President Donald Trump says the United States will not conduct strikes on Iranian power plants for the next five days. “I am pleased to report that the United States of America, and the country of Iran, have had, over the last two days, very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday morning. “Based on the tenor and tone of these in-depth, detailed, and constructive conversations, which will continue throughout the week, I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions,” Trump said. President Trump on Iran: pic.twitter.com/HE4uih4Pni— Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) March 23, 2026 The announcement comes two days after Trump threatened that Iran only had 48 hours to “fully open” the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping lane in the Middle East, or the U.S. would “hit and obliterate” Iran’s “various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” In response to Trump’s threat, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said it would attack Israel’s power plants and facilities that supply power to U.S. military bases in the region. Oil prices fell by about 7% on Monday after Trump announced the U.S. would not strike Iran’s energy infrastructure. Brent crude futures were down 9.72% at $101.28 a barrel on Monday after sliding as much as 14.5% to a session low of $96. U.S. West Texas Intermediate was down almost 8.9% at $89.49 after losing 14.2% to a session low of $84.37. Operation Epic Fury is in its fourth week. Trump said Friday that the U.S. is “getting very close” to meeting its objectives in Iran. Iran has continued to fire missiles and drones at Israel, Gulf nations, and U.S. military bases. Over the weekend, Iran fired missiles at the U.K.-U.S. Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean, demonstrating its long-range attack capabilities. Reuters contributed to this report. The post Trump Stops Strikes on Iran’s Energy Infrastructure   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

March 23, 2010. 16 years ago, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law, thus locking into statutory concrete the dysfunctional status quo that burdens us today. Recall this was Obama’s “signature” legislative achievement. Of course, Obama’s congressional allies knew exactly what they were doing. They conscientiously read and fully grasped the 2700-page product they were enacting. Right? Well, not to worry, said then Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “ We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it—away from the fog of the controversy.”  Also, do not forget Obama’s absurd promises, just to name a few: If you liked your health plan, you could keep it, and nothing would change; the bill would create robust and competitive health insurance markets; the bill would expand access to high quality health care; the bill would save the typical family $2500 in yearly health care costs; and the bill would bend the soaring health care cost curve downward. So, what have Obama and Congressional Democrats wrought? After 16 years, they have imposed a complex health care law that is unaffordable and dysfunctional. Consider the evidence: Accelerating health insurance premiums. In the individual and small group markets, beneficiaries and taxpayers have been financing skyrocketing premiums. In 2014, when ACA insurance provisions went into effect, America’s health insurance markets were jolted by “sticker shock,” and premium increases subsequently accelerated. In 2013, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis, an individual’s monthly premiums in the nation’s individual markets averaged $244, but by 2022, they had risen to $568—a 133% increase. And for beneficiaries and taxpayers, the situation is worsening. For 2026 Kaiser Family Foundation analysts projected a breathtaking 18% average increase. Some affordability. Crazy Deductibles. When one buys a low-premium “bronze” ACA health plan, one can expect to pay more out of pocket in the form of higher deductibles. But ACA deductibles are the very definition of “unaffordable.” Between 2014 and 2024, ACA deductibles have jumped 40%. Over that same period, Heritage reports, the average ACA deductible for family coverage increased from $10, 278 to $14,310.    Reduced Access to Medical Professionals. ACA plans have routinely adopted “narrow” provider networks, even among the most popular plans, resulting in a steady decline in patient access to doctors, specialists, and other medical professionals. In 2014, according to the Heritage analysis, among the ACA’s standard “silver plans,” 53% of them had “more restrictive” provider networks, but such networks characterized 80% of such plans by 2024. Reduced Choice and Competition. In 2013, before the ACA’s insurance provisions went into effect, there were 395 insurers in the nation’s individual markets. But here, too, the ACA delivered an anti-competitive shock to the market and contributed to a rapid consolidation of the nation’s health care markets. By 2018, there were only 181 plans in the ACA exchanges, and 52% of US counties had just one insurer and 30.5% had just two insurers. In fact, the first Trump administration, then falsely accused of “sabotaging” the program, improved and stabilized the ACA markets. By 2024, these markets had 304 insurers offering coverage, but the vast majority of states still had fewer participants in their markets than before ACA’s implementation. Massive Fraud. About 76 million people are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP up from 61 million in 2013.  The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports, that of the estimated 24.3 enrollees in the ACA exchanges in 2025, taxpayers subsidized the premium costs of 93% of enrollees, while 53% also got taxpayer subsidies to offset “cost sharing” or out-of-pocket costs. So, in effect, taxpayers overwhelmingly fund ACA’s rigidly standardized plans and absorb, year by year, their relentlessly rising premium and out of pocket costs.  But, as we previously noted, there is a much darker multibillion dollar problem. Analysts with the Paragon Health Institute, undertaking a detailed analysis of the ACA’s 2025 data, estimated that 6.4 million enrollees were ineligible for taxpayers’ subsidies; persons enrolled by unscrupulous brokers or insurers without their knowledge and who did not submit a claim. Likewise, as part of a preliminary investigation to determine the program’s vulnerability to fraud, the Government Accountability Office submitted 20 applications of purely fictitious people for ACA exchange for taxpayer subsidized enrollment, and the ACA enrolled 19 of them. Sen. Mike Crapo. Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said it best: “Premiums and out-of-pocket costs are rising for all Americans, but as we look for ways to improve the health care system, this investigation serves as a stark reminder that we cannot simply throw good money after bad policy.”   Sen. Crapo is exactly right. The Congressional Democrats’ agenda of maintaining the bureaucratic status quo and papering over rising ACA costs with hundreds of billions of additional taxpayer subsidies—hiking the federal deficit by $350 billion over ten years—is an unaffordable response to the ACA’s affordability problem. A New Direction. President Trump has proposed a revolutionary concept that would usher in a new era of real consumer and genuine market competition: Bypass the big insurance companies and redirect the generous ACA subsidies to eligible individuals and families through an updated system of health savings accounts. Make health plans and providers compete directly for patients’ dollars and unleash an unprecedented level of cost-cutting competition. Incidentally, McLaughlin and Associates conducted a national survey in January 2026 that found that 73% of respondents supported a proposal to “directly pay individuals by depositing health care dollars every year into a personal account.” Congress should codify Trump’s proposal and complement it with a program of radical health care price transparency, targeting the oft hidden insurers’ negotiated prices with providers. Such a policy is embodied in The Patients Deserve Price Tags Act (S. 2355). Knowing the price of a health care procedure is of limited value, of course, unless the patient can act and choose the most cost-effective provider and pocket the savings of making that choice. That is why the Heritage Foundation has championed a patient’s savings proposal, allowing patients to share directly the savings with an insurer when choosing a cost-efficient medical provider, and pocketing those dollars tax free. Working with the White House, Congress can do a much better job in fixing America’s health care. And perhaps next year, there will be a real reason to celebrate. The post Obamacare at 16: An Unhappy Birthday appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A new pro-family technology coalition plans to spend at least eight figures this year to protect children from dangers presented by artificial intelligence.  On Friday, the White House released its National Framework on AI, which called for measures to protect children, but didn’t go far enough for many child safety advocates.  For the first time, parents, technologists, and policy leaders in the family-first tech coalition have officially assembled to advocate for laws that protect children from AI abuses.  This new coalition, called Alliance for a Better Future, released polling from OnMessage Public Strategies showing that 83% of voters are concerned about the development of AI, and 81% support government guardrails to protect consumers and children.  The policy council, chaired by Dr. Brad Littlejohn of American Compass, features members of nine organizations including the Family Policy Alliance, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, the Institute for Family Studies, The Heritage Foundation, and American Principles Project.  The Alliance for a Better Future hopes to counter the efforts of Big Tech companies to eliminate state protections on AI.  For instance, venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz backed a $100 million Super PAC, Leading The Future, which advocates against strict artificial intelligence safeguards. The PAC is running ads in Texas and New York, two states that have passed laws establishing safeguards on AI.  Even the White House made at least two attempts to kill state bills that impose restrictions for child safety on AI in Utah and Florida.  The alliance will fight for child safety guardrails in national and state legislation.  Seventy-seven percent of voters prefer a candidate who protects minors over one who wants no AI restrictions, OnMessage Strategies’ poll from March 5-9 found.  The White House’s AI framework proposed Friday is now in the hands of Congress to pass into law, and Alliance for a Better Future will be involved in advocating for the strongest possible child safeguards.  The launch includes a new video featuring the Congressional testimony of parents who have lost children to AI. One mom tells the story of an AI chatbot coaching her son to commit suicide.  “Innovation at the cost of our children’s or citizens’ lives is not innovation at all,” said Mandi Furniss, a parent who lost her son to suicide featured in the video. “No parent should have to fight a machine for the mind of their child.” “And if we can build machines smart enough to think, then we can build them smart enough to protect our kids,” she added. The organization will pursue targeted advertising and public education campaigns to elevate the voices of parents, creators, and workers and highlight decisions of tech executives which harm children.   The post Pro-Family Tech Coalition Launches to Protect Kids from AI Threats appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—White House border czar Tom Homan told CNN on Sunday he thinks Democrats’ apparent decision to prolong the partial government shutdown is not due to differences in immigration policy but instead “execution.” Homan appeared on “State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash” on the 37th day of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) partial shutdown. The interview also aired two days after a poorly attended Senate chamber failed to fully reopen the department, with every voting Democrat except Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman opting to continue the standoff. Host Dana Bash asked the border czar what immigration enforcement policy changes President Donald Trump’s administration is offering Democrats “to end this impasse,” prompting Homan to reply he thinks the real disagreement is not about policy. “I truly believe this isn’t really a policy issue. We have the same policies in place we had during [former President Barack] Obama and [former President Joe] Biden and [former President Bill] Clinton and [former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush],” Homan told Bash. Prior to joining the first Trump administration, the border czar held a leadership role in the Obama administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). “So, the policy really hasn’t changed. It’s the execution of those policies that we’re talking about,” Homan continued. “It’s really about policy execution more than policy,” he added. The Obama’s administration previously removed more noncitizens from the U.S. than any other presidential administration, according to DHS data. This fact notably prompted many pro-immigration activists on the left to nickname the Democrat president the “Deporter in Chief” during his White House tenure. Trump deported about 675,000 illegal immigrants during the first year of his second term, according to a Jan. 20, 2026, DHS press release. During his entire first term, however, he removed about 1.2 million non-citizens. Even when these two totals are combined, they fall well short of the nearly 3 million deportations of the two-term Obama administration, multiple analyses of DHS data indicate. Furthermore, when removals and returns are combined, the president who expelled the most people out of the U.S. is another Democrat, Bill Clinton, according to DHS data analyzed by El Paso Matters. Homan added the Trump administration is “having good conversations” with Democrats “but more conversations need to be had, because we certainly can’t surrender ICE’s authorities and their congressionally mandated job.” During the Sunday interview, Bash also pressed Homan on whether the White House is “open to changing” immigration enforcement policy to acquiesce to some Democratic demands, such as requiring ICE agents to remove their masks. “As you see on the letter that was out the other night, we’re talking about identification, badge number, name, either/or because no Border Patrol has the name on their uniform. ICE does have a name on uniforms,” the border czar answered. “We’re talking about clear identification. We’re talking about access to detention and things like that. So, a lot of these things—as I explained to the senators—a lot of these things are already in play. And identification has been ever since Minneapolis.” “And I’m trying to explain the situation on the ground isn’t the same as it was in Minneapolis. We’re doing targeted enforcement operations, and the detention standards are the same. They were in the last administration, but there was a problem with access to detention standards,” Homan continued. “That problem doesn’t exist anymore. So, a lot of the changes after Minneapolis has already been implemented, and that’s what I’m there to explain to them.” Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The post ‘Isn’t Really A Policy Issue’: Tom Homan Tells CNN Why Democrats Really Want to Keep DHS Shut Down appeared first on The Daily Signal.

WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) — The U.S. government has “plenty of money” to fund the war against Iran, but is requesting supplemental funding from Congress to ensure the military is well supplied in the future, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday. Bessent, speaking on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” program, also ruled out pushing for any tax increases to fund the war. The U.S. military’s request for $200 billion in additional funding for the Iran war faces stiff opposition in Congress, with Democrats and even some Republicans questioning the need after large defense appropriations last year. Bessent defended the request without confirming the amount. President Donald Trump has not yet sent a request for the Senate and House of Representatives to approve the sum and his administration has made clear that the number could change. “We have plenty of money to fund this war,” Bessent said. “This is supplemental. President Trump has built up the military, as he did in his first term, as he is now doing in his second term, and he wants to make sure that the military is well supplied going forward.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said last week that the extra money was needed “to ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future.”  He dismissed a question about possible tax increases as “ridiculous” and said that was “not at all” under consideration. Early indications suggest that the war will be the most expensive for the U.S. since the long conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Administration officials told lawmakers that the first six days of the Iran war had cost more than $11 billion. The Republican-led Congress has already approved record funding for the military since Trump began his second term in January 2025. Last month, he signed into law the Fiscal 2026 Defense Appropriations Act with about $840 billion in funding. And last summer, over opposition from Democrats, the Republican-led Congress passed a sweeping tax cut and spending bill that included $156 billion for defense. Bessent also defended the Trump administration’s moves in recent days to lift sanctions on Iranian and Russian oil. Doing so, he argued, would allow other countries besides China—including Japan and South Korea—to purchase the oil, while preventing oil prices from spiking to $150 per barrel and reducing the overall revenues Iran and Russia would receive. He said a Treasury analysis showed that the maximum extra amount of oil revenue Russia could get would be $2 billion.     (Reporting by Andrea Shalal and Nicole Jao; Editing by Sergio Non and Mark Porter) The post Treasury’s Bessent Says US Has ‘Plenty’ of Funds for Iran War appeared first on The Daily Signal.