Most Americans share President Donald Trump’s view that illegal immigrants should be deported, but generally disapprove of his immigration tactics, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found. The six-day poll, concluded on Monday, illustrates both the broad appeal of Trump’s focus on immigration enforcement and the widespread disapproval of his tactics. Some 61% of respondents – including 92% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats – said they “support deporting unauthorized immigrants.” Trump’s stand on the issue helped him win the 2024 presidential election as he accused Democratic politicians of favoring “open borders.” Sixty-three percent of Democrats said they do not support deporting illegal immigrants, compared with 7% of Republicans. During Tuesday’s State of the Union address, Trump tried to reclaim the narrative on immigration. Trump on Tuesday said his focus was on criminals, noting, “We’re getting them the hell out of here fast.” Some 60% of Americans – including a fifth of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats – think immigration agents have gone too far, the Reuters/Ipsos poll found. Among people who do not identify with either party, 65% think authorities have gone too far. These independent voters could be a critical swing group in November when Republicans will try to maintain their thin majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate. Disapproval of Trump’s tactics is particularly high among Black and Hispanic Americans, two slices of the electorate that Trump made progress with in the 2024 election. Seventy-four percent of Black respondents and 72% of Hispanics said they did not like how the administration was handling deportations, compared with 51% of white respondents. Since February 2025, Trump’s overall approval rating among Hispanic Americans has dropped by seven percentage points to 29% in the latest survey. Among Black Americans it has ticked 2 percentage points lower to 14%. Among white Americans it is down 4 points to 49%. Significant internal divisions have opened in both political parties over immigration enforcement. Among Republicans who support deportations, 23% said they were uncomfortable with the current tactics employed by immigration officers. Democrats, besides being divided on whether illegal immigrants should be deported at all, also disagree on whether to disband the Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of the Department of Homeland Security, known as ICE, a central enforcement body.  Some 63% of Democrats said ICE should be abolished, while 30% disagreed. The share in favor was a significant increase from a 2018 Reuters/Ipsos survey that showed 44% of Democrats supporting the idea. The latest survey showed only a third of independents back getting rid of ICE, little changed from 2018. Only a handful of Democratic congressional candidates this year have called for abolishing the agency, with centrist organizations such as Third Way warning that embracing the idea could hurt Democrats at the polls in November. The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey, which was conducted online, gathered responses from 4,638 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of two percentage points. Reuters contributed to this report. The post Most Americans Back Trump’s Deportation Goals, Reuters/Ipsos Poll Finds appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Feb 26 (Reuters) — Vanguard Group will pay $29.5 million and bolster its passive investing approach in order to settle a suit by 13 Republican state attorneys general claiming the fund manager and rivals violated antitrust law through their climate activism. The suit in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas has been closely watched as a test of how far Republicans from energy-producing states would push Wall Street firms they accused of overemphasizing environmental matters. In a press release one of the plaintiffs, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, said Vanguard “agreed to strict passivity commitments” prohibiting it from dictating the strategy of companies in which it invests or to push shareholder proposals related to environmental or social issues.     Vanguard said the deal reaffirms “the passive nature of our index funds.” The terms provide an easy off-ramp for Vanguard of Pennsylvania but may be more difficult for its Texas co-defendants BlackRock of New York and State Street of Boston to accept. The states sued the three firms in late 2024 over actions like their membership in industry trade groups focused on climate change, which the Republicans said served to reduce coal production and boost energy prices. The firms had pushed back, saying among other things that a remedy the plaintiffs once suggested, having the funds divest from coal companies, would only harm the industry. All three remain major fossil-fuel industry shareholders, rejecting calls they boycott coal and oil stocks over climate concerns. STAYING HANDS-OFF Among the three, Vanguard has been clearest it seeks only a passive role in running companies held by its well-known products like the Vanguard 500 index fund. In 2024, for instance, Vanguard offered concessions to federal energy regulators similar to Thursday’s agreement, like offering to not submit shareholder proposals. “They’re an index fund firm. They don’t want to divest from stocks and not be able to track their indexes,” said Vanguard investor newsletter editor Jeff DeMaso. Vanguard has already adopted some settlement terms as policy, like the expansion of a program allowing its fund investors to shape how Vanguard proxy votes are cast. It and the others also supported fewer shareholder resolutions on matters like corporate emissions or workforce diversity. The companies face less regulatory pressure in turn, including avoiding new regulations from the Trump administration and BlackRock’s removal from a Texas investment blacklist. A representative for Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, another plaintiff in the case, said via email that while Vanguard has made some adjustments, “those adjustments must continue and are binding” now. Bird’s office hopes “more companies in the financial sector will follow suit.” In his press release Kobach said BlackRock and State Street “remain defiant.” A BlackRock spokesman declined to comment. In an emailed statement, State Street said that “the lawsuit remains baseless and without merit.  There was not, and is not, any collusion here aimed at coal prices.  This settlement does not change that.” A spokesperson also noted that like BlackRock and Vanguard, State Street runs a program allowing retail investors to influence proxy votes. (Reporting by Ross Kerber. Additional reporting by Nate Raymond. Editing by Franklin Paul, Jane Merriman and Andrea Ricci ) The post In Texas, Vanguard Settles Antitrust Suit for $29.5 Million Over Climate Activism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Success Sequence: 'Don't Stop Believin' and Hold on to That Feeling for a Better Life

Jack Hughes delivered the gold medal to the U.S. ice hockey team in the winter Olympics, scoring the winning goal in overtime play. In a postgame interview, Hughes exclaimed, “This is all about our country now. I love the USA. I love my teammates. It’s unbelievable. The USA hockey brotherhood is so strong ... I am so proud to be an American today.” Moving indeed. But the question is, how much did Hughes’ effusive patriotic sentiments, his exhortation of love of country, resonate across our nation? We don’t hear much these days of unbridled expressions of national pride, of patriotism. And, in fact, feelings of pride in our nation, per Gallup polling released last June, are at an all-time low. Just 58 percent said they were extremely or very proud to be an American. To compare, in 2002, 91 percent said they were extremely or very proud to be an American. What’s happening to our love for our country? Taking a closer look, we find that diminished affection for the USA is not bipartisan. It is disproportionately among Democrats. Looking back to 2002, there was hardly any difference between Republicans and Democrats. Among Republicans, 98 percent said they were extremely/very proud to be an American. Among Democrats, it stood at 92 percent. The average was dragged down by independents, 85 percent of whom said they were extremely or very proud. However, by 2025, only 36 percent of Democrats said they were extremely/very proud. Independents stood at 53 percent and Republicans at 92 percent. One might speculate that the precipitous drop in patriotic sentiment among Democrats is because of the Republican currently occupying the White House. However, we must note that from 2001 to 2025, the percentage of Republicans saying they were extremely/very proud never dropped below 90 percent. The party of the president had no effect on Republican patriotic sentiment.      Gallup annually surveys sentiment toward 30 institutions of our national life – our system of government and how well it works, the size and power of the federal government, corporations, the economy, public schools, healthcare, public education, religion, etc. We find that positive and negative evaluations toward these national institutions are also very different among Republicans and Democrats. During the current term of President Donald Trump, the average positive evaluation of these 30 national institutions among Democrats stood at 27 percent. Average negative evaluation stood at 67 percent. The average negative evaluation among Democrats of these 30 institutions over the last seven presidential terms – Trump, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George W. Bush – was 56 percent. The average positive evaluation over the same period among Democrats was 38 percent. Among Republicans, over these last seven presidential terms, the negative average was 42 percent, and the positive was 52 percent. So, Republicans are net positive about the country over four presidencies – two Republican and two Democrat – and Democrats are net negative. Even under the Biden presidency, Republicans were more positive about our national institutions than Democrats. Under Biden, the average positive evaluation of these 30 institutions among Democrats stood at 35 percent and negative 60 percent. Among Republicans, under Biden, the average positive evaluation of the 30 institutions was 45 percent and negative was 49 percent. So even under the Democratic Biden presidency, Republicans were more positive about the core institutional structure of the country than Democrats. What can we conclude? Republicans are positive about our country and its institutions and Democrats are not. It doesn’t matter who gets elected. Democrats want a different country. Republicans are grateful to be in a free country, knowing that sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Democrats want a different country. This hasn’t always been the case. It’s something that has happened over the last 25 years. There was a time when both parties understood we live in a free nation under God. In this 250th year of America’s birthday, we now have one party that no longer wants the nation founded on July 4, 1776. Star Parker is the founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now.

A Christian teacher said he sought a religious exemption when he was ordered to read an LGBTQ book to his first graders, and he was threatened with termination instead.Eric Rivera told WZTV-TV that the book conflicted with his religious beliefs because it depicted a girl being raised by two fathers.'I believe that that is not what God designed a marriage to be and a family to be.'Rivera said that initially the KIPP Antioch College Prep Elementary School where he taught offered to allow him a co-teacher to read the book to the children and then called him into the principal's office.That's where he was allegedly given a "final warning" to teach the book or lose his job."I refused to read a book that had two fathers on the cover and one daughter," he explained. "I believe that that is not what God designed a marriage to be and a family to be."The book is titled, "Stella Brings the Family," by Miriam B. Schiffer.He claims that he had no prior disciplinary history before the LGBTQ incident. He was reassigned to teach technology before he was moved yet again to teach kindergarten."I still have the fear in me that I could lose my job for anything that I do based on my religious beliefs," Rivera added.The teacher is now represented by the First Liberty Institute, who sent a demand letter to the school asking for an accommodation based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It was sent Feb. 17 and gave the school 10 days to respond.The institute also expressed concerns that parents may not have been properly informed about the LGBTQ lesson, but WZTV said that accusation was not yet independently verified.The teacher wants to return to teaching first grade but refuses to teach the lesson."I just want the whole curriculum to be shown to the parents in a way where they can actually understand," Rivera said.RELATED: Florida Christians win $70K over anonymous complaint against tiny cross displayed in their yard The charter school falls under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Charter School Commission, which released a statement to WZTV. "All public charter schools must follow the same Tennessee academic standards as traditional public schools, and while they do have flexibility selecting curriculum and materials, they must still be aligned with those same state standards," the commission said in its statement."All schools are required to comply with the prohibited concepts law and must provide a form on their website for reporting violations," it added. "The Commission provides a form for submitting complaints related to the prohibited concepts law as well as any other violations of charter school law on our website. Teachers and staff at charter schools are employees of the school or charter operator and as such all personnel matters are handled by the school." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

President Trump’s State of the Union address has been championed by conservatives everywhere, but BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey took issue with one part of his address: his promotion of IVF.During the address, Trump lauded his new pharmaceutical website, Trump RX, by introducing Catherine Rayner, “the very first customer ever” to get a discount on IVF drugs.“For five years, she and her husband have struggled with infertility, and they turned to IVF. One drug has been costing Catherine $4,000 to purchase. But a few weeks ago, she logged onto the Trump RX website and got that same drug that cost $4,000, got it for under $500,” Trump said proudly.“Catherine, we are all praying for you, and you’re going to be a great mom,” he added.“I think that Trump’s heart is in the right place here. He probably has not grappled with the ethics of IVF. The vast majority of people, Christians and non-Christians, have not grappled with the ethics of IVF. And so he’s thinking, more babies the better,” Stuckey comments.While Stuckey admits that infertility is a real struggle, she doesn’t believe that IVF is an ethical solution.“The problem with in vitro fertilization is that it’s not good for the woman’s body, and it almost always creates embryos that are eugenically tested in a lab and then discarded, or they’re indefinitely frozen. We have over a million embryos on ice right now that have been abandoned that might be adopted one day by strangers and that’s a more redemptive option,” she explains.But that won’t save all the embryos that will just be thrown in the trash — especially those that might be flagged for potential abnormalities.“And as you guys know, it’s possible when you go through IVF to choose the gender that you want to give birth to, it’s possible to get them tested for abnormalities like Down syndrome, discard the ones that are not graded highly enough,” Stuckey says.“The only way to be able to procreate without any ethical quandaries whatsoever is within the context of marriage between one man and one woman through sex. Adoption is a beautifully redemptive option. But surrogacy, egg-selling, sperm-selling, IVF, which basically asks the child to sacrifice its own well-being, its own health, in some cases its own life on behalf of adult desires. That is disordered,” she continues.“And so, that was the one part of the speech that I can think of that I really did not agree with,” she says. “And in fact, if Congress is trying to pass a law that would have us fund IVF, I will be calling my representatives, my senators, and I will be encouraging you to do the same because I don’t want to fund more slaughter of babies.”“More embryos, unborn lives are killed through the IVF industry than through the abortion industry every year. That really matters,” 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.

Lowering the bar from 60 senators to 51 would be a bonanza for Democrats. For what?

ABC News: Man Arrested for ‘Assault’ for ‘Attacking’ Police Officer During Snowball Fight

Breaking New Ground: Melania Trump Chairs UN Security Council Meeting

President Trump Is Set to Award More Medals of Honor to Some Heroic Soldiers