REUTERS—The former roommate of Tyler Robinson, who is accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk, told prosecutors that Robinson expressed regret a day after the killing and planned to hand himself over to police, according to a video interview played in court on Thursday. The recorded interview with Robinson’s former roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, was presented as prosecutors tried to convince a Utah judge they have sufficient evidence against Robinson to warrant a trial—part of a weeklong hearing that has featured lengthy back-and-forth arguments about what evidence should be admissible.  Robinson, who was studying to be an electrician at the time of the shooting, faces seven criminal charges, including aggravated murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. He has yet to enter a plea.  The 31-year-old Kirk, a prominent ally of President Donald Trump, was killed in front of thousands as he debated students at Utah Valley University. It is one of the highest-profile incidents among a series of attacks on politicians and prominent figures that have intensified concern over U.S. political violence.  In the April 20 interview, which was partially redacted on the orders of District Judge Tony Graf, Utah County prosecutor Ryan McBride asked Twiggs about text messages he exchanged with Robinson in the hours after Kirk was killed on Sept. 10, 2025. In the text messages, which have previously been made public, Robinson allegedly admitted to Twiggs that he shot Kirk. Twiggs said Robinson returned to their three-bedroom townhouse in St. George, Utah, about a three-and-a-half-hour drive south of Utah Valley University, on the morning of Sept. 11. “I just asked him in person if what he said was true the night before, and he said it was. He started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn’t done it,” Twiggs told McBride in the interview. Twiggs agreed to the interview with prosecutors and police in lieu of testifying at the preliminary hearing and was granted immunity for his cooperation.  Graf barred parts of the interview from being played in court after Robinson’s lawyer said prosecutors would portray the clips as “confessions” and jeopardize the defendant’s right to a fair trial. An attorney for Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow, who has been present throughout the preliminary hearing, called for the interview to be played in full and for all other evidence presented at the hearing to be displayed to the courtroom. “The Kirk family has waited 10 months for this hearing … they have a right to hear the evidence,” lawyer Jeffrey Neiman told the court. ‘I Had Enough of His Hatred’ In court this week, Robinson’s lawyers have suggested police failed to investigate possible evidence that someone else might have carried out the killing. Prosecutors on Thursday presented redacted evidence of Sept. 10 text messages between Robinson and Twiggs, a Discord group chat and a photograph of a handwritten note. The volume on the court proceedings livestream was turned off at points as prosecutors presented evidence that Graf ruled could bias potential jurors if they heard it.  Text messages presented by prosecutors show that Twiggs asked Robinson why he shot Kirk, and he replied: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” In the April 20 interview, Twiggs said he first met Robinson in 2023 when he moved into the shared townhouse, and they started dating about three months later.  Prosecutors contend the text messages indicate Robinson targeted Kirk because of his conservative political views, including anti-LGBTQ+ comments. The defense disputes the prosecution’s characterization and has sought to limit the use of evidence pointing to a political motive, which could be used in arguments for the death penalty.  Twiggs said he rarely discussed politics with Robinson, and the first time they spoke of Kirk was after the shooting. (Reporting by Andrew Hay in New Mexico; Editing by Jesse Mesner-Hage and David Gaffen)

XX-XY Athletics, a sportswear company championing women, aims to compete against the brand behemoth Nike, which XX-XY accuses of failing to stand up for women by pushing transgender ideology. “My goal is to have a successful business that actually truly stands out for female athletes—not that does it in a fake way, like Nike, where they pretend to champion female athletes, but treat them with astonishing disregard,” XX-XY Athletics founder and CEO Jennifer Sey told the Daily Signal in an interview Wednesday. Sey, a retired champion gymnast and former brand president at Levi Strauss & Co., noted that conservatives have passed legislation upholding fairness in women’s sports, and courts have upheld the laws, but few major brands are fighting this ideology. A Brand Against Transgender Ideology “I recognized that brands influence the culture, and we are fighting this battle, legislatively and politically, but not culturally, and I can do the culture part. That’s what I’m good at,” she said. Sey has written a book about how the leftist groupthink at Levi’s cost her her job. “Now, I’m just like this ‘Little Engine That Could’ fighting all the cultural behemoths,” Sey noted. “But we’re really good at content that goes viral.” XX-XY Athletics ads have gone viral, highlighting the female athletes who lose to men. Look at her. pic.twitter.com/psCrru2mWe— XX-XY Athletics (@xx_xyathletics) May 25, 2026 Her brand aims to “put the attention back on the girls.” She faulted media coverage of West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court ruling upholding West Virginia’s law preventing boys from competing in girls sports. “They say, ‘Look at poor B.P.J., he’s so oppressed and sad,'” Sey noted. “I want you to pay attention to the girls who are cast aside, who are told to be quiet, sit down, shut up, and let the boy happen.” XX-XY Athletics sells premium sportswear—from sweats, shorts, and T-shirts to hats, socks, and more. Shifting the Overton Window Jennifer Sey competing in the 1980s (XX-XY Athletics) Sey, who lives in Denver, Colorado, said she aims to make it “cool” to stand for biological reality. “I’m also just trying to make it normal and cool to say, ‘There’s men and there are women, and men cannot become women,'” she explained. “It provokes a conversation, if you wear this T-shirt in the community.” “The vast majority of people agree with us, but they are afraid to say it out loud,” Sey noted. “I wear this T-shirt in deep-blue Denver, I’m wearing that logo now, and someone will say, ‘I agree with you. I didn’t know I was allowed to say that out loud.’ It moves the Overton window.” Why Compete Against Nike? Sey has set her sights on competing against Nike, not just because it is arguably the most recognizable sportswear brand but because it fails to stand up for women. Sey mentioned Mary Cain, a middle-distance runner who allegedly suffered emotional abuse at the hands of a Nike Oregon Project coach. She also mentioned Nike’s refusal to guarantee the pay of Allyson Felix, an Olympic champion sprinter who feared having a child might impact her sports performance. Nike afterwards changed its policy to keep the pay and benefits for sponsored athletes for 18 months around pregnancy. “This is not a company that champions female athletes,” Sey argued. Sey also accused Nike of supporting transgender ideology, highlighting a 2023 Nike ad featuring transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney. She mentioned a 2018 Nike ad campaign defending Caster Semenya, a South African runner with a disorder of sexual development in which biological males develop female traits. While Semenya has some female traits, he also has higher testosterone levels than women. She cited a 2025 New York Times article reporting that Nike funded a study measuring the athletic performance of men who identify as women over a period of time during which they undergo sex-rejecting procedures such as “puberty blockers” or cross-sex hormones to make them appear female. The study aimed to demonstrate that some level of medical intervention can erase men’s unfair physical advantage over women. “The whole campaign was about how basically you’re a bigot and a racist if you think Semenya’s not a woman,” Sey said. “That normalizes this idea that there is more than one way to be a woman. There’s not.” Nike did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time. Next Steps for XX-XY Athletics XX-XY Athletics has nowhere near the brand power of Nike, but Sey says it’s investing in the rising generation. “We have a team of 500-plus athletes at colleges and high schools across the country,” she said. The brand has also partnered with Riley Gaines, and Olympic athletes including skeleton racer Katie Uhlaender, bobsledder Kaillie Humphries, and gymnast MyKayla Skinner. While XX-XY does not have a “currently competing star athlete that’s Olympic or pro-level,” Sey said, “I have been in touch with some, I can’t quite convince them to take the leap with us. They’re afraid, they’re afraid that they’ll lose other contracts, and I respect it because they’re not wrong.” XX-XY Athletics has publicly called on pro athletes to take a stand, and Sey remains hopeful that one of them will. “I’ll find someone who’s brave enough to risk it and it will start a cascade,” she added. “I’m persistent.” Not after retirement.Not after endorsements.Not after championships.Now.Who’s gonna be the first superstar to stand up for girls’ sports? pic.twitter.com/gt3pSXnXNb— XX-XY Athletics (@xx_xyathletics) June 20, 2026

Do you want higher taxes? Local politicians may soon give many Virginia residents a chance to answer that question for themselves. Earlier this year, state Sen. L. Louise Lucas introduced a bill that would have allowed all local governments to impose an additional 1% sales tax on top of existing levies. At the time the bill was drafted, only Charlotte, Gloucester, Halifax, Henry, Mecklenburg, Northampton, Patrick, and Pittsylvania counties and the City of Danville enjoyed that authority. Lucas’ bill died in committee, but she didn’t earn her job as president pro tempore of the Virginia Senate and reputation as the state’s most powerful elected official by giving up easily. Lucas has other ways to get her ideas into circulation. In this case, language that will allow localities to increase the local sales tax on most purchases—with the new revenue earmarked to fund school projects—was added to the two-year state budget presented to lawmakers just days before the July 1 fiscal year began. They passed the measure and Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed it, which of course needed to happen to prevent a state government shutdown. And so, your tax rate may get a boost, depending on where you live and how your neighbors vote. But there is one more step. Before any county board or city council can impose the new tax rate, it must get permission from voters via a resolution. Many localities in the state are taking steps to draft tax increase language, perhaps in time to get it on the November ballot. If not, it may be included in 2027, when the entire General Assembly will be up for election. Some places have acted quickly. Fluvanna County’s board of supervisors agreed last week to schedule a referendum. “For Fluvanna County, the primary lever is the real estate tax,” Board Chair Tony O’Brien told 29News. “So, the burden, 92 or 93%, falls on the homeowners. This is an opportunity to spread that out a little bit more.” Fluvanna already introduced a 4% meals tax last year. In nearby Louisa, the county board of supervisors declined to consider a sales tax referendum and reportedly will not do so this year. Richmond also moved quickly. The Richmond City Council already introduced a resolution to create the ballot initiative, and lawmakers could approve the language by the end of July. City residents already pay a 6% combined state and local sales tax and a 7.5% meals tax that was added in 2018 to fund schools. Elsewhere, “Arlington is very seriously considering it,” County Board Member Maureen Coffey told FFXnow. However, she expects politicians will need to do more preparation before they can move ahead. “There are so many conversations that have to occur both internally and politically,” she added. In Northern Virginia, money raised from such a tax may also be used for transportation projects. That could make this an issue in Fairfax County, where all 10 of the supervisors must stand for reelection in 2027. They may be reluctant to run alongside ballot language that would allow another tax increase. Fairfax imposed a meals tax last year, but only after the General Assembly allowed the county to do so without first seeking explicit approval from voters. This time, at least voters will have a voice in whether their tax rates increase. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

In recent years, left-wing activists have increasingly turned to America’s courts as the solution to their policy failures elsewhere. After countless failed attempts to enact progressive mandates through Congress and federal agencies—the Green New Deal, firearm bans, and other unpopular policies—activist groups have been aggressively teaming up with trial lawyers in an effort to force their policy preferences on the American populace through the courtrooms of America. A clear example of this lawfare campaign is climate change litigation. More than three dozen left-wing states and municipalities have launched climate lawsuits against America’s energy producers. They argue that the industry’s purported role in climate change has created a “public nuisance” in their jurisdictions that warrants court orders unlocking billions in funding for left-wing groups and a change in corporate energy policy. In truth, the climate plaintiffs, as at least one of their attorney-advisers has admitted, are weaponizing public nuisance to impose a backdoor carbon tax on American consumers and try to force energy companies into bankruptcy. The Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, this fall. Rightfully, many conservatives concerned about such abuses of our court system have pressured Congress and state legislatures to pass measures to address this lawfare problem. Many states, like Kansas and Utah, have approached this concern correctly by tackling head-on the weaponization of public nuisance law against American industries. And in Congress, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recently introduced a bill, the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act, that seeks to directly address the proliferation of climate nuisance litigation. Unfortunately, others have turned their focus to more ineffective solutions: federal and state efforts focusing on “third-party litigation finance.” Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.; Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; John Kennedy, R-La.; and Reps. Kevin Hern, R-Okla.; Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; and Ben Cline, R-Va., have introduced restrictive tax and disclosure bills on this front. Many traditional tort-reform organizations and business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have rallied behind these efforts to restrict litigation finance activity by non-attorneys. But these efforts, no matter how well-intentioned, fail on their own terms, even before considering how they threaten to undermine the conservative legal movement and dampen conservative efforts to stop corporate America’s leftward drift. The case for focusing on litigation finance hinges on a single premise: Restricting the flow of capital from nonlawyer funders will curb frivolous litigation and the cases key to left-wing trial lawyers. That premise is sadly untrue. In truth, these proposals will concentrate power among America’s largest plaintiffs’ firms because mega-firms like Morgan & Morgan and Motley Rice are exempted. These firms have amassed massive wealth after decades of public nuisance and mass tort litigation, allowing them to self-fund their cases. With a trial lawyer carveout, litigation finance reform emboldens billionaire trial-lawyer John Morgan and other flush trial lawyers to act as prime funding sources for less-capitalized law firms that lose access to third-party investors. Moreover, the ideological public nuisance cases will barely be touched by these measures. Consider Sher Edling, the principal law firm behind more than two dozen climate suits. Sher Edling relies on tens of millions of dollars in funding from left-wing nonprofit vehicles and family foundations. Given that the litigation finance proposals target third-party firms that stand to receive a return on their investments, Sher Edling will be virtually untouched. In the end, trial lawyers will barely be dented by these litigation finance efforts, while conservatives pay the price. Many conservative legal groups have turned to litigation finance to support costly litigation that aims to hold companies accountable for woke policies or to pursue groups like Planned Parenthood. Cases like America First Legal’s DEI suits against Target and CBS or Hacker Stephens’ fraud case against Planned Parenthood do not have a loophole to fall back on like the Left’s favored firms do. That’s a real cost for a mere thimbleful of effect on trial lawyers. Perhaps that is why conservative groups, including Alliance Defending Freedom, America First Legal, Consumers’ Research, the Heartland Institute, and many others, have spoken out about these attacks on litigation finance. There is a better way. Kansas’ recently-enacted SB 462 effectively ends the ability of trial lawyers and activists to weaponize public nuisance litigation. Utah’s HB 591 likewise bars public nuisance claims against lawful, licensed products and conduct authorized by a government entity. And there is more where that came from. These provisions should serve as the model for how to effectively attack woke lawfare at its root. If Republican lawmakers actually want to impede left-wing lawfare, they should stop chasing misguided litigation finance efforts and follow the approach set by Kansas and Utah. Cut off the causes of action, and the lawfare problem starts to take care of itself. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Nothing makes a farmer’s blood boil faster than watching a six-figure combine sit dead in the field during harvest because of a repair he knows he can make himself. Trust me—as a farmer, I know from experience. For too long, too many big companies have treated repairs like another way to squeeze farmers. They have hidden behind complicated software, restrictive policies, and red tape that has forced us to wait for an authorized technician—or pay hefty sums for repairs we were perfectly capable of making ourselves. Farm groups pushed back for the better part of a decade, and federal and state legislatures took notice.  The last couple of weeks have shown what that kind of pressure can produce. President Donald Trump’s June 29 Freedom to Fix memorandum directed the Environmental Protection Agency to spell out, within 30 days, what repairs Americans can make themselves while staying compliant with federal emissions rules. Then, today, John Deere and Andrew Ferguson’s Federal Trade Commission reached an agreement—joined by five states—that formalizes farmers’ access to the same repair tools Deere’s own dealers use, for years to come. The June 29 memorandum builds on the administration’s work earlier this year, when the EPA clarified that farmers can perform more repairs on their farm and other non-road diesel equipment without running afoul of the Clean Air Act. That guidance came after Deere asked the EPA for greater certainty about what repairs farmers and equipment owners could legally perform themselves—a request the company said was aimed to “further increase customers’ and independent repair technicians’ repair capabilities while ensuring compliance with EPA requirements and guidance.”  For years, emissions rules were interpreted so broadly that manufacturers faced real legal risk in handing farmers or independent shops the same repair tools used by authorized dealers.  Yes, it’s a little absurd that environmental law ended up deciding who’s allowed to fix a tractor, but if you’ve watched federal environmental regulation creep into corners of American life for the past few decades, this one won’t shock you. In any event, fear over how these regulations were written gave companies like Deere a genuine legal reason to keep those tools locked down—because if they expanded access too far, they risked a federal compliance problem.  Deere worked with the Trump administration to fix this regulatory issue, and the rest is history. Intellectual property is still protected, but so are farmers and their rights as private property owners, which is all anyone ever wanted.  That’s the beauty of this right to repair victory. It didn’t come from another heavy-handed government mandate or years of courtroom battles. It came from something much better: farmers, American businesses, and the Trump administration working together to solve a real problem. That’s exactly how a free-market economy is supposed to work! Under today’s new FTC agreement, Deere is now committed to giving farmers and independent shops the same fault-code readers, reprogramming tools, and technical manuals its dealers rely on. That’s a meaningful shift from where things stood even a couple of years ago, when access to that kind of tooling was the exception rather than the rule. Now, a farmer whose planter throws a fault code in the middle of a spring window doesn’t have to park it and wait for a dealer technician to drive out. He can read the code and fix it himself or call an independent mechanic with the same tools the dealership has. An equipment owner quoted a premium price for a routine repair now has real leverage to shop around. Independent repair shops, which have spent years watching business go to authorized dealers by default, get an actual shot at competing for that work. More than one group deserves credit for this victory. Farm groups and individual farmers kept the issue alive for years, when it would have been easy for the conversation to fade. The Trump administration treated right to repair as a real cost-of-living issue and pushed regulators to clear away the confusion found within burdensome federal regulations and rules. Deere chose to formalize real commitments rather than run out the clock. That’s the kind of right to repair conservatives should want more of. It didn’t take a sweeping new federal mandate replacing the marketplace—it took farmers speaking up, a regulator clarifying the rules everyone already had to follow, and a company adjusting its practices in response. Government didn’t pick winners and losers here; it simply made sure a real problem didn’t hide behind red tape forever. No administration has done more for American farmers—cutting red tape, opening markets, lowering energy costs, and now clearing the path on repairs. This week’s agreement is what it looks like when that agenda meets a company willing to change course.  At a time when Washington seems addicted to picking fights over everything, this is a reminder that today’s problems can still get solved the old-fashioned way: through collaboration. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.