The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is considering new regulations to crack down on wasteful spending and reassert the people’s control over spending decisions for federal grant-making.    OMB coordinates policy implementation across the executive branch. As such, it wields great power over the administrative state, including the disbursement of federal funds. Under the Biden Administration, OMB undercut taxpayers with wasteful spending that hurt America’s research capacity.    The examples of this are, unfortunately, numerous. We can start with the radical climate goals. $42.5 billion was dedicated to a federal broadband initiative that failed to connect a single person, with time and resources instead going to endless red tape. $521 million was spent on electric charging stations, leading to a grand total of 214 being built (it was supposed to create 9,200) by the election. And the EPA collapsed under its own bureaucratic weight, leaving progress updates and essential documentation uncompleted, resulting in $22.6 billion—or roughly 60% of EPA grants—being at high risk of fraud and abuse.  Still more of that wasteful spending came in the form of radical DEI or gender ideology mandates. Take the National Science Foundation—arguably the cornerstone of modern scientific research—which spent more than 10% of its budget, or $2.05 billion, on questionable DEI/gender-based initiatives.  Or, take the Department of Education, which spent $1.006 billion on DEI grants to school districts across America. Or, for some more mundane examples, take the $8 million spent on transgender mice surgery, or $5 million for LGBT affirmation studies, or $1.5 million on DEI in Serbian workplaces—all in the name of science, of course.  OMB’s proposal would fix these and other related issues. It would put political appointees in charge of the awarding process for grants. So, if researchers can’t meaningfully explain the reasonable scientific aims of a project, an appointee would be able to cut or refuse to offer such a grant.   Speaking practically, if a team of supposed “researchers” approached an agency asking for, say, $2 million to support sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala and failed to offer a scientific justification for such a grant, someone accountable to the American people would be able to refuse it.   The proposal would also adjust the suspension and termination processes for grants, including by putting appointees in charge of those processes as well. So when a new administration enters office to find billions in active wasteful spending, as this administration did, it would be able to stop that funding in its tracks.  The proposal further targets areas that are especially vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. It eliminates the use of DEI and disparate-impact theories in grant-making, two tools used by the Biden administration to advance woke ends to the detriment of taxpayers. It would also explicitly bar funds going towards gender ideology and political advocacy, as well as implement Treasury’s Do Not Pay system and DHS’s E-Verify program for grant recipients.  Each of these changes make for strong policy, in part because they are commonsense financial management. DEI, gender ideology, and political advocacy take away dollars that could otherwise go to critical scientific research. And foreign recipients—who are also made subordinate to American-based recipients by this proposal—bring opacity to what should be a maximally transparent process.    As expected, the outrage cycle in the mainstream press has already begun. Both CNN and the New York Times recently ran articles decrying the proposal, fearing it would undercut science and hollow out our democracy.    But the opposite is the case. Remind me, how does spending 10% of the NSF’s budget on DEI improve our research capacity? It doesn’t.   Through this rule, OMB is making sure that appropriated funds for scientific research go to actual scientific research, not radical ideological schemes.  And the irony on the democracy point is all too apparent: How, exactly, does putting bureaucrats in charge of taxpayer money, as opposed to officials appointed by someone elected with a majority of votes from across the country, strengthen our democracy? Again, it doesn’t.   Those expressing “fear for our democracy” in light of this rule but who also believe that unelected technocrats should have the final say over your tax dollars have a wildly different understanding of American democracy than anyone who can reasonably define the word “democracy.”   At base, this proposal brings important clarity to what has as of late been a murky process. It would target areas of financial mismanagement and save the taxpayers money, all while reasserting their control over federal spending. OMB does taxpayers a service by proposing it. 

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) – U.S. consumer inflation slowed more than expected in June, but that will probably offer little comfort to households or rule out an interest rate increase from the Federal Reserve this year, with the conflict in the Middle East still unresolved. The Consumer Price Index increased by a still-high 3.5% in the 12 months through June after surging 4.2% in May, which was the largest year-on-year rise since April 2023, data from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics showed on Tuesday. The CPI fell 0.4% over the month after advancing 0.5% in May. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the CPI rising 3.8% year-on-year and dipping 0.1% on a monthly basis. The pullback in the CPI mostly reflects a retreat in gasoline prices from multi-year highs as a fragile ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran took hold last month. That truce, however, collapsed last week after commercial tankers came under fire in the Strait of Hormuz, triggering military strikes between the United States and Iran. Gasoline prices have reversed course as a result, with the national average rising to $3.86 a gallon on Tuesday from $3.79 a week ago, data from motorist advocacy group AAA showed. Further increases are likely as oil prices rose to a four-week high on Tuesday after the U.S. reimposed a naval blockade of Iran. President Donald Trump said on Monday the United States would reinstate a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global oil supplies, that has become one of the main battlegrounds of the conflict. Excluding the volatile food and energy components, the CPI increased 2.6% year-on-year in June after rising 2.9% in May. The so-called core CPI inflation was unchanged over the month, after gaining 0.2% in May. The U.S. central bank tracks the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Indexes for its 2% inflation target. Inflation was last below 2% in early 2021. Minutes of the Fed’s June 16-17 meeting published last week showed policymakers’ concerns about inflation mounted last month. The Fed left its benchmark interest rate unchanged in the 3.50%-3.75% range at the June meeting, though new projections revealed a growing sentiment around a likely rate hike in 2026. Prior to the inflation data, financial markets were pricing in a roughly 51.9% chance of the Fed raising borrowing costs at its September 15-16 policy meeting, according to CME’s FedWatch tool. (Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

Last year, many Indiana public school teachers promised to end racist diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in schools. If successful, such assurances and the policies that follow would be models for other states. How’s it going? Turns out, the racism in public education runs deep. This week, the Indiana Family Institute released an audit of DEI in the state’s K-12 schools and found that significant work remains. While some school officials have wiped DEI statements from their websites along with mentions of so-called antiracism, auditors report, “Quietly deleting DEI language from websites may improve public perception, but it does not ensure that the policies, trainings, and practices themselves have been dismantled.” The audit demonstrates that district administrators have snuck DEI in through the back door by way of staff positions, professional development for teachers, curricula, strategic planning, and student programming. Educators carefully renamed certain activities and positions without changing the descriptions, allowing DEI to persist under the radar. Auditors even identified recommendations from the state Department of Education that continue to apply DEI-related concepts to instruction. For example, the Indiana Department of Education recommends a literature curriculum called “Wit & Wisdom” that teaches students to interpret reading assignments from the perspective of “power, oppression, race, gender, and social identity.” Some of the materials showcasing the work of communist artists are included in assignments for kindergarteners. In Carmel Clay Schools, just 30 minutes north of Indianapolis, school officials use equity grading techniques to evaluate student work. These grading practices assume that ethnic minorities are oppressed in public school systems and need lower standards just to get by. Districts such as San Diego Unified in California adopted equitable grading practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, making schoolwork effectively optional for students. In Carmel Clay, students can turn in blank assignments and still receive 50% credit. And as in San Diego, students can take exams more than once to improve their scores. Policies such as this do not inspire student achievement but, instead, foster the soft bigotry of low expectations. Carmel Clay is a particularly stark example, as the Family Institute’s audit provides pictures from middle and high schools in the district that promote drag queens and “transgenderism” on hallway placards. Officials from other districts have been more subtle. In Fort Wayne, near the Ohio border, school personnel have renamed DEI staff positions while keeping the responsibilities the same. One “director of DEI” role was simply changed to “director of students & staff relations.” The Family Institute’s report has nearly 70 pages filled with examples. The use of racial preferences and advocacy for radical gender policies conflicts with state and federal civil rights laws, as well as basic biology. “Rather than fostering unity, DEI frameworks often encourage resentment, categorize individuals as oppressors or the oppressed, and shift focus away from merit, personal responsibility, and shared citizenship,” said the Indiana Family Institute’s Ryan McCann. Given the findings, the report recommends additional audits of every public school district in Indiana. Researchers should review curricula, scour school policies for violations of parental rights, and confirm that hiring and promotion practices are based on merit. State legislators should prohibit the use and application of DEI and racial preferences in school materials. Policymakers should consider the provisions from Idaho and Florida that say no teacher or student can be compelled to affirm an idea that violates civil rights laws. Meanwhile, local school boards should not wait for state lawmakers to act but should adopt policies that reject racial preferences and stop instruction that tells students they can choose a different gender. No child should be discriminated against because of skin color or sex, and DEI betrays the idea of equality under the law by advocating for racism in the name of equity. Yet instead of treating students equally, DEI policies create favored classes through gross violations of civil rights statutes. The Indiana Family Institute has performed a valuable service for policymakers and moms and dads. While Indiana K-12 law is too lenient for now and hardly a national model, the Family Institute’s audit is a design worth repeating around the country.

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. Victor Davis Hanson: If you look at George W. Bush, people—his reputation has gone up a little bit because he broke with [Donald] Trump, the next Republican. I’m not sure he voted for Trump, and he made his peace with [Barack] Obama.   There were three things that people fault Bush for. I’m not sure he was responsible. No. 1 was the Iraq War. No. 2 was the Afghan War. No. 3 was the 2008 financial meltdown. I think he was the most conservative Republican president that we have had since forever.  He was much more conservative than his father, George H.W. Bush. He tried to do a lot of things. I think part of the problem was they thought they could deal with the Democrats. So, they did things like prescription-drug entitlement and things in education that didn’t work out. But they thought that the Left would appreciate that magnanimity, and they interpreted that as weakness.  So, when you look at Iraq, on the plus side of the ledger, after 9/11, we were told that they were going to blow up airliners, 10 or 11 of them, in the Philippines. We uncovered a lot of al-Qaeda plots, and there were a lot of foiled efforts. And for all the false WMD narratives about Saddam [Hussein], we really never knew what happened to the WMDs.  We knew he had them, and they might have gone to Syria because we know they were used later by the Assad government in Syria. But that hurt him when Colin Powell went before the United Nations and said, “This is WMD, and they’re going to do this and this and this.”   But that being said, Iraq never quite degenerated like Afghanistan.  So, today they actually are working with the United States to expel Iranian influencers. And they do have elections. And we have Americans still there advising the Iraqi government.   Was it worth all those deaths and mayhem and casualties? I don’t know. We’ll see, but I don’t think it was. I supported the war, and I’m someone who supported it to the end.  The only thing that was very bad for Bush is the people who really had called for that war was the Committee for the New American Century. That was Bill Kristol, Fareed Zakaria, Robert Kagan bipartisan effort. And almost all of those people turned on the war, not so much as Richard Perle did or David Frum— all of those neocons did.  And then, you know, as Matthew Ridgway said, “The only worse thing than a bad war is losing it.” So Bush was orphaned, is what I’m saying. There were a lot of conservative scholars, neocons, that said, “You’ve got to go and deal with this, and then if you knock him out and you put a consensual government, it will spread like wildfire.”  That didn’t happen. It did corral Iran for a few years. And then the Afghanistan thing—it was a brilliant campaign. We removed the Taliban in eight weeks. We had a government there, the Karzai government. Everything was going well, and then we diverted a lot of resources to Iraq.  But the problem was everybody said the Afghan war was the good war because it was stable and the Taliban were in hiding and regrouping, and Iraq was the bad war. Why didn’t we just get a Karzai? Why didn’t we just do it like Afghanistan?  Well, the problem was Afghanistan was always the problem. It was landlocked. It had no ports. It was in a terrible neighborhood. The terrain was terrible. The weather was terrible. The Taliban were completely fanatic. They were being supported all around their borders.  We had to deal with the Chinese, with the Russians, with the Pakistanis. Iraq was flat. It was arid. The weather was clear. We had access to a port, and the Iraqi people were somewhat industrialized and educated compared to Afghanistan.  So, once people kept saying that Afghanistan was a good war, but when Obama just pulled all the troops out of Iraq, Iraq had a bumpy period. It was stable.   When Obama took office, there were fewer Americans dying in Iraq each week than the accident rate. It was stable.  And then he pulled out and he said, don’t worry, ISIS are JVs. And the ISIS people took over. Then we came back in under Trump and bombed the blank out of them.  And so, Iraq is a work in progress, but it’s better than under Saddam Hussein. But I don’t know if it was worth the cost in American lives.   I think Americans feel that not one American is worth what—when you see the stuff that’s going on in the Middle East and the idea that we’re going to go over there and try to change their minds, I don’t think so.  It’s more worrisome that they’re coming over here and trying to change our minds.  And then very quickly, the financial—that was a Democratic project in Congress, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   Sami Winc: You mean the 2008 financial crash?   Hanson: Yes. That was the idea that we needed to get homeownership up over 60%.  And we had these subprime loans to people who were not qualified. And then even the interest sometimes was adjusted because they were bad risks, so they couldn’t make the interest payments anyway. It was all speculating on people on Wall Street.  Barney Frank was right at the middle of that. He was in the House Banking Committee, and he was basically calling people racist who were opposing these reckless loans and the speculation.  So, all these banks were making these loans, and then they were saying they were guaranteed by the federal government. But the guarantees of the federal government covered what—5%, 2% of the loan portfolio?  So, when one started to go, everybody wanted to—they all started to default. And then the people who were covering the default didn’t have the capital, and the government had to step in.  And that said, people sometimes forget that happened in September. So, there was the end of September, one; October, two; November, three; December, four; and January, five.  When Obama came into office, things were stabilized. If he had just let the actual market forces continue, we wouldn’t have had that 9% unemployment and 0% or 1% growth for his first five years.  He made it a lot worse with all those crazy programs—Cash for Clunkers, Obama phones, those huge deficits. It didn’t do any good at all, among other things.  Bush did some good things on the conservative side. The only thing that I really disagreed with him—he had tax cuts, and he came in with a surplus that the Gingrich-Clinton compromises for the last four years under [Bill] Clinton had given us.  He came in—we were in a mild recession. The dot-com boom had busted. So, he thought tax cuts would spur growth, but he didn’t insist on budget cuts.  So, we started this cycle where we were working to pay off the debt, and he cut taxes, and he actually got some more revenue for a while, and then all the spending—like prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind, all these massive programs.  It wasn’t representative. I hope Trump looks at that. I hope when these midterms are over, he really recalibrates and reboots DOGE, and then if he’s going to have these big tax cuts—and they’ve already hit—we’re going to have deficits unless we start cutting, cutting, cutting.  Winc: Yeah. Well, Victor, we need to go to a break and then come back.  Hanson: Oh, I should say one last thing—that George Bush was treated, I think, very unfairly by a lot of American people. They call him—all this idea that Trump is unusual and we’ve never called a president a fascist or a Nazi—  Al Gore said Bush and [Dick] Cheney were digital brown shirts. [Angela] Merkel said it was the old Nazi thing. John Glenn said that.  That was mainstream. He was the first president that they really called a Nazi. The Left hated George Bush, and they hated Cheney.  And then, as always happens, when the next Republican came, they transferred their hate and said, “Trump is now the new Nazi, and those other guys, they weren’t that bad. We like them.”  And they said that exactly about George H.W. Bush. They said, “He’s a wimp. He’s a fascist. But compared to W, we like him.”  And they said the same thing about [Ronald] Reagan. “He’s a fascist. He’s horrible. He’s terrible. But compared to George H.W. Bush, who’s a meanie and went to war, we kind of like Reagan.”  And that’s what they always do.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

A select group of Republicans on the House Budget Committee were called to Camp David for a “hush-hush” Reconciliation 3.0 meeting with House leadership Friday. After months of planning, Republicans are now acting on legislation that could determine if they keep the majority in the midterms. Committee members who were invited met at the White House on Sunday afternoon. After their phones were taken, the select Republicans boarded a bus for a two-hour drive to the secret meeting. Following the meeting, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced that the committee will take its first steps on legislation President Donald Trump calls a “must pass.” According to Johnson, Reconciliation 3.0, which will begin on Wednesday with a markup of the budget resolution, “will include our nation’s most immediate priorities.” In recent months, Republican committee members have met with congressional leadership and Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, multiple times to discuss attempts at Reconciliation 3.0. However, the meeting at Camp David revealed the White House’s involvement. While there are whispers the president attended, a meeting at Camp David was not on his schedule. Johnson confirmed that White House officials and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise were present. Other committee members who attended the meeting include Brandon Gill and Chip Roy of Texas, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, and Mike Carey of Ohio. Committee members who did not attend include Erin Houchin of Indiana and Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma. Arrington will brief all committee members about the Camp David meeting on Monday night. Three GOP staffers familiar with the event confirmed that rank-and-file members had their phones taken before boarding the bus. The meeting was described as “last minute,” “hush-hush,” and “mostly unstaffed.” “We were a little caught off guard by it,” one source familiar with the meeting said. The meeting, which was planned on Friday, required members to rush back to Washington early while many were in their districts for the weeklong recess. Secret Service officials could not be reached to confirm whether the meeting’s protocol followed standard procedure. Reconciliation 3.0 Reconciliation is a Senate procedure that allows budget legislation to pass with 51 votes instead of the required 60 votes, avoiding the filibuster. The last major reconciliation package was the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” which delivered more than $1.6 trillion in tax cuts to Americans. In June, Congress passed Reconciliation 2.0, the Securing America Act, which provided funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Reconciliation 3.0, which is still awaiting a bill name, will include Republicans’ final efforts before the midterm season. They have less than eight days in session to meet their deadline. In June, The Heritage Foundation released “Setting the American Opportunity Agenda,” a special budget and spending report meant to guide Congress toward a successful third reconciliation. It includes lowering health care costs through price transparency, reducing fraud, expanding opportunities for families, ending federal funding for abortion, and protecting American workers and taxpayers. The House Freedom Caucus, represented on the Budget Committee by Brecheen, Roy, Gill, and Stutzman, also has released goals for reconciliation. Members are pushing to undo President Joe Biden’s climate policy, end federal funding for abortion, eliminate fraud, and prevent the possibility of another Democrat shutdown. The caucus also seeks to prioritize dollar-for-dollar spending cuts.