“I want to dedicate this to the beautiful chaos of a mother’s heart,” Jessie Buckley said as she concluded her acceptance speech for Best Actress at the 98th Academy Awards, drawing warm applause from the audience.  In an era when many awards show speeches lean heavily into politics, Buckley’s remarks stood out for a different reason. The Irish actress used one of Hollywood’s most visible platforms to celebrate something far less fashionable in the entertainment industry: motherhood, family, and the values that shaped her long before fame.  Buckley, widely praised for her emotional range and powerful performances, accepted the Oscar for her role in “Hamnet” as a milestone in a career that has steadily risen over the past decade. Yet while she acknowledged the professional achievement, her speech focused less on Hollywood and more on the life waiting for her beyond the spotlight.  During her remarks, Buckley spoke warmly about her husband and their young daughter, emphasizing her excitement at becoming a mother. In a shout out to her husband, she said, “You, Fred, I love you, man. I love you. You’re the most incredible dad. You’re my best friend, and I want to have 20,000 more babies with you. I do. I do.”    The actress continued, addressing her daughter: “And Isla, my little girl who is eight months, who has absolutely no idea what’s going on and is probably dreaming of milk. But this is kind of a big deal, and I love you, and I love being your mum, and I can’t wait to discover life beside you.”    Rather than seeing family life as a barrier to ambition—a common narrative in modern entertainment culture—Buckley described motherhood as something that deepened her work and strengthened her sense of purpose.  At a time when American and European culture are increasingly debating the role of family in public life, Buckley’s words offered a different message: that professional success and devotion to family do not have to be in conflict.  Her appearance on stage also carried a subtle historical nod. Buckley’s gown was inspired by the dress worn by Grace Kelly when she won an Oscar at the 28th Academy Awards in 1956.  Kelly later left Hollywood to become Princess of Monaco, a decision that symbolized a life centered on family rather than fame. By invoking that image, Buckley quietly connected her own moment of success with an earlier generation of women who did not see family life as something secondary to achievement.  Buckley also reflected on the cultural roots and family that shaped her identity. Raised in Ireland, she spoke with pride about her Irish upbringing and the close-knit community that influenced her values.  Backstage after the acceptance, she went into more detail about what brought her to this historic moment. Commenting on her own family and it being Mother’s Day in the U.K., she said, “What a gift to get to explore motherhood through this incredible mother,” she commented, “and then to become one myself, and then to receive this recognition of the incredible role mothers play in our world on this day is something I will never, ever forget.”  The timing of her win carried its own symbolism. With St. Patrick’s Day approaching, Buckley’s victory provided a moment of cultural pride for Ireland on one of the world’s most prominent stages.  While Hollywood often presents success as an individual triumph detached from tradition or family, Buckley’s remarks suggested a different understanding of fulfillment. Her speech acknowledged the honor of the Oscar while making clear that the deeper foundations of her life remain her family, her upbringing, and the responsibilities that come with motherhood.  In a cultural moment where institutions like marriage and family are frequently questioned or redefined, Buckley’s message served as a reminder that some of the most meaningful achievements in life happen far from the spotlight. The post Jessie Buckley’s Oscars Speech Celebrates Motherhood, Family, and Irish Roots  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the Trump administration’s appeal to end temporary protected status for certain immigrants, including those from Syria and Haiti.  Immigration groups have argued that people can’t return to the two countries due to unsafe conditions. However, the Trump Justice Department has argued that the Department of Homeland Security has sole power to end the protections that were originally designed to be temporary. Under Trump, the agency has moved to end TPS designations for about a dozen countries. The protections are available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary events.  The Trump administration had appealed lower court rulings that stopped the immediate end of protected status for about 350,000 Haitians and about 6,000 Syrians inside the United States. If the administration wins, it would allow for the immigrants to be deported. The administration had asked the justices to let the terminations for Haiti and Syria take effect while the cases proceed. However, the justices for now kept in place two judicial orders that temporarily halted the terminations. Justices will hear arguments in the case in April, according to SCOTUSblog.  The high court has previously sided with the Trump administration to end temporary protected status for about 600,000 Venezuelans.  Kristi Noem, a Trump appointee then serving as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, determined last November that there were “no extraordinary and temporary conditions” in Haiti that would prevent Haitian migrants from returning to the Caribbean country. The State Department currently warns against travel to Haiti “due to kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest and limited healthcare.” Haitians ?were first given TPS in 2010 under Democratic former President Barack Obama, after a devastating earthquake struck their country. TPS was first extended to Syrians in 2012 during Obama’s administration after Syria plunged into a civil war that culminated with the toppling of President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. Reuters contributed to this report. The post Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Bid to Curb Temporary Protections for Immigrants appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In World War II, the U.S. Navy operated “ice cream” barges behind ships to make sure our sailors had a few comforts in the most terrible war in human history. That we were able to operate such a fleet is a testament to American logistical magnificence, but if it was in operation today under President Donald Trump, the corporate media would have accused the War Department of engaging in “extravagant” spending. There have been plenty of pernicious, media concocted scandals associated with Trump’s presidential tenure in the last decade, but I contend that “lobstergate” may be the dumbest. Several prominent publications ran with headlines in the last week about how War Secretary Pete Hegeseth created an apparently lavish budget for steak and lobster. These stories were based on a report from government watchdog Open The Books about a surge in the military food budget in September. The report was straightforward and acknowledged that this sort of spending has been going on for more than a decade as the Pentagon uses up its end of year budget. Open The Books acknowledged that this late year spending surge has happened “regardless of which party controlled the White House.”. That didn’t stop the deluge of misleading headlines making it seem like Hegseth and Trump were spending money on steak and lobster just to stuff their own faces. “The Pentagon blew through a total of $93.4 billion that month by spending, for example, $6.9 million on lobster tail; $15.1 million on rib-eye steak; and $225.6 million on furniture. There were 272 orders of doughnuts and three-tiered fruit basket stands that cost $12,540,” The New York Times reported Saturday with a subheadline “Tracking the Pentagon’s profligate lobster budget.” The Times then quoted two unfunny professional funnymen, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel, mocking Hegseth and the military for wildly spending on succulent meals. “As Paul Revere declared on his famous ride, ‘One if by surf, two if by turf,’” Colbert said. “What is this? My 600-pound defense department? How are they eating so much food?” said Kimmel. Several high-profile Democrats jumped in on this narrative too. This was from California Gov. Gavin Newsom on X. HEGSETH BLOWING $93 BILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN 1 MONTH !! pic.twitter.com/L8GmyWQ2bt— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) March 10, 2026 No word on if Newsom is going to do anything about the likely tens of millions of dollars or more being squelched in Hospice scams in his state, or the $24 billion spent of fighting homelessness that was never tracked not reduced homelessness, or the billions of dollars spent over the last decade on the bullet train to nowhere. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also weighed in. “Hegseth spent $93 billion in one month – roughly the cost of extending the ACA tax credits for THREE YEARS,” Schumer wrote on X. “But instead of lowering American’s healthcare costs, Hegseth used millions of taxpayer dollars on fruit baskets, Herman Miller recliners, ice cream machines, Alaskan King Crabs, and a Steinway & Sons grand piano.” As Fox News pointed out, the amount of spending on military food—including steak and lobster—was essentially the same under President Joe Biden. So why didn’t he complain about this HUGE PROBLEM then? You know why. Another critique came from an editorial in USA Today with the absurd headline “82 million can’t afford health care, but Hegseth gets lobster.” Not only is it laughable that the money spent on military food in September could pay for the healthcare of 82 million Americans, but it is also downright ludicrous to think this money is going to Hegseth personally. The author of the piece, Rex Huppke, wrote of the military giving food to troops that it’s “enough to make you want to grab a torch and pitchfork and start marching.” I’d say the Fourth Estate should be more worried about the pitchforks than the men and women in uniform who have to do a lot more than just marching these days. It’s certainly fair to criticize the government for how it spends the taxpayer money, and the Pentagon shouldn’t be above scrutiny. But this is hardly the first place we should choose to skimp, especially with all the military personnel currently in harm’s way. The reality is that the U.S. military has, through most of its history, prioritized better food for our troops than other armies. We are a rich and powerful country with a penchant for logistics and supply chains. Those qualities have allowed us to better supply our soldiers than any other mass army in the world. While I’m not saying that typical military rations are fine dining (“Unless you’re in the Navy,” as my Army Air Corps grandfather used to grouse), they’ve generally been a cut above most militaries. And that’s for a good reason. It’s good for morale for an army to be well fed. It’s certainly a lot better for warfighting than making the Navy go green and the other nonsense that money was wasted on under the previous administration. They’re Americans, they should expect to have the best food and equipment in the world. The lobstergate talking point is just mindless blather from people who’ve never thought twice about reducing the budget nor apparently thought once about the actual wellbeing of our military. The post Media Is in a Tizzy Because We Give Troops Good Food Sometimes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This week, the Senate will vote on the SAVE America Act—a bill requiring photo identification and proof of citizenship in federal elections—but only after a grueling, multi-day debate. Conservative backers in Washington are cautiously applauding the move by Senate Republican leadership to hold a lengthy debate followed by a vote, forcing Democrats to publicly stand against the popular policy. However, they say they want the bill to ultimately become law. “Democrats wish they could quickly vote against the SAVE America Act and avoid public scrutiny for their opposition to election security. We’re not letting them off that easy,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, the bill’s Senate author, told The Daily Signal in a statement. ?Important Status Update Regarding the SAVE America Act ? We’re making serious progress @LeaderJohnThune and his team have been working closely with us pic.twitter.com/2Nzt1HaZLO— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) March 13, 2026 Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, the bill’s author in the House, also told The Daily Signal he was pleased by the move, but said, “we just need to pass it and we don’t need excuses.” “The fact that they’re going to put something on the floor, put amendments in queue… and then force some degree of focus and debate on this for some period of time is a step forward and I guess a victory in the sense that it means maybe we’ll have some debate and process here,” Roy told The Daily Signal. He continued, “I’ll reserve judgement until I see what they really do, because what I don’t want is kind of fancy failure theater… I want to see a real effort.” The bill, as passed by the House, does not include additional provisions that President Donald Trump has called for, such as restrictions on transgender surgeries for minors and on mail-in ballots. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., has an amendment that would insert these policies into the bill. Both Roy and Lee have advocated a “talking filibuster” approach to pass the bill, under which Republicans could enforce Senate rules to make Democrats speak continuously to block the SAVE America Act. Republicans are now opting for a different approach, which will force a protracted debate on the bill but will ultimately require 60 votes to commence a final roll call. In the first step of the process, Republicans are expected to vote on a motion to proceed to consideration of the House-passed bill on Wednesday, which will require a simple majority of 51 votes. Vice President JD Vance will be able to break a tie, if necessary. Then, Republicans will hold off on what would typically be the next step—filing cloture to end the debate. Instead, they are expected to devote multiple days to debating the bill on the Senate floor. ?BIG UPDATE on the SAVE America Act coming to the Senate floor this week. I’ve been working closely with President Trump on a key amendment that we must get done. SHARE if you agree. Let’s go! pic.twitter.com/fFZGkYPqDR— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) March 16, 2026 A goal of the debate would be to reveal where Republicans and Democrats alike stand on photo identification laws. Roy told The Daily Signal that members who oppose the bill “should be shamed roundly and rebuked.” Democrats are likely to remain in steadfast opposition, as Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., has called it “the end of our democracy” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has called it “a voter suppression bill.” The SAVE America Act is NOT a “bill to take over state elections”It’s a bill to prevent a takeover of U.S. elections by non-U.S. citizens https://t.co/fBjvHPJZM7— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) March 16, 2026 Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, a fellow member of the House Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Signal in a statement on the SAVE America Act, “If they can’t get such an important, popular bill through the Senate then it is the Senate that is broken.” Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., was critical of the approach in a statement to The Daily Signal, saying that without the talking filibuster, “this legislation is designed to fail on arrival.” The office of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., did not immediately respond to Brecheen’s statement. The process is likely to test the stamina of the Senate. Democrats will have the ability to force a quorum call—meaning they can frustrate Republicans’ efforts by forcing them to show that they have 51 senators present during debate. This means Republicans will have to stay close to the Capitol in order to maintain control of the floor. At the end of the process, Republicans will need to file for cloture to bring debate to an end.  Barring the unlikely defection of over a half dozen Democrats, the process would likely end with the bill failing to advance. How does a "talking filibuster" actually work?And would it work for Republicans? @rachelbovard gives the masterclass on the Senate's secret weapon. pic.twitter.com/DBiOYfKYTt— American Moment (@americanmoment) March 12, 2026 Rachel Bovard, Vice President of Programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, has called on Senate Republicans to force Democrats into a prolonged debate on the bill. “I think it’s great,” Bovard told The Daily Signal in a statement of the leadership’s move. “The conservative movement has been asking for a robust deliberative process on this bill and that is hopefully what we will get here.” “By just getting on the bill and not filing cloture immediately the senate floor will be more open than it has been in years,” she added. Virginia Grace McKinnon contributed to this report. The post Senate Prepares for SAVE America Act Marathon Debate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For top Democrats, it’s not enough that Kristi Noem is out as homeland security secretary; they want the Trump Justice Department to prosecute her.  Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his House counterpart, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, made a criminal referral alleging that Noem lied under oath to Congress.  “We write to refer evidence showing Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem repeatedly misled the Senate Committee on the Judiciary during her testimony on March 3, 2026, and the House Committee on the Judiciary during her testimony on March 4, 2026,” Durbin and Raskin said in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi Monday.  “A number of her statements appear to violate criminal statutes prohibiting perjury and knowingly making false statements to Congress,” the letter continues.  The two Democrat lawmakers have consistently opposed the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement carried out by the Department of Homeland Security.  In the letter to Bondi, Durbin and Raskin said the Justice Department should investigate whether Noem made false statements to Congress regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s compliance with court orders, contracting, detaining U.S. citizens, and detention conditions. “Making false statements to Congress, and making false statements under oath, are federal crimes,” they wrote.  Noem testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3 and to the House Judiciary Committee on March 4. President Donald Trump announced on March 5 that he was removing Noem and would nominate Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., for the Cabinet post.  Still, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson asserted in an email to The Daily Signal Monday, “Any claim that Secretary Noem committed perjury is categorically false.” Even the two Democrats suggested the referral was symbolic, given that they didn’t expect Bondi to act. However, they implied a possible future Democrat administration could target Noem. “While we have low expectations that you will pursue this matter given your partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice, we note that the statute of limitations for perjury and for knowingly and willfully making false statements to Congress is five years,” the two Democrats said.  The post Democrats Push DOJ to Prosecute Kristi Noem After Trump Ousts Her From DHS appeared first on The Daily Signal.