Imagine that you’re one of the 520 or so immigration judges trying to slog through the estimated 3.3 million pending immigration cases, many of which are asylum cases. Unlike other judges, you don’t have contempt authority to hold attorneys accountable. And most denial of asylum decisions you make get appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals within the Department of Justice for review. And even if they uphold your factual and legal findings and order of removal, the case gets appealed to the federal courts, some of which apply different standards of deference to your hard work. Yesterday, those immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals got some welcome news from the Supreme Court in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, which clarified the standard federal courts must use when reviewing Board of Immigration Appeals determinations. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals must apply the substantial evidence standard to the agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution, or demonstrates a well-founded fear of future persecution, under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(42)(A) for asylum claims. This is welcome news as it will give immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals confidence that their findings of fact and application of the law will receive the deference they are due from federal courts of appeals. Moreover, this decision provides clarity to federal appeals courts about what standard they must apply when reviewing these types of actions. In this case, the petitioners were Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife, and their minor child. They entered the U.S. illegally in 2021. After they were apprehended, they were placed in removal proceedings, admitted they were in the country illegally, and subsequently applied for asylum. Under 8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the U.S. government “may grant asylum” to a noncitizen if it “determines” that he or she “is a refugee.” To qualify as a “refugee,” a person must be “unable or unwilling to return” to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Urias-Orellana was the sole witness in his case before the immigration judge and claimed that he was being targeted in his hometown by a hitman in El Salvador. As a result, he and his family had moved to other cities in El Salvador where they were safe. The immigration judge believed Urias-Orellana’s testimony but decided that it did not establish past persecution under the statute and also found that it did not present a well-founded fear of future persecution. In his ruling, the immigration judge explained that under 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent (where the case was brought), “death threats may establish past persecution only when they are ‘so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.’” His past-persecution claim failed because he had not submitted “any medical, psychiatric, or psychological evaluations indicating that he had experienced such suffering or harm.” Furthermore, because the claims of the wife and child were derivative of Urias-Orellana’s, the immigration judge denied those too. As a result, all three were denied asylum and ordered removed. They all appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed and agreed with the findings of the immigration judge. All three then appealed to the 1st Circuit Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1252, which governs judicial review of removal orders. They argued that the death threats established past persecution that met the standard under 1st Circuit precedent, i.e., that they were “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” The Court of Appeals emphasized that its review was limited to “whether the Agency conclusion [that petitioners] had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution was supported by substantial evidence.” Under that standard, reversal was warranted only “if, in reviewing the record as a whole, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Applying that standard, the Court of Appeals affirmed because, just as the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals did below, Urias-Orellana’s testimony “did not compel a finding of either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.” The agency reasonably concluded that the threats experienced by Urias-Orellana were not “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” It similarly determined that, because “Urias-Orellana was able to live in towns across El Salvador for years without harassment and only encountered difficulties once he returned to his hometown,” a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to find a well-founded fear of future persecution. The case then came to the U.S. Supreme Court where Justices started by noting that 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4) addresses the “scope and standard of review” that the court of appeals must apply when evaluating immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals removal orders. The court noted that “each of §1252(b)(4)’s four subparagraphs truncates the court’s review in a particular manner.” According to the court, in this case, 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(B) controls and provides that “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” The court noted that it had “previously interpreted subparagraph (B) to prescribe a deferential, ‘substantial-evidence standard’ for review of agency factual findings.’” Applying the facts and the law to this case, the court held that “§1252(b)(4)(B) requires courts to review the entirety of the agency’s conclusions—both the underlying factual findings and the application of the Immigration and Nationality Act to those findings—for substantial evidence.” Jackson made clear that the court rejected Urias-Orellan’s contention and that of multiple U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that a de novo standard of review should only apply to the finding of facts. Courts now have clear guidance that they must apply substantial evidence review to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ findings of fact as well as the ultimate statutory question of whether the facts compel a finding of either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future harm in these types of immigration proceedings. The post SCOTUS Clarifies That Federal Courts Must Apply the Substantial Evidence Standard to Agency Findings in Certain Immigration Proceedings appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump was elected on a simple, clear promise to put America first. Not America alone, and not America apologizing. America first. His decision to strike Iran in coordination with Israel is the fulfillment of that promise. For 47 years, Iran’s regime has chanted “Death to America,” funded terrorist proxies, attacked U.S. personnel, targeted international shipping lanes, and openly pursued regional domination. Weak presidents issued statements. They drew red lines in disappearing ink. They sent pallets of cash and hoped for moderation. Trump did something different. He restored deterrence. “America First” means recognizing that the primary duty of the commander-in-chief is to protect American lives, American interests, and American sovereignty. When Iran coordinates with terrorist networks, threatens our troops, and works hand-in-glove with America’s adversaries, a decisive strike that degrades its capacity to harm us is self-defense. Some voices on the right have objected. Some have argued that this move departs from what they believed Trump’s foreign policy would be. They warn of entanglement. They invoke Iraq. They caution against regime change. Many in the grassroots fought the disastrous nation-building experiments of the past. We opposed wars that drained American blood and treasure with no clear objective. But that is not what this is. Trump did not ask Congress for an open-ended commitment. He did not announce a decades-long democratization campaign. He did not commit America’s troops to policing another country’s internal politics. He authorized a targeted strike in coordination with an ally to eliminate a clear and present danger. The caricature of America First pushed by some critics reduces it to isolationism. But America First has never meant retreat or withdrawal. It has meant strength without apology. It has meant peace through strength. It has meant that adversaries understand that attacking Americans will come at a price. Ronald Reagan understood that. So did Trump in his first term, when he ordered the strike that eliminated ISIS’ territorial caliphate and when he authorized the operation against Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps chief Qasem Soleimani. Those actions did not launch World War III. They reestablished deterrence.  Iran’s regime thrives on the perception of American weakness. When Washington sends mixed signals, Tehran fills the vacuum. When America hesitates, Iran’s proxies escalate. A measured but unmistakable military response tells the ayatollahs that the days of testing America without consequence are over. Critics argue that coordination with Israel somehow proves that this is not America First. That argument misunderstands both alliances and sovereignty. Supporting an ally when our interests align is not subservience, it is strategic realism. Israel faces the same Iranian missiles, the same proxy networks, and the same destabilizing ambitions that threaten U.S. forces and assets. Neutralizing a shared threat is mutual defense and nothing more. America First does not require America to stand alone while enemies collaborate. It also does not require Trump to ignore the world as it is. The Middle East is not a distant abstraction. It affects global energy markets, international shipping, and the security architecture that protects American prosperity. Allowing Iran to expand unchecked would not keep us out of conflict. It would invite larger, more dangerous confrontations later. There is a deeper principle at stake. Sovereignty means control over your borders, your economy, and your security. A regime that openly plots harm against Americans forfeits any expectation that we will simply tolerate it. The strike signals that the United States will not outsource its security to international committees or wait for consensus from adversaries. The grassroots did not elect Trump to be passive. They elected him to be decisive. They elected him to reverse the culture of apology that defined previous administrations. They elected him to ensure that when America speaks, the world listens. The same critics who now warn of “mission creep” should recognize that strength, applied clearly and narrowly, prevents the very quagmires they fear. Deterrence is cheaper than war. Clarity is safer than ambiguity. Trump’s action was limited, purposeful, and aligned with American interests. It degraded the capabilities of a hostile regime. It reinforced a critical alliance. It reminded the world that American resolve is not a relic of the past. America First is not a slogan for rallies. It is a governing philosophy. It says that American lives come first, American security comes first, and American strength comes first. That is exactly what this strike represents. The alternative is not peace. It is drift. And drift in a dangerous world is not prudence, it is peril. Trump chose strength. That is the promise kept. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Trump’s Strike on Iran Is as American First as It Gets appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump has announced Kristi Noem’s replacement as head of the Department of Homeland Security amid bipartisan concerns about her management. Trump has tapped Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to become the new secretary of Homeland Security. “The current Secretary, Kristi Noem, who has served us well, and has had numerous and spectacular results (especially on the Border!), will be moving to be Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas, our new Security Initiative in the Western Hemisphere we are announcing on Saturday in Doral, Florida,” Trump said. “I thank Kristi for her service at ‘Homeland.'” Noem is the first Senate-confirmed cabinet official to leave in Trump’s second term. Noem’s oversaw more than 2 million reported self-deportations in 2025 and about 670,000 removals of illegal immigrants. “As the only Native American in the Senate, Markwayne is a fantastic advocate for our incredible Tribal Communities,” Trump said. “Markwayne will work tirelessly to Keep our Border Secure, Stop Migrant Crime, Murderers, and other Criminals from illegally entering our Country, End the Scourge of Illegal Drugs and, MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN.” This comes the day after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., grilled Noem at a hearing about using $220 million in taxpayer dollars to fund ads featuring herself. Noem said Trump knew about the ad, but he told Reuters in a phone interview that “he never knew anything about it.” The Daily Wire reported DHS only allowed four hand-picked companies to bid on the ad campaign, including a new company that later subcontracted the work to the spouse of a top department official. At the same hearing, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C, accused Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of “failure of leadership.” Tillis specifically accused Noem of failing to “acknowledge when mistakes are made and speaking too soon for the expediency of social media.” The post BREAKING: Trump Says Kristi Noem Is Out as DHS Secretary appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Several conservative groups are backing a proposed new health care price transparency rule, updating what President Donald Trump established during his first term.  In the State of the Union address last month, Trump asserted that “maximum price transparency” for health care services is a “big deal.” The Trump administration proposed a rule that would require insurers to publish all negotiated health care rates. The administration says it would reduce the complexity of data to make it clearer and more accessible for consumers. Public comment for the proposed regulation closed this week.  Save Our States was among the organizations that supported the regulation in public comment.  “We encourage the administration to continue their efforts and take even bolder steps in places like the Transparency in Coverage (TiC) proposed rule in order to swiftly deliver true price transparency to the American people,” Trent England, executive director for Save Our States, told The Daily Signal.  “Main Street Americans deserve transparency, accountability, and fairness, and President Trump stands ready to deliver,” England added.  The proposed rule is based largely on an executive order Trump signed in December 2025. The rule would require plans and issuers to exclude from in-network rate files certain data services that providers would be unlikely to perform. It calls for health insurance plans to make the prices they negotiate with doctors, hospitals, and other providers easier to find and easier to understand for consumers.  The rule would be implemented by the Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services.  Other groups or leaders with comments supporting the rule were the American Parents Coalition, Independent Women, the Association of Mature American Citizens Action, and Katy Talento, CEO of AllBetter Health.  AMAC Action supported the rule but called for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to “strengthen key provisions so that the final rule delivers genuine accountability.” “For seniors living on fixed incomes, clarity in healthcare pricing directly affects monthly budgets, access to physicians, and financial security,” Andrew J. Mangione Jr., senior vice president of AMAC Action, said in the public comment supporting the rule. “We commend CMS for acknowledging that the current transparency framework has not functioned as intended and for proposing meaningful technical improvements.” However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has argued the proposal would do little to decrease pricing and that “a myriad of consumer tools currently exist” for consumers to assess pricing.  “Due to the availability of these tools, we question the value of publicizing the negotiated rates between providers and insurers for all services and items under the auspice of helping consumers shop when it is highly unlikely consumers will know which billing codes are appropriate,” Katie Mahoney, vice president of health policy for the Chamber asserted in a public comment.  “The Chamber takes issue with the assertion that providing information on negotiated rates will reduce costs, rather we remain concerned that rates will increase instead. Finally, the proposal fails to provide any meaningful regulatory impact analysis on the broader economic consequences – including potentially increasing consumer premiums.” The post Conservative Groups Rally Behind Trump’s ‘Maximum’ Health Care Transparency Plan appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Steve Daines announced Wednesday night that he will not seek reelection in the upcoming 2026 midterms. The 63-year-old Montana Republican is joining five other GOP colleagues who are retiring from the Senate.   “Serving the people of Montana in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate the past 13 years has been the greatest honor of my professional career. I’m grateful to God for allowing me to serve. But after much careful thought, I’ve decided not to seek reelection,” said Daines in a pre-recorded video posted to social media.   An announcement? pic.twitter.com/7HCofBTUMA— Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) March 5, 2026 Daines withdrew from the Montana ballot minutes before the 5 p.m. deadline Wednesday night, quickly followed by U.S. Attorney for Montana Kurt Alme filing to run for the seat. Daines and President Donald Trump quickly endorsed Alme. “[Daines] has decided to leave the Senate and, ‘pass the torch’ to Kurt Alme,” said Trump. “Kurt is exceptional, and I will be giving him, based on Steve’s strongest recommendation, my Complete and Total Endorsement.” Alme served as the U.S. attorney for Montana in both of Trump’s terms. The president’s endorsement will be important for the November election given that Trump won the state in 2024 by almost 20 points. BREAKING: Senator Steve Daines appears to have withdrawn from the race for reelection. Working this.#MTpol #MTnews pic.twitter.com/2mCrZYOrh5— Bradley Warren (@bradmwarren) March 5, 2026 “As your next Senator, Kurt will fight tirelessly to Grow our Economy, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Champion our Farmers and Ranchers, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., Unleash American Energy DOMINANCE, Keep our Border SECURE, Stop Migrant Crime, and Protect our always under siege Second Amendment,” announced Trump.   “I’m energized, I’m encouraged, and I’m ready for whatever comes next,” Daines stated in his announcement. “I’m also very thankful to have served alongside President Trump and my colleagues in the Senate.”    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., praised Daines following his retirement announcement. “His leadership and tireless work were instrumental in securing our Republican majority,” Thune stated on X. “The Senate and our conference are better because of him.”  Colleagues and former staff of Daines also took to social media praising the senator for his service to Montana and the country.   “Starting in 2012, Steve led a conservative revolution in our state that resulted in flipping every single statewide office to Republican control,” said Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont. “Steve is doing something we don’t often see in modern politics: stepping down at the height of his power to clear the way for a new generation of leaders,” he continued.   Senator Daines is a giant in Montana politics and a master political strategist. Starting in 2012, Steve led a conservative revolution in our state that resulted in flipping every single statewide office to Republican control. In 2024, Steve did our country a great service… https://t.co/y8xjWMbvpX— Tim Sheehy (@TimSheehyMT) March 5, 2026 One former staffer recalled on X when she was offered her first job out of college in Daines’ office, feeling like she “hit the jackpot.”   Daines concluded his announcement by saying, “I’m most grateful to my sweet wife, Cindy, of 39 years. For the past 13 years, Cindy has selflessly dropped me off at the airport at 5 a.m. on most Mondays for that commute back to D.C.” Daines and Cindy have seven grandchildren and said they look forward to spending more time in Montana.   The post Republicans Praise Daines Following Retirement Announcement appeared first on The Daily Signal.