The Trump administration’s top auto policy officials on Saturday touted federal efforts to lower car prices by eliminating vehicle emissions regulations, as affordability remains a key concern among Americans. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer toured the annual Detroit Auto Show to wrap up a two-day Midwestern swing that included stops at a Ford truck factory and Stellantis Jeep plant in Ohio on Friday. The administration has aggressively rolled back electric vehicle rules from former President Joe Biden’s administration. Duffy said the rules “will bring car prices down and allow car companies to offer products that Americans want to buy.” He added, “this is not a war on EVs at all … We shouldn’t use government policy to encourage EV purchases all the while penalizing combustion engines.” President Donald Trump is grappling with economic headwinds a year after taking office and ahead of November’s midterm ⁠elections, having campaigned on quickly fixing higher prices for American consumers. Average new car transaction prices hit a record $50,326 in December as Americans bought more pricey trucks and SUVs, research firm Cox Automotive said, while automakers are offering fewer entry-level vehicles. Trump signed legislation last year eliminating a $7,500 EV tax credit, rescinding California’s EV rules and cancelling penalties for automakers not meeting fuel efficiency requirements. Zeldin said the government “should not be forcing, requiring, mandating that the market go in a direction other than what the American consumer is demanding.” Automakers also face steep tariffs imposed by Trump on imported vehicles and parts. Despite the EV policy changes and new tariffs, new U.S. vehicle sales rose 2.4% in 2025 to 16.2 million vehicles. Democrats say auto tariffs and efforts to eliminate EV incentives will harm consumers. But Greer said car prices are trending down and “whatever effects those tariffs may have on various parts of the supply chain, they’re not really getting down to the consumer.” Kathy Harris, director of clean vehicles at environmental activist group NRDC, criticized the administration’s auto policies. “The oil industry will rake in billions more from cash-strapped Americans who can’t afford to spend more to fuel up their car or truck.” In December, the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed rolling back Biden-era fuel efficiency standards that had prodded auto companies to build more EVs to comply. The EPA is also expected to finalize a rule in the coming weeks eliminating vehicle tailpipe emissions requirements. USDOT estimates its proposal would reduce average up-front vehicle costs by $930, but increase fuel consumption by as much as 100 billion gallons through 2050, and cost Americans up to another $185 billion for fuel. (Reporting by David Shepardson in DetroitEditing by Rod Nickel)

The Utah judge overseeing the assassination case of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has yet to rule on the defense’s motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the case over an alleged conflict of interest. The defense team for Tyler Robinson — who’s been charged with the murder of Kirk, a 31-year-old husband and father of two, on September 10 at Utah Valley University — says the office has a conflict of interest in the case due to a Utah County prosecutor’s daughter being present at Utah Valley University when the assassination took place. The prosecution says the family member saw nothing direct and a conflict of interest has not been established. They’ve also accused the defense of stall tactics. Judge Tony Graf said on Friday that there’s not sufficient evidence yet to warrant the expulsion of the office, but has allowed Robinson’s team to begin examining witnesses in relation to the supposed conflict of interest. Additionally, Judge Graf blocked a pool video camera from showing Robinson after his defense team complained that shots of the accused speaking with his legal team could potentially be seen by lip readers and unfairly impact the trial. A court “decorum” order prohibits visual recordings of conversations at the defense table — even if they’re inaudible — that could potentially be deciphered by lip readers. It also bars close-ups of written communications. The defense argued that the video feed photographer violated such a provision twice on Friday, NewsNation reported. The sanction of the pool video camera pertained to Friday’s hearing specifically, and is not permanent. The next hearing is scheduled for February 3, and will focus on the defense’s requests to boot the Utah County Attorney’s Office from the case and limit video footage in the trial. Separately, new reporting on Lance Twiggs, Robinson’s roommate and alleged lover, indicates that Twiggs is no longer being protected by federal agents. Twiggs, who lived with Robinson at the time of Kirk’s murder, has been linked to text messages about the assassination. Relatives of Twiggs say the 22-year-old identified as transgender and was “transitioning” to female. Twiggs had an FBI security detail due to threats before he moved out of state, according to media reports. He has not been charged with any crime in connection to the assassination. Related: Judge Orders Transcripts, Audio To Be Made Public From Hearing For Accused Charlie Kirk Assassin

As a member of Gen Z, I am often told my generation is a lost cause for conservatism — too cynical, too progressive, or just too far gone. That assumption couldn’t be more wrong. Gen Z isn’t rejecting America; we’re demanding that it work again. And if conservatives are serious about reclaiming the soul of the nation, the path forward runs directly through the issues my generation lives with every day. Gen Z came of age at the crossroads of stability and uncertainty.  During President Trump’s first term, we witnessed a strong economy, interest rates that opened the door to homeownership, an end to forever wars, and a return to policies that prioritized the family. Under President Biden, however, millions of young Americans graduated college and took entry-level jobs that barely covered their student loan payments, even as the cost of everything rose faster than their paychecks. They were told to follow the rules — go to college, take on loans, delay adulthood. Then, when those rules failed them, they were blamed. What frustrates my peers isn’t tradition or responsibility; it’s a system that feels rigged against them.  That’s precisely where conservatism, properly articulated, can meet the moment. Homeownership For Gen Z, homeownership feels less like a milestone and more like a fantasy. Sky-high rents that prevent us from putting money into savings, zoning restrictions that choke supply, and inflation driven by reckless federal spending have priced young people out of opportunity.  Conservatives should call this what it is: a policy failure. Government rules make it harder to build homes, while bad monetary policy drains savings and pushes the dream of stability further out of reach for young families. If we believe in ownership, stability, and opportunity, then we should lead on reforms that make it easier — not harder — for young Americans to buy homes and build wealth. Student Debt Then there’s student debt. Gen Z didn’t invent the student loan crisis; we inherited it. Many borrowers were reckless, and they should repay what they owe. But recklessness was enabled by a federal loan system that treated teenagers as capable of signing six-figure contracts while shielding universities from the consequences of failure. Subsidies have fueled tuition inflation and reduced institutional accountability, leaving students to bear the full cost of bad decisions — both theirs and the systems. Conservatives should reject blanket loan “forgiveness” that shifts the burden to taxpayers, but we must also offer real solutions: ending the federal government’s role as a blank-check lender so private institutions once again have incentives to lend responsibly, expanding alternatives like apprenticeships and credentialing, and breaking the cartel between the federal government and higher education. Responsibility cuts both ways—and universities should finally be forced to bear some. Building A Family  Most surprising to pundits — but obvious to anyone paying attention — is Gen Z’s renewed interest in traditional family values. After watching the loneliness, instability, and social breakdown of the last two decades, many in my generation are rediscovering what older generations once took for granted: marriage matters, family matters, and children are not obstacles to fulfillment but central to it. This isn’t nostalgia; it’s realism. Gen Z wants meaning, not just mobility. We want strong relationships, safe neighborhoods, and a culture that doesn’t sneer at commitment. Conservatives should lean into this—not with lectures, but with policies that make it possible to start and raise a family. That means an economy where a young family has the chance to create a home and build a foundation for the future, a tax code that doesn’t treat marriage like a liability, and leaders who value faith, responsibility, and strong bonds across generations. When conservatives defend the family, we aren’t clinging to the past — we’re offering a future Gen Z actually wants. The fight for America’s soul isn’t about writing off an entire generation. It’s about proving that our ideas can meet real needs in real lives. Gen Z is open, skeptical, and looking for answers. If conservatives are honest about the economic realities we’re dealing with and defend the institutions that make life meaningful, my generation won’t just listen — we’ll lead. * * * Jake Matthews is a communications manager for technology, economics, and energy at The Heritage Foundation. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Donald Trump on Saturday raised the pressure in his pursuit of purchasing Greenland, vowing 10% tariffs on eight European nations until Denmark allows a sale, which Trump said is vital for the sake of “world peace.” In a lengthy Truth Social post, Trump said, starting February 1, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland will be charged a 10% tariff “on any and all goods sent to the United States of America.” The tariff, he said, will spike to 25% by June 1, and will remain in place until “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” Trump argued that the United States has been subsidizing Denmark, European Union nations, and others, by bypassing tariffs for years. “Now, after Centuries,” Trump wrote, “it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake!” The president underscored Chinese and Russian interest in Greenland and said “there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it.” “They currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently,” he wrote. “Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake.” Last week, Trump similarly warned that Greenland would fall under the control of Russia or China if the U.S. doesn’t step in. “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will take Greenland, and I am not going to let that happen,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One. “I’d love to make a deal with them. It’s easier. But one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.” In his Saturday Truth Social post, Trump added, “The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. … The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades.”

January 3, 2026, will go down in history as the day Venezuelans recovered something many had believed lost: hope. That hope did not come from abstract promises, but from the capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro — the first sign in decades that Venezuela may veer off the trajectory of authoritarian rule, economic collapse, and mass exile that has defined the country for 26 years. Despite this renewed optimism, many critics of the Trump administration have suggested the operation was somehow unethical or misguided. Those critics miss the point entirely. Toppling Maduro has paved the way for long-term stability grounded in free-market capitalism and the rule of law to take root in Venezuela. If these forces are allowed to flourish, they will reshape the military, political, and economic structures that guide the country, and allow Venezuela to fully re-enter the global community. It is no accident that authoritarians controlled Venezuela for as long as they did. To topple a regime from the inside, you need either a massive popular uprising or some kind of military coup. Maduro made sure both were impossible in Venezuela. A 2013 law banned the sale of firearms and ammunition to civilians and imposes prison sentences of up to 20 years for unauthorized possession. Over the past decade, the Maduro regime aggressively disarmed the population, ensuring that ordinary citizens have no means to resist a usurping government or defend a democratic transition. That means no uprising would succeed without the military’s involvement. Which is why in recent years Maduro expanded the Venezuelan officer corps, which reportedly boasts over 2,000 generals and admirals — more than double the number in the United States. In a system saturated with generals, no single faction can act decisively without broad internal backing. Plotting a coup becomes exponentially harder when success requires the loyalty of dozens, if not hundreds, of senior figures rather than a centralized command. And, because so many of those officers have been rewarded with lucrative posts or interests in vast sectors of the economy, it would be difficult for an opposition faction or reform-minded general to rally enough support within the officer corps to mount a successful coup. Fortunately, the fact that the Venezuelan military is more a patronage program than a fighting force allowed American forces to topple Maduro in just 88 minutes. That was a major step in the right direction, but hardly a guarantee of future success. Even with Maduro gone, any Venezuelan regime that hopes to endure will need the military’s buy-in. And because Maduro spent years purchasing officers’ loyalty, it won’t be easy for an opposition leader to swoop in and take control. That’s why Maduro’s de facto vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, was left in power after Maduro’s capture. Many expected opposition leader María Corina Machado — whose coalition overwhelmingly won the 2024 elections — to assume leadership. Instead, President Donald Trump declined to back her, arguing she lacked sufficient internal support. Allowing Rodríguez to serve as a temporary bridge likely reduces the number of officers required to defect at once, lowering the coordination threshold needed to maintain stability. And, at a time when the American body politic is highly suspicious of “regime change” and “forever wars,” respecting this reality ostensibly diminishes the need for troops on the ground. Moreover, immediate installation would have been politically toxic for Machado. A staunch defender of democratic rule, she must earn her mandate from Venezuelans, not appear as a foreign appointee marching into Miraflores on the heels of American troops. If Machado is to translate political momentum into lasting change, she will need to leverage Venezuela’s greatest asset: its oil reserves. The country holds an estimated 300 billion barrels of proven reserves, the largest in the world. But Venezuela’s oil is not an easy prize. Most of it is heavy or extra-heavy crude — dense, sulfur-rich, and costly to extract, transport, and refine. Oil production has fallen from roughly 3.2 million barrels per day in 2000 to about 1 million today, and experts agree that rebuilding lost capacity will take years of sustained investment and technical rehabilitation. Reviving the sector will require tens of billions of dollars in long-term investment. But American companies will not make multi-billion-dollar investments based on speeches, personalities, or election cycles. They will invest if they believe the rules of the game will endure. In this sense, Venezuela’s recovery is inseparable from free-market reform and the rule of law. This is why the transition underway is about far more than replacing one leader with another. It is about replacing an economic model. Venezuela’s oil sector — and its broader economy — cannot recover without sustained private investment, and sustained private investment requires credible commitment to free-market capitalism, property rights, and the rule of law. Anything less signals instability and thus keeps capital on the sidelines. Incentives are aligned in a rare and encouraging way. American companies want stability, predictability, and enforceable contracts. Venezuelans want lasting freedom, prosperity, and insulation from the return of authoritarian socialism. Both depend on the same outcome: a durable shift away from state control and toward a market-based system that cannot be easily undone. The more Venezuela commits to capitalism, the safer long-term investment becomes. And the more capital flows in, the harder it becomes for any future government to reverse course without catastrophic cost. That alignment matters. It creates a feedback loop in which economic openness reinforces political durability, and political durability reinforces economic confidence. This — not ideology, not personality, and not short-term geopolitics — is the most important driver of Venezuela’s future. Venezuela’s trajectory depends on balancing three forces: military power, political legitimacy, and market-driven recovery. Mismanaging any one of them risks collapse. The United States and its allies must avoid the temptation to pursue oil while tolerating authoritarian continuity. That path would only produce a new class of kleptocrats. Done correctly, however, this moment offers a rare alignment of interests. Venezuelans want dignity and self-government. Investors want stability and lawful capitalism. And the United States has an opportunity to support a transition that is neither naïve nor imperial, but grounded in realism. The door is open. What comes next will decide whether hope can walk through it and materialize as the liberty and prosperity millions of Venezuelans, like myself, have been praying, yearning, and working for decades. Olga Benacerraf de Strulovic is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School. She was born and raised in Venezuela’s capital city of Caracas, and was one of many Venezuelans who fled the country during Nicolás Maduro’s rule.  The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.