The Following is a preview of Daily Signal Politics Editor Bradley Devlin’s interview with State Department Deputy Spokesman Tommy Pigott on “The Signal Sitdown.” The full interview premieres on The Daily Signal’s YouTube page at 6:30 a.m. eastern on Oct. 23. While President Donald Trump did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize this year, he could be the odds on favorite to win the distinguished award in 2026 because of his work brokering peace deals or ceasefires in eight different conflicts this year.  Trump’s deal-making diplomacy comes as leftwing critics thought this level of success impossible because of Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s efforts to completely reform the State Department. The critics were wrong. State Department Deputy Spokesman Tommy Pigott joins “The Signal Sitdown” to provide an inside look at the department overhaul and how Trump has managed to find pathways to peace all over the world. What Trump, Rubio, and the political appointees at the State Department like Pigott inherited from the Biden administration, in terms of both the geopolitical conditions and the internal conditions at the agency, was nothing short of disastrous. ”From a geopolitical context, I mean, we saw what happened under the previous administration, actions that, as President Trump has said, are some of the most embarrassing in our country’s history. Really terrible days from the Afghanistan withdrawal to the wars that broke out,” Pigott told The Daily Signal.  The Biden administration “had not prioritized the right things,” Pigott continued. “We’ve seen conflicts breaking out all over the world. We see a United States that’s no longer respected. That’s what we inherited.” The Biden administration’s poor prioritization of America and its interests was painfully on display inside the agency that Trump and Rubio inherited. Before the reorganization, the State Department was a bureaucratic nightmare, so much so that many careers who provided advice on the department’s restructuring emphasized the need to streamline the department’s processes. “The State Department has so many different offices that one office could be doing something in a country that the embassy has no idea about,” Pigott said. “And both of those entities could potentially be doing something that is contrary to the policy of the duly elected president of the United States.” “For example, many of the aid programs that were in place could actually be doing things that are counter to the relationships we’re trying to build in many of these countries,” Pigott explained. “Sometimes the ambassador didn’t even know about the aid programs happening in the country where they were the ambassador.” Things were so bad at the State Department, in fact, that Trump’s political appointees had a difficult time simply tracking down how many people actually worked there. Meanwhile, policies that Pigott described as “woke” and “DEI” pervaded the its work. Between bureaucratic overhead and the woke policies, “in some of these programs, the previous administration was very happy to get this to 15 cents on the dollar in terms of reaching the end user,” Pigott claimed. The goal for the State Department reorganization was to end the bureaucratic grift and “empower people,” Pigott told The Daily Signal.  “Let’s empower the embassies. Let’s actually make a structure that can implement the president’s policies,” Pigott said. “Part of this reform was empowering the regional bureaus because the regional bureaus and the embassies were the experts in these regions.” “Of course we kept some of the functional bureaus that we needed,” Pigott added. “But the idea was empowering the regional bureaus because the people that are part of those regional bureaus know the countries the best.” “We shouldn’t have functional activities that are counter to what the regional experts think we should be doing in each country,” Pigott said. “That’s oftentimes actually counterproductive.” Meanwhile, the administration has racked up several major diplomatic wins in the form of peace agreements and ceasefires. One of these successes was a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May, when the two countries were entering an escalatory spiral over the long-standing Kashmir border dispute. “You’ve heard leaders from across the world talk about the stakes that were involved, especially when you’re talking about two nuclear armed powers and the danger for miscommunication,” Pigott said about the India-Pakistan ceasefire.  “We saw members of this administration from the vice president, the president, the secretary across this administration, reaching out, having conversations at all times of the day to make sure that we’re communicating with the different countries here and really trying to find a way to keep this from escalating,” Pigott said of the administration’s efforts. The biggest deal the Trump administration has managed to strike thus far is a 20-point peace plan in the war between Israel and Hamas. While the ceasefire continues to hold, challenges from both sides in the conflict make the path to lasting peace a long and narrow one—a reality this administration knows full well. “No one is denying how hard this is or how complex this is,” Pigott said of implementing the peace deal. “As Jared Kushner said recently, [there are] 10 things we’re trying to do simultaneously in terms of implementing this peace plan.” “But there is a chance here for long-term peace and prosperity for the people of Gaza, Israel, the entire region, because the entire region, the entire world, is behind this peace plan,” Pigott claimed.  “Our focus now is making it livable, making Gaza livable,” Pigott said of the next steps for the peace agreement. “Let’s be practical. Let’s be realistic. Let’s focus on the progress we can make today on the ground. Let’s focus on that.” While many challenges remain, Pigott told The Daily Signal, “I think as Americans, we can be proud that we have a president who is a peacemaker.” The post Is Trump the Frontrunner for Nobel Peace Prize After Massive Diplomatic Successes? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Unions are suing the Trump administration to prevent the potential deportation of noncitizens who express support for Hamas terrorists or who celebrated the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, among other sentiments.  In response to two executive orders by President Donald Trump, the State Department and Department of Homeland Security are using an artificial intelligence-driven social media monitoring program to identify potentially dangerous rhetoric coming from some visa holders.  The plaintiffs—the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or UAW; the Communications Workers of America; and the American Federation of Teachers—filed the federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging viewpoint discrimination.  The plaintiffs want a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent the government from continuing what the lawsuit characterizes as “surveillance.”  The lawsuit justifies the standing of the unions to bring the case by claiming, “Plaintiffs represent thousands of people whose speech is chilled by the threat of adverse immigration action if the government disapproves of anything they have expressed or will express,” the complaint says.  “Many of plaintiffs’ members no longer express views remotely related to the topics the government disfavors, especially online where the government is watching, because the government has promised and proven that saying the wrong thing can trigger life-altering immigration consequences, particularly for visa holders and lawful permanent residents,” the complaint continues.  In a public statement, State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said Friday after the lawsuit was filed, “The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country; commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate; or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk.” The lawsuit says Trump administration officials stated that views that could be flagged by artificial intelligence under the program, including “hostile attitudes” toward the United States, calling for the “overthrow or replacement” of American culture, “putative antisemitism,” as well as “comments the government views as ‘rationalizing, or making light of’ Charlie Kirk’s murder.” The lawsuit also says the government would categorize as terrorism “support of Palestine, including through association with campus-affiliated protests.”  One of the Trump executive orders says: “The United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.” A White House press release about the order says: “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: Come 2025, we will find you and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.” The post Immigration, AI, Social Media Intersect in Unions’ Battle With Trump Administration appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Too Fun to Miss: DNC Still Paying For Kamala In Every Way Possible

The Media Research Center is proud to recognize President Donald Trump and several members of his administration during the 21st annual Free Speech Week for their unwavering commitment to defending the First Amendment and confronting one of the greatest threats to our constitutional Republic: the Biden administration’s whole-of-society approach to censorship. This year’s MRC Free Speech Award was awarded exclusively to Charlie Kirk, the late founder of Turning Point USA. In addition to celebrating Kirk’s legacy, the MRC is also using Free Speech Week to recognize other leaders, including public and foreign advocates, legal officers and members of Congress. Trump is among those celebrated by MRC, who has assembled one of the most unapologetically pro-free speech administrations in modern American history, and this is not hyperbole. On his first day in office, Trump and his administration took bold and decisive action with an executive order to begin dismantling the Biden administration’s 57 censorship initiatives exposed by MRC Free Speech America. Also during the first week, Trump issued another executive order revoking Biden-era directives, forcing the left-wing ideology in AI. He expanded this order just months later, ensuring that the government would not partner with Big Tech companies that discriminate against individuals based on viewpoint. The administration further used the weight of the U.S. government to pressure world leaders to stand up for freedom of speech. Trump’s appointments of free speech warriors — including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Health & Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem — signaled a clear shift toward protecting, rather than policing, speech.  This approach to free speech protection has ultimately defined the Trump administration. This stood in stark contrast to Biden’s weaponization of government to target his opponents. Under Biden’s tumultuous years, Americans endured an unprecedented assault on the First Amendment. This government was characterized by a reckless pattern of government overreach, speech suppression and blatant contempt for the First Amendment. As previously exposed by MRC, Biden's administration oversaw the establishment of one of the largest censorship operations in U.S. history, involving 57 initiatives across an astounding total of 93 federal agencies. The MRC is proud to recognize the following executive branch officials for their actions in defense of Americans’ free speech rights: President Donald J. TrumpPresident Trump is a man of action, and he has acted forcefully and fearlessly to protect Americans’ free speech rights. Before even taking office for his second term, President Trump had assembled a cabinet of First Amendment warriors; within a week of taking his oath, he issued two executive orders outlining steps to preserve the First Amendment. President Trump then set about dismantling Biden’s censorship agencies, firing hundreds of government censors and cutting off thousands of censorship grants. To this day, he remains a great warrior for the First Amendment and continues to prioritize Americans’ right to speak freely.  Vice President JD VanceThe vanguard of President Trump’s anti-censorship crusade, Vice President Vance has been relentless in his efforts to preserve Americans’ First Amendment rights. Perhaps the most significant moment of his already-historic vice presidency was his generation-defining speech in Munich confronting leftist European leaders and demanding that their big tech censorship not be exported to our shores.   Secretary of State Marco RubioSecretary Rubio was given one of the most difficult tasks in government: Stopping the sprawling censorship enterprise that infected the State Department and USAID. Secretary Rubio has removed this cancer with surgical precision. He shut down the FIMI Hub, dismantled the multinational framework for censorship, fired hundreds of corrupt government censors, and removed hundreds of grants that were silencing speech around the world.        Secretary of Health & Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.Secretary Kennedy took command of a Department that had been perverted to silence American critics and stifle scientific inquiry, Secretary Kennedy faced near insurmountable opposition from the censorship cartels operating in our government and media. With no hesitation, Secretary Kennedy rescinded the countless NIH grants and contracts that were paying for the silencing of American researchers, and has instead created a new Department that is dedicated not to playing politics, but instead to making America healthy again.  Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi NoemSecretary Noem has shown temerity and grit as she dismantles the censorship operations in the Department of Homeland Security that were jeopardizing Americans’ liberty and security. Secretary Noem eliminated the censorship agency CP3, eliminated the Quiet Skies censorship program, rescinded the TVTP censorship grants, and transformed CISA from a Stasi-style censorship bureau to an agency that protects Americans’ critical infrastructure from foreign cyberattacks. FCC Chair Brendan CarrFCC Chair Carr has tirelessly worked to refocus the agency on protecting, rather than impeding, Americans’ ability to communicate. He has fought to ensure that public spectrum is used responsibly, rather than by being monopolized by a few big media censorship advocates. He has also worked to ensure that merger approval is contingent on ending unlawful DEI programs.   FTC Chair Andrew FergusonFTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has tackled the advertising cartels being run by deceitful censorship outfits like Ad Fontes and Media Matters. He has also continued to battle Meta and Google for monopolizing American markets so they could control American speech. OMB Director Russ VoughtDirector Vought has been instrumental in defunding and dismantling the lawless government censorship agencies that were paying millions of taxpayer dollars to censor people both at home and abroad.  Director of the National Institutes of Health of the United States Jay BhattacharyaDirector Bhattacharya has shown tremendous courage in dismantling the censorship operations at NIAID and the NLM, instead creating a leaner, more inquisitive NIH that works to make America healthy.  White House AI and Crypto Czar David SacksDavid Sacks has been a fierce opponent of the push for AI exclusivity contracts, and has worked to ensure the Biden pandemic of debanking never occurs again. FCC Media Bureau Chief Erin BooneChief Boone worked tirelessly to reform the FCC to be an agency that protects Americans’ free speech, including by spearheading FCC Chairman Carr’s efforts to ensure public spectrum is not hijacked to become propaganda for big media. FCC General Counsel Adam CandeubThe nation’s premier authority on Section 230, Candeub has helped Chairman Carr reform the FCC to protect Americans’ liberties from government and Big Tech censorship. FCC Policy Advisor Katie McAuliffeMcCauliffe has worked tirelessly to protect free speech rights for all Americans, including through careful review of how public spectrum and public airwaves are used.   FTC Consumer Protection Bureau Director Chris MufarrigeMufarige has worked tirelessly to carry out Chairman Ferguson’s mission of stamping out unlawful censorship.  FTC Competition Bureau Director Daniel GuarneraGuarnera has worked tirelessly to carry out Chairman Ferguson’s mission of stamping out unlawful censorship. MRC presented 35 pro-free speech advocates with the prestigious MRC Free Speech Award last year, honoring the original vision for Free Speech Week with 2024 awards. 2024 award winners included: five U.S. senators, 10 congressmen, 10 officials ranging from attorneys general to governors and from state legislators to the FCC, as well as 10 thought leaders.

In a viral video, Democrat Whip Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) says that, while Democrats’ government shutdown will cause American families to suffer, it’s worth it because it gives her party leverage to pass its political agenda. “Utterly shameful! The Democrats OPENLY ADMIT they are causing the shutdown—and using hardworking American families as their LEVERAGE,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) wrote Wednesday, responding to a social media post of Clark’s statement. Clark made the admission on Thursday in an interview with Fox News Channel, in which she said Democrats take “responsibility” for the suffering: "Shutdowns are terrible and, of course, there will be, you know, families that are going to suffer. We take that responsibility very seriously. But it is one of the few leverage items we have. It is an inflection point in this budget process where we have tried to get the Republicans to meet with us and prioritize the American people." Getting the extra $1.5 trillion of spending for things like health care for illegal aliens that they’re demanding is more important than ending the suffering caused by the shutdown, Clark said. Utterly shameful! The Democrats OPENLY ADMIT they are causing the shutdown—and using hardworking American families as their LEVERAGE. https://t.co/boosLESCYP — Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) October 22, 2025

On October 11, 6,700 women gathered at the Credit Union of Texas in Allen for Allie Beth Stuckey’s second annual Share the Arrows conference, a day filled with joy, encouragement, and sisterhood.Worship was led by Grammy-winning Christian artist Francesca Battistelli, who performed a vibrant mix of contemporary worship songs and timeless hymns.Speakers included Christian apologist and author Alisa Childers, homeschooling mother of 10 Abbie Halberstadt, Mama Bear Apologetics founder Hillary Morgan Ferrer, children’s rights advocate Katy Faust, non-toxic living advocate Shawna Holman, functional medicine nurse practitioner Taylor Dukes, and New York Times bestselling author Jinger Vuolo. Their talks spanned motherhood, health, and confronting cultural challenges with biblical truth.And the best part is: We’re doing it again! In just under two hours, BlazeTV+ subscribers can join the Share the Arrows watch party. Whether you attended and want to relive the experience or missed it but want to see what the buzz is about, this virtual event is for you.Not a subscriber? Join the BlazeTV family today. Use code sharethearrows for $40 off your subscription. Once you’re in, you’ll also have access to a year of amazing programming. See you there!

Crime is bad. Violent crime is worse. That’s obvious. It’s not a partisan point. Most Democrats — I happen to be one of them — don’t cheer lawlessness. In fact, 68% of us say crime is a major problem in big cities. A few progressives have attacked police, but they sit far outside the mainstream. Most Democratic voters hold a higher opinion of law enforcement than of traditional liberal pillars like organized labor or public schools.So if everyone agrees crime is bad, the real argument isn’t over morality — it’s over solutions.We all agree crime is bad. The question is whether we fight it with empty theatrics or serious, sustained policing.That’s where President Trump’s anti-crime efforts collapse. Talking tough doesn’t make streets safer. His approach wastes money, strains resources, and distracts from the hard work of policing.The problem with militarizing citiesTrump’s main crime-fighting move has been deploying the National Guard to large cities like Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco are also on the president’s list. The images look dramatic, but they don’t reduce crime.The Posse Comitatus Act bars the president from using the military as a domestic police force, which makes it unclear whether Guardsmen can legally arrest suspects or patrol neighborhoods. Most Guardsmen don’t want to cross that line — and they aren’t trained to. In Washington, the Guard’s own report lists its activities: clearing trash, spreading mulch, and painting fences. Good work, yes — but not policing.These deployments also carry a hefty price tag. The Los Angeles mission, involving 4,000 guardsmen and 700 Marines for less than two months, cost about $118 million. Washington’s ongoing deployment could exceed that. Long-term operations in cities like Memphis, Portland, and Chicago would drive the bills even higher.And those aren’t the only costs. The Guard is already stretched thin. Disaster relief missions during brutal wildfire and hurricane seasons have drained manpower and equipment. Overseas deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan reduced recruitment and retention. If the president keeps sending Guardsmen into American cities, they may not be ready when the country faces a real disaster — or, heaven forbid, a war.Ignoring what worksInstead of chasing headlines, Trump could invest in what actually reduces crime. His One Big Beautiful Bill Act offered funding only for local agencies that cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. It provided nothing to hire or retain more police or prosecutors — the people who actually solve crimes and clear backlogged cases.The solution is straightforward: Redirect the hundreds of millions spent on National Guard deployments into state and local law enforcement. Departments nationwide face critical shortages. Chicago alone needs about 1,300 more officers.RELATED: The city that chose crime and chaos over courage Stock Depot via iStock/Getty ImagesHistory proves this works. Between the late 1960s and early 1990s, violent crime surged 371%. By 1991, the U.S. murder rate hit a historic peak. Then came the bipartisan 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act. The law funded new prisons, domestic violence prevention programs, and — most importantly — about 84,000 additional police officers.The result? Crime fell sharply. Violent crime has dropped roughly 50% since then. The law had flaws — cutting inmate access to higher education was one — but safer streets remain its chief legacy.The way to fight crimeIf President Trump truly wants to make America safer, he should stop staging photo ops and start funding proven methods. Deploying the National Guard is costly, risky, and legally questionable. Hiring cops, prosecutors, and judges works — and has worked for decades.We all agree crime is bad. The question is whether we fight it with empty theatrics or serious, sustained policing. The answer should be as clear as the problem itself.

President Donald Trump has announced initiatives to expand access to in vitro fertilization and reduce associated costs — as each round of IVF can cost $12,000 to $25,000 — and one round is often not all it takes.“In the Trump administration, we want to make it easier for all couples to have babies, raise children,” Trump said at the White House on October 16.“That’s why today I’m pleased to announce that after extensive negotiations, EMD Serrano, the largest fertility drug manufacturer in the world, has agreed to provide massive discounts to all fertility drugs they sell in the United States, including the most popular drug of all, the IVF drug,” he continued.While many Republicans have cheered Trump’s announcement, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is not on the same page.“Trump says that, you know, he’s unaware of conservative religious objections to IVF, but IVF is inherently pro-life. And I’ll just say it doesn’t surprise me at all that Trump has this position. IVF is extremely popular, even among Republicans, and he represents the position that a lot of people have,” Stuckey says.“But let me just explain something,” she continues. “The pro-life position is not just ‘more babies.’ We want more babies that are conceived in loving marriages between a man and a woman. Being pro-life doesn’t mean that we are pro every form of conception. Obviously, we can agree, right, that not every form of conception is moral and ethical.”“There is a cost to IVF. In fact, most babies, most embryos that are made via IVF, the vast majority of those embryos will never be transferred and will never make it to a live birth. In fact, the IVF industry kills more babies every year than the abortion industry does,” she explains.“If we really believe in our pro-life ethics, that a life is a life no matter how small, that human life starts at conception, then how we treat those embryos that are created in a lab that are frozen indefinitely, that are very often eugenically discarded because they’re the wrong gender or they have Down syndrome or they have some other kind of disability or they were just that unlucky extra guy that was created and their parents don’t want them anymore,” she says.“All of that really matters. It’s not only about not killing a baby inside the womb. It’s about not discarding and mistreating life that has been created,” she adds.Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The former singer of the Welsh rock band Lostprophets, Ian Watkins, recently was attacked and killed in prison, according to authorities. Watkins was serving a sentence for multiple pedophilia-related offenses, including attempting to rape a baby.Police in England said Watkins was murdered at His Majesty's Prison Wakefield in Great Britain on the morning of Oct. 11.'Extensive inquiries remain ongoing in relation to the murder of Ian Watkins, and these arrests form part of that.'Watkins, 48, was pronounced dead at HMP Wakefield despite being given medical treatment for injuries suffered during a "serious assault."Last week, British authorities announced the arrest of two men — 25-year-old Rashid Gedel and 43-year-old Samuel Dodsworth. Both suspects were charged with murder in connection with Watkins' death. The West Yorkshire Police Department said in a statement Tuesday that two other men — ages 23 and 39 — also were arrested in connection with Watkins' death and charged with suspicion of conspiracy to murder. Police did not name the two new suspects. The senior investigating officer in the alleged murder said the investigation is ongoing. Detective Chief Inspector James Entwistle of the Homicide and Major Enquiry Team with the West Yorkshire Police Department stated, "Extensive inquiries remain ongoing in relation to the murder of Ian Watkins, and these arrests form part of that.""Ian Watkins' family are being updated as the investigation progresses," Entwistle said. "However, we do not anticipate any immediate developments at this stage."A spokesperson for the His Majesty's Prison Service told the BBC that it was aware of an incident at the prison but was "unable to comment further while the police investigate."The West Yorkshire Police Department and HMP Wakefield did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.RELATED: Pair of convicted pedophiles — one who raped, murdered 3-year-old girl — die on same night in same prison Photo by Marc Grimwade/WireImageThe Mirror noted that HMP Wakefield is known as "Monster Mansion," which "houses some of the U.K.'s most infamous and dangerous criminals, ranging from serial killers to terrorists and habitual rapists."Watkins appeared in court in 2019 after a mobile phone reportedly was discovered in his prison cell. Watkins told magistrates that he was imprisoned among "murderers, mass murderers, rapists, pedophiles, serial killers — the worst of the worst," according to the Guardian.Previously, Watkins was stabbed in prison while serving time for his child sex crimes.As Blaze News reported in August 2023, Watkins was held hostage by three fellow HMP Wakefield prisoners for several hours and stabbed.The Mirror previously reported, "The prison had to wait until a 'Tornado Crew' could be assembled — specialist officers trained in hostage situations. The three prisoners kept Watkins hostage for almost six hours — it is believed the attack took place on B wing, where 70 percent of the prisoners are serving life and 20 percent serving 10 years or more. So serious were his injuries, it is understood that he received emergency treatment from paramedics in an ambulance on the prison estate."Watkins was arrested in December 2012 and hit with several child sex crime charges. "During trial, it was revealed that the password to encrypted files on Watkins' computer was 'I F*K KIDZ,'" Rolling Stone previously reported.In December 2013, Watkins pleaded guilty to 13 charges, including conspiring to rape a child, three counts of sexual assault of children, seven counts involving making or possessing indecent images of children, and one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image involving a sex act on an animal.The judge during the sentencing hearing described Watkins' crimes as "plumbing new depths of depravity," according to the Guardian.The disgraced singer was sentenced to 29 years in prison. Watkins' former band, Lostprophets, was founded in 1997 and topped the U.K. charts in 2006 after the release of its third album, "Liberation Transmission." Lostprophets broke up in 2013 when Watkins was sentenced to prison.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Thomas Koch, the mayor of Quincy, Massachusetts, commissioned two 10-foot-tall bronze statues to complement his city's new public safety headquarters, a 122,000 square-foot facility that will ultimately house both the police department and the fire department's administration offices.One of the statues that the city asked renowned sculptor Sergey Eylanbekov to design depicts the winged archangel Michael stepping on the head of a demon. The other statue depicts Florian, a third-century firefighting Roman soldier, dumping water on a burning building.'The statues of Michael and Florian honor service — not a creed.'Despite the broader cultural significance of both figures and their longstanding association with first responders, groups loath to see any public signs of Christianity joined a number of local residents in suing to block the installation of the statues.While the Norfolk Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction last week blocking the installation of the two statues, the city of Quincy, evidently unwilling to surrender to iconoclastic secularists, has teamed up with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to file an appeal."We respect every citizen's beliefs, religious or not. But the statues of Michael and Florian honor service — not a creed," Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch said in a statement to Blaze News. "We’re hopeful that the court will reverse this order and allow our city to pay tribute to the men and women who keep our city safe."The lawsuitThe lawsuit filed in May by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, names a number of Quincy residents as plaintiffs includinga Unitarian social justice warrior; a self-identified Catholic who finds the "violent imagery" of good triumphing over evil to be "offensive"; a local synagogue member who suggested the images "may exacerbate the current rise in anti-Semitism"; an Episcopalian who believes that walking past such statues would amount to "submission to religious symbols";several Catholics turned atheists apparently keen to avoid some of the imagery they grew up with; anda lapsed Catholic who suggested the image of Michael stepping on the head of a demon was "reminiscent of how George Floyd was killed."The lawsuit states that "affixing religious icons of one particular faith to a government facility — the City's public safety building, no less — sends an alarming message that those who do not subscribe to the City's preferred religious beliefs are second-class residents who should not feel safe, welcomed, or equally respected by their government."RELATED: Exposing the great lie about 'MAGA Christianity' — and the truth elites hate Quincy City Hall. Photo by Lane Turner/The Boston Globe via Getty Images.The complaint hammers home the significance of Michael in Catholicism, where he is recognized as the patron saint of police, yet neglects to note that Michael also features prominently in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religious texts and traditions as well as in the Western literary canon and pop culture.While the suit hints at possible civic or professional accomplishments on the part of Florian that could be recognized with a statue, it again suggested that as the patron saint of firefighters, a statue of the historical figure would similarly "send a predominantly religious message."The plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit that the city violated Article III of the Massachusetts Declaration Rights, and suggested that the installation of the statues "will not serve a predominantly secular purpose," but rather to "promote, promulgate, and advance one faith, subordinating other faiths as well as non-religious traditions."The allegation of a violation of state law as opposed to a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution appears to have been strategic. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court has made expressly clear that "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause."Mayor Koch rejected the plaintiffs' thesis, underscoring in a sworn affidavit that he regarded it as "appropriate to erect statues of two internationally recognized symbols of police and fire service, an act which would also serve to inspire the men and women who work in the building.""There was nothing religious about this decision," continued Koch. "The fact that Michael and Florian each happen to be saints venerated in the Catholic Church is ancillary to their significance in the Police and Fire services, respectively."The injunctionQuincy suggested in the suit that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they were "simply offended by the planned statues, and, unwilling to confine themselves to the ordinary means for airing ideological disagreements with the government — the political process — have sought to make a lawsuit out of it."Norfolk Superior Court Justice William Sullivan, who was put on the court by former Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, was evidently not persuaded.On Oct.14, Sullivan denied the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and granted a preliminary injunction against the erection of the statues, noting that the plaintiffs had demonstrated "that they are likely to succeed at proving that the permanent display of the oversized overtly religious-looking statutes have a primary effect of advancing religion."RELATED: Clinton labor secretary panics after Trump asks the archangel Michael for help fighting evil Photo by: Claudio Ciabochi/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Speaking to Koch's suggestion that the statues have secular significance and purpose, Sullivan wrote, "To the extent a statue of Saint Michael provides inspiration or conveys a message of truth, justice, or the triumph of good over evil, it does so in his context as a biblical figure — namely, the archangel of God. It is impossible to strip the statue of its religious meaning to contrive a secular purpose."Rachel Davidson, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, celebrated the ruling, stating, "We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state.""Massachusetts citizens are free to practice their personal religious views by placing statues of saints or other religious iconography on private property," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. "But such religious iconography emphatically does not belong on government buildings where all must feel welcome."The appealBecket, a firm focused on protecting religious liberty, announced on Tuesday that it will join the city of Quincy in appealing Sullivan's decision."If allowed to stand, the decision would push cities across the Commonwealth to strip historic symbols from civic life whenever they carry religious associations," the firm said in a statement. "But the Supreme Court has upheld the use of symbols with religious roots in public life, including a World War I memorial featuring a cross, when they carry historical, cultural, or commemorative significance."Using private funding in the 1920s, the American Legion constructed the 40-foot-tall Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, to honor soldiers who perished in World War I. The sight of the cross evidently enraged iconoclastic secularists, who sought to have it toppled. While the Fourth Circuit proved more than happy to oblige them, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in its 2019 American Legion v. American Humanist Association ruling that the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause.The court also rejected the relevance of the test articulated by SCOTUS in its 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman ruling as a way of guiding the court in identifying Establishment Clause violations, noting that the Lemon test presented "particularly daunting problems" in such cases that "involve the use, for ceremonial, celebratory, or commemorative purpose, of words or symbols with religious associations."While the Supreme Court has effectively rejected the Lemon test, Justice Sullivan leaned heavily on it in the Quincy case."Everyone is free to have their own opinions about public art, but in America, the fact that something may have religious associations is not a legitimate reason to censor it," said Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket."Our nation, like many others, has long drawn on historic symbols — including those with religious roots — to honor courage and sacrifice. The court should reject this lawsuit’s attempt to block these symbols of bravery and courage," added Davis.Quincy Police Chief Mark Kennedy's office indicated the police department will have no comment as the issue remains in the hands of the court.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!