A California judge on Monday dismissed all charges against a radiologist accused of intentionally driving his family off a Northern California cliff in 2023 after he completed a court-ordered mental health diversion program.
<a href="https://abc7news.com/post/judge-drops-attempted-murder-charges-dharmesh-patel-accused-driving-family-off-cliff-devils-slide/19459898/">Dharmesh Patel</a>, 45, was charged with attempted murder after driving his Tesla off a 250-foot cliff along the Pacific Coast Highway near an area known as Devil’s Slide in Pacifica, about 14 miles south of San Francisco. His 41-year-old wife, 7-year-old daughter, and 4-year-old son were inside the vehicle when it dropped hundreds of feet. All four survived the January 2023 crash, which first responders described as an “absolute miracle.” 
The Tesla crashed into a rocky outcropping, flipped several times, and came to rest on its wheels, the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-california-san-francisco-04504cc68d9c753ee6095627b66af612">Associated Press</a> reported. Firefighters had to cut the family out of the wreckage. 
After surviving the crash, Patel&#8217;s wife, Bubna, told investigators she believed her husband &#8220;did it on purpose&#8221; and needed a &#8220;psych evaluation,&#8221; <a href="https://www.ktvu.com/news/dharmesh-patel-devils-slide-crash-charges-dismissed">according to local outlet KTVU.</a> She added that her husband suffered from depression. 
&#8220;He said he was going to drive off the cliff,&#8221; she said, according to KTVU. The Southern California-based family was reportedly in the Bay Area visiting relatives at the time of the crash. 
After his arrest, Patel told a psychiatrist he believed his children would be kidnapped and trafficked, according to the Associated Press. Patel pleaded not guilty, <a href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2.mbc.ca.gov%2FBreezePDL%2Fdocument.aspx%3Fpath%3D%255cDIDOCS%255c20251125%255cDMRAAAJD4%255c%26did%3DAAAJD251125225913022.DID&amp;data=05%7C02%7CORodriguez%40ap.org%7C7038575fa1494d9eb9c808dedc63870b%7Ce442e1abfd6b4ba3abf3b020eb50df37%7C1%7C0%7C639190517655511618%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=NM6adS8wkq5oHLQf8O9zZo2IfFMRY4wf6%2FuGvsg8fSE%3D&amp;reserved=0">surrendered</a> his California medical license, and remained in jail without bail until 2024.
He was ultimately released after a judge found him eligible for an outpatient mental health treatment program. He moved in with his parents in San Mateo County and was monitored with a GPS bracelet. 
On Monday, a San Mateo County judge dismissed the charges after Patel successfully completed the two-year mental health diversion program, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-driver-car-drove-off-cliff-1863d68448fe091a99817ebc4dc230cd">Associated Press.</a> 
“The judge was required by law to dismiss the charges,” San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-driver-car-drove-off-cliff-1863d68448fe091a99817ebc4dc230cd">outlet</a>, referring to a 2023 California bill that allowed Patel to qualify for the mental health program.
Patel’s wife later testified that she had forgiven him and did not want him to be prosecuted, according to the AP.
In court, San Mateo prosecutors opposed diversion for Patel, saying the former doctor &#8220;got the break of a lifetime,&#8221; <a href="https://abc7news.com/post/judge-drops-attempted-murder-charges-dharmesh-patel-accused-driving-family-off-cliff-devils-slide/19459898/">according to ABC7. </a>
Wagstaffe said he is working with lawmakers to prevent defendants charged with attempted murder from qualifying for mental health diversion.
“We’ll try again in the future,” he told the AP. “We’re not giving up.”

IMG_4846

Why Charges Were Dropped Against Doctor Who Drove Family Off Cliff

California

Crime

Mental Health

News

U.S.

Silhouette of a young woman with problems

The Mental Health Crisis Turned Tragedy That Goes Beyond American Girls

DW Opinion

Girls

Social Media

Suicide

Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) revealed Tuesday that the undisclosed medical condition that kept him away from Congress for nearly four months was depression, ending months of speculation about one of the House GOP&#8217;s most closely watched absences.
Returning to the House floor for the first time since early March, Kean disclosed that he was hospitalized after experiencing health concerns and was ultimately diagnosed with depression, a condition he described as far more debilitating than many people realize.
&#8220;Many people think it is feeling sad. It is so much more than that,&#8221; Kean told colleagues. &#8220;It is physical, it is emotional, and until you experience it yourself, it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be.&#8221;
The announcement comes after Kean missed more than 100 House votes and largely disappeared from public view, creating headaches for House Republican leadership as Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) attempted to navigate the chamber&#8217;s razor-thin majority.
Kean last cast a vote on March 5 before abruptly stepping away from Congress. His office initially described the situation only as a &#8220;personal medical issue,&#8221; repeatedly declining to elaborate while assuring constituents the congressman expected to make a full recovery.
Earlier this month, Kean&#8217;s political adviser, Harrison Neely, announced the congressman would return to Washington on June 30 and promised he would be &#8220;fully transparent&#8221; about his condition.
On Tuesday, Kean explained that he initially entered the hospital for medical testing before receiving his diagnosis. &#8220;I was given the diagnosis of depression,&#8221; he said. Kean said doctors advised him to remain hospitalized because it offered the quickest path to recovery. &#8220;I was hesitant,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I didn&#8217;t think I had time for it.&#8221;
The second-term Republican acknowledged that when he previously told constituents he expected to return within weeks, he believed that timeline was accurate. &#8220;But as the over 48 million of my fellow Americans being treated for this illness have come to discover, there is no timeline for healing,&#8221; Kean said. &#8220;Today I stand before you healthier, stronger and excited to return to the work that I love.&#8221; Kean characterized himself as &#8220;a private person by nature,&#8221; explaining why he chose not to disclose his diagnosis sooner.
He also encouraged others struggling with mental illness to seek treatment. &#8220;Asking for help is not a weakness,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It is a strength.&#8221; Despite revealing the reason for his prolonged absence, Kean left Capitol Hill immediately after delivering his remarks without answering reporters&#8217; questions, leaving several unresolved what initially prompted his hospitalization.
Speaker Johnson said he had repeatedly encouraged Kean to be more forthcoming with the public during his absence. &#8220;I encouraged him all along to be as transparent as possible,&#8221; Johnson told reporters. &#8220;I&#8217;m glad he finally has.&#8221; Johnson declined to criticize Kean further, saying the decision ultimately rested with the New Jersey congressman. &#8220;It&#8217;s his personal issue,&#8221; the speaker said.
Kean represents New Jersey&#8217;s highly competitive 7th Congressional District, one of the Democrats&#8217; top pickup opportunities heading into November. His absence became an issue in the race as Democrats questioned whether constituents were receiving adequate representation while Kean remained out of public view. Democratic nominee Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot, is expected to challenge Kean in what is projected to be one of the country&#8217;s most competitive House contests.
Before Tuesday&#8217;s announcement, President Donald Trump and House Republican leaders had continued backing Kean&#8217;s reelection campaign despite his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-rep-set-to-return-to-congress-after-he-went-mia-for-months">absence</a>. Trump endorsed Kean earlier this month, while Johnson repeatedly defended the congressman&#8217;s right to medical privacy and urged reporters to be patient.
Kean, the son of former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean Sr., missed more than 100 House votes during his absence, though his office maintained that he continued to perform constituent services and campaign activities remotely.
The congressman&#8217;s remarks drew support from some lawmakers who have publicly discussed their own struggles with mental illness. At the same time, critics argued that while Kean&#8217;s diagnosis deserved empathy, his constituents also deserved greater transparency during an absence that stretched nearly four months.
New York Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres, who has spoken openly about living with depression, wrote on <a href="https://x.com/RitchieTorres/status/2071993828534346043">X</a> that he had &#8220;deep sympathy for anyone struggling with mental illness,&#8221; but added that &#8220;public office carries a duty of transparency.&#8221;
&#8220;When a public official is absent for an extended period,&#8221; Torres wrote, &#8220;the public has a right to an honest explanation.&#8221;

NJ Rep. Kean Returns To Capitol Hill After Months-Long Absence

Congressman Gone MIA Reveals He Missed 3 Months Of Work Due To Depression

Congress

Depression

New Jersey

Politics

Tom Kean

US-NEWS-IDAHO-BATHROOM-LAW-PROTESTS-ID

The Zombie Study Indulging Mental Illness And Hiding The Truth About Transgender Kids

Gender Transition

MI x DW

Transgender

As a clinical psychologist in the progressive business environment of New York City, I’ve spent years listening to high-functioning professionals who feel trapped by unspoken rules about what they’re “allowed” to say — or even feel — about unfair treatment at work. One story from my practice has stayed with me because it mirrors what so many men (and others) are experiencing right now, while also revealing a deeper, often-overlooked cost of these policies. The vignette below is adapted from my book, “Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly” (Skyhorse, 2025).
Mark came to therapy because he was struggling with intimacy and commitment issues in his relationships with women. During our sessions, as we explored his patterns and past disappointments, he casually mentioned — with a sardonic laugh — that he’d been passed over for promotion at his hedge fund. A human resources colleague had confidentially explained that the company’s diversity mandate meant they needed to hire people who “don’t look like you” — a straight white man. Mark had initially repressed his disappointment, shrugged it off, and convinced himself it was “fine.” He didn’t immediately see any connection between that experience and his difficulties with women until we gently revisited the story. Only when he finally narrated the full experience aloud, journaled about it, and reconnected with the anger and anxiety he had buried did the link become clear. That honest expression not only helped him explore legal options and reclaim his sense of self-efficacy at work, but it also freed him to show up more authentically in his personal life — dropping the guarded persona that had kept him from forming deeper connections with women.
Mark’s story was never abstract to me. And today, it feels prophetic.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed a federal lawsuit against The New York Times, alleging that the paper discriminated against a longtime white male editor with extensive experience in real estate journalism. Despite meeting every qualification for the Deputy Real Estate Editor role — including the very expertise listed in the job posting — he was excluded from final interviews. The position went instead to an external multiracial female candidate with little to no real estate experience, the lawsuit alleges. According to the EEOC, the Times’ own race- and sex-based diversity goals directly influenced the decision.
This is exactly the kind of institutional pressure I describe in my book as one of the hidden dangers of self-censorship. When talented professionals like Mark (or this New York Times editor) are told, implicitly or explicitly, that their demographic profile disqualifies them from advancement, they face eroded self-efficacy, increased vulnerability to anxiety and depression, and the intellectual deprivation that comes from not being able to speak openly about what’s happening.
The New York Times case is far from isolated. Under EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency has actively encouraged white men experiencing race or sex discrimination to come forward, emphasizing that Title VII protects everyone, including supposedly privileged demographic groups. We’re seeing a wave of complaints and actions — investigations into companies like Nike, a $500,000 settlement with a Planned Parenthood affiliate over alleged discrimination against white employees, and more men finding the courage to document and challenge what they’ve quietly endured.
What these forced diversity programs often fail to acknowledge is the relational damage they inflict. By institutionalizing favoritism based on race, sex, or other demographics, they don’t just create individual distress and unfairness — they actively weaken relationships between the very groups they claim to want to place on equal footing. When high performers sense that advancement is no longer tied primarily to merit, suspicion and resentment naturally follow. Colleagues begin to wonder, “Was that promotion earned, or engineered?” Women and minorities may face quiet, valid doubts about whether their success is viewed as legitimate, while men like Mark carry unspoken grievances that erode trust and authenticity in both professional and personal interactions. The result is division, mistrust, and a subtle fracturing of the very social bonds these initiatives purport to strengthen.
In my practice and in the book, I explain why this matters far beyond politics or any single hiring decision. When we stifle honest conversation about fairness in promotions, hiring, and culture, we lose the cognitive gifts of language that help us organize chaotic thoughts, enhance problem-solving through open dialogue, build insight, and reduce anxiety by naming what’s real. Self-censorship doesn’t protect anyone — it breeds resentment, isolation, and the very groupthink that undermines healthy workplaces and relationships. It also weakens the authentic connections that are essential for emotional resilience across all lines of difference.
Mark’s breakthrough came when he stopped performing acceptance and started using the practical tools in Part Two of the book: narrating his experience, journaling, taking ownership of past self-censorship, and eventually speaking up. The healthy response to a sense of injustice is action. Taking appropriate legal steps — like filing an EEOC complaint — is not only justified but emotionally satisfying, helping restore self-efficacy and release buried resentment.
I wrote <a href="https://amzn.to/4eAOyb9">Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly</a>, because free speech isn’t just a constitutional principle; it’s a mental health imperative. Suppressing legitimate grievances about merit-based fairness doesn’t create equity — it creates exactly the psychological and cultural stagnation I see in my clients. Words are not violence — but pretending these dynamics don’t exist does cause real harm: to individuals, to organizations, and to the authentic connections that make work and life worthwhile.
If you’re a man (or anyone) who has been quietly passed over, I encourage you to do what I helped Mark do: name it, document it, and consider your options — whether that’s internal advocacy, legal consultation through the EEOC, or simply reclaiming your voice with the people you trust. The tools are in the book for a reason.
We deserve workplaces where competence speaks louder than checkboxes, and where we can talk honestly about how to get there — without sowing the very division these programs were meant to heal. That starts with being willing to say what’s true — even when it’s uncomfortable.
***
Dr. Chloe Carmichael is an IWF fellow emeritus, clinical psychologist, and author of “Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly” (Skyhorse, 2025).

Stress, migraine and motion blur with a business man in a meeting feeling frustrated, tired or overworked. Mental health, anxiety and headache with an exhausted male employee suffering from fatigue

DEI’s Hidden Cost: The Quiet Consequences Of A Flawed Policy

Workplace culture

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Could mental health awareness be making people psychologically sicker? That’s the thesis of a <a href="https://t.co/IWdKHYSvds">fascinating paper</a> by psychologists at the University of Toronto Dasha Sandra and Michael Inzlicht. There’s been a massive increase in both the number of people being diagnosed with a mental health condition and the number of people on psychiatric medications, while mental health awareness campaigns and school programs screening students for mental health disorders are ubiquitous. So why does it seem like our problems with mental illness aren’t getting better?
It may sound counterintuitive to suggest that increasing awareness and education about any condition could make that condition worse. After all, screening and awareness about illnesses are designed to help people who either don’t know that they have the illness or are suffering in silence. When it comes to things like high blood pressure or cancer, screening saves lives. 
When it comes to mental health, though, more and more evidence is showing that making people aware of the problem <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/20/mental-health-lessons-school-dont-work-mindfulness?CMP=share_btn_url">makes people worse, not better</a>. Therapists and psychiatrists are seeing patients come to their offices with self-diagnosed conditions that they picked up from TikTok. Parents and teachers report that kids are struggling more and more as they complain that their mental illnesses are impairing their daily lives. What’s happening here?
Sandra and Inzlicht argue that there are four key processes causing well-intentioned mental health awareness efforts to backfire: concept creep, nocebo effects, prevalence inflation, and illness self-labeling. Each one in and of itself nudges people toward developing or worsening mental illness, but all of them work together to decrease the threshold for considering something as a disorder, encourage people to consider normal feelings as pathological, and reinforce negative expectations.  Let’s break each one of them down.
1. Concept Creep
<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2027-23317-001.html">Concept creep</a> is when a definition expands over time to include more things or less intense versions of the thing it originally referred to. Trauma is a perfect example; over the past few decades, the official definition of trauma in diagnosing PTSD expanded from events that were well outside the range of normal human experience to anything life-threatening and then further to simply hearing about the traumatic event happening to a loved one. Unofficially, people nowadays have a tendency to use “trauma” to describe just about any bad thing they’ve experienced. When more and more people consider themselves victims of trauma, they’re all the more likely to feel powerless and unable to overcome the bad things they’ve experienced.
2. Nocebo Effects
You’ve heard of the placebo effect; when someone takes a pill, he&#8217;s more likely to feel better even if it doesn’t contain an actual drug. The <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17437199.2024.2394682#d1e328">nocebo effect</a> is the opposite: If patients are told that a pill can cause headache and nausea, they’re more likely to experience negative “side effects” even if the pill they took doesn’t contain any active ingredients. If someone watches a reel explaining eight symptoms of depression, someone who has two of those symptoms and thinks “I have depression” is at risk for developing more of those symptoms because she expects her experience to follow what she&#8217;s learned from social media.
3. Prevalence Inflation
Prevalence inflation has to do with classifying normal experiences of stress, worry, or sadness as symptoms of a disorder. Everyone has negative feelings from time to time, but people are easily confused by awareness campaigns suggesting that these feelings might be the tip of a psychiatric iceberg. Once someone is convinced that their feelings represent some kind of psychological pathology, it’s a downhill slide to reinterpreting everything in their life through the lens of “I have anxiety” or “I’m depressed.” The more people who consider themselves depressed or anxious, the more common the problem seems and the more people feel the need to describe their feelings in the most severe terms. 
4. Illness Self-Labeling
Developing the symptoms of a rare disorder after watching influencers talk about their diagnosis may be an extreme example, but it’s easy for people to get sicker when they <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026251338829">label themselves as mentally ill</a>. If someone expects that “being depressed” means feeling powerless and suicidal, they can easily slip into acting as though their powerlessness is the dominant feature of their illness. This, in turn, makes their lives worse because they are less likely to exercise their agency and make good choices for themselves.
This is discouraging, but there are a few things that we can do. First, schools should shut down broad-based mental health screening programs and nonspecific group therapies because these programs have mostly been shown to worsen mental health symptoms. It’s clear that asking students over and over if they are depressed, anxious, or traumatized makes them more likely to feel like the day-to-day ups and downs of life are symptoms of a psychological disorder.
Second, we can educate people about how self-diagnosis and nocebo effects can be harmful to their mental health. Inzlicht and Sandra did <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/inform-and-do-no-harm-nocebo-education-reduces-false-selfdiagnosis-caused-by-mental-health-awareness/74B66FDBFDD635A0951337FE9FC4CC9D">another study</a> with some of their colleagues showing that nocebo education was helpful in reducing false diagnoses of ADHD. Strange as it may sound, we need more awareness about the dangers of mental health awareness!
Finally, those of us who want to improve mental health should focus on encouraging behaviors and promoting messages that are good for everyone but especially those who are suffering from psychiatric illnesses. Exercise, adequate sleep, and vigorous in-person social interactions promote emotional well-being at any age or level of illness, and helping people feel as though they are capable of improving their lives is a key factor in improving their mental health.
Psychiatry and therapy can be lifesaving for people who are suffering from mental health disorders, but <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Resisting-Therapy-Culture-Dangers-Psychology/dp/1514012685/">therapy culture</a> is downright toxic when it’s applied across the board. Despite good intentions, spreading awareness and widespread screening for psychological problems can cause these problems or make them worse. As Inzlicht and Sandra note, with appropriate caution we can help people who are suffering from mental health disorders without accidentally creating more of them.
***
<a href="http://www.matthewandmaggie.org">Matthew Loftus</a> lives with his family in East Africa, where he teaches and practices family medicine at a mission hospital. His first book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Resisting-Therapy-Culture-Dangers-Psychology/dp/1514012685/">Resisting Therapy Culture</a>, will be published by InterVarsity Press on August 18.

concept, psychology, mental health, medical, therapy, counselling

Are We Creating Mental Illness? The Hidden Forces Turning Stress Into Sickness

Upstream

President Donald Trump on Saturday signed a sweeping executive order aimed at fast-tracking access to psychedelic-based treatments for veterans suffering from PTSD, depression, and other severe mental health conditions.
On paper, the order directs agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs to accelerate clinical trials, cut bureaucratic delays, and expand “right to try” access for patients who have exhausted traditional treatment options. But the real-world impact is far more immediate, and far more personal. For millions of Americans, this isn’t an abstract policy debate, it’s about whether treatments that show real promise are stuck in years of red tape while people continue to struggle, relapse, or fall through the cracks of a mental health system that often relies on trial-and-error prescriptions.
Trump framed the move as a long-overdue shift toward urgency.
“These treatments are currently in the advanced stages of clinical trials to ensure that they&#8217;re both safe and effective,” Trump said. “But usually with things like this, nothing ever happens … we’re changing that.”
The executive order builds on a growing body of research suggesting psychedelic therapies, particularly compounds like ibogaine, can deliver dramatic results where conventional treatments fail. Trump pointed to a Stanford study in which special operations veterans saw an 80 to 90 percent reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms within a month.
At the signing ceremony, one veteran put it more bluntly.
“This treatment saved my life,” he told the president. “Helped me get off opiates … sleep for the first time in over 10 years.”
“And you have no doubt?” Trump asked.
“Zero,&#8221; he answered.
“To me, that’s the best research of all,” Trump said.
More than 14 million Americans suffer from serious mental illness, according to the White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-is-accelerating-medical-treatments-for-serious-mental-illness/">fact sheet</a> accompanying the order, and for many, existing medications and therapies simply don’t work. Even when they do, they often come with significant side effects or require years of adjustments. Among veterans, the crisis is even more acute, with more than 6,000 suicides per year for over two decades, a statistic that has remained stubbornly high despite billions in federal spending.
The order attempts to break that cycle by not just funding research, but forcing the system to move faster. It directs the FDA to prioritize psychedelic drugs already designated as “breakthrough therapies,” a classification reserved for treatments that show substantial improvement over existing options. It also pushes regulators to shorten review timelines that can typically stretch close to a year, and in some cases, much longer.
At the same time, the administration is expanding access before full approval. By opening a clearer pathway under federal right-to-try laws, patients with treatment-resistant conditions may be able to access these therapies under medical supervision rather than waiting years for final regulatory clearance.
That shift could prove significant not just for veterans, but for civilians facing similar conditions; first responders, trauma survivors, and millions of Americans dealing with depression, addiction, and anxiety disorders.
Health agencies are also being pushed to coordinate more aggressively. The order mandates increased data sharing between federal departments, expanded clinical trial participation, and at least $50 million in federal support for state-level research efforts. States like Texas have already invested heavily in ibogaine research, and the federal government is now stepping in to match those efforts.
Even skeptics in the medical field say the evidence is becoming harder to ignore.
“One single administration can change behavior toward a therapeutic effect,” a researcher at the signing said. “We have a tool that could allow the body to heal itself, if we know how to properly use it.”
That’s the gamble behind the order: that accelerating access doesn’t just help veterans, but could reshape how the country approaches mental health treatment altogether, moving away from long-term symptom management and toward therapies that may offer more lasting change.
For everyday Americans, the implications are straightforward. If these treatments continue to show results, they won’t remain confined to niche trials; they could become part of mainstream medicine, available through doctors rather than years-long waitlists or costly alternatives abroad.
If these therapies work — and early data suggest they might — the question is no longer whether they should exist, but how quickly people can access them.
Trump’s answer, at least for now, is simple: faster.

The Wait Just Got Shorter For Veterans Seeking Breakthrough Mental Health Care

Donald Trump

Drugs

Health

Veterans

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Increased rates of sexlessness have been documented around the world, among all age cohorts, regardless of marital status. But what’s most astounding is that this trend is particularly pronounced among younger generations, including millennials (born from 1980 to 1994) and Gen Z (born from 1995 to 2012), with roughly one in three men and one in five women saying they haven’t had sex in the past year.
From research I’ve conducted, it seems the sex recession is the culmination of <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Sextinction/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Sextinction/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Igdoodn9vaNNolHcsa_QH">a number of factors</a>, including social media and dating apps, new cultural norms post-#MeToo, and technological advancements in romantic surrogates such as AI companions, sex robots, and platforms like OnlyFans, to name a few.
Although all ages risk falling prey to these artificial replacements for sex, members of Gen Z are particularly vulnerable because they grew up enmeshed in this technology before experiencing the real thing. While social conservatives may celebrate the recent celibacy of young singles, the reasons they are abstaining from sex should be concerning.
Interventions that have the capacity to modify our biology, mating psychology, and mental health are driving these trends. For example, two common types of pharmaceutical drugs — selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs, a class of antidepressants) and the birth control pill — are known to decrease libido as a side effect.
Although these interventions have the potential to aid many, we must ask what their influence has been on young people. Many begin their usage in childhood, and this has the potential to affect them profoundly.
<a href="https://www.harmonyhit.com/state-of-gen-z-mental-health/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.harmonyhit.com/state-of-gen-z-mental-health/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw03jrcZTkqiZaM6Y-hz6nY9">More than a third</a> of Gen Z report taking prescription medication for a mental health condition. If an individual is uncomfortable in social situations or when required to have face-to-face interactions, they will be less inclined to want to meet new people in the context of dating. Sexual intimacy requires being comfortable in your body, being present in your head, and being willing to put yourself in a position of possibly being judged or rejected by someone else.
Rumination, negative self-perception, and self-consciousness, which are hallmark symptoms of depression and anxiety, can additionally convince a person (erroneously) to prefer online avenues as a sexual outlet because they exist behind the safety of a screen.
So, it is a positive thing that young people are seeking help to improve their situation. If a person is not emotionally healthy, even if she does desire companionship, it will be challenging to vet a partner properly and find the right person for herself.
We know little, however, about the long-term effects of SSRIs on adolescents’ sexual development. This is concerning, considering SSRIs have been approved for use in children as young as <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/teen-depression/in-depth/antidepressants/art-20047502" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/teen-depression/in-depth/antidepressants/art-20047502&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0BjwRTOhps2BhfIzUxTVLd">6-years-old</a>, and <a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/psychotropic-medication-among-children-adolescents">nearly 4%</a> of children and adolescents aged 3 to 17 in the United States take them.
One recent <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40063219/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40063219/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3fo61QtqB1bYSBRUf-DMVU">study</a> using a rodent model showed that exposure to an SSRI was associated with changes to a part of the brain that is involved in emotion regulation and stress management.
There are also data emerging about a condition called post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, which describes sexual side effects from SSRIs (and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) that persist after a person has ceased taking the medication. This can include a loss of sexual desire and arousal, numbness in one’s sexual anatomy, and sexual dysfunction, including erectile dysfunction and difficulty reaching orgasm.
In some cases, individuals who began these medications during their <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/magazine/antidepressants-ssris-teen-sexual-side-effects.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/magazine/antidepressants-ssris-teen-sexual-side-effects.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2mHVmEHsQZ_rQlhXE0V7oQ">teenage years</a> report a blunting of emotions and an inability to feel crushes, foreclosing their desire in adulthood to be sexually active.
The birth control pill may be contributing to the use of SSRIs because taking the pill is associated with an increase in mood disorders like <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9218393/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9218393/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw12xICqKrlZ7A6G7dsyy_lA">depression</a>.
In the U.S., more than <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/contraceptive.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/contraceptive.htm&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2dRuVxMZQXIj14TPCRqGoh">one in 10 females</a> aged 15 to 49 are taking the pill. Many young girls will initially start for non-contraceptive reasons, such as regulating their menstrual cycle or alleviating associated cramps. Although these teenage girls may not be sexually active, their mating psychology is nevertheless being affected.
If an individual’s emotions and personality are biologically altered during their formative years, this can lead to long-lasting changes. Similar to SSRIs, little is known about how the pill affects adolescent brain development. It has been hypothesized that taking the pill may affect the process by which girls’ brains become feminized and the way they <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41245982/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41245982/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw07kPYy_n9jOS_n00oYWGDQ">process information</a>.
Because the pill halts ovulation and thereby a woman’s ability to become pregnant, it can dampen not only her interest in sex and interacting with men but also the sexual signals she sends out to the men she does encounter. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22245227/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22245227/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1KJjqtWiLrkYy_fz28dT0k">Men can tell</a> when a woman is ovulating, and if she is, they are more likely to pursue her.
This is not to blame women on the pill for the sexual inactivity plaguing young people, or to suggest that women should not take hormonal birth control. Instead, I would argue that women and girls deserve access to factual, unbiased information about the potential consequences associated with taking this medical technology, especially during critical developmental windows.
Those who eschew pharmaceuticals may still be unintentionally consuming these drugs through the water supply. Studies in fish have shown that synthetic estrogen in birth control pills can induce <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1874176/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1874176/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1uYMYFslD9xC6EzL-UeFcq">intersex conditions</a>, and early-life exposure to antidepressants, including SSRIs, can alter the programming of the <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9245512/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9245512/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1gnYContk5nRNOLeUEDHim">endocrine system</a>.
Although more research needs to be done to know whether the same disturbing effects apply to humans, I wonder to what extent this exposure is contributing to men’s declining testosterone levels. To bring things back full circle, low testosterone is commonly associated with depression and reduced sex drive.
Until we address the true causes of the mental health epidemic flourishing today, no amount of technological distraction will cure this issue or alleviate our sexlessness. The purported technological solutions for our social and sexual disconnection will only make us sicker.
Physical activity, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/experts-say-ditch-screens-before-bed-i-tried-these-six-tricks-instead">adequate sleep</a>, effective psychotherapy, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-tried-the-one-thing-big-tech-hopes-you-never-do">minimal use</a> of social media, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-you-may-be-in-a-toxic-relationship-with-your-leggings-and-what-to-do-about-it">endocrine-disrupting products</a>, and ultraprocessed foods are relevant places to start. Those of us who were blessed to grow up in an era predating smartphones and internet toxicity must support younger generations in finding a path back to normalcy.
***
Dr. Debra Soh is a sex neuroscientist and the author of “<a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Sextinction/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Sextinction/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Igdoodn9vaNNolHcsa_QH">Sextinction: The Decline of Sex and the Future of Intimacy</a>.” She was featured in Matt Walsh’s film “What is a Woman?” Visit her at <a href="https://www.drdebrasoh.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.drdebrasoh.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1776257052842000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0DRbi58bw_pNgY_OO8jaRx">DrDebraSoh.com</a>.

GettyImages-1793678138

The ‘Sex Recession’ Hitting Gen Z And What’s Quietly Killing Their Drive

Gen Z

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar. The basic concept of the Supreme Court ruling was that the state of Colorado was wrong to ban what is called conversion therapy. 
The 2019 Colorado law prohibited licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with patients under 18 years of age. They defined conversion therapy to include any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual&#8217;s sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any effort to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex.
That same law allowed counselors to provide “acceptance, support, and understanding for identity exploration and development,” and to assist persons “undergoing gender transition.”
In other words, the Colorado law said that if a kid comes to you with gender confusion, you are not allowed to say, “Boys are boys and girls are girls. Let&#8217;s help you be more comfortable in your body.”
If a boy says, “I&#8217;m a girl, “you have to affirm him. And if you don&#8217;t affirm him, you&#8217;re engaged in conversion therapy, and you can be prosecuted under the law in the state of Colorado.
If a kid comes to you and says, “Listen, I&#8217;m confused about my feelings of sexual attraction,” you&#8217;re not allowed to talk that through and say, “You know what? You&#8217;re 14 years old. A lot of people are confused about sexual attraction at 14 years old. You&#8217;re being hit by hormones that you&#8217;ve never experienced before, and you really don&#8217;t have any sort of clear line as to how to live your life, so let&#8217;s talk this thing through.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2400-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
That might be conversion therapy, because that could be construed as an attempt to change behavior, or eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction toward individuals of the same sex.
Instead, you&#8217;re supposed to just give that kid a Pride flag and tell them to get out there and march.
The plaintiff in this case, Kelly Chiles, holds a master&#8217;s degree in clinical mental health and a state counseling license in Colorado.
According to the Supreme Court, Chiles doesn&#8217;t start counseling with any predetermined goals. Instead, she sits down with clients, discusses their goals, and then formulates methods of counseling that will most benefit them, seeking throughout to respect their client&#8217;s fundamental right of self-determination, matters of sexuality and gender. The clients sometimes have different agendas, according to the Supreme Court; some are perfectly happy being gay or lesbian or transgender identifying, and others want to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, or change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their bodies.
Under Colorado law, those last people are just plumb out of luck. There&#8217;s nothing they can do. Because if you, for example, are a person who has a fetish and you don&#8217;t want to have that fetish anymore, according to Colorado law, you are not allowed as a therapist to try to change an individual&#8217;s behaviors regarding sexual or romantic attraction.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is not a strict textualist when it comes to these matters, wrote the opinion, and his basic opinion is pretty simple: The First Amendment allows therapists to say what they want to say during therapy. 
The only person who voted in dissent was, of course — wait for it — Ketanji Brown Jackson, the dumbest person on the Supreme Court.
This is saying a lot because Sonia Sotomayor is also on the Supreme Court.
Gorsuch wrote:
<blockquote>Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protections for the individual’s right to think and speak freely, this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “presumptively unconstitutional.” &#8230; We have recognized, as well, the even greater dangers associated with regulations that discriminate based on the speaker’s point of view.</blockquote>
In other words, the big problem here is that it&#8217;s not just that Colorado is putting regulations on speech; those regulations on speech are content-dependent. Colorado says you can say these things that we agree with, but you cannot say these things with which we disagree.
Gorsuch continued:
<blockquote>While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage. As a talk therapist, all Ms. Chiles does is speak with clients; she does not prescribe medication, use medical devices, or employ any physical methods. &#8230;
Consider, too, where the State and dissent’s logic leads. Not long ago, many medical experts and organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, considered homosexuality a mental disorder. On the view Colorado and the dissent advance, a law adopted during that era prohibiting counselors from engaging in the “substandard care” of affirming their clients’ homosexuality would have been subject to only rational-basis or intermediate-scrutiny review—and likely upheld. Today, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from “current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments” could be silenced with relative ease.</blockquote>
In other words, the court is saying, “If Colorado is suggesting that a state can determine what is the best course of care with regard to opinions on open matters of gender and sexuality, and then mandate that sort of stuff on subject matter basis, that is violation of free speech.”
The court goes out of its way to really slap Jackson. That last statement — “Today, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from ‘current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments’ could be silenced with relative ease,” is followed by this: “It is a consequence Colorado freely acknowledges. And one the dissent embraces.”
The opinion then cites Buck v. Bell. That is a scathing rebuttal to Jackson, because Buck v. Bell was the case that suggested that you had the ability under the law to sexually sterilize inmates of institutions, because that was the prevailing science of the time. Jackson has said that she liked that law.
Jackson said in the Chiles case that Colorado was simply “restricting a dangerous therapy modality,” adding that the court&#8217;s opinion was “unprincipled and unworkable.” She followed with a long statement about how wonderful the gender orientation of left-wing philosophy is.
Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s dissent is a reminder that if the Left had complete control over the mechanisms of government, it would simply regulate into law all of the most specious and idiotic views about science.
Without President Trump as president, we were super-close to that world, because President Trump is responsible for several selections on the Supreme Court. In this case, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor ruled with the majority. 
But if there were a bunch of Democratic appointees on the court, is that how this would have gone?

Blue Hour, United States Supreme Court Building, Washington DC, America

Supreme Court Ends Colorado’s War On Reality

Ben Shapiro

Colorado

Conversion Therapy

Opinion

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Teenagers

Gen Z gets to have its Lucky Strike moment, living amidst a social behavior so widely accepted that we hardly notice its near-complete ubiquitousness and carry on a seemingly innocuous yet encompassing habit without a second thought.
Today&#8217;s addictive product isn’t rolled in paper and sold at gas stations. It lives in our back pockets. And this week, for the first time, a jury suggested it might be just as dangerous — and just as liable.
Cigarettes were everywhere in America in the 1950s through the 1980s, and they were cool. You saw them in every movie and TV show and on every billboard. More than 40 percent of adults smoked. It was normalized, glamorous, and quietly killing people.  
 
Then came the lawsuits. States sued Big Tobacco for hiding what they knew about addiction. Internal documents proved companies had engineered dependence and targeted children. The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement forced the four biggest tobacco companies to pay states more than $206 billion, ban cartoon ads, and fund anti-smoking campaigns. The once romanticized and ubiquitous habit fell out of favor: Between 1998 and 2018, overall cigarette consumption fell more than 50 percent, and youth smoking dropped from 36 to 6 percent. 
 
Fast forward to the present, and a now-20-year-old woman named Kaley — identified in court papers as K.G.M. — filed a lawsuit against the corporate behemoths of our time, Meta and Google, when she was 17. She began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, sometimes scrolling for 16 hours a day. She argues that the apps&#8217; design, with endless scrolling, Pavlovian notifications, and calculated recommendation algorithms, prompted endless scrolling, causing her serious depression, anxiety, body image issues, and suicidal thoughts. 
 
Her lawyers&#8217; arguments echoed those against the big cigarette companies decades earlier. They argued product liability: the apps are defectively designed, the companies knew it, and they launched them anyway. The jury agreed, finding both Meta and Google negligent in how they designed their platforms and in failing to warn users. Kaley was awarded $6 million. One day earlier, a separate New Mexico jury hit Meta with a $375 million verdict for similar conduct.
These are the first jury verdicts to hold that social media’s business model itself can constitute a defective product. This is a watershed moment — not just for Kaley, but for the 2,400 similar lawsuits waiting in federal court and hundreds more in California. And New Mexico&#8217;s case has a second phase in May that could compel Meta to actually change its apps nationwide: stronger age verification, safer algorithms, meaningful oversight.
Meta knew what it was doing. Its own internal 2020 “Project Mercury” study found that deactivating Instagram reduced depression and anxiety in users. The company buried the findings and shut down the study.
But parents should resist the urge to treat this verdict as someone else finishing the job for them. 
 
Fifty-one percent of parents say they regularly check their children’s social media accounts. Many don’t know which apps their kids are using and abusing at all. Meanwhile, 60% of young people self-report feeling addicted to social media. 45% say they spend “too much time” on it, and 48% of teens say it has a mostly negative effect on people their age. These kids know something is wrong. They cannot fix it alone — the apps are engineered to make quitting feel impossible — and a courtroom in California cannot reach into a bedroom at midnight and take the phone off the nightstand. Parents have to do that. 

There are more lessons from the tobacco lawsuits to be heeded. The 1998 settlement was historic on paper, but it only changed behavior because prices rose, culture shifted, and parents got involved. States spend most of the settlement money on things other than prevention. Tobacco companies pivoted overseas and kept selling. A legal victory is only as durable as what follows it. 
Congress isn’t helping. The Kids Online Safety Act passed the Senate in 2024, stalled again in 2025, and remains stuck in the House. COPPA 2.0 passed the Senate unanimously — twice —and died both times. This is the fourth major legislative attempt since 2022. At some point, passing a law that bans social media for those under 19 has to be easier than explaining to constituents why you didn’t. 
 
There is also a real tension at play: the same companies now being sued are also building AI tools with genuine potential — in medicine, education, and mental health. Heavy-handed regulation designed to punish Meta could inadvertently slow innovation that actually helps kids. Any serious legislative solution has to thread that needle: protect children online without strangling the technology that may one day serve them. 
 
These verdicts are a genuine first step. The jury got it right: these products were defectively designed, and the companies that built them knew the harm they were causing. But the work doesn’t end in a courtroom. It continues at home, in the living room, when a parent decides to actually look at what their kid is doing online. It continues in Congress when lawmakers stop treating children’s mental health as a bargaining chip. The jury started something this week. Now everyone else has to finish it — we can all start by touching some grass.

Zuckerberg leaves Los Angeles courthouse after social media addiction trial defense

Is This The Beginning Of The End Of Big Social Media?

Culture

social media addiction

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute&#8217;s world-class team of scholars.
In this piece, Manhattan Institute Fellow Carolyn Gorman urges conservative education reformers to tackle school-based mental health programs. As Gorman explains, these initiatives have done little to improve students&#8217; mental health, but have contributed to falling outcomes — and cost taxpayers a pretty penny. — Tim Rice
***
American public education is at a crossroads.
Conservative education reformers have made real gains in recent years, on school choice — now universal in <a href="https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/school-choice-about-religious-liberty-not-just-better-test-scores">18 states</a> — <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/divided-court-sides-with-parents-in-dispute-over-california-policies-on-transgender-students/">parental rights</a>, <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/dismantle-department-of-education-trump-elon-musk">ideology</a> and <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/linda-mcmahon-my-vision-eliminating-department-education">bureaucracy</a>. As a result, we&#8217;re barreling towards what the American Enterprise Institute&#8217;s Robert Pondiscio <a href="https://www.aei.org/articles/the-last-days-of-public-school/">predicts</a> will be an “unprecedented crack-up” of public education.
If the old education model is to enter its last days — if, as Pondiscio says, “we’ve hit and passed ‘peak public school’&#8221; — conservative reformers need to set their sights on their next goal. And that goal should be fighting school-based mental health treatment — another woke, wasteful, ineffective idea that’s reduced accountability in schools.
These programs date back to the early 20th century, when progressive <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2408392/">reformers</a> urged schools to promote mental health, train teachers to recognize signs of distress, and locate health clinics in schools. If schools could identify problems early and deliver treatment widely, reformers promised, mental illnesses could be prevented; academic and behavioral problems <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lois-Flaherty/publication/226535892_History_of_School-Based_Mental_Health_Services_in_the_United_States/links/5703061708aedbac126f4241/History-of-School-Based-Mental-Health-Services-in-the-United-States.pdf">might improve</a>, too. 
In the ensuing century, periodic <a href="https://www.aei.org/articles/the-mental-health-crisis-that-wasnt/">proclamations</a> of <a href="https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/mentalhealthcommission/reports/FinalReport/FullReport-1.htm">looming</a> mental health <a href="https://manhattan.institute/article/school-based-mental-health-initiatives-challenges-and-considerations-for-policymakers#:~:text=In%20recent%20years%2C%20troubling%20increases%20in%20the%20prevalence%20of%20school%20violence%20and%20youth%20emotional%20distress%20have%20prompted%20a%20sense%20of%20urgency%20among%20policymakers%2C%20leading%20to%20the%20bipartisan%20action%20of%20committing%20billions%20of%20dollars%20annually%20in%20federal%20funding%20to%20bolster%20these%20programs.">crises</a>, tragedies like <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/193271">school shootings</a>, and expensive, bipartisan <a href="https://manhattan.institute/article/school-based-mental-health-initiatives-challenges-and-considerations-for-policymakers#:~:text=In%20education%20policy,being%20in%20schools.">spending efforts</a> have caused school mental health programs to explode. Today, nearly all public schools — <a href="https://ies.ed.gov/learn/press-release/over-half-public-schools-report-staffing-and-funding-limit-their-efforts-effectively-provide-mental#:~:text=All%20data%20released%20today%20can,/spp/results.asp.&amp;text=Nearly%20all%20public%20schools%20provide,%2D22%20%5B25%20percent%5D).">97 percent</a> — offer some form of <a href="https://www.kff.org/mental-health/the-landscape-of-school-based-mental-health-services/">mental health services</a>, like counseling and talk therapy, universal screening, wellness programming, referrals, or telehealth. The number of <a href="https://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-service/school-and-career-counselors.htm">school counselors</a> and <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes193034.htm">school psychologists</a> is more than four times the number of <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes193033.htm">clinical psychologists</a> and <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes291223.htm">psychiatrists</a> in a given community.
Over <a href="https://effectiveschoolsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Mental-Health-Funding_Trends_FINAL_10_3_24.pdf">$130 billion</a> in federal and state funding has gone to school mental health in the past decade or so alone. Medicaid pays <a href="https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/osers/docs/medicaid-funding-for-school-based-services-03-08-2024.pdf">$4 to 6 billion</a> annually for school districts to provide physical, mental, and behavioral health services, and states <a href="https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/sbs-guide-medicaid-services-administrative-claiming-ud.pdf#page=9">can pay</a> higher Medicaid rates for services in schools than in community healthcare settings.
None of this has produced results. Decades of evaluations show school-based <a href="https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/Gorman-Mental-Health-First-Aid.pdf">mental health awareness training</a>, <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2682225/">mental health screening</a>, universal and targeted <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31734106/">prevention programs</a>, and even <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/1054139X9500236L">school-based health centers</a> have not improved outcomes relative to the absence of these services.
<h3 dir="ltr"><a href="https://manhattan.institute/subscribe?utm_source=DailyWire&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=reihan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here for more Manhattan Institute content.</a></h3>
Aggregate youth mental health outcomes have declined as school-based mental health services have expanded. Between 2016 and 2023, the prevalence of adolescent-diagnosed mental or behavioral health conditions <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK608531/#:~:text=Between%202016%20and,problems%20was%20stable.">increased</a> by 35%. In 2016, 4.1% of youth <a href="https://www.childhealthdata.org/browse/survey/archive2021/results?q=4992&amp;r=1">reportedly</a> had ADD or ADHD and received treatment for it. That rate has grown nearly three times as high. At least some of this has been documented as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ritalin-generation-1473630453">overdiagnosis</a> <a href="https://manhattan.institute/article/school-based-mental-health-initiatives-challenges-and-considerations-for-policymakers#:~:text=Federal%20guidance%20in,in%20decades%20prior.">driven by schools</a>. The youngest students in a given grade are disproportionately flagged by teachers and school staff as potentially having ADHD, then get diagnosed and medicated.
But school-based mental health has not simply had a poor return on investment. It also seriously undermines accountability for all parties. By confusing roles and responsibilities across the education and mental health systems, these programs give everyone involved — parents and teachers, students and school administrators — an excuse to point the finger elsewhere when grades, behavior, or student safety falls short of goals.  
Schools are not meant to provide mental health services. They&#8217;re meant to educate kids. Some die-hard proponents will debate that, suggesting schools are well-positioned to address mental health because it&#8217;s where kids spend most of their time, but that&#8217;s a weak argument: adults spend most of their time at work, but no one expects offices to offer psychotherapy or prescription refills.
Just as workplaces are meant for working, class time is meant for learning. Yet students are <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/schoolcounseling/comments/18cmp90/students_are_constantly_being_pulled_out_of_my/">routinely</a> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/1gdsoa1/behavioral_health_pulling_students_out_of_class/">pulled</a> from instruction for counseling or “emotional support.” When you consider that many school therapists think they can boost students&#8217; mental health by talking about <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pits.22606">racism</a> and <a href="https://www.portlandmh.com/decolonizing-mental-healthcare-and-mental-health-leadership-a-reflection-on-the-work-of-pavna-k-sodhi-edd/#:~:text=Colonialism%20has%20left,and%20social%20marginalization.">colonialist oppression,</a> it&#8217;s no wonder these efforts are failing while reading and math scores <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/09/09/nx-s1-5526918/nations-report-card-scores-reading-math-science-education-cuts">plummet.</a>
The best way for schools to help students&#8217; mental health is to simply be schools and be safe. Education has protective effects against poor mental health. ​Disorderly classrooms and violent hallways cause distress. Schools should clearly communicate and fairly enforce school discipline policies so that students know what behavior is expected and what happens when expectations aren&#8217;t met. Disruptive or violent students then learn consequences, and other students who&#8217;d otherwise be harmed know they&#8217;re protected.
When public schools aren’t doing what works, we know better than ever that there are alternatives to simply doubling down. 
***
Carolyn D. Gorman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Sad teenage boy sitting by male counselor discussing in school office

It’s Time For Schools To Get Out Of The Mental Health Business

Education

Medicaid

Private Schools

Public Schools

Germany&#8217;s ruling conservatives on Saturday passed a motion to ban social media use for under 14s and introduce more stringent digital verification checks for teenagers, building momentum for such limits in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
At a party conference in the city of Stuttgart, Chancellor Friedrich Merz&#8217;s Christian Democratic Union also called for fines for online platforms that failed to enforce such limits, and European Union-wide harmonisation of age standards.
A growing number of countries, including Spain, Greece, France and Britain, are looking at similar social media bans or restrictions on accessing platforms like TikTok or Instagram.
It follows the example of Australia, which last year became the first country to force platforms to cut off access for children.
European nations are more broadly ratcheting up pressure on social media companies, risking a backlash from the United States. President Donald Trump has threatened tariffs and sanctions if EU countries impose new tech taxes or online regulations that hit U.S. firms.
&#8220;We call on the federal government to introduce a legal age limit of 14 for the use of social networks and to address the special need for protection in the digital sphere up to the age of 16,&#8221; said the motion that passed on Saturday.
Merz&#8217;s coalition partners the Social Democrats have also backed social media curbs for children. Pressure from both parties in the coalition makes it increasingly likely that the federal government will push for restrictions.
However, under Germany&#8217;s federal system, media regulation is a state‑level responsibility and states must negotiate with each other to agree consistent nationwide rules.
The ban could affect children like those at the Cardinal Frings Gymnasium in the city of Bonn, several of whom a day earlier were scrolling on their phones in the school grounds.
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s fair, but I think it should be up to the parents to decide whether to forbid it, not the state,&#8221; said 13-year-old Moritz, who says he only watches YouTube.
&#8220;For children under 12 it should be forbidden, but from age 12 onwards I think children can already distinguish between what is fake news and what is not.&#8221;
His classmate Emma, 13, almost exclusively uses Snapchat, but has a time limit on her phone.
A ban would be &#8220;kind of unusual, because you get used to sending your snap in the morning before school, or what my friends do, like just scrolling through Instagram or TikTok for a bit,&#8221; she said.
Ella, 12, scrolls through social media several times a day.
&#8220;So I have TikTok and Instagram myself, but I understand that it&#8217;s all addictive, and the more you scroll, the more you want to see.&#8221;
Teacher Till Franke said that for many of the children, &#8220;it would be a shock at first, because of this daily use of social media.&#8221;
But eventually, the students would get used to it, he said, &#8220;because they would find other niches where they could communicate with each other.&#8221;
(Andreas Rinke, Stephane Nitschke and Petra Wischgoll; Writing by Matthias Williams; Editing by Jan Harvey)

Menu