NASA is set to launch four astronauts on a 10-day mission into space. Artemis II will test NASA’s crew capabilities in deep space and gather more information that could ultimately help send astronauts to Mars. The astronauts aboard Artemis II will not land on the moon. Rather, the spacecraft will travel around the moon and back to Earth, using the gravitational pull of the planets as a slingshot. The crew will mark the first trip around the moon in over 50 years, and the trip will mark the farthest humans have ever been from the Earth’s surface. “Tomorrow, America once again sends crew into deep space after more than half a century,” Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal. Babin chairs the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and is on site at the launch in Florida this week. Action. Wonder. Adventure. Artemis II has got it all. Don't miss the moment. Our crewed Moon mission will launch as early as April 1.Learn how to watch: https://t.co/fAg0bGAqEc pic.twitter.com/2uhg8EhwTv— NASA (@NASA) March 30, 2026 This trip, set for takeoff April 1 from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, marks the first crewed flight of the Artemis program. It will also be the first flight aboard the Orion spacecraft launched atop NASA’s Space Launch System rocket. NASA says Artemis will eventually return humans to the moon for the first time since the Apollo era. After Artemis II, there will be two more increasingly difficult Artemis missions. Future Artemis missions will deploy nuclear reactors on the moon to create a lunar base. “Artemis is the most consequential step yet in proving the technologies needed for a sustained human presence on the moon and, soon, missions to Mars and beyond, while ensuring the United States sets the standard for responsible exploration,” Babin continued. Our Artemis II crew will be going around the Moon, but they'll always find their way back home ? During this complex journey, the four astronauts will travel ~685,000 miles on a trajectory around the Moon and back to Earth.See their daily agenda: https://t.co/172PVtri2Z pic.twitter.com/zsK5i6pirj— NASA Artemis (@NASAArtemis) March 25, 2026 Artemis II is launching days after NASA announced a plan to build a base on the moon. NASA has already allocated $20 million to the lunar base project. America’s goal is to become the first country to have a lunar base, which it hopes to establish in seven years’ time. “The goal is not flags and footprints. This time, the goal is to stay,” Jared Isaacman, NASA administrator, said at the announcement. “We intend to work with no fewer than two launch providers with the aim of crewed landings every six months, with additional opportunities for new entrants in the years ahead. America will never again give up the moon.” The White House has pushed for more space exploration, calling NASA’s mission “America First.” The Artemis program was originally announced under President Donald Trump in 2017. In 2020, NASA partnered with the State Department to launch the Artemis Accords, a nonbinding international agreement regarding space exploration. “This mission speaks to the very best of the American spirit, and I join the nation in praying for a safe and successful launch,” Babin concluded. 1903: America takes flight.1969: America reaches the Moon.Only 66 years apart.This week: we go back.American ingenuity, nothing else comes close. ?? pic.twitter.com/HrQFlMlmkV— Brian Babin (@RepBrianBabin) March 30, 2026 The Artemis II crew of four includes three Americans and the first Canadian to ever venture to the moon. Commander Reid Wiseman is from Baltimore, pilot Victor Glover is a California native, and mission specialist Christina Koch is from Michigan. Jeremy Hansen is the Canadian Space Agency astronaut joining the American crew. “Pushing yourself to explore is part of being a human,” Glover said of the mission. The flight was originally scheduled for February but was delayed due to a leak during a test run. In mid-March, NASA finalized the April 1 launch date. NASA will provide live coverage of the launch scheduled for 6:24 p.m. local time, weather permitting. The post The Space Race Is Back: NASA Prepares for Liftoff of Deep Space Exploration Crew appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Hamas terrorist organization, the Council of American Islamic Relations, and left-leaning governments are criticizing a new Israeli law that allows for the death penalty to be administered to prisoners convicted of murdering Israeli civilians “The Israeli government is about to pass a law mandating the death penalty, only for Palestinian prisoners. Mass execution by hanging, solely on racial lines,” Tlaib wrote on X in response to the law. “This is apartheid and the next step in the genocide of Palestinians, already systematically tortured in Israeli prisons.” Hamas claimed the new Israeli law shows “disregard for all humanitarian norms.” Hamas has been at war with Israel for two and a half years. On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas was the primary group responsible for invading Israel, brutally murdering more than 1,000 Israelis. The Council of American Islamic Relations, or CAIR for short, said that new law is “racist.” CAIR condemned the law for making the death penalty the “default punishment” for “Palestinians in the illegally-occupied West Bank convicted of deadly attacks against Israelis.” Other critics, such as the United Nations and foreign ministers of several European powers like the United Kingdom and France, called on Israel to repeal the “discriminatory” bill. Proponents of the law, however, claim the law is necessary because it stops the threat of terrorists re-offending upon their release. In a video statement posted on X, Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir defended the law, which passed the Israeli Knesset on Monday. “The State of Israel has taken a historic and necessary step in the global fight against terrorism,” Gvir claimed. “This law ensures that those who carry out such heinous acts of terror will no longer be used as bargaining chips in future extortion attempts, thereby reducing incentives for further kidnappings,” Gvir added. In a separate X post, Gvir added that the new law would end the “revolving door for terrorists.” “This is a day of justice for the victims and a day of deterrence for our enemies,” Gvir wrote on X. “No more revolving door for terrorists, but a clear decision. Whoever chooses terrorism chooses death.” Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., told The Daily Signal that it is “no surprise” that Tlaib’s remarks align with an “Islamic terrorist organization” because “she’s a terrorist.” “When you’re sharing propaganda from terrorist organizations, that makes you a terrorist,” Fine claimed. “The terrorist sympathizers are the ones who support it quietly, the terrorist are the ones who support it openly,” Fine added. “It would kill some of her friends, of course she’s upset,” Fine said of Tlaib’s reaction to the law. “She does not seem bothered to know that it is a death penalty offense for Palestinians who sell land to Israelis. She doesn’t seem to be bothered by Muslim terrorism, but she does seem to be bothered when Muslim terrorist gets killed.” “I think that tells you a lot about Rashida Tlaib,” Fine concluded. “She shouldn’t be in Congress.” Tlaib did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. The post Tlaib and Hamas Condemn Israel’s New Terrorist Death Penalty Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I want to have a couple of videos on the current state of affairs in the bombing campaign against Iran. Let’s start with a lot of issues. We could call them Iranian questions or Iraniana. How’s that? There’s been a question, is it legal? And the Left has brought that up on repeated occasions that [President Donald] Trump does not have authorization from Congress. But the 1973 War Powers Act says that a president just must notify Congress of his intention. And [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio has done that. And then he has 60 to 90 days to act, depending on the particular type of authorization. He has 60 to 90 days to conduct a war without notifying Congress. And we’re now in one month. 30 days. So, he’s not even halfway there. It brings up another issue. Barack Obama, the constitutional lawyer, has been very critical of it. But remember, we’ve forgotten the 2011 Libyan bombing. Remember that the [Moammar] Gadhafi regime had given up all of its nuclear proliferation sites. We had Americans on the ground, stealthily, so that we were dismantling them. I was there in Libya in 2007, and I saw the country, and it was under massive transformation as Libyans were starting to be accrued to the idea that their children, the next generation of dictators, were going to liberalize the country. And Libya was terrified of the United States after its threats to denuclearize countries that had started bomb programs. So, it had given up its elements of it. But the point I’m making is Obama then went in, in 2011, when there was a civil war, along with some NATO countries. It was the idea of Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, all keen critics of the current war, who demanded that we bomb. And we bombed not for 30 days, not for 60 days, not for 90. We bombed for seven months. And we didn’t have 10,000 sorties. We had 26,000 sorties, and no one said a word. No one said a word, because the media was left. And they supported whatever Obama did. Same thing with the most disastrous misadventure we’ve had in recent military history in Afghanistan. When we left, skedaddled out of Afghanistan, we left contractors, loyal Afghans behind. We took unaudited Afghans with us, with, you know, a bustle completely unaudited, and many of them have turned up to be criminals or dependent on welfare. And then, in addition, we lost 13 Marines. We’ve lost that many in 30 days of war, but Joe Biden lost that in one day. And then we left, I don’t know how many, record estimates, statistics say $30 to $50 billion of military architecture and weapons. A billion-dollar embassy. $300 million refitted Air Force base at Bagram. No one said a word. There was hardly any criticism. So, take that with a grain of salt. The war is legal, and the hysteria about it is media-driven, as a part of the Left’s ability to weaken the presidency. The aims of the war, this is very important. Donald Trump listed four or five aims. He did on March 1. He did on March 20. We know what they were. We wanted to end their nuclear program. We’re almost there. Stop their ability to make a bomb. No. 2, we wanted to end their missile program, their ballistic missiles. And we’re making progress. And we wanted to stop the ability of them to recreate them. Their industry. Israel’s going after that. And we can’t really stop the resupply, if the Russians are sending new missiles across the Caspian Sea, as some reports suggest, but we’re trying to do our best. So, the war is not lost at all. And the aims have been systematically achieved. The third, remember, was stop the money going to Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. And they are all desperate. That was very unpopular with the Iranian people to give precious billions of dollars, while they were near starvation, and arm Arab terrorists. They were not in favor of that. A fourth was to stop the killing of Americans. Over the last 47 years, no terrorist entity or cadre has killed more Americans in barracks, embassies, during the Iraq and Afghan wars, with shaped charges, than Iran has. It tried to kill Donald Trump. It tried to kill John Bolton, had tried to kill Mike Pompeo, tried to kill [former U.S. Special Representative for Iran] Brian Hook, tried to kill the Saudi ambassador. So, we’re gonna try to stop that. And then, of course, we don’t want it to be the regional disruptor that perennially threatens the Gulf states. They’re attacking Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, all of these countries that are the main exporters of oil and the competitors of Iran. And remember, they’ve intimidated them for years. And maybe now we can stop that. That was another aim. And finally, regime change was not explicitly listed. That would be the optimum result. You want the regime out. Because whatever damage you do, and it will be considerable, in three or four or five, 10 years, it will be resupplied by the Chinese and the Russians. But that was not an explicit agenda item. Donald Trump said help is on the way. He mused about getting rid of these theocrats. We’ve decimated their military and theocratic chain of command. But we never explicitly said we’re going to Iran to get rid of the government. The Israelis might wanna do that. They’re more proximate and more vulnerable. And that’s up to them if they want to continue after we do it. That can be a dividend of our aims. But it was not an exclusive, stated, explicit aim that we went in there to get rid of that regime. And the reason why is that usually requires ground troops. We may have some ground troops. Who knows? But we have these, I can use that term again, misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and both were aimed at regime changes. They did not work, at least not work the way they were planned. Finally, and we’re gonna get to this in another video, a lot of people are saying the war is lost. Lost, lost, lost. Hysterical. It went south. Who’s to blame? All we can do is compare history. And as I said earlier, if you look at the first Gulf War, 42 days of bombing and some four days of ground troops. And as far as the air power, we lost 63 aircraft. Sixty-three. We’ve only lost one major plane. We lost 63 helicopters and aircraft and 20 airmen dead. And in the Serbian campaign, it went on for 72 days. We had all our NATO allies behind us. And Serbia was a paper tiger compared to Iran. So, in comparison to these types of operations, it’s been very successful. What I want to get to later on is that all war, as Clausewitz said, is an extension of politics by other means. Or I think the German might suggest a continuation of politics by other means. It’s true. It is. So, there is a political and a military side, and we can’t mix the two. Militarily, this is a clear victory, and it will have political dividends or ill effects depending in a cost-benefit analysis, what the American people adjudicate. In other words, when they look at this war and they say it was not an existential war immediately, but it was necessary to stop this Iranian threat, of 47 years. Was it conducted in a way that the pluses outweighed the minuses? And then they will make a political calculation. If the war is still going on and they feel that it wasn’t, then they will pressure Donald Trump through their representatives and the media to stop it, even though militarily it’s successful. Military successful operations are not always politically successful. We’ve learned that in Vietnam, where we didn’t lose a single conventional battle. We didn’t lose a single conventional battle in Iraq or Afghanistan. And we lost the war politically. Politically. We won amazing victories in 1952 and 1953 in Korea. And politically, it was a stalemate. So, let’s not confuse the two. You can have a militarily brilliant campaign, as we’re having, and you can lose this war politically. We haven’t yet. But something to watch for. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: Is Iran War Legal? Yes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Can the government prohibit what a therapist says to a client behind closed doors? March 31, in an 8-1 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court answered that question with a firm “No.” But the fact of an overwhelming majority of the Court—eight justices—also suggests the narrowness of the opinion itself. Indeed, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion recognized that the “question before us is a narrow one,” blocking only the application of the state law as applied to a therapist counseling her patients. Thus, while this is a welcome decision, the Court stopped well short of anything expansive. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” Generally, content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on free speech are reviewed under strict scrutiny—the most demanding standard for judicial review. But when Kaley Chiles challenged Colorado’s law that prohibited licensed counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors, the lower courts applied a far more lenient standard—rational basis review—that basically guaranteed a win for the state. Kaley Chiles is a licensed mental-health counselor in Colorado Springs. Throughout her career, she has worked with clients to address addiction, trauma, and personality disorders. Additionally, she counsels individuals experiencing eating disorders, gender dysphoria, and concerns related to sexuality. Chiles is a Christian whose practice is informed by her faith. This involves counseling clients who feel same-sex attraction or are at a cross-roads regarding their current gender identity. But Chiles does not predetermine how to counsel any particular patient. As Justice Gorsuch’s opinion pointed out in detail, Chiles does not impose her values or beliefs on her patients. Instead, she lets her patients guide her approach to care. Despite her wealth of experience, Chiles’ practice met resistance from the Colorado state legislature. In 2019, Colorado passed HB19-1129, or the Mental Health Practice Act, a law that bans mental health practitioners from engaging in conversion therapy with minor patients. The bill defines “conversion therapy” broadly to include “efforts to change an individual’s sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals.” Since the passage of this law, Chiles avoided conversations with minors that could be interpreted as conversion therapy, effectively limiting the services that she could provide. In September 2022, Chiles challenged Colorado’s law. She sought a preliminary injunction under 42 U.S. Code § 1983  arguing that the state’s censoring of private counseling conversations violated the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and religious exercise. Chiles, however, lost in the district court. Chiles subsequently appealed to the Tenth Circuit, but her claim was struck down again. The appellate court reasoned that Chiles’ practice represented professional conduct rather than purely free speech. Because of the court’s determination that Chiles’ work was not speech, they applied rational basis review, a lower legal standard that allows courts to uphold a law so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court accepted Colorado’s asserted interests to protect minors, maintain professional standards, and mitigate harmful treatments. Judge Harris Hartz, however, disagreed with the majority and issued a scathing dissent. Arguing that talk therapy is speech protected by the First Amendment, Hartz accused the majority of inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy, stating “What if the shoe were on the other foot? It was not terribly long ago that the mental-health establishment declared homosexuality to be a mental disorder.” Hartz concluded that perhaps the pendulum of the psychiatric community had swung too drastically in the opposite direction. Chiles remained undeterred and petitioned the Supreme Court. During oral argument, there was heated debate among the justices whether rational-basis review was appropriate. Justice Jackson expressed doubt that Chiles’ conduct fell under the protection of free speech, analogizing a therapist’s services to the prescription of medicine. But Chiles’ counsel fired back that protected speech could not be relabeled as conduct in service of censoring specific viewpoints and ideologies. Justices Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Thomas repeatedly raised concerns about viewpoint discrimination, especially given that the law permits counseling that affirms a minor’s identity but prohibits counseling that questions or redirects it. The state maintained that counseling is a form of treatment subject to professional standards of care, and that the First Amendment does not protect a licensed professional’s right to provide harmful or ineffective treatment simply because it is delivered through words. The proverbial handwriting on the wall during oral argument was borne out in today’s opinion, with Justice Jackson as the lone dissenter. Gorsuch’s majority opinion held that Colorado’s law was a classic case of viewpoint discrimination. And even Justice Kagan, in a short concurrence joined by Justice Sotomayor, labeled it as a “textbook” example. But at the same time, today’s opinion will have a limited, practical effect. Colorado’s broad law will remain on the books for application in future examples, while licensed healthcare professionals will be immune from prosecution, fines, or other adverse state action when discussing issues of gender or sexuality with consenting patients. The door remains open, however, for Colorado to try again. Gorsuch’s majority opinion notes that today’s case is limited to “talk therapy,” and not any other activity, such as surgery, physical treatment, or prescription medicine. And further, Kagan’s concurrence seems to call for a state to fix Colorado’s shortcomings by crafting a “content based” but “viewpoint-neutral” statute that could survive strict scrutiny. One can expect Colorado, California, and other states of that ilk to look to Kagan’s concurrence as a future roadmap. But back to today’s opinion. We all can celebrate Gorsuch’s majority opinion for as far as it goes. We can be thankful that the overwhelming majority of the Court (minus Jackson) recognized that Colorado’s blatant viewpoint discrimination could not stand. But this case is likely not the end of efforts to enforce state-approved gender ideology. The post What SCOTUS Ruled About Conversion Therapy in Chiles v. Salazar appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from ending taxpayer funding of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia determined President Donald Trump’s executive order stopping funding was not lawful because the First Amendment “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.” “It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, an appointee of President Barack Obama. Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators have long criticized the taxpayer-backed media outlets for liberal bias. Trump’s May 2025 executive order “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” directed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a government agency that is the primary funder of NPR and PBS, to ”cease federal funding” of the organizations. Trump also directed the corporation to ensure that local public radio and television stations did not use federal funds to pay for NPR or PBS programming, a form of indirect federal funding.  “Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today, the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options,” the executive order stated. “Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.” NPR sued, claiming the order was an attack on free speech and free press rights. The administration will likely appeal Moss’ ruling. Moss has ruled against Trump in the past. Earlier this month, he blocked a Trump administration effort to expedite the immigration appeals process. Last year, he struck down Trump’s declaration of an “invasion” at the southern border. In March 2025, NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger answered questions on Capitol Hill to justify their taxpayer funding. During the hearing, when questioned, Maher reversed her previous stance on America being “addicted” to white supremacy. At the hearing, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., claimed that NPR was inaccurate in its coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the origins of COVID-19, as well as the discredited conspiracy theory about Trump’s collusion with the Russian government.   The post Judge Finds Cutting Taxpayer Funding From NPR and PBS Violates First Amendment appeared first on The Daily Signal.