Two mothers who lost their sons and another whose daughter remains permanently injured will testify before Congress on Thursday about how these tragedies—each involving illegal aliens—could have been prevented through stricter enforcement of immigration law. This forum could be uncomfortable for House Democrats who oppose enforcing immigration laws, said Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, which is holding the hearing. “People keep arguing the legal loopholes and technicalities. I want members of this committee who don’t believe in enforcement to look these mothers in the eyes,” Van Drew told The Daily Signal. “We are not going to have lawyers, not analysts, but real people.” Van Drew said illegal immigrants charged or convicted of serious crimes should be returned to their country of origin. Instead, many blue cities and states refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “I hope that those colleagues on the other side of the aisle who don’t believe in detention or deportation of criminal illegal aliens—people who have been indicted or convicted of major crimes like drug distribution or rape—will see the toll of sanctuary policies,” Van Drew said. Van Drew pointed to Minnesota and California as states with some of the worst sanctuary policies. He also included his own state of New Jersey, which bars state and local law enforcement from assisting ICE. Jen Heiling—the mother of Brady Heiling, who was killed last July at age 19—is set to testify to the panel. Last July in Wisconsin, an illegal alien from Honduras was charged with two felony counts—vehicular homicide and impaired driving—after she allegedly struck a vehicle, killing 18-year-old Hallie Helgeson and severely injuring Heiling, who died from his injuries days later, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Also scheduled to testify is Patricia Fox, the mother of Carissa Aspnes, who was severely brain-damaged at age 22 in March 2025. Aspnes was riding on the back of a friend’s motorcycle, wearing a helmet and protective gear, when a car driven by an illegal alien from Venezuela crossed multiple lanes and struck the motorcycle, causing her brain damage, CBS News reported. The driver pleaded guilty and was deported last month. Also scheduled to testify to the House panel is Laura Wilkerson, the mother of Joshua Wilkerson, who was tortured and murdered in 2010 by an illegal alien who overstayed his visa for eight years. Wilkerson, 18, was from Pearland, Texas, and was killed by a 19-year-old illegal immigrant from Belize, who admitted to beating him to death, according to the Houston Chronicle. Van Drew said he is hopeful the hearing will help change the focus from the plight of illegal aliens to the victims of crime. Most members of Congress won’t experience the pain of losing a child, Van Drew said. But he said needless deaths are occurring because illegal aliens have often been arrested and released. “We only have three witnesses. We could have 30, or 300, or 3,000,” Van Drew said. “I don’t look forward to this hearing. Sometimes members of Congress, or others, will tell parents who lost a child, ‘I know how you feel.’ No, you don’t. I pray to God you never do.” He noted continuous news coverage of ICE, particularly after two fatal shootings in Minnesota earlier this year, as an example of excessive criticism of the agency. “Cut it out and stop it,” he said of the anti-ICE criticism. “I want body cams for ICE agents—I’m good with that. But they should keep their masks because they and their families are being targeted. They should have a badge ID. There should be more training for how to handle sensitive areas like churches. But the basic fact is they are catching criminals. How can you say we don’t need that?” Deadly confrontations have occurred in sanctuary jurisdictions, Van Drew noted. “Shootings are happening in blue cities and blue states that won’t allow their local law enforcement to work with ICE,” he said. “Nobody was killed in red states. ICE is not trained in crowd control.” The post ‘Look These Mothers in the Eyes’: Families of Victims Killed by Illegal Aliens to Testify Before Congress appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A handful of Democrats are still vying for California’s top office, leaving many to wonder which candidate could rise to the top now that former Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell is out. Within a matter of two days, Swalwell went from being the top Democrat candidate for California’s highest office to announcing the end of his campaign and later resigning from Congress. Amid the chaos, elections experts and political science professors spoke to The Daily Signal about the disorder that Swalwell’s scandal has caused, and what candidate Californians could see in the general election. “I’ve been in politics for about 30 years and I’ve never seen such chaos like this,” California Target Book publisher Marva Diaz said. Speculation that billionaire and failed 2020 presidential candidate Tom Steyer, along with former Rep. Katie Porter, could potentially advance to the general election has circulated online. However, experts appear split on which candidate voters will gravitate toward. “I would be surprised if they move en masse to one candidate. I think you’re to see them get spread out over several candidates, but you could legitimately make the case for any number of candidates,” Klink Campaigns President Matt Klink told The Daily Signal. “I know that the news media has tended to look at the two frontrunners, but being Tom Steyer and Katie Porter, I think both of them have a ceiling, though, in terms of how high they can go.” He added that candidates, including [former California Attorney General] Xavier Becerra and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, “have a better case to pull in some of the Swalwell voters than the presumed front-runners” because Steyer and Porter “have some baggage that they have to deal with.” Prior to his withdrawal, polls showed Swalwell positioned to be the Democrat candidate who would advance through the June primary and potentially become the state’s new governor. However, on Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle published a report detailing how a former staffer accused the Democrat of making advances toward her during her time on staff and alleged sexually assaulted her.  Later that same day, CNN published a report detailing three other women’s interactions with Swalwell. The women accused the lawmaker of abusing his power over them. On the day that reports broke on Swalwell, prediction sites like Polymarket and Kalshi immediately shot up for Steyer to be the next choice. But Sarah Hill, a Cal State Fullerton political science professor, told The Daily Signal that a lower-polling candidate could potentially rally the base behind them. “What I’m seeing, and what I had wondered for a long time, [is] I think many folks are gonna move toward Xavier Becerra,” Hill said. “If you just think about experience, he’s the strongest candidate, and it has puzzled me for a long time why he wasn’t the Democratic favorite.” According to a Kreate Strategies poll, one of the last surveys conducted prior to Swalwell’s scandal, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton led the pack at 19%, with Steyer and Swalwell tied at 13%. Fellow Republican gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco held third at 10%, and Porter at 8%, with others in single digits and an estimated 26% wanting another option or undecided. Despite both Klink and Hill’s predictions of a new possibility, University of Southern California political science professor Christian Grose predicted Steyer and Porter would rise in the polls within the coming weeks. Diaz, though, noted that there are caveats to her prediction, which center on endorsements from top donors and how voters could react to the new information about Swalwell. Late Tuesday evening, the California Teachers Association, which once endorsed Swalwell, announced it would be backing Steyer. The massive union’s decision marks the first major move by those who once backed the former leading candidate, stating California deserves a “Governor who has the courage to hold corporations accountable,” tackle affordability, and allow voters access to “quality public schools.” Although the union’s decision is a noticeable shift, more than 20 Democrats are still certified on the June primary ballot, with Swalwell’s name still on it as well. The large number of candidates has caused disarray for the party in rallying behind one person. Despite attempts from Democrat state convention chair Rusty Hicks to nudge lower-polling candidates to withdraw from the race, candidates, even those polling behind Porter, have not budged. Hill said that, with the party in full disarray, the Democrat establishment in the state is going to have to start signaling its preference to voters. “I think … party leadership will work on kind of pulling it together, saying, ‘All right, folks, we got to figure this out.’ And they will signal strongly,” she said, adding that Swalwell lost all his endorsements and Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn’t weighed in yet. “So, there’s a lot that Democrats can still do to try to move the voters. And they’ve kind of been waiting a bit to see how things play out,” Hill said. On Wednesday, CNN reported that sources close to Newsom said the governor is still attempting to “make sense” of the race and will do “everything he can to prevent a lockout.” However, he reportedly has “worries” about a majority of the candidates running. The possibility of two Republicans advancing to the general election has been discussed since late last year. While the polling odds are low, all the experts who spoke to The Daily Signal notably did not rule out the possibility. “There’s still a small chance of a Bianco [and] Hilton general [election]. I don’t want to completely rule it out, [but] I think it’s just gone down with the Trump endorsement [of Hilton],” Grose stated. The post California Dems in Disarray After Swalwell’s Exit appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Recent media outrage over President Donald Trump has exposed a deeper double standard, argued The Daily Signal’s senior national security and legal analyst Mehek Cooke in a television interview.  Appearing on BBC News on Monday, Cooke responded to controversy over a White House social media image that some critics said depicted Trump as Jesus, arguing the reaction exposed a familiar pattern of selective outrage. She said the press fixates on imagery and tone while failing to respond with the same urgency when Christians face real threats.  “There’s this moral outrage in the media today any time the White House puts something up, even in jest,” Cooke said. “But the same mainstream media never stands up for Christians.”  Cooke pointed to a recent incident in Minneapolis in which rioters disrupted a Sunday church service. She said the lack of sustained coverage highlighted what she described as selective moral concern.  “I don’t play this humor game,” Cooke said, arguing that media narratives often inflate symbolism while ignoring real violence.  Cooke also addressed recent remarks from Pope Leo XIV criticizing war and warning against the use of religion to justify conflict. She argued that religious criticism of the White House over the Iran war often drowns out the nuances of Catholic doctrine and national security realities.  While she acknowledged the importance of moral leadership and concern for human suffering, Cooke said the pope crossed a line by weighing in on U.S. military and intelligence decisions.  “It’s one thing to talk about the human cost of war,” she said. “It’s another thing to take your pope hat off and act like the president of the United States and talk about military and intelligence that he has no business talking about.”  A recent convert to Catholicism, Cooke emphasized that Church teaching includes just war doctrine, which allows for the use of force under certain conditions when innocent lives are threatened and when national defense is at stake.  “When you see America being threatened, leaders have a responsibility to act,” Cooke said, adding that President Trump’s decisions reflected that.  Cooke also criticized what she described as an imbalance in how global suffering is discussed, noting that decades of Iranian aggression, including hostage-taking and attacks on Americans, are often overlooked.  “The pope is a pastor, not a strategist,” Cooke said. “He doesn’t have the intelligence. He doesn’t have the information.”  While Cooke said the Church plays a critical role in reminding the world of war’s human cost, she concluded that moral authority must remain within its proper bounds—especially when national security is at stake.  The post Outrage Over Trump’s Image, Silence for Persecuted Christians: The Media’s Double Standard appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A debate over extending a controversial federal espionage power has sown disagreement between House leadership, a band of conservative rebels, and the White House. On April 20, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which enables the government to spy on foreigners without a warrant, is set to expire. The program, which was last extended by Congress in 2024, has long been criticized by some House Republicans, who argue it is prone to abuse and has resulted in the surveillance of American citizens. Here's @Jim_Jordan with an important history lesson on FISA ??All the FISA abuses we're discussing happened when Democrats controlled the White House.We went from 278K violations to just 127—that's real progress thanks to Republican-led reforms. pic.twitter.com/Jyh44RyXtd— House Rules Committee (@RulesReps) April 15, 2026 Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., as well as House Judiciary committee chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, argue Congress has already substantially reformed the program, which they consider important for national security. “All the abuses happened when Democrats were in the White House,” Jordan said Tuesday. Hardliner conservatives on the House rules committee—a leadership-controlled panel that sets the conditions for debate of bills on the floor—allowed the extension bill to advance on Tuesday night. They did so after Trump called on Republicans on Truth Social “to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean [extension] to the floor.” However, on Wednesday morning, FISA critics indicated they would still not support extending Section 702 without additional reforms, despite having allowed it to advance. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, a rules committee member, said conservatives wanted “greater protections for citizens with respect to warrants,” as well as “greater penalties… for government officials who abuse their authority and power.” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told The Daily Signal he had reservations about the secrecy of FISA courts, which authorize government surveillance. “I never had a really good feeling about a secret judge situation that’s not open to the public. I like transparency.” Burchett said. “It’s been abused in the past. I know they’ve reduced the rate lately.” Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe joined House Republicans’ Wednesday morning conference meeting to make the pitch for extending FISA. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., who chairs the House intelligence committee, reiterated after the conference meeting his desire to extend the program, while saying there is “possibly” room for changes to FISA. “What I’m trying to do is make sure that national security is protected,” Crawford told reporters. Multiple FISA holdouts indicated they agreed with Ratcliffe and the administration on the importance of the program, but still desired reforms. “Nobody’s debating the validity of whether FISA’s important or not,” Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal. “The problem is the abuses we’ve seen in the past.” The surveillance state wasn't built in a day. It was built piece by piece, every time we decided to look the other way.The upcoming FISA reauthorization gives Congress the opportunity to restore civil liberty protections — warrant requirements, prohibition of buying data of… pic.twitter.com/9JLiD6oWYm— Rep. Michael Cloud (@RepMichaelCloud) April 10, 2026 “We understand and agree with the president that we need 702 authority to go after bad guys abroad,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told reporters.  “We’re fighting for greater protections, whether it’s this administration or future administrations, to ensure citizens have projections,” Roy added. Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, acknowledged the disagreement between his faction and the president. “Look, [Trump’s] the executive, we’re the legislative, and we’re going to see a little bit of conflict between those two today,” said Harris. By the early afternoon, leaders indicated they needed more time to find consensus. “We might have to do some sort of minor modification,” Speaker Johnson told a Punchbowl News reporter, citing “a few holdouts who have some ideas on what they think would be improvements to” FISA. Johnson later indicated he believed the vote would be the following day. Democrats made Republican leadership’s job more difficult by standing against the bill. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the judiciary committee, urged his colleagues to vote against a clean extension on Tuesday, calling for “independent guardrails.”  Over 50 Democrats also signed on to a letter in opposition to a clean extension, lowering the chances of being able to rely on Democrat votes. In March, a court granted the annual recertification of the 702 program, so it would not immediately end if Congress does not act to extend the underlying legislation. Rather, it would expire in March 2027. The post House Conservatives Demand FISA Spy Power Reforms appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For many in the liberal press, Hungary’s recent election signaled the “defeat of autocracy” and a decisive “turn back” toward Europe. For some conservative commentators, the same outcome was framed as evidence that “Brussels-backed liberals” had taken over yet another conservative stronghold. Both sides miss what actually happened. Hungary’s election was not a conventional contest between left and right. It was a systemic correction driven by broad-based dissatisfaction with how power has been exercised over roughly the past two decades. This dissatisfaction is also with the political crisis of 2006 tied to the socialist government at the time, which eroded trust in democratic institutions and led to Fidesz’s landslide victory in 2010. After 16 years in power, Fidesz was no longer simply a governing party but the very system voters were evaluating. What really drove the outcome was accumulated frustration with a political system that had become increasingly centralized and insulated. Over time, this system became associated with entrenched corruption, weakened institutional accountability, and political polarization that deepened and strained civic life and personal relationships. At the same time, economic and geopolitical concerns intensified. Many voters perceived a shrinking middle class alongside expanding crony networks, as well as growing dependence on Russia and China. This included not only Hungary’s long-standing energy dependence on Russia, but also a perceived increase in political alignment with Moscow, often reflected in government narratives critical of Ukraine. Environmental concerns linked to Chinese investments, including in electric vehicle battery production, made things even worse. Against this backdrop, a governing approach that emphasized “enemies”—whether Brussels, Soros, migrants, Ukraine, or others—appeared increasingly disconnected from the country’s domestic challenges. Messaging signaled heightened war risks in the event of a non-Fidesz victory contributed to a climate of fear and anger, instead of a policy-focused electoral debate that many Hungarian voters have long been hungry for. TISZA emerged in this space. Its success stems from a simple but effective message: that Hungarians, regardless of political affiliation or background, share common priorities. By focusing on education, health care, economic performance, and national competitiveness, TISZA shifted the political conversation toward everyday concerns, bringing together voters from across the political spectrum. Hungarian society leans moderately center-right on average, which helps explain why this coalition is anchored slightly to the right. Notably, much of the traditional left did not re-emerge as an alternative but folded into this broader movement. This reflects opposition to the Fidesz government. It also suggests a deeper convergence around shared priorities that cut across traditional party lines. In many ways, this mirrors how Fidesz itself once rose to power—with a broad, unifying message. TISZA presented a detailed program and a slate of prospective officials drawn from professional fields and the private sector. This resembles practices familiar in the U.S., where agency leadership often includes individuals with private-sector expertise. Hungary itself has some precedent for this approach: Orbán’s first government in 1998 included individuals with nonpolitical or technocratic backgrounds. By contrast, Fidesz’s recent campaign environment relied heavily on messaging centered on Ukraine and featured many established political figures with whom voters had grown dissatisfied. The international portrayal of Péter Magyar, TISZA’s leader, further illustrates the limitations of prevailing narratives. He is neither the liberal figure celebrated in some outlets nor the proxy for external interests lamented by some conservatives. On key issues such as immigration, border control, family policy, and peace—positions that broadly align with those of Viktor Orbán—his platform reflects continuity with conservative priorities. However, Magyar has taken a clear stance against corruption and against deepening political and economic alignment with Russia and China. Thus, the difference between TISZA and Fidesz is not about left and right, but about how power is exercised. The election is often mischaracterized as a simple choice about “Europe.” But for Hungarians, Europe is not synonymous with alien institutions or regulatory frameworks coming from Brussels. Instead, it reflects a deeper cultural, historical, and geographical orientation. The desire to choose Europe is about rejecting alignment with alternative systems—particularly those associated with Russia, which oppressed Hungary for nearly half a century, and whose painful legacy many families still vividly remember. It is also notable that resisting Russian influence was once a central talking point of Fidesz itself. This moment underscores a broader lesson: as Lord Acton warned, power tends to corrupt, and great power corrupts even more. A political movement that once called for civic renewal and independence gradually became the very system it once opposed. Hungary’s experience underscores a general principle: even strong leadership and good intentions can give way to corruption if power remains unchecked for too long. This moment represents both an opportunity and a responsibility for TISZA—to ensure that institutional accountability is preserved and that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. In this light, narratives that interpret Hungary’s election through their own lenses fall short, reducing a complex domestic development to a familiar storyline. TISZA’s landslide victory reflected a rejection of a governing system perceived as unresponsive. It was also a demand for the government to restore checks and balances, strengthen institutional accountability, enhance competitiveness, and reaffirm a pro-Western civilizational alignment. Whether this model can be sustained remains to be seen, but understanding Hungary today requires paying closer attention to the realities on the ground. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post What Both Liberals and Conservatives Get Wrong About Hungary appeared first on The Daily Signal.