The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal



Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.

Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.

The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.

Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.

The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.

Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.

A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.

Federalism isn’t a suggestion

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.

If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.

A federal case for caution

David Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race.

— (@)  
 

Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.

But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.

America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.

Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.

States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.

AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.

State regulation is necessary

The threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.

In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.

RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo

  BlackJack3D via iStock/Getty Images

From banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.

These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.

The real danger: Doing nothing

This is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.

Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.

It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.

One bad order could undermine Trump’s strongest issue



Thank God President Trump walked back his misguided order to grant de facto amnesty to illegal alien farm workers. Now he needs to kill the policy for good.

Trump won in 2016 — and again in 2024 — on two core promises: lower the cost of living and stop the third-world invasion of the United States. Since he shows no interest in cutting deficits in a way that might restore pre-COVID price levels, immigration remains the battlefield that will define his presidency. And unless he corrects course, he risks failure on that front too.

No more half measures or donor-driven compromises. No more weakness. Only total war on the policies, programs, and pipelines that keep America under siege.

To his credit, Trump moved quickly to shut off the surge at the southern border during his first week in office. But he did the same in 2017, and the long-term results didn’t last. A future Democrat administration will simply escalate. If Biden brought in 10 million, the next one will aim for 20 million.

Temporary border control and modest deportation numbers won’t solve the crisis. Fewer than a million removals over a four-year term won’t reverse the demographic or economic damage — especially while legal immigration, foreign student visas, and guest worker programs continue at record highs.

Unforced errors

Trump must go beyond symbolic border enforcement. That means neutralizing judicial interference through must-pass legislation — or ignoring illegitimate court rulings outright. He should authorize maritime deportations using ships, suspend most of the 1.5 million foreign student visas — especially from China and Islamic countries — and permanently empower states to enforce immigration law.

Instead, Trump recently unveiled a set of policies that undermine those very goals.

He announced continued access for Chinese nationals to U.S. universities — just as a spy ring was uncovered at the University of Michigan. He expanded his support for white-collar visas for Indian nationals and revived his “golden visa” scheme, which allows wealthy Chinese Communist Party elites to buy their way into U.S. citizenship.

Worst of all, Trump issued an order halting removals of illegal aliens working in farming and hospitality. He later reversed course — but the damage was done.

 

In pushing for more illegal labor, Trump handed leftists a talking point they had already lost. He lent moral weight to one of their core claims: that America needs illegal immigrants to do the “jobs Americans won’t do.” That argument, long peddled by George W. Bush, John McCain, and the donor-class GOP, was the very reason millions turned to Trump in the first place.

Ten years after calling for a moratorium on illegal immigration and a drastic cut to legal migration, Trump now echoes the talking points he once dismantled. If he keeps this up, he won’t just squander his mandate — he’ll cement the invasion he was elected to stop.

Five points Trump should heed

  1. You can’t re-onshore manufacturing and offshore the workforce. Trump champions tariffs to bring jobs home — but what good is that if those jobs go to foreign nationals here illegally? Patriotism means putting Americans to work on American soil — not just moving the factory.
  2. This isn’t about labor shortages. It’s about labor suppression. Trump wants more white-collar visas even as tech jobs disappear. He supports handing green cards to foreign students. This isn’t policy — it’s donor-class economics wrapped in populist branding.
  3. You can’t modernize with AI while subsidizing human labor. Trump wants to “win the AI arms race” with China. Great. Start by automating farm work instead of importing cartel-affiliated field hands. Cheap labor delays innovation — and the status quo keeps us dependent.
  4. The welfare state distorts the labor market. Trump refuses to shrink entitlements and yet complains that Americans won’t work. Maybe that’s true — but the welfare state is the push, and illegal labor is the pull. Cut both, and you raise wages and get people off the couch.
  5. Illegal labor invites cartel exploitation. Agricultural guest labor provides the perfect cover. In 2019, an exposé by the Louisville Courier Journal revealed how Mexican farm workers served as mules for the Jalisco New Generation cartel. One man, Ciro Macias Martinez, groomed horses by day at Calumet Farm — and ran a $30 million drug ring by night.

The cash-based, transient, and legally vulnerable workforce offers a logistical gold mine for transnational criminal organizations. Cartels use job scams to traffic humans, set up safe houses, and move product. Rural communities lack the law enforcement resources to push back. The result: strategic sanctuary zones for America's most dangerous enemies.

RELATED: Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said

  Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

When Trump says these workers are “hardworking” and “not criminals,” he ignores the obvious fact that every illegal alien is a criminal. Amnesty for farm workers isn’t just a policy mistake — it’s an operational gift to America’s foreign adversaries.

No room for ambiguity

Trump knows immigration is his strongest issue. The polls prove it. But if he wavers, even slightly, on mass deportations or illegal labor, he opens the door for his political enemies to sow doubt — and for cartel operatives to sow chaos.

He reversed the farm worker carve-out. Now he must bury it. Then, he needs to go farther. No more half measures. No more donor-driven compromises. No more weakness. Only total war on the policies, programs, and pipelines that keep America under siege.

His base expects it. The country needs it. The future depends on it.

Trump fulfills his oath while Newsom and Bass shield foreign felons



Los Angeles looked like a war zone this week. Rioters — roughly 1,000 strong — torched vehicles and hurled rocks, concrete, and fireworks at law enforcement officers. They slashed tires and set fires in the streets. In the middle of it all, an American flag burned on the pavement as a mob urinated on it and screamed, “F**k Trump!”

This wasn’t spontaneous outrage. It was an organized assault on law, order, and national sovereignty — an eruption years in the making. And it happened in a city governed by officials who have spent decades dismantling the very structures meant to defend their constituents.

The United States owes rights and protections to its citizens — not to those who break its laws and exploit its generosity.

This riot didn’t begin last week. It began when Joe Biden threw open the nation’s borders and undermined the rule of law.

As rioters burn the American flag in downtown Los Angeles, state and local officials burn the constitutions that once protected their citizens.

The Constitution’s preamble lays out the government’s core mission: to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Article II, Section 3 provides that the president will ensure the laws “be faithfully executed.”

Contrary to what we’ve seen in Los Angeles, the duty of our elected officials is to defend the rule of law — not to support those who challenge it. That responsibility ultimately rests with the president: to protect the safety and security of the United States and its citizens.

Biden lit the fuse

Biden abandoned that responsibility. During his four years in office, he permitted more than 12 million illegal crossings, including at least 500,000 individuals with criminal records in their home countries.

He didn’t just neglect the law — he defied it. And the consequences have been deadly. More than 300,000 Americans died from fentanyl poisoning during the Biden years. Illegal alien gangs now operate trafficking networks in every major U.S. city. Innocent Americans have been raped, murdered, and assaulted because the federal government refused to act.

That’s not failed policy — it’s failed leadership. And the Constitution offers no cover for it.

Trump restores constitutional order

The voters responded in November. Donald J. Trump returned to the White House in January with a clear mandate: re-establish sovereignty, restore order, and protect the American people. That mandate extends to the men and women he’s appointed to carry it out — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and ICE Director Todd Lyons.

Their job is not theoretical. It’s real, it’s active, and it’s happening now. While California officials obstruct federal agents and give shelter to violent mobs, Trump’s team is working to reassert lawful authority — starting with immigration enforcement.

RELATED: Why is Gavin Newsom going full Jefferson Davis?

  Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

You might think California’s leaders would welcome help as their cities descend into chaos. Instead, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) demand that ICE back off and the National Guard go home. Rather than cooperate with federal law enforcement, they’ve chosen to protect the very forces tearing their communities apart.

They might want to reread their founding documents.

Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution states:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Moreover, the Los Angeles City Charter grants broad authority to protect life, liberty, and property. Yet, Bass and Newsom are using that power to shield foreign criminals from lawful arrest.

Sanctuary for criminals

Among those ICE sought to detain last week:

  • Armando Ordaz, convicted of sexual battery and affiliated with a known gang.
  • Victor Aguilar, previously deported and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
  • Jesus Morales, a wanted felon convicted of alien smuggling conspiracy.
  • Jose Ortiz, convicted of trafficking large quantities of cocaine.
  • Cuong Chanh Phan, convicted of second-degree murder.

Don't mistake those men for “asylum seekers.” They are predators. And California’s sanctuary policies shield them.

The Declaration of Independence reminds us that legitimate government exists “to secure these rights” — not for foreigners in defiance of the law but for citizens who consent to be governed under it. That is the basis of our system. That is what’s at stake.

This government belongs to Americans

The United States owes rights and protections to its citizens — not to those who break its laws and exploit its generosity. Yet, Democrat-run cities across the country have flipped that principle on its head.

New York. Chicago. Portland. Seattle. Los Angeles. City after city refuse to enforce basic law and order and make a mockery of their charters.

This must end.

Every foreign national who entered this country illegally must come under the jurisdiction of the federal and state constitutions — and face removal. Let them return home and wave their own flags instead of burning ours in the streets.

Donald Trump and his administration understand what’s at stake. The Constitution demands action. America is blessed to have a president willing to deliver it.

Johnson Says Hotly Contested Provision Will Stay Tucked Away In Big, Beautiful Bill

'I like it in its current form'

The abortion pill crisis Big Pharma doesn’t want you to see



A bombshell new study has found that women are suffering serious harm from chemical abortions at a rate 22 times higher than what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or abortion pill manufacturers are reporting to patients.

The federal government must step in now to protect women. It can no longer shirk its responsibility by “leaving it up to the states.”

If a drug is this dangerous, Big Pharma should not be allowed to hide its risks from women.

The study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which analyzed insurance claims of 330 million U.S. patients and over 850,000 cases of mifepristone abortions since 2017, is the largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted on the effects of America’s most common chemical abortion drug.

The numbers don’t lie

While the FDA and abortion drug manufacturers tout serious side effects in only 0.5% of cases, actual insurance claims from patients reveal the number is much higher: Nearly one in nine women experience severe or life-threatening events within 45 days of taking mifepristone, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, blood transfusion, infection, and surgeries tied directly to the abortion drug.

Nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States are now chemical, according to the Planned Parenthood-founded Guttmacher Institute, suggesting that hundreds of thousands of women over the past 10 years have suffered serious complications. That is neither “rare” nor “safe” by any definition.

By contrast, according to the EPPC, the federal government’s claims of the drug’s “safety” rely on small, outdated trials — some conducted over 40 years ago — on a combined total of only 31,000 mostly healthy women in doctor-controlled environments.

In real-world environments, however, the abortion drug has proven significantly more dangerous.

The EPPC study found 10.93% of women suffered significant harm from taking the drug. What other FDA-approved drug would remain on the market with such a high rate of serious adverse events?

No state is safe

In light of this data, the federal government can no longer justify the lifting of oversight protocols for the abortion drug. Under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, critical safety measures — such as in-person supervision by a doctor and adverse event reporting — were eliminated. These federal safeguards must be restored, and the drug’s safety and FDA approval must be re-evaluated.

This is not a mere “states issue.” Abortion drugs are often shipped across state lines without a doctor’s involvement. Pro-abortion states like California should not be allowed to pump this dangerous drug into Texas or other states that have enacted reasonable protections for women and their babies.

The leaders we send to Washington, D.C., cannot hide behind federalism on this issue under the guise of “leaving it up to the states.” If just one aggressively pro-abortion state is allowed to ship abortion pills nationwide, women across all 50 states remain at risk — even if the other 49 state legislatures vote to protect them.

Women deserve the truth

Regardless of opinions on abortion, all Americans should agree on this: Women have a right to accurate information about the drugs they take. If a drug is this dangerous, Big Pharma should not be allowed to hide its risks from women. And the FDA cannot turn a blind eye, becoming complicit in a cover-up.

We must demand that the FDA take action. I’ve joined with dozens of pro-family leaders nationwide in writing a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to act. The letter reads, in part:

All the original safety protocols on mifepristone must be restored, and the FDA must investigate mifepristone, reconsidering its approval altogether. The lives of women and unborn children and the rights of states depend on it.

Furthermore, here in Iowa — home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucus — we are committed to making safeguarding women from the dangers of mifepristone an issue for any candidate who seeks to follow President Trump in the White House. We urge voters to ask the same of any of their candidates: If you seek federal office, will you insist on seeing the safeguarding of women as a federal issue?

'I definitely feel violated': Christian girls' basketball team heads to court after statewide ban for refusing to play male



A Vermont Christian school has begun its legal fight against the state after the school was banned from state athletics competitions over their girls' basketball team's refusal to play against a team with a male athlete.

In February 2023, Mid Vermont Christian School forfeited a playoff game against Long Trail Mountain because the opponent had a male player on its squad.

Just a few weeks later, Mid Vermont was banned from statewide athletics by the Vermont Principals' Association after the governing body reached a unanimous decision to bar the school over its refusal to play. The state entity citied a "best practices" document that stated, "Transgender and gender nonconforming students are to be provided the same opportunities to participate in physical education as are all other students."

'There's a disadvantage for me.'

After filing a lawsuit in February 2024, the school, with help from the Alliance Defending Freedom, is finally seeing the courtroom.

"I definitely feel violated. I definitely feel nervous playing against men," Myranda Goodwin, a student and basketball player from Mid Vermont told Fox News. "When I play against my brother, it's definitely — there's a disadvantage for me."

Team coach Chris Goodwin offered encouragement to his students and said that while the battle may be difficult, it is important to stand up for what they believe in.

"Even though there's gonna be a cost to doing what's right, that doesn't mean you compromise. You still stand up and you do the right thing, and in the long run, there's a benefit to that," Goodwin said.

The coach went on to say that he never thought he would be in court for simply "adhering to my biblical (and commonsense) belief that boys and girls are different."

In response to Fox News, the Vermont Principals' Association claimed Mid Vermont was hindering the opportunities of other students by standing by its own beliefs.

"Mid Vermont Christian School has every right to teach its beliefs to its own students. It cannot, however, impose those beliefs on students from other public and private schools, deny students from other schools the opportunity to play, or hurt students from other schools because of who those students are."

The legal group AFD claimed in a press release that the state "cannot punish religious schools" by kicking them out of state-sponsored sports.

The group's vice president of litigation said Mid Vermont had been denied a public benefit "just because it stood by the widely held, commonsense belief that boys and girls are different."

While the aforementioned transgender policy asks schools to consider factors like protecting student privacy, it heavily favors the child with the delusional position.

"Generally, students should be permitted to participate in physical education and sports in accordance with the student's gender identity," the policy advises.

The policy also requires schools to maximize "social integration of the transgender student," while ensuring "equal opportunity to participate."

It then simply states, "A transgender student should not be required to use a locker room or restroom that conflicts with the student's gender identity."

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

Trump Signs Order To Dismantle Education Department ‘As Quickly As Possible’

'We're not doing well with the world of education in this country, we haven't for a long time,' Trump said on Thursday.

Trump just empowered states to fight back against illegal immigration



Donald Trump has wasted no time making his mark in his return to the White House.

In less than a week, the president has signed dozens of new executive orders and repealed nearly 80 orders and memorandums from the Biden era.

If the federal government declares an invasion has occurred, then states have the right and arguably the duty to respond accordingly.

One of the most notable orders, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” introduced immediate changes to immigration law.

The order suspends temporarily a contentious policy that allows immigrants to enter the United States by claiming asylum.

Additionally, it directs federal agents to block entry for immigrants who fail to provide sufficient medical information or reliable criminal and background records.

Perhaps the most important change, however, is one that has received little attention from the media — the classification of the ongoing border crisis as an “invasion.”

Many of Trump’s critics have classified the “invasion” rhetoric as xenophobic or racist, but in doing so, they have completely missed an important policy justification for using the term. By calling what’s occurring at the southern border an “invasion,” Trump has effectively given states the right to take drastic action against illegal immigration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Constitution prioritizes federal authority over state authority in immigration matters.

The court has determined that Article II grants the president the power to regulate many aspects of foreign affairs, including issues connected to immigration.

Article I empowers Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” governing the process of becoming a citizen.

The Constitution provides little mention of states’ rights regarding immigration, a lack often interpreted as justification for federal control of the issue.

However, in Article I, Section 10, the Constitution declares, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

In other words, although states cannot determine citizenship or set a foreign affairs agenda that’s out of step with the president, they can defend themselves from an invasion.

During the Biden administration, officials reported more than 8 million illegal border “encounters,” a figure that captures the number of people caught by officials while trying to illegally enter the United States. Importantly, data on “encounters” do not reflect the potentially millions of other immigrants who have come to America illegally over the same period but weren’t caught.

Some states have argued that this wave of illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion” and that because the Constitution allows states to combat an invasion, state officials should have the right to take action.

For example, in 2023, Texas lawmakers claimed the state had been invaded and then passed Senate Bill 4, which, among other things, gave Texas police the power to arrest illegal immigrants.

The law has been tied up in court since it was passed, largely because of courts’ reluctance to give states power over immigration and because claims of an “invasion” depend on the Constitution’s meaning of the term, which has been in dispute for years among legal scholars.

Now that the Trump administration has officially declared that the recent immigration crisis is an “invasion,” there should be no doubt that states have the legal authority to defend themselves. This would be a significant enhancement of states’ rights, assuming the designation and subsequent actions on the part of states survive legal challenges.

Regardless of your position on immigration, we should all be able to agree that states ought to have the power to defend themselves in the event of an invasion. And if the federal government declares an invasion has occurred, then states have the right and arguably the duty to respond accordingly.

If you disagree, then who, exactly, should have the right to decide when an “invasion” has occurred?

Although opponents of the new order won’t want to hear it, elections do, indeed, have consequences.

Bill Maher admits SICK Reality of how Democrats view Abortion
play icon

Bill Maher admits SICK Reality of how Democrats view Abortion

 

State religious freedom laws protect fundamental rights



State legislatures in Iowa, Utah, and Georgia have joined the movement to pass state laws protecting religious freedom. Commonly known as Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, these laws should be fairly uncontroversial. They simply ensure the free exercise of religion against government interference. Yet, the laws are being labeled by opponents as attempts to foster discrimination.

Search the internet for news about “religious freedom restoration acts,” also known as RFRAs, and the results might lead one to conclude that some far-right religious plot was afoot. Typical headlines include, “Human rights campaign strongly condemns the West Virginia legislature for hastily passing dangerous religious refusal bill, calls on gov justice to veto bill” and “Religious liberty steps too far, could destroy the common good if we let it.”

To claim that protecting religious liberty is an attempt to foster discrimination against LGBT rights is to make that discriminatory claim about the First Amendment itself.

What is going on here? What is a RFRA anyway? Is it a legitimate protection of religious liberty or a license to discriminate?

Let’s begin with some history. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 held in Employment Division v. Smith that a law is constitutional under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment if it is “facially neutral and generally applied” — even if that law, in fact, burdens religious exercise. The decision effectively allows government actions to burden religious exercise, as long as the burden is applied to religious and nonreligious persons alike.

Congress responded by passing a bipartisan bill in the 1993-1994 session — when Bill Clinton was president — prohibiting the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. The government would need to demonstrate that its action advances a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. This is the same standard the government must meet (called “strict scrutiny”) when burdening a fundamental right under the Constitution.

When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores that the federal RFRA cannot be applied to state laws, individual states responded by passing their own state RFRAs. Currently, 24 states have religious freedom laws on the books.

So, let’s be clear about what a state RFRA is. The First Amendment was enacted in part to protect the people’s right to free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court in Smith held that “neutral” laws can burden the free exercise of religion, undermining the very purpose of the U.S. Constitution’s intent to protect that free exercise. A RFRA, then, is nothing more than a statute to ensure adequate protection of the fundamental right to free religious exercise.

Accusations that the movement to pass state RFRAs is a radical shift in religious liberty law in America or that such laws attempt to discriminate against LGBT rights fall flat. The First Amendment is clearly meant to protect religious individuals and organizations, so that the free exercise of religion is not jeopardized by government action.

Since the current Supreme Court precedent in Smith does not adequately protect the free exercise of religion, state RFRAs step in to fill in the gap. State RFRAs are not a novelty. They do not constitute any sort of revolutionary new protection for religious exercise. To claim that protecting religious liberty is an attempt to foster discrimination against LGBT rights is to make that discriminatory claim about the First Amendment itself.

The movement to pass state RFRAs is not a legal revolution, but a modest restoration of the fundamental right to the free exercise of religion. To oppose this restoration is to stand against the foundational role of religion in society. It is not discriminatory to demand that religious exercise be free from burdensome government action. RFRAs are not about discrimination; this is a distraction. RFRAs are about protecting the fundamental right to religious exercise that stands at the heart of our American experiment. If state governments are free to burden religious exercise with hostile laws, Americans are not free to live out their faith in the public square. That is not “nondiscrimination.” That is un-American and threatens the liberties our nation was founded to protect.

Frank DeVito is an attorney and counsel at the Napa Legal Institute.