Victor Davis Hanson: The Genius Behind Trump’s Art of the Deal

By The Daily Signal

Victor Davis Hanson: There’s a Method to Trump’s Madness

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.

There’s been an ongoing controversy over Donald Trump for the last decade, both when he appeared on the escalator in 2015, the campaign, the first term, the wilderness years, and the first two years of his second administration.

It works out like this.  He has an art of the deal style, where he is bombastic, that he says wild things. He puts his opponents, his partners, whatever the situation is that he’s across the table from, off balance. He demands things that are ludicrous. People are shocked, they criticize him.

And then the negotiations continue, and Donald Trump gets an edge, maybe a 52, 53% edge over the original request. They sign a deal. Donald Trump is very careful not to insult his trading partner or his trading opponent in any deal. And then he says he might have been taken himself, and he walks away with a singular accomplishment.

And then people are troubled. They look at the result of the negotiations, and they’re impressed, especially if you’re Americans. But they also say the methodology clouds the achievement.

Let’s see if that’s a legitimate criticism.

When he entered office, Panama was essentially being controlled at its entry and exits in violation of the Panama Canal Treaty by Chinese-affiliated companies. And they had grandiose designs basically to take over the canal. He railed, he screamed, he threatened to go in and take it. He said the canal should go back to the United States.

Pause negotiation. Marco Rubio goes down.

Now Canada is a close ally of the United States. All of Latin America is flipping. Of the 32 nations, I think about 27 are pro-American, are capitalist, are democratic, are all three. The pink tide is over in Latin America. Just Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Nicaragua really left as hostile communist countries or socialist countries.

And people said, “Did he really have to threaten Panama like that?”

Second case, Greenland. Greenland in World War II was a custodian, we were the custodian of Greenland’s autonomy. Why? Because its colonial mother state, Denmark, was overrun in three days by the Nazis. The Nazis had eyes on Greenland to base submarines and air fleets to control the North Atlantic. And so the United States took control of it, put a base there, kept it free, used it for the advantage of the Allies, and then turned it back to Denmark.

In the years since after the Cold War, it was sort of inert and so was Denmark. In other words, it wasn’t an issue.

Trump comes in and says the Chinese look at the Arctic as the closest air route for their missiles into North America and into Europe. And they see that  its sea lanes can be controlled, and with them control, they can have access strategically to Western countries, both in the Arctic Circle near Europe and in North America.

So he says the Danes don’t have the wherewithal. Maybe we should just take it.

Everybody is appalled. Denmark gets furious. Germany sends eight or nine soldiers, and Denmark starts to say, “I’ll pledge a billion dollars to help the Greenlanders. I’ll put their flag on the coat of arms.”

Starting to work, in other words.

In other words, Donald Trump tunes down the rhetoric, and lo and behold, we now have a deal, and the deal is far better than the prior 1951 deal. People in Europe are relieved because they will not have to confront Russian or Chinese ships in the Greenland Arctic because the United States is going to be there, their ally in NATO.

 Greenland is happy ’cause they’re not gonna see a lot of Americans, but they’re gonna get a lot of American money through a booming military economy.

Denmark is happy because they can say they’re still a colonial power and they control this huge continental island that’s in North America, and which is closer to New York than it is to Copenhagen. But fine, they’re the sovereigns.

It worked.

Question: Was it worth all of that bombast that riled our friends?

Next example, Canada.

Everybody knows that Canada needed a $50 billion surplus forever, I guess. They don’t meet their NATO requirements for 20 years. They have 45% of their population is first- or second-generation immigrants. Their socialist economy is inert. It’s the weakest of all the industrial Western nations.

And we’re negotiating, and they do not wanna reduce that tariff. There’s a lot of issues, I can’t get into it.

Trump says he’d like to make Alberta the 51st state. That’s the natural resource powerhouse of Canada, or the whole Canadian country a state. Nobody in the United States wants that, least of all Trump. The last thing the Republican conservative MAGA Trump people want is a left-wing Canada with 40 million people that would be another California.

So that was the art of the deal again.

When it’s all said and done, and Prime Minister Mark Carney gets his Nobel Prize or whatever he wants, the deal is going to be this: Canada will cut a deal. 80% of its trade is with the United States.

It will find ways that when we buy their oil, and they run up a big surplus, they will stop helping China evade our tariffs by getting cheap Chinese metals to assemble goods and get around the tariff.

They will drop the 5% requirement that our digital media companies have to have content that’s indigenous, content for Canada and Canadians or French. And there will be a deal. Probably they will buy more agricultural goods.

It’ll be good for the United States, and it will bring reality, and it will remind Canada that you Canadians are wonderful people, but your leaders have taken a socialist paradigm and wrecked your economy and not fully utilize your natural resource treasure house.

And then we get to NATO.

When Donald Trump came in, only six, in 2017, only six nations had pledged. They had informally in 2006, and formally a few years later, said that everybody was going to spend 2% of GDP. That’s not even counting the overhead cost of the huge American military that it doesn’t charge NATO. Logistics, intelligence, dual-use projects, joint construction of NATO bases.

And they wouldn’t budge. Barack Obama got so frustrated, he called them free riders. Free riders.

Trump comes in and says, I’m not gonna get in… We’re gonna get out of NATO. We’re not gonna…

And when he left office, all but a few, maybe six or five, had flipped. Instead of just six meeting their quota, only six had not.

He comes in again, and he says you better meet your quota. Look at what happened. In my absence, Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and I told you not to build, not to make a deal on the Nord Stream pipeline with natural gas and fuel the Russian military, but you did. And I told you you better rearm, but you didn’t. And now you’re doing something belatedly.

And so now he says I want you to make 5%, investment of GDP in your military.

And they’re starting to go along.

So what is the theme again? Well, couldn’t he have been more polite like Obama or Biden? Well, neither one of them got NATO to meet their goals, which were good for NATO.

So what am I getting at?

When you look at the results, right now there are no Chinese or Russians in Latin America. The Canadian people are getting very mad at their prime minister and starting to see he’s been disingenuous, and a lot of Canadians have said, “We’ve got to change our immigration. We’ve got to change our euthanasia policy. We’ve got to change our green madness. We’ve got to change our socialism.”

We’ll see.

Greenland’s, Greenlanders are happy. NATO is stronger than it has ever been. And there’s a first chance in our lifetime that Latin America will become all consensual governments, all pro-Western, and all much better off than they were under the Cuban, Brazilian, Nicaraguan model.

Was it worth it? You can decide.

Donald Trump polarized a lot of people with his tough talk, but would you rather have somebody who was abrasive and accomplished the following, or would you want someone mellifluous like, oh, Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, and could not achieve any of these achievements which were not just good for the United States, but were good for the Western alliance in general?

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Victor Davis Hanson 

Victor Davis Hanson is a Daily Signal senior contributor, hosting a podcast, producing video commentaries, and writing a weekly column. He is the author of “The Counterrevolution The Fall and Rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement.” Follow on X VDHanson.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Time To Turn All Blue States RED. Here’s Why!

By Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

It’s time to turn all states controled by Democrats into RED states that will keeep America great and preserve our Constiutional Republican form of government from the White House to each State House.

We have witnessed blue states with massive fraud, ebrace sanctuary politics, gays, illegal aliens and criminals.

Time for a change!

States Controlled by the Democrat Party

As of 2026, 18 state legislatures are under full Democratic control. In these states, Democrats hold majorities in both the state senate (upper chamber) and state house/assembly (lower chamber):

  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Nevada
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington

Note: Nebraska features a nonpartisan, unicameral legislature, while states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota have split control across chambers or tied legislative divisions.

The Average Cost of Government Per Capita in Blue vs Red States

The total budget size and expenditure levels of state governments depend heavily on population size, regional cost of living, and public services.

Because states vary drastically in size—from California with over 38 million residents to Vermont with roughly 640,000—comparing absolute budget costs directly does not provide an accurate metric. Instead, economists evaluate state government costs based on per capita state government spending.

Average Per Capita Spending

  • Democratic-Controlled States: State government spending in Democratic trifecta or Democratic-controlled legislature states averages roughly $11,500 to $13,500 per resident annually.
  • Republican-Controlled States: State government spending in Republican-controlled states averages roughly $6,500 to $8,500 per resident annually.
  • National Average: Across all 50 states, average per capita state government spending sits at roughly $9,800.

Key Per Capita Spending Examples

According to general state budget data:

Higher Per Capita Spending Democratic States:

  • Vermont: ~$14,740 per resident
  • New York: ~$13,419 per resident
  • California: ~$13,206 per resident
  • Delaware: ~$13,114 per resident
  • Hawaii: ~$12,766 per resident
  • Massachusetts: ~$12,060 per resident

Lower Per Capita Spending Republican States:

  • Florida: ~$5,557 per resident
  • Georgia: ~$6,323 per resident
  • Texas: ~$6,746 per resident
  • Tennessee: ~$6,851 per resident

Note: Geographic anomalies exist; for instance, Alaska—a Republican-leaning state—routinely ranks #1 in per capita state spending due to high administrative costs across huge geographic distances and oil revenue disbursements.

Key Drivers of Higher State Costs in Blue States

  1. Expanded Social Programs & Safety Nets: States governed by Democrats generally allocate higher expenditures toward state-funded healthcare (Medicaid expansions and state subsidies), higher education, paid family leave, and public welfare.
  2. Cost of Living & Public Sector Wages: Higher prevailing wage rates, higher costs for infrastructure construction, and competitive public employee union contracts (teachers, public safety, state workers) raise overall administrative costs.
  3. Local vs. State Service Delivery: Blue states often fund public services (like mass transit systems and environmental oversight) directly through state budget appropriations, whereas red states more frequently decentralize services to county levels or private contractors.

The Bottom Line

It’s cheaper to live and work in states controlled by Republicans.

We are currently seeing a massive exodus of businesses, corporations and individuals leaving blue states and moving to red states like Florida, Texas, Georgia and Tennessee.

Remember that it costs $11,500 to $13,500 per resident annually in blue states and $6,500 to $8,500 per resident annually in red states.

“It’s the economy, stupid!” is a political catchphrase coined in 1992 by James Carville.

Red states listened, blue states did not.

Want more money in your pocket then vote RED.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Capital One Credit Card Madness

By Kelleigh Nelson

“You can examine the whole 19th century from the point of view of who would have maxed out their credit cards. Emma Bovary would have maxed hers out. No question. Mr. Scrooge would not have. He would have snipped his up.” — Margaret Atwood

“Although we leave traces of our personal lives with our credit cards and Web browsers today, tomorrow’s mobile devices will broadcast clouds of personal data to invisible monitors all around us.” — Howard Rheingold

“The National Security Agency (NSA) has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.” — Edward Snowden

The world has gotten weird.  No, this isn’t about politics, the war, or the conquering of America by the commies and jihadis.  It is about a nightmare from Hades that my husband and I went through when Capital One bought Discover Credit Card.  The purchase was finalized in May of 2025 valued at over $50 billion.

I have come to believe that every business has hired DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) personnel and now the taxpaying citizens of America are reaping the dire consequences of their stupidity.

There are 10 top credit cards that do not have yearly fees.  The number one listed card was Discover.  For 36 years we used our Discover card when traveling, when making web and local purchases and so forth.  No problem.  I would check the card’s usage on the web from time to time and had caught fraud in the past.  When I reported it, or when the card company called me about fraud, they’d send us out new cards within a day.  Super service.

After the purchase by Capital One, I found that I could not get into their website.  When I called them and asked why, I was told that I needed permission from the primary card holder, my husband.  After working for Fortune 100 companies for decades and owning my own business for 36 years, I blew a gasket.  Um-hmm.  The person on the other end of the phone said all I needed to do was have my husband call and tell them that I could get into the account.

He lied!

One Friday we spent an hour and 45 minutes on the phone with this Capital One person asking my husband for every piece of information he could give them, and he wanted it put through the cell phone, including a selfie.  Yes, really.  Well, that didn’t work for whatever reason, so he tells my husband to go on the website and put in his social security number.  I immediately told the fellow he was crazy.  In today’s society, NO ONE with an ounce of brain matter would put their SS#, CC# or any other personal numbers on the web because of identity theft.  If hackers can break into the Pentagon, they can break into your computer.

We hung up.

Two weeks later we called again and got a woman who was able to allow me into the web account without my husband’s personal information all the way back to when he was potty trained.  So, okay, that’s good, I thought.

Wrong again.

I was then told that we would each have separate card numbers.  Why?  They explained that parents who add their children want to watch what their children are purchasing. We have no children at home or on our credit cards, and we’ve been married 43 years, so we don’t need two credit card numbers.

Tough beans, that’s the way it is. Okay fine.

Next up, I’m looking at the website and I see a defunct credit card is being used that was cancelled long ago by Discover.  What the!  So, I call them again and ask why a formerly fraudulent card is being used by people who charge monthly when it is no longer valid.  They tell me, “Sorry, but all information from Discover didn’t ‘port-over,’ (i.e., transfer into Capital One,) and you’ll have to call the people and tell them not to use that card number.”

Other credit cards, like DISCOVER, would automatically disallow the usage of the old card number, but not Capital One.  I asked why they didn’t do that, but the story was again that it was a previous card for monthly charges and they would honor it.  I screamed, “But some of these charges were purposely dropped when the card number was changed and now, they’re getting my money when I don’t want them to have it.”  “Well,” the guy says, “As I stated, it is your responsibility to call them and cancel the card.”

My blood pressure rose and steam escaped.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my husband and I traveled to Florida for a week and when we arrived at the hotel on a Sunday evening, we used our L.L. Bean Mastercard rather than Capital One which we’d decided to cancel.  The Mastercard was declined.  I was infuriated…as we pay all our bills in full every month.  We used Capital One. Grrrr.

On Monday morning I called Mastercard and asked why the card was declined.  She told me because it was charging in another state.  I said, “So what, it’s our card to use anywhere.”  She said, “Oh no, when you travel, you must call us and tell us where you’re traveling so we can okay the use of the card, otherwise we believe it is fraud.”  That was a new one on me.  She then asked me for my special word so she’d know it was me.  I said I can’t remember the word.  (They’re supposed to give you a hint, like your favorite dog’s name, but she did not.)  Then she says, “Well, give me the account number you pay your checks to us with.”  I said, “Lady, I have my credit cards, I don’t carry my household checkbook with me when we travel.”

No dice.  I had to wait until we were home and I called again and this time the woman said, “What’s the name of your favorite dog?”  I named all nine we’d had and she said, “Bingo, you named the one.”  Sheesh.

In talking to a friend in Florida, she told us that she and her husband have a big motor home and they had to call the credit card company to tell them they were traveling from Florida to the Carolinas.  Well, they stopped for gasoline for the big motorhome in Georgia and their card was declined.  She got on the phone and told the bimbo on the other end that to get to the Carolinas, you have to travel through Georgia.  That is how absolutely dysfunctional these credit card companies have become.

I’m thinking, “DEI again.”

Oh yes, I know the fraud is outrageous and especially with the illegal alien infusion over Biden’s four years and yes, I have had checks I’ve sent via the USPS that have been stolen, then washed and rewritten and deposited in the perp’s account via their cell phone.  Fortunately, our bank found the scoundrel and got our money back.  But you’d think that the card companies would know who pays their bills every month in full and who are financially stable, but they don’t.  So once again good people suffer because of the criminal elements or because of people who abuse their cards and don’t pay their bills.

There are eight million stories in the Naked City…this was just one.

Yes, and there are nightmares every day that decent people have to spend their time straightening out.  Anyone out there know a good credit card company with no annual fees?

Unfortunately, there is more in the nightmare category.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Watch for my next article entitled, The Decay of Our Culture.

Dear Floridians Vote Yes on Amendment 3

By Karen Schoen

A couple of items caught my attention this week. I want to share them with you.

SCOTUS finally made a ruling that will help secure elections and eliminate some fraud. Yeah SCOTUS.

On the economic front, manufacturing is coming back to America. I believe this is the only way to eliminate dependency on country who hate America. Dr. Peter Navarro has emphasized the need for the U.S. to develop alternatives to rare earth elements to reduce dependence on China. He argues that innovation in materials science could lead to viable substitutes, enhancing national security and economic independence. looks like we are going to follow that road.

Wake up America. Wake up Florida. Study this image of the NGO’s who have been sucking our budgets dry.  Want to know why counties have no money, this is one of the reasons. These NGO’s are going around Florida lying by telling the people to vote NO on Amendment 3. Why? They want to continue to be funded. They want to continue to keep their fancy cars, boats and homes at our expense.  They want you to vote to keep your taxes high.  Tell them what you think by Voting Yes on Amendment 3

Vote Yes on Amendment 3

AMENDMENT 3 states”  This amendment increases the homestead exemption, for all non-school taxes, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, and adjusts for inflation thereafter. It requires the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value, and allows special districts, subject to referendum approval, to do the same. Persons who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026, will receive the existing homestead exemption upon qualifying for a homestead exemption, with the increased homestead exemption beginning with the fifth year of exemption, to the extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution. This amendment reduces the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%.

This amendment requires counties and municipalities to use property taxes solely for public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, retirement benefits for employees, and operations and administration. Other expenditures may be approved by county officers or county or municipal governing bodies unless prohibited by general law, notwithstanding Article VII, Section 9(a) of the Florida Constitution, which allows counties and municipalities to levy property taxes for their respective purposes. This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027. I don’t see NGO’s mentioned, do you?

What is an NGO? Non-Government Organization. That means NOT ELECTED yet they continue to influence our legislators with policies that benefit them not us.

If they are NON-Government what does that mean. They are not part of the budget unless legislators choose to give them money. Why give them money? Because part of that funding in the form of grants, stipends, subsidies and tax right offs go back to the election campaigns of the legislators passing the policies favorable to them. 

I also have been hearing from some that they are not voting in the Florida Gubernatorial election.  Bad idea. Why would I say that when I am not a (R) Byron Donald’s fan. Because (D) David Jolly is worse.  Evan Power, RPOF Chairman did a great job of destroying the Republican party. But putting a Democrat in power is far worse.

You can’t complain and fix anything, if you don’t participate.  This is a game of patience. It took a long time for Americans to see how bad the corruption in both parties was. It will never be fixed overnight. But giving up which is the same as not voting is not an option.

Who is DEM David Jolly?

Do an evaluation in your state. Here is mine in Florida. Who is DEM David Jolly? He was a Republican turned Democrat. What does he stand for. In his own words he wants:

  1. Anti-Gun– Jolly wants massive gun control.
  2. Ban on Oil and Gas – you think prices are high now
  3. Anti-School Choice – Jolly wants ignorant drones who hate America, G-d and Family
  4. DEI – Incompetence will be back again with more race hate
  5. Gender Ideology– More studies out of how to destroy your children
  6. Boys in Girls Sports– More degrading of women, stealing their chances to be winners
  7. Vote By Phone – More corruption
  8. No plan to cut taxes – lots of plans to raise taxes.

David has refused to debate Byron. I wonder what he is afraid of.

To hear Jolly’s own words on X: https://x.com/ByronDonalds/status/2090772117612589173   

Check out  what the Democrat Party stands for.

Instead of taking responsibility for the bad policies and choices that the Democrats put in place, they blame everyone else. You staying home will bring more bad choices.

In actions staying home is the same as taking your income cutting it in half. Can you live on that because that is what you will get. You may get free but inferior quality stuff. Can you live in 750 sq ft apartment, take the bus or train in the rain and double your taxes on everything. You will also have long lines so those illegals arriving under open borders policies will get first dibs on all services. You will come last. Is staying home and not voting worth that? Only you can decide. Is America worth saving? Its up to you.

©2026 All rights reserved.

Join me on the podcast (karenbschoen.com) with guests:

Guest : Ed Vidal, Executive Producer and General Counsel

WSQF 94.5 FM Radio, Doral,  Florida, Editor,

Website: miamiindependent.com

Guest: Kat Stansell, author, researcher

Website:  https://pat4evr.substack.com/

The AI Cost Trap, Why Cheaper Models Still Lead to Bigger Bills

By A.I. Guys

In this episode of The AI Guys Podcast, Lee and Rich dig into the real cost of AI and why cheaper models do not always mean lower bills. They unpack the “inference paradox,” where token prices keep dropping while total AI spend keeps climbing because agents are reasoning more, retrying more, and handling increasingly complex workflows.

If your team feels like AI is getting more powerful and more expensive at the same time, this episode will hit home. The conversation breaks down where businesses waste money with AI, from choosing the wrong model for the job to letting massive context windows balloon token usage without realizing it. Lee and Rich also explore why companies need to stop thinking only about cost per token and start measuring cost per outcome, cost per resolved task, and actual business value. They close with a smart look at model routing, orchestration, budget controls, and why the future of AI depends on sending the right work to the right model at the right time.

WATCH: The AI Cost Trap, Why Cheaper Models Still Lead to Bigger Bills

If you are building with AI, scaling internal usage, or trying to get control of rising token costs, this episode is packed with practical takeaways. Be sure to subscribe so you do not miss future conversations on AI strategy, infrastructure, and real-world adoption.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

AI GUYS SUBSTACK: https://substack.aiguyspod.com/

RAIAIA WEBSITE: https://www.raiaai.com/

All links: https://lnkd.in/eXDpww6V

Spotify: https://lnkd.in/ee9h9GYB

Youtube: https://lnkd.in/etDvqQ7d

Apple: https://lnkd.in/epYT2GSi

PROFITS SKYROCKET at America’s Biggest Companies While Blue States Suffer Record-High Living Costs Under Mamdani-Style Democrat Policies

By The Geller Report

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that profits are soaring at America’s biggest companies—and their leaders say that likely won’t change soon. From Target and J.M. Smucker to farm-equipment maker Deere, companies spanning the breadth of the U.S. economy are ringing up heftier sales and earnings. Many have raised financial outlooks for the year. Chalk the good times up to a confluence of fortunate events: red-hot AI spending, federal spending and the windfall companies are getting in the form of refunds of some of their past tariff payments. Plus, a booming stock market and high home values are helping many shoppers keep spending, even as plenty of others struggle to absorb rising prices. What are they buying? New appliances, toys and clothing.

The Democrat media narrative and reality have never been more at odds.

Trump economy soars as Democrats like Mamdani’s socialist ‘affordability’ agenda drives New York housing costs to record highs.

As the American economy surges and corporate profits soar, Democrat moochers and looters are dragging their cities in the opposite direction. The irony is staggering: Zohran Mamdani campaigns on “affordability,” yet his rent-control crusade and war on landlords have achieved the polar opposite—choking off housing, driving owners from the market and pushing New York’s rents and housing costs to unprecedented levels. Democrats create scarcity, call the resulting catastrophe “capitalism,” and then demand even more power to intensify the policies that caused it.

Corporate America’s Profits Are Booming—and Signal More Good Times Ahead

By: Sarah Nassauer and Theo Francis, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 30, 2026:

Profits are booming at America’s biggest companies—and their leaders say that likely won’t change soon.

From Target and J.M. Smucker to farm-equipment maker Deere, companies spanning the breadth of the U.S. economy are ringing up heftier sales and earnings. In recent days, many have raised financial outlooks for the year, citing robust sales as just one of the reasons.

Chalk the good times up to a confluence of fortunate events: red-hot artificial-intelligence spending, federal spending and the windfall companies are getting in the form of refunds of some of their past tariff payments. Plus, a booming stock market and high home values are helping many shoppers keep spending, even as plenty of others struggle to absorb rising prices.

At Abercrombie & Fitch, consumers kept buying even after the fashion retailer pared back discounts in the most recent quarter, executives told investors on a conference call last week. That, plus around $120 million in expected tariff refunds, led the retailer to raise its full-year financial estimates.

“The underlying business performed above our expectations,” Chief Financial Officer Robert Ball said on the conference call.

Across S&P 500 companies, per-share earnings soared 53% in the second quarter from a year earlier, while sales rose nearly 16%, according to data from LSEG. Investment gains from tech giants Amazon.com and Alphabet added fuel to the big earnings surge.

Even without those gains, S&P 500 earnings rose the most since fall 2021. Quarterly sales also climbed more than they have in years. By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, more companies raised their profit guidance for the current quarter than lowered it—a turnaround from a year ago, when more were lowering their outlooks.

Tariff refunds are providing a big, temporary tailwind. They are likely to account for more than 4% of third-quarter economic growth—or add about 0.2 percentage point to the Atlanta Fed’s growth forecast of between 4% and 5%—according to a mid-August estimate from Apollo Global Management.

Improved full-year financial estimates came from a diverse set of companies, including healthcare companies McKesson and Charles River Laboratories International and jelly giant Smucker. At many of them, the refunds flowed primarily to the bottom line, rather than into lower prices for shoppers.

At fitness-watch maker Garmin, $21 million in tariff refunds boosted profit margins in the quarter that ended in late July, executives told investors late last month. Strong demand for its fitness products helped, too, leading the company to raise its full-year financial guidance.

Even without the refund, “our gross margin performance was impressive by any historical comparison,” Chief Executive Clifton Pemble told investors.

Retailers generally reported strong quarterly sales figures in recent weeks, noting that consumers are spending on new appliances, toys and clothing even as they navigate higher fuel prices and long-term inflation.

Dollar General, known for drawing cash-strapped shoppers to its mostly rural stores, posted a fifth consecutive quarter of higher traffic and a 3.5% increase in comparable sales. Electronics retailer Best Buy said its shoppers were buying up computers, TVs and AI-enabled glasses, lifting its most recent quarterly sales and profit. Target also reported higher sales, profit and a benefit from tariff refunds in the most recent quarter, noting shoppers pushed up sales of toys, food and beauty products.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Manhattan rents reach all-time high of $6,655/month amid Mamdani’s rent freeze and pied-a-terre tax threat

Pre-IPO Shopping Spree — Why the Giants are Buying Everything

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Pre-IPO Shopping Spree — Why the Giants are Buying Everything

By A.I. Guys

The AI arms race is entering a new phase, and this episode breaks down why the biggest players are suddenly buying, partnering, and consolidating at full speed. Lee and Rich unpack the pre IPO shopping spree happening across the AI landscape, from frontier model companies chasing platform control to the growing pressure to justify massive valuations.

They dig into what these moves could mean for OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, and the broader open source ecosystem. Along the way, they explore whether model quality is really improving as much as the hype suggests, why token costs may be more manipulated than most people realize, and how businesses can protect themselves from vendor lock in as AI dependency grows.

If you are trying to understand where the market is heading, this episode gives you a practical lens on the strategy, incentives, and risks behind the headlines. Subscribe to stay in touch, and follow along as The AI Guys keep translating fast moving AI news into real business insight.

WATCH: Pre-IPO Shopping Spree — Why the Giants are Buying Everything

©2026 . All rights reserved.

A.I. Guys substack: https://substack.aiguyspod.com/

RAIA AI Website: https://www.raiaai.com/

All links: https://lnkd.in/eXDpww6V

Spotify: https://lnkd.in/ee9h9GYB

Youtube: https://lnkd.in/etDvqQ7d

Apple: https://lnkd.in/epYT2GSi

Trump Says U.S. Is Taking Partial Control of Venezuela’s Vast Oil Reserves

By Family Research Council

(Reuters) — President Donald Trump on Friday announced an unprecedented U.S. push to take control of a fifth of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, betting that American companies can revive the OPEC nation’s battered energy industry while delivering a new source of crude to help bring down U.S. fuel prices.

Trump provided few details about the agreement, saying only that the U.S. had secured majority control of more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves through a partnership with private business.

The South American nation’s leader welcomed the agreement, saying it would boost the economy and government revenue.

The new deal would represent a dramatic expansion of the U.S. role in Venezuela’s oil industry as the Trump administration seeks to revive the country’s production and secure more crude for U.S. refineries. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves but produces only about 1.25 million barrels per day, far below its potential after years of underinvestment, mismanagement and sanctions.

Rubio Calls Deal a Win-Win

“At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority U.S. control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The announcement followed weeks of U.S.-Venezuelan negotiations over a deal that would give American companies long-term access to a group of Venezuelan oilfields and guarantee the resulting crude supply to the United States.

Venezuelan officials are preparing to sign agreements next week granting new oil exploration and production rights to a number of companies, particularly U.S. firms.

Sources have told Reuters that a lease model was under consideration, with fields potentially auctioned to U.S. producers, but the arrangement could face legal and constitutional challenges in Venezuela, where the state retains control over core oil industry activities.

Trump did not disclose the structure of the agreement, the fields or companies involved or how the United States would exercise majority control over the reserves. A list seen by Reuters shows the fields are in the Orinoco Belt and Lake Maracaibo regions.

Rubio described the agreement as a win for both countries, saying on X that it would secure stable, low-cost oil for the United States and help lower gasoline prices.

For Venezuela, Rubio said the deal would bring nearly $100 billion in private investment, support thousands of high-paying jobs and help rebuild the country’s economy.

Rodriguez, who became interim leader after the U.S. seized President Nicolas Maduro in January, said late on Friday that the agreement would allow for a significant increase in production through the development of 17 strategic fields and result in tax revenue for the country totaling $209 billion.

“These investments will contribute not only to the recovery and modernization of our industry, but also to our country’s economic growth, the energy security of our hemisphere, and greater balance in international markets,” she said in a statement.

Legal Basis, Financial Structure Unclear

Analysts said they needed to see more details on the agreement’s legal and financial structure before assessing whether it could attract significant investment.

Also unclear is whether the deal will lower gasoline prices in the short term, as developing the infrastructure needed to produce, transport and refine Venezuela’s heavy crude could take years.

David Goldwyn, president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, said it was unclear whether a U.S. government lease would have a legal basis under Venezuela’s constitution and its new hydrocarbons law, adding that there is “no precedent for having the U.S. government enter into a lease to operate oil fields.”

Goldwyn also questioned whether the plan would address the obstacles that have deterred investment in Venezuela for years. “It is hard to see how this kind of arrangement would accelerate investment at any material scale,” he said, citing political uncertainty, an inadequate power grid, limited export capacity and government discretion over the industry.

Since removing Maduro, Washington has been trying to secure a stable flow of Venezuelan crude for U.S. refineries while promoting American investment in the country’s oil industry.

The Trump administration is under pressure ahead of midterm elections in November to mollify consumer concerns over rising gasoline prices. Cheaper oil supplies and expanded output could help.

The U.S. also has been looking for solutions to replenish its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the nation’s oil stockpile, including the possibility of crude ?swaps with U.S. producers.

Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in the 1970s, putting state-run PDVSA at its center. Under then-President Hugo Chavez, the government tightened control, forcing foreign producers into state-led joint ventures and later expropriating assets, including projects operated by ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

Under Maduro’s rule Venezuela’s production fell sharply.

(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw, Costas Pitas, Christian Martinez, Marianna Parraga, Timothy Gardner and Vivian Sequera; Editing by Jasper Ward, Caitlin Webber, Rosalba O’Brien, Nathan Crooks, Cynthia Osterman and William Mallard)

AUTHOR

Reuters

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Housing Affordability Crisis Results From ‘Too Much Socialism,’ Not Too Little: Report

By The Daily Signal

America’s housing affordability crisis isn’t a result of too little government intervention or socialism, but a tragic consequence of massive federal intervention gone awry, a new Heritage Foundation report argues.

“When it comes to housing, our problem isn’t a lack of socialism but too much socialism,” John Gibbs, Heritage’s economics director, told the Daily Signal. “Heavy government involvement in mortgages promised to make homes more accessible but instead made them more expensive.”

Gibbs released a report Wednesday noting that despite heavy federal intervention aimed at increasing homeownership, rates have remained essentially stable since the 1960s. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the homeownership rate in the U.S. stood at approximately 62%-63% in the early 1960s and remains at approximately 65%.

“We do not make homes affordable by making debt affordable,” Gibbs explained. “We make homes affordable by reducing the policies that inflate home prices in the first place.”

“Federal mortgage policy has become a $10 trillion experiment in boosting housing demand,” he added. “The evidence suggests much of the result has been higher prices rather than higher ownership.”

Many housing economists attribute the housing affordability crisis to local zoning restrictions, environmental reviews, permitting delays, and other barriers to construction. Gibbs argued that federal mortgage subsidies deserve greater scrutiny because they increase demand for housing and therefore push prices higher when supply cannot expand quickly enough.

As the report explains, the federal government aims to boost homeownership in two ways: by directly providing insurance for home loans, and by purchasing mortgages from lenders, pooling them into mortgage-backed securities, and guaranteeing those securities.

The Federal Housing Administration insures certain mortgages, while government-managed enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase mortgages from lenders and package them into mortgage-backed securities.

Taxpayers ultimately stand behind many of these guarantees, making the loans less risky for lenders. Gibbs argues that this encourages more lending and allows buyers to borrow more money, putting upward pressure on housing prices.

When the government takes some of the burden, it frees lenders to offer more loans. That’s one of the major reasons why the federal government now provides some security to between 70% and 80% of new mortgages and outstanding mortgage credit, according to the Heritage report.

Most European countries do not subsidize home loans to nearly this degree. Even Canada only secures the debt of between 30% and 40% of housing, Gibbs told the Daily Signal—about half the rate the U.S. does.

The federal government backs about $11.7 trillion in home loans, but this massive intervention hasn’t meaningfully increased homeownership, the report notes. Instead, it has driven up prices.

“The federal government has spent decades making mortgages easier to get,” Gibbs told the Daily Signal. “The result has been higher home prices, while homeownership remains roughly where it was a generation ago.”

Why does this drive up prices? Just as government-backed student loans have increased the cost of college, government-backed home loans increase the cost of homes, he argued.

“When the government intervenes to expand access to credit or subsidize loans, it artificially raises borrowers’ willingness to pay, increasing demand faster than supply can respond,” the report explains.

This government intervention makes housing less affordable and transfers wealth to those who already own homes, the report states.

“Rising prices reward existing owners on paper, but rapid appreciation reduces affordability for prospective buyers by raising the cost of entering the market—especially when wages fail to keep pace,” the report warns.

If Americans truly want housing to be cheaper, they should urge the government to stop buying so many mortgages, Gibbs argued.

His report recommends reducing the government footprint by setting a maximum value for loans the government will purchase, aiming to stop the government’s purchase of loans for expensive homes. It also recommends the government offer shorter-term mortgages that help homeowners accumulate wealth more quickly.

While the report acknowledges some progress in the 21st Century Road to Housing Act—a bill Congress passed this summer that streamlines the process of housing construction by waiving certain environmental regulations—it warns against too much federal intervention to expand housing supply.

AUTHOR

Tyler O’Neil

Tyler O’Neil is senior investigative reporter at the Daily Signal and the author of two books, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” Follow on X Tyler2ONeil.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

JD Vance, Ohio Figures Give Rousing Middletown Speech on Manufacturing Investments

By The Daily Signal

Vice President JD Vance spoke at a factory in Middletown, Ohio, on Friday, his first appearance in his hometown since being elected to the nation’s second-highest office. In addition to sharing sentiments about his papaw working at that same factory, the Cleveland-Cliffs Middletown Works steel plant, Vance spoke on what the Trump administration is doing for manufacturing.

The Cost of Not Investing

The announcement of a $1 billion investment in Middletown Works from Cleveland-Cliffs, thanks to a $500 million grant from the Trump administration, centered the day’s remarks. “Now, this is only possible because of my friend Chris Wright and the president’s energy dominance agenda,” Vance said about the secretary of energy.

Vance described factory workers being able to provide for their families as “the American dream” when speaking of his papaw.

“My papaw hated the politicians who ignored this place. He hated the people who saw this as the place of the past,” Vance said. “He hated the people who forgot about this town when they should have been fighting for this town.”

Those at Fault

Vance recalled how, when he was growing up, people shared that their fathers had lost their factory jobs because those factories were going overseas.

“Now, economists have measured the ways in which the opioid crisis exploded in the very locations where jobs were shipped overseas,” Vance shared, as he brought up open borders, which “brought the fentanyl trade,” and how “it left us with millions of orphan children being raised by grieved grandparents,” including his own.

Signs of Hope

“In November of 2024, you made a choice to reverse 40 years of American decline and make Donald Trump the president of the United States. And I’m not saying it’s going to be easy or it’s all going to happen overnight, but in just 18 months, we have seen an explosion of rebuilding in the American heartland,” Vance continued.

He went on to tout the successes of the Trump administration on manufacturing. “We’ve created more than 29,000 new jobs in the sector in 2026 so far, reversing years of decline in manufacturing employment. And year-over-year, manufacturing workers’ wages actually went up 4.2% where they went down under the Biden administration,” Vance explained.

Vance also insisted that companies hire American workers or otherwise face tariffs.

“For the first time in my life, America saw net migration out of the country as we sent millions of illegal immigrants back home.” Describing it as “maybe the thing I’m the most proud of in the last 18 months,” Vance brought up how the net job growth over that period “went to native-born Americans,” reversing a trend.

A Special Investment

The announcement of the $1 billion investment came from Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves, as he reminded attendees that it was made possible thanks to the Department of Energy.

That $500 million grant was later addressed by Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson, as “one of the largest investments out of [her] office,” and “a vote of confidence in the American worker in the state of Ohio and in President Trump and Vice President Vance’s staunch belief that the future of heavy industry belongs right here on American soil.”

As he introduced the vice president, Wright referred to Vance as “the leader of the reindustrializing the United States of America.”

The Need to Do More

Ohio’s Republican senators shared how their families were both affected by the decline in manufacturing.

Sen. Bernie Moreno spoke of how his father-in-law was impacted, as he had lamented that it “totally screwed up the company” to ship jobs overseas.

He went on to call on Cleveland-Cliffs to strive to become the No. 1 steel for auto production in the world.

Sen. Jon Husted‘s father lost his job at the factory, the senator revealed, lashing out against people who “thought it was OK to send our jobs to China, get back cheap products in return, and weaken basically export American manufacturing.”

Husted pivoted to a more hopeful message about “America First,” and the kind of place that Ohio has since become, which would be a theme of his remarks.

“We’ve added in this state 3,000 manufacturing jobs,” he said, as he recalled candidates claiming manufacturing was dead and jobs were gone, and the industry was not coming back. “They were wrong. We can bring back manufacturing to this great country in places like Middletown and across places across our great state,” Husted insisted.

Good News for Ohio

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, had a heavy focus on Ohio as he celebrated the “good news” of the investment. He thanked Goncalves “for believing in Ohio” and “these great workers that you see here today.”

“We are red hot,” DeWine said about Ohio, speaking of improvements in doing business, lower unemployment, and filling jobs. The governor also spoke about how companies are leaving other states for Ohio, which involves recognizing “a long history of leading in manufacturing.”

Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican nominee who may replace the term-limited DeWine, also spoke. He addressed the need to “successfully fix what needs to be fixed,” which involves being “first grateful for what we’re actually getting right,” as he also touted the United States and Ohio, and the humble beginnings of many speakers.

He also addressed making Ohio the state to envy.

Ramaswamy concluded by making a promise about “ensur[ing] that Middletown’s best days, that Ohio’s best days, and honest to God, through Ohio, America’s best days are actually still ahead of us.”

AUTHOR

Rebecca Downs

Rebecca Downs is an Ohio correspondent for the Daily Signal. Follow on X RebeccaRoseGold.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Yes, Presidential Political Appointees Should Be Able to Cancel Woke Federal Grants

By Family Research Council

President Donald Trump’s proposed reform to give senior political appointees the authority to block or terminate woke federal grants that undermine policies a majority of Americans endorsed in the 2024 presidential election is driving congressional Democrats up the wall.

“As proposed, this regulation would result in a seismic and ill-informed change to an enormous portion of the United States economy and would upend the established understanding of how federal appropriations are carried out, undermining the integrity of government programs,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and 11 Democratic colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee told Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought in a July 13 letter.

DeLauro is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee and its Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. What she means by “the established understanding” of how federal grants are reviewed and approved is the present system in which unelected bureaucrats — who, on average, are paid considerably more and enjoy better benefits than most taxpaying Americans — are insulated from public accountability and transparency in deciding who gets trillions of tax dollars in the form of grants for research, analyses, services, and advice.

Because the vast majority of career civil servants in the federal government are Democrats, that system is infamous for handing out trillions of dollars to advocacy groups, education institutes, law firms, universities, and corporate organizations that push for woke policies and programs favored by far-left Democratic Socialist-type public officials like the Connecticut Democrat. The Federal Register announcement of the Trump proposal documented literally thousands of examples of such grants totaling hundreds of billions of dollars going to “questionable projects that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) tenets or pushed onto science neo-Marxist perspectives about enduring class struggle.”

And in an August 7, 2025 White House Fact Sheet, the need for the Trump proposal’s implementation was illustrated by the fact that “federal grants have funded, for example, Drag shows in Ecuador, training doctoral candidates in Critical Race Theory (CRT), and developing transgender-sexual-education programs.” The same document also cited “an unsafe lab in Wuhan, China — the most likely source of the COVID-19 pandemic — engaged in gain-of-function research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)” and “in a direct assault on free speech, the National Science Foundation (NSF) allocated millions to develop AI-powered social media censorship tools.”

Interestingly, DeLauro and her 11 Democratic colleagues claimed in their July 13 letter to OMB’s Vought that “the proposed regulation would affect tens of thousands of research grants awarded annually by the [NIH], the [NSF], the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many other federal scientific agencies, which support groundbreaking research that underpins breakthroughs in medicine and technology that can save and sustain lives and improve the standard of living across the country and the globe.”

DeLauro and company also worry about the impact of the proposal’s inclusion of measures designed to result in greater transparency of the whole grant-awarding and management processes, noting that “more reporting responsibilities and financial auditing requirements are demanded, new employment reporting mandates are imposed, and burdensome reimbursement mechanisms are promulgated.”

Such illustrations are why the Trump proposal presented earlier this year are necessary. As explained, “the federal government must provide more oversight and transparency regarding how federal funds are used in grantmaking to avoid the recurrence of similar issues in the future. Under the proposal described in this document, federal agencies must return to designing assistance programs and award activities to align with essential public purposes authorized by law.”

“Effective oversight also includes following executive branch policies that eliminate various kinds of wasteful spending that occurred in previous years, such as unlawful DEI mandates and other unnecessary add-on activities that increase project costs and complexity without serving the underlying public purpose of the award,” the administration stated. “The proposed reforms are necessary to ensure greater accountability for use of public funds, and that every taxpayer dollar the Federal Government spends either improves American lives or advances American interests.”

Democrats like DeLauro also argue that the proposal “would inject politicized unpredictability into the funding of awards,” because proposed and ongoing grants could be rejected or terminated by presidential political appointees who do so with the belief that federal funds should be used to implement presidential policies that were approved in an election.

But that consideration points to the fundamental issue underlying the debate about this proposed rule, which faces an uncertain future thanks to Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. As The Washington Stand’s Suzanne Bowdey reported Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) caved on the Trump proposal in an effort to induce Senate Democrats to vote for a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the federal government through the end of the year. The House version of the interim funding CR does include support for the Trump proposal, so a showdown on the issue seems all but assured when both chambers of Congress are back in session after the Labor Day holiday.

Though it will likely be framed by the mainstream media as a venal power grab by Trump, the actual issue that will be on the table when that Senate/House showdown occurs is this: Does the president, who is granted by the Constitution the exclusive authority to manage the executive branch of the federal government in carrying out laws approved by Congress, have the authority to appoint subordinate officers specifically tasked to implement policies the chief executive presented to voters in the previous election? If the answer is, as DeLauro and her Democratic colleagues clearly believe it to be, no, then the president’s ability to manage the executive branch to bring about policies approved by voters is sharply limited.

The Supreme Court has in recent decisions, however, gone a long way toward approving a broad understanding of presidential prerogatives in managing the executive branch. In Trump v. United States, for example, the high court held that “Article II of the Constitution vests ‘executive Power’ in ‘a President of the United States of America.’ The President has duties of ‘unrivaled gravity and breadth,’” as well as “the President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text of Article II.” Such power is required if the president is to perform his fundamental constitutional duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Speaking as a former Reagan political appointee and an investigative reporter and editor covering the federal government for nearly four decades, I’ve seen up close how unelected and effectively insulated bureaucrats routinely frustrate policies favored by chief executives. So, my view is that it is better to have a president able to carry out his or her mandate from the voters, who in a republic should have the final say. That also means career bureaucrats who are supposed to do their jobs in non-partisan obscurity will no longer be able to dole out federal tax dollars to advance left-wing causes they back without having to worry about being held accountable.

The problem for some is that the president you like today may be succeeded by a new chief executive whose policies and programs run directly counter to everything your guy backed. Is that a realistic worry? Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, responds to the apparent dilemma this way:

“Liberals are complaining that the proposed rule is a power grab by the Trump administration, but the actual proposal would reduce the ability of unelected bureaucrats to obstruct the administration’s stated policies and priorities. I suppose conservatives might fret that future liberal administrations will turn this authority around to target federal funding of conservative causes, but that assumes two things: that conservative causes are likely to be favored by the unelected apparatus, and that conservative projects will thrive long-term under the nurture of taxpayer subsidies. Neither history nor biblical governing philosophy bears out either assumption.”

Dr. Robert Moffit, a former senior political appointee at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and nationally recognized expert on Medicare/public health issues, has no doubt that the Trump proposal should be adopted.

“The democratically-elected president is directly responsible for executive branch policy, including the programs that his agencies decide to fund with taxpayers’ dollars. He cannot shirk that responsibility by delegating it to career officers. In the teeth of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, no president can pretend that the career bureaucracy is somehow above partisan politics or ideological bias in the administration of grant programs. No president should be that naïve. So, of course, his appointees should shoulder the responsibility, and assume the praise or blame, good or bad press, that comes with the territory.”

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

New Data Analysis Shows 5 Million Jobs Will Be Lost with DSA’s Hike of Minimum Wage to $25

By Family Research Council

More than five million jobs will be lost if the federal minimum wage is raised to $25 per hour as proposed by multiple candidates linked to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Democrats in Congress, according to a deep-dive economic data analysis by the Employment Policies Institute (EmPI).

“The majority of research over three decades finds minimum wage increases reduce employment. A new model developed by [EmPI] — based on methods developed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and other American labor economists — compiles the latest economic data to estimate what this means for workers under the latest proposed minimum wage hike. Using these established methods and the latest Census Bureau data on workers across the country, EmPI estimates the federal $25 proposal will cost 5.01 million jobs nationally, significantly impacting the hospitality sector, tipped restaurant workers, and teens,” the study reported.

The EmPI is an Arlington, Virginia.-based nonprofit research group that “in particular focuses on issues that affect entry-level employment” from the perspective of classical capitalistic economic theory. The Arlington-based EmPI should not be confused with the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute, (EPI), a nonprofit advocacy group that views economic issues from a leftist or progressive perspective.

The EmPI analysis broke out the projected lost jobs on a state-by-state basis and found that Texas would be the biggest loser, with nearly 832,000 positions disappearing. Pennsylvania would be the second biggest loser at more than 295,000, followed by Georgia (253,708), North Carolina (250,000) and Florida (234,730). The next five biggest losers include Ohio (213,802), Indiana (182,152), Tennessee (159,873). California (142,582) and South Carolina (135,739). Collectively, 12 Southern states would lose more than 2.5 million jobs, compared to the other 38 states.

By far, the industry taking the biggest hit under a $25 per hour minimum wage would be the restaurant/bar business with more than 1.7 million jobs going away. By comparison, the grocery industry, which would have the second biggest negative impact, is projected in the EmPI analysis to lose 205,000 positions.

By age groups, teenagers and young adults, 16-24 years of age, would suffer the loss of 2.65 million, while women would suffer three million losses, compared to two million for men. By far the biggest loser, however, would be the nearly 3.8 million men and women working in positions that do not include income from tips.

The major legislative proposals currently in Congress seeking what would be the largest single increase in minimum wage include the House’s Living Wage for All (LWFA) Act sponsored by Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). Each of the 31 House co-sponsors of the proposal are Democrats. Notably absent from the co-sponsors is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

On the Senate side, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is the prime mover behind the upper chamber’s companion bill to the House proposal, which is titled the Skilled Workforce for America Act. It is co-sponsored by Murphy’s Connecticut Senate colleague, Richard Blumenthal, as well as Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Andy Kim of New Jersey.

Under the House and Senate versions of the bill, businesses with 500 or more employees would be required to pay the $25 minimum wage by January 1, 2031, while smaller firms would have until 2038 to reach the required hourly amount.

The DSA has pushed for the $25 minimum wage since adopting the proposal among resolutions agreed to by delegates to the organization’s 2021 national convention, declaring, “Democratic Socialists of America support an increase of the federal minimum wage to $25 an hour with future increases tied to worker productivity.” Unlike the current congressional proposals, the DSA approach does not distinguish between employer size in scheduling the hike to $25 per hour.

Three of the 32 House members co-sponsoring the hike proposal have extensive DSA links. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), for example, is an active DSA member, while Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) joined the organization prior to being elected to Congress while serving on the Austin City Council. Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) has run for public office with DSA endorsement since 2018.

Proposals to increase the minimum wage have often prompted heated debate in Congress, in corporate and labor union boardrooms, and among academic economists. The EmPI cited a May 2026 study by CORCOM, Inc. that observed:

“Twenty-six percent of economists support raising the minimum federal wage up to $15/hour (strongly, 12%; somewhat, 14%), and 74% oppose it (somewhat, 14%; strongly, 59%). Overall, there is less support for raising the minimum wage up to $20/hour, with 10% supporting it (3% strongly; somewhat, 7%), but 90% opposing it (somewhat, 13%; strongly, 77%). There is virtually no support for raising the rate to more than $20/hour, with 5% supporting it (strongly, 0%; somewhat, 5%) and 96% opposing it (somewhat, 7%; strongly, 89%).”

There have been a limited number of studies that reached dramatically different conclusions about the impact of increasing the minimum wage. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), for example, a 1994 study of the impact on the restaurant industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania found a 13% employment increase following the former state’s boosting the minimum wage, while employment in the latter state remained steady.

The authors of the 1994 study issued a revised version a year later that reached the opposite conclusion — that jobs were lost, not gained, in New Jersey. The first analysis was based on surveys of 410 restaurants in the two states, while the second looked at actual payroll records from 230 establishments. Yet a third edition of the study appeared in 1998, and it reaffirmed the original findings using enhanced data analytics.

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats’ Minimum Wage Hike Would Make Life Less Affordable: Study

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

UN Green Climate Fund Emission Reduction Claims are Fraudulent

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

By

A database of Green Climate Fund (GCF) “projects” reveals that almost none are actual projects. Most are just specialized junior funds. Each has a supposed emission reduction number, but these numbers are just fantasy guesses since no actual projects are involved. Thus, the GCF emission reduction claims are fraudulent.

The database is here.

(I might never have found it since it is in the voluminous UNFCCC site not the GCF site, but AI found it immediately when I simply asked for “GCF projects.” This is a good example of how AI can improve research.)

Let’s look at three big ticket items that appear early in the list. Smaller items are not likely to be more truthful.

First is just under $1.5 billion for Project GAIA (“GAIA”).

See.

Here is a key part of the project description: “Project GAIA will establish a blended finance platform that offers long-term loans for climate adaptation and mitigation investments in 19 of the most climate vulnerable countries in the world – making funding accessible through sources previously unattainable to participating countries. To answer to the immediate needs of developing countries, the platform allocates 70 per cent of its portfolio investments towards adaptation projects; with a further allocation of 25 per cent for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, ensuring that funding reaches the most climate vulnerable communities. The project targets countries facing similar challenges in accessing climate finance for their pipeline of high-impact adaptation projects.”

This is a financial project not a physical one, and the primary target is adaptation. Nevertheless, it boasts a “CO2 equivalent” reduction amount of 30 million tons. (CO2 equivalent includes reduction in methane and other GHGs.)

There is of course no physical basis for this reduction claim since no actual projects are involved. Even worse, the GCF share of this $1.5 billion is a mere 10.3%. They should only be claiming this small fraction of the fantasy reduction amount, but I can see no indication that they are doing that. If not, then their CO2 reduction claim is doubly fraudulent.

The second example is the Programme for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (PEEB) Cool, another $1.5 billion financial project.

See

Here is the project description: “The Programme for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (PEEB) Cool includes 11 countries across four continents spanning seven different climates: the Mediterranean, humid subtropical, tropical, equatorial, arid, mountain, and continental. These countries suffer from climate change with temperatures reaching levels that increase heat-related health risks.  Climate change will lead to an increase in these risks including more regular and extreme heatwaves, and an increase in mean temperatures.

The PEEB Cool project will transform the construction sector by advancing more energy-efficient building design, construction, and operation. It will prioritize sub-sectors with significant potential for climate change adaptation and greenhouse gas reduction such as large-scale new housing schemes and commercial buildings involving both the public and private sectors. Moreover, it will generate strong economic and social benefits such as the creation of green jobs. Throughout its activities, PEEB Cool will include efficient cooling solutions, sustainable construction materials, and the involvement of construction ecosystem stakeholders.”

Note that this program runs through 2033 with no actual projects identified, but it comes with a CO2 equivalent reduction amount of 1.6 million tons. The GCF funding share is just 16.5%, but they seem to be claiming this entire fictitious reduction amount.

A third example is the Global Subnational Climate Fund (SnCF Global) – Equity which runs through 2040. This is a $750 million fund targeting administrative units within countries such as counties, provinces, regions, and municipalities.

Here is a key part of the description: “The goal of the Sub-national Climate Fund Global (SnCF Global or the “Fund”) is to catalyze long-term climate investment at the sub-national level for mitigation and adaptation solutions through a transformative financing model.”

There are no actual projects, but the CO2 equivalent reduction is pegged at a precise 77.6 million tons. This is less than $10 a ton which is completely unrealistic. The GCF financial share is just 20%.

A look through the first 40 or so projects in the database listing shows that all are financial, not physical. The Green Climate Fund claims to be delivering billions of tons of CO2 equivalent emission reductions over its project life cycles. The project numbers are completely fictitious and hence fraudulent.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

One Gaza Palestinian … $547,000,000 Fraud

By Jihad Watch

A Muslim illegal alien ripped off Americans and sent the money home including to pro-Hamas groups.

In 1992, Khaled Ahmed Satary arrived in the United States on a student visa. Even though student visas are only supposed to be temporary, the Gaza ‘Palestinian’ Muslim would not leave the country, not even when the government began trying to deport him in 2008 after he spent 3 years in federal prison for running a $50 million counterfeiting ring, not as he amassed another $547 million in health care fraud over the next decade by targeting the elderly and not until he finally went on the run in 2022 and became an international fugitive.

Along the way, Satary donated to Islamic groups and remained “committed to helping the people of his native Palestine” and  helped “raise more than $1 million to (sic) charities and organizations that support Palestinians” including a ‘charity’ accused of having links to Hamas.

The incredible story of how one ‘Palestinian’ from Gaza who received a student visa to study at the University of New Mexico inflicted at least $600 million worth of costs on the United States across three decades offers a snapshot of the punishing costs of Muslim mass migration.

Student visas, often fraudulent, have been used by millions of foreigners, including from the Muslim world, to come to the United States and remain here even after they have expired.

Seven years after Satary entered the country, he began manufacturing fake CDs in Atlanta as part of what authorities would describe as the largest music piracy operation in history with an estimated $50 million in losses and 127,000 fake CDs seized. The operation was sophisticated enough that, according to an FBI affidavit, Satary “hired bodyguards and used shell corporations”. CNN reported” that he was wiring the “profits to countries in the Middle East.”

At least some of the money was sent to ‘Palestinian’ enclaves in Jordan, the UAE and Israel.

Satary was busted in 2000. The DOJ accused him and two other fellow Muslim defendants, Abedullah F. Al-Qudah and Akram Abdelraham Yaqoub, of manufacturing the CDs. Satary was operating out of Lawrenceville, considered one of the fastest growing Muslim areas in Atlanta, that would serve as a hub of his crime empire and where his son still maintains a business.

Satary was sentenced to 3 years in prison and after he was released in 2008, ICE began trying to deport him. By then however, Hamas was in control of Gaza and since we had no diplomatic relations with the Muslim Brotherhood terror group, no one was available to take Satary.

A few years later, Satary had begun creating an empire of medical testing firms.

Unable to deport Satary back to Gaza, ICE had released him under an “order of supervision” that allowed him to live and work in the United States. By 2013, Satary was in the news again for donations to the senate campaign of a Republican congressman who would later support arming and training Syrian Jihadis and then go to work as a lobbyist for the Syrian ‘opposition’.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the senate campaign took in over $80,000 from employees of two Satary companies: Confirmatrix Laboratories and Nue Medical Consulting. The paper noted that “some of the contributors have strong feelings about Palestinian independence” and “most do not appear to be registered voters in Georgia.”

The money did not officially come from Satary, who in over 20 years had not achieved legal status and was under an order of deportation, but from employees who were allegedly given large bonuses by Satary’s son, told to keep a few hundred dollars and donate the rest. His son Jordan had donated thousands of dollars. Despite his criminal and illegal status, Khaled Ahmed Satary also appeared to have donated previously to the Republican Party’s NRSC.

Satary boasted of raising money for the ILM Academy: an Islamic school aimed at producing “Muslims whose thoughts and actions are devoted to Islam & Allah”, and the Alif Institute which puts on the Atlanta Arab Festival. His own site described him as a “philanthropist” who “helped build several successful healthcare businesses”, believed that “Arabs and Arab Americans have been unfairly portrayed in the mainstream media” and was “active in the Palestinian Medical Relief Society and the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund.”

An unofficial Hamas site had directed donations to PCRF: the group had been accused of funding an organization with Hamas links and ran a hospital pediatric unit that was used to conceal “explosives, suicide vests and even a motorcycle used in the 7 October attacks.”

The President of PMRS is Mustafa Barghouti, a former official of the PLO on whose watch the infamous ‘Hamas Mickey Mouse’ had aired, teaching children that “Islam will spread to all parts of the earth” and conquer Spain. Barghouti had appeared at Hamas events and with Hamas leaders, and had declared that Oct 7 was “a glorious day for the Palestinian resistance.”

A PMRS member was caught trying to plant a bomb on a bus in Israel.

Still, few questions were being asked about Satary’s health care businesses, which his site had claimed “ grow at a rate of 23 percent each month” and 6 months after six months had grown from 4 employees and $1 million to “70 employees and revenues of $12 million”.

According to his site, this was all “due to Satary’s efforts and determination.”

In reality, something else was going on. In 2013, Confirmatrix was ranked as the most expensive lab in the country, “collecting an average of $2,406 from Medicare for each patient tested, compared to the national average of $751.” The trick was running “an average of nearly 120 different drug screens on each patient, far more than any other drug lab.”

Confirmatrix profited from the opioid epidemic by allegedly paying kickbacks to ‘pill mills’ across the country to run drug screenings of patients on pain medication. The patients ended up not only heavily addicted, but stuck with massive bills for unnecessary drug screening tests once Medicare caught on to the scheme, lowered its reimbursement rates and the FBI came knocking in 2016, at which point the ‘Palestinian’ company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

And the patients, already suffering, were hounded by bill collectors for thousands of dollars.

Khaled Ahmed Satary had reportedly put the labs and his home in the name of his then-teenage son Jordan Satary. New labs with new names like ‘Elite’ and ‘Clio’ then popped up with some of the same employees including one that billed Medicare for $8.6 million in genetic tests.

In 2019, Clio and Elite were also raided as part of a crackdown on over $2 billion in fraudulent genetic cancer tests in which a telemarketing network was allegedly used to prey on “hundreds of thousands of elderly and/or disabled patients” by promising to test them for cancer.

When the indictment came down, it accused “Satary, the owner of several labs in Georgia, Oklahoma and Louisiana, and his co-conspirators, through companies they controlled” of having “paid the telemarketers illegal kickbacks and bribes in exchange for the doctor’s orders and medically unnecessary tests.” The labs “collectively billed Medicare for more than $547 million.”

This would have been on top of the previous millions from Confirmatrix.

Medicare had been billed as much as $10,000 for each test.

A convicted felon and illegal alien under order of deportation had been able to donate to politicians and bill the government for over half a billion dollars across six years.

And incredibly, it still wasn’t over.

Sizable amounts of money had reportedly been transferred to the Middle East. $30 million was allegedly sent to Jordan, the ‘Palestinian’ enclave that some have described as a second ‘Palestinian State’, some of which was reportedly sent to key figures in the government.

Before the raids, Satary was alleged to have paid millions for a fake passport to move to Qatar.

With all that money, foreign ties and history of fraud, federal authorities wanted to keep Satary locked up. “It’s not that difficult, when you have $20 million at your disposal, to get out of this country when you’re looking at decades in prison,” the federal prosecutor had warned.

Instead, he was allowed to travel anywhere he wanted, and when he failed to appear for his 2022 court date, Satary was listed as one of the FBI’s Most Wanted Fraudsters and a global manhunt was launched suggesting that he might be hiding out in some of the Muslim settler communities in the United States in Houston and Atlanta as well as Dubai, where he had lived before coming to America, and “Jordan and the Israel/Palestine areas.”

Khaled Ahmed Satary was recently arrested with the help of unnamed “regional partners” and returned to the United States to face criminal charges a quarter century after his first arrest.

The Gaza ‘Palestinian’ has reportedly inflicted over $600 million in damages during that time.

Even if Satary is finally convicted, sizable portions of his assets were transferred to the Muslim world, including prominent figures in Jordan, or to his wife and his son, also named Jordan, who regularly brags about his wealth on social media. According to Jordan Satary, who is now operating as a “real estate investor” in Texas, he’s busy “blending Palestinian-American heritage with my entrepreneurial journey.”

And so it continues.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Serbia, Israel, and the Ties That Bind 

Michigan: Muslim Flint City Councilman Continues Campaign Despite Election Fraud Charges

John Fetterman: A Man of Principle

Two Charities to Help Afghan Muslims. 2 Duped Women. 1 Murder.

UK: Muslim migrant arrested on suspicion of child rape is MP in Pakistan

Brighton, New York bans Christian symbols in public square, allows Islamic displays

Muslims in Spain Raping, Robbing, and Beating Girls and Women

New York City: Muslim charged in car crash that killed Jewish journalist vandalized a Jewish business days before

Media describes Massachusetts Muslim migrant rapist as ‘delivery man’

After Lying Black Plagiarist Prof Resigns, Leftist Academics Say It Was All Because of — Yeah

This Is Getting Fun: Second Former NBA Star Says He’s a Woman, Declares for WNBA Draft

RELATED VIDEO: THE WHITE HOUSE: A vision for two very different Americas

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Mamdani Blames E-Bike Sellers for Crisis He Refuses to Police

By The Daily Signal

When real-world problems arise, you can always count on socialists to fall back on blaming their old ideological bugaboos rather than addressing them head on.

That appears to be the case in New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been forced to deal with an escalating problem of e-bike fatalities.

You can guess who he blamed for the problem.

“The City has issued cease-and-desist orders to 42 online retailers demanding they immediately stop selling these illegal devices to customers in New York City’s 175 ZIP codes,” the mayor’s office announced. “The products being marketed and shipped into the city exceed legal limits for speed, weight or other safety requirements and cannot lawfully be sold or operated on City streets.”

The retailers have until Aug. 18 to comply with the cease-and-desist order.

Of course, many of the e-bikes sold by these retailers are simply modified to go beyond the original safety limits.

This measure couldn’t be more predictable and likely fruitless. On the surface, Mamdani’s policy seems somewhat reasonable.

New York City is going through a rash of pedestrian fatalities linked to e-bikes, and the problem is getting worse.

The city government should be looking to address this.

But like every good leftist, Mamdani finds it far more convenient to blame objects and the supposedly greedy corporations rather than the real culprits.

Previous Mayor Eric Adams at some point realized the e-bike problem was something he couldn’t ignore and at least targeted the source. Under his administration, the city lowered the speed limit for bikes and added criminal penalties for those who were driving recklessly.

Maybe that’s harsh, but it at least placed the burden of compliance on individual users who choose to break the law—and there are many who do.

If you spend any time walking in the city, you will encounter e-bikers, often food app delivery people, driving unbelievably recklessly.

I’ve had so many near misses with New York City e-bikers driving way too fast and breaking the law. They blow through red lights, go far above the speed limit, and frequently nail pedestrians. I often worry about myself and especially my wife when we take our daughter and stroller to the city.

Some of them make the crazy taxi and ride-share drivers seem downright tame in comparison. So, it makes sense to up enforcement and penalties on this kind of behavior.

Reporter Jesse Singal said it perfectly on X.

“I’ve said this before but basically every day I witness driver behavior that could kill someone,” he wrote. “It’s insane. Even just basic stuff like not blocking crosswalks, forcing moms w/strollers to cut into a traffic lane. Just *enforce the s—- out of potentially fatal behavior!”

Yeah, you tell ‘em.

Of course, Mamdani, like any good socialist, doesn’t believe in individual consequences, personal responsibility, or any of that business.

He immediately removed the criminal penalties for reckless e-bikers when he took office and made it seem like traffic enforcement was some kind of cruel burden.

“Every New Yorker on our roads, whether driving or biking, deserves to be treated fairly,” he said in a statement in March. “By ending criminal summonses for low-level traffic offenses, we’re ensuring cyclists and e-bike riders — including those who deliver our food and groceries — are treated like others on the road.”

Since the problem hasn’t stopped, Mamdani was pushed to take further action. And hitting the capitalists was the best he could come up with. It very much reminds me of when Chicago sued automobile makers for not putting better safety measures on their vehicles when the city got hit with a spike in auto thefts.

There’s a problem with Mamdani’s plan though, even if he doesn’t think punishing individual lawbreakers is a good idea.

The city is currently awash in modified e-bikes. Mamdani was asked at the press conference announcing the crackdown if he would do something about the countless ones currently in use and said “for now, this is our focus.”

A spokesperson for the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance said in an interview with the New York Post that Mamdani’s law is effectively worthless.

“He would not commit to enforcement or e-vehicle registration,” the spokesperson said. “We are left with the same failed policies that created this deadly public health crisis, which has plagued the city for five years. Look at ER stats — it is crystal clear that e-vehicle trauma admissions are only increasing, all while the mayor does absolutely nothing.”

So, Mamdani has merely created the mirage of doing something. He’s good at that. But unless New York aggressively addresses the problem of reckless driving, nothing will change.

AUTHOR

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is a columnist for The Daily Signal. He is also the author of “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.” Send an email to Jarrett. Follow on X JarrettStepman.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Opens Up About His Relationship With Thune as Senate Struggles to Pass SAVE America Act

DEI Comes Back to Bite Democrat Shri Thanedar

Americans Are Demanding the SAVE America Act. Guess What the Senate Did Instead?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

TXSE: Dallas Debuts New Stock Exchange To Rival Wall Street

By The Geller Report

Welcome to the real bull market.

With the Communist Mayor Zohran Mamdani implementing his anti-business agenda, many financial firms will rightfully downsize their operations in New York City. Over time, several will just leave all together. No rational CEO would want to invest or maintain operations in a city that is governed by lunatics like Zohran Mamdani.

There was a time when New York City’s Leftist politicians could penalize successful corporations with impunity. However, with the emergence of Dallas as a major financial center those days are long gone. We can expect Y’all Street to take a big bite out of Wall Street’s financial sector in the years ahead. And we can also expect Miami to do the same.

Dallas debuts new ‘Tex-ee’ stock exchange, plans to rival Wall Street

By New York Post, August 3th, 2026

A new rival to Wall Street officially debuted on Friday as the Texas Stock Exchange went fully live for the first time with trading available for all of its listed tickers.

The Texas Stock Exchange, which is based in Dallas, is the first new major stock exchange to launch in the US in decades. The TXSE, called the “Tex-ee,” is looking to compete with the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq Composite for listings.

The exchange boasts several prominent financial backers, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and Charles Schwab, among others.

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Israel Reports All-Time High of $169 billion in 2025 Exports Despite Nazi-Inspired BDS (Boycott the Jews) Movement

By The Geller Report

Despite the relentless attacks, slanders, and calls to boycott by the Islamic/Commie Left and Woke Right, the Jewish state of Israel continues to flourish. Israel’s economy is going to Pluto.

Israel reports all-time high of $169 billion in 2025 exports

The Foreign Ministry said that the record figures reflect “the strength, resilience and global competitiveness” of the country’s economy.

By JNS, July 30th, 2026

Israel’s exports reached a record $169 billion in 2025, the country’s Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday.

The official Israeli government X account highlighted the all-time high as a reflection of the economy’s “strength, resilience and global competitiveness.”

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

U.S. Bars Imports From 43 More Companies Over China’s Alleged Forced Labor Involving Uyghurs

By The Daily Signal

REUTERS—The United States on Friday banned imports from 43 more companies over alleged human rights abuses of Uyghur and other minority groups, including Hunan Aihua Group, one of China’s largest capacitor manufacturers, according to a government posting.

The companies were added to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, which restricts the import of goods tied to what the U.S. has determined are China’s human rights abuses and ongoing genocide in the Xinjiang region.

The latest additions also include companies in the pharmaceutical, metals, cotton, food and lithium production sectors.

The posting marks the first time companies have been added to the list under the Trump administration, and brings the number of entities on the list from 144 to 187. It is also the largest number of entities added in one action since the Act was signed into law in December 2021. Companies on the list are believed to mine, produce or manufacture their goods with forced labor.

Companies on the List

“Today’s action by the Trump administration strengthens America’s economy against products made with slave labor and sends a message to the Chinese Communist Party that we will not look the other way on its genocide and human rights abuses,” Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on China, said in a statement.

The U.S. has said Chinese authorities have established internment camps for Uyghurs and other religious and ethnic minority groups in China’s western Xinjiang region. Beijing has denied any abuses.

Hunan Aihua Group was added to the list because the U.S. believes the company sources chemical foil and other materials from Xinjiang, the Department of Homeland Security said in the posting in the U.S. Federal Register.

The company, which supplies consumer electronics, industrial, automotive and renewable energy markets,  did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Chacha Food Co., whose products are exported to nearly 50 countries and regions, was also added to the list, according to the posting. Others on the list included Xinjiang Tianhongji Technology Co., Tefeng Pharmaceutical Co., Tianshan Aluminum Group, and Henan Guorong Electronic Technology Co.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The companies could not immediately be reached.

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld; editing by Chizu Nomiyama and David Holmes)

AUTHOR

Reuters

Contributor

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Victor Davis Hanson: California Is Becoming a Warning for America

By The Daily Signal

Victor Davis Hanson: The Democratic Socialists of America are Frankenstein’s Monster

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of Thursday’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal senior contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.

Sami Winc: Let’s turn to California, and California seems to be a petri dish of all those ideas that the Democrats have going.  I’ll read a few of the things that are happening this week in California, and you can provide us with commentary.

The first thing that I think is very interesting is that the federal Congress, the House, has passed a bill for the defense budget of $1.15 trillion. In it, Donald Trump has the ability to seize property in California for an oil pipeline. The property they’re looking at is down near Santa Barbara.

Victor Davis Hanson:  I think it’s on federal land.

Sami Winc: Yeah. And if it’s not, they have the right to buy it up, is what the bill says.

Victor Davis Hanson: Well, basically, he’s saying to Californians, and I think I’m correct, that we have the fourth or fifth largest oil and gas reserves of any state: Monterey Shale offshore, the Elk Reserve, Naval Reserve near Bakersfield.

So he said, “You people have the highest gas prices in the nation, and it’s kind of a drag on the rest of the nation because you have the tech sector, and you’re driving everybody out, and you’re losing your competitiveness. Part of the reason is your fuel is so expensive, your gasoline and diesel fuel, and your electricity.

“You’re trying to get rid of nuclear. Your wind and solar don’t work much, and you’re importing a lot of energy from the Middle East that we don’t like. So we would like to go in and take our federal leases and put them up. There’s a lot of oil out there. Get Chevron and Exxon to pump.

“And there are other areas that have rare earth minerals in the desert you’re not fully utilizing.”

That’s what he’s trying to do.

Sami Winc: All right, let’s look at another story.

There’s a homeless group that works at 17 different homeless facilities in San Francisco, and they just recently lost their funding.

They were being funded at about $26,000 per inhabitant they were taking care of, and their facilities were rife with understaffing, sexual abuse, a dead and decaying body in one case, vermin infestation, broken elevators—the perfect example of how the government is not taking good care.

Victor Davis Hanson: So what happens is the government doesn’t want to deal with it, so it just takes these block grants. Then somebody says, “You know what? They’re paying $26,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 per person. So I’ll just create a little nonprofit, and I’ll say that I’m taking care of people on the street. For maybe six weeks I’ll do a good job.

“But then I don’t want to get around those people. They don’t bathe. They defecate on the street. They’re violent. They’re mentally ill. I’m just gonna pay me and my family and my staff a lot of money and rip off the government.”

That’s what they’re doing.

And they’re not…

Gavin said if they gave him $10 billion, I think, he could solve the homeless problem.

And they did, and it’s worse than ever.

Sami Winc: It’s worse than ever.

Victor Davis Hanson: We know what the only answer for it is to do one of two things, or both: Have everybody come in for a diagnostic test and cut off the drugs so they can’t get fentanyl, and then either do one of two things. If they are mentally unsound, open up state hospitals where they can get care.

And if they’re not, have some kind of little village on the outskirts of town where they have, you know, 200- or 300-square-foot little rooms with a bed and a dresser, and then they have a big group facility with showers and toilets, and make it humane.

And they won’t do that.

Mamdani said, “We’re not gonna take people off the street.”

So he’s got a huge homeless problem in New York.

And Los Angeles—I never believed two things about L.A. I grew up in California, and from when I was a little boy, there was no such thing, really, as downtown L.A. It had the police station and a couple of government buildings, but it wasn’t like San Francisco with high-rises.

Then in the ’90s, as we came on the eve of globalization, it was a window onto China and Japan. You wouldn’t believe it. You’d go down to L.A. in ’93, ’95, ’98, 2002, 2003, and there were like 20 cranes in the sky at any one time. The city was really clean, you know what I mean? It was immaculate. And they had a downtown.

So you couldn’t believe that.

And now you can’t believe it.

When you go down there, the cantinas have taken over everything, and the street merchants, and these beautiful buildings that were just built 30 years ago have graffiti on them. There’s plywood on a lot of the windows where nobody wants to go.

You have to step over people, and it’s deserted. It’s kind of like Santa Monica.

Anything that leftism touches has the anti-Midas touch. It destroys.

And it’s costing a fortune to destroy L.A.

Sami Winc: Yeah.

Victor Davis Hanson: I mean, it’s very expensive to pay homeless people to destroy things.

Sami Winc: Yeah, it is.

It took me a second there, Victor. I’m like, “What?”

Victor Davis Hanson: It is. It was very expensive to tell BLM and Antifa, “Do you want to destroy the country for four months? Well, we won’t arrest you, and we’ll give you a grant. Go ahead and do it.”

Sami Winc: All right.

So California voters have put Proposition 39 on the upcoming ballot, and the state is doing everything to subvert that.

There’s a new story on how they’ve written into the voter ballots a negative summary of it, and then the informational part of it is also negative.

Victor Davis Hanson: Which proposition are you talking about?

Sami Winc: It’s called Proposition 39. It’s a voter ID proposition. So the state’s trying to undermine it, in other words, by subtle means.

Victor Davis Hanson: What usually happens in California is, whether it was Three Strikes, ending affirmative action, or gay marriage—even in its demented state now, after we’ve lost 12 million conservatives to out-of-state immigration—the people still poll that they want it.

Overwhelmingly, they want voter ID.

But by the time the SEIU and the California Teachers Association get done funding against it, and then all of these Bay Area and L.A. wealthy donors, they’ll probably defeat it.

And if they don’t defeat it, some Ninth District left-wing judge who hasn’t been in the news for two months and thinks he’s Socrates wants to be considered cutting-edge and controversial, so he’ll probably throw it out if it were to pass, like they did with gay marriage.

We passed a proposition that said marriage was only between a man and a woman, and you could have a legal relationship, but it wouldn’t be called marriage.

And it passed overwhelmingly.

Then they libeled it and said it was because of the Mormons and Christians.

But actually, the post-election data showed it was mostly Black and Hispanic people, and then they shut up.

The moment that passed, they sent it to a U.S. federal judge, and he threw it out.

At the time, he was living with another man, so you’d think he would have…

And when people said he had a conflict of interest, they said, “That is the worst thing you could say. That is so homophobic.”

So he threw it out, and the people’s will went up in smoke.

That’ll happen with the voter ID initiative unless it gets to the Supreme Court, if it should pass.

Sami Winc: Yeah.

Victor Davis Hanson: I don’t like to be cynical about California, but I’m 72, and I’ve lived here, and I’ve watched it deteriorate. You want to cry when you see what’s happened to it.

Sami Winc: Well, I’m not gonna cheer you up anymore with these last two stories.

One is that California Pizza Kitchen—for anybody who does not live in California, it’s pretty much an institution here. There are 185 stores. The owners have left California, and they also said it’s almost an impossible business environment to operate in. That’s a big business.

The second story is that in the small seaside town of Capitola, a deranged man—I don’t know if he was homeless, actually—Tyler Liljedahl…

Victor Davis Hanson: He was up on felony charges. He’d been let out.

Sami Winc: Yes, he had been let out of jail.

The state also knew that he talked about hearing voices and having homicidal fantasies, and he stabbed to death a woman in a small seaside village that has about 1% of the population in it.

Victor Davis Hanson: If you were to describe the case in Californese, their language, it would be something like this:

“Well, a poor African American young man was only 19, and he made a few errors. He had some violent periods in his life, 19, and we decided not to incarcerate him. We convicted him of a felony, and he’s out now, and for all practical purposes he’s making something of himself.”

But, Mr. Parole Officer, he went to the Capitola Mall to kill somebody, and he saw an elderly Asian male, whom he wanted to kill.

I think he was also a racist, by the way. He didn’t go after other Black people.

But he was afraid the elderly Asian man might put up a fight. So then he found a woman crossing the street, and he thought, ‘Ah, she’s looking at cars, and I’ll just follow her.’”

She was 73.

It was just the classic California dichotomy.

Here was a woman living by herself with a cat. Everybody believed she was beloved. She devoted all of her time to the arts, was an artist, just a wonderful person minding her own business.

Before he followed her, he went to a sporting goods store and bought two—not one, two—knives, because he said he liked to stab with both hands at the same time.

Sami Winc: Yeah, so he bought two knives.

Victor Davis Hanson: Two knives. He goes out, and he stabs her 11 times in the back and chest, through the heart, and he kills her.

And then what will happen?

He’ll be out in three or four years.

This is just…

There are so many things about California.

If I can tell you that if he was a young white guy whose parents came out from Oklahoma, and there was a wonderful, beloved Black artist, and he went out there and stabbed him twice, the whole state right now would be in an uproar about its racist policies.

But they don’t really are.

There’s been no big outrage. It’s just collateral damage.

It’s like the Sikh truck drivers who ran over three people—or whatever they did in California. They rear-ended them.

Oh, they paralyzed that one girl, and he only got five years.

California is really, I think people should understand, a very sick society.

It’s the sickest society of all the states that we have.

And Gavin Newsom has been an accelerant of that sickness.

And it’s a racist state. Twenty-seven percent of the population was foreign-born, and it does not want to acculturate, assimilate, or integrate them.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a Daily Signal senior contributor, hosting a podcast, producing video commentaries, and writing a weekly column. He is the author of “The Counterrevolution The Fall and Rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement.” Follow on X VDHanson.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bass’ Biggest Promise Unravels as LA Homelessness Rises Again

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Senator Mike Lee Blocks Senate Recess: No Vacation Until SAVE America Act Gets a Vote

By The Geller Report

Senator Mike Lee formally stated on X that he will object to any unanimous consent request or effort by Majority Leader John Thune to put the Senate into an August recess until the SAVE America Act is passed, requesting a recorded roll-call vote.

Background and Conflict:

  • The Demand: Lee and Senator Rick Scott are pushing to cancel or delay the August break, arguing that the Senate should stay in continuous session to pass the election security legislation.
  • The Leadership Stance: Leader Thune has maintained that the chamber lacks the 60 votes required to overcome a Democratic filibuster and does not have the numbers to change Senate rules, creating friction with conservative members and the White House.
  • The Legislation: The SAVE America Act proposes mandatory photo ID at polls and direct proof of U.S. citizenship to register for federal elections.

Trump Shares Warren Clip to Push SAVE America Act on Voter Verification

The post on Truth Social urges passage of the SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship like a passport or birth certificate for federal voter registration and photo ID at polls. It follows New Jersey data showing 75,000 noncitizens summoned for jury duty each year from state databases, though courts confirm safeguards keep them from serving, and a recent glitch added 6,600 to voter rolls with few voting. Similar concerns arose in Pennsylvania, with conservatives like Sen. Mike Lee demanding action amid House passage and Senate pushes, while critics argue it burdens citizens without easy access to documents.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.