President Donald Trump–determined to tackle America’s high cost of living left to him by Joe Biden–last Thursday stood up to the Washington Swamp and took an action that will save Americans more than a trillion dollars in the coming years. After almost a year of review, he and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” a regulatory burden that for almost two decades has driven up prices across the board all over the country. In 2009, unelected bureaucrats inside the EPA (read: the Washington Swamp) made a decision that has shaped American energy policy–and increased the cost of living–ever since. Their Endangerment Finding declared that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide “endanger public health and welfare.” The finding became the legal foundation for sweeping federal regulation of everything from power plants to automobiles, and from oil refineries to natural gas pipelines. With that sweeping regulation came higher prices for everything from new cars and trucks to major appliances like dishwashers, washers and dryers, ovens, and refrigerators, along with fuel and energy. Trump called his decision to repeal the finding “the single largest deregulatory action in American history.” He’s right. This decision marks a turning point in the fight to revive American prosperity and make American life more affordable, at the same time as it restores constitutional government. The Washington Swamp was not at all happy. To understand the significance of this moment, Americans must first understand what the Endangerment Finding did. After the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA was required to determine whether greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act’s definition of “air pollutants.” In 2009, the Obama-era EPA answered yes–and in doing so unlocked broad regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emission under the Clean Air Act. That finding became the legal foundation for rules targeting coal plants, natural gas facilities, automobile emissions standards, and methane regulations. For example, the so-called Clean Power Plan and subsequent greenhouse gas standards for vehicles relied on the Endangerment Finding as legal justification. It extended regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act, a statute enacted in 1970. The consequences have been significant. The Endangerment Finding empowered regulators to expand federal oversight of the energy sector. It introduced new compliance obligations for utilities and manufacturers. It coincided with the retirement of numerous coal-fired power plants across the United States. Automobile manufacturers made the decision to design and build their fleets to satisfy bureaucrats in Washington, not the market. So they reconfigured their inventories to meet what they believed was the “demand” from Washington (read: the EPA), rather than the actual demand from the market. Then they found that even with massive taxpayer subsidies, they had a hard time making money selling EVs to a public that just didn’t seem to want to buy the cars. Consequently, American auto manufacturers have taken a $50 billion hit on their electric vehicle sales. In Thursday’s White House event, Zeldin went further–he put a price tag on the savings that will be enjoyed by American consumers who no longer have to live life under the Endangerment Finding regime.  A fact sheet from the EPA says of the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, “The action will result in over $1.3 trillion in savings from 2027 through 2055,” and says $1.1 trillion of that is “from the reduced costs for new vehicles,” while the remaining $200 billion in savings come from “the avoided costs of purchasing electric vehicle (EV) chargers and related equipment.” Just as important as the economic savings and opportunities for economic growth afforded by the repeal is the fact that the move is a turn back to the Constitution and the rule of law. Congress never enacted a comprehensive climate statute authorizing such transformative policies. In fact, prior to the EPA’s December 2009 announcement of the Endangerment Finding, Congress had tried–and failed–to do just that: President Barack Obama’s “Cap and Trade” plan passed the House in June 2009, but never passed the Senate. Instead, realizing that the people’s elected representatives could not come to agreement on legislation codifying a new policy, an executive branch agency made the decision on its own to interpret decades-old statutory language to justify far-reaching regulatory authority–without Congressional authorization to do so. It was a case of the Washington Swamp doing what it does best–that is, whatever it wants, irrespective of the law or the Constitution. By reversing the Endangerment Finding, Trump reaffirms a basic constitutional principle: major policy decisions of vast economic and political significance must come from the people’s elected representatives, not from unelected bureaucrats.  The Supreme Court reaffirmed this fundamental principle in West Virginia v. EPA, the 2022 case that relied on the so-called “major questions doctrine,” which requires specific Congressional authorization for major environmental regulations.  Agencies exist to execute the law, not to create it. Returning such consequential questions to Congress honors the separation of powers and ensures democratic accountability. If climate policy is to be remade, it should be debated openly, voted on by lawmakers, and enacted through legislation–not imposed through regulatory interpretation by unelected officials. Trump and Zeldin took a giant step toward making life more affordable and opened the gate for substantial economic growth at the same time as they moved toward restoring the kind of limited constitutional government the Founders envisioned. All Americans will benefit–and all Americans should be grateful that President Trump has the courage to stand up to the Washington Swamp to fight for the American people. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post Trump’s Repeal of Endangerment Finding Will Make Life More Affordable for Everyone appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Vatican has turned down President Donald Trump’s invitation to Pope Leo XIV to join the Board of Peace. On the eve of Ash Wednesday, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican secretary of state, said the pope “will not participate in the Board of Peace due to its particular nature, which is clearly not that of other states.” The board is an international body created by Trump to oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, as well as peace efforts elsewhere. Parolin told reporters that a central “concern” with the board “is that, at the international level, it is primarily the [United Nations] that manages these crisis situations.” Trump formally launched the Board of Peace during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22. While the president initially announced the board as a means of ensuring peace in Gaza and the rebuilding of the war-torn territory, Trump has broadened the intended role of the board. “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do, and we’ll do it in conjunction with the United Nations,” Trump said in Davos. “You know, I’ve always said the United Nations has got tremendous potential. It has not used it,” Trump added. Trump is chairing the board. Permanent board members must each provide $1 billion in funding. The European Union also recently announced it will not join the Board of Peace, citing concerns over its compatibility with the United Nations Charter and its broad scope. However, one representative of the EU will be participating in some form. The European Commissioner for the Mediterranean Dubravka Šuica will attend the board’s first meeting in Washington on Thursday. EU Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho says attending the meeting is not equivalent to joining the board, but added that the EU is concerned with the “implementation of the ceasefire in Gaza” and wants to partake in “international efforts to support reconstruction and post-war recovery.” So far, over 25 nations have agreed to join the Board of Peace, which Trump chairs, including Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan.   The post Vatican Turns Down Trump’s Invitation to Board of Peace appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Texas Opie and Stephen Colbert: Caught in Rope-A-Dopes

China has planted billions of trees since the 1970s.

Tiny? Yes. Quiet? Definitely not.

"The longest sediment cores previously drilled under an ice sheet are less than ten metres. We exceeded our target of 200 metres."

Evidence suggests that people may be more likely to confide in chatbots precisely because they aren’t human.

On Monday, CBS’s Stephen Colbert alleged that the network forbade him from airing an interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico over concerns about a potential FCC equal time rule violation. On Tuesday, CBS denied the allegation and said The Late Show was not prohibited from airing the interview but gave Colbert advice on how equal time could be fulfilled, but The Late Show balked at the suggestions and opted to put the interview on YouTube instead. Later on Tuesday, Colbert declared that CBS’s lawyers know “damn well” that they approved every word he said. Colbert claimed, “We obeyed our network and put the interview on YouTube, where it's gotten millions of views. And I can see why. Talarico is an interesting guy. I don't know if he should be the senator, but it was a good discussion. I wish we should have put it on the show where no one would've watched it.”   In the latest round of Stephen Colbert vs. CBS on the Talarico interview, Colbert alleges "They [the lawyers] know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS's lawyers, who, for the record, approve every script that goes on the air, whether it's about… pic.twitter.com/IY0tknMEkf — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 18, 2026   Of course Colbert thought it was a good discussion. The whole point was to smear conservatives as bad Christians. Regardless, Colbert also huffed, “But here's where I do want to tell the lawyers how to do their jobs. They know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS's lawyers, who, for the record, approve every script that goes on the air, whether it's about equal time or this image of frogs having sex.” He also claimed, “In fact, between the monologue I did last night and before I did the second act talking about this issue, I had to go backstage, I got called back to stage to get more notes from these lawyers, something that had never, ever happened before. They told me the language they wanted me to use to describe the equal time exception, and I used that language. So, I don't know what this is about.” Finally, Colbert insisted, “For the record, I'm not even mad. I really don't want an adversarial relationship with the network. I’ve never had one. As I said last night in my interview with James Talarico—check it out, it's on YouTube, it's pretty good—I said to him I'm grateful to have worked at CBS for the last 11 years and worked with George and David and Amy and everyone at the network… I'm just so surprised that this giant global corporation would not stand up to these bullies. Come on, you're Paramount! No. No! No, you're more than that! You're Paramount+.” Later, Colbert asked CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, “As a journalist, what do you make of Trump's apparent weaponizing of the FCC?” Collins replied, “Yeah, ever since Brendan Carr, I mean, was in this position, I don't think anything he's done is really that surprising if you are covering Trump and paying attention. And so, I think the question is how far he goes on his threats. Does he follow through? Does he need to follow through, or does making the threat cause the action?”   Later, CNN's Kaitlan Collins muses "I think the question is how far he goes on his threats. Does he follow through? Does he need to follow through or does making the threat cause the action?" as Colbert alludes to CBS again, "For instance, if you threaten the network and they… pic.twitter.com/UDRVEASYEM — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 18, 2026   Alluding to his own network, Colbert added, “For instance, if you threaten the network and they might just do it for you without actually making a ruling of any kind.” Collins agreed and argued conservatives should be careful what they wish for: And I think it's actually a really, really slippery slope because I think you've seen some people on the right cheering this and saying that's what we want Brendan Carr to do. I think they don't want a Democratic administration saying that right-wing talk radio must give equal time to Democrats or to see that moment… I don't think anyone wants the federal government telling people who they should book on their show and who the guests should be on their show.  In non-FCC news, earlier, Colbert showered Collins’s employer with praise, “During Trump's first administration, one of the sort of positions that CNN marked out for themselves was just acknowledging reality… There was an epistemological crisis and government where–what is real? What is not? What is known? Can things be known? And there were things like ‘This is an apple’ ads that CNN ran. Which is like, ‘This is an apple. People might say it's a banana, but it's an apple.’”   In non-FCC related news, earlier, Colbert praised CNN, "During Trump's first administration, one of the sort of positions that CNN marked out for themselves was just acknowledging reality. Because there was this expression–there was an epistemological crisis and government where… pic.twitter.com/TkfNO1GOwn — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 18, 2026   Ultimately, he asked, “How are things over there? What's the attitude over there at CNN about the renewed challenge of keeping your feet on the dry land of what really is?" Collins eventually replied, “I think the mission, though, is the same. I think it's holding people, powerful people, taxpayer-funded officials to account. It’s asking tough questions, it’s covering the stories, it’s making people comfortable. And I think that should happen whether it's a Republican in the White House or a Democrat. I think anyone in that position should face tough questions. And so I think the mission is the same for my colleagues and for myself, certainly.” This is the same network that thinks it is a slur to say identifying as a girl doesn’t mean that you are one. Collins herself has gone along with colleagues who think EPA regulations are typos, and she herself got upset when Sen. Ted Cruz correctly claimed Charlie Kirk’s assassin was motivated by politics. An apple might not be a banana, but CNN often thinks an apple is an orange. Here is a transcript for the February 17 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 2/17/2026 11:58 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: So, we obeyed our network and put the interview on YouTube, where it's gotten millions of views. And I can see why. Talarico is an interesting guy. I don't know if he should be the senator, but it was a good discussion. I wish we should have put it on the show where no one would've watched it.  But here's where I do want to tell the lawyers how to do their jobs. They know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS's lawyers, who, for the record, approve every script that goes on the air, whether it's about equal time or this image of frogs having sex. That's a true story. But for another time. Very specifically, in fact, between the monologue I did last night and before I did the second act talking about this issue, I had to go backstage, I got called back to stage to get more notes from these lawyers, something that had never, ever happened before. They told me the language they wanted me to use to describe the equal time exception, and I used that language. So, I don't know what this is about. For the record, I'm not even mad. I really don't want an adversarial relationship with the network. I’ve never had one. As I said last night in my interview with James Talarico—check it out, it's on YouTube, it's pretty good—I said to him I'm grateful to have worked at CBS for the last 11 years and worked with George and David and Amy and everyone at the network, the Sheldons of every age, the Matlocks of every sex. I'm just so surprised that this giant global corporation would not stand up to these bullies. Come on, you're Paramount! No. No! No, you're more than that! You're Paramount+. Plus what? I guess we’re all going to find out pretty soon. … COLBERT: During Trump's first administration, one of the sort of positions that CNN marked out for themselves was just acknowledging reality. Because there was this expression– KAITLAN COLLINS: Which is important. COLBERT: –part of the expression–there was an epistemological crisis and government where–what is real? What is not? What is known? Can things be known? And there were things like, “This is an apple” ads that CNN ran. COLLINS: Yeah. COLBERT: Which is like “This is an apple. People might say it's a banana, but it's an apple.” How are things over there? What's the attitude over there at CNN about the renewed challenge of keeping your feet on the dry land of what really is? COLLINS: Well, and those ads came out when we were in an era of alternative facts and, you know, people were adjusting the statements like that coming from some of the highest ranking officials in the White House. Kellyanne Conway when she said that and I the mission is still the same though, which is– COLBERT: Because the alternative facts haven't changed, have they? They’re still— COLLINS: They are still just facts and— COLBERT: Alternative facts. COLLINS: But there aren't alternative facts. There's facts and that's it. COLBERT: Well, that’s a fact. COLLINS: So, I think the mission, though, is the same. I think it's holding people, powerful people, taxpayer-funded officials to account. It’s asking tough questions, it’s covering the stories, it’s making people comfortable. And I think that should happen whether it's a Republican in the White House or a Democrat. I think anyone in that position should face tough questions. And so I think the mission is the same for my colleagues and for myself, certainly. … COLBERT: Back in November the president suggested that FCC Chair Brendan Carr look into ABC’s broadcast license after Mary Bruce asked questions he didn't like. COLLINS: Yeah. COLBERT: And as a journalist, what do you make of Trump's apparent weaponizing of the FCC? COLLINS: It's something that the president, we didn't see him do as much of the first term. It's a way he's wielding his power so differently in the second term. COLBERT: Yeah, I think that, sort of, the chains are off. COLLINS: Yeah, ever since Brendan Carr, I mean, was in this position, I don't think anything he's done is really that surprising if you are covering Trump and paying attention. And so, I think the question is how far he goes on his threats. Does he follow through? Does he need to follow through, or does making the threat cause the action? COLBERT: For instance, if you threaten the network and they might just do it for you without actually making a ruling of any kind. COLLINS: And I think it's actually a really, really slippery slope because I think you've seen some people on the right cheering this and saying that's what we want Brendan Carr to do. I think they don't want a Democratic administration saying that right-wing talk radio must give equal time to Democrats or to see that moment. And so, for me personally on our show I have Democrats and Republicans on. I want to know what everyone is saying. I want my viewers to know what the debate is that's in Washington. I don't think anyone wants the federal government telling people who they should book on their show and who the guests should be on their show. 

Americans universally agree that people should fact-check media reports, rather than simply trust what they’re being told – and half say they don’t even need to follow the news to stay informed – according to newly-released results of a Pew Research survey. Fully 94% of Democrats and Republicans alike think it’s important “for people to do their own research to check the accuracy of the news they get,” the national survey of U.S. adults finds. What’s more, two-thirds (66%) say it’s “extremely” or “very” important to fact-check what news media report. Four of five adults say they actually take their own advice, as 82% report that they at least sometimes do their own research, including 37% who do so extremely/very often. Similarly, four of five (79%) of U.S. adults feel they’re at least somewhat confident that they know how to do their own research, including 29% who are very confident. Regarding what’s involved in “doing your own research,” 84% say it entails comparing information from multiple sources, 72% say it can include utilizing search engines (e.g., Google) and 77% cite reviewing scientific studies. More than two-thirds (70%) say “Questioning what major news organizations are saying” is fundamental to doing one’s own research. It’s also important to get news from media sources with differing political views, according to 88% of adults – and half (52%) call it either extremely or very important. Even so, more Americans (47%) say they can stay informed without actively following the news than say they can stay informed only if they do actively follow it. Another 11% aren’t sure. One reason so many people today believe that they don’t have to actively follow the news to stay informed appears to be that news imposes itself upon them. Half (49%) of people today say they mostly get news because they “happen to come across it” – not because they’re looking for it – up from 39% in 2019, when 60% of adults sought out their news.

Every year, cars become smarter, more connected, and more convenient. But that convenience comes with a hidden cost. Hackers are no longer focused only on computers and smartphones. Modern vehicles are rolling networks — gateways to your personal data, your finances, and in some cases, even physical control of the car itself. This threat is real, and most drivers are only beginning to understand how exposed they’ve become.Today’s vehicles rely on complex software and constant connectivity. Features like remote start, navigation, hands-free driving, and vehicle tracking make life easier, but they also create new attack surfaces. A single weak link — a compromised app, outdated software, or a hacked key fob — can give criminals access to sensitive information, or worse.The vehicle is tricked into believing a valid key fob is present, disabling the immobilizer and unlocking the doors in minutes. This isn’t science fiction. In 2015, cybersecurity researchers demonstrated that hackers could remotely disable a Jeep while it was being driven on a highway. That incident triggered a nationwide recall and forced automakers to take vehicle cybersecurity seriously. Since then, attacks have grown more sophisticated, targeting not just vehicle controls but personal data, financial information, and location tracking.Remote riskAt the center of every modern vehicle is the electronic control unit. Most cars contain multiple ECUs, controlling everything from braking and steering to door locks and infotainment systems. If a hacker gains access, the consequences can range from stolen data to direct manipulation of vehicle functions. While dramatic remote-control scenarios grab headlines, the most common real-world threats involve identity theft, financial fraud, and unauthorized tracking of a driver’s movements.Hackers can gain access in several ways. Physical access is one method — such as plugging an infected USB device into a vehicle’s data port. Key fobs, especially older designs, can be cloned or exploited using devices that capture and replay their signals, allowing thieves to unlock and start a car without the original key.Phoning it inSmartphone apps introduce another layer of risk. A compromised phone can become a bridge into the vehicle and everything stored on the device. Telematics systems, which collect and transmit data about vehicle location and usage, can also be targeted by cybercriminals.Law enforcement is seeing a rise in thefts using CAN bus injection attacks, particularly involving Toyota SUVs like the Land Cruiser and 4Runner. In these cases, criminals access wiring through headlights or taillights and connect a disguised electronic device. The vehicle is tricked into believing a valid key fob is present, disabling the immobilizer and unlocking the doors in minutes. These attacks bypass traditional security measures and show how vulnerable even modern “smart” key systems can be.Automakers are responding with stronger cybersecurity tools, including encrypted communications, intrusion detection systems, and software updates. But drivers still play a critical role. Use only manufacturer-approved apps, keep your vehicle’s software up to date, and regularly review which devices and accounts have access to your car. Remove old devices and unnecessary permissions as soon as possible.RELATED: How automakers are quietly locking you out of your own car NurPhoto | Getty ImagesPhysical deterrentsThere are also practical steps drivers can take to reduce risk. Using a virtual private network on devices that connect to your vehicle can help mask data traffic and limit exposure if a device is compromised. Physical deterrents still matter as well. Police often recommend visible tools like steering wheel locks, which can prevent theft even when electronic security is bypassed. Toyota, for example, offers a bright red steering wheel lock with four-point steel contact — an unmistakable signal that a vehicle isn’t an easy target.Criminals increasingly use signal relay devices to capture and extend a key fob’s signal, tricking a car into thinking the key is nearby. Blocking that signal can stop the attack. Drivers can protect themselves by: Storing key fobs in Faraday bags, pouches, or boxes that block radio signals; Wrapping key fobs in aluminum foil as a temporary, low-cost solution; Keeping fobs in metal containers, such as tins or lockboxes, at home; Disabling the keyless entry signal when possible, according to the owner’s manual; Manually locking the vehicle with a physical key when available; and Avoiding third-party devices plugged into the OBD port, including insurance dongles, which can create security vulnerabilities. The era of connected cars offers real convenience, but it also demands greater awareness. A hacked vehicle isn’t just a transportation problem — it’s a digital, financial, and safety issue. Staying informed, practicing basic cybersecurity habits, and taking simple protective steps can dramatically reduce risk. Cars may be smarter than ever, but keeping them secure still depends on the driver.