For years, European officials have insisted that their increasingly aggressive regulatory posture toward U.S. tech companies reflects a principled stand for digital sovereignty, competition, and consumer protection. But the European Commission’s latest announcement that it is launching yet another investigation aimed squarely at American firms exposes a glaring contradiction: While Brussels makes a political spectacle of policing American innovation, Europe is simultaneously deepening its technological and industrial entanglement with China.  The result is a strategic incoherence that weakens the trans-Atlantic alliance and strengthens the very authoritarian competitor that Europe claims to be “de-risking” from. The Commission’s press release touts new enforcement actions enforcing the Digital Markets Act, a framework that has overwhelmingly targeted American firms. In practice, the EU has constructed a regulatory regime that treats U.S. tech companies as threats requiring exceptional scrutiny, while Chinese state-influenced companies are welcomed across the continent with open arms, subsidies, and long-term partnerships. The evidence is overwhelming. Across Europe, governments and industries are signing major deals with Chinese firms in sectors that touch the core of national security and future economic competitiveness. Germany, for example, is expanding cooperation with Chinese autonomous-vehicle makers like QCraft and Momenta, the latter partnering directly with Uber and even Mercedes-Benz on driver-assistance technology. German defense giant Rheinmetall openly touts the importance of buying from China to boost weapons production, bluntly declaring: “We can buy from China, it’s not a problem.” Meanwhile, Chinese electronics brands such as Anker continue gaining prominence at major European tech showcases. The pattern is the same elsewhere. The Netherlands has returned control of chipmaker Nexperia to its Chinese parent, Wingtech, in order to smooth tensions with Beijing despite U.S. concerns about Chinese access to sensitive semiconductor supply chains. Alibaba Cloud is establishing data centers in Netherlands and France, embedding Chinese infrastructure deeper into Europe’s digital future. Spain has become one of China’s most enthusiastic European partners. Barcelona has inked agreements with Huawei to develop smart city systems. In July, Spain has awarded Huawei multi-million-euro contracts to manage and store law-enforcement wiretaps, a remarkable decision given ongoing global concerns about Huawei’s direct relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. Chinese quantum-computing firms are being invited to set up research centers in Malaga, even as Europe decries the national security risks associated with China’s technological rise. Greece has allowed Huawei to dominate more than half of its 4G radio networks and continues signing sweeping cooperation agreements spanning AI, smart ports, and green energy. Austria is producing electric vehicles and trucks for Chinese manufacturers. Hungary is expanding nuclear and AI ties with Beijing. Slovakia is welcoming billion-dollar EV investments from Chinese giants similar to the ones blocked in the U.S. while echoing the CCP’s political rhetoric about “non-interference.” This is not de-risking. This is Europe opening it’s arms to the West’s biggest threat. What makes Europe’s posture even more perplexing is that the continent does have a reliable, democratic, values-aligned partner: the United States. American companies invest in Europe more than any other region in the world. They comply with European courts. They create hundreds of thousands of European jobs. They build data centers, research hubs, and manufacturing capacity across the EU without geopolitical strings attached. Yet many European policymakers continue to treat American firms primarily as adversaries to be fined, constrained, or publicly lectured while simultaneously validating China’s long-term strategic ambitions and granting Beijing’s companies deep access to European markets, infrastructure, data, and research ecosystems. A stable trans-Atlantic tech ecosystem is a geopolitical necessity. The U.S. and Europe share democratic institutions, aligned security interests, deep trade linkages, and mutual defense commitments. China does not. Beijing’s industrial policy is designed explicitly to gain leverage over partners, extract technology, and advance the Chinese Communist Party’s geopolitical aims. Europe can, and should, regulate tech. It should demand transparency, competition, and data protection. But its policies must be consistent with its strategic interests. Targeting U.S. companies with disproportionate regulatory aggression while embracing Chinese firms in critical sectors is more than hypocrisy. It is self-defeating. If Europe truly wants digital sovereignty, secure supply chains, resilient infrastructure, and a future grounded in democratic values, it must recognize the obvious: America is its ally. China is not. It is time for Europe to act like it. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Europe Is Welcoming China While Freezing Out America appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Americans adapt to new regulations requiring Real ID to board flights, critics assert that these documents are more than upgraded driver’s licenses; they are the latest component in the creation of national biometric databases and surveillance systems. “Most people look at the card and they say, ‘This is just a driver’s license with a star,’ but that’s not true,” Twila Brase, president of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “It is a federal ID masquerading as a state driver’s license.” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., posted on X in April that “Real ID is a national standard and database of IDs that is primarily a tool for control of Americans.” Originally passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, the 2005 Real ID Act states that Real IDs are required for boarding commercial flights, entering federal buildings, “and any other purposes that the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall determine.” The collected data for Real ID, which could include photographs, passports, social security numbers, and birth certificates, must be digitized and retained in databases that are accessible by all other states. On May 6, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated that more than 80% of Americans had already complied with Real ID, and that airline passengers who did not have Real ID or U.S. passports would be subjected to extra security steps—and potentially fees as well. Real ID advocates say it is necessary to fight terrorism and illegal voting, but critics dispute this. Former Rep. Ron Paul wrote in April that “REAL ID does nothing to protect the American people’s safety. It does, though, do much to endanger their liberty. REAL ID could even be the final piece of the transformation of America into a total surveillance society where government monitors, and thus controls, our actions.” Paul added that the DHS secretary could require new biometrics in the future, including retina scans, fingerprints, and DNA.   On Oct. 27, Homeland Security mandated those biometrics plus palm prints and voice scans for immigration applications to “help DHS transition towards a biometric based system for identity verification and management.” The U.S. Transportation Security Administration routinely captures facial images of airline passengers. As of October, Americans traveling to Europe now undergo digital facial imaging and fingerprinting upon entry, and non-U.S. citizens traveling to the United States will do likewise starting Dec. 26. “The government has claimed a right to collect and catalog the coordinates of your body for its control and surveillance,” Brase said. Previously, governments would have struggled to process such a deluge of data on their citizens. But Oracle Corporation co-founder Larry Ellison told the World Governments Summit in February that AI models enable unprecedented sifting and analysis of data, provided that governments collect it. “The first thing a country needs to do is to unify all of their data so it can be consumed and used by the AI model,” Ellison stated. Companies involved in building the data collection infrastructure include Idemia, a biometric-based security systems company based in France, which states that it currently serves 600 government agencies. The company has installed its SMART-E kiosks, which collect biometric data including fingerprints and 180-degree facial scans, in Pennsylvania and Colorado, with plans to expand to 10 U.S. states in 2026.  When the Real ID Act became law, 25 states refused to comply. Homeland Security responded this by barring Americans from boarding flights without compliant ID, while providing grants to state motor vehicle departments to encourage compliance. “It’s a novel way of commandeering the states,” Scott St. John, an attorney who wrote an analysis of Real ID policy, told The Daily Signal. “Rather than holding a gun to the head of the state, it’s holding a gun to the state’s populace,” he said. “That is novel, but it’s no less a gun to the head.” The next phase, analysts say, will likely be digital IDs, which are currently voluntary in the United States but mandatory in countries like the U.K. and China, and which could also allow for tracking via cell towers. “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared in October, sparking scattered protests. In July, China passed a National Network Identity Authentication law requiring digital ID for internet use. Twenty U.S. states now allow digital ID, and companies like Apple feature digital IDs on phones and watches. Currently, 10 states— Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa and South Dakota—are considering legislation to cancel Real ID or provide noncompliant alternatives. In May, Michigan State Rep. James DeSana introduced a bill to end that state’s participation in the Real ID program. “My belief in less government carries through into keeping the government from intruding into into your life when it’s not necessary,” DeSana told The Daily Signal. Oklahoma State Sen. Kendal Sacchieri will sponsor a bill this year to allow residents to get a noncompliant state ID. “We’re adopting the federal Real ID, but we’re still going to allow an opt-out option for our citizens,” Sacchieri told The Daily Signal. “We’ve been getting tons of emails from our constituents that they don’t want this [Real ID] anymore.” We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Real ID the Latest Step Toward a ‘Total Surveillance Society,’ Critics Say appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Sami Winc weigh our military actions against Venezuela and the charge the U.S. military “executed” narco-terrorists who were “prisoners.” Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.  SAMI WINC: We’re at war, according to our Secretary of War. And nobody argues with that. So, if we’re at war, I think we learned in Vietnam that the micromanaging of what— VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: I don’t think you want to go into Venezuela on ground. WINC: No. HANSON: Because let’s count the ways. You’ve got the MAGA base that does not want optional military engagements. The Rand Pauls, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson. Okay. That’s clear. And then once you’ve staked so many assets, it’s like he’s put a frog in the pot and turned up the temperature. So, they can’t fly in and out of Venezuela, they can’t use ships, can’t go in. It’s basically an embargo. How long can you sustain it, put soldiers at sea in a combat situation? And what if [Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro] just says, “I’m going to wait it out”? So, what’s the next step to ratchet up the pressure? I don’t know what that is. But once you’ve committed these forces, and you put them right off the coast, and you said he has to go, you’ve committed the prestige of the U.S. military. And if you back down, it’s kind of like what Joe Biden did when he said it depends on whether it’s a minor invasion [into Ukraine]. Or [how former Secretary of State] Antony Blinken was dressed down in Anchorage by the Chinese, or the Chinese balloon. Any indication that there are not dire consequences once you’ve made that decision, it’s very hard. So, I’m not sure that I would have put all those assets so quickly right there because now it’s a question of willpower. And if he says, “I can survive without my drug revenues or I can get them from other countries,” then he may be able to survive. We did this once before with [Panamanian dictator Manuel] Noriega. He was a drug smuggler. The other problem is he just pardoned the president of Honduras, who is a conservative, who had been convicted in a U.S. court of drug smuggling, sentenced to 40 years. So, it doesn’t look good to say we can’t tolerate any drug running from Latin American countries, and we’re going to go to war almost, but this guy right north of you has been convicted of drug running and yet you pardoned him. So that’s problematic. He pardoned him because he said that the Biden administration was politically hostile to his politics. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I’m just talking about optics. WINC: I was asking the question of didn’t we learn in Vietnam and do you feel like it still stands that micromanaging military affairs on the battlefield does not work very well? That we as a citizen should expect our president that we elected and our military to be given orders and then understanding there are laws … HANSON: I think the order was— WINC: There’s some laws, but in general, the orders were in this case hit the drug boat, sink the drugs or destroy the drugs, and destroy all the drug runners and that’s what the orders were to that regional commander. HANSON: Yes, and that’s what orders always are. And then the question is … let me give you an example. In the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans, under a lot of irregular troops, went in at Malmedy and executed prisoners. And during the Dieppe raid, they executed prisoners. In the Dunkirk evacuation, the Germans executed prisoners. The question is then: Did they get that at Nuremberg? Did they get that command from the general or not? And the U.S. does not execute prisoners. But it’s happened. The people who executed the Americans, the SS, when they were captured in elements of the Battle of Bulge, subsequently, some of them were executed by American soldiers. I don’t know any American soldiers that were held captive. I mean, captive to the law and culpable. So again, it’s a fine line when you hit a military target and the target is still there, so you know that there are people in there that can’t fight back and that are suffering. So, do you hit it again to eliminate the threat or do you consider those people prisoners of war even though you’re not even near them? What I’m getting at is this: They say they were executed prisoners of war. They weren’t in possession of the United States. It would be one thing if they had come up quickly with a PT boat, so to speak, and got them, put them on the boat, and then started going out to high sea and throw them overboard. But they were part of a kinetic operation is what I’m saying. It was still ongoing. It’s all part of a narrative that we saw with the video, this Seditious Six, so to speak. And out of nowhere, Sen. Mark Kelly has decided that he’s going to be a prominent anti-Trump spokesperson. So, he made the video, he was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where he called for people to disobey orders if they thought they were illegal. Now he’s weighing in that Pete Hegseth should be impeached. Now he’s weighing in and this has been an avenue for his media exposure. But he has to be careful because no one believes that if the person is not in your possession and he’s still part of a kinetic ongoing battle that he’s a prisoner. You know what I’m saying? My grandfather, I asked him, in World War I, when I was a little boy, I said, “What were you doing?” He said, “I’m a Lewis machine gunner.” He was a Teamster. And they put him in a combat unit. And he was gassed and disabled. But he basically said, “I got sick of shooting young Germans and old Germans as they were running away. We were chasing them.” And they weren’t surrendering, but they obviously couldn’t fight back. They’d given up, and they were running back. The Americans were chasing them with arms and shot them. So, I don’t know what the Left means by prisoners, shooting prisoners or executing prisoners. They weren’t prisoners. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: ‘They Weren’t Prisoners!’: Venezuela and the Second-Guessing of the Military appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court allowed Texas’ redistricting maps to remain in place for the 2026 midterms in a 6-3 unsigned opinion Thursday. The maps could grant the GOP five additional seats in the House of Representatives. Thursday’s ruling comes after a lower court recently tossed out the maps, with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott appealing that decision. The decision was an ideological split, with the six conservative justices ruling in favor of pausing the ruling from a lower court. Three liberal justices dissented. Thursday’s move from the court has key implications for the midterms. At issue for the maps according to the lower court was a concern that the newly redrawn maps posed constitutional issues based on race. As the unsigned opinion of Abbott v. LULAC read in part, “Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors.” The opinion also mentioned that the lower court “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.” Texas is not the only state to consider redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms. California voters passed Proposition 50 last month to redraw maps to give Democrats a further edge in the Golden State in an effort spearheaded by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Those maps have also been challenged. Both sides of the political aisle have been pushing for redistricting in recent years, with President Donald Trump and JD Vance urging red states to redraw their maps. Vance has framed the matter about Republicans needing to act after years of “very aggressive Democratic tricks” on redistricting. The 2026 midterms look to be particularly consequential with Republicans narrowly controlling the House and with a slim majority in the Senate, though they do not have enough votes to overcome the filibuster. This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates. The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Texas Redistricting Maps for 2026 Midterms appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Trump administration could have a tough time making all of former President Joe Biden’s autopen actions “null and void,” which likely means he will face litigation, legal experts warn. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, “Any and all Documents, Proclamations, Executive Orders, Memorandums, or Contracts, signed by Order of the now infamous and unauthorized ‘AUTOPEN,’ within the Administration of Joseph R. Biden Jr., are hereby null, void, and of no further force or effect. Anyone receiving “Pardons,” “Commutations,” or any other Legal Document so signed, please be advised that said Document has been fully and completely terminated, and is of no Legal effect.” Clemency may be the only question, since Trump can overturn any Biden executive order whether the president signed it personally or by autopen.  “The autopen is only the instrumentality of fraud,” Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told The Daily Signal. The Oversight Project began analyzing and investigating Biden’s use of the autopen while he was still in office.  “The president has caught the ball and is pushing as hard as possible,” Howell added. “The Department of Justice is the last missing link to take action. This could be an important step in meeting the promise for more accountability.” The office of Joe Biden did not respond to a request for comment. Here are three keys to know what’s next.  1. ‘Proving That Biden Didn’t Know’ When matters are litigated, the burden will be on the Trump administration to prove Biden was unaware of actions taken in his name, warned Stewart Whitson, director of federal affairs for the Foundation for Government Accountability, a watchdog group.  “The challenge for the Trump administration is going to be proving that Biden didn’t know,” Whitson told The Daily Signal. “That could be proven through eyewitness testimony. It could also be proven through accessing documents, such as emails, that might suggest the president didn’t know.”  A strong starting point for the Justice Department to gain search warrants and compel testimony would be the evidence obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Whitson said.  In October, the committee issued a report titled, “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House,” based on interviews with 14 senior Biden White House staffers.  The investigation found that senior Biden staff exercised presidential authority or facilitated executive actions without direct authorization from President Biden himself, including through misuse of the autopen. The committee found instances where executive actions were executed without clear record of the president’s approval. The committee also identified questions surrounding the issuance of pardons and commutations during the final days of the Biden presidency. This included pardons for Biden family members where the autopen was used without confirmed presidential authorization. Former White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients told the committee he didn’t know who was in charge of the autopen.  “Without sufficient recordkeeping, it is impossible to verify that the autopen was used properly,” the oversight committee report says. “Further, recently uncovered documents and witness testimony indicate that even when a verbal decision was ‘memorialized’ in an email, it does not prove that President Biden had made the decision himself.” 2. Clemency ‘Easiest to Undo’ During his Biden’s four years in office, the White House issued 4,245 acts of clemency. That’s more than the previous record of 3,796 held by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Of those, 96% were granted between Oct. 1, 2024, and Jan. 20, 2025.  These included pardons of five Biden family members, along with pardons for former National Institutes of Health official and former White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, and House members on the Select Subcommittee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. A Biden Justice Department attorney raised concerns about what he called “highly problematic” pardon review process for what the White House characterized as nonviolent offenders.  Biden’s own words during a New York Times interview published in July, reveal that he was aware of “categories” of people with clemency, but not individuals. He did say he was aware of some pardons for Milley and the Jan. 6 committee members. Biden’s comments to the Times should make the clemency “the easiest to undo,” said Howell of the Oversight Project.  “You don’t need to take the Oversight Project’s word for it. Biden told The New York Times after the Oversight Project forced him out of the basement, that he authorized broad categories for pardons, and the staff picked the names. So that was definitely not done by Biden,” Howell explained. It could depend on the definition of categories, said Paul Kamenar, counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center, a watchdog group.  “If Biden told someone ‘pardon everybody on the January 6 Committee,’ that’s a broad category but it’s also finite,” Kamenar told The Daily Signal. “To say, ‘all or most nonviolent drug offenders’ would be more of a problem.” 3. What Will Litigation Look Like? To reverse the pardons, the Justice Department would have to act, and then courts would resolve the question, legal experts said.  “If Biden never authorized it, it’s an invalid pardon anyway,” Kamenar explained. “The way this gets settled is if Adam Schiff or someone pardoned gets arrested, and he comes back to say, ‘I was pardoned.’ The government could then come back and produce evidence that, ‘No, Biden didn’t authorize the pardon.’” Schiff, now a California Democrat senator, was previously a member of the House Jan. 6 committee.  Other clemency issues will be more difficult to litigate if it means reincarceration or returning old penalties, said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.  “This is totally unprecedented territory,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “Normally pardons and grants of clemency, for example, are not subject to challenge since a president’s pardon power is plenary.” “Here, the issue will be litigated when Trump takes some action that runs contrary to what Biden did–such as seeking to reincarcerate someone who was pardoned or granted clemency or setting an execution date for one of the 37 death row inmates whose sentences Biden commuted–and then we’ll see what a court does,” Malom added.  Trump’s move is a key first step, said Whitson of the Foundation for Government Accountability.  “The bigger threat that President Trump has brought to the public’s attention is the idea of unelected staffers exercising power they don’t have,” Whitson told The Daily Signal. “It could be at the behest of a well-funded organizations or even foreign funding pushing unelected bureaucrats to act.”  The post What’s Next After Trump Voids Biden Autopen Orders? appeared first on The Daily Signal.