When we launched the American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF), we did it with an important mission in mind: to give voice to the millions of Americans who are sick and tired of watching their retirement dollars fund woke liberal corporate activism. That mission brought us face to face with a troubling trend: major U.S. companies using their platforms not to grow shareholder value, but to push divisive political agendas. One of the worst offenders is Airbnb.
That’s why, through First Amendment legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, we’ve filed a lawsuit against Airbnb. The lawsuit says Airbnb violated federal securities law and illegally excluded our shareholder proposal(s) from its 2025 proxy statement. Our proposal was simple.
We wanted Airbnb to explain the risks to its business from denying or restricting service to users based on their religion, political status, or Airbnb’s expansive speech codes. Instead of playing fair and following the law, we believe Airbnb broke the rules to shut us out. Here is a link to the lawsuit.
We believe Airbnb ignored SEC Rule 14a-8, which requires companies to notify shareholders within 14 days if they plan to exclude a proposal and give them an opportunity to challenge that decision. Airbnb didn’t do that. They just silently buried our proposal because it didn’t fit their politics.
Let me be blunt; This is what corporate viewpoint discrimination looks like in 2025. And we’re not going to let it stand.
We believe in free markets and free speech. As institutional investors, we believe that companies, especially publicly traded ones, should be focused on delivering value to their shareholders, not playing political referee. But Airbnb has turned itself into a culture war weapon. And now they’re shutting the door on shareholders who dare to question that approach.
We firmly believe that Airbnb’s behavior isn’t just wrong. It’s illegal. It undermines the entire purpose of shareholder democracy. Rule 14a-8 exists so that companies can’t pick and choose which viewpoints they allow on the proxy ballot. The SEC has made it clear that if a proposal meets the technical requirements, it belongs in front of all shareholders. Period.
When two different conservative groups (our co-plaintiff, The Heritage Foundation, also had a proposal ignored) submit 14a-8 compliant resolutions, those just get “lost in the mailroom.” That proves our point.
It’s our belief that Airbnb isn’t trying to stay out of politics. They’re just trying to silence one side of the political spectrum. Our proposals were lost in the mailroom while a proposal from a left-leaning group managed to make it to the ballot.
That’s why we’re taking this to court. This lawsuit isn’t just about one proposal or one company. It’s about defending the right of every investor including conservative investors to be heard. It’s about holding companies accountable when they break the law to protect their political biases. And it’s about making sure that our money isn’t used against us.
We’re grateful to stand with fellow conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation, our co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit in this fight. We’re grateful to be represented by excellent attorneys at ADF and Boyden Gray. Together, we’re demanding that Airbnb follow the law, include our proposals, and respect the rights of all shareholders, not just the ones who agree with their worldview.
We know this case could set a major precedent. If we win, it will send a loud and clear message to every boardroom in America. Conservatives will no longer be silenced. We have just as much right to shape the direction of the companies we invest in as anyone else. And we won’t stand by while biased corporations break the rules to push their agenda and shut us out.
So Airbnb had a choice. We believe they could have engaged with us, followed the process, and shown respect for their shareholders. Instead, they chose arrogance and exclusion. That choice now comes with consequences.
The woke bubble is bursting. The days of silent conservative investors are over. And we’re just getting started.
William Flaig is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and the Founder and CEO of the American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF). www.investconservative.com.
In 2016, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy, he took the political world by storm. Trump introduced an entire generation of young men and women to a new kind of politics. His charisma and iconic moments fueled a political machine that reached its peak in the 2024 Presidential Election.
In the wake of that election, a large base of young conservative men and women, highly invested into the political state of the United States, have been left behind. While voices throughout the political sphere have sought to align themselves with this wave of young activists, the most successful have not been journalists or politicians. It’s been the content creators.
An entire generation of young adults are hungry for political content, but few understand them enough to provide it. The legacy media has abandoned the youth in support of an audience that has retained viewership. This doesn’t further any agenda but holds one captive. Creators like Dean Withers have begun to fill that void in progressive spaces, preaching politics but more importantly allowing direct open communication with his audience. That connection has created a cult-like following around these new Gen Z creators. And it’s exactly what we’re hoping to do with Off The Record USA (OTR-USA).
OTR-USA represents a platform for young conservatives, enabling them to grow and share their thoughts and opinions openly and honestly. With a goal to bring both sides closer together, we are looking for any voices, liberal or conservative, that are willing to have open and honest dialogues.
As Arizona natives, both of us have contributed to our communities. Carson graduated from ASU and has spent time developing relationships within Arizona politics, building a network of support that he used to grow ASU’s College Republicans.
Stryder is currently studying Journalism and Political Science at ASU and has contributed to several different clubs on campus, including the Emmy award-winning Walter Cronkite Sports Network.
With OTR-USA, we hope to empower young creators to amplify their messages and broaden their influence while getting to the truth in our country through investigative journalism, interviews, and connecting back to our communities.
In an age where information is easily accessible, audiences are desperate for the truth. And we will use our influence to promote the importance of loving one’s country, along with the values that make America great.
Join us, as we fight for a better future.
Carson Carpenter graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Arizona State University and serves as Co-Founder & CEO of Off The Record USA.
Stryder Bigler is currently studying Journalism and Political Science at Arizona State University and serves as Co-Founder & COO of Off The Record USA.
Before the Declaration of Independence, there was the Olive Branch Petition.
Written 250 years ago on July 5th, the Olive Branch Petition was Thomas Jefferson’s first attempt to explain to King George III why the American Colonies were rebelling and ask for reconciliation.
The “Shot heard ‘round the world” had been fired almost three months earlier, and the Battle of Bunker Hill had just ended. It was readily apparent to the Second Continental Congress that the situation was spinning out of control. In a last-ditch effort to stave off a rebellion and attempt a peaceful settlement, John Hancock authorized the drafting of a document to explain the colonies’ position, acknowledge their loyalty to the King and propose a solution to the conflict.
Everything the colonists knew about their government was that the King’s representative controlled most of the governing of their political subdivision, and the actions of the Royal Governor were generally respected as if the King himself was in residence. What the colonists could not appreciate was the emerging British constitutional government caused Parliament to become more powerful while the King’s authority gradually eroded. Most critical in this tug of war for authority was the power of the purse. The King and Parliament routinely argued over taxing and spending with Parliament eventually gaining the upper hand.
But during this time, while the role and responsibility of the King and Parliament were being established, the colonies were in the midst of creating their own unique political system. Initially, the colonies grew and developed with little, if any, input from the King. The customs as British subjects were transferred in a seamless manner, almost by osmosis, that accepted a local structure of self-government that was limited and almost invisible. The law and accompanying political organization were accepted by the colonies because they were familiar; but most importantly, they worked.
Always looking for new revenue to fund both the Crown and Parliament, the colonies became an untapped revenue stream. Under the excuse that the cost of protecting the colonies from foreign invasion should be paid for by the direct beneficiaries (the colonies), Parliament acted. Beginning in 1764, Parliament sought to impose various taxes on the colonies. The King benefited from these taxes as a portion of the generated revenue directly funded his royal court, but the numerous acts imposing taxes were not issued in the name of the sovereign, but in the name of Parliament.
So, with each successive tax, the colonists became more vexed and sought to avoid new levies in many ways; some benign, like smuggling or boycotting to avoid payment, or direct action, like the destruction of property to illustrate displeasure. But in all these aggressions against parliamentary acts, the colonists reasoned that if King George could understand the situation and reign in Parliament, then the colonial relationship could be restored. The colonists failed to appreciate the King’s complicity in the imposition of the various taxes.
When the relationship between the colonies further deteriorated and red coats were ordered to disarm colonial militias, the war of words turned into a hot war with the loss of life and destruction of property. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill were more than simple police actions — they were serious military conflicts with significant casualties. With the conflict escalating, the Continental Congress tried one last step and appealed to the King with the Olive Branch Petition, which almost begged for a restoration of their former relationship. Thomas Jefferson’s initial draft of the Olive Branch Petition was too strident and bellicose, so with input from other founding fathers, John Dickinson would tone it down, and his revision was sent to the King after being approved by Congress.
King George never read the conciliatory document and instead responded by issuing his own Proclamation of Rebellion authorizing force to restrain the rebellion and hang the leaders. The Olive Branch Petition was an attempt to avoid bloodshed and restore an amicable relationship between the crown and colonies, but in rejecting the petition, the King, to his eventual detriment, turned loyalists into rebels.
One year later, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would set an inevitable course; Washington’s victory at Yorktown would conclude the matter.
Will Sellers is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, graduate of Hillsdale College, and was appointed by Gov. Kay Ivey as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com
Among many issues, the past two elections have been a referendum on the public school system throughout our country. And that’s especially true here in Arizona. The people have shown that they are tired of the leftist indoctrination, wasted taxpayer dollars on declining test scores, attacks on parental rights, and more.
Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump proved that cleaning up our schools wasn’t just a campaign talking point. He issued an executive order (EO) ending radical indoctrination in K-12 schooling, and the U.S. Department of Education took action to eliminate harmful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It’s been a breath of fresh air, frankly, but the woke crazies in our state are not going down without a fight.
Back in February, a teacher at Marana High School was suspended after he challenged President Trump’s denial of the existence of more than two genders during a classroom lecture. Then, in May, an advocacy group released audio from inside a Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) ninth grade health classroom where an alleged teacher gave a “lesson” on LGBTQ issues and criticized religious texts. What any of this has to do with “health” is beyond us, but it certainly shows the lengths these crazies are willing to go in order to push their radical message.
Not wanting to be outdone, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) also decided to get into the mix…
Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, launched in 2011, empowers families to tailor their children’s education with state funds. The 2025-2026 school year covers private school tuition, tutoring, and therapies, averaging $7,000 – $8,000 per student.
While the program serves over 93,000 students, that number is only a fraction of its possible reach. Bureaucratic inefficiencies and government red tape currently hinder broader access and limit the benefits of ESAs. The approval of the 2025-26 ESA Parent Handbook could have fixed this, but as critics pointed out, the handbook’s restrictive guidelines and manual review processes create more bureaucratic obstacles.
Now, it’s time to examine some of the key aspects of the ESA Program. We need real change, including adopting best practices from other states to streamline operations, better serve families, and extend this opportunity to more Arizona children.
ESA Application Process
The ESA program provides eligibility to any Arizona child from kindergarten through 12th grade, including preschoolers with disabilities, as outlined in the 2025-26 ESA Parent Handbook and A.R.S. §15-240. Families apply via the Arizona Department of Education’s (ADE) online portal, submitting proof of residency and, for students with disabilities, an IEP or 504 Plan.
Approvals are typically granted within 30 days. Approved families sign a contract to use funds for educational expenses and to forgo public school enrollment. Quarterly tuition deposits are managed through ClassWallet, requiring allocation to core subjects like reading and math, with receipt submission to ensure compliance. Non-compliance risks account suspension, balancing flexibility with accountability.
ClassWallet and Financial Management
ClassWallet simplifies ESA fund management through the ESA Applicant Portal, allowing parents to monitor balances and make transactions. It offers four spending options: the Marketplace, with pre-approved items like textbooks; Pay Vendor, for payments to providers such as private schools; the Debit Card, which requires receipt validation for purchases like school supplies; and Reimbursement, for out-of-pocket costs after review.
Marketplace purchases are automatically deducted, like a math workbook, are automatically deducted, streamlining routine expenses. However, non-Marketplace transactions require manual review as mandated by the 2025-26 handbook, which causes inefficiencies and frustrates parents.
Manual Review Staffing Strain
The 2025-26 handbook requires a manual review for non-Marketplace items, a detailed and staff-intensive process. Items like custom curricula, tutoring from unregistered providers, computer hardware, therapies for students with disabilities, debit card purchases, public school fees, and expensive items such as a $500 musical instrument must be verified for educational relevance. This includes providing specific documentation for IEP students and detailed invoices.
With more than 93,000 students, that could mean up to 186,000 reviews annually taking 46,608 staff hours. That would require at least 23 full-time ADE employees, thereby straining resources. These reviews, mandated by A.R.S. §15-2403(B), caused delays for 77% of parents, according to a 2024 Heritage Foundation report, which fuels perceptions of bureaucratic inefficiency.
The 2025-26 Handbook Controversy
The latest handbook’s approval by the Arizona State Board of Education (SBE) with an 8-1 vote sparked controversy over its compliance with state law. Critics, including parent Angela Faber, argued that its restrictive approval process, requiring additional documentation for disability-related expenses, violates A.R.S. §15-2402(B)(4), which permits funds for therapies and assistive technology.
Republican lawmakers criticized “overly restrictive cost guidelines,” such as a removed $16,000 cap on items like cellos, claiming the handbook defied a legislative warning. Still, no formal directive is documented, making the accusation speculative. The ADE asserts compliance with A.A.C. R7-2-1503 and A.R.S. §15-231(B), with a 30-day appeal period for denied expenses to ensure recourse. Despite revisions, late draft postings limited public review and increased debate. A 2023 report showed 96% of ESA funds supported academic goals, highlighting the program’s potential when managed effectively.
Lessons from Other States
Expanding ClassWallet’s Marketplace to include more pre-approved items could decrease manual reviews by 20–30% to improve the handbook’s inefficiencies. Implementing a machine-learning system for routine approvals, modeled on Florida’s Family Empowerment Scholarship or Tennessee’s Individualized Education Account, would simplify processing. Reinstating debit cards with Merchant Category Code restrictions and adopting risk-based audits could reduce review volume by 40%. Better parental education through tutorials could lower errors, easing administrative burdens.
Potential Leadership Change: Horne vs. Yee
Amid the handbook concerns, Superintendent Tom Horne may face Treasurer Kimberly Yee in the Republican primary for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. During his tenure, Horne has advanced educational initiatives by eliminating the Kindergarten Entry Assessment to reduce teacher workload and expanded school safety with 565 new officers. As Arizona State Treasurer, Kimberly Yee has championed government transparency by pushing for easily accessible online budgets, with the Arizona Treasury website providing clear information on taxpayer spending, enhancing public accountability. Yee has also prioritized financial literacy for high school courses and a Financial Literacy Fund to educate students, seniors, and vulnerable populations. Voters are urged to select the leader in 2026 who is most qualified and prepared to improve upon the administratively challenged ESA program. Check out my previous column for more information about the Horne and Yee matchup.
Conclusion: Strengthening a National Model
The ESA program’s flexibility for over 93,000 students makes it a national leader, but the 2025-26 handbook’s manual reviews and controversial approval process show administrative challenges. Arizona can improve operations while keeping accountability by increasing transparency and adopting automation, learning from Florida and Tennessee.
For more details, visit https://www.azed.gov/esa or call (602) 364-1969. Be aware of potential staff availability constraints.
Tamra Farah leads AmericanStrategies.org. She brings twenty years of experience in public policy and politics as a journalist, focusing on protecting individual liberty and advocating for limited government. She has worked with ten local, state, and federal candidates and organizations, such as Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Moms for America, and Arizona Women of Action. Farah has regularly appeared on conservative radio, television, and print media.
At a recent Senate hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said something I never thought I’d hear from a top federal health official: “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me.”
That wasn’t a dodge. That was honesty. And, frankly, it’s a breath of fresh air.
For too long, health bureaucrats in Washington have believed their job is to dictate Americans’ medical decisions. That mindset led to lockdowns, mandates, censorship, and the sidelining of safe, effective tools that were widely distributed earlier in the pandemic, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Secretary Kennedy’s testimony suggests a different view: the role of government is not to play doctor, but to protect the freedom of every American to decide what’s best for their own health.
That’s the right idea and the essence of true healthcare choice.
Contrast this with the last administration. Under President Joe Biden, Americans were forced to choose between a vaccine they didn’t want — with a plethora of boosters — and continued restrictions on their liberties.
Biden didn’t promote vaccine choice. He aggressively pushed vaccines and boosters as the primary defense from COVID. Meanwhile, monoclonal antibodies — preventive and therapeutic tools that cut the risk of hospitalization and death as high as 74% and 84% in high-risk patients — were pushed aside. The administration significantly scaled back their distribution even though mAbs successfully treated President Donald Trump and were backed by countless doctors who called for broader access.
Why? Because the Biden White House chose to prioritize vaccination above all else. It preferred to micromanage Americans’ care rather than empower families to make informed decisions.
That wasn’t science, it was politics. And Americans paid the price.
As my son Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, also a medical doctor, said countless times, some patients were even denied mAbs due to what he described as “partisan political games” — namely, the politically-charged FDA guidance that many hospitals felt pressured to follow throughout the pandemic. Five years later, the FDA still hasn’t fully approved a monoclonal antibody product.
That’s not “following the science” or respecting the people’s right and ability to make their own health care decisions. That’s the worst type of government overreach — micromanaging your medical decisions by erecting regulatory roadblocks designed to limit your options by and control what treatments and preventatives you can access. When Washington dictates what care you’re allowed to pursue, what opinions you’re allowed to hear, and what shots you’re required to take, you’re no longer living in a free country.
Now, under a new administration and with Secretary Kennedy at the helm of HHS, there’s an opportunity to chart a new course — one rooted in freedom, not fear.
Americans should have access to vaccines if they want them, but they should also have access to alternatives like mAbs. They should be allowed to hear all sides of a medical debate, not just the one approved by government “experts.” And they should be trusted to make informed choices for themselves and their families.
Secretary Kennedy’s comments may not have pleased the political class, but they honored the principle this country was founded on: government serves the people, not the other way around.
Real health policy doesn’t come from control. It comes from having confidence in the American people to make their own choices. At this early stage, I’m so glad that Secretary Kennedy seems to understand as much.
