The U.S. is working alongside Canada and Finland to build more special ships capable of operating in the Arctic—a critical region that has drawn increased attention from Russia and China.   “The Trump administration is taking a monumental step forward to protect the Arctic against our enemies,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Tuesday at the signing of a “Joint Statement of Intent” alongside officials from Canada and Finland.   “The Arctic is the world’s last, most wild frontier, and our adversaries are racing to claim a strategic position, and its rich natural resources, for their own,” Noem said. “If we give up that high ground, then we will condemn future generations to permanent insecurity, and we’re not going to let that happen on our watch.”   The agreement signed Tuesday affirms a commitment from the U.S., Canada, and Finland to work together to increase cooperation in the region through the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort Pact, which the three nations signed in November 2024.   Through the agreement, the three nations are sharing information, technology, and working together to develop the means and necessary tools to operate in the region. Now, the Trump administration is reaffirming and strengthening that agreement.  In 2026, the U.S., Finland, and Canada will pursue industrial cooperation and workforce development as the nations build more icebreaker ships to navigate Arctic waters.   Currently, the U.S. only has a handful of operational ships that are capable of cutting through the Arctic’s icy waters, and the U.S. and NATO only have a combined 47 total icebreakers and ice-capable patrol vessels, compared to Russia’s 57 vessels, according to a recent Heritage Foundation report.   “To thrive in the Arctic, we need icebreakers. But if we’re going to get those icebreakers that we need, we need to secure our supply chains, and we need to invest in bringing our manufacturing back home to our American shores,” Noem said.   The Arctic holds vast resources, including oil and natural gas. The shortest trade route between Northern Europe and the Asia-Pacific runs through the Arctic Ocean, making safe access to the region an important economic advantage.   “Russia has intentionally sought to counter NATO’s growing involvement in the Arctic,” according to The Heritage Foundation, raising concerns that Russia may seek to block NATO countries‘ access to trade routes through the region. China is also seeking to operate in Arctic waters and is pursuing a shipping route from China to Europe.   The ICE Pact is “not just a symbolic agreement, it’s one that is delivering tangible results for all of our countries. It’s powering our economies. It’s strengthening our collective Arctic defense, and it’s bringing us one step closer to rebuilding our icebreaker fleets,” Noem said.   In October, President Donald Trump signed an agreement to build 11 new icebreakers. The first four will be built in Finland and up to seven more will then be constructed in U.S. shipyards.   “This partnership with [other] countries is extremely strategic and efficient in the fact that there will be continued construction while they train our workforce and build shipyards here in the United States to repurpose our shipbuilding activity and industry back in the United States,” Noem said.   The post US Working With 2 Key Allies to Combat Russia Threat in Arctic  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Following the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, which saw food stamp programs nearly lose their funding, President Donald Trump and his administration are moving to eliminate fraud and abuse in the program. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced last week that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be requiring Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries to reapply for the program after her department found thousands of instances of fraud and abuse. Upon taking office, Rollins sent letters to state governments requesting data on the administration of SNAP benefits. While only 29 states responded, she found ample evidence of fraud and abuse. “We know there’s a lot of fraud; we need to help partner with you all to figure out how to make sure that this money and these benefits go to those who truly need it and not rife with fraud and corruption,” Rollins said of her outreach to the states. Based on information she received, Rollins reported that over 185,000 dead people were registered to receive and were receiving SNAP benefits, and over 500,000 people were receiving benefits twice under the same name. “Here’s the really stunning thing: This is just data from those 29 mostly-red states,” she noted. “Can you imagine when we get our hands on the blue-state data, what we’re going to find?” In one case, Rollins said, someone had used the same Social Security number (SSN) to register for electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards in six different states. “These are the things that we’re uncovering that, for years, no one has really ever dug into because the feds didn’t have the system in place to do it. But we do now,” Rollins asserted. “The president has made this a priority. We will fix this program,” she added. The secretary further pledged that the USDA will “fundamentally rebuild this program, have everyone reapply for their benefit, make sure that everyone who’s taking a taxpayer-funded benefit through SNAP or food stamps that they literally are vulnerable, and they can’t survive without it. That’s the next step here.” Rollins pointed out in a separate interview that the Democrats’ government shutdown ended up highlighting the fraud and abuse in SNAP on a national scale. “I do think what the Democrats did not include in their calculation, in their insane government shutdown, was the fact that this spotlight was going to [shine] upon one of their favorite government welfare programs that, under Joe Biden, increased 40%,” the secretary said. “All of this money that the federal government, the taxpayers are paying for food stamps, we don’t even know where it goes, what happens, what they’re doing with it.” The USDA chief shared that approximately 80% of those receiving SNAP benefits are “able-bodied Americans” eligible to work. “They don’t have small children at home, they’re not taking care of an elderly parent, they can work and they choose not to work, of course, because they’re getting significant benefits from the taxpayer,” she emphasized. “So this … is perhaps one of the most corrupt, dysfunctional programs in American history that—we are working now… We are cracking down. We now have a plan to fix it.” In comments to The Washington Stand, Rachel Sheffield, a research fellow in Welfare and Family Policy at The Heritage Foundation’s Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Human Flourishing, explained, “It’s hard to estimate the extent of SNAP fraud because much of it is not measured.” She continued, “USDA data shows about $9 billion in SNAP overpayment errors for 2024. USDA estimates that SNAP loses another $1 billion each year due to benefit trafficking. And roughly 13% of all stores that participate in SNAP engage in trafficking.” “Fraud occurs in different ways,” Sheffield observed. “Individuals commit SNAP fraud by: providing false information on their SNAP applications to increase their benefit amount (e.g., claiming they have lower income and/or higher costs than they actually do or claiming more people live in the household than actually do), stealing another person’s identity to claim benefits, selling SNAP benefits for cash or other goods, or running up a balance on their SNAP card and then reporting the card stolen so they can receive more benefits.” “Retailers also engage in fraud by misrepresenting themselves as a qualified grocer when they in fact do not meet the criteria,” Sheffield continued. “Retailers sometimes do this to engage in benefit trafficking. This can occur when a SNAP beneficiary allows a retailer to charge money to their SNAP card, let’s say $50, in exchange for cash of a less[er] amount, let’s say $30. The retailer profits from this transaction even though there is no exchange of food.” “There are several options to deal with fraud in SNAP,” Sheffield posited. One such method would require states to fund a portion of SNAP benefits. “As it stands, the federal government funds nearly the entirety of SNAP, so states have no skin in the game when it comes to detecting and preventing SNAP fraud. The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ made a step forward on this policy by requiring states to pay a portion of funding based on their payment error rates,” Sheffield noted. “States could be required to match the amount of SNAP funding they receive from the federal government,” she added. The Heritage Foundation scholar also suggested “strengthening eligibility verification for SNAP applicants by using secondary sources of data to verify income. Some states use self-attestation to verify an applicant’s income, household size, expenses, and so forth. States could be required to use other data sources for verification and only rely on self-attestation when other data are not available.” Originally published by The Washington Stand The post USDA to Require SNAP Recipients to Reapply in Move to Halt Fraud and Abuse appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As delegates at the 2025 United Nations Climate Conference in Brazil enter their final week of negotiations, the global climate regime finds itself at a crossroads: Growing rifts between developed and developing nations are colliding with a visible decline in U.S. engagement.   At the heart of discussions are ongoing conversations about regulating greenhouse gas emissions to avert climate change. One number that has long kept these policies alive is the “social cost of carbon,” or SCC. Defined as the economic damage associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across 300 years, the SCC undergirded energy regulatory policy during both the Obama and Biden administrations. But any calculation is only as reliable as its underlying assumptions. At The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, we examined both the Obama and Biden administrations’ SCC estimates based on their key assumptions. What we found? Minor, reasonable adjustments led to drastically different SCC values—meaning these estimates can be easily manipulated, as both administrations had done for years. Read Heritage Foundation Analysis about the Obama Administration’s SCC Modeling Read Additional Heritage Foundation Analysis about the Obama Administration’s SCC Modeling The deregulatory actions launched by @epaleezeldin and @EPA are amongst the best in modern times. They should indeed overhaul the social cost of carbon – For years at Heritage we have advocated the danger of using these models in policy. @Heritage pic.twitter.com/p3PCi9TUIT— Kevin D. Dayaratna, Ph.D. (@kdd0211) March 14, 2025 Cutting CO2 emissions is essentially an investment decision, one option among many competing uses of limited resources that could improve future well-being. To judge whether emission cuts are worthwhile, policymakers should compare their expected returns to the returns from alternative investments—a comparison made possible only through proper discounting. Using an unrealistically low discount rate artificially inflates the value of climate benefits and risks diverting resources away from higher-value investments that would leave future generations better off.   The Obama administration intentionally ignored advice from the Office of Management and Budget that required a 7% discount rate to be used in its cost-benefit analysis when determining the SCC. If this intentionally ignored discount rate had been used, the estimated social cost of carbon could decrease by 70% or more, according to Heritage estimates. Another key assumption in these calculations is the number of years of projected benefits. As noted earlier, the social cost of carbon calculations sum damages over a 300-year time horizon. When George Washington took office, he couldn’t have imagined modern GPS, smartphones, or artificial intelligence. Likewise, we have no way of predicting what society will look like even 50 years from now, let alone 300. But economists relying on these calculations make such projections to skew the cost-benefit analysis towards greater benefits. Upon re-estimating the benefits of the social cost of carbon using a 150-year time horizon, which is still too long, we found that benefits decline by as much as 20%. Indeed, the largest purported damages due to climate change reported by these models occur even further into the future, consequently ratcheting up the SCC reported by lawmakers. A third critical assumption in these models is climate sensitivity, i.e., how much the Earth’s temperature will rise in response to carbon dioxide emissions. Most agree that some warming will occur but disagree about the extent of that warming. When different warming scenarios are adjusted to align with observation-based evidence, estimates of the social cost of carbon drop by as much as 70%. That’s just according to our study of Obama-era models. The Biden administration brought additional SCC models into the picture as an attempt to ratchet up the numbers even further. We examined those models as well, and the story was nothing but the same. Read Heritage Foundation Analysis about the Biden Administration’s SCC Modeling Read Additional Heritage Foundation Analysis about the Biden Administration’s SCC Modeling Our critical analysis of the models was also published in peer-reviewed academic and industry journals and submitted in testimony before congressional committees. Read Heritage Foundation Peer-Reviewed Research on the SCC Read Additional Heritage Peer-Reviewed Research on the SCC Read Kevin Dayaratna’s Congressional Testimony on the SCC Yet another critical assumption is agricultural productivity. Although viewed by some as a pollutant, carbon dioxide is a fundamental component of photosynthesis and agricultural yield. As a result, under reasonable assumptions about agricultural productivity, the social cost of carbon can even go negative, meaning carbon dioxide emissions could yield net benefits such as longer growing seasons and increased agricultural productivity. Both the Obama and Biden administrations’ analyses acknowledged the possibility of benefit from carbon dioxide, but their reports conveniently omitted any detailed discussion of it. At its core, the regulatory regime built around the social cost of carbon restricts Americans’ access to affordable, reliable energy. President Donald Trump recognized this problem immediately and, on his first day in office, issued the executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which directed federal agencies to fully tap America’s vast energy resources and charged Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin with re-examining the SCC. Several months later, Zeldin, in consultation with Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, instructed agencies to use the SCC only when their governing statute explicitly requires doing so, and to otherwise minimize or eliminate its use. Zeldin’s guidance is an important step toward restoring regulatory discipline and preventing agencies from imposing costly, unjustified climate assumptions on the economy. Nevertheless, state and foreign policymakers may still try to lean on the social cost of carbon. They shouldn’t. The SCC’s defenders use seemingly complex and sophisticated models as cover to push their preferred energy agenda—hoping no one looks closely enough to see how flimsy the underlying assumptions really are. Although the SCC is based on an interesting class of statistical models, the assumptions used to generate it can be manipulated to give lawmakers virtually any estimate of the social cost of carbon, thereby predicting essentially anything, ranging from little warming and continued prosperity to catastrophic warming and immense disaster.  Statistical models can indeed shape public policy. But their authority is predicated entirely on the assumptions on which they are based. When those assumptions are stretched, selectively chosen, or hidden, the entire structure becomes a house of cards—appearing solid until the slightest scrutiny makes it collapse. The SCC is precisely such a construction: a sophisticated mirage built on malleable inputs that can be tuned to justify almost any outcome, including inflated claims of future harm. Policymakers who rely on it aren’t relying on science; they’re relying on a model whose outputs can be engineered to block access to the affordable, reliable energy Americans depend on. In the case of the SCC, what looks like rigor is really just a carefully crafted illusion. The post The Social Cost of Carbon: Legitimate Cost-Benefit Analysis or a Statistical Mirage? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced that the agency’s sunset is in view, releasing detailed plans to collaborate with other federal agencies. Instead of “throwing federal education programs into chaos,” as critics of efforts to downsize the federal bureaucracy have claimed, federal officials spelled out a roadmap for offering services to children from low-income areas and on tribal lands while ultimately downsizing the department. During the recent government shutdown, families using education savings accounts, public charter schools, and even traditional public schools did not need the U.S. Department of Education. Students attended class in assigned schools, and parents in states such as Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and more than two dozen others still had access to a variety of public and private education options. Now, the education agency is partnering with other departments to shrink the federal footprint, consistent with The Heritage Foundation’s recommendations and a White House Executive Order. Research has found time and again that the Education Department has created additional administrative work for state departments of education and local school districts, and no amount of additional federal taxpayer spending has helped students learn to read or reach proficiency in math. Rather, the federal education bureaucracy has pushed additional paperwork on state departments of education and even local districts, to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in terms of manhours each year. Earlier this year, Education Department officials entered into an inter-agency agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor to coordinate adult education programs and other workforce-related education initiatives. Now, the Education Department has launched additional agreements with the Labor Department, State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and Interior Department to manage federal education responsibilities. Crucially, the largest federal K-12 program, Title I of federal education law, will continue in partnership with the Labor Department. This agreement allows the agencies to align federal job training programs with federal programs for children in low-income areas. And the partnership is evidence that federal policymakers are paying attention to these students’ needs even as the agency downsizes. The Education Department also has plans for another persistently low-performing student group—children living on tribal lands. Native American students, including American Indian and Alaska Native students, score well below their peers on reliable comparisons of core subjects. The agency is partnering with the Department of the Interior for Office of Indian Education programs, as well as Career and Technical Education programs. The Education Department’s announcement noted that this inter-agency agreement will result in tribal authorities only having to talk with representatives from department—Interior—for education services. Currently, the Interior Department manages Bureau of Indian Education programs, while Education manages the Office of Indian Education. The new agreement between Education and Interior streamlines the activities. But federal lawmakers should take additional steps and create private learning options for these children as the agencies coordinate existing work. Education officials are simplifying still more federal operations by moving certain college grant and fellowship programs to the U.S. Department of State. The State Department already maintains the Fulbright Scholarship program, and the new agreement will help manage the Fulbright-Hays grant for foreign education. Considering the evidence that countries of concern, such as China and others, are using foreign exchange programs to conduct espionage through universities in the U.S., higher education policy has distinct national security elements. State Department officials should work with elected officials to protect Americans when foreign scholarship programs become a liability to national security. The White House has appropriately drawn attention to some of these grant programs already. The Education Department announcement included still more agreements with Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. Taken together, the news should encourage state policymakers and local educators who have watched federal services balloon over the department’s 45-year history. These agreements answer the claims from teacher unions and other special interest groups that the White House and Education Department are taking a “wrecking ball” to public schools. The only “system” in need of a shakeup is the federal bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that has resulted in more paperwork, not student success. The post Education Department Silences the Critics appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Epstein files are one step closer to being released after the House of Representatives voted to pass legislation releasing them to the public on Tuesday. The House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by a vote of 427 to 1. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., did not support the measure. “I have been a principled ‘NO’ on this bill from the beginning. What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America. As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people – witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc,” Higgins posted on X Tuesday. “If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt,” he added. [Emphasis in original.] I have been a principled “NO” on this bill from the beginning. What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America. As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people – witnesses,…— Rep. Clay Higgins (@RepClayHiggins) November 18, 2025 Five members did not participate in the vote. There are currently two vacancies in the House. “Today’s vote to finally force the release of the Epstein files is a major victory for the survivors who’ve waited decades for the truth,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X. Today’s vote to finally force the release of the Epstein files is a major victory for the survivors who’ve waited decades for the truth.I stood with them this morning, the survivors who told the FBI, told law enforcement, begged for help, and were ignored.This vote should’ve… pic.twitter.com/kcTo5EH0dv— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene?? (@RepMTG) November 18, 2025 Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., also posted on X, writing, “We must deliver justice for the victims.” I just spoke on the floor before the imminent House vote on the release of the Epstein files. We must deliver justice for the victims. pic.twitter.com/sEMwVaFO83— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 18, 2025 The bill as currently written would require Attorney General Pam Bondi to release to the public “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorneys’ Offices” related to the notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. The bill allows for the withholding of information under a few circumstances such as the privacy of victims and national security concerns. The legislation now heads to the Senate. President Donald Trump has said he would sign the bill if it made it to his desk and had encouraged House Republicans to support the legislation last Sunday in a social media post. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., has said that he has discussed some modifications to the legislation in the upper chamber with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. “I’m very confident that when this moves forward in the process, if and when it is processed in the Senate, which is no certainty that it will be, that they will take the time methodically to do what we have not been allowed to do in the House,” Johnson told the press on Tuesday.  At a Tuesday press conference, the speaker had expressed concerns that the legislation as written could violate the privacy of innocent people, undermine national security, and reveal the identities of some of Epstein’s victims against their wishes. This is a breaking news article and it may be updated. The post BREAKING: How House Members Voted on Epstein Files Release appeared first on The Daily Signal.