After hearing that Vice President JD Vance had installed a chicken coop at the Naval Observatory, some people treated it as a political statement, but I suspect it is something much simpler. Recent estimates suggest roughly 11 million American households keep backyard chickens. That means the chicken coop behind the vice president’s residence is not unusual. The unusual thing is how many Americans have quietly decided they want a closer relationship with their food. Much of contemporary life—with its bureaucracy, homeowners associations, and planners—often seems to resist this trend, one arbitrary rule at a time. I do not believe that this resistance is rooted in a mistaken belief that chickens are somehow dangerous. I think it is because chickens are decentralized. They produce food close to home, and this reminds people that not every solution requires a large, stifling system. Long before I owned a ranch in Texas, I lived in Knollwood Country Club Estates, a golf course community in Southern California. I was a restaurant owner with a backyard chicken coop, a compost pile, a worm bin, and a growing fascination with where food comes from. The chickens taught me that food does not magically appear on grocery store shelves. They taught me that waste is often just a resource in the wrong place. They taught me that healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy animals, and healthy people are all connected. For decades, Americans have become increasingly disconnected from the production of their own food. Most people never question the arrangement until something goes wrong. Egg prices spike, supply chains break down, or grocery shelves sit empty of favorite ingredients. Then suddenly people realize how dependent they have become on systems they do not control, or even understand. That is why backyard chickens matter. Not because they will replace all of commercial agriculture, but because they reconnect people to food production. Chickens are the gateway drug to food sovereignty, and America seems to be rediscovering them. And the market has begun to take notice. Twenty years ago, finding a chicken coop usually meant a trip to a farm supply store. The other day, I walked through Costco and found ready-made chicken coops for sale. A few aisles away sat hydroponic towers designed to grow vegetables at home. Retailers do not dedicate floor space to products nobody wants. The desire to reconnect with food is real. For nearly all of human history, producing food was not a hobby. It was simply life. The appeal of collecting eggs still warm from the hen is not reserved for homesteaders or hobby farmers. Every one of us is only a few generations removed from an agrarian society. Whenever you gather eggs, plant a tomato, or harvest food with your own hands, you experience a kind of recollection of this reality. That recollection extends beyond food production itself; it also changes the way people think about waste. Roughly one-third of America’s food supply goes uneaten. A chicken sees opportunity where we see garbage. Vegetable scraps, stale bread, and even garden weeds become eggs. Yesterday’s leftovers become tomorrow’s breakfast. In Belgium, thousands of households received chickens as part of a waste reduction initiative. Instead of creating landfill waste, families are empowered to create food. One of the lessons farming has taught me is that God’s technology is often better than ours. A chicken takes weeds, insects, food scraps, and leftovers and transforms them into food while producing fertilizer for the next crop. No batteries or software updates are needed—just biology doing exactly what it was designed to do. Food sovereignty does not mean complete self-sufficiency. It simply means having some ability to participate in the production of your own food. Backyard chickens remind us that food can move directly from the land to the family without passing through a maze of institutions along the way. A flock of six hens will not feed a city, but it changes the way a family thinks. Then comes a tomato plant, a garden, composting, healthier soil, and eventually a deeper appreciation for where food comes from. A healthy society does not consist entirely of consumers. It consists of participants: people who grow some of their food, know their farmers, compost their scraps, and contribute to the life of their communities. That is why the chicken coop behind Vance’s house matters. It reminds people of something many Americans have forgotten: Food production is not reserved for corporations, governments, or professional farmers. Long before I owned a ranch, I learned that lesson in a golf course community in Southern California. It started with a chicken coop I was not supposed to have and eggs collected warm from the nest. Looking back, I was not just raising chickens. I was remembering something humans have known for thousands of years. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

If you want to find out why our country has been so successful, you should study the people who built it. America is about to turn 250 years old. It should be easy to celebrate America. Aside from the healthy patriotic pride anyone should feel, we are the greatest country in the history of the world. We enjoy freedoms most people could only dream about. We have the strongest military in the history of the world. We have the most dynamic economy. We put men on the moon. For those born after the end of the Cold War, it’s easy to take this for granted. It can feel like America has always been dominant. It hasn’t. Especially because public schools don’t teach it, we need to look at the roots of America’s greatness. That’s easy to discover if you read the words of the Founding Fathers. They weren’t shy about what—or rather who—deserved the credit. “We have appointed a continental Fast,” former President John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail Adams on June 17, 1775. This was during the Second Continental Congress. “Millions will be upon their Knees at once before their great Creator, imploring his Forgiveness and Blessing, his Smiles on American Councils and Arms.” Government officials calling for God’s help happened repeatedly during the American Revolution. In March 1775, Connecticut Gov. Jonathan Trumbull issued a proclamation for “a day of public fasting and prayer” in order “that God would graciously pour out His Holy Spirit on us … and make this land a mountain of holiness and habitation of righteousness forever.” He set that day of prayer for April 19, 1775. History buffs may recognize this as when “the shot heard ’round the world” was fired at the Battle of Lexington and Concord. This language from elected officials is shocking—even scandalous—to modern ears, but it was commonplace at the time of America’s birth. While the colonists didn’t share a common denomination, most shared a common Christian faith. On March 16, 1776, William Livingston successfully proposed that the Continental Congress declare a day of fasting and prayer. The Founding Fathers sought a time “that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Further, “it is recommended to Christians of all denominations to assemble for public worship.” The Founding Fathers believed God answered these prayers. Toward the end of the war, Gen. Benedict Arnold agreed to betray General George Washington and West Point. After the plot was improbably foiled, Washington credited God. “The Providential train of circumstances which led to it affords the most convincing proof that the liberties of America are the object of Divine protection,” he wrote about the incident. This devotion wasn’t limited to wartime, as “The American Story: The Beginnings” by David and Tim Barton details. In 1787, as the Constitutional Convention threatened to fall apart, Benjamin Franklin urged those assembled to pray. “How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?” Franklin asked. He continued, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men.” Also, “We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this.” Today, many Americans don’t. It’s led to what we’ll examine next week—the threats to America’s greatness. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

“Scroll less and live best” is the catchy message of the new 43-page report “Surgeon General’s Warning on the Harms of Screen Use.” The implicit message that spending hours doomscrolling is not the best way to live is practically common sense, yet easier said than done. Published in May, the advisory enumerates a litany of statistics linking excessive screen use to poor developmental, mental and physical health, and educational outcomes in children and teens. The document is more than just a warning. It also provides common-sense recommendations in the form of “the 5 Ds” (discuss, do, delay, divert, and disconnect) to help families navigate their children’s healthy use of screens. If the impact of previous surgeon general reports is any precedent, the new advisory could reshape common norms and practices of American households. The “Surgeon General’s Warning on the Harms of Screen Use” joins a long list of influential surgeon general reports, including one that transformed American health over 60 years ago: the “Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health.” The 1964 report linked cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other poor health outcomes, launching one of the most important public health campaigns. Since then, cigarette smoking rates have fallen 73% among U.S. adults, avoiding an estimated 8 million American premature deaths. Given that 97% of Americans own a smartphone and 81% of parents and 57% of children spend between four and 12 hours a day online, the latest surgeon general’s report could transform Americans’ relationship to their screens if they heed its advice. Like the 2023 advisory on social media and youth mental health, the advisory on screens is less revelatory as it is confirmative and timely. Summer months for families means kids are at home with more free time: the perfect time to create a family media plan or even go on a digital detox. For parents who are unbothered by their children’s screentime, consider this statistic from the report: “By adolescence, children may spend more time on screens than sleeping or attending school.” The report’s emphasis on the role of families and responsibilities parents have in shaping practices in their home is noteworthy. The advisory urges families to “be present in the moment,” “connect with children without a distraction,” and “delay screen time for as long as possible.” The report encourages parents to model healthy screen habits themselves, treating families not only as regulators of children’s digital practices, but also as their primary guides to developing healthy technology habits. This recognition is critical. Acknowledging the household’s role in shaping digital citizenship is vital to developing holistic, family-centered policies. Policies regarding children’s technology use should reflect an existential truth: technology should be shaped to serve the home; the home should not be shaped to serve technology. Parents hoping to form a well-ordered household can look at the advisory’s suggestions as a basic starting point to achieve that vision. While the advisory does not implement policy or regulations, its data-driven safeguards and practices rightly center on the institution which most impacts children—the family.   However, it’s not fair for parents to bear the brunt of this fight. In addition to families, the report provides recommendations to schools, health providers, researchers, policymakers, and technology companies. Without proper guardrails, tech companies will continue to exploit people’s fallible ways, monopolize attention, and influence the minds of children, all of which serves technology over humans. The surgeon general’s warning does not condemn all technology digital screen time. It recognizes that connecting with friends and family members, researching interests, and learning new skills and hobbies are joyful experiences—ones that serve humans. But it also fundamentally acknowledges that living real life means disconnecting from screens. In other words, “scroll less, live best.”

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal. There’s been a lot of news lately about the university’s higher education crisis, and universities are now competing for students rather than students competing with each other to get into universities.   Maybe the elite universities still, because of their brand name, although they’ve suffered a great deal and their admissions reflect that and their applications are down, they’ll always make it—the seven or eight so-called top tier.  But most four-year colleges and universities are in a bad strait. And why is that?  First of all, it’s demography. During the 1960s, the fertility rate reached, in 1960, about 3.6 children per family. It’s recovered a little bit the last three years, but it’s 1.7. So, the cohort of 17-, 18-, and 19-year-olds is less than half.  So, they are competing for a much smaller pool of young people.  The second thing that’s really turned people off is that tuition has increased, over the last 50 years, three times more than the annual rate of inflation.   Now, why is that?  Mostly it is because of administrative bloat.   Where I work, at Stanford University, The Wall Street Journal recently suggested that if you count graduate and undergraduate students at Stanford, and you count administrators and their staff, there is roughly one administrator or staffer for every student.  This is because the university became in loco parentis. It said, “I am a parent, and I’m going to monitor the 360-degree, 24/7 life of a student. If he’s not happy, we’re gonna deal with it. If somebody accuses you of sexual harassment, we’re gonna deal with it. We’re gonna deal with everything, and we’re going to try to be political.  “Our job is not disinterested, inductive education. It is to turn out left-wing people who can offer an antithesis to the family, nuclear family, the community, religion, etc. We believe society is biased with corporations and family and religion, and we’re gonna offer an antithesis. That turned off people, believe me.  Professors themselves are unique in American life. Nobody else has the same conditions of employment. After six years, they get tenure. Outside the exclusive schools, it’s almost automatic. Where I worked at the [California State University], I think 90% of assistant professors got tenure.  Release time is very common now. You can say, “I want to be a part-time administrator,” or “I am tutoring,” or “I have a special project,” and you can get a reduced teaching load.  Remember that the teaching load has gone way down. In most colleges, it’s between two and four courses a year. A year.  Maybe not at the CSU, but even CSU has gone down on many campuses. That’s the California State University system, the largest in the world. It has gone from four classes to three classes a semester.  And part of the way that they finesse that was when you increase the administrative budget and you increase release time for full-time faculty and decrease teaching, you hire part-time, temporary lecturers, and you exploit them.  You pay them about 40% per class of what you would pay a full or associate professor. You don’t really give them the same type of benefits. And at some universities, the percentage of courses that are taught by part-time, exploited lecturers is getting up to 40% and even 45%.  Another thing that turned the public off about these universities: They grant-gouge.  We’re starting to learn that, say, on NIH grants, many of these universities were charging not 10% or 15% commission, but 40% and even higher.  In other words, if a professor got a million-dollar grant from the federal government, a university would step in and say, “Well, you’re using your office or your phone or your lab, so we want 40% of it.”  And they use that because the whole system is financially unsound. Financially unsound.  Largely because, again, of administrative bloat and the creation of centers and programs that have nothing to do with education but form a huge overhead.  Another thing that got people very worried is another way they financed this debt, expanded their administrators, and cut back on teaching: They brought in over a million foreign students.  And unlike American students, there are no scholarships. There are no discounts. Foreign students pay the premium, if not a little bit higher tuition.  Now, the problem with that is when you bring in 300,000 students from China or over 200,000 from the illiberal Middle East, and when you look at the origin of most of these students, they are from autocratic and illiberal places in Africa, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, particularly the Middle East and China.  Then you start to politicize the student body, and you can see what happened after Oct. 7.  We had enormous demonstrations, often led by foreign students, chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” That’s essentially code for destroying the state of Israel.  And we had violent demonstrations often led by people from the Middle East.  And, of course, the FBI suggests that 1% to 5% of Chinese students are actively engaged in espionage.  The public knows this, and they’re not fond of that idea—that sometimes their children don’t get into school because the universities are letting in foreign students because they pay a premium.  DEI did damage—diversity, equity, inclusion.  The idea that the universities, despite state referenda and Supreme Court decisions and the Civil Rights Act, were deliberately, consciously, insidiously using race as a barometer to admit people, to hire people, to retain people, and to promote people on the basis of their superficial appearance, their sexual orientation, or their gender.  It was entirely anti-meritocratic. It was like the Soviet commissar system. It was like the McCarthy period.  If you wanted to get a job at a university, you had to fill out, in most cases, a diversity statement.  And believe me, if you wrote on that diversity statement, “Honestly, I believe that DEI is anti-meritocratic,” you were not going to be hired.  There’s another reason that these universities are in crisis.  The federal government came in and guaranteed student loans.  Once they did that, the universities jacked up the rate of tuition, as I said, three times higher on an annual basis than the inflation rate.  So the government came in and said, “You guys can loan students money, and we will back it up, so they will pay you back with federally guaranteed dollars.”  And we know now that there’s a 30% to 35% non-compliance rate, that people are either late or have defaulted.  And so, when you have $1.7 trillion in debt and you see that the debt is increasing because the students are not graduating in four years—the average graduation now is six years.  About 30% to 40% of people who enter college do not ever graduate.  But the whole thing is subsidized by loans from banks that are guaranteed by the federal government, and that gave a green light for universities to offer these crazy courses that nobody wants—peace studies, race studies, Black studies, environmental studies, etc., studies—because the students took them and the government paid for them.  And nobody worried about whether they graduated or whether employers found a well-educated and empirical product coming out with a B.A.  Finally, we’re short a couple million plumbers, electricians, blue-collar carpenters, sheet rockers, and roofers.  These are very important to the economy of the United States.  But when these universities said, “Come to us, and maybe even if you don’t graduate—40% of you—or if those who do average six years, and even though you’re gonna run up a big debt, you can take psych and sociology. It’s a good time to kind of float around, live in your basement, and have a good time in your 20s.”  But the economy answered back: We’re wasting kids’ formative years in their 20s.  We need master electricians. We need oil workers. We need skilled carpenters.  And the irony is that if you graduate with a bachelor’s degree in psychology or sociology versus being a master electrician at the age of 22, the electrician these days is going to be making $100,000-plus, and the sociology B.A., or the person with two or three years of psychology, is either going to be unemployed or not using that education at all in employment.  Or, if he is hired, he will be making half of what the electrician or the roofer or the carpenter makes.  Add it all up, and the universities are in bad shape, and they’re in desperate need of coerced reform because they will not reform on their own.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.   

Though Jay Clayton did not get to appear for his confirmation hearing this week, former Arizona television news anchor Kari Lake did. Thursday, she testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, standing her ground as Democrats demanded she apologize. President Donald Trump canceled Clayton’s Senate intelligence hearing to be confirmed as director of national intelligence. This heightened both GOP infighting and contention with Trump over the expired Foreign Intelligence Security Act Section 702. With a contentious week of hearing cancellations, Lake went on, but not without a political showdown. Virginia Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., called out Lake for comments she made about Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and demanded she apologize. My father walked out on my family when I was a kid. My mother raised us. I made my own way, joined the Marines, and built a life he had no part in. There are thousands of American boys doing the same thing right now, growing up determined to be better men than the fathers who… pic.twitter.com/I4OIhJXrBg— Senator Ruben Gallego (@SenRubenGallego) June 18, 2026 Lake ran against and lost to Gallego in the 2024 Arizona U.S. Senate race. During the campaign, Lake claimed Gallego was “controlled by the cartels.” She went on to say, “His own father was a Colombian drug trafficker, and so he’s got links to the cartel.” Gallego’s father was from Mexico, not Colombia. In his 2021 memoir, Gallego wrote that his father was arrested for possessing cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute. Law enforcement was never able to link Gallego to any cartel. Kaine attempted to force Lake to apologize to his colleague, bringing up Gallego’s “traumatic” childhood and abandonment by his father, which the Arizona senator wrote about in his memoir. “I don’t believe my charge was wrong,” Lake said in response. WATCH: Trump nominee Kari Lake refuses to apologize for suggesting during the 2024 Senate race in Arizona that Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), then her opponent, was controlled by drug cartels."I don't believe my charge was wrong." pic.twitter.com/dYjKTI2Di0— Off The Press (@OffThePress1) June 18, 2026 Lake lost the election by less than 2.5% of the vote. She now serves as senior adviser to the United States Agency for Global Media. In May, Trump nominated Lake to serve as ambassador to Jamaica, an independent island country that Lake said she has traveled to “too many times to count.” Lake highlighted was the strength of Christianity in the country, noting Jamaica has more churches per square mile than anywhere else in the world. She said she has numerous priorities for her ambassadorship: keep traveling Americans safe, rebuild from hurricanes, strengthen security, protect the country from transnational criminal organizations, and stop financial scams. Other goals Lake mentioned include reducing trade barriers, advancing American interests, and countering China’s economic influence.