The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on President Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship. The high court announced Friday that it will hear arguments regarding Trump’s executive order that would revoke the automatic guarantee that any child born on U.S. soil—even to an illegal immigrant parents—would be an American citizen. Trump’s order has not gone into effect, and was previously stopped by lower courts. This has the potential to overturn a Supreme Court precedent going back to 1898, when the majority upheld birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which was enacted to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. Several left-leaning immigration groups, along with 22 states, sued to overturn Trump’s executive order that he signed on the first day of his second term.  In one sentence about the case, the court issued an order Friday saying, “Trump, president of the U.S. et al. v. Barbara, et al. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted.” Oral arguments will be held next year, with a ruling likely by the end of June.  The provision of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The point of contention in the case is the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued was misinterpreted by the court’s late 19th century ruling.  More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and “unprecedented.” This is a breaking news story. Please return for updates. The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Takes Trump Birthright Citizenship Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump received the first ever “FIFA Peace Prize” on Friday at the 2026 World Cup Draw in Washington, D.C. “The FIFA peace prize is presented annually on behalf of the billions of football-loving people from around the world to a distinguished individual who exemplifies an unwavering commitment to advancing peace and unity throughout the world,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said of the award presented to Trump. Infantino proceeded to applaud Trump for facilitating the Abraham Accords agreements of 2020, which normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and multiple Arab nations, and for the recent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas War. Trump Draws the USA as the FIFA World Cup Draw BeginsPresident Donald Trump, Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum, and Canada Prime Minister Mark Carney each drew balls of their own nations during a ceremony at the @kencen in Washington, D.C., today.The three leaders’ countries… pic.twitter.com/uQdfZcBUe4— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 5, 2025 The World Cup Draw, a ceremony that determines the matchups in the global soccer tournament, was held at the Kennedy Center. The World Cup will take place in cities across the continent as the United States, Mexico, and Canada host the games. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney were present at Friday’s event. Ahead of receiving the prize, Trump told reporters, “I can tell you I did settle eight wars and we have a ninth coming—and which nobody’s ever done before. But I want to really save lives. I don’t need prizes, I need to save lives, so we’re saving a lot of lives. I’ve saved millions and millions of lives.” .@POTUS on the FIFA Peace Prize: "I want to really save lives. I don't need prizes. I need to save lives." pic.twitter.com/EDeIqjPGoD— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) December 5, 2025 Liberals, however, were outraged at Trump getting the prize despite the administration’s diplomatic successes. Progressive political commentator Keith Olbermann called the award a “bulls–t peace prize,” adding that FIFA “bought it at Trophies-R-Us in Georgetown this morning.” Trump couldn’t win a Nobel Peace Prize so FIFA made one up for him. https://t.co/noNf4I43PY— Democrats (@TheDemocrats) December 5, 2025 The Democrat Party’s X account also weighed in: “Trump couldn’t win a Nobel Peace Prize so FIFA made one up for him.” Nevertheless, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2025, Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, dedicated her prize to the president. Furthermore, several foreign leaders have nominated Trump for the peace prize in 2026 as the president is the odds on favorite to win the prize next year, according to Polymarket. FIFA Honors Donald Trump With Newly-Invented Peace Prize for ‘Advancing Peace and Unity’Gianni Infantino, president of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, presented President Trump with a newly-invented @FIFAWorldCup peace prize during the draw for the 2026… pic.twitter.com/9DCAJeE9mK— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 5, 2025 The post Trump Receives First Ever ‘FIFA Peace Prize’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Friday, Warner Bros. Discovery announced it selected Netflix to acquire the company. WBD CEO David Salazar and the WBD board should pause and ask a simple question: Is selling America’s premier storytelling institution to one of the most ideological companies on earth really the right thing to do? To understand what’s at stake, you have to understand what WBD actually is.WBD owns the entire HBO catalog, the 128 million subscriber strong HBO Max streaming platform–arguably Netflix’s single biggest rival–and some of the most culturally influential franchises in the world. Its library defines prestige television, shapes global entertainment, and reaches audiences Netflix has never been able to dominate on its own. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, warned that Netflix should never be allowed anywhere near a takeover of WBD. In a post on X, he stated that, “this potential transaction, if it were to materialize, would raise serious competition questions—perhaps more so than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.” Not only have I warned about Netflix in the past, time and time again, so has conservative commentator Jack Posobiec. He was right when he said the deal will allow the Obamas to take control of the media and is an “obvious antitrust violation.” Anyone who values real competition or cultural balance should agree. A Netflix–WBD merger would be the largest cultural consolidation in modern American history. Netflix already dominates global streaming, shaping what the world watches and increasingly how the world thinks.WBD, through HBO Max and its unmatched premium catalog, is one of the only companies big enough to challenge it. WBD is not simply “another option;” it is the marketplace’s leading counterweight–the one platform with the brand, subscriber base, and storytelling power to keep Netflix in check. Eliminating that rival won’t just give Netflix market share. It will also give Netflix near complete narrative control. And that’s exactly the problem. Netflix is one of the most self-consciously woke companies in America. It injects progressive activism into nearly every show, series, or documentary it creates–and it isn’t subtle about it. Netflix pushes cultural messaging middle America repeatedly rejects at the ballot box, yet it keeps lecturing viewers anyway. Whether it’s rewriting historical characters in “Queen Cleopatra,: injecting modern identity politics into “Bridgerton,” or pushing heavy-handed ideological themes into teen and family shows like “One Day At a Time” and “The Baby-Sitters Club,” the company acts as if it has a duty to make its programming as politically-charged as possible. They also had no problems pushing the disgusting film “Cuties,” that sexualized children. Further, Netflix has never hidden its bias in politics. Reed Hastings, Founder, former CEO, and current executive chairman of the company, donated $2 million to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s illegal redistricting campaign in California this year–and $3 million to support Newsom when California held a recall election post-COVID in 2021. That’s the Netflix’s prerogative. What isn’t its prerogative is using corporate muscle to swallow competing voices and narrow the entire marketplace of ideas.WBD produces content for the broad middle of the country — from movies franchises like “Harry Potter” to “The Dark Knight” to apolitical, mainstream adventure programming like “MythBusters.”HBO Max regularly rivals Netflix in awards, cultural influence, and prestige storytelling. And that is exactly why Netflix wants to buy it.This acquisition is about eliminating the only competitor strong enough to force Netflix to innovate rather than dominate. Even James Cameron, hardly a conservative stalwart, warned that letting Netflix absorb WBD would be a “disaster.” As someone who chaired oversight hearings, I’ve seen what happens when powerful actors face no accountability. When I questioned tech CEOs in Congress, they all swore they didn’t suppress viewpoints or manipulate speech. But the evidence told a very different story. Now imagine giving one of those same companies control over the HBO catalog, the HBO Max platform, and a massive share of America’s creative output. Netflix already sets the tone for entertainment. Swallowing WBD would let it set the rules too. It’s no surprise, then, that reports indicate the Trump administration is monitoring the WBD sale closely to ensure the rules of competition are respected. If Netflix attempts to buy cultural dominance instead of earning it, regulators are prepared to act. But WBD shouldn’t wait for the government to stop a bad deal. WBD’s board should simply do the right thing. They should reject any acquisition that would diminish creative diversity, reduce competition, and hand one woke company a megaphone large enough to drown out every other storyteller in America. Consumers don’t just need “choice” in the abstract. They need different voices, different values, and different perspectives. Washington loves to talk about protecting competition and free expression. This is the moment to prove it–and WBD’s leadership should take the first step. The post Beware Netflix’s Media Takeover appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, has introduced a bill that would outlaw dual citizenship in the United States. Moreno, who was born in Colombia, legally immigrated with his family at age 5, and became a naturalized citizen at 18, recently introduced The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, which would require those who are citizens of the United States and a foreign country to choose a single citizenship rather than remain dual citizens. The bill would make it so that “an individual may not be a citizen or national of the United States while simultaneously possessing any foreign citizenship.” Currently, Americans are permitted to hold foreign citizenship, but a press release from Moreno’s office upon the introduction of the bill claimed that dual citizenship “could create conflicts of interest.” “One of the greatest honors of my life was when I became an American citizen at 18, the first opportunity I could do so,” Moreno told Fox News Digital. “It was an honor to pledge an Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America and only to the United States of America. Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege — and if you want to be an American — it’s all or nothing. It’s time to end dual citizenship for good.” The bill’s text claims dual citizenship could lead to “divided loyalties,” and that “it is in the national interest of the United States to ensure that United States citizenship is held exclusively.” Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act also outlines the process by which Americans would renounce their dual citizenship. If the bill is signed into law, those who possess dual citizenship would have one year to submit to the Secretary of State their written renunciation of their foreign citizenship or to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security of their United States citizenship. If a citizen of the United States voluntarily becomes a citizen of a foreign country, the bill notes such a person “shall be deemed to have relinquished United States citizenship.“ Since becoming a senator in January, Moreno has intensely focused on immigration. The Ohio senator appeared on Wednesday’s edition of “The Ingraham Angle” to discuss legal and illegal immigration. “You have to make certain that there’s some conditions to come here,” Moreno explained. This includes “learning the language,” which, the senator said, “unites us.” “You have to understand that you coming here is a privilege and it’s an honor. You don’t have a right to come to America. It’s an honor and a privilege,” Moreno emphasized. Moreno also spoke about his own family’s migration to the United States when he was a child. Moreno said his father reminded him and his siblings that America “welcomed us,” even when they were subject to intense searches upon traveling back and forth between Colombia. “The Democrats have systematically tried to destroy what it means to be an American. I find that insulting as an immigrant,” he added. As someone who came to America the right way, there must be conditions to the system. American citizenship is an honor and a privilege. Those coming here legally have to assimilate to our culture. pic.twitter.com/Kvtfz8zGPr— Bernie Moreno (@berniemoreno) December 4, 2025 During his second administration, President Donald Trump, who also endorsed Moreno in his Senate run, continues to remain focused on immigration. Earlier this week, the Trump administration announced a pause on immigration from 19 countries. This decision followed the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is an Afghan national who entered under the Biden Administration. Afghanistan is one of the 19 countries on the Trump administrations list. The president has also made citizenship a major issue. At the start of his second term, Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a move which Moreno supports. The order was quickly challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court asked to get involved. While the justices recently declined to hear the case, the courts could still intervene on Trump, Moreno, and Republicans’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s immigration and citizenship system. The post Ohio Republican Releases Plan to End Dual Citizenship appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As part of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which was signed on July 4, Medicaid funding previously funneled into Planned Parenthood and its affiliates was put on hold for one year. This measure, aimed at redirecting taxpayer dollars away from organizations that carry out elective abortions, was hailed by pro-life advocates as a step in the right direction in safeguarding unborn lives. Unsurprisingly, abortion activists were not keen on the legislation. In fact, on Tuesday, a federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama issued a ruling that barred the Trump administration from enforcing the defunding in 22 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani sided with blue states to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing to Planned Parenthood. She claimed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) failed “to provide clear notice as required by the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution” to the Democrat-led states concerning the funding cuts. Notably, Talwani had taken similar action in July aimed at this provision already—a decision that was ultimately overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. As the Daily Wire noted, “Talwani has a history of leftist activism and has volunteered for and donated to prominent Democrat politicians, including Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren.” Talwani also has significant financial ties to other Democrats. For example, she’s donated $1,725 in total to the party and its politicians, which involves $1,000 of it going to former Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., $350 to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and $100 to Obama—plus an additional $275 given to the Democratic National Committee. And beyond this case, Talwani has repeatedly clashed with the Trump administration, issuing injunctions on immigration policies and other executive actions she perceived as overreach. Pro-life leaders wasted no time condemning Talwani’s most recent ruling. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser, for example, explained that “Democrats and their radical activist judges are desperately seeking to thwart the will of the people and bail out the Big Abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is federal law passed by Congress and signed by the president.” She added, “This fight is not over. The pro-life movement will work tirelessly to ensure the Democrats do not prevail and taxpayers are never forced to pay a dime to prop up Big Abortion businesses.” The Trump administration echoed this frustration. A HHS spokesperson told Newsweek that the department was “disappointed in the court’s decision. We remain committed to protecting the integrity of Medicaid programs to ensure full compliance with the law and conditions set by Congress.” There’s a seven-day stay on Talwani’s order that allows the Justice Department time to appeal. This unsettled matter is unfurling amid a tumultuous time for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business. Since the defunding provision cleared legal hurdles and went into effect in September, more than 20 clinics have shuttered nationwide, from Houston’s massive Prevention Park facility (once the Western Hemisphere’s largest abortion center) to smaller outposts in Ohio, California, Indiana, and Vermont. Planned Parenthood has labeled the law “unconstitutional and dangerous.” Meanwhile, pro-lifers frame the closures as a triumph for the unborn. And yet, they also caution that the one-year limit leaves the door open for funds to rush right back in if further legislative action does not take place to extend the defunding. “The pro-life movement has made great strides in the effort to defund abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood and protect American taxpayer dollars from being used to kill unborn children,” Family Research Council’s Joy Stockbauer told The Washington Stand. “That being said,” she added, “the incremental step of defunding abortion businesses for only one year must be extended to permanence. I am optimistic that the pro-life champions in Congress and the Trump administration will be able to make this goal a reality—but pro-life Americans must continue to make clear that taxpayer funding of abortion is unacceptable, and we will not go back.” The battle, however, extends far beyond brick-and-mortar clinics. With chemical abortions—facilitated by mail-order drugs like mifepristone, which have surged post-Dobbs and pose grave risks to women and the unborn—pro-lifers are warning that even widespread closures of physical locations wouldn’t eliminate the threat. As Stockbauer put it, “The pieces necessary to protect mothers and babies from abortion drugs are all there—we just need the leaders of our government to step up and put the puzzle together.” She outlined concrete pathways forward: “Enforcing the federal Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs, and completing an FDA safety reevaluation of the abortion pill, ideally removing it from the market entirely, are just two examples of the many avenues available to protect mothers and babies from abortion drugs.” Originally published by The Washington Stand The post Judge Blocks Planned Parenthood Defunding…Again appeared first on The Daily Signal.