“How do you solve a problem like Alito?” That’s the now-deleted Tweet D.C. Bar Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler posted in August 2023. This was after multiple justices—including Justice Samuel Alito—faced death threats.  But why was he posting this in the first place?  For those unfamiliar, the D.C. Bar disciplinary counsel’s self-professed mission is to “(1) protect the public and the courts; (2) maintain the integrity of the legal profession; and (3) deter attorneys from engaging in misconduct.”  The disciplinary counsel, and his assistants, often do this by bringing charges, prosecuting alleged violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct—the ethical rules that govern how lawyers are supposed to behave.  If the D.C. Bar disciplinary counsel’s prosecution is successful, the lawyer can receive punishment ranging from a mild reprimand to a severe sanction such as disbarment—the loss of the ability to practice law in the District of Columbia.  Those who work in the office of the D.C. Bar disciplinary counsel wield great power.  That’s why Metzler’s mocking of Alito is so troubling, as are his other inflammatory statements. They call into question the fairness and impartiality of the entire D.C. Bar disciplinary process.   After all, Metzler made inflammatory statements such as it’s “embarrassing for Christianity” that Alito—himself a devout Catholic—had been invited to deliver the commencement address at a Catholic college.  And he said that Alito is a “Natural Born Fool.”  But lest you worry that his ire is reserved solely for Alito, he also criticized Justice Clarence Thomas.   And he flippantly affirmed criticisms of Justice Neil Gorsuch too.  But really, it’s anyone with a conservative—or even just non-extreme-far-left—outlook on life or law that he seems to take issue with.  For example, he said that “Elon Musk has achieved his ambition to become a real life Bond Villain.”  And he said that “Leonard Leo,” the noted conservative activist and philanthropist, “is Grindr [a gay dating app] for billionaires and conservative Justices.”   But he saved special criticism for President Donald Trump, his arguments after the 2020 election, and those who helped him make those arguments.  He compared Trump to Confederate President Jefferson Davis.  And he posted, “Trump so jealous of Russia’s coup rn [right now].”  At some point in 2025, he deleted his Twitter/X account and shifted his incessant posting to the notoriously left-leaning Bluesky platform.  There he continued his criticisms of Trump, repeatedly referring to him as an insurrectionist.  And Metzler criticized Trump’s policies, such as deploying the National Guard to the streets of Washington, D.C.  He also criticized FBI Director Kash Patel.  And opined that James Comey should not have been indicted.  On top of all of that, he reposted a thread about how the U.S. is supposedly sliding toward authoritarianism with his own commentary that it’s a “cogent and sober explanation of why we are so cooked.”  And throughout, he sprinkled posts mocking Christianity.  Here’s Metzler’s problem: It’s hard for him to credibly argue that all these posts are First Amendment-protected personal commentary detached from his job as a D.C. Bar senior assistant disciplinary counsel—a leadership position within the office.  First, look at the timestamps on many of his posts, they occurred during normal business hours. (Does this constitute fraud, waste, or abuse for him to while away his day like this on social media? Is posting on X or Bluesky part of his official job description? If not, why was Metzler spending his time like this?)   If it is part of his job to post on social media, that’s an even bigger problem. And regardless, a casual observer could be forgiven for not separating out his personal from professional posting. After all, during the course of his posting, he mentions his role as an ethics official and his role in enforcing ethics rules for lawyers. And he even intimates how he views certain behavior that might come before him.  Moreover, he posted job openings within the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel on this same website, right alongside his political commentary.  But here’s where things get really problematic and where Metzler himself arguably violated ethics rules and disqualified himself (and maybe the entire office) from pursuing certain charges against certain individuals, particularly those associated with President Trump or the Trump administration.  First, he approvingly reposted a statement from Matthew Stiegler, who works for controversial Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, where Stiegler said that “There’s a point where I think all of us, senators to nobodies, have a decision to make. If we use whatever voice we have, whatever power we have, to oppose what’s happening now, it might damage our future. Might land us in a prison. We accept that risk, or we don’t. I submit that point is here.”  This post alone calls into question whether Metzler will fairly and impartially pursue bar disciplinary sanctions or whether he will use “whatever power [he has]” to punish those with whom he disagrees politically—particularly those associated with Trump.  Consider this: Stiegler posted—and Metzler reposted—that statement on June 12, 2025. A little over a month later, the D.C. Bar Board on Professional Responsibility, at the behest of Metzler and those in his office, recommended that Jeff Clark be disbarred for the advice he gave President Trump and the actions he took after the 2020 election while serving as a U.S. Justice Department lawyer—an unprecedented action.  And Metzler has continued to represent the D.C. Bar to uphold that sanction throughout the ensuing appeals and litigation.   While those proceedings were pending and documents were still being actively filed in Clark’s case, Metzler posted, “What’s the word for lying about what you’re doing as you do it? Like ‘I’m protecting the Constitution’ while in fact violating the Constitution? I think people say gaslighting but I don’t think that’s quite it. Whatever it is I hate it so much.”  Was that commentary on the ongoing litigation and disbarment proceedings against Clark? A reasonable observer could conclude that it was.  The D.C. Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel holds itself out as “the chief prosecutor for attorney disciplinary matters involving active or inactive attorneys who are members of the D.C. Bar.”   While not a perfect analogy, the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct—the rules Metzler is charged with enforcing—lay out the “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor” in Rule 3.8.   Among other considerations, the Rule makes clear that prosecutors shall not “In exercising discretion to investigate or prosecute, improperly favor or invidiously discriminate against any person” and says that “except for statements which are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and which serve a legitimate law enforcement purposes, make extrajudicial comments which serve to heighten condemnation of the accused.”  On those metrics, Metzler falls far short. And he has done nothing to quell the questions that are already swirling around the D.C. Bar’s apparent bias in pursuing disciplinary proceedings against lawyers with whom it disagrees politically.  Any lawyer—anyone who values due process and impartiality—should be troubled by Metzler’s social media posts, which call into question his ability to fairly and impartially discharge his D.C. Bar prosecutorial duties.  The bar disciplinary process must be fair—and it must appear fair too. Both are now in question in our nation’s capital. 

New York City’s budget crisis has been solved. Socialism finally works. Hooray. That’s the not-too-believable message from Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday, who assured voters that despite all they’ve heard about socialism running out of other people’s money, he’d finally gotten around that inconvenient problem. Weeks after warning that New York City faced a “historic” budget crisis and delaying its mandatory submission, Mamdani suddenly announced that he was “proud” to say that the problem was solved. When we came into office, we uncovered a $12 billion budget deficit.Today, I’m proud to say we brought it down to zero.We didn’t close the gap on the backs of working people.We closed it while funding parks, libraries, safer streets and making historic investments in public… pic.twitter.com/TbNu6fhvjs— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) May 12, 2026 “When we came into office, we uncovered a $12 billion budget deficit. Today, I’m proud to say we brought it down to zero,” Mamdani announced triumphantly on X. Huh? As you probably guessed, this miracle was accomplished through the wizardry of clever accounting. Mamdani—or shall we call him “Houdani”—accomplished this “balanced” budget through a slew of new taxes and fees, financial gimmickry that pushes the problem down the road, and what amounted to an indirect bailout by the state of New York. THE CITY, an independent local news outlet, reported that Mamdani’s $124.7 billion budget was hardly a picture of fiscal restraint. “It relies on billions of dollars in one-shot or short-term money to fund permanent programs, it stretches out pension payments so the next generation will pay for the retirements of present-day workers, and it projects a $7 billion deficit for the 2028 fiscal year that will need to be closed just one year from now,” the City reported. Oof. It’s telling that Mamdani said nothing about the gargantuan deficits that will almost surely hit future budgets because of his decisions today. It helps to have a compliant governor in the state capital who is willing to sacrifice her state’s interests to avoid angering Mamdani. The New York Post noted that his budget was “built on the back of $4 billion in funny money from Gov. Kathy Hochul.” That’s in addition to another $4 billion promised over the next few years. A large part of this bailout was funded by allowing New York City to irresponsibly delay funding its pension system. Ken Girardin and John Ketcham, two fellows at the Manhattan Institute, wrote that Mamdani got the state to essentially change the way pension debt is funded to foist the bulk of the cost onto the future. “The city wants to reduce those debt payments and instead pay it off over a longer period, likely well into the 2040s—meaning tomorrow’s workers will be taxed extra to pay for city services delivered before some of their parents were born,” they wrote for the New York Post. Given that both New York City and the state are facing an exodus of high earners thanks to bad policies and not-too-subtle threats, this could add up to an apocalyptic financial crisis in the not-too-distant future. Mamdani’s budget certainly didn’t solve the very basic problem that the wildly spending city takes in far less in revenue than it spends. Unlike the federal government, the city can’t print money, so they need to find other ways of siphoning it from taxpayers. “What Mamdani is hailing as a triumph for democratic socialism amounts to a state bailout standing on a pension gimmick wearing a trenchcoat,” Girardin and Ketcham warned. So, what can we make of Mamdani’s budget? My take is that his message is pure gaslighting, but good politics in the short term. He can now go to his more gullible supporters and say, “See, look what I can do if I just find a few billionaires to tax. The budget is fine. All your dreams will now come true!” That’s probably the smart way to be a socialist. Give out the goodies right away, then come up with excuses (or an enemies list) later for why things aren’t’ working out. Mamdani has Hochul in a bad spot, and he knows it. He’s much more popular with the Democrat base than she is and if New York City sinks the state likely sinks too. That means she’s much more likely to give him what he wants right now, even if it puts New Yorkers living outside the five boroughs in a position where they must shoulder the burden of Mamdani’s economic madness. But next year will soon come. If the city doesn’t suddenly experience a surge in growth and it doesn’t retain all those rich people it needs to exploit to keep the budget’s figurative head above water, the Big Apple could face a much bigger problem next year. Even if Hochul retains the governorship, will her cash strapped state be able to bail out New York City yet again? She might not be able to. And then what? At some point the gaslight will run out of gas.

As President Trump is in Beijing today for historic talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the Iran war is casting a shadow over the meeting. China wants the world to believe it is a force for peace, open shipping lanes, stable energy markets, lower oil prices, and a responsible global power. But the truth is much uglier, and Beijing is helping to bankroll the very regime threatening the world’s most important energy choke point, the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is openly forcing China’s hypocrisy into view. It is now a test of Beijing’s role in sustaining the instability it publicly opposes. He arrives in China with leverage over a contradiction Xi has tried to hide. The test is critical as Iran stalls during peace talks. Trump called Iran’s most recent proposal “totally unacceptable” because it was not a peace offer; it was a list of demands to end the blockade, lift sanctions, and preserve Tehran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. Once again, we are watching a weakened regime try to bluff from a position of strength. The U.S.-Iran ceasefire is on life support, and the message is clear from Trump: If Beijing wants calmer energy markets and protected shipping lanes, it must stop underwriting a regime that threatens both. Beijing has spent years playing both sides. It wants uninterrupted access to Gulf energy, freedom of navigation, and all the economic benefits of regional order. At the same time, it treats Iran as a useful anti-American partner by helping Tehran evade U.S. sanctions, sustain its destabilizing activity across the Middle East, and, in return, secure deeply discounted Iranian oil. While the China-Iran relationship is not a formal alliance, an official document is not required to see what the United States already knows. China is Iran’s largest trading partner and the primary purchaser of Iranian oil, accounting for roughly 90% of Iran’s exported crude and providing Tehran with billions in revenue. China’s relationship with Tehran directly conflicts with America’s mission to restore global stability. It continues to benefit economically while the U.S. absorbs the security costs. Trump is changing that equation. This moment is unique because Trump is directly turning Tehran into a China problem. If freedom of navigation is not restored and the Strait of Hormuz remains unstable, Beijing can no longer hide behind slogans about peace while bankrolling the regime putting the global economy at risk. China may not care about America’s interest in restoring order, but it cares about its own growth, energy security, and economic stability. For years, Beijing enjoyed a free ride in the Middle East. The United States absorbed the terror, security, and military shocks, while China collected the economic benefits and expanded its regional influence. Trump is ending that arrangement and calculates that China will bend, given its security is on the line. Historically, China acts when its own energy security and commercial stability are threatened. In 2008, when piracy endangered Chinese petroleum imports from the Middle East and trade routes to Europe and North Africa, Beijing deployed naval escort missions to protect shipping. The Strait of Hormuz now presents the same test on a far larger scale. Trump’s visit to China today is also a call to policymakers in Washington to recognize that the Iran war is a broader power struggle with Beijing and not an isolated Middle East conflict. Every move China makes, from China-based entities supplying drones and missiles and satellite imagery that enabled Iranian strikes, to U.S. intelligence showing Beijing was preparing to transfer a new air-defense system during the conflict, shows the clear fight. If Beijing wants the benefits of stability, it must stop financing Tehran. It can either use its leverage over Iran to help force peace, or it will face a Trump pressure campaign that no longer lets China profit from chaos at America’s expense.

Social media is having a grand time with the misspellings in Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones’ filing to the U.S. Supreme Court in the fight over the Commonwealth’s redistricting referendum. Do you really need to know how to spell Virginia to enforce the will of the people? I say that because, much in the same way the referendum was a vote for so-called fairness, the attorney general’s filing asks the Supreme Court to uphold the “will of the people,” not the Constitution. Most people I talk to tell me that this won’t go anywhere, but having been around the block a few times, I know that it’s just the beginning of normalizing this rampant form of mob rule that comes from pure democracy without checks and balances. So, we must press into it. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, after the ruling on the laws broken to bring a referendum to a vote was announced by the Supreme Court of Virginia, that the justices were bringing back the “Jim Crow South.” Shortly after that, Virginia Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan, D-Petersburg, used the same phrase on NewsNation. So, in the “Jim Crow South” (the original one), weren’t segregated bathrooms and schools the “will of the people” despite being unconstitutional? Weren’t actual poll taxes the “will of the people?” These tools cut both ways, and the framers of our country were careful to check that with the legislative process determining the rule of law. Not that that is perfect, like when the Virginia Act for Sterilization of 1924 was declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes himself wrote that “three generations of imbeciles is enough,” as he allowed the Commonwealth to sterilize anyone, mostly Black people, who were on public assistance for too long. But if this truly was the “will of the people,” why not simply change the laws that the Democrats were found to have broken in the passage of the call for referendum? Certainly, with a majority in both the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate, along with a Democratic governor, that shouldn’t be politically dangerous, right? Or is it the realization that with a turnout of barely over 51% and a margin of also barely over 51%, turned out by nearly $70 million of advertising on everyone’s TV, smartphone, and laptop, that they know that it’s NOT “the will of the people,” rather 25% of the population trying to dominate the other 75%? Which is what winds up happening in unchecked and unbalanced democracy. There is an arrogance that Virginia’s U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine gave voice to in a committee debate with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. He called the idea of “God-given” rights dangerous and theocratic. His basis comes from John Locke himself, whose theories on self-governance allow that although rights are God-given, they require a government dedicated to protecting them. Therefore, by Kaine’s position, if the government doesn’t protect a particular right, it has not granted it. This is where AG Jones finds his misspelled filing to the Supreme Court. Defending a majority of votes cast in an election that never should have taken place because the law said no. As ‘Attoney General of Virgnia’ (sorry, couldn’t help myself), he swore an oath to defend those laws no matter how they are spelled out. Beware this lurch to “voice of the people,” because they used to hold their rallies by torchlight under white sheets. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—America First Legal is demanding information amid claims that Loudoun County Public Schools hid from parents key safety concerns about a student, who identifies as transgender, filming boys without their pants and underwear in high school bathrooms. “By all reports, there are over forty victims over the course of three years. It strains credulity to believe that LCPS is only now learning of this and, given how committed that school system is to elevating the rights of ‘transgender’ students over everyone else, LCPS could be facing the mother of all Title IX lawsuits,” Ian Prior, a Loudoun County father and senior counsel at America First Legal, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. America First Legal filed a Freedom of Information Act request, demanding school district reveal “what they knew and when they knew it” about the alleged activity at Freedom High School, Prior added. The FOIA request, first obtained by The Daily Signal, seeks “all records of complaints presented to teachers or administrators at Freedom High School by students at the school that allege they were photographed or filmed in bathrooms at the school,” all records about “investigations into students filming or photographing other students in the bathrooms,” and all records with the terms “bathroom” and “photographed” or “recorded” or “filmed.” The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office confirmed to The Daily Signal that it had opened an investigation into the bathroom filming claims, though it would not identify the number of alleged victims or the suspect. The school district also told The Daily Signal it is working with the sheriff’s office on an investigation. “We urge anyone with information about the incidents or who may be a victim to contact the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office,” Thomas Julia, director of media relations at the sheriff’s office, told The Daily Signal. Sources told 7News reporter Nick Minock that the student has been using a phone to record naked boys underneath bathroom stalls for three years, targeting more than 40 victims, and that school administrators have known about the situation for longer than the school has admitted. LCPS_Bathroom_FOIADownload LCPS Weighs In “Loudoun County Public Schools is actively working with the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office regarding an ongoing investigation involving allegations that a student secretly recorded other individuals inside Freedom High School without their knowledge or permission,” Dan Adams, a public information officer at LCPS, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. Adams added that LCPS takes the allegations “extremely seriously” and is “committed to transparency and will continue to provide accurate information to the community while working within the applicable legal parameters concerning the privacy rights of students and staff.” “LCPS has been working in partnership with law enforcement regarding the investigation, including providing the Freedom High School community with a level of information that notifies families of this matter, while also ensuring the integrity of the investigative process is not compromised,” he said. The school district “can also confirm that there are no reports that students involved in these incidents were in a restroom inconsistent with their biological sex.” Prior told The Daily Signal that the student who allegedly filmed the boys is a boy who identifies as a girl. The Transgender Bathroom Policy Loudoun County has been the epicenter of the debate over transgender policies in schools since 2021. That year, LCPS adopted Policy 8040, which states that the school district “shall allow gender-expansive or transgender students to use their chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their consistently asserted gender identity without any substantiating evidence.” The policy allows boys to compete in girls’ sports and to access girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms if the boys claim to identify as girls. After complaints about a 15-year-old male student forcing a girl to commit sex acts at Stone Bridge High School in May 2021, and assaulting another girl in the girls’ restroom at Broad Run High School in October of that year, parents voiced outrage at school board meetings. Then-LCPS Superintendent Scott Ziegler declared, “The predator transgender student or person simply does not exist.” Yet the Loudoun County Juvenile Court went on to find the perpetrator “not innocent” of charges of forcible sodomy and forcible fellatio. The student also pleaded “no contest” to charges of abduction and sexual battery for the Broad Run incident. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found that Policy 8040 discriminates against women and girls. Last year, LCPS launched a Title IX investigation into three boys who expressed surprise when they saw a girl in their locker room. The school initially dropped the case against one boy, who is Muslim, and ultimately settled with the other two boys in February of this year. “LCPS’s Policy 8040 puts student privacy and safety at risk,” Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. “Moreover, Loudoun County’s track record proves its board and administration inadequately protect the innocent and punish bad actors. It’s past time for the Department of Education and Department of Justice to intervene before more students are harmed.” Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Education responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment by publication time. Scott Smith, the father of one of the victims of the 2021 bathroom incidents, told The Daily Signal that he is “not surprised” by the allegations. “Nothing has changed for the better at LCPS,” he said.