A federal judge ordered more than 1,000 Voice of America employees removed from their jobs to be reinstated, in a blow to the Trump administration’s push to remake the entity and cut waste. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, of the District of Columbia, determined that the attempt to dismantle the taxpayer-funded media outlet was unlawful in an opinion Tuesday.  Lamberth, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, issued the opinion in the combined cases of Abramowitz v. Lake and Widakuswara v. Lake. President Donald Trump named Kari Lake, a broadcast journalist-turned-Republican political candidate in Arizona, to be the senior adviser to the acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media Victor Morales. Trump initially appointed Lake to run the agency, but she was not confirmed by the Senate. In November, she took on the role of an adviser. However, earlier this month, as part of the case, Lamberth also ruled that Lake’s earlier actions in firing the employees were not legitimate.  “Although Lake’s role within USAGM at the time was ‘Senior Adviser to the CEO,’ she testified in this case that she had been delegated nearly all of the CEO’s statutory authority,” Lamberth wrote. One of the lead plaintiffs, Michael Abramowitz, is the director of VOA who sued to keep his job. Patsy Widakuswara is a journalist employed by VOA. Both were joined by several co-plaintiffs suing over the removals. Both cases began in March 2025. The job cuts came after Trump signed an executive order to eliminate non-mandatory functions across seven federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the parent agency of VOA. This came amid the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency moves. “The Executive Order led the defendants to bring USAGM’s operations to a standstill,” Lamberth wrote.  “USAGM and VOA collectively employed 1,147 full-time employees and had entered into service contracts with 598 contractors,” the opinion stated, adding that “VOA personnel accounted for more than 1,300 of the total number of employees and contractors at USAGM.” The plaintiffs argued that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers.  “After clearing a series of threshold hurdles, the Court ultimately concludes that the plaintiffs prevail on all aspects of their APA claims except for certain contractors’ requests for reinstatement,” Lamberth wrote.  The post Judge Slaps Down Trump-Lake VOA Shakeup, Orders 1,000+ Employees Reinstated appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the Illinois Democrat House primaries on Tuesday, the party’s left wing got mixed results, while candidates less hostile to the Israeli government managed to triumph in multiple races. On Tuesday, Illinois Democrat voters selected their nominees in four U.S. House races.  Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss won the nomination in the 9th district, Melissa Bean in the 8th, state Rep. La Shawn Ford in the 7th, and Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller in the 2nd. There’s been a dizzying amount of interest group super PAC spending & endorsements in this Tuesday’s 5 competitive Illinois congressional primaries — it’s been hard to keep track ofSo here’s a cheat sheet for which notable groups & individuals are supporting (or opposing) whom: pic.twitter.com/tpFAWkL0JN— Adam Carlson (@admcrlsn) March 15, 2026 The Congressional Black Caucus, Justice Democrats, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., all backed candidates in the House primaries, none of whom won. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., made three House primary endorsements, only one of whom, Biss, won. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as well as aligned groups that spent money in support of pro-Israel candidates, emerged as overall winners. AIPAC wants to buy this seat and put more warhawks into Congress. On Tuesday, we’re going to beat them and their right-wing money. pic.twitter.com/5zlmWmjYFk— Daniel Biss (@DanielBiss) March 15, 2026 Both Bean and Miller, who are pro-Israel candidates, won their primaries in solidly progressive districts. “These results further demonstrate that campaigns defined largely by opposition to AIPAC, our members, and the values we represent continue to fall short on election night,” AIPAC said in a statement. However, pro-Israel groups did not win across the board. Biss, who emerged victorious on Tuesday, called out AIPAC and aligned groups by name throughout his campaign, saying in a recent social media post, “we’re going to beat them and their right-wing money.” VIDEO: Biss in victory speech: “So enough about AIPAC. May tonight be the last night I utter their name. “This victory belongs to J Street.” https://t.co/oJESCDBfJk pic.twitter.com/nyHLLRMaSA— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) March 18, 2026 In his post-victory speech, Biss said, “AIPAC found out the hard way… Enough about AIPAC. May tonight be the last night I utter their name.” State Sen. Laura Fine, AIPAC’s preferred candidate, placed third in the race. “While disappointed that Laura Fine did not prevail, voters rejected two anti-Israel candidates in this race—Kat Abughazaleh and Bushra Amiwala,” AIPAC said in a statement on X. The United Democracy Project, an AIPAC-connected political action committee, also ran ads in support of Chicago Treasurer Melissa Conyears Ervin in the 7th congressional district, who lost to Ford.  The post Progressives Get Bittersweet Results in Illinois Dem Primaries appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Since I last lived in London 30 years ago, Britain has seen the largest inward migration in its recorded history of more than two thousand years, most of it from outside Europe. In 1996, the country was more than 90% indigenous English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. Today it is only 73%. One story that really captures the mass migration and assimilation crisis of modern England is that of Harman Singh Kapoor, a Sikh immigrant who owns a restaurant called Rangrez in Hammersmith, north London. Kapoor publicly declared that he would not serve halal meat. “Halal” is the Arabic term for permitted, or clean, as opposed to “haram”—forbidden, or unclean. Observant Muslims will only eat halal food, just as observant Jews will only eat kosher. Singh’s need to declare that he would not serve halal meat, or his manner of doing so, could be questioned. But it’s his restaurant and his call. The simple thing for any objecting Muslims to do would be not to eat there. But this is “multicultural” London, where indigenous English are barely a third of the population. Conflicts from the old country are imported intact. Magnified on social media, the halal issue resulted in confrontations at Rangrez. At one point, a large group of men showed up outside. Singh had said he carried a knife for defense (one of five items a religious Sikh man must carry at all times, incidentally) and he was arrested. He has now apparently decided to close up shop. This spat highlights a bigger one: to what degree should natives in Britain, or Western countries that take in large numbers of immigrants, concede to the religious and cultural demands of the newcomers? Should inhabitants of Minneapolis, who are mostly not Muslim, be obliged to hear the Muslim call to prayer broadcast five times a day from dawn to dusk? Should all of us have to eat food prepared according to the sensibilities and rituals of a minority? There are over 200 schools in Britain that serve halal food. Halal, like kosher for Jews, requires a specific method of killing animals. One provision is that the animal’s “wind pipe, gullet, and preferably 2 cartoid [sic] arteries and 2 jugular veins must be cut in a single action,” by a Muslim man, with a knife, according to the Association for Public Service Excellence. British law, with the intent of avoiding unnecessary cruelty to animals, requires that they be stunned prior to slaughter. But in 1995, a law was passed to make an exception for religious slaughter. Presumably that was thought at the time to be a fairly minor exception, but now, with a growing Muslim population, it is a controversial issue affecting the mass market. Vegetarians don’t have a dog in the fight (excuse the pun). But carnivores divide into those who want their meat killed humanely versus religiously. Large institutions in Britain—as in the U.S.—are often woke, so happy to pander to special interests. Just look at Budweiser, Disney, and Hollywood. But they also want to avoid negative publicity. For those in the food business, sometimes the sly but easy way out is to make everyone eat halal—whether or not they know it. In 2010, the Daily Mail reported that a large government-run London hospital chain was serving halal meat in its cafeteria without labeling it as such. So were some sporting events, private schools, pubs, and restaurants. In 2014, the Sun newspaper reported that all chicken served at the national chain Pizza Express was halal. In 2017, a London hospital told Breitbart that they served only halal food in their cafeteria “so that it caters for all visitors, staff, and patients who visit the restaurant.” In other words, halal was the default, making it “inclusive” for those who are observant Muslim meat-eaters, but not those who object to religious verses from the Quran being part of their meal preparation. In 2019, an English college student was suspended for stating during a debate that halal was “an inhumane and barbaric way of slaughtering animals.” Deciding how far to accommodate those with the strict religious rules about what they eat is a dilemma for big chains, including American ones. The requirements are not only that halal meat is served, but that the premises be clear of “haram” items. So, no bacon bits on your salad. Today, 20% of Britain’s 1,000 Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets serve halal chicken. McDonald’s in Britain, meanwhile, does not have halal restaurants, although some franchises obtain halal supplies for certain menu items. Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and other religions have their rituals and food preferences, but they don’t demand everyone else accommodate them. Many Muslims also feel that their religious needs can be accommodated in private without coercing the behavior of others. But some more militant Islamists feel otherwise. They are willing to use political and economic power, and sometimes intimidation, to get their way. Where Muslim immigrants decide to go with this issue is at the heart of whether this latest, largest cohort of migrants to historically Christian countries will succeed or fail. The post What’s the Beef in Britain Over Halal Meat? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Two Republican senators introduced draft legislation to reform child care for low-income families after fraud was uncovered in Minnesota and other blue states. Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., are asking stakeholders for feedback on the draft of a bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, a program to help low-income families afford child care. The program has not been reauthorized since 2014. “Every dollar stolen is a dollar not going to children and working families,” said Cassidy, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “While Minnesota brought attention to the issue, this is not just a Minnesota problem. Any criminal who steals from children and rips off taxpayers will be held accountable.”  The senators aim to reduce fraud and improper payments, enhance eligibility verification, increase transparency, and ensure corrective action in federally funded child care programs. The Senate committee is currently investigating Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Michigan for potential fraud in federal child care funding. The Department of Health and Human Services in December paused child care payments to Minnesota over widespread fraud allegations there.  President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday establishing the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud and selecting Vice President JD Vance as “fraud czar.” “American families have been robbed for far too long,” Tuberville said. “We need to find the source of this abuse and cut it off so that our children and families can truly thrive. I will always work to hold the bad actors in the system accountable and advocate for Alabama’s hardworking families and their children.” The deadline for feedback on the bill draft is April 8. CCDBG Discussion DraftDownload ‘Strengthening Federal Oversight Authority‘ The draft gives HHS the authority to enforce program requirements and ensure states and lead agencies comply with program rules. The agency can even disqualify the state from receiving further Child Care and Development funds. “This discussion draft includes a provision that if a state is found noncompliant, penalties must (instead of may) include a disallowance or withholding of funds, a percentage reduction in funds, or disqualification from receipt of funds,” the draft says. The draft also aims to increase oversight by requiring states to publish their error reports every two years rather than every three years. The Government Accountability Office would have to review the state reports to provide recommendations to the HHS Office of Inspector General for additional oversight and policy suggestions. ‘Enhancing Monitoring for High-Risk States’ States with error rates above a certain percentage should be subject to additional monitoring by HHS, according to the draft. HHS would be required to ramp up monitoring of states identified as “high-risk” if a state’s error report is above 9%. Any state consistently above a 6% error rate for two consecutive audit cycles will also be considered “high risk.” The senators also want to require states to post state plans, amendments to state plans, and corrective action plans due to non-compliance. The draft would also categorize fraudulent payments as improper payments when calculating state error rates. HHS would be required to publish these state error reports on a publicly available website so taxpayers can review how their state is administering Child Care and Development Block Grant Act funds. This draft would require states to compensate child care providers based on verified attendance, not enrollment. It would still allow state flexibility to pay providers prospectively or after services are delivered. Removing the Marriage Penalty While current rules may discourage marriage, the discussion draft modifies eligibility criteria to ensure families are not penalized when single parents marry. This aims to ensure that the program helps children from married two-parent families where both adults are working a combined 60 hours per week or are enrolled in job training or educational programs, and are considered to have a moderate to low-income, not exceeding 85% of the state median income. ‘Tightening Eligibility and Payment Verification’ The discussion draft seeks to tighten eligibility verification requirements for families. Cassidy and Tuberville want to require participants to self-report income changes within three months and require states to verify recipients’ income every six months. In addition, they seek to require participants to report significant income changes within that period. Additional provisions would eliminate retroactive eligibility and require states to use electronic authentication tools to verify a participant’s identity. The post EXCLUSIVE: Senators Unveil Reforms to Root Out ‘Learing Center’ Fraud appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Caribbean is one of the most strategically important waterways in the world and serves as the U.S.’ third border, with both the benefits and security concerns that entails. When the Caribbean is left unsecured, drugs, guns, people, and foreign influence find pathways into our country. Strengthening the security of the Caribbean is therefore a core national security interest of the U.S. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) more than 12.1 metric tons of cocaine being trafficked from the Caribbean were seized in 2024. The DEA’s Caribbean Division describes these routes used by drug traffickers as “extremely vulnerable,” and this trafficking of drugs has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. To the credit of the Trump administration, it has taken significant steps in confronting these threats. U.S. forces have conducted joint operations in the Caribbean, targeted drug vessels, seized illicit oil shipments tied to Venezuelan criminal networks, and conducted a historic night-time raid arresting Nicolas Maduro. Investment in the capacity of our partners in the region is also important from the American perspective, as it helps friendly governments stop drugs at ports and in waterways long before they approach the coast of Florida, and because it contributes to the security of the region, lowering crime rates and making these countries safer for business and tourism. The Caribbean–United States Framework for Security Cooperation provides a standing venue to align on firearms trafficking, maritime security, cyber threats, and disaster response. It is reinforced annually by the Caribbean–U.S. Security Cooperation Dialogue, where ministers and senior officials review progress and set priorities for the year ahead. In terms of funding, there is the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI). The CBSI is the main vehicle used for training, limited equipment grants, intelligence sharing, and justice-sector support across 13 nations in the Caribbean. This initiative includes Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. One example of the kind of security infrastructure CBSI funding enables is the CARICOM Crime Gun Intelligence Unit, which strengthens regional capacity to track and disrupt illegal firearms trafficking that fuels violence in the nations of the Caribbean. This U.S.-funded and partnered initiative enhances the ability of Caribbean partners to identify weapon sources, map trafficking networks, and support law enforcement investigations. Funding levels for CBSI, however, have not kept pace with the required weapons, training, logistics, or watercraft needed to effectively combat threats to the Caribbean. The newest authorizing legislation calls for $88 million per year in CBSI funding from fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2029. The U.S. should increase CBSI funding. The current $88 million per year is a fraction of what is required to expand the needed maritime surveillance, modernize partner-nation coast guards, improve intelligence sharing, and increase the number of joint U.S.-Caribbean training exercises. Given the level of trafficking and strategic importance of the Caribbean to the U.S., this investment is rational. At the same time, Caribbean nations must also step up their own commitment to the security of their nations and the Caribbean as a whole. True regional security is a shared burden among all nations involved. The post US Investment in the Caribbean as a National Security Priority appeared first on The Daily Signal.