A woman is dead in Minnesota. An ICE officer killed her. Those two facts are undisputed.  Everything else has become a Rorschach test for American politics.  Within hours of the incident, the narrative crystallized: federal agents had become death squads hunting immigrants.   Protests erupted. Politicians demanded accountability. Mainstream news ran wall-to-wall coverage of a deportation regime “gone too far.”  But here’s the question nobody’s asking: If the video evidence shows a woman repeatedly breaking the law before being shot, why hasn’t the story changed? Why did public perception form in minutes and calcify into certainty, impervious to new information?  The answer reveals something far more troubling than one tragic incident. It exposes the machinery of how Americans now form opinions and why we can no longer agree on basic facts.  The Numbers Don’t Match What They’re Telling You  Let me walk you through what Cygnal’s polling actually shows, because it contradicts nearly everything you’ve heard.  In July 2025, we found 61% of voters supported deportation efforts. But 48% opposed using ICE raids as the mechanism, with 50% in support. That’s a statistical tie, not a complete lopsided opposition like the mainstream narrative has been pumping.  Fast forward to last week. Our latest poll showed 50% believed Trump’s deportation efforts were going “too far.”  Headlines screamed about massive opposition to ICE tactics. Pundits proclaimed a turning point.  But look at the actual numbers: 48% opposition in July. 50% “too far” in January. That’s a two-point movement over six months, well within any poll’s margin of error. In polling terms, that’s noise, not a signal.  More importantly, this January poll was conducted immediately after an ICE officer killed a woman who had broken multiple laws and attempted to harm him. If there were ever a moment when opposition might spike dramatically, that was it. And the needle barely moved.  So, where’s all this “growing opposition” coming from?  The composition of who opposes tells the story: 91% of liberals say Trump’s deportation efforts go too far. Ninety-one percent.  Now ask yourself: What ideology dominates mainstream newsrooms? What worldview shapes editorial decisions at major networks and newspapers?  When 91% of one ideological group believes something, and that group overwhelmingly controls media institutions, their perspective becomes “the” perspective. Their concerns become national crises. Their interpretation becomes the default frame.  The numbers haven’t changed. The megaphone amplifying one side of those numbers has.  The Radicalization of ‘Resistance’  Here’s a statistic that should alarm everyone, regardless of where you stand on immigration: 61% of white liberal women ages 18-44 believe it’s acceptable to go “beyond peaceful protests in response to immigration raids.”  Cygnal asked this question in October. Nationally, 70% of Americans disagreed. Only 24% said yes, effectively endorsing lawbreaking when you disagree with enforcement.  But within that specific demographic, nearly two-thirds said yes.  Think about what “beyond peaceful protests” means. Blocking traffic. Interfering with law enforcement operations. Physical confrontation. These aren’t abstract concepts. They’re the exact sequence of events that led to a woman’s death in Minnesota.  I’ve spent my career studying how emotions drive political behavior.   What we’re seeing here goes beyond passionate disagreement. One demographic slice has convinced itself that laws become optional when enforcement conflicts with their values.   And the media ecosystem they consume reinforces this belief daily. They’re the “oppressed”, and they must rise up against the oppressor.  When two-thirds of any group believes lawbreaking is justified, that belief will eventually manifest in action. Minnesota wasn’t random. It was inevitable.  The woman who died wasn’t acting irrationally by her own moral framework.   Renee Good absorbed years of messaging that Trump is a dictator, ICE agents are villains, that resistance is heroic, that “by any means necessary” had become literal rather than rhetorical. She blocked traffic. She interfered with a federal operation. She assaulted an officer. At each step, she was doing what her political tribe had told her was not just acceptable but righteous.  She believed she was the hero of the story. That belief killed her.  What Actually Happened in Minnesota  Let’s talk about the incident itself, because the sequence mentioned above matters.  Multiple videos exist showing how things went down. They’ve been available for days. And they have changed precisely nothing about the dominant narrative.  Why?  Because most Americans never saw the full videos. Major networks showed the shooting. They did not show the preceding minutes of escalating confrontation. They did not provide context about the legal violations that preceded the fatal moment. The edit determined the story.  And this is the harder truth: even complete video evidence might not have mattered.  The Deeper Crisis: Truth in the Age of Confirmation  Cygnal found this month that 73% of voters say they “very often” or “somewhat often” encounter information they later discover is false or misleading.  Three-quarters of Americans believe they’re regularly being lied to. And they’re right.  But here’s the paradox: everyone thinks they’re the one sorting fact from fiction. Everyone believes their sources are reliable and the other side’s sources are propaganda. My truth is your misinformation and vice versa.  Once someone forms an initial opinion, contradicting evidence doesn’t change their mind. It hardens their position.   Studies on motivated reasoning show that partisans presented with facts that contradict their beliefs actually become more confident in their original view. The brain treats the contradicting information as an attack and the existing belief as identity to be defended.  By the time the full Minnesota videos emerged, millions had already decided what happened.   The officer was a murderer or the woman was a criminal. No footage would change that because the footage wasn’t being evaluated as evidence. It was being processed as ammunition for the conclusion already reached.  We’ve built information systems optimized for speed and engagement, not accuracy and deliberation. Hot takes within minutes. Viral clips within hours. Cemented narratives by the end of the day. And corrections, retractions, and context arrive weeks later to an audience that stopped listening.  The Real Consequences  Here’s what happens when media narratives diverge from reality and nobody can agree on basic facts.  ICE officers now work under a target. When major media outlets frame enforcement actions as atrocities and significant portions of the population believe “going beyond peaceful protests” is acceptable, every agent conducting a lawful operation faces elevated risk. The Minnesota incident will not be the last.  Rule of law becomes optional. If laws can be violated without consequence when the cause is deemed sufficiently righteous, law becomes merely a suggestion to be weighed against ideology. Today it’s immigration enforcement. Tomorrow it’s something else. The principle, once breached, has no natural stopping point.  Media credibility continues its collapse.   I’ve polled media trust for years. It’s cratered. Not because Americans reject journalism as a concept but because they’ve watched outlets function as political actors while claiming neutral observer status. Every misleading frame, every selective edit, every story that doesn’t match the available evidence accelerates institutional delegitimization.  We lose the ability to solve shared problems. Democracy requires some baseline agreement about facts. Not values, not policy preferences, but basic factual reality. When we cannot agree that a video shows what it shows, we cannot deliberate about what to do about it. We’re just two populations shouting past each other, each convinced the other is either evil or deluded.  Where This Leaves Us  I started with a question: If video evidence shows a woman repeatedly breaking the law before being shot, why hasn’t the story changed?  The answer is that stories don’t change anymore. They’re chosen.  Ninety-one percent of liberals were always going to oppose these deportation efforts. That opposition was always going to dominate media coverage because of who controls media institutions. And young liberal women were always going to be disproportionately represented in “resistance” narratives because they’re the demographic most likely to believe lawbreaking is justified.  Minnesota wasn’t a turning point. It was a preview.  The machinery that produced this incident, emotional polarization amplified by ideological media driving radicalized behavior, remains fully operational. Another confrontation will come. Another narrative will crystallize before facts emerge. Another set of Americans will conclude their countrymen are either fascists or anarchists.  The stakes extend far beyond immigration policy. We’re testing whether law enforcement can function when media narratives and activist movements collaborate to obstruct it. We’re testing whether shared truth is even possible anymore.  So far, we’re failing that test.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Minnesota Incident: A Case Study in Media Narrative Versus Reality  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Recent remarks by the Trump administration about Greenland have sparked a crisis with America’s NATO allies. And, of course, European states have exasperated Trump, and many conservatives, with their demands for indefinite U.S. support of Ukraine in its stalemated conflict with Russia. It’s time to get creative. A grand bargain could solve both problems together, with NATO members helping secure American interests in our hemisphere, in exchange for greater American help in theirs. Trump has good reason to want Greenland, and countering Russia’s expansionism is among them, as Moscow builds its capabilities in the Arctic. Greenland’s strategic position makes it difficult for the U.S. to countenance its continued administration by a small European state. Copenhagen has also foolishly said that it’s open to Greenlandic independence, which would simply put it up for grabs by China or Russia. Aside from strategic and resource considerations, Trump’s enthusiasm for the island is likely supported by inchoate considerations of the kind largely ignored by Western strategists in recent decades. Territorial expansion had long been a part of American greatness, resulting in its present size and far-flung states and territories. But the U.S. has only been giving away its possessions since 1970s, when President Carter diagnosed the country with malaise. This does not mean Denmark or other European allies should be happy with the U.S. reversing this retreat. The kingdom has been a consistently reliable ally and model NATO member. Amid the cultural rot of northern Europe, Denmark is a relatively conservative, pro-U.S. government. It speaks well of them that they do not jump to sunder their realm. Grabbing Greenland will not produce a lasting legacy. As President Trump seeks to reorient policy to confront China, we need to be able to count on our allies. Moreover, Congress will likely resist passing any governing statutes if they chafe at how U.S. control came about. A Democratic administration would be delighted to have a chance at participating in “decolonization” by giving up the territory. Under the Constitution, an act of Congress is required to cede territory, but a liberal president would surely determine Greenland was not “belonging to the United States” and thus outside the scope of the Territories clause. Russia’s immediate proximity and ongoing belligerence further complicates the equation. European allies within NATO urgently desire heightened American engagement to contain Moscow’s designs in Ukraine; yet appreciable portions of the Republican electoral coalition regard additional commitments as subsidizing European strategic miscalculations without commensurate returns. The current administration, for its part, has manifested increasing exasperation with Russian inflexibility amid stalled diplomatic efforts. Of course, NATO wants things from America too. Europe fears Russia won’t stop with Ukraine, Denmark’s Baltic location puts it close to the front line, and Russia has already been harassing it with drones, cyberattacks, and naval incidents. But the way to make Ukraine’s war a priority for the U.S. is by ensuring that the U.S. gets tangible benefits for its support. The United States could ramp up its support for Ukraine through expanded provision of advanced weaponry, enhanced intelligence cooperation, and rejecting diplomatic settlements that reward Putin’s aggression. In return, NATO, acting in concerted fashion, could pressure Denmark to grant the United States enduring rights in Greenland, framing the arrangement as essential to transatlantic security in the High North. A variety of solutions could address Danish sensitivities about ceding territory. A renewable long-term lease over the largely uninhabited northern expanses—reminiscent of the British experience in Hong Kong or the American administration of the Panama Canal Zone—could suffice. Washington is reportedly contemplating a Compact of Free Association with Greenland, similar to those with various Pacific islands. One could have a trilateral compact, with both Denmark and the U.S. as partners in the deal. This is known in international law as a condominium—and this would be the Biggest Condominium Ever. Given the need for durable congressional support for an acquisition, making it win-win is the art of the deal. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post It’s Time To Get Creative With Greenland appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A new report in Minnesota highlights how a former bureaucrat involved in granting a church millions of dollars later went to work as a consultant for the church. The audit also says that the church failed to provide necessary reporting for hundreds of thousands of dollars of state funding. Both the church and the former bureaucrat deny any wrongdoing, and gave their side of the story to The Daily Signal. According to the report, issued by the Office of the Legislative Auditor last week, a grantee—later identified as Zion Baptist Church in North Minneapolis—”could not provide us detailed invoices or program participant data to support a payment of $672,647.78″ from the Department of Human Services’ Bureau of Health Administration “for a single month of work.” Zion Baptist Church contracted with 14 subcontractors, two of which the legislative auditor visited. The church reportedly paid $40,000 to each of the subcontractors, without specifying rates per service unit. Those subcontractors failed to show who they served with the money they received. One of them said “the grantee told them they did not need to keep detailed participant records.” Finally, the grant manager “who approved the $672,647.78 payment left DHS a few days after approving it and later started to provide consulting services to the grantee,” the report stated. The administration accepted all but one of the legislative auditor’s recommendations for reform, acknowledging multiple administrative failures. “Immediately upon learning of issues related to the grantee in question, the Minnesota Department of Human Services‘ Office of Internal Controls and Accountability began a thorough audit of the grant, grantee, and all grant payments,” the Department of Human Services told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. The department said it “immediately” stopped payments and terminated the contract upon seeing the report. It also said staff referred the case and the former staffer to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. “We also referred the case to the Attorney General’s Office for civil action to recover funding,” DHS said, adding it is working “to begin recoupment of grant funds that were inappropriately spent.” Legislative Auditor ReportDownload Zion Baptist Church Responds Marques Armstrong, a deacon at Zion Baptist Church and program director at The Wellness Collaborative, told The Daily Signal the church was compliant in submitting “programmatic and financial reports” for the grant. “Zion Baptist Church has, in full compliance with the grant agreement, submitted all required quarterly programmatic and financial reports for the duration of the grant period, spanning approximately four years,” he told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. “These reports documented services delivered, outcomes achieved, and subcontractor activity, as required under the contract.” Armstrong did not respond when The Daily Signal asked if he would provide the documents, or proof that the state’s human services department received them. He claimed the department reassigned Zion’s grant “without notice to a different division” within the Behavioral Health Administration. “During this transition, it became apparent that the newly assigned personnel were unfamiliar with both the grant’s scope and our program’s structure.” The church hired the state’s grant manager as a consultant for this reason, he said. This “strictly advisory” position helped Zion navigate the department’s “administrative confusion.” The church hired this person “to protect the integrity of the program and ensure continued compliance, not to circumvent oversight,” he said. Armstrong said the human services department reassigned the grant to yet another team, which had not reviewed the church’s records. He also insisted that subcontractors were paid for “defined deliverables,” and that Zion submitted appropriate documentation. “Any claim that services cannot be verified is inconsistent with the documentation we provided and raises concerns about DHS’s internal review and recordkeeping processes, not a lack of compliance on our part,” he said. He acknowledged that DHS reportedly backdated documents related to Zion’s grant, but he said Zion had no role in altering the documents. “Zion Baptist Church has cooperated fully with all oversight requests and remains confident that a fair and complete review of the full record will demonstrate compliance, transparency, and faithful execution of the grant’s intent,” he concluded. The Grant Manager Weighs In Dana Nelson identified herself to The Daily Signal as the former DHS employee who approved the initial payment and who went on to consult with Zion. Nelson said she worked with Zion Baptist to draft the workplan and deliverables for the grant contract, but she “did not have any part of” drafting the actual contract or executing it. Nelson said Armstrong and Pastor Brian C. Herron reached out to her “and asked if I had any capacity to consult with them to ensure they remained in compliance with their grant.” She said she met with Armstrong and with her former supervisor “to ensure there were no conflicts with me doing this prior to any work done.” She said she performed “less than part-time” hours with Zion. Whistleblower Response Minnesota House Rep. Marion Rarick, a Republican on the House fraud committee who is in regular contact with whistleblowers, shared a whistleblower’s response to Zion Baptist Church’s claims. “The corruption within Minnesota state agencies under [Gov. Tim] Walz is pervasive,” Rarick told The Daily Signal. The whistleblower said that even if Zion Baptist Church’s claims are true, several questions remain. “Zion Baptist Church was selected through a single-source award,” the whistleblower wrote. “The grant was approved without competitive bidding, without a documented solicitation, and without a written justification explaining why a competitive process was not used.” Department of Human Services staff raised serious concerns about subcontractors during the grant period, but supervisors directed them “not to pursue further questioning,” and approved a grant extension. The whistleblower said key questions remain, such as the justification for avoiding a competitive process for the grant, whether DHS performed due diligence on the subcontractors, whether subcontractors were for-profit entities, and why staff concerns were not pursued. The whistleblower also listed four grants that Zion Baptist Church received, two of which were sole source (without competition) and together totaled more than $3 million. “Is Zion some great place?” the whistleblower asked, noting the multi-million-dollar sole-source grants. One one contract of more than $1.4 million, the church “did just a bad job performance” and the state “cancelled it early.” “That was definitely the most egregious thing I have seen, maybe in my whole time working at OLA,” Judy Randall, a 27-year veteran at the Office of Legislative Auditor, told the local NBC affiliate. ?'LET'S JUST GO FIGHT'Feeding Our Future fraudsters cried racism when Minnesota started to ask questions about their scheme. MM AG Keith Ellison met with them, took their side, and later received campaign cash from them.Let's break it down.?1/12https://t.co/lNKkXryiuB pic.twitter.com/jletCr1SHE— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 8, 2025 The post Questions Surround Minnesota Bureaucrat Who Went on to Work for Church Whose Grant She Approved appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump’s long-awaited health care framework will include pro-life protections, The Daily Signal has learned. The White House on Thursday called on Congress to pass Trump’s new “Great Health Care Plan,” which promises to lower drug prices, lower insurance premiums by sending money directly to Americans, and improve price transparency in health care. “These are commonsense actions that make up President Trump’s great health care plan, and they represent the most comprehensive and bold agenda to lower health care costs to have ever been considered by the federal government,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. The plan doesn’t mention the Hyde Amendment, a necessity in any health care deal for many Republicans, prompting concern from pro-life leaders. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of elective abortions in health care appropriations. But a White House official told The Daily Signal that the White House will work with Congress to ensure the “strongest possible pro-life protections.” NEW: Though the president's new "Great Health Care Plan" has no explicit mention of Hyde, a White House official told @DailySignal the WH will work with Congress to ensure the "strongest possible pro-life protections." https://t.co/lesi6RIGaV— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) January 15, 2026 March for Life president, Jennie Lichter, expects the White House to keep this promise. “The American people don’t want to see their tax dollars being used to pay for abortions. That’s clear and consistent in polling over the years,” she told The Daily Signal. “I believe the president and his team know that, and I anticipate that they will stand strong and consistent with his own first term and second term, first year actions to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to support health plans that provide abortions in the upcoming health care negotiations.” But the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Marjorie Dannenfelser, sounded skeptical. “The ‘strongest possible’ is the Hyde amendment which in statute bars taxpayer funding of abortion,” she wrote on X. The “strongest possible” is the Hyde amendment which in statute bars tax payer funding of abortion. Very simple to commit to, as most Hill GOP have. Unless “flexible” means you can’t. https://t.co/20qtq3EolL— Marjorie Dannenfelser (@marjoriesba) January 15, 2026 Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters that the White House would work with Congress on the specifics of the bill. “There’ll be ongoing conversations, and we hope to be able to support with specific language for the legislation,” Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters on a press call. Part of the White House’s plan, sending money to the American people rather than insurance companies, was previously suggested by several Republican senators, including Lousiana’s Bill Cassidy and Idaho’s Mike Crapo in one bill, and Florida’s Rick Scott in another bill. In both proposals, Americans could access federal subsidies through health savings accounts, which they could in turn spend directly on eligible health-related expenses. Both legislative proposals included Hyde Amendment protections, prohibiting funding in the accounts to be spent on abortions. The post Trump’s ‘Great Health Care Plan’ to Include ‘Strongest Pro-Life Protections’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A new poll on Florida’s gubernatorial race shows Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., ahead of his primary challengers by 30% or more. The Mason-Dixon poll released on Wednesday showed the South-West Florida Congressman counting on the support of 37% of Republican voters. Donalds’ closest opponent, current Florida Lt. Gov. Jay Collins, polled at 7%. His other two opponents, the former Florida House Speaker Paul Renner and businessman James Fishback, polled in at less than 4%. “Trump-endorsed Byron Donalds is the only proven conservative fighter who can unite Republicans, deliver on the President’ America First agenda, crush the Democrats, and make Florida more affordable,” Ryan Smith, chief strategist of the Byron Donald’s for Governor Campaign told The Daily Signal. “Anyone running against Byron is an anti-Trump RINO and will be soundly defeated in the Republican primary.” Donalds has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and a large number of Florida’s elected officials. “There’s no changing the race, Byron is the Republican nominee and the next Governor,” Florida City of Sweetwater Commissioner Ian Vallecillo, who endorsed Donalds early in his campaign, told The Daily Signal. “This late in the race, there’s no way these guys will make up for lost time,” he added. “And another thing to point out is that whoever Trump backs, is going to win. Especially in Florida, Florida is Trump country. People like Byron. He’s tough, he’s decisive, and he gets the job done. He will have around 60-70% of the vote in the August primary,” Vallecillo added. Nevertheless, the Mason-Dixie poll found that 49% of Republicans remain undecided. Fishback, who polled in at 3%, told The Daily Signal he remains optimistic despite the recent polling results. “This time last year Zohran Mamdani was polling in the single digits. Now he is Mayor of New York,” Fishback said. “I will beat Byron Donalds, not by outspending him, but by out-working him.” Fishback stated he plans on visiting all of Florida’s 67 counties, something Donalds “refuses to do.” “No county is too big or too small for me to visit and hear from Floridians about what keeps them up at night and gets them out of bed in the morning,” Fishback added. Fishback, who is 1% behind Renner, hinted that the former Florida Speaker of the House from 2022 to 2024 could soon resign from the race. “Voters and voters alone will decide the future of my opponents.” Collins and Renner did not reply to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. The post Donalds Has Commanding Lead in Vital Florida Race, Poll Shows appeared first on The Daily Signal.