FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Secretary of Education Linda McMahon told The Daily Signal a settlement with Harvard University is close, after a protracted battle over the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. “Harvard’s made some concessions,” McMahon said in an exclusive interview. “They’ve come to the table on some things, and we’re still—you know—it’s the way negotiations go. You go back and forth until you get a deal done.” EXCLUSIVE: @EDSecMcMahon confirmed that a settlement with Harvard is close. “I hear we have a deal…," Trump said yesterday. “He’s right. It’s ongoing," McMahon told @DailySignal.“Harvard’s made some concessions. They’ve come to the table on some things, and we’re… pic.twitter.com/vgzIW7rIc6— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) January 21, 2026 Trump said Wednesday that he heard the United States had a deal with Harvard. “I hear we have a deal but who the hell knows with them,” Trump told reporters. When asked about the president’s statement by The Daily Signal, McMahon said, “He’s right. It’s ongoing.” Harvard and the Trump administration have engaged in a legal battle for about nine months after President Donald Trump pulled $2 billion in federal funding and removed Harvard’s ability to enroll international students. The president took action over Harvard’s alleged failure to curb antisemitism and its DEI practices. Harvard is reportedly willing to spend $500 million on workforce development training programs, but Trump administration officials have said some of the money should be paid directly to the federal government, the New York Times reported.  The Trump administration has already settled with several universities, including Northwestern University, Cornell University, the University of Virginia, Brown University, Columbia University, and the University of Pennsylvania, in civil rights investigations into their DEI programs. On Oct. 1, the White House invited nine elite universities to sign a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” adhering to the administration’s stated educational principles in order to gain preferential federal funding. They had until Nov. 20 to send suggested revisions to the compact’s wording. The administration then invited any university committed to implementing “common sense principles, like student equality, financial responsibility, merit-based hiring, and civil discourse” to sign. In 2025, none of the original invitees agreed to sign. McMahon said that in 2026, the administration is working on “developing the right kind of compact with some input that we’re already getting.” “Let’s be clear: There is no higher education compact at the moment,” she said. “There was a draft version, preliminary version, that went out that was intended to be sent to universities to get their reaction from it. It didn’t go far and wide.” “So some did react. We are working on developing the right kind of compact with some input that we’re already getting,” McMahon told The Daily Signal. “So I expect that once that’s done, we’ll see a lot more people signing up, a lot more universities signing up for that.” When asked if she expects the original invitees to sign onto the compact once it’s finalized, McMahon said yes. “If they were willing to come on board in the beginning and then give us some input, then I would expect that they would be even more pleased with what the final version will be,” McMahon said. While McMahon does not have a timeline for when the compact will be finalized, she said a lot of great minds are giving input. “There are a lot of inputs, and a lot of really good minds and a lot of good thinkers, a lot of people affiliated with universities, not affiliated with universities, really giving solid input into this,” she said. The post EXCLUSIVE: Linda McMahon Confirms Deal With Harvard Is Close appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump rebuked Canada before a meeting of global leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “Canada gets a lot of freebies from us,” Trump said during his speech Wednesday, adding, “they should be grateful also, but they’re not.” Trump told the room packed with politicians and business leaders that he had watched Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at Davos on Tuesday, noting the Canadian leader “wasn’t so grateful” for U.S. leadership. While Carney did not refer to Trump by name in his address, he did speak of a “rupture” in the world order and inferred the U.S. is at the center of those irrevocable changes. Trump on Wednesday said that “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.” President Trump to Mark Carney at Davos: “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements." pic.twitter.com/6s1mCvV6Cg— Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) January 21, 2026 Carney’s comments, and Trump’s stark rebuke, come as Trump continues to press the issue of U.S. ownership of Greenland. Trump says the U.S. needs Greenland for purposes of national security, arguing that Canada would also benefit from U.S. control of the large island straddling the North Atlantic Ocean and Arctic Ocean. He threatened tariffs last week against countries opposed to the U.S. acquiring Greenland. Carney, for his part, signed a trade deal with China last week reducing tariffs on electric vehicles and canola, Reuters reported. “For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order,” Carney said on Tuesday. “We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability.” “We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient,” Carney said, adding, “American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.” “So we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality. This bargain no longer works,” the Canadian leader said. “Let me be direct: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” Meanwhile, Carney insists the “old order is not coming back.” “We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just,” Carney said, adding, “this is the task of the middle powers.” Trump has pledged to build a “Golden Dome” on Greenland, a defensive weapon system that would operate similarly to Israel’s Iron Dome in blocking incoming missiles. “We’re building a golden dome that’s going to, just by its very nature, going to be defending Canada,” Trump said. Trump is scheduled to return from Davos on Thursday evening. The post Trump Rebukes Canada’s Mark Carney at Davos appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ruled out using force to acquire Greenland, saying that Denmark should instead hand over the island to the United States. “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” he said in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “That’s probably the biggest statement I’ve made, because people thought I would use force, but I don’t use force,” Trump continued. “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland, where we already had it as a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago, after we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians and others in World War II.” Greenland, the world’s largest island, is an autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark. The U.S. military occupied Greenland during World War II after Denmark fell under Nazi control. Following the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949, with both the U.S. and Denmark as founding members, the U.S. military kept a presence in Greenland. Trump addressed the global gathering of business and political leaders. The World Economic Forum said more than 3,000 delegates from more than 130 countries are in attendance this week, according to Reuters. Trump said Denmark can exchange a “piece of ice for World protection.” “We’ve never asked for anything else, and we could have kept that piece of land and we didn’t,” he said. “So they have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember a strong and secure America means a strong NATO, and that’s one reason why I’m working every day to ensure our military is very powerful.” Trump said due to the threat of missiles, the United States needs Greenland now more than ever. “Greenland is a vast, almost entirely uninhabited and undeveloped territory sitting undefended in a key strategic location between the United States, Russia and China,” he said. Trump said he respects Greenland and Denmark, but added that “every NATO ally has an obligation to be able to defend their own territory.” “And the fact is, no nation or a group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States,” he said. “We’re a great power, much greater than people even understand. I think they found that out two weeks ago in Venezuela.” Trump noted that the U.S. returned Greenland to Danish control after World War II. “How stupid were we to do that? We did it, but we gave it back,” he said. “But how ungrateful are they now?” Trump said the United States will protect “this giant piece of ice” to make both Europe and the U.S. safe. “And that’s the reason I’m seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States,” he said, just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history, as many of the European nations have.” He said this would not be a threat, but rather a benefit, to NATO. He said the U.S. is treated unfairly by NATO. “We pay for, in my opinion, 100% of NATO because they weren’t paying their bills, he said, “and all we’re asking for is to get Greenland, including right title and ownership, because you need the ownership to defend it. You can’t defend it on a lease.” “Number one, legally, it’s not defensible that way, totally. And number two, psychologically, who the hell wants to defend a license agreement or a lease, which is a large piece of ice in the middle of the ocean where, if there is a war, will take place on that piece of ice?” he asked. The post ‘A Piece of Ice for World Protection’: Trump Addresses if US Will Use Force in Greenland appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If there’s anything Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it’s how to spend money. Both parties created the federal budget deficit and contributed to the looming $38 trillion national debt, but President Donald Trump’s administration is actively working to close it. Since the budget is essentially financed by taxpayers, closing the gap means reduced borrowing and interest payments, lower national debt, and boosted long-term economic growth all Americans can feel. The Monthly Treasury Statement highlights fiscal year 2025, in which the federal government spent over $7 trillion in outlays and generated $5.2 trillion in receipts. Despite including President Joe Biden’s last four months in office, the budget deficit of approximately $1.8 trillion was still down 2% from fiscal year 2024. Early data for fiscal year 2026 (October to December 2025) shows further fiscal responsibility. The cumulative deficit of $602 billion is approximately 15% lower than the same period in fiscal year 2025. The deficit’s closure—or at least slowed rate of growth—under the Trump administration, can be attributed to a combination of receipt (revenue) increases and targeted outlay (spending) reductions. Tariffs are a sure method to generate federal government receipts which drove the deficit down. Beating economists’ projections, tariff revenue soared to nearly $200 billion in Trump’s first year of his second term. In just the last three months, custom duties boasted $90 billion—an increase of over 330% from the comparable prior period. These tariffs targeted communist Chinese imports—among others—allowing the U.S. to decouple from the Asian giant and boosting government income amid broader economic growth. Individual income tax revenue surged as wage increases outpaced inflation. These receipts rose from $518 billion in fiscal year 2025 to $606 billion in fiscal year 2026 (17% growth), which contributed to a shrinking deficit. And with Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” tax cuts taking effect in 2026, Americans can expect to feel greater financial relief. On the spending side, budget outlays contracted from the previous period. In an unprecedented opportunity created by the Democrat-engineered October government shutdown, Trump and his team worked hard to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. Trump axed thousands of unnecessary government workers and programs, a decision that contributed massively to efficiency and fiscal savings. Partnering with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the two oversaw financial reallocation and halted billions in wasteful programs. Office of Budget and Management Director Russell Vought made substantial Reductions in Force (RIFs) in health, education, environment, and other agencies with unfavorable political agendas—cutting spending and saving taxpayers billions. For example, federal outlays for the Department of Agriculture fell by 18%, the Department of Education by 26%, the Environmental Protection Agency by 81%, and International Assistance Programs by 82%. Shrinking the public sector tackles the affordability crisis created by the fiscally undisciplined Biden administration. Four years of prices rising faster than wages and inflation reaching 40-year highs encouraged voters to elect Trump who promised to balance the budget—and not just in rhetoric, but in decisive action. The combination of reducing Treasury outlays and increasing receipts reduces the budget deficit and may lead to lower inflation, stabilized prices, and supply side private sector growth—all of which will usher in a golden era of affordability for Americans. Biden is certainly responsible for the economic woes felt by voters today, but Trump continues to make meaningful progress in reducing stubbornly high prices. In a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report, overall, the 12-month adjusted consumer price index estimated 2.7%. Core inflation fell to a remarkable 2.6%, the lowest since March 2021, with price reductions driven by gains across most grocery groups, used vehicles, gasoline, communications, and energy. With data reflecting broader disinflationary trends, further cooling may even influence the Federal Reserve to cut rates, making the cost of borrowing cheaper and interest on credit cards or loans lower. So long as regulations continue to be cut, tax rates are reduced, brakes are put on government spending, and government revenue is generated in a sustainable manner, there’s hope for the American taxpayer. Rather than feed the government machine and widen the federal budget deficit, Trump is putting Washington on a diet, eating inflation, and cooking up a private sector boom—the real drivers of economic expansion which will provide relief to all Americans. The post Federal Budget Deficit Shrinks Under President Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When New York City elected Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani as its next mayor, the left-leaning headlines framed it as a “historic milestone.” But the only milestone I saw was this: more than one million voters choosing a path that has collapsed societies across continents—the empty promise of socialism disguised as progress—and, even more puzzling, a path embraced by an electorate that was 84% women under 30.  As socialism becomes more popular among young Americans, we risk sacrificing the freedoms that shape our country—such as the freedom to work, speak, and take responsibility for our own lives—in exchange for a promise of government-controlled equality. History shows that when good intentions give rise to government control, people often lose both freedom and opportunity.  Post-COVID New York City provides a chilling example of how democracies can slide into dependency. Once the beating heart of American capitalism, the city suffered from inconsistent governance and a global pandemic that shuttered businesses, drove residents away, and made basic living increasingly unaffordable. With taxes and fees imposed at every turn, daily life still feels relentlessly regulated. Recently, several Manhattan restaurants offered $9 discounts to offset the city’s new congestion-pricing toll. These small gestures serve as acts of resistance against policies that continue to burden the working class. In a climate of fatigue and frustration, politicians like Mamdani, whose platform promised to “tax the 1%,” freeze rent, create government-run grocery stores, and provide “free” public transit, eagerly captivated social warriors proudly denouncing capitalism even as they remained fully immersed in one of the largest capitalist hubs in the world.  By treating success as something unfair and inequality as a moral wrongdoing, these movements suggest that prosperity should be guaranteed rather than earned. Their arguments often rely on vague promises—redistributing wealth without addressing the consequences, expanding control without accountability, and claiming the moral high ground without offering practical plans for governance. In the end, they focus more on symbolic wins and emotional satisfaction than on real, workable solutions to complex problems. However, beneath these slogans lies a far more dangerous ideology—one that aims to defund the police and replace them with social workers, even going as far as to frame violence itself as an “artificial construction.” This narrative of downplaying responsibility reflects a broader worldview, one that prioritizes grievances over government. The most revealing data point in Mamdani’s rise is not his platform, but the fact that young women strongly influence his voter base. Their motivations are reflected across platforms and campuses: a Fordham University student’s op-ed praising Mamdani as the embodiment of “economic care”; the viral “Hot Girl Socialism” trend that packages left-wing economic dependence as empowerment; and Instagram reels celebrating his win by joking that “Sharia Law starts now.” The tone may be playful, but it exposes a deeper unseriousness about the stakes of governance.  Recently, Actress Amanda Seyfried described socialism as a “gorgeous idea,” stating that it is rooted in collective care and responsibility. In her ignorance of how socialism actually functions, Seyfried described it this way: “For me, it’s taking care of each other. If I have more money, I can spend more money on other people. Isn’t that right?” When Hollywood is also endorsing these ideologies, especially women, it blurs the line between what socialism actually is and how it has failed repeatedly.  Taken together, these signals suggest a generation of women seeking stability, community, and belonging in misplaced sources. Rather than turning to families, local institutions, or opportunity, many put their faith in the comforting illusion that bigger government can relieve the emotional, financial, and relational burdens modern culture has placed upon them, as Erika Kirk recently noted. The women who propelled Mamdani into office were not irrational; they were responding to a cultural narrative that tells them independence is impossible without government intervention. Our task is to offer a better narrative—one rooted in personal responsibilities, economic freedom, and the belief that women are capable of building the lives they want without surrendering liberty in the process.  And yet, for a place that may seem out of touch, out of reach, and wholly detached from the rest of the United States, New York’s collapse would not be contained. What happens in the nation’s cultural and financial epicenter radiates outward—politically, economically, and socially. Their choices become our consequences. The question is: How do we encourage a return to common-sense leadership before more cities follow New York’s lead? Figures like Mamdani and the broader democratic socialist movement appeal to young voters by tapping into frustration about the economy and a sense that the system is unfair. They present socialism as a more caring and humane alternative to capitalism. But behind the language of “equity” and “justice” is a push for more government control and less room for disagreement. By promising fairness and community, these movements turn shared frustration into political support. New York City shows the contradiction clearly. Many voters support socialist-style policies yet continue to enjoy the benefits of a market-driven lifestyle. On one hand, there is hope that the government can fix deep problems. On the other hand, there is reliance on the freedoms and opportunities that capitalism provides. The question is whether these two ideas can exist together, or whether growing government control will eventually weaken the very freedoms that make opportunity and prosperity possible. If a generation abandons liberty in the pursuit of equality, it risks losing both—and ending up with neither. The post When a Generation Abandons Liberty appeared first on The Daily Signal.