GOP members in Congress are joining TikTok after years of speaking out against the app and are going viral. Following in the footsteps of Democrat lawmakers who have been on the app for years, Republican lawmakers are gaining millions of views and reaching the younger generation of voters. Last year, TikTok, the social media platform known for its short-form video content and addictive algorithm, was at the center of a data privacy concern. The platform was created and founded by a Chinese technology company, ByteDance, with links to the Chinese Communist Party. Many in the Republican Party were concerned the CCP had access to billions of Americans’ personal data. The Trump administration, along with conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation, saw this as an immediate threat. In 2025, Congress voted to force the sale of the company, which was finalized in January 2026. ByteDance sold 80% of the American app to TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, where Oracle owns the largest stake, at 15%. However, ByteDance still controls roughly 20%. “We shouldn’t underestimate [TikTok] as a tool for election [interference.] ByteDance has a vested interest in countless races across this country because their company is on the line.” – @RealJDenton This is your daily reminder to delete TikTok. pic.twitter.com/nfrR4vmSCX— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) February 2, 2024 Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., joined the app just a few weeks ago and has gained more than 500,000 followers, quickly surpassing Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who has gained about 21,000 followers since joining in February. Clips of Kennedy and his quippy comedy often went viral on the app, so now he has his own account to collect them. “I’ve seen videos of where other people have recorded what I’ve said on TikTok. … So now I have a TikTok account. I just want to use it to tell you a little bit about me, to the extent that you care, and tell you a little bit about what it’s like to be a United States Senator,” Kennedy said in one video posted to the app. “My staff keeps telling me to make videos, [to] ‘just be normal,’ and I tell them, ‘Hell, nobody’s normal in the United States Senate.’ In fact, the United States Senate only works when everybody isn’t crazy at the same time,” Kennedy said in another. Listen some people gripe that Senator Kennedy doesn’t do enough to get the agenda we want passed. Maybe that is true. Is it wrong that I am grateful he isn’t living high on the hog, insider trading&lining his pockets with lobbyist money? I appreciate him&his humor pic.twitter.com/9zyL9v367C— Michelle Maxwell (@MichelleMaxwell) May 28, 2026 While most members use their accounts to repost news clips, Kennedy and his staff have found what really works on the video app: real, raw, original content. Just this week, he posted a video about his home decor and workout elliptical, which he named “Margaret,” after former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, because they both “kick butt and take names.” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., has also found his niche on TikTok. He often films daily videos explaining policy or a vote that just took place while he walks around the Capitol. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, has a combined following of more than 400,000, where he often shares viral clips from congressional hearings and content with his family back in his district. Another House member on the rise on the platform is Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, who joined in January after the sale was finalized. The White House, President Donald Trump, and Vice President JD Vance have been on the app since August 2025 and have millions of followers. Former Vice President Kamala Harris launched an account during her campaign, quickly gaining millions of young followers. Democrat lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Elizabeth Warren also do well on the app. I’m voting NO on the TikTok forced sale bill.This bill was incredibly rushed, from committee to vote in 4 days, with little explanation.There are serious antitrust and privacy questions here, and any national security concerns should be laid out to the public prior to a vote.— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 13, 2024 The average TikTok user is age 18-34, a highly sought-after voter demographic. With campaign season upon us and midterm elections right around the corner, it’s no wonder that so many politicians are using the platform.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” -Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing” For more than two decades now, a handful of academics, led by John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, have been documenting what has come to be called “the replication crisis.” In brief, a considerable amount of academic scientific research fails one of the key tests of the scientific method: it cannot be reproduced by other researchers. In 2023, four German neuropsychologists attempted to quantify the incidence of “fraud” in the scientific research business, and what they found was disheartening to say the least. As Jeffrey Brainard at Science magazine put it, “After screening some 5000 papers, [lead researcher Bernhard Sabel] estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%.” Even allowing some margin of error in Sabel’s methodology, those are shocking numbers. For obvious reasons, this is a massive scandal in the scientific community. In the hard sciences—medicine and neuroscience, especially—academic malfeasance can have serious real-world implications. If this research is fraudulent, if it is not replicable and, therefore, not “scientific” at all, then the consequences can be quite serious, even deadly. A similar condition exists in the social sciences as well and is likely even more prevalent. Nevertheless, this “crisis” is hardly even referred to as such and has received far less public attention. This is largely the result of the perception that social sciences don’t matter as much as hard sciences, and therefore, research malfeasance isn’t as big of a scandal. In many cases, this perception is true. In an academic universe where “publish or perish” remains dogma and which strives relentlessly to “create” “new” knowledge, the results of research are often absolutely irrelevant except in the battle for promotion and tenure. In other cases, however, that perception is false, and the lack of attention paid to the replication crisis has had widespread deleterious effects on markets, businesses, the economy, and society more broadly. Indeed, the accumulated evidence suggests that the irreproducible research has strongly influenced the rise over the last decade of ESG—environmental, social, and governance—investing. Consider, for example, a 2014 paper titled “The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance,” written by Robert Eccles, Ioannis Ioannou, and George Serafeim, three extremely prominent and well-respected finance researchers. Published by the prestigious journal Management Science, this study is one of the foundational studies underpinning the practice of ESG. Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim claim to have found that “high sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long term, both in terms of stock market and accounting performance,” which, of course, suggests that sustainability is a characteristic investors should look for when choosing where to place their capital, as well as a behavioral outcome towards which all corporations should strive. If sustainability means better returns, then it’s great for investors; if it means better accounting performance, then corporate executives have a fiduciary obligation to adopt those practices. Case closed: ESG works—or so we were told. Andrew A. King, the Allen and Kelli Questrom Professor in Strategy and Innovation at the Questrom School of Business at Boston University, has noted that this study by Eccles and his co-authors is one of the most important and most cited studies in ESG history. The article’s publication, King writes, “preceded a massive growth in ‘sustainable’ investing,” and it “was used to promote these new investment strategies.”  He notes that Allison Herren Lee, the former acting chair of the SEC, cited the study “to support her claim that corporate sustainability assessment has become ‘a core risk management strategy for portfolio construction.’”  It’s even been referenced by the former vice president of the United States and one of the early prophets of climate change, Al Gore. King says that the study “quickly became a touchstone for the research community” and “has been used widely in testimony on policymaking.”  The study turned Eccles and his co-authors into ESG superstars. It made them heroes and made ESG acceptable—practically undeniable. But there’s a catch. The study is irreproducible. Actually, make that two catches, because it’s also wrong, as King proved and as its authors eventually had to concede (emphasis in original): “The article helped ignite the ESG boom. … But when I replicated the study, I discovered their method did not, and could not, deliver a sufficient number of closely matched firms. … Now, in a comment to JOMSR, Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim acknowledge that I am correct. … With this new correction, the article’s causal claims collapse, and all its estimates become ambiguous. “So, we now know: 1. ESG’s most influential paper does not replicate. 2. A “typo” caused a key result to be reported as ‘significant’ when it was ‘NOT significant.’ … 3. Its text misrepresented its empirical method as far stronger than it was.” The good news is that Andrew King is not alone in his fight to expose the shoddy and irreproducible research that has become part of the “legend” of ESG. Other researchers—notably Alex Edmans, a professor of Finance at London Business School—have also made it their mission to push back against poorly constructed studies that mislead and promote unproven ideas. The bad news is that much of the damage from these irreproducible claims has already been done. The “myths” that sustainability and diversity inevitably produce better business results are embedded in certain segments of the corporate and investment worlds, despite the unreliability of the evidence supporting them. Those of us who believe that corporations have an obligation to focus exclusively on their business missions are fighting an uphill battle. Again, the consequences of poor social science research here might not be life-or-death, as they are in the hard sciences, but they are serious. ESG has become standard practice across Western capital markets, in Europe especially, and throughout much of American business. Trillions of dollars in capital are now allocated based on a study whose authors have conceded its central claims aren’t valid. That is very serious. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

For years, much of the American media has operated under a peculiar assumption: that the best way to confront adversaries such as China and Iran is to accommodate them. If the United States applies pressure, the narrative quickly becomes that America is overextended, losing leverage, or somehow empowering its enemies. That narrative has resurfaced during President Donald Trump’s confrontation with Tehran and Beijing. According to outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, both Iran and China are supposedly emerging stronger from the current conflict. It is a difficult claim to square with reality. Iran’s senior military leadership has been decimated. Its regional proxy network has been weakened. Its economy remains in severe distress, and its military capabilities have been heavily degraded. Yet much of the media coverage treats Iran’s mere survival as evidence that it is somehow winning. The New York Times recently argued that Iran had “succeeded in confounding U.S. and Israeli expectations for a speedy victory,” suggesting that Tehran had created a kind of stalemate. But modern wars rarely end with formal surrender ceremonies or total collapse. By the standards of contemporary warfare, weakening an enemy’s military leadership, degrading its economy, and limiting its regional influence would traditionally be viewed as significant strategic gains. Instead, media coverage often defines victory so narrowly that any continued resistance by Iran becomes proof of American failure. The Times also suggested that Iran had “maintained control” over the Strait of Hormuz. But if Iran truly controlled the strait in any meaningful sense, it would be freely exporting its own oil and profiting from commercial traffic through the region. It is doing neither. Iran’s threats against shipping lanes reflect desperation and leverage-seeking behavior, not dominance. In fact, instability in the strait creates problems not only for the U.S. and its allies but also for China, which depends heavily on imported oil flowing through the Gulf. That reality complicates the simplistic narrative that Beijing somehow benefits automatically from chaos in the Middle East. To be sure, the Trump administration has exercised restraint in certain areas, particularly regarding direct attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure. But that restraint reflects strategic calculation, not weakness. Completely destroying Iran’s energy sector could devastate the Iranian population and eliminate the economic foundation for any future moderate government. The same pattern appears in coverage of China. The Post recently highlighted a reported intelligence assessment claiming that Beijing is exploiting the Iran conflict to maximize its advantage over the U.S. The report pointed to Chinese weapons sales, diplomatic messaging, and China’s ability to study American military operations. None of that is surprising. Great powers routinely study conflicts and attempt to exploit geopolitical openings. That does not mean they are winning. China still faces the same structural problems it faced before the conflict began: slowing economic growth, demographic decline, mounting debt, and heavy dependence on imported energy. Prolonged instability in the Middle East threatens Beijing’s economy as much as Washington’s. The Post also emphasized concerns that the conflict is depleting American munitions stockpiles that could be needed in a future Taiwan contingency. That concern is legitimate. But it reflects years of inadequate defense production and military downsizing under previous administrations, not some strategic triumph by Beijing. Critics of American foreign policy often argue that China can portray the U.S. as an aggressive power in decline. But China’s own behavior makes that argument difficult to sustain. Beijing continues threatening Taiwan, tightening control over Hong Kong, expanding military influence across the Pacific, and pressuring neighboring countries throughout Asia. The idea that China is positioned to win a global moral argument against the U.S. requires overlooking much of Beijing’s conduct. Ultimately, the broader media narrative reflects a longstanding tendency in parts of the American press to interpret nearly every assertion of U.S. power as evidence of American weakness. Military action becomes proof of overreach. Economic pressure becomes recklessness. Adversaries surviving become adversaries winning. But survival is not victory, and disruption is not dominance. Whatever criticisms one may have of Trump’s foreign policy, the central premise of his approach remains straightforward: American strength deters adversaries more effectively than accommodation does. History suggests that argument deserves more serious consideration than much of the current media coverage is willing to give it. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

As adversaries such as China expand their advanced military capabilities, U.S. leaders are increasingly calling for America to strengthen its own domestically produced defense arsenal. “It’s foolish to rely on a country that hates us for national security, which is why I’ve repeatedly called for a complete decoupling of Chinese-made chips and semiconductors from the American arsenal,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Daily Signal. “We should not be relying on Communist China for anything—full stop. For years, the [Chinese Communist Party] has been trying to destroy America. They spy on us, send fentanyl to kill our kids, and conspire with our enemies. President Trump built the toughest military in modern history by prioritizing American dominance, which must be fueled with weapons and systems made in the USA,” he added. Driven by that push to rely on homegrown capabilities, the U.S. Department of War has spent at least $55 billion over the past decade on domestic artificial intelligence production. That investment has helped spur a new wave of American innovation in defense-related technologies. One example of American innovation taking opportunity of Congress’ emphasis on American-made defense is Headwall, a U.S.-based startup specializing in AI-powered products for crisis command centers—systems that play a critical role in emergency response, rescue missions, and high-profile security operations. The Maryland-based company develops AI-driven virtual command centers that rely on advanced software to be used by the military, law enforcement, hospitals, and rescue crews. Company leaders agree with Scott’s assessment that importing foreign defense technology poses a potentially deadly security risk. “It’s important we have technology we can trust that we control—technology that is in our data centers in our country, on our soil, where we’re in control of what’s going on,” Headwall co-founder Geoff Bundt told the Daily Signal. He added that the technology “can also be run in a completely off-network environment,” underscoring its “huge importance” for national security. Adam Weiner, Headwall’s co-founder, said he and his partner launched the company because of a shared belief in the importance of American innovation for national defense. “We strongly believe that lifesaving, reliable, and homegrown innovation, for the sake of our national security, matters and is needed,” Weiner said. “Somebody has to do this here in the U.S.,” he added. “As a result, not only are we providing the market with more trustworthy and lifesaving products, but we are adding jobs right here in Prince George’s County.” Technologies such as live threat identification, data collection, ground layout planning, and real-time situational awareness—capabilities offered by Headwall—are currently among those the U.S. military indirectly sources from China and other adversaries. One of the company’s primary products is a software application for mixed-reality headsets that consolidates the previously mentioned capabilities into a single system, a development which the company’s leaders believe could reduce U.S. reliance on foreign-sourced technologies. According to the American Security Project, the Department of War has relied heavily on Chinese-manufactured off-the-shelf subcomponents and semiconductors in its military systems, a dependence Scott has warned poses a major national security risk. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has similarly noted that the United States continues to purchase raw materials, critical minerals, and components from China for AI and military products, despite ongoing efforts to reduce reliance on foreign supply chains—highlighting the importance of expanding American-made alternatives. In April, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party released a report urging the federal government—regardless of which party is in power—to shift away from foreign-origin AI and invest more heavily in domestically developed AI chips and technologies. “Artificial intelligence sits at the center of U.S.-China competition, and both governments treat leadership in AI as a national security priority,” the report noted. “Beijing wants control of the full AI stack, not just competitive applications,” it continued. “Beijing is pursuing that autonomy to strengthen its military, harden itself against foreign pressure, and keep the technologies underpinning future economic and military power under Party-state control.”

Coincident with the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence is the 250th anniversary of the publication of “The Wealth of Nations.” The full title of Scotsman Adam Smith’s book, published in 1776, is “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” One might say that in that one year 250 years ago, the American Declaration of Independence provided the road map for political freedom and Smith’s book provided the road map for economic freedom. The result was a great new achievement in the history of human potential called the United States of America. Smith was first to systematically articulate that free markets, individuals left free to pursue their interests, with law protecting life and property, produce the most prosperous society for all. Rather than the government deciding who should do what, an “invisible hand” guiding markets maximizes the opportunity for each to do what best suits them and thereby provides most efficiently for the needs of their fellow citizens. Today, 250 years after publication of Smith’s famous book, its truth still brightly shines. According to the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World report, average income of the top 25% of countries in economic freedom is more than six times greater than the average income of the bottom 25%. So, is “The Wealth of Nations” a book about an economic jungle, with everyone mercilessly out for themselves? For sure not. Smith is author of another book called “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.” Here he adds the moral perspective of the importance of self-knowledge, empathy to others, and meaning. In other words, the “secret sauce,” so to speak, is allowing individuals the freedom to take responsibility for their lives and to bring their own unique talents and perspective to the marketplace, serving others through empathy and knowledge and moral responsibility. What about technology? Technology is the great disrupter. New discoveries and inventions bring to the marketplace new and better ways to do things, upsetting the whole existing apple cart of the way things have been. There are always going to be those afraid of change, wanting to keep things as they are. Or wanting government to step in and abridge our freedom and our ability to take full advantage of and to use properly new technologies. The fear of change is not without legitimacy. Technology is a tool in the hands of men. How that technology is used depends on how human beings choose to use it: for good, or for bad. The steam engine, the automobile, the computer, nuclear energy, laptops, the iPhone. All great disrupters. Nuclear power has great power to destroy or to produce clean, cheap electricity. The iPhone provides unprecedented communication freedom and mobility. But it can also cause addiction. Social media provides new dimensions for communication and social cohesion. Or it can also provide a platform for horrible distortions and social destruction. The technology grabbing headlines now is artificial intelligence. Like other technological breakthroughs, it can do great things or horrible things. Which it will be is not a function of the technology but a function of the human beings using it. To go back to “The Wealth of Nations,” the great bounty is produced when people are given freedom and when those same people take responsibility for knowing what is good and knowing what is evil and acting accordingly. Freedom means creativity. The U.S. constitutes less the 5% of the world’s total population. Yet, Americans account for some 50% of all Nobel prizes since the prizes began in 1901. As we celebrate this year, let’s embrace our freedom, and let’s push back on those so ready to concede it. But let’s remember at every moment we are a free nation under God, which is the answer to using our freedom correctly. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.