Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed

Daily Signal Feed

@dailysignalfeed

DEFYING SCOTUS? NJ AG Tries to Force Pregnancy Center to Turn Over Donor Info Despite Supreme Court Ruling
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

DEFYING SCOTUS? NJ AG Tries to Force Pregnancy Center to Turn Over Donor Info Despite Supreme Court Ruling

One day after a defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court, New Jersey’s attorney general appeared to flagrantly disregard the ruling that her office’s demand for donor information harmed a pregnancy center’s First Amendment rights. Attorney General Jennifer Davenport filed a motion in state court, asking the court to lift its temporary stay on the subpoena from her office to the pregnancy center and to resolve its legality. Davenport’s office claimed that the pregnancy center in question, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, had sued in federal court “to create duplicative litigation.” The AG’s office also wrote that “only this [state] court actually has the ability to enforce the subpoena.” Kristen Waggoner, president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the pregnancy center, noted that Davenport got the timeline exactly backward. First Choice filed the first lawsuit in the case. As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his opinion for the unanimous court, then-Attorney General Matt Platkin filed a suit in state court “shortly after” First Choice filed in federal court. “The duplication [Davenport] now blames on First Choice is one her own office created,” Waggoner noted. The very next day, NJ's AG filed a letter with the state court demanding the subpoena be enforced immediately, in full, before any federal review.Three things about the letter stand out:– It demands the state court rush to judgment before a federal court can rule on First… pic.twitter.com/wCFhRZayGw— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 4, 2026 “First Choice Women’s Resource Centers serve women across New Jersey with free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and support,” Waggoner explained. “For more than two years, the NJ AG’s office has demanded its donors’ identities, internal communications, and other protected information, citing New Jersey’s consumer protection law, but without any consumer complaints.” The Supreme Court Ruling Lower federal courts held that First Choice did not have standing to sue because it could not demonstrate harm from the subpoena. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the mandate for donor disclosure burdens First Choice’s First Amendment right of free association. The Supreme Court cited NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which secured the precedent that donors have a First Amendment right to contribute to causes anonymously. “Since the 1950s, this court has confronted one official demand after another like the attorney general’s,” Gorsuch wrote. “Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the attorney general has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds.” In response to the Supreme Court’s overturning of the abortion precedent Roe v. Wade (1973) in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), Platkin established a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force.” That strike force issued a “consumer alert” accusing pro-life pregnancy centers of “seek[ing] to prevent people from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care” by “provid[ing] false or misleading information about abortion.” Pro-life pregnancy centers like First Choice offer various services to women facing crisis pregnancies, such as counseling, food, shelter, clothing, and baby items, in an attempt to convince them not to undergo abortions and to prepare them to take care of their babies. These centers compete with abortion centers, and Democrats have suggested that they engage in misleading advertising to do so. Confirming the Subpoena Is ‘Retaliatory’ Waggoner condemned Davenport’s filing as “part of a longer pattern of attempting to evade federal civil rights review.” She also said it strengthens First Choice’s claim that “the subpoena is retaliatory.” “A state AG’s office has spent more than two years using its coercive subpoena power to target a pro-life pregnancy center without any evidence of wrongdoing,” she noted. “The Supreme Court just unanimously affirmed that demanding private donor information chills First Amendment rights and gets First Choice into federal court. One day later, the AG is racing to a state court to enforce the same subpoena before federal review can occur.” Davenport’s office declined to provide any comment to The Daily Signal beyond its letter to the court.

2 Anti-School Choice Campaigns in Arizona Mislead Voters
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

2 Anti-School Choice Campaigns in Arizona Mislead Voters

Arizona’s trailblazing Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program enables the families of more than 102,000 students to choose the learning environments that work best for their children. All Arizona K-12 students are eligible for an education savings account, which lets families direct their children’s education funding toward private schools, tutoring, curricula, therapies, and other educational expenses that fit their children’s unique needs. Families love it. Three-quarters of parents of school-aged children in Arizona support it. Yet, although the ESA program is very popular and highly accountable, special-interest groups pushing two separate ballot initiatives are seeking to curtail and regulate it. Advocates working on both campaigns have been caught on camera giving false information to voters whom they are soliciting to sign their petitions. Ballot Initiatives to Curtail School Choice The first campaign, calling itself Protect Education Now, is a joint project of the Arizona Education Association and Save Our Schools Arizona, an anti-school choice group that has failed to push anti-ESA ballot initiatives in the past. The initiative aims to regulate the Empowerment Scholarship Account program in several ways, including restricting eligibility to families earning under $150,000 annually—less than the median income of an Arizona firefighter married to a registered nurse—which could kick tens of thousands of children out of the program. Although students with special needs would still be eligible, they would have to spend 45 days in a public school before getting access to the ESA. As the Goldwater Institute detailed, the initiative would impose a host of unnecessary and harmful regulations on private schools and homeschoolers. It would also severely restrict what families can buy with their ESA funds, and it would confiscate any unspent funds remaining in a family’s ESA at the end of the year, punishing families who have spent wisely and saved. Those funds would be redirected to district schools that did not educate the ESA students. The second campaign, Fortify AZ, is more surprising. It is backed by the American Federation for Children, a pro-school choice group. Their initiative mostly mirrors the union-backed anti-ESA initiative, including a modified version of a provision that the Goldwater Institute has warned “[t]hreatens to block parents from buying basic school supplies and grind the ESA program to a halt with mindless bureaucratic red tape.” However, it would retain the ESA program’s universal eligibility and would not confiscate yet-to-be-used ESA funds. Nevertheless, the American Federation for Children initiative is worse in other ways, as it would impose regulations and restrictions that the union-based initiative does not. For example, it would require all ESA students to take a standardized test—something no school choice law in Arizona has required in three decades—and would eliminate two of the four ways that families can spend their ESA funds, leaving only direct pay and “Marketplace,” which is an online platform managed by ClassWallet. The last provision is particularly puzzling, as the American Federation for Children claims its initiative is intended to “strengthen fiscal accountability and prevent fraud,” which it would supposedly accomplish through “an online marketplace payment system.” According to the Arizona Department of Education, only 0.3% of ESA funds have been spent on fraudulent or egregious purchases, and nearly all the fraud was in Marketplace. Meanwhile, the two payment methods that the American Federation for Children would inexplicably eliminate—debit cards and reimbursements—have almost no fraud. It makes zero sense to eliminate the more accountable payment options in the name of “accountability.” The American Federation for Children ballot initiative goes against the wishes of nearly every ESA family, 90% of whom say they support having ESA debit cards. Arizona School Choice Advocates Oppose Both Initiatives “The entire Arizona school choice coalition opposes both anti-ESA initiatives,” explains Jenny Clark, the founder and executive director of Love Your School, a local school choice group. “These initiatives have the potential to disrupt the education of tens of thousands of students,” warned Clark. “They would make it harder for families to use their ESAs, impose unnecessary regulations of private schools and homeschoolers, and even throw children out of the program and potentially out of the schools that serve them.” Dan Kuiper, the executive director of the Arizona Christian Education Coalition, agrees. “These initiatives were crafted and funded by out-of-state special interest groups without any input from Arizona families or education providers.” Kuiper worries that if either initiative were to pass, it “would force education providers who serve even one ESA family, including those who serve children with disabilities and special needs, to become part of the government bureaucracy that has already failed many of these families, causing them to seek the alternatives that the ESA offers their children.” National school choice organizations are also weighing in. EdChoice, the nation’s premier school choice organization, also opposes both ballot initiatives because they would impose “new restrictions” that “would do little to improve accountability while directly reducing the flexibility that families value most.” Caught on Camera: Initiative Backers Misleading Voters Under Arizona law, citizens can bypass the Legislature by collecting enough signatures to place a measure directly before voters. Once enough valid signatures are gathered, the initiative goes on the ballot, and a simple majority decides the law. The ballot initiative process depends entirely on voters understanding what they’re signing. That process is undermined when activists give false or misleading information to voters. Unfortunately, that is exactly what signature gatherers working for both initiatives are doing. In one video taken by an ESA parent, a signature gatherer working on behalf of the American Federation for Children initiative made it appear as though the ballot initiative was creating a new school choice program rather than curtailing an existing one. She claimed erroneously that the ballot initiative was “to help out with the cost of charter schools, private schools, tutoring, for the kids.” Not only do charter schools not charge tuition, but full-time charter school students are not eligible for ESAs. Worse, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer appeared to encourage Arizona voters to also sign the other, union-backed anti-school choice petition, claiming that it is “the same thing,” albeit with an income cap. “This is just to help get it onto the ballot,” she explained, “either or, whichever one you sign.” When the ESA parent challenged the signature gatherer, noting that the ESA program already exists, she had no response. This was no isolated incident. In another video, a signature gatherer working for the American Federation for Children erroneously stated that their initiative was “to keep the ESA scholarship for families.” Of course, no initiative is needed for that. Even more troubling, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer misrepresented the initiative, falsely portraying it as “not restrict[ing] ESA funds.” As in the other video, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer told the voter that she could “sign both” anti-ESA petitions. In a third video, a pair of signature gatherers representing each of the two initiatives falsely claimed that their ballot initiatives expanded school choice. When asked what the ballot initiative would do, one signature gatherer misrepresented that it was “to support the children so that they get the funding … to receive the funding and expand the Empowerment Scholarship program.” The second gatherer also fraudulently asserted it was “to expand the [ESA] program.” When the voter asked the first signature gatherer how the initiative would expand the ESA program, she replied, “By adding more funds.” That is false. The ESA program is already fully funded via the state funding formula. Neither initiative adds additional funding. The series of false statements by the signature gatherers working for both anti-ESA initiatives could lead to legal trouble. Arizona Revised Statutes § 19-116 states: “A person who is a circulator of an initiative or referendum petition and who induces any other person in the circulator’s presence to sign the initiative or referendum petition by knowingly misrepresenting the general subject matter of the measure is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.” Likewise, Arizona Revised Statutes § 19-119.01 states that “any fraudulent means, method, trick, device or artifice to obtain signatures on a petition” constitutes “petition signature fraud.” Whether Arizona’s anti-school choice attorney general actually prosecutes the fraud is an open question. But one thing is certain: Both anti-ESA ballot initiatives would hurt the children who currently benefit from the ESA. “Neither of these initiatives deserves to reach the ballot,” said Clark. “If you’re approached to sign either one, the right answer is simple: Decline to sign.”

Trump: Iranians Want to Protest, but They Are Not Armed
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

Trump: Iranians Want to Protest, but They Are Not Armed

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said that Iranians want to protest the regime but are not armed to withstand a violent crackdown. The Daily Signal’s White House correspondent, Elizabeth Mitchell, asked Trump, “You said recently that if Iran—Iranians were armed, they could take over their regime. Do you plan to arm them soon?” “Well, I don’t want to say that, but, yeah, I mean, people say why aren’t they protesting. They want to protest, but they don’t have any guns,” he told her. “They want to protest so badly, but they don’t have weapons,” Trump said. NEW: I asked @POTUS about his latest comments on arming Iranians. “I don't want to say that, but, yeah, I mean, people say, Why aren't they protesting? They want to protest, but they don't have any guns….”@DailySignal pic.twitter.com/fwDIQ3vDfg— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) May 5, 2026 Yesterday, the Iranian regime executed three men—Mehdi Rassouli, Mohammad Reza Miri, and Ebrahim Dolatabadi—for their participation in protests in December 2025. Another three were killed over the weekend: Yaghoub Karimpour and Nasser Bakarzadeh for cooperating with Israel, and Mehrab Abdollahzade for the 2022 uprising against the regime, the Washington Examiner reported, citing Iranian state media and the Kurdistan Human Rights Network. “So, you can have 200,000 people protesting and have five or six sick people with guns. And when they start shooting them right between the eyes and you see a guy fall and another one fall and you have no guns, very few people would be able to stand there and do it,” Trump continued. Trump reminded the press that the Iranian regime killed 42,000 unarmed protesters last month alone. He explained that there were roughly 250,000 people in a crowd, and the regime executed protesters on the ground using just four or five snipers hiding in buildings above. BELIEVED THAT MORE THAN 50K PROTESTORS KILLED IN STREETS OF IRANIt is believed that the survivors are ready to come back to the streets and reclaim their power. "There are underground clinics, because people cannot show up to hospitals." @RobbyDawkins@AndrewKolvet pic.twitter.com/AvwdVbPgNu— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) March 2, 2026 The president described a similar protest over a year ago. “They had 200,000 women protesting a year ago, and everyone thought that was the end of Iran. And then, all of a sudden, a woman dropped dead with a bullet right there, always right there,” he said, pointing to his forehead between his eyes, insinuating it was an execution. “Then another woman dropped, and then the word started to spread, and then there was panic, and then they ran. And, you know, so I don’t want that to happen,” he insisted. In a Feb. 28 video message announcing Operation Epic Fury, Trump told Iranians, “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations.” The United States is continuing Operation Project Freedom—the effort to regain control of the strait by ensuring commercial vessels have safe passage. However, the ceasefire with Iran is still in place. “Very good news! I have just been informed that eight women protestors who were going to be executed tonight in Iran will no longer be killed…” – President Donald J. Trump https://t.co/gsW76RQufY pic.twitter.com/oU1AlAOPpk— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 22, 2026 Related PostsVictor Davis Hanson: Trump Has Left Iran With 3 OptionsEditor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal.   We’re about 60 days into the Iran war, and we’re getting a lot of mixed signals from the media, from the administration,…US Sinking Iran Ships in Strait, Trump SaysThe United States has sunk Iranian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said in a statement on Monday as the Navy worked to reopen the global shipping lane. “We’ve shot down seven small Boats or, as they like to call them, ‘fast’ Boats. It’s all they have left,” Trump wrote on social…Trump Says Visit With King Improved UK Relations Amid Iran TensionPresident Donald Trump said the visit of King Charles III smoothed over U.S. relations with the United Kingdom amid tension over Iran. Trump has criticized U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer for declining to help the United States with its military operation in Iran. The president has said the U.K. “should be our best ally” and…

Immigration Funding Bill Is Finally Here
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

Immigration Funding Bill Is Finally Here

Late Monday night, Senate Republicans announced a funding package to earmark more than $70 billion to protect the American homeland. The package would fund immigration services, training for officers, efforts to combat human and drug trafficking, and security provisions related to President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom. This is Reconciliation 2.0. Republicans plan to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection through the reconciliation process, beginning in the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have released the first draft of legislative text, which is expected to reach the floor the week of May 18 to meet the president’s June 1 funding deadline. “We will work to ensure this critical funding gets signed into law without unnecessary delay,” Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said. Serious legislating requires basic reading. The bill funds Secret Service enhancements, not ballroom construction."LIMITATION—None of the funds made availableunder this section may be used for non-security elements of the East Wing Modernization Project." https://t.co/IwFwPMAkj1 pic.twitter.com/ei9ViURxt2— Senate Judiciary Republicans (@SenJudiciaryGOP) May 5, 2026 The proposed appropriations would run through Sept. 30, 2029—nearly a year into the next president’s term—with one restriction. Judiciary Committee The Judiciary Committee proposed appropriating more than $30 billion to ICE to hire and train personnel. The funding would also support deportations, improved body cameras for agents, coordination and cooperation with states, and legal staffing costs, including attorneys. This is on top of the $75 billion the agency received last year from the president’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The Judiciary Committee also proposed $3.4 billion for hiring and training Customs and Border Protection agents, as well as an additional $2.5 billion for ICE and CBP operations. An additional $1.45 billion is earmarked for the Department of Justice and the attorney general to support the National Security Division on terrorism. The funding would also support the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration in combating drug trafficking, child trafficking, and fraud. The final directive would provide $1 billion to the U.S. Secret Service for security costs related to the East Wing Modernization Project, commonly referred to as Trump’s ballroom. The funding is restricted to security-related costs only, within the White House fence, above or below ground. JudiciaryRecDownload More ICE Funding in Homeland Security A separate Homeland Security bill proposes additional funding for ICE and CBP. Committee members proposed nearly $20 billion to hire and train border agents. This funding could not be spent after Oct. 31, 2028. The proposal also includes $7.45 billion for ICE Homeland Security Investigations agents, including new border security screening technology. Another $3.45 billion is earmarked for new artificial intelligence equipment to combat drugs entering or leaving the country, air surveillance upgrades, and initial screening of children to prevent child trafficking or protect unaccompanied minors crossing the border. None of the funding could be used for untested AI surveillance towers along the border. An additional $2.5 billion would be granted for these operations. HLSCRecDownload The bills, which will be marked up once Congress returns next week, is already facing pushback from Democrats. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement that Democrats are prepared to “vigorously challenge any provision that violates the Byrd Rule.” Senate Republicans released a budget bill that gives BILLIONS to ICE and CBP. But not a single cent to lower costs for American taxpayers. Ridiculous.— House Democrats (@HouseDemocrats) May 5, 2026 Many of these agencies have been left unfunded since February, after Democrats refused to support funding for immigration services and Border Patrol. Last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson managed to fund all Department of Homeland Security components unrelated to immigration enforcement, including the Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Republicans announced then their plan to fund immigration enforcement separately through reconciliation.

High-Speed Rail: Should Californians ‘End the Nightmare’?
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

High-Speed Rail: Should Californians ‘End the Nightmare’?

California’s high-speed rail funding was delayed yet again, causing some to wonder if the project truly is a train to nowhere. When voters passed Proposition 1A in 2008, the estimated $30 billion transportation project was designed to let Californians travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in two hours. However, current estimates from the High-Speed Rail Authority now project $126 billion for a bare-bones “optimized plan,” and $250 billion for the original plan as approved by voters—a 700% increase over the initial budget. Assemblyman David Tangipa, R-Fresno, told The Daily Signal the High-Speed Rail Authority’s “optimized” plan is not only costly, but “illegal.” “The plan that was given to us right now is illegal. It’s non-compliant with state law, and we’ve got to have a really hard look in the mirror of what California high-speed rail is going to look like in the future,” he said. “… I think that we have to go all the way back to the books and potentially go back to the voters to see if they still approve this project like they did in 2018.” Edward Ring, director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, agrees with Tangipa. “Back in 2008, voters were told that it would be a $30 billion total project cost and that it would be a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours,” he told The Daily Signal. ” … But if they built it today the way they sold it to voters, it would be $251 billion.” Congressman Vince Fong, a Republican from California, has a different solution to the project’s ballooning cost. “The next step for California’s High-Speed Rail Authority is simple: end this project. We were promised a completed system by 2020 for $33 billion,” he said. “Instead, it’s 2026 with zero operational trains, zero usable tracks, a business plan that the Authority’s own inspector general says lacks transparency and violates state law, and a price tag that’s ballooned to $231 billion. “It’s the quintessential example of government waste. California taxpayers have been forced to bankroll this boondoggle for far too long—it’s time to end this nightmare.” However, some policy experts says at least part of the project can be salvaged.  “There’s enough funding to maybe get us from Bakersfield to Merced. There’s certainly no funding available that would be sufficient to connect that Central Valley segment to either Los Angeles or San Francisco,” Marc Joffe, president of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, said.   Joffe added that the original plan of a two hour, 40-minute ride from San Francisco to LA is “not achievable” and will be “closer to four hours.” He said voters should be able to weigh in on both the construction costs and operating losses. The transportation project has other missed targets, including carbon emissions estimates, which Joffe said would take “71 years of service to recapture the initial cost in terms of new carbon emissions.” Also, he ended by comparing California’s infrastructure work to similar projects in China. “China started their projects in the exact same year. China has built 33,000 miles, and we haven’t built beyond 1600 feet,” he said. “There’s no excuse for saying that high speed rail can’t happen. The only excuse is that we have inept elected officials, or there’s some systemic fraud happening in high-speed, under our noses, essentially.”