The Caribbean is one of the most strategically important waterways in the world and serves as the U.S.’ third border, with both the benefits and security concerns that entails. When the Caribbean is left unsecured, drugs, guns, people, and foreign influence find pathways into our country. Strengthening the security of the Caribbean is therefore a core national security interest of the U.S. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) more than 12.1 metric tons of cocaine being trafficked from the Caribbean were seized in 2024. The DEA’s Caribbean Division describes these routes used by drug traffickers as “extremely vulnerable,” and this trafficking of drugs has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. To the credit of the Trump administration, it has taken significant steps in confronting these threats. U.S. forces have conducted joint operations in the Caribbean, targeted drug vessels, seized illicit oil shipments tied to Venezuelan criminal networks, and conducted a historic night-time raid arresting Nicolas Maduro. Investment in the capacity of our partners in the region is also important from the American perspective, as it helps friendly governments stop drugs at ports and in waterways long before they approach the coast of Florida, and because it contributes to the security of the region, lowering crime rates and making these countries safer for business and tourism. The Caribbean–United States Framework for Security Cooperation provides a standing venue to align on firearms trafficking, maritime security, cyber threats, and disaster response. It is reinforced annually by the Caribbean–U.S. Security Cooperation Dialogue, where ministers and senior officials review progress and set priorities for the year ahead. In terms of funding, there is the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI). The CBSI is the main vehicle used for training, limited equipment grants, intelligence sharing, and justice-sector support across 13 nations in the Caribbean. This initiative includes Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. One example of the kind of security infrastructure CBSI funding enables is the CARICOM Crime Gun Intelligence Unit, which strengthens regional capacity to track and disrupt illegal firearms trafficking that fuels violence in the nations of the Caribbean. This U.S.-funded and partnered initiative enhances the ability of Caribbean partners to identify weapon sources, map trafficking networks, and support law enforcement investigations. Funding levels for CBSI, however, have not kept pace with the required weapons, training, logistics, or watercraft needed to effectively combat threats to the Caribbean. The newest authorizing legislation calls for $88 million per year in CBSI funding from fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2029. The U.S. should increase CBSI funding. The current $88 million per year is a fraction of what is required to expand the needed maritime surveillance, modernize partner-nation coast guards, improve intelligence sharing, and increase the number of joint U.S.-Caribbean training exercises. Given the level of trafficking and strategic importance of the Caribbean to the U.S., this investment is rational. At the same time, Caribbean nations must also step up their own commitment to the security of their nations and the Caribbean as a whole. True regional security is a shared burden among all nations involved. The post US Investment in the Caribbean as a National Security Priority appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women is wrapping up this week amid historic disagreement between delegations over what it means to be a woman. You read that right. Diplomats at the annual international meeting focused on “women’s issues” are engaged in negotiations and backroom maneuvers to avoid clearly defining what they mean by the word “gender.” Last week when the meeting opened it was the first time in the Commission’s 70 years that the “agreed conclusions”—the negotiated document that the diplomats usually adopt by consensus—had to go to a vote. The U.S. diplomats requested that the Commission members take more time to negotiate a document that all countries could agree to, and then subsequently proposed amendments to the document that would have brought it more in line with U.S. policy. The U.S opposed the “ambiguous language promoting gender ideology,” as well as references to “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which U.N. agencies use to promote abortion. But the Chair of the Commission on the Status of Women, Costa Rica’s Ms. Maritza Cha Valverde, used procedural machinations to require that the proposed U.S. amendments be packaged together, effectively killing their chances of passage. She was able to censor the countries that shared some of the U.S.’ objections to the document but were unwilling to join in opposition on all of them. Ultimately, the controversial “agreed conclusions” were adopted by a vote of 37 in favor, with six abstentions and only the U.S. voting “no.” This ideological battle is nothing new. The U.N. bureaucracy and European countries routinely push gender ideology and a radical abortion agenda under the guise of women’s rights and gender equality. And over the past several years they have labeled their opposition—those who hold traditional beliefs about the sanctity of life and the protection of the family—as “the pushback” or “anti-rights actors.” Last year, the newly reelected Trump administration opposed the business-as-usual progressive agenda at Commission on the Status of Women. And this year, the U.S. is taking its defense of women and girls a step further. As the new Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance Policy illustrates, the Trump administration intends to “promote human flourishing” by opposing abortion, gender ideology, and DEI activities at home and abroad. After losing the vote last week, the U.S. delegation is now proposing a new resolution on the “Protection of Women and Girls Through Appropriate Terminology.” It seeks to reaffirm the original language from the 1994 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which defines “gender” according to “its ordinary, generally accepted usage, as referring to men and women.” It rejects any expansion of the term to include “gender identity” or other subjective and ideological terms. Pro-life and pro-family organizations, including Family Watch International, are encouraging the many countries that consistently oppose radical gender ideology to join with the U.S. in sponsoring the resolution. While the U.S. resolution faces an uphill battle—some say insurmountable—these countries would be wise to support it nonetheless. A strong showing of support would challenge any assertion that customary international law has developed to expand the meaning of gender to include “transgender” or other so-called “gender identities.” Such support would build on the momentum of the successful vote late last year in the General Assembly to remove controversial “sexual orientation and gender identity” language from a resolution on implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. And it would send a clear message to U.N. bureaucrats that U.N. Member States have the sovereign right to define U.N. policy through transparent processes. The dangers of gender ideology are not theoretical. Ms. Reem Alsalem, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, has highlighted many of them in her recent report on sex-based violence against women and girls. Women’s dignity, privacy, safety, and opportunities are at stake when men can violate female-only spaces by claiming to “identify” as women.  Sadly, much of the world is only beginning to understand the horrific physical and psychological harms that those who have attempted to “transition” to another sex, boys and girls alike, have experienced under the euphemistically named “gender-affirming care” regimen of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and surgeries that aim to change the appearance of their bodies.   For too long, activists on the Left have insisted that abortion is necessary for women’s empowerment, that motherhood and family are impediments to personal fulfillment, and now, that “gender identity” is something real that others must validate. These are lies that hurt women and girls. In the decades since the Beijing conference, more people have come to recognize them as ideological deceptions that hurt men, women, and children alike. Now it’s time for more countries to confront those lies at the U.N., even when that means they’ll likely lose a vote. The post US Resolution to Protect Women and Girls Faces Uphill Battle at the UN appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A naturalized citizen born in Iraq is free from jail after facing charges for entering a Texas elementary school with a gun and tactical gear. Kyle Najm Chris, also known as Muhi Mohanad Najm, 39, allegedly walked into the front office of Zwink Elementary School in Spring, Texas, last Tuesday, wearing a load-bearing vest, a taser, and a holstered firearm. Authorities arrested Chris on Wednesday, and the Harris County District Attorney charged him with possession of a prohibited weapon, a third-degree felony, KHOU reported. The law prohibits carrying weapons on school premises. Authorities released Chris from jail Sunday after he posted a $75,000 bond, according to court records reviewed by The Daily Wire. Chris allegedly walked into the school’s front office after another visitor failed to close the door. A school employee asked Chris how he entered, and he said the door was unlatched. He reportedly asked if there was armed security on school property. After school staff asked him to provide an ID, he refused and left the school. While Chris has left jail, he remains under 24-hour house arrest with a GPS monitor, and the court has forbidden him from going near any property belonging to the Klein Independent School District, Fox 26 reported. Chris has a private investigator license. Chris did not open fire and his motives remain unknown. However, this incident follows a string of violent attacks allegedly perpetrated by naturalized citizens or children of naturalized citizens from Middle Eastern and African countries after President Donald Trump launched Operation Epic Fury in Iran. 1. Texas Shooting A gunman later identified as Ndiaga Diagne opened fire at a bar in Austin, Texas, on March 1, about 24 hours after President Trump announced Operation Epic Fury. Diagne, a naturalized citizen who was born in Senegal, killed two people and wounded 14 before police shot and killed him. He had been wearing a shirt with an Iranian flag and a hoodie reading “Property of Allah.” The FBI is investigating the shooting as an act of terrorism, possibly tied to the war. 2. Gracie Mansion Bombing On Saturday, March 7, Emir Balat, 18, and Ibrahim Kayumi, 19, allegedly attempted to detonate two improvised explosive devices, targeting protesters outside Gracie Mansion, the residence of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. The protesters had been opposing radical Muslims. According to the Justice Department, both men expressed their support for the Islamic State, or ISIS. Balat’s parents, born in Turkey, are naturalized citizens. Kayumi’s parents reportedly came to the U.S. from Afghanistan and are naturalized citizens. 3. Old Dominion University On March 12, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, 36, shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire inside a classroom for the Reserve Officer Training Corps at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, according to an FBI special agent. Jalloh, a naturalized citizen born in Sierra Leone, killed an Army ROTC instructor and injured two others. Jalloh, who died of stabbing injuries after the ROTC students responded in self-defense, had previously been convicted of attempting to provide material support to ISIS. 4. Temple Israel Synagogue Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, 41, a Lebanese-born naturalized citizen, rammed a vehicle into the building of Temple Israel Synagogue in West Bloomington Township, Michigan, on March 12. He damaged the building and engaged in gunfire with armed security, who killed him. The FBI has described the attack as a targeted act of violence against the Jewish community. A source in Michigan’s Lebanese American community told CBS News that an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon killed the suspect’s two brothers and other family members. While America prides itself on welcoming legal immigrants who aim to contribute to this country, extremism expert Ryan Mauro warned that the U.S. government lacks the ability to monitor naturalized citizens from countries of particular concern. The post Iraq-Born Man Released From Jail After Bringing Gun, Wearing Tactical Gear, to Texas Elementary School appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump is accusing Democrats of being “totally unreasonable” in negotiations over funding the Department of Homeland Security. “The Democrats’ purposeful DHS SHUTDOWN is causing chaos at the airports. These Lunatics are being totally unreasonable in their Radical Left asks,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “They are FULLY TO BLAME, and must pay a big price, for the good of our country, in the midterm elections,” Trump added. Democrats have continued to demand that funding for the agency be dependent upon major immigration enforcement reforms. Republicans refuse to agree to many of the Democrats’ demands, such as requiring immigration agents to unmask themselves while conducting enforcement operations. A month into the DHS shutdown, negotiators remain “far apart,” according to a senior White House official. More than two weeks ago, the Trump administration sent congressional Democrats an offer that was both “reasonable” and “serious,” the White House official said. The proposal centered on codifying certain operational immigration enforcement guidelines into law, but Democrats responded Monday night “with a counteroffer that does not indicate the seriousness that this moment needs,” the official said. Democrats’ offer to the Trump administration was “disappointing,” the senior White House official said, adding he would not provide details. According to the official, “the parties are far apart in large part because the administration’s put forward a five-part serious proposal that we are willing to engage in additional conversations on, but that has not been reciprocated in kind.” Five-Part Trump Administration Proposal The White House on Tuesday released a letter to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who sits on the committee, outlining the five areas in which the Trump administration has told Democrats they are willing to “codify improved operational guidelines.” First, the administration told Democrats they will expand the use of body cameras for DHS agents during immigration operations. Second, the Trump administration is pledging to limit the locations where immigration enforcement operations take place and stop conducting operations at places like schools and hospitals, unless doing so for reasons of national security, public safety, or due to a flight risk. The proposal to Democrats also included increased oversight of detention facilities. Fourth, the administration proposed requiring immigration officers to clearly display their identification as a DHS law enforcement official and clearly state their agency and identity when asked. Finally, the Trump administration said it will “adhere to existing law and practice of not deporting any U.S. citizen and will codify current practice of not knowingly detaining a U.S. citizen, except when the person violates a state or federal law that makes the citizen subject to arrest.” Border czar Tom Homan and Assistant to the President James Braid signed the letter to Democrats. Many DHS workers continue to work without pay, including Transportation Security Administration workers. The failure of Democrats and Republicans to reach an agreement to fund the agency followed the Trump administration’s controversial immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis that involved the shooting of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in January. The post Trump Accuses Democrats of Being ‘Totally Unreasonable’ During DHS Funding Negotiations appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The U.S. is poised to return to the moon this coming April as part of a reenergized manned space program that is emboldened rather than deterred by the risks and challenges irrevocably attached to the mission.   By pressing ahead, NASA and its many public and private sector partners are allowing scientific evidence rather than speculation to guide their decisions. They are also making a clean break with a concept known as the “precautionary principle” that has deep roots in the United Nations climate conferences that date back to the early 1990s.  As I explain in my new book “Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence,” the precautionary principle as it is defined by climate activists is antithetical to what makes America tick.   The basic idea behind the concept is that when an activity is viewed as being potentially harmful to human health or the environment then precautionary steps should be taken even if the cause-and-effect relationship between the activity and theorized harmful results are not scientifically established. In other words, there should not even be a risk of a risk. Under this scenario, hysteria, fear, and misinformation could grind all meaningful human activity to a halt.   Imagine how different American history would have been if the precautionary principle had held sway with policymakers when the nation first attempted venturing into space. Alan Shephard’s famous line “Why don’t you fix your little problem and light this candle?” would not have found a receptive audience back in mission control during his 1961 spaceflight.  President John F. Kennedy’s patriotic march to the moon would not have materialized either. His comment, “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” would not have expression in a world where fear of failure trumped exploratory efforts.   In fact, there may not have been a free United States of America at all. George Washington would not have crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night in 1776 to launch a surprise attack on the Hessians in Trenton, New Jersey since the effort was risky and—and, well, it might not have worked at all.   The four astronauts (three Americans and one Canadian) who are part of the Artemis II crew will travel further into space than any human has ever traveled before and glimpse a side of the moon that has never been seen before, before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California.   It takes a special kind of courage to be part of the upcoming 10-day mission, as it does with any human spaceflight. From the time of the launch at Cape Canaveral to the splashdown in the Pacific, there are risks that can never be completely eradicated. But they can be curtailed.   Like Apollo before it, Artemis is relying upon vigorous testing and scientific observations rather than mere modeling exercises that became a dominant part of what passes for “climate science.”   But times are changing and the wheel is turning. During a May 2025 energy symposium at The Heritage Foundation, scientists and economists dissected the numerous false assumptions behind climate models that have given rise to burdensome regulations.  Former NASA engineers, who are part of a group called The Right Climate Stuff have also taken a hatchet to what some call a “garbage in, garbage out” approach to modeling designed to produce desired policy outcomes.   “Climate Porn” goes into some detail about the climate movement’s assault on the scientific method and the corrective actions now underway. Independent, privately funded outfits like the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) are providing climate realists with valuable platforms to take a hard look at what really drives warming and cooling trends on Planet Earth.   During the Heritage energy symposium, CERES scientists called attention to solar influences on climate, which the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has persistently neglected to account for in its reports. In a new study, the CERES team concludes that “total solar irradiance” estimates the U.N. omits strongly suggests most of the warming since the 19th Century could be natural.   The climate is always changing, and those changes could present challenges to humanity particularly if the planet moves back into a cooling phase. But humanity will be in a stronger position to adapt and adjust to those changes if it is richer, wealthier, and more industrialized. A reinvigorated space program is a big part of that equation.  That means taking chances and accepting risks, but that’s the American way.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post How the Upcoming Moon Mission Transcends Anti-Scientific Climate Activism   appeared first on The Daily Signal.