Bass, who sparred with former reality TV star Spencer Pratt (MTV’s “The Hills”) and Democratic socialist city councilwoman Nithya Raman on the debate stage last week, pulled out of the forum despite previously confirming her attendance.

League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles and the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs issued a statement on Bass’s apparent reversal, saying, “Mayor Bass’s withdrawal is disappointing. Public forums such as this are a cornerstone of democratic accountability. These forums provide voters with the opportunity to hear candidates share their perspectives, respond to questions, and engage with one another on issues facing Los Angeles.”

The organizations touted their joint history of sponsoring candidate events that were presented in a fair and balance fashion, and allowed candidates across all parties to address the issues that mattered most.

“We remain committed to providing voters with meaningful opportunities to engage with those seeking public office,” the statement concluded.

Campaign spokesperson Alex Stack explained that Bass had decided to forgo the candidate forum because she’d already debated her “top two” opponents — referring to Raman and Pratt — and would instead be “in Sacramento that day fighting for funding for housing, homelessness, and Palisades Fire recovery, and will also discuss the city and state partnership on the Olympics and World Cup.”

Several of those topics — particularly homelessness, housing, and the Palisades Fire — were topics of heated exchanges during the previous debate. Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades Fire, challenged both Bass and Raman directly over their actions (or lack thereof) that he claims exacerbated the deadly blaze.

Three candidates are still expected to participate in the Wednesday forum: Raman, Adam Miller and Rae Huang. Pratt was initially invited to participate but had declined due to a prior scheduling conflict.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the newly-drawn congressional map — which skews dramatically in favor of Democrats — is flagrantly unconstitutional. But when all was said and done, as Miyares pointed out, the measure had already run up a $70 million tab — some of which was to be paid by taxpayers.

HB 1384, the amendment that set the special election, set aside $5 million of taxpayer money in order to pay for that election — but it did not cap the amount, meaning that supplemental funding may have been added to that as needed.

In addition to the taxpayer dollars, millions were spent on ads promoting the measure.

“If Abigail Spanberger and Virginia Democrats had paid attention my October 2025 AG’s Opinion that made clear this scheme was unconstitutional and illegal, they could have saved more than $70 million, countless headaches, and months of obnoxious television ads defending the indefensible,” Miyares said in a statement posted to X. “Instead, they ignored the law, wasted taxpayer money on running a special election, and dragged Virginians through a completely avoidable mess.”

If Abigail Spanberger and Virginia Democrats had paid attention my October 2025 AG’s Opinion that made clear this scheme was unconstitutional and illegal, they could have saved more than $70 million, countless headaches, and months of obnoxious television ads defending the… https://t.co/787vvZRHZD

— Jason Miyares (@JasonMiyaresVA) May 8, 2026

Miyares issued his opinion on October 28, 2025, saying in part, “My office just issued an official opinion explaining that the constitutionally required process to amend the Virginia Constitution cannot be short-circuited by a last-minute vote of the General Assembly taken during an ongoing election.”

My office just issued an official opinion explaining that the constitutionally required process to amend the Virginia Constitution cannot be short-circuited by a last-minute vote of the General Assembly taken during an ongoing election. pic.twitter.com/vKWweCbKSp

— Jason Miyares (@JasonMiyaresVA) October 28, 2025

The Virginia Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Miyares, ruling on Friday 4-3 that irregularities in the process had resulted in a new map that would not stand.

“In this case, the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement in Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia,” the Court held, adding, “This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void.”

So the Commonwealth of Virginia is right back where it started — albeit a bit poorer — for the Democrats’ efforts to put a thumb in the midterm scales.

Moms.gov addresses “the needs of mothers and fathers who face difficult or unexpected pregnancies and [ensures] the wellbeing of mothers and the health of American families,” the White House said in a statement. The move is a direct rebuke to the Biden administration, which in 2022 launched ReproductiveRights.gov, a controversial site that directed expectant mothers to Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics.

When President Donald Trump returned to the White House, pro-life advocates urged the administration to promote abortion alternatives.

The new website does that and more. An expectant mother who accesses the site can search for pregnancy care centers or federally qualified health centers near her and quickly locate the nearest center. The Daily Wire used the tool and found up to 50 options offered within a 50-mile radius, many of them pregnancy care centers that offer ultrasounds and other services.

Pro-abortion advocates have vilified pregnancy centers for decades, arguing that their “only purpose is to misinform, shame, and deter anyone seeking safe, legal abortion care.” But pregnancy care centers offer clothing, diapers, car seats, and many other resources to expectant mothers and fathers. Many pregnancy centers offer advice or literature on how to get a job, how to behave in a professional manner or capacity, how to care for children, or how to leave an abusive relationship. And these centers frequently offer ultrasounds, which are proven to help mothers choose not to abort their unborn children.

In the months before and after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion vandals attacked almost 100 pregnancy centers around the United States with firebombings, vandalism, arson, smashed windows, graffiti, and more. The violence against pregnancy centers was so extreme that the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe, warning that more violence should be expected.

Moms.gov also includes information on the new dietary guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as nutrition information for expectant mothers, information on Trump Accounts, Trump RX offerings for those trying or hoping to conceive, and links to pregnancy recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As the American birthrate plummets to record lows, the Trump administration has prioritized supporting mothers as part of its effort to encourage Americans to have more children.

The White House has partnered with donors to seed Trump Accounts with $1,000 for every new enrollee — a promise that led 5 million children to be enrolled as of Tax Day, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. First Lady Melania Trump last month partnered with the Office of Personnel Management and Department of Health and Human Services to expand flexibility and leave for foster and adoptive parents in the federal workforce.

This is a strong contrast to the Biden administration, whose embrace of abortion was recently revealed to be more extreme than previously thought. A Justice Department report released last month detailed how Biden officials relied on information gathered from radical pro-abortion groups to track and prosecute peaceful pro-life protesters. That report also revealed that top Biden lawyers fantasized about prosecuting Catholic nuns and denigrated religious, pro-life Americans as “culty.”

***

When well-meaning people tell expectant moms that “motherhood changes you,” they may be more right than they know. A new study by brain scientists in the Netherlands suggests that a mother’s brain undergoes distinct changes after having a second child that seem to help her adapt to caring for her growing family.

A decade ago, a related study found that women’s brains lose gray matter after having a first child, and the changes last for years — something researcher Elseline Hoekzema referred to as “synaptic pruning.” Second-time mothers’ brains appear to be “more strongly altered in networks involved in reacting to sensory cues and in controlling your attention,” researcher Milou Straathof said of the recent study.

The new study, detailed in an article published in February, found that the changes were distinct enough that “women could significantly be classified as having undergone a first or a second pregnancy based solely on their brain changes between sessions.” X user Anish Moonka shared a synopsis of the study ahead of Mother’s Day, causing many moms to comment that they were thankful to know their so-called mom brain moments, though frustrating, had an underlying purpose.

“It’s incredibly important to study how pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting affect the brains of women (and men, too). The majority of adults become parents at some point in their lifespan, but there are still major gaps in our understanding of how the transition to parenthood affects our neurobiology, cognition, health, and brain aging,” psychologist and professor Darby Saxbe, author of the forthcoming book “Dad Brain: The New Science of Fatherhood and How It Shapes Men’s Lives,” told The Daily Wire in a statement. Saxbe is listed as a peer reviewer of the 2026 article.

The 2026 study involved 110 women who underwent MRI brain scans to examine data points such as gray matter volume, resting-state brain activity, and white matter tract organization. The women were divided into three groups: women pregnant with their first child, women pregnant with their second child, and a control group of women who were not pregnant.

Psychologist and licensed behavior analyst Lauren Mahoney, who teaches at the City University of New York, told The Daily Wire that the research tracks with her personal experience as a mother.

“After my first child, the shift felt internal. My attention narrowed in a way that almost felt protective,” Mahoney said. “I remember thinking how strange it was that I could pick up on the smallest cues but at the same time forget something as simple as why I walked into a room.”

“After my second child, the shift was entirely different,” she continued. “I had a very clear moment where I thought, ‘My brain doesn’t get to stay in one place anymore.’”

The concept of matrescence, the process of becoming a mother, is important for women to be aware of, experts told The Daily Wire. Many people describe it as the process of transforming from maiden to mother. 

“Another important piece of the research is that the most significant changes in first-time mothers occur in the default mode network, which is heavily involved in self-referential thinking and understanding other people’s thoughts and emotions,” Mahoney said. “That helps explain why first-time mothers often describe such a profound identity shift. They are not just caring for a child. Their brain is actively reorganizing how they understand themselves in relation to another human being. By the second pregnancy, that system has already adapted. So instead of restructuring identity again, the brain appears to refine and build capacity for managing complexity. That is where the shift toward attention and action systems becomes so important.”

The findings of the study weren’t a total surprise for researchers who have conducted similar studies with animals and had similar findings, said neuroscientist Jodi Pawluski, author of the book “Mommy Brain.” Pawluski said the new study may point out the obvious (or at least what is obvious to experts) — that a second-time mom experiences changes in neural networks related to attention, sensory, and motor pathways — but it’s still very important research to build on.

“The majority of the research we have on the maternal brain has focused on how becoming a mother for the first time is related to changes in the brain,” Pawluski told The Daily Wire in a statement. “However, the majority of mothers have more than one child, so understanding how the second (or third, or fourth) time impacts a mother’s brain is incredibly important to ensure we are doing all that we can to support mothers and families.”

The authors of the new study were also interested in how these brain changes correlate with mother-baby bonding and peripartum mood. The article states that for both groups of pregnant women, less pronounced brain changes were linked to depression.

Many people underestimate the amazing nature of the mother-baby connection, Dr. Kristin M. Collier, associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, told The Daily Wire, citing research that shows that a mother’s voice can affect her child’s brain structure, can influence her baby’s heart rate, and is likely a key factor in her child’s development of language.

The new study could contain meaningful information for moms going about their everyday lives, Mahoney said. Most importantly, she wants moms to give themselves grace when they feel like they no longer function the way they did before having children.

“The difficulty focusing, the constant mental switching, [and] the feeling of being cognitively stretched are often interpreted as personal shortcomings, when in reality they reflect a brain that has adapted to manage complexity and unpredictability,” she said. “When women understand this, there is often an immediate shift from self-criticism to self-compassion. They begin to work with their brain instead of against it. That might look like structuring tasks differently, allowing for more flexible attention, or recognizing that efficiency now looks like responsiveness rather than sustained focus.”

Either way, moms can be grateful for scientific proof that their “mom brain” is actually their superpower.

***

Evie Solheim is a freelance journalist, book reviewer, and author of the newsletter The Girl’s Guide. Find her on X @eviesolheim.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

***

America dedicates an entire day each May to celebrating mothers — with record-breaking spending anticipated to exceed $38 billion in 2026. Yet our culture sends mixed messages about motherhood itself.

Pregnancy is often portrayed as a condition to “treat” rather than a miraculous process to honor. This paradox — celebrating mothers while minimizing the biological and societal value of motherhood — reflects a deeper cultural confusion about the meaning of life, womanhood, and women’s health.

As an OBGYN, I have spent a decade witnessing what clinical reality and physiological evidence consistently affirm as truth: pregnancy is not a pathology but a design of remarkable complexity, resilience, and purpose.

In today’s age of hyper-individualism, women are caught between competing messages: pursue autonomy at all costs or embrace motherhood as fulfillment. Social media and the pursuit of personal branding have deepened the sense of disconnect from generational wisdom. The Nigerian adage “it takes a village to raise a child” speaks to a lost communal truth: Human flourishing is best achieved when each generation appreciates the relationship between those who have gone before us and those who will follow.

The widespread commercialization of Mother’s Day demonstrates that most Americans, regardless of ideology, still instinctively revere motherhood. Yet that same society often dismisses pregnancy, the thing that makes us mothers, as threatening, inconvenient, or limiting. This contradiction undermines the scientific realities of what it means to conceive, nurture, and deliver new life.

Pregnancy is an interplay of medicine and miracle. It mobilizes nearly every physiological system, and modern research continues to uncover profound, health-promoting benefits that accompany this process.

Multiple pregnancies and breastfeeding reduce lifetime breast cancer risk by nearly 60%, ovarian cancer by 50%, and uterine cancer by 40%.

In a fascinating phenomenon known as fetal cell migration, fetal stem cells enter the maternal circulation and persist for decades. These cells contribute to tissue repair, enhance immune response, and have been associated with the early detection and removal of malignant cells.

Commonly mislabeled “pregnancy brain,” structural brain changes are induced during pregnancy that optimize maternal responsiveness and efficiency, crucial for infant bonding and protection, and emerging data suggest that women who have more children may experience slower biological aging, possibly due to protective hormonal effects.

These findings align with what physicians have witnessed for generations: Pregnancy is transformative, not degrading.

Clinical practice offers daily reminders that, while pregnancy is transcendent, it is not without risk. Just this year, I’ve come alongside a mother who, after years of heartbreak, recurrent pregnancy loss, and infertility, gave birth unmedicated in a tub to a vigorous 9-pound boy. I’ve also held the hand of a mother whose waters ruptured at 20 weeks, and whose babies lived only brief, beautiful moments. The spectrum of pregnancy’s emotional experience — euphoria, grief, awe — reveals the full breadth of maternal strength.

These paradoxes persist far beyond the delivery as we continually walk our children down the path of independence, all the while willing them to “stay little forever.” Motherhood is a lifelong act of nurture balanced with release. As mothers, it is natural that we feel a connection from before our positive pregnancy tests until we surrender those beautiful babies out into the world to achieve their magnificent destinies.

Progressive narratives increasingly portray the baby as a threat to a woman’s safety or autonomy, limiting female potential. This is not only sociologically harmful but also medically inaccurate. If pregnancy were inherently unsafe or pathological, no rational woman would willingly engage in it, yet billions do, instinctively and joyfully.

The data also tell a different story. Pregnancy fosters physiological integration, strengthens immune systems, and contributes to mental health and longevity. The maternal-fetal relationship represents one of the most symbiotic biological phenomena known to science. To deny this reality is to deny the brilliance of female biology itself.

Pregnancy is not easy, nor is it without risk. But its challenges reflect not imperfection, but the inherent superpower of nurturing, sustaining, and bringing forth life. The maternal body is uniquely tailored to endure and heal through it. Within that truth lies a powerful message for modern women: Your body was designed with purpose and strength.

Motherhood embodies the union of biology, courage, and divine design. Modern science affirms what faith and intuition have long known: Life in the womb is intentional, purposeful, and profoundly interwoven with the health and flourishing of the mother herself. The moment of conception initiates a symphony of physiological and emotional transformation that strengthens women and knits generations together. A truly life-affirming culture defends and dignifies both mother and child, honoring pregnancy not as a condition to be cured but as the miracle through which life and love begin anew.

***

Vivina Napier, MD, FACOG, is an Ohio mother of five and a board-certified OBGYN. 

But there’s a catch. Well, a few.

One, it’s not in America.

And two: The policy is in the United Kingdom, where certain overseas polygamous marriages can still be recognized under limited circumstances tied to older parts of the benefits system.

The marriages themselves cannot legally take place inside Britain. Instead, the rule applies to some people who were already legally married in countries where polygamy is allowed before later moving to the UK through separate immigration pathways.

Even though the policy has existed for years, newly updated payment rates are suddenly bringing fresh attention to it online.

Under updated government figures, qualifying households can now receive roughly $166 more per week for each additional spouse living in the home. The increase is part of Britain’s annual benefits uprating process tied to wage growth and inflation.

Government officials also maintain that the number of people affected is believed to be relatively small.

The controversy centers around how Britain handles certain foreign marriages already considered legally valid overseas. Parliamentary guidance published in recent years explains that while Britain bans polygamous marriages domestically, some foreign arrangements can still be acknowledged for specific administrative and legal purposes.

That recognition can extend into portions of the welfare system.

One detail fueling online backlash is that there does not appear to be a specific numerical limit on how many additional spouses could theoretically be counted under the older framework, though overall household benefit caps still apply.

The debate has already drawn political scrutiny.

Conservative lawmakers previously questioned why any part of the benefits system still accounts for polygamous households at all, especially as immigration and welfare spending remain major political flashpoints across Europe.

British officials continue emphasizing that polygamy itself remains illegal inside the country.

Still, the resurfacing of the little-known rule is quickly turning into another viral debate over immigration loopholes, government spending, and whether outdated welfare policies are quietly surviving long after most people assume they disappeared.

Erika Kirk delivers an emotional commencement speech Saturday at Hillsdale College, telling graduates that her late husband Charlie Kirk believes learning is about far more than facts, politics, or headlines. It’s about pursuing truth, defending liberty, and building a life rooted in purpose.

Kirk, who now serves as CEO and chair of Turning Point USA following Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September 2025, speaks to Hillsdale’s graduating class during the school’s 174th commencement ceremony in Michigan.

At times emotional and at times funny, the speech doubles as both a tribute to Charlie and a broader message about faith, family, responsibility, and what Kirk sees as a culture losing its direction.

https://t.co/PtXzaW1sEm

— Jordan Schroeder (@JordanESchro) May 9, 2026

One of the most memorable moments comes when Kirk tells the story of their honeymoon, where Charlie still can’t fully disconnect from learning.

“When we got married and we went to our honeymoon the next day, we decided for our honeymoon that it would be a disconnected honeymoon,” Kirk says. “Meaning no computers, no cell phones.”

But Charlie still brings along what she jokingly calls a “bat phone” for emergencies.

While the two are working out at the gym, Kirk suddenly hears Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn’s voice coming from across the room.

“I walk over to him. Baby, what are you listening to?” she recalls. “He goes, I know. He was like, I’m almost done. He’s like, I have to finish just a few more lectures from Dr. Arn.”

Kirk says Charlie constantly took Hillsdale online courses and proudly screenshots every certificate of completion.

“He really understood that this institution wasn’t normal,” she says. “It was something that elevated his thinking to be a thought leader and really become a serious person, not just a political talking head.”

Throughout the speech, Kirk repeatedly points back to Charlie’s obsession with learning and his belief that education should shape how people think, not just help them memorize information.

“I would say, I love learning from you,” Kirk says, recalling date nights where she would ask Charlie to explain the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, or Winston Churchill.

“He just loved being able to share what he had learned in those moments,” she adds.

Kirk also uses the speech to warn graduates about chasing comfort and easy living instead of purpose and meaning.

“What you seek in life, you will get,” she tells graduates. “If you’re seeking the ugly, the conspiracy, the pain, you’ll find it. And if you’re seeking the good and the true and the beautiful, you will find that as well.”

“You are not made for a life that asks nothing of you,” she adds. “You were made for something higher.”

At several points, Kirk frames Charlie’s life as a blueprint for the graduating class, reminding students that Turning Point USA famously starts “in a garage in Lamont, Illinois” when Charlie is fresh out of high school with “no money, no connections, and no idea what he was doing.”

But she says he never saw the mission as random.

“He knew that with the Lord. That was his calling,” she says.

Kirk closes the speech with a direct message to graduates about preserving the country they are inheriting.

“Love your country,” she says. “Our country is not perfect, but my goodness is she good.”

“And as you start day one as a graduate, build carefully, choose wisely,” Kirk adds. “And aim not at what is easy or immediate, but what is beautiful and true.”

The exec addressed the issue during an appearance this week on Yahoo! Finance. Customers have been complaining for months that fast food burgers are smaller, pre-packaged snacks have less food, and burritos from Chipotle aren’t as stuffed as they used to be. 

“If you want more, you should ask for a little more,” the fast food exec said. “I promise you, there’s never a team member on that line that is going to say no to you.”

“We will continue to put heaping spoonfuls of food in bowls and burritos,” Boatwright continued, adding that the company is focused on both portions and food quality. 

“It has always been our brand ethos, and it is still to this day,” he insisted. “We serve big, beautiful bowls and burritos. No questions asked.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Yahoo Finance (@yahoofinance)

The CEO further pushed back on claims that Chipotle employees were “skimping” on portion sizes.

“I tell my team all the time, ‘put as much food in that bowl and burrito as you possibly can,'” he told Yahoo! Finance. “‘I want the consumer to tell you, ‘it’s too big.'”

“We’re about abundance, we’re about value,” he went on. “Value equals benefit over price.” The exec also claimed to be “absorbing” the cost of inflation rather than passing it on to customers. He told the outlet that Chipotle is pleased to offer “an affordable price point for all walks of life, and we’re for everyone. We want everyone to have access to wholesome, nutritious food.”

Commenters were skeptical that restaurant workers would be willing to increase portion sizes without charging them extra. 

“Save this video [for] every time you walk in,” one commenter wrote.

“He said if you want more, they will give you more, but will also charge you more,” another comment said.

“Bro … have you been to Chipotle,” a third person chimed in.

“Straight lies they will 100% charge you double each time you say more,” yet another commenter agreed.

Others brought up the common complaint that delivery portions are rumored to be much smaller than those being served inside the restaurants, a problem that wouldn’t be solved by Boatwright’s suggestion to “ask for more.”

As the regime weighs whether to respond to Trump’s latest nuclear proposal, officials and defense experts are openly warning what comes next if Tehran tries to drag this out too long: more crushing economic pressure, expanded military strikes, and a systematic dismantling of Iran’s ability to threaten the region.

Speaking Saturday morning to reporters, our commander-in-chief said he expects to hear from Iran “very soon” regarding the latest United States peace proposal and suggested Tehran still “very much” wants to reach a lasting agreement.

The president sounded cautiously optimistic but also made clear he is watching closely to see whether Iran is serious or simply trying to buy time, a tactic the regime has used throughout Operation Epic Fury.

“We’re getting a letter [from Iran] supposedly tonight, so we’ll see how that goes,” Trump told reporters Friday evening from his golf club in Virginia.

When asked whether Iran could be intentionally dragging out negotiations, Trump responded bluntly: “I don’t know. We’ll find out soon enough.”

That uncertainty is exactly why the situation still feels like it could explode at any moment.

Behind the scenes, negotiators are reportedly trying to piece together a preliminary framework tied to Iran’s nuclear program and possible sanctions relief. But former military officials say neither side actually trusts the other.

Meanwhile, the pressure campaign on Tehran has not exactly disappeared.

Just days after Iran launched missiles toward the UAE’s Fujairah Port, United States forces struck Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas near the Strait of Hormuz.

Officials insist the operation did not officially restart the war or end the ceasefire, but it sent a very clear message that America is still holding the bigger stick.

And according to defense experts, Trump is intentionally keeping Iran guessing about how far he is willing to go.

If negotiations collapse, experts say the U.S. would likely begin by targeting the systems Iran relies on to intimidate the Middle East and threaten global shipping lanes.

That includes ballistic missiles, Revolutionary Guard infrastructure, command centers, naval attack boats, and air defense systems.

One major target would almost certainly be Iran’s fast attack boat fleet in the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran has long used to harass oil tankers and pressure the global economy.

At the same time, Trump appears to be tightening the economic screws even further.

Some experts say a maritime blockade alone could slowly suffocate Iran’s oil exports and leave the regime economically cornered within months.

Others warn that if Iran refuses to deal, the next phase could become much more painful.

Trump has already warned Iran that America could target key energy infrastructure and export hubs if Tehran continues pushing toward a nuclear weapon.

The contrast with previous administrations is hard to miss.

Instead of pallets of cash, endless appeasement, and weak red lines, Trump is signaling that Iran has two choices: negotiate seriously or watch America squeeze the regime even harder from every direction possible.

“You can’t earn a billion dollars. You just can’t earn that,” the democratic socialist congresswoman told comedian Ilana Glazer on an episode of the “It’s Open” podcast.

“You can get market power, you can break rules, you can do all sorts of things,” AOC said. “You can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they’re worth. But you can’t earn that, right? And so you have to create a myth that — since you didn’t earn that, you have to create a myth of earning it.” 

The Democrat seemed laser focused on billionaires in business without commenting on billionaire entertainers like Taylor Swift. When the critics started calling her out, AOC doubled down in an X post she shared Thursday evening.

“The single largest form of theft in America is wage theft. $50 billion a year are stolen from American workers,” she wrote. 

“Some people get enraged that I draw attention to this. That’s on them. Let them call me shrill, dumb, inexperienced, girly, uneducated – these folks will say anything to distract from or undercut the truth that working people are getting screwed, and giving people a fair shake means we must have a grown conversation about reigning in abuse of power.”

Commenters with common sense pointed out the multiple flaws in her argument.

“Lies. Billionaires get rich by innovating and risk-taking, offering new and better goods and services at prices people are willing to pay. Government makes cash through confiscation. AOC’s conspiratorial, envious view of the world leads to impoverishment and tyranny,” Ben Shapiro, the editor emeritus of The Daily Wire, wrote. 

“Socialists don’t run businesses,” author Helen Raleigh wrote. “They produce nothing valuable or desirable that others want. They enrich themselves only by taking from others by force. Therefore, they don’t understand how entrepreneurs can be so wildly successful in a free market simply by providing goods or services many people want and are willing to pay for.”

“What a naive and wrong point of view. So much of leftist politics and thinking these days is about justifying envy,” entrepreneur and venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale agreed. “I’ve co-founded six different multi-billion dollar companies, with more on the way. AOC perhaps isn’t bright enough to make a lot of money without massive grift – sure. But 10000’s who worked with me are rich; some are also billionaires!”

He added, “Our innovation sector is the best in the world, solving problems and growing the pie with US talent for a brighter future for all. I’m aligned against cronyism. But demonizing success is totally unAmerican.”

The awkward exchange happened while Bass was defending her administration’s handling of the catastrophic Palisades fires that devastated parts of Los Angeles earlier this year.

“Was that a mistake?” the moderator immediately asked as Bass stumbled through the response. Attempting to explain problems with the city’s emergency response, Bass appeared to accidentally say “fire f*cks” instead of “fire trucks” before quickly correcting herself.

Karen Bass makes obscene gaffe during live LA mayoral debate https://t.co/vgEXB5WlmC pic.twitter.com/Gyp1EMAF3U

— California Post (@californiapost) May 7, 2026

Clips of the moment spread rapidly across social media, where critics mocked the mayor for looking flustered and unprepared during one of the most high-profile debates of the race so far.

The gaffe came during an especially rough night for Bass, who repeatedly found herself on defense over Los Angeles’ homelessness crisis, public safety concerns, and the city’s wildfire response. Several moments during the debate saw Bass interrupted or forced into lengthy explanations as challengers pressed her on the city’s ongoing problems.

Much of the criticism centered on Bass attempting to blame former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley for staffing issues during the deadly fires. Bass argued that firefighters had been sent home before conditions spiraled out of control — a claim that immediately sparked backlash online from critics accusing the mayor of trying to shift responsibility.

The debate quickly turned combative as frustration over the condition of Los Angeles dominated the discussion. Questions about rising crime, drug addiction, homelessness encampments, and taxpayer spending repeatedly put Bass on the defensive throughout the night.

Political observers noted that Bass often appeared tense and struggled to regain control during several exchanges as the audience reacted loudly to attacks over the city’s decline.

The viral debate performance now adds even more pressure to Bass as anger continues to build over the direction of Los Angeles ahead of the June 2 mayoral election.

Pratt’s latest viral comments come just days after he dominated a televised debate against Democratic opponents Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman, where clips of the former “Hills” star torching city leadership over crime, homelessness, and public safety exploded online.

During a new interview circulating across social media, Pratt pushed back on the idea that he can’t win in deep-blue Los Angeles because he identifies as a Republican.

“It’s just the socialists and the communists that don’t back me,” Pratt said. “My supporters in L.A. are Democrats. Everyone I know, my family, are all Democrats. I grew up in L.A.!”

Pratt went on to claim that many of the people congratulating him after the debate were lifelong Democrats impressed by his message.

“Everybody that texted me last night, amazing, congratulations, are all Democrats,” he said. “So what people are confused on, the Democrats all are behind me.”

“Reality TV villain” turned potential mayor of Los Angeles, Spencer Pratt, told CBS News’ Adam Yamaguchi he is confident he is “probably going to win with 51% on June 2nd because I don’t do a political message.” @adamyamaguchi pic.twitter.com/YgIxnmGEGg

— CBS News (@CBSNews) May 7, 2026

The reality star-turned-political firebrand has increasingly positioned himself less as a traditional Republican candidate and more as an anti-establishment outsider focused on hyper-local issues impacting everyday Angelenos.

“I don’t do a political message. I don’t do national politics,” Pratt explained. “I don’t do tribal politics. I don’t talk about other states. I’m localized.”

Instead, Pratt says his campaign is centered around cleaning up Los Angeles streets, restoring public safety, and stopping taxpayer money from flowing to organizations he claims are profiting off the homelessness crisis.

“I just want to fix our streets, get the lights on. I want people to feel safe,” Pratt said. “I want to get our tax money to not be robbed by these literal criminal NGOs stealing from our tax to increase the homelessness!”

Pratt has become one of the internet’s most unexpected political stars in recent weeks thanks to a string of viral campaign videos, including ads attacking Bass and Raman over homelessness, drug addiction, and the city’s response to the devastating Palisades fires that destroyed Pratt’s home earlier this year.

Primary election day in Los Angeles is June 2.

Now Republican Ohio gubernatorial nominee Vivek Ramaswamy says it is time to slam the brakes.

After Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Rosiak exposed what critics are calling a sprawling Medicaid cash pipeline operating across Ohio, Ramaswamy is now calling for prosecutions, taxpayer savings, and a crackdown on abuse inside the system.

“Common sense policies to say we’re respecting the rule of law,” Ramaswamy said on ‘Saturday in America with Kayleigh McEnany.’ “Lawbreakers ought to be prosecuted. We should not apologize for that.”

The comments come after Rosiak uncovered a bizarre web of Medicaid-linked companies across Ohio, including one Columbus address tied to 94 separate businesses that reportedly billed taxpayers more than $66 million.

The taxpayer is not a piggy bank to be bilked. We will comprehensively review Ohio’s $40BN+ Medicaid expenditures and aggressively prosecute illegal abuses of the program. That starts in early 2027 & we won’t hold back. pic.twitter.com/MFRAU4B69z

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) May 9, 2026

The investigation blew the lid off some of the offices appearing practically deserted, with covered windows, generic “Home Health LLC” names, and little visible evidence that actual operations were taking place inside.

The reporting zeroed in on Ohio’s exploding Medicaid-funded home healthcare system, where loosely defined “homemaking” services like cooking and cleaning can generate massive taxpayer-funded payouts with limited oversight.

Rosiak’s investigation also highlighted how Columbus, home to one of the nation’s largest Somali immigrant populations, has seen entire neighborhoods flooded with Medicaid-billing home healthcare businesses as operators realized the government would pay people to provide “companionship” and care services to family members inside private homes.

Ramaswamy argued the issue goes far beyond bureaucratic waste.

To him, it is directly connected to why taxpayers feel squeezed in the first place.

“But these are taxpayer dollars that belong in the hands of citizens,” he said. “Property taxes in the state have gotten too high.”

The Ohio Republican also connected the Medicaid controversy to his broader push to slash taxes across the state if elected governor this November.

“Income taxes in certain states are zero income tax,” Ramaswamy said. “I want Ohio to be such a zero income tax state as well, but that means we’re going to have to take a look at every other area of savings for the taxpayer.”

Rosiak’s reporting painted a picture not just of isolated fraud, but of an entire taxpayer-funded ecosystem where oversight appears weak, accountability appears scarce, and huge amounts of public money are flowing through companies that investigators say often raise obvious red flags.

One especially eye-popping detail involved a landlord whose buildings reportedly housed hundreds of Medicaid-related businesses billing the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars.

The investigation also highlighted how difficult the system can be to verify in practice. In some cases, family members are reportedly paid through Medicaid programs to “care” for relatives at home, with little meaningful oversight over whether services are actually being rendered.

That transmission crackling over air traffic control audio Friday night after a Frontier Airlines jet struck a person on the runway during takeoff, triggering panic onboard and a fiery emergency evacuation.

It happened shortly after 11:15 p.m. as Frontier Flight 4345 was accelerating for departure at Denver International Airport.

According to officials and air traffic control audio, the aircraft hit an individual who had entered the runway area during takeoff.

Denver International Airport later confirmed the person had jumped the airport perimeter fence and was hit just minutes later while crossing the runway.

“The pedestrian is deceased, and is not believed to be an employee of the airport nor have they been identified,” the airport posted Saturday morning.

The person who was struck was killed. An official says the victim was at least partially pulled into one of the plane’s engines, sparking a brief fire that firefighters later extinguished.

Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy labeled the individual a “trespasser” who “deliberately scaled a perimeter fence and ran out onto a runway.”

“No one should EVER trespass on an airport,” Duffy said on Saturday morning.

Inside the cabin, passengers reportedly began noticing smoke as pilots slammed the brakes and stopped the Airbus A321 on the runway.

Emergency slides were deployed and travelers evacuated directly onto the tarmac before being bused back to the terminal.
The flight was carrying 224 passengers and seven crew members.

Airport officials now say 12 people suffered minor injuries during the evacuation, with five transported to local hospitals.

Moments after the impact, the crew warned air traffic control that conditions onboard were deteriorating.

“We’ve got smoke on the aircraft, we’re gonna evacuate on the runway,” the pilot said.

Denver airport officials also said investigators examined the perimeter fence after the incident and found it to be intact, raising even more questions about how the person managed to access the restricted runway area before the collision.

The runway remained closed Saturday morning as investigators continued processing the scene, though airport officials said they expected it to reopen within hours.

The National Transportation Safety Board has been notified and Frontier says it is coordinating with airport officials to determine exactly what happened.

Frontier called the incident “deeply saddening” in a statement released early Saturday morning.

The flight to Los Angeles has since been rescheduled, with most passengers later departing Denver on another Frontier aircraft.

A growing fight is breaking out inside Democratic foreign policy circles as some of the same officials tied to President Joe Biden’s most controversial global decisions quietly begin regrouping for 2028. And according to a lengthy new report from Puck News, plenty of Democrats are openly asking the same question: seriously, these guys again?

At the center of the drama is former Biden National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and the network of Obama-Biden foreign policy operatives often referred to inside Washington as the “Biden bros.”

That circle includes familiar names like Antony Blinken, Jon Finer, Brett McGurk, and others who helped shape Biden-era policy on Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran.

Now many of them are reemerging through a revived Democratic foreign policy group called National Security Action, which reportedly gathered party insiders in Manhattan recently to begin plotting what Democratic foreign policy could look like in 2028.

The reaction inside parts of the Democratic Party has not exactly been enthusiastic.

“This is the Jake and Jon Show: Redux, and nobody I know is happy about it,” one former senior State Department official told Puck.

That pretty much sums up the vibe.

The frustration appears to go far beyond Republicans criticizing Biden’s foreign policy record.

According to the report, Democrats themselves are increasingly furious over everything from the Afghanistan withdrawal to the administration’s handling of Gaza, while others remain angry over what they describe as efforts to cover up Biden’s decline while still clinging to power politically.

One Democrat quoted in the piece bluntly said the old Biden foreign policy crowd is “canceled and they don’t realize it.”

Ouch.

The article paints a picture of a Democratic Party quietly tearing itself apart behind closed doors over whether the same establishment figures who dominated the Obama and Biden years should continue controlling foreign policy heading into the next presidential cycle.

And the backlash is not just ideological. Some Democrats reportedly view the group as arrogant, insulated, and unwilling to let a younger generation take over.

The timing also matters.

President Donald Trump is back in office, global tensions continue escalating, and Democrats are now trying to figure out what exactly their foreign policy identity even is after years of internal fighting over Israel, Ukraine, interventionism, and progressive activism.

That is where the anxiety around Sullivan seems to hit hardest.

For progressives, Sullivan became closely tied to Biden’s support for Israel during the Gaza war.

For hawks, critics say the administration looked weak and indecisive abroad.

For others, the issue is simpler: they believe the same people who helped run the last administration are already trying to reclaim influence before voters have even fully processed what happened.

Still, the old guard does not appear interested in quietly disappearing.

The revived organization recently brought in Maher Bitar, a Palestinian-American foreign policy official tied to Adam Schiff and Biden’s National Security Council, as part of an effort to present a newer face for the group.

But even that move reportedly sparked skepticism from Democrats who saw it as little more than a rebrand of the same old network.

For now, one thing seems clear.

The Biden era may technically be over, but the people behind it are not ready to let go of power just yet.

More than a year after President Donald Trump’s viral McDonald’s campaign stop took over the internet during the 2024 election, we are finally learning how the unforgettable fast-food moment actually came together.

Speaking this week about the now-famous campaign event, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles revealed it was the campaign team that pitched the idea of Trump working the fryer at a McDonald’s during the final stretch of the race.

Trump quickly signed off on it for one very simple reason: “He eats it every single day,” Wiles said.

Back on October 20, 2024, Trump stopped at a McDonald’s in battleground Pennsylvania and instantly created one of the defining images of the election cycle.

Wearing an apron and standing behind the fryer, Trump cooked fries, joked with workers, and handed food through the drive-thru window as supporters packed the area outside.

The stop was also widely viewed as a jab at then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who had previously claimed she worked at McDonald’s when she was younger, though the story later became heavily debated during the campaign.

But the event was about more than trolling political opponents.

The campaign reportedly saw the stunt as a way to connect directly with working Americans, especially considering roughly one in eight Americans have worked at McDonald’s at some point in their lives.

The message was simple: Trump wanted to position himself as someone who respected those jobs and the people working them every day.

The unforgettable campaign gimmick exploded into a massive viral moment.

Within hours, photos and videos of Trump behind the fryer flooded social media. Memes spread everywhere. Supporters turned the moment into merchandise. Even critics who mocked the stunt admitted it completely hijacked the news cycle.

Now Wiles is pulling back the curtain on why the campaign believed it would connect so strongly in the first place.

The answer was authenticity.

Trump has spent decades openly talking about his love of McDonald’s and fast food.

Whether aboard Trump Force One or on the campaign trail, stories about his McDonald’s habit have followed him for years.

The campaign apparently understood something many political consultants still do not. Americans can spot a fake photo-op from a mile away.

But Trump standing inside a McDonald’s looked less like a consultant-crafted stunt and more like something he would genuinely be doing on a random night.

More than a year later, people are still talking about it.

***

Mother’s Day exalts womankind’s top job: motherhood. Roughly 86% of women qualify as mothers on this day of ‘grammable glory, but the celebration leaves 4 million women out in the cold. Casting a wide net, the price of admission into this 24-hour hall of fame is simple: your child. Your human child, not the furry kind with four legs and a tail — at least, if you hope to keep your dignity intact.

Though Moms deserve their special moment, the cultural rush to get all types of “moms” in on the action raises the question: Why can’t we have another holiday to celebrate all the great ladies in our lives? National Dog Mom’s Day on the same weekend doesn’t quite do it.

There should be another day to honor the women and mother figures we love, and, technically, there is: International Women’s Day. But here in the U.S., the day is synonymous with celebrating every leftist policy you can imagine. What started as a day meant to elevate all girls and women was largely co-opted by those insisting on wrestling it into something like a “Day for Women’s Rights” or “Feminist New Year’s Eve.” It was riddled with stats about women and girls who were murdered by male family members, alleged gender pay gaps, and lax laws against rape and domestic abuse.  

This, according to the rules of fun parties, is the complete opposite of something a person outside the group would ever be inclined to celebrate. No offense to the tattooed girl with the fuzzy pink hair and cheek piercings working behind the counter of my local bookstore. Girl, Women’s Day is for xe/xem/you. Have the best time at the next protest for the current thing.

My first encounter with the Women’s Day concept was enlightening. At the time, I was working a side job as a food delivery driver in Los Angeles (while I hustled on becoming a famous actor, naturally). A prolific blogger for my five subscribers, I happily detailed my life as a fun SoCal gal, totally buying into the message about not needing children in order to validate my existence.

Hello, women were editors of high fashion magazines, famous actresses, and inventors of Spanx! I didn’t need to know if these boss babes had kids or could pay for nannies and IVF. The point was that their careers defined them, not their families. A killer shoe closet or a cute loft apartment was just as good. At least, that’s what I thought.

I arrived at the Bel Air home of a woman who greeted me with a smile as she emerged from an entryway that was overflowing with flowers. I assumed her sunny glow meant no one had died. 

“Ooo, is it someone’s birthday?” I couldn’t think of any other occasions on March 8 and was trying to attach a story to the $400 Sugarfish sushi order I had ferried to her door. 

“We’re celebrating Women’s Day!” she said. “It’s like your Mother’s Day here, but in Sweden we honor all women. These are from my husband to me,” she explained, gesturing toward an obscene arrangement of luscious white roses. Pointing to two more, she added, “And these are for our daughters.” It included all the women in the home. The pure, loving gesture of appreciation seemed nice.

I walked back to my car, wondering why the heck we didn’t do Women’s Day in the U.S. I found out later that Women’s Day was launched internationally by Marxist Clara Zetkin in early-1900s Denmark (stay with me!), spreading to millions of women worldwide who put their own spin on it. Italy’s practically covered with mimosa blossoms for La Festa della Donna. And in Russia, the national public holiday is marked by special meals, gifts, and champagne. Even in China, working women get half a day off for “self-care.” Without the heavy yoke of politics, it’s a day where every woman, young and old, blossoms into her own.

Maybe the problem is that all holidays eventually become avenues for propaganda or corporate profit. The whole Mother’s Day idea started in 1908 as an initiative by Philadelphia teacher Anna Jarvis to celebrate moms with a modest white carnation and a visit to the local church. Once President Woodrow Wilson put it on the calendar, things went off the rails. Jarvis formally disowned the holiday before she died in 1948, lamenting its commercialization. These days, greeting cards and flower bouquets have turned Mother’s Day into a $38 billion industry. 

Women make up more than half the population but control 85% of purchasing power in the U.S., and they drop more than $31 trillion worldwide. As L’Oréal drilled into generations of women’s heads, “If I pay more, I feel I get more. And I’m worth it.” Sold.

On top of this relentless commercialization, Mother’s Day presents its own conundrum. The tragic loss of a child, a long struggle with infertility, or the estrangement of a family member can add stress to a day that’s marketed as being full of love and chocolate truffles. Maybe it’s an impossible task, getting it right for everyone.

I was lucky enough to get the best mom in the biz. And I enjoy participating in motherhood and raising children in a supporting role as an aunt, daughter, and sister. I also recognize the incredible dedication and hard work it takes to be a parent. You don’t hear too many stories about someone’s last words being about a compelling corporate presentation. It’s family. Full stop. 

Maybe someday we’ll find a real way to recognize the value in all women and girls, just as they are. Protect Mother’s Day for mothers, and let Women’s Day celebrate women without all the corporate feminist politics. There’s got to be a way to honor our sisters, aunts, girlfriends, daughters, nurturers, neighbors, and friends, no strings attached.

The Westminster class will spend days analyzing swing percentages, demographic shifts, and campaign strategies. But the reason ordinary Britons revolted is much simpler than the experts would like to admit.

Whether in rural towns or urban centers, people are sick of a political elite obsessed with policing speech, policing thought, and policing “offense” while failing to police actual crime. The message was clear: “Enough.”

Enough of watching violent crime spiral in major cities while police forces spend their time monitoring tweets and recording “non-crime hate incidents.”

Enough of hearing endless lectures about “harmful language” while grooming gang scandals continue to haunt communities across the North of England, with victims still waiting for justice and accountability.

Enough of watching peaceful Christians being dragged through the courts for expressing their faith, while ordinary citizens increasingly feel unsafe in their own streets.

And nowhere is that national frustration more vividly embodied than in the conviction this week of retired Northern Irish pastor Clive Johnston — on the very same day that Brits took to the polls. A 78-year-old grandfather now has a criminal record because he preached from the Bible outdoors.

Not for harassment. Not for violence. Not for obstruction. Not even for mentioning abortion.

His crime? Preaching a message from John 3:16 at a small outdoor Sunday service held near a hospital, where a large “buffer zone” is in place covering several streets, banning anything the police interpret to be “influence.”

That is modern Britain in a nutshell.

The authorities insist these buffer zone laws are designed to prevent intimidation outside abortion facilities. Of course, nobody should be harassed anywhere on British streets, and legislation already exists to prevent that. But Johnston’s case revealed something much bigger — and much darker. Police bodycam footage shown in court captured officers telling the pastor he should share the Gospel only inside a “safe area” like a chaplaincy, not on the public street where passers-by might hear him, and potentially take offense.

Think carefully about what that means. Britain now has areas of public space where peaceful Christian expression can effectively become criminal if somebody decides it might “influence” another person.

Christianity, apparently, is acceptable only when carefully confined to approved spaces.

Meanwhile, in city after city, police forces that somehow lack the resources to tackle shoplifting epidemics, anti-social behavior, knife crime, or organized exploitation networks can apparently still find the time and manpower to prosecute elderly pastors quoting Scripture, or individual women stopping to pray in their own heads.

It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of institutional priorities gone mad.

This is precisely why voters are abandoning both establishment parties. The Conservatives spent years talking tough on culture war issues while presiding over the steady erosion of free speech and public order alike. Labour, meanwhile, has abysmally failed to restore confidence in basic law enforcement. Ordinary people look around their communities and see disorder tolerated, borders abused by criminal traffickers, anti-social behavior normalized, and public institutions increasingly hostile to traditional values — especially Christian ones.

Then they watch a pensioner being prosecuted for preaching the Gospel.

They conclude, quite rationally, that the people running the country no longer share their instincts about right and wrong.

The revolt we witnessed in the elections was not simply economic, but moral and cultural. Across Britain, there is a growing sense that the authorities have become harsher toward the decent than toward the dangerous. They certainly seem more comfortable targeting peaceful Christians than confronting genuinely difficult social problems.

A nation cannot function when millions of ordinary citizens begin to believe there are effectively two systems of policing: one lenient toward chaos, and another aggressively punitive toward citizens who hold unfashionable beliefs.

Britain birthed America with all her understandings of liberty and democracy. This parental nation was not built on the idea that faith belongs hidden away in private rooms while the public square is handed over entirely to secular bureaucracies and activist-approved ideology. Britain was shaped by Christianity — culturally, morally, legally, and politically. From the abolition of slavery to the creation of charitable institutions, Christian belief has always shaped public life openly and unapologetically.

What voters increasingly reject is not merely “wokeness” as a slogan. They reject a governing philosophy that treats traditional values and Christian beliefs as suspect while excusing failure everywhere else. The election results show that the old political consensus is breaking apart. People want order restored. They want police focused on violent criminals, traffickers, gangs, and repeat offenders — not elderly pastors preaching John 3:16.

***

Lois McLatchie Miller (@loismclatch) is a writer and social commentator from Great Britain, focusing on the state of free speech, faith, and family across the globe.

***

A long time ago, in a galaxy not far away, Mark Hamill was the man. After an appearance on “The Bill Cosby Show” in 1970 and a recurring role on “General Hospital” from 1972 to 1973, as well as other forays into television, he would go on to portray the Jedi Luke Skywalker in a little trilogy known as “Star Wars.” 

Since that time, Hamill has done myriad other things, though in recent years he’s become more known for his political temper tantrums on social media than his acting work. Some highlights include referring to Joe Biden as Joe-bi-Wan Kenobi — because our “Weekend at Bernie’s” president was definitely reminiscent of the Jedi master. He’s made a habit of fanboying over other left-leaning celebrities online, like Stephen King. He’s spoken positively about the Lincoln Project. He’s openly wished for President Donald Trump to die. 

In short, Luke has embraced the power of the Dark Side, though not for power or money, but for attention. On the internet. Because his brain is addled by his seething hatred of a politician. Totally normal stuff, alas, as politics has replaced religion for far too many people. 

While Hamill deleted the post on Bluesky, the social media equivalent of Mos Eisley combined with the Death Star, the internet is forever. He can’t wave his hand and say, “This is not the depiction of Trump in a grave you thought you saw.” As such, that image is out there, and it’s not going anywhere. He’s also unlikely to face any consequences for it.

In the media’s eyes, why should he? It’s not like he listed his pronouns as beep/boop/bop or questioned our questionable response to COVID-19, both far graver sins than wanting to put a fellow human being in a grave because you disagree with his foreign policy and tax plan. As a society, we have to have standards.

He should regret his post, though. While Hamill is not actually a Jedi, there is much to learn from that character, one focused on being righteous and good. Did Skywalker kill? Well, yes, he did blow up the Death Star, but he didn’t revel in murder. He didn’t suggest it was maybe okay to dabble in the Dark Side because he really didn’t like Palpatine, a character who actually killed people and was arguably worthy of assassination himself.

In real life, Hamill embodies very few of the traits that his character exuded. Instead, he hews more closely to his fictional father, getting caught up in ends-justify-the-means arguments. Also, and this bears repeating, while people get way too emotionally invested in politics, Donald Trump is not the devil. He is not a fascist dictator working to destroy our democracy. He is not the American edition of Emperor Palpatine, though the Empire probably would have liked the electoral college, at least according to this guy on Reddit. 

Granted, Hamill has apologized, sort of, for his AI-generated image of Trump in a grave. He’s also clarified that he doesn’t want Trump dead, instead wanting him to “live long enough to … be held accountable for his … crimes.” Presumably, it’s okay if Trump dies after he’s held accountable for his crimes, whatever they are. Hamill didn’t elaborate, though he’s a dedicated poster, so perusing his Bluesky feed might offer some clues. As I value my mental health more than Luke, I’m not going to do that. 

He also hedged, adding, “[I] apologize if you found the image inappropriate.” In other words, he doesn’t actually feel bad about the image, but he cares enough about his public image to do a modicum of crisis PR and remind you that if you disliked it, that’s a you problem and he’s sorry that you’re of the type who isn’t into wishing death upon people. 

It’s a sad fate for the man to end up this way. Perhaps he thought his career was going to be larger than it was, particularly given the movies that launched it. Perhaps he’s just obsessed with attention. Maybe he suffered a little brain damage in the 1977 car accident that required facial reconstructive surgery.

Whatever the case, as a society, it would be foolish to expect entertainers to share every view we hold. But it’s not too much to ask to expect them not to go around wishing death upon people. It’s not healthy to give in to Palpatine and let the hate flow through us. We shouldn’t want to be Darth Vader. 

We should instead want a world of Luke Skywalkers, resilient individuals who fight when necessary, but also embrace peace and love. For as a man a long time ago, in a galaxy that is far away, reminded us, it’s unwise to embrace hatred in a futile quest to destroy an imaginary evil.

***

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on Thursday in a 2-1 decision that Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act was not meant to address trade deficits that occur when the U.S. imports more goods than it exports. The court, however, only blocked the tariffs for three importers that sued – two small businesses and the state of Washington.

While the ruling applies to a set of levies due to expire in about two months, it marks another setback for Trump’s global tariff ambitions and comes a week before he is due to discuss trade tensions with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

It also sets the stage for another protracted legal battle over billions of dollars’ worth of tariff refunds, three months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck ​down Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed under a national emergencies law.

Trump blamed the trade court decision on “two radical left judges” when speaking to reporters on Thursday. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Friday the Trump administration expects to prevail in the appeal, although he also expressed confidence in earlier tariffs that were ultimately invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump had no authority to impose the earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, leading Trump to impose replacement tariffs of 10% on all imports using Section 122 of the Trade Act.

The new tariffs were a temporary replacement, and they were due to expire on July 24 unless extended by Congress.

The Trump administration still plans to impose broader tariffs on major trading partners by invoking ⁠a third law that has withstood numerous legal challenges, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which covers unfair trade practices. It has three Section 301 tariff investigations underway due for completion in July.

(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Rod Nickel and Sanjeev Miglani)

In a social media post, the widow reflected on their relationship and how she hopes to share their legacy with their daughter and son.

“Even though our kids won’t see our love ‘grow old together’ from an earthly stand point; they’ll see it from a Heavenly one,” she posted on X. “Happy Anniversary to the love of my life.”

Even though our kids won’t see our love “grow old together” from an earthly stand point; they’ll see it from a Heavenly one. And I’ll tell them of our love story any moment I can.

Happy Anniversary to the love of my life. pic.twitter.com/PAXTyxm7ly

— Erika Kirk (@MrsErikaKirk) May 8, 2026

An emotional video accompanying the post features a montage of the couple in romantic settings and family photos, set to voiceovers from Charlie, Erika, and their daughter, Gigi, who was born in 2022.

The video begins with Erika saying, “I want to show you some pictures of mommy and daddy, and I want to tell you a story.”

A child’s voice later says, “I love you so much, daddy. I miss you, Dada.”

The montage ends with Charlie and Erika expressing their love for one another.

After Charlie was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, Erika, as her husband wished, took over Turning Point USA. She has since urged Americans to live according to the values her husband promoted, including a focus on faith.

Tyler Robinson, 23, has been charged in connection with the killing. During a memorial service in September, Erika publicly forgave him.

“That young man, that young man,” she said. “On the cross, our savior said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did, and is what Charlie would do.”

Since taking over Turning Point USA, Erika has become a more visible public figure, continuing to promote her husband’s political and religious values on the world stage despite aggressive smear campaigns from online commentators.

Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf denied a request from the defense to ban all forms of electronic media coverage, instead requiring reporters to file requests at least two weeks prior to each scheduled proceeding.

Robinson, 23, has been charged with the September 10, 2025, killing and could face the death penalty if convicted.

The defense argued that allowing cameras would jeopardize Robinson’s “fair trial rights,” telling the judge that restrictions were necessary “to ensure Mr. Robinson’s rights to due process, to a fair and impartial jury, to counsel, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.”

At a hearing last month, the defense argued that media coverage in pre-trial hearings had already tainted the jury pool, pointing to several examples of pundits branding Robinson as a “monster” and fixating on items pulled from court filings, such as alleged post-shooting texts to his transgender-identifying roommate, rather than the substance of the proceedings.

The prosecution dismissed this argument, arguing that transparency strengthens public trust.

“Mischief lurks in the dark or in secret,” Deputy Utah County Attorney Chad Grunander said. “Conspiracy theories abound, and the antidote is the actual, real proceedings… Let’s shine a light on these proceedings, a bright light, so the public can have confidence in what happens in this courtroom.”

Utah courts have generally permitted cameras by default for a decade, and no criminal case in the state has been fully closed to cameras, according to the Salt Lake City Tribune.

Graf said the court has implemented several measures to address the defense’s concerns, including requiring cameras to remain at the back of the courtroom to avoid capturing sensitive materials or conversations.

He also pushed back the preliminary hearing for July 6 through July 10, rejecting the defense’s request for a six-month delay to sort through the “voluminous” discovery materials.

Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an illegal immigrant from Egypt who overstayed his visa, confessed to killing one person and injuring at least a dozen others. Dressed in white and orange, Soliman, while railing against Zionism, apologized in court and called his own crimes a violation of “the teachings of Islam,” according to Reuters. 

In June 2025, Soliman used a makeshift flamethrower and firebombs to attack a demonstration by “Run for Their Lives Denver,” a group that holds marches calling for the release of hostages kidnapped by the terror group Hamas.

Authorities said Soliman spent a year planning the attack. He disguised himself as a gardener to get close to the group before throwing Molotov cocktails at the marchers and shouting “Free Palestine.” 

He later told investigators he “wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead.” 

The attack killed 82-year-old Karen Diamond and injured more than a dozen others, including a Holocaust survivor. A dog died from severe burns.

District Attorney Michael Dougherty said the attack sowed “terror, fear and death.”

During sentencing, victims delivered emotional impact statements. 

“When I’m alone and close my eyes, I can vividly see Karen’s body in flames,” Orrie Gartner, who was at the march, said in court.

Judge Nancy Salomone sentenced Soliman to the maximum penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole, adding on 2,128 years for 101 total charges, including attempted murder, assault, and criminal use of explosives and ​incendiary devices.

“You chose to victimize these people because they were members of the Jewish community,” Judge Salomone said.

Soliman entered the United States in August 2022 on a tourist visa that expired in February 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security. He applied for asylum in September 2022 and later received temporary work authorization in March 2023, though it later expired, according to DHS.

He had been living in Colorado Springs with his wife and five children, who were later taken into custody by federal immigration agents, The Daily Wire previously reported.

Soliman still faces separate federal hate crimes charges that could carry a life sentence or capital punishment. 

“I ask the prosecution from ​the federal case to impose the death penalty,” he said through an Arabic interpreter.

Let’s be clear about what happened here. In 2020, Virginia voters approved a bipartisan redistricting amendment to the state Constitution by a two-to-one margin. That amendment created the Virginia Redistricting Commission — a 16-member bipartisan body — and provided that if the commission deadlocked, the Supreme Court of Virginia would draw the maps. That is exactly what happened in 2021. The commission couldn’t agree, and the Court unanimously drew maps that independent analysts, including the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, graded as an “A” — among the fairest in the entire country.

Democrats didn’t like fair maps. Fair maps meant competitive elections, and competitive elections meant they might lose seats. So rather than compete on ideas, they hatched a plan to gut the very constitutional amendment that Virginians had overwhelmingly endorsed just a few years earlier.

Their scheme was as cynical as it was procedurally reckless. During a disputed Special Session, they rammed through a proposed constitutional amendment on a party-line vote — one that would temporarily suspend the bipartisan redistricting commission and let the General Assembly redraw congressional districts to their liking. They did this on October 31, 2025 — after more than 1.3 million Virginians had already cast their ballots in the ongoing general election for the House of Delegates (the same election in which Abigail Spanberger was elected governor).

That timing is the crux of the Court’s ruling. Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution requires that a proposed amendment be passed in two separate legislative sessions with an intervening election of the House of Delegates between them. The purpose is straightforward: give voters the chance to weigh in on delegates who will cast the second vote on the amendment. But when the General Assembly passed the proposal for the first time on October 31, forty percent of the electorate had already voted. Those 1.3 million Virginians never had the constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to consider the proposed amendment when choosing their delegates. As Justice Kelsey wrote for the majority, the Commonwealth’s position would have required early voters to have “anticipated a legislative vote on a constitutional amendment four days before the last day of voting.”

The Court rejected the Commonwealth’s tortured argument that “election” means only Election Day — a single 24-hour period, rather than the entire 45 days of voting that Virginia allows (also thanks to the Democrats). Drawing on centuries of legal scholarship, dictionary definitions from Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster forward, and consistent and similar federal appellate rulings, the majority held that a “general election” encompasses the combined actions of voters casting ballots and officials receiving them, from the first day of early voting through Election Day. The General Assembly’s first vote on the amendment came in the middle of that process, not before it.

Democrats then put their gerrymandered map to a referendum vote, accompanied by a ballot question asking voters whether they wanted to “restore fairness” — a masterclass in misleading framing. After outspending opponents by more than three to one, they eked out a bare majority: 1,604,276 yes votes to 1,499,393 no votes, a margin of just 3.38 percent. The Court correctly held that this narrow margin — secured through a constitutionally defective process — could not launder the underlying violation.

So where does this leave Virginia? The Court’s 2021 nonpartisan maps — the ones that earned an “A” from independent analysts — remain in full effect for the 2026 congressional elections. Virginia will continue to have a 6-5 congressional delegation split, with districts drawn fairly and without a partisan thumb on the scale. Republicans will compete on those maps, as they should, and defend their seats on the merits.

And what about the Democrats’ next move? Theoretically, they could try again in Virginia. The constitutional amendment process requires passage in two sessions with an intervening House of Delegates election, so the earliest a new attempt could reach voters would be 2028. But consider their predicament. They threw everything they had at this effort — and it barely worked even before the Court tossed it out. They won the referendum by just over three points, with more than three million voters participating, while spending more than three dollars for every one dollar spent by the opposition. That is not the profile of a popular mandate. That is the profile of a scheme that required a massive resource advantage just to limp across the finish line.

Moreover, so much of the Democrats’ political fuel in recent years has been anti-Trump energy. By 2028, Donald Trump will be in the final stretch of his presidency, constitutionally barred from running again. The single greatest motivator of Democratic turnout in Virginia will be exiting the political stage. Does anyone believe that a Virginia electorate — one that endorsed bipartisan redistricting by a two-to-one margin in 2020 — will embrace an openly partisan power grab without the boogeyman of Trump to drive them to the polls?

Today’s ruling is a reminder that constitutions matter, that process matters, and that no political party — no matter how large its legislative majority or campaign war chest — is above the law. Virginia Democrats tried to rig the game. The Supreme Court of Virginia stopped them. The fair maps stand, and the people of Virginia are better for it.

***

Ken Cuccinelli is the former Virginia attorney general and former acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

In the AI-generated spot, Pratt presents a version of Los Angeles depicting clean streets, busy restaurants, and smiling residents. It’s an idealized vision that Pratt says could be possible under his leadership.

He has compared L.A. to the post-apocalyptic “Mad Max” movies, where “zombies” roam the streets. His new ad takes swipes at L.A.’s current condition, with actors portraying police officers and firefighters in a utopian setting as they deliver piercing lines.

pic.twitter.com/7PphLcDgHD

— Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) May 8, 2026

“We’re even allowed to arrest criminals now with handcuffs and everything,” a police officer says, while a firefighter adds, “Turns out it’s a lot easier to fight fires when there’s water in the reservoirs,” taking a shot at Democrat leadership during last year’s wildfires.

Pratt has been vocal on the issue after losing his home in the Pacific Palisades fires.

“A key reservoir, Santa Ynez, sat drained and offline for a year, leaving its helispots offline and hydrants dry in elevated Palisades neighborhoods during the blaze,” Pratt said last month.

The ad leans into Pratt’s campaign message focusing on public safety and quality-of-life. He has argued that stricter enforcement would improve the city and pushed a plan “to restore a camera-ready Los Angeles,” which includes sidewalk repairs, restored street lighting, pothole fixes, and rapid graffiti removal.

Pratt has taken a hard stance on homelessness, calling some “zombies” who are being enabled by bad policies.

“When I enforce the law and clear the streets of the drug addicts that have taken over 40 blocks of downtown L.A., abandoned buildings that have drug addicts just lighting them on fire every other day, I will have potentially 20,000 units available to build,” Pratt said during Wednesday night’s debate.

RELATED: Reality TV Star Spencer Pratt Obliterates Leftist Policies In Heated L.A. Mayoral Debate

The spot closes with residents enjoying parks and public spaces, reinforcing Pratt’s pitch that families would be safer in his version of L.A.

“I don’t have to wonder anymore whether I just stepped in human sh*t or dog sh*t, so that’s nice,” a woman walking her dog says in the ad.

“I love going to the park now that it’s not an open drug market,” a young boy adds.

Pratt ended his video by declaring summer 2026 a “Pratt Summer,” a nod to Charlie XCX’s album from summer of 2024.

The ad was produced by Charlie Curran, who has created multiple AI-driven spots for Pratt’s campaign.

Pratt is set to face incumbent Democratic Mayor Karen Bass and far-Left Councilwoman Nithya Raman in the June 2, 2026, mayoral primary.

We all wish we had a nickel for every celebrity who vowed to leave the country if Donald Trump won the election. And then it happened twice. Ka-ching.

Yet the vast majority of stars, like Cher, never leave. They collectively memory-holed their vow while keeping up a “resistance” posture. Not Ellen DeGeneres. She followed through on the promise to leave. The disgraced talk show host literally left the country at the end of 2024 before Trump took office for greener pastures. Bucolic England, to be more accurate. And she loved her new home:

“We’re just not used to seeing this kind of beauty. The villages and the towns and the architecture — everything you see is charming and it’s just a simpler way of life … It’s clean. Everything here is just better — the way animals are treated, people are polite. I just love it here.”

Yes. The comedienne who was bounced from her own show for chronic cruelty is now a big fan of polite behavior, apparently.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Live Nation

President Trump’s reelection weighed heavily in her decision to flee the country. She also worried Trump — who has appointed openly gay men to be key parts of his administration, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and adviser Ric Grenell — would end same-sex marriage in the United States.

That was then. A year and a half of Trump-induced exile was apparently enough. The “Finding Nemo” star is now using some of her American-earned royalties to buy a new home … back in America.

The comic and her longtime squeeze Portia de Rossi just gobbled up a $27 million mansion in Montecito, California. The plan, at the moment, is for the couple to split time between England and the United States. But it appears their return may be temporary.

Imagine having enough money to buy a California mansion with the plan to ditch it in the near future. 

Backgrid. NY Post.

One would think a celebrity of her stature might have a debt of gratitude to a country that allows that kind of financial freedom. Perhaps she’ll realize life in the United States, even under a so-called “dictator,” still has its perks. 

Maybe not.

It’s also unclear what DeGeneres thinks about the recent crackdowns on free speech on British citizens, including the arrest of comedic colleague Graham Linehan at Heathrow Airport over a social media post about men entering women’s spaces. She’s yet to weigh in on the matter via social media, even though she’s been a stand-up comic for decades, a gig that demands all the free speech room Western culture can offer.

For now, a People magazine source says the duo missed California’s weather and “horse scene.” They’ll hole up back in California while they build a massive horse stable and riding area at the United Kingdom estate. 

De Rossi is an animal enthusiast and appears to have put her extensive Hollywood career behind her. The “Arrested Development” co-star’s resume dried up in recent years with no new projects on the horizon.

The same may not be true for DeGeneres.

The comedian delivered a rare stand-up special late in 2024 on Netflix. It was her first attempt at explaining away all the terrible headlines tied to her ugly TV talk show exit on her terms, not any tabloid headlines.

Netflix

No filters. Just DeGeneres and her considerable wit. Except the special didn’t capture the upbeat humor that entertained so many Americans over the years. And, when it came to addressing the elephant on the stage, her toxic behavior, DeGeneres fumbled.

Even Variety, a far-left outlet that might be gracious to any DeGeneres comeback given her legitimate status as an LGBT pioneer, cried foul.

It’s a spectacle of ego that seems at odds with the humble demeanor DeGeneres shows on stage — but then, that divide has lately been part of the whole Ellen experience.

And, it appeared, the special was her way of speaking her mind and bowing out of Hollywood, officially.

Then again, how many artists have promised to hang up their professional hats only to return a short time later? If DeGeneres truly embraced the kindness and beauty of her new British home, why not move to any of the other states in America, where she’ll find plenty of both? Why pick a city that’s less than two hours from Los Angeles, still a major Hollywood hub?

Her recent social media musings prove she’s still plugged in to American news headlines and, more importantly, remains on the same page as her former Hollywood denizens. She recently offered “prayers” to Minneapolis for the self-inflicted chaos engulfing the city over ICE arrests.

Perhaps DeGeneres is taking a page from the playbook of another former talk show host: Rosie O’Donnell. They’re both former comedians who fled the country thanks to President Trump, but neither can leave their old home’s politics behind.

Mike Marsland/Getty Images for Sky & NOW

O’Donnell’s unhinged rants over all things Trump have flowed steadily from her social media accounts despite living full-time in Ireland for the past year. She even questioned whether President Trump’s 2024 assassination attempt actually happened.

And both DeGeneres and O’Donnell played up a sweet, friendly brand that proved to be anything but accurate. O’Donnell’s “Queen of Nice” shtick, along with her crush on Tom Cruise, proved to be pure Hollywood fiction.

And we all know how afraid “Ellen” staffers were to be near their boss behind the scenes.

Perhaps DeGeneres’ self-imposed American exile, along with her speedy return, will end up as stand-up fodder for her next comeback attempt. Turns out even self-exiled Hollywood royalty will eventually return to the kingdom that made her rich.

* * *

Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic, and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at HollywoodInToto.com.

My mother, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, is a 63-year-old Uyghur retired physician, a woman of deep kindness who devoted her life to healing others. Since 2018, she has been unjustly imprisoned in Xinjiang by the Chinese government, cut off from her family. She is a mother of two American daughters and grandmother to four beautiful granddaughters.

Her disappearance came less than a week after her sister Rushan Abbas, a U.S. citizen and prominent Uyghur human rights activist, spoke publicly about Beijing’s persecution and mass detention of Uyghurs. Soon after, the Chinese authorities sentenced her to 20 years in prison for fabricated crimes. This retaliation for my aunt’s advocacy in the United States is a stark example of Beijing’s growing campaign of transnational repression — punishing individuals in China for the actions of their relatives abroad.

While families across America gather to celebrate Mother’s Day, my world will remain quiet. There will be no morning phone call to hear my mother’s voice, no chance to tell her how much I love her, and no opportunity for my daughter and nieces to sit in their grandmother’s lap. She has missed first steps, first words, first days of school — years of a family growing up without her.

This is my eighth Mother’s Day marked by a physical ache to see my mother’s face and hear her voice.

Living in this reality is hard. Every statement from Beijing or Washington, D.C. leaves me wondering if this will finally be the moment of her release. That day has not yet come. In the meantime, I am left to answer an impossible question from my seven-year-old daughter and three nieces, who have never met their grandmother: “Why isn’t she here?”

I don’t have a good answer. I tell them that she is good and kind, brave, that she loves them, and wants nothing more than to be here with them.

There are moments when the world seems to notice, when hope feels closer. And then those moments pass. But for families like mine, the reality never changes. We are still waiting. Still hoping she is not forgotten.

As President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet in Beijing, I’ll be glued to the news. President Trump should boldly raise my mother’s case and secure her unconditional release and safe return home. I also call on Beijing to act first. As a priority political prisoner, releasing her would be a gesture of good faith that costs nothing and restores a family.

Her release would not only reunite our family — it would send a powerful message that American families should not bear the cost of Beijing’s transnational repression.

My mother is enduring hardships we cannot fully see or understand. We worry about the mental strain of this ordeal and the toll on her body, which suffers from several chronic health conditions. The fragments of information we receive are never enough to ease our pain or change the reality that she is still not home. Instead, they have only deepened my resolve, because staying silent would mean accepting she doesn’t matter. She does.

Whatever steadiness and strength that keep me going come from my mother herself — from her quiet courage, her compassion, and the love with which she raised me. I hold on to the hope that one day, we will be reunited. Until then, I will keep speaking and advocating, because she taught me that love is not passive; it shows up again and again, across the years and oceans.

If your mom answers the phone this Mother’s Day, please don’t take that for granted. I would give anything to hear that line pick up, and her voice on the other end.

***

Ziba Murat is a Uyghur American advocate whose mother, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, has been imprisoned in Xinjiang since 2018.

Campaign filings show that Virginians for Fair Elections, the leading Democrat-aligned group backing the gerrymandered map, raised more than $64 million between January and April 2026. That total was more than double the amount raised by Republican-aligned groups opposing redistricting. 

The map, approved by voters last month, would have shifted the congressional delegation from its current 6-5 Democrat edge to a 10-1 advantage.

Virginians for Fair Elections said that the map was necessary “to fight back against Trump’s attempts to rig the 2026 midterm elections.”

Much of the money raised came from House Majority Forward, which contributed nearly $39 million, according to campaign filings. The group describes itself as a “progressive, non-profit organization committed to promoting economic growth and opportunity, social justice, environmental stewardship, and democracy in the United States of America.”

House Majority Forward is classified as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, meaning it does not have to publicly disclose its donors. 

Other similar dark money groups donated millions. The Fairness Project gave more than $12 million, the Fund for Policy Reform donated $5 million, American Opportunity Action contributed $3.6 million, and the Global Impact Social Welfare Fund added $1.5 million. These groups frequently bankroll liberal causes, from abortion to election laws. 

Additionally, the Democratic Party of Virginia contributed more than $977,000. 

Republican-aligned groups spent around $30 million to oppose the map. After the results of the April referendum, some commentators criticized the Republican Party over the spending gap. 

Virginians for Fair Maps raised more than $21 million, while the Per Aspera Policy group contributed $7.2 million to Justice for Democracy’s campaign against the redistricting plan.

Conservative commentators mocked the groups for spending so much money on the campaign, only for it to be struck down in a 4-3 decision. 

“Democrats incinerated nearly $70 million on an unconstitutional gerrymandering scheme in Virginia,” said Steve Guest, a former spokesman for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). 

“I am pleased to announce that there will be a THREE DAY CEASEFIRE (May 9th, 10th, and 11th) in the War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump posted Friday on Truth Social, adding that the ceasefire would mark the anniversary of Victory Day in World War II — one of Russia’s most important national holidays.

President Trump said the ceasefire will mean the “suspension of all kinetic activity” in a conflict that began in February 2022 and has resulted in more than 2 million casualties.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed the details of the ceasefire, adding that “a prisoner exchange in the format of 1,000 for 1,000” would also take place between Russia and Ukraine.

“Within the framework of the negotiating process mediated by the American side, we received Russia’s agreement to conduct a prisoner exchange in the format of 1,000 for 1,000,” Zelensky wrote on X. “A ceasefire regime must also be established on May 9, 10, and 11. Ukraine is consistently working to bring its people home from Russian captivity. I have instructed our team to promptly prepare everything necessary for the exchange.”

Russia had spent weeks lobbying Ukraine for a Victory Day ceasefire, threatening to strike Kyiv if the planned Victory Day parade was disrupted. Ukraine dismissed the ceasefire proposal as “unserious” until Trump intervened and brokered a prisoner exchange.

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told Russian media that Moscow agreed to the arrangement following a phone call between Putin and Trump.

The three-day truce will mark the first mutual ceasefire between the two nations since Russia’s full-scale invasion began more than four years ago. Russia has previously declared unilateral pauses around Orthodox church holidays and Victory Day in past years, and the two nations briefly observed a one-month halt to strikes on energy infrastructure earlier this year. A deep mutual distrust between the two sides has prevented any comprehensive cessation of hostilities from being reached until now.

“Hopefully, it is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, and hard fought War. Talks are continuing on ending this Major Conflict, the biggest since World War II, and we are getting closer and closer every day,” Trump said.

In recent months, the Trump administration has kicked off a campaign to denaturalize foreign-born United States citizens, securing 15 denaturalization orders as of April. In total, the Department of Justice has filed 35 denaturalization complaints.

By comparison, the federal government secured 54 denaturalizations under the Biden administration, the DOJ said.

This week alone, the Trump administration filed denaturalization cases against 12 individuals, some of whom are accused of terror ties.

Among them is Somali-born Salah Osman Ahmed, 43, who “began providing material support” to the terrorist group al-Shabaab just months after he became an American citizen in 2007, according to the Justice Department.

At one point, Ahmed flew to Somalia to join the U.S.-designated terrorist organization and “fight and kill Ethiopians,” the department said. He pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists in 2009.

Under federal law, individuals can be denaturalized if they join a terrorist organization within five years of becoming a citizen. Authorities may also pursue denaturalization in cases where citizenship was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.

Another case involves Khalid Ouazzani, 48, who prosecutors say “was planning—with two men later convicted of trying to bomb the New York Stock Exchange—ways to support Al-Qaeda” as early as 2003, roughly three years before he became a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Trump administration is now pursuing a denaturalization case against him.

In 2007, one year after obtaining his citizenship, the Morocco-born man allegedly “sent Al-Qaeda tens of thousands of dollars in financial support with money that he had fraudulently obtained.”

The next year, “he took an oath of allegiance” to the terror group. Ouazzani pleaded guilty to bank fraud, money laundering, and providing material support to Al-Qaeda in 2010.

Ali Yousif Ahmed, 48, an Iraqi national, is also facing denaturalization. He came to the United States in 2009, claiming he and his family were attacked by Al-Qaeda, according to the Justice Department. The Iraqi government contacted the federal government in 2019, requesting that Ahmed be extradited to face criminal charges for the premeditated murder of two Iraqi police officers in 2006.

Ahmed was accused of murdering the officers while serving as an Al-Qaeda leader.

The Justice Department accused Ahmed of “illegally” obtaining American citizenship by lying “under oath about his criminal and family history.”

The Trump administration’s latest crackdown commenced as part of President Donald Trump’s “war on fraud,” with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “prioritizing those who’ve unlawfully obtained U.S. citizenship — especially under the previous administration” for denaturalization.

The Trump administration gave USCIS orders to pursue “100-200 denaturalization cases per month,” according to The New York Times.

“The Department of War is in lockstep with President Trump to bring unprecedented transparency regarding our government’s understanding of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena,” War Secretary Pete Hegseth said. “These files, hidden behind classifications, have long fueled justified speculation — and it’s time the American people see it for themselves. This release of declassified documents demonstrates the Trump Administration’s earnest commitment to unprecedented transparency.”

Over 160 files can be viewed on a new webpage from the Department of War. The files include photos, videos, FBI investigative records, eyewitness testimonies, and public reports concerning UFOs. One image was captured during the Apollo 17 moon landing and shows three shining dots in space.

Department of War

Other photos captured by the Apollo 12 mission showed strange lights seen by the astronauts.

More records are expected to be released on a rolling basis. 

“For the first time in history, the American people have unfettered access to declassified government files on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon — a level of transparency that no prior administration has delivered,” FBI Director Kash Patel said. “The FBI remains committed to supporting this rolling declassification effort with the same rigor and integrity we bring to every national security matter.”

Files and videos from the vault show a variety of irregular objects captured in photographs and videos from the FBI, NASA, and U.S. military.  

One photo from the FBI shows an apparent UFO near a mountain range in the Western United States.

A video submitted by Central Command showed an “unidentified anomalous phenomenon to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office” captured by “an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform in 2013.”

Another image from 2023 shows an FBI lab-rendered graphic of an actual site photo after multiple “corroborating eyewitness reports” of an “apparent ellipsoid bronze metallic object materializing out of a bright light in the sky” before disappearing.

The release comes after President Donald Trump in February directed the release of government records related to “alien and extraterrestrial life.”

“President Trump directed the Department of War to identify and release government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena, and unidentified flying objects because he is the most transparent president in history,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told The Daily Wire. “While past administrations have sought to discredit or dissuade the American people, the President is focused on providing maximum disclosure to the public, who can ultimately make up their own minds about the information contained in these files. The American people asked, and President Trump delivered — enjoy!”

Tennessee Republican Tim Burchett said last month in an interview with NewsNation that he had seen UFO-related videos that he didn’t believe could be explained by man-made technology. 

“I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have, and everybody says, ‘Well, it’s our stuff, it’s the Russians, it’s the Chinese,’” he said. “If it’s the Chinese, ma’am, they would own us. If it was the Russians, they wouldn’t be bogged down in Ukraine.” 

“If it was ours, we would never risk our military fighting men and women in half-a-billion-dollar aircraft out with these things that they’re spotting. These things can hover for hours on end, then they can just shoot straight up, they can do angles.”

Last week, Trump teased the release of the files during an event at the White House with the Artemis II astronauts. 

“We’re going to be releasing a lot of things that we haven’t,” Trump said. “I think some of it’s going to be very interesting to people.”

In February, Trump directed federal government agencies to start the process for identifying and releasing files related to “alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.”

And yet, if you are a Democrat these days, it may be the only virtue. 

For tens of thousands of years, the natural state of human beings was poverty, misery, and death.

Then came private property, along with governments that formed to protect it, as well as free markets formed to trade, invest, and expand that private property.

We all live better now than the richest man on earth did just 100 years ago, or 80 years ago, or even 60 years ago — by far.

But for the Democrats, that system of free markets is evil and immoral and wrong, not because free markets have produced poverty or misery, far from it, but because there are a lot of people who envy those who create wealth. They envy the people who innovate, compete, and win.

I’ve called these envious people “scavengers.”

The virus of socialist envy never, ever dies. The not-so-brilliant Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was on a podcast with a woman named Ilana Glazer, where she made the rather incredible statement that it is not possible to earn $1 billion. 

Here was the exchange:

Ocasio-Cortez: You can’t earn a billion dollars.

Glazer: That’s right.  

Ocasio-Cortez: You just can’t earn that.  

Glazer: That’s exactly correct.  

Ocasio-Cortez: You can get market power. You can break rules. You can do all sorts of things. You can abuse labor laws.   

Glazer: Yup.  

Ocasio-Cortez: You can pay people less than what they’re worth.

Glazer: Yup. 

Ocasio-Cortez: But you can’t earn that, right?   

Glazer: That’s right.  

Ocasio-Cortez: And so you have to create a myth that — since you didn’t earn that, you have to create a myth of earning it.

The amount of brainpower in that room could toast a piece of bread — lightly. Absolute oatmeal for brains there.

Of course, you can earn $1 billion. The way that you earn $1 billion in the private sector is by providing goods and services to millions of people who want to pay for them.

That is how you earn $1 billion. You innovate a new product. Lots of people want it, and then they pay you for it. That is how you make money.

But this sort of stupidity has become de rigueur for the Left. Ocasio-Cortez then pushed this further on X, writing, “The single largest form of theft in America is wage theft. $50 billion a year are (sic) stolen from American workers.”

She’s not talking here about the wage theft of the government coming in and literally confiscating a giant chunk of your paycheck every month. She thinks it is wage theft for companies not to pay wages that she thinks they should pay.

Ocasio-Cortez is shrill, dumb, inexperienced, and uneducated.

It has always been a Marxist lie that capitalism impoverishes the worker. It is not true. It has never been true.

Every prediction Marx ever made about the future state of the world was wrong. All of them. Which is why, in order to achieve his vision, governments eventually had to kill tens of millions of human beings.

He projected that there would be a gigantic class struggle: never happened. He predicted that capitalism would impoverish everyone: it didn’t.

All that Marxism is really rooted in, in the end, is pure, unadulterated envy. Ocasio-Cortez cited Bernie Sanders as the founder of the movement, saying, “In a lot of ways, we’re all kind of Bernie’s successor.”

There is no one who’s been a bigger leech on the ass of American society than Bernie Sanders. The man has not held a productive job for literally 80 years. For 80 years, he has lived and sponged off the taxpayer.

Sanders is now targeting Sergey Brin for the great crime of founding Google, saying on X, “Google founder Sergey Brin’s wealth has DOUBLED to $311 billion since Trump’s election. Now he’s spending $57M to oppose a 5% billionaires’ wealth tax in California. He’d rather millions lose healthcare than pay his fair share in taxes. This kind of arrogance is unacceptable.”

According to whom? You’re a tyrant. And by the way, it is you who are arrogant because you believe you are entitled to Sergey Brin’s wealth. 

Kamala Harris has implied she should be able to basically dictate wages, imagining a world “where if you work a 40-hour week, you can afford your rent and food on the table and maybe a vacation from time to time, not scraping to get by, praying you can get through the end of the month.”

That is so vague as to be utterly worthless. First of all, the vast majority of people in the United States who work a 40-hour week can afford rent. They’re not living on the streets. They’re affording rent. It may be too expensive; they may not like it, but the vast majority of them are not homeless, and they can afford food because starvation in the United States is at zero. No one is starving to death in the United States.

Socialists and people who hate free markets posit that if you work 40 hours a week in the United States, you should be able to afford all sorts of things, and the only thing stopping you is this system they don’t like.

It’s just crap. It’s just nonsense.

It’s important to note that places like California that have decided to follow the AOC-Bernie Sanders path — wealth is terrible, and innovation is awful — are losing people. They are losing income.

So the question is, why do the Democrats keep doing this?

It can only be envy.

The promise of Marxism is not a better future. The promise of Marxism is a better human being. That was always the promise of Marxism.

It is a lie. It is untrue.

Human beings are human beings wherever you go. Human nature is human nature wherever you go. The idea that you’re a better person if you believe in redistributionism is a lie.

Free markets are good. Free markets are based on a simple principle: You, as an individual, have creative power in the universe. You’re made in the image of God. You have control over your autonomy. You have the ability to control your labor. Your innovation is your own, and you ought to own it.

There are time machines on planet Earth. They’re called airplanes. Take an airplane to a third-world country that does not protect private property, that does not believe in equal rights before the law. See how it works out for you. It’s terrible. It’s awful.

Meanwhile, you’re living here in the United States, the greatest country in the history of mankind, and you have a magical device you carry in your pocket every day, filled with more technology than the tech used to put a man on the moon.

You’re carrying that around every day, and you have a button on that phone that will magically deliver a product to you without any effort on your part, other than hitting the button. That product will have been sourced from 80 different countries, and you’ll never know about it.

That’s the power of free markets, which is rooted in your specific priorities.

You’re not a victim in the system. You get to decide what you want to buy. You get to decide what you want to sell. You get to decide how much you’re going to spend on a thing, or whether you don’t want to spend that much money on a thing.

The idea that you, as an individual, get to decide what a thing is worth to you is the basis for free-market economics, meaning that it is the most individualistic system that has ever been conceived of by mankind.

That’s what price systems do. We aggregate the value over time, and then we figure out what the average person is willing to pay.

You innovate; you compete; things get better. It is not just a utilitarian case. It is a moral case.

The Left hates that moral case. They want something completely different.

They are driven by envy.

And that’s a sin.

If you don’t like your answer to that question, you might be one of the vast majority of Americans who see the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement as essential for our country’s future.

Deep down, Americans know we can and must do better for our health. That’s why the ideas and real-world impact of MAHA are so overwhelmingly popular. With a shift in focus and key policy changes, we can build a stronger, healthier future.

When many of us were younger, we learned in school about the importance of fitness through the Presidential Fitness Test. If you don’t have school-age children, you might not realize that it was shut down during President Barack Obama’s second term. President Donald Trump rightly reinstated the test this past summer, and states are already working to make it part of school again.

Furthermore, states are requiring a minimum amount of recess and physical activity during the school day. The federal government is backing those efforts with background facts, data, and guidelines — a partnership rather than pulling the rug out from under them.

Today, nearly three out of every four American adults are overweight or obese. Until last year, all 50 states allowed junk food and soda to be purchased with food stamps, and most able-bodied food stamp recipients do not work at all. A stunning 71% of America’s youth are ineligible to serve in the military because of weight, fitness, or drug abuse. And maybe worst of all, according to CDC data, life expectancy in the U.S. is a full four years shorter than in other countries.

That’s why the MAHA movement is striking such a nerve with the American public. It’s cracking down on unhealthy behaviors, fighting chronic diseases, improving Americans’ diets, and fixing broken health institutions.

MAHA is helping Americans break free from an unending cycle of dependency and poor health, and preventing children from developing bad habits and trapping themselves in a lifetime of obesity.

According to a national survey by the Center for Excellence in Polling, MAHA policies are overwhelmingly popular with Americans, in some cases almost unanimously so.

Ninety-four percent of voters support requiring public elementary schools to provide at least 20 minutes of daily recess for all students.

Sixty-eight percent of voters support banning the use of cellphones in K-12 schools during the school day.

And nearly six in 10 voters support banning junk food like soda and candy from food stamps.

These policies are overwhelmingly popular. And in the past year, many of them have crossed the line from “good idea” into the real world. Thanks to state-based initiatives and a supportive federal partner (finally), the tide of public opinion and policy is shifting in America.

The idea of banning the worst foods from food stamps is not new. State leaders, and even some cities, have been attempting to enact such policies for decades, to little avail.

Today, thanks to MAHA leadership from the White House and the executive branch, 22 states (and counting) have received approval to limit purchases of soda, candy, and junk food with food stamps.

That’s a major win, one that overcame powerful industry pushback, created its own momentum, and is today delivering real change in the face of inertia. Other states have an opportunity to keep building on this momentum; the American people have a clear appetite for turning popular ideas into real-world policy.

In diet and exercise, everyone knows that small changes can lead to big results. But the same is true for policy change.

The truth is that America’s poor health is undermining our strength, both in our individual lives and our reputation around the world.

Yes, personal responsibility and good fiscal policy are conservative values. But the wider aims of MAHA are American values as well — strength, health, family, and common sense.

After all, America is the “land of the free and home of the brave,” not the land of free refills and home of an early grave.

***

Paige Terryberry is a senior research fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability.

Alright, that may not be exactly what you were thinking. In fact, maybe that’s what I was thinking. Or maybe that was reality, and this is the nightmare, in which case, let’s get back to the Met Gala.

Every year, rich people who seem to think highly of themselves for no discernible reason gather at the Metropolitan Museum of Art to desecrate its wonderful art collection by dressing up like idiots and then posing and flouncing around for the cameras like idiots who are also pansies but still idiots. These are the individuals whose fabulous glamor holds our cultural elites in fascinated thrall, while the rest of us are watching Shane Gillis because at least he has some talent, so we know why we’re looking at him.

But, of course, the Met Gala’s biggest attraction is the amazing outfits that show off how God gifted these women with beauty and these men with homosexuality. Famous designers go to the absolute limits of their lack of talent to create dresses for women who have absolutely everything except the simple dignity to cover themselves when they go outside lest they be exposed as narcissistic exhibitionists with nothing to contribute to society besides an inappropriate glimpse of their supposed-to-be-private parts. This year’s prize for the least amount of modesty went to Kylie Jenner, who simply sent her bare breasts to the gala while the rest of her stayed home watching “Temptation Island” with a Budweiser Select 55 and a bucket of wings.

Madonna arrived shrouded in black as if she were dead. Which really wasn’t all that shocking, until the EMTs showed up to carry her out to the hearse and she started shrieking, “Wait, wait, I’m still alive,” which surprised everyone. Doctors examined Madonna and declared that, yes, she was still alive, so only her career should be buried.

Sarah Paulson, who is very famous for I have no idea what, bought her $100,000 ticket out of her $12 million net worth in order to wear a dollar bill mask to protest wealthy people by dramatizing the fact that money is blind. Paulson made a dramatic entrance until she walked forehead first into a low-hanging water pipe, reeled backward and smashed into a wall, then stumbled to the very brink of a descending stairway and murmured, “Maybe I should’ve put some eye-holes in this dollar mask,” before she tried to walk away but instead somersaulted down the stairs into the museum’s Egyptian wing, where she had a flirtatious chat with a man who’d been dead for three and a half thousand years.

Singer Stevie Nicks was also there. Nicks recently revealed she was glad she had had an abortion, because if she’d let her child live, there would have been no Fleetwood Mac. Nicks wore an outfit with a large empty space in the middle to show where her soul used to be.

Cultural elites were also delighted to see their new favorite celebrity, White House Correspondents’ Dinner attacker Cole Tomas Allen. Allen, wearing an elegant orange jumpsuit, was released from jail to attend the Met Gala after DEI Judge Zia Faruqui apologized for having him locked up when all he’d done was try to shoot the president, and let’s face it, who hasn’t at this point?

All in all, the fashion spectacular was a sparkling and glamorous reminder that even the mightiest nations ultimately succumb to corruption and produce an elite class so useless and perverse, it drags a civilization that was the labor of centuries into a hellish oblivion. But at least they dress badly.

The ruling triggered backlash from Democratic officials and leftist activists, with one prominent left-wing commentator warning that a “violent revolution” is “inevitable.”

In its decision, the court found that Democratic lawmakers violated the Virginia Constitution’s intervening-election requirement for amendments, rendering the referendum invalid.

“In this case, the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement in Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia,” the court wrote. “This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void.” 

The decision delivers a major defeat to Virginia Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who forcefully pushed the measure, and for Democrats nationwide as the national redistricting fight intensifies.

“More than three million Virginians cast their ballots in Virginia’s redistricting referendum, and the majority of Virginia voters voted to push back against a President who said he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress with a temporary and responsive referendum. They made their voices heard,” Spanberger said in a statement. 

More than three million Virginians cast their ballots in Virginia’s redistricting referendum, and the majority of Virginia voters voted to push back against a President who said he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress with a temporary and responsive referendum. They…

— Governor Abigail Spanberger (@GovernorVA) May 8, 2026

“I am disappointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia’s ruling, but my focus as Governor will be on ensuring that all voters have the information necessary to make their voices heard this November in the midterm elections.”

Left-wing streamer Hasan Piker, who has gained influence in Democratic circles, reacted in stark terms on social media.

“The va supreme court denied the results of the redistricting referendum. scotus gutted the voting rights act and tennessee carved up the last dem district destroying black voter power in the state,” Piker said on social media. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

the va supreme court denied the results of the redistricting referendum. scotus gutted the voting rights act and tennessee carved up the last dem district destroying black voter power in the state.

those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable https://t.co/Ul1nW2oz29

— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) May 8, 2026

Democratic leaders also condemned the ruling.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called the decision “vile,” accusing Republicans of attempting to “rig the elections in their favor.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) described the ruling as “an unprecedented and undemocratic action” and said Democrats are “exploring all options to overturn this shocking decision.”

Lefty media figures echoed the criticism. Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta questioned the ruling, asking, “What is happening to our democracy?”

CNN senior political analyst Nia-Malika Henderson called the outcome “a big blow for Hakeem Jeffries,” saying “he was all in on it.”

“Thirty-eight million dollars spent from a group affiliated with him,” Henderson said. “[Former President Barack] Obama was in on this. And now this; this is a big defeat.”

.@niamalikah on the Virginia Supreme Court striking down Democrats’ gerrymandering effort:

“This is a big blow. Hakeem Jeffries… 38 million dollars spent from a group affiliated with him. Obama was in on this… It has been a big, big waste of money.” pic.twitter.com/dP3g3sClD4

— Bobby LaValley (@Bobby_LaVallley) May 8, 2026

Republicans, however, said the ruling is final.

“The Virginia Supreme Court is the final authority on Virginia constitutional questions. This is the end, folks,” former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said in a briefing with reporters. “This case is over. There is no challenge for the Attorney General to make at this point.”

On Thursday, Tennessee Republican lawmakers enacted a new congressional map expected to wipe out the last Democratic congressional seat. Florida has enacted changes projected to give Republicans up to four additional House seats, while Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina are also expected to redraw maps. 

The Virginia ruling undercuts what Democrats had expected to be a 10-1 advantage in the state’s House delegation. Instead, the map reverts to a narrower 6-5 Democrat edge that was in place before the April special election, giving Republicans a clearer path to compete. 

The decision comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week striking down requirements for black-majority districts in Southern states, prompting a wave of redistricting efforts in Republican-led states. 

Florida and Tennessee have already approved new maps, with more red states likely to follow. 

Tennessee lawmakers on Thursday approved a congressional map expected to hand Republicans control of all nine of the Volunteer State’s congressional districts come November. The map, signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, spreads out the heavily Democratic population centers in Memphis and Nashville across multiple Republican-favorable districts. 

The new map is likely to eliminate Tennessee’s lone Democratic seat, currently held by Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis. 

In Florida, lawmakers led by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis passed new district lines projected to give Republicans four additional House seats. The changes target Democratic-leaning areas in Tampa, Orlando, and South Florida, aiming to flip those districts to Republican control.

Alabama could be next. Lawmakers are considering legislation that would produce a congressional map favoring Republicans 6-1, shifting one seat away from Democrats. 

Prior to the Supreme Court decision last week, Alabama was forced to maintain one majority-black district and a second with a near-majority black population under an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that has now been ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 

Lawmakers in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi are also reviewing potential redistricting plans that could further shift even more seats to Republicans. 

President Donald Trump called on states to redraw maps after the Supreme Court decision last week. 

“We cannot allow there to be an Election that is conducted unconstitutionally simply for the ‘convenience’ of State Legislatures,” Trump said Sunday. “If they have to vote twice, so be it. We should demand that State Legislatures do what the Supreme Court says must be done. That is more important than administrative convenience. The byproduct is that the Republicans will receive more than 20 House Seats in the upcoming Midterms.”

As things stand, the British people have turned ruthlessly against Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. Up and down the country, Labour has been losing seats and control of councils, in places that were once considered its impregnable heartlands. The major beneficiary of this has been Nigel Farage’s Reform U.K., the populist right-wing party which many have dubbed a British answer to MAGA. Reform has steamrolled through seats in Labour strongholds like Sunderland, Hartlepool, Wigan, and Tameside. Around 5,000 council seats are being contested in England, and it looks like Reform U.K. will win over 1,500 of them, taking control of many councils.

Labour is not the only victim of Reform, either. Reform has taken Essex County Council and Suffolk County Council from the Conservatives. These two prosperous counties in the east of England are the sorts of places that would ordinarily vote Conservative like a muscle reflex. The party’s Shadow Cabinet is disproportionately drawn from this part of the country. Reform has taken control of both counties, and it has also secured control of its first London borough: Havering, which sits on the London and Essex border.

While some parts of Essex showed Conservative resilience — in parts of the county’s wealthier neighborhoods — the picture in England is becoming clear: Reform U.K. is starting to look like the default party of choice for Britain’s working- and middle-class voters, especially white British voters. The Conservatives made some gains in inner London, notably in Westminster and Wandsworth. Their victories there are a testament to the gross mismanagement of the capital city under Labour and the Tories’ effective work in winning back the affluent working population in the capital.

Undoubtedly, immigration has played a huge part in Reform’s success. Epping, on the edge of London and Essex, saw huge demonstrations against illegal immigration last year after the government placed asylum seekers in hotels there. Reform has taken all but one council seat in Epping.

On the Left wing of the spectrum, the picture is a little different. Labour has lost seats to the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, and many pollsters predict breakthroughs for Muslim candidates standing on single-issue pro-Gaza platforms. These activists were once part of the wider Labour family but have left the reservation since 2023. Results are yet to come in for these urban, left-wing seats, but early findings are interesting. The Lib Dems have done well in leafy, progressive suburbia, taking every seat in Richmond and making huge gains in Surrey. American readers should draw parallels with the prosperous belt of liberal commuters outside of Washington, D.C.

The Greens have made headway in some of London’s very left-wing boroughs like Hackney, but early indications suggest that voters are hesitant about the Greens and worried about their radical Left economics and progressive social policies. However, the Greens appear to be the dominant force among young women — mirroring the left-wing drift among young women in America — as well as Muslim voters.

Full results have not been posted in Scotland and Wales. Reform has secured many second-place finishes in constituencies across Scotland, an impressive feat given it had essentially no presence there before 2024. Reform may become the official opposition in Scotland, though some results suggest Reform and the Scottish Conservatives have been canceling each other out in some seats, allowing soft victories for the Scottish National Party. In Wales, Reform is competing with Plaid Cymru — a left-wing Welsh nationalist party — for first place, though it looks like Plaid will pip Reform to the post. In both Scotland and Wales, Labour has hemorrhaged support.

Looking ahead, all eyes are on Labour MPs and whether they will try to remove Keir Starmer. He is unpopular in the extreme, and Labour has lost voters to the Right and the Left in large numbers. Reform called these elections a “referendum on Keir Starmer,” and that was a foresighted decision. What this holds for the 2029 General Election is uncertain. Reform remains in first place, but pollsters dispute whether it could secure an overall majority. The governing party is faced with a choice: continued decline under Starmer, or a wildcard replacement of Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner, Wes Streeting, or possibly Andy Burnham. Every option is bad in its own way, but one thing is clear: the British people have called time on Keir Starmer.

***

Fred de Fossard is the director of strategy at the Prosperity Institute.

And, obviously, gun owners wander around aimlessly because there are no criminals left to shoot. 

We are nowhere near this utopian vision, but there are certain states in the union creeping ever closer. Namely, the great state of Tennessee. 

This week, Tennessee Republicans voted to approve new congressional maps that will likely wipe out the Democrats’ only U.S. House seat in the state, and Republican Governor Bill Lee signed the bill into law shortly after the vote. The special session in Tennessee’s capital was quickly organized after the Supreme Court ruled that certain majority-black districts put in place by the Voting Rights Act amounted to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Simply put, the tiny blue blip in Tennessee has been wiped away, making the state completely, blissfully, red. This change reflects the reality of a state Trump won solidly in 2024. A refuge that blue state Democrats keep moving to.

Low taxes. Functional cities. Country music. SEC football. People who still wave at each other in parking lots. And yes, a state government that takes action when it needs to rather than allowing their political opponents to intimidate them into submission.

Not every state can be Tennessee, but every citizen can dream of a future reality where it’s possible. Show your support for the vision with the one and only Make America Tennessee hat, available now for every citizen who believes in that distant dream. 

It’s not a catchphrase – it’s a call to action. A declaration that the rest of America should take notes and follow suit. Offered in crisp white or forest camo, with a structured build, this hat includes blaze orange lettering that demands attention. 

As the leftists melt down over “Jim Crow 2.0,” wear the hat. As they rage that election rigging is their God-given right, wear the hat. On your way to the range, wear the hat. No matter what state you live in right now, or how blue it looks, wear the hat. 

It’s time to make one thing clear: You stand with Tennessee. You stand for sanity. You stand for America.

Now is the time to finally MAKE AMERICA TENNESSEE.

Previously, the big-box retailer offered its Kirkland Signature brand bagels in two six-packs for $5.99, with no option to split the packs and purchase only a half dozen if they didn’t need so many. This led to many complaints, as customers reported that the freshly made bagels went stale or moldy before they could be consumed, per The New York Post.

Now Costco is rolling out a new option: eight bagels for $4.99. While it’s a welcome change for shoppers who prefer fewer bagels at once, customers with some basic math skills can’t help but notice that the price was reduced by $1, but the quantity of bagels was reduced by four. 

“No more bagels going bad before you can finish them,” the popular Instagram account @costcobuys said of the change. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Costco Buys (@costcobuys)

“I never buy them for home because I don’t want 12 bagels, so I love the single pack option!” one commenter said.

“Yay!!! 8 pack!! For ppl who don’t own a hotel,” another agreed.

But not everyone was happy. Many commenters said they didn’t mind the 12-pack because even if it was too many, they could freeze the extras.

“Why would I want one bag with more for more money… That is the stupidest math ever,” one person observed.

“So they removed choice and quantity. Good job,” another complaint read.

Costco has been making several notable changes lately, including amending the legendary $1.50 hot dog deal. Shoppers can now opt for bottled water as part of the combo, rather than being limited to a fountain soda alongside the oversized hot dog. 

It’s the first major tweak to the $1.50 deal in more than 40 years, dating back to its debut in the 1980s, as The Daily Wire previously reported.

The State Department informed senators Friday morning that State shares their concerns about “the Chinese Communist Party’s systematic abuse of religious freedom,” according to a May 8 letter sent to Republican North Carolina Senator Ted Budd, first obtained by The Daily Wire.

“We are monitoring the detentions of leaders and members of Christian house churches, including Zion Church, Yayang Church, Light of Zion Church, and Early Rain Covenant Church,” writes Paul Guaglianone, Senior Bureau Official in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the State Department.

“Even churches that have registered with the party-state system designed to control them have faced increasing restrictions and political pressure to replace Christian theology and practice with the ideology of the CCP.”

The news comes just days ahead of the president’s visit to Beijing to meet with China’s leader, Xi Jinping. Trump has already promised that he will speak with President Xi about Jimmy Lai, a Catholic, pro-democracy newspaper publisher and media tycoon imprisoned by the Chinese Communist Party.

The State Department regularly speaks with Chinese authorities about both the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government’s “abuses and violations of religious freedom,” the letter notes.

“We also consider the use of all appropriate authorities, such as targeted sanctions and visa restrictions, to hold perpetrators of religious freedom abuses accountable,” Guaglianone wrote. “This Administration will continue to champion international religious freedom.”

State’s letter was a response to a bipartisan March 24 letter sent to President Trump regarding the release of Pastor Ezra Jin. That letter was led by Budd and Democratic Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine and joined by dozens of other lawmakers, who urged Trump to advocate for the release of Jin and other Christians.

They shared that abuses against Christians in China “include arbitrary detentions, lengthy prison sentences, forced closures of places of worship, destruction of religious property, and surveillance and intimidation of clergy and congregants.”

“Through the International Religious Freedom Act, the Administration is empowered to use targeted sanctions and increase reporting and diplomatic engagement to support your efforts to address severe violations of individuals’ right to freedom of religion,” the lawmakers wrote.

Trump is currently scheduled to head to China on May 14, where U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that Trump and Xi will discuss the Iran war. Trump will reportedly urge China to join the United States in opening the Strait of Hormuz. He will also push for trade concessions from Beijing.

The Court’s 4-3 ruling is a vindication for critics like former attorneys general Jason Miyares and Ken Cuccinelli, both of whom were loud critics of the process that put the referendum on the ballot in the first place.

If Abigail Spanberger and Virginia Democrats had paid attention my October 2025 AG’s Opinion that made clear this scheme was unconstitutional and illegal, they could have saved more than $70 million, countless headaches, and months of obnoxious television ads defending the… https://t.co/787vvZRHZD

— Jason Miyares (@JasonMiyaresVA) May 8, 2026

This wasn’t even about the bizarre nature of the Democrat-favoring map itself, with its now notorious lobster-shaped district. The court ruled that the General Assembly failed to meet the Commonwealth’s constitutional requirements, which include an intervening election. The fact that early voting had already led to almost half of Virginia voters casting their ballots meant the session that General Assembly Democrats used to spark the referendum process in an October 31 vote didn’t pass muster.

“While the Commonwealth is free by its lights to do the right thing for the right reason, the Rule of Law requires that it be done the right way,” Justice Arthur Kelsey wrote for the majority.

Everyone involved on the Democratic side now has egg on their face. The 10-1 redistricting referendum dominated the political conversation of Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s first months in office, squandering any goodwill among independents toward the faux-moderate. It set a pile of money on fire to the tune of more than $70 million from Democrats nationwide pouring into ads, promotions, and social media.

Spanberger isn’t the only victim of this hubris, caught as she was in an immediate flip-flop on the issue and forced by state Senate President pro tempore Louise Lucas — the most powerful Democrat in Richmond, who this week had her offices and businesses raided by the FBI — to accept such an extreme map. National Democrats flocked to push for the measure, including noted constitutional scholar Barack Obama.

Virginia, if you haven’t done it already, make a plan to vote YES on the redistricting referendum.

You can vote early by April 18 or on Election Day, April 21. Find your polling place at https://t.co/vsawTNnoax. pic.twitter.com/NiCTBpS10I

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) April 17, 2026

The Democrats still have major backing heading into the midterms, and history says they should sweep into power in the House of Representatives. But their biggest investment and most extreme move in the redistricting game blew up in their faces, and Virginians can rejoice that the state Supreme Court found their methods to violate the rules and the law.

As for House Democrats, this statement to Axios, offered on condition of anonymity, is a good summary of their mood: “F*****ck!!”

The debate, titled “Constitutional Norms Under President Trump,” covered everything from executive power and military intervention to immigration enforcement, free speech, due process, January 6, and the scope of presidential authority under Article II.

Before the debate began, audience polling showed an overwhelmingly hostile room for Knowles’ position. Roughly 78% of attendees said Trump had not upheld constitutional norms, compared to just 22% who believed he had.

By the end of the night, however, the margin shifted to 72%-28%, with Knowles gaining six percentage points in a room dominated by liberal students and faculty.

The post-debate vote gave Knowles an objective victory under the debate’s own standards, with audience members measurably moving toward his side after hearing the arguments presented throughout the evening.

Much of the debate centered on competing views of presidential power and constitutional interpretation. Hasan repeatedly argued that Trump represented a uniquely dangerous break from constitutional traditions, particularly on issues surrounding immigration enforcement, military action, media criticism, and the aftermath of the 2020 election.

Knowles countered by placing Trump within the broader history of American executive power, arguing critics often ignore the expansive constitutional interpretations embraced by presidents across both parties.

“No reasonable person could even suggest that Trump is uniquely violating the Constitution,” Knowles argued at one point, citing actions by presidents ranging from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

@michaeljknowles challenges @medhirhasan’s idea that President Trump is somehow failing to uphold the Constitution:

“If we were to use this very limited, pedantic, literalist view of the Constitution, then we’d have to disqualify virtually every single president we’ve ever had.” pic.twitter.com/5Zgh5ZIFQ4

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) May 6, 2026

Later in the debate, Knowles summarized his broader argument against what he characterized as years of exaggerated panic surrounding Trump’s presidency.

“The warnings of the histrionic critics of President Trump who have been promising us that he’s on the brink of shredding the Constitution for about 10 years now — any day now, it’s coming,” Knowles said. “I think we will find that President Trump is indeed the president and the Constitution nevertheless, and I think very much for that reason prevails.”

Military authority became one of the sharpest flashpoints of the night, with Hasan arguing Trump’s military operations involving Iran represented unconstitutional executive overreach absent congressional approval. Knowles responded by pointing to bipartisan precedent, referencing military actions undertaken by prior administrations without formal declarations of war.

The pair also sparred extensively over immigration and due process protections for illegal immigrants, with Hasan accusing Trump of undermining constitutional safeguards while Knowles defended aggressive enforcement measures as consistent with executive authority historically exercised by the federal government.

Toward the latter half of the debate, the discussion turned repeatedly to January 6, the 2020 election aftermath, and Trump’s pardons related to the Capitol riot cases. Hasan framed the events as disqualifying evidence against Trump’s respect for constitutional order, while Knowles argued critics routinely inflate Trump’s rhetoric while ignoring the legal and institutional realities that continued functioning throughout his presidency.

The debate additionally veered into free speech, viewpoint diversity at universities, and the federal government’s relationship with higher education institutions receiving taxpayer funding. In one of the night’s more combative exchanges, Knowles openly rejected the modern obsession with “viewpoint diversity,” arguing institutions are allowed to maintain standards and beliefs, while Hasan accused the Trump movement of hostility toward press freedoms and dissenting speech.

Despite @medhirhasan’s best efforts to stop it, @michaelknowles debunks his claim that President Trump violated the First Amendment by arresting Don Lemon:

“If you’ll allow me to finish, I’m trying to exercise my free speech and there seems to be a heckler’s veto.🗣️ pic.twitter.com/DdfWNLWRos

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) May 6, 2026

The overall dynamic of the debate reflected two fundamentally different approaches to constitutional politics: Hasan focused heavily on Trump’s rhetoric, norm-breaking style, and inflammatory public statements, while Knowles repeatedly returned to historical precedent, institutional continuity, and the argument that American constitutional governance has always involved political conflict, executive expansion, and contested interpretations of presidential authority.

By the end of the evening, enough audience members appeared persuaded by that framing to move the final vote measurably in Knowles’ direction — a notable outcome given the overwhelmingly anti-Trump starting point in one of the country’s most elite academic settings.

The Fort Walton Beach Police Department arrested Panamanian illegal immigrant Aquilino Sanjur Ortega on Sunday after receiving a call about a possible armed person at Grace Church during a religious service. One woman said that while she was inside the women’s restroom, “she observed a mobile phone positioned above the ceiling with its camera pointed downward in her direction,” police said.

The woman “immediately” left the restroom and informed church staff.

Parishioners evacuated from the building before officers arrived at the scene, according to authorities. Witnesses told the officers that a man was hiding in the women’s restroom ceiling, which they confirmed after entering the church.

Ortega, who was unarmed, was swiftly arrested.

Ortega is charged with video voyeurism and disturbing a religious assembly.

Ortega came to the United States in March 2007 with a tourism visa that expired that September, federal law enforcement sources told The Daily Wire. Because Ortega overstayed his visa by nearly two decades, he’s considered an illegal immigrant.

As a result, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has lodged a detainer with the Okaloosa County Jail. Local authorities are likely to honor the request and hand Ortega over to federal authorities for eventual deportation.

He is being held on a $250,000 bond.

“Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S.,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told The Daily Wire in response to the case.

Upon his return to the White House, President Donald Trump stripped churches, schools, and hospitals of protections that prevented ICE from entering. They were previously considered “sensitive” locations that ICE could not enter or go near.

“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens — including murderers and rapists — who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” DHS said at the time of the policy change.

Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, has said that ICE attempts to avoid those institutions. But if an illegal immigrant criminal tries to hide inside a church, ICE may go in to arrest them, Homan said while leading immigration operations in Minneapolis in February.

“Those locations are not off the table. I’ve said from day one, there’s no sanctuary for a significant public safety threat or a national security threat,” he said at the time.

The lawsuit, filed by the Rockville-based United Gun Shop, accuses Capital One and Melio Payments of arbitrarily preventing it from using their payment services. The gun shop received messages in 2025 and 2026 suggesting the financial entities could not work with the firearms industry, emails viewed by The Daily Wire show.

The apparent debanking comes after the gun shop had previously used Capital One’s payment platform, administered by Melio Payments, for multiple business-related transactions and bill payments, according to the suit.

“As an American-owned small business operating legally, we were shocked when Capital One abruptly stopped processing our payments without any clear explanation and instead cited vague reasons tied to a third-party payment provider we never agreed to work with,” United Gun Shop owner Jonathan Bennett told The Daily Wire. “We filed this lawsuit to hold Capital One and its third-party partner accountable for what we believe is unfair discrimination against our company.”

The lawsuit accuses Capital One and Melio of blocking the gun shop from “making future payments” before later disabling them from completing payment transactions. 

“Defendants invoked generalized ‘prohibited industry’ and ‘restricted industry’ classifications after Plaintiff had already been onboarded into the Capital One-branded workflow and after some payments had already been processed,” the lawsuit said. 

The incidents caused the gun shop around $75,000 in damages and disrupted its business services, according to the suit.

Reached for comment, Melio said it did nothing wrong. “The claims have no merit, and we intend to vigorously defend them,” the company told The Daily Wire. It did not respond to follow up questions about specific communications to United Gun Shop. Capital One did not respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.

Capital One previously faced accusations of politicized banking from the owner of a silencer company who testified that he was unable to use Capital One to sell federally regulated suppressors. Capital One says it does not make banking decisions based on politics. 

On April 11, 2025, a representative for United Gun Shop met with Capital One after “defendants canceled services without notice,” after the store had started to make bill payments with the banking giant’s platform, according to the lawsuit. A representative from Capital One informed United Gun Shop that it was not prohibited from banking and it had not violated any terms, the suit claims.

Yet three days later on April 14 the gun shop received a message from Melio Payments telling the company it belonged to a prohibited industry even though several payments had already been processed, according to a message viewed by The Daily Wire. 

“I understand that you are upset, and I know that some of your payments have processed, while others have not. There are times when we don’t catch it in time, but it appears that your account has been blocked from making future payments, as it appears to belong to one of our prohibited industries,” a message from Capital One Pay Business Bills said. 

“Per our agreement with our processing partners, we are unable to process payments in certain industries,” the message added. 

United Gun Shop said it never agreed to Melio’s terms and only registered to use Capital One’s platform.

Exhibits attached to the suit showed successful payments being made with the platform starting in December 2024 before starting to fail in March 2025. 

A second written confirmation came on March 2026 when the gun shop received a message from Capital One Business saying that “our team wasn’t able to verify that your account and activity meet our eligibility criteria” and that “your account could not be approved and has been disabled from completing any transactions.”

One of the potential reasons suggested in the email why it was listed as ineligible was because “your business is considered a restricted industry.”

The suit said that message was the first “formal notice of non-approval for banking with Capital One” after “an informal deplatforming” and the meeting with Capital One in April 2025.

Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, said the messages appeared to show political discrimination. 

“Capital One got caught red-handed debanking a law-abiding American business and hiding behind a middleman to dodge responsibility,” he told The Daily Wire. “The lawsuit suggests a clear pattern. A legal firearms retailer was cut off for no reason, even after bank officials admitted no rules were broken.”

The suit accuses Capital One and Melio Payments of violating numerous Maryland business laws including the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, causing commercial disparagement, and breach of contract. 

The gun shop has faced legal challenges from the Democrat attorneys general of Maryland and District of Columbia over accusations that it knowingly allowed a gun trafficker to purchase handguns from its store. That case was later dismissed. 

Across the state and federal level, Republican officials have moved to implement protections from debanking following allegations that major banks worked with the Biden administration to snoop on Americans who purchased hunting gear or Bibles.

The Trump administration directed federal banking regulators in August 2025 to ensure policies are in place to prohibit politically motivated debanking and stipulate that banking decision are only made based on individual, objective, and risk-based objectives.

The homeless encampments stretch for miles. The fires of January 2025 burned unchecked because the water reservoirs sat empty. Parents can’t take their kids bike riding for fear of encountering a coke zombie. LAPD isn’t allowed to pull someone over for a cracked windshield because, apparently, traffic enforcement is racist. And Wednesday night, Mayor Karen Bass, communist mayor of Los Angeles, stood before cameras and had the nerve to say her priorities were “reducing homelessness, building more housing, and funding public safety.”

Laughable.

To be fair, she did deliver one Freudian slip for the ages — her only honest moment of the night — when she called the devastation under her watch “Fire F*cks.” Well, Karen “Basura,” whatever you call it, the city is indeed f*cked.

Here’s how you end up needing Batman. The city is wrecked, the Jokers are running the place, and nobody in power takes the law-abiding taxpayers seriously anymore. You used to come to California to chase dreams. Now you’re living in a nightmare. Someone has to fix this, and increasingly, it looks like that someone is a guy who used to be famous for making mountains out of celebrity gossip on reality television. This story sounds familiar, and that’s exactly why people are excited.

Spencer Pratt might be precisely what Los Angeles needs, and he’s answering the Pratt-signal.

Let’s not mince words about what Democrat governance has produced, because it starts and ends with Karen Bass.

Her flagship homelessness program, Inside Safe (aptly named, given that stepping outside in downtown L.A. often means taking your life in your hands), has spent $322 million of taxpayer money and placed just 1,243 people in permanent housing. Meanwhile, 44,000 still sleep and rot on L.A. streets, despite leadership throwing a total of $2.3 billion at homelessness. Couple the homeless hellscape with sky-high taxes, crushing regulations, and soft-on-crime insanity, and you end up with a California in worse shape than Gavin Newsom’s first marriage.

Then came the fires — allegedly ignited by an anti-capitalist leftist and fueled by negligent liberal leadership. Before the burning began, Bass had denied Fire Chief Crowley’s request for $17 million in fire engine funding, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s leadership drained both reservoirs firefighters needed to extinguish the flames, and Bass had sacrificed the fire operations’ budgets in favor of union wages. This wasn’t a natural disaster. It was a policy disaster, wearing the clothing of a natural disaster.

Somewhere in that smoke and ruin, Pratt lost his home. His family lost everything.

This is where Pratt diverges from everything the modern Left has tried to normalize.

The Left has built an entire political infrastructure around victimhood. It’s their currency, their recruitment tool, and their governing philosophy. Get knocked down, stay down, point fingers, demand funding, repeat. It’s a cycle designed not to solve problems but to perpetuate them — because a constituency that’s been healed is a constituency you no longer control.

Pratt was hit hard; his home, his neighborhood, his livelihood — gone. That’s a loss that would paralyze most people, but instead of signing up for the grievance=industrial complex, he got angry in the right direction. Not at an abstract villain, not at a demographic, but at the people who made the policy decisions. And then he decided to run for mayor.

That’s not victimhood. That’s leadership.

He’s got the “it factor” — that undeniable star power, social media savvy, and blunt communication style that cuts through the crap. He is Trump-like in his willingness to break things, step on toes, and say the quiet part out loud. His videos hammer the hypocrisy: rich communist mayors and councilwomen living lavishly in their protected bubbles, completely unaffected by the fires, the homelessness, and the crime they created for the rest of us. “They don’t have to live in the mess they created.” He’s not looking for apologies. He’s looking for results.

Pratt is an actual victim but inoculated against the victimhood mindset disease that has infected modern politics. He didn’t turn his loss into a lifetime grift or a sob story for government handouts. He dusted off the ashes and decided to do something, and that is precisely what Los Angeles needs right now.

L.A. isn’t an anomaly; it’s a preview.

Every time top-down, government-knows-best governance has been tried, it has produced the same result: concentrated power, diluted accountability, and suffering for the very people it claimed to serve, be it the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, or Detroit, Baltimore, or Chicago. The pattern is consistent because the philosophy is consistent. And the excuses are always consistent: more money, more time, more compassion. Just one more chance and a bigger budget.

The only things that have ever actually fixed these disasters are accountability, market forces, and leaders willing to break the institutional inertia that protects failure. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it, there’s nothing worse than a communist, except an incompetent one. In Los Angeles, you’ve got both.

Republicans have a habit of playing defense. They conserve. They explain why the other side’s ideas won’t work, and they’re correct, but being right isn’t enough when the other side controls the narrative, the institutions, and the loudest microphones.

Pratt represents the offensive play. Blunt honesty without meanness or cruelty. The kind of honesty that Democrats can’t afford, because their entire coalition is built on promising outcomes they cannot deliver to constituencies they cannot afford to lose. Kind lies are the foundation of the modern Left. They sound like compassion. They end in chaos every time.

Los Angeles did not burn because of the wind. It did not collapse into an open-air drug market because of bad luck and orange bad man. It collapsed because the people in charge prioritized ideology over function, optics over operations, and loyalty to a failed playbook over loyalty to the residents who trusted them.

Spencer Pratt lost his home, and he knows the costs, but he’s not asking Los Angeles to feel sorry for him. He’s asking it to do something about it.

The city that once symbolized the American Dream is fighting for its life. It can choose the candidate who will perform empathy until the next disaster, or it can choose the one who has already lived through the disaster and decided enough is enough.

Los Angeles can be fabulous again, but first it has to be honest about how far it’s fallen.

During an interview on the “PBD Podcast” this week, host Patrick Bet-David asked Moore how he would respond if his 12-year-old son came to him wanting to transition genders and whether he would advise waiting until adulthood. Moore initially emphasized parental support and involvement, saying he would want his child to feel “safe in his own skin” and know he had “a partner in me to help him along that journey.”

But when pressed directly on whether he would tell his son to wait until turning 18, Moore declined. “If this is how he is feeling, and I feel like I’m closely tied to him, I’m not gonna advise him on something that he feels,” Moore responded before reiterating that he would want to remain involved in the process.

“I’m not going to condemn him, nor castigate him. I’m not going to kick him out of the house. I’m not going to do anything that’s going to hurt him,” Moore added.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore says he would let his son go through gender mutilation as a minor if he wanted to.

DAVID: “Would you advise him to wait until he’s 18?”

MOORE: “I’m not going to advise him on something that he feels…” pic.twitter.com/t6slNP8XkB

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 8, 2026

The exchange has drawn scrutiny as Moore emerges as a possible Democratic presidential contender in 2028. The Maryland governor has often been viewed by some Democrats as a candidate capable of blending progressive economics with a more measured public image on cultural issues, drawing comparisons to the coalition-building style of former President Barack Obama.

Contrary to that perception, Moore’s comments appear to place him firmly within the Democratic Party’s current position on transgender issues involving minors — an issue Republicans have aggressively targeted as Democrats prepare for the next presidential cycle.

The topic has become one of the GOP’s most effective cultural wedge issues in recent elections, with Republicans arguing Democrats are out of step with voters on questions involving youth gender transition procedures, parental rights, and school policies.

Polling in recent years has consistently shown broad public discomfort with medical gender transitions for minors, particularly among independents and swing voters, even as Democratic activists and left-wing groups have pushed party leaders to fully embrace gender-affirming care policies. Republicans seized heavily on the issue during the 2024 election cycle, framing Democrats as ideologically extreme on cultural questions while positioning themselves as defenders of parental authority and traditional norms.

Moore’s remarks may also stand out because they came during a long-form interview setting rather than a carefully scripted campaign event or policy speech, giving voters a more direct look at how he approaches one of the country’s most politically sensitive debates. While Moore repeatedly stressed compassion and parental involvement, he notably stopped short of endorsing age restrictions or urging caution before adulthood.

Moore has not formally announced a 2028 campaign, but he is widely viewed as a rising national Democratic figure and future presidential prospect.

Early results suggest British voters up and down the country have delivered a scathing rebuke of Keir Starmer, who led Labour to a landslide general election victory in the summer of 2024.

Starmer’s approval ratings have plunged amid voter anger over mass migration, stubborn inflation, and strains on the National Health Service. Public opinion polls show he’s the least popular Prime Minister in British history. 

Amid the disastrous results, some Labour members have called on Starmer to step down.  Starmer said he’s not going anywhere.

“Let me be clear, these are really tough results. I’m not going to sugarcoat it,” Starmer told reporters. “The voters have sent a message about the pace of change, how they want their lives improved. Labour was elected to meet those challenges, and I’m not going to walk away from those challenges and plunge the country into chaos.” 

“I’m not going to walk away and plunge the country into chaos.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer reflects on “really tough” results from the local elections in England, with Labour losing hundreds of council seats.

Latest 🔗 https://t.co/SZHhkmXZUF

📺 Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/LJVKBhKnVJ

— Sky News (@SkyNews) May 8, 2026

In the United Kingdom, voters elect councillors who oversee services such as schools, housing, road maintenance, waste collection, libraries, policing budgets, and local planning decisions. Thursday’s vote included roughly 5,000 local government contests in England, along with races that will shape control of the Welsh and Scottish parliaments.

Reform U.K., England’s Right-wing party, has won more than 700 council races across the country, according to the BBC. Labour, in distant fourth place, has lost more than 470 races. 

Farage, who has campaigned on restricting immigration and cutting taxes, called the results a “historic shift in British politics.” 

“Labour are being wiped out by Reform in many of their most traditional areas, and what you’re going to see later on today is the Conservative Party being wiped out in their heartlands,” Mr. Farage said. “I would honestly say you’re witnessing a historic shift in British politics. This is now the most national of all parties.”

‘We are the only true national party!’

Nigel Farage was in jubilant mood after Reform won control of Havering, outlining his hopes for further success as results continue to roll in. pic.twitter.com/W4rEs6G6lU

— LBC (@LBC) May 8, 2026

President Donald Trump has repeatedly ripped into Keir Starmer over a range of issues, including his plans to cede control of the Chagos Islands and Starmer’s initial refusal to grant the United States access to UK military bases for operations related to Operation Epic Fury.

In March, Trump expressed disappointment with the United Kingdom and lashed out at the British leader. 

“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said of Starmer in the Oval Office. 

As results across the pond pour in, the ascendant Right-wing leader predicts the tides will continue to turn.  

“I suspect when you see the full results in the red wall, there’ll be a rebellion,” Farage said. “Personally, I’d be very sad to see the Prime Minister go. I would be very, very sad indeed. He’s the greatest asset we’ve got.”

Reform UK has wiped out the Tories and won Essex County Council.

Kemi Badenoch would not even hold her own seat. pic.twitter.com/hNOeZ7tM6X

— Reform UK (@reformparty_uk) May 8, 2026

Qatar is not an ICC member state. But it does host and sponsor Hamas, making its involvement with a prosecutor investigating the Gaza war deeply problematic. This may explain a strange aspect of the ICC’s arrest warrants. In addition to Israeli leaders, the ICC indicted Yahya Sinwar and two other top Hamas leaders in Gaza. It was gross moral equivalence equating Israeli leaders defending their people after the October 7 massacre with the masterminds of that crime.

The Court presented these parallel indictments as proof of its evenhandedness. Yet from the beginning, there was an obvious asymmetry: the Court indicted Israel’s top civilian leader, but ignored Khaled Mashaal and the rest of Hamas’s political leadership. When Israel mooted the warrants on Sinwar and Mohammed Deif by killing them during the Gaza war, Khan did not seek to restore balance by bringing new indictments against Hamas’s top leaders, who happen to be based in Qatar.

As the accusations against Khan began to mount, he argued it was a plot to weaken the Court, hinting at Mossad involvement. That appears to be, like so many charges against Israel, an exercise in projection. Qatar hired investigators in a failed attempt to discredit the employee who made the sexual assault allegations. Khan appears to have been right that there was a foreign intelligence operation surrounding these allegations, just not against him.

Khan specifically tied his warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the charges against him, urging his alleged victim to remain silent because it would undermine pending “Palestinian arrest warrants.” This, along with the emerging role of Qatar, makes it impossible to separate the scandal around Khan from the Court’s Gaza war indictments. Yet the Court has been silent about the Qatar revelations, a marked contrast to its public condemnation of a Trump administration executive order imposing sanctions on ICC officials as interference with its “independent and impartial work.”

The only action that the ICC has taken so far is disciplinary proceedings against Khan himself. The most that can happen is that he loses his job. His accuser never turned to the Dutch police because she said his official immunity would protect him. However, under the ICC’s rules, the judges could waive that immunity if they wished. The Court’s refusal to allow a criminal investigation of Khan, even as the scope of the scandal expands, demonstrates the institution’s political nature.

At the same time, the Court seems fully intent on proceeding with the Netanyahu prosecution. Such serious prosecutorial misconduct could, at least in the United States, lead to the dismissal of even factually substantiated criminal charges. Here, the evidence does not even show that the alleged crime (purposeful starvation of civilians) even occurred, let alone was committed by the accused. As the dust settles in Gaza, the lack of mass starvation becomes ever more evident.

An American prosecutor would be loath to try a case with such manifest prosecutorial misconduct (notably, senior court officials knew about the allegations against Khan at the time the indictments were made but kept it quiet for six months, when it leaked to the press). But Netanyahu is not facing a jury of his peers, but rather a panel of international judges who likely share the Court’s institutional culture.

Qatar’s involvement shows the ICC to be even more dangerous than its critics thought. The rap against the tribunal has long been that it acts like a global independent counsel – an unaccountable prosecutor with no democratic restraints. But even worse, it now appears that hostile states can coopt it as a political weapon in an ongoing conflict.

This illustrates the need for the Trump administration to take decisive action against the organization. The sanctions the Treasury Department has imposed on individual court officers have inconvenienced them but appear to have done little to fundamentally weaken the organization or change its trajectory. A body politically motivated enough to maintain the Israel warrants in the wake of the growing Khan fiasco will certainly retaliate against Trump and his top officials once they are out of office.

The administration should impose institution-wide sanctions on the tribunal and vigorously enforce them. The ICC recently got some good news as Peter Magyar, Hungary’s prime minister-elect, vowed to rejoin after it had become the first EU country to quit. Magyar prioritized the issue because he is seeking EU funding, and Brussels ties its financial support to adhering to its foreign policy. America must adopt the same tough approach, insisting that countries receiving benefits quit the Court. For Europe, pushing countries to join the ICC is a matter of ideology. For America, pushing back should be seen as a question of national security.

Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at George Mason University Scalia Law School and a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom.

In April, voters narrowly approved a redistricting referendum that diluted the voting power of rural areas and gave state Democrats a 10–1 advantage in Congressional representation.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of Virginia struck down the referendum, ruling that Democratic lawmakers violated procedural rules.

“In this case, the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement in Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” the court ruled.

President Donald Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social.

“Huge win for the Republican Party, and America, in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court has just struck down the Democrats’ horrible gerrymander. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The decision marks a stinging defeat for Governor Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), who aggressively pursued the measure, despite previously saying she had “no plans” to pursue redistricting.

“Justice has been served. From the beginning, this was the most obvious violation of Virginia’s Constitution. Abigail Spanberger and Democrats in Richmond knowingly violated our constitution to disenfranchise millions of Virginians,” former Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Younkin said. “The Constitution prevailed, and Virginians will never forget this unlawful attempt to rob them of their voice in Congress.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom had a different reaction, claiming “MAGA has rigged the system.”

Tossing out the 10-1 Democratic maps reflects an intensifying nationwide redistricting fight that may favor Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections.

On Thursday, Tennessee Republican lawmakers enacted a new congressional map that would wipe out the last Democratic congressional seat. In late April, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a congressional map that could eliminate up to four blue seats. Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina are also expected to redraw their maps after the Supreme Court sharply restricted the use of race-based redistricting.

This is a breaking story. Refresh the page for updates.