Texas education officials are considering adding passages and books from the Bible to required reading lists for students, The New York Times first reported. The proposed reading list from the Texas State Board of Education for seventh grade students includes selections from the Book of Jonah, the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel, the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis, and Chapter 3 of the Book of Lamentations, according to The Hill. The board is scheduled to meet in Austin this week for a preliminary vote on the reading list and will have a final vote in June. If approved, the new required list would not take effect until 2030. CBS News reported Wednesday that other Bible stories on the list include the Parable of the Prodigal Son for first grade students, the “Road to Damascus” for third graders, and Ecclesiastes and the Book of Job in high school English classes. In 2023, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring the state’s education agency to recommend at least one required Bible reading per grade in K–12 schools, according to CBS News. The state agency surveyed thousands of teachers to compile a list of around 300 literary works that includes biblical selections and classic literature. The Texas Education Agency did not immediately respond to phone and email inquiries from The Daily Signal on Wednesday. The post Texas Education Officials Consider Adding Bible Passages to Required School Reading Lists appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Senate Leadership Fund, a conservative super PAC, announced it is investing $342 million across eight different 2026 Senate races. The massive advertisement buy, announced Monday, is the largest investment SLF has ever made in an election cycle, and it represents a different approach. “[The] Senate Leadership Fund is better positioned than ever to execute an aggressive offensive strategy to protect and expand the Republican Senate majority,” SLF Executive Director Alex Latcham said in a press release.  The GOP-aligned super PAC is taking on more swing states than ever before by targeting Democrat-held seats in Michigan, Georgia, and New Hampshire. SLF will spend $45 million in Michigan, supporting former Rep. Mike Rogers; $44 million in Georgia; and $17 million in New Hampshire, supporting former Sen. John E. Sununu, who is seeking to reclaim his seat last held in 2009.  This is the most money SLF has ever invested in Michigan and Georgia, and the most invested in New Hampshire since 2016.  In 2026, @MikeRogersForMI is getting the benefits of being the GOP's presumptive nominee that Elissa Slotkin got last cycle for the DemocratsLatest example: SLF Announces Initial $45 Million Investment in Michigan’s U.S. Senate Race"Senate Leadership Fund’s historic…— Matthew Foldi (@MatthewFoldi) April 7, 2026 “SLF’s historic investment will help elect strong Republican senators across key battleground states and ensure that Chuck Schumer and his party remain in the minority,” Latcham continued.  The group is investing differently than normal. Rather than putting all focus on cable, broadcast, and radio ads, SLF is spending heavily on streaming platforms. Early reservations for ad space are almost 70% larger than the 2024 digital ads investment.  However, the super PAC will also be producing cable ads and using data, direct mail, and get-out-the-vote efforts.  “Beginning in the summer and running through Election Day, SLF’s advertising will expose the extraordinary obstruction and failures of the Democratic Party,”  the group said in a news release.  SLF is investing a historic $342 million in 2026 to protect and expand the Republican Senate Majority.This is our largest commitment ever, and our aggressive offensive strategy invests in 3 Democrat-held swing states, the most in SLF history. https://t.co/CctWXp4hVR— Senate Leadership Fund (@Senate_Fund) April 6, 2026 The two largest investments by the group aim to hold Republican seats in North Carolina and Ohio. SLF pledged $71 million to support former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley, who is running for retiring Sen. Thom Tillis’ seat, and a whopping $79 million in Ohio to keep Sen. Jon Husted’s seat.  The Senate Leadership Fund also has invested $15 million in Alaska, $29 million in Iowa, and $42 million in Maine. The post GOP Announces a Historic Investment to Save the Senate Majority appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Throughout recorded human history, military power has been a universal value regardless of civilization, culture, or epoch. Sadly, individual freedom and democracy have not been (and still are not) recognized as universal values. The recent U.S. military success in Venezuela has been the source of considerable benefits to the U.S. and its citizens. To wit, enabling the U.S. to safeguard its geopolitical national interest in the Americas, significant curtailment of illegal drug smuggling into the U.S., enhancement of U.S. military credibility internationally, and ending cheap/free Venezuelan oil for countries hostile to the U.S. The ongoing U.S. military successes in Iran have benefited the U.S. in multiple significant ways. First, the almost complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs has ended a very significant military threat to the U.S. and allies. Second, the complete destruction of Iran’s air defenses (supplied by powers hostile to the U.S.), air force, and navy sends a very tough and credible message to U.S. adversaries and allies about the strength, lethality, and effectiveness of the U.S. military. Third, the destruction of Iran’s terrorist proxies and Iran’s military, and the realignment of alliances in the region has provided an opportunity for peace in the region after many centuries of bloodshed and strife. Finally, this was a much needed and long overdue retribution for the U.S. soldiers injured or killed by Iran in the past 47 years. While the U.S. military action in Iran has been a source of many benefits to the U.S., a collateral negative effect has been the increase in world oil prices, and the associated increase in gas prices at the pump for U.S. consumers. An analysis of the increase in gas prices in the context of U.S. gas prices during the past two decades would allow for a more informed and rational discussion of the pros and cons of this Iran conflict. The figure above illustrates U.S. gas prices 2000-2026. During the Obama administration, gas prices quickly increased to $4 and generally stayed between $3 and $4 for most of his term. During Trump 1.0, gas prices mostly stayed between $2 and $3. During the Biden administration, gas prices quickly rose to about $5 and then declined to about $3. During Trump 2.0, gas prices mostly declined, with the exception of March 2026 when prices increased to about $4. The table below documents the average gasoline prices during recent U.S. administrations. Average gas prices during Trump 1.0 were about 16% ($0.49 per gallon) less than under Obama. Average gas prices during Trump 2.0 have been about 10% ($0.34 per gallon) less than during the Biden administration. The above are the prices paid at the pump, and they do not take inflation into account. Due to inflation, a dollar in 2010 was worth more (in terms of goods and services that dollar could purchase) than a dollar in 2020, which was worth more than a dollar today. The table below documents the inflation-adjusted average gasoline prices during recent U.S. administrations. Inflation-adjusted average gas prices during Trump 1.0 were about 24% ($1.20 per gallon) less than under Obama. Inflation-adjusted average gas prices during Trump 2.0 have been about 18% ($0.67 per gallon) less than during the Biden administration. Gas prices in the U.S. have increased during the past month. This increase should be viewed in context. Average gas prices during the current Trump administration are about $0.34 per gallon less than during the Biden administration. Inflation-adjusted average gas prices during the current Trump administration are about $0.67 per gallon less than during the Biden administration. The cause of the current increase in gas prices is the military conflict in Iran. As noted earlier, the ongoing U.S. military successes in Iran have benefitted the U.S. in significant ways. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Gas Prices Are Better Than They Might Seem appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Even after a decisive Supreme Court ruling on free speech in gender counseling, more such cases could be on the way as state and local governments across the country have bans of some sort on reparative therapy. The Supreme Court recently ruled 8-1 against Colorado’s law that required counseling to conform to gender ideology. Some counselors use reparative therapy to help clients navigate unwanted same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria, rather than affirm their inclinations, but Colorado’s law prohibited this method. Two dozen states and dozens more local governments have restrictions on this type of counseling. It’s not clear whether they will now comply with the court’s ruling, said David Pickup, a psychologist who was the first plaintiff to challenge a ban on reparative therapy in California. “It was definitely shocking in a positive way to see an 8-1 ruling in the Supreme Court, which shows justices across the ideological spectrum see the fallacy of blocking speech,” Pickup told The Daily Signal. Pickup’s challenge to the California law was struck down in 2013 by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court did not take the case at the time. However, the court did take up counselor Kaley Chiles’ challenge to Colorado’s law last year. Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, defended Chiles. The ADF website says that the “precedent“ in her victory “will help protect counselors from similarly unconstitutional laws in 20 states and over 100 localities across the U.S.” Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have restrictions on counseling similar to Colorado’s, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a liberal think tank. Another four states have similar executive orders or administrative restrictions. A Supreme Court ruling is not self-executing, though states have historically complied with rulings. In this instance, some states appear poised to look for a legal workaround. For its part, Colorado’s Democrat House of Representatives passed a measure to allow gay or transgender clients to sue therapists who practice reparative or conversion therapy. State lawmakers in California are reportedly considering reclassifying “conversion therapy” as a fraudulent commercial service that could invite malpractice litigation, as a workaround to the First Amendment. Michigan Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a public statement last week, “Michigan will never support any practice that harms or shames LGBTQ+ youth. As long as I’m governor, every young person deserves the right to grow up safe, supported, and free to be themselves.” Therapy is provided to patients who request it, Pickup said. He noted documented cases of parents or churches attempting to require therapy, but said a professional psychologist would not engage in compulsory therapy with a patient. “I am hoping that the largest medical groups, such as the American Psychological Association, and individual therapists will recognize this is a therapy that works, and works well,” Pickup said. “Truth wins out, and so does good therapy.” The states with legislatively enacted bans before the Supreme Court ruling were California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington state, and Wisconsin, according to the Movement Advancement Project. The four states with administrative orders blocking the therapy are Arizona, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Virginia. The post As States Hint Resistance to SCOTUS Ruling on Gender Counseling, What’s Next for Free Speech? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The IRS should investigate and potentially revoke the tax-exempt status of the American Medical Association’s philanthropic arm, according to a new complaint filed Tuesday. “Based on the evidence in our complaint, we believe the IRS should revoke the AMA Foundation’s tax-exempt status for operating a racially discriminatory program,” Dr. Kurt Miceli, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at Do No Harm, told The Daily Signal. “Racially discriminatory scholarships are unlawful and morally wrong, to say nothing of the negative impact they have on public confidence in our medical system.” Do No Harm, a watchdog group of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals, aims to expose racial discrimination, transgender ideology, and other politically divisive practices in medicine. The complaint, first provided to The Daily Signal and addressed to the IRS’ section on Exempt Organizations and Government Entities, asks the IRS to investigate the AMA Foundation over “invidious racial discrimination” in its Physicians of Tomorrow Scholarship program. The complaint notes that the foundation only extends specific scholarships to Americans of certain races. “The AMA’s obsession with identity politics is no secret, and it should be held accountable for allowing race to dictate applicants’ eligibility for valuable and lucrative learning opportunities,” Dr. Miceli added. “If the AMA Foundation wants to retain its federal tax advantage, it must open its scholarships to applicants of all races.” The Dr. Richard Allen Williams & Genita Evangelista Johnson/Association of Black Cardiologists Scholarship pays $5,000 to medical students interested in cardiology, but only if they are “African American/Black.” The Underrepresented in Medicine Scholarship offers $10,000 to winners, who must be “African American/Black, Latine/Hispanic or Indigenous (American Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native).” The Patricia L. Austin Family Physicians of Tomorrow Scholarship also offers $10,000, but winners must be “of Eastern European descent.” “Each of these racist exclusions is repugnant to our civil rights laws and ‘the congressional intent underlying [federal law],'” the complaint states. It cites Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS had rightly revoked the 501(c)(3) status of Bob Jones University because it forbade interracial dating and marriage. The AMA Foundation’s racially discriminatory scholarships are “sufficient grounds for the IRS to revoke the AMA Foundation’s tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3),” the complaint states. It quotes the Bob Jones Supreme Court finding that “racially discriminatory” institutions “cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the ‘charitable’ concept” of the common law. The complaint also cites Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), in which the Supreme Court found that racial preferences in college admissions—often referred to as “affirmative action”—constituted racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If Supreme Court precedent were not enough, President Donald Trump’s “executive orders also leave the [IRS] with no discretion” on the matter, the complaint claims. “The president has rescinded prior executive orders that agencies had invoked to justify race-based classifications in the name of ‘equity.'” Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, order directs federal agencies to terminate “all discriminatory programs,” including those related to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” as well as policies “allowing or encouraging” third parties “to engage in workforce balancing based on race.” Do No Harm asks the IRS to open an investigation, unless the AMA Foundation alters its policies. “If the AMA Foundation wishes to avoid such an investigation and maintain its tax-exempt status, it can simply open each of its scholarships and any similar programs to all races,” the complaint notes. Do No Harm has previously criticized the American Medical Association, particularly on transgender issues. When the world’s largest organization of plastic surgeons recommended delaying “transgender” surgery until a patient reaches the age of 19, the American Medical Association stated it would follow that guidance—but Do No Harm flagged a specific word in the statement that it said gave the AMA “wiggle room” on the issue. About a month later, the AMA’s board chair suggested that the association would not change its previous support for “gender-affirming care.” This follow-up statement appeared to confirm Do No Harm’s suspicions. The Daily Signal has reached out to the IRS and the AMA for comment and will update this article with any response. AMA Foundation IRS ComplaintDownload The post EXCLUSIVE: American Medical Association Should Lose Tax-Exempt Status, Watchdog Group Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.