A band of House Republicans joined Democrats in blocking an attempt to extend the federal government’s authority to surveil foreigners’ data without a warrant in the wee hours of Friday morning. With the failure on the House floor, the White House and House leadership’s effort to maintain an intelligence program they consider important for national security has hit a speedbump. The chamber instead opted to pass by unanimous consent a short-term extension of the expiration date from April 20 to April 30. The source of controversy is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which has long been criticized by some House Republicans and Democrats, who argue it is prone to abuse and has resulted in the surveillance of American citizens whose data is mixed with that of foreigners. President Donald Trump had publicly called on Republicans to “to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean [extension] to the floor.” However, the House could not come to a long-term agreement. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, foretold the flop earlier in the week, saying, “a clean extension ain’t going to move on the floor.”  Due to this disagreement, Republicans crafted a five-year extension deal late in the night following talks with Republicans who demanded reforms. The original plan was to pass an 18-month extension. The deal included new language meant to prevent the federal government from targeting Americans’ data without a warrant, as well as introducing fines for the unauthorized search of Americans’ information and allowing members of Congress access to intelligence court proceedings. The House rejected this amended version 200-220. Democrats were almost unanimous in opposition, while 12 Republicans voted against it and nine did not vote. As Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, a FISA critic, described it, “some felt” the amended version “was a massive reform that would make FISA unworkable,” while “others felt it did nothing of substance.” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, rallied his party against the five-year deal in a speech on the House floor shortly before midnight. “This is an appalling, Kafkaesque process leading to an absurd, Orwellian result,” Raskin said.  House Judiciary Ranking Member @RepRaskin: "This is much worse than what was being offered before… The substance of this proposal is utterly appalling.""This is scrapple. It's scrapple with dog food mixed inside of it." pic.twitter.com/CPHPSn53Fz— Anthony Adragna (@AnthonyAdragna) April 17, 2026 “They say you shouldn’t look to see how the sausage is made. This isn’t even sausage. This is scrapple. It’s scrapple with dog food mixed inside of it,” he added. Raskin objected to extending FISA all the way to five years, as well as the fact that reforms such as the warrant requirement would not immediately go into effect, calling the warrant reforms an “illusory Band-Aid that they’re putting on this process.” After killing the five-year deal, the House then rejected a procedural measure to move to consideration of the original bill in a 197-228 vote.  Finally, the chamber voted by unanimous consent to push ahead the expiration date and break for the weekend. “Last night between midnight and 2am, they tried to pass two bad versions of FISA,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., wrote on X after the votes. Last night between midnight and 2am, they tried to pass two bad versions of FISA… Both would have allowed Feds to unconstitutionally spy on Americans.We stopped both versions, but the fight isn’t over. Eventually, it was decided to give them two more weeks to fix FISA. https://t.co/VkckZwH5j4— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) April 17, 2026 “Both would have allowed Feds to unconstitutionally spy on Americans. We stopped both versions, but the fight isn’t over. Eventually, it was decided to give them two more weeks to fix FISA,” he added. On Friday morning, Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., also framed the short-term extension as positive development. “Congress now has the opportunity to continue working in good faith to enact reforms that protect our national security without sacrificing the constitutional rights of American citizens,” Harris said in a statement. “FISA provides our intelligence agencies with critical tools to monitor foreign adversaries, but it has been stretched beyond its intended purpose and used to conduct warrantless searches of Americans’ data,” he added. The House’s April 30 extension will require approval from the Senate in order to become law. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Friday morning that he did not yet have consensus in his chamber for passing such an agreement by unanimous consent, since Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., “just wants some time to find out exactly what it is they did last night and talk to some of his allies.” The post FISA Spy Powers Vote a Late-Night Trainwreck on House Floor appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a bizarre effort at climate lawfare, which aimed to penalize Chevron for its role in boosting the U.S. war effort against the Nazis and Imperial Japan in World War II. The ruling is good news for sanity, but it also sets an important precedent for the Left’s ongoing climate lawfare efforts. You see, climate alarmist lawyers have sought to weaponize state laws against oil and gas companies, and the ruling in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish delivers a knockout punch to at least part of their nefarious strategy. While the case turns on a technicality, that technicality means a great deal to the environmentalist trial lawyers seeking to make a buck and undermine the oil industry. As Justice Clarence Thomas—a President George H.W. Bush appointee—notes in his opinion for the unanimous court, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and its fellow parishes filed no fewer than 42 state-court lawsuits in 2013 against oil and gas companies under a 1978 state law for alleged violations in the 1940s. Many of the oil companies successfully appealed to have the cases removed from state court to federal court, because the companies had been acting under a federal officer “of or relating to any act under color of such office.” Yet lower courts had rejected Chevron’s efforts to move the case out of state court, so Justice Thomas had to painstakingly explain that the phrase “relating to” can mean “to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.” Of course, this isn’t really about the meaning of the word “relate.” It’s all about whether judges who support the climate alarmist narrative can side with climate lawfare in the teeth of both the law’s text and common sense. It does not make sense to use a Louisiana law to penalize an energy company in Louisiana state court for actions a previous version of that company took in service of a federal objective on the orders of the federal government. This move from state to federal court may seem insignificant, but it is not. The oil and gas industry engages in interstate commerce, and its operations largely fall under federal law. Climate alarmist politicians in some states seek to pass laws restricting the industry’s operations, and climate alarmist lawyers seek to weaponize such laws against the industry as a whole, based on the idea that the human burning of fossil fuels is bringing about some indeterminate apocalypse. Other Forms of Climate Lawfare Suing oil companies for helping America defeat the Nazis is one thing, but the issue of whether state or federal law prevails in climate cases remains quite relevant, and it’s the centerpiece of another Supreme Court case. Boulder, Colorado, sued Suncor Energy, claiming that its key business model of burning fossil fuels for energy has caused concrete harm under state law. The Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder’s case to proceed, so Suncor appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Think about the implications of this for a second. Boulder claims that the burning of fossil fuels has caused concrete harm—even though it is unclear exactly how fossil fuels impact the global climate and most climate alarmist predictions have proven false. The city attributes specific weather harms not to God or the planet’s ecosystem but to a specific company, and then claims to know what is unknowable—how much that specific company’s efforts contributed to Boulder’s weather. In doing so, Boulder takes upon itself the ability to regulate an industry that doesn’t just operate across state lines, but is vital to the global economic system. But it gets worse. David Bookbinder, who served as part of the legal team representing Boulder at lower stages of litigation, described his climate lawfare efforts as “an indirect carbon tax.” Tellingly, he added, “I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those… this is a rather, somewhat convoluted way, to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.” In other words, this climate lawfare is a conscious effort to circumvent the voters. 'INDIRECT CARBON TAX'Here's David Bookbinder, who represented Boulder in its lawsuit against Suncor (which the Supreme Court should consider and strike down).He admits climate lawsuits for damages under state law are an "indirect carbon tax," trying to circumvent Congress.? pic.twitter.com/QSeq1CXbky— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) February 6, 2026 The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Suncor’s case against Boulder, and the Plaquemines Parish ruling suggests the court may decide that state law is incapable of handling the regulation of a global industry. Other Implications Friday’s ruling also shores up America’s standing in the world. As Steven Bucci, a 30-year Army Special Forces veteran, explained last year, a ruling in favor of Plaquemines Parish would have undermined U.S. national security. State courts shouldn’t be able to second-guess federal wartime decisions, and if they could, that might lead companies to reconsider assisting in America’s defense. Thankfully, the Supreme Court made the right decision, and it did so on the merits of the law, such that all eight justices who considered it—Justice Samuel Alito recused himself—agreed that Plaquemines Parish’s case is baseless. Here’s hoping this represents a step toward blocking climate lawfare going forward. Suncor v. Boulder will be the real test. The post Supreme Court Strikes Down Climate Lawfare Attempt to Penalize Oil Companies for Helping US During World War II appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., is working to extend federal concealed-carry authority to elite military personnel—without adding any new rights or weakening pre-existing firearm safeguards. “Federal law already trusts retired police officers to carry concealed nationwide. That makes sense,” Harrigan told The Daily Signal in a statement. “But it makes no sense that a retired SEAL or Green Beret, someone who spent a career mastering firearms under the most demanding conditions in the world, has no equivalent recognition under federal law,” he continued. Harrigan is a decorated veteran who served in the U.S. Army as a Special Forces officer, aka Green Beret. Their service did not end when they came home and neither does our commitment to them. https://t.co/zaIbDnlZyJ— Congressman Pat Harrigan (@RepPatHarrigan) April 9, 2026 The Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act defines a “qualified special operator” as an active-duty or honorably discharged servicemember from paygrade E5-E9, W1-W5 or O1-O10. In the Army, it would include Special Forces, Delta Force, noncommissioned officer and medic roles. In the Navy, the legislation would qualify SEAL officers and special operators. In the Marine Corps, this would include scout snipers, Marine Raiders, reconnaissance, and special operations forces. From the Air Force, this would include combat control, pararescue, and specific specialists. All of these “qualified special operators” are elite military personnel well trained in firearms who do not have federal authority to carry concealed nationwide. “This bill fixes that. It does not create new rights or weaken any safeguard. It simply extends an existing, proven framework to the warriors who have earned it more than anyone,” Harrigan concluded. specialoperatorDownload The bill includes guardrails to protect the right Harrigan is working to extend to the “qualified special operators.” Specifically, the legislation would amend 18 U.S.C. § 926C. It would grant permanent eligibility for qualified operators without requiring annual requalification. The bill would also require veterans to provide proof of identity, including a photo ID issued by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The post GOP Veteran Harrigan to Deliver Concealed-Carry Rights to Special Forces appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Please note that it was recorded before Friday’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz is open. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.  Victor Davis Hanson: So basically, what the United States is doing is saying, we’re going to control the strait, and we’re going to let anybody who wants to do business with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, but not Iran. And Iran’s island, Kharg Island, where almost 90% of its oil is, you think they were so smart that they would—they have a port on the other side of the strait, but they were so arrogant and thought that they were always going to intimidate everybody, and no one was ever going to intimidate them.  They never did what Oman, the Emirates did, and put a port that was a sizable—they have one—but a sizable port in front of the strait. And then had a big pipeline. And they could have got around it because it would have been harder to police outside the Gulf.  So basically, now where we are is Iran is quickly going broke. It’s going to implode. The population is restive, and we’re in the driver’s seat. So if you game it out, you say, well, how many days can they survive? Probably a week, 10 days. So maybe we should do what they’re doing. They want to just drag it out, and they can go back to that old metaphor: Can’t hear you, I don’t know what you want. Oh, you want to negotiate? It’s Friday afternoon. Let’s start it next Tuesday. Oh, you want to go to Pakistan? Oh, it’s too far. Let’s go to Saudi Arabia. You could do that all day long, and we’re not killing anybody; we’re just sitting here, and it’s not that costly. And if they keep—if they say, well, you know, if you’re going to try to do this, we’re going to unleash hell on Saudi Arabia, and we’ll destroy … Oh, you are, are you? Well, we’ve got 10,000 Marines, and we have to decide whether to blow up Kharg Island or take it from you and take your oil. We can do either one. So they’re in a rough spot.  Then there’s another dimension, two more dimensions, that nobody talks about. So they got this population that’s restive, and all this is coming out. They don’t have internet, but the word’s getting out that they’re broke. And the population is thinking, Do I really want to spend half a trillion dollars and build more tunnels and more missiles and drones and give it to all these Arab terrorists? No. And they justified their reputation and their oppression of our 93 million people on one thing. Well, you may hate us—this was the subtext—but we are the terror of the Middle East. Everybody’s afraid of us. The United States doesn’t dare go in here. Forty-seven years, we’ve killed Americans with impunity. We’ve got proxies in Syria. We got proxies in Iraq. We got proxies in Yemen. We got proxies in Gaza. We got proxies in Lebanon. We have a ring of fire. Everybody’s afraid. Europeans come begging, and they make these little deals on the side that nobody talks about. Well, we’ll let you in the Gulf, and you can buy… You know, we won’t harass you, but we don’t want any support for Israel. So that’s what they were thinking.  And now what? The people are going to say, you incompetent buffoons. You told us that everybody… We didn’t like you, but at least everybody was scared of us, and now we’re the laughingstock of the Middle East. The Israelis are laughing at us. The Gulf states know that we’re nothing. Even the Europeans now say that they want to open the strait after the United States has opened it. Let us in, please. We want to get credit. I’m Macron. This is the Napoleonic fleet. As soon as you do take all the heavy lifting and maybe you guys, Americans, can go home and turn over this prize to us. And so the people are going to get very, very angry. They’re going to say, I don’t want you spending any money on Arab terrorists or any more money on your stupid missiles and nuclear program. I want to eat, and you’re stealing our money. And you know what? We’re not feared anymore. We’re laughed at.  So I think that this, you know, as I said earlier, the Berlin Wall fell, and then some of the Eastern European countries were free within a month, some three or four months, and the Soviet Union took two years. But it was all predestined once the Berlin Wall fell because they saw what was going on. The Germans couldn’t stop it.  So I think if we don’t give away the prize—because now what the Left is going to do, European and American, they’re going to say, oh my gosh. This thing, we didn’t anticipate this. He’s flipped the whole narrative. If he bankrupts Iran, and they come crawling on their knees to negotiate, or if the people rise up, we could lose the midterms. He could have a big foreign policy success. It would change the entire world. And with Venezuela and maybe Cuba next, and then the economy coming back, and all this oil money, the U.S. is… this is bad, so we’ve got to stop it. So they’ll do everything they can to stop it.  And the only thing I’m saying is, I hope that Trump does not stop and negotiate with these clowns. I hope he drags it out. I hope he goes in there and says these are wonderful people. Let’s talk. And then gets on the phone. How many million do they lose today? Keep it up. Keep it up. And then at some point, they’re going to implode. Because if you let them off the hook and you say, well, you can’t have any nuclear weaponization for 20 years, you’re going to get Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg as president one day, and he’s going to say, oh, I feel so bad what we did. Will you take my apology? Morocco gave you 400 million. Well, I’ll give you a billion at night on a pallet. And please, please, please. That’s what you’ll get. So this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance.  Sami Winc: Yeah, it sure is. I think that the Left and the press has, sort of, relied on the frailty of human memory when they come out with all—because I heard you and Jack talking about The Wall Street Journal and all. It picks on every little thing it can just to say things are going bad.  Hanson: Yeah, it does. Every day. Every day. Every day. The columnists have even got in on it, who were superb. I don’t know what’s happened. They’ve lost the narrative. I don’t understand why the Wall Street—do they understand that they’re going to lose all their credibility with their conservative audience if they keep this gloom and doom and everything’s so terrible, as this Iranian monstrosity may, may, may just implode? The editorial board has been good, in the sense that they said to Trump not to negotiate.  But the news section is the one that’s—they’re all, as I said earlier, they’re ex-Politico, Atlantic, Washington Post, New York Times reporters. And I don’t know why they can’t get people out of that circle that are empirical.  The post Trump’s Strait Play: Iran Cornered, China Cut Off, and the Left Panicking | Victor Davis Hanson appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump announced Friday morning that the Strait of Hormuz is open. “IRAN HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT THE STRAIT OF IRAN IS FULLY OPEN AND READY FOR FULL PASSAGE,” he wrote on TruthSocial. “THANK YOU!” A few minutes later, Trump posted that the Strait was “COMPLETELY OPEN AND READY FOR BUSINESS AND FULL PASSAGE.” The Iranian foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, confirmed this on X, saying that yesterday’s ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon was connected to the strait’s reopening. “In line with the ceasefire in Lebanon,” he said, “the passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire, on the coordinated route as already announced by Ports and Maritime Organisation of the Islamic Rep. of Iran.” Since Monday, the United States had maintained a blockade of ships connected to Iranian commerce. Trump added on Friday that “THE NAVAL BLOCKADE WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AS IT PERTAINS TO IRAN, ONLY, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS OUR TRANSACTION WITH IRAN IS 100% COMPLETE.” “THIS PROCESS SHOULD GO VERY QUICKLY IN THAT MOST OF THE POINTS ARE ALREADY NEGOTIATED,” he wrote. The Strait of Hormuz is a key waterway for the global oil trade. About 25% of world seaborn oil trade transits the straight, according to the International Energy Agency, with 80% of it destined for Asia. About 19% of the world’s liquefied natural gas transits the strait as well. Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan imported almost two-thirds of their liquefied natural gas supplies via the Strait of Hormuz in 2025, making them particularly vulnerable to Iran’s actions. Oil prices fell sharply in late trading as Trump announced the ceasefire. West Texas Intermediate crude, the domestic benchmark, fell by more than 9% to around $102 per barrel, The New York Times reported. Trump announced April 7 that Iran agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz, but the crucial waterway remained heavily disrupted by the conflict. The post BREAKING: Trump Gives Major Update on Strait of Hormuz appeared first on The Daily Signal.