For years, the legacy media has uncritically pointed to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as an authoritative source on extremism, frequently relying on its designations of &#8220;hate lists&#8221; in coverage of political and cultural issues, going so far as including Christian groups alongside neo-Nazi organizations and the KKK.
On Tuesday, however, the Justice Department accused the SPLC of secretly using donor money to pay leaders within white supremacist groups. The SPLC, which labels organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group, was charged with multiple financial crimes, including money laundering and bank fraud. 
Prosecutors say the SPLC directed more than $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to such individuals while obscuring the transactions through accounts tied to &#8220;a series of fictitious entities.&#8221;
The charges come years after legacy media outlets have repeatedly cited the SPLC in reporting on conservative organizations and activists. 
The New York Times, for example, frequently refers to SPLC experts in articles on conservative figures and movements, including the late Charlie Kirk, whose Turning Point USA was labeled a “hate group.” In an article published on the day of Kirk’s assassination, the Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/us/politics/trump-charlie-kirk-ally.html?searchResultPosition=12">wrote</a> that his “rhetoric was long cast as racist, xenophobic and extreme by groups that study hate speech, including the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
The paper&#8217;s obituary of conservative activist David Horowitz also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/us/politics/david-horowitz-dead.html?searchResultPosition=28">quoted</a> the SPLC, which labeled him “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.”
Other outlets have similarly relied on SPLC reports and designations. When the conservative grassroots group Moms for Liberty was added to the list in 2023, NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/06/07/1180486760/splc-moms-for-liberty-extremist-group">reported </a>that the SPLC compared the parental rights group to “pro-segregationist parent groups.” CBS News, in its coverage, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/gov-desantis-appoints-moms-for-liberty-co-founder-to-state-commission-on-ethics/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h">pointed</a> to the SPLC&#8217;s claims that the group had a history of &#8220;harassing community members, advancing anti-LGBTQ+ misinformation and fighting to scrub diverse and inclusive material from lesson plans.&#8221;
The SPLC&#8217;s designation of groups opposed to transgender ideology on kids or that hold to traditional Christian beliefs has received much coverage over the years.
One article from NBC <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/groups-opposed-gay-rights-rake-millions-states-debate-anti-lgbtq-bills-rcna21016">cited</a> the SPLC to identify groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and the American College of Pediatricians as the core of the “anti-gay movement.&#8221; Similarly, the Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/10/09/colorado-flag-program/">turned</a> to the SPLC to label the group Gays Against Groomers as “an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group.”
Groups concerned about Sharia law have also faced criticism from the SPLC. An article from NBC <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/smart-facts/what-shariah-law-n859981">pointed</a> to the SPLC as a source in a report about momentum to ban Sharia law in the United States. It noted that one anti-Sharia group had been labeled a hate group by the SPLC. 
The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/22/white-nationalist-hate-extremist-groups">framed</a> the SPLC&#8217;s 2024 hate list as driven by people critical of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 
Reporting in 2017 on the annual hate group list, CNN ran a headline titled “Here are all the active hate groups where you live,” providing a “hate map” that included groups that held traditional Christian beliefs. They later changed that headline to “The Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups” after <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/302442/cnn-modifies-story-on-the-southern-poverty-law-centers-bogus-list-of-hate-groups-adds-editors-note/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">complaints</a> from conservatives.

The New York Times Co. Post An 82 Percent Decline In 2nd Quarter Profi

Legacy Media Relied On SPLC’s Hate Rankings To Bash Conservatives

Department of Justice

Legacy Media

New York Times

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

President Donald Trump and a number in his administration have suggested that Democrats and media were actively rooting for the United States to lose the war with Iran — and one New York Times columnist gave a striking example of that during a Saturday interview on CNN.
Foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman admitted that he felt torn over fully backing the United States in the ongoing Operation Epic Fury, saying that he wanted the Iranian regime to fall but that he wasn&#8217;t sure it was worth the cost of elevating President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Friedman told CNN host Michael Smerconish that he was all for the end of the Iranian regime, but that it was the likelihood the credit — and with that credit, political capital — would go to Trump and Netanyahu that gave him pause.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Don’t want Iran to lose if it means Trump wins. <a href="https://twitter.com/tomfriedman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TomFriedman</a> of <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NYTimes</a> really wants “to see Iran defeated militarily because this regime is a terrible regime for its people and the region,” but on CNN’s <a href="https://twitter.com/smerconish?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Smerconish</a> he fretted “the problem is I really don’t want to see Bibi… <a href="https://t.co/rgPngGXkGc">pic.twitter.com/rgPngGXkGc</a>
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentHBaker/status/2043048290523005341?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I find myself, Michael, in a situation where I really want to see Iran defeated militarily because this regime is a terrible regime for the people and the region,&#8221; he explained, saying that the best thing for the Iranian people — and for the region across the board — would be a regime change that resulted in leadership that allowed the people to flourish and thrive.
&#8220;I&#8217;m all for that. The problem is I really don’t want to see Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump politically strengthened by this war because they are two awful human beings,&#8221; Friedman continued. &#8220;They are both engaged in anti-democratic projects in their own countries. They’re both alleged crooks. They are terrible, terrible people doing terrible things to America’s standing in the world and Israel’s standing in the world.&#8221;
&#8220;And so I really find myself torn,&#8221; Friedman concluded, saying that he was trying to balance his support for a new regime in Iran against his fears that Trump or Netanyahu might get a share of the credit for helping to  bring that about.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump

NYT Journo Admits He Was ‘Torn’ On Rooting For U.S. In Iran War

NYT Journo Admits He Was 'Torn' On Rooting For U.S. In Iran War

Benjamin Netanyahu

Donald Trump

Iran

Israel

Media

Politics

United States

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars.
***
Earlier this week, the New York Times editorial board <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/31/opinion/trump-jan-6-pardons-crimes-recidivism.html">declared</a> with great alarm that “The People Trump Pardoned Are on a Crime Spree.” President Donald Trump has issued many pardons and grants of clemency, as have his predecessors. The worst of these decisions, says the board, was Trump’s grant of “clemency on the first day of his second term to everyone who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.” That clemency was extended to approximately 1,500 participants in the infamous riot universally known by the date on which it occurred: January 6. Whether it was wise to issue a mass clemency to the rioters is a debatable proposition, but whether those rioters have since gone on a crime spree is an empirical question with a clear answer: Not even close.
The Times’ editorial tells readers that the results of the clemency “have been disastrous.” Big, if true! But the claim doesn’t hold up under even modest scrutiny. Here is what the board considers damning evidence: “At least 12 of the pardoned rioters have since been charged with other serious crimes, including child molestation, assault, harassment, murder plots and charges related to a vicious dog attack.”
Twelve, you say!?
“Disastrous” is about as dishonest a characterization for a recidivism rate of less than 1% as one can imagine. For context, national data show that more than 80% of released state prisoners — most of whom are released (typically after less than two years) onto parole after serving an average of about 44% of their maximum sentence, despite having around 10 prior arrests and five prior convictions — in America are rearrested for a new crime. On average, state prison releasees will generate five new rearrests over a 10-year period. Now, who would bet on the Times running an editorial decrying the practice of early parole, or calling for longer sentences? I certainly wouldn’t.
In fact, the same editorial board has a long history of dedicating page space to those pushing a decades-long effort to decarcerate and de-police. Over the years, the Times has said very little about the recidivism issue, but has had plenty to say in supporting efforts to be more lenient with offenders and tougher on police. That long record of both implicit and explicit support for criminal justice and police reforms that enabled a significant amount of reoffending — exactly the kind the Times now criticizes — makes this week’s editorial impossible to take seriously, especially the part calling for an electoral referendum on public safety.
Where were those calls when Democrats across the country were defunding their local police departments, pushing to release more and more repeat criminal offenders, and breathlessly celebrating prosecutors who ran on diverting as many criminal offenders as they felt they could politically get away with releasing?
The question is, of course, rhetorical. No one actually believes that the New York Times’s editorial board has suddenly connected with its inner carceralist. The editorial is transparently cynical and flagrantly hypocritical.
Republicans have traditionally held an advantage over Democrats in public opinion regarding which party is more effective on public safety. President Trump has made “law and order” a central theme of his presidency. Less than two weeks ago, he presided over a roundtable discussion on crime in Memphis, TN, where his administration deployed a U.S. Marshals-led task force comprising federal law enforcement agencies, local police, and the National Guard. The administration has been <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/03/president-trumps-memphis-safe-task-force-delivers-crushing-blow-to-crime/">enthusiastically touting</a> the success of the task force, to which it has attributed a steep decline in crime in what has long been one of America’s most dangerous cities.
Facilitating a 1,500-person crime spree would constitute a major political liability for any president — but it would be an especially bad look for this president. But the New York Times is grasping at straws here, and if it wants the public to take its newfound concern for the problem of repeat offending seriously, it should consider speaking up about any one of the countless examples of that problem plaguing Democrat-run cities across America.
***
Rafael A. Mangual is the Nick Ohnell fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a contributing editor of City Journal, and author of the 2022 book, Criminal (In)Justice.

Sign at the entrance to the New York Times Headquarters in

The New York Times Finally Discovers That Criminals Commit Crime

Crime stats

Criminal Justice

January 6

public safety

dystopian

This Insane Moment Belongs In A Dystopian Novel

George Orwell

illegal immigrants

Matt Walsh

New York City

Opinion

Radical Islam

You’re not ready to become a mother.
I wasn’t &#8220;ready&#8221; when I became one at 29. I definitely wasn’t ready to be married at 22, either. Happily, I did it all anyway. And then I watched as I steadily grew into these roles, finding my footing with a little grace, a lot of missteps, and more joy than I would’ve ever expected.
For this, I’m probably an anomaly — and definitely not a good feminist, according to The New York Times, which on Friday published its latest <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3hYnYfwr9CW_joLMOUB1GT">article</a> about the precipitous decline in the U.S. birthrate. The framing was predictable: this is a good thing, insisted the gaggle of childless twenty-something women interviewed for the piece, because it means women are finally waiting until they’re &#8220;ready&#8221; to have children.
The most obvious first rebuttal to this argument are the statistics on marriage, motherhood, and happiness. According to the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), the <a href="https://www.compactmag.com/article/get-married-young/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.compactmag.com/article/get-married-young/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3-NbsFdVUogNa1Ku-mQhlO">happiest</a> young women in America are married moms, and it’s not close.
And the longer women wait to marry and have children, the less likely they’ll be able to reach those milestones — socially and biologically. Recent IFS <a href="https://ifstudies.org/insights?id=3886" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ifstudies.org/insights?id%3D3886&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0TJTJPhmOurlAEs7kT_KPJ">research</a> indicates that women’s odds of having children fall dramatically after they turn 30.
But the deeper issue with framing the debate over falling birthrates as a feminist win is the suggestion that anyone is ever &#8220;ready&#8221; to become a mother. By today’s cultural standard — what Brad Wilcox has called the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFzU4ND77tA" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DNFzU4ND77tA&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1FLr-6BB0wE7G5jU5CLi1-">Midas Mindset</a>” — the term &#8220;ready&#8221; usually has capitalist connotations. It’s defined by having a certain income, reaching a certain level of professional success, or having racked up enough life experiences, like traveling and dating around before settling down.
Indeed, the women <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3hYnYfwr9CW_joLMOUB1GT">interviewed</a> by the Times — the young marketing student who regrets having to care for her siblings while her mom hustled to make ends meet; the recent grad who wants to build her career first; and the gym employee who “enjoys the [childless] peace” with her husband — are all under the impression that being ready for kids is primarily a logistical and financial proposition.
But if this standard were real, we should expect there to come a moment in most women’s lives when they’ve reached some or all of these benchmarks, prompting them to wake up and suddenly find they’re ready to become mothers.
But that’s not what’s happening. Because that’s not how any of this works.
The women featured in the Times seem to believe that becoming a mother is something they can accurately imagine ahead of time. They believe it’s an endeavor that will someday fit into pictures of their lives they’ve already painted. The problem is that motherhood doesn’t lend itself to that kind of logic. There is no analog to having children by which women (or men, for that matter) can ever really make an informed decision not to do it. That would be like saying, “I’ve looked at this from every possible angle, and I’ve decided not to live on Mars.” To say such a thing would be to have no actual idea what we’re choosing or not choosing.
What many of the women interviewed by the Times don’t seem to understand is that to become a mom is to fundamentally change. A woman in her early twenties can look at the prospect of motherhood as if it were simply another life choice. She might think “maybe I’ll move to another city,” or “maybe I’ll break up with my boyfriend,” and she can pretty fairly imagine what those experiences would be like, because she’d still be herself when or if they happened. But to contemplate motherhood as the same sort of question is a category error. Because when she becomes a mom, she will change so fundamentally that she, frankly, has no business making decisions today on behalf of that stranger.
That probably explains why childless women who try to defend their decision tend to overestimate the hard parts of motherhood and wildly underestimate the wonderful parts. Rose Paz, a young college student who spoke to the Times, said she doesn’t want to have kids right now because it would be a financial struggle, and she remembers the painful experience of watching her own parents stress out over money.
I can empathize with that fear, and it’s true that below poverty, motherhood can be a daily crisis. But if Ms. Paz is imagining some future point in her life in which she won’t feel stressed about money — that is, I’m sorry to say, a fundamental misunderstanding of both stress and money. Life just doesn’t work that way, and motherhood has nothing to do with it.
Another woman, a social demographer, told the Times that the falling birthrate is a “success story” because women are finally making sure they have their &#8220;lives in order&#8221; before having kids. &#8220;We spent decades shaming women for having kids under the wrong circumstances, for not having their ducks in a row… now they are holding up their end of the bargain,” she said.
Certainly, no woman should ever be shamed for having a child; much less a woman whose deadbeat partner has chosen to abandon her to single motherhood. But the social stigma on teen and single motherhood was never really about women having kids when they were poor; it was about women having kids when they weren’t married. These supposedly empowered women claiming to have taken back control of their own lives aren’t talking about making sure a man commits to them before having babies; they’re talking about making enough money.
Again, that’s not the right perspective. The happiest women in America are married moms. Past a certain level of basic material security, the hardships of parenthood aren’t really mitigated by more money, because they’re much deeper and much more existential than the merely financial. They are mitigated by marriage, though. And that’s because, just as it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, it also takes a man and a woman to raise a baby.
It turns out, the best parts of marriage and motherhood have nothing to do with money, either. In my experience, they are surprising and unscripted. The best parts are finding your babies in bed, reading under the covers with a flashlight. It’s when they say “ex-shepally” when they mean “especially.” It’s watching their hair grow wild and curly. It’s catching them being kind to a young stranger. It’s seeing yourself care more about them than your own comfort, when you hadn’t really known that was possible.
I’m almost 40 now, with two young daughters and a marriage going on 17 years. I can’t imagine a deeper source of both vulnerability and joy than this family of mine. I can reasonably imagine what life would have been like if I hadn’t gotten married young. I remember what it was like to travel alone, to answer to no one but myself, to sleep in on Saturdays, and to pee in solitude.
Women who haven’t married or had children, however, don’t have the same insight into their own what-ifs. They may really believe that not having children during their healthiest childbearing years is the path toward their deepest happiness. But they don’t know it, and they’re almost certainly wrong. From a Christian perspective, I believe this is why God made childbearing something totally outside our control.
The hard things in life are usually the very best things, but most of us don’t have the strength, on our own, to choose the hard things. Young women should get married and have babies anyway. They’ll see — I mean this literally — exactly what I mean.
Maria Baer is a contributing writer at the Institute for Family Studies and co-host of the Breakpoint podcast with The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.
<div>
<section class="css-88lhuq">
<div id="post-body-text" class="css-o2tmhu">
<div class="e1lu91wr0 css-5a7pfj" data-narration-container="true">
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>

Mother of Girls

No One’s Ready To Be A Mom

babies

Motherhood

Parenting

The New York Times and its subsidiary, The Athletic, have once again demonstrated their undeniable slant toward Communist China.
Following the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano-Cortina, the outlet&#8217;s coverage of American-born skier Eileen Gu and the gold-medal-winning U.S. Men’s Hockey team reveals a disturbing double standard: fawning praise for a &#8220;cosmopolitan&#8221; athlete representing an authoritarian regime, contrasted with cynical skepticism toward actual American patriots.
The Athletic wasted no time elevating Gu, the San Francisco-born athlete who chose the Chinese flag over the Stars and Stripes. Describing her as a &#8220;scientist, politician, skier, model, and student,&#8221; the outlet compared her to a &#8220;magician&#8221; whose mastery &#8220;dazzles&#8221; the audience. Yet, when it came to the U.S. Men’s Hockey team — who captured the hearts of the nation with a gritty gold-medal run — the tone shifted to a lecture. The outlet warned that while it’s &#8220;nice to be feted as a winner,&#8221; athletes must realize that such celebrations are &#8220;easily repurposed into political capital.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
How the New York Times covers a traitor winning medals for our greatest adversary 
vs. 
How the New York Times covers our boys winning medals for the glory of the U.S. 
Just appalling beyond belief. <a href="https://t.co/AjTSGjROvV">pic.twitter.com/AjTSGjROvV</a>
&mdash; Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) <a href="https://twitter.com/bungarsargon/status/2026440704436604936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 24, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The message from the media elite is clear: National loyalty is a &#8220;crude&#8221; relic of the past, while &#8220;world citizenship&#8221;—especially when funded by the CCP — is the ultimate modern virtue.
This contrast has reignited a fierce national debate. National Review senior editor Charles C. W. Cooke didn&#8217;t mince words, <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cooke-what-eileen-gu-is-doing-is-adjacent-to-treason/">labeling</a> Gu’s decision as &#8220;adjacent to treason.&#8221; Cooke noted that if an American had defected to the Soviet Union for Olympic glory in the 1970s, the &#8220;grotesque&#8221; nature of the move would have been obvious. &#8220;She chose to represent a communist dictatorship over the United States,&#8221; Cooke pointed out. &#8220;That is the wrong call.&#8221;
National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/02/jack-hughes-or-eileen-gu/">furthered</a> this critique, contrasting the &#8220;bloody-mouthed&#8221; hockey players, like star Jack Hughes, with Gu’s brand-managed persona. While the hockey team played for their country and the memory of their late teammate Johnny Gaudreau, Gu represents a &#8220;cosmopolitan ideal&#8221; that floats above nationhood.
&#8220;Is loyalty to country a matter of choice, or an unalterable commitment?&#8221; Lowry asked, highlighting the divide between those who feel fundamental gratitude toward America and those who maintain a &#8220;critical distance.&#8221;
The controversy extends far beyond the slopes. Critics like Bill Maher have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-maher-shreds-lebron-james-john-cena-eileen-gu-stop-kowtowing-to-china">slammed</a> the trend of American icons — from LeBron James to John Cena — &#8220;kowtowing&#8221; to Beijing to protect their bottom lines. Maher pointed out the hypocrisy of athletes and celebrities who ignore China’s &#8220;authoritarian surveillance state&#8221; and the genocide of the Uyghurs while lecturing Americans on social justice at home.
As the 2026 Games conclude, the legacy of these Olympics isn&#8217;t just about medals; it’s about the widening chasm between an elite media class that sneers at patriotism and a public that still believes in the red, white, and blue.

MixCollage-25-Feb-2026-10-33-AM-144

New York Times Glorifies China’s Communist Darling, Rails Against American Hockey Heroes

New York Times Cheers China Communist Darling, Lectures American Heroes

Eileen Gu

US Hockey Team

Longtime Democratic strategist Dan Turrentine laid into Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Tuesday, saying that she was undermining her own reputation in her efforts to pivot away from gaffes at the weekend&#8217;s Munich Security Conference.
Turrentine explained on &#8220;The Huddle&#8221; that Ocasio-Cortez had built an image of herself as social-media-savvy and adept at taking her message directly to the people, so it did not look good when she turned to The New York Times for a bailout.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨NEW: <a href="https://twitter.com/danturrentine?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@danturrentine</a> on AOC whining to NYT over scrutiny of her overseas gaffes🤣
&#8220;It’s now getting to the point where the cover-up is worse than the initial crime. It&#8217;s PATHETIC &amp; EMBARRASSING! This now has more &amp; more people LAUGHING AT HER within the party.&#8221;<a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DailyCaller</a> <a href="https://t.co/TqqRu9IXZr">pic.twitter.com/TqqRu9IXZr</a>
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/2023798540179587149?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;It was a horrible idea. It’s now getting to the point where the kind of cover-up is worse than the initial crime,&#8221; Turrentine said. &#8220;Start with who she — she called the New York Times, right? We talked about how her brand is social media savvy. She’s young, she constantly is online, kind of giving and taking, and just in the game.&#8221;
&#8220;And next to [California Democratic Governor] Gavin Newsom, it’s who people said gets this modern world better than anyone else,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;To argue that basically it’s unfair that people are taking clips and sending them around in short snippets — duh! It&#8217;s pathetic and embarrassing for her to make this kind of whining argument that — when your calling card is that you&#8217;re kind of the party queen of social media.&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t understand what she was doing,&#8221; he added.
Ocasio-Cortez delivered a full weekend&#8217;s worth of gifts to her conservative critics, from a nearly incoherent response to a question about whether American troops should ever defend Taiwan to her objectively false claim that Venezuela was below the equator. She also raised eyebrows when she attempted to engage Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a battle of historical trivia — a battle in which she was unsuccessful.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
AOC mocks Marco Rubio for saying cowboys can be traced back to Spain.
Fun immutable fact: cowboys can be traced back to Spain. <a href="https://t.co/WvQXGVI2mr">pic.twitter.com/WvQXGVI2mr</a>
— Brittany Hughes (@RealBrittHughes) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealBrittHughes/status/2023199816910516344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But Rubio was, in fact, correct in his assertions. &#8220;American&#8221; cowboys were modeled after the vaqueros — horse-mounted livestock herders from Spain&#8217;s Iberian peninsula — after Christopher Columbus brought Iberian horses to the New World in 1493. Spanish explorers and conquistadors also brought horses with them; some were traded to Native Americans, and others escaped and ran free. By 1525, horses were being bred in Mexico — but they were not, as Ocasio-Cortez suggested, native to the Americas.
When clips of her missteps began making the rounds on social media, she <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/aoc-mocked-for-global-stage-disaster-then-phones-a-friend">responded</a> by running to The New York Times for help.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

‘Pathetic And Embarrassing’: Dem Strategist Trashes AOC’s Attempt To Clean Up After Munich Gaffes

'Pathetic And Embarrassing': Dem Strategist Trashes AOC's Attempt To Clean Up After Munich Gaffes

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Congress

Munich

Social Media

Imagine it’s Valentine’s Day at Silicon Valley Middle School. The cafeteria is covered in construction-paper hearts. Everyone pretends not to care — while caring very much. And the most popular kids — the ones who decide who’s cool, who eats lunch alone, and who gets stuffed into lockers — are quietly deciding who deserves a Valentine and who gets the dreaded, “Sorry, we’re just friends.”
Now swap out the middle schoolers for Apple News, Google News, Microsoft’s MSN, and Yahoo News, and you have a pretty good picture of today’s media ecosystem.
Instead of candy grams, these platforms hand out something far more valuable: visibility, traffic, and perceived legitimacy. Algorithms play matchmaker. Editorial choices determine who gets asked to the dance, who goes stag, and who doesn’t even get through the door.
The pattern is hard to ignore.
Research from the Media Research Center examining the “<a href="https://newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/heather-moon/2026/02/13/it-took-apple-news-100-days-publish-right-leaning-article">Big 4 News Apps</a>” found that left-leaning outlets dominate coverage, while right-leaning outlets are routinely sidelined or completely buried.
Start with Google News, the alpha dog at the lunch table. Google appears especially fond of The New York Times — not a casual acquaintance, but the kind of devotion that fills a notebook margin with hearts. Between Halloween and Valentine’s Day, Google featured about twice as many New York Times stories (215) as its next most-featured outlets, CNN (122) and the BBC (105). Because Google’s news feed appears by default on millions of Android and Samsung devices, that preference carries enormous national reach.
Looking at 106 days of data since Halloween, Google News promoted 1,757 stories. Almost 70% came from left-leaning outlets, 29% from centrist sources, but just 2% from right-leaning media.
Like Google, Apple News also has a bestie from the print world. The Washington Post receives frequent top placement and prominent visibility. Since Halloween, Apple has featured the Post 109 times. Other regulars in Apple’s rotation include NBC News (89), Reuters (86), and the Associated Press (85).
<div id="attachment_1044207" style="width: 872px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1044207" class="size-large wp-image-1044207" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1132776284-862x576.jpg" alt="CUPERTINO, CA - MARCH 25: Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook speaks during an Apple product launch event at the Steve Jobs Theater at Apple Park on March 25, 2019 in Cupertino, California. Apple Inc. announced the launch of , it's new video streaming service, and also unveil a premium subscription tier to its News app. (Photo by Michael Short/Getty Images)" width="862" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1132776284-862x576.jpg 862w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1132776284-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1132776284-768x513.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1132776284.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 862px) 100vw, 862px" />Michael Short/Getty Images</div>
Overall, of AllSides-rated outlets, Apple News featured 75% left-leaning outlets, 25% centrist outlets — and zero right-leaning outlets in the period studied. Zero is on purpose. Zero means being locked out of the dance. Zero is indefensible. 
Next comes Microsoft’s MSN, whose reach comes from its enormous footprint on desktop computers. While its distribution is not quite as disturbing as Apple’s or Google’s, its preferences are still clear. MSN is more than smitten with Newsweek, publishing 316 Newsweek stories between Halloween and Valentine&#8217;s Day. That level of attention would make any publisher blush.
MSN’s mix included about 10% right-leaning outlets and 37% centrist outlets — higher shares than its competitors, but still leaving Left-leaning sources with the largest slice of attention at 53%.
And then there’s Yahoo News. It’s easy to joke about Yahoo, but the platform draws more than 200 million monthly views, something achieved by only three other outlets. Think of Yahoo as the bad boy who got held back a grade but has a date at every party. And Yahoo certainly plays the field.
Yahoo occasionally features right-leaning outlets, but it has a serious thing for smaller, radical outlets — Buzzfeed, Salon, the New Republic, Rolling Stone, Huffington Post and Mediaite.
Yahoo is also unique among the Big 4 in relying heavily on its own in-house reporting. Those stories leaned left and accounted for a large share of featured content (269 stories). Of the 1,715 stories Yahoo promoted in the study period, 88% came from left-leaning outlets (by far the most of any of the news apps), 6% from centrist organizations, and 6% from right-leaning sources.
Defenders of these platforms argue they are simply promoting “mainstream” outlets with proven “reliability.” But Americans aren’t buying that claim. Gallup polling shows trust in national media has never been lower.
There are reasons for that collapse in confidence. Many Americans remember years of breathless coverage of the Russia collusion narrative, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the dismissal of the Wuhan lab-leak evidence, and persistent shielding of President Biden’s cognitive deficiencies. They’ve also watched elitist media advocate aggressively for DEI, ESG and anti-ICE movements — while insisting they are neutral observers.
Distribution is power. A newsroom can produce solid reporting, but Apple, Google, MSN, and Yahoo are clearly trying to control the narrative. The political Left has long understood that institutions shape culture and public opinion. Today, the Big 4 news apps are the institutions: enormously powerful, largely opaque, and virtually unaccountable to the public.
So yes, it’s Valentine’s Day. And in the digital cafeteria, Google, Apple, MSN, and Yahoo are still handing out cards to the favored few and pushing others into lockers.
But another holiday is coming. The Fourth of July is only months away, and federal regulators are examining whether dominant tech platforms have unfairly restricted competition in parts of the media ecosystem. Congress should also continue to investigate the role Big Tech plays in shaping what Americans see and don’t see.
In a free country, the biggest companies should not determine who is allowed into the dance and who is not, who gets a voice and who gets left out in the cold. Freedom must be available to all.
* * *
Dan Schneider is Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Digital NEWS Text Glowing on a Computer Keyboard for Breaking News

The Love Affair Continues: Study Shows Big Four News Apps Still Heart Left-Wing Media

Apple

Google

Leftists

Media Bias

Media Research Center

Microsoft

News

Silicon Valley

Yahoo

The New York Times editorial board expressed concern this week that the massive marijuana craze in America might have some major side effects — besides drowsiness and the munchies.
The Times editorial board, which dedicated a series of articles to pushing for marijuana legalization over 10 years ago, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/09/opinion/regulate-legalized-marijuana.html">admitted</a> on Monday that some of its arguments for legalized weed have been proven wrong after states began allowing recreational and medicinal marijuana use. It seems that many talking points from the pro-marijuana legalization side are falling apart as research uncovers some brutal truths about America&#8217;s pot craze.
&#8220;In our editorials, we described marijuana addiction and dependence as &#8216;relatively minor problems.&#8217; Many advocates went further and claimed that marijuana was a harmless drug that might even bring net health benefits. They also said that legalization might not lead to greater use,&#8221; the Times editorial board wrote. &#8220;It is now clear that many of these predictions were wrong. Legalization has led to much more use. Surveys suggest that about 18 million people in the United States have used marijuana almost daily (or about five times a week) in recent years. That was up from around six million in 2012 and less than one million in 1992. More Americans now use marijuana daily than alcohol.&#8221;
Later, the editorial board added, &#8220;The unfortunate truth is that the loosening of marijuana policies — especially the decision to legalize pot without adequately regulating it — has led to worse outcomes than many Americans expected. It is time to acknowledge reality and change course.&#8221;
It&#8217;s rare for the Times to admit to so clearly pushing a narrative that turned out to be wrong. So, if America&#8217;s pot problem is becoming so evident that even the legacy media is pumping the brakes, how bad is it?
Addiction and other health issues stemming from marijuana use have spiked in the past decade as more states hopped on the pot bandwagon. As the Times pointed out, a large percentage of marijuana users aren&#8217;t just smoking a joint or two on the weekend; they&#8217;re consuming marijuana on a daily basis. According to <a href="https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/marijuana-use-disorder">research</a> from Yale Medicine, a staggering 30% of cannabis users &#8220;meet the criteria for addiction.&#8221;
This heavy reliance on marijuana comes with multiple potential health risks, including cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which gives users intense stomach pain and can cause vomiting. At least one recent study has also linked cannabis use to schizophrenia. The <a href="https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/young-men-highest-risk-schizophrenia-linked-cannabis-use-disorder">study</a>, published in &#8220;Psychological Medicine,&#8221; found that up to 30% of schizophrenia cases in young men can be linked to cannabis use disorder.
A <a href="https://fortune.com/well/article/marijuana-abuse-cannabis-use-disorder-workplace-absenteeism-sick-days/">study</a> conducted by UC San Diego School of Medicine and the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, meanwhile, found that employees who use cannabis regularly were more likely to miss work.
The advocacy group Smart Approaches to Marijuana has also <a href="https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/SAM-impact-report-2026-2027.pdf">pointed</a> to research showing that driving fatalities involving marijuana skyrocketed between 2000 and 2018. Kevin Sabet, the president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, told The Daily Wire that legalization leading to increases in addiction was &#8220;absolutely predictable.&#8221;
&#8220;Despite the promises of the legalizers, federal data show that (just as the Times notes) legalization drives use, including youth use increases,&#8221; Sabet said. &#8220;This is true in the national aggregate and in individual state data. It’s not rocket science: If you make a powerful addictive drug easier to access (and send the signal that it’s OK to use in the process), more people are going to use it. That is what I and many other people who were aware of the danger warned would happen and it is precisely what did happen.&#8221;
Now that nearly half the country has legalized marijuana in some or all forms, Sabet said the best path forward is for &#8220;states to focus on making sure that people, and above all young people, know how dangerous and destructive marijuana is: a permanent investment in infrastructure meant to promote prevention and awareness.&#8221;
&#8220;And it’s beyond important to remember here what the Times piece truly reveals,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Namely, that while people may disagree about policies and execution, they are now all agreed on the same set of facts. And those facts show beyond doubt that marijuana is dangerous, addictive, and creating havoc across America.&#8221;
The data pointing to some of these issues was available when the Times editorial board began publishing its <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html?op-nav">series</a> arguing for federal legalization. In a 2014 <a href="https://www.nber.org/digest/oct14/consequences-legalizing-marijuana?page=1&amp;perPage=50">paper</a>, researchers Hefei Wen, Jason M. Hockenberry, and Janet R. Cummings found that marijuana legalization led to an increase in marijuana abuse and dependence. The 2014 paper also found that as legalization surged, so did the rate at which adolescents experimented with the drug.
Ironically, the Times editorial board&#8217;s shift on marijuana coincides with the federal government in the process of reforming how it regulates the drug. In December, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-reclassifies-marijuana-at-federal-level-we-have-people-begging-for-me-to-do-this">signed</a> an order to open the door to reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug, meaning marijuana would be in the same <a href="https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling#:~:text=Schedule%20I%20drugs%2C%20substances%2C%20or,)%2C%20methaqualone%2C%20and%20peyote.">category</a> as drugs that have “a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.” For decades, the U.S. government has categorized marijuana as a Schedule I substance, which is defined as &#8220;no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.&#8221;
The U.S. government&#8217;s potential reclassification would not legalize marijuana at the federal level, but it could reduce the scale of marijuana-related offenses. As the president was considering the marijuana reclassification last year, nearly 50 organizations signed a letter urging Trump to keep marijuana classified as a Schedule I drug, arguing that marijuana &#8220;fits squarely&#8221; in the definition of a Schedule I drug, &#8220;a fact acknowledged in every scheduling review prior to 2023.&#8221;

Marijuana USA

20 Million Americans Say They’re Always High, And Even Liberals Recognize The Craze Has Gone Too Far

Drugs

Marijuana

Social Issues

U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security says The New York Times denied a request to buy a full-page ad highlighting notable ICE arrests in Minnesota — and that no specific reason for the rejection was provided.
The ad would have included 30 mugshots of individuals arrested in Operation Metro Surge, specifically those with additional criminal convictions ranging from domestic violence to rape and homicide.
“These are some of the 10,000 criminals ICE law enforcement has risked their lives to arrest in Minnesota,” the proposed advertisement stated in all capital letters.
“Sanctuary cities like Minneapolis protect criminals instead of handing them over,” it continued, with a tagline that read, “ICE saves innocent lives.”
The Daily Wire reviewed January 26 emails between Homeland Security and a media placement service the department works with regarding the ad buy request, in which the agency wrote that the NYT said that they were &#8220;not able to accept the ad in its current form.” When the agency requested a letter on official letterhead explaining the reason the ad was not acceptable, that request was also denied and the agency was instead informed that feedback was usually provided through email.
The Times noted that it gets a high number of ads submitted daily, and each usually takes the paper &#8220;one or two business days to fully review.&#8221; As of this publication, Homeland Security has yet to receive a justification for the rejection. The Daily Wire also reached out to the New York Times for comment.
In recent weeks, Operation Metro Surge sent resources and personnel into the Minneapolis area, resulting in thousands of arrests, as anti-ICE protests have ratcheted up in the region. ICE operations have been underway nationwide throughout the country since President Donald Trump took office last January.
&#8220;The media&#8217;s blackout is undeniable: they refuse to report on the vital work ICE is doing to remove dangerous public safety threats—murderers, rapists, gang members, and child predators—from Minneapolis streets and communities nationwide,&#8221; Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;The New York Times won&#8217;t even run a straightforward ad showing the violent criminals that our brave law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to deport. The New York Times deliberate suppression of public safety information should outrage every American,&#8221; McLaughlin added. &#8220;When the press shields heinous offenders while ignoring or downplaying the officers protecting us, it betrays the public trust and endangers lives.&#8221;
The protests, which surged after the shootings of Alex Pretti, have Democrats calling for major reforms to be made to ICE and Border Patrol. The Daily Wire reported that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and numerous other Democrats want the Trump administration to switch from administrative to judicial warrants, which could seriously limit the number of arrests that ICE is able to make.
The New York Times has made headlines in the past over full-page ads it has chosen to run, including one from an 80-year-old man writing a letter titled &#8220;A PLEA FOR DONALD TRUMP TO RESIGN,&#8221; according to the <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/politics/grant-grissom-ad-new-york-times-trump-20250304.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Philadelphia Inquirer</a>.
Last June, Walmart heiress Christy Walton asked Americans to &#8220;mobilize&#8221; in the &#8220;No Kings&#8221; protests against Trump, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/walmart-christy-walton-ad-no-kings-nyt-trump/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CBS News</a> reported. That same month, The Onion took out an ad slamming Congress and the Trump administration, saying &#8220;Congress, Now More Than Ever The Nation Needs Your Cowardice.”
In 2007, MoveOn.org ran an ad during the Bush administration with &#8220;General Petraeus or General Betray Us?&#8221; as a criticism of the Iraq War.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem Holds News Conference

New York Times Rejects Full Page Ad Buy From Trump Admin Highlighting ICE Arrests

homeland security

Immigration

Minneapolis

Minnesota

Amid all of the chaos regarding the immigration situation in Minneapolis, members of the legacy media and the Left have simply started to tell lies.
The latest lie being told is that federal agents seized a five-year-old boy in an effort to bait his father.
“Columbia school officials say a 5-year-old boy was used as ‘bait’ for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain him and his father,” Fox News <a href="https://www.fox9.com/news/5-year-old-boy-detained-ice-columbia-heights-jan-21?utm_source=chatgpt.com">reported</a>.
This was treated by the legacy media as a major story.
This story was apparently first reported by the New York Times, which <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/us/liam-detention-ice-minneapolis.html">stated</a> in an article titled, “Detention of 5-Year-Old by Federal Agents Incenses Minneapolis”:
<blockquote>A 5-year-old boy wearing a Spider-Man backpack and an oversized hat was detained with his father by immigration authorities on Tuesday, one of four students who have been apprehended in a suburban Minneapolis school district during the past two weeks, school officials said.
The prekindergarten pupil, Liam Conejo Ramos, is pictured in a photo released by the school system as he stands next to a vehicle with an adult’s hand on his backpack. His father is not in sight. The image prompted outrage in the Twin Cities area, where many people have been angered since mid-December by the Trump administration’s surge in deportation operations.</blockquote>
“Why detain a 5-year-old?” Zena Stenvik, the superintendent of schools in Columbia Heights, Minn., asked at a news conference about the episode on Wednesday.
Buried in the fifth paragraph of the article was this admission: “The boy and his father were taken to Dilley, Texas, outside of San Antonio, where they are being held at an immigration detention center, according to Marc Prokosch, a lawyer working with the family.”
The image of the child in custody prompted an outcry.
But what exactly happened?
According to Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, when the agents sought to detain the father, he fled on foot and left Liam behind in the vehicle, which is a bit of a different story.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2353-another-ridiculous-media-lie-about-ice"><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>
If you&#8217;re detained alongside your five-year-old child and you take off, that might say something about your parenting style, to say the very least.
Stenvik stated, “Another adult living in the home was outside and begged the agents to let him take care of the small child, and was refused. Instead, the agent took the child out of the still-running car, led him to the door, and directed him to knock on the door asking to be let in in order to see if anyone else was home, essentially using a five-year-old as bait.”
Presumably, one of the reasons they refused to simply allow an adult staying in the home to take care of the boy is they didn&#8217;t know who the adult was.
This has raised hackles because there is widespread debate over what sort of warrant is necessary — an administrative warrant or a judge-signed warrant — in order to enter a home where there&#8217;s probable cause to believe illegal immigrants are residing.
The fact of the matter is, we have a serious problem on our hands, and it dates back decades. A consent agreement known as the Flores agreement prevented the federal government from holding children and parents together in custody after they crossed the border. Thus, children were released into the interior of the country. This caused the Biden administration, among other administrations, to release the parents as well, to reunify the family. 
Now the idea is you can&#8217;t deport anyone because they might have children.
What exactly are immigration agents supposed to do?
This, of course, makes everything unworkable, which I believe is the point.

TOPSHOT-US-MIGRANTS-ICE

Another Ridiculous Media Lie About ICE

Ben Shapiro

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

The following is an edited transcript from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1890-breaking-scotus-delivers-massive-blow-to-the-trans-movement?elementPosition=6&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
Scott Adams has died.
It is a sad story, though not an entirely unexpected one. And it’s important to note, Scott Adams did not kill himself.
Adams, the cartoonist behind Dilbert, was a defining cultural figure for decades. His comic strip was a genuine phenomenon — so much so that, flipping through old Dilbert panels, one can feel a kind of nostalgia, like being at a parent’s house. He was a delightful figure in American public life.
Adams did not stop at cartoons. He parlayed his success into a second career as a writer and thinker on persuasion, self-help, and politics. He became one of the earliest and most incisive commentators to notice something many others missed about Donald Trump: that Trump was not simply a big dummy saying big dummy things, but an extremely persuasive communicator. Adams could articulate that insight with unusual precision, in much more expansive terms.
In recent years, however, Adams became associated with a much darker subject: assisted suicide.
And yet, Scott Adams did not kill himself. Despite living in California, where physician-assisted suicide is legal under certain conditions, Adams ultimately chose not to end his life that way.
But he very nearly did.
In public discussions and on his own show, Adams spoke candidly about having been declared terminally ill, having received certification from doctors, having completed the paperwork, and even having obtained the lethal drugs prescribed for assisted suicide. At one point, he admitted that he had internally planned to take his own life on a specific date. That moment came and went. Adams did not take the drugs.
Here he is back in June of 2025 talking about it: 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Scott Adams Update: In May, he was in intense pain and didn’t expect to make it past today or tomorrow.
Now, his new cancer treatment has eliminated his pain and may extend his life by 1-2 years!⁰<a href="https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@scottadamssays</a> So do I feel like I’m on borrowed time? Got a little extra?
Oh… <a href="https://t.co/PWc2UR1pqN">pic.twitter.com/PWc2UR1pqN</a>
— jay plemons (@jayplemons) <a href="https://twitter.com/jayplemons/status/1939363100870005198?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @jayplemons/X.com
For years prior, Adams had been one of the most vocal defenders of assisted suicide in public life. After his father’s death in 2013 — a death Adams described as painful and prolonged — he sought to defend assisted suicide in Reason magazine, writing:
<blockquote>I&#8217;m okay with any citizen who opposes doctor assisted suicide on moral or practical reasons, but if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too.</blockquote>
The argument was blunt: opposition to assisted suicide was, in Adams’s view at the time, complicity in torture.
But something changed.
Only after Adams had committed to the process — after he had received the drugs and contemplated using them — did he realize it was more complicated. He began to grasp what assisted suicide actually entailed. It was not, as it is often advertised, a clean or painless “going to sleep.” The process could involve vomiting, prolonged unconsciousness, and hours of dying while loved ones stood by, waiting, checking repeatedly to see whether the person was dead yet.
The act that had been sold as a mercy turned out to be something else entirely. Whatever pain the dying person sought to avoid would instead be imposed on family and friends. The poor family not only has to endure the scandal of watching a loved one kill himself, the very thing that is much more likely to persuade the loved ones around them to kill themselves. Suicide, after all, is not merely an individual act; it is a social contagion — it is long-documented as a contagion, especially among those who admire or identify with the person who chooses it.
Adams eventually summarized this realization while speaking to Dr. Drew Pinsky and Greg Gutfeld, saying, “It’s not as cool as I thought it would be.”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1890-breaking-scotus-delivers-massive-blow-to-the-trans-movement?elementPosition=6&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
And there’s the irony of Scott Adams’s final chapter. A man who had spent years publicly advocating for assisted suicide ended his life by rejecting it. And in doing so, Scott Adams offered us one of the best examples of dying well. An amazing irony in the grand scope of Providence. 
He was calm. He was loving. He did not hide it. 
Today, we hide death. We institutionalize it. We rush through funerals and euphemize loss. We prefer not to look at dying at all. In earlier eras, particularly in the Middle Ages, a “good death” was understood as one in which a person knew death was coming, put their affairs in order, reconciled relationships, and prepared spiritually for what followed.
That is what Adams did.
We should pray for him. We should pray for his soul.
Though he was not a lifelong believer, Adams spoke openly near the end of his life about being persuaded by Pascal’s Wager and by his loving Christian friends. He did not pretend to believe. Instead, he adopted an attitude of humility that is almost shocking in its simplicity: I want to believe. I want to spend eternity with Jesus. If I wake up in heaven, that will convince me.
Some will quibble over the theology of those words. But there is something undeniably childlike about them — in the best sense. Not childish. Childlike. As Scripture reminds us, it is precisely this posture that Christ holds up as the model for entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
Adams could have scandalized the world. He could have taken his life and inspired others to do the same. Many people looked up to him as an “internet dad,” a guide through cultural and political chaos. His suicide would have rippled outward, causing real harm.
Instead, he chose restraint, honesty, and peace.
The reaction from the legacy media was, sadly, predictable. The New York Times and Boston Globe framed Adams’s death not with reflection or mercy, but with denunciation, labeling him racist even in death.
Here’s the breaking news alert from The New York Times:
<div id="attachment_1028183" style="width: 875px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1028183" class="size-full wp-image-1028183" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-14-at-6.17.48-PM.png" alt="Screenshot: iPhone" width="865" height="222" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-14-at-6.17.48-PM.png 865w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-14-at-6.17.48-PM-300x77.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-14-at-6.17.48-PM-768x197.png 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 865px) 100vw, 865px" />Screenshot: iPhone</div>
This is what they do. Listen, we&#8217;re talking about the political Left which celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So, yes, when a prominent Right winger dies, they&#8217;re going to find some way to attack him, even in his death. If they&#8217;re willing to do it to Charlie, they&#8217;re willing to do it to anybody. It’s sad, but they will celebrate your death.
Contrast this with how the Right generally responds to tragedy: even when acknowledging wrongdoing or responsibility, there remains sorrow. There is room for grief.
The New York Times wants to define Scott Adams by his worst comments. But I don&#8217;t think their narrative sums up his life at all. Then again, I don&#8217;t believe most of what I read in the New York Times.

Menu