When President Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for HHS Secretary in late 2024, some <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5099888-advancing-american-freedom-opposes-kennedy/">Beltway Republicans</a> tried to tank his nomination. For conservatives, these critics’ strongest argument was that Kennedy was for decades a liberal Democrat who supported abortion on demand.
I’m a pro-life conservative. So why did I, along with millions of others like me, support Kennedy’s nomination and tell skeptical pro-life critics to give him the benefit of the doubt?
For me, the story starts with the COVID lockdowns in 2020. I spent the better part of that year co-authoring <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Price-Panic-Tyranny-Pandemic-Catastrophe/dp/1684511410/ref=sr_1_1">the first book</a> to make the case that locking down the population would do far more harm than good. COVID was the greatest test of wisdom and courage in a generation. Most public officials, from both parties, failed the test. Kennedy aced it.
The raspy-voiced lawyer helped millions of Americans see the dangers of a “biomedical security state” that blurred the binary mental map of free versus communist countries that had served us well during the Cold War. That framework was of limited value for fighting this new, domestic threat to our civil and medical freedom: a corporatist state.
Post-Covid, millions of Americans realized our problem was not just Big Government or Big Business. The problem is, in effect, a cartel that blurs the lines of public and private — one often enabled by a corporate media too dependent on ad revenue to speak truth to the real power.
The lockdowns and draconian vaccine mandates taught another lesson: past partisan ties do not guarantee good future results. For many of us, resisting the COVID-inspired assaults on our liberty was a better credential than party affiliation.
This is one of several reasons millions of conservative voters began to warm to Kennedy, even if they planned to vote for Donald Trump in the general election. And that latent support for Kennedy <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/polls-show-americans-conflicted-on-robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-his-health-stances">exploded</a> after he announced his support for Donald Trump on August 23, 2024.
This was no mere marriage of convenience. It was the first sign of a political realignment. No doubt many staunch progressives <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/23/as-rfk-jr-exits-a-look-at-who-supported-him-in-the-2024-presidential-race/">abandoned Kennedy</a> when he endorsed Donald Trump. But many independents and disgruntled Democrats stayed. A new MAGA-MAHA coalition was born.
What made Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump truly historic was the topic he chose to elevate — one of deep concern to tens of millions of American families across the political spectrum but mostly missing from our two major party platforms: the staggering rise of chronic diseases among American children.
As HHS secretary, Kennedy has made the fight against childhood chronic disease his lodestar. And despite constant efforts by critics to paint him as extreme, almost everyone is now taking chronic disease seriously.
But what about the year-old charge that Kennedy would be a cheerleader for abortion? It was wrong. As HHS Secretary, he lacks the power to stop all abortions or close every Planned Parenthood clinic. Kennedy must also work within the constraints of the president who nominated him. But within Kennedy’s remit, his actions have been encouraging.
Last September, for instance, he announced a new FDA review of the safety and approval process of the abortion pill mifepristone. Abortion advocates <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/health-secretary-rfk-jr-launches-review-abortion-pill/story?id=125908299">are not pleased</a>. After all, in a Post-Roe world, <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/medication-abortion-accounted-63-all-us-abortions-2023-increase-53-2020">most abortions are chemical</a>, not surgical.
In late January, <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/conscience-dlc.html">he beefed up federal conscience safeguards</a> for healthcare workers. This protects providers from being forced to participate in abortions or other procedures. This includes new policy guidance and investigations into violations.
Most dramatically, <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/wtas-hhs-bars-research-using-human-fetal-tissue-from-elective-abortions.html">he has just barred</a> HHS-funded research from using human fetal tissue from elective abortions. Pro-life Americans have asked for this ban for decades. The practice continued even during the tenure of NIH director Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, who <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/18/anti-abortion-groups-francis-collins-nih-1068724">explicitly defended</a> it.
Like Nixon visiting China, I hope Kennedy will do more to defend pre-born human life. It’s not a vain hope. During one telling interview last year, Kennedy denounced a CDC publication that listed “abortion” as one of the top 10 health achievements of the 20th century.
The press “fact-checked” the comment, since <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm4812.pdf">the document</a> he likely had in mind listed “family planning” rather than “abortion.” (Pro-life advocates recognize the family planning as a euphemism for abortion.) But most missed the crucial “tell”: Kennedy recoiled from the notion that abortion could be cited as a health care achievement.
For pro-life conservatives, supporting Kennedy’s nomination posed some risk. One year in, however, my choice to support Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is an easy one.
* * *
Jay W. Richards, PhD, is Vice President for Social and Domestic Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

FDA Unveils New Framework To Speed Ultra-Rare Drug Approvals

I’m a Conservative. Here’s Why I Support Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

COVID

Department of Health and Human Services

Heritage Foundation

MAHA

Opinion

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Trump Administration

For many people, Saint Valentine’s Day is a time for beautiful flowers, fancy dinners, and sentimental cards. But its origin tells a tougher story. St. Valentine is remembered not for romance alone, but for risking his life to solemnize marriages at a time when commitment was discouraged. Valentine’s Day was never meant to be only about feelings. It was meant to be about choosing responsibility.
That message is especially relevant for men today – single, married, childless, or empty nesters.
If you are a single man and not dating anyone, the advice is simple and uncomfortable: be brave and ask a woman out in real life (“IRL”), not through an app. Courage is not optional. It is a skill and character trait, and like any other skill or habit, it improves with practice. Real men do hard things not because success is guaranteed, but because avoidance slowly erodes confidence.
Despite the dominance of dating apps, most marriages began face-to-face. Data show that most couples meet through friends, work, school, religious communities, or social settings. Apps promise efficiency, but they often deliver paralysis. The illusion of infinite choice makes commitment feel premature and rejection feel catastrophic.
Asking someone out in person clarifies things quickly. You get a real answer. You gain real confidence. Even a “no” strengthens you. Bravery practiced in dating carries over into every other domain of life such as work, leadership, and family. Men who avoid small risks rarely rise to meet large ones.
If you have been dating for a while, Valentine’s Day is a moment for honesty. Indefinite dating is not neutral, nor is it kind. It is a decision that disproportionately affects women, and stringing someone along in the name of flexibility is neither kind nor mature.
Many American couples date for a few years before engagement and marry within a year or so after that. While there will always be exceptions, the norm points in one direction: clarity. If you see a future, say so. If you do not, say that too. Ambiguity disguised as thoughtfulness is still avoidance.
Marriage, done seriously, is not a trap. It is an accelerator. St. Valentine knew that the first command in scripture is for men to be “fruitful and multiply.” That must have inspired his work to one degree or another. We shouldn’t be surprised it’s good for us to follow God’s commands.
And if you don’t believe the Bible or St. Valentine, at least consider the data.
For married men, the <a href="https://aibm.org/commentary/why-marriage-is-good-for-men/#:~:text=Married%20men%20are%20richer%20men&amp;text=That%20sounds%20like%20exactly%20the,similarly%20credentialed%20but%20unmarried%20peers.">evidence</a> is striking. Married men earn more over their lifetimes than their unmarried peers, even after controlling for education and background. They also live longer and report better health outcomes. Marriage tends to push men toward steadier work, better habits, and longer time horizons. In short, it civilizes us.
Happiness data tell the same story. Across decades of survey research, married men with children are significantly more likely to describe themselves as “very happy” than single men (35% vs. 14%, according to <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey">research</a> by the Institute for Family Studies). This advantage persists across income levels, racial groups, and age cohorts. Marriage is one of the strongest predictors of long-term well-being available in the data.
That does not mean marriage is easy. It means it is formative.
In a modern working world, it is increasingly difficult to see the lasting results of your labor. Projects end. Companies change. Metrics reset. Even success feels temporary.
Family is different. In raising children, effort produces visible, enduring outcomes. You can watch values take root. You can see growth unfold year by year.
Men with children often discover that legacy is not an abstract idea. It sits across the dinner table. Passing on what you believe — discipline, faith, responsibility, restraint — requires proximity and patience. It also requires sacrifice. That is not a bug of family life; it is the feature that shapes men into something sturdier.
So, married men with kids, are you passing this wisdom on to your children? Not many are. According to a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/parenting-in-america-today/">Pew Research Center</a> poll, nearly 90% say it’s extremely or very important for their kids to have financial independence and jobs they enjoy, while only 20% say it’s extremely or very important to get married and have kids. Use this holiday to teach, even if your kids have left the nest.
This brings us back to St. Valentine.
According to early Christian tradition, Valentine secretly officiated marriages in defiance of imperial orders because he believed commitment strengthened society and formed men. His resistance was not sentimental. It was purposeful. He treated marriage as a moral institution that oriented men toward duty, continuity, and love grounded in action.
Valentine’s Day was never meant to celebrate perpetual adolescence or provide an excuse for a nice date.
So this year, men, take inventory. If you are single, work toward being marriageable: able to earn income, willing to put others ahead of yourself, and ready to lead through sacrifice. If you are marriageable, go on a date — one you initiate, in real life. If you are dating, get serious about marriage. Make a decision. If you are married, move toward children and invest deliberately in the next generation.
Valentine’s Day does not ask for grand gestures. It asks for forward movement.
Love that lasts is not accidental. It is chosen. Repeatedly. Bravely.
That was St. Valentine’s wager. It remains a good one.
* * *
Derrick Morgan is executive vice president of The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Medium shot man kissing girlfriend on cheek in taxi filled with flowers

The Part Of Valentine’s Day No One Talks About

Relationships

Valentine's Day

Women

Alex Pretti died amid a breakdown of public order in Minneapolis, where local authorities — just as they did in 2020 — allowed unrest to steadily escalate without effective intervention.
We’ll never know exactly what went wrong in the chaotic melee of organized harassment, noise, and obstruction of federal agents by bodies and vehicles in Minneapolis. But the circumstances were there, day after day, that made serious injury or death inevitable at some point. If not Pretti, then someone else.
Senior federal officials made assertions about Pretti’s intent before waiting for the full facts. Meanwhile, the national media instantly presented him as a hapless observer expressing his free speech rights, ruthlessly gunned down by out-of-control agents. A more complicated picture emerged later, with <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/new-video-appears-to-show-alex-pretti-interaction-with-ice-officers-over-a-week-before-his-death/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1YWglO78AoKLMmCbIp5LYqidTnqAKyS7FBZyDlg1tU-Sndjw0XJyRSPD1VXk0ps5dvD4NajfhN3cuENrujMsSSHEfFA$">video</a> of Pretti some days earlier spitting on a DHS car and kicking out the taillights. Independent reporting also revealed national <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nypost.com/2026/01/08/us-news/heres-whos-really-behind-the-minneapolis-ice-resistance-movement/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1YWglO78AoKLMmCbIp5LYqidTnqAKyS7FBZyDlg1tU-Sndjw0XJyRSPD1VXk0ps5dvD4NajfhN3cuENrujMsTAbAYVE$">funding</a> and <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/minnesota-signal-gate-did-lt-134523155.html__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1YWglO78AoKLMmCbIp5LYqidTnqAKyS7FBZyDlg1tU-Sndjw0XJyRSPD1VXk0ps5dvD4NajfhN3cuENrujMsMiUYchA$">organization</a> of the supposedly organic and local anti-ICE protests.
Politicians in Washington opportunistically pounced on this premise to attack DHS funding.
With the chaos on the ground, it’s easy to lose track of the big picture. The strategy of the Left, led by its most extreme activists but now supported by mainstream elected officials, is to neuter or end enforcement of immigration law inside the country.
Gone are the days of Bill Clinton, who signed a 1996 law that increased penalties for entering the United States illegally and made it easier to deport illegal aliens. Even Obama mostly accepted his duty to enforce United States immigration law, admitting that he couldn’t wave a magic wand and allow every illegal alien to stay.
Joe Biden’s presidency changed all that. Emboldened by their success under Obama with DACA and other measures to weaken enforcement, and unrestrained by Biden’s out-to-lunch management, Left-wing activists went to town.
Catch-and-release at the border, unlawful mass parole, and billions of taxpayer dollars to grease the machinery brought millions into the country over four years.
Back in office, Trump quickly shut down the open border. Things got stickier when it came to interior enforcement to carry out the deportations ordered by immigration judges after due process. In states where local law enforcement honored ICE detainers, criminal aliens could be picked up safely inside government facilities. In “sanctuary” jurisdictions — which include many major United States cities — it was extremely difficult.
The Trump administration chose to go in hard, with high-visibility arrests in resistant Democrat-run cities that energized his base voters but made uncomfortable viewing for many Americans who want law enforcement but don’t like seeing how it sometimes must be done.
The legacy media would have you believe that the Pretti shooting changed people’s minds in Washington and led Democrats to call for defunding ICE — and even some Republicans question continued funding without certain changes. But don’t be fooled — even before Minneapolis, immigration activists and the politicians they elected did not accept the deportation of any foreign national, whatever the law said or the courts decided.
If you asked the protesters in Minneapolis whether any alien should ever be deported from the United States, and if so, for what reasons, I doubt they would admit to any. “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.wpaonline.org/black-female-leaders-in-the-criminal-justice-reform-movement/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1YWglO78AoKLMmCbIp5LYqidTnqAKyS7FBZyDlg1tU-Sndjw0XJyRSPD1VXk0ps5dvD4NajfhN3cuENrujMsDWhzCXI$">Abolitionists</a>” on the Left want to end criminal justice as we know it, and that includes immigration law.
Minnesota politicians like Tim Walz and Jacob Frey speak of all migrants as “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/minneapolis-protests-and-the-role-of-state-controlled-national-guard/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1YWglO78AoKLMmCbIp5LYqidTnqAKyS7FBZyDlg1tU-Sndjw0XJyRSPD1VXk0ps5dvD4NajfhN3cuENrujMsBZuKjpA$">neighbors</a>,” and “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/doj-launches-investigation-into-walz-frey-for-allegedly-impeding-law-enforcement-minnesota-minneapolis-ice-shooting-renee-nicole-good__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1YWglO78AoKLMmCbIp5LYqidTnqAKyS7FBZyDlg1tU-Sndjw0XJyRSPD1VXk0ps5dvD4NajfhN3cuENrujMssic7YgU$">fellow Minnesotans</a>,” as if those are attributes conveyed simply by physical, and not legal, presence. They do not accept a distinction between legal and illegal aliens.
Indeed, that is now the underlying philosophy of the “progressive” Left. They believe everyone should be allowed to enter the country and apply for asylum, and that even those unqualified should not be deported. They want all the “newcomers” to be able to tap into federal welfare programs. (And if they commit fraud to get benefits to which they are not entitled, we should go easy on them because to prosecute non-Europeans for crime is “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ilcm.org/latest-news/targeted-ice-enforcement-of-somali-community-in-minnesota-is-racist-and-islamophobic/__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1YWglO78AoKLMmCbIp5LYqidTnqAKyS7FBZyDlg1tU-Sndjw0XJyRSPD1VXk0ps5dvD4NajfhN3cuENrujMspQSBMJc$">racist” or “Islamophobic</a>”).
In Minneapolis, hundreds of people, led by well-funded political activists, are deliberately pushing the envelope of free speech beyond protest into physical action.
What is their goal? It is not to be heard, because everyone knows their views. It is not to have a conversation, because they are aware that the tactical-level agents they confront have no authority to stop operations.
The goal is to intimidate the federal government to stop enforcing laws in Minneapolis — to nullify federal law. The physical confrontations are designed to provoke a reaction — ideally not lethal, but some photogenic verbal or violent response to elicit sympathy. Whistles, screaming, throwing objects, blocking roads, and insulting armed officers at close range are orchestrated mayhem with a purpose.
In Minneapolis, the tactics may have worked, for now. President Trump may have concluded that the political benefit of urban confrontations is outweighed by the risk of defections from vulnerable Republicans and the alienation of swing voters marinating in mainstream media.
Political reality often outweighs objective truth and black-letter law. Trump’s border has been a massive success. And while the battle over interior enforcement isn’t over, in Minneapolis, the open-borders Left won a skirmish.
* * *
Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center and author of “The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey)” from Academica Books.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
This article has been edited for clarity.

US-IMMIGRATION-ICE-SHOOTING

How The Left Turned Minneapolis Into A Test Case For Nullifying Immigration Law

Democrats

Donald Trump

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Leftists

Minneapolis

Minnesota

When the Food and Drug Administration announced that the agency would be removing the black-box warning from hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, women everywhere threw their hands up in celebration.
And rightly so. America’s health agencies are finally acknowledging that women are not simply “little men,” and that research and clinical care must account for a woman’s unique biology and hormonal fluctuations across every stage of life.
But amid the cheering, some important nuance is being overlooked. The FDA’s decision to remove the black-box warning from HRT is just one example of how recommendations offered without adequate context or distinction may do more harm than good.
The idea that estrogen supplementation is a cure-all for the symptoms women commonly experience during perimenopause and menopause — hot flashes, disrupted sleep, fatigue, muscle aches, inflammation, weight gain, bloating, and mood swings — is a myth.
Often, women are not suffering from a lack of estrogen, but from what <a href="https://www.healthygutgirl.com/">Kitty Martone</a>, a holistic health educator who works with women to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1426024567689906">navigate perimenopause and menopause</a>, refers to as <a href="https://www.amenclinics.com/blog/what-is-estrogen-dominance/">estrogen dominance</a> — a state in which estrogen outweighs progesterone, producing symptoms that look identical to low estrogen.
Estrogen does not act in isolation, but the details are rarely explained to women. To be tolerated well, estrogen must be balanced by adequate progesterone and supported by a healthy metabolic rate. For many women, progesterone is the first hormone to decline — often years before estrogen meaningfully drops — due to chronic stress, under-eating, thyroid suppression, and blood sugar instability.
This creates a common paradox: estrogen may appear “normal,” or even low, on a lab test, yet functionally feel excessive in the body because there is not enough progesterone to counterbalance its effects. Women are then told they are estrogen-deficient and prescribed more estrogen, while symptoms such as anxiety, insomnia, migraines, heavy or irregular bleeding, bloating, and inflammation intensify rather than improve.
In these cases, simply prescribing more estrogen does not resolve symptoms. In fact, it can make them worse.
These mechanisms were not understood properly during the Women’s Health Initiative study, which was abruptly halted in the early 2000s upon a suggested correlation between HRT and breast cancer as well as heart disease. In an effort to recover from the fallout of the highly <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10758198/">flawed study</a>, which caused millions of women to abandon hormone therapy altogether, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction.
Cue the pharmaceutical ads: dancing women in sunflower meadows, singing about how wonderful life is with the latest HRT option. The fine print instructs women to “ask your doctor if it’s right for you,” but many doctors may not be properly equipped to offer nuanced guidance.
Over the past few decades, medical visits have been reduced to 15–20 minute symptom reviews that are translated into billing codes entered into a computer. While this system serves insurance and data collection, it fails to treat women as whole individuals. It leaves little room to explore how diet, stress, thyroid function, gut health, or metabolic status influence hormonal symptoms — particularly in perimenopausal women.
Martone argues that this system has created an environment where estrogen is prescribed casually, without sufficient context. “Doctors now essentially have carte blanche to prescribe estrogen for any hormone complaint — without evaluating detox pathways, metabolism, liver function, or estrogen clearance.”
Some clinicians have been cautioning against this oversimplification for decades. <a href="https://raypeat.com/">Dr. Ray Peat</a>, who studied hormones, metabolism, and stress physiology extensively, <a href="https://raypeat.com/articles/aging/aging-estrogen-progesterone.shtml">wrote about</a> how estrogen tends to accumulate under conditions of chronic stress and low thyroid function, while progesterone plays a stabilizing, protective role for both the nervous system and bodily tissues.
In plain terms, how a woman feels on hormones can have less to do with hormone levels and more to do with improper functioning of the liver, metabolism, and stress load at the time therapy is introduced. Two women can take the same prescription and have completely different outcomes — not because one is “doing it wrong,” but because their internal terrain is different.
This helps explain why so many women feel dismissed when HRT is presented as a simple solution. When symptoms worsen, they are often told to increase the dose or switch brands, rather than step back and ask whether the body is prepared to handle additional estrogen.
Martone emphasizes that women often need to experiment with hormones to discover individualized therapies that are right for them. Even low doses may require careful adjustment, alternative delivery methods, and significant trial and error — an experience that can be costly, frustrating, and far from straightforward.
Meanwhile, big pharmaceutical companies are circling middle-aged women like sharks around blood. With the FDA’s decision, they’ve gained an expanded customer base — one encouraged to start hormone therapy earlier and remain on it for decades.
The truth is no one — not even a doctor — can predict exactly how a woman will respond to HRT. Hormones are powerful biological signals, not cosmetic fixes. Their effects depend heavily on the body’s metabolic health, stress physiology, and ability to process and clear them.
The renewed interest in hormone therapy reflects a real and valid desire for relief for women. But before removing warning labels and declaring HRT a universal solution, it’s worth asking why those cautions existed in the first place.
Hormone replacement therapy is not a magic bullet. Women deserve care that honors complexity, not just convenience.
* * *
Jennifer Galardi is a Senior Policy Analyst for Restoring American Wellness in Heritage’s DeVos Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Nurse talks with female patient about prescription medication

What The FDA Doesn’t Tell Women About Hormone Replacement Therapy

Big Pharma

Doctors

Health Care

Pharmaceuticals

As a member of Gen Z, I am often told my generation is a lost cause for conservatism — too cynical, too progressive, or just too far gone.
That assumption couldn’t be more wrong. Gen Z isn’t rejecting America; we’re demanding that it work again. And if conservatives are serious about reclaiming the soul of the nation, the path forward runs directly through the issues my generation lives with every day.
Gen Z came of age at the crossroads of stability and uncertainty. 
During President Trump’s first term, we witnessed a strong economy, interest rates that opened the door to homeownership, an end to forever wars, and a return to policies that prioritized the family.
Under President Biden, however, millions of young Americans graduated college and took entry-level jobs that barely covered their student loan payments, even as the cost of everything rose faster than their paychecks. They were told to follow the rules — go to college, take on loans, delay adulthood. Then, when those rules failed them, they were blamed.
What frustrates my peers isn’t tradition or responsibility; it’s a system that feels rigged against them. 
That’s precisely where conservatism, properly articulated, can meet the moment.
<h3>Homeownership</h3>
For Gen Z, homeownership feels less like a milestone and more like a fantasy. Sky-high rents that prevent us from putting money into savings, zoning restrictions that choke supply, and inflation driven by reckless federal spending have priced young people out of opportunity. 
Conservatives should call this what it is: a policy failure. Government rules make it harder to build homes, while bad monetary policy drains savings and pushes the dream of stability further out of reach for young families.
If we believe in ownership, stability, and opportunity, then we should lead on reforms that make it easier — not harder — for young Americans to buy homes and build wealth.
<h3>Student Debt</h3>
Then there’s student debt. Gen Z didn’t invent the student loan crisis; we inherited it.
Many borrowers were reckless, and they should repay what they owe. But recklessness was enabled by a federal loan system that treated teenagers as capable of signing six-figure contracts while shielding universities from the consequences of failure.
Subsidies have fueled tuition inflation and reduced institutional accountability, leaving students to bear the full cost of bad decisions — both theirs and the systems.
Conservatives should reject blanket loan “forgiveness” that shifts the burden to taxpayers, but we must also offer real solutions: ending the federal government’s role as a blank-check lender so private institutions once again have incentives to lend responsibly, expanding alternatives like apprenticeships and credentialing, and breaking the cartel between the federal government and higher education. Responsibility cuts both ways—and universities should finally be forced to bear some.
<h3>Building A Family </h3>
Most surprising to pundits — but obvious to anyone paying attention — is Gen Z’s renewed interest in traditional family values. After watching the loneliness, instability, and social breakdown of the last two decades, many in my generation are rediscovering what older generations once took for granted: marriage matters, family matters, and children are not obstacles to fulfillment but central to it. This isn’t nostalgia; it’s realism. Gen Z wants meaning, not just mobility. We want strong relationships, safe neighborhoods, and a culture that doesn’t sneer at commitment.
Conservatives should lean into this—not with lectures, but with policies that make it possible to start and raise a family. That means an economy where a young family has the chance to create a home and build a foundation for the future, a tax code that doesn’t treat marriage like a liability, and leaders who value faith, responsibility, and strong bonds across generations. When conservatives defend the family, we aren’t clinging to the past — we’re offering a future Gen Z actually wants.
The fight for America’s soul isn’t about writing off an entire generation. It’s about proving that our ideas can meet real needs in real lives. Gen Z is open, skeptical, and looking for answers. If conservatives are honest about the economic realities we’re dealing with and defend the institutions that make life meaningful, my generation won’t just listen — we’ll lead.
* * *
Jake Matthews is a communications manager for technology, economics, and energy at The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Group of young multi-ethnic startup business team collaborating on project in modern office

Gen Z Isn’t Lost. We’re Looking For A Conservatism That Works.

Conservatives

Gen Z

Housing

Real estate

Ben Shapiro called out Tucker Carlson as a threat to conservatism in a Wednesday afternoon speech at the Heritage Foundation, insisting the movement must enforce “ideological borders” to protect its principles.
At the event promoting Shapiro’s new book, <a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/lions-and-scavengers?srsltid=AfmBOoonYJHNmiP35yYGqIkWBO9rzLFPL09ofn0cdFkM4V7onvKM09U3">Lions &amp; Scavengers: The True Story of America</a>, the Daily Wire Editor Emeritus argued that conservatism without clear boundaries risks being co-opted by voices who are opposed to core conservative principles.
“The conservative movement requires a border,” Shapiro said. “A conservative movement without a border is no conservative movement. We are a welcoming movement, but those who seek to undermine the character of conservatism must never be granted legitimacy as voices of our movement.”
Shapiro&#8217;s comments came weeks after the Heritage Foundation defended Carlson’s interview with self-proclaimed Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin admirer, Nick Fuentes. At the time, the think-tank&#8217;s president Kevin Roberts slammed the “venomous coalition” that was trying to cancel Carlson for having the conversation. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@benshapiro</a> joins Heritage President <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinRobertsTX?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KevinRobertsTX</a> live for remarks and in-depth discussion of his New York Times bestseller, Lions and Scavengers.
Together, they examine the cultural, political, and moral challenges shaping the nation.
Watch now ⬇️ <a href="https://t.co/sVBFKn3Stm">https://t.co/sVBFKn3Stm</a>
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/2001396030567227609?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
Roberts later said he made a “mistake” with his initial speech defending Carlson, and that the term “venomous coalition” was a “terrible choice of words.” 
Shapiro said that Heritage must play the role of “ideological border control” to keep the movement aligned with its mission statement: “Heritage’s mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”
Shapiro went on to describe why he believes Carlson is an “opponent of conservatism,” an “outsider masquerading as an insider” who is “destroying the character of the conservative movement in the process.” He examined how Carlson’s positions measure up against the Heritage Foundation’s mission statement.
According to Shapiro, Carlson opposes the free market, citing his stance against self-driving trucks, high-interest credit cards, and mergers that result in layoffs, and has labeled venture capitalists “vulture capitalists.”
“It is why he has praised left-wing figures ranging from Elizabeth Warren to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Zohran Mamdani,” Shapiro said. 
Shapiro criticized Carlson for rejecting limited government, accusing Carlson of telling his audience the United States is controlled by a conspiratorial elite and praising feudalism over the Constitution. Shapiro argued that true conservatism defends the Founders’ system of checks and balances and federalism.
“To Tucker Carlson, the Constitution is a mere ruse, a sham. Instead, Carlson promotes a conspiracy theory by which the American people have lost total control of their lives and have no ability to shape policy,” Shapiro said.
On the principle of national defense, Shapiro argued that Carlson abandoned the “peace through strength” approach in favor of one that excuses or rationalizes hostile regimes such as Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela, citing his soft or sympathetic interviews, his downplaying of adversaries’ aggression, and his repeated criticism of the United States and its allies.
Shapiro said that Tucker treats Qatar as “America’s foremost ally in the Middle East, dismissing its financial support for terrorist groups like Hamas, ties with Iran, and anti-American propaganda networks like Al-Jazeera.”
“Carlson just announced he is buying a house in Qatar, as a show of American-ness. Which is strange, since Qatar does not allow public displays of Christianity by churches, and currently holds tens of thousands of people from foreign nations in slave labor conditions,” Shapiro added.
Shapiro went on to make the case that Carlson opposes traditional American values, arguing that while he may agree on issues like same-sex marriage and transgenderism, he consistently prioritizes speculation, conspiracy theories, and uncritical promotion of figures like Alex Jones, Andrew Tate, and Nick Fuentes over truth and moral integrity.
“Truth is simply not Carlson’s priority. He likes speculation; he likes conspiratorial question-asking. But evidence and truth are not of value to Tucker Carlson,” Shapiro said. “And so Tucker has trafficked in nearly every conspiracy theory under the sun.”
Shapiro slammed Tucker for accusing the Trump administration of “covering up a Mossad-run child sex trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein,” adding that Carlson is a “coward” for not mentioning Trump directly while making such allegations.
Shapiro has a long relationship with the Heritage Foundation, beginning when he was just a teenager, when Town Hall — which was at the time associated with Heritage — published his column.

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro At Heritage: The Conservative Movement Needs To Enforce Its Borders, Too

Tucker Carlson

Does more government involvement in the socioeconomic sphere make the life of an average New Yorker better? Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani thinks so, with big-government policies prioritizing economic redistribution, a fundamental aspect of socialist ideology.
Mamdani’s platform includes city-owned grocery stores, free buses, no-cost childcare, rent freezes, a $30 minimum wage, and small business reforms.
While the latter proposal is commendable and bipartisan, Mamdani’s solutions are, unfortunately, not. He has promised small businesses, which account for <a href="https://www.nyc.gov/assets/smallbizfirst/downloads/pdf/small-business-first-report.pdf">98%</a> of firms in the city and employ over half of the private sector workforce, a regulatory reform package focused on improving compliance.
Mamdani alleges to be a <a href="https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform">champion for the little guy</a>, claiming he will “cut small business fines in half, speed up permitting and make online applications easier, and increase funding for 1:1 small business support by 500%.” While his message resonates and it correctly identifies that the city’s systems can be punishingly slow, his agenda does not target root concerns for businesses.
Rather than removing any of the <a href="https://nyc-business.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/index">6,000 regulations</a> that cost small businesses time, money, and resources, Mamdani proposes that minimally <a href="https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2022/05/mayor-adams-reduces-burdens-nyc-small-businesses-jumpstarts-city-s-economic-recovery-by">reducing compliance expenses</a> is the best strategy for making business operations faster, easier, and cheaper.
Violations such as labor non-compliance, sanitation issues, or building code infractions can cost owners <a href="https://cei.org/blog/american-small-businesses-are-paying-through-the-roof-for-regulations/">thousands of dollars annually</a>. The right solution is deregulation — to remove needless and onerous regulations and to ensure compliance with essential safeguards.
Instead, he has proposed more government bureaucracy, namely the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wuZ-s8VnnAHqHhqtHESwgzINiN7D95vy/view">“Mom and Pop Czar” Office</a>. This entity, allegedly designed to promote small business interests, will work to halve fines and eliminate fees. Leaving thousands of bad regulations on the books and simply arbitrarily reducing fees is more likely to lead to confusion, harmful non-compliance, and situations that can be easily gamed — in short, a profit for lawyers and accountants but not for workers and customers.
This is more likely to undermine local trust in regulatory fairness. Firms that have invested in compliance in the past may feel penalized, creating an environment of social decohesion. This is a politically motivated and poor substitution for deregulation.
Speeding up permitting and making online applications easier should quicken the timeline for which small businesses can begin operations. New York City’s permitting process is complex and slow, taking several months and costing owners time, money, and resources. However, the mayor-elect’s plan lacks any detail on how to achieve a simpler <a href="https://www.permitflow.com/blog/nyc-building-permits">permitting process</a> and is more likely to be a false campaign promise than a serious effort to ease the burdens of New York City’s businesses.
Increasing funding for small businesses by 500% is intended to offer personalized support for owners in the form of grants, loans, and technical assistance. Mamdani will finance and expand the <a href="https://www.nyc.gov/site/sbs/about/pr20220907-nycbest.page">Business Express Service Teams (BEST)</a>, which offer one-to-one support and assist small businesses with bureaucratic hurdles.
Over-reliance on government assistance may harm entrepreneurial independence as it fosters governmental dependence and crowds out numerous private sector entities that provide the same kind of support to businesses. Scaling up BEST requires hiring and training more staff, risking inefficiencies and mismanagement of funds.
Instead of <a href="https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RedTapeReport.pdf">eliminating useless or obsolete regulations</a>, he offers <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/14-aM9DKG337SDMilmfQtLRR-pDwyWSTc/view">crushing tax increases</a> and false promises mired in government bureaucracy. Mamdani’s policies do not address leading concerns for small businesses, those being the over 6,000 regulations that impede operations. He targets operational burdens and small fees, completely ignoring the primary costs for entrepreneurs — regulations.
Making compliance requirements less restrictive can best be achieved by eliminating the compliance requirement altogether. Removing the regulatory burdens that plague small business owners best fosters free market competition and economic growth.
Mamdani should recognize a simple truth: prudent deregulation is the only viable long-term solution, not government intervention.
* * *
Nicole Huyer is a Senior Research Associate in The Heritage Foundation’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25">Christmas Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
This piece is a part of <a href="https://www.heritage.org/wealth-and-innovation">The Heritage Foundation’s Wealth and Innovation project.</a>

US-POLITICS

Mamdani’s ‘Mom-and-Pop’ Plan Doesn’t Cut Red Tape

Mamdani’s 'Mom-and-Pop' Plan Doesn’t Cut Red Tape

bureaucracy

Democratic Socialism

Manhattan

New York City

Small Businesses

Zohran Mamdani

Thanksgiving is a time when families thrive, and our conservative movement can learn key lessons from this uniquely American tradition as we move forward together.
Let’s begin with what’s best about the day: a shared table, familiar laughter, and the quiet grace of gratitude. Gratitude is not the fruit of harmony; it is the seed. Traditions renew; children grow up knowing the laugh of a cousin; and an uncle regales with stories of where the family came from. The mystic chords of memory, those invisible threads that bind generations, grow stronger and endure.
Thanksgiving is meant to be practiced. The meaningful work of breaking bread with people who vote differently, pray differently, and have different points of view preserves more than a holiday tradition. Amongst people you don’t always like but with whom you share a deep bond is where public deliberation starts — a practice foundational to American self-government. We keep the muscle memory of belonging to something larger than ourselves.
What’s true for our families is, of course, also true for our conservative movement and the nation we all endeavor to save.
Ronald Reagan is often remembered for saying, &#8220;All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” What is left out, however, is the line that follows: “So, tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven&#8217;t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let &#8217;em know and nail &#8217;em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.&#8221;
Let the talking begin this week — and let our conversations be an invitation to those we love to once again find unity in our purpose, first as families and then as a nation. At Heritage, we’ve started this family conversation, centered around four questions plain enough to ask around the dinner table and significant enough to guide a movement and save a republic:
What does it mean to be a flourishing American family?
What does it mean to honor the dignity of work and secure the future of free enterprise?
What does it mean to have true national security?
What does it mean to be an American citizen?
At Heritage, we have a point of view, confident in our thinking and our institution’s 52 years of robust intellectual history. We believe that united, good-faith conservatives will engage in this discussion. We are also certain we know what a restored America looks like:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Marriage and family celebrated, not ignored or mocked.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Work dignified, wages rising, and two incomes a family choice, not a necessity.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Borders secure, military strong, enemies deterred.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Children learning truth — not ideology — in educational institutions that parents control.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Faith respected, civic virtue restored, patriotism the norm.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Government limited, debt shrinking, freedom expanding.</li>
</ul>
We call this Heritage 2.0 inside our organization, where every colleague contributed to its creation. We present it to you as our battle plan to save America.
Let there be no mistake; we are taking back Washington to save America. That puts a target on us — from the uniparty, the entrenched bureaucracy, and the deep state. Now may be a suitable time to reiterate with clarity our message to the purveyors of the status quo: Bring it on.
We sweat not for the elites, but for everyday Americans. We toil not to be keyboard warriors but to chart a course of national renewal. The future of conservatism — a fusion of old and new right — will succeed when we return power to the people.
Today’s populism didn&#8217;t emerge in a vacuum. It arose from failed leadership, calcified institutions, and elites who prioritized bureaucracy over everyday Americans. The people aren&#8217;t seeking minor fixes; they&#8217;re challenging the very credibility of the system, and often, they&#8217;re spot on. This ought to inspire our movement!
The clearest path to returning power to the people is through a wholehearted rejuvenation of federalism. We will never lose sight of the many millions who feel the weight of the world on their shoulders. More than any organization across the country, Heritage is fully engaged in the work required to ensure a free, self-governing people can raise families and engage in community and commerce with peace, principles, and prosperity.
Of course, the people will decide our future, as President Trump last week noted, appealing to the beauty of our American system. We are clear-eyed that our effort comes at a time of cultural and civic strain. But we’ve been here before. My friend and predecessor Ed Feulner wrote in his book The March of Freedom that conservatism is “a broad social movement of diverse but reinforcing beliefs, gathering travelers on the same journey — pilgrims who argue over the topography of their promised land but move in the same direction.”
As Vice President Vance also said, the forces arrayed against conservatives of all stripes have massive resources, and there is a point where infighting becomes counterproductive.
So, let us pull up chairs at the family table. Let us channel that turbulent passion and refine it with cool reason through public deliberation. Let us all be builders of a better America. Just as we will nurture the family tree through open dialogue, let us build America’s next 250 years under a thriving canopy of vibrant, interconnected branches rooted in self-governance.
Our Heritage is our future. Through it, together, we will save the republic and secure its future.
* * *
Kevin Roberts, Ph.D., is president of the Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
<h3>Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.</h3>

Roberts III

Thanksgiving, The Family Table, And A Playbook For The Work Ahead

Border

Education

Faith

Family Values

Marriage

Republicans

Recently, the Illinois legislature approved a bill that would legalize so-called physician-assisted suicide in the state. The bill now rests on Governor JB Pritzker’s desk, and he has until November 30 to decide whether to sign it into law.
He shouldn&#8217;t. In fact, he should veto it.
No matter how much advocates attempt to paint euthanasia as “compassionate,” the truth stands: Euthanasia, no matter what form it takes, creates a culture of death, jeopardizing — not protecting — the most vulnerable in society.
Look at Illinois’s bill, for example. If passed, it would allow physician-assisted suicides for individuals who are suffering from a terminal illness and have been given less than six months to live. As a result, advocates have painted it as a way for the already dying — and only the already dying — to secure “death with dignity.” 
Yet the bill limits do nothing to make it more ethical than legislation that allows for euthanasia of anyone at any time.  
Every human life has value, no matter how much time that life has left. Ending a life, no matter what stage that life is at, does not give it dignity — it devalues it, treating it as worthless and disposable. 
Even if that weren’t true, allowing assisted suicide in any circumstances lays the first stone in creating a “culture of death” that spreads throughout society. 
Look at Canada. While their assisted suicide program allegedly began to help people in extreme circumstances secure death with dignity, it’s now expanded so much that it allows for same-day suicide for a broad range of conditions, including mental illness. As a result, rates of suicide have grown exponentially, increasing 13-fold between 2016 and 2022 and totaling a <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2023.html">shocking 15,343 in 2023</a>.  
Physician-assisted suicide has reached such a point in the U.K. that (former) Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9dn42xqg4o">said last year</a> that he “worried people would feel compelled to ask to die if they felt like a burden.” 
Any legalization of assisted dying “opens the way to it broadening out,” Welby said, causing people who aren’t terminally ill to ask for it or feel “pressured to ask for it.” 
That hurts the entire society — but it’s especially harmful to the most vulnerable, including those, like my daughter, with disabilities. In a society that treats life as meaningless and treats imposing a burden on someone else as a reason to die, those with disabilities and mental illnesses are sure to fall prey. 
In Canada, they already are — a fact highlighted in stories like that of Alan Nichols, a 61-year-old who was involuntarily committed and then euthanized within a month. Such stories paint a grim picture of a society that treats patients not as people, but as objects to be discarded; the second caring for them would require effort.  
Those with disabilities should know they don’t have to throw their life away simply because of the challenges their disability poses. Their lives have value. 
Ending a human life, any life, is wrong — regardless of whether that life belongs to someone close to death, to someone with a disability or mental illness, or to someone who simply feels isolated or lonely. Governor Pritzker should veto Illinois’ dangerous legislation and reaffirm the American principle that every human — no matter who they are — has a right to life.
* * *
Mary Vought is the Vice President of Strategic Communications of The Heritage Foundation and a former member of the National Council on Disability.
The Heritage Foundation is listed for identification purposes only. The views expressed here are personal and do not reflect an institutional position for The Heritage Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday.

US-POLITICS-CRIME-TROOPS-CHICAGO

Illinois Is About To Legalize Assisted Suicide. Why Governor Pritzker Must Veto It.

Assisted Suicide

Canada

Euthanasia

Illinois

J.B. Pritzker

As someone who grew up going to Cracker Barrel on road trips, I, along with millions of Americans, heaved a sigh of relief when I heard the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cracker-barrel-thought-the-logo-u-turn-would-be-enough-it-wasnt?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Cracker+Barrel+Thought+The+Logo+U-Turn+Would+Be+Enough.+It+Wasn%E2%80%99t.">old logo</a> would remain.
But while we won’t have to endure the Soviet-style brutalist-inspired logo redesign, the new minimalist décor and proposed architectural plans for new stores are still on the menu.
If you aren’t familiar, these architectural plans look suspiciously like those at new Taco Bells (where the current Cracker Barrel CEO was before) — and they’re indistinguishable from those of a small industrial warehouse.
This is yet another example of the push for a Woke Generica from those trying to erase familiar symbols of American art and architecture. But their movement targets more than just symbols — it’s a movement against the entire pioneering and entrepreneurial spirit that defined and built America.
American history is filled with people seeking to fill in the blank edges of the map and build the impossible. For centuries, we’ve been a nation that stood out for our accomplishments. Now, though, we have a corporate culture that overwhelmingly views blending into the crowd as an accomplishment.
One of our greatest entrepreneurs, Henry Ford, warned of this kind of latent unimaginative culture when he said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” There’s a reason it’s cliché to say that innovators and entrepreneurs expand our horizons.
The most groundbreaking and quality-of-life-uplifting innovations — whether an invention such as the computer, or a business model such as Amazon’s logistical empire — almost always stem from the kind of pioneering risk-taking that is so core to the American identity.
But the new Cracker Barrel redesign is a case study in a futile attempt to simply make a faster horse. And while blandly blending into the background can feel safe, it’s a clear road to stagnation.
In part, what we are seeing is a business world losing perspective with what they actually sell. Only part of a product is its material, functional, form. Whether you call it the vibe, style, or aesthetic, part of the service that people want is what inspires the mind and the soul.
One of the many failings of Eastern European communist societies was their focus on the tangible practicality of things. It was an overtly Marxist pursuit, but it was also — inadvertently — a movement focused on draining artistry out of the ordinary experiences of life and on assaulting our sense of rootedness and belonging.
The man they tried so casually to take off the Cracker Barrel logo isn’t just a generic old man. He’s Uncle Herschel — the real-life uncle of Cracker Barrel founder Dan Evins. He’s also a kind and friendly face, welcoming you into not just the eatery, but the environment that is a Cracker Barrel &#8220;Old Country Store.&#8221;
That environment conjures the spirit of the pioneering West and the ideal of a rural farming community’s gathering place and grocery supplier — featuring a favorite of mine, a wall of a dozen or so unique types of root beer.
But more importantly, that environment reminds us of a crucial and unique piece of our shared national spirit and identity.
Steve Jobs gave warnings about just this sort of thing — about the danger of a business replacing the people who created the product with people focused simply on marketing it without a deep respect for the richness of the product or brand.
Sadly, Cracker Barrel is only the latest in what is now a long line of businesses that have abandoned their purpose and history.
The most stunning example is, perhaps, the Greek tragedy that Disney has turned into — an existence that, over the last 10 years, has cost them the respect of most of their long-time fanbase and 20% of their inflation-adjusted market cap.
The Disney story presents a set of roadmaps that would be useful for Cracker Barrel and, indeed, the broader corporate world today to study.
After the sudden death of Walt Disney in 1966, the company largely lost its sense of soul and purpose and languished for 18 years.
When Michael Eisner came in as CEO in 1984, though, he oversaw the next 15 years of what is now called the Disney Renaissance, featuring “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “The Lion King,” cruise lines, overseas theme-park expansions and many of the things that we now think of as the height of Disney art and culture.
Disney’s stock soared more than twenty-fold in inflation-adjusted terms during this period. But this is more than a simple business success story.
On day one, Eisner went to visit the Disney Imagineers — the people who knew Walt and still embodied the spirit of his vision.
Eisner ignored pressure to pursue what was seen as standard and safe — the pressure to radically depart Disney from its heritage. Instead, he sought to re-embrace that heritage and to rebuild the company in its truly unique style. That made all the difference.
Today, Disney’s current woke stagnation is the product of the last generation or so of abandoning those principles and following the same crowd that brought Cracker Barrel to take the barrel, and Uncle Herschel, off the logo.
Will we sheepishly go down the road of the brutalist logo and woke live action remakes? Or will we go the way of the Disney Renaissance — and reclaim the way of the rugged American pioneer and entrepreneurial innovator?
For now, the market has spoken and saved Cracker Barrel’s logo. But the question remains — and the nation as a whole must answer.
* * *
Richard Stern is Acting Director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation and Director of its Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trump Says Cracker Barrel Should Restore Old Logo After Backlash

From Uncle Herschel To Mickey Mouse: Cracker Barrel’s Disney Dilemma

Corporations

Cracker Barrel

Disney

Woke Culture

George Carlin had his seven words you can’t say on TV, but today there is only one ineffable (un-sayable) word in American public life. You all know what it is. That one-word ban is due to the unique history and politics of the United States.
Are there any ineffable political beliefs?
In America, not yet. The Constitution’s First Amendment allows us to speak our minds. Other than calling for violent overthrow of the government or the immediate commission of a crime, we can say what we want. That includes bizarre, unpleasant, or even insane beliefs.
But in Australia, Canada, and Europe, free speech on asylum, migration, and national identity is increasingly being curtailed by law.
Western countries are undergoing massive, and often unpopular, demographic change. In democracies, the people have the right to discuss all political issues and decide what their own future should be. Yet increasingly, speech is prescribed, especially in the English-speaking world.
The news site Axios recently <a href="https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-0229ba50-fb70-47e4-924a-ed4b931d1c13.html?utm_source=newsletter&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&amp;stream=top">wrote</a> that &#8220;[i]n MAGA&#8217;s telling, America is the heir to ancient European civilizations, built on a Judeo-Christian foundation of white identity, meritocracy and traditional gender roles.&#8221; Axios is clearly trying to be critical here, but what’s their issue?
I’d substitute the race-baiting term “white” with the more accurate “European,” and add something about free markets and free speech, but Axios describes exactly why millions flee the Third World and what they&#8217;re coming to. But as Western countries absorb those millions, the rules on what speech and conduct is acceptable are changing to accommodate them, with government complicity.
As popular dissent grows, opposing the progressive establishment’s insistence that migration is an unalloyed good is increasingly risky. Being a nationalist, meaning putting your nation first. Calling to limit all — not just illegal — migration. Criticizing over-generous and easily-gamed asylum systems.
Advocating for indigenous rights for Europeans. Citing official <a href="https://www.azerbaycan24.com/en/german-politician-convicted-for-sharing-migrant-crime-stats/">statistics</a> that show nationals of some countries commit violent crime at rates many times that of natives. Citing <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/14/britain-pay-for-costs-low-skilled-migration-for-generations/">studies</a> that show low-skilled migrants actually take more in benefits from the fiscal pot over their lifetime than they put in. All these can land one in hot water in some supposedly free countries that are close U.S. allies.
The most toxic topic is the war in the Middle East, which has little connection to the lives of everyday Westerners but inspires demonstrations from <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/13/1224641296/gaza-dc-march-ceasefire-israel-protest">Washington</a>, D.C. to <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/570172/watch-pro-palestinian-protests-across-country-call-on-government-to-sanction-israel">Wellington</a>, NZ.
A two-tier attitude to free speech is rapidly developing across the Anglophone world, where provocative behavior is tolerated from supporters of Palestinians that would have been unimaginable only a generation ago.
In Australia, thousands of <a href="https://apnews.com/video/thousands-rally-at-pro-palestinian-marches-across-australia-1409f7e23ca2493085aa77bc8d361eba">protesters</a> took to the streets recently “demanding that the Australian government take action against Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza,” according to AP News. They chanted “free, free Palestine,” as they waved a Palestinian flags.
In Canada, the group <a href="https://x.com/mtl4palestine/status/1953598884489674804">Montreal4 Palestine</a> has held public Muslim <a href="https://x.com/ThevoiceAlexa/status/1957223530539454540?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1957223530539454540%7Ctwgr%5E2b5d1b302916d487c1c2c13a5cb72e0e7e937e65%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rebelnews.com%2Fwatch_protesters_face_off_against_islamic_public_prayer_in_montreal">prayers</a> outside the Basilica of Notre Dame. Quebec is a French-speaking province and heavily Catholic. The symbolism of Muslim prayers in front of a prominent Catholic church, under flapping Palestinian flags, is powerful. Montreal4 Palestine protesters held a banner saying “we fight, we liberate, we return,” a slogan echoing the goals of Hamas. An opposing group of <a href="https://x.com/ThevoiceAlexa/status/1957205906225049709?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1957205906225049709%7Ctwgr%5E2b5d1b302916d487c1c2c13a5cb72e0e7e937e65%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rebelnews.com%2Fwatch_protesters_face_off_against_islamic_public_prayer_in_montreal">counter-protesters</a> carrying Quebec flags and playing patriotic songs was much smaller.
Meanwhile in England, indigenous people are <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/england-flag-displays-powerful-symbol-immigration-fight-trump-style-populism-sweeps-through-uk">flying</a> the English flag, a cross of St. George on a white background. Some are doing so spontaneously, and others as part of <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/england-flag-displays-powerful-symbol-immigration-fight-trump-style-populism-sweeps-through-uk">Operation Raise the Colours</a>. Critics try and tie it all to far-right extremism, but there is a groundswell to this movement that exceeds the tiny numbers of the radical right in Great Britain.
The London borough of Tower Hamlets and the City Council of Birmingham tore down English flags that had been hung in the streets. The symbolism is clear there too. In Tower Hamlets, Bangladeshis outnumber indigenous (white) British, and the non-English reportedly dominate government-subsidized housing.
Birmingham, a town in the middle of England, was 99.6% indigenous in 1951, but a decade ago, the Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755654/The-changing-face-Britain-A-child-Birmingham-likely-Muslim-Christian.html">reported</a> that “a child in Birmingham is now more likely to be a Muslim than Christian.” Since then, the country has seen mass migration from countries including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Somalia. Today, indigenous British in Birmingham are under 50%.
The U.K.’s left-wing national broadcaster, the BBC, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx271162ee3o">hints</a> that anyone raising the English or British flags must be a right-wing extremist. The left-wing newspaper the Guardian predictably <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/20/row-grows-over-motives-behind-england-flag-campaign-far-right-racist">claims</a> that putting up English and British flags &#8220;may offer cover for far-right agendas.&#8221; By “far-right,” they include opposition to mass migration, concern about increased sexual violence against girls and women, and fear of cultural disintegration.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Opposing mass migration is now an ineffable political position in the left-wing dominated academia, civil service, and media. But it is perfectly understandable and legitimate reaction to enormous demographic change across the Western world.
If current policies and trends continue, that change will make indigenous British a minority in their land within a few generations. Other countries like France and Germany are not far behind. This fate is not inevitable, it is a choice. It will only happen if the people accept it and elect governments accordingly. Putting out more flags perhaps signals that they won’t.
* * *
Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center and the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Woke-Commandments-Must-Obey/dp/1680533614">&#8220;The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey)&#8221;</a> from Academica Books.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

More Than 50,000 Migrants Have Crossed The Channel To The UK Since Labour Came To Power

The Unspeakable Truth About Mass Migration

Australia

Europe

Free Speech

Great Britain

Immigration

mass migration

Muslims

United States

According to newly released Census Bureau data, all income groups in America advanced more during President Donald Trump’s first term than they did during the Biden administration.
Stephen Moore, a senior visiting fellow in economics at The Heritage Foundation, presented the unpublished data for the first time in an Oval Office presentation with Trump on Thursday. The data divided Americans into three groups: lower income (bottom 25% of earners), middle income (middle 50%), and upper income (top 25%).
“What I find fascinating about this, Mr. President, is every income group did better,” said Moore, displaying a chart showing the percentage gain that accrued on average in each income bracket.
Under President Joe Biden, the lower class, after adjusting for inflation, lost income over the course of four years. The middle-income earners stayed about the same. But the upper income earners did noticeably better, according to Moore.
“The rich were the only group that did better under Biden, which is ironic because Biden keeps saying he was trying to get rid of income inequality. He made income inequality worse, not better,” Moore said. “It was President Trump that reduced income inequality.”
The economist tallied the numbers in dollars, as well, showing that the lower income gained about $4,000 in annual revenue over Trump’s first term. The middle income gained about $6,400 in annual earnings, and the wealthiest earned $10,000 more a year from the start of Trump’s first term to its end.
The data takes into account the COVID pandemic, which hit at the end of Trump’s first term and caused a general dip in income.
In addition to data on income growth, Moore also showed graphs on Bureau of Labor Statistics data and median household income during Trump’s first months of his second term. In the first five months of Trump’s second term, the average household’s income has increased by an inflation-adjusted $1,174, Moore said.
Trump last week fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, after the bureau, responsible for collecting and releasing jobs data on the U.S. economy every month, issued a significant downward correction this month on data for May and June.
“Revisions for May and June were larger than normal,” the agency <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fewer-jobs-than-expected-added-in-july-as-unemployment-holds-steady">said</a> in a report issued August 1. “The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 125,000, from +144,000 to +19,000, and the change for June was revised  down by 133,000, from +147,000 to +14,000.”
Moore supported Trump’s decision to fire the agency head, citing similar significant corrections that were made to jobs data under Biden, which Moore said showed “incompetence.” Trump, however, told Moore he believed the figures had been deliberately manipulated.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨<a href="https://twitter.com/StephenMoore?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@StephenMoore</a> presents new economic data in the Oval Office with <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>:
&#8220;Mr. President, you gained ten times more income for the average family than Joe Biden.&#8221;
&#8220;Every income group did better under Trump than Biden — by a wide margin.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/VIGjGf14YO">pic.twitter.com/VIGjGf14YO</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1953554707668254767?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2025</a></blockquote>

Menu