Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

When classes resume in public schools next month, parents across the nation should expect notification from school administrators about any “LGBTQ+ inclusive” instruction and the right to opt their children out of it for religious reasons.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 ruled in favor of Maryland parents, many of them Christians and Muslims, who complained their school district forced instruction about LGBT lifestyles on their young children. In a 6–3 vote, justices determined that while the district said the instruction was lessons in mutual respect, the materials conveyed and reinforced viewpoints about same-sex marriage.

The district, Montgomery County Public Schools, incorporated LGBT storybooks that promoted same-sex romance between children, Pride celebrations, and gender transitions in 2022, according to court papers. Parents initially were told they could opt their children out of the sessions when such books were read, but in the fall of 2023, the district made story time mandatory.

The Supreme Court decision establishes a national precedent, requiring all public school districts to broaden their existing protocols for curriculum and opt-outs to include LGBT materials.

Nate Kellum, senior counsel for the First Liberty Institute, said that these communication measures were likely in place for decades with respect to health and sex education instruction.

“It’s easy enough to incorporate,“ Kellum told The Epoch Times. ”It’s just a matter of common sense and common courtesy. It won’t become an administrative nightmare.”

“But it becomes a question of will. For some districts, this is a bitter pill to swallow.”

Kellum said there will likely be questions about activities outside the classroom, like morning announcements, school-wide assemblies, and displays. If those events are planned ahead of time and potentially interfere with a family’s religious exercise, the school is obligated to provide advance notice and the option not to attend.

Questions will also emerge about age and grade level. While advance notice is a reasonable request, it’s also reasonable to expect that older students are less impressionable, so families should act in good faith before taking actions against their school, Kellum said.

Still, given that the Supreme Court establishes the law of the land, families who are not granted the appropriate accommodations as stated by that federal branch have a “slam dunk” case, he said, adding that he anticipates some lawsuits across the nation in the coming months as the parameters of this federal court decision are fleshed out.

Kellum successfully represented parents in a similar case in suburban San Diego. They sued in federal court after their district didn’t allow them to opt their children out of a program where pairs of fifth graders read “My Shadow is Pink” to a kindergartner.

The book is about a boy with a pink shadow who likes to play with dolls and wear dresses. The fifth graders were also required to chalk an outline of their kindergarten buddy’s body and discuss with them their preferred shadow color, according to court papers.

Following the May 12 U.S. District Court decision in favor of the parents, the plaintiff, Encinitas Union School District, appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court.

With the recent Supreme Court decision, Kellum said, “I don’t know if they really have any place to go.”

Montgomery County Schools, following the Supreme Court decision, announced that it will provide further guidance to parents before the school year begins.

How other school leaders across the nation plan to proceed remains to be seen. Attorneys general from Massachusetts, Maryland, and California issued statements expressing disappointment with the decision.

“By ensuring our curriculum reflects the full diversity of our student population, we foster an environment where every student feels seen, supported, and empowered to succeed,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a June 27 news release.

Republican members of Congress called the decision a historic win for families.

“Children are not wards of the state, and families, not government officials, should decide how curriculum related to human sexuality is introduced to their children,” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) said in a news release.

Defending Education, an education watchdog group, is encouraging parents to contact their local schools about this matter before the school year begins. The organization has provided an email template that cites the Supreme Court decision and further requests that the school allow a child to opt out of mandatory preferred pronoun usage and shared bathrooms and locker rooms with the other sex.

“It is the right of religious parents to opt their children out of this type of sex and gender-focused curriculum, regardless of when and where it is introduced during the school day,” Defending Education’s July 13 announcement said.

The organization also asks parents to let them know if their school district does not allow children to opt out of the programs in question.

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Former President Joe Biden has admitted that he didn’t manually sign all of the pardons he issued before leaving office in January. 

In a softball interview with The New York Times that ran on Sunday, Biden revealed that his staff used an autopen device to replicate his signature on clemency documents due to the large volume. 

“I made every decision,” Biden told the leftist outlet. Defending the use of the autopen, he added that “we’re talking about a whole lot of people.” 

🚨🚨The New York Times CONFIRMS:

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s pardon was approved at 10:30 p.m. by Biden’s White House Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients, using the president’s autopen signature.

In other words: there was collusion, there was a conspiracy, and there was election interference… pic.twitter.com/XAdOsafFdr

— 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) July 14, 2025

The one-term president’s admission comes as the Trump-era White House, the DOJ and Congress launch separate investigations into the legitimacy of the pardons. Some experts argue are illegitimate because they were never physically signed by Biden. 

Biden downplayed Trump’s concerns about the potential abuse of the autopen in remarks to The Times: “I understand why Trump would think that, because obviously, I guess, he doesn’t focus much. Anyway, so — yes, I made every decision.” 

Emails turned over by the National Archives show then–Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, not Biden, authorizing the autopen. 

“I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons,” Zients wrote in one exchange, according to the outlet. 

Former White House staff secretary Stefanie Feldman managed the process. She reportedly ran the clemency documents through a device and receive “blurbs” claiming Biden had approved them. 

Responding to concerns that he was incapacitated and that aides exploited the autopen, Biden shot back:

“They’re liars. They know it. They know, for certain. I mean, this is — look, what they, they’ve had a pretty good thing going here. They’ve done so badly.” 

Biden defended the pre-emptive pardons for his family when asked, claiming without evidence that Trump would have launched vindictive criminal investigations against them. 

“I know how vindictive he is. I mean, everybody knows how vindictive he is. So we knew that they’d do what they’re doing now,” he claimed.

“And my family didn’t do anything wrong. My sister, my brother-in-law, my — my brother, etc. And — and all it would do is, if they, if he went after them, would be, is run up legal bills.” 

In total, Biden commuted 1,500 sentences and pardoned 39 others. He also reversed the sentences of nearly 2,500 inmates serving time on crack cocaine convictions. 

Authored by Tarang Khaitan via CoinTelegraph.com,

US spot Ether exchange-traded funds recorded an inflow of $726.6 million on Wednesday as altcoins rallied.

BlackRock’s ETHA also saw a daily inflow record, contributing $499 million to the day’s results, while Fidelity’s FETH fund saw the second highest net inflow of $113 million, according to Farside Investors.

US spot Ether ETFs now collectively hold more than 5 million ETH, accounting for more than 4% of the circulating supply, according to Trader T.

Spot Ether ETFs witnessed net inflows of almost $727 million on Wednesday.

Wednesday’s inflow beats the prior daily net inflow record of $428 million on Dec. 5, 2024, by almost 70%, according to Farside Investors.

In the past 24 hours, $6.74 million worth of ETH was issued by the network, while US spot Ether ETFs bought nearly 107 times the issuance on Wednesday, according to Ultra Sound Money.

Altcoins rally over 24 hours

ETH is trading at almost $3,346, up 7.2% in the past 24 hours, and has witnessed a 30% rally in the past 14 days, according to CoinGecko.

Crypto analyst Matthew Hyland has stated that Bitcoin dominance has likely peaked if ETH continues its rally.

On Saturday, Hyland said that altcoins will likely go up even higher if the Bitcoin dominance falls to 45%. Currently, Bitcoin’s market dominance stands at 61%.

In the past 24 hours, XRP, BNB, Solana, Dogecoin, Tron, and Cardano have gone up by 7.6%, 3.4%, 5.2%, 6.9%, 3.2%, and 3.5%, respectively, whereas BTC has climbed just 0.7%.

Corporations pile into ETH

Corporate treasuries holding ETH now exceed $5.33 billion, accounting for nearly 1.33% of ETH’s circulating supply, according to Strategic ETH Reserve.

Last month, corporations added over $1.6 billion in Ether alone, Cointelegraph reported. 

One of the biggest buyers has been SharpLink Gaming, which bought another $68 million in ETH over the past 24 hours. The firm has acquired $343 million worth of ETH in the past eight days, according to Lookonchain.

ETH is significantly outperforming BTC in recent weeks

Meanwhile, World Liberty Financial — backed by US President Donald Trump — purchased an additional $5 million worth of ETH at $3,266, above its average acquisition price between November 2024 and March 2025.

BitMine Immersion Technologies, chaired by Fundstrat’s Tom Lee, announced that it now holds more than half a billion dollars worth of ETH in its treasury.

In something that rings a little like a dandy practical joke, five violent illegal immigrants from all over the world woke up this morning in a tiny African kingdom none of them ever heard of, thanks to the Trump administration’s latest third-country deportation flight. 

The five undesirables who hail from Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos are now in a local jail in the landlocked  kingdom of Eswatini, which was known as Swaziland until 2018. About the size of Connecticut, the country is ruled by 57-year-old King Mswati III, who has absolute power to rule by decree. He has 11 wives and an estimated net worth of between $200 million and $500 million. In 2019, he sparked controversy with a purchase of 19 Roll Royce and 120 BMW vehicles for royal family use.

Under the terms of the agreement with the United States, Eswatini’s compensation package for accepting America’s cast-offs is classified, a spokeswoman for the country said. Meanwhile, some people in Eswatini are displeased with the transaction. “This is appalling,” Swaziland Peoples Liberation Movement secretary general Lioness Sibande told the New York Times. “The West is always disrespecting us as Africans and thinking we are their dumpsite.”  

On Wednesday, an Eswatini spokesperson announced that, working along with the United States and the International Organization for Migration, the kingdom will “facilitate the transit of these inmates to their countries of origin.” That aspiration is somewhat incongruent with Tuesday evening’s announcement of the deportations by Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. In a post-thread on X, she wrote:

“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back. These depraved monsters have been terrorizing American communities but thanks to [President] Trump and [Homeland Security Secretary Kristi] Noem, they are off of American soil.”

McLaughlin didn’t name the villains, but posted photos of the five men with a summary of their rap sheets. Here are some of their criminal convictions: 

• Vietnamese: Child rape
• Jamaican: Murder and robbery 
• Laotian: Second-degree murder, forced-entry burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
• Cuban: First-degree murder, aggravated battery, aggravated battery of a police officer, grand-theft-auto
• Yemeni: Second-degree homicide, assault and battery, cruelty to a dependent adult, assault with intent to do great bodily harm

The shipment to Eswatini was the first third-country deportation since the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration a huge win by lifting a lower court’s order that required the Trump administration to give deportees 10 days’ notice and a chance to object before deporting them to a third country. Challengers of the process have argued that the illegals could face mistreatment in foreign custody. Most recently, the administration deported eight illegals to South Sudan, which is in the midst of civil war. Only one of them is from the country. Before Supreme Court approval, they were locked up on a US military base in Djibouti. Their families say they haven’t heard from them since they were handed over.  

Matt Adams, who represented the illegals deported to South Sudan, told the New York Times that the Eswatini flight was “political theater,” and ridiculed the idea of “spending millions of dollars to fly five men to the other side of the planet.” 

Of course, you can’t put a price on having a Vietnamese child-rapist or Jamaican murderer suddenly finding themselves locked up in a tiny African kingdom.  

CITIZEN OF YEMEN
• Convicted of second-degree homicide;
• Convicted of assault and battery;
• Convicted of resist and obstruct officer; sentenced to 17 days confinement.
• Convicted of cruelty to dependent adult;
• Convicted of assault with the intent to do great bodily harm… pic.twitter.com/R2dots7hrw

— Tricia McLaughlin (@TriciaOhio) July 16, 2025

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

There is a lot of chatter surrounding the Federal Reserve. The FOMC, etc. What the President will or will not do. What can be “successfully” done or not. Will Powell be fired?

Today, Kevin Warsh is floating the idea of better aligning the Fed and Treasury, as has been the case in the past (so I’m told).

Warsh: “we need another Treasury-Fed accord”

The last time we had such an accord (in 1951), there was Yield Curve Control in the US. Clear what’s coming.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 17, 2025

Most of the analysis about what may happen tends to fall along the lines of:

• Probably cannot “fire” Powell anyways.
• Even if Powell is “fired” it is a committee and the committee won’t do anything drastic.
• The front end might rally a bit, but “we” will lose control over the long end.

Why not think more outside the box? There are a few things we know:

• The President thinks rates are too high.
• The President (and Bessent) are focused on the 10-year and believe that is also too high.
• The President has no problem (at least on tariffs) dictating specific numbers.

Why would this administration only do something halfway?

If you are going to do something radical – why not go all the way?

• Cut interest rates – by ensuring the Chair and Committee are on board with it. I cannot say that I’ve given any thought to how to reset the committee, but I’d be surprised if that was more difficult than making changes at the top of the house?
  • And there are people on the committee who already have more rate cuts in their “dots” than is priced in. It may also be safe to presume that if the Chair was dovish, some people might move their dots, as a cut here or there is already probably too precise for all the guesswork involved.
• Align the Fed and Treasury. Seems strange, but is it really that wild?
• If rates out the curve don’t perform as expected (move significantly lower in response rate cuts) then why not just “set the curve”? The Fed has done QE (bought treasuries). The Fed has done Operation Twist (bought/sold treasuries to influence the shape of the curve). It isn’t the first time since the GFC that we’ve chatted about the potential for yield curve control: if the Fed is going to set rates in a world where longer term rates are likely more important than short term rates, why not set those too?

Who knows if anything will happen. But presumably, by May of next year at the latest (and that seems like a lifetime away) we will see changes in how the Fed behaves.

I’m not arguing against Fed independence and the dual mandate, etc., but you can see the appeal of going in a different direction.

Set yields across the curve. Issue debt to take advantage of these yields. Save “trillions” in interest rate expense. There is no easier way to lower projected annual deficits than by reducing costs. That would actually help lower yields too.

If long end treasury yields cannot bear the brunt of potential reckless Fed policy (because of yield curve control) then the dollar will likely be hit hard.

Yeah, there is always “strong dollar” rhetoric, but imagine a world with higher tariffs AND a cheaper dollar? Imports look way more expensive and the U.S. exports start to look a lot cheaper.

A materially weaker dollar may be viewed as a “feature” not a “bug” if your primary goal is more manufacturing in the U.S.

1985: Plaza Accord
2025: Powell fired

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 16, 2025

Again, no idea how this will play out, but expecting only one “radical” move seems a little “naïve”? If you are going to reshape something (like monetary policy) why not reshape it all the way?

In any case, maybe we should be spending less time thinking about “how much steeper will the yield curve go” if something happens to the Fed, to what would you do to ensure long end yields don’t rise?

Just thinking out loud, but if we are going to get “radical” why wouldn’t we get really radical?

The Chinese military conducted tactical exercises integrating robotic wolves and infantry-operated drones, underscoring Beijing’s push to deploy unmanned systems in modern combat operations, according to state-run media.

The 76th Group Army’s drills focused on battlefield coordination between personnel and autonomous technologies for reconnaissance, strategic point clearing, fire support and breaching defensive positions, according to a military statement. The exercises represent China’s latest effort to advance unmanned warfare capabilities amid growing global competition in military robotics.

The robotic wolves, branded “steel warriors,” debuted at the 2024 Airshow China exhibition before being deployed in joint exercises with Cambodia. During the 2024 “Golden Dragon” exercise, China fielded a rifle-armed robotic wolf for assault operations. The follow-up “Golden Dragon 2025” exercise featured a UAV equipped with a QBZ-95 assault rifle providing fire cover for ground units.

The military demonstrations come as Chinese defense analysts raise concerns about the ethical implications of autonomous weapons systems. In a recent People’s Liberation Army Daily op-ed, analysts Yuan Yi, Ma Ye and Yue Shiguang called for “ethical and legal research” to address risks from militarized robots, warning that malfunctioning units could cause “indiscriminate killings and accidental deaths.”

The PLA Daily authors referenced Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, which prohibit robots from harming humans, arguing that militarized humanoid robots “clearly violate” these principles. They proposed overhauling Asimov’s framework for military applications, emphasizing that combat robots must adhere to laws of war by “obeying humans,” “respecting humans” and “protecting humans.”

The trio of analysts stressed the need for built-in constraints to prevent excessive force and indiscriminate killing, while cautioning against prematurely replacing human soldiers, noting that robots still lack critical capabilities including speed, dexterity and complex terrain navigation.

“Even if humanoid robots become mature and widely used, they will not fully replace other unmanned systems,” the authors concluded, advocating for balanced integration of robotics into warfare.

Authored by Amin Haqshanas via CoinTelegraph.com,

The market cap of Tether’s USDt, the world’s largest stablecoin, has surpassed $160 billion for the first time, a “new mind-blowing milestone,” according to Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino.

In a Thursday post on X, Ardoino called the achievement a testament to USDt’s growing role as the digital dollar for “billions of people living in emerging markets and developing countries.” USDt crossed $150 billion in May.

Ardoino has said that USDt is used by more than 400 million people worldwide, expanding by 35 million wallets each quarter, especially in emerging markets where it serves as a reliable dollar substitute.

The blockchain distribution of USDt shows that Tron hosts the highest USDt supply, now accounting for about $81 billion, compared to Ethereum’s $65 billion, according to data from DefiLlama. USDt issuance on other networks is significantly smaller, totaling $6.8 billion on BNB Chain, $2.3 billion on Solana and $1.1 billion on Polygon.

USDt’s market cap hits $160 billion. Source: Paolo Ardoino

USDt backed by cash and US Treasurys

According to Tether’s attestations, cash and cash equivalents, primarily short-term US Treasurys, constitute 81.5% of USDT’s backing reserves, with Bitcoin accounting for 5.1%.

Tether holds over $127 billion in US Treasurys as of Q2 2025, ranking as the 18th largest holder globally, alongside countries like South Korea and Germany. The company posted over $1 billion in operating profit in Q1.

The stablecoin issuer has also been consistently minting new tokens. On Wednesday, Tether minted another $1 billion, with more than $4 billion over the past week alone.

Last week, Tether announced it will stop allowing redemptions of USDt on five legacy blockchains, including Omni Layer, Bitcoin Cash SLP, Kusama, EOS (now Vaulta), and Algorand, starting Sept. 1.

The move aims to let the company focus on blockchains with better scalability, more developer activity and stronger community engagement, according to CEO Ardoino.

Stablecoin market expands amid growing regulatory clarity

The stablecoin market has been expanding quickly, with fiat-pegged digital assets increasingly seen as the internet’s go-to settlement layer. In 2024, stablecoin transaction volumes even surpassed those of Visa and Mastercard combined.

The growing momentum comes as the Trump administration has prioritized stablecoin regulation, with the GENIUS Act leading the charge. The bill gained bipartisan support in the Senate Banking Committee and passed the Senate in June.

However, it stalled in the House of Representatives after a group of lawmakers blocked a key procedural vote on Tuesday. The House is set to vote Thursday on the GENIUS Act as a standalone measure.

A new report from the Wall Street Journal suggests that President Trump may be growing concerned—or is already alarmed—by this new development: Beijing is now demanding that China’s largest shipping company, Cosco, be included in the Western-investor deal to purchase ports from Hong Kong–based CK Hutchison.

The future of CK Hutchison’s deal to sell two Panama ports—the Balboa and Cristóbal terminals (40 other ports worldwide)—to a BlackRock-led consortium is becoming increasingly complex with Beijing pushing for Cosco to join the group of investors… 

Here’s more from the report:

China is pushing for state-owned Cosco to be an equal partner and shareholder of the ports with BlackRock and Mediterranean Shipping Co., a containership operator, according to people familiar with the deal talks. BlackRock and MSC in March reached a preliminary agreement to buy the ports in a deal valued at nearly $23 billion.

Now, BlackRock, MSC and Hutchison all are open to Cosco’s taking a stake, the people familiar with the talks said.

The parties aren’t likely to reach a deal before a previously agreed upon July 27 end date for exclusive talks between BlackRock, MSC and Hutchison, the people familiar with the talks said. The parties can’t strike a deal that includes Cosco until the exclusivity period ends.

China has already directed state firms to freeze dealings with Hutchison over the sale of the ports to Western investors. 

Related:

• Panama Canal Deal Derailed After Beijing Launches Antitrust Probe

• CK Hutchison Shares Fall As Mounting CCP Pressure Delays Panama Port Deal With BlackRock

• More Legal Landmines For CK Hutchison–BlackRock Panama Port Deal

• Beijing Fumes Over BlackRock’s Panama Port Deal With CK Hutchison

WSJ’s report is unlikely to sit well with the President, his advisors, or military planners, especially as the Pentagon’s strategic pivot has focused on bolstering hemispheric defense—part of a broader effort to reclaim control of the Panama Canal from Chinese influence. After all, the last thing the U.S. needs is China meddling in the Gulf of America.

And by the way…

As for the Panama ports and the race for Western control—well, that appears to be at a deadlock. We suspect the port deal will be folded into trade negotiations between the U.S. and China.

Authored by Adair Teuton via RealClearPolitics,

In an era of deep political polarization, a new study indicates that many members of Congress may be out of step not just with the opposition party, but with their own voters as well.

The study by the Institute for Legislative Analysis, a conservative group led by Republican Party activists Fred McGrath and Ryan McGowan, compares the ideological leanings of every sitting member of Congress with the partisan makeup of their districts, drawing on more than 100,000 votes cast in the last session and overlapping them with the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voter Index. The result is a striking picture of ideological misalignment across both parties, particularly among Republicans from deep-red states.

“It’s shocking to see that some Republican lawmakers are more aligned with the Democratic Party than with their own constituents,” said Fred McGrath, president of ILA and leader of this study.

More than two-thirds of lawmakers received a failing grade (“F”) for ideological alignment with their districts. Republicans were most often penalized for voting less conservatively than their deep-red districts, while Democrats struggled to meet the progressive expectations of blue districts.

“This study shows the overwhelming majority of elected officials in both parties are out of alignment with the people they represent,” said Ryan McGowan, CEO of the ILA. “Too many are either voting against the ideological tendencies of their constituents or failing to provide a clear alternative when representing swing districts.”

District-Based Grading System

The ILA introduced a District-Based Grading System to measure how well a lawmaker’s voting record aligns with their district’s ideological makeup. Districts are assigned an expected Limited Government Rating based on their partisan voter index, and lawmakers are graded on how closely their actual voting record matches that expectation.

The study found that some of the most conservative states had Republican lawmakers voting more liberally than their districts. For example, South Dakota Republicans had the largest average gap, scoring 24.3 points more progressive than their voters. Rep. Hal Rogers, a Kentucky Republican, showed a 63% more progressive voting record than his district.  Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, by contrast, nearly perfectly matched her district’s ideological makeup with a +3 LGR that aligns with her district’s +3 voter index. Texas Democrats voted 3.4 points more conservatively than their district’s preferences, the highest such gap among Democrats.

“While one may expect the most conservative lawmakers in Congress to represent the deepest red states, the data proves this is simply not the case,” McGowan said.

The study suggests that electoral dynamics in swing states like Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina push lawmakers to align more closely with their constituents.

“Lawmakers in these states are under more scrutiny, which may explain their better alignment with their voters,” McGrath said.

The study found the largest ideological gaps in fiscal and tax policy. Many GOP lawmakers in red states failed to vote in line with conservative fiscal priorities, despite their campaign promises. This misalignment is particularly noticeable in states like South Dakota, Arkansas, and Mississippi, which don’t receive the same level of electoral scrutiny as swing states.

“Special interests and lobbying pressures may play a role, but the lack of consistent public scrutiny in these deep-red states is a key factor,” McGrath noted.

Movement conservatives (and progressive activists alike) have long demanded fealty to the policy preferences of their own political “base.” But the ILA suggests that reaching political consensus – or even public policy compromise – would be more difficult if lawmakers adhered strictly to the desires of their respective bases.

“I don’t know if all lawmakers voting completely in-line with their districts would necessarily drive greater ‘consensus,’” McGrath explained, “if by that you mean lawmakers of both parties agreeing with one another on policy.”

McGrath highlighted that the study found the largest disconnect between lawmakers and their voters in deeply red states. “If these members of Congress voted based on the makeup and views of their constituents, then they would have taken more conservative stances on policy when casting their votes,” he said.

He concluded that the data shows many Republicans are voting more progressively than their districts, suggesting that if proper alignment existed, Congress would likely see more conservative policies enacted.

As the 2026 primaries approach, the ILA scorecards may become a powerful tool for challengers seeking to unseat incumbents who are seen as ideologically extreme or insufficiently aligned with their party. By offering a clearer view of how lawmakers’ votes align with their districts, the study provides voters with the information they need to assess whether their elected officials truly reflect their values.