This week, I had the honor of visiting Normandy, France, with Young America’s Foundation. Led by combat veteran Lt. Col. Allen West, our cadre of student leaders walked the five beaches of Normandy, which were hallowed 82 years ago by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s soldiers, sailors, and airmen.  After commemorating the anniversary of the D-Day landings, and as we part with many of their last witnesses, it behooves Americans to reflect on what those young men did and why it is still of the highest consequence to us.  By the time the Western Allies were ready to commence the liberation of the Continent, on June 6, 1944, France had been under Nazi occupation for just shy of four years. The Germans had built a fearsome line of dug-in fortifications, bolstered by artillery and guarded by the remnants of the Luftwaffe: the Atlantic Wall.  To free Europe, it was necessary to form an amphibious force—the largest the world had ever seen—and launch it directly at this deadly bulwark.  It’s one thing to read about this operation. It’s quite another to walk the hundreds of yards down Omaha Beach and see how open and vulnerable the landing ground was.   To feel the English Channel freezing your feet and weighing down your clothes, and to imagine it reddened with blood and overturning the reinforcements.   To look at the sheer cliffs at Pointe du Hoc, and to picture machine gunners picking off your buddies as you all realize the ladders you brought were too short.   To see the 20-foot bomb craters still marking the land above the coast.  Who were the men who endured this? And why did they?   These men stood to sacrifice some of the highest blessings of life—youth, health, home, family—and they knew it all too well. Nothing shows this better than a letter from Rear Adm. Don Moon, the commander of Assault Force “U” for Normandy, to his wife and children, dated June 2, which is now visible in the museum above Utah Beach.  Moon professes courage: “When the time comes I shall carry the country’s banner high and apply all power to the enemy’s defeat.” But he plans for the worst. He tells his wife: “I know that the world can hold no greater treasure than the love, affection, and companionship you have showered upon me. To you in case of my non-return, I bequeath the problems and the joys of bringing our darlings to manhood and womanhood in the way you and I think they should be raised.”   He expresses his wishes for each of his children in turn. He hopes that they would develop “virtue and kindness” and “strength of character.”  Like John Adams, who once resolved to “study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy … in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick,” Moon, facing possible death in war, encourages his son David in “the development of his talents of mimicry and acting if he feels this could be his calling.”  Eisenhower’s men knew that if they did not go, they—and the world—would lose something even more precious than their personal blessings of home and family: a Western civilization that recognizes the God-given dignity of every human person. Rising high over Gold Beach are stirring symbols of this civilization: a Crucifix and a statue of the Blessed Virgin. Likewise, Juno Beach bears the Cross of Lorraine, a symbol of free France and of its foundation.  With such strength emboldening them, the men who stormed the beaches could say, in the words of one veteran of Gold Beach: “I wouldn’t have missed it for the world.”  For thousands, this dedication proved fatal. Not far from the road to Omaha Beach, “Avenue de Bedford Virginie U.S.A.,” is a memorial to the community in America which took the highest losses at D-Day.  The images of these “Bedford Boys” are sobering: 19 photographs, all bearing the same death date, June 6, 1944. Most of the men were in their early twenties.  The French at Normandy have not forgotten what these men did. Au contraire, driving through the region, one might think they had all personally experienced the liberation.  Allied flags adorn streets, shop windows, and private homes in villages and farmland alike. Fresh roses and poppies cover the ground in front of memorials and graves.  As a visiting American, the most beautiful moment came as I walked slowly through the American cemetery, surrounded by the graves of 9,389 Americans who died to free France. Hearing a French mother hush her young daughter, then watching hundreds fall silent as the American flag was lowered and Taps was played, I fought tears.  Particularly now, when personal memories of the Second World War are quickly fading, we in America must take a cue from the pious people of Normandy.  We must remember the liberators.  In our own day, many are being deceived by the same lies that led to the rise of fascism in Europe: Men and women are again listening to demagogues who exalt omnicompetent government and subordinate free thought and independent churches to state-sanctioned notions of morality. Some today even echo the despicable and irrational hatred of Jewish people that led to the evil of the Holocaust.  Everyone wants a standard around which he can rally. Rail as we might against the false standard of deconstruction, if we do not replace it with the memory of our heroes, the flame of liberty, which they kept burning at the price of so much blood, will not outlive them. 

Children of married parents with high education levels are more likely to be healthy and succeed in school and life than their peers. Children from these families are also more likely to live above the poverty line and benefit from extracurricular activities such as music lessons, sports, and summer camp. These activities offer students prized background knowledge. Students from families with lower education levels must rely more on schools to provide information. Poor reading and math scores nationwide do not give confidence that schools in low-income areas are bridging the gap. Many schools have reduced time spent on history, science, geography, literature, and civics in favor of generic reading strategies, so-called social-emotional learning, and “gender” studies. Schools often cut the very subjects that help students. Differences in background knowledge have enormous implications for teaching reading. Two students can read the same paragraph and perform differently on the test, not because one is more intelligent, but because he knows the topic better. For decades, researcher and former professor E.D. Hirsch argued that literacy is connected to content and vocabulary. Hirsch has argued that “broad general knowledge” is essential for reading comprehension because students need prior knowledge to understand what they read.  Likewise, professor of cognitive psychology Daniel T. Willingham, who researches reading comprehension, has also found that background information is important for students to understand text. The evidence behind this approach is compelling. A 2024 report in Education Next observed long-term reading gains among students attending schools using knowledge-rich curricula. Researchers at the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development similarly found that elementary students who learned under the Core Knowledge curriculum—which was developed by Hirsch—improved their reading abilities. While much of the education establishment doubles down on skills and spends less time on content, some educators are bucking the trend by reemphasizing rigor and factual memorization. Liberty Common School in Fort Collins, Colorado, has used the Core Knowledge curriculum since 1997. The curriculum gives students a foundation in a range of subjects, including history, geography, literature, science, music, and the arts. School officials report their 2025 graduating class had Colorado’s highest composite SAT score. The Great Hearts network of schools also uses a classical liberal arts curriculum focusing on great books. The Great Hearts network started in Arizona, but parent demand helped expand the academies to Louisiana and Texas. Instead of narrowing instruction, these schools immerse students in primary sources and maintain high academic expectations. Students cannot analyze history they do not know, evaluate scientific claims they do not understand, or engage in civic debate without any understanding of civilization. Knowledge is a prerequisite for any critical thinking. Yet state lawmakers in California, New Jersey and Vermont have ethnic studies standards or requirements that emphasize activism, identity politics, and “lived experiences” with no civics requirements. Encouraging schools to adopt knowledge-rich curricula is a proven approach to closing the achievement gap. It is one of the few education reforms that should attract support across ideological lines. America does not suffer from a shortage of taxpayer spending. It has a knowledge problem. Schools cannot continue stripping content out of classrooms while expecting literacy rates and civic understanding to improve. If policymakers genuinely want to close the achievement gap, they should start by recognizing what that gap represents: unequal access to knowledge.

It was both a spiritual and strategic move when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. “From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty,” the president said upon signing the bill on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. “To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning,” he continued. “The Soul of an American President: The Untold Story of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Faith,” written by Alliance Defending Freedom founder and former President Alan Sears and two co-authors, Craig Osten and Ryan Cole, details how faith was important to the 34th president well before he entered the White House. “In World War II, he saw the concentration camps and it shook him to his core,” Osten told the Daily Signal. “He was convinced this is where a godless society ends up. He also looked at what was happening in the Soviet Union and the destruction of their churches.” During the bill-signing remarks, Eisenhower made a subtle reference to the Cold War. “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future. In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons, which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war,” Eisenhower said. Critics of the bill have dismissed it as a geostrategic move to claim the moral high ground against the Soviets. Osten stressed it was much more than that for Eisenhower. “He looked at what was different about America. He believed the Soviet Union’s weak link was that it was an atheistic society,” Osten said. “It’s not that he was using religion as a weapon, but he did want to remind America of its spiritual roots.” Osten added the president “wanted to make sure America didn’t drift the way Russia and Germany did.” After the bill-signing ceremony, the former Supreme Allied commander met with an American Legion gathering at the Capitol, where he and the others recited the pledge with the newly added words “under God.” As for the pledge itself, it had quite a journey before Eisenhower’s monumental act. The first version of the pledge, which skipped from “ … one nation indivisible … ,” was interestingly enough written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892 to mark the 400th anniversary of the discovery of North America by Christopher Columbus. It caught on that year, and schools and civic organizations began reciting it in the following decades. It was during World War II, on June 22, 1942, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt officially recognized the pledge in signing the U.S. Flag Code. It was well after the war, in 1951, that the Catholic group Knights of Columbus resolved to call on Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., introduced legislation adding the words to the pledge; the measure then passed both the House and Senate. Though Catholics initiated the effort, Protestants weren’t far behind. The measure gained significant momentum after Eisenhower listened to a sermon in February 1954 by the Rev. George Docherty at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., a church frequented by former President Abraham Lincoln. “To omit the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is to omit the definitive factor in the American way of life,” Docherty preached. The pastor said “under God” would include all faiths, such as Jews and Muslims. However, he added, “An atheistic American is a contradiction in terms. If you deny the Christian ethic, you fall short of the American ideal of life.” That sermon convinced Eisenhower, according to The Washington Post. Almost two months after the Flag Day bill signing, Eisenhower wrote a letter of gratitude to the Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. “And this year we are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words ‘under God’ added to our Pledge of Allegiance,” Eisenhower wrote in the Aug. 6, 1954, letter. “These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.”

For years, most Americans’ retirement savings plans have been locked out of certain investment choices, including some of the market’s best-performing assets. That makes it harder to save for retirement. Fortunately, though, this is about to change, giving savers new—and better—options for their investments. At issue are not only the many rules and regulations surrounding what can go into 401(k)s and similar savings plans, but also the flimsy legal framework governing fiduciaries—the ones who manage your money. Many investment options are excluded, either by law or by common practice, as fiduciaries try to avoid both legitimate and frivolous lawsuits. Asset classes like private equity, digital assets, and real estate effectively became the purview of “accredited investors” with very high net wealth and government workers with public pensions. Most Americans—those private-sector workers on Main Street—were left out. For folks with a typical 401(k) retirement plan, this meant lower returns on their investments. U.S. private equity has delivered the highest long-term returns compared to public equities and other asset classes—even after fees—averaging 3 percentage points (about 20%) better annual growth than the S&P 500. The disparity has been exacerbated in recent years because of volatile inflation and interest rates, which have crushed bonds. The Biden administration oversaw the bond market’s worst four-year run in a century. The traditional 401(k) allocation, which is heavy in fixed-income assets, performed very poorly, especially compared to private equity. The groundwork for a sea change was laid last August, with President Donald Trump’s executive order that directed agencies to clean up the rules around investment savings and provide a more robust legal framework for fiduciaries. The Department of Labor has now responded with historic reforms that will empower savers and keep the trial lawyers at bay. The reforms make it easier for retirement plans to consider private-market exposure, while clearly outlining how fiduciaries still must prioritize prudence within their clients’ portfolios. It’s a healthy balance to help achieve the highest risk-adjusted rate of return. The move has bipartisan support, with 57% of voters favoring expanding retirement investment options, and 61% supporting private equity access, specifically. Put simply, Main Street wants access to Wall Street, and that access has become increasingly difficult under the current regulatory morass. Restricting the average American to investing in publicly traded companies has been increasingly stifling. From 1997 to 2024, the number of publicly traded companies was cut by more than half, from about 8,800 to less than 4,000. Consequently, it has become more difficult for savers to diversify and protect their investments. Additionally, the S&P 500’s gains in 2024—and more recently—were driven in substantial part by just seven large-capitalization technology companies, further underscoring the need for alternative investments in retirement portfolios. Retirement planning should change as the economy does. With companies taking longer to go public, private firms now represent about 87% of all U.S. companies, up from 62% in 2002. This regulatory reform creates a level playing field with an asset-neutral framework, meaning no asset class is inherently prudent or imprudent. That’s important for savers because not all bonds, stocks, or private equity are created equal. To treat every mutual fund or bond fund as if it’s a prudent investment based solely on their asset class is absurd. It’s like saying Spirit Airlines—which went out of business—and American Airlines—which remains profitable—were equally prudent investments. Despite this proposed rule change being both popular and sensible, people like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., are decrying the change as a Wall Street ploy. Ironically, her own state’s public pension fund has greatly benefited from investing in private equity, earning almost 17% annual returns for the last decade, the fourth best among 200 U.S. public pension funds. Better returns on investment shouldn’t be confined to government workers or Wall Street elites. It’s long past time for the average American to have access to these savings options, and fiduciaries shouldn’t fear frivolous lawsuits when doing their best for their clients. More regulatory reform is needed, such as avoiding overly burdensome liquidity requirements that might still effectively ban certain assets or investment trusts, but the current change from the Department of Labor is a huge step in the right direction for the average American. Originally Published by TheDerrick.com.

Three relatively recent events arguably serve as the most prominent landmarks for the dramatic shift in corporate governance we are currently witnessing. First, after roughly 100 years of essentially unchallenged dominance, Delaware’s role as the undisputed home of corporate charters ran into an iceberg in the form of Elon Musk. On Jan. 30, 2024, a Delaware court struck down Musk’s executive compensation package despite it having been approved by shareholders. This was arguably one of the factors leading to a “Dexit” movement that continues to reverberate loudly more than two years later. Second, after roughly 90 years of responding to inquiries from corporations regarding their plans to exclude otherwise statutorily authorized shareholder proposals from company proxy statements, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced on Nov. 17, 2025, that it was no longer providing such guidance, though it also said that it would not object to any exclusion grounded on as little as a corporation’s bald claim of a reasonable basis. Third, after at least 50 years of a leftist one-way ratchet that started as corporate social responsibility and progressed into ESG and DEI turned corporations into the equivalent of campaign posters for Democrats, executive orders from President Donald Trump (along with anti-ESG laws from several states) have significantly undercut the ESG and DEI industrial complex (made up of asset managers, proxy advisors, and CEOs pining for affection at the World Economic Forum). There is certainly more than one way of framing this shift, but to the extent it can be loosely organized around freeing corporations from activist pressures, one obvious question is whether the correction has spilled into overcorrection. Specific questions related to issues on that front might include these four: Does Texas’ offering corporations incorporating there the options to limit shareholder derivative lawsuits to holders of 3% of the corporation’s stock, and to limit shareholder proposals to holders of 3% or $1 million of the corporation’s stock, insulate management and controlling shareholders too much? Is limiting shareholder voice via proposal or lawsuit at this time precisely the opposite of what anyone wanting to walk corporations back from the leftist ledge they were standing on should want—given that conservative shareholders were just beginning to make effective inroads to arguably entrenched leftist corporate bureaucracies? Do apparent wins on the part of the anti-ESG movement to insulate corporate management from activists signal an end to any meaningful role for corporate values beyond maximizing the bottom line? If not, how should values beyond profit maximization be balanced against concerns of activist overreach going forward? As the culture war that divides our nation shows no signs of abating, does the recent corporate governance realignment increase or decrease the likelihood that corporations may serve some type of unifying role by seeking to find ways to connect with the broadest customer base while engaging a broad swath of stakeholders without the pressure of activists imposing mob rule? One place where we might find some answers to these questions is The Heritage Foundation’s upcoming panel discussion taking place on June 25, 2026, titled “Back to Business: Refocusing Corporations on ROI.” Panelists include Justin Danhof, director of policy, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; James R. Copland, senior fellow and director of legal policy, Manhattan Institute; and Lawrence A. Cunningham, presiding director, John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, University of Delaware. Panelists will have an opportunity to discuss the issues flagged above and as set forth on the event page. More generally, they will discuss “the evolving role of shareholder engagement in modern corporate governance,” including “fiduciary duty, shareholder rights, corporate neutrality, and long-term value creation.” Regardless, one thing seems certain: Neither proponents nor opponents of ESG and DEI and their various offshoots have any intention of conceding to the other side, and any claims of victory by either side are likely premature. Whether the recent and on-going corporate governance realignment will reduce tensions and improve outcomes remains to be seen. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.