The social media platform X has formally challenged the European Commission’s €120 million fine, arguing that the fine violates its due process under other European Union statutes. The challenge, if successful, may significantly alter the underlying EU law, the Digital Services Act, which critics have described as a weapon of “global censorship.” “X is being targeted by the European Commission because it is a free speech platform,” Adina Portaru, senior counsel for Europe at Alliance Defending Freedom International, said in a Friday statement announcing the appeal. “Social media platforms are today’s public square, and the DSA threatens speech in that public square.” Portaru, who represents X in court, called the fine “a crackdown on X by authorities who view a free speech platform as a serious threat to their total control of online narratives.” “By targeting X, they are targeting the free speech of individuals across the world who simply want to share ideas online free from censorship,” she added. X as a Free Speech Platform Tesla CEO Elon Musk purchased X, then known as Twitter, for $44 billion in October 2022. Musk said he bought the social media platform in part to restore the account of The Babylon Bee, a Christian satire site that had been permanently suspended for giving a “Man of the Year” award to former Biden administration official Dr. Rachel Levine, a man who identifies as a woman. When Musk took over, he brought in journalists who released The Twitter Files, which revealed the government’s pressuring Twitter to censor speech on the COVID-19 pandemic, transgender ideology, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and more. The EU Fine The European Commission fined X in December, marking the first non-compliance judgment against a social media company under the Digital Services Act. The fine is $141 million in U.S. dollars. “Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU. The DSA protects users,” Henna Virkkunen, the executive vice president for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy at the European Commission, said in a statement.  Virkkunen claimed the law “restores trust in the online environment.” The Appeal Yet X’s appeal, filed Monday, raises serious concerns about the act. “This case turns on whether the enormous powers given to the European Commission under the DSA are compatible with the rule of law,” Portaru argued. “Under the DSA, the Commission is able to define the rules for so-called ‘content moderation,’ launch investigations, enforce them, and impose massive penalties for noncompliance, all with no meaningful checks and balances. The threat to free speech is severe.” Portaru cited a July 2025 report from the House Judiciary Committee Republicans, claiming that the Digital Services Act “compels global censorship and infringes on American free speech.” “The EU claims that the DSA applies only to Europe and that it targets only harmful or illegal content. Both of these claims are inaccurate,” the report states. “Nonpublic documents reveal that European regulators use the DSA: to target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal; and to pressure platforms, primarily American social media companies, to change their global content moderation policies in response to European demands.” The Republicans argue that “EU’s comprehensive digital censorship law … infringes on American online speech” by weaponizing terms like “disinformation” and “hate speech” to “censor their political opponents and criticism from their constituents, including ‘memes’ and other forms of satire.” The report reveals how social media companies drafted “voluntary” codes of conduct under threat from the DSA, and exposes a May 2025 DSA Workshop that the European Commission held with platforms behind closed doors. House Judiciary DSA Free SpeechDownload Democrats on the committee responded by claiming the Republican report included “distortions” to paint the act in a bad light. The Republican report cites multiple instances of European governments flagging conservative speech, and Democrats note that the social media platforms did not ultimately take down the content. The Democrat report does not highlight comparable examples of left-leaning speech facing potential censorship, however. X’s appeal argues that the fine violates its right to due process, and that it suggests a prosecutorial bias. If the appeal succeeds, it may lead the court to annul specific provisions in the law, particularly aspects that allow the European Commission to act as “regulator, prosecutor, and judge,” ADF International noted, “a role codified in the DSA itself, but which raises high concerns for due process and the rule of law.” “If the Commission’s concentration of power goes unchallenged, it will further cement a highly problematic standard for speech control across the EU and beyond,” Portaru said. The post ‘SEVERE’ THREAT TO FREE SPEECH: X Appeals European Commission Fine, Challenges Censorship Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For decades, judicial education has served a narrow but vital purpose: helping judges understand complex technical issues without telling them how to rule. That boundary matters. Once judicial education becomes advocacy, courts stop acting as neutral arbiters and begin functioning as instruments of policy enforcement. The Federal Judicial Center crossed that line. In endorsing the Fourth Edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” produced by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the taxpayer-funded Center embedded contested, plaintiff-driven climate litigation theories into one of the most authoritative reference works relied upon by judges nationwide. The result was not neutral guidance on scientific method. It was an evidentiary framework that tracked the legal strategy of climate plaintiffs. The Reference Manual is not a blog post. Judges rely on it when evaluating expert testimony, determining admissibility, and weighing causation in complex cases. Historically, it focused on methodology, how science works, what courts should ask, and where uncertainty lies. The Fourth Edition marked a sharp departure. For the first time, the Manual included a Reference Guide on Climate Science. That guide, now described by the Federal Judicial Center as “omitted,” treated disputed theories central to active climate litigation as effectively settled. It instructed judges that researchers can quantify the contribution of human emissions to specific damages and suggested that skepticism of those claims may reflect misunderstanding or strategic manipulation. That framing mirrors the core allegations advanced in climate nuisance and fraud suits moving through state and federal courts. After pressure from state attorneys general and mounting public scrutiny, the Federal Judicial Center announced that the climate science chapter had been “omitted.” That announcement has been presented as a corrective step. It is not. The chapter has not been rescinded. The full Manual, including the climate guide, remains hosted on the National Academies’ website, still bearing the Federal Judicial Center’s logo and institutional authority, without any disclaimer or notice of withdrawal. Judges, litigants, and researchers can still access and rely on the very material the Federal Judicial Center now claims to have sidelined. More importantly, removing a chapter does not remove the architecture of influence. Even without the climate guide, the revised Manual continues to elevate a narrow set of activist-aligned authorities in sections purporting to explain “how science works.” Judges are directed to the writings of Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes as examples of scientific consensus, without disclosure of their advocacy roles or involvement in litigation narratives. The Manual warns that disagreement over “settled science” may reflect strategic manipulation by stakeholders, explicitly citing climate change alongside tobacco. That is not neutral instruction. It primes judges to view skepticism as suspect. The problem extends beyond climate. The Manual repeatedly imports ideological frameworks under the banner of scientific context. Judges are instructed that scientific knowledge is shaped by identity, positionality, and intersectionality. Citations emphasize race, gender, and sociological perspective as factors in evaluating expertise.  The omitted climate guide itself relied heavily on figures whose work was developed explicitly with litigation in mind. It praised Richard Heede’s “Carbon Majors” theory, central to climate complaints, without disclosing coordination with plaintiffs’ counsel. It promoted attribution methodologies developed by Myles Allen and Friederike Otto, whose event attribution work was expressly designed with courtroom application in view and is now marketed as a basis for liability. It cited Michael Mann without noting his sanction for bad faith trial misconduct, and Naomi Oreskes despite her exclusion as an expert for unreliable methodology. Those conflicts were never disclosed. Judges were not told that the frameworks presented as neutral analysis were authored by individuals with direct financial and strategic interests in how climate cases are resolved. This did not happen in isolation. For years, the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project hosted seminars aimed at judges in jurisdictions where climate litigation was pending or anticipated. Those programs featured plaintiff-aligned experts and advanced litigation-oriented narratives. The Federal Judicial Center’s endorsement of the Fourth Edition institutionalized those themes inside official judicial infrastructure. The intent was not subtle. At a National Academies workshop convened during development of the Manual, participants discussed how to reach judges who might be skeptical and emphasized the need for the Manual to “have an impact.” That is not the language of neutral education. The consequences are serious. When contested theories are embedded in trusted judicial reference materials, judges may treat disputed factual predicates as resolved before adversarial testing occurs. One side enters the courtroom with its framework already normalized. Public confidence in judicial neutrality erodes. Congress has taken notice. Following investigative work by the American Energy Institute, the House Judiciary Committee opened a formal inquiry into improper judicial influence tied to climate litigation. Yet appropriations to the Federal Judicial Center continue to flow without conditions, even as evidence mounts that taxpayer resources were used to advance one side of active disputes. Restoring integrity does not require hostility toward science or courts. It requires restoring boundaries. Judicial education must return to explaining methods, uncertainties, and limits, not endorsing contested conclusions. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed. Advocacy must remain outside institutions charged with impartial adjudication. The question now is whether Congress will insist on genuine neutrality, or continue funding a system that engineers outcomes before cases are ever heard. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Climate Fox in the Judicial Henhouse appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump announced that he is directing his administration to release government files on alien and extraterrestrial life. “Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP),” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.” "Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and… pic.twitter.com/3fKQ7wrSvi— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 20, 2026 On Saturday, former President Barack Obama said on Brian Tyler Cohen’s podcast that aliens are real, but he hasn’t seen them. Fox News’ Peter Doocy on Thursday asked Trump to respond to the statement. “Well, he gave classified information,” Trump said of Obama. “He’s not supposed to be doing that.” “I don’t know if they’re real or not, I can tell you he gave classified information,” he continued. “He’s not supposed to be doing that. Well, he made him he made a big mistake.” Trump said he might get Obama “out of trouble” by declassifying the alien files. In recent years, the Pentagon has investigated reports of UFOs, and senior military leaders said in 2022 they found no evidence to suggest that aliens had visited Earth or crash-landed here. A 2024 Pentagon report said U.S. government investigations since the end of World War II had found no evidence of extraterrestrial technology and most sightings were misidentified ordinary objects and phenomena. The website of the National Archives and Records Administration says it has records related to UFOs across numerous collections. Reuters contributed to this report. The post Trump Directs Administration to Release Alien Files appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The American education system currently deserves an “F” for its failures to teach even the basics on the American government and how it functions.   This was demonstrated in embarrassing fashion this month when an anti-ICE sheriff in North Carolina testified before the state legislature proved he didn’t know which branch of government he worked under, nor even the names of the three branches.  The sheriff is far from alone.   A national survey found that 58% of American adults fail a basic civics test that includes questions about how the government works. Another study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation reported that more than 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz on topics like what the three branches of government are and other foundational concepts.   The Department of Education aims to reverse this reality by launching a new nationwide civics competition called “The Presidential 1776 Award for Civics.”  As part of the “America 250” celebration, the competition is designed to deepen understanding of the nation’s founding principles, U.S. Constitution, and key moments in American history. This scholarship contest challenges high school students on their knowledge of civics and the ideas that shaped the United States.  The Presidential 1776 Award was announced in a news release by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.  “As we prepare to celebrate America’s 250th birthday,” McMahon said, “this competition is an opportunity for young people to push themselves, learn our history, and take pride in the principles that unite us. I am grateful to the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation and all of the educators, partners, and families who are helping to make this effort possible. Game on!”    Award Details   Registration for the Presidential 1776 Award competition has just opened and will continue through Feb. 21. Students who wish to participate should sign up online at the official registration portal before the deadline to be eligible to compete in the first round of testing.  The competition is open to all high school students (grades 9–12) who are U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or lawful permanent residents living in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or U.S. territories. Participation is free, and students can compete regardless of their school or background, as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. The Presidential 1776 Award unfolds in three main rounds:  Online Exam: Held February 22–28, this electronically proctored, timed multiple-choice test covers civics and foundational U.S. history.  Regional Semifinals: In May, state finalists compete in in-person short-answer and verbal rounds.  National Finals: At the end of June—just before America 250’s July 4 celebration— the top regional competitors face off in the final round in the District of Columbia. The three rounds of multiple-choice and verbal examinations were developed independently by the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, a federal entity established by Congress in 1986 to improve civics education and strengthen understanding of the U.S. Constitution.  Executive Secretary and CEO of the Foundation, Julie E. Adams, commented on the scholarship. “Our James Madison Fellows are among the best teacher-scholars on the U.S. Constitution and the American Founding, and they will write challenging but fair questions for the intrepid students who take part in the award. The knowledge of American civics and history is vital to the survival of the Republic.”  The competition offers significant scholarship prizes for top-performing students:  1st Place: $150,000  2nd Place: $75,000  3rd Place: $25,000  In total, $250,000 in scholarships will be awarded to the three national winners, providing substantial support for college or future educational pursuits.  The Presidential 1776 Award is part of the nation’s “America 250” celebration—a year-long commemoration of the 250th anniversary of American independence. This initiative reflects a broader effort by the Department of Education and its partners to engage young people more deeply in civic learning and to celebrate the principles that have shaped the United States. This competition has a crucial mission and offers the necessary incentive to introduce the American Constitution to students.   The post Civics Crisis? New Presidential 1776 Scholarship Challenges Students to Know the Constitution   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive actions on tariffs exceeded his constitutional authority.  During oral arguments in November, even Trump-appointed justices seemed skeptical of the government’s arguments that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval.  In the case of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, two companies sued in May 2025 after Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of tariffs. At issue was whether the president exceeded his executive branch authority by imposing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address emergencies only. The Trump administration has argued the trade imbalance constitutes a national emergency. Trump has consistently argued the United States has gotten a raw deal on trade with other countries that impose tariffs. Normally, trade policy, including tariffs, is enacted through legislation in Congress and signed by the president. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that the law Trump used “contains no reference to tariffs or duties.” “The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power,” Roberts wrote. “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Ful filling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett–both Trump appointees–joined the chief justice and the court’s three liberal justices in the majority. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh all dissented from the majority opinion, wiritng that “interpreting IEEPA to exclude tariffs creates nonsensical textual and practical anomalies.” “The plaintiffs and the Court do not dispute that the President can act in declared emergencies under IEEPA to impose quotas or even total embargoes on all imports from a given country,” the dissent says. “But the President supposedly cannot take the far more modest step of conditioning those imports on payment of a tariff or duty. Textually, however, if quotas and embargoes are a means to regulate importation, how are tariffs not a means to regulate importation? Nothing in the text supports such an illogical distinction.” The case was uncharted waters for the Supreme Court, which had never before ruled on the extent of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Tariffs have long been core to Trump’s trade and economic agenda, often clashing with the more libertarian-leaning conservative views on free trade that dominated the Republican Party going back to at least the Ronald Reagan era. The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Tariffs Core to Trump Economic Agenda appeared first on The Daily Signal.