This is an adapted excerpt from Timothy S. Goeglein’s recent book (with Craig Osten) “What Really Matters: Restoring a Legacy of Faith, Freedom, and Family,” released April 8 from Fidelis Publishing. The late James Q. Wilson, former professor of government at Harvard University, once said, “It is not money, but the family that is the foundation of public life. As it has become weaker, every structure built on that foundation has become weaker.”  Those words came to mind when I reviewed some sobering and disturbing statistics from Pew Research and others on the views of Christians when it comes to marriage and cohabitation—especially young Christians.  It has been stated many times that the downfall of every great civilization, as well as institution, comes from within—not from aggressive external attacks but from moral compromises made along the way that slowly weaken its foundation.  As our society has debuckled itself from the institution of marriage, with catastrophic results, it seems now many churches are doing the same thing—choosing to conform to the culture rather than transforming it. As a result, the church’s voice in our culture becomes weaker—to the point of irrelevance—and our children are paying the price. This is evident in these statistics, especially when it comes to today’s young adults.  In 2019, Pew reported 58% of white evangelicals said cohabitation was acceptable as long as the couple eventually plans to marry.  Alarming as that statistic is, it is more sobering among young evangelicals. Nine years ago, a General Social Survey reported more than 40% of evangelicals between the ages of 20 and 29 thought cohabitation was acceptable even if they had no plans to marry.  In addition, a new survey from David Ayers at the Institute of Family Studies found nearly half of evangelical Protestants between the ages of 15 and 22 who are not presently cohabitating or married believe they will likely cohabit with a member of the opposite sex sometime in the future.  The study also found that 65% of evangelicals between the ages of 23 and 44 who had already cohabitated plan on doing so again. This not only impacts our church’s witness when it comes to marriage and family but also accelerates the continued fragmentation of the family unit—the stabilizing factor in all civilizations—regardless of faith.  Why has this happened? In the rush to be seen as “culturally relevant,” “tolerant,” and “nonjudgmental,” many Christians and churches have pushed aside the Biblical teachings regarding marriage and family. While it is commendable for churches to try to reach the unchurched, many have chosen to avoid so-called “hot topics”—especially when it comes to human sexuality—leaving a vacuum our culture is eager to fill.  A generation of young believers is learning more about sex and marriage from popular culture than from their churches. When the world—and not churches—is the main educator on these issues, these are the results. Jim Daly, the president of Focus on the Family, has written, “It will be up to us to show a fraying culture that marriage is so much more than ‘just a piece of paper’ or an association of any two or more persons who profess to love each other. It is a sacred union of a man and a woman that confers myriad benefits on the spouses, their children, and society at large—benefits that cannot be replicated by any other relationship. I would go so far as to say a society cannot flourish, or even long survive, without stable marriages at its core.” And I would add that when churches no longer view marriage as sacred, but just as another optional arrangement, churches themselves cannot flourish. Why? Because when churches no longer treat marriage any differently than the culture—blindly accepting cohabitation as the “new normal”—they have lost their way—and their influence. They especially damage their credibility with rising generations of young Christians and other people of faith. Children still look to adults and institutions for guidance, and when those adults and institutions silently concede their rightful leadership, our children will do the same. It is time for those of us who believe in the sanctity of marriage to no longer sit on the sidelines while our children learn about marriage from the Kardashians or “The Bachelor.” Instead, we must emphasize the beauty and sanctity of marriage; why it is spiritually, emotionally, and physically beneficial to not cohabit with someone of the opposite sex; and why waiting will be ultimately to their benefit. With this vision of marriage prioritized in our churches, we can once again not only have stable families but also a church possessing the moral authority to be a clear and convincing voice reestablishing a flourishing society and the dignity of love. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Companies have been dialing back their LGBTQ+ Pride messaging since President Donald Trump took office last year, and analysts say that contributes to a less divisive marketplace. “This is both a market correction and a cultural correction,” Allen Mendenhall, a senior adviser for The Heritage Foundation’s Free Enterprise Initiative, told the Daily Signal. “After years of performative corporate activism, companies are rediscovering that their customers—particularly families—do not want firms serving as vehicles for ideological agendas.” “Businesses are increasingly rejecting pressure from activist investors and corporate bureaucracies in favor of listening to consumers and respecting longstanding moral and religious convictions,” he added. “Top-down cultural engineering is losing its grip.” Many companies have adopted Pride messaging as a result of the environmental, social, and governance investing movement. Investors used ESG standards to direct their dollars, and they often relied on the Human Rights Campaign‘s Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies based on their pro-LGBTQ+ policies and statements, to determine where money went. Yet Trump issued executive orders combating so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion, noting that discrimination in favor of racial minorities and those who identify as LGBTQ+ still violates federal civil rights laws. This has inspired many companies to opt out of HRC’s index, though some had already begun to do so in 2024. The Human Rights Campaign recently surveyed consumers who identify as LGBTQ+, finding that these consumers identified five companies perceived as pulling back their commitment to the LGBTQ+ community: Target, Walmart, Amazon, Chick-fil-A, and Home Depot. The Daily Signal reached out to each of the companies below for comment, but only Amazon and Puma responded. 1. Amazon Amazon launched a “Pride Out Loud” campaign in 2021, and LGBTQ+ consumers named it as one of the more pro-LGBTQ+ brands between 2017 and 2022, according to the HRC survey. The online retailer made news for withdrawing its sponsorship of Pride Amsterdam last year, however. The company declined to comment on how many Pride events it has ceased sponsoring and stated that it supports employee-led groups that seek to sponsor such events. “We’re committed to building a workforce that helps us build the best range of products and services for the most globally diverse customers in the world,” an Amazon spokesperson told the Daily Signal. “We support our employees with opportunities that allow them to grow, thrive, and connect internally and in their communities.” 2. Facebook/Meta In 2018, Facebook launched a “Happy Pride” page for creators and introduced LGBTQ+ themes for Facebook Messenger in 2021. The company dropped those themes last year, while embracing policy changes that allowed more criticism of transgender ideology on Facebook. The company also appeared to release fewer posts celebrating Pride. 3. Home Depot Home Depot has reportedly dialed back its Pride messaging, removing a DEI section from its website and withdrawing its sponsorship for Toronto Pride. 4. McDonald’s In 2022, McDonald’s released a statement celebrating Pride, offering “gender reassignment support,” announcing a “House of Pride” parade, and hosting a float in Chicago’s parade. McDonald’s exited the HRC index last year, however, and seems not to be pushing Pride messaging.  5. Nike Nike launched a “Be True” product line focused on Pride messaging, but appears to have dialed it back in 2024, and while the company still sells “Be True” products, observers noted that it did not launch a new 2026 product line. 6. PepsiCo In 2022, PepsiCo ran a Pride Month marketing campaign and donated $100,000 to “LGBT+ safe spaces hit hard by COVID-19.” This year, PepsiCo scaled back sponsorship of NYC Pride. 7. Puma While the athletic wear company Puma launched a Pride collection last year, it does not appear to have done so this year. “PUMA continues to view diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as an integral part of its company culture,” Anne Putz, senior director of corporate communications, told the Daily Signal. She noted the company’s support for the LGBTQ+ event Christopher Street Day in Nuremberg, Germany, near the company’s headquarters. “At the same time, PUMA is currently undergoing a transformation, during which we are further sharpening our product portfolio,” Putz added. “This strategic focus does not change the importance we attach to DEI, which remains firmly embedded in our culture.” 8. Target Target appears to have faced backlash for its loud LGBTQ+ marketing back in 2023, and it removed itself from the HRC Corporate Equality Index last year. 9. Walmart Walmart has reportedly dialed back its Pride messaging and opted out of the HRC index. 10. YouTube Last year, YouTube Creator and Artist Stories published a celebration of Pride, but it appears not to have done so this year. A Warning “On one hand, many major companies have scaled back overt ideological messaging and refocused on core business priorities that serve their customers and shareholders,” Doug Napier, executive chairman and CEO of 1792 Exchange, told the Daily Signal. “However, others that publicly pledged to exit the activism business continue to support divisive causes, revealing a gap between rhetoric and genuine commitment.” “Corporate leaders must implement structural changes that prioritize integrity and core business functions over radical social causes,” he added.

The structure of a nation’s economy touches each citizen. It influences how citizens make life-altering decisions, from college commitments to career choices. In America, our economic order has long been undergirded by the assumption of meritocracy. Meritocracy is a simple concept: Those who work hard and excel will be rewarded, and the fruits of one’s labor are evidence of capability and competency. Unfortunately, a government-sanctioned assault on meritocratic principles has been underway for over 60 years. Following the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the doctrine of disparate impact fueled discrimination against qualified Americans based on their race or gender in hiring. In the 1970s and ‘80s, a new wave of discriminatory policies immersed academia, with the proliferation of affirmative action initiatives. In the 2010s, discriminatory DEI policies began to take hold in corporate America, freezing qualified applicants out of jobs and stunting the career growth of others. In fact, until Louisiana v. Callis, interpretations of the Voting Rights Act allowed congressional and state legislative districts to be drawn strictly based on race. The second Trump administration has taken numerous actions to restore America to its status as a meritocratic nation. Recently, on June 9, the Department of Justice released an opinion that found previous Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hiring guidelines based upon the aforementioned disparate impact doctrine resulted in unconstitutional racial discrimination. In all aspects of American society, discrimination was ingrained into its structures. Whether in the public or private sectors, academia, or even the Congress, discrimination against certain groups was tolerated, despite Orwellian declarations of equality. These efforts—including the Biden administration’s estimated $1.1 trillion in government spending on DEI policies, universities spending millions on DEI staff, and private corporations’ $340 billion in racial diversity initiatives post-2020—are finally being undone. This is not the first action the Trump administration has taken to curtail the harmful effects of the disparate impact doctrine. In December 2025, the DOJ discontinued enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act for race- or sex-based quotas, without actual intent to discriminate. Earlier in 2025, the DOJ issued guidance asserting that race- and sex-based DEI programs are unconstitutional and impermissible, particularly for states and schools receiving federal funding. This latest decision allows corporations to test for competence without having to worry about unintended disparities in results. Employers can now freely use metrics that are “generally related” to job function, including aptitude tests and SAT scores. Employers have already begun rolling back their commitment to discriminatory DEI policies. The frequency of DEI mentions in corporate earnings calls and documents has declined from its peak in 2022. A recent White House report found these initiatives associated with a 2.7% decline in productivity. This equated to a $94 billion loss to the economy in 2023 alone. The Heritage Foundation’s Free Enterprise Initiative has kept the pressure on these companies to abandon these harmful and immoral policies. This new rule is a fantastic step in restoring both meritocracy and moral order to the American economy. Employers, ever since Griggs v. Duke Power Company, have had to avoid false claims of discrimination and execute complex workarounds to restrictions on aptitude testing. Consequently, thousands of talented Americans lost career opportunities because of their immutable characteristics. This was the very sort of structural discrimination the Civil Rights movement claimed to oppose. By rejecting race- and sex-based preferences, the rule reaffirms the fundamental American principle that opportunity should be earned, not allocated. Americans still believe broadly in meritocracy; 68% thought the Supreme Court’s decision eliminating affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard  was “mostly a good thing.” While American institutions have drifted from the concept of meritocracy in previous decades, the citizenry has not. To trope Benjamin Franklin, meritocracy endures only so long as it is actively maintained. The DOJ’s recent guidance is another step in that direction, restoring the idea that opportunity should track merit, not demographic identity, and that fairness requires treating individuals as individuals.

Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., told the Daily Signal that a recent campaign poll of his found many of his constituents view the rise of “Islamification” and Islamic rule as a top concern. As stated by Fine, respondents prioritized the issue above topics such as abortion, health care, and the conflict involving Iran. “I had to fight with my pollster, because no one ever asks about the rise of radical Islam in America, and I wanted it placed in my survey,” Fine said. “It was one of the largest issues people rated. My constituents believe it concerned them more than the war in Iran, abortion, and more.” Separately, he referenced remarks by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, claiming the mayor had expressed sympathy for a Hamas sniper. The mayor in February also called for a broader acceptance of the “Prophet Mohammed” on Islamic migration. “Look, the history of Islam is one of conquest,” Fine said, describing why he believes the issue resonates with certain voters. Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, told the Daily Signal that concerns raised by Fine are among the reasons he co-founded the Sharia-Free America Caucus. Self said the group aims to educate lawmakers and the public about what he described as the risks of Sharia law. “We are educating ourselves, our constituents, and our wider audience,” Self said. “We believe in the values of this country, [and] we believe in capitalism and our Christian foundations. We are a very forgiving country.” Self argued that without continued focus on the issue, the perceived threat could grow. “[We see] the rape gangs uncovered in the U.K., killing your daughter because she dishonored the family, and more,” Self said. “We do not want that to come to America.” A recent report from Rupert Lowe MP noted that at least 250,000 Christian white girls in the United Kingdom have been raped in the 21st century, 83% of whom have been victims of Islamic rape gangs. According to testimonies outlined in the report, the survivors revealed that their rapists believed they had a religious duty to conduct the act. “Our efforts will continue,” Self added. “We continue to grow slowly. We will have a planning session soon to outline what we think we can encourage governors to do—things we will recommend to governors and states to ask for their help, because they can do more than us in most cases.” States like Texas and Florida have taken initiatives that the federal government has failed to take, such as designating the Council on American-Islamic Relations as a terrorist organization for its controversial financial trail and involvement in advocating for Sharia. States like Indiana could soon follow, Indiana state Rep. Andrew Ireland told the Daily Signal. Self also said he believes some individuals exploit constitutional protections to avoid scrutiny. “If awareness on this issue is not raised, both by voters and by politicians, radical Islamists will continue to hide behind this freedom of religion, freedom of speech curtain,” he said. “That is to be expected. They are going to go on the offensive because they think they got the upper hand,” Self added. He concluded that the issue is “more important than ever,” asserting that the threat “is spreading right now.” “The videos of Imams openly preaching treason are gaining traction,” Self said. “They are on the offensive, make no mistake about it.” Florida imams:“We are building a pipeline of leaders. I want the governor of Florida to be Muslim. I want Muslims in the House, Muslim senators.”“We don’t apologize about jihad. We are not afraid of jihad. Jihad is who we are.”Thoughts?! pic.twitter.com/cQQB3PclEF— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) February 9, 2026

When the One Big Beautiful Bill Act came up for a vote on the Senate floor on July 1 of last year, 50 senators voted for it, and 50 senators voted against it. Vice President JD Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote in that chamber—so the bill could go back to the House for a final vote. In the House, it narrowly passed 218-214. Not one Democrat voted for it in either chamber. President Donald Trump signed it into law on July 4, 2025. One provision in this narrowly passed law had the potential to help school children all across the country. It was the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program. This program, now set to begin in 2027, will give Americans a nonrefundable tax credit of up to $1,700 per year for making donations to support school choice scholarships set up in the states. “Under the program,” explains the Congressional Research Service, “taxpayers will be eligible to receive a tax credit of up to $1,700 for the value of cash contributions to certain scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). These organizations, in turn, will be required to use these contributions to grant scholarships to students at private and public elementary and secondary schools located within their states.” Recipients of these scholarships would be subject to a family income limit. “Eligibility for scholarships,” said the CRS, “will be limited to students whose family income is below 300% of their area median income.” Recipients will be able to use the money from these scholarships to cover basic educational costs, including tuition and books, at elementary and secondary schools, whether they are “public, private or religious.” Whether or not to participate in this school-choice scholarship program was left to the states themselves. “States (and the District of Columbia) may choose whether to recognize eligible SGOs within their jurisdictions,” explained the CRS report. “To qualify for the credit, a contribution must be made to a state-sponsored SGO (which need not be located in the same state as the taxpayer), and the organization must only provide scholarships to students located within the state that recognized it. This effectively allows states to decide whether to make students who live within their borders eligible for the program.” Why would the political leadership of a state prevent students in their state from receiving scholarship money voluntarily contributed by individual Americans? Because they want to prevent families, who would otherwise lack the necessary resources, from choosing to send their children to private or religious schools rather than to government-run schools. By contrast, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska wasted little time in signing his state up for these scholarships. On Sept. 29, 2025, he went to St. Teresa Catholic School, not far from the Nebraska capital, and signed an executive order backing his state’s participation in the program. “This program is a game-changer for Nebraska students and their families, generating funds that will help send students to the school of their choice,” he said. South Dakota soon followed Nebraska. Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden announced on Nov. 14, 2025, that his state also would be joining the school-choice scholarship program. “Parents should have the freedom to choose the learning environment that sets their kids up for success,” he said. “I am grateful that President Trump has the same conviction and is helping us create more opportunities for our students.” Yet it was not just Republican governors who had their states join the program. The Colorado Sun reported on Dec. 5, 2025, that Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis “said it was a no-brainer for the state to take advantage of the federal tax credit scholarship program, describing it as ‘a real boom of investment in kids.'” “I mean, it would be crazy not to,” he said. When the Kentucky state Legislature passed a bill in March that opted their state into the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program, Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear took a different approach. He vetoed the bill. “Kentuckians have been firm that public dollars should only be used for public education,” Beshear said. “Kentuckians love our public schools,” he said. The Kentucky Legislature overwhelmingly disagreed—with the state Senate voting 31-5 and the state House voting 77-14 to override Beshear’s veto. What did California, the nation’s most populous state, do about the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program? Republican Rep. Vince Fong of California sent Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom a letter in January urging him to bring their state into the program. “By electing to participate, you would ensure this new federal education benefit will flow to California students, regardless of whether they attend a public or private school, and at no cost to the State,” Fong wrote to Newsom. The IRS published a list indicating that, as of June 22, there were 28 states that had signed up to participate in the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit Program. Newsom’s California was not one of them. Newsom, as this column has noted before, attended Notre Dame des Victoires, a Catholic grammar school in the heart of San Francisco. When that school marked its 100th anniversary in 2024, Newsom recalled the remarkable opportunity it had provided him. “Attending Ecole Notre Dame des Victoires was a transformative experience,” he said. “It was here that I learned not only how to conjugate verbs in French, but also about the rich tapestry of French Catholic history. This foundation has stayed with me throughout my life, and I am grateful for the lifelong connections and values instilled in me during my time at NDV.” So, why is he not supporting a program that would provide funding to help children in San Francisco today embrace a similar experience? The 2025 National Assessment of Educational Progress “long-term trend” tests showed a continuing pattern in American education: Catholic school students outscored public school students in reading and math. Among 13-year-olds, the average reading score among public school students was 255 out of 500. Among Catholic school students, it was 276 out of 500. The average mathematics score among 13-year-olds in public schools was 269 out of 500. Among Catholic school students, it was 291 out of 500. Embracing unlimited school choice, where every student gets a voucher equal to the full per-pupil expenditures in the local public schools, would be good for students and for our country. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.