The sudden death of the historian Gordon Wood, just weeks before the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, is one more mark of the closure of a golden age of the historiography of the revolutionary era. It’s an occasion to reflect on the uniqueness, indeed the idiosyncrasy, of the emergence of the primacy of this United States among the nations of the world. As the historian Walter McDougall has pointed out, a catalog of world civilizations in the year 1600 looks, with one exception, much like the world today. There is a prosperous and populous China at one end of Eurasia and a prosperous and populous Europe at the other. There is a bustling Indian subcontinent and a vast and little-visited Africa, and large Euro-indigenous cultures in Mexico and South America. The great difference is the emergence, from what was a sparsely populated and isolated realm, of the great world power of the United States of America. How this nation emerged, and how it was formed and unified in the pivotal final years of the 18th century, has come to be understood anew thanks to a generation of historians who began their work in the postwar decades more than 50 years ago and continued it into their 90s. Among the pioneers were Gordon Wood, who died this week at 92, and his thesis adviser Bernard Bailyn, who died in 2020 at 97. Before their generation, American historiography often was more about the presumptions of the writers than the makers of history. Early 19th-century historians glorified, even mythologized, the Founding Fathers. The tragic losses of the Civil War prompted Northerners to lament antebellum statesmen’s failure to compromise and Southerners to canonize the champions of the Lost Cause. Early 20th-century progressives, influenced by Marxist assumptions about economic class warfare, tried to prove that colonists led a revolution against Britain and then wrote a constitution all to protect their wealth against redistribution. Then, in what I have called the “Midcentury Moment” during and after World War II, some historians abjured class warfare and argued that Americans shared a consensus all along. Bailyn and Wood did something else. They read the patriots’ words more carefully and took their arguments seriously. They studied the numerous pamphlets from the revolutionary 1760s and 1770s, as well as the debates over the new republic in the 1780s and 1790s. They understood that Americans, imbued with British ideas of freedom but blessedly distant from British authorities, could write with more frankness than past political theorists under the close supervision of monarch and church, and with no motive to conceal motivation from the then nonexistent Marxian or Freudian theorists. They did the real work of history: understanding a society familiar in some respects but strange in so many others. “The approach of many historians to the American Revolution, it seemed, had too often been deeply ahistorical; there had been too little sense of the irretrievability and differentness of the eighteenth-century world,” Wood wrote in 1969 in his preface to “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787.” “When I began to compare the debates surrounding the Revolutionary constitution-making of 1776 with those surrounding the formation of the Constitution of 1787, I realized that a fundamental transformation of political culture had taken place.” This is a history of unanticipated events changing minds. As Bailyn wrote in 1967 in “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution,” “The details of this new world were not as yet clearly depicted; but faith ran high that a better world than any that had ever been known could be built where authority was distrusted and held in constant scrutiny; where the status of men flowed from their achievements and from their personal qualities, not from distinctions ascribed to them at birth; and where the use of power over the lives of men was jealously guarded and severely restricted.” In support of Ron's recommendation, here's Bailyn's elegant conclusion. https://t.co/Ofd7waEu8C pic.twitter.com/UYnk11xxM8— Charles Murray (@charlesmurray) June 9, 2026 Wood’s central thesis in his 1992 Pulitzer Prize-winning “The Radicalism of the American Revolution” was that the revolution declared in 1776 had transformed the character of the American people. They realized that what held them together “could not be the traditional ethnic, religious, and tribal loyalties of the Old World” and instead “found new democratic adhesives in the actual behavior of plain ordinary people—in the everyday desire to make money and pursue happiness in the here and now.” Writing in National Review last January, Wood celebrated “five significant words that came to define American culture—‘all men are created equal.’” This prompted them to create “numerous learned academies and historical societies,” including “mechanic societies, humane societies, societies for the prevention of pauperism, orphans’ asylums, missionary societies, marine societies, tract societies, Bible societies, temperance associations, Sabbatarian groups, peace societies, societies for the suppression of vice and immorality, societies for the relief of poor widows, societies for the promotion of industry.” Wood was among the multiple leading historians who criticized The New York Times’s Nikole Hannah-Jones’s argument that 1619, the importation of the first slave in the colonies, was the real founding of America. Instead, he argued it was the revolution that led to the unraveling of slavery. “Although many modern historians have called the Revolution’s inability to free all the slaves its greatest failure, they have committed the great sin of anachronism by assuming that everyone in the past must have known that slavery was an evil,” he wrote in January. “These historians have not fully appreciated that the Revolution defied a world that for the millennia had taken slavery for granted. It was the Revolution that for the first time in history made slavery a problem, and it led to the first instance of states’ abolishing the practice.” Wood has been critical as well of the notion, recently mentioned without disapproval by Vice President JD Vance, that those with American ancestors in the Civil War era are somehow more American than those whose ancestors arrived later. Contrary to Europe, “There is no American ethnicity to back up the state,” he said in his November 2025 Irving Kristol lecture at the American Enterprise Institute. “To be an American is not to be someone, but to believe in something.” Such as “the powerful sense of equality” that “is what makes us one people.” We are unlikely to hear much more from the last survivors of the two generations of academic and popular historians who made the final third of the 20th century a golden age for the history of the founding. In the universities, most have been replaced by academics with different interests and a more adversarial approach to the nation whose bounty and freedoms make their work possible. But on the 251st Fourth of July upcoming, and in months and years to come, it should be refreshing to dip into their rich works and gain more knowledge of, and appreciation for, the wondrous deeds of those who came before us and of whom we are the fortunate, if too often the ungrateful, heirs. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

June 18, 2026, marks 15 years since my father died, and as Father’s Day approaches, I find myself thinking less about the day he left us and more about what he left behind. My father, Dennis Joseph Gerber Sr., was known by many as Big Dennis. I was Little Dennis. From the time I was old enough to understand what it meant to share a name, I loved it. I loved being his son, and I loved carrying a name that reminded me every day who I hoped to become. Like many boys, I watched my father closely. I paid attention to how he treated people, how he carried himself, how he approached challenges, and how he showed up for those around him. Even today, my signature is little more than a poor imitation of his. I remember watching him intently as he signed documents, studying his signature and wondering how I could make mine look like his when I got older. Looking back, that seems fitting because much of who I am was learned the same way. I was adopted as an infant, but I never spent a single moment wondering whether I belonged. My father never made me feel adopted, he made me feel chosen. He would often say, “God made you for us.” As an adopted son, those words carried special weight, but he was also expressing something deeper about how he viewed his life. He believed that God had entrusted him with responsibilities as a husband, father, neighbor, and citizen, and he embraced those responsibilities wholeheartedly. He never approached fatherhood as a burden. He approached it as a calling. Perhaps that is one reason why St. Joseph has always occupied such an important place in my life. My father and I shared the middle name Joseph, but more importantly, we shared a devotion to the saint who taught both of us something essential about fatherhood. When I think about St. Joseph today, I am struck by the quiet trust that defined his life. Scripture records none of his words, yet his actions reveal a man who accepts God’s will with humility and courage. He did not choose the circumstances placed before him, but he faithfully embraced the responsibilities entrusted to him. God the Father entrusted His Son to Joseph’s care. Joseph did not seek that responsibility, but when it was given to him, he embraced it completely. He protected Jesus, taught Him, worked for Him, and loved Him, all while knowing that the child entrusted to him ultimately belonged to God. As an adopted son, that reality has always resonated with me. Joseph reminds us that fatherhood is not primarily a biological relationship. It is a vocation of love, sacrifice, and responsibility. Looking back now, I realize that both St. Joseph and my father understood the same truth: Children ultimately belong to our Heavenly Father. Earthly fathers are entrusted with them for a time. Their task is to love them, guide them, protect them, and through their example help them come to know the love of the Father from whom all fatherhood takes its name. My father understood that instinctively. He was not a perfect man, but he was a remarkably loving one. We hugged often. We were never afraid to show our affection for each other. Sometimes, as we would walk together, he would simply place his hand on my head or the back of my neck. Those small gestures communicated something every child longs to hear: “I am here. I love you. You belong.” Part of the reason we were so close was that he was always there. Whether it was a football game, a track meet, a school event, or some other activity that seemed enormously important to me at the time, I could count on seeing him there. He was present. He was interested. He was proud. As a boy, there is something powerful about knowing your father is in the stands. As a man, there is something even more powerful about realizing how many sacrifices it took for him to be there. When I was home from college and working locally, we would go to lunch together almost every day. Those lunches remain some of my favorite memories. We talked about work, family, our community, and whatever else happened to be on our minds. When I was away at school or traveling for work, I called him every day, sometimes several times a day. It never felt like an obligation. He was simply the person I most wanted to talk to. My father was also the kind of man who believed that if you wanted your community to be better, you had to help make it better. He coached our teams, served on the local school board, and served on the library board. What he lacked in technical expertise as a coach, he more than made up for in encouragement and leadership. He had a gift for making people believe in themselves. More importantly, he taught me that when someone asks for help, the first response should not be whether helping is convenient. The response should be, “How can I help?” He did not merely teach that lesson. He lived it. Years after I became an adult, I began hearing something from friends that surprised me. More than one person told me, “Your dad was like a father to me.” At first, I was caught off guard by those comments. Then I realized they made perfect sense. My father had a gift for making people feel seen. He encouraged people. He listened. He showed up. Without ever trying to become a father figure, he became one for many people simply because he cared. The week before my father died, my wife and I shared some joyful news with him. We had just learned that we were expecting our first child. I still remember his response; he told me that I was going to be a great dad. At the time, it felt wonderful to hear. Looking back, it means even more because those words came from the man who had been my model of fatherhood for my entire life. Less than a week later, he was gone. I was traveling for work in Egypt when he died unexpectedly. The loss devastated me. Even now, fifteen years later, it is difficult to put into words. Yet one memory has remained with me through all the years since. Before he left this world, my father gave me one final gift. He gave me confidence that I could do what he had done. He told me I could be a father. Today, my son Blaise is 3 years old. Like most little boys, he wants to do whatever his dad is doing. If he sees me exercising, he drops to the floor and tries to do pushups beside me. If I am getting dressed for Mass, he wants to dress like Dad. He wants to sit next to me, hold my hand, and be wherever I am. Truthfully, he is my best friend. Whenever I watch him imitate me, I find myself thinking about how much of my own life was spent trying to imitate my father. Children learn far less from what we tell them than from who we are. There is something beautiful about watching a little boy carry a name that has been carried before him. Not because the name itself is important, but because of the men who carried it. My father taught me what it means to bear the name Gerber. Every day, I am trying to teach Blaise the same thing. Fifteen years after my father’s death, I have come to understand what fathers leave behind. Not merely a name, though I am proud to carry his. Not possessions, accomplishments, or even memories. Fathers leave behind examples. They leave behind habits, convictions, and a way of loving. They leave behind a vision of the kind of man their sons might become. I see that inheritance every time I take Blaise’s hand. I see it every time he imitates something I am doing. I see it every time I find myself responding to the needs of another person with the same instinct my father had so many years ago: “How can I help?” Fifteen years after his death, my father is still teaching a little boy how to be a man. The difference is that little boy is no longer me. It is Blaise. And for that gift, I thank God the Father, St. Joseph, and Big Dennis.

Pride Month is difficult to avoid. Whether you are logging onto your Hulu account, listening to the radio, or shopping online, it seems that many organizations support June’s dedication to same-sex marriage and transgenderism. Navigating the cultural support of this issue as a Christian can be complex and practically challenging. It is important to understand why Christians cannot support Pride Month, and to be able to explain the reasons charitably and logically. To do this, we must use language precisely to speak about true love. The Christian understanding of marriage is rooted in Biblical clarity. God created everything. God created human beings in his image and likeness. We are made for communion, and we are given the capacities for reason, freedom, and love. In these ways, we can see that we are made like God. God created human beings as male and female. Human sexuality is reciprocal—the male body only makes sense within the context of the female body and vice versa. Man can give his entire body to woman, and woman can receive him completely. Man receives by giving, and woman gives by receiving.  When husband and wife join together in this way, new life can emerge. The love between a husband and wife is so great that it can result in other human beings—completely new persons made in the image and likeness of God. While most people understand these realities intuitively, few have ever reflected on them deeply and lack language to explain them. The Catholic Church uses the language of the “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of marriage. Marriage must be between a man and a woman because only two members of the opposite sex can truly unite with one another physically for the sexual act. Marriage is built on the unitive nature of the human body, which is divided into male and female. Marriage is also founded upon a couple’s distinctive embrace, which has the unique capacity for procreation. A simple understanding of the human reproductive organs reveals that it is only possible for a man and a woman to have a sexual embrace. Two men or two women cannot. For this reason, two men or two women cannot have children together. Procreation is impossible between two people of the same sex. This evidence is based on biology, not bigotry. Such a distinction is critical in today’s world, where any opposition to a person’s feelings is met with great disdain. The human person is male and female. Male and female come together to form new life, and marriage is the God-authored way new life is meant to be created and cared for. Speaking these truths helps people better understand their identities and what fulfills them. One of the most famous articulations of the Christian view of sexuality is that of Pope St. John Paul II in his groundbreaking “Theology of the Body.” In it he says, we “can deduce that man became the image of God not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion of persons, which man and woman form from the very beginning. The function of the image is that of mirroring the one who is the model, of reproducing its own prototype. Man becomes an image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion.” This “constitutes, perhaps, the deepest theological aspect of everything one can say about man. … On all this, right from the beginning, the blessing of fruitfulness descended.” Nothing about the Christian view of sexuality is intended to offend those who experience same-sex attraction or know and love someone who is civilly “married” to someone of the same sex. A Christian response to Pride Month must be concerned with speaking the truth in love. Truth is the mind’s conformity to reality. Love is willing the good of the other. Living in accordance with the reality of our bodies can cultivate a healthier nation full of healthier marriages. The healthiest and truest context for the family is reliance on God, who is truth and love. When we ask God for the strength to love those closest to us, He will empower us to impact their lives and spread His love—no matter what month it is. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Alaska is unlike any other state in the country. And when I say that, I’m not referring to its size or its natural beauty or even its resource abundance—although all three are relevant to the discussion. Rather, what I mean is that Alaska is different from the other states in that everybody, everywhere, thinks they get to have a say in what happens there. People in Montana, for example, don’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting to keep the people of Massachusetts from approving new businesses or utilizing their state’s physical assets. People in Texas don’t organize groups and found nonprofit organizations to interfere in and oppose new development in Alabama, despite never having been there or only having visited for a football game or two. For the most part, the states have a certain amount of autonomy over their own internal affairs. Of course, the federal government is often intrusive and overweening, but beyond that, states are generally left alone to govern themselves and their activities. Except Alaska. Now, to be fair, a big part of this is the fact that the rest of the people in the country do “own” a larger chunk of Alaska than they do of other states—at least nominally. Roughly two-thirds of the state is federally owned and managed, meaning that about one-third of all federally managed lands are in Alaska, almost four times as much land as the state with the second-largest federal plot (Nevada). Certainly, that gives people the impression that Alaska belongs to them at least as much as it belongs to the Alaskans. A bigger part of the issue here, though, is that people tend not to think of Alaska as a “real” place where real people live, work, start businesses, and try to experience the American dream. Despite being larger, geographically, than the next three largest states (Texas, California, and Montana) combined, Alaska has the third-smallest population in the nation. Couple that with the fact that it’s an extremely popular vacation destination and the subject of innumerable nature documentaries and reality shows, and people tend to think of it as little more than a massive entertainment experience, a theme park with bears and moose. They don’t really care about how Alaska’s resources or the effort that its residents put into developing them. They only care that the fishing and the hunting and the big-game watching remain undisturbed long enough for them to visit—or visit again, as the case may be. Consider that the Pebble Mine project in the Bristol Bay region of the state is estimated to hold the second-largest deposits of copper and gold in the entire world, but its development has been halted time and again, largely because out-of-state interests worry that mining there could maybe, possibly, theoretically disturb the salmon, herring, and rainbow trout fishing nearby. In 2020, the Trump administration killed the permits to begin development on the Pebble Mine, in part because Donald Trump, Jr. and Tucker Carlson—the former of which likes the fish there—publicly objected to the project, despite the Army Corps of Engineers having determined that it would have “no measurable effect” on fish populations. The same is true of the interminable debate over oil drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Although the plain is home mostly to massive swarms of mosquitoes and other insects, its development has been debated and delayed for decades by out-of-state environmental activists, most of whom have never been to Alaska and all of whom think they know better than the state’s residents and mineralogical experts. Next week marks the first anniversary of the launch of a financial product as unique as Alaska itself, an investment fund designed specifically to do two things to alleviate the impacts of the economic neglect created by outsiders’ treatment of the state: take advantage of the underinvestment in Alaska’s immense resources and opportunities that are typically overlooked because of politically animated opposition from outside the state; and provide investment dollars for the state’s vital but otherwise under-capitalized businesses. That fund—The Frontier Economic Fund (AKAF)—was developed by Derek Kreifels of Prospr Aligned, in conjunction with Alaska’s business interests, and is managed by ETF and portfolio experts at Vident Asset Management. It is described on its website as “An ETF designed to help support resilient growth and opportunity within the Last Frontier”—i.e., to combat the perception that Alaska is just Disneyland on steroids. AKAF tracks the Alaska Last Frontier Index—a rules-based, tier-weighted index of roughly 150 companies selected based on the extent of their business activities connected to Alaska: operational presence, natural resource utilization, local employment, capital investment, and participation in state-sponsored initiatives. The index methodology is designed to recognize the importance of companies doing business in the state and even motivate them to expand their presence there. Unsurprisingly, given Alaska’s resource profile, the portfolio is heavily weighted toward industrials (35%), consumer discretionary (18%), energy (17%), and materials (12%). Top holdings include ConocoPhillips, Exxon, SLB, Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Delta, Alaska Air, UPS, FedEx—companies with significant Alaskan operations. It also includes smaller Alaska-specific plays like Northern Dynasty Minerals (the aforementioned Pebble Mine), Trilogy Metals, Novagold, Pantheon Resources, and several junior miners with Alaskan exploration projects. As I said, AKAF is distinctive. When it was launched, the state’s then-Commissioner of Revenue, Adam Crum, described it as “prioritizing our top economic sectors including energy development, mining, tourism, cargo, transportation, and retail.” The fund’s launch was also timed to take advantage of the federal government’s recent interest in enabling the development of the state, exemplified in President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order, “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential.” Additionally, the fund serves as an unofficial embodiment of the pushback against ESG (environmental, social, and governance investing), the anti-democratic use of capital markets to advance the political predilections of a small, largely leftist group of investors and financial gadflies. Given this last bit, AKAF has frustrated ESG supporters. This only makes sense, of course. ESG interests do not align with investors’ interests. Nor, for that matter, do they align with the interests of Alaskans. For this reason, the index excludes companies that have policies or made statements hostile to development in the state or that conflict with the best interests of the state’s residents, making an implicit but undeniable statement against politicizing investments. Opportunity abounds in Alaska, yet it has been mostly overlooked and undermined by personal and political considerations of people and organizations from outside of the state. Creating an investment product that rebalances the scales and puts the focus back on development, profit, and shareholder returns is, in many ways, the opposite of politics. With returns of roughly 33% since inception (an admittedly short timeframe), AKAF makes that case for itself. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Major employers can systematically—or unintentionally—blacklist conservative nonprofits from their employee charitable giving programs through a third party. Corporate generosity platforms such as Benevity act as middlemen, connecting employers such as AT&T, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Starbucks to a host of nonprofits. Benevity, for example, connects “nearly 1,000 enterprise companies” to a network of 513,000 nonprofits after vetting 2.2 million of them. But these middleman platforms often refuse to partner with mainstream conservative or Christian nonprofits, because yet another third party—the Southern Poverty Law Center—puts those nonprofits on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC, which gained its reputation by suing Klan groups into bankruptcy, now stands accused of funneling money to Klan members, propping up the hate threat in order to raise money by claiming to oppose it. The SPLC claims it paid these Klan members as informants, to snuff out violent threats, but a federal grand jury indicted the SPLC for wire fraud and bank fraud based on claims that the SPLC paid for Klan robes and reimbursed a cross-burning, among other things. At least one of these corporate generosity platforms has stopped using the SPLC in its entirety, but others continue to use it. Calls to Stop Using SPLC 1792 Exchange, a nonprofit dedicated to bringing ideological balance back to public companies, and Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm on the SPLC “hate map,” called on corporate generosity platforms to stop using the SPLC. “The scandal-ridden, federally indicted Southern Poverty Law Center has demonstrated for decades that it is a laughably unserious organization,” Greg Scott, executive vice president at 1792 Exchange, told the Daily Signal. “Its defamatory ‘Hate List’ is nothing more than a blacklist used to smear mainstream conservative, pro-life, and Christian organizations.” “Charity processing platforms like Benevity, Deed, and YourCause should immediately stop relying on the SPLC to ban legitimate nonprofits from corporate generosity programs,” Scott added. “Unfortunately, many business leaders still don’t realize their companies are indirectly relying on the SPLC’s thoroughly discredited ‘hate map’ to make important business decisions—imposing viewpoint discrimination on their own workforce and customer base in the process,” ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco told the Daily Signal. “No business leader wants to explain to their board why they’re outsourcing decisions to a federally indicted organization,” he added. “The reputational and legal risks of continuing to rely on the SPLC are entirely unjustified—and the only responsible move is to cut ties completely.” Some companies have directed their corporate generosity platforms to stop using the SPLC to screen eligible nonprofits. DoorDash directed the platform Deed to stop using the SPLC for this purpose. According to Bowyer Research and previous reporting, companies that use Benevity have opted out of using the SPLC, including American Express, AT&T, Mastercard, McDonald’s, Morgan Stanley, Nvidia, and Salesforce. Verizon directed CyberGrants, another such platform, to stop using the SPLC for its employee giving. Only one of these platforms has sworn off the SPLC, however. Benevity “Benevity’s platform is designed to give clients flexibility and control over which nonprofits are eligible for their programs, including which third-party data sources, if any, they choose to apply,” a company spokesperson told the Daily Signal. “These options are not a default setting.” Scott has disputed this claim, saying it is “hard to square with [Benevity’s] own history.” In 2021, then-Benevity CEO Kelly Schmitt delivered a PowerPoint presentation explicitly stating that the company had “vetted” almost “2 million nonprofits,” adding that it used the “Southern Poverty Law Center Hate List.” Bonterra Bonterra, the company that owns Deed and the similar platform CyberGrants, told the Daily Signal that it is giving the companies that use its services the option to stop using the SPLC as a filter and to remove the SPLC from the program as a recipient of grants. “Bonterra is actively monitoring the SPLC indictment and evaluating any implications for our platform and the programs we support,” Melanie Mahaffey, senior director of strategic communications at Bonterra, told the Daily Signal. “We maintain nonprofit eligibility standards grounded in a robust internal compliance framework, which we review on an ongoing basis to ensure they remain current and defensible.” “In light of this developing situation, we are giving our customers two options: the ability to disable SPLC-based vetting within their program, and the ability to remove SPLC as an eligible nonprofit organization within their platform — both at their discretion,” she said. Groundswell Groundswell, a similar platform that offers “workplace giving, volunteering, matching, and grantmaking technology,” said it no longer uses third-party vetting systems like the SPLC “hate map.” “Historically, Groundswell incorporated third-party nonprofit data sources, including SPLC designations, as part of platform-level eligibility screening in line with common industry practices at the time,” Sarah Kuntsal, the company’s head of product marketing, told the Daily Signal. In 2024, however, the company “introduced enhanced controls that give customers more granular authority over nonprofit eligibility and restrictions,” Kuntsal explained. “As a result, Groundswell no longer applies platform-level restrictions based on any single third-party designation system.” The platform encourages employers to give workers “broad opportunities for participation and giving.” Groundswell “does not prescribe or advocate for any particular nonprofit screening methodology,” and it “does not discuss the specific configurations, preferences, or decisions of individual customers.” Groundswell’s frequently asked questions page stated that the platform “does not process donations to organizations denoted as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center” as recently as December 2025, but the page no longer includes this language. Millie Giving Millie Giving, another corporate generosity platform, published a blog post in 2022 citing the SPLC on “hate groups.” The blog post claims that “vetting for hate groups in-house would be very difficult,” and states that “All vetting for the Millie database is even through the SPLC!” Millie Giving did not respond to the Daily Signal’s requests for comment. 2 More Platforms Two other corporate generosity platforms partner with companies but have not said they use SPLC “hate map.” The Daily Signal also reached out to Submittable, which runs a similar corporate giving platform, and Blackbaud, which owns the corporate generosity platform YourCause. Neither of these companies has publicly stated any use of the SPLC “hate map” in the past, and neither responded to requests for comment.  The Southern Poverty Law Center did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.