Does freedom of the press only apply to one side of the aisle?

A large group of press freedom groups, news outlets, and watchdog organizations have raised the alarm about criminal charges against former CNN host Don Lemon for his alleged role in a church invasion. They warn that the case might “muzzle reporting in the public interest,” by sending the signal that attempts to cover protests may lead to criminal charges.

Yet these groups didn’t raise a peep when Steve Baker, a reporter with The Blaze, faced criminal charges for filming video inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Like Lemon, Baker argued he had been documenting an event of major public interest, rather than participating in unlawful conduct.

I reached out to the groups opposing the charges against Lemon, asking if they took any actions to help Baker, and most of them didn’t even respond.

“No legacy media or groups came to my defense,” Baker told me.

The uneven media response to another major story illustrates why I pay close attention to these coverage patterns.

Who Covered the Heidi Beirich Arrest and How?

I’ve covered the corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center for years, emphasizing how it exaggerates hate by smearing conservatives. So, when the SPLC faced federal fraud charges for allegedly secretly funding the very hate it claims it exists to oppose, it didn’t exactly surprise me.

What has surprised me, however, is just how quick the left-leaning media has been to dismiss the claims in the indictments. When analyzing news coverage, I find Ground News an excellent resource.

Ground News is a website and app that aims to make reading the news easier and more data-driven. Ground News gathers thousands of articles and organizes them by story. Each story comes with visual breakdowns of the reporting bias, reliability, and ownership of each outlet that covered a story.

For example, Ground News enabled me to pull up the bias distribution of the news outlets covering the arrest of Heidi Beirich, the SPLC’s former CFO, last week. Left-leaning media sources haven’t completely ignored the story.

Yet, when left-leaning outlets covered it, they often focused on Beirich’s expertise and dismissed the charges as “malicious,” as Above the Law did here:

Meanwhile, my fellow conservative media outlets have leaned in on the sordid details about Beirich’s alleged relationship with one of the SPLC’s paid informants in a neo-Nazi group.

Ground News includes many excellent tools to analyze news coverage, so you know the factors that shape the narrative. I am partnering with Ground News because ot its dedication to exposing bias and educating readers and subscribers, so they can get a better understanding of the story behind the story.

Subscribe to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan today using my link groundnews.com/woke or by clicking the button below.

Subscribe to Ground News

Whether I’m researching the SPLC, Don Lemon, or any other controversy, I find Ground News helpful for understanding which outlets are covering a story and how that coverage differs across the political spectrum.

The Don Lemon Case

Forty-five media outlets and nonprofit organizations joined an amicus brief asking a federal court to dismiss the church invasion charges against Lemon and independent journalist Georgia Fort.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press led the amicus brief. News outlets like The Associated Press, Dow Jones (which owns The Wall Street Journal), MS NOW, The New York Times, Slate, and The Washington Post joined the brief, as did the union NewsGuild and nonprofits PEN America and ProPublica.

Lemon and Fort stand accused of violating federal civil rights laws for their alleged activity in the invasion of Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18, protesting the pastor who works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The Justice Department brought charges against Lemon and Fort under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act, claiming they took part in the agitation that violated congregants’ civil rights. Lemon and Fort have said they were present at the invasion in their capacity as journalists.

The amicus brief argues that if Lemon and Fort are convicted, “federal law would be within arm’s reach of prosecutors to muzzle reporting in the public interest.” Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko of the U.S. District of Minnesota added the brief to the court record Monday.

The News Outlets’ Argument

The brief notes that both the FACE Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act require prosecutors to prove that defendants intended to violate Americans’ rights.

“Journalists intending to cover a story lack the specific intent to deprive individuals of a clearly defined right” under the laws and “therefore cannot be held criminally liable,” the brief notes.

If the judge allows the case to proceed against Lemon and Fort, the brief argues, “prosecutors would be able to use the statutes’ broad and vague language to target journalists who question witnesses in public spaces – activity that is unquestionably protected under the First Amendment.”

The Prosecution’s Claims Against Lemon and Fort

The superseding indictment, filed in February, alleges that Lemon and Fort joined a conspiracy to violate churchgoers’ civil rights.

Agitators, who said they targeted Cities Church because one of its pastors works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, allegedly stood up in the middle of a service, refused to leave when asked, blocked members of the congregation from getting to their children, and chanted, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!”

The indictment notes that Lemon livestreamed the planning meeting before the church takeover, but he told his audience he was leaving out key details to avoid revealing the target beforehand. It also claims Lemon said “the whole point” of the activity was “to disrupt” the service. It further accuses Lemon of confronting the church’s pastor, refusing to leave when asked, and obstructing churchgoers as they left the building.

The indictment presents fewer concrete claims about Fort’s alleged involvement in the agitation. It alleges that she confronted the pastor and that she blocked a minivan from leaving the church’s parking lot by conducting an interview in front of it.

First Amendment Defense?

Lemon has filed three motions to dismiss the case, citing the First Amendment, claiming that prosecutors engaged in vindictive prosecution against him, and arguing that the FACE Act’s provision protecting houses of worship is unconstitutional.

“Don Lemon has made a mockery of the First Amendment,” Renee Carlson, general counsel at True North Legal, which represents Cities Church, previously told the Daily Signal. “Calling him a hero for violating others’ constitutionally protected freedom of worship is a farce.”

Jonathan Parnell, the church’s pastor, compared the church invasion to an act of terror in a February op-ed for WORLD magazine.

As for Lemon, Parnell wrote, “I told him, plainly, that we had gathered to worship Jesus and that he should leave. He did not leave. He was in on the terror.”

Lemon has also argued that criticism of the church invasion reflected an entitlement rooted in “white supremacy,” comments that may complicate efforts to portray him as a purely neutral observer.

Steve Baker

Baker faced charges for entering the U.S. Capitol and filming during the riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Like Lemon, Baker and his attorneys argued that he was acting as a journalist, covering an event of public import.

In March 2024, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan opened an investigation into the Justice Department’s charges against Baker. Jordan wrote that “other journalists were in the Capitol at the same time as Mr. Baker who have not been charged with crimes.”

Baker ultimately pleaded guilty in November 2024, after President Donald Trump won election and because a judge refused to pause the case until Trump took office.

Baker said he pleaded guilty “to avoid the shaming exercise of a trial,” and denied any wrongdoing.

To be fair, the cases are not identical. Prosecutors claim Lemon and Fort participated in criminal conduct, while Baker’s case involved allegations such as trespassing. That distinction only heightens the need for a clear explanation, however. If press-freedom organizations believe the charges against Lemon are a bridge too far, would they raise a stink when Baker faced charges even more closely connected to his conduct as a reporter?

Press Freedom for Me, But Not For Thee

I reached out to the Reporters Committee, which led the pro-Lemon amicus, as well as The Associated Press, Dow Jones, MS NOW, the NewsGuild, PEN America, ProPublica, Slate, and The Washington Post, asking whether they issued any public statement, legal filing, or any other advocacy on Baker’s behalf. I asked each of them to identify differences between Baker’s case and Lemon’s, and what standards or criteria qualified Lemon’s case for their support.

A representative for ProPublica deferred to the Reporters Committee, which did not respond to my request for comment.

Jon Schleuss, president of the NewsGuild—a sector of the Communications Workers of America and affiliated with the AFL-CIO—provided the closest to a substantive response.

“I am not super familiar with Baker’s situation, but after taking a cursory look at his case, my understanding is that he pleaded guilty in court,” Schleuss told me. “As the largest union of journalists in the country, we advocate for journalists who are being wrongly detained or charged and right now the Trump administration is repeatedly attacking journalists.”

“Unfortunately, we’ve had to sue the administration multiple times because federal agents have assaulted journalists across the United States,” he added.

Schleuss cited three cases in Southern California, where journalists alleged DHS agents assaulted and retaliated against journalists covering demonstrations; in Minnesota, where journalists claim federal agents interfered with their reporting on immigration protests, and in Chicago, where reporters claim ICE targeted journalists documenting immigration protests.

Regardless of the merits of these cases, they do not explain why NewsGuild defended Lemon but apparently did not mobilize on Baker’s behalf.

Notably, Schleuss did not identify any action NewsGuild took on Baker’s behalf or explain why Lemon’s case warranted intervention while Baker’s did not.

The organizations supporting Lemon have yet to explain why his case qualifies for extraordinary press-freedom intervention while Baker’s apparently did not. Their lack of a clear answer raises an obvious question: Would these same organizations have rallied behind Baker if he had worked for The New York Times rather than The Blaze?

Large portions of this article were initially published on The Daily Signal.

Disclosure: This newsletter may contain affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, I may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

The first arrest in the case against the Southern Poverty Law Center highlights a deeper problem in America’s “anti-hate” industry.

Federal authorities arrested former SPLC leader Heidi Beirich last week, charging her with conspiring to fraudulently funnel cash to white supremacist groups and financing her romantic relationship with a neo-Nazi leader. The seedy details of Beirich allegedly scheming to set up fictitous bank accounts and subsidizing 66% of the couple’s lifestyle on the SPLC’s clandestine dime don’t just make for compelling headlines—they raise important questions about the ecosystem that elevated her to an influential role.

Beirich repeatedly warned about the threats of far right extremism, while ignoring threats from the Left. That ideological imbalance appears not only in organizations like hers but in the institutions that claim the authority to define “hate,” “extremism,” and “misinformation.”

Beirich’s influence spread far beyond the SPLC, and this scandal highlights corruption in more than one institution.

Beirich Arrested

A grand jury handed down an indictment charging Beirich with wire fraud conspiracy, bank fraud conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.

Her arrest marked the first in a groundbreaking fraud case against the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-leaning nonprofit known for bankrupting the Ku Klux Klan in the 1980s and for publishing a “hate map” of extremist organizations that includes mainstream conservative groups alongside Klan chapters.

The SPLC maintained an informant program, paying Klan members to report on violent plans before they took place. Prosecutors allege, however, that the SPLC secretly funneled donor cash to prop up the very hate groups it claims to exist to oppose.

Beirich had managed the SPLC’s “Intelligence Project,” the project behind the “hate map,” for eight years, but she also started a spin-off organization in 2020 called the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. Through that group, she has contributed to the removal of content on social media and worked with the State Department under President Joe Biden, as well as with foreign governments and major philanthropies, as a supposed gatekeeper on extremism.

Yet, according to a superseding indictment unsealed Wednesday, she had been romantically involved with a member of the neo-Nazi group National Alliance, whom the indictment refers to as “F-9.” Their lifestyle was funded in part with donor money.

“Beirich was also in a relationship with F-9,” the indictment states. “During this relationship, Beirich and F-9 shared a house and two bank accounts.”

“Between 2015 and 2021, approximately $140,000 in donors’ money flowed from the SPLC operating account, through the Tech Writers account, and was ultimately deposited into the joint bank accounts held by F-9 and Beirich,” the indictment states. “This amounted to approximately 66% of all money ever deposited into their joint bank accounts. Beirich then used donors’ money to pay the couple’s personal living expenses.”

These new allegations raise serious concerns about Beirich’s influence and advocacy, which did not stop when she left the SPLC in December 2019.

Beirich’s Group

Big Tech, corporate America, banking institutions, and even the FBI have used the SPLC “hate map,” treating the SPLC as a gatekeeper and arbiter on “hate.” Beirich, along with another former SPLC staffer, led the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism to carve out a similar role for itself.

Like the SPLC, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism uses a broad brush to define far-right extremism. The group frames opposition to mass immigration and transgender ideology as rooted in “hate,” “white supremacy,” or “Christian nationalism.”

However, the group openly admits that it “does not cover far-left extremism,” claiming far-left groups do not “attack individuals for their identity traits,” do not “advance rights-restricting agendas,” and that “far-left extremist movements have not in recent years engaged in mass violence in the manner that the far-right has.”

Yet GPAHE, like the SPLC, found influential partners in President Joe Biden’s administration.

The group participated in the Biden State Department’s “Summit for Democracy” in 2021.

Beirich testified in Congress that white supremacy is motivating “increasing terrorist threats,” and claimed that “white supremacists are taking up weapons in an attempt to create conditions that will stop the process of demographic change in the Western world.” She called for “more rigorous enforcement procedures” to keep white supremacy out of the military, such as monitoring the online activity of active-duty troops, and “mandatory reports every year about the levels of white supremacy in the military.”

In response to such concerns, the Department of Defense under President Joe Biden ordered a stand-down to address extremism. Yet an independent study on extremism in the military, conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses at the DOD’s request, found “no evidence that the number of violent extremists in the military is disproportionate to the number of violent extremists in the United States as a whole.”

GPAHE wielded influence not merely in Washington but in the broader censorship ecosystem, joining the Christchurch Call Advisory Network, partnering with major philanthropies, and celebrating content-removal decisions from social-media platforms. Even AI companies, such as Anthropic, have cited GPAHE as an outside expert on extremist content.

The Broader Problem

Secretary of State Marco Rubio hit on the broader problem well in his speech about the threat of leftist terrorism in July.

“We have think tanks and fellowships and journals and consultancies, with the unspoken understanding among them that only one kind of political violence was a true threat to the system,” Rubio said. “A bomb planted by a neo-Nazi group was a nefarious and murderous act of evil. It is. But a bomb planted by a Marxist revolutionary — well, that’s just merely a tragic excess of idealism.”

Rubio argued that “this extraordinary ideological prejudice” grew so bad that “people in positions of power have repeatedly dismissed acts of violence and even terrorism as legitimate forms of political expression so long as they served a left-wing cause.”

Rubio rightly mentioned the George Floyd riots in the summer of 2020, and Americans should well remember the arsons of Teslas last year. Democrats have even defended the invasion of a church in the middle of service as a mere act of protest.

This bias arguably filters down from the universities, where a study from Heterodox Academy highlighted persistent imbalance. A 2016-2017 study in the Heterodox Academy report found that 60% of faculty identified as “liberal” or “far left,” while 28% identified as “middle of the road,” and 12% identified as “conservative.”

A Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Study in 2024 found that 62% of undergraduate-facing faculty at 55 elite schools identified as Democrat, 13% as Republican, and 24% something else. A 2024 Duke University study found 62% of professors identified themselves as “somewhat liberal” or “very liberal,” 24% as “moderate/centrist,” and 14% as either “somewhat conservative” or “very conservative.”

A 2022 study in the National Library of Medicine found that scientists are “more politically liberal than the general population,” and the trend holds true for employees of the academic sector generally, and even for scientists employed in the energy sector.

NewsNation host Batya Ungar-Sargon analyzed the data from the University of Cincinnati’s Prosecution Project—one of the legacy media’s favorite sources for claiming that most political violence comes from “the Right”—and found glaring omissions when it came to leftist political violence. The project did not mention the assassination attempts against President Donald Trump, the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, nor the George Floyd riots of 2020. Meanwhile, it exaggerated examples of “right-wing political violence.”

Tying It All Together

Beirich’s alleged scheme to clandestinely pay the Klan and her alleged relationship with a neo-Nazi informant are shocking anecdotes, but they highlight a much more serious problem.

The issue is not merely that Beirich occupied a prominent role. The problem is that institutions increasingly outsourced their judgment to organizations such as SPLC and GPAHE. Tech companies, government agencies, philanthropies, journalists, and researchers often treat a small network of activist organizations as authoritative arbiters of who counts as too hateful or extremist for polite society.

This case should inspire some deep soul-searching among America’s “elite,” and should spur efforts to address deep-seeded institutional bias.

Large portions of this article were initially published on The Daily Signal.

Disclosure: This newsletter may contain affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, I may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

A leftist lawsuit seeking to silence President Donald Trump’s commission investigating threats to religious freedom actually proved the commission’s point, and the leftist groups’ ties to the Woketopus highlight just how established this threat truly is.

The lawsuit faults the members of Trump’s commission for expressing the view that “the law should protect the exercise of religious beliefs over the civil rights of minority groups.” Yet LGBTQ activists weaponize claims of an embattled minority to silence religious freedom—and that’s one of the key threats the commission aims to combat.

Trump signed an executive order in May 2025 establishing the Religious Liberty Commission, tasking it with producing a report on the foundations of religious liberty, as well as its impacts on American society, current threats it faces, and strategies to preserve it.

In February, however, four left-leaning activist groups that support LGBTQ+ activism—Interfaith Alliance and its president Rev. Paul Rauschenbush, Muslims for Progressive Values, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Hindus for Human Rights—sued, asking a court to block the commission’s proceedings.

While a judge rightly dismissed the lawsuit, this leftist lawfare echoes the LGBTQ+ activist claims that conservative Jews and Christians who try to live out their faith are engaging in bigotry.

The Leftists’ Legal Claims

Represented by Democracy Forward, the groups claimed the commission violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, a law that demands committees such as the Religious Liberty Commission be “reasonably” balanced.

How was the committee unbalanced? The leftists said the committee “contains no members who represent the perspective of a non-‘Judeo-Christian’ religious tradition.” They faulted commission members for arguing that “religion, specifically what they would term ‘Judeo-Christian‘ values, should be promoted by the government.”

Most revealingly, the groups also cried foul because “each member of the commission has expressed the view that the law should protect the exercise of religious beliefs over the civil rights of minority groups.”

The groups also say the commission’s final report will force them to “divert further resources to advocate for pluralistic democracy and fight back against extremists who would privilege those who hold a narrow set of Judeo-Christian beliefs.”

The Judge’s Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan, a Trump appointee, rightly struck down these claims. He ruled that the law is exceptionally broad in allowing presidents to select members of committees, and he cited a previous ruling finding that Congress intended such committees to be balanced not according to religious beliefs but by “the members’ employment status and background.”

Cronan faulted the plaintiffs for cherry-picking quotes in order to claim that commission members would privilege “Judeo-Christian” views over other beliefs. He also rejected the notion that the commission must represent all religious minorities.

“It is not clear where the logic of plaintiffs’ argument ends,” Cronan wrote. If the commission is not fairly balanced because it doesn’t include a Sikh, though census data show there are only 70,000 Sikh Americans, “does President Trump need to appoint adherents from every single religious denomination in America?”

The commission heard testimony from more than 100 witnesses, including two Muslims, two Hindus, and one Sikh.

After the ruling, Democracy Forward claimed that the litigation “helped uncover the information the Trump-Vance administration attempted to hide from the public about this biased and unlawful body.” That statement referred to resources related to the commission’s work.

The Effort to Silence Traditional Faith

This lawsuit both sought to silence the Trump administration’s message on religious freedom and, ironically, proved the truth of that very message.

The commission heard testimony from Svitlana Roman, one of the parents who challenged a Maryland school district’s LGBTQ+ books program, which did not allow parents to opt their children out of sexualized lessons. It heard from Jennifer Mead, the Michigan mom whose 11-year-old daughter was “transitioned” by school officials behind her back. It heard from Shea Encinas, a fifth grader who was forced to read to a kindergarten student a book promoting transgender identity.

The plaintiffs’ complaint reflects a view that religious freedom claims should yield when they conflict with favored understandings of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The logic underlying these arguments is not new. Americans saw it before in the prosecution of Christian baker Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. We saw it in the law that sought to penalize Lori Smith, a Christian graphic designer who would not create websites for same-sex weddings.

In each of those cases, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by the state of Colorado to force conservative Christians to endorse LGBTQ+ beliefs. LGBTQ+ activists defended these efforts as protecting the “civil rights of minority groups,” but the Supreme Court rightly saw them for what they were—violations of the First Amendment.

Trump rightly highlighted how LGBTQ+ activism threatens religious freedom, and pro-LGBTQ+ activist groups sought to silence his administration’s report.

These activists are free to publish their own reports disagreeing with the commission, but that’s not what they sought to do here. Instead, they aimed to prevent the administration from issuing its report.

Ties to the Woketopus

The leftist groups suing to block the Religious Liberty Commission aren’t just isolated nonprofits. They often fit into the same nonprofit ecosystem that shaped policy in the Biden administration.

The Open Society Foundations, the grantmaking organ of Hungarian American billionaire George Soros now operated by his son Alex, gave $400,000 to Muslims for Progressive Values in 2022. Open Society Foundations has also committed about $20 million for 2026 to a group of nonprofits including Interfaith Alliance and Democracy Forward, according to Inside Philanthropy.

The Interfaith Alliance has partnered with the Southern Poverty Law Center, co-hosting an “Interfaith Summit on Countering Hate.” Yes, this is the same SPLC that smears mainstream conservative and Christian groups, putting them on a “hate map” with chapters of the Klan. The SPLC has long faced accusations that it is “anti-Christian” because it condemns Christian organizations for upholding traditional Christian values. It arguably embodies the LGBTQ activist threat to religious freedom.

The Center for American Progress, which fed upwards of 70 staff into the Biden administration, worked with both the Interfaith Alliance and Democracy Forward on a report explicitly countering Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission.

Democracy Forward counts among its partners many of the leftist groups that influenced the Biden administration, including the Human Rights Campaign, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and more.

While the Religious Liberty Commission highlighted many threats to Americans’ first freedom, this episode of leftist lawfare went a long way to proving its central thesis.

By seeking to shut down the commission rather than merely rebut its findings, the Woketopus-aligned groups demonstrated exactly why so many Americans believe religious liberty needs defending in the first place.

Large portions of this article were initially published on The Daily Signal.

Disclosure: This newsletter may contain affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, I may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

Surprise! Leftist groups are suddenly concerned about debanking—but only when it affects one of their own.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has routinely pressured financial institutions to block mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits (more on that below), while fatuously claiming that conservative fears of debanking are a “conspiracy theory.”

Read more

When a person becomes a bureaucrat, does he then cease to be a human being?

Is a technocratic expert still subject to political passion, partisan bias, and personal conceit, or does he gain, through the arcane ministrations of “Science,” the ability to trans…

Read more

The Left’s enforcer of diversity, equity, and inclusion is bleeding support in corporate America.

Even Microsoft, the Big Tech company with the fourth-largest market capitalization in the world and the engine behind Bill Gates’ fabulous wealth, has stopped using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map” to screen nonprofits for its employee matching …

Read more

Democrats know they have a problem on transgender issues, but they’re unwilling to solve it.

A few months back, the Democratic National Committee released an “autopsy” of the 2024 presidential election. That effort acknowledged what we all understand: Donald Trump’s ad warning that Kamala Harris is for “they/them” while Trump is for “you” resonated with…

Read more

What if I told you that an immigration group in California not only provides services for immigrants but has an affiliate in Mexico that trains them to come to the U.S., an action arm that endorses Democrats, and an “Immigrant Political Power Project” that claims to “build a voter base from scratch?”

What if I told you this nonprofit gets so much taxpaye…

Read more

Republicans are condemning as “lawfare” the efforts of Democrat New Orleans officials to arrest Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill amid a dispute about a new law’s interpretation.

“Targeting a sitting attorney general for carrying out her official duti…

Read more

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to pull a fast one on the American people Tuesday.

The court upheld West Virginia’s law preventing men from competing in women’s sports, finding that the law does not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The court split along familiar i…

Read more

“The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility fo…

Read more

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down the 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor that insulated deep state actors even when the president sought to fire them.

“Nearly 250 years ago, the Framers decided to vest ‘[t]he executive Power’ in one person—’a President of the United States of America,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority …

Read more

Companies have been dialing back their LGBTQ+ Pride messaging since President Donald Trump took office last year, and analysts say that contributes to a less divisive marketplace.

“This is both a market correction and a cultural correction,” Allen Mendenhall, a senior adviser for The Heritage Foundation’s Free Enterprise Initiative, told the Daily Signal…

Read more

Major employers systematically—though perhaps unintentionally—blacklist conservative nonprofits from their employee charitable giving programs through a third party.

Corporate generosity platforms such as Benevity act as middlemen, connecting employers such as AT&T, Coca-Cola, McDo…

Read more

FIRST ON THE WOKETOPUS—A conservative Christian leader is challenging the Southern Poverty Law Center’s incoming CEO to debate about whether Christian organizations that follow the Bible’s teachings on sexuality are “hate groups” that belong on a map alo…

Read more

The Southern Poverty Law Center faces charges of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy for sending $3 million to members of white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. This indictment led me to update the book I wrote in 2020, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.” At the end of the update, I give a list of concrete ways you c…

Read more

Transgender “medicine” has suffered tremendous setbacks in the last two years, but it remains entrenched in much of America’s medical establishment.

Although hundreds of health care facilities have distanced themselves from the transgender orthodoxy demanded by the LGBTQ+ activist group the Human Rights Campaign, hundreds of others remain committed to it.

Read more

The Southern Poverty Law Center acknowledged that it funded members of the Ku Klux Klan, but it claims the payments were merely part of an “informant” program to dismantle the Klan and other white supremacist groups—a program it has since ended. The group’s interim president gave a reason why in congressional testimony Tuesday.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio …

Read more

The Daughters of the American Revolution currently allows men who identify as women to join, but the group will vote on a resolution to reverse that policy and formally define “woman,” the Daily Signal has learned.

“Members of the Daughters of the American Revolution will take an historic vote to define the word ‘woman’ on Friday, June 26, 2026, at Memor…

Read more

The delivery marketplace company DoorDash has begun the process of allowing employees to donate to conservative nonprofits, even if they appear on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map.”

The conservative Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, working with the Catholic financial advisory firm IWP Capital, urged DoorDash to reconsider its rel…

Read more