessible to everyday Americans. You can play a role in making it happen by submitting a federal comment. The flexibility of the rule presents an amazing opportunity to expand access to RRM. Allowing employers to opt into less invasive solutions focused on root causes reflects popular support: a March 2026 survey from Carrot found that 89% of women would prefer a less invasive option for treating infertility before other options. RRM is less invasive because it seeks to treat the underlying causes of infertility—empowering couples not only to expand their families but also to lead healthier lives. Because RRM targets root causes, it genuinely treats infertility as opposed to bypassing it to create children in what is often a more expensive, painful, and less successful round of IVF. Moreover, some studies estimate that as many as 97% of all human embryos created in IVF don’t make it to a live birth. Many perish naturally, are indefinitely frozen, or are destroyed. Not only is RRM less expensive and less invasive, but it is also more effective. On average, Americans pay between $15,000 and $25,000 for a single round of IVF. Despite the exorbitant cost, the total IVF live birth rate in the U.S. is 31.9% per cycle according to the CDC. By contrast, RRM costs an estimated $2,000 to $5000 per course. In one of the largest studied cohorts to use RRM, 62.1% of couples took home a baby after a median duration of 10.9 months of treatment. The demand for RRM is there; what is missing is access. This rule presents an opportunity to change that, and public engagement is crucial. While the world of federal rulemaking often feels insulated from the concerns of everyday Americans, it doesn’t have to be this way. The federal government can and should conduct its rulemaking with the health and wellbeing of families in mind. Your comment is that chance to be heard. You can urge the departments to define infertility as a medical condition of the body; to explicitly include RRM and root-cause diagnostic care among what employers can cover; to encourage diagnosis and restorative treatment first; to protect the conscience rights of faith-based employers and employees; and to advance commonsense, pro-life protections that honor families and unborn babies. Heritage Action for America has prepared a sample comment that can be used as a template or submitted as is—it appears once you input your information here. You can submit your comment to the federal government on or before July 13, 2026. By doing so, you can promote more options for families who are struggling with infertility, in pursuit of a simple goal: healthier moms, healthier babies, and stronger families.

Virginia’s gas tax is set to increase on July 1, and that isn’t the only new law that will take effect this summer. One of the legal changes is the implementation of a full ban on expanded polystyrene food containers. The ban applies to any food vendor that sells takeaway food, including restaurants, grocery stores, and catering trucks. Schools will also be prevented from using the containers, which are often called Styrofoam. Last year, a similar ban was applied to large chains and food vendors that have more than 20 locations in the state. The latest update applies the same policies to all vendors. “EPS isn’t the best choice for people or the environment,” the state’s Department of Environmental Quality wrote. “It’s time to learn about and plan for alternatives.” Merchants note that other takeout containers are more expensive than polystyrene, and that those expenses will make it more difficult for them to remain in business. “My wife was looking for different containers, and the prices were actually double the price,” the owner of a food truck told 13 News in Norfolk. “Localities may grant food vendors up to one year exemption for the EPS ban if they can demonstrate compliance with the ban would impose undue economic hardship,” the state said. “Food vendors granted an exemption can reapply to the locality before the exemption expires. Localities may then grant an additional exemption to vendors continuing to demonstrate the ban imposes undue economic hardship.” Another new law, the Clean Slate Act, will allow those convicted of misdemeanors and some low-level felonies to have their criminal records sealed if they have maintained a clean criminal record for seven years. The change could affect as many as 100,000 people, but the onus will be on the convicted people, who will need to proactively apply for the change. Jobseekers will have more information with the enactment of a wage transparency bill. Advertisers will be required to disclose salary ranges as a part of their job postings, so applicants will have a better idea what a potential job pays. Potential employers will also be prevented from asking former employers what an applicant made in a former job. Judges will also be allowed to install speed-governing technology in vehicles driven by certain repeat offenders as a way to prevent reckless driving, and landlords will have to wait 14 days before they can evict people for not paying rent. The current requirement is a five-day waiting period. The highest-profile legal change of the year is up in the air as July 1 arrives. Washington County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Campbell blocked the Virginia State Police from enforcing a law that bans the sale, purchase, manufacture, and transfer of high-capacity semi-automatic weapons and magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. “Because the newly enacted firearms ban and magazine ban would likely run afoul of the protections of the Second Amendment with respect to the types of firearms and components the plaintiffs possess as enunciated in both Heller and Bruen, I find that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims,” the judge wrote. Attorney General Jay Jones has promised to appeal the decision. The state Supreme Court is also expected to weigh in.

National Public Radio had to retract a story announcing the retirement of Justice Samuel Alito after the report was deemed false. The retraction comes after Alito faced widespread criticism over his recent opinions in different Supreme Court cases, including siding with conservative arguments to bar transgender athletes from women’s sports, dissenting in a case involving birthright citizenship, and addressing issues related to mail-in ballots. In a statement issued after the retraction, NPR insisted that the story was published in error. “Editor’s note: Earlier today, we erroneously published a story saying that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring,” the outlet published in a separate statement on its website. “Neither Alito nor the court’s public information office has announced his retirement, and we have retracted the story.” Thomas Evans, editor in chief at NPR, said the reporter has apologized. “Due to a misunderstanding, NPR’s Supreme Court and Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg incorrectly reported that Justice Samuel Alito had retired,” Evans wrote in a statement. “Neither Justice Alito nor the Supreme Court Public Information Office has announced his retirement. As soon as the error was realized, the story was retracted and removed from NPR’s website and an on-air correction was broadcast.” “We regret the error and any confusion this may have caused,” Evans continued. “This afternoon, Mrs. Totenberg will appear on All Things Considered to explain what happened. She has reached out to Justice Alito to apologize.” Speculation about the 76-year-old justice’s retirement arose after he was hospitalized in April, but none of those reports have been reconfirmed. The Supreme Court denied the reported announcement, saying no such statement had been made by the court or Alito himself. NPR and Alito’s Supreme Court chambers did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito tore into the court’s majority for imposing a “medieval” rule on “birthright citizenship” that negates the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, days before the 250th anniversary of America’s founding document. Both justices issued dissenting opinions in Trump v Barbara (2026), in which the court’s 6-3 majority upheld the notion of “birthright citizenship,” that any baby born on U.S. soil—regardless of his parents’ immigration status—is a citizen. Justice Thomas said the court’s majority in Trump v. Barbera (2026) presented a legal argument that was “not historically accurate.” “American citizenship, the court says, was based on a medieval English ‘feudal’ principle, according to which each person ‘owed personal service to the lord of the soil’ as his ‘master’—a perpetual servitude that was ‘born with the child and only ended in the grave,'” he summarized. According to the court’s majority, Americans adopted the feudal principle and Congress codified it in the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. Alito, for his part, cautioned that “before saddling the nation with a medieval rule, we had better be certain the Constitution requires it.” He warned that the court’s decision confers citizenship on “birth tourists,” the children of women who travel to the United States just to give birth. Alito also noted that analysis of the 14th Amendment and its history shows that “it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way.” Rather, it confers citizenship only on children who “owe allegiance solely to this country” at birth. Undermining the Declaration? The court grounded its theory of “birthright citizenship” in English common law and the principle that “the king … owes those ‘born within the dominions’ a duty of ‘protection.'” Yet Thomas, Alito, and Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that America rejected such a “feudal” notion when declaring independence in 1776. “This theory of monarchical power and the status of the people provided the foundation on which the rule of birthright subjecthood stood,” Alito wrote. “In this system of soil and servitude, the court sees ’emancipation,'” Alito wrote. “But our Founders disagreed. The Declaration of Independence emphatically rejected the British theory of government. It proclaimed that governments ‘derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,’ not divine right.” Alito called it “ironic” that the Supreme Court should embrace the opposite claim “only days before we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, which emphatically renounced the foundation on which the British rule rested.” As a matter of history, Alito argued that from 1776 to the Civil War, “the status of the rule in this country was unsettled,” and that the 14th Amendment’s provision “differed substantially from the British rule.” ‘Birthright Subjecthood’ In broad strokes, British common law did provide the basis for America’s legal system. Thomas and Alito do not object to this. Rather, they object to the notion that the Founders and the Congress in writing the 14th Amendment modeled U.S. citizenship off of “birthright subjecthood.” The reasons for the court’s decision arguably trace back to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). When the U.S. attempted to prevent Ark, a Chinese American born in San Francisco, from reentering the country, the Supreme Court held Ark was a citizen, citing his parents’ decision to “have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States.” Both Alito and Thomas emphasized the “domiciled” aspect of the case. The court, however, ruled that any version of “birthright citizenship” taking such a notion into account would fail to apply the 14th Amendment faithfully. Alito and Thomas suggest that the court started with the notion of “birthright citizenship” and reinterpreted American history in light of it. On the contrary, however, they note the plain text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866—a law that Alito argues the 14th Amendment intended to codify—which extended citizenship to persons who were “born in the United States” and “not subject to any foreign power.” While the court’s majority held that the 14th Amendment’s clause extending citizenship to people born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant those physically born in the U.S., Alito and Thomas argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 clearly shows that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant to exclude individuals “subject to any foreign power.” Why Does ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Matter? President Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, 2025, revoking “birthright citizenship” for children born in the U.S. to parents who were unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. When the court ruled that President Trump’s order reversing birthright citizenship was “facially unconstitutional,” Thomas warned, that ruling “makes it unlawful for the president to enforce the order against a single person.” “He cannot enforce the order against a child of an alien enemy or a child of a foreign spy,” Thomas wrote. “He cannot even enforce the order against children who are raised in foreign countries, join foreign armies, and fight wars against the United States.”

Democrats ought to be in a strong position to reclaim the House in November, given the advantages the party out of the White House usually holds in the midterms. But as Democrats’ socialist wing gains power in primaries across the country, is it complicating the party’s pitch to the American people? The party’s left-wing is definitely on a roll. In June, three candidates associated with the democratic socialist movement won U.S. House primaries in New York City.  Notably the candidates all carried Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s endorsement and defeated candidates endorsed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. The likely election of these nominees—who are highly critical of Israel and comfortable with interventionist economic policy—in November marks a big shift within the House Democratic Caucus. The Left Rising in Swing Districts? But the shift to the left is not just occurring in safe Democratic seats—it’s happening in the marginal seats Democrats need to win the House in November. In Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, for example, Matt Dunlap, who is endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has won his party’s nomination, defeating the more moderate Joe Baldacci. The district is a major pick-up opportunity for Republicans as Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, among the most moderate of all House Democrats, is retiring. President Donald Trump received a majority of the votes in the district in 2024. My story?I've always been a Mainer.I was a cook, bartender, dishwasher, union member — you name it.I stood with Bernie Sanders in Maine as his Co-Chair.I'm not running for Congress to be the establishment's pick. I'm running to be the people's pick.Our first ad pic.twitter.com/PZ7iCv9Zcr— Matt Dunlap (@dunlap4congress) May 7, 2026 Additionally, Republicans have a candidate with strong name recognition in former Maine Gov. Paul LePage.  Thus, the race will pit a member of the Democratic Party’s populist wing against an experienced Republican. Similar dynamics could be at play in Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, where Republican Rep. Gabe Evans is seeking reelection after defeating a Democrat incumbent by fewer than 3,000 votes in 2024.  On Tuesday, Democrat voters have a choice between state Rep. Manny Rutinel and former state Rep. Shannon Bird. Rutinel has attacked Bird from the Left by calling attention to her vote against a state bill that would restrict state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Bird has called these attacks a “mischaracterization” of her record, saying she objected to the bill for other reasons. Rutinel has outraised Bird significantly.  He has also attempted to adjust the district’s moderate nature in debates, distancing himself from past statements calling animal agriculture “a horrific, exploitative industry.” Agriculture is a large part of the district’s economy. The Democratic Vision Amid this apparent shift to the left, however, Jeffries appears well positioned to maintain his power within the House. Jeffries has locked down critical support for the January election of the Speaker of the House for the 120th Congress.  On Saturday, he congratulated all four of the new Democrat nominees, referring to them as “our newest members of the NYC congressional delegation,” although the election is not until November. Brad Lander, a Mandani-endorsed candidate who defeated Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., for his party’s nomination in New York’s 10th Congressional District, in turn announced his support for Jeffries. “Looking forward to electing you Speaker in January, and working together for a country everyone can afford, and where we crush far-right extremism (at home & abroad),” he replied to Jeffries. Lander targeted Goldman’s strong support of the state of Israel throughout his campaign. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who is in the Big Apple’s politics, has also given Jeffries her blessing to lead a potential Democrat majority in January, citing his guarantee that he will provide “public housing financing for New York City.”  Colorado has never elected a socialist to Congress. CO-1 candidate and Democratic Socialist Melat Kiros told me: "We already have socialism.""It's in the roads that we drive on, it's in our fire stations, it's in the public schools we send our kids to." pic.twitter.com/cS92JnvNYD— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) June 23, 2026 If Jeffries does secure the Speaker’s gavel in January 2027, he will be starting a tough job, as he will have to work with a powerful socialist insurgency in his party. On Tuesday, Democrats in Colorado’s 1st Congressional District will decide whether to re-nominate Rep. Diana DeGette, who has held the Denver seat since 1997. Melat Kiros, a Democratic Socialists of America member, is challenging DeGette. Kiros recently described her platform to controversial streamer Hasan Piker as “Medicare for all, housing first, universal childcare, abolishing ICE, and more than anything … publicly financed elections.” On Monday, Jeffries distanced himself from the matchup, arguing it is primarily Colorado’s business. “It’s a close race, and we’ll see what happens. Ultimately, it’ll be in the hands of the people of Denver,” said Jeffries, who added, “DeGette has had an extraordinary career.” Related PostsIs Mamdani Taking Over the Country?After three hard-left candidates endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani defeated more establishment-friendly candidates in House Democrat primaries, congressional Democrats are debating whether the results mean the mayor is taking hold of the national party. “Obviously, this is a New York story more than anything else,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Wednesday. “But…Democratic Party Must Contend With ‘Great Schism,’ Potential for ‘Serious Fracture’Last week, Democratic Socialists of America candidates endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani won big in New York, sending shockwaves over the future of the Democratic Party. Is the party in trouble? Is it time for a split? Following those wins, Democratic strategist James Carville insisted it’s time for a “great schism.” “Lady, I ain’t the…Victor Davis Hanson: America’s New Socialists Are Coming From the Upper ClassEditor’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.   We are witnessing in this year of 2026, for the first time really in over a century, a resurgence…