THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Two National Guard members were shot in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday; a tragedy that immediately spurred a deluge of prominent liberal commentators and activists on social media blaming President Donald Trump. The guardsmen were attacked a block away from the White House shortly before 3 p.m. local time and remained in critical condition as of Wednesday evening. The troops are part of the National Guard surge Trump ordered in August to address rising crime in the nation’s capital after a series of high-profile incidents, including the fatal shooting of a congressional intern. Democrats had long opposed Trump’s deployment of Guard units to the capital and other cities, calling it an overreach of presidential authority. In the hours after the shooting, many revived those criticisms, arguing that the president was to blame. “Trump put them in harm’s way, fash,” former ESPN and MSNBC host Keith Olbermann posted on X. Trump put them in harm's way, fash— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) November 26, 2025 Jane Mayer, a writer at The New Yorker, argued that the “poor guardsmen should never have been deployed,” adding that they had “virtually nothing to do but pick up trash.” “It was for political show and at what a cost,” Mayer wrote on X. This is so tragic, so unnecessary, these poor guardsmen should never have been deployed. I live in DC and watched as they had virtually nothing to do but pick up trash. It was for political show and at what a cost. https://t.co/ABkOHNHAvG— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) November 26, 2025 “Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth are culpable for endangering the National Guard by putting them in harm’s way,” author and activist John Pavlovitz posted on his BlueSky platform, where he has more than 233,000 followers. Writer Charlotte Clymer similarly told [his] more than 200,000 BlueSky followers that the troops had been “used as political pawns.” “They sign up to serve their country, not needlessly deploy to American cities to pick up garbage,” Clymer wrote. Media personality Keith Edwards also suggested on X that the guardsmen would have been “fine” were it not for “Trump’s illegal deployment of the national guard for a non-emergency.” “History will wonder what we’re all thinking: why did Trump have to put them in harm’s way for a STUNT?” the X account “Call to Activism,” run by political commentator Joe Gallina, posted to its more than 1 million followers. ?BREAKING: Both National Guard members who were shot in Washington, DC, just one block from the White House, have died from their injuries.God bless them and their families.History will wonder what we’re all thinking: why did Trump have to put them in harm’s way for a STUNT? pic.twitter.com/Dx8BCAhaie— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) November 26, 2025 Many other users echoed similar sentiments, including one post with thousands of likes that called the incident an “orchestrated tragedy by a president hellbent on creating a tinder box environment across the country.” Writer and former senior editor at The New Republic Brian Beutler responded to West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s initial—and later retracted—claim that the guardsmen had died, writing that Morrisey had “sent them to die for a stunt.” They should not have been here. You sent them to die for a stunt.— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) November 26, 2025 Despite the posts downplaying crime in the city, violent crime during the National Guard’s initial one-month surge in the capital fell 39% compared to the same period last year, including a 53% drop in homicides. Opposition to the deployments has been ongoing for months. Democrat Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker claimed in August that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard into his state was an “attack on the American people” and would be used to “stop the 2026 elections.” While the Metropolitan Police Department confirmed that one suspect is in custody, officials have not released details about the individual, a possible motive, or whether others were involved. The president said in a Truth Social post shortly after the incident that the “animals” who shot the guardsmen will “pay a very steep price,” and Department of War Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that 500 additional troops would be deployed in response. Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The post Liberals Blame Trump for National Guard Shooting appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a recent interview on Fox News, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked, “We need to know our history in order to preserve it.”  As we celebrate another Thanksgiving, that statement rings truer than ever, as many Americans have no idea of the sacrifices made by those who crossed the Atlantic for religious freedom as well as the legacy?for those who would come after. And in some cases, others now deride them for making the trip in the first place.  First, a little context: A little over 400 years ago, a group of devout Pilgrims crossed the Atlantic on an overcrowded ship, seeking the right to freely practice their faith and live their lives in accordance with their conscience without government interference.  The small ship, called the “Mayflower” was rife with disease as it traversed the stormy Atlantic waters to what was being called the “New World.”  Many of the brave souls who had set sail never made it this new land. Those who did make it endured even more suffering through a harsh New England winter, fallow crops, and other hardships.  But sadly, as I have written in my book, “Toward a More Perfect Union: The Moral and Cultural Case for Teaching the Great American Story,” their legacy has fallen prey to the “woke” rewriting of history by Howard Zinn and others. In this rewrite, the Pilgrims are painted as villains, instead of courageous individuals who laid the groundwork for the freest nation in the world’s history via their creation of the Mayflower Compact—a document recognizing that people derive their right of self-government from God and not man.  The Mayflower Compact was the first attempt at self-government on the North American continent. It was also the document that ultimately served as the basis for the religious liberty enshrined in the U.S. Constitution—a precious freedom that we continue to enjoy today.  While the Compact used Christianity as its base and said that all colonists should live in accordance with the Christian faith, it was also a pluralistic document meant for the good of both Christians and non-Christians alike to be able to govern themselves and abide in harmony with each other, regardless of their differences. It proclaimed that the colonists would create and enact “laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices” that would allow the colony to thrive, and they would create one society and work with each other, rather than in opposition to each other, because faith informs good government for all.  In fact, it was these very principles that inspired Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence as they laid the foundation upon which our nation was built—the values of self-government, private property, Christian morals, industry, and religious liberty.  In our present contentious times, when America seems hopelessly divided on practically every issue, I would suggest that it is time for us to reflect on the principles the Pilgrims provided for us and have served as the foundation that resulted in the freest country on earth. Whether it Christian or non-Christian, Republican or Democrat, Baby Boomer or Millennial, we should all appreciate the legacy the Pilgrims gave us.  But if we forget that history and the freedoms the Pilgrims bequeathed us through the Mayflower Compact, we will not be able to preserve that legacy, as Gorsuch noted, for future generations. And with no understanding of the historical foundation the Pilgrims provided, our country will be sway back and forth, just as the Mayflower did, through countless storms. But unlike the sturdy Mayflower, which sustained the storm after storm, America, is not likely to survive.  However, if we thoughtfully remember those principles and the sacrifices the Pilgrims made and express thankfulness for what they provided for us all, I believe we can once again in harmony—respectful of our differences but united in our gratitude for our freedom and respect for each other. That is my prayer for this and every Thanksgiving.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Let’s Give Thanks for the Pilgrims’ Legacy of Freedom appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Amid the tragic news that 2 National Guard members had been shot in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, social media users drew attention to recent comments by Democrat lawmakers on President Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard to combat crime in cities across America. Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser referred to the attack as a “targeted shooting.” “What we know is that this is a targeted shooting, one individual who appeared to target these guardsmen. That individual has been taken into custody,” said Bowser, who announced Tuesday she would be seeking reelection. Reporter: "Does this validate the need for National Guard in DC?"Mayor Bowser: "What we know is this is a targeted shooting, one individual who appeared to target these guardsmen. That individual has been taken into custody." pic.twitter.com/pwKkzzX8Om— Jordan Chamberlain (@jordylancaster) November 26, 2025 “Sen. Elissa Slotkin went on TV last Sunday and claimed that National Guardsmen were going to start shooting at American civilians,” posted Greg Price, who formerly served as a rapid response manager for the Trump White House. Sen. Elissa Slotkin went on TV last Sunday and claimed that National Guardsmen were going to start shooting at American civilians.Two Guardsmen have now been wounded after being shot on the streets in DC. pic.twitter.com/lKKrqxYFWu— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 26, 2025 In an interview Sunday, Slotkin, D-Mich., defended her decision to appear in a video with other Democrats that urged military members to not follow “illegal orders” from the Trump administration. >>>Victor Davis Hanson: Democrats Who Told Military Not to Obey ‘Illegal’ Orders Are ‘Not Being Honest’ “So, for me, my primary concern is the use of U.S. military on American shores, on our city—in our cities and in our streets. We’ve seen now the courts overturn the deployment of U.S. military into our streets, including here in Washington, D.C,” Slotkin said on ABC program “This Week.” “When you look at these videos coming out of places like Chicago, it makes me incredibly nervous that we’re about to see people in law enforcement, people in uniform military get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians,” she added. “It is very—a very, very stressful situation for these law enforcement and for the communities on the ground.” Slotkin’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about her remarks on “This Week.” In an X post Wednesday, she called the shooting “heartbreaking.” Sending prayers and strength to the friends, families and fellow guardsmen of the two West Virginians who were shot in Washington, D.C. These individuals signed up to serve because they cared about their community and their country, and to have this happen the day before…— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) November 26, 2025 Price also highlighted remarks by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, made on Aug. 31. “J.B. Pritzker claimed that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was an ‘attack on the American people’ and will be used to ‘stop the 2026 elections,'” wrote Price. Trump sent National Guard troops to Chicago in October. J.B. Pritzker claimed that President Trump's deployment of the National Guard was an "attack on the American people" and will be used to "stop the 2026 elections."Two Guardsmen are now dead about being shot on the streets in DC. pic.twitter.com/XWkqwbNn6R— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 26, 2025 Priztker’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On X, he posted that Wednesday’s attack was “unacceptable violence.” The shooting of National Guard members in Washington, DC today is a horrible tragedy. We must all condemn this kind of unacceptable violence. MK and I are praying for the victims, their families, and all of our service members who sign up to serve our country.— Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) November 26, 2025 Steve Guest, who formerly worked for Sen. Ted Cruz and the Republican National Committee, highlighted remarks made by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. “Democrats from Elissa Slotkin to Gavin Newsom need to watch their dangerous rhetoric,” wrote Guest. “Last month, Gavin Newsom said that National Guard troops in cities were ‘right out of the dictator’s handbook.'” Democrats from Elissa Slotkin to Gavin Newsom need to watch their dangerous rhetoric. Last month, Gavin Newsom said that National Guard troops in cities were "right out of the dictator's handbook."pic.twitter.com/1wtgFVuvw7 https://t.co/FqDuooc2jW— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) November 26, 2025 Newsom’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On X, Newsom posted, “There must be zero tolerance for violence — of any kind — against the brave men and women in uniform who selflessly serve our communities and our country.” There must be zero tolerance for violence — of any kind — against the brave men and women in uniform who selflessly serve our communities and our country. The shooting of National Guard members in Washington, D.C. is horrific and unacceptable.Jen and I are praying for the…— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) November 26, 2025 Trump, who pledged on Truth Social Wednesday that the shooter “will pay a very steep price,” first brought the National Guard to Washington, D.C. in August. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday more National Guard troops would be coming to D.C. “This happened just steps from the White House and it will not stand and that’s why President Trump has asked me—and I will ask the secretary of the Army to the National Guard—to add 500 additional troops, National Guardsmen, to Washington, D.C.,”  said Hegseth. The post What Democrats Have Recently Said About National Guard appeared first on The Daily Signal.

After a resounding 99-1 defeat last summer, efforts to enact an artificial intelligence moratorium are back, this time with a push to force it into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As Annie Chestnut Tutor notes, supporters say it is needed to stop “an unworkable patchwork of disparate and conflicting state AI laws” and to protect America’s lead over China. Yet the moratorium would undermine that very goal. America is poised to lead the world in AI-enabled biotechnology, and the best way to secure that lead is through federal-state partnerships, where states pilot clinical AI rules, accelerate safe deployment, and pressure federal agencies to modernize faster than any single national bureaucracy could on its own. America needs an AI framework that channels innovation toward human flourishing and sets limits on projects that fail to serve that goal, as states already do through age-verification pornography laws and AI chatbot protections for kids. For all its promises, a moratorium proposal in the NDAA would likely miss these marks. In practice, a federal moratorium would not simply “pause” regulation in the abstract—it would freeze state enforcement authority over the fastest-moving and most ethically sensitive AI applications in medicine and biotechnology. States would be barred from updating medical AI standards, restricting embryo-scoring algorithms, regulating clinical decision software, or enforcing emerging protections for children and patients. This would create a regulatory vacuum precisely where AI is advancing fastest, leaving life-altering technologies governed by corporate policy rather than public law. Some of the most promising near-term benefits of AI lie in biotechnology, especially in health and infertility diagnostics. President Donald Trump has been clear on this point. Earlier this week, he released a fact sheet on “The Genesis Mission to Accelerate AI for Scientific Discovery,” which establishes a national initiative to unify federal data, computing power, and scientific expertise. Two months ago, he issued an executive order aimed at using AI to unlock cures for pediatric cancer through the expanded Childhood Cancer Data Initiative. These actions recognize the power of large computation tools to break through scientific stagnation and spark a fresh era of medical discovery. Proponents of a moratorium argue that without uniform national rules, a patchwork of state laws will throttle the AI industry through burdensome compliance costs, regulatory gaps, and legal uncertainty. In the short term, a moratorium would reduce some of that friction by removing requirements or postponing new regulatory obligations. But it does not resolve the underlying conflicts; it merely postpones their resolution while eliminating the very state-level experimentation that has historically produced workable national standards. Uniformity achieved by freezing governance is not leadership; it is paralysis. AI-driven diagnostics hold particular promise. They can scan vast medical datasets and spot patterns that clinicians miss, giving patients earlier detection and more tailored care for infertility, rare diseases, and hard-to-diagnose conditions. Today, as many as 30% of infertility cases are labeled “unexplained.” Larger datasets and AI analysis tools could drastically improve diagnostics. At the same time, smarter algorithms could guide personalized treatments that restore health and give families hope. These are life-affirming, restorative uses of AI that deserve support. Yet every advance carries risks. AI-powered systems can misdiagnose. They can introduce bias. They can create black-box recommendations that further alienate the patient and clinician alike. And in reproductive medicine, these tools are already being used in ways that steer us toward a consumer-driven form of eugenics. Clinics now use software to grade and rank embryos. Companies market polygenic scoring tools that claim to forecast not only disease risks but also personality traits or cognitive outcomes. A blanket moratorium on AI regulation would directly undermine legitimate state efforts to prevent AI from being used to commodify human life. The lesson from recent technological history bears this out. Take the rise of sex-rejecting transgender surgeries. Medical advances made them possible, but Americans now recognize the deep harm they have caused, especially to children. Higher rates of suicide, depression, infertility, and regret underline that not every innovation is a step forward. The same pattern occurs with non-human research, too. AI tools can now generate new genomic sequences in microbes and viruses. This opens the door to new treatments in non-human specimens, but the same technology could also accelerate the creation of smart bioweapons that target particular countries or demographics. Research labs around the country are deploying systems that grow cells into organoids and run self-driving laboratories that complete thousands of experiments each week. Some of these platforms even advertise that “tech expertise is not required.” That should concern us. As these systems grow more complex and as human oversight shrinks, researchers may lose the ability to fully understand or interpret what these AI-run machines are producing. These breakthroughs are not only scientific. They reshape culture and politics. As philosopher Marshall McLuhan argued, we must judge technology not only by what it does but by what it does to us. It changes relationships. It shifts power. It affects the core structures of family and community. The states are where technology, people, and policy first intersect. That is why our national AI strategy ought not to deny their role to guide innovation toward life-giving, human-centered, and restorative ends. Our service members deserve a swift resolution to the NDAA. They also deserve policy that strengthens American innovation toward human flourishing. A moratorium on artificial intelligence would do the opposite. It would weaken public oversight and freeze state protections at the very moment we need thoughtful, principled, and purpose-driven policy to govern these tools, especially as they shape the creation, selection, and development of human life. The post The Hidden Biotech Stakes of AI Moratorium Debate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It appears the dam is finally breaking as Republicans in the House advance a package of child safety bills that bereaving and aggrieved parents have waited years for. The House Energy and Commerce Committee revealed 19 bills to be considered in a legislative hearing, among them a version of the Kids Online Safety Act. From a generation-defining mental health crisis, a sexual exploitation pandemic, and now AI chatbots that fuel suicidal ideation, America’s kids have been devastated by Big Tech, aided by a Congress bogged down by excuses. Now, all that seems set to change. Or will it? An AI moratorium was first announced in the Energy and Commerce Committee’s reconciliation package earlier this year. The final version eventually failed 99-1, due in no small part to concerns from child safety advocates. Now, just as pressure from House leadership escalates to force a measure preempting state AI regulation into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), child safety bills are getting the green light. This invites a troubling question: Is Republican leadership attempting to use child safety as leverage to accomplish a greater goal of deregulating the AI industry before any federal safeguards are in place? As Politico Pro has reported, It is widely viewed by insiders on Capitol Hill that the child safety bills are being offered by Republican leadership to get child safety advocates to stand down in their opposition to Congress’ preempting states from regulating AI, despite numerous valid concerns raised by their citizens. Politics can’t wait for pure motives, however. Those who have been involved in campaigns around the country to make the internet safer for kids should welcome Congress’ sudden interest in child safety. But if this is a high-stakes negotiation—using America’s children as hostages—these should be our terms. Release the Kids Lawmakers should disentangle child safety from the pressure cooker of the NDAA and the battle over preemption. Industry lobbyists are using the opaque conditions that they have contrived to slip in poison pills and water down the child safety bills themselves, while also seeking to secure what they ultimately want: the power to strip states of the right to regulate AI systems. This is a raw deal, to put it lightly. But it’s also totally unnecessary. In a post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump himself said that Congress should use either the NDAA to establish a federal AI standard or, instead, Congress should seek to “pass another bill.” Neither child safety nor preemption of state AI regulation have anything to do with the NDAA. Detach preemption from the NDAA and detach child safety from both. Bills pursued through regular order give every American an opportunity to speak into their objectives and language. This is as true for a federal AI standard as it is for child safety package, which will be perhaps the two most consequential pieces of legislation of this generation. Both deserve care and democratic input. Decoupling these bills is also what Americans want. New polling by the Institute for Family Studies with YouGov finds that voters oppose including preemption in the NDAA by a margin of 3 to 1. Serious Problems Furthermore, several of the bills on offer suffer from serious problems, particularly the House version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) 2.0. After years of careful negotiation in the Senate, the House stripped out the duty of care provision from KOSA, which required social media companies to design their platforms with the wellbeing of children in mind. In a statement released Tuesday night, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., herself—who spent years working across the aisle with her senate colleagues to craft KOSA—panned the House version, saying that it “would not ensure Big Tech companies like Meta prioritize the safety of children over profit.” The duty of care must be restored, especially if KOSA is the centerpiece of the Congressional package.  COPPA 2.0 also needs strengthening. It inexplicably maintains 13 as the age of internet adulthood, while adulthood is 18 years of age in every other sphere of life. The upshot is that COPPA 2.0 allows children ages 13 or above to give internet platforms permission to use their personal data without any parental consent required. This fails to safeguard the vast majority of American adolescents from predatory surveillance by social media companies. In Harm’s Way Turning the personal and social lives of children into a source of revenue has helped build up exploitative social media empires, that strategically put millions upon millions of kids in harm’s way just to extract as much data from them as possible. A weakened KOSA and an insufficient COPPA 2.0 won’t do much to help children, and they are certainly not worth handcuffing states that seek to dutifully protect their citizens from abuses of AI. Tying child safety to preemption and the NDAA only gives Big Tech what it wants: leverage over the Republican base. Republican leadership should instead answer President Trump’s call by pursuing federal AI standards through a separate bill, where narrow preemption of state AI laws may be appropriate, while advancing child safety through a standalone legislative package. Our children deserve protection, not to be used as pawns in a grand game that gives Big Tech all the cards. The post Don’t Let Big Tech Hold America’s Kids Hostage appeared first on The Daily Signal.