Jerome R. Corsi's Blog

Kamala Harris, Gov. Tim Walz, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff and Mrs. Walz greet supporters at a hangar at Pittsburgh International Airport, Pennsylvania, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2024.

PALM BEACH, Florida – President Donald Trump, who on Thanksgiving Day called Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz “seriously retarded,” is now doubling down on that claim, saying there is “absolutely” something wrong with the Democrat governor who has allowed his state to be packed with Somalians.

Aboard Air Force One on a flight from Palm Beach to the nation’s capital Sunday evening, a reporter asked the president: “You mentioned Tim Walz, and you called him what many Americans find an offensive word, retarded. Do you stand by that claim of calling Tim Walz retarded?”

Trump replied: “Yeah, I think there’s something wrong with him. Absolutely. You have a problem with it? I think there’s something wrong with him.”

“Anybody who would do what he did, anybody that would allow those people into a state and pay billions of dollars out to Somalia, we give billions of dollars to Somalia. It’s not even a country because it doesn’t function like a country. It’s got a name but it doesn’t function like a country. Yeah, there’s something wrong with Walz.”

Asked if he stands by calling Minnesota governor Tim Walz retarded, Trump responds, “Yeah, there’s something wrong with Walz.” pic.twitter.com/oN956MN1Oy

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) November 30, 2025

In a blistering late-night Truth Social post on Thanksgiving, Trump originally said: “The seriously retarded Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, does nothing, either through fear, incompetence, or both.”

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

“Somalian gangs are roving the streets looking for ‘prey’ as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses hoping against hope that they will be left alone.”

pic.twitter.com/OaHzQT4Z3g

— Tapas (@Tapas1776) November 30, 2025

Walz responded Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying: “Look, Donald Trump insulting me is a badge of honor for me, but I think we all know both as an educator for a couple decades and as a parent using that term is just so damaging. It’s hurtful.”

NEW: Governor Tim Walz, who once said he was friends with school shooters, says being called “seriously retarded” by President Trump is a badge of honor for him.

“Look, Donald Trump insulting me is a badge of honor for me…” pic.twitter.com/P1iehXd0YD

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 30, 2025

As Fox News reported Nov. 21, “A new investigation found that Minnesota taxpayer dollars were going far beyond the North Star State’s borders and ending up in the hands of Al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda-linked terror group.

“Ryan Thorpe and Christopher F. Rufo of the Manhattan Institute uncovered a web of fraud involving Minnesota’s Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services program, Feeding Our Future and other organizations in a bombshell report. Thorpe and Rufo noted that, in many cases, members of Minnesota’s Somali community were perpetrators of fraud. They added that federal counterterrorism sources confirmed that millions of dollars in stolen funds were sent back to Somalia, which is how Al-Shabaab got the cash.

“Thorpe and Rufo sought to answer a bigger question when looking into the schemes: ‘Where did the money go?'”

“As it turned out, the Somali fraud rings sent money transfers from Minnesota to Somalia and, according to reports, approximately 40% of households in Somalia get remittances from abroad. Thorpe and Rufo state that in 2023, the Somali diaspora sent $1.7 billion to the country, which was higher than the Somali government’s budget that same year.”

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

Michelle Marie Ball

A Christian organizer of a North Carolina vigil for slain civil-rights leader Charlie Kirk says she was forced to lie under oath concerning a man pretending to be a woman who allegedly threatened her life.

“I was in court because a man who claims to be transgender threatened my life,” said Michelle Marie Ball of Monroe, North Carolina, in a video she posted on X.

“And of course I put my hand on the Bible and I swore that I would tell the truth. And the defense attorney was totally telling me what I could say and not say, and the judge was allowing it. And they made me call him ‘her.'”

A transgender was charged in North Carolina for making threats against a woman. The Democrat-endorsed judge Ali Paksoy, is reportedly forcing her to LIE and refer to the trans MALE in court with his “preferred pronouns”, she/her

Activist judges want us to affirm the delusions of… pic.twitter.com/ZRHY2fnZGA

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 30, 2025

Ironically, the North Carolina court system in Union County has the accused listed as Bryan Quinn Murphy, a “white male” who has an alias of Kara Murphy.

Murphy is facing charges of communicating threats and cyberstalking to which he has pleaded not guilty.

Bryan Quinn Murphy, a.k.a. Kara Murphy

Court records indicate the prosecutor, Christian James Swope, said “the defendant unlawfully and willfully did threaten to physically injure” Ball by posting a meme on her Facebook page.

The wording of that meme specifically states, “If you keep quoting Charlie Kirk I’m gonna f***ing kill you,” without the expletive being deleted.

Swope said this caused the victim “to believe this threat is real [given] the implied emotions of other postings and believes her life is in danger since she was instrumental in helping at a Charlie Kirk vigil just the night before posting.”

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

He added Murphy electronically communicated with Ball “repeatedly for the purpose of threatening, annoying and harassing” her.

According to court documents, Turkish-American Democrat Ali Paksov Jr. is the judge who let transgender activist Brian “Kara” Quinn Murphy off for threatening to “f—ing kill” a Charlie Kirk vigil organizer

Michelle Ball says she was forced in court to refer to Quinn as “her” https://t.co/YcrswtugqL pic.twitter.com/SbRoKSLYJg

— Old North Patriots (@oldnorthpats) November 28, 2025

The judge handling the case is Ali Paksoy.

LibsofTikTok noted: “Activist judges want us to affirm the delusions of mentally ill people.”

Matt Van Swol, a former nuclear scientist for the U.S. Energy Department, said: “Any judge that denies reality like this cannot be trusted to deliver justice and must be removed from the bench. Period. End of story.”

Other commenters are saying:

“Judge Ali Paksoy should be removed from the bench by the appropriate state judicial board for ordering a victim and witness to commit perjury in violation of the law. All involved should file complaints against the judge.”

“This woman better file suit immediately for infringement of her First Amendment right. You absolutely would not make me call a man a woman.”

“This is about reality and the Orwellian attempt to get citizens to deny reality because of a ruling by an instrument of the state. This is evil.”

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

A live Nativity re-creation in Stuart, Florida (Photo by Joe Kovacs)

The fate of baby Jesus may have been very different if Republicans were in charge some 2,000 years ago.

That’s the opinion of U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, who appeared Sunday on MS Now.

“I just want to be clear. This is the [Republican] party that says that they care so much about life until life actually shows up at their front door,” Crockett said.

“And this is also the party that is supposedly about Christianity and I just imagine what they would have done to a little baby Jesus but that’s a whole other issue.”

JASMINE CROCKETT: “[The GOP] is the party that supposedly is about Christianity and I just imagine what they would have done to a little baby Jesus.”

Well, the Democrats would’ve kiIIed little baby Jesus while he was still in the womb, so… pic.twitter.com/B90XGlUFBn

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 30, 2025

Crockett was discussing a report last week claiming hundreds of immigrants children were being held in federal detention centers.

ProPublica reported: “Since the start of this year, some 600 immigrant children have been placed in government shelters by ICE, according to government data. That figure, which has not been previously reported, is already higher than the tally for the previous four years combined. And it is the highest number since recordkeeping began a decade ago.”

Crockett went on to say: “It is really so heartbreaking. We know that under the prior Trump administration, it was the children in cages.

“So for me, expecting them to do better by children was not one of the things that was on my bingo card.”

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

As WorldNetDaily reported in 2019, it was actually former President Barack Obama who put kids in cages.

Obama’s top official in charge of removing illegal aliens has confirmed the “cages” used to detain juveniles who are in the country illegally were established by the Obama administration.

“I’ve been to that facility, where they talk about cages. That facility was built under President Obama under [Homeland Security] Secretary Jeh Johnson,” said Tom Homan, Obama’s executive associate director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A screenshot of the Drudge Report on June 20, 2018, saying President Obama kept migrant children in cages and wrapped them in foil

“I was there … when it was built,” he said, reported Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner.

Homan is currently the White House border czar in the administration of President Donald Trump.

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

Media scramble after realizing Obama’s child detention worse than Trump’s

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);

Obama appointee confirms: Kids ‘cages’ created ‘under Obama’

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);

President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral lunch meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Friday, Oct. 17, 2025. (Official White House photo by Daniel Torok)

Surrounded by expansionist empires, the Kingdom of Poland and the Duchy of Lithuania formed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the Union of Lublin in 1569. This multi-ethnic and religiously diverse constitutional monarchy stretched from the Baltic Sea to the heartland of modern-day Ukraine. Unlike its authoritarian neighbors, the Commonwealth adopted a parliamentary system that blended aspects of federation and confederation. Elected nobles negotiated with the monarch and checked imperial overreach. For over 200 years, the Commonwealth battled an onslaught of expansionist empires to include the Russians, Swedes, Hapsburgs, and Ottomans. A new Commonwealth would serve as a bulwark against authoritarians in Moscow and overzealous bureaucrats in Brussels.

Following a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire, Poland and Ukraine should hold a constitutional convention and form a united Commonwealth. This union would significantly enhance the economic and defense security of NATO. Since joining the European Union in 2004, Poland’s GDP has increased annually at 4%, significantly outpacing the economies of Germany, France, and Italy.  By some estimates, Poland’s per capita GDP will exceed that of the United Kingdom by 2040.  Poland’s extraordinary economic growth model could be replicated in Ukraine, creating a manufacturing, agricultural, and mining juggernaut. The Commonwealth could court trade and investment from the United States by diversifying critical supply chains away from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In time, the Commonwealth could build the capability and capacity to extract and refine rare earth metals at scale. Additionally, the Commonwealth could responsibly produce essential precursors to pharmaceuticals. This would not only create a reliable source outside of the PRC but also constrain their use in the illicit drug trade. By weakening the PRC stranglehold on rare earths and pharmaceutical precursors, the Commonwealth would be a critical partner to the U.S. and its allies for years to come.

NATO inclusion would not be automatic but would most likely follow the model of German unification. The newly formed Commonwealth would negotiate terms of NATO membership just as a unified Germany did at the Paris Agreements in 1990.  Because ongoing territorial disputes would be a sticking point to NATO accession, the Commonwealth would likely have to yield conquered land to Russia. This would be a bitter pill to swallow but could be softened by constraining and taxing Russian exports. All likeminded nations that currently support Ukraine could agree to restrict the importation of Russian goods by requiring their transport over Ukrainian territory. Future Russian exports would not be permitted to be delivered by NORDSTREAM pipelines or ships but instead would have to travel via pipeline, rail, or truck through the Commonwealth. This requirement would enable the Commonwealth to extract reparations by taxing the transport of all Russian exports. This agreement could be ratified by treaty and extend over a certain period of time or up to a specified amount of revenue. This would set a useful precedent that would influence PRC calculus to invade Taiwan. Despite battlefield results, aggressors will suffer long-term economic consequences.

Not only an economic powerhouse, the Commonwealth could serve as an arsenal for democracy. Since Russia’s 2022 invasion, NATO nations have been embarrassingly slow to increase the production of munitions or unmanned systems in a meaningful way. The Commonwealth could scale the production of explosives, fuses, and artillery rounds to replenish NATO and ally stocks. Moreover, the Commonwealth could leverage its warfighting experience to train and arm NATO nations with battle-tested unmanned systems to sense, strike, protect, and sustain. No military has integrated and employed unmanned systems more than Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Commonwealth could partner with allies to address electronic warfare capability shortfalls among allies. Ukraine has demonstrated that electronic warfare is critical on the modern battlefield. When leveraged correctly, it can increase one’s survivability or enable kinetic targeting of the enemy. Finally, the Commonwealth could model or join recent U.S.-UK nuclear initiatives aimed at driving down the cost of energy for consumers and producers alike. Upstream, the Commonwealth could speed the approvals and construction of advanced nuclear reactors (ANRs) and integration into the power grid. Downstream, the Commonwealth could fabricate specialized components for these reactors or host facilities that process, recycle, and safely dispose of nuclear material.

A Polish-Ukrainian Commonwealth would create an emerging European power with the capacity to check Russian aggression and undermine PRC asymmetric advantages. The Commonwealth would immediately field the most lethal and capable army in Europe. In short time, it could develop a significant defense industrial base that supplies Europe and allies with munitions and unmanned autonomous systems. With a combined population of around 75 million people and the pro-growth policies of Poland, the Commonwealth could serve as Europe’s next engine of growth. Down the road, a strong Commonwealth would be poised to partner with a reformed, democratic Russia.

COL Joe Z. Wells is a seminar leader at the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and Army University.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and not that of the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

(Official White House photo by Erin Scott)

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Department of Justice under President Joe Biden consulted with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leftist activist group notorious for comparing mainstream conservatives and Christians to the Ku Klux Klan, and Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, formally asked Attorney General Pam Bondi for all related documents.

“The committee is continuing to investigate the Biden-Harris Department of Justice’s and Federal Bureau of Investigation’s weaponization of federal law-enforcement resources against conservative Americans,” Jordan wrote in the Tuesday letter exclusively provided to The Daily Signal.

The Ohio Republican congressman noted that “the DOJ, during Attorney General Merrick Garland’s tenure, colluded with the radical, left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center on matters relating to federal civil rights enforcement.”

“The extent of the SPLC’s influence over our nation’s federal law enforcement during the Biden-Harris administration is deeply concerning, and we respectfully request additional information on this matter,” Jordan added.

A Close Relationship

The letter cites multiple documents obtained by America First Legal showing that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division partnered with the SPLC “including scheduling regular meetings, giving the SPLC early access to federal law-enforcement data, and also allowing SPLC employees to train DOJ prosecutors.” Among other things, the DOJ cited the SPLC in a memo targeting “radical traditional Catholics,” and then-Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke met with SPLC staff repeatedly.

“The SPLC routinely maligns conservative and religious organizations, such as Turning Point USA, Family Research Council, and Moms for Liberty, as ‘hate’ groups simply because the SPLC disagrees with their views,” the letter adds.

“The fact that the Biden-Harris DOJ would foster a close relationship with the SPLC, knowing its biased political ideology, is concerning and just more evidence of the Biden-Harris administration’s weaponization of the federal government against certain Americans.”

The letter asks Bondi to hand over all documents relating to interaction between the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and the SPLC; all documents and communications relating to meetings or trainings involving the SPLC and the division; all documents relating to funds the division used to coordinate meetings, conduct trainings, and schedule events with the SPLC; and all documents relating to the DOJ’s use of SPLC material. The committee requests all documents between Jan. 20, 2021 and Jan. 20, 2025.

The SPLC

The SPLC has faced renewed scrutiny after the assassination of Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10. The SPLC gained its reputation by suing Ku Klux Klan groups into bankruptcy, and it now publishes a “hate map” the includes conservative and Christian groups alongside Klan chapters. The SPLC added Turning Point USA, Kirk’s organization, to the “hate map” in May.

In 2012, a terrorist used the “hate map” to target the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian nonprofit in Washington, D.C.

The SPLC condemned both the Kirk assassination and the attack on FRC, but it has kept both groups on the “hate map.”

Last month, FBI Director Kash Patel announced that the bureau had formally severed all ties with the SPLC, which he called a “partisan smear machine.”

Big Tech companies used the SPLC to police content on their platforms, but the companies have distanced themselves from the group in the wake of Kirk’s assassination. Some companies use the SPLC to screen potential nonprofit recipients of employee matching grants, but companies are beginning to cease this practice.

The SPLC fired its co-founder, Morris Dees, amid a racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal in 2019. During that scandal, the SPLC unionized. After a round of layoffs last year, the SPLC Union demanded the ouster of then-President Margaret Huang, and she departed from the nonprofit earlier this year.

Rep. James Comer, who heads the House Oversight Committee, has announced investigations into the dark money infrastructure of the Left, particularly looking into ActBlue.

Jordan’s letter asks Bondi to send the documents by Dec. 9.

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]

Arabella Advisors, a for-profit company that managed services for many influential dark money nonprofits on the Left, is no more—or so it seems.

Sunflower Services, a new public benefit corporation, announced on Monday that it would be acquiring “Arabella Advisors’ fiscal sponsorship servicing business.” Meanwhile, Arabella’s former CEO, Himesh Bhise, announced that he would lead a supposedly new company, Vital Impact.

A Nov. 19 email to Arabella Advisors received an automated response stating, “As of November 17, 2025 Arabella Advisors has ceased operations.”

What, exactly, is Sunflower Services? Well, it’s a completely new company financed by… lead investor New Venture Fund, with financial support from the Windward and Hopewell Funds.

These names should be familiar to longtime observers of Arabella Advisors. New Venture Fund, Windward Fund, and Hopewell Fund are three of the “seven sisters” dark money nonprofits that received services from Arabella. These are the nonprofits organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

These groups acted as “fiscal sponsors,” housing various quasi-independent projects that did not register as separate entities. Critics say this system allows donors to fund activist projects through the nonprofits—cloaking what their dollars are actually paying for. These groups funded many of the left-wing activist groups that fed staff and ideas into the Biden administration, particularly pushing climate alarmism. The Open Society Foundations, founded by Hungarian American billionaire George Soros and now run by his son, Alex, has contributed millions to the nonprofits who were Arabella’s clients.

The other nonprofits—Sixteen Thirty Fund, North Fund, and Impetus Fund—more politically active groups organized under Section 501(c)(4), were notably absent from the Sunflower Services press release.

Vital Impact told The Daily Signal that “none” of these nonprofits “will be clients of Vital Impact.”

“Arabella Advisors’ fiscal sponsorship business, including its existing infrastructure and operations team, was acquired by Sunflower Services, which is unrelated to Vital Impact,” Vital Impact said in a statement Tuesday. “Vital Impact is a new, nonpartisan professional services firm focused on strategy, operations, and technology support for the social sector.”

According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Sunflower Services will absorb roughly 243 staff from Arabella Advisors, which had 425 employees in 2023. It remains unclear how many staff will move to Vital Impact.

The Gates Foundation dealt a major blow to Arabella Advisors earlier this year, ending its longstanding partnership with the for-profit company.

Elias Law Group, which previously represented Arabella Advisors, did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment as to whether it still represents the nonprofits, or Sunflower Services or Vital Impact.

What Is Vital Impact?

Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, directed The Daily Signal to a document that might shed light on the relationship between Arabella Advisors and Vital Impact.

On Monday, Arabella Advisors filed “Articles of Amendment” with the Virginia State Corporation Commission, seeking a “Name Change” to “Vital Impact.” In the Virginia system, the same entity (Number S1572793) merely altered the name from Arabella Advisors to Vital Impact.

“What will Vital Impact be doing and how is it different from what Arabella Advisors was doing?” Sutherland asked.

When asked about this document, Vital Impact repeated the claim that it is a new firm.

“This is a straightforward administrative point,” the company told The Daily Signal. “The legal entity formerly known as Arabella Advisors, LLC filed a name change following the sale of its fiscal sponsorship services business — long associated with Arabella Advisors — to Sunflower Services.”

“Vital Impact is a new, nonpartisan firm built from the business assets acquired over the past several years — including Redstone Strategy Group, Kiwi Partners, and Ribbon Technology,” the company added. “These teams now operate together as Vital Impact, completely separate from the fiscal sponsorship services business purchased by Sunflower Services.”

The Funds Respond

The 501(c)(3) nonprofits that previously worked with Arabella each praised Sunflower Services.

“New Venture Fund is proud to serve as lead investor in Sunflower Services because we see it as a strategic opportunity to strengthen the entire social impact ecosystem,” the fund told The Daily Signal Wednesday. “The Public Benefit Corporation structure ensures that Sunflower’s success is directly tied to the success of the organizations it supports. Because Sunflower is owned by nonprofits, the work remains deeply mission-aligned, ensuring that every resource is directed toward meaningful impact.”

“Hopewell is investing in Sunflower because we believe that when social justice organizations have world-class infrastructure, they can focus their energy where it belongs – on building power and creating change,” Hopewell Fund told The Daily Signal.

“Sunflower’s commitment to directness, accountability, and responsible business practices is exactly what organizations—especially those working on climate and environmental solutions—need from a true values-aligned partner,” Windward Fund told The Daily Signal.

Why the Change?

Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center and author of the book “Arabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires Secretly Transforming America,” characterized the transition as a “rebrand” and took credit for making the Arabella Advisors brand “toxic.”

“We’re proud of ourselves for what we’ve been able to do,” Walter told The Daily Signal in a phone call Tuesday. “Why do you rebrand? To make yourself less toxic.”

Walter dismissed the idea that Arabella Advisors might have been going out of business. He noted that the 2024 IRS records for the Arabella-connected nonprofits recently became public, and “total nonprofit revenues were up a bit in 2024.”

“It is just a rebranding and a complexifying and maybe it’s also a c3-c4 splitting,” he theorized.

Walter has repeatedly testified before Congress, sometimes alongside me, on how Americans’ tax dollars supported left-leaning groups such as the nonprofits linked to Arabella. His work on Arabella, along with my research, highlighted the structure and political influence of the Left’s dark money network.

Walter suggested Sunflower Services acquired Arabella Advisors in part to make the dark money funding trail more complex. “The more complex this story is, the harder it is for you or me to explain it anywhere,” he said.

A Threat from the Trump Administration?

The Arabella move comes two months after President Donald Trump issued a memorandum on “countering domestic terrorism and organized political violence” that highlights domestic threats allegedly motivated by “anti-fascist” forces and targets “organized structures, networks, entities, organizations,” and funding sources allegedly behind the violence.

The Free Press reported that Trump’s memo had a “chilling effect” on major liberal foundations.

Lawson Bader, president and CEO of Donors Trust, told The Daily Signal that he did not think Arabella had anything to do with violence, but suggested that Arabella’s dissolution is “in part” a “response to the White House directive.”

“No question, ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ organizations are feeling the pressure of the public statements from the White House,” Bader said. He suggested some of them regret not being “as aggressively critical of Barack Obama and Joe Biden when conservative nonprofits were getting harassed.”

Bader expressed hope that nonprofits on the Right and the Left can form “multi-ideological alliances to keep the IRS away from everybody (except those obviously doing actual illegal things).”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson emphasized the focus on illegality in her statement to The Daily Signal on the issue.

“The president’s executive actions to address left-wing violence will employ a whole-of-government approach to end to any illegal activities,” she told The Daily Signal.

Sunflower Services, Sixteen Thirty Fund, North Fund, and Impetus Fund did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]

Perhaps no issue in modern society is more divisive or emotional than whether children should receive sex-change treatments. Yet Nov. 18 could very well be remembered as the day when that debate was largely settled.

That’s the day when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued its final report on the medical evidence regarding child sex-change treatments. HHS released an early version of the report in May, but in the intervening months, it directly asked skeptical physicians and medical associations to scrutinize its conclusions.

Amazingly, none of them could disprove HHS’ conclusion that the medical risks to children far outweigh any potential benefits of sex-change treatments. So-called “gender-affirming” treatments can have lifelong consequences for children’s physical and mental health, including infertility, sterility, sexual dysfunction, metabolic disorders, surgical complications, depression, and more. HHS is therefore right to urge that children be protected from such treatments, instead pursuing therapy for conditions, like depression and autism, that commonly accompany gender confusion.

Rarely will you see a more honest or humble approach to such a tricky medical issue. When HHS released its initial report in May, critics, including some of the most prominent medical groups, condemned the report. HHS could have ignored them, but it didn’t. It asked critics to offer a peer review – a foundational step in determining the accuracy of scientific findings.

Federal officials reached out to groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and the American Psychiatric Association, inviting them to analyze the report and explain what it got wrong. All three organizations have strongly supported giving children access to invasive and irreversible treatments such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-change surgeries. They also vehemently opposed HHS’ initial report in May, with the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the 409-page document within hours of its release.

Despite the HHS outreach, the Academy and the Endocrine Society refused to submit a peer review. That’s telling: When given the chance to offer evidence in support of child sex-change treatments, they declined. If they had good arguments to back their position, they would have eagerly presented them, and rebutted those of the HHS report.

The American Psychiatric Association, to its credit, did submit a peer review. But it was surprisingly devoid of substance. It noted that the initial report didn’t list its authors, even though blinded peer-review is common practice in scientific publishing. The APA also seems to have missed critical parts of the report, claiming that HHS didn’t describe its methodology when in fact it did. All told, the APA couldn’t find any substantive errors in the HHS report. Nor did it criticize the report’s discussion of psychotherapy as an alternative to hormones and surgeries.

Other critics who separately published reviews didn’t identify errors or omissions, either. They broadly claim that HHS is misrepresenting the evidence, but they only point to select studies while ignoring the report’s detailed analyses of these studies, showing their methodological problems. More importantly, the critics ignored the systematic reviews that have led other countries to restrict children’s access to transgender treatments. At the end of the day, none of the critical reviewers disprove or even engage substantively with the central conclusions of the HHS report.

Other peer reviewers agreed with the HHS report. That includes a former president of the Endocrine Society, who called its review method “particularly helpful.” He also said the report “reasonably reflect[s]” the current state of evidence. Yet the medical association he once led refused to supply evidence to the contrary, endorsing child sex changes on effectively baseless grounds.

No doubt, some people will be tempted to reject the HHS report because it was issued under the Trump administration. Yet the report itself wasn’t authored by political appointees or partisan hacks. The list of authors is now publicly known, and it includes highly respected medical doctors and Ph.D.s from MIT, Duke University, Baylor College of Medicine, and the University of South Florida. It also includes a variety of experts from medical associations and academic institutions, including liberals. Together, they earnestly and thoroughly reviewed the science, and their conclusions have now withstood strong scrutiny.

Put simply, the latest HHS report is the most comprehensive and evidence-based review of child sex-change treatments in the world. It lends support to the Trump administration’s efforts to stop child sex changes; it also justifies the 27 states that have limited children’s access to such treatments. Without a doubt, this debate isn’t over, given how politically and emotionally charged it is. But on Nov. 18, it became abundantly clear that the best medical science supports protecting children.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

A B-1B Lancer assigned to the 34th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, takes off during a training mission in support of Bomber Task Force 25-1 at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Feb. 24, 2025. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)

For nearly a century, America’s military strength has come largely through self-reliance. We not only made the ships, airplanes and tanks, our country supplied the parts and materials for these complex systems. But a lot has changed in recent times.

Unfortunately, our military has increasingly relied on sourcing parts globally — including from possibly unreliable places like China. It’s a disastrous side effect of globalization.

For example, while modern jet engines may typically include between 30,000 and 50,000 parts, ensuring they are “China-free” has proven to be incredibly difficult. We’ve already seen deliveries of F-35s delayed over this issue, revealing that supply chain risk and delays remain in the post-COVID era. For instance, in 2022, a magnet in the turbomachine used in engine start-up was discovered to contain a China-produced alloy of cobalt and samarium – figuratively becoming a “non-starter” for using the jets.

Moreover, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report this past July entitled, “Defense Industrial Base: Actions Needed to Address Risks Posed by Dependence on Foreign Suppliers” which pretty much summed it up.

While America has inadvertently offered an Achilles Heel to potential foes, the Chinese are using the global wealth transfer to invest in its defense manufacturing base. Largely relying on intellectual property theft, also known as stealing, China is focusing on stealth design, advanced jet engines, and artificial intelligence, thereby altering the playing field.

As China has risen, America’s manufacturing sector has steadily declined, losing millions of jobs and share of global output.

China has allocated vast resources towards subsidizing and onshoring manufacturing and development of “indigenous” advanced propulsion systems, and are catching up to our military engines – challenging air superiority.

This is why appropriate investment by Congress in the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) systems is essential to maintaining America’s technological and military lead.

While the U.S. Air Force has made significant investments in funding for NGAP development, it comes after stagnation in military propulsion.

In President Trump’s FY26 Budget proposal, NGAP was funded at roughly $330 million, representing a 23% decrease in funding from the previous year. Underfunding engine development puts the program at risk of significant schedule delays and cost increases. These facts lay the groundwork for a serious debate in both chambers of Congress as they look to fund our current and future military needs.

While U.S. companies are working on a prototype that will improve performance, increase range, and fuel efficiency of fighter jets, it can only grow at the pace of investment.

NGAP is designed to power the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform, America’s first sixth generation fighter, (now designated as the F-47). Its combination of stealth, speed and maneuverability would probably seem like science fiction to military pilots a century ago. NGAD is designed to work with unmanned Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) for air dominance. Unmanned CCA’s, perhaps the world’s most advanced drones, will fly alongside manned NGAD as a so-called “loyal wingman” and can be configured for a wide variety of missions.

While the F-47 is not expected to enter service until the 2030s, unfortunately for America, China has already introduced not one, but two flying sixth generation fighters on the same day last year. Little is known about the capabilities of the two models, but the fact that China has developed and flown two advanced fighter designs before the F-47 even put a rivet to metal should be incredibly concerning for all Americans.

For the U.S. to counter this challenge, a robust, resilient domestic manufacturing base in high-tech industries is essential. This requires not only investing in advanced manufacturing facilities but also revitalizing workforce training programs, increasing R&D funding, and fostering innovation ecosystems in key technological areas.

Though China is among our top trading partners, it’s also paradoxically among our top threats. It strongly supports North Korea, an existential threat to our allies South Korea and Japan. Meanwhile, we generously support Taiwan, which it sees as a renegade province worthy of invasion at any time. Our heavy reliance on China trade, combined with adversarial alliances is not only unwise, but also a recipe for catastrophe. Therefore, we must divorce China from our military manufacturing and supply system entirely. Either that or simply abandon our Pacific allies and do a “180” in foreign policy – a major defeat of American power.

We can and should bring more domestic manufacturing back to the U.S. through smarter policies and programs. We must strengthen investment to ensure potential adversaries do not gain a military and technological edge. Congress and President Trump ought to insist upon it.

Scott Vadnais is a retired Air Force officer and served in dozens of countries around the world, including Europe, Middle East, and Far East. He is also a former senior strategic planner at General Dynamics Information Technologies.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

In early November, U.S. Rep. Troy Balderson’s (R-Ohio) simple Affordable, Reliable, and Clean Energy Security Act underscored the titanic shift in the public psyche over the past decade. Note, it’s neither the “Clean and Reliable Act” nor the “Clean and Affordable Act.” Instead, affordability gets top billing.

This is no accident: Electricity costs are skyrocketing, and affordability is top of mind for Americans. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports average retail revenues per kWh increased in 46 states since last August. Those rates vary significantly from state to state, from a 23% increase in Maine to an 8% decrease in Hawaii.

Looking at American households, residential electricity rates alone rose by 6% over the last three months.

And this isn’t a recent phenomenon. The National Center for Energy Analytics points out that, since the beginning of 2010, the average change in residential electric prices increased by 63%.

What’s driving these double-digit increases? Customers are now experiencing the full impact of decades of divestment from reliable energy generation in favor of intermittent and costly substitutes. For decades, states have engaged in a green-tinted race to the bottom, competing over clean-energy credentials. States have increasingly imposed mandates for renewable energy and insisted that intermittent power from the sun and the wind was the most affordable option.

But in practice, this transition gave us higher rates and a fragile grid. Over the last five years, an alarming number of grid crises have rocked communities nationwide. Major events included the California heat wave in 2020, Winter Storm Uri in Texas in 2021, and Winter Storm Elliot in the mid-Atlantic in 2022. Elliot, though mild compared to other storms, revealed weak points in Pennsylvania’s grid.

Faced with no heat in the depths of winter or air conditioning in the height of summer, it didn’t take long for the consensus on clean and green to shift to reliable and affordable.

But rather than present a realistic correction, several elected leaders opted to scapegoat. Last December, five governors sued PJM Interconnection, claiming the grid operator failed to take steps to bring down prices. However, the prices these governors railed against were the predictable result of supply shortages stemming from their misguided policies, such as enforcing costly climate-related mandates and prematurely closing fossil fuel power plants.

Even blue-state governors have reversed course on the “clean is king” myth. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul approved a new gas pipeline through her state “to ensure grid reliability and affordability.” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has touted lower costs as a major goal of the latest energy reform bill that ends the state’s moratorium on new nuclear generation. Energy affordability was the leading kitchen-table issue for the recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey — though the governors-elect’s policies are suspect.

Clean and green is no longer the consensus as residents begin to question when the rising rates will end.

In Pennsylvania, the pivot away from carbon taxes to spur clean energy was clear when the recent state budget eliminated the years-long effort to enter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the multistate compact that caps emissions from power producers and sells “allowances” to them.

But the cap-and-trade scheme proved to be politically untenable. Economic forecasts showed that RGGI would increase electricity bills by 30%. Also, even with RGGI, forecasts showed increased carbon emissions across the PJM grid. Despite his best efforts to keep RGGI alive, Gov. Josh Shapiro relented, agreeing to withdraw his appeal to a lower court’s ruling that rightly stated RGGI was an unconstitutional tax—a noteworthy first for any state considering such a compact.

Clean is no longer top of mind, but affordability is. Poll after poll reveals a growing concern among voters about their ability to afford their utility bills.

Fortunately, Pennsylvania can show the way. In fact, the Keystone State pulled off the unimaginable: It cut emissions while also increasing electricity generation. Pennsylvania’s Independent Fiscal Office found that, from 2019 to 2024, the commonwealth removed seven million metric tons of carbon emissions — roughly the same amount cut by its RGGI neighbor to the east, New Jersey. However, during the same period, New Jersey’s electricity generation decreased by 13% while Pennsylvania’s increased by 5%.

With numbers like that, who needs RGGI?

Pennsylvania demonstrates that “affordability” and “clean” aren’t mutually exclusive terms. It is possible to have the best of both worlds.

And that’s what legislation like the Affordable, Reliable, and Clean Energy Security Act accomplishes: It reflects the voters’ desire to balance cost with reliability and environmental stewardship. Lucky for us, that’s precisely what markets can do.

This article was originally published by RealClearPennsylvania and made available via RealClearWire.

Sec. Scott Turner is restoring “biological truth” at the Department of Housing and Urban Development by making sure males can’t invade female-only shelters, he told The Daily Signal in an exclusive interview.

“Under the Biden administration, they really ignored biological truth and forced DEI extreme ideology,” he said. “And so when we came into HUD, we not only eradicated DEI, but also want to uphold biological truth and to protect our female homeless shelters. And so instead of having men be able to enter in to our women’s shelters, we cut that out for the protection and the safety of ladies that are in HUD-funded shelters.”

Turner announced a new FY2025 Continuum of Care Program Notice of Funding Opportunity which cracks down on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, gender ideology, and the use of taxpayer dollars on housing for illegal aliens. The Continuum of Care competition is the largest single federal homelessness program, providing $3.9 billion in funding.

In a departure from the Biden administration, the notice says that applicants cannot rely on nonbinary definitions of sex.

“Many times, ladies go into those shelters and are coming out of domestic violence and abusive situations, and so we want to make sure that we protect all of our ladies that go into HUD funded shelters and not promote just allowing men to come in to those shelters,” Turner said.

“I’ve received communications from people saying, ‘Thank you,’” he continued. “People want to feel safe, they’re already in a distressed, desperate situation, and so to be under the threat of further harm, we can no longer allow that.”

Last year’s Continuum of Care Notice of Funding Opportunity under Biden required grant applicants to consider ways to “address the needs of LGBTQ+, transgender, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary individuals and families in their planning processes.”

“Additionally, when considering which projects to select in their local competition to be included in their application to HUD, CoCs should ensure that all projects provide privacy, respect, safety, and access regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation,” the notice said. “CoCs should also partner with organizations with expertise in serving LGBTQ+ populations.

Applicants were required to be in “compliance with equity requirements, including racial equity and underserved communities and LGBTQ+ requirements.”

Turner previously ended the Equal Access Rule of 2016, which requires equal access to programs for individuals based on their gender identity, rather than their biological sex.

Turner said HUD is responsible for being a good steward of taxpayer dollars and for keeping people in HUD-funded housing safe, and the Biden administration failed at both.

“Under the Biden administration, they allowed men into women’s shelters,” he said, “and it was causing further disruptions and putting women under further threat of harm.”

While the Biden administration pushed faith-based providers out of the grant program by mandated adherence to the “Housing First” policy, President Donald Trump’s HUD is bringing those shelters back into the fold.

The “Housing First” policy prohibits shelters from mandating sobriety before accepting residents, which is the practice of many faith-based homes.

“During the Biden administration, faith-based organizations were literally stiff armed when it came to competing for the Continuum of Care competitive grants because of their beliefs and because of their convictions,” he said.

“Faith-based organizations have convictions, like [about] sobriety and drug use, and so because of that, they were not allowed to compete for these Continuum of Care funds,” Turner added. “And so what we’ve done with this [fiscal year 2025] Continuum of Care, competitive [notice of funding opportunity] is open up the table to our faith-based organizations, and so we are no longer just concentrating on warehousing homelessness.”

Religious liberty law firm Alliance Defending Freedom has represented several homeless shelters who lost funding due to their faith. Senior counsel at ADF, Matt Bowman, praised Turner’s move.

“Religious organizations should not be punished for exercising their freedom to pursue their mission and hire employees consistent with their faith,” he told The Daily Signal, “so we’re excited that the department plans to protect religious applicants and also to protect women, because they deserve a place to sleep where they can feel secure.”

Turner said HUD’s focus is not just on housing people, but on getting to the root of their homelessness with wrap around services that get them to a life of self-sufficiency.

“Our faith-based organizations around the country have day in and day out, for years and really generations, been the ones that working with our homeless neighbors to help them be transformed,” he said.

Because the Continuum of Care moves funding from permanent shelters to transitional housing to encourage eventual self-sufficiency, Democrats have accused Turner of cutting funding for homelessness. Nineteen Democrat attorneys general and two governors are suing the Trump administration over the change.

But Turner says this is fake news, as the Continuum of Care does not “slash” funding.

“The fact is that it’s an increase in funding,” he said. “It’s an increase in assistance to go from about $3.6 billion in the last funding notice to $3.9 billion in this new Continuum of Care, competitive [notice of funding opportunity]. And so it’s not a cut, it’s an increase. And so I wanted to make that clear, because we’ve heard the same narrative, but those are the facts.”

Turner said HUD is not designed to be “warehousing our homeless neighborhoods,” but to help people get services to attack the root of the problem.

“This is not about just awarding people because of the number of people they have in a homeless shelter,” he said, “but this is about awarding people for housing people, getting services to them, and getting people back to self sufficiency.”

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]