Here’s a headline that, if you’ve been making car insurance payments over the last few years, might seem pretty hard to believe. It turns out that average auto insurance premiums actually declined in March, month-over-month. Yes, for many people, premiums have gotten cheaper, even as car prices have remained high. Inflation has seemingly been defeated, at least in this particular industry. The declines were particularly steep in Florida, where insurers like Geico, Progressive and State Farm are cutting rates by as much as 10%. But there’s no question that this is a nationwide phenomenon. Insurance rates are down by roughly 1% across the board — which might not sound like a lot, but it’s a big difference from the typical double-digit increases that we’ve been seeing lately. When you go from 15-point average increases to a 1% decrease, you’re saving a lot of money, relatively speaking. So why is this happening, exactly? Ask ten different people and you’ll probably get ten different answers. And all of them might be right, at least partially. But here’s one theory. It could be that insurance rates are going down because our roads are getting safer. And maybe our roads are getting safer because two grand Left-wing experiments — the BLM “de-policing” movement and the open borders agenda — have both finally come to an end. Each of these movements clearly made driving significantly more dangerous, in their own way. Beginning in 2020, of course, BLM convinced police departments to stop enforcing laws — including traffic laws. And the effect was immediate. By one estimate, 35% more black people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2021, as compared with 2019. In other words, a lot of black motorists suddenly realized that they could drive however they wanted. They’d no longer be pulled over for supposedly “driving while black,” which was something they imagined was happening all the time. And they took full advantage of the situation. Insurance companies had to deal with the carnage that followed. Along the same lines, as we’ve discussed before, the flood of illegal aliens into this country under the Biden administration has led to a lot of drunk-driving collisions, which have wiped out entire families in some cases. Many of these illegal aliens don’t have driver’s licenses, and they refuse to obey the rules of the road. In the tiny town of Springfield, for example, one resident recently estimated that she sees 8 to 10 traffic accidents per day. Haitian migrants, which now make up around one-third of the population, routinely drive into buildings and onto sidewalks. They’ve mowed down children and elderly women, with total impunity. One of these Haitian migrants ran over Kathy Heaton, a 71-year-old grandmother, while she was collecting her garbage cans. She died in the street, after an impact that was so severe that her socks were literally removed from her feet. The driver wasn’t even prosecuted. This era of impunity is now over. Police departments are no longer being overrun with BLM mobs. Border security is being enforced again. The result is that the prices that American citizens have to pay — both in terms of dollar amounts, and lives that are lost — are coming down. It turns out that, when you have a society that enforces laws, everyone benefits. The White House seems to understand this. That’s why, every other day, we’re hearing about a new plan to reduce the cost of these kinds of externalities for Americans. Here’s the latest example. The New York Times is now reporting that the Trump administration is canceling the Social Security numbers of foreign nationals who, for one reason or another, were allowed into this country during Joe Biden’s presidency: The Trump administration has moved aggressively to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were allowed into the country under President Biden. … Now, the administration is taking drastic steps to pressure some of those immigrants and others who had legal status to “self-deport” by effectively canceling the Social Security numbers they had lawfully obtained. … The goal is to cut those people off from using crucial financial services like bank accounts and credit cards, along with their access to government benefits. According to the Times, thousands of “convicted criminals and suspected terrorists” are among the foreign nationals who just had their Social Security numbers revoked. Yes, apparently the Biden administration provided “convicted criminals and suspected terrorists” with Social Security numbers, so that they could obtain government benefits. The Biden administration determined that this course of action was preferable to just deporting these people, or throwing them in prison. Now the Trump administration is changing that policy. Again, this will have the effect of reducing payments by taxpayers to people who shouldn’t even be here. It will also make our roads and our communities a lot safer, in all likelihood. More than anything else, this is what Americans voted for in the last election. If Republicans are going to remain in power in Washington, and avoid a Democrat takeover of Congress in the midterms next year, then this kind of thing has to continue. And more importantly, Congress has to start supporting it. That’s how we can ensure that the cost of living will continue dropping. A large part of that equation is reducing government spending, which Congress controls. As we all know, when the government spends trillions of dollars every year, that money is either coming from taxpayers, or it’s being printed and borrowed (which reduces the value of the money we’re all holding). Either way, we’re losing a lot of money in the process. At the moment, it appears that a small contingent of Republican lawmakers in Congress recognizes that this arrangement needs to change, at least to some degree. They just held out for assurances that the next spending bill will slash one-point-five trillion dollars from the budget. And after a lot of hand-wringing, they apparently received those assurances. Watch: So there were two plans here, for a spending bill to fund the government. The Senate plan, which passed over the weekend, would only reduce the deficit by around four billion dollars. That’s basically nothing compared to the new House framework, which demands a minimum of one-point-five trillion dollars in deficit reduction. But here’s the problem: Even this new framework isn’t binding. It just sets a broad outline for future negotiations between the House and Senate, which still need to finalize a budget. And several members of Congress — most notably Thomas Massie of Kentucky — believe that this deal is worth about as much as the paper it’s printed on. Thomas Massie has been in office for more than a decade, and he understands how Congress works. He knows that it’s one thing for lawmakers to promise spending cuts. But it’s a completely different matter for them to agree on a bill that actually cuts spending. Here’s what Massie told a reporter after the framework was announced: What’s surprising here isn’t anything Thomas Massie is saying. What’s surprising is that so few Republicans in Congress are agreeing with him. The reason voters elected Republicans to control both chambers of Congress, along with the White House, is that they want government spending and the cost of living to come down. That’s one of the top issues in every exit poll. And now that Donald Trump is doing that — or attempting to do it — Congress is refusing to codify any of his cuts into law. If a Democrat becomes president, he could override all these DOGE cuts in a day-one executive order. And by the way, no matter what you think of Trump’s tariffs, Massie makes a good point. Why hasn’t Congress held a vote on them? Tariffs are a form of taxation. They have the potential to significantly raise the cost of goods in the United States, among other effects. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to tax. Even if you approve of the tariffs, you should still want Congress to vote on them, for the simple reason that they’ll be harder to overturn in a future administration. On the other hand, if you’re skeptical of tariffs, a congressional vote would allow for a full debate on the issue. Instead of unilateral announcements from the White House, we’d be able to hear the arguments on each side. But the GOP leadership in Congress hasn’t displayed any interest in holding a vote on tariffs. In fact they’ve blocked a vote on the topic. And they haven’t held votes on the DOGE cuts or any other significant spending cuts. In fact, they still haven’t reined in any of the trillion dollars’ worth of spending in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which was full of giveaways to environmentalist groups and NGOs. Why exactly hasn’t any of that waste been rolled back? Why is no one bothered to even talk about it? Really congress has not codified any of Trump’s executive orders at all, which means they’re all susceptible to being overturned with the stroke of a pen by the next administration. Where is congress? When it comes to spending, if you ask Missouri Congressman Eric Burlison, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, he’ll say that Republicans aren’t actually serious about cutting spending. Like Massie, he thinks the spending cuts will never actually happen. Here’s what he said: I think that this town has got a lot of snakes in the grass who don’t want to accomplish it, and anyway that they can they’re going to stop it from happening. And I want to ensure we don’t end up in a place where we let the president down in that regard. Whatever Donald Trump makes of the deal, at the moment, it looks like Republican voters might be let down. We’re talking about raising the debt ceiling by a historic amount, and potentially spending more than the Biden administration ever did. And we’re doing it at a time when we’re initiating a broader trade war, which means that we’ll have less access to money to borrow. This is not a recipe for a stable economic situation going forward. In separate interviews, Thomas Massie and Congressman Jodey Arrington of Texas outlined what’s at stake here. Watch: Even if you listen to that rhetoric and conclude that it’s overblown, or that there’s really no cause for concern, the fundamental point remains: Republicans ran on a platform that involved lowering the cost of living, which includes lowering taxes and government spending. If Republicans cannot deliver on that very simple promise, they will not be in power for very long. And they will be replaced by a party that’s even more committed to more taxes and government spending.  This particular spending bill won’t be finalized for several weeks, in all likelihood. Between now and the moment this legislation is finalized, it’s hard to imagine that anything in Congress is more important than holding GOP leadership to their promise on these spending cuts — and pushing them further, for as many cuts as possible. If Republicans (and their voters) stay focused on that goal, they will have achieved something that the party has promised for decades, but failed to deliver. They will have permanently reduced the size of the American government, for the benefit of everyone living in this country. The White House is clearly committed to this goal. Now it’s time for every Republican in Congress — not just Thomas Massie and a few others — to follow suit.

The overall strategy of containing China, of hampering its economic growth, of preventing it from stealing our IP by basically cutting it off from world markets, has to be implemented with smart, cohesive tactics. A trade war is just like any other war. It’s not enough to know your objective. You also have to know exactly how to attain that objective in the most expeditious possible fashion. And herein lies the issue with regard to China. How fast you go and the measures that you take in order to box China matter tremendously. China absolutely deserves this. China is a geopolitical enemy of the United States. The pretend pussyfooting that’s been going on with a wide variety of administrations over the course of my lifetime with regard to China is wrong, and President Trump is the only president who’s had the courage to actually just confront it. He’s the only president who’s had the courage to say China is not just a strategic competitor, as Joe Biden said. They’re not a rising market that we need to find a way to integrate with, which was the view of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Donald Trump clearly recognizes that China is a geopolitical enemy of the United States, that they have been ripping us off. They’ve been stealing our IP. They’re spreading their tentacles all over the world. And they’re working with all the countries that hate our guts. President Trump has the courage to say the truth. Jordan Schachtel, an excellent foreign policy analyst, has a list of the various IPs that have been stolen by the Chinese over the course of the last ten years or so. Those include: F-35 Fighter Jet data used for China’s J-20 stealth fighter. Lockheed Martin F-22 data used for China’s J-31 fighter. Missile guidance to enhance Chinese missile systems. NASA space tech: hacked data on propulsion and materials research. Chip designs worth billions taken for China’s memory chip industry. Nuclear missile sensors. Infrared detection tech stolen for military applications. Boeing C-17 Data. Military transport plane specs hacked, linked to China’s Y-20. Apple’s Self-Driving Car Tech. Chip technology to advance Chinese semiconductors. Nuclear reactor designs. American radio systems. American semiconductor processes. Software code for Chinese tech firms. It is estimated by certain measures that China steals no less than $600 billion per year in American technology and IP — $600 billion per year. That is a massive number. So, yes, we should be seeking to contain China. Yes, we should be seeking to build an economic ring of fire around China. In order to do that, a few things have to happen. First, you need better alliances around China. That means better trade deals, better relations with Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, the entire Indo-Pacific region. It means better relations with the EU, which is a major trading partner for the Chinese. It means that you actually need to strengthen your alliances just like any other war. A trade war works like this. If you’re going to isolate China, you have to build better relations with everybody else on the planet so you can isolate China. This is what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been pitching. He says that President Trump’s strategy here is to isolate China in this way, to flip everybody against China so it’s the U.S. and all of our friends against China. The other thing that matters here is the strength of the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency. That matters an awful lot. It matters because everybody is still trading in U.S. dollars, giving us leverage. If you cut yourself off from world markets, what you end up doing is reducing the leverage you have against other countries. Economically speaking, one of the amazing things that has happened in terms of American power over the course of the last 30 years has been the integration of global financial systems. It is what has allowed the Trump administration to successfully sanction the nation of Iran. The state of Iran has been sanctioned by the United States. Russia has been sanctioned by the United States through use of international financial mechanisms. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show Doing these things is only possible because of the integrated nature of technological commerce in the modern era. It’s not just that the United States can say, “We’re not going to trade with Russia anymore. We’re not going to buy Iranian oil anymore.” It’s that the United States could threaten any bank or entity that did business with America with a cut-off if they did business with the Russians or Iranians, and that has a major effect. So, in other words, removing yourself from the international system actually damages you if you’re the most powerful country in the system. The United States is the most powerful entity in that system. It is the sun around which all of the other economies orbit. If we just disappear, if we just dissociate, that doesn’t increase our power, it radically reduces our power. Thus we need to increase our economic power. And that means greater integration with other countries economically, more integration into international financial systems that we control. This is how you build up the power to take on China, which is a rising power with the ability to truly throw a wrench into the global economy in amazing ways while stealing American IP. You also need to build up the American military. That means greater expenditure and different types of military tech. Shem Sankara, the chief technology officer for Palantir, which is one of the new defense firms that does business with the American government, said we need to reorient away from any of these big-ticket items in the American military that have a legacy, and instead orient toward new technologies that allows for the United States to defend the Taiwan Straits or break a blockade around Taiwan. That requires serious expenditure. It also requires serious oversight and requires a real military strategy, not just throwing things against the wall and not just assuming that America’s heretofore power is going to be its power dynamic going forward. So you need better trade relations with everybody and better military tech. And finally, you need the actual reshoring of national security-laden industries in the United States. That requires time. You can’t just do that overnight. There’s a bunch of stuff that we need that is made in China, including certain forms of semiconductors, including rare earth materials. All these things are necessary.  To fight this trade war, we need to put our ducks in a row, and tactics matter. You have to figure out how China will respond and what tools they might use. Tool #1: They could cut off rare earth mineral exports. They control 90% of global rare earth markets. They did that to Japan. It takes an average of 29 years to go from mineral discovery to production in the United States. But in China, where they don’t give a crap about the environment, they just drill it and get it in months. They go and get all that stuff in months. Tool #2: China could sell off a massive number of U.S. treasury bonds. China likely owns well over $1 trillion in U.S. bonds at this point. If China decided to sell off those bonds at bargain basement rates and just take the loss, it would destroy America’s capacity to borrow in the market, because bonds are a debt instrument. That would be a shock to the American system and crater the economy pretty much overnight. Tool #3: China could simply try to blockade Taiwan and hold the U.S. hostage until the tariffs were removed. They might not just blockade Taiwan, they could theoretically invade Taiwan. Blockade of Taiwan is the safer option for the Chinese because they would dare the United States to fire on their ships. If they blockaded Taiwan, the question is would the United States actually be able to or have the courage to break the blockade around Taiwan at the risk of a possible hot war with China? If China blockades Taiwan, all the semiconductors that are sophisticated semiconductors, all the stuff in your phone, your computer and our military tech, would be held hostage. One of the realities of the beginning of World War II in the Pacific sphere is that it was the Western cut-off of oil and rubber, largely to the Japanese, that created the impetus for the Japanese to invade Pearl Harbor. What the U.S. did had to be done, Japan was expanding its grip in Manchuria and the South Pacific. The tragedy of Pearl Harbor is not just that we were surprised. The tragedy is that we weren’t ready to fight back immediately, because FDR had not done the necessary work in order to ensure that we were ready to go to war at that time. It took a couple of years for the United States industrial complex to fire up such that it could actually take on a war. So all of this means everything has to move in lockstep. It means that when you take a trade policy that is likely to push in a more confrontational direction, you have to be ready with the iron fist inside the velvet glove. Economics is the velvet glove, military force is the iron fist. We need to have a very concerted strategy for how we go about that trade war with China, because international relations is a delicate business.

Episode Description: This week, Arielle and Karissa explore a groundbreaking move by Colombia to protect uncontacted Indigenous communities and biodiversity, a California builder’s creation of the first wildfire-resilient neighborhood, and the personal impact of budget cuts to the EPA and NPS. The Optimist Daily is a project of the World Business Academy. Donate link: https://www.optimistdaily.com/donate-to-support-the-optimist-daily/?gift=Y%20http:// Transcript: Theme music Karissa: Hello and welcome to The Optimist Daily’s Weekly Round-up. I’m Karissa. Arielle: And I’m Arielle, and we’re working hard to put solutions in view and optimism in movement. Karissa: Well, hello. We’re back again with another episode of the pod to share the solutions from The Optimist Daily this week. How are you doing, Arielle? Arielle: I’m okay, I’m… yeah, the news has been pretty negative, dare I say. Karissa: (Laughs) Exactly. Arielle: But yeah, just trying to stay positive and take in all that’s good in the world. But how are you doing? Karissa: Yeah, I think I’m in the same boat. I’ve been really frustrated with the news, and searching out the good news has definitely been a little bit difficult lately. But we’re happy to do it. It’s really good that we’re able to do this for our job. It can get a little distressing though when we have to filter through everything. So I guess before we get to the solutions that stood out to us this week, we’ve got our I’m an optimist, but… segment. Arielle: Yeah—what’s yours? Karissa: So, I’m an optimist, but—like probably many people in the United States right now, and around the world—I am not optimistic about tariffs happening. Arielle: Mm-hmm. Karissa: Things are already just so expensive in general, and you think you’re okay financially, and then one thing hits after another. For me personally, it’s my car tires I have to replace, and that kind of just spirals into something completely different. Like—ugh—I wish I didn’t have to have a car. I wish I lived in a walkable community. Arielle: Yeah. Karissa: I could save so much on that. But now, tariffs will be hitting everything—especially cars. So I guess I’m glad I’m getting new tires now. Arielle: Yeah. Karissa: But yeah, it’s really distressing seeing how much everyday items will go up. And the big ticket items too. Even just at the store the other day, I decided to buy a bigger size of vanilla extract—because vanilla is imported from Madagascar, and of course, that has a tariff going on. Arielle: And I guess there’s also just a layer of uncertainty as well, because you don’t know. I mean, like, the Canadian tariffs in the end didn’t go through—but then it looks like maybe they will. So a lot of people can’t really plan their lives or their businesses with so much uncertainty in the air. Karissa: Yeah. Arielle: Yep. Tough times. Karissa: So what was your I’m an optimist, but… moment this week? Arielle: Yeah—kind of related. My partner and I have quite a few friends in the U.S. working for the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency doing research. And one of our friends is really cool actually—she’s a park ranger, and she rides a horse all day and corrals all the wild horses so they don’t— Karissa: That’s awesome. Arielle: —ruin people’s crops and things like that. But they’re worried all the time that they’re going to lose their jobs. So that’s been kind of getting me down. And in general, I’m… I’m an optimist, but I’m really, really troubled by the proposed budget cuts to these agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service, among others, of course—because these agencies aren’t just bureaucracies. They’re actually full of real people: scientists, ecologists, park rangers, and public servants like my friends. They work super hard to protect the U.S.’s air, water, public lands, cultural heritage—all of that. So yeah, the staff of these agencies includes experts who track pollution, toxic exposures, and public health risks. It’s kind of bad news for everyone if they face all these budget cuts. So I guess that’s what I’m not so optimistic about. Karissa: It’s definitely uncertain times, which isn’t the greatest feeling. But, you know, we have to acknowledge that these troubles are going on in order to look at the brighter things happening too. Arielle: And also, like, we can’t really find the solutions if we’re not calling out and identifying the problems. Karissa: Exactly. Arielle: We do have an article, I think, that was published this week about how job loss could affect your health—and how you can handle that. So if you are one of the people who have unfortunately lost employment, I would check that one out. But in the meantime, let’s get off this negative train. (Laughs) Karissa: Let’s share a little bit of optimism. Arielle: Do you mind if I go first? Karissa: Go for it. Arielle: I’m going to turn our attention over to the heart of the Amazon—specifically southern Colombia—where something really significant just happened. The Colombian government has created its first officially recognized territory specifically designed to protect uncontacted Indigenous communities. Karissa: Ooh, that’s a pretty rare move, right? And not just for Colombia, but globally. Arielle: Yeah, exactly. The title of the article I’m talking about is Colombia sets precedent to protect uncontacted Indigenous communities and biodiversity. I’ll just mention it now before I forget to say the title again. (Laughs) And it truly is a major precedent. The territory spans over one million hectares—that’s more than 2.7 million acres—between the Caquetá and Putumayo Rivers. And actually, back in 2015, I was living and working in Colombia, in the neighbouring province called Nariño. I mean, Nariño itself is beautiful, but also Putumayo—and my friends and I would often take weekend trips to villages in Putumayo, hiking through mountains… Karissa: Okay… Arielle: …to amazing waterfalls. So yeah, this article brought back some good memories. Karissa: Yeah! Arielle: But anyway, the protected territory is home to the Yuri-Passé people, who have chosen to live in voluntary isolation—completely outside of contact with the modern world. Karissa: That is so fascinating. And I guess the point of this territory is to preserve that choice for them—to live without contact with the outside world? Arielle: Yes. The designation prohibits any kind of economic development or forced contact, and it includes a buffer zone to reduce outside disturbances. It also overlaps with Río Puré National Park, which was established back in 2002. But this new territory takes protection a step further by centering the rights of uncontacted groups. Karissa: Okay, well this is interesting—because while the park has been there for two decades, the actual recognition of uncontacted groups in that area only came in, like, the last year, right? Arielle: Yeah, that’s right. In 2023, Colombia’s Ministry of Interior formally acknowledged the presence of isolated Indigenous peoples in the region. But the reality is, local Indigenous communities have known about them for much, much longer. Karissa: Because I didn’t really know much about these uncontacted communities until probably that announcement in 2023. So I’m just wondering—why didn’t people say anything earlier? Arielle: You mean the other Indigenous communities? Karissa: Yeah. Arielle: Mostly mistrust. According to the Amazon Conservation Team, which works closely with those communities, many chose not to reveal what they knew. As one spokesperson put it, “They didn’t always trust the government… so they often opted not to mention the other groups or where they might be found.” Karissa: That’s definitely fair. It’s a powerful example of how knowledge isn’t always shared unless trust is built first. Arielle: Exactly. And despite the lack of formal recognition, there’s historical evidence. In 1969, there was a rare documented contact: military officials encountered a family believed to be living in isolation, brought them to a nearby town, and then released them. After that, they disappeared back into the forest and weren’t heard from again. Karissa: Well, the idea of protecting the area has clearly been around for a while—but it just took decades for the legal framework to catch up, it seems. Arielle: Pretty much. The turning point came in the 2010s, when mining and organized crime escalated in the region. That prompted neighbouring Indigenous communities to push for action. In 2018, the government introduced a decree allowing the creation of so-called “intangible zones” specifically for uncontacted groups—even within existing national parks. That laid the groundwork for this new territory. Karissa: And the process itself—this wasn’t something imposed from above? Arielle: No, and that’s the key. The Amazon Conservation Team emphasized that Indigenous communities led the initiative from the beginning. One spokesperson said, “It wasn’t the state that did the whole process… it was the other way around.” That kind of leadership is pretty rare in state-level environmental policy. Karissa: Yeah, that’s pretty cool. This would also be a big win for biodiversity as well, right? Arielle: Yes. The region is incredibly rich ecologically. Over 600 species have been recorded, including the oncilla—which is a small wildcat—the giant armadillo, and the giant anteater. It’s one of those places where cultural and ecological preservation go hand in hand. Karissa: I’m so glad this is going on, but I can imagine it’s not all smooth sailing. So… are there still threats? Arielle: Yeah, it’s never just smooth sailing. Since 2019, there hasn’t been a government presence in Río Puré National Park, largely due to security concerns linked to organized crime. For now, the area is monitored remotely by Indigenous communities. One spokesperson described the park as “orphaned” and said the hope is that this new resolution will encourage coordinated efforts to bring park rangers back. Karissa: Oh, okay—so this is both a milestone and a call for continued involvement. Arielle: Yeah, it’s a protective measure, but also an invitation to rethink how governments, civil society, and Indigenous groups can work together. It centers autonomy, sustainability, and long-term stewardship all in one—which we are huge fans of at The Optimist Daily. Karissa: Yeah, absolutely. I really like this one. It feels like one of those moments where local leadership, legal frameworks, and environmental ethics are all aligning—and that’s something that, you know, doesn’t happen nearly often enough. It feels like it’s becoming even more rare in some cases as well. So to see this is just… amazing. Arielle: Quite uplifting. Well said. In a world where many Indigenous lands are under pressure, this territory stands as a reminder of what’s possible when protection is approached collaboratively and respectfully. Karissa: I feel pretty optimistic from reading that. And it’s definitely a fascinating case—to think that there are still uncontacted people living out there, which is interesting in itself. So I’m glad that they’re being respected. Arielle: I can’t imagine what life is like—but I’m starting to think that maybe they made the right decision, with all the stress. (Laughs) Karissa: Yeah. (Laughs) Arielle: And all the uncertainty out here… Karissa: Absolutely. Arielle: I think your solution also has to do with climate and the environment? Karissa: In a sense, yeah. It has to do with the environment, climate change, and trying to build a little more resilience. So, we’re coming back over to California—my backyard in a sense—but this time we’re going down near San Diego, to Escondido. The title of my solution is California builder unveils first wildfire-resilient neighborhood in Escondido. In response to California’s escalating wildfire threat, homebuilder KB Home launched what it calls the first wildfire-resilient housing development in the state. Arielle: Yeah, definitely needed. Karissa: This 64-home development is the first of its kind to fully align with the wildfire resilience standards created by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, or IBHS. That’s a nonprofit backed by property insurers. These standards target the three main wildfire ignition threats: flying embers, radiant heat, and direct flame contact. Arielle: Wow. Okay, so what kind of features on the homes help prevent those threats? Karissa: The homes feature a wide array of fire-resistant construction techniques, including covered gutters, enclosed eaves, and non-combustible siding like stucco and fiber cement. Let me give you a little list of what’s included in these homes: We’ve got tempered-glass windows, non-combustible roofing and patios, and fire-resistant doors to enhance safety. There’s a six-inch vertical clearance, achieved with a mix of concrete foundations, stucco, and stone, to help keep flames from reaching combustible parts of the house. And the landscaping strategy is just as deliberate—only low-combustible plants are used, and they’re kept at least five feet from the home. Metal fencing is used throughout the neighborhood, too, to eliminate another source of fuel. And spacing between homes is very carefully planned: each unit is at least ten feet apart to reduce the risk of flames jumping from one structure to another. Arielle: Wow, they really thought it through. Even the landscaping—and I hadn’t even considered wooden fences as a source of fuel, but yeah, that totally makes sense. How did KB Home get the idea for these buildings? Karissa: Steve Ruffner, who’s the regional general manager of KB Home’s coastal division, said the idea emerged after attending a fire-resistant home demonstration at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference last summer. And actually, construction had already begun at the Escondido site, but the company quickly shifted gears to incorporate the fire-resilient features. He said, “We had to change the architecture on the fly to a more stucco-oriented architecture with fire-resistant shutters, or fire-free shutters, and doors and tempered windows.” Arielle: That’s great—that they were able to pivot the project and take it in such a different direction on really short notice. Karissa: Yeah, absolutely. I’m so glad they decided to do that. And Ruffner actually described this project as a kind of pilot. He said, “We’re trying to get the cost to a reasonable place, because we really specialize in first-time buyers and first-time move-up buyers. So we want to make sure we can get this in a good place where it’s affordable to do it, and it’s also a good payback to the customer in a form of safety.” Arielle: Okay, so where are they exactly in the development process? Have any of the houses been sold yet—and how much are they? Karissa: Yeah, so roughly 20 homes in this Escondido development have already been sold, and three families have moved in. Prices range from one million dollars to the low millions, which sounds like a lot, but it’s actually typical for move-up buyers in the region. Arielle: Yeah, wow. Okay. Well, that’s great to hear. California—and the rest of the fire-prone areas of the American West—certainly do need fire-resilient construction with the ongoing effects of climate change. Karissa: Yeah, absolutely. And actually, during the Palisades Fire earlier this year—which we know was very destructive—the homes that had been built specifically to fire-resistance standards survived, even as the surrounding neighborhood burned. Arielle: That’s a promising win. But of course, those fires were devastating. Karissa: Yeah. So we do have some early signs that these construction methods work. But examples like those from the Palisades Fire have mostly been one-off efforts from custom homebuilders. What makes the Escondido development stand out is its scale—an entire neighborhood built this way. And according to IBHS, KB Home is the first large production builder in the country to fully implement these wildfire-resilient standards across an entire subdivision. So they’re really hoping this project will inspire other developers to follow suit. Arielle: This is great. And I’m also thinking—would having these fire-resilient homes help bring down the very high home insurance prices in fire-prone areas? Karissa: Yeah, that’s a great question. With many insurers pulling out of the California market, homeowners are facing skyrocketing premiums—or losing coverage entirely. So the answer is: maybe. This type of construction could help reverse that trend. Of course, nothing is ever completely fireproof. But with these new protections, cities and homeowners can rethink landscaping, elevation, and overall design to build true community resilience. I think this serves as a real source of inspiration for new developments moving forward. And with additional projects already in the works, KB Home’s approach may soon become a blueprint for future communities across these fire-prone regions. So I really hope we start to see more of these resilient neighborhoods being built. Arielle: Maybe if there are even more of them, then the prices go down a bit too—then it could become more accessible for people who can’t, for instance, throw down a million dollars on a house. But yeah… you’ve got to start somewhere. Karissa: Yeah, exactly. Arielle: I’m feeling a little bit less down. (Laughs) Karissa: Me too. Yeah, and we had a lot of other solutions on Optimist Daily this week that might also make you feel optimistic. Arielle: We’ve got Tiny sparks, massive implications: how water droplets may have ignited life on Earth, Seize (back) the day: how to eliminate your top three time wasters, Effective stress management: trade in the ‘fight or flight’ response for ‘tend and befriend’, and Antarctic fossil reveals clues about the oldest known modern bird. Karissa: Yeah, and we also have Finland races ahead in clean energy: coal phase-out arrives four years early, How job loss affects your health—and what to do about it—which is the one we mentioned earlier—California leads the way as EV charging ports outnumber gas nozzles, and Super small dissolvable pacemaker offers safer, simpler heart treatment. Arielle: All right. Amazing. Good to hear. And if you want to start your day off right, make sure to subscribe to our free daily newsletter to get our solutions straight to your inbox. Karissa: And we also have more on all of our social channels. You can find us @OptimistDaily on all platforms, including Threads, Pinterest, and Bluesky. The only difference is on X, where we’re known as @OdeToOptimism. Arielle: We’re a small team of optimists working hard to bring you positive news. If you want to support our mission of putting optimism into the world, click the link in the show notes to find out how. Karissa: And support doesn’t always have to be financial. Even just recommending our podcast to a friend, leaving a positive review on Apple or Spotify, forwarding a solution link, or sharing one on your socials—anything helps. Arielle: I hope, Karissa, that you have a great weekend—and I wish the same to all of our listeners and readers. Karissa: Yeah, me too. We’ll be back next week to share some more solutions. Arielle: All right—bye!The post Podcast Transcript April 11, 2025: Uncontacted tribes, wildfire-resilient homes, and hope in tough times first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

'I’m the head of this household'

Oklahoma consistently ranks among the worst states in the country for public school outcomes. In an effort to improve educational options, the state’s official charter school board and an online Catholic charter school are fighting what they say is religious discrimination all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.   Charter schools in Oklahoma are run by private entities that receive public funding through a contract with the state. These schools are open to all students, tuition-free. Attorneys from the Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom are appealing an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling from June 2024 that said the state’s charter school board could not authorize a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School because the school is religious. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, on April 30.   Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit against the board in the state Supreme Court for failing to adhere to state law when it granted a charter authorization to St. Isidore. Article 2 Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution prevents public money from supporting any religious institution. The attorney general also cited the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and a nonsectarian provision in the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, which classifies charter schools as public schools.   Though not technically a Blaine amendment, the provision in the state constitution follows from the same history as the proposed but failed 19th century U.S. constitutional amendment that would have forbidden the states to grant public money or lands to schools with religious affiliations. Thirty-seven states passed their own so-called “mini” Blaine amendments around the turn of the last century. Oklahoma followed suit when it achieved statehood in 1907.   Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, an attorney and the director of The Conscience Project, said the mini Blaine amendments originate from anti-Catholic and anti-minority discrimination.  “You can’t shake the discriminatory foundation and history even if, in Oklahoma’s [case], it may not have had its genesis at the time of [Blaine], it still reflects this anti-religion animus and bigotry,” Picciotti-Bayer said.   Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow with The Catholic Association, said the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the teeth of the states’ Blaine amendments in recent years. In Ezpinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue in 2022, the court held Montana violated the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment by preventing families from using state-funded tuition assistance at private Catholic schools.  In a brief filed March 31, Drummond said a taxpayer-funded public Catholic charter school would violate the U.S. Constitution.   “Oklahoma readily agrees that there is no categorical bar against public monies reaching (and funding) private religious schools, including for devotional instruction and ministry, through such parental choice programs,” the filing said. “No one doubts that such an education can be profoundly valuable. But it is not one that states must provide in public schools.”   Oklahoma’s school choice laws offer tax credits and tuition assistance for religious private schools, he said, thus eliminating the need for religious public schools.   The case is not about the exclusion of a religious entity from government aid, according to Drummond’s press secretary Leslie Berger. It is about the state’s creation of a religious school, which is the establishment of religion, she said. “St. Isidore’s proponents have said the public charter school will be ‘Catholic in every way,’ from employment regulations to Catholic instruction,” Berger said. “As the attorney general has argued, that simply cannot be squared with the Oklahoma Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. The framers of the U.S. Constitution and those who drafted Oklahoma’s Constitution wisely understood how best to protect religious freedom: by preventing the state from sponsoring any religion at all. If St. Isidore Catholic public charter school is allowed to proceed, the inevitable result will be taxpayer-funded public schools teaching Sharia law, Wicca—even the Church of Satan.” The head of the state’s charter school board said he is more concerned with improving test scores than proselytizing the youth. Oklahoma ranks 48th out of 51 (including Washington, D.C.) in one World Population Review ranking state public school systems based on K-12 performance, school funding and resources, higher education quality, and safety.   “We want to make sure we have great options for families to choose and expand their choices so that we can improve educational outcomes for the state of Oklahoma and the children and the families,” chairman of Oklahoma’s Statewide Charter School Board, Brian Shellem, told The Daily Signal.   The charter school initiative gives parents the option to pull their children out of low-performing public schools and give them better educational opportunities at no cost, Shellem said. The charter contract prevents Isidore from excluding children based on religion.  The U.S. Constitution trumps state constitutions on First Amendment violations, according to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Phil Sechler.   “That Constitution makes clear that you’re entitled to the free exercise of religion, which the Supreme Court has made clear, means that state programs, government programs that are open to private groups are open to religious groups, too,” Sechler said. “They have to be.”  Shellem said the online school would provide an option for low-income or rural families who may not otherwise have access to a charter or private school. The state’s charter school board approved St. Isidore on its merit as an educational program, he said.  “We want the best results,” Shellem said. “We want the people who can get the job done the best. And we shouldn’t be excluding those who can get it done just because they have a religious affiliation.”  The post Supreme Court to Decide if Catholic Charter Schools Can Receive Public Funding appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump is using tariffs to apply heavy pressure on China on trade, but he remains open to negotiations with Beijing, Tucker Carlson says.   “Well, of course, he is,” Carlson said when asked whether he thought Trump is willing to negotiate with China. “I mean, the question is: Who needs the other more? Does the U.S. need China more or China need the U.S.? I can’t answer that,” Carlson told The Daily Signal.   Only hours after new tariffs went into effect on about 90 countries around the world, Trump announced a 90-day pause on the “reciprocal” tariffs, but he increased tariffs on goods from China.   “Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the world’s markets, I am hereby raising the tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday.   China and the U.S. “need each other,” Carlson said. “The deal has been for the past 30 years: We’ll buy your underpriced consumer goods; you buy our overpriced debt. And you know, in some ways that’s worked great. In other ways, it hasn’t worked at all.”  Carlson was at the White House last week when Trump stood in the Rose Garden and announced his plan to increase tariffs to a minimum of 10% on nations around the world. Despite knowing Trump for years and the president’s interest in tariffs as a negotiation tool, the conservative news commentator and former Fox News host said he was “shocked” by Trump’s tariff plan.   “I wasn’t against what Trump was saying, but I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, that’s shocking that he said that. You can’t erect trade barriers.’ … It’s like all the childhood orthodoxies were still rattling around in my head.”   Free market conservatives have traditionally opposed most tariffs.   While there is a lot Carlson said he cannot assess regarding Trump’s use of tariffs due to not being an economist, he was confident in saying, “There’s going to be a disengagement from China.”   “I hope it doesn’t become a … total disengagement,” Carlson said, “and I certainly hope there’s not a military conflict. I don’t think we’d win. Well, we wouldn’t win at this point. But there needs to be some kind of disengagement on trade.”   America cannot be reliant on China and other nations for critical products such as pharmaceuticals and critical military components, he said.   “You have to be able to build a jet engine exclusively in the United States and not rely on supply chains 10,000 miles long or on countries that are hostile to you. I mean, that’s crazy. It’s just basic stuff. And we have the resources to do that,” he said.   On Friday, China raised tariffs on U.S. imports to a matching 125%.   Trump says he is using tariffs to bring American manufacturing back to the U.S., an action some on Capitol Hill say is long overdue.   “Missouri alone has lost 50,000 jobs to China,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wrote on X on Thursday. “Trump is right to go after China.”   The post Tucker Carlson: ‘Of Course’ Trump Is Willing to Negotiate With China on Tariffs 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. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. With two large theater wars raging, one in Ukraine and one in the Middle East, maybe it’s time just to pause for a few minutes and reflect on the historic nature of war. Traditionally, the way that political differences were settled—the aggressor versus the invaded—was by defeating the enemy through superior force. Not proportional force, not symmetrical, but asymmetrical and disproportionate force. Forcing them to either surrender or to forcibly destroy their means of opposition. And then humiliating them and subjecting them to political reform. That’s how the Civil War ended. Unconditional surrender. Ulysses Grant gave terms to Robert E. Lee at Appomattox. The South accepted it. They were defeated. The issue that had separated the two sides—slavery, states’ rights—was solved. Same thing with World War II. We did not have a Versailles Treaty. We did not have an armistice like World War I. We subjected the Italians, the Japanese, and the Germans to overwhelming force. They accepted that, surrendered. And we forced political changes. And today, they’re all our friends and allies. That is very rare, though, in history. It happens and it’s the preferable way of solving a political existential difference. But it doesn’t happen and it’s almost nonexistent since World War II. If you look at Korea, if you look at Vietnam, if you look at the Gulf War I, if you look at Gulf War II, etc., etc., if you look at, what, seven or eight wars in the Middle East that Israel has fought—so why is that happening? One, people think there’s nine nuclear powers in the world today and they have several proxies. So, when an inevitable conflict arises in the Middle East, we’re worried that Russia might intervene or China might intervene. Or along the Ukrainian border, we think strategies dictate that Ukraine should hit strategic targets in Russia. But if we did that—they did that, Europe did that, we supplied it—Russia might, as they threaten, reply with a tactical nuclear weapon that would escalate into DEFCON 1. Cuban Missile Crisis. Is that the answer? Or is it we’re a therapeutic world now? We’re globalized. You can see a death in action by drone in the Middle East on your television set. So, we’re all engaged and we see war in its raw manifestation. This is not like the Civil War where people had no idea what the body count was at Gettysburg for weeks. So, maybe we are repulsed by it. And we say, “No, no, don’t do that. War is an obsolete idea.” I could go on but there are a lot of restraints on classical warfare formula. Defeat, humiliate the enemy, subject them to political terms, change or alter their politics, and there is no longer an existing difference and war then has some utility. What do we see in the Middle East? Israel has decided, since Oct. 7, 2023, that it must take a different course. So, as I’m speaking, they are in Gaza and they have adopted a new strategy. I don’t know if it’s going to work or not, but it basically defies the modern restraints on ultimate, unconditional surrender by the enemy. What do I mean? They’re saying, “I don’t really care if Iran says they have a nuclear weapon or not. We’ll deal with that. But we are going to defeat Hamas, humiliate it, and force them either out of Gaza or to disband. And we’re gonna do that by superior force. And we do not really care what CNN shows you on your television screen.” We’ll see if it works. It’s an ossified idea in our culture. But it is a solution that 2,500 years of Western civilization have said works. Maybe in Ukraine. Ukraine said, “Maybe we can push Russia back.” That was impossible. That spring offensive, as much as we all wanted it to succeed, they were attacking a country four times the population, 10 times the gross domestic product, 30 times the wealth. Maybe Russia thought, “The only way to solve our Ukrainian problem is to take Kyiv, dismantle the government.” That was their strategy. It was classically Roman, but it didn’t work because they didn’t have the military wherewithal to defeat Ukraine. So, generally, in the world today, these conflicts are what we call a “bellum interruptum,” they just keep going on. They simmer down, they flare up like a forest fire. But the old classical idea that you defeat the enemy, you solve the political problem may not be as ossified as we think. Maybe the self-restraints are up here rather than in the real world. And we’re gonna see very quickly, perhaps, in the Middle East. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post How Will the Wars in Ukraine, Middle East End? The Answer Lies in History appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Universities face a reckoning. President Donald Trump canceled $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University for failing to protect Jewish students. Columbia caved to the administration’s demands to get that funding back. Now, Harvard is in Trump’s crosshairs, with $9 billion at risk. Trump’s Department of Education is investigating at least 60 universities for creating a hostile environment. Something is terribly wrong. The solution isn’t partisan posturing or federal overreach—it’s institutional courage. And it starts with replacing outdated neutrality doctrines—policies that prohibit universities from making statements about “controversial” issues—with values-driven principles. University administrators make opaque decisions about what’s controversial—in their minds, defunding the police after George Floyd’s death in 2020 was not controversial, but condemning Hamas after the terrorist organization murdered 1,200 civilians was—so “neutrality” becomes just a cover story for administrators’ selective silence. Critics argue that Trump’s concerns about campus antisemitism is mere political theater. The New York Times reported that “Decades Ago, Columbia Refused to Pay Trump $400 Million,” referring to Columbia’s September 2000 decision not to buy a 75-acre lot from Trump located near the Lincoln Center in Manhattan’s West End, implying that the parallel dollar amount shows this federal action is personal payback time. And over 3,000 people signed the “Not in Our Name” statement, claiming Trump’s funding cuts and student deportations have nothing to do with antisemitism; rather, they’re claiming that Trump’s goal is supporting Christian Nationalism while silencing the “anti-colonialist resistance” movement. But these critics ignore reality. Campuses really did become hostile environments for Jews—and if we’re honest, they’ve been intellectually hostile to heterodox and conservative views for years. The difference now is that the hostility has turned physical. At UCLA, campus protesters chanted “Itbah al-yahud” (“Slaughter the Jews”) before waves of violence broke out. At Stanford University, pro-Palestinian protesters drew Nazi swastikas in a Jewish student’s dorm room. At Harvard, protesters put antisemitic stickers of an Israel flag with a swastika where the Jewish star would go near the Hillel Center for Jewish Life. Only the deeply disengaged could have missed the surge in antisemitism and violence on campus since Oct. 7, 2023, and Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel. And only the deliberately ironic could pretend that requiring universities to take down swastikas is somehow platforming neo-Nazis. What these universities share isn’t just elite status. They believe silence can stand in for moral leadership. Each adopted some form of “institutional neutrality” based on the 1967 “Kalven Report,” which argues that universities should not take official positions on contested issues. The theory is that institutional neutrality promotes students’ civil discourse. But neutrality only works—in theory—when an institution is healthy, with established values, shared norms, and fairly enforced rules. The reality is that neutrality has collapsed into paralysis. Campuses retreated from moral clarity, failed to distinguish protest from intimidation, and left students—especially Jewish students—to fend for themselves. Silence didn’t protect discourse. It protected disorder. The consequences of that moral vacuum are now coming into focus. An ongoing lawsuit alleges that Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and several campus groups—including Students for Justice in Palestine and Columbia University Apartheid Divest—acted as a “propaganda arm” for Hamas. According to the complaint, these groups circulated material bearing the Hamas Media Office logo and followed messaging directives coordinated through Hamas-affiliated networks. Even more disturbing, the suit claims that Students for Justice in Palestine used materials created before the Oct. 7 massacre—implying foreknowledge of the attack. If true, these allegations suggest that under the banner of neutrality, a U.S. campus became a staging ground for a terror-aligned propaganda campaign. When “neutral” universities fail to act with moderation and clarity, they invite the strong hand of the state to intervene. That’s what happened when federal agents arrested the Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine ringleader, who now faces deportation under a Cold War-era law that allows removal if someone is deemed to threaten U.S. foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked at least 300 student visas to date. Whether or not these deportation proceedings survive due process, the message is clear: If universities won’t keep their own houses in order, the federal government apparently will. And when that happens, everyone loses—students, faculty, and the very idea of the university as a space for principled debate. If universities want to reclaim their integrity—and preserve their independence—they must move beyond outdated doctrines and govern with moral clarity. That means reaffirming their values: free inquiry; community safety; and fair, consistent enforcement. What universities need is a reinvigorated community process: a genuine reckoning with their own identity, purpose, and values. The goal isn’t to take sides amid a reasonable debate. It’s to take responsibility when hate speech kills conversations. The danger isn’t just what’s happening on our campuses—it’s what’s not happening. When universities say nothing, do nothing, and enforce nothing, they don’t protect speech. They erode trust. They invite extremism. They surrender control to outside forces—whether radical activists or federal agents. If higher education wants to preserve its independence, it has to earn it. Not by staying neutral, but by standing for something. Expressing shared moral values isn’t politics. It’s leadership. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Universities Flunk the Neutrality Test When It Comes to Student Protests appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Texas is Trying to Do Something About Squatters

BREAKING: Wave G'Bye, Khalil - Immigration Judge Declares Hamas Sympathizer 'Removable'