Whether through pressure exerted on social media platforms or through armed raids carried out against pro-life Americans, former President Joe Biden and his administration oversaw an alarming increase in the suppression and censorship of religious—chiefly Christian—expressions and actions in the public square. At the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) International Christian Media Convention on Thursday, Christian journalists, broadcasters, and policy experts gathered to discuss where religious censorship stands today, now that President Donald Trump has returned to the White House. “Censorship, as we know, is the trademark trait of authoritarian regimes throughout history, which is very telling that the Biden administration crossed that Rubicon in many ways and sent us down that slippery slope,” National Review columnist Caroline Downey told moderator Tyler O’Neil, a senior editor at The Daily Signal. “For progressive administrations,” Downey added, “discrediting speech that threatens the ruling class is essential. And what is the most threatening kind of speech is mock or ridicule.” Babylon Bee, Big Tech, and Fight Over Free Speech Downey pointed to the example of the Babylon Bee, a conservative and Christian-themed satire news website, which has been repeatedly censored on social media for satirical posts critical of transgenderism, mainstream media outlets, and Democratic Party policies. She noted that the censorship of the Babylon Bee was a key factor in prompting tech billionaire Elon Musk to purchase Twitter (now called X) and usher in a “renaissance of free discourse on a major social media platform.” While Downey expressed her gratitude to Musk for restoring freedom of speech on X, she added that she found it “harrowing” that freedom of speech was protected only by “a benevolent billionaire,” asking, “How do you depend on those types of people to make sure that we have free conversation?” Press Freedom Clashes With Religious Freedom A more recent example Downey highlighted was that of former CNN anchor Don Lemon, who last month participated in an anti-immigration enforcement protest which disrupted services in City Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Downey suggested that Lemon behaved as though his First Amendment right to freedom of the press “trumped those worshippers’ freedom of religion.” She continued, “I think what that shows is a flippancy toward people of faith, that they somehow … don’t apply under the protections of the First Amendment. But beyond that, I think it does show that there is a double standard when in politics, when it comes to religious people.” Cancellation Replaces Deplatforming The Daily Signal’s president and executive editor, Rob Bluey, agreed with Downey that the censorship of Christian media seems to be easing, thanks to individuals like Musk, Trump, and his administration, but cautioned that there is still “a lot of work to do because, on a daily basis, conservative media, Christian media are facing these challenges of censorship.” Today, Bluey said, the threat is “cancellation.” He noted that a video series The Daily Signal had produced on gender ideology had been flagged by YouTube as “hate speech.” Bluey explained, “The big tech firms that exist today, their leadership is most decidedly not Christian and do not particularly like people of faith and I think exercise these terms of service rules they’ve written into their platforms to censor the content that we experienced.” How Marriage and Gender Became the Media Flashpoint Family Research Council President Tony Perkins pointed to gender ideology and marriage as a key media battlefield between Christians and progressives. Perkins recounted that he used to make frequent guest appearances on corporate media news programs but became persona non grata after then-President Barack Obama endorsed same-sex marriage in 2012. "Liberals champion free speech and actually want to have an open debate. Leftists are the ones who say what you and I believe is misinformation, hateful, bigoted—let's silence that."@DailySignal's @Tyler2ONeil shares takeaways from today's @NRBConvention panel on censorship. pic.twitter.com/mPR64iPZc1— Tony Perkins (@tperkins) February 19, 2026 “All of a sudden, the networks began to drop anyone who had a biblical view of marriage between a man and a woman, that was really the pivotal point, was on human sexuality and marriage. It later became gender, but the starting point was the redefinition of marriage,” Perkins observed. He noted that even supposedly conservative media outlets like Fox News would not present a biblical perspective on marriage and sexuality. “It’s fundamental as a society, if we drop the idea of marriage and we capitulate to the Left’s redefinition of marriage, we have no future.” Parents Push Back—and the Resistance Grows Perkins recalled that the tide began turning against gender ideology thanks to parents, who made national headlines showing up to school board meetings and protesting progressive practices like critical race theory and transgender bathroom policies. “That was the tipping point. It was moms and dads who said, ‘Enough of this, because you’re taking my children and you’re indoctrinating them, and you’re jeopardizing their future and leading them down a destructive path.’ So thank God for parents who had the backbone to stand up,” he emphasized. Once parents began drawing attention to the issue, Perkins said, politicians began taking notice, in turn inspiring men and women of faith to step “into the political arena at every level: school board level, city council level, state legislature, and now in Congress. So yes, the resistance to censorship is becoming intense. Now it’s stepped back a little bit.” However, Perkins also warned that American Christians ought not grow complacent. He pointed out that organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which he said “has been the junkyard dog of the Left, forever labeling people hate groups so that it gives the media legitimacy to knock them off,” have substantial monetary reserves and are “probably not going to go away anytime soon.” ‘Now Is Not the Time to Be Silent’ The Left’s censorship regime, Perkins averred, is evidence that the Left fears the message shared by Christian media. He urged fellow Christians “not to shrink back, not to be complacent, thinking that all problems are solved, but to charge forward and retake many of these institutions that have been the agents of censorship. … Now is not the time to shrink back. Now is not the time to be silent. Now is the time to take the hill.” We cannot silence into being careful men. Courage is so contagious. If social media captions can throttle conservative ideologies, good morals, Bible verses and the mention of Jesus, we must use this time to push forward. Wonderful panel this morning with @Tyler2ONeil… pic.twitter.com/Bd7lBYSxzG— Alexis Wilkins (@AlexisWilkins) February 19, 2026 Alexis Wilkins, a senior fellow at the American Principles Project, agreed. “This cannot be a generation of careful men. There is great concern that there are too many careful men,” she said, encouraging Christians to “address these problems—especially problems that arise in people censoring faith—with conviction, instead of cowardice, and credibility.” While Wilkins acknowledged that Christians are called to treat others with charity and grace, she added that “we are not required to take a step back if someone challenges the values that we hold or the safety that we want to provide for our children, for the freedom to believe in Jesus in public spaces and private spaces, as we’ve seen during the Biden administration.” Originally published by The Washington Stand. The post The Next Front in the Censorship War Against Christians appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Alysa Liu is living the American dream, and not just because the figure skater won two gold medals for Team USA at the 2026 Winter Olympics. Liu represented the red, white, and blue with pride in Milan, but her father grew up under the hammer and sickle of communist China. Her father, Arthur Liu, was born and raised in China. Arthur was a student during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. He organized demonstrations, protests, and hunger strikers against the violence of the communist state. He soon learned that he was on the Chinese government’s most-wanted list. After being questioned by authorities, and knowing he would soon be arrested, Arthur fled to the United States.   Arthur came to the United States as a political refugee, settling in the Bay Area of California. In California, Arthur worked his way up from being a busboy at a Chinese restaurant to an attorney after attending law school. Arthur had Alysa start figure skating at just five years old. Alysa’s talent made her a prodigy. In 2019, Alysa became the youngest-ever US women’s champion at just 13 years old. But the Liu’s success in America got the attention of the CCP. Around the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, the Liu family became targets of Chinese government spies, which required protection from the FBI.   Weeks before the 2022 Beijing Olympics, the Liu family was allegedly contacted by Matthew Ziburis. He attempted to get personal information from Arthur by impersonating someone on the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee. Alysa Liu’s father was persecuted by the CCP for the Tiananmen Square protests and fled to America His daughter became a world-class figure skater and refused to skate for the CCP when they tried to recruit herShe just won the gold medal for Team USA ?? pic.twitter.com/heirjoM07b— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) February 19, 2026 While this appeared to be a red flag before Alysa traveled to China for the first time Arthur said, “This is her moment. This is her once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to compete at the Olympic Games.”  At the games in Beijing, Alysa had protection from the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Olympic Committee. Weeks later the U.S. Department of Justice announced they had charged Ziburis and four others as spies targeting U.S. citizens who had spoken up for democracy in China.   CONGRATULATIONS to Alysa Liu, OLYMPIC CHAMPION!! @TeamUSA ??? pic.twitter.com/bLetr2VqSr— House Republicans (@HouseGOP) February 19, 2026 Alysa Following Her Father’s Footsteps  Following her father’s footsteps, Alysa is an advocate for human rights in China as well. After the investigation Arthur said he learned that the Chinese government knew about Alysa’s posts on Instagram calling out the terrible treatment and human rights violations against the Uyghurs.  Alysa called the whole experience “unbelievable” and “a little bit freaky and exciting.” She said she hopes someone makes a movie out of the whole thing.   “They gotta make me look like a super cool hero or something. I can’t just be the kid that got spied on and did nothing about it,” she said, adding “the main focus [should] be my dad’s story because his story is so cool.”  Alysa’s gold medal performance in the women’s individual singles event was the first gold medal for Team USA in Individual Women’s Figure Skating since 2006, calling it “a dream” to compete for Team USA. Taylor Swift introduces Amber Glenn, Alysa Liu, and Isabeau Levito: The Blade Angels! ?: NBC pic.twitter.com/pl2LgKozjK— Amber Glenn Updates (@AmberGlennDaily) February 16, 2026 The post At Olympics, Alysa Liu’s American Dream Comes True Against Wishes of CCP appeared first on The Daily Signal.

One of the largest proposed mergers in business history will have to wait a little longer. Netflix, which is trying to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery recently granted WBD a seven-day pause so it can explore another offer from Paramount Skydance.  Cue a sigh of relief from many who are worried that purchasing Warner Bros. would make Netflix—the nation’s top streaming service—too big. The proposed deal is worth about $83 billion and would see Netflix, already a streaming giant, take ownership of everything from Batman to “Game of Thrones” to fellow streamer Max.  The proposed Netflix-WBD acquisition has sent shockwaves through Hollywood. Most mega-mergers have involved content producers combining forces, such as when Warner Bros. and Discovery joined up in 2022. But Netflix, though it has some of its own content—think “House of Cards” and “Stranger Things”—is primarily relied upon as a streaming platform, with more than 88 million subscribers in the U.S., ahead of Amazon Prime, Hulu, and other contenders.  Warner Bros., meanwhile, is one of the top entertainment production companies in the world, ranking up there with Disney. Merging it with Netflix wouldn’t just make the latter company huge; it would stack both the production and streaming of so much media in the same place, making everyone answer to the same set of executives and shareholders.  When monopolistic behavior sees one company gain a corner in the marketplace, competition gets squashed and the average American suffers most. We have seen this with everything from life-saving drugs to airlines to internet providers. The results are too often higher prices and inferior services thanks to one corporation with few to no competitors holding all the cards.   It’s happened in the world of entertainment too. As small, independent film producers scratch out an existence with crowd-funded productions and shoe-leather marketing techniques, megamerger after megamerger continues to shrink content choices, restricting them to those with the most mass appeal and in the biggest demand.   So, it shouldn’t be surprising that some are balking at the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger. When the deal was first announced, President Donald Trump said it “could be a problem” because it would create an enormous market share for Netflix. Later, the president said he would be watching to “see what percentage of market they have.”  Sen. Chuck Grassley,  R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned, “Control of both a large platform and a deep library of films and shows can affect the bargaining power across the industry… I encourage our antitrust regulators to carefully scrutinize this transaction to ensure that competition is not undermined and to make sure that consumers are protected.”  Many Democrats are skeptical too, with one Democrat senator releasing a statement calling the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal an “anti-monopoly nightmare” and asking the Justice Department to “enforce our nation’s anti-monopoly laws fairly and transparently.”  Some Warner Bros. shareholders have also wondered whether the deal is in their best interest, with one cautioning that “the WBD Board opted to rush into a flawed deal with Netflix rather than earnestly pursue a superior offer from Paramount—in line with the directors’ fiduciary duties.”   A recent Reuters headline hints that this division runs deep: “Some of Warner Bros’ biggest investors are split on Paramount offer.” Such shareholder skepticism is reportedly why Warner Bros. decided to entertain a bid from Paramount-Skydance in the first place, according to CNBC.   When this much of the universe is lining up against you, it would be wise to ask why. Warner Bros. owes its customers this much as they now deliberate over which corporation to join up with.  We live in a changing world, including when it comes to how we watch movies and TV. The good, old-fashioned movie theater is shutting its doors as more and more of us stream content from home.  Yet whether you like or dislike these changes, most of us agree that concentrating too much of this new economic power under a single corporate entity isn’t a good idea. We’ve seen that happen before and it never turns out well.  Warner Bros. should consider this during its weeklong pause. The company’s many iconic entertainment properties deserve to end up in good hands. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post Netflix-Warner Bros. Deal Falters Under Growing Political and Legal Fire appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, lacked constitutional footing because the statute does not clearly authorize tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. However, that does not mean that the presidency has been stripped of all trade policy tools. Justice Brett Kavanaugh rightly points out in his dissent that “numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps.” But there are several legitimate delegated, and often used, presidential authorities to address trade concerns. For example, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 addresses issues like unfair practices, forced technology transfer, and intellectual property abuses. Additionally, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows for tariffs pursuant to Commerce Department investigations on national security concerns. To address balance of payments issues (which were the crux of the Liberation Day tariffs), Trump has announced that he will use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement a 10% universal tariff. However, this tariff, if upheld, can only last for 150 days unless Congress reauthorizes it. Now, this is not to advocate for or against any of these tariffs; merely, that these are the options that the public should be aware of. This constitutionally legal toolset, even with IEEPA removed, is still useful to hold bad actors like China to account considering that they spend more than $400 billion in industrial subsidies, operate roughly half a million state-owned enterprises, and steal $600 billion in American intellectual property annually. Worryingly, China has also used its “government guidance funds” to keep almost a third of deeply unprofitable Chinese manufacturers alive from their market manipulation on key sectors like critical minerals. Rather than engage in a pyrrhic subsidy war like the Biden administration, it is more prudent to use properly calibrated tariffs to realign supply chains away from adversaries. However, while tariffs may be strategically necessary, they are still a blunt tool. For example, tariffs can “stack” by adding compounding costs on intermediate goods as they cross borders multiple times. As tariffs can hit this same value chain repeatedly, either foreign companies, import-exporters, domestic companies, or the consumer will end up paying for these taxes in ways that policymakers often do not intend and economists struggle to estimate in real time. Given that the Section 122 tariff, if upheld, will need continual reauthorization and still suffers from the stacking issue, The Heritage Foundation has advocated for a more balanced tool to adjudicate trade issues adroitly and fairly with limited market distortions. In fact, such a tool was remarked upon positively by Peter Navarro, current presidential senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, in his Project 2025 Trade Chapter and by Bob Lighthizer, former U.S. trade representative from 2017-2021 in Chapter 17 of his book “No Trade Is Free.” A congressionally passed Border Adjustment Tax, BAT, which taxes imports (like tariffs) but credits exports could reindustrialize America by addressing a key issue. Consider a grossly simplified example. Sweden applies a value added tax (similar to a sales tax) at the point of consumption, so an imported American Ford F-150 faces the VAT just like a locally sold vehicle. Now compare that to how VAT countries treat their own exporters. When Germany exports a Volkswagen to Sweden, Germany’s VAT is rebated at the border, and Sweden applies its VAT on import. This is called destination-based taxation where consumption is taxed where it occurs and zero rates exports. The United States with its origin-based system does not have a comparable border adjustment built into its tax system. Therefore, a BAT would move us closer to the model most of the world uses as it would tax imports, credit exports, and would do so through Congress rather than through emergency tariff authorization. If Congress is serious about addressing trade deficits and creating a low but broad tax on external consumption, then a BAT is the least damaging way to address these concerns. It can raise revenue in a predictable way that international businesses are more familiar with, and the resulting revenue can be paired with reforms like permanent full and immediate expensing for structures that rebuild industrial capacity, rather than simply punishing imports. If we want a Golden Age of American industry, trade enforcement must be married to domestic competitiveness. That means tax and regulatory reforms that make it easier to build, invest, and scale. As China’s statist model is not going away, the U.S. cannot afford legal ambiguity, whiplash policy, or temporary fixes. Make no mistake; the Supreme Court did not change the principle, simply the set of tools. Now Congress should do its job and build a trade and tax framework that lasts. The post SCOTUS Removes IEEPA Tariffs From Toolbox, Now Is Time for the BAT appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Virginia Democrats this week shelved legislation that would have raised costs on consumers to fund a solar energy promotion program. The decision to table HB 935 means that Virginians won’t be hit with an added fee on their electricity bills—at least for now. Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger promised to make affordability the centerpiece of her agenda, even though her fellow Democrats have proposed more than 50 tax hikes. The “clean energy” legislation would have imposed a fee of 2 cents per watt on solar energy and battery storage projects statewide. Even though developers would pay the charge upfront, industry experts predicted the costs would ultimately be passed on to ratepayers through higher electricity bills. Revenue generated from the legislation would create the Virginia Clean Energy and Battery Storage Promotion Program, which, according to the bill, would “promote the adoption, deployment, and understanding of solar energy and battery storage technologies.”  Similar measures are pending in other Democrat-led states, including California, Illinois, and Maryland. Politically Active Program Funded by Energy Fees  The proposed fee would fund a program explicitly authorized to engage in lobbying, political advocacy, and coordination with national organizations.  Jack Spencer, senior research fellow in the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, said the bill would put the government in a position of making energy decisions that should ultimately reside with consumers.   “The Virginia Clean Energy and Battery Storage Promotion Program is another attempt by government officials to use taxpayer money to decide how citizens should live their lives that will most assuredly wind up being another costly boondoggle,” Spencer told The Daily Signal. “The idea that a government board and a bureaucrat have the knowledge to develop markets and reduce prices flies in the face of every economic lesson learned over the past century.”  Spencer’s solution “is to allow battery firms to compete for the dollars of Virginians in a system of free enterprise. Such a system ensures that Virginians get the products they want at prices they are willing to pay.”  The Daily Signal spoke with another energy industry expert, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the bill.  “What’s surprising is how open-ended the program is, with no clear direction on how the money would be used or who would ultimately benefit,” the industry expert said.  The bill does not specify how funds would be allocated among marketing, lobbying, or political activity, nor does it identify the national organization that would receive a portion of the revenue.  This is what led the expert to raise the question, “Who are the individuals that are behind it and pushing this?”  How the Solar Fee Would Affect Ratepayers   The proposed fee on all solar and battery installations would apply across Virginia and cover both local and out-of-state manufacturers. Developers are responsible for paying the charge at the point of purchase, but the cost is typically passed to ratepayers, raising electricity bills for households and businesses.  One example is Dominion Energy’s four solar projects, which are set to be completed this year. The projects total 329 MW, and at 2 cents per watt, would cost electric customers $6.48 million.  “If there’s a tax added to solar panels, that would get passed along to the installer and to the homeowner,” the energy industry expert said. “For a big utility-scale project, that’s adding millions of dollars to the cost [and] all ratepayers would have to incur those costs.”  How the Program Would Operate   The program would be overseen by a board appointed by the governor. Structured as a 501(c)(6) trade association, it could have the authority to promote solar and battery storage while also lobbying, contributing to PACs, and coordinating with national organizations.  The industry expert explained the program’s structure and use of funds, warning that it appeared driven more by ideology than consumer needs.  “Half of the funds would be utilized and spent in some manner, either marketing, lobbying, what have you; that’s still pretty vague,” the expert said. “In Virginia, the other half would go to a national entity, again, to be named later, of some sort of organization that would then do national marketing on clean energy.”  The legislation is sponsored by Delegate Alfonso Lopez, who represents parts of Arlington and Alexandria. After advancing in the House Labor and Commerce Committee, lawmakers decided Tuesday to table it until 2027.  Similar legislation in California, Illinois, and Maryland could still advance this year. Those Democrat-led states may be more likely to move forward with clean energy initiatives despite concerns about rising utility costs.  The post Virginia Democrats Shelve Solar Fee That Would Have Raised Electric Bills appeared first on The Daily Signal.