If there were any doubt that Democrats are ecstatically lining up to echo the radical antisemitic rhetoric of hard-left zealots such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, and New Yorkers — even left-wing Jews — who are only too happy to support them, former New York City comptroller Brad Lander, a Jew who is running against incumbent Democrat congressman Dan Goldman, has made it abundantly clear. Speaking at a mosque where the imam reportedly prayed for the “killing of infidels by [the] sword,” Lander not only vilified the state of Israel with the usual lies but also spoke of his hope for a “partnership” with Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib before concluding with a verse from the Quran praising Allah. “I believe, as a proud Jewish New Yorker, that Israel’s genocide in Gaza is a desecration,” he began, resorting to the malicious lie about the Jewish state, before continuing, “is a violation of the understanding that everyone is created in God’s image — every one of those Palestinian kids in Gaza, just as divine as my beloved children.” “And so, yes, in Congress, I will not vote for any more U.S. military aid to Israel, not the bombs that are destroying the hospitals and schools in Gaza, not the occupation in Lebanon, which is now, I believe, unfortunately, on its way potentially to being a genocide as well,” he blathered. Then he turned to his hoped-for “partnership” with the most vehement anti-Israel members of Congress, declaring, “The kind of partnership I developed with Zohran. I hope to come to have with Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and others in Congress to show we can build a city and a country and a world that everyone can afford and where everyone is welcome and where everyone’s humanity is respected.” He later recited from the Quran in Arabic, “In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate, say he is Allah, who is one, Allah, the eternal refuge, he neither begets nor is born, nor is there to him any equivalent.” New York Democratic congressional candidate Brad Lander recited a Quran verse at a Queens mosque, saying he hopes to partner with Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib in Congress. During the same event, the imam prayed for the Mahdi to kill infidels with his sword. pic.twitter.com/ZoQ094kC5o — Open Source Intel (@Osint613) May 21, 2026 An Emerson poll showed Lander with an enormous 34-point lead over Goldman. NYC CONGRESSIONAL POLLS with @PIX11News NY12Micah Lasher 22%Alex Bores 20%Jack Schlossberg 11%George Conway 10%32% undecided NY10Brad Lander 57%Dan Goldman 23%20% undecided NY07Claire Valdez 23%Antonio Reynoso 21%Julie Won 13%43% undecidedhttps://t.co/lxQTS6fT5K pic.twitter.com/yYePKTb0Am — Emerson College Polling (@EmersonPolling) May 21, 2026

President Donald Trump revoked a costly Biden-era regulation on Thursday, axing a green energy policy that banned an alleged “hyper-pollutant” for refrigeration systems, which led to higher grocery prices across the country. Trump’s move will allow businesses to make their own decisions on “the refrigeration systems that work best for them,” according to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin. The president delivered the announcement at the White House alongside Zeldin and National Council Director Kevin Hassett.  Trump ripped the Biden administration for forcing “companies to adopt specific high-cost refrigerants, massively driving up the price of transporting and storing various goods.” “Americans faced higher grocery prices and reduced access to critical medical supplies,” Trump added. The Biden administration determined that hydrofluorocarbons, which are used for refrigeration and cooling, are more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. As a result, supermarkets and other businesses were only allowed to use the cooling mechanism in limited quantities, forcing them to turn to more expensive cooling methods and thus passing on higher costs to consumers.  “Americans were right to be frustrated with the Biden-era refrigerant rules. They didn’t protect human health or the environment and instead piled on costly, unattainable restrictions beyond what the law requires,” said Zeldin. “Today, the Trump EPA is fulfilling President Trump’s promise to lower costs and is fixing every problem we can under the authority Congress gave us. Our actions allow businesses to choose the refrigeration systems that work best for them, saving them billions of dollars. This will be felt directly by American families in lower grocery prices.”  A White House official told The Daily Wire the rollback on the alleged “hyper-pollutant,” paired with a revision to the 2024 Emissions Reduction and Reclamation rule, “are estimated to save American families and businesses more than 2.4 billion” dollars a year. The White House official added that the savings are “expected to flow directly to consumers through lower grocery prices, cheaper transportation of refrigerated goods, and more affordable home air conditioning.” The Biden administration claimed the restrictive regulation would lead to green technological innovation, stating, “Facilitating the transition to next-generation technologies through sector-based restrictions on HFCs is one way that EPA and stakeholders are working together to meet ambitious climate protection goals.”  The rule mandated a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon use, with an 85% reduction scheduled by 2036, leading to higher costs for grocery stores that were left with no choice but to overhaul their refrigeration systems. Trump’s move to roll back Biden’s green regulation is his latest strategy to address Americans’ economic concerns amid rising energy and food prices in recent months. In April’s inflation report, grocery prices rose 2.9% year-over-year, the highest rate since 2023.  Earlier this week, the administration temporarily paused the Jones Act, which would increase the supply of ships able to transport cargo between American ports. The Administration has also urged the Department of the Interior to explore additional energy production on Federal lands and waters, remove all regulatory requirements related to energy that are not grounded in applicable law, eliminate the electric vehicle mandate, and reverse Biden’s liquified natural gas export ban.   

The Trump administration is revamping the immigration court system to speed up deportations. In its latest move, the Department of Justice hired 82 immigration judges, the most in any single year, the agency announced Thursday. Now, the United States has nearly 700 immigration judges. “The Trump administration is committed to reestablishing an immigration judge corps that is dedicated to restoring the rule [of] law in our nation’s immigration system,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Today, we are onboarding the largest immigration judge class in agency history.” “This could only happen thanks to President Trump’s decisive leadership and commitment to securing our borders. I also applaud EOIR’s [Executive Office of Immigration Review] leadership team for helping facilitate these hiring efforts and recruiting highly qualified and talented personnel in record time.” The new class includes 77 permanent judges and 5 temporary ones. When President Donald Trump returned to the White House and commenced his mass deportation effort, administration officials began a mass firing of immigration judges who had largely granted asylum at higher rates. Since then, administration officials have dismissed more than 100 immigration judges who granted asylum in 46% of cases, according to The New York Times. Immigration judges have completed more than one million cases since Trump’s second inauguration, reducing the pending caseload by more than 447,000 cases, according to the Justice Department. There are currently roughly 3.53 million pending cases sitting in the immigration courts, down from roughly four million. The Justice Department said it’s the sharpest decrease in the court’s history. The latest hiring blitz is part of a broader effort to undo the damage the Biden administration’s border surge inflicted on the immigration court system in creating years-long backlogs. Sirce Owen, then the acting director of EOIR, the Justice Department branch that oversees the immigration courts, issued a memo in April 2025 encouraging immigration judges to toss out asylum claims more rapidly and without a hearing. In June 2025, Owen issued a separate memo threatening “disciplinary action” for immigration judges who exhibit “bias” towards illegal immigrants. “Judges who would prefer to be policy advocates favoring either aliens or DHS should consider transitioning to alternate career paths,” Owen wrote in the memo. In a recent interview with the Washington Examiner, White House border czar Tom Homan touted the Trump administration’s record of 800,000 deportations. “Total of 800,000 [have been removed] out of the country,” Homan said. “If you take 60% of that, criminals, hundreds of thousands of public safety threats, have been removed from this country. Name another president who’s done that.” Homan admitted that the effort has slowed down recently, but indicated that the delay is only temporary. “There’s a lot of argument within the world that, ‘Are we keeping our promise?’” Homan said. “Numbers are slightly down, but there’s a plan. Get them back up and even higher.”

Americans are increasingly divided on family life. Republicans marry earlier, have more kids, and embrace more traditional values. Republican elected officials are often shy about this reality, opting to emphasize policies of “choice” rather than make an intentional effort to promote family life through policies. In reality, conservative politics requires reversing the trends away from marriage and motherhood, already experienced in East Asia, and increasingly afoot in America and the West, generally. For conservatives, family policy must be resolved in favor of family life — a work-family balance that puts family first. Career-oriented women cannot exercise a veto over conservative family policy, messaging, or the underlying sexual constitution conservatives seek to preserve. Just the opposite, in fact. The evidence is unambiguous. As the Heritage Report “Save America by Saving the Family” shows, without better family policy the country is in a world of trouble. Attempts to “revive” marriage through greater sexual egalitarianism and liberation have failed everywhere they have been tried. State-subsidized childcare, mandatory parental leave parity, and other technocratic fixes have done nothing to restore fertility or marital stability. State-sponsored dating in South Korea and elsewhere reminds us of the expensive farces that come with poor policymaking. The only societies that have sustained or modestly revived family formation are those that preserve variations of traditional practice — among churchgoing American Christians, and in places with strong religious worship and homogeneity like Israel, Mongolia, and Georgia. The confines of today’s feminism, the no-fault divorce regime, and the sexual liberation movement put too low a ceiling on family life. If all current policies are kept, little advance can be expected. We need a sexual counterrevolution. There are good reasons to worry about the electoral viability of a sexual counterrevolution. Concern about family policy disappears as families disappear. As fewer people marry, fewer care about the health of families. As fewer people have children, fewer care about children. The Democrat Party benefits from, and increasingly celebrates, the low ceiling on family life. It profits politically from cultivating a sense of female grievances. Over the last generation, they have successfully convinced many women that American society in 2026 is less satisfying and more oppressive than it was in 2001 or even 1970. And aggrieved women vote at pretty high rates. Men, meanwhile, vote at lower rates, in part because they do not believe governing majorities in the West care about their interests. The electoral math is straightforward. The ballyhooed “gender gap” is in reality a marriage gap — and Republicans should seek to widen it. Republicans win national elections by maximizing support among married men and women, increasing turnout and margins among single men, and tolerating (if not conceding) continued losses of progressive single women to Democrats. Politicizing men, even at risk of sharpening existing tensions between the sexes, is part of a sound and necessary electoral strategy for Republicans. Republicans should let the erring, single, college-educated women go. They need to focus on aligned voters — and create more of them. Family and cultural issues that reject the family seem, for now, to be much more salient to single women than to other sectors of the electorate. Reformist Democrats like Ruy Teixeira, John Judis, and others recognize that Democrats increasingly rely on single women for fund-raising, votes, and rhetorical strategies — Democrats can do little against the will of woke women. Republicans should make the Democrats’ dependency on single liberal women costly in elections. A rhetorical and policy agenda that elevates family formation and thriving would benefit Republicans. Republicans are the party of the married. Mitt Romney carried married men in 2012 by about the same percentage (60%) that Donald Trump won them in 2024. Republicans have not exceeded 40% among single women in any election since 2014. Married women and single men, however, are the swing voters, as they hover around 50% for Republicans. Running up the score among aligned voters, however, is complicated by the electorate’s proportions. Married men were 30% of the electorate in 2012, but only 28% in 2024. Married women resemble married men, though with more variability. In 2012, married women were 30% of the electorate, but in 2024, they were only  26% of the electorate. Single women, by contrast, increased from 23% of the electorate when 31% favored Romney to 26% in 2024, when 38% supported Trump. Single men also increased as a share of the electorate, rising from 17% in 2022 to 19% in 2024, while their Republican vote share climbed from 44% to 48%. Young men have only once broken 20% of the electorate in this era. The opportunity is even more obvious when you look at the 2024 presidential election results. A Republican coalition that prioritizes married men, married women, and single men would have won nearly every decisive swing state without winning any unmarried women — provided turnout among married voters and unmarried men at least remained the same. Republicans win North Carolina, Georgia, and Wisconsin when Republicans carry married men and women and avoid losses among single men. In Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan, the margin of defeat under this framework is small — often one or two points. Slightly higher turnout among married voters or marginal gains among single men are enough to flip these states even if single women tilt a bit further in the Democratic direction. The task, then, is to organize and strengthen the Republican electorate. Admittedly, single voters will generally be more important to election outcomes as marriage recedes and single women become a growing part of the electorate. Emphasizing marriage will make it more difficult to court them (politically). As a result, political strategists and the consultant class continue to think that Republicans must cater to the growing single-woman and the diversity vote. Their solution is accommodation: avoid criticizing feminism, adopt its premises while trimming its excesses, and present a softened family message consistent with “conservative girlboss” and “choice.” This approach fails on both moral and political grounds. It abandons the project of reconstructing a nation built upon the most fundamental building block of a healthy society. It performs poorly electorally as it abets apathy among men, both married and single, who voted for Trump because of his masculine edge. Younger single women are trending progressive and Democratic and anti-family, so catering to them is a suicide pact for the traditional family. And the 70% or so who oppose Republicans represent mostly a ceiling, not a floor, for Democratic candidates. Republicans should seek to run up the score among married voters and single men. Single men are especially an underdeveloped growth constituency. Nothing in the nature of things suggests single men must continue to vote in lower numbers if governments are willing to take their legitimate grievances seriously. Many other countries do not have turnout gaps between men and women. Through effective appeals and policies, Republicans can move single men’s vote share from 19% in 2024 to 23% of the electorate and improve their share from 48% to 52% or higher in the short- and medium-term. The key lies in consistently appealing to these demographics to reverse trends away from marriage among young women. Democrats understand this threat, which is why they are pouring money into male outreach. Republicans should make themselves the tribunes of legitimate grievances for men, especially single men, and adopt rhetoric and pursue policies that call men to responsibility, purpose, and character. Republican voters already believe society has become “too feminine” and needs “masculine voices.” The party should lean into this sentiment rather than apologize for it. Elevating credible, manly politicians helps. So does acknowledging legitimate grievances: institutional hostility toward men, especially white men; educational and labor-market failures; the plagues of drugs, marijuana, porn, and gambling; policies that discourage marriage and divide the sexes. In some cases, enforcement matters. High-profile prosecutions of universities and media companies for hiring practices hostile to white males would signal seriousness and should be undertaken. Stories of men frozen out of professions should be highlighted. Attacks on universities should intensify, as should complaints about how modern, woke public education neuters boys. Married women are also a growth area, as they could more closely resemble their husbands if Republicans adopt concrete, family-centered kitchen-table issues like increased government support for families. Under favorable conditions, Republican support among married men could one day exceed 62% and consistently reach 55% among women. Shifting electoral coalitions involves much more than family policy, of course. The issues that alienate progressive single women are often Republican priorities. Marrieds and single men want secure borders and remigration and an end to affirmative action. Men want purposeful jobs and attainable homes for families. Men hunger for friendship and fraternity and tend to be more passionate about national belonging and patriotism. They respond to calls to virtue. They can be shamed into leaving their parent’s basements or into better risk-taking than sports gambling. Republicans should endorse men as providers for, and leaders of, thriving families. A Republican statesman should be comfortable with messages like “No porn. No pot. No gambling. No dating apps” for men, while suggesting instead “Read Rome. Take protein. Play sport. Talk to women.” A non-feminist, pro-marriage agenda is central to this effort. Restoring the sexual dance requires improving the quality and marriageability of men and women and removing the institutional pressures that undermine marital commitment. Changing it would address real pathologies and unmet longings for love, meaning, and purpose. Republicans might even gain some single-women voters in the process by offering a serious alternative to the ideology that is making those women feel lonelier and more miserable than ever. In short, the demands of electoral success and the good of the country can be made to coincide if it is unashamedly pursued. A rhetoric that emphasizes marriage as part of a life well lived is essential. None of this matters if Republicans mess up foreign and broader macro-economic policy; bringing peace and prosperity is job number one. Family policy can and should be a crucial supplement while keeping first things first. *** Scott Yenor is director of the Kenneth B. Simon Center at the Heritage Foundation.

Democrats finally released their long-awaited 2024 election autopsy — and it reads less like a postmortem on President Donald Trump and more like a realization that voters may simply not like them anymore. Buried inside the 192-page report are some brutal admissions about former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic brand, and the party’s growing disconnect from average Americans. “The sad truth is Democrats have lost ground at every level from inconsistent messaging and improper planning, even as the policies the Party advances continue to earn voter support at the ballot box,” the report said. The document repeatedly suggests Democrats leaned way too heavily on “Trump bad” messaging while failing to give voters a compelling reason to vote for Harris. One especially rough section says Harris struggled to define herself beyond “not Trump” and “prosecutor vs. felon,” putting blame on the Biden White House. “The national campaign did not effectively drive Trump’s negatives, and the White House did not effectively support Vice President Harris over three and [a] half years to improve her standing before the candidate switch,” the report said. “The idea Trump’s negatives were ‘baked in’ is a major failure of analysis and reality…”  The autopsy also openly acknowledges that Harris had a significant issue with male voters. One section, titled “The Male Voter Problem,” points out that down-ballot Democrats consistently outperformed Harris with men. North Carolina Democrat Josh Stein, for example, won 51% of male voters while Harris managed just 40%. And it gets worse. The autopsy admits Harris struggled badly with young men, Latino men, irregular voters, rural voters, and working-class Americans. At one point, the report flatly says Democrats suffered from a “persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters.” Another section warns that millions of Americans “do not see themselves reflected in the America of the Democratic Party.” There are also some surprisingly direct shots at identity politics. One passage praises candidates who focused “less on abstract issues and identity politics” and more on public safety, affordability, housing, and the economy. The report found that the Trump attack ads were highly effective, particularly the “Kamala is for they/them” spot, with Democratic pollsters noting the campaign was effectively boxed in by footage of her own remarks showing Harris out of touch with voters focused on their pocketbooks. Kamala is for “THEY/THEM.” President Trump is for YOU. pic.twitter.com/Wbb0RgrtfL — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 31, 2024 The document repeatedly undercuts itself in real time with editor notes and annotations like “No evidence provided,” “Analysis not supported,” and “Contradicts public reporting.” DNC Chair Ken Martin defended releasing the report after delaying it for months, telling CNN: “After last November’s massive Democratic wins, I didn’t want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction.” With nationwide redistricting underway, the report fired bleak warning shots for Democrats as more Americans continue fleeing blue states and voting with their feet. “The future could become even more difficult. Demographic and population projections indicate an accelerating population shift away from traditionally Democratic states,” the report found. “With radical midterm redistricting efforts underway, the writing is on the wall, and the call is coming from inside the House. We either adapt to the changing conditions of the arena, or history will leave us behind.”