The Trump administration scored a preliminary court victory on the election integrity battlefront when a Joe Biden-appointed judge at least temporarily allowed a citizenship verification database to continue to be accessible for states to cross check voter registration data.  Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled she would not halt the Trump administration’s database reforms. Sooknanan gave both sides until Friday Nov. 21 to propose next steps in the case.  “Given the rapid ongoing developments and serious issues at stake, the court intends to move expeditiously to resolve the merits of this dispute,” the ruling says.  In March, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” that included a provision making the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ SAVE system accessible to state and local governments for uses such as cross-checking citizenship status of individuals using a Social Security number as a means to prevent illegal voting and voter registration. SAVE is short for the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. The national League of Women Voters was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in September alleging the database information was unreliable and could be used to purge legally eligible voters from the voter rolls. “Based on the current record, the court is troubled by the recent changes to SAVE and doubts the lawfulness of the Government’s actions. But because the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable injury, the Court may not grant a stay,” Sooknanan wrote.  The Trump administration contends the database is an important tool for state and local governments to verify voter eligibility, public benefits and other matters. “The SAVE program is the definitive tool for state and local officials to verify citizenship for voter verification and help determine public benefit eligibility,” USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser told The Daily Signal. “The judge’s ruling defeating the plaintiff’s request for a stay is a step in the right direction for the American people.” The government has argued that the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and other laws authorizes data sharing between DHS and the Social Security Administration.  However, League of Women Voters spokeswoman Michelle Moreno contends the case is “far from over,” citing points from the judge’s ruling.  “To the contrary, the court made clear that it ‘doubts the lawfulness of the government’s actions,’” Moreno noted, and later referencing other parts of the decision. “We look forward to swiftly resolving this case in order to protect the privacy and voting rights of millions of Americans whose data the administration is illegally misusing.” The SAVE database was set up to allow states to check a person’s eligibility for public benefits. But the Trump administration’s changes made it use SAVE to verify citizenship and allowed state election officials to upload voter information in bulk–as opposed to checking Social Security numbers one by one.  The post Court Allows Federal Citizenship System to Verify Legal Voters For Now appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., introduced legislation Thursday that aims to protect medical residents from being coerced into participating in abortion training that violates their consciences. “Medical residents should never be pressured to violate their beliefs in order to finish their training or advance in their careers,” Lankford told The Daily Signal. “Many went into medicine to protect life, not take it. No one should have to choose between their conscience and their future in medicine. Our bill makes that clear and ensures medical students and residents can follow their convictions as they care for their patients.” The way regulations from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education currently govern abortion training creates an opt-out system where residents may feel pressure to participate in the training for fear that not doing so could influence their future career outcomes, the senator claims. Lankford’s bill, the Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act, would reform the system so that abortion training is opt-in. He intends this change to shield residents from retaliation or discrimination for their pro-life beliefs.  The Oklahoma senator has also introduced legislation that would “bar any federal, state, or local government from discriminating against or penalizing a health care provider if they won’t perform, refer for, pay for, or participate in abortion services,” as The Daily Signal previously reported.  Lankford, an ordained Southern Baptist minister who previously worked in youth ministry in Oklahoma, has represented the Sooner State in the Senate since 2015 and served in the House from 2011 to 2015. Lankford’s legislative work also dovetails with the Trump administration’s focus on restoring religious freedom and conscience rights through the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights, which was created during President Donald Trump‘s first term, and the Religious Liberty Commission, whose members have been appointed by the president. “Medical residents should not be compelled to participate in abortion training if it violates their conscience,” Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., who is introducing the legislation in the House, told The Daily Signal. “Opting out of such training enables potential retaliation by faculty who have enormous power over residents and their future success,” Murphy added. “Pursuing an elective abortion is not the same as receiving lifesaving care, such as for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and training should reflect that. This issue is about restoring a non-ideological educational environment where individuals do not fear expressing moral or religious objections.” Cosponsors of the bill in the Senate include Sens. Jim Banks of Indiana, Katie Britt of Alabama, Ted Budd of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, John Cornyn of Texas, Steve Daines of Montana, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Rick Scott of Florida, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Todd Young of Indiana. Various pro-life groups including as CatholicVote, March for Life Action, Heritage Action, Liberty Counsel Action, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists support the legislation. The post EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Lankford Introduces Bill Protecting Pro-Life Medical Residents appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On the eastern edge of Europe, three NATO allies are investing seriously in their own security, venturing far beyond what most of America’s other allies have committed to. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania face a greater existential threat from Russia than any other NATO members—and they’ve acted accordingly. Over the past year, and even the past decade, the trio has led the charge on amping the European defense budget to counter an increasingly aggressive Russia. NATO’s most recent annual summit at The Hague resulted in a tremendous outcome, achieved in large part due to continuous effort from President Donald Trump. After years of neglecting defense spending, the alliance as a whole (with the exception of Spain) agreed to a new construct under which they will spend 5% of GDP on defense, with 3.5% allocated to core defense spending and 1.5% to defense-related infrastructure spending. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine is approaching its fourth year, and many European states have stepped up to provide military equipment and financial aid to Ukraine. By increasing their defense expenditures, Europe aims to address defense gaps and counter the looming Russian war economy, which may set its sights elsewhere following the Russo-Ukrainian War. Yet the Baltic states remain well ahead of the curve. And with good reason—after Ukraine, the three Baltic states are the most likely target for further Russian aggression in Europe. Since their admission to the alliance in 2004, the states have formed the narrow eastern flank of NATO. No strangers to colonialism, they’ve been steadfast vocal advocates for countering Russia. Indeed, from 2013-2020, defense spending among the Baltic states increased twofold in comparison to the rest of the alliance. Following the summit in The Hague, the Baltic states reaffirmed their pledge to meet 5% of GDP for defense spending. The states’ precarious geographical position is further complicated by the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which nearly isolates the Baltic states from the rest of mainland Europe. The Suwalki Gap, or the narrow corridor between Poland and Lithuania, is a likely target for Russian incursion following the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Baltic states have repeatedly been the target of Russian “gray zone” warfare, or asymmetric actions that blur the lines between war and peace. Last December, the Estlink-2 electricity connection between Finland and Estonia was severed by a tanker believed to be part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” of sanctions-evading ships. Other instances over the past two years, including railway bombings, arson attacks, and freighter airplane crashes, are likely part of a Russian campaign to agitate Baltic sentiment against supporting Ukraine. Proactive NATO exercises are necessary to maintain the collective deterrence and defense that NATO guarantees to the Baltic states. NATO maintains three Enhanced Forward Presence battlegroups in each of the three Baltic states to deter Russian aggression. Led by Germany, the UK, and Canada, these multinational battlegroups are capable of operating independently in their geographic area. There are some reasons to be optimistic about NATO’s ability to deter Russian aggression against the Baltic states, especially because of Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO. With their recent admission in 2023, the Baltic Sea has become colloquially known as a “NATO Lake.” Russian naval assets that transit the Baltic Sea from Saint Petersburg to Kaliningrad must skirt the waters of NATO members to reach their destination. The Hague Summit requires that new Baltic defense expenditures be distributed to military modernization and equipment procurement. The commitment requires 3.5% of GDP to be allocated to core defense requirements such as active personnel and NATO infrastructure. The remaining 1.5% is to be distributed towards protecting critical infrastructure and investment in countries’ respective defense industrial bases. Estonia, for instance, vowed to allocate 50% of its defense budget to procure lethal weapons systems such as U.S. HIMARS rocket systems. The Baltic states are all making major defense spending increases in 2026 and the years to come. Early this year, Lithuania, which currently spends 3% of GDP on defense, had announced it would increase defense spending to 5-6% of GDP by 2026. Latvia’s Parliament approved a new draft law that would allocate 4.91% of GDP on defense in 2026; the state’s current budget already amounts to 3.8% of GDP on defense. For this fiscal year, the Latvian military will spend roughly half of its budget on military capabilities, with the other half to be doled out to maintenance, personnel, and military infrastructure costs. Estonia’s Ministry of Defense will move its spending goalpost from 3.35% in 2025 to 5.37% of GDP for 2026 and the foreseeable future—amounting to over 10 billion euros in defense spending between 2026 and 2029. The Baltic states have been occupied by Russia before, and they’ve made it more than clear that they prefer to stay in Europe. The three countries have impressive defense spending levels and policies and they’ve demonstrated clear commitment to their NATO responsibilities. But they can’t stand alone. Other NATO members, especially the wealthy nations of Western Europe, should prioritize deterring Russian aggression against the Baltic states. The post The Baltic States Are Leading by Example in Defense Spending appeared first on The Daily Signal.

With the government shutdown over, it’s time to get back to work on fixing America’s health care. Even Obamacare supporters now admit their health plan has failed. Despite promises of decreasing premiums, the sad truth has come to light. Over ten years in, Obamacare has become part of the problem, not the solution. Premiums keep rising, deductibles skyrocketed, enrollees have fewer choices than before, and plans have become more restrictive.   While more subsidies might mask some of those premium increases, they do nothing to solve Obamacare’s other problems. The reality? Health care costs are increasing across the board. What’s needed now is a plan to make American health care affordable again—not just to hand out more government subsidies to more people, but to make health care less expensive and more accessible for all Americans. President Donald Trump’s instincts are right, both on fixing Obamacare and on making the overall health system more affordable for everyone. When it comes to Obamacare, Trump has floated the idea of giving enrollees their subsidies in an account they can use to buy the plan of their choice. That would be an improvement over Obamacare’s current design under which the subsidies go directly to the insurer. However, the process for calculating subsidy amounts also needs restructuring , as the current design is opaque, overly complex, and fuels premium increases. Giving people a health account empowers them to decide how and where to spend on health care because whoever controls the dollars controls the decisions. That basic concept has already been embraced—in the form of Health Saving Accounts—by a growing number of employers and workers. Indeed, a survey by the American Bankers Association reported that, as of last year, there were 39.3 million HSAs, benefiting 59.3 million people. Beyond Obamacare, there are a number of ways to expand access to health accounts and make them more consumer friendly. The Working Families Tax Cuts bill, enacted this past summer, made several key changes to expand access to traditional Health Savings Accounts.  First, it allows all bronze and catastrophic plans in the Obamacare Exchanges to be HSA-eligible plans. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,  this means at least 1.6 million additional HealthCare.gov consumers. Second, it clarifies that individuals who have a direct primary care arrangement with a health care provider are not prohibited from contributing to an HSA and an individual can use their HSA to pay for direct primary care memberships. Third, it permanently extends telehealth services as non-deductible. There are a number of related policy recommendations that were under consideration during the reconciliation process but were left out of the final agreement. Those recommendations included, for example, increasing the amount low-income individuals could contribute, better coordinating HSAs with Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Reimbursement Arrangements , allowing individuals to use their HSA accounts for gym memberships, and allowing them to use an HSA if they access an onsite employer clinic. Other recommendations included efforts to codify the Individual Health Reimbursement Arrangements and incentivize small employers to adopt them. Many of these proposals have held bipartisan support in the past and could be reconsidered. Thinking bigger, certain other proposals would supercharge health accounts.  For example, Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Chip Roy, both Texas Republicans, have proposed the Personalized Care Act, a bill that would make health accounts available regardless of whether they were tethered to a high-deductible health plan. Meanwhile, the Health Out-of-Pocket Expense (HOPE) Act, which has bipartisan support in the House and Senate, would also establish new Roth-style accounts for individuals to help pay for and save for their health care expenses.   Both bills represent innovative ways to increase patient control over health care dollars and decisions. Expanding access to health accounts is a strong foundation for change, but to make these accounts really work, consumers need information. The best way to do this is to demand radical transparency in health care prices. Trump led the way with price transparency in his first administration and has continued this effort in his second administration. To boost these efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should issue rules  implementing the No Surprises Act’s requirement for health plans to provide “Advance Explanations of Benefits” so Americans can receive a “good faith estimate” of their costs before receiving care. The administration should also direct the Department of Labor to issue rules enabling employers to access claims data held by the third-party administrators managing their employees’ health plans. For far too long, health care prices have been a black box. Demanding radical price transparency is the key to holding the large and opaque health care industrial complex accountable. Here too a bipartisan duo in the Senate have proposed a path forward.Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kans., and Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Co., introduced the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, which would allow group health plans to access their claims data; require public reporting of negotiated rates, costs, and cash prices for certain services; and require providers and facilities to include detailed itemized bills. Policy changes should not focus solely on Obamacare or on the 15 million subsidized under Obamacare. They should also provide relief to the 160 million Americans covered by employer and union plans. There is no shortage of ideas for making health care coverage more affordable for all Americans. Many of those ideas even have bipartisan support. The question is whether politicians will choose to take on the health care industrial complex and actually help the American people by giving them more control over how and where they spend their health care dollars.  The post Don’t Expand Obamacare, Make Health Care Affordable Again appeared first on The Daily Signal.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani said that he will meet with President Donald Trump or “anyone” who will help his city address affordability. Mamdani, a Democrat and self-described socialist, spoke about his upcoming meeting with Trump at a press conference in New York City Thursday morning. “Communist Mayor of New York City, Zohran ‘Kwame’ Mamdani, has asked for a meeting,” Trump announced on Truth Social on Wednesday. “We have agreed that this meeting will take place at the Oval Office on Friday, November 21st. Further details to follow!” Mamdani said that it is customary for the mayor of New York to meet with the president given the “mutual reliance.” “It is more critical than ever given the national crisis in affordability, one that New Yorkers know well across these five boroughs, and the specific challenge many cities are facing with balancing public safety against steps taken by this administration,” he said. Mamdani said that many New Yorkers voted for Trump and himself for a similar reason, because they wanted leaders to address the affordability and cost of living crisis. “I will work with anyone to make life more affordable for the more than eight and a half million people who call this city home,” he said. The New York mayor-elect said that while he had “many disagreements” with Trump, in their meeting he will make it “clear” that he would work on any agenda that benefits his city. The post Mamdani Says He Will Work With ‘Anyone’ on Affordability Ahead of His Meeting With Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.