The media landscape is undergoing a fundamental transformation that will reshape how Americans consume news over the next decade—and conservative outlets are leading the way. That’s the view of Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of The Daily Signal. In an appearance on PragerU’s “Real Talk” show with host Marissa Streit, Bluey outlined the challenges and opportunities facing conservative media, including The Daily Signal’s fight for press credentials during the Biden administration and more recent battles with censors. Their conversation also touched on major shifts in how Americans get information. Bluey acknowledged the growing influence of podcasters and individual personalities competing with traditional news brands, while emphasizing the continued need for organizations such as The Daily Signal. “Individual news consumers are going to have to discern who they trust,” he said, warning against reliance on any single source. .@DailySignal President @RobertBluey on the Collapse of Legacy Media and the Future of Journalism(00:01:11) How The Daily Signal Started (00:02:29) White House Credential Crackdown (00:04:07) Why The Daily Signal Became Independent(00:04:15) How Press Credentialing Really… pic.twitter.com/eS61EoXaiX— Marissa Streit (@marissastreit) February 4, 2026 The Daily Signal operates with a team of 14 full?time staff members and four journalism fellows—small compared with many legacy outlets. Yet it maintains a presence in the White House briefing room, regularly attends Capitol Hill press conferences, and its reporters have traveled with President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and War Secretary Pete Hegseth. Press Credential Fight Access to Washington’s major institutions wasn’t always guaranteed for The Daily Signal. In August 2023, the outlet was among 442 organizations that had White House press credentials revoked when the Biden administration changed access rules. The new requirements mandated congressional press credentials—something The Daily Signal had been denied because of its affiliation with The Heritage Foundation. “Biden decided to change it, I think, because he wanted to restrict the number of reporters who had access,” Bluey said, noting the timing coincided with growing questions about the president’s mental acuity. Antifa, Violence, and Threats: The Fuel Behind The Daily Signal's 'Common Sense' MissionThe increase in violent threats against conservatives—and even members of The Daily Signal—only motivates @RobertBluey and his team to defend conservative values even more through their… pic.twitter.com/Etst5520VO— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) February 6, 2026 The decision prompted The Daily Signal to become legally independent from Heritage to secure congressional and White House access. Bluey contrasted Biden’s restrictions with the Trump administration’s approach, which included creating a new media seat for nontraditional journalists—something he called a positive step for transparency. Rising Stakes The conversation took on a somber tone when discussing the assassination of Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk, who was shot in September while speaking at a college campus in Utah. “The world of speech and journalism has changed forever after the murder of Charlie Kirk,” Streit said. Bluey addressed growing security risks for conservatives, particularly those in media. Daily Signal reporters have faced attacks, including from Antifa during protest coverage. “It is frightening to think that you need to resort to having a security team protect you just because you want to share conservative values and beliefs,” he said. Charlie Kirk warned us that colleges have become the least-free place in America. @RobertBluey explains why we must not retreat from the public square. pic.twitter.com/rt9arJPweJ— Marissa Streit (@marissastreit) February 6, 2026 Streit said Kirk’s killing crystallized a new reality. “He just wanted to debate. He just wanted to bring truth. He just wanted to speak,” she said. “The idea that somebody who is speaking truth that some people might think is wrong or hate speech would get shot—to me, that’s a turning point in the belief that there’s real free speech in America.” Despite the risks, Bluey said he remains committed to the mission, driven by what he calls “a passion for pursuing truth” and telling stories that can lead the country toward better policies. Looking Ahead Bluey described artificial intelligence as both an opportunity and a challenge. While AI could handle routine tasks for media companies, he worries about the decline of original reporting and the loss of mentorship opportunities for young journalists. He predicted legacy media will continue to lose influence as politicians bypass traditional outlets for direct?to?audience platforms. Still, he expressed optimism about the future, pointing to expanding conservative media?training programs such as those offered by the National Journalism Center and various journalism fellowships. Before you trust a podcaster, ask two questions: what agenda do they have and what do they have to lose if they lie? @RobertBluey pic.twitter.com/7TMwSpcs8C— Marissa Streit (@marissastreit) February 5, 2026 For those considering careers in conservative media, Bluey recommended pairing classical education with journalism training, noting the balance between learning practical skills and understanding foundational principles. He pointed to programs at Hillsdale College and fellowship opportunities as strong alternatives to traditional journalism schools. “If you’re interested in journalism or media, pursue that career,” he said. “We need more people willing to engage in this space.” The Bottom Line Streit compared the work to enlisting in defense of American values. “It is very unlikely that America will ever be taken down through outside bullets and tanks,” she said. “If something happens to America, it’s from within. It’s through education. It’s through limiting free speech. And it’s through journalism and fake news.” Bluey’s core message: Media trust will only be rebuilt through transparency and accountability. Conservative outlets, he argued, succeed by openly acknowledging their perspective rather than claiming false objectivity. “Trust in media organizations plummets in part because they haven’t been honest with their audience about the agenda they have,” he said. As the media landscape continues to evolve, Bluey sees conservative journalism playing an increasingly vital role—not as partisan cheerleading, but as rigorous reporting guided by clear principles and accountable to the audiences who fund the work. .@RobertBluey explains that Americans voted for border security and the deportation of illegal immigrants who pose a danger to their communities. Are ICE deportations fulfilling President Trump’s commitment—or have they gone too far? pic.twitter.com/vnWYe4eEsu— Marissa Streit (@marissastreit) February 4, 2026 The post Conservative Media at a Crossroads: Daily Signal’s Rob Bluey on Press Freedom, Trust, and Future of Journalism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The unrest in Minneapolis has died down, and the Trump administration is pulling 700 immigration enforcement officers out of the area. But all of the national media scrutiny has obsessed over Team Trump. It has rarely acted to “hold government accountable” when the governing comes from Democrats, like Gov. Tim Walz or Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. NPR was eagerly touting its new NPR/PBS Marist Poll to underline the effectiveness of their advocacy: 65% of Americans, up from 54% in June of 2025, think the actions of [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] have “gone too far” in enforcing immigration laws, and 62% say the actions of ICE are making Americans “somewhat less safe, or much less safe.” The New Republic underlined what NPR and PBS were cooking: “Brutal New Poll Wrecks Trump’s Main Claim on ICE.” Now ask yourself this question: Did PBS and NPR ever ask the public for their evaluation of ICE under President Joe Biden, when there was a mass importation of illegal aliens? Pollsters may have asked about their approval of Biden on the immigration issue. But this polling is specific and suggestive, intended to punish ICE deportation efforts. Pollsters don’t ask if the actions of ICE protesters have “gone too far.” The media have soft-pedaled violent extremists in the streets, who are painted as passionate heroes, just as Black Lives Matters were boosted for their “racial reckoning” in the George Floyd riots of 2020. James Freeman at The Wall Street Journal asked the rhetorical question: “Who Watches the ‘ICE Watchers’?” National media outlets have implied that these protesters—including Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were shot by federal agents as they interfered and threatened law-enforcement activities—were somehow not radical activists, when their tactics were clearly radical. Freeman drew attention to a Christina Buttons article for City Journal about how leftists were training in Minneapolis to wreck ICE activities and protect illegal aliens, who they describe as “vulnerable community members.” Buttons entered into the training programs of “Defend the 612” (the Minneapolis area code): “Our reporting reveals that members and related officials have encouraged protesters to impede law enforcement; pushed civilians toward legally and physically risky confrontations; and helped mobilize a counterprotest that turned violent.” Good’s death represented a beautiful recruiting opportunity: “The evening Good died, Defend the 612 held an ’emergency vigil,’ during which flyers were distributed directing attendees to join the group. At Defend the 612’s training session the following day, (organizer Andrew) Fahlstrom reported about 1,000 new signups.” These leftists were very focused on getting the “mainstream” media to reinforce their interference with ICE: “Members characterized their media work as ‘propaganda’ and insisted on the need to ‘maintain control of your narratives.’ To that end, participants discussed the need to condition their speech to journalists on retaining editorial control over how stories are written.” Buttons noted that Fahlstrom’s “ICE Watch” activist orientation on Jan. 8 featured Jill Garvey, founder of a radical-left group called “States at the Core,” which were active in resisting ICE in Chicago last year. Here’s where National “Public” Radio reenters the picture to help the Left “maintain control of their narratives.” Last November, so-called domestic extremism correspondent Odette Yousef gushed over Garvey and did a “ride along” with the domestic extremists engaged in ICE-busting activities in Chicago. In the elitist media’s groupthink, the left-wing extremists never go too far, no matter how violent or destructive their tactics. Their goal isn’t keeping the streets safe. Their goal is destroying President Donald Trump and the Republicans. Any extreme tactic that hurts those people in the polls serves an important “progressive” purpose. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Pollsters Don’t Ask If Anti-ICE Activists Have ‘Gone Too Far’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Lucas is seeking to prevent Americans losing their jobs to foreign workers. “Most people understand that you can’t discriminate against a foreign worker, but they don’t understand that American workers could constitute a national origin,” said Lucas, who oversees the federal government’s employment discrimination agency. “It’s one of those things where discrimination is happening in plain sight, and people just don’t understand their rights.” “Most people understand that you can’t discriminate against a foreign worker, but they don’t understand that American workers could constitute a national origin.”@andrealucasEEOC tells @DailySignal how she is "clamping down" on foreign workers taking American jobs. “It’s one… pic.twitter.com/iHwkXvMYqI— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) February 6, 2026 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the law that established the EEOC, bars discriminatory job advertisements that say the employer prefers or requires applicants from a particular country. Lucas said she will come out with a provision soon “clamping down” on job ads that exclude Americans. “I think it’s rampant,” she told The Daily Signal. “I think that there is a really, really big problem, and it’s another example of where, because there’s just been lopsided discussion about what the law covers.” For instance, Apple had to pay a $25 million settlement in 2023 after it was found that the tech giant required paper applications for positions it wanted to go to foreign workers, and the company did not advertise them on its own job website. “It’s one of those things where discrimination is happening in plain sight, and people just don’t understand their rights,” she continued. “So we’re really trying to push back and educate people.” The commission is part of a whole-government effort led by the Department of Labor called “Project Firewall,” to fight H1-B visa abuses. “American workers are the centerpiece of President Trump’s agenda and protecting all Americans from the right to be free from discrimination,” she said, “and that includes when companies want to prefer foreign workers.” Cases of discrimination against foreign workers occur in every industry, she said. “We see it when a company that might have been launched in another country, comes to our country and decides to open locations here,” she said. “They may not realize that it’s not acceptable to have all of their executives or most of their employees be from their home country.” “That’s unlawful. We see it in farm workers or frontline workers where people will try to segregate workplaces and only hire Hispanic workers, perhaps because they think that they’re going to be either illegal aliens or monolingual and therefore more vulnerable,” she continued. “It can come up in really almost every workplace from really white collar tech companies to frontline service industries, manufacturing.” Lucas is interested in protecting workers in all of these situations. Several previous administrations have investigated worker discrimination, but Lucas believes they’ve only scratched the surface. “Thus far we’ve had a couple, with a one big million-plus dollar recovery for something that was launched in the Biden administration and then came to fruition in the Trump administration involving preference for Japanese chefs in a location in Guam, and American workers were harmed there,” Lucas said. “You see bits and pieces, but I think the level of H-1B-related enforcement, we’re really just scratching the surface,” she continued. “There’s a lot more to be done, and I’m really encouraged by the whole of government effort that Project Firewall involves.” The post ‘NOT ACCEPTABLE’: Trump Admin ‘Clamping Down’ on Foreigners Taking American Jobs appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A few years ago, things looked pretty bleak for skeptics of transgenderism—those of us who have great compassion for those afflicted by what the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” long referred to as the “disorder” of gender dysphoria, but who refuse to accept the lie that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man. During the 2020 presidential race, then-candidate Joe Biden tweeted, “Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.” As president in 2023, Biden followed up by stating, “Transgender people are some of the bravest Americans I know.” That same year, the transgender fad achieved unprecedented reach among impressionable youngsters: While Gallup reported that (an already-high) 7% of all Americans identified as LGBTQ+, that number soared to 20% of all Gen Z—and as high as 38% on some elite Ivy League campuses. But the social craze began to face setbacks. In the U.K., the National Health Service’s Cass Review cast substantial doubt on the underlying scientific evidence purporting to support “gender-affirming care.” Enterprising investigative journalists, such as Christopher F. Rufo, began to expose rampant ethical concerns with America’s gender clinics. Polling began to reflect broader concerns with the transgender narrative on issues such as women’s athletic competition. President Donald Trump, intuiting that law can shape culture just as culture can shape law, signed numerous transgender-related executive orders in the first few weeks of his second term. Now, it seems the dam may be breaking. In a landmark legal judgment on Jan. 30, a 22-year-old biological woman named Fox Varian was awarded $2 million in Westchester County Supreme Court. Varian, a “detransitioner,” had an irreversible double mastectomy when she was 16 years old. The New York court held her psychologist and surgeon liable for $1.6 million for past and future suffering, and an additional $400,00 for any future medical expenses. Varian, whose mother initially opposed the operation but consented following the surgeon’s “emphatic” insistence, became deeply depressed following the procedure. Now, she has become the first “detransitioner” to win a medical malpractice lawsuit at trial. The message out of Westchester County is clear: Doctors and psychologists are now potentially on the hook for irrevocable mutilation of patients in the name of gender ideology. The response has been swift. On Tuesday, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons became the first major medical association to recommend that transgender “surgeries” be delayed until a patient is at least 19 years old. Immediately, the American Medical Association, in a statement to National Review, reversed its previous enthusiasm for teenage “gender-affirming care”: The AMA now “agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.” On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics followed suit: “The guidance from the (AAP) for health care for young people with gender dysphoria does not include a blanket recommendation for surgery for minors.” Transgenderism is having a tough time on the legal front as well. In United States v. Skrmetti, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority held that Tennessee’s comprehensive ban on transgender-related medical procedures passes constitutional muster. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of the more centrist Republican-nominated jurists, went out of her way to argue in a concurring opinion that transgender-identifying individuals do not constitute a “suspect class” or “discrete and insular minority,” in the court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudential jargon, such that heightened judicial scrutiny is required. This term at the high court, Idaho and West Virginia recently defended their own laws that prohibit biological males from competing in women’s sports; most court-watchers expect the two states to prevail. The fundamental problem for transgender activists was always easy to spot: Transgenderism is premised on a lie, and in the long run the truth has a stubborn tendency to prevail. We know from the biological truth of sexual dimorphism, the chromosomal truth of dichotomous XX and XY structure, the biblical truth that “God created man in His image … male and female He created them,” millennia of unquestioned human experience, and basic common sense that there are precisely two sexes. That is not to deny that there are intersex, or androgynous, individuals—there are, and there always have been. And that is not to deny the very real psychological malady of gender dysphoria. But one cannot change his or her sex by subjectively identifying as such or by subjecting oneself to either hormonal treatments or a surgeon’s knife. It is simply not possible. And the notion that it ever was possible, advanced by so many cultural and societal elites for so many years, was always going to end in pain, suffering, massive legal liability, and the desecration of the Hippocratic Oath-based medical profession itself. Clicks and fads may sometimes rule the day, but the truth is eternal. Kudos to the American people for beginning to realign political, legal, and social mores with the truth. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Is This the End of Transgender Hysteria? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Climate alarmism has lost at the ballot box time and time again, and last year, even Bill Gates significantly dialed down his support for it. However, enterprising lawyers on the Left are still trying to smuggle in an effective carbon tax through the courts—and the Supreme Court should put an end to it. It works like this: local governments or activist groups file a lawsuit against oil and gas companies, claiming that the burning of fossil fuels impacts the climate, and these impacts negatively harmed people. Activist lawyers bring cases in state courts that are more likely to rule in their favor, and—presto!—you’ve got a “carbon tax” imposed on oil and gas companies without needing a vote in Congress. Don’t take my word for it. David Bookbinder, who served as part of the legal team representing the left-leaning city and county of Boulder in suing oil companies, described the climate lawfare as “an indirect carbon tax.” “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder said on a Federalist Society panel in October. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products.” Tellingly, he added, “I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those… this is a rather, somewhat convoluted way, to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.” The thing is, the law isn’t supposed to work that way. 'INDIRECT CARBON TAX'Here's David Bookbinder, who represented Boulder in its lawsuit against Suncor (which the Supreme Court should consider and strike down).He admits climate lawsuits for damages under state law are an "indirect carbon tax," trying to circumvent Congress.? pic.twitter.com/QSeq1CXbky— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) February 6, 2026 Problems With the Argument It’s hard to overstate just how baseless this cockamamie legal argument is. Colorado Supreme Court Justice Carlos Samour Jr., an appointee of Democrat Gov. John Hickenlooper, put it well in a dissent when the Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder’s lawsuit against Suncor Energy companies and Exxon-Mobil to go forward. Samour noted that the court essentially “gives Boulder, Colorado, the green light to act as its own republic.” Why? Because applying Colorado state law to award damages for the companies’ burning of fossil fuels “will both effectively regulate interstate air pollution and have more than an incidental effect on foreign affairs.” So, why did the Colorado Supreme Court rule this way? The law has long treated interstate air pollution as an inherently federal concern under federal common law, but when Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, that displaced federal common law. Since the Clean Air Act did not “preempt” Colorado from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the court ruled that state laws may award damages for greenhouse gas pollution. Yet Samour noted that “state law has historically been incompetent to address claims seeking redress for interstate and international air pollution.” “Unlike the Blue Fairy that brought Pinocchio to life, the [Clean Air Act] did not magically breathe life into state-law tort claims that had been as lifeless as a wooden puppet,” the justice added. Potential Fallout Boulder cannot prove that a specific oil sale from Suncor had a specific impact on the global climate, which in turn caused a specific harm to Boulder. Instead, the case relies on the “consensus” that the burning of fossil fuels harms the climate—prediction models have failed to demonstrate exactly how—and that somehow this vague impact connects to depriving people of “the right to use and enjoy public property, spaces, parks, and ecosystems,” along with “the right to safe and unobstructed travel.” Naturally, Boulder seems unconcerned about what a settlement in this case would do to Americans’ right to “safe and unobstructed travel.” If Boulder wins this case, the fallout could be disastrous. Bookbinder, who represented Boulder, stated that if a lawsuit like this succeeds, that will lead nearly “every jurisdiction in California” to sue the oil companies, and then “every defendant in all these cases immediately declares bankruptcy.” Todd Zywicki, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, noted at a Civitas Institute panel Thursday that “any community in America could sue any of these companies, and why stop at the power companies?” Communities could sue airlines, truck drivers, even Americans who drive. I can imagine few obstructions of travel quite so obnoxious as a court determining that you could be sued just for turning on your combustion engine. The Supreme Court’s Opportunity Suncor Energy has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, presenting a golden opportunity for clarification. Since Suncor asked the court to take the case in August, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief asking for review, as have 26 states and 103 members of Congress led by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris put it well in writing that the United States has “a substantial interest” in whether Boulder can “apply one state’s law to the activities of energy companies around the world to hold those companies liable for injuries allegedly caused by global climate change.” As Harris’ brief notes, the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling conflicts with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down New York’s case against Chevron in 2021. The Supreme Court denied review in two cases where Honolulu, Hawaii, sought to punish Sunoco and Shell for alleged climate impacts. In June 2024, the Biden administration—which had significant ties to climate activist groups—urged the justices to deny review of those cases. Here’s hoping Suncor succeeds where Shell and Sunoco did not. The post CLIMATE LAWFARE: Will the People’s Republic of Boulder Bankrupt the Fossil Fuel Industry? appeared first on The Daily Signal.