Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., a member of House Republican leadership and gubernatorial candidate in New York, is warring with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., over how the GOP’s narrow House majority should be managed heading into 2026. What started with Stefanik leveling an accusation that Johnson was “protect[ing] the deep state” by allegedly blocking a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act has turned into an all-out offensive on Johnson’s leadership. Stefanik has now claimed Johnson’s leadership of the House GOP has left the conference “rudderless,” and that if there was another vote for House Speaker today, Johnson would not have the vote. “He certainly wouldn’t have the votes to be speaker if there was a roll-call vote tomorrow,” Stefanik said of Johnson in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I believe that the majority of Republicans would vote for new leadership. It’s that widespread.” Stefanik went so far as to suggest former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was better at the role. “Whereas Kevin McCarthy was a political animal, Mike Johnson is a political novice and, boy, does it show, with the House Republicans underperforming for the first time in the Trump era,” Stefanik said. The New York Republican added that President Donald Trump “is the leader of the Republicans and he certainly doesn’t need Mike Johnson.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images) In response to Stefanik’s remarks, Johnson told reporters Wednesday, “I’m not sure how to comment on what Elise is doing or what the rationale behind this is, but you can talk to Republicans in Congress. 99.9% are united. We’re working together to keep delivering our agenda and that’s my focus.” The speaker added that, “I think we’re leading and delivering. I’ve made the point. We’ve had the most consequential congress in the modern era and objectively I think it’s one of the top five of all time. So we’ll put the record up against all that.” The dispute first bubbled up Monday, when Stefanik said Johnson was “getting rolled by House Dems” because, according to Stefanik, Johnson had refused to put a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that would require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to tell members of Congress if candidates are being investigated. Johnson, Stefanik asserted, was “siding with [House judiciary committee Democrat Rep.] Jamie Raskin against Trump Republicans to block this provision to protect the deep state.” Johnson was asked about the social media spat over the provision on Tuesday. “I don’t exactly know why Elise won’t just call me. I texted her yesterday,” said Johnson. “I explained to her on a text message as soon as I heard this… it has to go through committees of jurisdiction… there’s a four corners engagement and agreement that’s required.” ? Elise Stefanik GOES OFF on Mike Johnson following his response to a question from @AndiNapier this morning about Stefanik's accusation that the Speaker is 'protecting the deep state.' https://t.co/24H2cPmxab pic.twitter.com/ggbJY7XtgS— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 2, 2025 Johnson said that House and Senate leaders of the committees of jurisdiction were not able to agree on the provision, and for that reason it was not included. But Johnson also said he was not aware of how the debate over the provision had progressed. “In this case—I found out last night, this wasn’t even on my radar—that that apparently didn’t happen,” he said. By Wednesday, after a discussion with President Donald Trump and the Speaker, Stefanik had gotten what she wanted, announcing that the provision would be returned to the bill. “He [Johnson] and I had very successful discussions last night. It’s a provision that he supports. Jim Jordan, the four corners—other than Jamie Raskin—they supported the provision, which, and first of all, it’s good policy,” she said Wednesday morning on CNBC. Discharge Petition Stefanik, who is running for governor in New York in 2026, is also supporting a discharge petition—a means of forcing a bill to come to a vote if leadership or committees are not advancing it—from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., that would force consideration of a new bill to crack down on stock trading among members of Congress. Stefanik is one of ten Republicans to sign on to the petition so far, which will require 218 signatures in order to succeed. “This bipartisan, commonsense, good governance discharge petition will finally crack down on the corrosive decay of a Congress that is failing the American people,” Stefanik said in a statement of the petition. Discharge petitions, which have become increasingly common this Congress, are not beloved by all, and are often seen as a flouting leadership’s agenda. “I am not a fan of the discharge petition. That is a tool of the minority,” House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain, R-Mich., told The Daily Signal Tuesday when asked about its increasing prevalence.  “I come from the business world. If you have an idea, if you have a product or a piece of legislation that you want to get on the floor, it’s your job to sell it, right?” House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain, R-Mich. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) McClain admitted that getting buy-in from enough Republicans to advance a bill can be difficult with the GOP’s narrow majority in the House. “We have a very diverse conference, right? We have people who are in very, very ruby red seats and then we have people that are in not so ruby red seats that maybe Biden won by eight points,” McClain said. “So that is an interesting piece to navigate, but at the end of the day, you got to navigate it.” Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., who formerly chaired the Main Street Caucus and was instrumental in raising the threshold for a motion to vacate the Speaker’s office, also expressed a dislike for the discharge petition becoming more common. “I’m not a big fan of discharge petitions. Let’s be clear, discharge petitions empower the minority,” he told The Daily Signal Tuesday. Of major concern to these Republicans is the idea that members of their own party could empower Democrats to take contentious votes in the run up to the 2026 midterms. “They allow a small group of Republicans, five or 10, to empower the Democrats to control the floor… it’s a tool that I’m not a fan of. But there are a lot of tools that I don’t particularly like that occasionally have their uses. I would not want to entirely get rid of the discharge petition. I would say I wish members were a little more reticent to look to that discharge petition any time they didn’t get their way.” The Daily Signal was referred to public statements when contacting Johnson’s and Stefanik’s offices. The post Stefanik and Johnson War Over House GOP Leadership appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis did not just blow up her own witch-hunt RICO prosecution through her unethical misbehavior. She handed the persecuted defendants, including President Donald Trump, the right to send Fulton County taxpayers the bill. A Fulton County judge has finally dismissed the 2020 election prosecution case Willis pursued against President Donald Trump and the remaining defendants in its entirety. It was a meritless case that should never have been brought in the first place. This came after the Georgia Court of Appeals and then the state Supreme Court disqualified Willis over a “significant appearance of impropriety” arising from her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired, Nathan Wade, as well as numerous other problems with the case. Georgia Code § 17-11-6, enacted this year, gives every defendant whose charges were dismissed the right to recover “all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” from the budget of the DA’s office itself. In plain English, Willis’s ethical lapses did not just destroy her own high-profile prosecution. It opened the door for as many as 15 defendants to send their multimillion-dollar legal invoices to the taxpayers of Fulton County. Many of those taxpayers voted to reelect Willis as their DA in last year’s election, bringing to mind the famous line from Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” uttered by Puck: “What fools these mortals be!” In August 2023, Willis brought her politically-motivated indictment against Trump and 18 co-defendants, accusing them of a criminal “enterprise” to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. Nineteen people in all were unjustly dragged into court, from the former president to lawyers, party officials, and local activists, simply for doing what they had every constitutional right to do: question the outcome of the election, provide legal advice, and lobby state legislators to address their concerns. Four defendants, facing early trial dates and multiple felony charges, eventually entered plea deals to minor charges in exchange for dramatically reduced sentences (and were granted first-offender status, which means that those convictions will be wiped away if they successfully complete a period of probation), leaving Trump and 14 others to face trial. It was supposed to be the showcase trial of Willis’s tenure, something she obviously envisioned putting her, a local, unknown prosecutor, on the national stage of the Democratic Party: the “Fulton 19” in a televised, RICO spectacle that she herself predicted could take four months of trial time and 150 witnesses. But the unjustified prosecution turned into a soap opera about the prosecutor’s misdeeds. Defense motions revealed that Willis had appointed her romantic partner, private attorney Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor and paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds to run the case. Bank and credit-card records showed Wade paying for trips with Willis to places like Napa Valley and the Caribbean at the same time, prompting allegations that she personally benefited from the prosecution through shared luxury travel on the county’s dime. Judge Scott McAfee did not initially find an actual financial conflict, but he did find that the relationship created an “appearance of impropriety” and a “financial cloud of impropriety and potential untruthfulness” over the prosecution. Wade resigned to keep Willis on the case, but that was not enough to remedy the “impropriety.” Upon appeal from Trump and the other defendants, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis outright (and her entire office), holding that her conduct created a “significant appearance of impropriety.” The Georgia Supreme Court wisely declined to rescue her when it decided not to hear her appeal. Once Willis was out, responsibility passed to Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, to determine if the prosecution should be dropped or referred to a DA in a different county to pursue. After reviewing the evidence (or should we say lack of evidence?), the law, and the costs involved, Skandalakis moved to dismiss all the charges that remained against the defendants. In his motion to the court, he wrote what should have been obvious from the very beginning, that “It is not illegal to question or challenge election results. Our nation’s foundational principles of free speech and electoral scrutiny are rooted in this very freedom.” As our colleague John Malcolm pointed out long ago in a previous article, Skandalakis noted that the alternate electors who were prosecuted “lacked criminal intent” and “believed their actions were legally required to preserve Georgia’s electoral vote in the event” Trump won his then-pending lawsuit contesting the results.  And the lawyers who were prosecuted? Skandalakis said he was “extremely reluctant to criminalize the act of attorneys providing flawed legal advice.” While we might disagree with his claim that the lawyers provided “flawed” legal advice, the point Skandalakis makes is vitally important—the lawyers were being criminally prosecuted for doing what lawyers are supposed to do: provide good faith legal advice and vigorously represent their clients, even if the arguments they make are ultimately rejected by a court. He noted that since “multiple interpretations are equally plausible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and should not be presumed to have acted criminally.” McAfee then issued a one-paragraph order dismissing the case “in its entirety.” That phrase should keep Fulton County’s finance office awake at night. When legislators passed the bill to codify § 17-11-6 this year, they were not shy about what they were doing. Asked whether the measure would benefit the Trump defendants, the bill’s sponsor explained that it would apply to “all 15 defendants” who were still fighting the case. The new law mandates two crucial things. First, it says that if a prosecuting attorney in a criminal case “is disqualified due to improper conduct” and a subsequent prosecutor or the court dismisses the case, the defendant “shall be entitled to an award of all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the defendant in defending the case.” Second, and most important for taxpayers, it mandates that any award “shall be paid from the funds of the office of the prosecuting attorney as budgeted by the county.” Nineteen defendants were indicted. Four took plea deals. That leaves up to 15 individuals, including the former president, whose charges have now been dismissed in their entirety and who may invoke § 17-11-6. What might that cost? We already know some of the numbers that are public. The Georgia Republican Party spent roughly $2.3 million defending three of its leaders who served as alternate electors. Other defendants poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into high-powered legal teams or raised large sums on crowdfunding sites to keep up with the onslaught. Trump himself has been represented by nationally known lawyers whose hourly rates are not exactly discounted. Local media are already reporting that Fulton County taxpayers could be “on the hook” for “tens of millions” of dollars in fee awards if the defendants file, as they no doubt will, motions seeking those funds under the new statute and judges deem their bills to be reasonable. Those payments must come out of the budget allocated to the Fulton County DA’s office, which means either service cuts, delayed reforms, or higher taxes to refill the pot. Fulton County is already contemplating a property tax increase of roughly $32 million just to address a separate federal mandate to fix its “abhorrent, unconstitutional” jail conditions. In other words, while Willis may never personally sign a reimbursement check, her conduct has put every homeowner and small business in Fulton County in the position of underwriting the legal defense of the victims she chose to indict in her unwarranted prosecution to further her political ambitions. When a prosecutor’s “improper conduct” blows up a case, the innocent should not be financially ruined for the privilege of having been wrongly dragged into court. Reimbursement of their legal fees can’t reimburse these defendants for the aggravation, stress, reputational harm, and the personal, emotional costs they have suffered, but at least some of their financial woes will be addressed through this law. But there is a second lesson that Georgia, and the rest of the country, should draw from this fiasco. Prosecutorial power is so immense that its misuse by unethical lawyers can be catastrophic, not just for the defendants who have to fight baseless charges, but for taxpayers who have to remedy that DA’s malfeasance. The Willis-Wade debacle also made the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office an object of ridicule. Now it threatens to drain millions from public safety budgets to reimburse defendants who never should have been victimized in the first place. Georgia legislators did the right thing when they made counties liable for the costs of prosecutorial misconduct. But they should also make sure that district attorneys face real, personal consequences for the same illicit behavior. That means tighter rules, mandatory disclosure of personal and financial ties with outside counsel, and a meaningful disciplinary process when a DA’s inexcusable “lapse in judgment” results in the collapse of such sham show trials and political vendettas. The lesson is simple. When prosecutors treat their office as a vehicle to further their political agendas and personal relationships, it is not just defendants who suffer. It is every citizen who pays taxes and discovers they are footing the tab for someone else’s lawfare. The post The Trump Case Is Finally Dead, but Fani Willis Left Fulton County Taxpayers on the Hook for Millions of Dollars appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Communist China and Japan have been engaging in a serious diplomatic dispute over Taiwan for almost a month. While Japan strives to de-escalate tensions, China’s aggressive stance—particularly toward newly-elected Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi—only heightens concerns.  Takaichi made history as Japan’s first female prime minister in late October, drawing parallels to Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister. Both women emerged from working-class backgrounds to reach the zenith of political power. They are recognized for their strong work ethic, decisive leadership, and unwavering commitment to conservative values.   On Nov. 7, Takaichi was asked by an opposition lawmaker in parliament about the potential threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. She responded that such an action would pose a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, according to the country’s 2015 security law. In this critical context, Japan’s constitution allows for the mobilization of defense forces. However, Takaichi also emphasized Japan’s longstanding policy on Taiwan focusing on a peaceful resolution.  Takaichi’s statement echoes a decade of Japanese government policy. Her mentor, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, emphasized that “a Taiwan emergency is a Japan emergency.” This is due to the proximity of several Japan-controlled islands, including the disputed Senkaku Islands (known as the Diaoyu Islands in China) are located about 60 miles from Taiwan. This close distance means that if China were to attack Taiwan, Japan’s national security would likely be impacted.  Tokyo’s security concerns deepened in 2022 when the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire military exercises near Taiwan in direct response to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit. Five PLA ballistic missiles landed in controlled waters, triggering a decisive shift in Japanese public sentiment toward prioritizing defense spending.  Beijing’s insistence that its actions regarding Taiwan are purely internal affairs has led to a range of aggressive responses to Takaichi’s suggestion of possible Japanese military involvement. Xue Jian, China’s consul general in Osaka, Japan, threatened to sever Takaichi’s “filthy neck” on X.com. Although he deleted his post following wide condemnation, neither Xue nor the Chinese government has issued an apology. Instead, China has repeatedly demanded that Takaichi retract her comments, warning of a “crushing defeat” if Japan intervenes regarding Taiwan.  Despite X.com being banned in China, the Chinese foreign ministry has been waging a “war of words” on the platform under its official account, warning “Whoever dares to challenge China’s bottom line will face a resolute, head-on blow and be shattered against the great wall of steel forged by 1.4 billion people.”  Beijing followed its warnings with various pressure campaigns, including sending four coast guard vessels into Japanese waters near the disputed Senkaku Islands, suspending imports of Japanese seafood, seafood, advising Chinese citizens not to travel to Japan, and ordering China’s major airlines to cancel flights to Japan. Chinese authorities even abruptly canceled several scheduled performances by Japanese artists in China. Following Beijing’s lead, Hong Kong has halted engagements with the Japanese Consulate.   Despite Beijing’s aggressive tactics, Takaichi has upheld her “iron lady” reputation, standing firm in her position. At the same time, she has sought to ease tensions by sending a senior official to Beijing and resisting calls to expel Chinese diplomat Xue.  Yet, China continues to escalate. Chinese U.N. Ambassador Fu Chong opposes Japan’s bid for a permanent Security Council seat, calling Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan “totally unqualified.” He warns in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres that any armed intervention by Japan in the Taiwan Strait would be seen as aggression, asserting that China will defend its sovereignty under international law.  Still, recent developments indicate that Beijing’s aggressive campaigns against Japan may have backfired. Instead of backing down under Beijing’s pressure, her government is moving forward to deploy a medium-range surface-to-air missile unit on Yonaguni, an island just 68 miles off Taiwan’s east coast, to boost Japan’s national defense. Takaichi’s unyielding style earns her strong public support in Japan.  Asian neighbors also welcome Japan playing a bigger role in regional security. Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, noted in a public forum, “All Southeast Asian countries endorse Japan’s expanded role in our region, especially in terms of security, as it significantly enhances stability.” Wong clearly understands that China’s aggressive stance toward Japan reveals the risks of a China-dominated world order to other nations.   In his appeal to France, Wang Yi, China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, sought condemnation of Takaichi but was met with disappointment, as the French government declined to act on his request. Most notably, the United States remains unwavering in its support for Japan.  The U.S. Ambassador to Japan George Glass highlighted support for the country on social media, stating, “Coercion is a difficult habit for Beijing to break. Just as the United States stood with Japan during China’s unjust seafood ban, we will support our ally again.” Additionally, the Trump administration announced a $330 million arms sale to Taiwan in mid-November, ignoring Beijing’s complaints.  A desperate Chinese leader Xi Jinping sought to pressure Takaichi by calling President Donald Trump just before Thanksgiving, claiming “Taiwan’s return to China is an essential component of the postwar international order.” Trump promptly informed Takaichi about the call, and didn’t ask Takaichi to retract her remark, according to the Japanese government spokesperson, signaling the U.S.-Japan alliance remains strong.   China’s monthlong aggressive tactics have failed to intimidate or humiliate Takaichi, and instead have backfired on Beijing, creating significant implications for future Taiwan discussions. For years, China claimed its control over Taiwan was a domestic issue, labeling external dialogue as “interference.” However, by voicing its grievances to the U.N. and other global entities, China has internationalized the issue. Japan-based expert Yaita Akio notes that this shift undermines China’s previous narrative of “non-interference,” making it difficult for Beijing to silence future global involvement in Taiwan. This unexpected outcome must be frustrating for Xi.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Beijing’s Aggressive Campaign Against Japan’s Iron Lady Backfires appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Navy admiral who oversaw the controversial deadly boast strike on an alleged Venezuelan narco-terrorist vessel will meet with members of Congress on Thursday. Members of both the House and Senate will question Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley in a classified congressional briefing to discuss the more than 20 strikes the U.S. has carried out in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific in recent months. Special attention is expected to be given to a strike on Sept. 2.   The Washington Post reports that following an initial strike on a narco-vessel on Sept. 2, two survivors were seen in the water and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered a second strike to kill the men.   Bradley oversaw the operation that day and is expected to answer questions regarding the details of the orders he received from Hegseth and the orders he gave.  Both Republican and Democrat lawmaker have expressed concerns over the multiple boat strikes that have killed more than 80 alleged narco-terrorist and have specially raised questions over the reported second strike on Sept. 2.   Hegseth has repeatedly defended the strikes, and on Saturday, following The Washington Post’s report on the second strike targeting the two men, he blamed the “fake news” for “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”   Asked about the incident, President Donald Trump said he did not “know anything” about it, adding, Hegseth “said he did not do it.”    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the Department of War’s second strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.  Leavitt said at Monday’s press briefing that Hegseth authorized Bradley to carry out the second strike on Sept. 2.  On Wednesday night, Martha Raddatz of ABC News reported: “According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back on to the boat after the initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in communication with others, and salvaging some of the drugs. Because of that, it was determined they were still in the fight and valid targets.” The Daily Signal’s Elizabeth Mitchell contributed to this report. The post Lawmakers to Question Navy Admiral in Classified Briefing on Controversial Boat Strikes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Health and Human Services’ actions against a school that illegally vaccinated a child demonstrates that the agency will not tolerate information on a child’s gender transition being withheld from parents, The Daily Signal has learned. HHS opened an investigation on Wednesday into a Midwestern school that vaccinated a child without parental consent. HHS penned a Dear Colleague letter reminding health care providers that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, requires them to provide parents access to their children’s health information. The agency also directed the Health Resources and Services Administration to add a grant requirement saying that federally funded health centers must comply with parental rights laws. .@HHSGov has launched an investigation into a troubling incident where a midwestern school administered a federally funded vaccine to a child despite a legally recognized state exemption. If a provider ignores consent, violates an exemption, or keeps parents in the dark, HHS… pic.twitter.com/tKT4B40560— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) December 4, 2025 These actions, that reinforce parent legal authority to direct their children’s health care decisions, carry implications extending beyond vaccination, according to an HHS official. HHS’ move is a warning to health care providers that the agency will enforce parental rights law if those providers or schools seek to hide transgender procedures on children from their parents. “The HIPAA Privacy Rule is clear: Providers must share health care information about minors to their parents,” the HHS official told The Daily Signal. “Anyone intentionally hiding this data may have ulterior motives, which could include the desire to hide sex-rejecting procedures or vaccinations from a child’s parents.” “Today’s Dear Colleague letter is a warning shot that HHS will not abide by violations of HIPAA,” the official continued. Under HIPAA, parents can access their child’s medical records, and parents must generally sign off on all medical procedures for their children. However, some states allow children to begin medically transitioning without a parent signing off. For instance, Maine law allows 16-year-olds to access transgender hormone regimens without parental consent. HHS’ Office of Civil Rights’ letter to health care providers reiterates that parents have the right to access their children’s protected health information under HIPAA. It’s noteworthy that HHS is investigating a school for violating parental rights in health care because schools have been repeat offenders of laws establishing parental rights, said Matt Bowman, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and former HHS deputy general counsel. “Schools increasingly take federal funds to provide medical care, and as we’ve seen, they in some instances, take it upon themselves to violate parental rights with respect to embarking kids on paths that lead to dangerous gender transition procedures,” Bowman told The Daily Signal. “And schools need to realize they are subject to federal laws that protect parental rights and access when they start engaging in practice of medicine.” For example, in Ashland, California, the San Lorenzo High School-Based Health Center offers access to “gender-affirming hormone therapy and other types of medical transitioning services;” “gender-affirming care,” including “chest binders, shapewear, etc.”; and “information and counseling about transitioning.” ?Clinic at a Bay Area public high school offers free binders, hormones & moreIf parents go to the clinic website associated w/the school there is NO mention of these servicesLa Clinica is major provider to low income communities in Alameda county especially Latino immigrants pic.twitter.com/PTnlw6DG8W— WomenAreReal (@WomenAreReals) February 28, 2024 Parents Defending Education exposed the school-based health centers at Nova High School and Meany Middle School in Seattle, Washington, for providing students with “gender-affirming medications (estrogen, androgen blockers, testosterone, etc.) and injection techniques,” “hormone therapy for adolescents and specialty referrals for younger patients as needed,” and “referrals for gender-affirming surgeries.” HHS has clarified that before a minor receives medical, dental, behavioral health, or other services at a federally funded health center, a parent or legal guardian must give consent in accordance with applicable state or federal law.  The letter reinforces that parents can exercise their children’s rights with respect to protected health information, including the right of access. OCR is also initiating compliance reviews of a number of large health care providers to ensure that parents receive timely access to their children’s health information. Bowman said he is confident that HHS’ investigation sends a message to schools and health care entities “that they need to fully respect parental and religious liberty rights.” “We’re very encouraged by the broad position HHS is taking and the message they’re sending to those in the healthcare field,” he said. The post HHS Clarifies Which Health Records Doctors Can’t Hide from Parents appeared first on The Daily Signal.