As the United States engages in kinetic operations against Iranian targets in the Middle East, there are legitimate worries about terrorist activity here at home. Coupled with the long-term impact of the open border policies of the Biden administration, American citizens have reason to be fearful.  According to a House Judiciary Committee report, from 2021 to 2024, Border Patrol encountered hundreds of “illegal aliens on the terror watchlist” and tens of thousands more from Asia and the Middle East. These numbers include over 500 Iranian nationals and tens of thousands of Chinese nationals.  In addition to these serious concerns, there are other safety and national security vulnerabilities that have gone woefully unaddressed, specifically as related to the education system. For years, K-12 schools have been naively jeopardizing the safety of their students, unnecessarily exposing them and their families to foreign adversaries.  For example, the recent explosion and popularity of student walkouts across the country have put scores of children at risk of physical harm. In too many cases, administrators have allowed students to leave school grounds to parade through communities unsupervised. Unfortunately, these events have already yielded several acts of violence perpetrated by students against law enforcement and fellow classmates.  More importantly, because students, teachers unions, and activist nonprofits regularly organize and broadcast these walkouts, the chances of pre-planned attacks by radical actors will likely increase. Parents have been right to question how readily some school administrators permit student street activism during the school day.  While these protests and walkouts leave children highly susceptible to physical danger, various schools allow staff to take trips to maligned nations with no regard to how international tensions put the children at risk.  For instance, roughly one hundred Tamalpais High School (California) students and staff were slated to take a nine-day trip to Havana, Cuba, in February. Previous district-approved pilgrimages to the communist nation included a visit to the Museum of the Revolution and a “Tobacco Farm Experience.”  Tacoma Public Schools’ (Washington) Lincoln High is planning a “cultural trip” to China in the summer of 2026. The high school has had a long-standing relationship with a “sister school” in China that features regular trips to the communist country. In fact, in 2024, Chinese leader Xi Jinping himself invited students to travel to the Asian country during his visit to Lincoln High.  Student trips are not the only cause for concern. The presence of foreign nationals in our school system also warrants closer scrutiny. For years, K-12 schools across the country have participated in the Confucius Classrooms program facilitated by the Chinese Ministry of Education through nonprofits. Part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the program often includes financing, books and materials, and sending Chinese nationals to teach in American schools.  More troubling still is that over 30 of the school districts participating in the Confucius program were located near military bases. This not only puts those installations at risk of surveillance or possibly worse, but it also leaves military families and personnel exposed to bad actors. These fears are not speculative. If China is willing to spy and harass its own people on American soil and on university campuses, what keeps it from doing the same to Americans?  In light of all of this, federal, state, and local leaders need to prioritize the safety and security of American K-12 students and schools. Protecting students begins with simple steps such as limiting unsupervised walkouts and ending trips to adversarial countries. Additionally, passage of the DETERRENT and TRACE acts by Congress could be a vital first step to increasing protections for educational institutions.  Complacency is no longer an option. Policymakers and school officials must closely examine the potential threats that foreign adversaries pose to American children and families through the school system. America’s future depends on it.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Foreign Adversaries and America’s Classrooms appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Taxpayers may finally get a fair deal. A recent court ruling has created another path for the U.S. Department of Education to eliminate a costly student-loan repayment plan known as Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE. Doing so would relieve taxpayers who have increasingly been asked to shoulder the cost of student debt through expansive debt-cancellation schemes.  Despite the policy’s moniker, SAVE did anything but save money for taxpayers.   SAVE, created under the Biden administration, dramatically expanded income-driven repayment in ways that shifted costs from borrowers to taxpayers. The plan halved borrowers’ monthly payment from 10% to 5% of discretionary income and raised the income threshold of borrowers who are exempt from repayment from 150% to 225% of the poverty line, shielding more earnings from repayment calculations.   In addition, despite making lower monthly payments, borrowers could also qualify for loan cancellation in as few as 10 years, rather than 20 or more (the rules of other federal loan repayment options), depending on how much they borrowed. On top of all that, the plan also waives unpaid interest.  The University of Pennsylvania Wharton School’s budget models estimated that SAVE would cost almost half a trillion dollars over 10 years. Just 22% of undergraduate borrowers enrolled in SAVE were expected to repay their loans.   Even analysts supportive of income-driven repayment plans acknowledged the problem. The left-leaning Urban Institute observed that SAVE would have transformed IDR (which are income-driven repayment plans for unpaid federal student loans), “from a safety net … into a substantial subsidy for most undergraduate students who take on debt.”  But last week, the court declined to approve a proposed settlement between the Trump administration and the state of Missouri that would have formally ended SAVE. This sounds like bad news, but there is a silver lining.  The court’s reasoning was procedural but consequential. The lawsuit had originally been filed by a coalition of Republican-led states challenging the Biden administration’s authority to implement SAVE. But after the change in administration, the federal government no longer defended the rule. Without adversity between opposing parties, the court concluded there was no longer a live case and therefore no constitutional basis to issue a final ruling.   In practical terms, that means the judiciary will not resolve the legality of SAVE. However, on Monday, the state of Missouri and several other Republican-led states filed a motion asking the court to pause the dismissal of the case while they seek an appeal. If the judge rejects the request to freeze the case, the matter could be returned to the Department of Education.   The department could then take steps to eliminate SAVE through negotiated rulemaking, also known as “neg-reg.” It is a regulatory process that the agency must follow when rewriting federal student loan regulations. Though this process takes anywhere from several months to over a year to complete, the court’s earlier decision effectively places responsibility for ending SAVE back in the department’s hands.  The even better news is that Congress has already taken steps to phase out the program. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last July, requires borrowers currently enrolled in SAVE to switch to other repayment programs by July 1, 2028.   If borrowers fail to elect into a new plan by 2028, the department will move them into the Repayment Assistance Plan, which includes elements of debt cancellation, but is stricter on repayment terms.   The department should consider all its options when it comes to ending SAVE—including undergoing negotiated rulemaking—to prevent potentially billions of dollars in additional taxpayer costs.   Accountability should be the Trump administration’s lasting impact on higher education policy. The agency should focus on the fundamental idea that borrowers are responsible for repaying the loans they willingly took out and end SAVE once and for all.   The post The Department of Education Can Still Give Taxpayers a Fair Deal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., made the following statement Wednesday announcing he will not seek reelection in 2026. Daines and President Donald Trump endorsed U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme. Serving the people of Montana in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate the past 13 years has been the greatest honor of my professional career. I’m grateful to God for allowing me to serve. But after much careful thought, I’ve decided not to seek reelection. Prior to public service, I spent 28 years in the private sector. While I found those years very rewarding, they didn’t compare to the fulfillment I found in public service. I’m energized, I’m encouraged, and I’m ready for whatever comes next. I’m also very thankful to have served alongside President Trump and my colleagues in the Senate. Together, we built a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We spearheaded Republican control of the U.S. Senate. We delivered the largest tax cut in U.S. history. We unleashed American energy dominance and secured our southern border. We also enacted the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, the most significant conservation achievement in half a century. And we forge stronger ties with critical allies around the world. An announcement? pic.twitter.com/7HCofBTUMA— Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) March 5, 2026 I’m especially indebted to my exceptional staff, who have worked tirelessly each day to serve Montanans. Thank you for creating countless raving fans through your efforts. And finally, I’m most grateful to my sweet wife, Cindy, of 39 years. For the past 13 years, Cindy has selflessly dropped me off at the airport at 5 a.m. on most Mondays for that commute back to D.C. And together, Cindy and I look forward to the next chapter, like cherishing moments with seven grandchildren, spending a bit more time in Montana, and continuing to make a difference. The post ‘Grateful to God’: Montana Senator Steps Aside After 13 Years in Congress appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When it comes to Iran, Americans’ opinions aren’t necessarily reflective of what’s happening on the battlefield—but rather their feelings about President Donald Trump. That’s according to veteran pollster Scott Rasmussen, founder of the Napolitan Institute. As the conflict intensifies in the Middle East, Rasmussen said his polling suggests that Americans’ views on Iran appear to be driven less by U.S. military action and more by their broader opinions of Trump. Trump’s Job Approval vs. Iran Strikes At a Wednesday briefing, Rasmussen said public reaction to the unfolding situation in Iran has remained stable since Saturday—and is similar to Trump’s overall job approval numbers. When voters were asked whether they approve or disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation in Iran, 42% said they approve. That figure is close to Trump’s overall job approval rating of 45% in the same polling. 42% approve of President Trump's handling of the situation in Iran, and 49% do not.40% approve of the attacks on Iran.https://t.co/IFGhT98fZ31,000 RV by @ScottWRasmussen pic.twitter.com/fHdD5wyIS7— Napolitan News Service (@NapolitanNews) March 4, 2026 The consistency in Rasmussen’s surveys indicates that opinions on Iran are tracking closely with existing political opinions of Trump—rather than shifting in response to news headlines. Only 32% of voters say they are following news about Iran “very closely,” underscoring another key finding: most Americans are not immersed in the details of military strategy or regional politics.  As Rasmussen noted, few voters consider themselves military experts, and that reality may help explain why public opinion has shown little change since Saturday’s strikes. Polling Remains Unchanged Polling conducted Saturday afternoon—immediately after news broke of U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran—found that 40% of voters favored the strikes. Days later, after extensive news coverage, that number has not changed.  Support remains at 40%, according to the Napolitan Institute’s latest survey. Opposition also moved only marginally. Initially, 46% said they opposed the attacks. That number has since moved up by just one percentage point. In other words, despite intense media focus, public sentiment has barely shifted. Expectation of Victory One area where Rasmussen did observe some movement was on expectations of success.  On Saturday, 55% of voters said they believed it was likely the mission would succeed in bringing about regime change in Iran. That number has since fallen five percentage points to 50%. Rasmussen, however, emphasized that this shift does not represent a collapse in confidence. Rather than moving from optimism to pessimism, respondents appear to have shifted into a more uncertain category—from believing success is likely to saying they are unsure what will happen next. What This Means The broader picture remains steady. Iran is not reshaping public opinion—it’s reflecting it. Ultimately, Rasmussen argued, public opinion will hinge on outcomes. If the mission produces significant change, removes what many view as a destabilizing regime, and does so with minimal American casualties and limited cost, voters are likely to judge it positively. If not, the political consequences in the midterms could be significant. Rasmussen noted that Trump has only a couple of weeks before he begins to lose support, with 55% of voters opposed to him sending U.S. troops to the ground. If something drastic happens, such as a rise in U.S. casualties, Trump’s support for Iran could lessen even quicker.  For now, however, the numbers suggest that Americans are viewing events in Iran largely through a domestic political lens—and the perception of the president himself continues to shape reactions more than developments in the headlines. The post Why the Iran Poll Numbers Aren’t Really About Iran appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Firebrand Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., claimed a House subcommittee hearing was “demonizing hard-working immigrants” by drawing attention to a tragedy caused by an illegal immigrant with a commercial driver’s license, or CDL’s for short. On Wednesday, the House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability held a hearing that examined the effects of illegal immigrants in the commercial truck driving industry. The hearing drew attention to the story of five-year old Dalilah Coleman, who was in attendance. Coleman was almost killed by an 18-wheeler driven by an illegal immigrant in California. Thanedar, the ranking member on the committee, tried to shift the focus of the hearing away from Coleman and CDLs to issues such as the military escalations with Iran and Jeffrey Epstein. “This weekend, a convicted felon with bone spurs illegally attacked Iran,” Thanedar said during his opening remarks. “This subcommittee is now holding another hearing on demonizing hard-working immigrants.”  “Republicans are also taking flights on luxury private jets, instead,” he added.  Thanedar also argued that this issue should be discussed by the committee overseeing the Department of Transportation instead. The subcommittee’s hearings on illegal immigrants obtaining CDLs follows President Donald Trump’s call during the State of the Union for Congress to push legislation that prevents illegals from obtaining commercial driver’s licenses. During his address, the president said that those who do not “speak English and cannot read even the most basic road signs as to direction, speed, danger, or location,” should not be operating commercial trucks. Chairman Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., believes these vehicles, in the wrong hands, can be turned into weapons. “I want to say how excited I am that the Trump administration is taking this issue very seriously,” Breechan added. “You can weaponize an 80,000-pound rig. There’s a heightened safety element that needs to be adhered to.”  Brecheen then opened the hearing to expert testimonies from Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety Tim Tipton, St. Lucie County, Florida, Sheriff Richard R. Del Toro, Jr., and Attorney for Public Citizen Litigation Group Wendy Liu, who have first-hand experience with illegal immigrant truck drivers. “I think it’s ridiculous to say that someone who can’t read and speak English can understand the rules of the road,” Tipton said. “When people like Dalilah are struck by an illegal immigrant operating a motor vehicle, it isn’t an accident. That is people intentionally getting in a vehicle, who don’t understand how to operate it, and are dangerous. It’s dangerous. It’s avoidable.” Tipton added that last September, the Ohio Highway Patrol and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement conducted a joint operation where, 79 commercial truck drivers were taken into custody over immigration violations. “Since then, almost 50% of OHP encounters with commercial truck operators have resulted in arrests for immigration violations,” Tipton mentioned.  Tipton also called on Congress to shut down driving schools that certify those who “can’t read english and don’t know the rules of the road.” Brecheen told The Daily Signal after the hearing that he thinks “it’s incredible that [Democrats] are fighting for illegals, and all the harm that they cause. “You got to wonder, who are they really representing?” he added. Heritage Action, who has supported Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Rep. Erin Houchin’s, R-Ind., legislative efforts to remove illegal immigrants and non-English speakers from the trucking industry, echoed the chairman’s remarks. “Every CDL that is given to an illegal alien makes our roads and highways more dangerous for Americans. I am glad that Chairman Brecheen highlighted the threats posed by this concerning practice that Congress should end immediately,” Government Relations Director of Heritage Action Daniel West told The Daily Signal. The post Thanedar Claims GOP ‘Demonizing’ Illegal Immigrants With Trucking Ban Push appeared first on The Daily Signal.