The truth about how AI data centers affect local communities



Data centers are hotly debated across the nation. Most Americans rage against the growing demand forged on the back of AI, while President Trump is adamantly in favor, claiming they will make communities rich.

After looking at the data, here’s why you should think twice before rejecting a data center proposal in your town.

At their core, AI data centers are much more sophisticated than the traditional systems before them.

There are two types of people in the data center debate:

  1. Those who support the proliferation of data centers across the nation to power the next generation of frontier artificial intelligence.
  2. Those who reject data centers in their local communities, largely due to a number of concerns and complaints that we’ll address below.

Data centers are nothing new. Big Tech has relied on these facilities to bring a large number of tech innovations to the people for decades. Everything from search engines like Google and cloud storage like iCloud to streaming services like Netflix, online gaming platforms like PlayStation Plus, and so much more run on data centers. And for the most part, the people haven’t picked up their pitchforks in protest until now.

There’s something different about an AI data center that has sown an irrevocable discourse among the people. The MIT Technology Review puts it bluntly: “Everyone hates them.” But why? What makes AI data centers so different from the others that we have used and even enjoyed for decades? As it turns out, all data centers are not created equal.

According to RCR Wireless News, traditional data centers were designed to host various types of services, namely websites, apps, and cloud data. All of these tasks require far less processing power than the AI data centers of today. As a result, they don’t need the latest cutting-edge GPUs, advanced cooling systems, or high-speed data networks, and they don’t consume as much power.

RELATED: Water, watts, and workers: 3 persistent myths about AI and data centers

Yuuji/iStock/Getty Images

AI data centers, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. Since they train and maintain frontier AI models, the latest equipment is a necessity. In fact, these facilities represent the pinnacle of data center technology — billions of dollars of hardware all assembled in one central location. They require new GPUs — like an Nvidia Blackwell GPU, which costs between $30,000 and $50,000 per unit — on a regular basis to achieve maximum compute.

AI data centers also need advanced cooling systems to keep these expensive GPUs from overheating. Don’t forget that GPUs are also incredibly power-hungry, especially when they start churning through training data and consumer requests. They require the latest SSDs for instant storage and data transfers, too.

At their core, AI data centers are much more sophisticated than the traditional systems before them. They’re big and expensive, and they consume plenty of electricity by the hour. AI data centers also make a lot of noise, and they strain the energy grid that wasn’t built for this level of constant processing power and output.

These reasons are why so many people don’t want them near their local communities.

In a recent Gallup poll, 71% of the American people at least somewhat oppose the creation of new AI data centers in their communities, while 48% strongly oppose. That leaves only 27% that favor new AI data centers.

Gallup

President Trump, however, takes a different stance. Where local communities see a disruption in public peace and resource sustainability, Trump sees business opportunities and money. In late August, he took to Truth Social to declare:

The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign. The good news is that there are plenty of other places that want them. If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame. China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement. Actually, they can’t believe it is happening! President DJT

In his eyes, data centers are wealth-generation machines that will secure the United States’ position as an AI industry leader, beat back China’s attempts to leapfrog American frontier models, and spur the U.S. economy to new heights. On top of that, if the United States doesn’t build new data centers today, other nations will tomorrow, officially relinquishing our lead and influence in this space.

The only question now is whether or not President Trump is right. Are AI data centers actually good for local communities, or are they bad? According to the Consumer Energy Alliance, they will:

  • Create 45,367 temporary jobs for every 1 GW facility during the construction phase, resulting in “$2.4 billion in earnings and $176.8 million in state and local tax revenue” in an 18-month period.
  • Create 5,322 permanent high-paying jobs per facility. These roles include IT, engineers, and operations positions.
  • Bring in $292 million in annual earnings via permanent jobs while boosting statewide wages.
  • Usher in $405.8 million in recurring state and local tax revenue.
  • Provide long-term economic stability for local communities supported by each data center.

By the numbers alone, the people stand to gain a lot from allowing AI data centers into their communities. In fact, some smaller towns may even demand these facilities to boost their local economies.

RELATED: The data center backlash is getting spiritual

Imaginima/Getty Images

As for concerns over the energy grid, President Trump says that new data centers are required to build their own power plants to run their systems. This will ensure that the local grid remains untouched, and in some cases, AI data centers may even dump extra energy back into the main grid, causing energy prices for families to go down instead of up.

For noise complaints, this issue is a difficult one to avoid. Cooling systems can hum anywhere between 55 and 65 dBA day or night, or about the same level as a busy office. Some people find this sound off-putting, while others may not mind. For this issue, it’s best to work with community lawmakers to construct new data centers within zones away from residential areas, instead of rejecting these money-making machines entirely.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Want to think fearlessly like Charlie Kirk? Take the 28 free courses that shaped him.



“I might be the first speaker at a National Leadership Seminar not to go to college,” Charlie Kirk joked during a speech at Hillsdale College in February 2025.

Then he added: “I’m on pace to complete every single Hillsdale online course, so I think I’m making up for it.”

“So you’re going to fix the world, and you don’t know much about it,” Arnn told him. Instead of taking offense, Kirk got to work.

Unconventional path

Kirk’s route to national prominence was as unconventional as his education. Raised in the Chicago suburbs, he briefly attended Harper College before leaving to pursue political activism full-time. At 18, he founded Turning Point USA, which grew from a fledgling campus organization into a national conservative youth movement. Over the next 13 years, Kirk became a prominent author, broadcaster, campus debater, and ally of President Trump — all without earning a college degree.

To mark the first anniversary of Kirk’s death, Hillsdale has assembled 28 of the online courses in which he enrolled into a “Charlie Kirk online course path.”

Hillsdale is a small, independent Christian liberal arts college in Southern Michigan with an outsized influence on conservative intellectual life. Founded in 1844, the school refuses federal and state funding — including grants and loans accepted on behalf of students — in order to preserve its independence.

It has also made much of its classical liberal arts curriculum available online for free, drawing more than 5 million course enrollments.

From Aristotle to American history

The courses in Hillsdale’s new Kirk path were already free and open to the public. What the college has provided is a map through its extensive catalog: a self-directed liberal arts education spanning American history, constitutional government, economics, philosophy, theology, literature, mathematics, and statesmanship.

Kirk studied Aristotle’s “Ethics,” Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” C.S. Lewis, the book of Genesis, the Federalist Papers, the Roman Republic, Winston Churchill, and the history of Western theology. His political courses ranged from “Civil Rights in American History” and “The U.S. Supreme Court” to “The American Left: From Liberalism to Despotism.”

The breadth of the list offers a glimpse of the work behind the public figure.

Kirk said in his February speech that he had completed more than 30 Hillsdale courses and intended to take them all — “yes, even the Euclidean geometry one.”

He reserved particular praise for "Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitiution," which he argued should be required for every police officer, firefighter, and member of the military who takes an oath to defend the Constitution.

“As you take these courses, you realize how little our own elected leaders know about the country that they’re supposed to be protecting and defending,” Kirk said.

RELATED: Remembering Charlie Kirk, one year later

Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

Formative years

The remainder of his speech demonstrated how directly he applied that education to politics. Drawing on Hillsdale’s teaching about Woodrow Wilson and the rise of the administrative state, Kirk framed the opening weeks of Trump’s second term as a confrontation over the constitutional authority of the executive branch.

Appearing on "The Charlie Kirk Show" last week, Hillsdale President Larry Arnn recalled meeting Kirk12 years earlier, when the young activist was just 19. Arnn responded to Kirk’s ambitions by asking him a series of questions he could not answer.

“So you’re going to fix the world, and you don’t know much about it,” Arnn told him.

Instead of taking offense, Kirk got to work.

A month after their first meeting, Arnn received a text containing a photograph of a Hillsdale online course certificate. It was from Kirk.

“I knew him for 12 years. He grew so much,” Arnn recently said. After hearing Kirk deliver a Hillsdale speech several months before his death, Arnn approached him with a new assessment: “Okay, boy, you have learned a lot.”

Lifelong student

That willingness to be corrected was central to Arnn’s memory of his friend.

“I beat him up, and his reaction to that was exactly right,” Arnn said. “He was a student, right? He wanted to know.”

Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, described the effect of that education during Hillsdale’s commencement ceremony in May. She said the college helped her husband look beyond daily political commentary toward larger questions of what is good, true, and beautiful.

“He really understood that this institution wasn’t normal," she said. “It was something that elevated his thinking to be a thought leader and really become a serious person.”

At Kirk’s memorial service last September, Arnn placed him among the finest young people he had encountered during his career in education.

“Charlie is the only one who was never a full-time student at Hillsdale College who was on that list,” he said. “We will miss him dearly. He can’t be replaced.”

Hillsdale’s new course path offers a fitting memorial to the man Arnn called the college’s “best unofficial student of all time.”

Kirk was not content simply to lecture young people or ask them to take his word for anything. His signature campus events were invitations to challenge him: “Prove me wrong.” Hillsdale is honoring him in the same spirit — not by handing his admirers a set of conclusions, but by giving them access to the books, arguments, and teachers that helped him reach his own.

Energy remains high for second day of Republican Midterm Convention



The mood remained high in Dallas as the Republican Midterm Convention moved into its second day. The American Airlines Center was full by mid-afternoon Thursday for another slate of speakers, featuring a number of congressional candidates from around the country.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took the stage around 5 p.m. to loud applause and spoke about the importance of the upcoming midterms — echoing what has been a constant refrain from speakers throughout the event: "We are gathered here at a time for choosing ... the most consequential midterms in our lifetimes."

'It's been good to see everything that has been accomplished by the administration.'

Cruz also emphasized the radical nature of Democrat candidates, emphasizing the "mainstream versus extreme" distinction that has become a key talking point for the GOP: "They hate Christians, they hate Jews, they hate capitalism, and they hate America."

Attendees said they felt energized by the convention and thought it would help with voter turnout in November. Mark Knoderer, who traveled from Georgia to attend the convention, said he was motivated by the extreme nature of Democrat positions.

"This election is extremely important, and the Democrats are going so far left it's crazy that anyone would vote for them," Knoderer told Blaze News.

Isaac Laster, chairman of the Young Republicans of Texas, added that he's optimistic about voter enthusiasm heading into the midterms: "It's been good to see everything that has been accomplished by the administration. I think that will energize people."

RELATED: WATCH LIVE: Night 2 Republican Midterm Convention

Image source: BlazeTV

Laster also pointed to areas where GOP politicians can continue to gain ground with younger voters, such as opposition to the H-1B visa program. He called Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's recent ban on the program for taxpayer-funded institutions "an excellent step" and pointed out that young voters support the continued expansion of job protection for American workers.

"Those jobs should be going to Texans first," Laster noted to Blaze News.

The crowd continued to grow as high-profile speakers such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Karoline Leavitt addressed onlookers, touting Trump administration accomplishments and castigating the Democrat opposition. President Donald Trump is scheduled to address the convention at the end of the night.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Charlie Kirk kept asking America to argue back



I knew Charlie Kirk. He was my friend, and that friendship changed my life. When he was assassinated on September 10, 2025, I did what you do when your own words fail. I went back to his.

“Charlie Kirk, in His Own Words” is the result. It gathers his social media posts, curated one by one from 2011 to the day he died, and weaves in never-before-seen photographs and testimonials from the people who loved him.

Charlie Kirk understood that when speech is controlled, power concentrates and people learn to keep their real thoughts to themselves.

I am not making a dollar from this book. All proceeds go to Carry the Torch, the nonprofit I founded in his honor. This book is a gift, my thank-you to a man who spent his life telling young people the truth.

The selections are Charlie unfiltered, saying exactly what he believed and inviting anyone who disagreed to come and say so to his face.

Freedom of speech and an invitation to debate

Free speech was one of Charlie’s clearest instincts in public life. He treated the First Amendment as a safeguard for ordinary people — especially those without power, status, or institutional cover.

He understood that when speech is protected, a country can argue, correct itself, and stay honest; when it is controlled, power concentrates and people learn to keep their real thoughts to themselves.

He also understood how censorship spreads: It rarely begins with the average person. It begins with a claimed emergency, a claimed harm, a claimed moral cause — and then the boundaries tighten.

Kirk liked the part of politics where you cannot hide — a microphone, a chair, a crowd, and a clock. Debate forced clarity: it made people define terms, defend claims, and sit with the consequences of their own logic.

Campus debates mattered to him for another reason too — universities were supposed to be places of open dialogue, and he watched that promise shrink under administrators who treated disagreement as harm. But when students still showed up, argued back, and kept listening, he saw proof that the story wasn’t finished.

His respect for debate was not limited to his own side. He wanted arguments in daylight. No censorship. No cowardice. No hiding.

The quotes that follow show what that commitment sounded like in Charlie’s own words — on free speech, censorship, disagreement, and the obligation to make your case rather than silence the other side.

RELATED: WaPo ordered to rehire anti-white radical fired over Charlie Kirk assassination comments

ISABEL INFANTES/AFP/Getty Images

Free speech as birthright

5 million followers! Thank you all.

And thank you @elonmusk for liberating this critical platform.

After spending three days in England, I truly mean this with renewed importance: May we always protect free speech as one of our most sacred American birthrights.

Government limited by rights

The First Amendment was written precisely to hamstring the government!!

They work for us. They serve us. We the People, the citizens, are the sovereign. Never forget that.

Chapter by chapter

Thank you, President Trump, for acknowledging the amazing work our @TPUSA team is doing on thousands and thousands of college and high school chapters. There is a whole new generation of free speech warriors rising up, with more every passing year.

Platform censorship

Twitter censored and banned the leader of the free world from its platform.

We should never forget just how wildly absurd that really is.

Questioning is essential

When you're not allowed to question something at the risk of being banned, censored, or “cancelled” — it’s not science, it’s propaganda.

A double standard

The Packers and Eagles are scheduled to play this Friday in Brazil, where X has just been banned in a sweeping crackdown on free speech.

So let me get this straight...

The MLB took away the All-Star game from Atlanta because Georgia passed voting integrity laws.

The NCAA boycotted North Carolina because it had a law to keep mentally ill men out of girls’ bathrooms.

Thirty years ago, the NFL took the Super Bowl away from Arizona because voters didn’t vote to make MLK Day a paid holiday.

Why is the NFL bringing its road show to Brazil while the country is at war against free speech?

Young voters moved

Our Prove Me Wrong campus debate clips were seen 2.1 billion times this semester on TikTok, IG, X and YouTube.

The vast majority of those were viewed by 18-29-year-olds, and the Kamala campaign never knew how to counter.

YOUNG PEOPLE SHOWED UP FOR TRUMP

Refused to debate

This election brought the realignment we didn't see coming. It was the Biden Basement Realignment.

Does it make sense now why Democrats hid in basements? Why they refused to debate?

Run on nothing, say nothing, debate nothing, just hide and harvest.

RELATED: Randi Weingarten fought Texas to let teachers celebrate Charlie Kirk's murder. It didn't go her way.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Nigeria’s future

Daniel Ogoloma (@Dcogoloma) was my debate partner at the Oxford Union, taking a stand against a large majority of the house as we took the negative position on the resolution "Trump Has Gone Too Far."

Offstage, we spoke about the future of Nigeria. He is a very talented young man and Nigeria will be lucky to have him.

Debate over censorship

Today I moderated a debate between Dave Smith and Josh Hammer on Israel. It was very fiery, fun, and mostly peaceful.

Debate is the way forward, not name-calling or censorship. At the end agreement was found between both Dave and Josh on many important things.

A chair caused ‘trauma’

The University of Arizona is offering "mental health services" because I sat in a chair and took questions for 2 hours yesterday on the campus quad.

College administrators are more worried about conservatives expressing their views on campus than they are [about] Hamas supporters who want to kill Jews.

America, circa 2023

Editor’s note: This article is excerpted from “Charlie Kirk, in His Own Words,” compiled by Christy Edwards (Post Hill Press). Reprinted by permission.

The left has found its next Trump villain



As the saying goes, “if you’re catching flak, you’re over the target.” That line has followed President Trump for years, and it now fits Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Before joining the administration, Blanche spent years as one of Trump’s defense attorneys as the former president faced civil suits and criminal prosecutions brought by deranged accusers, state officials, and the federal government itself.

Blanche will be judged by whether he stays within the law. He should be. But he should not be expected to govern as though the election never happened.

Blanche then served as deputy attorney general for more than a year. After Pam Bondi’s dismissal in April, he became acting attorney general and was confirmed by the Senate on August 8, 50-49, with two Republicans voting against him.

He had already made himself a target.

In June 2025, following a Trump executive order, Blanche issued guidance narrowing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and directing prosecutors to focus on cases tied to U.S. interests and national security, including competition with China.

He has also pushed for prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey over his infamous “8647” Instagram post, prioritized the arrest of illegal immigrants with criminal records, and defended aggressive federal enforcement during Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.

Once Blanche became attorney general, reporters pressed him to promise “independence” from the president. He refused to perform the ritual.

RELATED: Enough with the Justice Department ‘independence’ myth

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

That refusal triggered the familiar argument that Republican attorneys general must prove their distance from Republican presidents before they can be treated as legitimate. Democrat attorneys general rarely face the same presumption.

The pattern has continued. Blanche’s support for allowing certain nonviolent felons to petition for restoration of gun rights brought the label “Trump goon” from the left. His refusal to embrace the media’s preferred definition of “independence” led to accusations that he was attacking the department itself. ABC’s coverage of his handling of Epstein-related questions turned moral compromise by association into another dishonest line of attack.

The common thread is not that every Blanche decision is beyond criticism. It is that vigorous service to Trump is itself somehow disqualifying.

That standard reflects the old arrangement Republicans were expected to accept: Democrats and the media set the norms, Republicans prove their respectability by obeying them, and any serious use of lawful power is presumed corrupt unless the left approves.

Blanche does not appear interested in that arrangement.

In his time at the Justice Department, Blanche has shown a willingness to use the department’s lawful authority in pursuit of the administration’s agenda without apologizing for the fact that the president won an election and appointed him to do exactly that.

RELATED: The Justice Department finally has a grown-up in charge

Alex Wong/Getty Images

That’s why the attacks will only intensify.

Other Trump officials draw plenty of criticism, but Blanche is increasingly being treated like Vice President JD Vance, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, or Trump himself: not merely as an opponent, but as someone whose refusal to play by the old rules is seen as a threat.

The left insists it fears politicized justice. What it appears to fear more is a Republican attorney general who will not accept a one-way definition of restraint.

Blanche will be judged by whether he stays within the law. He should be. But he should not be expected to govern as though the election never happened.

That is the real fight: whether a Republican administration is allowed to use lawful power without first asking permission from the people who opposed it.

Report: DHS Launches Voter Fraud ‘Surge’ Probes In Nine States

The investigations come as concerns grow over noncitizens on state voters rolls and the potential for voter fraud in the midterm elections.

Al Michaels divides NFL fans with Trump jab during 'Thursday Night Football': 'Read the news'



Some people in the public eye simply can't help themselves.

Such is the case with veteran NFL play-by-play commentator Al Michaels, who took a moment to mock the president on Thursday night.

'We think it is still called Lake Erie.'

Michaels was commentating for the Cleveland Browns vs. New England Patriots game on "Thursday Night Football," a preseason broadcast for Amazon Prime, when he made a brief comment that ruffled some feathers.

Less than four minutes into the game, the broadcast was showing off the Cleveland skyline before a kickoff when Michaels commented on President Trump's recent name change of Lake Ontario to Lake America.

"That is Lake Erie. We think it is still called Lake Erie," Michaels remarked.

"We're not quite sure at this point. But we'll be by Lake 'Something Like Ontario' or whatever it's going to be called by the time we get to Buffalo. Anyway, you know what I'm talking about," Michaels chuckled.

"Some of us do," replied co-commentator Kirk Herbstreit.

"Right! Read the news," Michaels concluded.

RELATED: WNBA team bans Enes Kanter Freedom from arena with yet another insane claim: 'That changed everything'

Fans seemed split on whether the remarks were necessary, with some getting in on the trolling nature of the name change.

"It’s Lake America, losers. Get it right," one viewer wrote on X.

Another compared the 81-year-old broadcaster to President Joe Biden: "Al Michaels is only one step ahead of Joe Biden in the brain department."

Others supported the veteran NFL voice, writing comments like, "Al Michaels comeback season. Top of his game!" and "Love it! Al Michaels calls it as he sees it."

Some comments were more in the middle, with one X user quoting a post of the video to claim, "God I love broadcasting. You can say whatever you want!"

While Michaels is known for cracking jokes, he does not have a history of going rogue with political opinions.

RELATED: MAGA-haters mock Giants quarterback for getting laid out by massive hit

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

His most notable foray into such topics was during the kneeling fiasco of 2017 where Michaels, along with broadcasters Cris Collinsworth and Mike Tirico, began NBC's "Football Night in America" broadcast with a discussion about Trump's remarks on the subject, which included saying kneeling players should be fired.

"Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He's fired. He's fired,'" Trump said at the time.

Michaels said that through his remarks, Trump had "galvanized" the league.

"People were beginning to listen to each other. It was calming down a little bit, and then a match got thrown into the gas tank," Michaels claimed. "It’s inadvertently created a new level of unity."

The Browns won on Thursday, 37-13.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Drain the swamp? Meet the refill.



Darline Nordone’s rise in South Carolina threatens to turn one of MAGA's founding promises into a punch line. The movement that vowed to "drain the swamp" is now watching establishment money, inherited political machinery, and a presidential endorsement converge behind the sister of one of the Senate's most durable establishment figures.

It also risks making Republicans look ridiculous as they denounce the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Democrats will use this cartoonish spectacle to argue that the Republican Party has been captured by corporate interests and turned its back on ordinary Americans.

Nordone (recently rebranded as Darline Graham) remains something of a political blank slate. Beyond the relationship with her late brother Lindsey, her support for a pro-abortion political ally, her years in state bureaucracies, and her association with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, voters have relatively little record from which to judge what she would actually do in the Senate.

Her refusal to state clearly what she is for and against only deepens the uncertainty.

What voters can reasonably expect, however, is continuity with the Graham political brand: Lindsey Graham's fanatical interventionist foreign policy, establishment instincts at home, and comfort with bipartisan deals that many MAGA voters spent the past decade rejecting.

That is precisely what the MAGA movement was supposed to oppose. We do not need to consult America’s founders to remember why. We need only go back to 2015, when candidate Donald Trump declared war on the political establishment and won by promising to change it.

Obviously, the call to “drain the swamp” reigns supreme in setting the frame, but there is an embarrassment of riches in terms of quotes to choose from to make the point even more specifically. How about at the first Republican debate in 2015:

I will tell you that our system is broken. ... I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. ... And that’s a broken system.

How about candidate Trump on Hillary Clinton:

These interests have rigged our political and economic system for their exclusive benefit. Big business, elite media, and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.

And what about the special interest support of failed military interventions supported by his then-opponent Senator Lindsey Graham:

Judging by the incompetent way he ran his campaign, it is easy to see why his military strategies have failed so badly — we can’t even beat ISIS!

That is the political movement I signed up for, volunteered for, worked for, and still fight for.

RELATED: ‘Birthright senatorship’ betrays America First

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

How can that movement be squared with an extension of establishment politics rather than its replacement? It can't. Everything Trump once condemned is now reappearing in almost cartoonish form.

So who is spending so heavily to support Darline Graham Nordone — and what do those interests expect in return?

A group called the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition is flooding money to support Darline Graham Nordone against her conservative opponent Ralph Norman. The group has announced $1 million in the race, as part of a $15 million larger pledge across the country, having already spent millions to defeat conservatives Chip Roy and Andy Ogles in their primary races.

The group is a super PAC, made possible by the 2010 Citizens United decision and its progeny, and funded by "clean energy" interests that favor government support for their industry. Conservatives have spent years attacking that kind of arrangement as corporate welfare — or, less politely, socialism. The point is not that every donor buys a politician outright. It is that political money is rarely charitable. Donors spend because policy matters to them.

Darline Graham Nordone has also received support from the establishment Senate campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. While she can’t take over her late brother's campaign account directly, it can be transferred to the NRSC, which is funding her already. Notably, her opponent, Ralph Norman, is an original co-sponsor of the Save America Act from six years ago. For an establishment Senate already twisted into knots over its obstruction of that critical legislation, it makes sense that they wouldn’t want another fierce advocate for it.

There are others in this one-sided spending race as well. The Security is our Strength PAC, formerly associated with Lindsey Graham, is of course supporting her to the tune of $900,000. This group makes it clear that it views her as the one who will be “carrying the legacy forward.”

I take it from their perspective that they want the same out of this Graham that they got out of the last one, which is a different political tune than others suggesting that Darline may be more focused domestically. There is also a group called Palmetto Action that is coming in north of $1 million to oppose Ralph Norman, on similar lines.

RELATED: The Biden autopen scandal has one big winner: Anthony Fauci

Alex WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Put simply, a great deal of money is flooding into South Carolina, and most of it is either supporting Darline Graham Nordone or opposing Ralph Norman. For a movement built around draining the swamp, the optics could hardly be worse.

South Carolinians should brace for a deluge of ads from every screen and speaker they own. Special-interest money can move votes; that is why people spend it. But the underlying question will remain: Why is Darline Graham Nordone a serious contender for this Senate seat? Her birthright senatorship via a famous last name, President Trump's endorsement, and a flood of outside money are doing much of the work.

South Carolinians should see this for what it is: a rejection of one of MAGA's core promises. This is not draining the swamp. It is restocking it.

Democrats will happily use this cartoonish spectacle to argue that the Republican Party has been captured by corporate interests and turned its back on ordinary Americans. They will also have an easy answer when Republicans denounce democratic socialism: Why should voters take that charge seriously if a Republican senator reaches office with the help of interests seeking to socialize the costs of private investment?

That will be a tough charge to rebut.

Parents, not bureaucrats, should call the shots



President Trump signed an executive order last week reducing the number of recommended childhood vaccines from 18 to 11 and urging states with school-entry requirements to update their laws accordingly.

That should be a starting point, not an end point.

More coercion will deepen skepticism, not cure it.

Alabama is already closer to that model than most states. Its school-entry requirements rely on a narrower set of core vaccines and do not force hepatitis B vaccination for every student. Other states should treat the president’s order as the floor for vaccine freedom, not the ceiling.

The most immediate step is obvious: States can reduce school-entry requirements to match the new federal recommendations. Better still, they should eliminate those mandates altogether or, at minimum, make it much easier for families to opt out.

Coercion has no place in parental medical decisions. Public schools exist to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. They should not condition access to a publicly funded classroom on a government-approved medical regimen.

Aligning state rules with the new federal baseline would be progress. But true parental authority requires going farther.

Forty-six states already allow religious exemptions from school vaccine requirements. Their broad existence also shows that states can preserve opt-outs without schools simply ceasing to function.

Religious exemptions should remain. But the principle should not end there.

Parents can have sincere nonreligious reasons for declining particular vaccines, whether because of personal medical history, concerns about a specific product, or objections to the schedule itself. Treating religious objections as legitimate while dismissing every other conscientious objection draws an arbitrary line.

States should therefore expand personal and philosophical exemptions as well. Families should not have to choose between access to public education and surrendering authority over their children’s medical decisions.

Idaho has already gone farther. Its Medical Freedom Act prohibits schools from imposing medical intervention mandates, including vaccine requirements, as a condition of attendance. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo is pushing in the same direction, seeking to eliminate school vaccine mandates entirely in the Sunshine State.

Other lawmakers should study those models. The core principle is straightforward: Attending a government school should not require surrendering parental authority over a child’s body.

The burden of vaccine mandates also falls unevenly.

Affluent parents who object can more easily homeschool or move a child to a private school with different policies. Working families often have fewer options. They may be forced to comply, navigate exemption processes that demand time and paperwork they do not have, or keep a child out of the classroom.

RELATED: Fauci is yesterday’s fight. Medical freedom is today’s.

Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg/Getty Images

That creates a two-tier system in which families with the fewest resources have the least room to exercise meaningful choice.

Reducing mandates or broadening opt-outs would expand educational freedom precisely for the families who are most constrained by the current system.

None of this prevents families from vaccinating their children. Parents who want the full schedule remain free to choose it. The question is whether the state should force that choice on everyone else as the price of attending school.

Public trust in health institutions fell sharply after COVID. Rebuilding that trust will require transparent information, honest risk communication, and genuine freedom to say no. More coercion will deepen skepticism, not cure it.

President Trump’s executive order gives states a practical starting point.

Legislatures should use it: Reduce school-entry vaccine mandates to the new federal baseline, expand opt-outs beyond religious grounds, or eliminate the mandates entirely.

Parents, not bureaucrats, should decide what goes into their children’s bodies. States that move first can expand educational freedom while beginning the harder work of rebuilding public confidence through voluntary cooperation rather than compulsion.

Yes, Democrats Just Passed A Resolution Seeking To Abolish ICE

The latest act by Democrats proving that once again November’s midterm elections come down to the sane versus the insane.