Now is a good time for religion in America.

President Trump has established the White House Religious Liberty Commission, led by a diverse group of religious leaders and scholars, including Mary Margaret Bush, Napa Legal’s own former executive director. The commission is identifying some of the nation’s most pressing religious liberty issues and developing plans for action.

Lawmakers should take advantage of the moment to enact durable protections that will outlast any administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, too, has protected religious liberty in several crucial cases. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the court held that it is unconstitutional to exclude religious schools from generally available government funding programs. In Kennedy v. Bremerton, it found that coach Joseph Kennedy’s postgame prayers did not violate the First Amendment. This year brought additional victories in Mahmoud v. Taylor, where the court upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT content in elementary school classes, and Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, where a unanimous court prevented state officials from favoring some religions over others.

These encouraging developments might tempt Americans to believe that the battle for nationwide religious freedom has already been won.

Yet even with such powerful forces defending religious liberty at the federal level, state laws affecting religious organizations remain critical for ensuring that everyday Americans do not suffer persecution for their firmly held religious beliefs.

Consider what just happened in Washington state.

In 2025, Catholic priests there faced an impossible choice between obeying their faith and complying with state law. A new Washington state statute required clergy to report instances of abuse or neglect they heard during confession, despite the Church’s centuries-old sacramental seal. The law singled out priests while giving others, like lawyers, a pass, and it carried the threat of jail time and fines.

Thankfully, a federal court blocked the law before it could take effect, ruling in Etienne v. Ferguson that the state could not force clergy to violate the sacred seal of confession.

But that case never should have been necessary. Washington’s law reflected the same pattern Napa Legal’s research has uncovered repeatedly: When state laws are weak or hostile to faith-based organizations, those organizations are left vulnerable even when the federal government and Supreme Court appear friendly to religion.

This month, the Napa Legal Institute released the third edition of the Faith and Freedom Index, an analysis of state laws across the country that either help or hinder religious organizations. Whether national politics seem to favor or oppose religious liberty, state laws remain central to its long-term health.

The states with the top overall scores were:

AlabamaKansasIndianaTexasMississippi

The five lowest scores went to:

MichiganWashingtonMassachusettsWest VirginiaMaryland

What distinguishes the states at the top of the list from those at the bottom? Several types of laws come into play. For example, the index’s highest performing states have built frameworks that proactively safeguard religious organizations. Their laws provide broad protections for religious exercise and create environments where ministries can thrive.

By contrast, it’s no coincidence that Washington state ranks near the bottom. The same state that passed one of the most intrusive laws in recent memory also reflects on the Index a legal system that makes it far too easy for governments to intrude on matters of faith.

That is why it is important to strike while the iron is hot. When the federal government is friendly to religious liberty, that is precisely the time to act. Political conditions can change quickly, but good laws endure. Lawmakers should take advantage of the moment to enact durable protections that will outlast any administration.

RELATED: Why Trump’s religious liberty agenda terrifies the left

SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

There are many reasons why state laws remain decisive. First, state statutes can still contradict clear federal precedent. After the Supreme Court struck down Wisconsin’s discriminatory law in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, a similar law remained in effect in New York. Religious organizations there had to continue the litigation even after the Supreme Court had essentially decided the issue.

It is also not enough for states to rely solely on constitutional protections or a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

These safeguards are vital but not sufficient. When a religious organization’s hiring or service conflicts with state “nondiscrimination” laws, it should not have to spend years in court to prove its right to operate according to its beliefs. States can and should pass clear exemptions that prevent such conflicts from ever arising.

Finally, state tax and regulatory codes can have a major impact on whether faith-based organizations thrive. Many religious nonprofits are treated like for-profit corporations, subject to tax regimes and administrative filings, fees, and audits that make it hard for them to operate. States should look closely at such laws and remove unnecessary burdens that divert precious time and resources away from ministry and service.

No matter who sits in the White House or on the Supreme Court, state laws remain a foundation of religious liberty. The Faith and Freedom Index remains an important tool to protect and foster the work of religious organizations and religious liberty in general.

Voters should consider how laws in their states burden religion when they cast their votes. Policymakers should pay close attention to laws that may seem tedious but can make or break the needed work of religious organizations. And our government leaders should work to enact laws that foster religious liberty, so that religion can serve its proper role in contributing to the common good.

​Religious liberty, Religious freedom, Christianity, Christian, Christian persecution, Faith 

Since the 1980s, society has become increasingly heliophobic. Dermatologists warn “there’s no such thing as a healthy tan.” Influencers and celebrities urge us to slather on high SPF products any time we leave the house. Public health agencies like the CDC now list sunscreen as a daily essential alongside seat belts and flu shots.

Is all this solar alarmism really merited?

Dr. Paul Saladino — a double board certified MD, host of the “Fundamental Health” podcast, and author of “The Carnivore Code” — says no. And in fact, it’s the sunscreen itself we should be scrutinizing, he told BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan on an episode of “Back to the People.”

While sunscreen advocates constantly warn of sun exposure-linked cancers, Dr. Saladino points out that the majority of mainstream sunscreens are ironically full of carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, like benzene, oxybenzone, octocrylene, and avobenzone.

Further, villainizing the sun makes no sense from an “evolutionary, historical, anthropological perspective,” he says. “Most animals have a sense of when they’ve gotten too much sun. This is just intrinsic to life on the earth.”

“You can’t produce vitamin D naturally without sunshine, nor can you produce … melatonin,” Nicole adds.

“Exactly. … We can supplement with melatonin, and we can supplement with vitamin D, but questions remain about whether that’s the same as being in the sun,” Dr. Saladino agrees.

Sun exposure is also critical for our circadian rhythm – our body’s natural 24-hour internal clock that regulates sleep-wake cycles, hormone release, body temperature, and other functions in sync with day and night.

And perhaps most importantly, it just makes us happy. Sunlight is one of the biggest factors in depression risk. “We know that endorphins are produced when you go out in the sun, so these are the feel-good chemicals in our bodies suggestive of some sort of evolutionary mechanism that spurs us as humans to crave the sun in reasonable amounts,” says Dr. Saladino.

On top of that, sunlight triggers the production of nitric oxide in our skin, which widens blood vessels and lowers blood pressure. Dr. Saladino says that “there have been studies in humans” proving the cardiovascular benefits of sun exposure.

And yet despite all the evidence that sunlight is critical to human flourishing, the medical industry continues to demonize it and insists we douse ourselves in toxic chemicals that block sunlight.

So what’s the answer? How do we reap the necessary benefits of sunlight while still protecting ourselves from overexposure?

Dr. Saladino has several suggestions to help you stay safe and healthy:

1. If you feel you need some protection from the sun, try “covering up” or opting for mineral sunscreens, specifically “non-nano zinc oxide” sunscreens. These products sit on the skin’s surface and block UV rays without risk of absorption.

2. As far as sun exposure goes, Dr. Saladino says every person’s limit is different. It “depends on skin tone at base, where you are in the world, and the season,” he says. He recommends using a free app called D-Minder, which calculates your optimal sun exposure time to produce vitamin D without burning based on factors like skin type, location, age, weight, and UV index.

3. For naturally pale-skinned people, he recommends morning sunlight, as there’s less UV rays at that time.

4. Trust your instincts. “Most of us as humans have an intrinsic sense of when we’ve gotten enough sun,” he says. “If you are sitting indoors and the sun looks delicious … and it feels heavenly, your body probably needs that sunlight.”

To hear more of Dr. Saladino’s take on the “anti-sun establishment,” watch the episode above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole’s compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Back to the people, Nicole shanahan, Dr. paul saladino, Sunscreen, Sunscreen toxic, Blazetv, Blaze media, Health, Sun, Vitamin d 

A leftist former lawmaker was sentenced last month after being convicted of fraudulently obtaining a COVID-19 relief loan.

Ibraheem Samirah, a former Democratic Virginia state delegate, made headlines in 2019 for interrupting President Donald Trump’s Jamestown speech, holding up a sign that read, “Deport hate” and “reunite my family.”

‘The defendant was stealing federal tax dollars at the same time he was deciding how to spend Virginia tax dollars.’

Samirah, 34, was sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to pay $88,000 in restitution after he pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, according to a Tuesday report from the Washington Post.

Prosecutors argued that the former lawmaker received an $83,000 Paycheck Protection Program loan in May 2020 for his dental practice in Fairfax County. He applied in August 2021 to have the loan forgiven, which would require the PPP funds to have been used for payroll, rent, or mortgage payments.

Samirah claimed that the loan would be used to pay four workers at his practice. However, court documents revealed that his business had no payroll employees. Additionally, it had no active financial account to disburse payroll funds until a few days before applying for the loan.

RELATED: Muslim lawmaker pushes ‘Islamophobia’ narrative, claims hijab pulled off student’s head — despite police noting false statements, no hate crime

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

Samirah allegedly fabricated payroll and tax records to secure the loan. The funds were distributed through bank accounts belonging to the supposed employees and then transferred into Samirah’s own account, according to prosecutors.

“The defendant was stealing federal tax dollars at the same time he was deciding how to spend Virginia tax dollars,” prosecutors wrote.

RELATED: Cori Bush’s husband accused of stuffing his pockets with taxpayer cash intended for struggling businesses

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Samirah told the Post that he had a “mistaken understanding of the PPP loan process,” which he claimed was “weaponized by Donald Trump’s Justice Department.”

He told the news outlet that he intended to use the cash to hire workers to market his business; however, on the loan application, he claimed that the funds would go to existing employees. He explained that he changed his mind about hiring new workers after realizing the pandemic would be prolonged. Instead, he spent the money on dental equipment and office furnishings, which were not authorized uses of the funds.

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

​News, Virginia, Fairfax county, Donald trump, Trump, Trump administration, Trump admin, Trump doj, Department of justice, Doj, Ibraheem samirah, Paycheck protection program, Ppp loans, Ppp loan, Ppp, Covid, Covid-19, Politics 

Everything you interact with is now built by people who don’t understand you, and your kids are pushed out of the job market.

From the front lines of corporate tech, I can confirm what many Americans already suspect: The H-1B program has produced a workplace disaster. It has compromised security. It has degraded the quality of everyday software. Worst of all, it has crushed the job prospects of American workers.

We don’t need to accept a corporate-designed future in which our industries no longer employ us and the products no longer serve us.

I’ve spent more than a decade inside corporate tech. In that time — especially after COVID — the number of Americans on my left and right has steadily dropped. Meanwhile, offshore offices multiply and more foreign workers arrive under visas. And they’re not doing low-stakes tasks. They’re building internal portals for insurance companies, managing databases that store your medical records, and writing the code behind your bank and utility apps.

Look at the results. Your bank’s mobile app crawls. Basic online bill-pay feels like an endurance test. Everyday American services — airlines, grocery chains, utilities — deploy software that barely works. The root cause sits in boardrooms across the Fortune 500: fire Americans, import cheaper labor, and call it efficiency. Why pay an American engineer $150,000 when an H-1B worker costs $100,000 and can be deported for missing an unrealistic goal?

Here’s the pattern I’ve watched repeat across company after company.

An H-1B hire climbs the ladder to director or vice president. He earns that rise largely by finding “inefficiencies,” which usually means firing Americans. He then pushes leadership to open more H-1B slots or to contract with a “consulting firm” staffed almost entirely from abroad.

Executives applaud because the invoices are low and the offshore teams rarely say no to any request, no matter how impossible. And when the savings look good enough, leadership shutters the American division altogether and replaces it with an “innovation center” in Bangalore. Look at the savings!

The American worker who survives this gets a grim reward: meetings at 6 a.m. to accommodate India Standard Time, an office filled with co-workers who share neither language nor culture, an org chart dominated by unfamiliar and unpronounceable names, and a career path with no upward mobility. And that’s if the worker is fortunate enough to have a job at all. Bleak.

The numbers paint an even darker picture. According to the Cengage Group’s 2025 Employability Report, only 41% of 2024 college graduates found full-time work related to their fields. In 2025, that number fell to 30%. Some analysts blame AI, but the claim doesn’t survive contact with reality. A recent MIT report found that despite $30-$40 billion in corporate spending on AI tools, 95% of organizations show no return on that investment — even though nearly half of office workers already use AI in some form.

RELATED: The H-1B system is broken. Here’s how to fix it.

Photo by DANIEL SLIM/AFP via Getty Images

If AI were truly replacing white-collar workers at scale, why did these same corporations ask the federal government to approve 141,207 H-1B visas in 2024?

The truth is simpler: Importing cheaper, compliant labor remains the easiest way for corporate leadership to cut costs, pad bonuses, and build bigger homes in Southlake — while American workers pay the price.

America is not obligated to subsidize its own replacement. We don’t need to accept a corporate-designed future in which our industries no longer employ us and the products no longer serve us. The American middle class built the modern technology economy. It should not be pushed aside so that executives can chase savings that hollow out the country one layoff at a time.

Enough.

​H-1b visas, American tech workers, Visas, Opinion & analysis, India, America first, Immigration, Higher education, Training, Globalists, Globalism 

Despite the fact that America is in a fertility crisis — the worst ever recorded in the nation’s history — the Economist published a sardonic article on November 6 titled “Make America procreate again: Among the MAGA fertility fanatics.”

Through a cynical and patronizing lens, author Barclay Bram explored the right-wing-propelled pro-natalist movement spearheaded by “tech bros and religious conservatives” who champion having more babies. He cited the Nation’s Joan Walsh — a radical leftist who authored a book titled “What’s the Matter with White People?” — to capture the left’s perspective on this movement: “an insidious project to create a whiter America.”

“White children are the most evil thing that the left can imagine,” says BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre.

While lefties would surely deny this, their actions speak volumes — specifically their action of “importing” and protecting illegal immigrants, which they argue is the solution to the country’s plummeting birth rate. But Auron sees through their lies.

“They have no interest in you continuing to exist because they want to replace you,” he says frankly.

Bram’s piece opens with an anecdote recounting his time with a 32-year-old single trucker named Tim Adkinson at NatalCon, a pro-natalist conference in Austin, Texas. He’s painted as a pitiable, desperate figure for his ambition to rear children, and the convention is framed as a pathetic gathering of weirdos — tech bros, religious zealots, and lonely conservatives — desperately trying to engineer a “baby boom” amid America’s fertility collapse.

“[He’s] literally demonizing people who are trying to solve social problems that are keeping us from having families,” Auron says.

Bram went on to paint the billionaires investing in reproductive technologies and the Trump administration’s push for less expensive fertility drugs as futile attempts to manufacture more families.

“Why is this insidious?” asks Auron.

“Because white people might have kids,” he answers. “That’s why it’s evil. Yeah, they care about the future of the United States. Yes, they’re working to reduce drug prices and create situations where people can stay home with their children … but oh, some of those people might be white. And that’s the problem.”

Not only is this overtly racist, it’s also illogical. If we’re serious about fixing the country’s fertility crisis (and the left claims it is), then more white babies are inevitable, as “white people are still the majority in America,” says Auron.

“But the Economist hates white people. It hates white babies. It doesn’t want white people to have children. They are interested in ethnic cleansing. That’s what they support.”

Bram’s article also mentioned (without critique) the protesters who rallied against NatalCon attendees: “A group of protesters, their faces mostly covered, gathered in the museum courtyard. ‘Nazis off our campus!’ they screamed through a megaphone as conference attendees streamed in. One sign read ‘Eugenicists’ with the word ‘Natalists’ crossed through.”

Auron makes it plain: “So if you want to have babies, you are a Nazi. You are doing Nazi race science if you would desire that Americans have more children. And this really just lays it bare. … Every white baby could be a Nazi. Whiteness is something that is inherently fascist, right? Nazism is sitting in white DNA, so we’ve got to get rid of the white people so we get rid of the Nazis.”

“I keep having to hear there is no great replacement theory … no attempts to push white people out of the United States … except for the article is explicitly stating that every white child is an atrocity.”

To hear Auron’s full breakdown of Bram’s article, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist’s commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Auron macintyre, The auron macintyre show, Blazetv, Blaze media, Pro natalism, Natalism movement, Fertility crisis, The economist, Barclay bram 

A Texas sheriff’s office allegedly arrested a local veteran for a satirical social media post.

The Hood County Sheriff’s Office claimed that he was jailed for felony “online impersonation-name/persona create page” in the third degree. However, the defense attorney contends that his client was arrested for merely posting a political meme.

‘Tech-illiterate Boomer Sheriff Deputies in Hood County, Texas arrested my friend for felony-level trolling.’

On November 5, authorities reportedly arrested Kolton Krottinger, a Navy veteran who operates the Blue Branch Historic Ranch, a veterans’ mental health center in Granbury.

It is believed that Krottinger was detained over an October 2 Facebook post of a fake screenshot designed to look like a real post from a rival local activist. The hoax image featured the activist’s profile photo and name above a message expressing support for then-Granbury ISD school board candidate Monica Brown.

“The Victim states that she does not support Monica Brown for this election and stated that the public is being misled by the post as to what the Victim’s actual beliefs are concerning this particular election race,” the complaint read.

Rob Christian, Krottinger’s attorney, referred to the post as “a meme.”

“After 25 years of experience as a district attorney and criminal defense attorney, I have never seen anyone get arrested for engaging in political speech,” Christian told the Dallas Express.

RELATED: Threads is now bigger than X, and that’s terrible for free speech

Photo By Raymond Boyd/Getty Images

Hood County Constable John Shirley explained to the news outlet that the allegedly impersonated activist “very openly, loudly, and publicly hates” Brown.

“It’s a picture of a political sign that anybody who knows the person whose account this was pasted onto would know that it’s fake and a joke,” Shirley said.

“I’m outspoken about the First Amendment. I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Bill of Rights,” Shirley continued. “This kind of stuff really smells of authoritarianism.”

State law prohibits using “the name or persona of another person” to “harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person.”

While Sheriff Roger Deeds told Blaze News that “this case is still under investigation so I cannot comment further on it,” the sheriff’s office still appeared to reference the case in a November 10 Facebook post.

“The Hood County Sheriff’s Office has been made aware of numerous social media posts with regards to bullying, harassment, threats and similar, directed towards citizens in our community,” a bulletin from the office read. “While certain online posts may seem offensive, cruel, threatening or inappropriate to some, much of what is posted online is protected by the 1st amendment. However, these acts may sometimes constitute a criminal offense, such as the example below, from a recent and notable case.”

The example cited in the office’s announcement referenced Texas Penal Code § 33.07, online impersonation. The sheriff’s office concluded the bulletin by encouraging any additional potential victims to file an offense report.

RELATED: Tommy Robinson has the last laugh after politically motivated terrorism arrest: ‘Free speech won!’

Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images

The arrest of Krottinger prompted Nate Criswell, former chair of the Hood County Republican Party, to start an online petition to urge the district attorney to drop the charges.

“Tech-illiterate Boomer Sheriff Deputies in Hood County, Texas arrested my friend for felony-level trolling,” Criswell wrote on social media.

Texas attorney general candidate Aaron Reitz also spoke out about the charges.

“From what I can tell, Kolton Krottinger created an obviously satirical meme. Moreover, his conduct doesn’t appear to meet the ‘intent’ requirement under Texas Penal Code § 33.07 (Online Impersonation). On its face, this case seems far outside the scope of the statute’s text, purpose, and precedent,” Reitz said.

Reitz speculated that the charges would ultimately be dropped.

“But that provides little immediate relief and doesn’t undo the current or past injustices that have led to this point,” he continued. “Kolton may also have recourse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the County has deprived him of his First Amendment rights, which I strongly suspect it has done. The longer this situation continues, the greater the potential liability for Hood County.”

On Wednesday, Brown, the former school board candidate, filed a complaint with the sheriff’s office concerning Krottinger’s arrest and treatment.

“Mr. Krottinger shared a harmless political satire meme related to a local school board election. He was arrested, handcuffed, placed in solitary confinement, classified as ‘high-profile,’ had his phone confiscated, and denied access to social media, which is his livelihood,” Brown wrote.

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

​News, Texas, Granbury, Hood county, Hood county sheriff’s office, Kolton krottinger, Free speech, First amendment, 1st amendment, Roger deeds, Politics 

In 1992, a young Democratic strategist on the Clinton campaign named James Carville coined the now-famous phrase “it’s the economy, stupid.” He directed it to the campaign workers to ensure that they remained laser-focused on kitchen-table issues. In November’s elections, voters delivered that same message, loud and clear, in New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey. The results were not surprising — even the margins were roughly in line with 2017, the last off-year elections in those localities when Trump was president.

The message was clear: Many young voters are hurting economically. Of course, the Trump administration is well aware of this. The government has been digging out of the economic disaster Joe Biden left behind. Compared to Europe and much of Asia, the U.S. is doing better, but the global macro environment is still challenging — especially for young people.

Once again and as ever: ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’

This is why almost immediately after the election, the administration focused on ramping up its communication efforts on the economy. President Trump indicated an urgent need to blow up the filibuster and enact a legislative agenda commensurate with the issues young voters are facing. Trump’s approach was echoed by Vice President JD Vance, who noted, “We’re going to keep working to make a decent life affordable in this country, and that’s the metric by which we’ll ultimately be judged in 2026 and beyond.”

It is useful to do a deep dive into the 2025 election data so that we can learn what happened and how we can be ready with the right political and policy prescriptions to win the much more important midterm elections in 2026.

A coalition of the ‘falling behind’

Contrary to the thinking of most political commentators, Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York City mayoral race wasn’t about racial identity politics. I’m not saying he doesn’t believe in racial identity politics. It’s quite central to his worldview. After all, this is the guy who tweeted in 2020 that “Black + brown solidarity will overcome white supremacy.” Mamdani’s anti-Israel activities have also been well known and much remarked upon. But that’s not what led his coalition to victory on Nov. 4.

First, Mamdani’s campaign was fundamentally a youth movement. Young women ages 18-29, while a relatively small part of the electorate, gave him 81% of their support. These are staggering numbers. Overall, Mamdani won younger voters under 45 by an incredible 69%-25%, while former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) won voters over 45 by 51%-39%. Just as importantly, Mamdani actually won white voters by one point. He certainly did well with Muslims and in the South Asian community.

It’s possible that Mamdani may in fact be a Third-Worldist or Muslim supremacist, as some have alleged — but these were peripheral issues in electing him, and a look at his coalition suggests that focusing on them would fracture it.

Likewise, feelings about Israel were overblown. While it was a “major factor” in 38% of voters’ minds, it was essentially a political wash, with Mamdani losing 47%-46% among those who felt passionately about the issue. While Israel may be personally important for him, it was not a driving issue for most of his voters.

Mamdani’s coalition is spiritually and geographically rootless. While he did strongly among Muslims (presumably a significant chunk of the 14% of voters of “other religions” that he took 70% of), far more powerful was the 75% he took among the 24% of voters who claimed no religion. For those who have made politics their god, Mamdani is a comforting idol and socialism a powerful liturgy.

RELATED: Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

His is also a coalition of the mobile, anchored by those with shallow roots in New York — and, one might suspect, America. Mamdani dominated among newer arrivals, winning a staggering 82% among those who have lived in New York City for less than 10 years. Cuomo, meanwhile, carried the NYC-born 50%-38%, but that group comprised just 45% of the electorate. Likewise, Mamdani racked up a 59%-34% margin among renters.

The fundamental point that anchored Mamdani’s coalition was the economy: 25% of voters described themselves as democratic socialists, and he won 86% of them. And many appear to have been motivated by jealousy or frustration. He actually won 59% among those who thought the NYC economy was good, but also 59%-34% among those who felt they were personally falling behind. If you were among the one-third of voters who looked around and saw everyone else getting ahead but you, Mamdani was your candidate.

Fifty-six percent of voters said the cost of living was the most critical issue, and Mamdani won 66% of them. If he had only won these voters, Mamdani still would have come within a few percentage points of beating Cuomo (41%-37%). This is an essential message for the GOP to internalize if it wants to win back these voters at the 2026 midterms.

Of the 34% of voters who supported raising taxes, an incredible 86% were for Mamdani. But his coalition is not a working-class coalition. White voters with a degree supported Mamdani 57%-40%, while he took just 26% of white voters without a degree — a group that would have comprised eight out of ten voters in 1950 but just 14% today. Nor was it truly a coalition of the financial elite: Cuomo won 62%-33% among families earning over $300,000 per year.

Kitchen-table issues, again

While the circumstances in New York City were somewhat unique, the story in Virginia was more typical. There was a huge gender gap — which is really a marriage gap — though unfortunately, we have only the gender breakdown since pollsters, for whatever reason, didn’t ask about marital status, despite its enormous effect on women’s votes in particular. Republican Winsome Earle-Sears actually won men 51%-38%, but Abigail Spanberger crushed her among women, 65%-35%. If gender gap patterns here are similar to 2024, Spanberger took approximately 72% of single women’s votes.

Also notable is the incredible failure of tokenistic identity politics to appeal to left-wing identity groups. Earle-Sears, a black woman, took just 7% of the black vote — and, incredibly, just 3% of black women’s votes. Meanwhile, she took 61% of white men’s votes, even while losing by 14.5 points overall.

The lesson for the GOP is simple: Voters want tangible results on immigration, jobs, and affordability.

Spanberger was similarly dominant among youth, winning the under-45 vote 65%-34%, as opposed to a much narrower 53%-47% margin among the 45-and-over crowd. Similarly, we see how much the Democrats have become the party of the elite, with Spanberger winning 68%-32% among those with advanced degrees. Earle-Sears, meanwhile, won 2-1 among the one-third of Virginia voters who are white and do not have college degrees and 80% of white born-again Christians, who made up 28% of the voters.

Earle-Sears won 61%-37% among the 37% who are not affected financially by the shutdowns, while the 20% who are affected went for Spanberger 82%-18%. If you look at those Virginia voters who are only a little or not at all financially affected by federal cuts, Spanberger eked out only the narrowest victory over Earle-Sears. Almost her entire positive margin came from those 20% of voters who are substantially financially affected by federal job cuts. This illustrates in dramatic fashion how much Virginia has become a company town for the federal government, with politics that reflect that fact.

By a 58%-40% margin, Virginians said that the economy was good, but Spanberger won among the 23% who felt they were falling behind, by a 76%-24% margin. Again, we see that those who are unhappy with their place in the current economy went overwhelmingly for the Democrats.

Spanberger also won on kitchen-table issues. Among the 48% who felt the economy was the most important issue, she won 63% to 36%. And among the 21% who said health care was the most important issue, she won an incredible 81% to 18%.

By contrast, Earle-Sears had only a narrow advantage (50%-47%) on the transgender issue despite having made men in women’s or girls’ bathrooms and similar matters a centerpiece of her campaign. While it’s very likely that particular issue had a larger gap when related to men in women’s locker rooms than transgenderism as a whole, as insane as transgenderism is to most Republicans, it does not trump the economy for most swing voters.

RELATED: Accountability or bust: Trump’s second term test

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Carville’s maxim

In New Jersey, once again, we saw economic anxieties come to the fore. Like New York, most people in the Garden State said the economy was not good. But they did not blame the extended period of Democrat governance, including a two-term Democrat governor. Instead, they blamed the Republicans who have been in power for less than a year. Indeed, among the 24% of voters who felt they were economically falling behind, they went 69%-31% for Democrat Mikie Sherrill.

GOP candidate Jack Ciattarelli barely won white voters, 52%-47%, while 68% of Latinos and 82% of Asian Americans voted for Sherrill. For both Spanberger and Sherrill, the Democrats were gifted with almost ideal candidates — experienced, elected congresswomen — given their potential coalition: relatively moderate, affluent white women who could deliver enough red meat to their minority base to turn out most of them while feeling very safe for moderate white suburbanites. Notably, both Sherrill, a Naval Academy graduate and veteran, and Spanberger, a former CIA officer, are married suburban moms, which makes it hard for your average independent voter to portray them as unpatriotic.

One encouraging point was that these results may say less about Republicans and Democrats than one might think. Among a much more Democrat-skewed electorate than in 2024, party favorability for the GOP in New Jersey was only five points under water (46%-51%), while the Democrats (49%-48%) were barely viewed favorably. But a staggering 23% of those with a somewhat favorable view of the Republican Party voted for Sherrill, speaking to her ability to win independent voters.

The GOP retained some gains it made among Hispanic voters in 2024, but overall, 18% of Hispanic voters who voted GOP in 2024 switched to the Democrats in this election. This still represented a significant gain in Hispanic votes for the GOP compared to the last governor’s race in 2021, but it was not enough to keep the race close.

A silver lining

One bright spot from the exit polls after a tough evening for the GOP is that immigration remains a solid issue for Republicans, even with Democrat intransigence. The Trump administration’s aggressive actions haven’t soured voters. Winsome Earle-Sears won 88% among those who considered immigration the most critical issue in Virginia (unfortunately, only 11% of the electorate). Jack Ciattarelli won 72% among voters who cared most about immigration (but again, just 7%).

The economy is the dominant issue, which is why it’s essential to spend more time talking about deporting illegal aliens as a kitchen-table issue that frees up jobs and housing for citizens, while reducing the tax burden on social services.

In each of these constituencies — New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey — Trump’s immigration policies were more opposed than supported. But these are all liberal constituencies in a Democrat wave election. If Trump’s policies polled this well among these constituencies during this election, they still retain solid popular support nationwide.

In New Jersey, 47% said the next governor should cooperate with the president on immigration, versus 49% who said she should not, a virtual tie in a state where the GOP gubernatorial candidate lost by 13 points. By a 15-point margin, Virginians opposed Trump’s immigration policies, identical to the gap in the governor’s race. Even in NYC, 34% of voters wanted the city to cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration enforcement, versus 61% opposed. That 34% number is several points higher than the 30% Trump won in the city in 2024, which represented the highest vote total for a GOP candidate in NYC since 1988.

The lesson for the GOP is simple: Voters want tangible results on immigration, jobs, and affordability. Recent polling suggests that these are the top three issues for 60% of low-propensity voters. If the GOP delivers on these points, it can have a great 2026 midterm election. If not, 2026 will look a lot like 2025.

Once again and as ever: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​Young voters, 2025 elections, Prices, Economy, Opinion & analysis, Democrats, Republicans, New jersey governor race, Virginia gubernatorial race, New york city mayoral race, Zohran mamdani, Andrew cuomo, Winsome earle-sears, Abigail spanberger, Mikie sherrill, Jack ciattarelli, Affordability crisis, Kitchen table issues, Immigration, American mind