The Justice Department announced Monday that it may have reached a settlement in its antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster and parent company Live Nation Entertainment.
Though nothing is confirmed yet, the DOJ announced in Manhattan federal court that the case was likely nearing a conclusion after the term sheet was signed on Thursday, per the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/livenation-antitrust-justice-department-0a6ef66f497e5f626096de753bfff8ce">Associated Press</a>.
An unnamed official told the outlet that the terms included Live Nation paying a fine of up to $280 million and divesting some properties to allow for more competition in the ticket sales industry. The official said the settlement was a “win-win for everybody.”
Certain states were allegedly not on board with the proposed terms, however, and Judge Arun Subramanian called the terms “entirely unacceptable.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that the settlement “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case.” 
“My attorney general colleagues and I have a strong case against Live Nation, and we will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition to the live entertainment industry,” she said, adding that she preferred to move forward with the trial.
Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has a similar take, saying, “[the] case against Live Nation is strong, and the state coalition is committed to holding the company accountable for its illegal behavior, protecting consumers and restoring competition to this market,” the outlet noted.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2024 under the Biden administration, as WSJ <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/live-nation-reaches-settlement-in-federal-antitrust-case-9f0c6fb7">reported</a>. About 40 states came together to sue the entertainment company.
U.S. Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist summarized the charges during opening statements last Tuesday, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-opens-landmark-antitrust-trial-against-ticketmaster-calls-concert-ticketing-broken">reported</a>.
“This case is about power, the power of a monopolist to control competition,” Dahlquist said. “Today, the concert ticket industry is broken.”
Attorney David Marriott, who is representing Live Nation, said it wasn’t so. “We’ll let the numbers do the talking. We do not have monopoly power,” he said in response.
The complaint alleges that the company engages in “anticompetitive conduct” that results in higher fees, fewer opportunities for artists, and limited ticketing options. The filing occurred after the infamous 2022 incident when Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour pre-sale tickets caused the Ticketmaster site to crash, with thousands of fans — and bots — swarming the site all at once.
This Taylor Swift incident led to congressional hearings beginning in January 2023.
Ticketmaster was founded in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010. Over the years, the company has clashed with fans and artists, with many accusing the company of having predatory prices. The rock band Pearl Jam testified before Congress on the issue all the way back in 1994, but their efforts ultimately led nowhere.

Taylor Swift

Ticketmaster Case Sparked By Taylor Swift Ticket Meltdown Enters Key Stage

Department of Justice

Lawsuit

Music

New York

Ticketmaster

U.S.

A landmark antitrust trial against Live Nation began this week in New York with the Department of Justice seeking to prove that the entertainment company, which owns Ticketmaster, maintains an illegal monopoly over the concert ticket industry.
U.S. Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist summarized the charges during opening statements on Tuesday, per the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/live-nation-ticketmaster-antitrust-trial-ecfd6cb3e77459412584ed002653bc8f">Associated Press</a>. 
“This case is about power, the power of a monopolist to control competition,” Dahlquist said. “Today, the concert ticket industry is broken.”
Attorney David Marriott, who is representing Live Nation, said it wasn’t so. “We’ll let the numbers do the talking. We do not have monopoly power,” he said in response.
The complaint alleges that the company engages in &#8220;anticompetitive conduct&#8221; that results in higher fees, fewer opportunities for artists, and limited ticketing options. 
Per <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/live-nation-ticketmaster-antitrust-trial-doj-what-to-know-rcna261400">NBC News</a>, Live Nation controls 400 musical artists and owns or controls 265 concert venues in North America. 
“Through interconnected agreements associated with Live Nation’s various roles as ticketer, promoter, artist manager, and venue owner,” the complaint states. “Live Nation has created a feedback loop that pushes ticketing and ancillary fees higher while allowing Live Nation to be on all sides of numerous transactions and thereby double-dip from the pockets of fans, artists, and venues.”
This trial, expected to last six weeks, came about after a 2024 lawsuit alleged that Live Nation unfairly dominated concert ticketing and promotion, leaving no room for competitors. The filing occurred after the infamous 2022 incident when Taylor Swift&#8217;s Eras Tour pre-sale tickets caused the Ticketmaster site to crash, with thousands of fans and bots swarming the site all at once.
This Taylor Swift incident led to congressional hearings beginning in January 2023.
“To have a strong capitalist system, you have to have competition. You can’t have too much consolidation. Something that unfortunately for this country — as an ode to Taylor Swift, I will say — we know all too well,” Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar said at the time, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-loses-it-over-senators-quoting-taylor-swift-songs-at-ticketmaster-hearing">reported</a>.
Ticketmaster began in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010. Over the years, the company has been at odds with fans and artists at various points, with many accusing the company of having predatory prices. The rock band Pearl Jam testified before Congress on the issue all the way back in 1994, but their efforts ultimately led nowhere.
Marriott argued during the trial’s opening day that the company supports the music industry and is “all about bringing joy to people’s lives.”
He also said the amount of revenue Ticketmaster and Live Nation rake in is highly exaggerated, as AP noted.

DOJ Opens Landmark Antitrust Trial Against Ticketmaster, Calls Concert Ticketing ‘Broken’

Ticketmaster Antitrust Trial Begins Today, DOJ Says Concert Ticket Industry Is 'Broken'

Entertainment

Democratic lawmakers are twisting the federal judiciary’s arm to restore a controversial climate science chapter that was recently removed from its flagship reference guide for judges, a move that comes amid broader scrutiny over the intersection of climate litigation, judicial education, and political advocacy.
At stake is not merely a single chapter in a reference book, but the perception of neutrality in how federal judges are trained to evaluate complex scientific claims, particularly when those claims sit at the center of high-dollar, politically charged litigation campaigns still unfolding in courts across the country.
According to reporting from <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2026/03/02/democrats-urge-judicial-group-to-restore-deleted-climate-chapter-cw-00804211">Politico</a>, a group of Senate Democrats led by Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a letter Friday urging the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to reinstate a deleted climate chapter from the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The lawmakers argued that removing the chapter “sends a clear and chilling message that the federal judiciary is susceptible to partisan political pressure.”
The FJC is the research and education wing of the judicial branch. It guides and trains federal judges, gives resources, publishes materials, and maintains resources on federal judicial history and procedures.
The Reference Manual is widely used by federal judges as a guide to evaluating complex scientific and technical evidence. The now-removed climate section had drawn objections from a group of state attorneys general who argued that it adopted contested climate attribution methodologies and liability theories that mirror arguments currently being advanced in active climate lawsuits against energy companies. Critics contended that including such material in an official judicial reference guide risked lending institutional credibility to one side of ongoing litigation.
The FJC has not publicly characterized the removal as politically motivated, but the timing followed the objections, prompting Democrats to frame the move as capitulation to outside pressure.
Senator Wyden’s advocacy for restoring the chapter has also drawn attention because of his financial and public ties to a climate litigation attorney whose courtroom tactics have faced scrutiny.
<a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Roger+worthington&amp;contributor_state=OR">Federal Election Commission records</a> show Wyden has received approximately $11,000 in campaign contributions from Roger Worthington, an Oregon-based attorney involved in climate liability cases.
Worthington has been associated with legal strategies seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-related damages. He has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns and causes in the reliably blue state over his career.
Worthington’s litigation conduct has itself become a point of ethics concerns. As reported by <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/lead-counsel-in-52-billion-big-oil-lawsuit-facing-ethical-misconduct-allegations-over-climate-activism/">National Review</a>, a court filing alleged that Worthington introduced scientific studies in litigation that he had helped fund without disclosing his involvement, presenting them instead as independent research. During a hearing on the matter, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Benjamin Souede rebuked the lack of transparency, stating, “It is not acceptable to submit a declaration by an expert that is based in part on a reliance on a scientific article that plaintiff’s counsel helped to fund without pointing out to the Court that that is so.”
The judge added that “no lawyer in the history of American jurisprudence thought it appropriate to submit an expert declaration relying on an article that the plaintiff’s lawyer helped buy.”
Additional <a href="https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/celebrity-scientist-michael-mann-co-authors-paper-partly-funded-attorney">reporting</a> noted that a draft of a climate liability study appeared on Worthington’s firm&#8217;s website prior to publication and was later cited in court filings. The draft contained a watermark reading “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE UNDER REVIEW” while the link was later removed, the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250923213615/https://www.worthingtoncaron.com/documents/Carbon-majors-and-the-scientific-case.pdf">archived version</a> is accessible online to verify this. The motion cited in that reporting argued the circumstances suggested involvement beyond that of a neutral observer.
As an attorney with a specialized background in climate litigation, Worthington has much to gain, as do other donors like him, from the reinstatement of the chapter. This dense web of donations, misdirection, and unethical behavior forms just a small part of the broader national backdrop to the dispute over the climate chapter’s inclusion in the Reference Manual.
The core question now confronting the judiciary’s education wing is whether incorporating new, novel, and actively litigated climate liability theories into official guidance risks blurring the line between neutral scientific explanation and advocacy-aligned framing.

US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE

Fight Over Climate Chapter Exposes Tensions Between Judicial Neutrality And Activist Lawfare

Courts

Democrats

Environmentalism

Bayer said on Tuesday its Monsanto unit had reached an agreement worth as much as $7.25 billion to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits claiming that its Roundup weedkiller caused cancer.
The German company said the proposed nationwide settlement, filed on Tuesday in state court in St. Louis, Missouri, would establish a long-term claims program funded by capped annual payments over up to 21 years.
The company, which acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, is facing claims over Roundup from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts.
The plaintiffs say they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer after using the weedkiller, either at home or on the job.
Following the announcement, Bayer shares rose as much as 7.7% to reach their highest level since September 12, 2023. Frankfurt-listed Bayer shares were up 7.2% by 1839 GMT.
Bayer said it expects its provisions and litigation liabilities to rise from 7.8 billion euros ($9.24 billion) to 11.8 billion euros. It anticipates around 5 billion euros in litigation-related payouts in 2026, and now expects negative free cash flow for the year.
Roundup is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States. Bayer has said decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.
The deal covers the bulk of the lawsuits, but requires a judge&#8217;s approval and a minimum number of plaintiffs to opt in. It does not require Bayer to admit liability or wrongdoing and allows the company to back out if too many plaintiffs decline to participate.
It is also designed to head off future lawsuits, and allows people who can prove they have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and were exposed to Roundup prior to Tuesday to file claims to receive a portion of the settlement up to 21 years from now.
The agreement was negotiated with Motley Rice, Seeger Weiss and other law firms that would represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, if the court allows the deal to proceed.
Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said on a call with investors and reporters that he is confident the proposed class action settlement will resolve the vast majority of the claims, although he declined to say how many people currently support the deal.
Attorneys who negotiated on behalf of the plaintiffs said the deal represents the best path forward. Payouts will be determined by a tiered system that considers exposure, age at diagnosis and cancer type. Individuals could receive up to $198,000 or more, according to attorney Eric Holland.
The company said it had separately reached confidential settlements to resolve other Roundup cases with specific law firms, although the company would not name the firms or specify the amount of those deals.
Tuesday&#8217;s proposed settlement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case that Bayer argues will sharply limit its liability in the litigation.
The company said the Supreme Court case, scheduled for oral arguments at the end of April, remains essential to resolving the Roundup litigation.
Bayer is arguing that consumers should not be able to sue it under state law for failing to warn that Roundup increases cancer risk because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning. Bayer argued that federal law does not allow it to add any warning to the product beyond the EPA-approved label.
A favorable ruling would wipe out several large verdicts that remain on appeal and could also prevent future claims from individuals who choose to opt out of the nationwide settlement.
Bayer investors welcomed news of the proposed settlement but some, like Markus Manns, portfolio manager at Bayer shareholder Union Investment, cautioned it was &#8220;not yet the breakthrough that many investors had hoped for.&#8221;
&#8220;The settlement buys Bayer time, but without a win in the Supreme Court, a new wave of lawsuits could roll over Bayer in a few years,&#8221; Manns said.
The company had previously paid about $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement then covering future cases.
It has had a mixed record with cases that have gone to trial. It prevailed in a series of Roundup trials, but has been hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including a $2.1 billion verdict in a case in the U.S. state of Georgia in March.
The verdicts shattered both investor confidence and company hopes that the worst of the Roundup litigation was over, and put pressure on Bayer to find a comprehensive solution to the lawsuits.
(Reporting by Diana Jones and Kirsti Knolle; Additional reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Writing by Linda Pasquini and Friederike Heine; Editing by Alexander Smith, Alexia Garamfalvi and Jan Harvey)

Roundup

Bayer Proposes $7.25 Billion Plan To Settle Roundup Cancer Cases

Cancer

Monsanto

NPR host and veteran podcaster David Greene has sued tech giant Google after he thought an AI voice in one of the company’s tools mimicked him nearly perfectly.
Greene’s lawsuit is one of the first in what is expected to quickly become a quagmire of legal actions and court rulings over the use of artificial intelligence and the extent of protections around copyright and ownership.
The host of NPR’s “Morning Edition” said he came across the AI tool, which involves two AI voices of a man and woman talking with each other, after a former coworker sent it to him. The coworker had wanted to know if Greene had given Google authorization to use his likeness because of the similarity. After the coworker’s note, Greene was bombarded with similar messages from friends and family asking him if he lent his likeness to Google for use in its AI tool.
“I was, like, completely freaked out,” Greene told <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/15/david-greene-google-ai-podcast/">The Washington Post</a>, which first reported on the lawsuit. “It’s this eerie moment where you feel like you’re listening to yourself.”
Google told the Post that Greene’s likeness was not used for the tool, called NotebookLM.
“These allegations are baseless,” Google spokesman José Castañeda said. “The sound of the male voice in NotebookLM’s Audio Overviews is based on a paid professional actor Google hired.”
Guessing whom the NotebookLM voices most resemble has become somewhat of a niche parlor game online, with some people claiming that it most sounds like Greene. Others have suggested other names, such as former tech podcaster Leo Laporte. Others have suggested that the AI model most closely resembles the “Armchair Expert” podcast co-hosted by Dax Shepard and Monica Padman.
Some AI court cases have the potential for massive payouts. One of the most significant cases in law around AI was settled last year in Bartz v. Anthropic. Anthropic, an AI company, trained its model on thousands of illegally downloaded books pirated online. The company faced a class-action lawsuit from the creators of those works and, in August, <a href="https://copyrightalliance.org/participating-bartz-v-anthropic-settlement/">agreed</a> to pay out the largest copyright settlement ever: $1.5 billion.
After the Anthropic settlement, other court cases followed suit. Some resulted in partnerships such as in the case of Universal Music Group (UMG) and the AI music platform Udio. In a settlement that ended a series of copyright disputes, UMG and Udio <a href="https://www.universalmusic.com/universal-music-group-and-udio-announce-udios-first-strategic-agreements-for-new-licensed-ai-music-creation-platform/">announced</a> an agreement to collaborate “on an innovative, new commercial music creation, consumption and streaming experience.”

Google

Familiar Voice Sparks Legal Showdown Between NPR Host And Google

Artificial Intelligence

San Francisco residents are suing the city over a Reparations Fund established solely for black residents, two months after the fund’s initial creation sparked controversy.
One plaintiff, Richie Greenberg, said the fund is “dividing the city rather than trying to unite.”
“What we really need is to be focusing on how to uplift everybody rather than focusing on one group giving everything to that one group,” Greenberg <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-residents-band-together-shut-down-reparations-fund-claiming-its-dividing-city">told</a> Fox News Digital.
The original bill, signed right before Christmas, established a dedicated reparations fund, creating a legal framework to address what the city deems to be historical systemic harms against its black community, The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/san-francisco-mayor-sparks-outrage-with-christmas-eve-signing-of-reparations-bill">reported</a>. It included a proposal that could eventually grant eligible residents lump-sum payments of $5 million.
“San Francisco is engaged in a sordid and unconstitutional enterprise — it is administering funding and wielding public authority to distribute government benefits explicitly based on race and ancestry,” the lawsuit says.
The plaintiffs argue San Francisco is violating the Constitution by distributing money on the basis of race, through the city’s Human Rights Commission.
“By directing an agency funded almost entirely by taxpayer dollars to administer funding solely dedicated to implement race-exclusive benefits, the City is using public money, public employees, and public authority to carry out an unconstitutional racial spoils system that allocates benefits and opportunities based on race and ancestry,” the lawsuit says.
The Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER) is one of the plaintiffs in the case. Greenberg and fellow plaintiff Arthur Ritchie are members of CFER. In 2023, CFER sued San Francisco over allegedly racially discriminatory guaranteed income programs, The Daily Wire previously reported.
Additional benefits for eligible black residents include debt forgiveness for a variety of loans, exemption of property taxes, and priority status for employment opportunities, according to the lawsuit.
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said in December that the plan would not require taxpayer dollars, instead setting up a “structure” for future city or private funding. The city’s $1 billion budget deficit prevents immediate funding, but the plan signals a shift in city policy.
“We need to stop this because it is a tremendous, tremendous amount of funding that would, eventually, basically kill the city,” Greenberg said. “It would destroy the city of San Francisco, and it would set up an unworkable situation of who within the city gets preference as opposed to everyone else that would not.”

Close up on man’s hand holding twenty dollar bill, US currency, cash

Lawsuit Targets San Francisco Reparations Plan: ‘Unconstitutional Racial Spoils System’

Reparations

San Francisco

A new $2 million verdict indicates that the “transitioning” of children in America is dying or dead.
If you go back just a few years, it was de rigueur for every major commentator and every major politician to say that boys or girls could become one another.
Major medical establishment organizations claimed that it was the purest form of science to say that boys could become girls, and in fact, the best treatment for people suffering from gender dysphoria was for them to have hormone treatment and surgery.
In 2021, the American Medical Association was <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children">telling governors</a> to oppose state legislation that would prohibit “medically necessary” gender transition-related care for minor patients, calling such efforts “a dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine.”
That, of course, was not relegated only to psychological care or social transition, or even to hormones. It also included, on many occasions, surgery. 
In fact, the AMA specifically <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children">put out a letter</a> stating:
<blockquote>Empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression for gender diverse individuals. Standards of care and accepted medically necessary services that affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria may include mental health counseling, non-medical social transition, gender affirming hormone therapy, and or gender affirming surgeries. 
</blockquote>
This was the standard of care, according to the American Medical Association.
It was a load of horsesh*t.
If you ever wonder about the signal moments in the last 30 years of American history in which people fell out of love with institutions and decided that institutions had betrayed their trust — this was a big one.
There have been many, including the coverage of Biden&#8217;s mental health issues, education, Critical Race Theory, scientific organizations, and COVID.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2361-transing-of-children-in-america-is-dead"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-981859 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
But the biggest one was likely this — a lie that everyone above the age of one and a half knew was a lie — which was to deny that boys and girls aren&#8217;t the same. The medical establishment said that boys could become girls, girls could become boys, and the best treatment for someone who was struggling with body dysmorphia was not to work on their mental health, but to surgically alter their body by cutting off healthy body parts, by creating fake new body parts.
This was insanity. It was pathological. It was nuts.
But it became de rigueur.
The fact that Democrats are still struggling with this shows how out of touch they remain with reality.
So what finally broke the system? As always in America, trial lawyers.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/health/gender-surgery-malpractice-varian.html">reported:</a> “In the first malpractice verdict against providers of gender-affirming care for minors —&#8221;
Stop right there. That well-known language is insane. “Gender-affirming” is sex-rejecting. That’s what “gender-affirming” means in this context.
We are not talking about a woman who had a double mastectomy because she had breast cancer or the BRCA gene, and decided to have that double mastectomy, and now wants to reconstruct her breasts. That would be gender-affirming.
Gender affirming in this context means sex-denying. A boy believes he&#8217;s a girl, so they cut off his penis and testicles. That is what they mean.
Back to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/health/gender-surgery-malpractice-varian.html">the piece</a>:
<blockquote>In the first malpractice verdict against providers of gender-affirming care for minors, a jury in New York State has awarded a woman $2 million in damages for a double mastectomy she received as a teenager that she said had left her disfigured.</blockquote>
Obviously, it left her disfigured. That’s a reality when you have your breasts cut off, not because you&#8217;re worried that you&#8217;re going to get breast cancer or for any other real medical reason, but because you say you want to look more like a boy.
<blockquote>The plaintiff, Fox Varian, 22, of Yorktown Heights, had accused her psychologist and the plastic surgeon who performed the operation of failing to obtain adequate consent about the risks before she agreed to undergo the procedure in 2019. She also claimed that the providers had deviated from standard practices governing gender-related medical care. Ms. Varian, who was 16 at the time of the surgery, was assigned female at birth but as a teenager identified as a man.</blockquote>
Legacy media verbiage that is totally psychotic. “Assigned female at birth?”
You are not assigned anything. A doctor looks at you and knows you are female by looking at you when you are a baby.
This woman later came to regret the decision to transition and returned to being a woman in accordance with her actual biology, an example of a process known as detransitioning, or what some people might call “recognition of reality.”
Very often, when people cite studies suggesting that people don&#8217;t really detransition, that is because the studies do not include people who don&#8217;t follow up with the doctor. The vast majority of people who decide that they don&#8217;t want to carry forward with their “gender transition” never get back in touch with the people who were trying to transition them in the first place.
Thus, the continued pressure tactics are used by people in this industry.
The Times continued:
<blockquote>According to Kinnon MacKinnon, who studies transgender care at York University in Toronto, a vast majority of young people who opt for a medical transition say the procedure resolves their gender dysphoria and improves the quality of their lives.</blockquote>
Do you think they&#8217;re coming back to Kinnon MacKinnon to explain that things went badly? That’s not the way that this works. 
So why do I say this verdict means that the transition of children in America is dying or dead? Because plastic surgeons now find themselves at risk of medical liability for doing something that is clearly non-medical, such as cutting off healthy body parts, doctors are going to stop doing it.
On Tuesday, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons <a href="https://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/health-policy/position-statements">put out a statement</a> saying:
<blockquote>Consistent with ASPS’s August 2024 statement that the overall evidence base for gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions is low certainty, and in light of recent publications reporting very low/low certainty of evidence regarding mental health outcomes, along with emerging concerns about potential long-term harms and the irreversible nature of surgical interventions in a developmentally vulnerable population, ASPS concludes there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents. ASPS recommends that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.</blockquote>
What’s hilarious about this statement is that they are not making the case that they picked the age of 19 because the brain is developed enough for a teen to make a good decision. That is not the case they&#8217;re making. They&#8217;re not saying there&#8217;s a difference in kind between these sorts of surgeries performed on a 21-year-old and those performed on a 17-year-old.
The reason they are putting out “19 years old” is very obvious: At 18, you can legally consent, and once you can legally consent, the doctors can&#8217;t be sued.
That&#8217;s all that&#8217;s happening here. Liability came to the plastic surgeons, and now they&#8217;re saying, “We still want to do these surgeries because we get paid for them even though they&#8217;re really bad. We&#8217;re going to continue to do them, but we&#8217;ll do it for people above the age of 18.’
That is still bad medical practice. It does not solve the problem politically for people who claim that men can become women and women can become men.
This is a barrier for Democrats. When I was on Gavin Newsom&#8217;s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrDpBwpSqSc">show</a> in California, this issue came up, and he really struggled with it. The reason he struggled with it is because he knows it is not only a political loser, but in his heart, he knows it is not true.
The vast majority of people in the United States also know it is untrue that a man can become a woman.
But there are social demands to mirror that nonsense. And if Democrats decide to follow this issue all the way down the political rabbit hole, they will not be able to get out. It is legitimately a barrier to entry for voters.
The bottom line is that if Democrats keep running up against both the science and legal liability, they are in for a continued world of hurt.

Transgender person from behind, wearing pink and white striped sweatshirt, holds transgender flag

Transing Of Children In America Is Dead

American Medical Association

Ben Shapiro

Boys

Children

Girls

Opinion

Plastic Surgery

Teenagers

Transgender

transgender surgery

Trans flag

This Court Case Has Gotten Little Attention But Just Changed Everything

Doctors

gender ideology

Matt Walsh

Medical

WPATH

Author Michael Wolff responded to President Donald Trump&#8217;s threat of a lawsuit by essentially daring him to go through with it — and then he claimed that he would be the one to come out on top if such a lawsuit were actually filed.
Wolff explained in an Instagram video that he would love nothing more than to be able to subpoena both the President and first lady Melania Trump — and that he&#8217;d have standing to do so if either of them ever filed suit against him.
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUOVK6GEXZZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUOVK6GEXZZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Michael Wolff (@michaelwolffnyc)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
&#8220;I woke up this morning and found that last night, Donald Trump had threatened to sue me again. I think this is the third or possibly fourth time the president of the United States has threatened to sue,&#8221; Wolff began, referencing Trump&#8217;s most recent threat — made aboard Air Force One — to sue him for &#8220;conspiring&#8221; with the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Wolff admitted to pressing Epstein for information, claiming that he&#8217;d done so in order to convince the disgraced financier to give up any information he had on Trump: &#8220;Yes, I tried to encourage Jeffrey Epstein in any way I knew how to come forward with what he knew about Donald Trump.&#8221;
The author went on to note that he had already filed suit against first lady <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/melania-threatens-hunter-biden-with-1b-lawsuit-false-defamatory-disparaging">Melania Trump</a> — after she&#8217;d threatened legal action against him for claiming that she had traveled in the same circles as Epstein — and said that if the president made good on his threat, he would be able to subpoena both Trumps.
&#8220;This lawsuit gives me the power to subpoena Mrs. Trump, Mr. Trump, and all their friends &#8230; Bring it on!&#8221; he said. &#8220;I believe that if the American public knew the real nature of Donald Trump’s long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, they would turn away in horror and revulsion. So sue me. Let’s sue each other.”
“I have nothing to hide, but Mr. President, you surely do,&#8221; Wolff declared.
Wolff said that Melania Trump threatened legal action months earlier after he authored an article for The Daily Beast claiming that Epstein had been the one to introduce her to the president. Hunter Biden later repeated that claim in an interview, prompting Trump&#8217;s litigation counsel Alejandro Brito to fire off a letter to former President Joe Biden&#8217;s son as well.
&#8220;Following receipt of our cease-and-desist demand letter just a week ago, The Daily Beast issued an apology to Mrs. Trump and retracted the false and defamatory statements contained in the Article by deleting it in its entirety,” Brito wrote, describing Wolff as a &#8220;serial fabulist&#8221; and adding, “Despite this, you have unjustifiably relied upon Mr. Wolff’s false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements about Mrs. Trump and maliciously elected to republish them.&#8221;

Author Michael Wolff Discusses His Controversial New Book On Trump Administration

‘Let’s Sue Each Other’: Author Claims Trump’s Lawsuit Threat Will Actually Help Him

'Let's Sue Each Other': Author Claims Trump's Lawsuit Threat Will Actually Help Him

Donald Trump

Jeffrey Epstein

Media

Melania Trump

Politics

New details have emerged in the case of a young female detransitioner who last week <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/detransitioner-awarded-millions-in-first-malpractice-verdict-this-is-how-it-all-ends" target="_blank" rel="noopener">won</a> a $2 million judgment against the doctors who performed a double mastectomy on her when she was just 16 years old.
Notably, the plaintiff, Fox Varian, had her healthy breasts removed about one year after she first started questioning her gender. The teen&#8217;s mother was also pressured into signing off on the surgery, as one medical professional effectively said Varian would kill herself without the surgery.
Varian was given the name Isabella at birth, but changed it numerous times during the fallout from her parents&#8217; split, which included the estrangement of her father, independent journalist Benjamin Ryan said on X. Ryan was in the courtroom for the entire trial, and reported for the <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/a-legal-first-that-could-change-gender">Free Press</a>.
The young girl suffered from depression, anxiety, and social phobia and was diagnosed with autism and bounced around various schools, Ryan said. She also suffered from eating disorders and body-image issues.
However, at just 15 years old, she started to question her gender &#8220;during sessions with her psychologist,&#8221; who has been identified as psychologist Kenneth Einhorn. Just 11 months after Varian started to socially &#8220;transition,&#8221; the 16-year-old was on an operating table, where Dr. Simon Chin removed her healthy breasts.
In another shocking, yet unsurprising detail, Varian&#8217;s mother, Claire Deacon, was pressured by medical professionals, namely Einhorn, into signing off on her daughter&#8217;s surgical transition. Einhorn insisted Varian was going to kill herself without the surgery. Deacon was effectively presented with the option of having a dead daughter or a &#8220;son&#8221; who has undergone trans procedures.
The jury found that medical professionals failed to consider other possible explanations for Varian’s mental health issues — like depression, ADHD, autism, or body dysmorphia — and rushed to approve an irreversible surgery.
Varian, who recently turned 22, was awarded roughly $1.6 million for past and future suffering, and an additional $400,000 for future medical costs.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Claire Deacon, mother to Fox Varian, the detransitioner who won a $2M jury award after suing her care providers over the mastectomy she got at 16, testified that Varian&#8217;s psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, browbeat her into consenting with threats of her child&#8217;s suicide.
I report… <a href="https://t.co/3vCfk54FNT">pic.twitter.com/3vCfk54FNT</a>
— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) <a href="https://twitter.com/benryanwriter/status/2018183382513930585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 2, 2026</a></blockquote>
There are more than two dozen cases still pending similar to Varian&#8217;s, with detransitioners suing medical professionals for irreversible harm. Varian&#8217;s verdict could be the beginning of the end of the mutilation of children in the name of transgenderism.
&#8220;The case could be a model for other lawsuits over such surgeries performed on minors,&#8221; legal expert Jonathan Turley said. &#8220;There are more than two dozen such lawsuits currently pending in various courts.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The case could be a model for other lawsuits over such surgeries performed on minors. There are more than two dozen such lawsuits currently pending in various courts. <a href="https://t.co/78RuLrf1Q8">https://t.co/78RuLrf1Q8</a>
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/2017934402903277738?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 1, 2026</a></blockquote>
Activist and detransitioner Chloe Cole, who started to medically transition at just 13 years old, said Varian&#8217;s verdict gives her hope.
&#8220;Varian V Einhorn is the first detransitioner lawsuit to reach a verdict, and Fox Varian was awarded $2M Even better is that this was in New York!&#8221; Cole posted online. &#8220;I am going to trial as well against my doctors with the Center for American Liberty and this gives me even more hope that I will get justice for myself.&#8221; 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Varian V Einhorn is the first detransitioner lawsuit to reach a verdict, and Fox Varian was awarded $2M
Even better is that this was in New York!
I am going to trial as well against my doctors with <a href="https://twitter.com/Liberty_Ctr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Liberty_Ctr</a> and this gives me even more hope that I will get justice for myself <a href="https://t.co/TpbuFvFwuQ">pic.twitter.com/TpbuFvFwuQ</a>
— Chloe Cole ⭐️ (@ChloeCole) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChloeCole/status/2017715062845095966?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2026</a></blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/detransitioner-awarded-millions-in-first-malpractice-verdict-this-is-how-it-all-ends?author=Amanda+Prestigiacomo&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Detransitioner+Awarded+Millions+In+First+Malpractice+Verdict%3A+‘This+Is+How+It+All+Ends’">Detransitioner Awarded Millions In First Malpractice Verdict: ‘This Is How It All Ends’</a>

Diverse people holding transgender flags

Shocking Details Emerge In Landmark $2 Million ‘Trans’ Malpractice Judgment

New Details Emerge In Landmark ‘Trans’ Malpractice Payout Case

Chloe Cole

detransitioner

malpractice

On Friday, a young woman who had her healthy breasts removed at age 16 for supposed transgender &#8220;medical care&#8221; was awarded $2 million, marking the first successful detransitioner malpractice lawsuit in the nation.
Fox Varian&#8217;s psychologist and surgeon were held liable by a jury in Westchester, New York, according to independent reporter Benjamin Ryan, who attended the three-week trial.
Ryan suggested the case is just the beginning of detransitioner lawsuits he&#8217;s been following and that, ultimately, these sorts of results could discourage doctors from advising or performing these types of life-altering surgeries on minors.
&#8220;My sources suggest that tort law might permanently destroy this field,&#8221; he <a href="https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/2017431937330069926">said</a>.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: 1st Detransitioner to Take a Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit to Trial Wins $2 Million Judgement
Fox Varian sued her Westchester, NY, area psychologist and plastic surgeon for the gender-transition mastectomy she got at 16.
I was the only reporter to attend the entire… <a href="https://t.co/4e89PSgGDg">pic.twitter.com/4e89PSgGDg</a>
— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) <a href="https://twitter.com/benryanwriter/status/2017394408878993460?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2026</a></blockquote>
Stacy Robinson, who was also in the courtroom, <a href="https://x.com/stacepochalypse/status/2017370091738816595?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">reported</a> that Varian &#8220;wept and hugged her mother when the verdict-which followed a three week trial from a suit filed in 2023-came down.&#8221;
The verdict triggered much reaction online, including from activists and fellow detransitioners.
&#8220;In coming years, the floodgates will open as more go to trial,&#8221; Robby Starbuck, director of &#8220;The War on Children,&#8221; commented. &#8220;What was done to these kids is a crime against humanity. An unforgivable evil that must be extinguished from the earth. Never again. The damage these kids carry is heartbreaking.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In coming years the floodgates will open as more go to trial. What was done to these kids is a crime against humanity. An unforgivable evil that must be extinguished from the earth. Never again. The damage these kids carry is heartbreaking. <a href="https://t.co/I7RlQSbdNH">https://t.co/I7RlQSbdNH</a>
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) <a href="https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/2017439905693978720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2026</a></blockquote>
Prisha Moseley, a detransitioner who is suing the medical professionals who encouraged and performed trans surgeries on her as a confused minor, reacted, &#8220;First detransitioner lawsuit to go to trial WINS $2 million. May justice prevail!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
First detransitioner lawsuit to go to trial WINS $2 million. May justice prevail! <a href="https://t.co/VfbnpX2eGk">https://t.co/VfbnpX2eGk</a>
— Prisha Mosley🦎 (@detransaqua) <a href="https://twitter.com/detransaqua/status/2017409786468343832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2026</a></blockquote>
&#8220;Very significant US case &#8211; there are more in pipeline &#8211; they are likely to fundamentally change the US medical profession’s approach to surgically altering the healthy bodies of children questioning their gender,&#8221; columnist Sonia Sodha said. &#8220;Been a long, long time coming.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Very significant US case &#8211; there are more in pipeline &#8211; they are likely to fundamentally change the US medical profession’s approach to surgically altering the healthy bodies of children questioning their gender. Been a long, long time coming. <a href="https://t.co/kQclhJeq00">https://t.co/kQclhJeq00</a>
— Sonia Sodha (@soniasodha) <a href="https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/2017544734487515138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2026</a></blockquote>
Conservative Stephen Miller aptly commented: &#8220;This is how this all ends.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This is how this all ends. <a href="https://t.co/EPLb8OfVFn">https://t.co/EPLb8OfVFn</a>
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/2017452532176404576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2026</a></blockquote>

Transgender person, wearing white and pink striped sweatshirt, holds a transgender flag on his shoulder and in the other hand a transgender flag and another gay pride rainbow

Detransitioner Awarded Millions In First Malpractice Verdict: ‘This Is How It All Ends’

Social Issues

Outdoor apparel brand Patagonia is suing a drag queen who sells merchandise under a name very similar to their company name, saying it causes customer confusion.
The lawsuit was filed in a California federal court against an individual named Wyn Wiley, who uses the stage name Pattie Gonia. The company argued that matters were further complicated by the fact that Wiley is also an environmental activist who promotes activities very similar to what the brand does, such as &#8220;motivational speaking services in support of environmental sustainability&#8221; and &#8220;organizing, arranging, and conducting trail and hiking events,&#8221; per <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/patagonia-sues-drag-queen-pattie-gonia-trademark-infringement-2026-01-21/">Reuters</a>.
“We want Pattie to have a long and successful career and make progress on issues that matter – but in a way that respects Patagonia’s intellectual property and ability to use our brand to sell products and advocate for the environment,&#8221; Patagonia said in a statement, the outlet noted.
The company stated in the lawsuit that Wiley agreed in 2022 not to use the name on any branded merchandise that may confuse consumers, but claims that promise has since been violated as the drag queen and LGBT activist has sold apparel with phrases like &#8220;Pattie Gonia Hiking Club.&#8221;
Attorneys representing the brand sent an email to Wiley last February, the lawsuit noted. “Patagonia remains supportive of your work but must insist that the Pattie Gonia persona not be commercialized and continue to adhere to the commitments made in 2022,” the email says.
“Unfortunately, these latest product sales force Patagonia’s hand and so I’m asking that you discontinue sales of t-shirts and stickers (or any product) using Pattie Gonia branding or designs substantially similar to Patagonia’s logos,” it said.
Wiley and his business partner said in reply that they “have never and will never reference the brand Patagonia’s logo or brand,” and <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/01/22/us-news/patagonia-sues-drag-queen-pattie-gonia-claiming-irreparable-harm/">claimed</a> there was room for Patagonia and Pattie Gonia to “play in this box.”
Patagonia noted that the lawsuit was filed in response to Wiley trying to trademark “Pattie Gonia.” They are seeking $1 in damages and court orders to prevent Wiley from continuing to use the name.
“While Patagonia seeks only nominal monetary damages, the harm Pattie Gonia has caused and will cause to the Patagonia brand is irreparable and cannot be remedied by money damages or other remedies short of an injunction,” the lawsuit says.
While Patagonia has not had any professional relationship with Wiley, he has worked with other major brands in the past. In 2022, the non-profit organization Audubon Society promoted a video of Pattie Gonia dressed as an elaborate bird while performing an interpretive dance to promote climate change awareness, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/audubon-society-teams-up-with-drag-queen-dressed-like-a-bird-for-climate-change-awareness">reported</a>.
Then in 2023, the outdoor sports gear brand The North Face <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-north-face-debuts-summer-of-pride-with-campy-drag-video-amid-ongoing-bud-light-target-backlash">debuted</a> an over-the-top “Summer of Pride” promotion on social media, which included Wiley performing as Pattie Gonia.

Pattie Gonia

Patagonia Sues Drag Queen ‘Pattie Gonia,’ Says He’s Caused ‘Irreparable Harm’ To Brand

Patagonia Sues Drag Queen 'Pattie Gonia,' Says He's Caused 'Irreparable Harm' To Brand

Business

copyright

Drag Queens

Menu