If you ever plan on climbing Mount Everest, you’ll need what they call a sherpa. Named after the small Nepalese ethnic group that populate the Himalayas, sherpas are mountain guides to help climbers navigate the brutal and unpredictable conditions of Everest. It’s no surprise, then, that Washington has adopted the term “sherpa” for counselors to presidential cabinet nominees during the confirmation process. If you think climbing Everest is hard, just try climbing Capitol Hill. Clint Brown, now the president of American Path, was the sherpa for one of the Trump administration’s toughest nominee battles: the confirmation of FBI Director Kash Patel. Brown takes viewers inside this uphill battle, which ended with a 51-49 vote to confirm Patel, in this week’s episode of “The Signal Sitdown.” With over a decade of Senate experience, Brown helped Patel understand Senate dynamics and procedure so Patel could sell the vision he and Trump had for the FBI. One afternoon shortly after Trump’s election win, Brown got a call. A friend on the Trump transition asked if he’d help get Patel confirmed. Brown was given just hours to make up his mind. Brown decided to do it because “one, it sounded like fun, but, two, I didn’t want to go into the administration. It’s just not a good time in my life for that.” Nevertheless, Brown “wanted to help,” and this was his opportunity. Brown quickly learned that “it’s all DIY if you’re a sherpa.” “When you’re working at that level with a principal at that level, you’d think you’d have like an army of 10 people,” Brown tells The Daily Signal. “But it literally is just the sherpa. And, if you’re lucky, you have a scheduler and a comms sherpa.” A decade of Senate experience could not prepare Brown for what was to come. “I had no idea how brutal the confirmation process really is,” he says.  Each meeting with senators on Capitol Hill, of which Patel and Brown had more than 50, is “a job interview.” And you’re interviewing, Brown explains, to become “the executive in charge of a multi-billion dollar organization with thousands of people.” It’s a punishing process for nominee and sherpa alike. “[If] you’re exhausted, you haven’t slept in days, you’re not feeling well, and you go in and you say something totally off the wall, they go tell other senators,” Brown recalls. Clearly explaining the vision is key. “You’ve got to tell them what your vision is for the organization. You better know your stuff about the organization,” Brown says.  Dealing with sensitive information severely complicates matters. “At these organizations, everything is secret,” Brown adds. “So you can give your vision of how it should work, but there’s things you can’t say that you know from being briefed behind the scenes. They know you know, you know they know, but you can’t talk about it because everybody has a security clearance and none of it’s in a SCIF.” Patel’s pitch was twofold: “One, we are going to let good cops be cops. We’re gonna refocus the FBI on going after bad guys. And two, we are going to have radical transparency at the FBI where we give everything to Congress,” Brown says, paraphrasing Patel. It was a smart pitch not because it focused on the Trump administration’s interests, but the individual interest of each of the senators. For one, “everybody has a crime problem in their state,” Brown explains. “[It] doesn’t matter what state you’re in. Crime has gone up over the last decade, and especially the last four years under the Biden administration.” The second part of Patel’s pitch, radical transparency, addressed senators’ long-held frustrations with the FBI under Director Wray. “Virtually every senator that we met with, and they said it publicly, too, complained about how they would send an information request to the FBI and they would get back nothing,” Brown explains. “The FBI should be accountable to Congress. And they have an oversight function where they need to know what’s going on in the FBI,” Brown adds. Still, “no response.” Brown had never met Patel before their first meetings on Capitol Hill, but Brown was thoroughly impressed long before Patel was confirmed as FBI director on Feb. 20. “[Patel] did a great job in the confirmation process,” Brown says. “He’s exceptionally talented at laying out a vision and [able] to communicate it in a way that senators understand it.” “At the end of it, I was saying I would never do this again,” Brown recalls, “but now I’m like, ‘I kind of want to do this again.’” The post Inside the Fight to Confirm Kash Patel as FBI Director appeared first on The Daily Signal.

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. I want to talk about red ink. Red ink has manifested in trade deficits, budget deficits, and national debt. They’re all connected, but here’s my point: We’ve been warned that trade deficits of the last consecutive 50 years really don’t matter because we grew so much in our gross domestic product and our per capita income. But there were other factors that allowed the trade deficits not to matter as much, because we were not running huge budget deficits, nor had national debt climbed to the present levels. As well as, we weren’t the beneficiaries of a tech revolution in Silicon Valley. And we were not yet beneficiaries of being a net oil producer, rather than importer. But, let me get to my point. In 2000, I’m just taking an arbitrary year a quarter-century ago, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and other Democrats made an impassioned case that it was unsustainable to have a $100 billion deficit with China, in particular, and to run up a $370 billion trade deficit in general. That was over 3.6%, 3.7% of GDP. In 2025, despite the spectacular growth in GDP, we’re running a $300 billion, roughly, trade deficit with China. And a $1.1 trillion overall trade deficit with the rest of the world, including China. That’s well over 3%—that’s up into the 4%. What am I getting at? At the time that they were worried about this, a quarter-century ago, we had prominent economists who said that if you got over 3% of your trade deficit, you were too deeply leveraged by foreign influences that could buy property, too much bonds they held of American debt, they would get influence, et cetera. Warren Buffett in 2003 warned us in his annual letter that was published in Fortune magazine. As late as 2018, Jason Furman, the Obama economist, warned in The Wall Street Journal, of all places, you don’t want to go over 3% of GDP with your annual trade deficits. So, while we were doing this for the last quarter-century, and … and we’re up to 4% of GDP in our trade deficit, look at the budget—just to go back to that year—25 years ago, we were running—I can’t believe it—a $236 billion surplus. This was the grand [Rep. Newt] Gingrich, [then] speaker of the House, [and the-President] Bill Clinton budget that was still in effect. And we were adding to our national wealth by 2.4%-plus of GDP. Now, we’re running a $1.8 [trillion] to $2 trillion annual deficit. And that is a minus-6.4% of GDP. That has an influence on the trade deficit. And in addition to the debt, the debt was $5.6 trillion a quarter-century ago. That was high, but it was still only about 32%, 33% of GDP. Today, a quarter-century … later, the national debt is $37 trillion. That’s 125% of GDP. What is my larger point? Trade deficits don’t matter as much if your national debt is 35% of GDP or you’re running budget deficits that are manageable. But they do matter when you’ve got 125% of GDP, with your total debt—your $37 trillion debt—which is 125% GDP, and you’re running $2 trillion trade deficits. What has saved us In the past, we were the world’s reserve currency. … And we had 40% of the world’s market. People wanted to get in here, so they were willing to carry paper for us. But when you’ve got $37 trillion, that’s very different than $5 trillion, just a quarter-century ago. We had an oil revolution with fracking and horizontal drilling. We went from paying an exorbitant amount of money to the Middle East and elsewhere to being really a net exporter, if you look at all the ways that we produce oil versus the oil we buy. And of course, we had $9 trillion in market capitalization that flowed into Silicon Valley, to Apple, Google, and these other start-ups that became mega and global corporations. My final point: Trade deficits matter now. We are being crushed by budget deficits, national deficits, and trade deficits. And the people who warned us about this a quarter-century ago, when we did not have this problem with the national debt or the annual budget debt, were none other than Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; Sen. Chuck Schumer; investment guru Warren Buffett; Jason Furman, an Obama economic adviser; and The Wall Street Journal. So, trade deficits matter. ? We gotta get them down because we have no room to maneuver, given our budget and our national debt. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Seeing Red About the Sea of Red Ink appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., received a major political boost in his bid to move up to the Senate when he was endorsed Friday by Sen. Maggie Hassan, his fellow New Hampshire Democrat. Pappas is running for the nomination to be the Democrat candidate in the November 2026 election to replace Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. Shaheen in March announced her intent to retire at the end of her current term.  Hassan is a prominent figure in the Granite State, having previously served as governor from 2013 to 2017. She has represented New Hampshire in the Senate since then. Pappas has also been endorsed by another Maggie: Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.Y. Republicans are facing an uphill battle for the seat, in a light-blue state that went for then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election by nearly 3 points. Popular former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu opted against a run, and former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., is still mulling jumping into the race. Brown unsuccessfully attempted to unseat Shaheen in 2014 after moving to New Hampshire. Pappas is a rising star in the state Democratic Party, having been elected to represent New Hampshire in the House of Representatives in 2018. At age 44, he is markedly younger than the current cast of Democrat leaders in the Senate, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is 74, and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., 80, who announced Wednesday he is also retiring. Shaheen is 78 years old.  Prior to his tenure in the House, Pappas served for six years on the New Hampshire Executive Council, a government panel that advises and can veto certain actions of the governor of the state. He also had stints as a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives and as treasurer of one of the state’s counties. Pappas was elected to his state House seat the same year he graduated from Harvard College with a degree in government. A great-grandson of a Greek immigrant to the U.S. who co-founded restaurants and ice cream shops in Manchester, N.H., Pappas has carried on the family tradition as of 2020 as a co-owner of the Puritan Backroom, a restaurant that has become popular among presidential hopefuls making stops in New Hampshire for their campaigns. The post Democrat NH Senator Backs Rep’s Bid for Elevation to Retiring Lawmaker’s Senate Seat appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Americans changed their news consumption habits years ago, but the White House press briefing room did not reflect those changes—until now.  Despite floundering ratings at CNN and MSNBC, and outlets like The Washington Post hemorrhaging readership and revenues, corporate media was long given deference across Washington, D.C., especially at the White House. But now, with the Trump administration’s creation of the “new media chair,” and opening the press briefing room to podcasters and social media influencers, the White House briefing room is a better reflection of where American people actually consume their news.  Pew Research reports that 54% of Americans get their news from social media at least some of the time, and 27% of Americans said the same of podcasts.  While the legacy media might view the changes in the White House press briefing room as “MAGA,” it is likely a future Democrat administration would pull from President Donald Trump’s playbook. Granted, a Democrat White House is more likely, for example, to give “Call Her Daddy” podcast host Alex Cooper access to press briefings over conservative podcaster Tim Pool, but either way, nontraditional media are likely in the briefing room to stay.  On this week’s edition of “Problematic Women,” Gabriella Hoffman, director of the Center for Energy and Conservation at the Independent Women’s Forum, joins the show to discuss the changing media landscape.  Also on today’s show, Hoffman details the dark history of Earth Day and explains how conservatives can practice conservation without falling prey to the Left’s false environmentalist talking points. Plus, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the 2005 “Pride and Prejudice” film.  Enjoy the show!  The post Washington Finally Catching Up With America’s Media Consumption Habits, Thanks to Trump’s White House appeared first on The Daily Signal.

What is going on with Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson? In the middle of oral arguments Tuesday, she asked a question that was irrelevant for the key issue at hand, and that had clearly been answered less than an hour before she asked it. Was she lying, just stalling for time, or did she simply pay no attention to the testimony before her very eyes? The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involves Maryland parents of various faith backgrounds—Christian, Jewish, and Muslim—asking the court for a temporary injunction, allowing them to opt their kids out of instruction using LGBTQ books that Montgomery County Public Schools has mandated schools teach. Early on in the oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas asked Eric Baxter, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty attorney representing the parents, whether the books are “just there” or “are they actually being taught out of the books.” “We know that the teachers are required to use the books,” Baxter replied. “When the books were first introduced in August of 2022, the board suggested they be used five times before the end of the year.” He noted that one of the schools said teachers would read one book each day during Pride Month. “The board’s own testimony, through [Chief Academic Officer Nikki] Hazel, said that the books must be used as part of the instruction,” he added. “That was the entire point of withdrawing the opt-outs and removing even notifying parents,” Baxter said. “The board said, in that statement, it was so that every student would be taught from the inclusivity story books.” None of this was a secret. Baxter cited evidence—transcripts and exhibits submitted to the court—demonstrating that teaching the books was a requirement. The Maryland LGBTQ book case before the Supreme Court?? is not just about the presence of books in a library.@becketfund attorney @esbax explains that the school board has required teachers to discuss the books in school.https://t.co/Ekbm92o9Da pic.twitter.com/ymBM4vlHRC— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) April 22, 2025 My colleagues and I at The Daily Signal have been reporting on this case for years, and it has always been clear that Montgomery County Public Schools required teachers to use the books in class. So, what did Justice Jackson ask? She noted that the parents are seeking a preliminary injunction—a court order forcing the school district to allow parents to opt their kids out of the LGBTQ book lessons. In order to get an injunction, Jackson explained, “you actually have to have a factual record that is the basis for the court to make a determination in your favor that some conduct that you’re complaining about needs to be enjoined. And what’s confusing to me and hard—really hard—in this situation, is that we have a lot of sincerely held beliefs and concerns and children and principles, and I see all of those things and so really want to be careful about making the pronouncement.” “I don’t understand how we can do it on this record, because we can’t know—we don’t, at this moment, based on the record you’ve provided, know—that these books aren’t just sitting on the shelves,” the Supreme Court justice said (emphasis added). Baxter, naturally, tried to set the record straight. “I disagree, your honor,” he said. “The record is undisputed, and I again will refer you to district court transcript…” Jackson cut him off, asking if he thought the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to write, “We don’t have any information about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the books.” Baxter replied that “the Court of Appeals did not dispute that some of the books have to be used, and we have all of…” Jackson, again cutting him off, said the appeals court ruled “that we don’t know ‘what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use.'” She then proceeded to badger Baxter, asking, “So, are you saying that you do have affidavits and information about teachers in the classroom and what they’ve taught children of different ages about these books?” “Yes, we do,” he replied. “All of our clients have, in their declarations, they describe which books were going to be read to their children.” She cut him off a third time, asking, “Were the clients in the classroom?” After admitting that the parents were not in the classroom, Baxter added, “We don’t have to wait until the injury has happened to get relief.” Wow.Like the dog returning to its vomit, so Justice Jackson returns to this idea that "we don't know that these books aren't just sitting on the shelves."The Montgomery County Public Schools policy couldn't be clearer—the kids must be taught these books. When @becketfund… pic.twitter.com/BExNVBpDbG— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) April 22, 2025 That is the key point here, and why Jackson’s question is a classic red herring distraction from the main argument. The school district requiring the instruction of LGBTQ books, without a possibility for parents to opt their kids out of the instruction, represents a forced indoctrination into stances on sexuality that conflict with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim tradition—at young ages. The same district allows an opt-out for sexuality instruction, but claims that the LGBTQ books are exempt because they will be taught as literature. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty submitted evidence that some Montgomery County Public Schools teachers had indeed taught from some of the books in class. Even if they hadn’t, Jackson’s question would still be immaterial—the issue is that the policy requires teachers to use them in class, without the opportunity for kids to opt out. The policy, unless it is enjoined, threatens to cause irreparable harm by indoctrinating kids away from their family’s faith. By bringing up the issue of books remaining on the shelves—and by dismissing “sincerely held beliefs and concerns and children and principles”—Jackson suggests that the parents’ concerns are illegitimate. Perhaps Jackson and the other liberal justices on the court are trying to obscure the issue because they agree with the school board, which accused the parents of using their religious beliefs to justify hate. ?Religious parents were clearly targeted in the Montgomery County Public Schools case before the Supreme Court, @becketfund attorney @esbax explains."Families from Muslim faith?? and Ethiopian Orthodox?? were objecting when they spoke to the board. The board accused them of… pic.twitter.com/ie18NqNFMZ— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) April 22, 2025 Such accusations aren’t exactly new. As left-leaning teachers pushed gender ideology and critical race theory in schools in 2021, parents increasingly spoke out. When Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education organized to represent this growing movement, the Southern Poverty Law Center put them on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan to demonize them into silence. When parents complain about sexually explicit material in school libraries, the SPLC and its allies accuse them of trying to “ban books.” Jackson’s red herring echoes that argument. The key issue, in both cases, is an attempt to push sexual indoctrination that is unfit for children and violates their families’ religious faith. This isn’t a matter of supporting or opposing books or basic literacy—it’s a controversy about the Left using sex to drive a wedge between parents and children, at ever earlier ages. When I posted the video of Ketanji Brown Jackson on X, many users commented that Baxter made the Supreme Court justice look dumb. I agree—but I don’t think the issue is Jackson’s intelligence. I think she was twisting herself in knots to deny the obvious indoctrination at the heart of this case, and Baxter wasn’t letting her get away with it. The post Justice Jackson Suggests Maryland Schools Were Never Going to Teach Kids From LGBTQ Books, Despite District’s Clear Mandate appeared first on The Daily Signal.