Last August, two women stalked an Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent near Los Angeles and then streamed themselves at his house, yelling to locals that their neighbor was an agent. Last month, they were convicted and face time in federal prison. Ironically, they wore masks and glasses to hide their identity, while invading the privacy of the federal agent. When does protest start to break the law—or even become terrorism?  I’ll define terrorism as using violence to achieve political aims. Most criminals are not terrorists. So, who is? Let’s start with some easy ones. The Irish Republican Army, Italy’s Red Brigades, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization all murdered and bombed military and civilian targets in pursuit of political goals. At the risk of over-simplifying, these were: ending British rule, establishing a Marxist-Leninist state, and creating a Palestinian state, respectively. The goals of 1960s radical youth groups such as the Weather Underground in the U.S. and the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany were more vague; the overthrow of what they saw as the capitalist, imperialist, fascist countries they lived in; maybe world revolution. But still, terrorism. Today, the Left intentionally makes things appear fuzzier. The 2020 demonstrations, looting, and violence in the wake of the death of George Floyd were not terrorism. We saw plenty of violence, and it was clearly political, but there was not a unified, clearly articulated goal. There was no list of things which the government of Portland, or Minneapolis, or even the federal government could have conceded that would have ended the whole thing and sent everyone home. It was inchoate rage against a vague, “oppressive” system with no specific or achievable policy proposals.   Now let’s look at the recent organized demonstrations against immigration enforcement. In much of the country, ICE is going about its business of enforcing federal law. They are arresting aliens with no right to be here, many of whom have serious criminal charges or convictions. The most crucial assistance ICE needs is for local jurisdictions to honor their “detainers.” This means handing over criminal suspects or convicts, once their criminal process is complete, to ICE for immigration process. In some major jurisdictions that refuse to do this, we see street violence: Los Angeles, Portland, and most of all Minneapolis. There, a dangerous combination of dilatory politicians and trained obstructionists has resulted in two deaths and much injury. In Minneapolis, agitators have been well funded, organized, and trained  to move beyond mere speech and into highly coordinated obstruction to impede immigration enforcement. Holding up signs and speaking is not violence. However, activists have gone way beyond that. They get in the physical space of agents, block operations, set up illegal road blocks, harass officials and private citizens, throw dangerous objects, and intimidate agents through releasing their personal information. Though they demand federal agents be unmasked to reveal their identities, the obstructionists themselves are often fully concealed—like the LA ladies. Much of the conduct we have seen in Minneapolis is not “free speech” protected by the First Amendment. The protesters are not attempting to change anyone’s mind through discourse when they bang on pots at 3 in the morning. They are trying to change policy through physical means. Unfortunately, instead of clamping down on violent and illegal conduct and drawing a clear line as to what is acceptable, local politicians have vilified federal agents and encouraged dangerous activity by civilians. Activists follow ICE agents in their vehicles claiming to be “legal observers,” but they also cross into deliberate obstruction, which puts them at risk. It’s also a felony under federal law: anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” a federal agent can be charged and sentenced to up to 8 years—20 if they hurt an officer. What about real or self-appointed journalists? On January 18, a group of people including ex-CNN personality Don Lemon entered a Minneapolis church, uninvited, during a service. At an agreed point, they broke into protests chants. They reportedly impeded church members from worshipping, moving freely, or exiting the building. Protest leaders berated the pastor and some church members. They did not leave after being clearly told they were not welcome. The agitators were not there to worship, or to debate parishioners on agreed terms. The point was to intimidate, shame, or bully church attendees into agreeing with the protesters’ position. Churches are private property. Yes, many churches welcome strangers, to join them in worship and perhaps join their communities. Other religions follow similar traditions—if you observe their rules, you are welcome to enter their religious sites. But that welcome can be revoked. No one’s right to speak freely trumps another person’s right to private property or to worship God. If it did, then any person could enter another’s house, office, or property and stage a protest without limits. That would be absurd—and dangerous. Though he was obnoxious and unwelcome, Lemon was not violent. He is potentially liable for trespass, which is a local offence. But in woke Minneapolis, the likelihood of prosecutors charging him for that is very low. That’s a bad sign for the Republic. Prosecutors should not choose whom to prosecute based on their own politics, yet increasingly they do. Judges should rule based on the law and how it applies to given facts, not legislate from the bench. Yet, increasingly they do the latter. The Minneapolis church invaders are potentially liable for federal crimes under the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and even the Ku Klux Klan Act. The Department of Justice seems intent on prosecuting them and they should. The right of people to be secure in their homes and private spaces is one both political parties must support. A federal court will decide if Lemon and others broke the law by attempting to coerce political action through force. While the punishment need not be severe if this is their first offence, we need to lay down a national marker at the limits of acceptable behavior when we disagree with others politically. We cannot allow individuals to force others to accept their views. This is not China—or Iran. The post When Does Protest Become Crime—Or Terrorism? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Why do South Carolina lawmakers want to make it more difficult for families to educate their children? Lawmakers are misinterpreting the very law they approved just last year that creates more learning opportunities, and now the state is on the brink of becoming one of the least family-friendly locales in the southeast. Fortunately, other state officials are pushing back. State Rep. Neal Collins (R-5), who was endorsed by the state teachers’ union, misidentifies South Carolina’s Education Scholarship Trust Fund as a “voucher” program and told local media that the ESTF does not expand education choices in the state. Still other lawmakers are trying to remove students who are customizing their learning experience while using the scholarships. In fact, state lawmakers overcame union opposition to support parents and create the scholarships—twice, actually, recreating the scholarship trust fund in 2025 after a state supreme court ruling forced nearly 1,000 children to leave the program a year earlier. Surveys of South Carolinians find strong support for scholarships like the Trust Fund, with 75 percent of parents of K-12 students in favor. Charitable donations and work by the Palmetto Promise Institute allowed students to remain at the schools they chose until lawmakers updated and approved the options in 2025. Now, however, Collins and other lawmakers are saying families should have fewer choices under the law. The scholarships are not vouchers but are similar to education savings accounts. With a voucher, the state provides parents with funds to pay private school tuition costs. With education savings accounts, as adopted by South Carolina’s regional neighbors in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina and more than a dozen other states around the country, state officials deposit a portion of a child’s spending from the education formula into a private account that parents use to buy education products and services. Families can pay for personal tutors, online classes, private school tuition, and more, and even save money from year to year to prepare for high school tuition or college expenses. Parents are therefore empowered to customize their children’s learning experiences. Advocates in South Carolina have called this an “unbundling” process. In this way, families can meet the unique needs of their students. Yet some legislators are balking at this feature of the scholarships despite having supported the language last year. State superintendent Ellen Weaver has defended the scholarship trust fund, and her office’s general council even gave lawmakers a memo explaining that the provisions in the law “clearly contemplates and authorizes students to ‘unbundle.’” Parent demand for education savings accounts is surging around the country. In Texas, state officials have received 118,000 applications for education savings accounts this year. In Tennessee, the Tennessee Department has received more than 56,000 applications. Alabama officials received some 36,900 applications. Across 17 states, every child can apply for an education savings account, no matter color or creed or zip code or their family’s tax bracket. Students participating in South Carolina’s Trust Fund received $7,500 in the 2025-2026 school year. Meanwhile, taxpayer spending on students in traditional public schools provides more than $14,500 per child—almost double the amount in each scholarship account. Taxpayers should ask legislators why they are suddenly allergic to cost savings (and education opportunities). Education choice is changing lives. From single parents trying to keep their children from dropping out of school to parents of children with disabilities trying to find specific services for their student to families simply trying to help their children learn to read, education savings accounts are a lifeline to parents and students across the country. The accounts have also inspired education entrepreneurs who are creating new schools to meet a wide variety of student needs. In Florida, a husband-wife team created a hybrid school in Sarasota where students spend part of their week in school with a focus on outdoor activities and part at home. South Carolina’s Trust Fund would allow for the same innovations, along with offering students access to college preparatory private schools, virtual schools, and more. Palmetto state officials should be looking for ways to expand every student’s education horizon, not limit them. The school year is nearly finished, and parents and their children should not have to wonder if the same learning options will be open to them next year. The post Why Are South Carolina Lawmakers Allergic to Educational Opportunity? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is leading America’s military in another conflict with an oil-rich Middle Eastern state, but told The Daily Signal this is different from the wars of the past and will not distract from other priorities. “The dumb, politically correct wars of the past were the opposite of what we’re doing here,” Hegseth told reporters at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, on Thursday. “They had vague objectives, with restrictive, minimalist rules of engagement. No more,” he said. Hegseth travelled to Florida on Thursday to visit military command centers, as he made the case that America is capable of killing its enemies in both hemispheres while maintaining strategic focus. First, he explained President Donald Trump’s updated “Monroe Doctrine” to defense officials from across the Western Hemisphere at a conference at U.S. Southern Command in Doral. Later, he met with Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, to receive an update on Operation Epic Fury in Iran. Is the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ Still in Effect? In Doral, Hegseth told his counterparts from countries such as the Bahamas, Argentina and El Salvador that the Trump administration has revived the Monroe Doctrine, which demands U.S. influence over the Western Hemisphere. Hegseth echoed arguments from the 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the 2026 National Security Strategy (NSS), documents that said the administration would not sacrifice priorities in its own hemisphere in favor of wars on other continents. Hegseth delivered these arguments in Doral once again, but now amid a conflict with Iran. “Under previous leaders, we grew obsessed with every other theater and every other border in the world except our own,” Hegseth told the generals and defense ministers in Doral. “These elites reduced our power and presence in this hemisphere, opting for a benign neglect that was anything but benign.” The National Security Strategy, published in Dec. 2025, called for a “‘Trump corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine,” and declared “the days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy… are thankfully over.” The National Defense Strategy, published in Jan. 2026, accused previous leaders of having neglected the Western Hemisphere by “fighting war after rudderless war to topple regimes and nation-build halfway around the world.” .@SecWar, @StephenM, General Francis Donovan join Latin American defense officials at anti-cartel conference here at U.S. Southern Command pic.twitter.com/yxFaZRBc1j— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) March 5, 2026 Hegseth told The Daily Signal in Tampa that, amid the current conflict with Iran, the U.S. military is capable of defense in both hemispheres. “We’re laser-focused on our hemisphere and our homeland. That’s why we locked down the border. That’s why we’re working with partners to take on cartels. That’s why we’re sinking drug boats. That’s why we’re on the offense there,” Hegseth told The Daily Signal.  PETE HEGETH: Trump’s Having a ‘Heck of a Say’ in Who’s Leading Iran“The president said earlier today in an interview that he would like to have a say in who's the next leader of Iran. Is this an expansion of your military objective? And, additionally, you spoke earlier today… pic.twitter.com/soOWoyWDd8— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) March 5, 2026 He argued the American military is capable of dividing the labor and maintaining power all around the world. Hegseth told The Daily Signal that “the beautiful thing about combatant commands is that Brad Cooper is laser-focused on Central Command, just like [General] Frank Donovan is laser-focused on Southern Command. We can do both. That’s what a global power can do.” Is Epic Fury Another ‘Forever War?’ Multiple administration officials have publicly said the current conflict with Iran will not drag on for years, and Hegseth himself insisted from the beginning that Operation Epic Fury is “not Iraq” and “not endless.” However, on Thursday, Trump told Axios he has to “to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader, since another hardliner in power would force the United States to strike again “in five years.” Trump told the outlet the next Iranian leader must be someone “that will bring harmony and peace to Iran.” His remarks raise the question of whether the administration’s goals in Iran are expanding, and if that will force the operation to go on for longer than initially indicated. ?? Iranian Drone Carrier Is on FireAdmiral Cooper announced that the U.S. military has destroyed more than 30 ships of the Iranian navy, including a drone carrier. pic.twitter.com/LF9OAtBtRD— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) March 5, 2026 Hegseth told The Daily Signal that the operation is not expanding upon its original goals. “Ultimately, I think the president is having a heck of a say in who runs Iran, given the ongoing operation we have,” he said. “So there’s no expansion in our objectives. We know exactly what we’re trying to achieve.” The next day, Trump posted on social media that “there will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” and that the United States will “work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.” After meeting with Admiral Brad Cooper at @CENTCOM, @SecWar says goodbye to the troops and leaves Tampa pic.twitter.com/2VVLquR7JG— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) March 5, 2026 In Tampa on Thursday, Hegseth told The Daily Signal “these missions are narrow, they’re scoped, and Admiral Cooper is well on his way to ensuring that we reach those objectives.” The post Hegseth: Iran Is Not a ‘Dumb, Politically Correct’ Forever War appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Two dozen states are suing to stop President Donald Trump’s new legal justification for tariffs, two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that Trump could not use an emergency law to impose the tariffs.  The mostly Democrat-led states are suing in the U.S. Court of International Trade, and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield is the lead plaintiff. Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection are named as defendants in the lawsuit. “The focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” Rayfield said in a public statement. “People are already making hard choices about what to put in their shopping cart. Prices on basics like groceries, clothing and other essentials have all been skyrocketing. At some point, the bills become unmanageable.” Trump initially imposed the tariffs, which he said were reciprocal, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The high court, in a 6-3 ruling, determined he couldn’t use the 1977 law to impose tariffs without congressional authorization.  The Trump administration on Friday responded to a court order to refund tariffs that it had illegally imposed under the emergency act. While saying it could not issue immediate refunds, CBP said it was preparing a system within 45 days by which to process refunds, Reuters reported. The states’ lawsuit, however, focuses on the administration’s new legal method of imposing tariffs. After the ruling, Trump turned to a separate law, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose 10% tariff for 150 days. That maintained most of the tariffs in place before the court ruling, to address trade deficits. In their lawsuit, the states argue Section 122 is meant to address “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,” and not trade deficits. A trade deficit is a measure of a country purchasing more goods and services from abroad than it sells. A balance-of-payments deficit includes trade but also accounts for all the money flowing back into the country through foreign investments and capital. During his State of the Union address, Trump talked about the “unfortunate ruling” from the Supreme Court against the tariffs.  “The good news is that almost all countries and corporations want to keep the deal that they already made … knowing that the legal power that I, as president, have to make a new deal could be far worse for them, and, therefore, they will continue to work along the same successful path that we had negotiated before the Supreme Court’s unfortunate involvement,” Trump said.  Trump said the tariffs would continue under “tested alternative legal statutes.” “They’re a little more complex, but they’re actually probably better — leading to a solution that will be even stronger than before,” Trump said. “Congressional action will not be necessary. It’s already time-tested and approved.” The high court ruling only pertained to the use of the international emergency law to justify tariffs. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh mentioned other laws that a president could use to temporarily impose tariffs through executive action. Plaintiffs joining Rayfield include states led by two expected Democratic presidential hopefuls, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. Both states have Republican attorneys general. “The Supreme Court ruled his tariffs aren’t legal and he doesn’t have the authority to impose them. Now he’s trying to do a workaround to push his own agenda – we suggest he stop, and we’re fighting back,” Beshear said in a public statement. The rest of the plaintiffs are Democrat state attorneys general from Arizona, California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In a separate case, CBP filed a motion Friday with the U.S. Court for International Trade saying it was unable to comply with an order directing it to refund tariffs. However, the agency then appeared to reverse course, telling the court it is preparing a system to process refunds, Reuters reported. That matter involves the refund of $166 billion in tariff payments to around 330,000 importers, Reuters reported. The post How Blue States Are Trying to Shut Down Trump’s Tariff Workaround appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL — In exclusive comments to The Daily Signal, a Republican congresswoman claimed she has been targeted by the House Committee on Ethics. This after she deposed former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over their ties to deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. “It [the committee’s announcement] came out an hour after my deposition of the Clintons,” Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., told The Daily Signal. “When you look at that, it’s like, this is probably retaliation for Epstein, let’s be honest.” Done deposing the Clintons. pic.twitter.com/Bmxjl1bWWX— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) February 28, 2026 Mace said her deposition on the Clintons was not the only effort she made to uncover the truth about Epstein’s associates that she’s made. Mace also said she will not be intimidated and vowed to “triple down” on her efforts. “I’ve been, probably, outside of [Rep.] Thomas Massie, the most vocal republican on the Epstein files,” Mace added. “So I say, bring it on, baby. Like I just like, bring it on. I don’t care. And if they’re going to continue to harass me and do this, and I’m going to triple down on every other move that I have.” Massie did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. On Wednesday, Mace filed a motion in the House Oversight Committee to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi for a Congressional hearing over the Epstein scandal. So far, zero arrests or investigations have been made by the Department of Justice, despite the widespread scrutiny of prominent public figures like Larry Summers and political donors like Bill Gates who have admitted to having been involved with Epstein. Later that same day, 375 House lawmakers voted against Mace’s proposal to make all congressional sexual misconduct and harassment reports public. Mace did not rule out her effort against congressional sexual harassment as another reason for “retribution” from the Ethics Committee. On Tuesday, she also moved to subpoena Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to testify in front of the committee over his ties to Epstein. In a photo released by the Epstein files, Lutnick was seen behind Epstein on the sex-trafficker’s private island. In a report, the Office of Congressional Conduct wrote that there is “substantial reason to believe” that Mace had “engaged in improper reimbursement practices.” The office recommended that the committee further review the allegations on Mace’s requests for reimbursement, which had exceeded the total of her District of Columbia property expenses, $9,485.46, during several months in 2023 and 2024. “The Committee notes that the mere fact of conducting further review of a referral, and any mandatory disclosure of such further review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee,” the statement reads. The post EXCLUSIVE: Nancy Mace Claims Ethics Investigation is ‘Retribution’ for Clinton-Epstein Deposition appeared first on The Daily Signal.