A federal appeals court <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/07/stop-woke-act-appeal-florida-desantis?">struck down</a> a key part of Florida’s law restricting race and gender discussions in public colleges and universities on Tuesday. 
The same people celebrating the ruling are also decrying a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/26/us/texas-schools-bible-curriculum-vote">recent decision</a> by the Texas State Board of Education that allowed biblical passages to appear on a secondary school reading list. The former is academic freedom, and the latter a violation of it. Naturally. 
It’s easy to reconcile these positions by arguing that one is a religious matter and the other is secular. Clearly, it&#8217;s wrong to push one&#8217;s religion in the classroom. Therefore, we can rely on “separation of church and state” to privilege the speech of Florida college professors over that of Texas secondary teachers. 
But for this distinction to matter, we require a clear definition of religion. What constitutes a religious belief as opposed to a philosophical opinion? Certainly not the mention of God — the Buddhist religion is staunchly atheist, yet it is held to the same standards as Christianity or Judaism in academia.
Religions have a number of key components. They tend to include, in one form or another, unquestionable dogmas, heresies, priesthoods, and rituals. 
Let’s consider the famous “is-ought” problem posed by philosopher David Hume. It is impossible to prove that one “ought” to do something using only descriptive statements. 
For example, just because you can prove that stealing from someone will upset him, or damage the legitimacy of anti-theft laws, or cause him to seek vengeance on you does not itself prove an imperative that you shouldn’t steal. Only if you consider his feelings, the legitimacy of the law, or your own safety to be intrinsically valuable does the imperative become binding. And while these considerations may come naturally, they are not the product of unassailable deductive reasoning.
In other words, when put to the incessant questioning of a two-year-old, “but why?” the answer must eventually become “because somebody said so” or “that’s just the way it is.” At least one moral postulate is necessary for the system to function. 
Religion provides a workable axiology. It’s the oldest form of intellectual value theory known to man. 
Everyone worships something; some of us just know it. 
Consider veganism, for example. Committed vegans accept the intrinsic value of all animal life as a moral postulate. They consider eating meat or animal products to be sinful behavior that violates their moral code. Someone else eating meat doesn’t affect vegans in the slightest, yet they consider it an insult to a higher moral truth that they have postulated. 
Imagine a Christian professor objecting in the classroom to the morality of same-sex marriage. He would be violating the separation of church and state. Yet when a professor asserts that veganism is morally superior to meat-eating, this is protected by academic freedom. 
Even the most clinical theoreticians who reject progressive dogmas (which few actually do) often find themselves speaking with reverence of The Science (capital S, of course) and what it tells us. Far be it for us to rise above our stations and question the anointed Experts and their wisdom. 
The problem is not the presence of value judgments in education. Had human education failed to privilege any one way of thinking over any other throughout history, we’d have never left the caves. 
What’s more, absolute neutrality toward social issues is not only a fiction, but it’s an undesirable one. I, for one, would not favor living in a society where children were taught that a set of values that leads them to Hitler is on equal footing with those that lead them to Martin Luther King Jr.
The extent to which religious practices should be allowed into the public sphere is a matter of debate. The trouble comes when educators try to play by a different set of rules by classifying their religious practices as different from religious practices they don’t like. 
While the Florida ruling allows educators to espouse their faith toward race and gender dogmas, the Texas ruling requires that the Bible be taught strictly from a neutral, historical perspective. The double standard here should be painfully obvious. 
The secular religion phenomenon has some clear benefits attached to it as well. It is most often through their religion that people find communities and become motivated to do good for the world. Atheists who wouldn’t be caught dead in a church might still be motivated to form groups and serve their communities by other commitments that fill the void of traditional faith (such as environmentalists cleaning up parks).
After all, the is-ought problem demonstrates why no amount of clinical analysis can tell us what is ultimately worth loving, protecting, or forbidding. If one must reject the Abrahamic faiths, better that he find another outlet through which to do good than abandon good altogether. 
The problem comes when “doing good” crosses the line from picking up trash in your neighborhood into blocking the roads because you didn’t get your way in the presidential election. Secular religions are seldom guided by ancient wisdom; they’re frequently guided by edgy teenagers on social media and ivory tower intellectuals who are safely insulated from the real world. For that reason, they often end up directing people’s religious zeal toward ends that are counterproductive. 
Secular religions, even when they are predicated on principles that nobody disputes, are still systems of faith. Whenever we give educators the power to impart their faith onto their students, we run the risk of indoctrination that the founders feared.
Taking God out of the equation does not erase this concern. If anything, it amplifies it.
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Beautiful White Baptist Church in Crawfordville, George built in 1889

What’s Really Replacing Religion In America’s Schools?

Education

Religion

Upstream

Graham Platner has finally become too big a liability for the Democratic establishment.
Everyone and their brother is rushing to pull their endorsement and distance themselves from the Platner campaign over the recent sexual assault <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/06/graham-platner-sexual-assault-allegation-00987737">scandal</a> that has come out against him.
Mind you, voters didn’t seem to care about Platner’s laundry list of scandals until a few days ago, when he was accused of assault by Jenny Racicot. Platner faced assault allegations over a month ago from Lyndsey Fifield, yet his <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/us/politics/collins-platner-maine-senate-poll.html">lead in some polls</a> only grew.
The trouble with the MeToo movement was never that it sought to shed light on those unfit to hold public office.
That said, in the unfortunate reality that few politicians are saints, we must distinguish between what is unsavory and what is disqualifying. If we barred anybody who ever made an inappropriate comment from holding office, it would be impossible to keep a candidate for more than 30 seconds. A serial abuser, however, should be excommunicated from the public sphere forever.
The trouble, of course, was never with encouraging women to speak up about instances of sexual assault. The trouble was with the attitude defined by the movement’s slogan, “Believe All Women.” Declaring “believe all” anything is going to incentivize certain malicious actors to weaponize society’s sympathy. And to absolutely no one’s surprise, the movement brought instances of baseless accusations designed for political and personal gain.
When Joe Biden was accused of rape by Tara Reade during the 2020 presidential election, you weren’t supposed to believe all women anymore. As with all good witch hunts, the hysteria died when the accusers bit off more than they could chew. Though the accusations did appear to have some merit, the party wasn’t going to drop its nominee over them, so they dismissed the whole case as trivial.
Whether or not Biden was guilty, “Believe All Women” got a lot more flexible when women started saying things the Democrats didn’t like. It became clear that society could not baselessly accept every single accusation, and so the pendulum swung in the other direction — being awfully quick to dismiss even the serious cases.
The simple explanation is a boy-who-cried-wolf dynamic. The MeToo movement of the 2010s had thoroughly desensitized the public to claims of sexual abuse. Or so it seemed until the Democratic establishment finally abandoned Platner over Racicot’s accusations.
But the fact that the Democrats did eventually drop Platner reveals a more concerning dynamic within the party.
What we have now is a situation even worse than the boy who cried wolf. Democratic voters still seem to understand sexual assault to be a disqualifying offense; they just have moved the goalpost of who gets to decide when something is or isn’t over the line. Instead of the natural public response that should come with plausible claims, the public response is manufactured in accordance with the establishment’s response.
I’m old enough (and one needn’t be very old) to recall the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The New York Times furiously backed the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, in dozens of articles, including a 2018 op-ed titled <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/opinion/editorials/kavanaugh-trump-republican-sexual-abuse-.html">“Sexual Abuse Isn’t Partisan.”</a> I think I have a carton of 2018 milk that has aged better.
Not a single witness could corroborate her story. Ford herself brought forward three individuals, none of whom recalled ever having been to a party anything like the one she described. Ford could not remember whose house the party was at, how she got there, or how she got home. Kavanaugh had attended a Catholic all-boys school at the time, and not a single person testified that he ever knew Ford.
Now let’s talk about the Platner case.
The Times massively watered down Fifield’s story. Unlike the case of Ford, Fifield was actually in a documented relationship with Platner and had provided the testimonies of friends she confided in during the time of the assault. The article conveniently omitted them. It’s also worth mentioning that while Kavanaugh had a spotless character record and reputation before his appointment in 2018, Platner had weathered scandal after scandal on precisely the subject of sexual misconduct.
Since Racicot was a Democrat, the party could no longer claim the accusation was politically motivated. At last, they were forced to act, and the moment they did, it became acceptable to call out Platner’s behavior.
The Bulwark, bastion of honest reporting that it is, published an <a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-democrats-who-can-win-red-america">article</a> on Platner over a week after Fifield’s accusations. The article heavily minimized the scandal and focused on his political talents and appeal. There was no companion op-ed criticizing his behavior or calling for him to drop out over the scandal. Only after Racicot came forward and endorsements started dropping like flies did the Bulwark publish a piece titled <a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/p/graham-platner-crossed-the-voters-red-line-sexual-assault-allegation-maine-senate-election-midterms">“Graham Platner Crossed the Voters’ Red Line.”</a> 
Could someone please identify where exactly that red line is? I’m having a hard time finding it.
The MeToo movement has, predictably, done enormous damage to the credibility of victims of sexual assault. The double standard employed by the Left hurts both those who are baselessly accused and those real victims whose cases will be chalked up to political posturing.
Justice is blind and indiscriminate. When the core principles of society are violated, the transgressors must be held accountable. The Platner case demonstrated that it is not a matter of principle, but political convenience that compels the Democratic Party to purge its ranks.
The MeToo movement was supposed to end selective silence. Instead, it simply changed who does the selecting.

Maine Democratic Candidate For Senate Graham Platner Campaigns Across The State

Platner’s Fall Shows The Double Standard Of The MeToo Movement

DW Opinion

graham platner

MeToo

The Maine Democratic Senate ticket is in total chaos after Troy Jackson, the leading replacement for scandal-ridden candidate Graham Platner, was hit with assault allegations.
Jackson, a DSA-affiliated Maine politician, was accused of physical assault earlier today by the political organization Progressive Victory. The group works with left-wing politicians and influencers to organize grassroots support for leftist causes. 
“Troy Jackson in a heated disagreement struck a female colleague with a bottle he threw at her. There are many witnesses and it appears this is a widespread open secret within Maine politics and not an isolated incident,” said Progressive Victory in a social media <a href="https://x.com/ProgressiveVic/status/2074320341929726172">post</a>.  
Progressive Victory detailed &#8220;troubling information&#8221; it had received about Jackson. &#8220;In our discussions we have received troubling information about not only Jackson’s behavior, but the behavior of many prominent Maine Democrats toward women more broadly,&#8221; the organization wrote. &#8220;Both as a result of the credibility of the sources and in the interest of not seeing our movement make the same mistake twice, we are choosing to share some of this now.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We began asking our contacts on the ground in Maine about Troy Jackson earlier today after seeing many suggestions that he should replace Graham Platner against Susan Collins.
In our discussions we have received troubling information about not only Jackson’s behavior, but the…
— Progressive Victory (@ProgressiveVic) <a href="https://x.com/ProgressiveVic/status/2074320341929726172?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Discussions to replace Platner come after his most recent scandal, which involves <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-new-sexual-assault-accusation-rocks-maine-democrat-graham-platner?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=9&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=A+New+Sexual+Assault+Accusation+Rocks+Maine+Democrat+Graham+Platner">accusations</a> of sexually assaulting his ex-girlfriend while intoxicated. Several prominent Democrats, including California Rep. Ro Khanna and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have already <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dems-ditch-platner-over-rape-claims?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=8&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Dems+Ditch+Platner+Over+Rape+Claims">abandoned</a> their endorsements amid the scandal.
The previously DSA-backed candidate has made headlines with his openly socialist policy proposals, vicious anti-Israel rhetoric, and support for other <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/platners-wild-theory-about-why-conservatives-care-about-trans-sports">radical causes</a>. 
These sexual assault allegations are the latest in a series of scandals concerning Platner, including a longstanding Nazi tattoo, an active presence on Kik (an app called “a predator’s paradise” by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation), derogatory comments about women and rape victims, and many more. 
Platner has <a href="https://x.com/grahamformaine/status/2074214272628916296?s=20">denied</a> any “non-consensual behavior” after the accusation surfaced, but did state that his campaign was considering “next steps.”
“This is a very, very serious allegation,” Jackson <a href="https://www.bangordailynews.com/2026/07/06/politics/elections/inside-the-democratic-jockeying-to-replace-graham-platner/">said</a> of the accusations against Platner. “This is something I never considered, but if Graham’s stepping away, I am very, very interested and think I’m the best person to replace him.” 
Jackson has yet to comment on the allegations made against him by Progressive Victory.

Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner Holds His Primary Election Night Event

Leading DSA Candidate To Replace Platner Accused Of Hitting Female Colleague During Argument

A CNN host said the (not-so) quiet part out loud in suggesting that Josh Shapiro “reads too Jewish” for the Democratic nomination.
The panel, hosted by Elex Michaelson, included a conversation with Eric Messersmith about Senator Jon Ossoff’s potential in the 2028 presidential race.
Earlier in the panel, Michaelson gave the usual dismissive description of the antisemitism epidemic in the Democratic party: “Some of the fringes of the DSA, not everybody in the DSA, are certainly pretty close to antisemitism, if not antisemitism.” Sure, Elex. And some of the fringes of the Spanish Inquisition didn’t love Jews either.
Rather than counter that the antisemites would not be allowed to bully the rest of the party, Michaelson <a href="https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/tsiem/date/2026-06-30/segment/01">responded</a>, “As Jew, some people read a little more Jewish than others. And Jon Ossoff may not read as Jewish as Josh Shapiro does, for whatever that&#8217;s worth.”
Mr. Michaelson, a Jew himself, may be right, but his analysis ought to raise concerns that he’s standing on the wrong side.
Shapiro was a serious contender for Kamala Harris’s vice president, who was ultimately passed over for Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. By any metric, Shapiro dwarfs Walz in eloquence, political acumen, and general intelligence. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see what the Harris campaign didn’t like about him.
I wonder, if antisemitism is confined to the fringe as Michaelson claims, why should Jon Ossoff “reading less Jewish” meaningfully increase his odds?
Rather than exorcise the virulent antisemitism from their movement, the establishment has adopted a strategy of appeasement. The question is no longer “Why would it be offensive to nominate a Jew?” it’s “Who’s the least Jewish Jew we can nominate?”
Ladies and gentlemen, the tolerant Left.
Amidst instances like this one, it can be appealing for the fence-sitter to decry “extremism on both sides.” It is true that influencers Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly have embraced antisemitism wholeheartedly and make full-time jobs out of pushing the envelope when it comes to anti-Israel sentiment.
But there are several key differences between the Left-wing problem and the Right-wing one. The antisemitic right-wing influencers seem far more numerous than they actually are. <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead-americans-middle-east-sympathies.aspx">Recent polling</a> still shows strong support for Israel and the Jewish people within the Republican party, and the opposite amongst Democrats.
This is also reflected by elected officials in both parties. While the ranks of the Democrats are crawling with the likes of AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Zohran Mamdani, their Right-wing counterparts are few and far between. The closest thing is perhaps Representative Thomas Massie, who has an unsavory habit of crying “AIPAC” whenever things don’t go his way. Mr. Massie was primaried even as an incumbent in deep-red Kentucky.
Simply put, even if there is an equivalency between Left and Right-wing commentators when it comes to antisemitism, that equivalency is not reflective of the parties. The antisemitism of the Right is still a largely online phenomenon relative to its sweeping, observable influence on the Left.
After all, in the same week that Tucker Carlson left the Republican Party, multiple Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates unseated longstanding establishment Democrats in the New York primary races. Republicans rejected Massie, but Democrats embraced the DSA. Enough said.
None of this is to dismiss the gravity of the far Right’s antisemitism problem. In recent years, sympathies towards extremism have become far more mainstream than they once were. J.D. Vance’s reluctance to condemn Tucker Carlson, for example, is legitimate cause for concern.
But still, to any objective analyst, there can be no comparison between Vance and the festering antisemitism in the Democratic Party.
The Democrats may nominate Jon Ossoff, but it will have to be because he distanced himself from Judaism, not because they distanced themselves from antisemitism. That’s not political pragmatism — it’s moral surrender.

Harvard University Anti-Israel Camp

Antisemitism Is Not A Fringe Position In The Democratic Party

antisemitism

Democrats

Jewish

John Ossoff

Tucker Carlson

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Oh, the irony. California State Senator Scott Wiener, a champion of LGBTQ-friendly legislation, was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-lgbtq-activist-politician-gets-run-out-of-trans-march">chased</a> from a Pride march last month over his views on Gaza. To the crowd, Wiener was a supporter of “genocide” who “didn’t belong” among the LGBTQ community. As it happens, on top of being a radical leftist, Wiener is radically anti-Israel. The allegations against him are akin to those against Senator Bernie Sanders; no matter how rabidly these progressives champion the Palestinian cause, they can never be forgiven for the crime of being Jewish. They are far from blameless in expecting to be spared for having bent the knee.
The protestors’ visceral reaction to his presence is indicative of a greater issue: a rigid mindset that requires the world be pigeonholed into a single theory. Wiener’s decades-long activism for their stated cause was rendered meaningless the moment he was grouped into the “oppressor” class. 
This fallacious way of thinking is as old as philosophy itself. It relies upon a “top-down” approach that is simply incompatible with human nature. Top-down philosophies come in many forms. They are characterized by a grand theory that seeks to unify all the social and political forces of the world into one framework. 
A top-down philosophy begins with a theory of reality and then interprets every event through that theory. It starts with the answer and searches for the evidence. Bottom-up approaches begin with observation, accept complexity, and allow conclusions to change when reality shakes expectations. 
The most infamous example of a top-down theory is economic determinism. At the outset of &#8220;The Communist Manifesto,&#8221; Karl Marx claimed, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Marxists regularly find themselves trying to explain with “class warfare” that which is completely unrelated. A Marxist will see all wars as an expression of underlying economic distress. To the empiricist (or the bottom-up philosopher), trying to categorize all wars as an expression of anything is a fool’s errand.
A popular philosophy among the American Left is called intersectionality. It is the belief that the world turns according to privilege and discrimination. It brings together critical race theory, decolonialism, and a host of other postmodern theories to place all of human history in terms of oppression. 
The trouble with top-down philosophies is that they are not subject to self-correction. In many cases, they require either blatant denials of reality or the simultaneous acceptance of direct contradictions, reminiscent of Orwell’s “doublethink.” 
Since all new evidence must be interpreted according to the grand theory, the theory itself becomes impossible to disprove. When confronted with the reality that empirical evidence does not show the prevalence of colonial privilege, rather than rejecting the theory, proponents shift the narrative, which becomes that the institution of evidence is a form of colonial privilege designed to bury oppression.
Earlier this year, SAGE Publications (one of the most prestigious journal publishers in academia) published a <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15327086251377052?__cf_chl_f_tk=o2_EUy1e8.UR6BL6EJ6F2oAmEBr7f6nVF0.WnRZKEWc-1782829429-1.0.1.1-XHYEdPxIvDcbs6ipUj8fsQjKeEwBSI7aDqDYVIaThFg">paper</a> titled &#8220;&#8216;Inviting Methodological Reworlding&#8217;: Toward a Pluriversal Future.&#8221; The thesis critiques “Western epistemological traditions that privilege objectivity.” In other words, facts are a colonialist tool that we should disregard when they don’t align with how we feel. 
Last month’s display should serve as a wake-up call, not only to theorists but to those who try endlessly to contort themselves to fit the theory. But I wouldn’t hold my breath; the radical Left has favored this approach for hundreds of years.
Edmund Burke, often called the Father of Conservatism, saw the dangers of this mindset and argued for its alternative. Years before the Reign of Terror, Burke predicted that the French Revolution would end in tyranny. Though he agreed with many of the grievances against the monarchy, Burke rejected radical change through vast theorizing as arrogant and dangerous.
Instead, he called for change through cautious, incremental experiments. Burke argued that the world was simply too complex to be understood by any theoretician. Our best way of moving forward was by modifying the tried and true institutions we had built through generations of accumulated wisdom.
There is a reason that English society flourished and the French revolutionaries did not: the same reason that American liberalism flourished and the centrally planned Soviet Union did not. In politics, humility always defeats certitude.
David Hume, another intellectual giant in the conservative movement, commented extensively on the divide. Hume criticized top-down approaches as inviting disaster through human error.
Hume <a href="https://davidhume.org/texts/e/1">wrote</a>, “It is easy for a profound philosopher to commit a mistake in his subtile reasonings; and one mistake is the necessary parent of another, while he pushes on his consequences and is not deterred from embracing any conclusion.” 
He recognized that no human, no matter how academically gifted, is capable of creating a flawless system. It’s simply impossible. 
The &#8220;queers for Palestine&#8221; couldn’t adjust their framework to a Jewish ally, so instead they adjusted their allies. Scott Wiener was left behind.

GettyImages-2247207061

How The Left’s Rejection Of Reality Backfired On A Progressive Champion

Israel

LGBT

Progressivism

Scott Wiener

It has become an unfortunate habit of some on the Right to blame our failures on an overly idealistic youth. Our country’s history tells a different story.
Audacity and idealism in young people are features, not bugs. As a matter of fact, it’s baked into our national identity. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, young men in their 20s and 30s.
In the year 1776, Alexander Hamilton was the age of a college junior. Instead of trigger warnings and safe spaces, he dedicated his energy to the nuances of nation-building. Not long after, he went on to craft the greatest financial system the world has ever known.
James Madison at 25 wasn’t focused on “work-life balance” or “finding himself” like much of today’s youth. He was framing the Virginia State Constitution and would soon author the Bill of Rights.
It was a young man’s world. A far cry from today’s Washington, D.C., which can at times be difficult to distinguish from a nursing home.
Even the oldest among them, Mr. Benjamin Franklin (age 70), would be a veritable spring chicken in today’s political landscape.
They weren’t waiting for permission from the grown-ups.
While the average life expectancy was only around 35-40, this figure is widely misunderstood. Extremely high infant mortality rates drove the average down vastly. The life expectancy for adults who survived youth was <a href="https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/blog/2024/08/15/three-score-and-ten/">closer to 70</a>. Today, a healthy 21-year-old can expect to live to about 78-82.
In other words, the change in life expectancy does not explain why our politicians have doubled in age.
The same youthful energy exists today. You can find it in college protests. You can find it in the endless online crusades and political activism. With some exceptions, I tend to believe that these rowdy youth are well-intentioned. The difference is that the Founders were driven by a deep understanding of history and the world around them. Today’s youth are predominantly driven by catchy slogans and bumper-sticker logic.
Robert A. Heinlein once said that “Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil.”
Even in the days of the American Revolution, there were two versions of youthful idealism: one disciplined by history and the other intoxicated by utopian rage. Only a few short years after the American youth had crafted the republic, the French youth had brought chaos and mayhem into their society. In their case, the consequence of reckless idealism was the Reign of Terror.
While experience is the best teacher, there is also something to be said for action. The Founders chose not to wait for permission. They ferociously educated themselves in philosophy, history, and economics.
The Founding Fathers didn’t have access to Google. Their education paled in comparison to ours when you factor in the modern world&#8217;s vast resources and democratization of information.
True, there may be a wash of underqualified teachers and liberal orthodoxy in the public education system. But this problem has existed in one form or another for hundreds of years. The great minds in our history didn’t wait for world-class education to drop neatly into their laps. Thomas Jefferson was known to devote 15 hours a day to his personal studies.
What’s your excuse?
We cannot be so lazy as to blame partisanship for the prevalence of a destructive disposition. The disagreements between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans were no less fierce than those today. Think Jefferson didn’t view Hamilton as a tyrannical threat to Democracy? Think Hamilton didn’t view Jefferson as a radical extremist with no grasp on reality? Think again.
They compromised with their enemies not because they wanted to, but because it was necessary. They rose to the occasion because young didn’t have to mean stupid, and idealistic didn’t have to mean immature.
Perhaps young people governed differently when they had to live in the world that they built. It is a lot less appealing to plug your ears and pretend that snappy rhetoric is a substitute for pragmatic action when you have to face the consequences.
Our debt crisis is indicative of politicians who are much more comfortable hitting the snooze button on today’s issues than facing them head-on. It’s a lot easier to kick the can down the road when you’ve got one foot out the door. Hamilton and Jefferson had to reap whatever they sowed. Bernie Sanders, not so much.
It is both futile and foolish to try to suppress the youthful spirit. It should be nurtured and directed towards positive ends.
It is time we teach our children to be a little more like the Founding Fathers and a little less like the French.

Thomas Jefferson

The Young Men of 1776: When Progressives Really Wanted Progress

America 250

American History

Founding Fathers

Youth Vote

Two masked individuals, a man and a woman, climbed to the top of the Empire State Building Wednesday afternoon, waving a banner about world peace before the man proposed to his girlfriend.
The pair were dressed in dark outfits, and the woman wore a mask that resembled Catwoman. The black banner read, “When the power of love beats the love of power, the world knows peace.” The quote is similar to the popular anti-war slogan spoken by 19th-century British politician William Gladstone and made popular by American singer Jimi Hendrix. 
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;"><iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/NJwN8K7nOKE3Mihz02Jy02QWuCxNgu00t5f?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=7d39603b-2a4b-40ca-b126-d99fcd9c32a0&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-07-01%20Empire%20State%20Climbers%20Arrest%20Bodycam&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F39b62ce1-7c1e-47bd-ad87-fc6fa7f5f16a.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Credit: NYPD via Storyful
</div>
An NYPD helicopter was dispatched to the scene shortly after the couple reached the top of the 102-floor tower. Police officers climbed up the spire and met the two to place them in custody just before 1:00 p.m. ET. 
The couple has been identified as Angela Nikolau and Ivan Beerkus. Nikolau, 33, describes herself as a “neoartist exploring identity, fear &amp; freedom” on social media. 
After flying the banner for some time, the couple climbed down from the very top to the spire, which is 1,454 feet above the ground. Beerkus then proposed to Nikolau, and the two embraced and kissed.
Nikolau has since posted a picture of her engagement ring and some footage from the top of the Empire State Building on Instagram. The account claims the couple was the subjects of a 2024 Netflix documentary titled “Skywalkers: A Love Story.”
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/angela_nikolau/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this profile on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px;" href="https://www.instagram.com/angela_nikolau/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A N G E L A    N I K O L A U</a> (@<a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px;" href="https://www.instagram.com/angela_nikolau/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">angela_nikolau</a>) • Instagram photos and videos
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

Empire State Building in New York

WATCH: Lovebirds Arrested After Daring Climb To Top Of Empire State Building

New York City

Police

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of birthright citizenship. The decision has ignited an age-old debate at the center of the immigration issue: how much can a nation reasonably allow without becoming unstable? Where do we draw the line?
Unchecked immigration has risen to the top of the public consciousness in Great Britain and much of Western Europe, as years of mass migration from the Islamic world has taken a visible toll on British society.
Earlier this month, a <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6810978a41bbc42489eafa81/t/6a314bb1151e511944bd4421/1781615537601/The+Rape+Gang+Inquiry+Report.pdf">report</a> was released documenting the widespread sexual assault and rape of underage girls throughout the United Kingdom by Islamist Pakistani gangs.
I wish I was surprised by the lax media coverage that this report has received. Unfortunately, the reason for its poor coverage is much the same as why this was allowed to happen in the first place.
The report details how “fear of being labelled ‘racist’ paralysed the Metropolitan Police and City Hall.” Simply put, fear of espousing an anti-immigrant sentiment drove people to silence on a tragedy of the highest order. Not long before the report surfaced, U.K. independent journalist Derek Heggie was <a href="https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1901321397546197119">jailed</a> for “grossly offensive” comments stating that “young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs that worship the Prophet Muhammad.”
The British police and children’s centers consistently looked the other way and allowed the abuse to fester. <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-k-grooming-gangs-report-finds-perpetrators-disproportionately-pakistani-undermining-official-narrative/">62% of convicted offenders</a> in Rotherham were Pakistani Muslims, a demographic which makes up just 4% of the local population.
Victims overwhelmingly reported that they were regularly told by their abusers that they “deserved punishment” because they were white girls. They were consistently lambasted with racial and religious slurs during their abuse. A victim testified that “being white was repeatedly used as a justification for the abuse or to minimise or dismiss the harm being inflicted.”
To suggest that this atrocity was not the result of a barbaric culture is dreadfully ignorant at best and criminally disingenuous at worst. The U.K. allowed the mass immigration of a violent, supremacist, and animalistic populace of Islamic extremists under the grounds of diversity and multiculturalism. When this inevitably brought tragedy, authorities stood by and did nothing.
From the punishments that the abusers must face to the responsibility of the authorities to the borderline authoritarian government that allowed Heggie to be jailed not only for speech, but for true speech, it is hard to know where to begin in directing criticism. For now, the focus should be on what lessons we Americans can take from the U.K. so that we can prevent its like from ever occurring here in the United States.
Amidst the recent election of extremist candidates in cities with heavy immigrant populations, Trump administration staffer Stephen Miller posted on social media, “Change the voters, change the country.” The New Republic immediately <a href="https://newrepublic.com/post/212309/stephen-miller-dog-whistle-ny-new-york-city-democratic-primary-mamdani">reported</a> this as a “dog whistle” and slammed Miller for racism.
If we step back for a minute, though, it would be patently absurd to label his statement untrue. In a democracy (one would hope), the will of the people is the driving force behind the nature of the country. If you bring in masses of people with different will, the country will change — for better or for worse. To suggest otherwise is foolish.
The consequences of this mistake are not easily undone. Once you have imported a massive voting population that is hostile toward your culture, it is impossible to exorcise them from your society.
Too often, we are taught to laud the institution of democracy for its own sake. Democracy without a culture of liberalism and freedom is worthless. Just ask the Gazans and their democratically elected government.
While Europe&#8217;s problem is highly analogous to our country’s illegal immigration problem, what Miller gets wrong is that the troubles facing us are simply not the same as those facing Europe. For one, there is no serious evidence to support the claim that legally residing immigrants commit crimes at higher rates than native born Americans.
A 2019 <a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/ib_10.pdf">study</a> from the Cato Institute found that 75% of first-generation immigrants were “very proud” to be Americans — over and above the 69% of native-born Americans. Immigrants have also historically <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336773572_Immigrants'_Confidence_in_the_Police_An_Examination_of_Generational_and_Ethnic_Differences_in_the_United_States">reported</a> higher levels of respect for American law enforcement.
How many immigrants did you see participating in the 2020 BLM riots? Some, I’m sure, but their numbers paled in comparison to overprivileged white liberal teenagers. Zoe, the blue-haired leftist with 12 piercings and a face tattoo, is a far greater threat to our liberal order than Eduardo, the Cuban immigrant looking to build a business and start a family.
The opposite is true of Western Europe. Islamic immigrants pour into Britain and France, bringing with them radical ideologies and an unwillingness to assimilate.
We are a country of immigrants. There has been a recent push from protectionist factions on the right to argue otherwise. This is fundamentally untrue.
Forty percent of all Americans <a href="https://www.nps.gov/npnh/learn/news/fact-sheet-elis.htm">trace</a> their ancestry directly through Ellis Island. One in four Americans is either a first or second-generation immigrant. This is nothing new. In the year 1900, that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/chart/immigrant-share-of-population/">figure</a> was greater than 1 in 3. Even in the country&#8217;s earliest days, 14.3% of Declaration signers and 18% of Constitution signers were <a href="https://declaration.fas.harvard.edu/faq/how-many-signers-were-born-american-colonies">born overseas</a>.
By all conceivable metrics, immigration has been, and remains, a foundational element of American identity.
With that said, it is in no way racist to screen for ideology in the immigration process. In fact, it is the epitome of common sense. Holding radical Islamist beliefs makes you incompatible with Western society. President Trump’s effort to implement ideological screening in 2023 was met with a visceral reaction from the Left. He was particularly berated for his statement, “If you hate America, if you want to abolish Israel, if you sympathize with jihadists, then we don’t want you in our country.” 
We can stop pretending like this is anything other than a normal thing to say. News flash: nonradical minorities don’t want to share fences with extremists either. This was evidenced by Trump’s strong showing with Hispanic voters despite his constant rhetoric against illegal and anti-American immigration. The same is true for Muslims who abhor violence and terrorism. It is a sweeping (perhaps racist) generalization to become offended on their behalf when the president calls out their vitriolic counterparts.
Immigrants who bring hatred and anti-Americanism with them are a dangerous plague.
There is something rather telling about the popular leftist argument that anti-Western immigrants have suffered at the hands of “Western imperialism” and are therefore “owed” entry into the United States. The very fact that left-wingers view these immigrants as our just desserts for past misgivings betrays an understanding that this type of immigration is a curse rather than a blessing upon Western society.
Our immigration problem is orders of magnitude smaller than Britain’s, but it is real. We must take their failures as earnest warnings not to let a great strength devolve into a crippling weakness.

ICE Agents

Immigration Failed Britain. It Doesn’t Have to Fail Us.

birthright citizenship

Immigration

mass immigration

native born Americans

naturalized citizenship

It’s past time the GOP took a look in the mirror.
Our ranks have become rife with provocative influencers offering an alternative to the Left-wing establishment. If you’re a young person fed up with the incessant wokeness, these voices seem awfully attractive. I have a message for young conservatives: It’s a trap.
In an era dominated by liberal institutions, it’s easy for an edgy contrarian to pose as a conservative. The suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop by mainstream media was a coordinated effort and a betrayal of the American people. One may not even be wrong to call it a conspiracy.
But there is a fundamental difference between the methods of a conspiracy theorist and an honest conservative. A conservative values the truth independent of the public reaction. A conspiracy theorist values the reaction independent of the truth.
They walk among us, but they are not like us.
Take the infamous influencer Alex Jones, for example. Alex Jones has no patience for gender ideology. If he’s right about that, one could be forgiven for wondering what else he might be right about. The answer, it turns out, is not much. Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t mean we should go around breaking all the other clocks.
Once you have determined that someone else is at fault for your personal shortcomings, you begin to cross the line from a principled dissenter into a conspiracy theorist. If you ask Alex Jones, you’re lonely and unemployed because of the “globalists.” If you ask Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes, it’s because of the Jews. Everyone’s to blame … except yourself, of course.
The reality is harder to face. It is often easier for people to believe in a scheming class from which they have been excluded than it is to accept that life is hard.
There is a reason that figures like this have started to be known within the conservative movement as the “Woke Right.” It’s leftism in disguise. Class warfare. A culture of victimhood.
Though troubling, it is not surprising that conspiratorial attitudes would arise in a highly populist youth. The politics of the past decade have been dominated by the voting interests of a group that feels it has been ignored by the establishment.
I know — you don’t like the bloated, politicized federal government. Neither do I. The government didn’t kill John F. Kennedy. You find Michelle Obama to be a patronizing snob. Me too. She’s not secretly a man. When we allow these ridiculous claims into our camp, we delegitimize real concerns.
Moral shortcomings aside, there is another reason why we should not allow the Woke Right into the movement — they’re miserable allies. If you take a look at how these Woke Right influencers treat each other, they are far from coalition builders.
Nutjobs Nick Fuentes, Dan Bilzerian, and Richard Spencer — all of whom are functionally identical in their vile ideology — spend nearly as much time swiping at each other as they do espousing the ideology itself.
Working with these figures would not neutralize their extremism. Contrarians can only thrive on the fringe. It’s their way of staying relevant without having anything interesting to contribute. The more we legitimize their claims, the more absurd they will have to become in order to stay on the fringe.
The Left would like us to believe that conservatives break bread with racists, misogynists, and general lunatics. They’ve spent decades trying to create a false dichotomy between the Nick Fuenteses of the world and their radical agenda. We must not prove them right.
It’s a big tent, but it doesn’t have to be a circus.

Fred Gwynne In ‘My Cousin Vinny’

My Fellow Youts: Edgy Is Cute, Not Serious

Alex Jones

Candace Owens

Conspiracy Theory

Nick Fuentes

Young conservatives

Radical leftist Senate candidate Graham Platner said that the real “reason” conservatives care about men in women’s sports is that billionaires are afraid of a wealth tax.
He claimed that social concerns, such as the transgender sports issue, are manufactured by billionaire donors to distract voters from economic issues. He suggested that the well-funded campaign against him is strictly a result of his proposed tax increases. 
&#8220;They want us arguing about trans kids in sports so we don&#8217;t ask about why the hospital closed. That&#8217;s the point,&#8221; Platner said. &#8220;And the reason I know that&#8217;s the point is that entire campaign was funded by one billionaire who lives in Illinois. He was afraid that if they don&#8217;t get to use bigotry to drive people out to the polls in November, they might lose, and his taxes are going to go up. And he&#8217;s right. They sure as hell are.&#8221;
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;">  <iframe style="aspect-ratio: 9/16; max-width: 220px; display: flex; justify-content: center; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/3rnn6iB9HCfGQH9Fwj88tH2gYDfGjr00c?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=d603594d-252e-4e91-afc2-715d6d36c7eb&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-6-25%20Platner's%20Wild%20New%20Trans%20Kids%20Theory%20&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F3d5fe4af-ec18-4955-b7e0-4b1dfd50be6c.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
Platner was referring to billionaire Richard Uihlein, a prominent GOP megadonor, who financed a ballot referendum in Maine that sought to protect girls and women in sports. 
Platner has been at the center of many controversies throughout his campaign. He once sported a Nazi tattoo, has had an account on a messaging app that&#8217;s been called a child predator &#8220;paradise,&#8221; and has made misogynistic comments dismissive of rape.
He has launched an insurgent campaign against sitting Republican Sen. Susan Collins, focused primarily on far-Left economics and staunch anti-Israel stances. Collins has consistently <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/politics/sen-susan-collins-lugar-index-most-bipartisan-lawmaker/2018/05/05/id/858554/">ranked</a> as the most bipartisan senator in Congress.
Platner has been a vocal supporter of a wealth tax. When Elon Musk became the first person to reach a net worth of over $1 trillion, Platner <a href="https://x.com/grahamformaine/status/2065434412984963208">called on</a> voters to make sure he was the “last” trillionaire. 
The argument that social issues are a distraction from class warfare is a familiar socialist claim. The Democratic Socialists of America, an extremist Left-wing group of which Platner is a former member, <a href="https://platform.dsausa.org/program/">states</a> that “culture wars are intended to pit workers against each other to empower a Right-wing government.” 
Platner is leading Collins in the most recent <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/maine-us-senate-election-polls-2026.html">polls</a>.

Platner’s Wild Theory About Why Conservatives Care About Trans Sports 

Maine

Transgender

Women's sports

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is moving to impeach a judge for acquitting a mother who drowned her baby daughter. 
Judge Miguel de la O found 43-year-old Precious Bland not guilty on grounds of insanity, ruling that she was suffering from a “psychotic episode” caused by COVID-19. Bland reportedly drowned her 15-month-old daughter Emii in a bathtub after screaming, &#8220;Jesus Christ is coming, and COVID is going to kill us all,&#8221; and insisting that the children needed to be baptized. 
When Bland’s husband tried to intervene, she stabbed him several times with a knife. He escaped the scene with four of the couple’s children, but not before Bland stabbed their 16-year-old daughter in the forearm. 
Bland waived her right to a jury trial and was instead given a bench trial, which gives the judge absolute authority in handing down the verdict.
The defense argued that Bland was suffering from temporary insanity caused by COVID-19 and was unaware of what she was doing. The prosecution vigorously rejected this claim.
&#8220;She was verbalizing that the baby needed to stop breathing. So she was holding her down to make sure she stopped breathing,&#8221; a prosecutor said during opening statements. 
Despite using an insanity argument, Bland&#8217;s attorney Larry Handfield did not seek to have Bland institutionalized. He <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/bench-trial-begins-for-south-florida-mother-accused-of-drowning-toddler-defense-cites-covid-induced-psychosis/">argued</a> that her bout of insanity was entirely temporary and that institutionalization was unnecessary.
Uthmeier posted on social media that his office would be drafting articles of impeachment for the judge. &#8220;This was a bench trial. It’s time to impeach this judge,&#8221; Uthmeier wrote. &#8220;My office will be drafting articles of impeachment, and we look forward to working with all legislators who will support.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This was a bench trial. It’s time to impeach this judge.
My office will be drafting articles of impeachment, and we look forward to working with all legislators who will support. <a href="https://t.co/Pxj9P3fUzS">https://t.co/Pxj9P3fUzS</a>
— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) <a href="https://x.com/AGJamesUthmeier/status/2070117331276112067?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Republican Governor DeSantis <a href="https://x.com/RonDeSantis/status/2070132417482920332?s=20">expressed</a> his support for impeaching the judge and called on the Florida House &#8220;to do its duty.&#8221; 
Handfield argued that COVID-19 can cause paranoia and suicidal thoughts in some people. He <a href="https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/woman-found-not-guilty-after-claiming-covid-made-her-kill-daughter-and-stab-loved-ones/3825334/?amp=1">said</a> he believes this to be the first successful COVID-related insanity defense in the country. 
Judge de la O has yet to decide whether Bland will be institutionalized or require any further treatment.

Untitled design – 2026-06-25T112054.435

Judge In Hot Seat After COVID Insanity Claim Clears Mom Who Drowned Her Baby

Florida

Judge

Ron DeSantis

The Pentagon is reinstating the flu vaccine mandate for the Army, Navy, and Air Force following a recent outbreak.
The Army is planning to broaden the requirement to include overseas troops, first responders, prison staff, health care personnel, and child care workers, according to <a href="https://abcnews.com/Health/military-services-requiring-recruits-flu-shots-air-force/story?id=134126794">ABC News</a>. 
The mandate has been a longstanding Pentagon policy since 1945. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lifted the requirement two months ago. While he encouraged soldiers to take the vaccine, Hegseth announced, “We will not force you.” 
He previously <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/21/military-flu-vaccine-hegseth">characterized</a> universal shots as &#8220;absurd, overreaching mandates that only weaken our warfighting capabilities&#8221; and claimed the rollback restored &#8220;medical autonomy&#8221; to troops.
At least 222 recruits at Joint Base San Antonio have been diagnosed with influenza, with four hospitalizations. The conditions of the training base make illnesses easy to spread. Recruits routinely live and sleep in tightly packed spaces, shower together, and are subject to stress and exhaustion.
New recruit Keon McDaniel died June 16, prompting a strong public reaction. He was treated at Brooke Army Medical Center. McDaniel was in his sixth week of basic training when he died.
The cause of McDaniel’s death remains under investigation, but several critics believe it is linked to the outbreak. Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro blamed Hegseth for the outbreak and McDaniel’s death in a social media post last week.
&#8220;After Secretary Hegseth scrapped the military’s flu vaccine mandate, it was only a matter of time before an outbreak occurred. It was a reckless decision that put troops in harm’s way and undermined our military readiness,&#8221; Castro posted, in part.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
After Secretary Hegseth scrapped the military’s flu vaccine mandate, it was only a matter of time before an outbreak occurred. It was a reckless decision that put troops in harm’s way and undermined our military readiness. At the Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, nearly 160… <a href="https://t.co/yvMGxcMwBr">https://t.co/yvMGxcMwBr</a>
— Joaquin Castro (@JoaquinCastrotx) <a href="https://x.com/JoaquinCastrotx/status/2067772807199535297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Some high-ranking Republicans were also critical of Hegseth for relaxing the mandate. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker publicly called Hegseth&#8217;s rollback a &#8220;mistake,&#8221; <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5841737-gop-armed-services-chair-warns-ending-mandatory-military-flu-shots-a-mistake/">stating</a> that mandatory vaccines historically created a healthier armed force.
When the outbreak began, roughly 40% of new Air Force trainees had been vaccinated at Joint Base San Antonio.
Due to the rapid nature of the situation, the Air Force requested that Hegseth bypass standard protocols for an emergency policy exemption. Hegseth granted exemptions to all military departments immediately.
This is not the first time the mandate has wavered. While first introduced in 1945, the military temporarily withdrew the requirement in 1949 because early vaccine formulas struggled to adapt to changing viral strains. It was reinstated permanently in the 1950s.

Menu

Zach Stark