U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, a South Carolina Republican, plans to run for the U.S. Senate in the state following the death of longtime Sen. Lindsey Graham, Norman said on Saturday. “I will be laser-focused on passing President Trump’s America First (agenda),” Norman said in an interview with Fox News. In a post on his campaign website, Norman said the country was at a crossroads and that “President Trump needs proven conservative fighters standing with him—not politicians who fold when the pressure comes.” It’s official! I’m running to represent the people of South Carolina in the U.S. Senate because we need a fighter who will stand with President Trump and carry on Lindsey Graham’s legacy! I’ve spent years fighting for the Palmetto State in the state house, in Congress, and now I…— Ralph Norman (@RalphNorman) July 18, 2026 Norman’s announcement comes after President Donald Trump said on Friday he ‌had asked Darline Graham to run for the position in a ​special Republican primary on ​August 11. “I hope Darline does this, in ⁠that there would be nobody better to honor ​the legacy of her beloved brother, Lindsey,” Trump ​said in an endorsement posted on his Truth Social platform. WHAT’S NEXT FOR THE SENATE AFTER SUDDEN PASSING OF LINDSEY GRAHAM Graham was sworn in on Tuesday to fill the Senate seat on an interim basis. In an open letter released on Saturday, she praised her brother’s dedication to the state and the country. “Now, it’s time for me to step up for South Carolina,” wrote Graham, who did not say whether she would run in the primary.  I wholeheartedly endorse @RepRalphNorman.We need him in the Senate!Who’s with me?— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) July 18, 2026 Candidates can formally file to run next week. Others who have announced their intention to seek the Senate seat are Republicans Duke Buckner and Mark Lynch. Norman, 73, ran unsuccessfully this year for governor of South Carolina. SEN. LEE: HONOR LINDSEY GRAHAM BY PASSING THE SAVE AMERICA ACT He is a lifelong resident of Rock Hill, with a career outside of politics in commercial real estate development. Norman was elected to represent South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District in 2017. He previously spent 11 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives. Norman has “consistently voted in favor of limited government, individual liberties, and sound financial policies,” according to his U.S. House biography. I support Ralph Norman. And I oppose Birthright Senatorship. Norman will take it to the establishment. Wreck it, Ralph! https://t.co/F1MnCEl0pg— Mike Howell (@MHowellTweets) July 19, 2026 Reporting by Lawrence Delevingne; Editing by Kirsten Donovan, Aidan Lewis, Rod Nickel and Andrea Ricci

The U.S. military said on Saturday two of its personnel were killed in Jordan and another was missing after an attack by Iran, while Iran’s supreme leader said Washington would pay for “seeking to escalate the conflict” after a seventh straight night of U.S. strikes. The U.S. and Iran have intensified attacks since an interim ceasefire deal signed a month ago fell apart last week, raising the possibility of a return to all-out war. U.S. Central Command said the two deaths occurred on Friday and that a third U.S. service member was missing in action. The announcement brought the number of U.S. service members killed since the war began to 16, while more than 420 have been wounded. Godspeed, heroes. Their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve. https://t.co/GIcfNdAol0— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) July 18, 2026 War Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on X: “Godspeed, heroes. Their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve.” Iran appeared to target Saudi Arabia as well as other U.S. Gulf allies and Jordan on Saturday after U.S. attacks on Iranian bridges, power facilities and other infrastructure. In a written statement carried by the official social media accounts of Iran’s supreme leader and Iranian state media, Mojtaba Khamenei said repeated U.S. breaches of the interim deal had shown that President Donald Trump’s signature was “utterly worthless and devoid of credibility.” “Now that the American enemy is seeking to escalate the conflict thereby incurring even heavier costs and further humiliation, it should know that the noble nation of Iran and the Resistance Front have unforgettable lessons in store for it,” the statement said. Khamenei’s whereabouts remain a mystery. The conflict, which began when the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran at the end of February hoping to disable its missile programme and its regional proxies, has led to major disruption to energy supplies, fears over global inflation and a battle for control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Strikes Reported Across Middle East On Saturday, Kuwait came under sustained attack, with the armed forces saying they had intercepted Iranian ballistic missiles and drones, and that some firefighters and oil sector workers had been injured while responding to the attacks.  Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had struck a U.S. military support centre at Kuwait’s Camp Arifjan and destroyed a radar facility at Ali Al Salem Air Base. Kuwait Petroleum Corporation later said one of its oil facilities had been hit in “repeated Iranian attacks”, causing significant damage and some injuries, according to the state news agency. As well as hitting Kuwait, the IRGC targeted a site in Bahrain where U.S. combat aircraft were gathered at Sheikh Isa Air Base and an intelligence data centre, Iranian media said. The Guards also destroyed at least two U.S. fighter aircraft and three other aircraft during a missile and drone attack early on Saturday on the U.S. base in Al Azraq, Jordan, according to Iranian state TV. Reuters could not independently verify the reports. Saudi Arabia’s early warning system issued alerts early on Saturday urging residents of Al-Kharj and Yanbu to seek shelter. Al-Kharj, east of Riyadh, is home to a military base that hosts U.S. troops, while Yanbu, on the Red Sea, has a key oil export terminal. Two people briefed on the matter said an Iranian missile attack, the first on Saudi Arabia in more than three months, had triggered the alerts. Saudi state media did not say what had prompted the alerts and the government media office did not respond to a request for comment. The IRGC made no mention of any attack on Saudi Arabia. Battle for Control of the Strait Earlier, U.S. Central Command said it had hit Iranian surveillance sites, military logistics infrastructure, underground weapons storage and maritime capabilities. U.S. airstrikes early on Saturday killed three people and wounded eight others in the southern Hormozgan province, which borders the Strait of Hormuz, while two bridges and a road tunnel were damaged, Iranian state TV reported. The U.S. carried out further airstrikes in the same province on Saturday afternoon, the semi-official Fars news agency said, quoting provincial authorities, but there were no reports of civilian casualties. Iran’s Health Ministry said on Saturday that 50 people had been killed and more than 500 wounded in U.S. strikes on the country over the past three weeks. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei accused the United States of seeking control over the Strait of Hormuz, which usually handles around one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.  Both sides have taken aim at shipping traffic, with the U.S. saying it is enforcing a naval blockade and Iran saying it targets vessels violating its rules on navigating the strait. The European Union and Gulf states called on Iran to immediately and unconditionally halt all attacks and interference with maritime navigation and to keep the strait open without conditions or fees, according to a joint statement reported by Saudi state TV on Saturday. A merchant vessel and military forces were involved in an incident off Oman, United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said in a note, without giving further details. Oil prices rose more than 4% on Friday to their highest level in more than a month, adding to political pressure on Trump as his Republican Party tries to hold on to power in November congressional elections. Reporting by David Ljunggren, Enas Alashray and Hatem Maher; writing by Stephen Coates, Gareth Jones, Aidan Lewis and Michael Martina; editing by Sam Holmes, Alison Williams, Ros Russell, Rod Nickel

Gov. Gavin Newsom spent the past year celebrating a massive expansion of California’s Hollywood tax credit program, boosting it to a record $750 million a year. Then his own budget managed to kneecap it.  Now Sacramento is scrambling to fix one of the governor’s biggest political headaches.  More than three dozen California lawmakers—including senior Democrat legislators—are urging Newsom to reverse a budget provision they say will cripple Hollywood’s newly expanded tax credits.  Sacramento expanded Hollywood’s subsidy with one hand while quietly weakening it with the other.  Lawmakers now say a broader corporate tax credit limitation buried in the state budget inadvertently swept up the very film tax credits they had spent months promoting. Assembly Democrat Caucus Chair Rick Chavez Zbur, who helped write the original expansion, said members believed a carve-out for film credits had already been secured before the budget vote.  Just months after celebrating the historic expansion, Newsom signed a budget extending broader limits on the use of corporate tax credits. Through 2029, companies generally remain limited to claiming $5 million in credits annually. Beginning in 2030, they generally will be limited to claiming either $5 million or 70% of their California tax liability in a given year, whichever is greater. Hollywood says this change significantly diminishes the value of the newly expanded incentive.  The result was a bizarre contradiction: Lawmakers increased the subsidy on paper while simultaneously limiting the extent to which many companies could actually claim the credits.  This is Newsom’s budget. He proudly signed it. If that budget accidentally kneecapped one of his signature Hollywood initiatives, the responsibility begins with him.  The episode is both embarrassing and revealing. Because beneath the legislative fumble lies a much bigger story about how California governs.  The problem with these tax credits has little to do with Hollywood. It has to do with government deciding which industries deserve special treatment and which are left to fend for themselves. California imposes one of the nation’s most expensive business climates, then selectively hands out tax breaks to politically favored industries as compensation.  That’s a politicized tax policy.  Manufacturers don’t receive Hollywood-sized carve-outs. Family-owned restaurants don’t. Independent retailers don’t. Thousands of California employers simply pay the state’s high taxes, navigate its regulations, and hope they can survive.  Hollywood gets a government subsidy.  Supporters argue that the credits are necessary because other states aggressively recruit film production. It’s true that Georgia, New Mexico, and others have built generous incentive programs to lure studios away.  But that argument raises an even more uncomfortable question. If California has become so expensive that Sacramento must continually subsidize one favored industry just to keep it from leaving, perhaps the real problem isn’t the size of the tax credit.  Perhaps it’s California.  Instead of fixing the business climate for everyone, Sacramento keeps creating carve-outs, exemptions, and targeted subsidies for the industries with the greatest political influence.  The government is choosing winners and losers. California doesn’t really have a coherent tax policy anymore, so much as it has a tax code filled with political exceptions.  Which brings us back to Hollywood.  Hollywood isn’t just one of California’s most iconic industries. It is one of the Democratic Party’s most valuable political assets, generating campaign contributions, celebrity endorsements, elite fundraisers, and the kind of national political validation every Democratic presidential hopeful craves.  That makes this budget mistake different from almost any other. If Sacramento accidentally undercut tax credits benefiting manufacturers or family-owned businesses, would lawmakers rush to pass corrective legislation? Maybe, maybe not.  Hollywood, however, doesn’t have to wonder. When Hollywood calls, Sacramento answers.  Hollywood has every right to lobby for its interests. Every industry does. The real question is why Hollywood almost always finds lawmakers sprinting to its rescue while millions of ordinary Californians are told to get in line. That answer has far more to do with politics than economics.  As Newsom continues positioning himself for what increasingly looks like a presidential campaign, the last constituency he can afford to alienate is Hollywood. It has fueled Democratic fundraising, celebrity activism, and campaign infrastructure for decades—the kind of national validation any Democrat eyeing 2028 needs badly.  That’s why this story isn’t really about a drafting error buried deep inside a budget bill. It’s about political priorities.  Newsom’s own budget created a problem for one of California’s most politically connected industries. Now the pressure is on to solve it—and fast.  Watch how quickly this gets fixed.  California families have spent years asking Sacramento for relief from soaring taxes, unaffordable housing, skyrocketing insurance premiums, and an increasingly hostile business climate. They are routinely told change takes time.  Hollywood probably won’t have to wait.  Newsom’s budget created this mess. His presidential ambitions will almost certainly clean it up.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal. 

New York City has long been celebrated as a city of immigrant neighborhoods. Little Italy, Chinatown, Harlem, Washington Heights, Brighton Beach—these communities tell the story of generations of newcomers who helped build America’s largest city while gradually becoming part of it.  That history makes one omission from Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s recently released map of immigrant communities particularly striking.  Little Italy wasn’t there.  Instead, the map highlighted a series of neighborhoods identified as “Little Pakistan,” “Little Senegal,” “Little Yemen,” and even “Little Palestine.” City Hall defended the project by saying it was never intended to identify religious enclaves but rather neighborhoods with substantial foreign-born populations from around the world.  That explanation raises an obvious question: If the goal was to recognize immigrant communities, how does one leave out perhaps the most iconic immigrant neighborhood in New York City?  Little Italy is more than a tourist destination. It represents one of the defining chapters in the city’s history—a reminder of the millions of Italian immigrants who arrived in America, endured discrimination, built businesses, and eventually became woven into the fabric of American life. Omitting it while highlighting far newer and, in some cases, unofficial neighborhood designations sends a message, whether intended or not, about which immigrant stories deserve recognition.  The omission also fits a broader pattern.  During the protests of 2020, Mamdani posted a photograph of himself making an obscene gesture toward a statue of Christopher Columbus, accompanied by the caption, “Take it down.” Columbus has become a lightning rod in America’s culture wars, but for many Italian Americans, his monuments represent more than one historical figure. They symbolize a community that fought for acceptance in a country where Italians were once treated as outsiders.  Seen through that lens, leaving Little Italy off the map appears less like an oversight than another step in distancing the city from parts of its own heritage.  Questions about Mamdani’s priorities extend beyond symbolism.  According to reporting by City Journal, New York City’s Office for International Affairs recently scheduled a meeting between Commissioner Ana Maria Archila and Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations. The meeting was reportedly canceled after intervention from higher authorities, and the State Department reminded city officials that foreign policy is conducted by the federal government, not municipal governments.  The same reporting also alleged that staff within the mayor’s international affairs office were instructed to “prioritize diplomatic engagement” with governments viewed as politically aligned with the administration. Among the examples cited were efforts to engage officials connected to Iran and Colombian President Gustavo Petro, as well as participation in conferences hosted by the Party of European Socialists.  Whether one agrees with those priorities or not, they raise legitimate questions about the role a city government should play on the international stage. New York has every reason to maintain relationships with foreign governments and international institutions, particularly as host to the United Nations. But conducting diplomacy based primarily on ideological affinity rather than municipal interests risks blurring the line between city governance and foreign policy.  Supporters dismiss these concerns by arguing that a mayor’s authority is limited. They contend that campaign rhetoric often exceeds what any municipal executive can realistically accomplish.  History, however, offers plenty of examples of political leaders using local offices to reshape institutions, influence public culture, and redirect investment long before they gain broader power.  Indeed, some investors have already expressed concern about New York’s political direction. If businesses and property owners begin viewing the city as increasingly hostile to investment or economic growth, those perceptions alone can influence where capital flows.  Ultimately, the controversy over Little Italy is not simply about a map. It reflects competing visions of what New York represents.  One vision sees the city as the culmination of generations of immigrants who arrived from around the world and gradually forged a common American identity. The other places greater emphasis on preserving distinct identities and highlighting newer communities while giving less attention to older ones that have largely assimilated.  A map tells a story about what matters, what deserves recognition, and what belongs in a city’s collective memory. When one of New York’s most historic immigrant neighborhoods disappears from that story, people are right to ask why.   Whether intentional or accidental, erasing Little Italy from the city’s official narrative risks erasing part of New York’s own history. And if history is any guide, today’s symbolic omissions often foreshadow tomorrow’s political priorities. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal. 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani told ABC’s Jonathan Karl last month that a democratic socialist can win any office in the country. He may be right about the contemporary politics, but he is dead wrong about the underlying economics, and Colonial America proved it four centuries before he took the oath of office. The issue stems from a fundamental question: What makes people act in someone else’s interest instead of their own? The answer, every time, is incentive. Tie a person’s effort to their reward and they produce. Sever that link and they stop trying, no matter how godly or how disciplined the group is. The Pilgrims proved that before they proved anything else about religious liberty, and they proved it the hard way. Plymouth Colony launched in 1620 under a communal labor arrangement forced on the settlers by their London investors. Everyone worked the common fields. Everyone drew from the common store, regardless of how much they had contributed to it. Gov. William Bradford, who lived through it and buried half the colony after that first brutal winter, later wrote that the “common course and condition” bred “much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” Young, able-bodied men resented working for other families without any personal payoff. Wives ordered to cook and clean for households outside their own considered it something close to servitude. Bradford, a devout man who had every reason to want communal Christian charity to succeed, concluded that the arrangement did not fail because the colonists were wicked. It failed because it asked fallen human beings to behave like angels, and none qualified. Jamestown ran the same experiment 13 years earlier with the same result, only worse. The Virginia Company set up collective farming so the London shareholders could claim a share of everything produced. Colonists who had every reason to plant, hunt, and build instead let the fort rot and, according to contemporary accounts, spent their days bowling in the street while stores dwindled. Roughly 80% of the population died in what history remembers as “the Starving Time.” Gov. Thomas Dale arrived in 1611, looked at the wreckage, and did the one thing the shareholders had not authorized: he handed every man three acres of his own ground to farm for himself. Colonists began “gathering and reaping the fruits of their labors with much joy and comfort,” in John Rolfe’s words, and the colony that had nearly died of collectivism started feeding itself within a season. Plymouth learned the same lesson two years later. Bradford assigned each family its own plot instead of a shared field, and the shift, in his account, made all hands industrious enough that the harvest that followed became the first Thanksgiving. Two colonies, two governors, two independent experiments in common ownership, and identical outcomes. Neither Bradford nor Dale had read Adam Smith, who would not publish “The Wealth of Nations” for another century and a half. They didn’t need the theory. They had the corpses. That is the inconvenient history sitting behind every modern promise that this time collective control of housing, health care, or wages will work out differently. It has been tried on this continent longer than the United States has existed, and it has produced the same failure that the 20th century confirmed at industrial scale in the Soviet Union and Maoist China. And that’s not even mentioning contemporary Venezuela or Cuba, a country sitting atop the world’s largest oil reserves that still cannot keep grocery shelves stocked. Thomas Sowell spent a career making the point plainer than I can: incentives, not intentions, determine outcomes. A system can be staffed entirely by sincere, hardworking people and still collapse if it severs the link between what a person produces and what a person keeps. I see a version of this same failure mode in my work as an expert witness on fiduciary duty, albeit on a much smaller scale. When a trustee or an investment committee loses sight of whose money they are actually managing, performance sags long before anyone commits outright fraud. The discipline evaporates first, then the returns follow. Plymouth and Jamestown were, in effect, two colony-sized trusts with no beneficiary accountable for the outcome. Everyone was a shareholder in the harvest, and no one was responsible for growing it. That is not a design flaw you can legislate around. None of that means Americans owe each other nothing. The Plymouth colonists still hunted, fished, defended the settlement, and worshipped together after they abandoned the common course of labor. I am not arguing that cooperation and charity are not real or important. The argument is narrower, and it is the one Mamdani’s supporters keep skipping past: Producing wealth at scale requires private ownership and the freedom to keep what you build, while distributing wealth once produced can be a matter of family, community, or voluntary generosity. Collapse those two categories into one government-run system and you get Plymouth’s first winter, not its eventual harvest. Mamdani frames his politics as pragmatic delivery rather than ideology, telling Karl he was not interested in reading or writing a manifesto, only in results. Fair enough. Let’s judge by results. His own city has already forced him to walk back a campaign promise to expand rental vouchers because the fiscal math didn’t survive contact with a shrinking tax base and businesses voting with their feet. That is an example of the same math that broke down at Jamestown and Plymouth, running at a scale those two governors never had to manage. I coached hurdlers, and I told every kid the same thing before a race: Nobody clears a barrier by pretending it isn’t there. The barrier here is human nature, and it has never once moved for a new slogan. William Bradford figured that out with a spade in a frozen field in 1623. New York is about to relearn it with a budget. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.