Joe Biden’s presidency was even worse for Christians than you think, according to an exhaustive report from the Justice Department’s Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, published Thursday. The anti-Christian bias seeped into official policy across the federal government, from personnel matters—where Christians’ requests for time off around Easter Sunday were met with suspicion in the State Department—to the IRS investigating churches for traditional Christian values perceived to be aligned with the Republican Party, to the Department of Education levying heavier fines against Christian universities than against convicted sex offender Larry Nassar. The bias extended to official policy of reinterpreting federal law to push transgender ideology and to symbolic statements, such as celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday. “The Biden administration generally tolerated religious beliefs that were privately held but zealously pursued actions to limit Christians’ ability to act in accordance with their faith,” the report states. “This affected matters of deep personal importance to nearly every American: life, family, marriage, and self-identity.” While many of the task force’s findings have been publicly known for years, the report includes a few new data points and puts disparate news stories into context to form a coherent condemnation of the Biden administration’s hostility toward Christians. Anti-Christian Enforcement The Biden administration wielded law enforcement as a cudgel against Americans who disagreed with its radical pro-abortion stance. The anti-Christian bias report adds yet more information to the task force’s previous report on how the Biden administration teamed up with pro-abortion groups to weaponize the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act against pro-life protesters outside abortion centers. The new report contrasts the Justice Department’s sentencing requests for pro-life protesters and the few pro-abortion agitators who targeted pro-life pregnancy centers. Screenshot The new report also mentions the FBI’s reliance on a discredited smear factory, the Southern Poverty Law Center, to target “radical-traditional Catholics.” It highlights how the IRS denied a church’s application for tax-exempt status because its “[B]ible teachings are typically affiliated with the [Republican] party and candidates.” The report also contrasts the Eduction Department’s fine on Grand Canyon University ($37.7 million) over tuition cost reporting with its lesser fine of only $4.5 million against Michigan State University over Nassar’s sexual assault of hundreds of female athletes. Federal Policy The anti-Christian bias report faults the Biden administration for supporting the so-called Equality Act, which “would have treated Christians as second-class citizens by eliminating any claim or legal defense based on religious beliefs” when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity matters. Although the “Equality Act” did not become law, the Biden administration attempted to rewrite federal law to mandate the adoption of its LGBTQ+ agenda. The report highlights how the Biden administration attempted to force sex-rejecting procedures in medicine “with limited or no religious exemptions.” The Department of Health and Human Services, meanwhile, took steps to exclude conservative Christians from the foster care system, and undermined conscience rights on abortion. The anti-Christian bias report highlighted how the Biden administration “sidelined Christians in favor of their preferred constituencies.” This didn’t just extend to the “Transgender Day of Visibility” on Easter, but also to federal departments replacing their faith offices with offices focused on “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The State Department downplayed the threats Christians face in Nigeria, and multiple agencies sought to make rules “that broadly burdened faith-based organizations’ access to federal funds and public programs.” Adverse Employment Finally, the report highlights how various agencies applied the religious accommodation process in ways that “functionally penalized Christians.” The Department of Labor’s Job Corps program barred a Christian student from holding a voluntary Bible study outside school hours. The Smithsonian museums penalized Christian pro-life students in Washington, D.C., for the 2023 March for Life, requiring them to remove religious and pro-life attire or leave the premises. The National Park Service also denied a Catholic organization access to a national cemetery where it intended to hold a Memorial Day mass to honor fallen soldiers. Putting Anti-Christian Bias in Context Finally, the report puts this anti-Christian bias in context, noting that conservative Christians face adverse action in many arenas, from threats to parental rights in school, to debanking threats, to COVID-19 closures of churches, to violent attacks on churches. The report presents a comprehensive view of the way the Biden administration imposed leftist ideologies often described as “woke,” and it dovetails much of my research in “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” I do have one quibble with the report, however. Besides the notorious anti-Catholic memo from the FBI, the report does not delve into the Southern Poverty Law Center’s broader influence in the federal government, nor the fact that the SPLC has arguably revealed itself to be anti-Christian. That said, this report shines an important light on the prior administration’s breathtaking hostility to conservative Christians—and it should send a wake-up call to the Left that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Sadly, I expect the Left largely to ignore it, and double down on the anti-Christian bias.

After years of the Southern Poverty Law Center demanding that charitable foundations blacklist conservative and Christian nonprofits, the shoe is finally on the other foot: Fidelity Charitable has denied contributions to the SPLC. Fidelity hasn’t targeted the SPLC for ideological reasons in the same way the SPLC targets conservatives, however—America’s largest sponsor of donor-advised funds is merely following its own policies regarding nonprofits under criminal investigation. As The New York Times first reported, Fidelity cut off grants to the SPLC from its customers, who have more than 350,000 donor-advised funds—charitable giving accounts that allow them to maximize tax savings while supporting eligible nonprofits. “Fidelity Charitable is aware of an ongoing governmental investigation into the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the company wrote in an email to a donor, the Times reported. “Consistent with our grant-making standards and practices, the organization is not an eligible grant recipient during the ongoing investigation.” Fidelity Charitable’s website states that “a grant recommendation might be declined” if the organization “is being investigated for alleged illegal activities or non-charitable activities, such as terrorism, money laundering, hate crimes, or fraud.” Another banking behemoth, Vanguard Charitable, has a similar policy. “Vanguard Charitable grants only to organizations that meet IRS eligibility requirements,” a spokesperson for the company told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. “If we become aware an organization has been charged with a crime by state or federal authorities, we pause grantmaking while the matter is pending.” Last week, a federal grand jury indicted the SPLC on wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy charges for sending money to members of the very white supremacist groups the center claims it exists to dismantle. The SPLC did not deny funding members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, but insisted the funds were part of an informant program that it used to prevent violent attacks. The indictment, however, suggests that the SPLC didn’t just pay these field agents—it actually supervised “racist postings” for an organizer of the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally. The SPLC will have its day in court, but Fidelity’s policy is clear: Grants to nonprofits facing criminal charges may be rejected. The SPLC’s History of Debanking Conservatives may be forgiven for indulging in a little bit of schadenfreude at this news. As I documented in my book, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the SPLC weaponized its history of suing KKK groups into bankruptcy to smear conservatives. It places mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits on a “hate map” with Klan chapters, claiming the map reveals the “infrastructure upholding white supremacy.” This “hate map” inspired a terrorist attack in 2012. The SPLC doesn’t just release this list every year to its donors and the media, exaggerating “hate” in order to drum up relevance and scare donors into ponying up cash. It also encourages social media platforms and companies like Fidelity to blacklist the groups on the map. The SPLC has partnered with the Council on American-Islamic Relations to publish “Hate-Free Philanthropy” reports that call on companies in the charitable sector to blacklist “anti-Muslim hate groups.” The Amalgamated Foundation, a project of the SEIU-owned Amalgamated Bank, launched the “Hate Is Not Charitable” campaign, urging donor-advised funds to blacklist the groups on the SPLC “hate map.” Amalgamated Bank has, thankfully, sunsetted the campaign, and removed it from the website. In 2023, the SPLC released a report on “extremist finance,” pressuring donor-advised funds operated by major banks to blacklist “hate groups” like Alliance Defending Freedom and “antigovernment extremist groups” like Moms for Liberty. In 2017, Vanco Payments abruptly ceased providing payment processing services to the Ruth Institute. Vanco Payments noted that the Ruth Institute “has been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse.” It did not specifically cite the SPLC, but the “hate” accusation likely traces back to the SPLC’s branding the institute an “anti-LGBTQ hate group.” In 2022, PayPal froze the Moms for Liberty account, providing no explanation. Only after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, pressured the company did it restore the account and allow Moms for Liberty to access the $4,500 in that account. Some companies, such as Eventbrite, make no secret of the fact that they use the SPLC “hate map” to blacklist organizations, refusing to do business with them. In the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network sent an email to leadership at major banks, urging them to stop “bankrolling bigotry,” specifically citing the SPLC on “hate groups.” SPLC in Fidelity’s Doghouse It remains to be seen whether a jury will convict the SPLC on criminal charges, but the indictment has already cost the SPLC the ability to receive the very same donor-advised funds it seeks to block from funding others. The move also marks a sea change for Fidelity. Just a few years ago, conservatives warned that Fidelity appeared to be using the SPLC “hate map” to blacklist conservative nonprofits. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody sent a letter threatening legal action, and it seems the company reconsidered. Now, SPLC is in Fidelity’s doghouse. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving subject.

As Republican and Democratic candidates slug it out in debates to be California’s next governor, candidates who fit into the independent category continue to be shut out. In Tuesday night’s debate hosted by CBS News, the players on the stage included two Republicans and six Democrats—and zero independents. Elaine Culotti, an independent candidate who has polled as high as 23% on Polymarket but now is under 1%, claims the media is at fault for her sagging popularity. If candidates get included in media polling and do well, they get to share the debate stage. If they’re excluded from polls, tough luck. “Every single poll is the same problem, which is a violation of equal time,” Culotti told The Daily Signal. “Equal time should require that all candidates and all parties get to be on the poll. Otherwise, the poll is the mechanism in which they choose the debate candidates.” The Pomona College website notes the candidates in Tuesday night’s debate were decided based on having at least 1% support in both the Emerson College and LA Times/UC Berkeley polls. The selection process was run by Asian Pacific American Public Affairs (APAPA), in partnership with CBS and Pomona College. Culotti said she does not fault CBS News moderators. Rather, it’s the polling process that needs fixing, she said.  “I don’t believe for one minute that any CBS News anchors knew that no party preference wasn’t actually polled in their own polling system. They didn’t conduct the polls, they don’t know,” she said. The independent candidate added that it’s not just a CBS News issue, but one all debate organizers have due to their polling systems. According to data from the Independent Voter Project, at least 30% of Californians do not fit into the categories of Democrat or Republican. Yet all the debates so far have included only the two major parties. Culotti posted a video to her X account asking each major candidate if they thought she should have been on stage. Their answers were unanimous: “yes.” Should independent / NPP candidates be invited to debates? The answer is yes and most of the Democrats and Republicans agree. pomona college california governor debate Chad Bianco Steve Hilton Matt Mahan Katie Porter Tom Steyer Tony Thurmond Antonio Villaraigosa pic.twitter.com/YkBHHQZaY0— Elaine Culotti (@lipstickfarmer) April 29, 2026 “There are plenty of NPPs [no party preference] that should have been on this stage before the people that were,” Republican candidate Chad Bianco said in reply. Democrat San Diego Mayor Matt Mahan, another candidate for governor, responded, “We should have it be as open and competitive as possible. If it’s truly a scientific poll and it asks people who you support, and any candidate comes above a certain threshold … I think they should be on the debate stage.” Every other candidate Culotti interviewed agreed. Emerson asked independents who they would vote for without letting them pick an independent candidate. What the… california governor race poll candidate pic.twitter.com/XhZy1qy3CZ— Elaine Culotti (@lipstickfarmer) April 17, 2026 While CBS News did release a poll moments after the debate, it focused solely on issues primary voters said were most important to them. CBS News did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. Paul Mitchell, a longtime California political consultant, told The Daily Signal having independent candidates on the debate stage might not matter as much as Culotti thinks. “Independent voters are not voters who vote for these independent candidates—they vote for Democrats and Republicans at the same rate as actual Democrat and Republican registered voters, or they don’t vote because they are less engaged,” he said.  “Don’t think of a no party preference voter as being a part of a club that shares a voting pattern,” Mitchell added. 

Vice President JD Vance described his experience at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday night, where a shooter attempted to assassinate the president and other Cabinet officials. “I’m sitting up there on the stage with some journalists and obviously with the president of the United States a few seats to my right, and there’s a lot of commotion. You kind of hear some loud noises,” he told Fox News’ Will Cain on Wednesday. “I had no idea what it was. And before I had any idea what was going on, I started seeing people sort of duck under their tables or respond to what was going on far in the back of the ballroom. And then an agent comes and whispers in my ear, basically says, sir, we have to leave.” Vance said he heard an agent was shot and worried that the man was injured or worse. The agent was shielded by a bulletproof vest. .@VP: "Political violence right now is coming not exclusively, but largely from one side of the aisle… If you're part of the left wing in this country, you gotta look yourself in the mirror and say, 'Why is it that so many of the people who are firing guns at their political… https://t.co/Vj2KdKxqPm pic.twitter.com/maxjlbW1r5— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 29, 2026 “The thing that I really gained an appreciation for is the amazing job the agents of the Secret Service do,” Vance said. “You saw they went right to me, they went right to the president of the United States. They put their lives in harm’s way.” The suspected shooter, Cole Tomas Allen, 31, was charged Monday with attempting to assassinate the president of the United States. He also faces charges of transporting a firearm across state lines and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Vance said he has gotten used to having a security detail over the past two years, but the incident renewed his appreciation. “I just feel very grateful to them and very grateful for what they do, and frankly, grateful to God that that agent who was shot was not seriously hurt,” he said. “It could have been a lot worse, but the law enforcement did a great job well, and we should all be grateful for that.” Vance called for an end to Americans inciting violence upon political opponents. “The political violence right now is coming not exclusively, but largely from one side of the aisle,” he said. “The president has now faced three serious attempts on his life in just the past year and a half. Of course, Butler, Pennsylvania; there was a situation at Mar-a-Lago that the media didn’t really cover,” he said. “And then, of course, there was the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.” “So I think really, it’s incumbent upon everybody, but particularly those who are driving some of the narratives that Donald Trump has somehow invited this violence upon himself, that killing your political opponents is somehow justified if you’re engaged in that kind of rhetoric,” he continued, “you need to check yourself.”

The Louisiana v. Callais Supreme Court decision on Wednesday has upended the 2026 midterm elections, with members of the Congressional Black Caucus’ reelection chances under threat should Republican-controlled legislatures move to redistrict. In a 6-3 ruling, the court declared Louisiana’s congressional map, which was ordered by a court to have two majority black districts in compliance with a previous interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., appearing alongside fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus at a Wednesday press conference, characterized the ruling as part of a Republican effort to “rig the midterm elections.” The ruling is a major plot twist in a long redistricting battle in which Democrats had appeared to gain the upper hand. It could open the way for red states to eliminate majority-minority districts that were mandated under the previous interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia Republican Party Chairman Josh McKoon called on his party Wednesday to redistrict in the Peach State after the ruling. Similarly, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., have called on their states to redistrict. At the Wednesday press conference, Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., called for blue states to gerrymander their maps unanimously in favor of Democrats. “I’d take 52 seats from California. I sure would. And 17 seats with Illinois” Sewell said. “Because at the end of the day, they’re rigging this election to try to win. And we can’t just sit back here and do nothing.” In response to the ruling, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a post on X that she’s “working with the Legislature to change New York’s redistricting process.” An independent commission currently manages the state’s redistricting. The high court’s decision could fuel Democrat frustration with the court. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., called for Democrats to attempt to rework the court if they regain power. “We will fight for Supreme Court reform, we will pursue term limits for justices, and we will do what it takes to restore integrity, accountability, and trust,” she said. Jeffries similarly put the court on blast, calling it the “Trump court.”