Tag Archive for: gender identity

Truist Bank Makes an Important Withdrawal from LGBT Activism

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

There haven’t been a lot of industries untouched by the anti-woke revolution in the last three years. But there is one pocket of the economy that’s been slightly less eager to roll back the radical agendas that have been swallowing companies whole these last two decades: banks. But, in a sign that no corporate entity can escape the consumer muscle flexing across America, that may be about to change.

In what everyone hopes is a genuine pivot, Truist Bank has agreed to stop submitting to the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index — a dramatic change considering the company’s string of 100% scores leading up to 2026. The move, prompted by a Heritage Foundation shareholder proposal, is the first big domino to fall in a financial sector that’s escaped largely unscathed from the grassroots movement.

As most people know, HRC’s index, produced by the largest and loudest LGBT activist group in America, ranks businesses on how well they implement extreme policies like covering the cost of gender-transition procedures for staff and their families, publicly lobbying for pro-LGBTQ legislation, forcing employees to undergo multiple ideological trainings, opening restrooms to both sexes, introducing a pronoun sharing guide, recruiting employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity (not merit and experience), and more. A perfect score from HRC essentially means the wokest of the woke.

But, in a seismic shift, CEOs have fled the index this year, refusing to carry the leftist political baggage that could paint a target on their backs and sink their profits. Just this year, the 2026 index lost a whopping 65% of its Fortune 500 participants, dropping from 377 companies in 2025 to just 131.

Jerry Bowyer, a former columnist for Forbes who now serves as president and CEO of Bowyer Research, can’t underscore just how significant this concession is, especially for a major bank. “We’ve seen that from a lot of the regional banks … even from tech companies and consumer companies.” But this, he told “Washington Watch” guest host Jody Hice, “is really astonishing.”

Stephen Soukup, visiting fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Free Enterprise Initiative, agreed. “I think it’s pretty clear that the Human Rights Campaign is losing what remains of its relevance in the effort to influence American corporate behavior. Truist Bank is the latest example of a major corporation to admit that its public and private positions on the HRC and its Corporate Equality Index were at odds with one another,” he told The Washington Stand.

It’s worth noting, he continued, “that this concession came in what was an otherwise combative engagement with Bowyer Research on behalf of its client, the Heritage Foundation. As a shareholder of Truist, Heritage filed a proxy proposal asking the bank to evaluate the business risks it creates when its values are misaligned with those of its shareholders. The bank refused to budge on many important questions, but not on its participation with the HRC” — a telling sign of the organization’s cratering influence.

Of course, as Bowyer pointed out, the index didn’t used to be a list of wildly controversial demands on transgenderism. Back in the day, it was essentially an agreement that businesses wouldn’t discriminate against people who identify as LGBT. “But little by little, [HRC] moved the goalposts until finally it was bathroom wars, Bud Light branding, and puberty blockers for the children of employees.” Getting a 100% may have seemed like an A+ in corporate board rooms, Bowyer underscored, but to most Americans, “it’s an F-minus.”

Gradually, thanks to Robby Starbuck’s crusade and other long-suffering soldiers of the movement like Soukup, businesses that were growing uncomfortable with the over-the-top concessions they had to make to HRC started to peel off. Groups like Bowyer’s, who represent the interests of shareholders against companies “who’ve been,” as he describes it, “led around by the nose by activist groups,” started asking CEOs, “Why don’t you just stop participating altogether? You don’t have to have these outside groups who are determining your policies, who are pressuring you. Just focus on being a bank. … Focus on being a credit card company. And a lot of them are saying, ‘Okay, that’s what we’re going to do.’ Because frankly, I’m not sure they all realize what they were signing up for. … It was sold to them as a way to decrease controversy,” he pointed out. But in the last few years, what it became was “a huge magnet for controversy.”

Equally significant, at least where Truist is concerned, is their willingness to fix the debanking problem that’s been plaguing Christians and conservatives for years. Thanks to Joe Biden’s weaponization of the federal government, major financial institutions were encouraged after January 6 to “comb through the private transactions of their customers” to look for “suspicious charges” (without warrants) of legal activities involving political and religious expression.

Observers warned that it would lead to a flood of cancellations where conservatives were concerned. They were right. What was already a growing problem of viewpoint discrimination at the nation’s banks became an epidemic. More institutions started freezing assets and locking conservatives out of accounts, citing “reputation risk” to justify their bias.

Faith groups and leaders have been a common target. In just the past few years, Bank of America suddenly closed the accounts of reputable ministries like Indigenous Advance Ministries and Timothy Two Project International, claiming that the groups “exceeded the ‘bank’s risk tolerance.’” JP Morgan Chase piled on, canceling the account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), headed by former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback. “In order for their account to be reinstated,” The Washington Stand’s Dan Hart reported, “JPMorgan demanded that NCRF turn over a list of high-level donors, ‘a list of candidates it intended to support, and its criteria for political support.’”

President Trump, outraged by the injustice — and a victim of this coordinated attack himself — issued an executive order last year to crack down on debanking. “It is the policy of the United States that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views, and to ensure that politicized or unlawful debanking is not used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or political views. Banking decisions must instead be made on the basis of individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses.”

After several months of conversations, Truist agreed, offering Bowyer a link to its updated service agreement that addressed concerns about politicized debanking. “This is an issue,” he said in an organization statement, “that we’ve been engaging the company on for more than two years — and it’s a true blessing to see a prohibition on debanking based on ‘political opinions’ come as fruit of that engagement.” The message, he hopes, is “back to neutral.”

But now isn’t the time to let up on the gas pedal. “Christians need to get in the game,” especially on the investment side, Bowyer urged. When companies started becoming left-wing operatives, “The problem wasn’t the Biden administration,” he argued, or any Democratic administration before it. “The problem is you weren’t showing up. …We complain about a process of woke capitalism that we helped create with our absence and neglect.”

Asked if he thinks the change is sustainable in a post-Trump world, Bowyer was frank. The “vibe shift,” he argues, “started before the election of Trump. I don’t think Trump cause[d] it.” He believes the two were basically parallel tracks that combined to create this powerful climate of pushback. But, he acknowledged, “Starbucks is still going to be Starbucks. Disney is going to be Disney. I mean, they didn’t really want to talk, and they didn’t change anything. But that’s maybe three or four out of 100 companies we’ve engaged with, most of which have been extremely productive engagements,” he underscored. In his opinion, this is “the biggest reverse march through the institutions I’ve ever seen in my life. The ESG and DEI bubble is just collapsing before our eyes.”

As Soukup stressed, the momentum for change is only snowballing. “It’s worth noting that this concession came in what was an otherwise spirited engagement with Bowyer Research on behalf of its client, the Heritage Foundation.” The fact that “Truist is willing to resist some efforts by its shareholders to rein in its political activity, even as it willingly defies the Human Rights Campaign” is significant. “The spell is broken. Corporate fear of the HRC is dead. Bowyer Research and the Heritage Foundation scored an important victory for shareholders, even as they keep the pressure on Truist to do better.”

The successes keep coming — beyond most consumer activists’ wildest dreams. But “to quote Churchill,” Bowyer said, “It’s not the end. It’s not the beginning of the end. But,” he smiled, “it just might be the end of the beginning.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: When Tools Become Thrones: A Warning to Christian Families about AI

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Here’s How Many Times Dems Sued To Stop Trump Education Agenda In Just One Year

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

From university funding freezes to attempts to dismantle the Department of Education (ED), schools, teachers unions, and state leaders have attempted to halt the Trump administration’s education agenda at every opportunity.

Since taking office in January, the administration has faced about 70 lawsuits concerning education as of Dec. 22, many still ongoing, according to a review by Education Week. Most of the legal challenges stemmed from grant terminations, attempts to dismantle the department. and anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) directives.

Some of the grants ED sought to end included explicit mentions of prioritizing certain races and genders, such as the mental health grants originally meant to send more health care experts to schools. Yet a lawsuit pioneered by 16 Democrat-led states forced the department to renew the grants at the end of the year despite ED providing an alternative that fulfilled the same purpose without the discrimination.

Grant terminations spurred 11 lawsuits in 2025, according to Education Week.

At least 10 lawsuits were inspired by mass employee layoffs and similar actions ultimately meant to make the Education Department moot. A battle to fire approximately 1,400 staff made its way to the Supreme Court after blue states once again sought to hinder Trump’s agenda.

Harvard’s infamous battle with the Trump administration, which the Ivy League school ultimately won, is just one example of lawsuits generated from cuts and threats to university funding. Five legal battles this year revolved around this issue, and another five stemmed from general education-focused funding freezes.

Attempts to keep men out of women’s private spaces led to five lawsuits. Most notably, President Donald Trump and Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills got into a public spat in February during which the governor declined to comply with Trump’s ban on men in women’s sports. The resulting cut to funding was immediately met with a lawsuit.

Teachers unions were not particularly fond of the administration informing student loan borrowers that they are responsible for paying off the debt they took out. After former President Joe Biden took advantage of every loophole to forgive billions in debt, ED was forced to settle with the American Federation, promising to continue processing loan forgiveness under several programs.

Five lawsuits were focused on student loan repayments, Education Week found.

Another four lawsuits were brought on immigration-related issues. The Trump administration in July acquiesced to a challenge from 24 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia to keep $7 billion in federal funding for adult education programs and after-school classes that went in part toward teaching immigrants English.

Administration efforts to deport foreign students studying in the U.S. who engaged in pro-Hamas protests were similarly met with lawsuits.

The majority of the lawsuits were filed near the beginning of the year, with April taking the cake at 18 new filings, and March in second place with 13, according to Education Week.

About 52 cases have already seen their day in court. Lower courts ruled in Trump’s favor 16 times, and against his administration 36 times, according to Education week. Higher courts were more likely to rule in Trump’s favor, siding with the president 24 times and against him 28 times.

AUTHOR

Jaryn Crouson

Education Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Professor Association Using Millions In Taxpayer Dollars To Undermine Trump Admin

Here’s How Trump Has Put ‘Radical’ DEI In The ‘Dustbin’ Throughout 2025

Far-Left Democrats Celebrate Blackness Over Christmas

Trump Admin’s Crime Crackdown Helps Drive Historic Drop In Murders

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

New Report Further Exposes Netflix’s LGBT Agenda Targeting Children

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

For some time now, Netflix has come under fire for pushing LGBT-related content on both adults and children. The latter category, in particular, has drawn sharp criticism from parents and child advocates who do not want ideological content being forced upon the young and vulnerable. Now, however, it’s not just talk. A new report from Concerned Women for America (CWA) showcases hard numbers that expose just how deep the entertainment company’s agenda runs.

To collect the data, the report noted how “researchers compiled references to LGBTQ+ themes, characters, storylines, and messaging across 326 Netflix series (both licensed and original) rated for young audiences (TV-G, TV-Y, or TV-Y7).” Concerning representation, it “was categorized as ‘Explicit’ (characters clearly identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, or nonbinary), ‘Implied’ (non-primary characters or ‘queer-coded’ characters), ‘Meta’ (gay families or participants in reality programming), or ‘None.’”

The key findings include:

  • 41% of TV-G series and 41% of TV-Y7 series contain LGBTQ+ content.
  • Of the TV-Y7 content, 24% was rated “Explicit.”
  • Across all three child-appropriate ratings (TV-G, TV-Y, TV-Y7), fully one-third (33%) promote LGBT characters, themes, or messaging.

Netflix pushed LGBT agendas through originals and remakes. Some examples include:

  • “The Magic School Bus” reboot, which introduced a “trans-coded” character and a lesbian couple.
  • A reimagined “Strawberry Shortcake” series that added transgender and non-binary characters.
  • Similar changes in updated versions of “Power Rangers,” “The Fairly OddParents,” and other franchises.
  • The “Anne of Green Gables” adaptation, retitled “Anne with an E,” which incorporated homosexual themes.

CWA asked a pivotal question: “Which came first: LGBTQ+ content aimed at kids, or ‘inclusive’ content that caters to kids who identify as LGBTQ+?” The report noted that studios frequently justify the material as “educational” or “affirming,” yet “we have seen enough leaked videos and internal memos to know that there is, for many working in entertainment, a desire to reshape the culture to align with their own worldview.”

Numerous creators have confirmed that intent publicly. One prominent example is the executive producer of Disney Television Animation who openly celebrated inserting a same-sex couple into “My Little Pony,” praising the showrunners who were “super welcoming … to my not-at-all-secret gay agenda.”

Despite the claim that art mirrors society, CWA fired back that, “taken together, these accounts show that content creators view children’s programming as a tool for cultural transformation, not merely a reflection of existing norms.” Or put differently, the group added, “This report’s findings suggest that Netflix is not merely reflecting social change, it is an active driver.”

The data show LGBT representation in Netflix children’s programming “far outpaces real-world demographics and accelerated dramatically after 2021.” That year, Netflix partnered with the University of Southern California Annenberg Inclusion Initiative to tout its high percentage of LGBTQ leads, while internal data revealed that upwards of 60% of new child-rated shows contained LGBT elements. By 2023, Netflix debuted more children’s shows with LGBTQ+ content (14) than without (9). As the report read, “If the goal is ‘representation,’ rather than pushing a radical sexual identity agenda, then surely the percent of LGBTQ characters on Netflix programming should be more in line with actual population data? Less than 10% of the overall population identifies as gay, trans or nonbinary.”

CWA’s report concluded:

“While no single factor explains the surge in LGBTQ identification among adolescents, media exposure is a well-documented variable in shaping norms, identity exploration, and worldview formation. When representation for a small demographic reaches near-ubiquity in children’s content, it naturally raises questions about whether entertainment platforms are shaping identity rather than reflecting it. A pattern strikingly similar to what Alexander Pope described long ago: ‘Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated needs but to be seen; yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.’”

This report comes alongside a fierce cultural reckoning. For those who oppose the forceful LGBT agenda, speaking out became a non-negotiable. Even Elon Musk, tech billionaire and CEO of X, spoke out on the issue on his X platform. Shortly after, Netflix lost an estimated $15 billion in stock value, “and Internet sleuths set to work exposing other examples of LGBTQ+ content on Netflix children’s programming.”

To offer his own analysis, Family Research Council’s Dr. David Closson shared a comment with The Washington Stand. “For years,” he said, “major entertainment companies have insisted that their role is simply to ‘reflect the culture,’ yet the evidence shows that many creatives inside these studios see themselves as cultural architects. They are intentionally embedding moral messages into children’s programming that align with their own worldview.”

He highlighted the double standard, stating “When companies like Netflix aggressively advance LGBT ideology but then criticize Christians for expressing their faith in the public square, it exposes that the issue is not neutrality; it is competing worldviews.”

While Closson encouraged Christians as a whole to be diligent, discerning, and even willing to use the First Amendment to promote their own biblical worldview, his main advice was for parents:

  1. Exercise vigilance and biblical conviction, recognizing that “media consumption is not a neutral activity” and that platforms contradicting Scripture on sexuality and identity should be approached with extreme caution or avoided.
  1. Actively shape their home’s spiritual environment through clear boundaries, content previewing, filtering tools, and, when necessary, alternative platforms.
  1. Embrace their primary discipleship role, teaching children God’s design for the body, sexuality, and identity “in age-appropriate, truth-filled ways” long before culture does it for them.

As Closson concluded, “When media companies work to normalize ideas that contradict God’s word, Christian parents are not helpless. They can respond with discernment, courage, and a commitment to raising children who understand that their identity is not determined by cultural trends but by the God who created them.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Transgender Military Policy Wins on Substance before D.C. Circuit Court

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Partner with The Washington Stand to bring news from a biblical worldview to readers nationwide. From now until December 31, every gift will be doubled through our year-end Challenge Match.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Dem Congressional Candidate Believes Men Can Give Birth: A Reflection of the Party at Large?

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Tennessee Democratic District Representative Aftyn Behn (D) believes men can give birth. Now, she’s running for a congressional seat.

Her opinion became apparent during a 2020 episode of her podcast “Grits.” She followed up her use of the term “birthers” by stating that “men and women … can give birth.” As Breitbart summarized, “She made the comment before discussing a book by pro-abortion feminist Jenny Brown called Birth Strike, which argues that women should refuse to have children as a way to collectively bargain with the government and achieve their political aims.”

Behn has also openly supported transgenderism for children. She called the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Skrmetti case, which upheld a Tennessee law protecting minors from sex change drugs, a “gut punch to transgender youth and their families.” As she further stated, “This 6-3 ruling only emboldens the far-right’s relentless attack on transgender rights, pushing us further into a dangerous future where politics — rather than science — dictates the lives of our most vulnerable.”

The list goes on. In 2023, Behn said she previously “ran on an unabashed progressive campaign platform of standing up for trans kids and standing up for reproductive access,” emphasizing that she will “never compromise on values of abortion access or trans kids.” Similar sentiments have been made toward support for drag queens who have encouraged children to attend their “shows.”

After a trans-identifying individual opened fire at Nashville’s Covenant School in 2023, a Christian elementary school, she directed her sympathy not to the victims of the shooting, but to trans-identifying people. As she put it, having a “partner” with “a trans son” allegedly made the aftermath of that deadly shooting “incredibly upsetting for us. In the wake of the Covenant shooting, and the disclosure that the Covenant shooter was trans, I was pulled into a chat with other trans organizers and activists across the state that were fearful of their lives.” Reportedly, this shooting motivated her to run for political office to fight “every day” for “protections for trans kids and our trans communities.”

“Remember,” she posted on Facebook, “you come for my trans community, I come for you.”

It turns out, Behn is an example of what the Democratic Party looks like these days. And it’s left many conservatives wondering: how might this affect the upcoming 2026 midterm elections?

According to a recent popularity poll conducted by NPR/PBS News/Marist, roughly 55% of American adults said they would vote for a Democrat in the midterms if they were held today. In contrast, only 41% said the same about Republicans. As The Washington Stand previously reported, “The 14-point lead is the largest Democrats have held since 2017, in the first year of President Donald Trump’s first term.” And yet, this same poll that found a majority in favor of Democratic candidates also found that Democrats are, by and large, the ones blamed for the recent government shutdown, which now marks the longest in U.S. history.

So, why the support for a party that was blamed for the shutdown and, many argue, hold to highly controversial opinions? Matt Carpenter, director of Family Research Council’s political arm, FRC Action, answered this question in a comment to The Washington Stand.

“Despite being historically unpopular,” he said, “the Democratic Party can depend on their base to be enthusiastic to vote. This is not unusual. Typically, the party out of power benefits from their base being highly motivated to turn out. Add to this their recent successes in the 2025 elections, and the Democratic Party base believes congressional majorities are within reach. So far, neither an unpopular agenda, nor a dysfunctional and leaderless party, have dampened the enthusiasm of the Democratic base.” On the other hand, he added, “Republicans in Congress … have the blame (fairly or not) for voters’ sense that the economy is not strong, the added burden of actually governing and making difficult decisions, and the political reality of needing Democratic support for almost anything to pass the Senate, where they hold a bare majority.”

This is the current political landscape, and as Carpenter argued, “The greatest predictor of an election outcome is incumbency; the next greatest is redistricting.” When it comes to the potential outcomes of the 2026 midterms, Carpenter found it important to understand what’s starting to shift now that will likely have ripple effects into the future. “So far,” he said, “this cycle we have 46 members who have announced their retirement from Congress — 38 in the House and eight in the Senate — and a mid-decade redistricting fight between blue and red states. This means the advantage of incumbency will be missing in 46 races, and for those running for a seat in the House, there’s a good chance their district has been redrawn — or could be redrawn — to reflect the partisan leaning of their state government.”

“Aside from incumbency and redistricting,” he continued, “campaign fundraising is the next most important factor, generally the side that raises the most money prevails in close races — this is especially true in the Senate.” Carpenter summarized the roadmap for Republican success: “For the GOP to retain their majorities in Congress, they will need to retain as much of their advantages in incumbency, redistricting, and fundraising as possible, because the Democrat base is fired up to vote. So far, the advantages in all three seem to give the Democrats an edge.”

He acknowledged that the midterms are 11 months away, “and a lot — including how motivated each party’s base is — could change between now and then.” That said, he gave some advice for Christians and conservatives who want to be forward thinking. As he put it, “The most important thing a Christian can do is pray and then make a plan to vote. Studies show that when someone makes a plan to vote, they are almost guaranteed to vote. That means checking your voter registration status, finding your precinct, knowing when the polls are open, choosing when and how you’ll vote, and — most importantly — researching the candidates and initiatives on your ballot so you know how you’ll be voting.” All of this can be done through FRC Action’s website.

“Once you’ve done all that,” Carpenter added, “talk about the issues coming up in the midterms with your church small group, and like-minded friends, neighbors, family, co-workers, etc. In other words: encourage others you know to also make a plan to vote.” Carpenter highlighted a sober reality: “Unfortunately, studies … show a great degree of apathy among Christians when it comes time to vote. There are millions of Christians who believe, wrongly, that their vote doesn’t matter, or won’t count, or they don’t take the time to research the candidates. They miss out on the opportunity to vote for leaders who will stand up for the values they care about.”

To push back against those with this mindset, Carpenter concluded: “Proverbs 21:1 says, ‘The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.’ Every believer should pray for conviction and wisdom in stewarding their vote and then share what they are learning with those around them.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Leaked NEA Training Coaches Teachers To Fight Conservative Parents, Paint Republicans As Racist Threat

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The National Education Association (NEA) is training teachers to advance gender and racial ideology in classrooms, and to fight Republicans and parent groups who ‘harm us all’ by trying to stop that agenda, according to leaked materials for an upcoming training event.

Participant handouts for the NEA’s “Advancing LGBTQ+ Justice and Transgender Advocacy” training accuse the right of using an “arsenal of racist dog whistles” and “transphobic tropes” to “whip up fear” and cause harm, parental advocacy group Defending Education (ED) discovered. The materials coach teachers on how to indoctrinate children into progressive dogmas, including gender ideology and pronoun use, among other woke principles.

The workshop is scheduled for Dec. 2-6 and is meant to dismantle “systems of privilege and oppression as it relates to LGBTQ+ educators and students” and “deepen skills and strategies to confront implicit bias, micro-aggressions and stereotypes.”

“The right has exploited ignorance about transgender people and our lack of an affirmative, race-forward message to advance anti-trans attacks, further splinter and impugn the left, and sabotage progressives on a broad range of issues,” NEA said in the materials. “Over the last ten years, Republicans in state legislatures have increasingly turned to anti-transgender rhetoric and legislation as a powerful complement to their arsenal of racist dog whistles used to whip up fear and consolidate power.”

NEA went on to say Republicans have ignited “a moral panic over transgender youth” and mobilized the GOP base with “a potent mix of racist and transphobic tropes.”

The union also asserted teachers have a “right” to “provide inclusive curriculum.”

The documents include suggested language teachers should use to “activate more expansive attitudes towards our genders and transgender people” and a sample gender “Transition Announcement Email.” NEA recommends members use “genders” instead of “gender” to normalize the idea of endless gender possibilities and says participants should get in the habit of introducing their pronouns to groups and encouraging others to do the same, saying it “shifts people towards our worldview.”

NEA further encourages participants to “Name the villains who violate our values.”

“[C]ertain politicians are pushing laws that restrict our freedoms because of the color of our skin, what’s in our wallets, or because we are transgender,” NEA laments. “They exploit divisions and fears among us so they can get and hold onto power, denying us the basic rights, resources, and respect all people deserve.”

The union also tells people to villainize opponents of men playing in women’s sports by reframing their criticisms and painting them as discrimination against women, rather than advocacy for women.

“Our best-testing way to accomplish this was through a message that positioned supporting transgender women athletes as part of the broader fight for equality in girls’ and women’s sports,” NEA said. “By connecting attacks on trans women athletes to the long legacy of discrimination against all women athletes, this message both shifted our audiences from an individual to a collective mindset and disrupted transphobic conceptions of transgender girls and women as actually male.”

“[I]nstead of striving for equality in sports, certain politicians are distracting us from the real issue by blaming transgender women, instead of helping make sports a better place for all women,” the suggested talking point reads.

NEA did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

Jaryn Crouson

Education Reporter

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: School District Deploys New Dog Whistle To Keep Race-Based Hiring

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘That’s What Motivates People’: School Board Winners Say Gender Policies Drove Big Election Gains

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Conservatives saw major school board wins this election, proving that parents across the country are still actively working to get gender ideology out of the classroom, victors who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation explain.

Parental rights watchdog Moms for Liberty saw more than half of its school board candidates prevail on Nov. 4, with several winners attributing victory to concerns about inappropriate classroom content and issues related to gender identity policies. Moms for Liberty CEO and co-founder Tina Descovich told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the issue driving parents to the polls for school board elections is a lack of transparency with what is happening in the classroom.

“Parents feel like they don’t have access to schools the way they used to, or information about their children,” Descovich said. “And I would say parents on both sides of the aisle are concerned about transparency in education.”

Two school board winners who spoke to the DCNF strongly agreed with this notion, having both experienced attempted classroom indoctrination firsthand.

“That’s actually the reason that I originally ran for office four years ago, was because of the inappropriate material that was in our daughter’s classroom,” Danielle Lindemuth, who was reelected to the Elizabethtown Area school board in Pennsylvania, told the DCNF. “There is sexually explicit content in the books. There is a major theme of rape and incest in different ones.”

Brooke Richards-Patterson, elected to the Old Bridge Township Board of Education in New Jersey, told the DCNF she became aware of the school’s agenda to teach inappropriate content to children three years ago when a school board member began recruiting parents to speak out about the issue.

“The curriculum proposed by the state includes verbiage such as anal, oral sex, masturbation, as young as the second, third, fourth grade,” Richards-Patterson said. “My kid still believes in Santa Claus at that age, my kid’s waiting for the tooth fairy. Why is that appropriate?”

“I’m not trying to mother your kids,” Richards-Patterson continued. “If you want your kids to know all that stuff, have at it. I don’t, and a lot of us don’t. And the whole point is I should have the most say as the parent. That’s the bottom line. I want you to have that too.”

Lindemuth’s and Richards-Patterson’s districts have already seen some success with rooting out gender identity-based policies.

“We do recognize that it is something that is a parental choice. It is not a school district choice,” Lindemuth stated. “And so if a student chooses to identify as something other than their biological gender, then we have set data that the parents must be involved in the conversation, and so if they would like to change their name or their pronoun, then the parents must be the ones who sign off on that.”

“We also want to make sure that we are protecting all of our students, faculty and staff’s rights. And so within that, what we did was we made sure that if somebody has a strongly held belief that they cannot call somebody by something other than their biological gender, that they have alternatives to what they can do,” she explained. “They are not allowed to be rude and disrespectful to them, they must not use a name that the person doesn’t want to be called.”

Under the new policy, teachers are allowed to address students by “something a little more generic,” such as addressing students by their last names instead of their first names, as long as they address all students the same way. That way, “they are not using pronouns at all” while still being “very careful to make sure that they are respecting the students choice while so not infringing on their own rights.”

Richards-Patterson said her district was able to abolish a policy that allowed children to change their gender identity within the school system without their parent knowing after enough people spoke out about it.

“I wish I could hit every single door and speak to every single resident, because there are a lot of things that people are unaware of,” she told the DCNF. “Nobody knew that there was a policy that said if your child identifies as the opposite sex, they can change their name on the student portal. And you’d have no idea.”

Richards-Patterson believes her effort to inform parents of these issues is what got her elected.

“That’s what motivates people, when they feel like they’re learning more and that I want to educate them, they want to work with me,” she said.

Even when districts do not experience these issues directly, stories from other districts that make national news like the sexual assault cover-ups in Loudoun County and the registered sex offender frequenting school and public changing rooms in Arlington, Virginia make parents take a closer look at their children’s schools.

“We do absolutely see that,” Lindemuth said. “There are times where the parents do come to the school board meetings, or do contact us and say, ‘Hey, is this happening in our school? Is this something we need to worry about?’”

“It makes parents look under the covers a little bit,” Descovich said. “Take a look, parents. Wake up. Is this happening in your district?”

While Richards-Patterson’s victory shifted her district to a majority conservative board, most school districts aren’t as lucky. Despite Loudoun on Nov. 4 electing its second member who is willing to defend girls’ spaces from biological males, the rest of the board generally remains unfriendly to this idea.

Descovich, however, advises parents and school boards in similar situations not to lose hope.

“One school board member can make a huge difference if, at a very least, they are exposing what’s going on in the district, because they have access, they have a lot more access than the average parent in the community, if they are just sharing the information out and exposing what’s going on, it is so worth having just even one school board member, even if they’re getting outvoted,” Descovich said. “This isn’t a quick fix. We did not get into this mess in education in one election cycle, and we’re not going to get out of it and one election cycle. It’s just been decades of unions dominating school boards and education in America, and it’s going to take decades to fix it.”

Seventeen candidates endorsed by Moms for Liberty won their school board races this election, making up a fraction of the 500 total races the organization has influenced over the last three years.

“We’re at a peak of education reform in this country,” Descovich said. “All of this really is going to lead to this golden age in America that we’re looking forward to, where we’re going to go from only a third of kids reading in America, only 22% of high school seniors being able to pass a civics test, to a place where our children can be enriched and they can be bold supporters of the good, the beautiful and the true, and they can be educated citizens again and have the ability to self-govern.”

AUTHOR

Jaryn Crouson

Education Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘No One Will Know’: Red State Schools ‘Openly’ Violate Law On Male Students In Female Spaces, Complaint Alleges

Once-Prestigious University Of California, San Diego, Now Admits Students Who Can’t Solve 1st Grade Math Problem

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Why Are Leftists Telling Themselves, ‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’?

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

With only a week to go until several American states and localities hold off-year elections, perhaps the biggest surprise is the ascent of little-known New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani (D), an avowed socialist who looks like a shoo-in to become the next mayor of New York City. The leftist elements of the Democratic base are ecstatic about Mamdani’s candidacy: a minority candidate who not only shares their every radical belief, but who has also proven a talented retail politician and a competent rhetorician (the Titanic disaster of “Harris 2024” is still fresh, after all).

“Mamdani will almost certainly be the next mayor of New York. He has undoubtedly captured the attention of large swaths of the media and political elite,” wrote left-wing political analyst Lakshya Jain. “But there’s just one awkward problem for those seeking to copy the Mamdani magic: Outside of NYC, Zohran Mamdani is not popular. … The reality is just that the voters who know of him simply do not like him.”

Jain brought statistics to back up her conclusion. Although Mamdani remains less well-known than other prominent Democrats, his favorability rating sits at -24% among voters who do have an opinion. That’s worse than California Governor Gavin Newsom (D), former Vice President Kamala Harris (D), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). The only politician more disliked than Mamdani is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), largely because his leftist base soured on him after he voted to keep the government open earlier this year.

But this nationwide disapproval of their chosen candidate has only made young radicals in New York City more determined to back their chosen agent of radical transformation. At a Sunday night rally, 13,000 impassioned supporters jeered down New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D), who endorsed Mamdani with chants of “tax the rich.” Despite a lengthy record of promoting abortion and opposing Donald Trump, even she isn’t radical enough for them.

The same crowd gave a different reception to Ocasio-Cortez, whose 2018 election inspired a generation of young, restless, and radical progressives to seek public office — as long as they have the right skin color; anything but “white” will do. For the devoted adherents of Mamdani, Ocasio-Cortez is the “OG.”

So, what message did Ocasio-Cortez deliver to this adoring, but decidedly leftist, crowd? “We must remember in a time such as this, we are not the crazy ones,” she declared. “New York City, we are not the outlandish ones. New York City, they want us to think we are crazy. We are sane.”

Even the utterance of such rote concedes that the issue is a contested one. Radical leftists in New York City want to be reminded that they aren’t crazy because many people throughout the rest of the country (or even the state) believe that they are and aren’t afraid to say so. Radical leftists in New York City want to be reminded that they aren’t crazy because their ideas are so radical that they are insecure about their own sanity.

This is a good sign. Underneath the university propaganda and mindless zealotry of youth, Mamdani’s most radical supporters nevertheless retain some vestiges of conscience and self-consciousness, which whisper in their quiet moments: maybe it is crazy to abolish law enforcement, rich people, and the Jewish people.

In Mamdani’s mind, these three issues are all related. In the month before the October 7, 2023 terror attack against Israel, then-state Assemblyman Mamdani shared his thoughts on “international solidarity” with the Gazan cause that oozed anti-Semitism. “When the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, that boot has been laced by the IDF,” he insisted. “We’re in a country where those connections abound, especially in New York City, you have so many opportunities to make clear the ways in which that struggle over there is tied to capitalist interests over here.”

Turning police brutality into a blood libel against Israel? Anti-Semitic tropes about Jews being greedy capitalists? Connecting hostility to the state of Israel with hostility to Jews in New York City? What more could he say to disqualify himself from becoming mayor of America’s leading city in two short years? What more could he say to endear himself to leftist radicals? What more could he say to sound crazy?

Mamdani’s campaign is clear-eyed enough to recognize that their Muslim candidate with a history of anti-Israel advocacy is struggling to reconcile New York’s sizable Jewish population. This weekend, they launched a new campaign ad which specifically targets — or which they hope will target — Jewish voters. The ad featured four rabbis seeking Mamdani’s praises: three women and a transgender-identifying male.

If that didn’t seem desperately cloying, the Mamdani campaign also managed to make it weird. The trans-identifying rabbi he featured goes by the name Abby Stein, an Israeli native who was thrown out of the Biden White House’s LGBTQ Pride party for heckling the first lady about Palestine — then wrote about it as if such misbehavior was a badge of honor.

The reason why Ocasio-Cortez has to reassure leftist radicals that they are not crazy is because they remain committed to the transgender ideology, which is at odds with God’s word, at odds with human biology, at odds with every society throughout time, and increasingly at odds with contemporary American opinion. The simple truth of the matter is that God created every person as male or female (Genesis 1:27), and no amount of mental, hormonal, or surgical gymnastics can change that fact.

Mamdani’s campaign pressed this sore spot in its closing argument to voters, eliciting a shriek of pain that went unheeded as another hallucination in the asylum.

Of course, the Left’s embrace of transgender ideology is not limited to Mamdani, although he may be one of the most visible, personalized examples of it. Just across the Hudson River, as Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) is locked in a close contest for New Jersey’s governor’s mansion, one of her top supporters has also gone out of their way to promote transgender ideology. Next week, the New Jersey Education Association will host an event for teachers celebrating drag shows to “ignite creativity in the classroom” because “drag is what education is all about.”

It’s comments like this that provoke the most backlash and skepticism to leftist ideology from normal Americans. It’s comments like this that set the stage for radicals to need the mental reassurance. It’s the people saying things like this who then also need to hear: “We are not the crazy ones. … They want us to think we are crazy. We are sane.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Ready to Win’: Hegseth Announces New Policies to Restore Department of War’s ‘Warrior Ethos’

/in , , , , , , /by

Progressive policies are out and wartime fitness standards are in at the newly-renamed Department of War, according to Secretary Pete Hegseth. At a high-profile meeting with the U.S. military’s top generals in Quantico on Tuesday morning, Hegseth and President Donald Trump unveiled new plans and policies to restore the military’s “warrior ethos” after years of left-wing dilution.

“Good morning, and welcome to the War Department, because the era of the Department of Defense is over,” Hegseth announced. “The motto of my first platoon was, ‘Those who long for peace must prepare for war,’” he shared. “This is, of course, not a new idea. This crowd knows that the origin dates to fourth century Rome, and has been repeated ever since, including by our first commander in chief, George Washington, the first leader of the War Department. It captures a simple yet profound truth. To ensure peace, we must prepare for war.”

“From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this war-fighting, preparing for war and preparing to win, unrelenting and uncompromising in that pursuit,” Hegseth, himself a decorated military veteran who served in the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, announced. “Not because we want war — no one here wants war — but it’s because we love peace. We love peace for our fellow citizens. They deserve peace, and they rightfully expect us to deliver it,” the secretary of War continued. “Our number one job, of course, is to be strong so that we can prevent war in the first place. The president talks about it all the time. It’s called peace through strength. And as history teaches us, the only people who actually deserve peace are those who are willing to wage war to defend it.”

“We are the strength part of peace through strength, and either we’re ready to win or we are not,” Hegseth told the senior officers gathered. “This speech today is about people, and it’s about culture. The topic today is about the nature of ourselves. Because no plan, no program, no reform, no formation will ultimately succeed unless we have the right people and the right culture at the War Department,” he continued. “The best way to take care of troops is to give them good leaders committed to the war-fighting culture of the Department. Not perfect leaders — good leaders, competent, qualified, professional, agile, aggressive, innovative, risk-taking, apolitical, faithful to their oath and to the Constitution.”

“For too long, we have simply not done that. The military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay,” the secretary explained. “You might say we’re ending the war on warriors,” he quipped. “For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts. We’ve pretended that combat arms and non-combat arms are the same thing. We’ve weeded out so-called toxic leaders under the guise of double-blind psychology assessments promoting risk-averse, ‘go along to get along’ conformists instead,” Hegseth recounted. “You name it, the department did it. Foolish and reckless. Political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way. We became the woke department. But not anymore.”

“This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically-correct, and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department, to rip out the politics. No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses, no more climate change worship, no more division, distraction, or gender delusions. No more debris,” Hegseth declared. “As I’ve said before and will say again, we are done with that s***. I’ve made it my mission to uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal. That said, the War Department requires the next step.”

“The litmus test for these changes is pretty simple. Would I want my eldest son, who is 15 years old, eventually joining the types of formations that we are currently wielding?” Hegseth asked. “My son is no more important than any other American citizen who dons the cloth of our nation. He is no more important than your son. All precious souls made in the image and likeness of God,” he continued. “Every parent deserves to know that their son or their daughter that joins our ranks is entering exactly the kind of unit that the secretary of War would want his son to join,” Hegseth emphasized. “Jesus said, ‘Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself.’ It’s the ultimate simplifying test of truth. The new War Department golden rule is this: ‘Do unto your unit as you would have done unto your own child’s unit.”

“Would you want him serving with fat or unfit or under-trained troops, or alongside people who can’t meet basic standards, or in a unit where standards were lowered so certain types of troops could make it in, in a unit where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit performance and war-fighting? The answer is not just no, it’s hell no,” the secretary proclaimed. “This means that the War Department, first and foremost, we must restore a ruthless, dispassionate, and common-sense application of standards,” he explained. “I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat, in a unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men, or troops who are not fully proficient on their assigned weapons platform or task, or under a leader who was the first but not the best,” Hegseth shared. “Standards must be uniform, gender neutral, and high. If not, they’re not standards. They’re just suggestions, suggestions that get our sons and daughters killed.”

“The era of politically correct, overly-sensitive, ‘don’t hurt anyone’s feelings’ leadership ends right now at every level. Either you can meet the standard, either you can do the job, either you are disciplined, fit, and trained, or you are out,” Hegseth stated. Some of the policies he shared that the Department of War is introducing to increase the U.S. military’s lethality and warrior ethos include:

  1. The Department is restoring the highest male standards for combat roles, ensuring that all personnel in combat Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) and designated combat arms positions meet the highest male physical fitness and performance standards, regardless of their sex. “If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is,” Hegseth said. “It will also mean that weak men won’t qualify, because we’re not playing games. This is combat. This is life or death.”
  1. All servicemembers, including high-ranking officers such as generals and admirals, will have to pass rigorous physical fitness and weight tests twice a year. “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations — or really any formation — and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world,” Hegseth said. “It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are. So whether you’re an Airborne Ranger or a Ranger, a brand new private or a four-star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards and pass your P.T. test.”
  1. Grooming and appearance standards are also being reset in an effort to promote uniformity and discipline. Bans on beards and long hair, for example, will be strictly enforced now, with exceptions made for Special Forces personnel. “No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We’re going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards,” the clean-shaven Hegseth announced. “We don’t have a military full of Nordic pagans, but unfortunately, we have had leaders who either refuse to call B.S. and enforce standards, or leaders who felt like they were not allowed to enforce standards. Both are unacceptable.”
  1. The War Department will also be reducing unnecessary training related to issues such as climate, sensitivity, gender ideology, and DEI. “An entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that ‘our diversity is our strength.’ … They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQ+ statements. They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they’re females are totally normal. They were told that we need a green fleet and electric tanks. They were told to kick out Americans who refuse an emergency vaccine,” Hegseth recounted. “Now we’re giving you back real time: less PowerPoint briefings and fewer online courses, more time in the motor pool and more time on the range.”
  1. The online actions of troops will also be more strictly observed and disciplined. Anonymous posting and particularly criticizing or complaining about military leaders will not be tolerated. “Anonymous online or keyboard complaining is not worthy of a warrior. It’s cowardice masquerading as conscience. Anonymous unit-level social media pages that trash commanders, demoralize troops, and undermine unit cohesion must not be tolerated again,” Hegseth clarified. Additionally, officers will not be excessively penalized for “honest mistakes” or for taking risks. “A risk-averse culture means officers execute not to lose, instead of to win,” Hegseth explained. “Commanders and NCOs don’t take necessary risks or make tough adjustments for fear of rocking the boat or making mistakes. A blemish-free record is what peacetime leaders covet the most, which is the worst of all incentives.”
  1. Diversity, equity, and inclusion standards, such as race-based hiring or promotion, and gender ideology, as Hegseth noted at the beginning of his speech, are over at the Department of War. Instead, the military will focus on merit-based hiring and promotion to ensure that it is advancing the best, brightest, and bravest that the nation has to offer.

In comments to The Washington Stand, retired Lt. Col. (Ret.) Robert Maginnis, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, observed, “Secretary Hegseth sent a very clear message at Quantico: the Pentagon is back to being the War Department. His focus is on warfighting, not bureaucracy. That means ending politically-correct distractions — he said flat out, ‘the era of overly-sensitive, don’t hurt anyone’s feelings’ leadership ends right now.’” Maginnis added, “What this means moving forward is simple: a leaner, tougher, more lethal military. If it’s done right, it restores the warrior ethos that wins wars. But it will also test whether these reforms are about readiness or politics. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, executive vice president at Family Research Council, told TWS, “In my 36-and-a-half years in the U.S. Army, I never saw an event like this, where virtually all senior leadership of all the military services gathered to hear the secretary of Defense tell his people what he expects of them and the people they lead.” Boykin shared, “I think it is another indication that our American military is being restored from the abysmal shape that it was in when the last administration left office. I sincerely hope that this will be at least an annual event for him and these leaders.”

The president also spoke at the Quantico summit, joking that Hegseth’s speech was so strong that he would rather “fire” the secretary than have to follow him onstage. “There could be no higher honor than to serve as your commander in chief. It is a great honor. … To each and every one of you, I thank you for your unwavering devotion to the armed forces and to the country that we’ve all sworn a sacred oath to defend,” Trump began.

Addressing the change of name from Department of Defense to Department of War, the president commented, “We won the First World War. We won the Second World War. We won everything in between and everything before that. We only won. And then we went in a way that was probably the first sign of wokeness. And we changed it to Defense instead of War.” He observed, “It’s really a historic reassertion of our purpose and our identity and our pride. That’s when we go with the word war.” The president continued, “We want war, because we want to have no wars. But you have to be there, sometimes you have to do it. I have settled so many wars since we’re here. We’re here almost nine months, and I’ve settled seven. And yesterday we might have settled the biggest of them all.”

Trump observed that the only conflict he hasn’t “settled” yet is the one between Ukraine and Russia. He faulted his predecessor, Joe Biden, and his inept leadership of the military for emboldening Russian President Vladimir Putin to engage in the conflict. “I mean, if we were weak, they wouldn’t even take my phone call. But we have extreme strength. We had the horror show in Afghanistan, which is really the reason I think that Putin went in. He saw that horror show by Biden and his team of incompetent people, and that showed, I think it gave him a path in,” the president posited. “And now we’re back, and that’s it. We’re not going to have any of that crap happen, I can tell you. That was terrible. So terrible.”

“Together, we’re reawakening the warrior spirit. And this is a spirit that won and built this nation. And from the cavalry that tamed the Great Plains to the ferocious, unyielding power of Patton, Bradley, and the great General Douglas MacArthur, these are all great men in this effort. We’re a team,” the president told the gathered military leaders. “I am with you, I support you, and as president, I have your backs 100%. You’ll never see me even waver a little bit. That’s the way it is.”

“As leaders, our commitment to every patriot who put on the uniform is to ensure that the American military remains the most lethal and dominant on the planet, not merely for a few years, but for decades,” Trump declared. “To be so strong that no nation will dare challenge us, so powerful that no enemy will dare threaten us, and so capable that no adversary can even think about beating us,” he added. “History has shown that military supremacy has never been simply a matter of money or manpower. At the end of the day, it is the culture, the spirit of our military, that truly sets us apart from any other nation,” the president stated. “Our ultimate strength will always come from the fierce people, those brilliant people with such pride and the unbending will and the traditions of excellence that have made us the most unstoppable force ever to walk the face of the earth. And that’s what we are.”

“The men and women in this room inherit the legacy built and won by Washington and Jackson. Grant and Pershing, Eisenhower and Patton, Nimitz and LeMay. We carry forward the majestic military heritage passed down from father to son, soldier to soldier, and one generation of warriors to the next,” Trump soliloquized. “From Concord Bridge to Fort McHenry, from Gettysburg to Manila Bay, from Normandy to Sicily, and from the jungles of Vietnam to the dusty streets of Baghdad, America’s military has charged into hellfire, climbed up jagged mountains, crossed roaring oceans, and thundered across open deserts to defend our flag, our freedom, and our homeland.”

“Now we are discovering American muscle, reasserting American might, and beginning the next storied chapter in American military legends and lore. … When it comes to defending our way of life, nothing will slow us. No enemy will stop us. They cannot stop us. And no adversary will stand in our way. They won’t stand in our way,” the president asserted. “We will vanquish every danger and crush every threat to our freedom in every generation to come. Because we will fight, fight, fight, and we will win, win, win. I want to just thank you once again, and God bless the United States military and God bless America. God bless you all.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Secreatary of War Pete Hegseth’s full speech

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

DOJ Officials Brainstorming Ways to Restrict Access to Firearms for Trans-Identifying People

/in , , , , /by

Officials inside the U.S. Department of Justice have convened several internal meetings about how to limit access to firearms for people who identify as transgender, according to multiple sources. But any policy formulated from these meetings would raise multiple concerns.

The meetings, first reported by the Daily Wire, have now been confirmed by more than half a dozen news outlets across the political spectrum. “Individuals within the DOJ are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell,” a DOJ spokesperson confirmed to Fox News, but “no specific criminal justice proposals have been advanced at this time.”

The meetings follow a mass shooting by a transgender-identified man at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis. That tragedy adds to a string of high-profile mass shootings by mentally troubled, transgender-identifying people. Mass shootings by transgender-identified perpetrators are infrequent but disproportionately high.

Current federal law does not prevent all people with a mental illness from owning a firearm. However, the current Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473) does ask prospective gun purchasers, “Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”

For some DOJ officials, the move is instinctual. “Democrats have called for common sense gun laws for a long time,” one DOJ source blabbed. “This seems pretty common sense to me.” Some righ-twing activists have also encouraged the move. Last week, Charlie Kirk posted on X, “If you are crazy enough to want to hormonally and surgically ‘change your sex,’ you have a mental disorder, and you are too crazy to own a firearm.”

Naturally, the news has drawn criticism too. “This precedent being used against trans people could be used against veterans with PTSD. It’s a slippery slope to make anyone lose their 2nd amendment rights,” complained Alejandra Caraballo, a prominent trans activist with a post at Harvard Law School. Human Rights Campaign Communications Director Laurel Powell made a similar point, “The Constitution isn’t a privilege reserved for the few; it guarantees basic rights to all. Transgender people … deserve the full protection of our nation’s laws, not anti-American nonsense from the White House.”

DOJ officials should beware playing into the narrative of transgender activists. By noodling a way to deprive people who identify as transgender — and only them — of the ability to keep firearms, the Justice Department leaves itself open to charges of discrimination. Not every transgender-identified person is a potential mass shooter, and activist lawyers would quickly enlist a sympathetic case. Activist lawyers may cite even these preliminary discussions as evidence of discriminatory intent in unrelated cases.

A second concern is the constitutional issues at play. Far more than other cultural flashpoints, firearms possession is explicitly protected under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Left-wing lawyers could easily argue that any policy preventing transgender-identifying Americans from owning firearms violates this constitutional right, not to mention the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Third, even if the DOJ set aside the merits of the inevitable legal challenges that would result, it is questionable whether any policy designed to keep transgender-identified people from possessing firearms would even accomplish its intended effect — namely, to prevent mass shootings, particularly school shootings. The argument here is identical to the argument against all gun control. Somehow, criminals who want to have guns still manage to get guns, even if they have to do it illegally. After all, if they plan to kill people, why would they care about breaking a law to obtain a deadly weapon?

The fourth problem is arguably the thorniest for any policy the DOJ might devise: how would the class of affected individuals be defined? The category is nebulous, with some people identifying as transgender (or “gender-diverse”) yet making minimal efforts to modify their body, dress, or behavior. The category can also be unstable with some people changing their gender identity based on how they feel on a given day. Thus, it’s difficult to precisely define the class at all — either for activist lawyers seeking to win judicial protections, or activist executive officials seeking to impose exclusionary policies.

It’s likely that some participants in the DOJ meetings wisely recognized at least some of these same concerns. On nearly every issue, the second Trump administration has acted rapidly, even to a fault. Yet here, after several meetings, the DOJ only states that “no specific criminal justice proposals have been advanced at this time.”

Time will tell whether it stays that way. But for now, it seems like a prudent choice for the DOJ to hold meetings on the topic before rushing out an ill-conceived policy. “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety (Proverbs 11:14).

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: A History of Trans Mass Murderers

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Four Key Cases SCOTUS Will Look at in 2025-2026 Term

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Over the past year, the U.S. Supreme Court has made several significant decisions and rulings, from protecting children from online pornography, allowing parents to opt their children out of LGBT promotion in the classroom, and empowering states to defund Planned Parenthood to halting the abuse of universal injunctions, ending workplace reverse discrimination, and letting states shield children from harmful gender transition procedures. The Supreme Court’s emergency docket was also filled — and often — with the nation’s highest judicial authority frequently siding with President Donald Trump on everything from immigration to transgender-identifying military servicemembers.

The Supreme Court’s next term, beginning in October, promises to keep the nine justices just as active. Here are some of the most important cases already on the Supreme Court’s docket for the next year.

Little v. Hecox

In United States v. Skrmetti, decided earlier this year, the Supreme Court determined that states are free to protect children from transgenderism; now, the court will decide whether states are free to protect women’s sports. In 2020, Idaho approved H.B. 500, a law barring biological males who identify as women from competing in women’s sports. Lindsey Hecox, a biological male who identifies as a woman, challenged the law in an effort to compete on Boise State University’s track and cross-country women’s teams. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that Idaho’s law violated the Equal Protection Clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

“Women and girls have fought for decades to achieve an equal playing field. Nowhere has that been more evident than in sports,” Idaho wrote in its appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal continued, “The last decade has exhibited a growing trend of males identifying as females competing against — and beating — females in women’s sports across the country.” Idaho pleaded, “This Court’s review is urgently needed to resolve [jurisprudential] splits and preserve the equal playing field women have fought to secure. … Every day the Ninth Circuit’s decision stands, female athletes suffer injustice. The petition should be granted without delay.”

West Virginia v. BPJ

Idaho specifically requested that the Supreme Court also take up the similar case of West Virginia v. BPJ, in order to firmly resolve questions surrounding the legal definitions of sex and gender and their treatment before the law. In response to a West Virginia law blocking biological males from competing in women’s sports, transgender-identifying 12-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson (the eponymous BPJ) filed a lawsuit, citing violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title IX. Clinton-appointed Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia originally prevented the state from enforcing the law but ultimately ruled that it was not unconstitutional. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed, writing that applying the law to BPJ “would treat her worse than people to whom she is similarly situated, deprive her of any meaningful athletic opportunities, and do so on the basis of sex.”

In its petition to the Supreme Court, West Virginia wrote, “This Court should set things right. The Fourth Circuit’s splintered decision casts into doubt similar laws in at least 24 other States, sows confusion about antidiscrimination law, ignores scientific evidence, and renders school sports an un-administrable morass.” The state continued, “In the end, the decision all but declares that any law recognizing differences between sexes is unlawful whenever that law runs counter to someone’s ‘gender identity.’”

Chiles v. Salazar

Idaho and West Virginia aren’t the only states tackling the issue of transgenderism. Colorado has also waded into the fray, but heading the other direction. In Chiles v. Salazar, Christian counselor Kaley Chiles is challenging a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy,” citing religious liberty violations. The law prohibits counselors and therapists from cautioning children against gender ideology and gender transition procedures but allows counselors and therapists to encourage gender ideology and gender transition procedures. Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously ruled against Chiles, allowing the Colorado law to stand.

The Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts currently classify conversations between counselors and patients as “conduct,” which states are permitted to legally regulate, while the Third and Eleventh Circuit Courts recognize those conversations as constitutionally-protected free speech. “The Court should not allow this conflict to persist. Otherwise, counselors like Kaley Chiles and countless other professionals … will have First Amendment protections in some states but not others,” wrote Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing Chiles. “Constitutional rights should

not depend on geographical happenstance,” ADF attorneys wrote. They added, “This Court’s review is urgently needed to reaffirm that the government cannot censor messages ‘under the guise’ of regulating conduct…”

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin

New Jersey’s Attorney General, Democrat Matthew Platkin, subpoenaed First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a group of pro-life pregnancy resource centers, demanding information on donors and doctors affiliated with the group. Platkin claimed to be investigating potentially misleading business practices, but First Choice Women’s Resource Centers claimed in a federal lawsuit that the AG’s actions had a “chilling effect” on pro-lifers’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that it properly belonged in a state court, not a federal court. While the Supreme Court isn’t expected to resolve the First Amendment claims, the justices will address the jurisdictional question, clarifying federal court jurisdiction over state actions infringing on First Amendment rights.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Fewer Americans Believe ‘Changing Gender’ Is ‘Morally Acceptable’: Poll

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

A new Gallup poll shows the LGBT agenda continues to lose support, as fewer Americans believe attempting to change one’s gender is “morally acceptable” than felt that way in 2021.

“The current 40% of U.S. adults who believe that changing genders is morally acceptable is down six points from 2021, while the latest 54% who think it is morally wrong is similar to prior readings,” stated the poll, released this week. “Partisans’ opinions differ significantly, with 71% of Democrats, 45% of independents and 9% of Republicans saying that changing one’s gender is morally acceptable. Republicans’ opinions have changed the most since 2021, falling by 13 points.”

While the number of Democrats who support transgenderism has risen since 2021, the support among registered Independents has fallen by three percentage points and six points among all American adults during the same time. Gallup similarly found Republican support for same-sex marriage crumbling.

The poll is one of many showing the LGBT agenda losing support in recent years. The percentage of Americans who believe same-sexual relationships are “morally acceptable” fell by 7% last year, the largest decrease of any of the moral issues posed by Gallup pollsters in their annual Values and Beliefs poll, released last June. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released last Friday found that 82% of parents favor “legislation that would strengthen parental rights over their children”; 77% oppose transgender injections or surgeries for minors (including 67% of Democrats and 77% of Independents); and 70% say schools should not teach children their gender is a choice (including 54% of Democrats).

Another poll found, since 2022, the American people have become:

  • 10 points more likely to say the transgender industry should not be able to prey on minors
  • 8 points more likely to support laws protecting sex-specific spaces such as restrooms
  • 8 points more likely to oppose allowing transgender-identified athletes to compete against athletes of the opposite sex
  • 6 points more likely to say public education should not smuggle transgender ideology into the classroom

“First, the mood of the country has changed, so people probably feel more free to say what they actually believe,” Joseph Backholm, senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “Cancel culture has lost much of its power so people don’t perceive the same risk from saying there are only two sexes and they can’t be changed.”

“Second,” he continued, “people understand its not just a matter of personal choice. There are consequences for what we believe, and pretending we can be anything we want is creating cultural chaos.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

SBC Votes to Condemn Same-Sex Marriage, Chemical Abortion, Other Moral Evils

Democrats Hire Feminist Abortion Lobbyist to Tell Them How to Talk to Men

AI, Social Media, and How Kids Are Paying the Price

RELATED VIDEO: Sec. Def. Hegseth: Men who think they’re women have mental health issues DETRIMENTAL to readiness

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Planned Parenthood Committed 402,230 Abortions, Received $792.2 Million in Taxpayer Funding in 2024

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

House Republicans seeking to end federal funding of abortion businesses received two enormous boosts to their efforts on Monday, as a legislative provision inched closer to adoption and Planned Parenthood released an annual report showing it received more taxpayer funding than any time in history. The report has pro-life experts telling The Washington Stand, “Planned Parenthood must be defunded.”

Planned Parenthood committed 402,230 abortions and received $792.2 million in taxpayer funding in 2024, according to its 2024 annual report, released Monday. Last year, U.S. taxpayers became Planned Parenthood’s largest financial contributor, supplying 39% of the organization’s $2 billion in revenue — up from 34% in the last report.

“Planned Parenthood carries out over 1,100 abortions per day and receives over $2 million a day in taxpayer funding. This should absolutely disgust Americans. Our hard-earned dollars should not be going towards the slaughter of innocent unborn children. The federal government must end this horrific use of funds,” Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “It’s past time for Congress to say, ‘American taxpayers will not be forced to pad the wallets of Planned Parenthood executives while women receive shoddy treatment in unsanitary conditions and their unborn children are killed.’”

“Planned Parenthood must be defunded,” Szoch remarked.

Planned Parenthood had net revenue of $2 billion and ended the year with total net assets of $2.52 billion. More than a dozen Planned Parenthood executives make more money than Anthony Fauci. Yet financial data remain murky, co-mingling multiple years and not including all affiliates.

The report indicates a massive increase in both abortions and taxation extraction since last year. Planned Parenthood committed 392,712 abortions and received a $699.3 million in 2023. Taxpayers were “forced to give them a 13% increase in funding while most of America received only a 3 to 5% increase,” SFLAction President Kristan Hawkins told TWS via email. The abortion business carried out 374,155 abortions and received $670.4 million in taxpayer funding during its 2021-2022 fiscal year — itself an increase of 9,252 abortions over pre-Dobbs levels.

“Leave it to Planned Parenthood to reveal their billions of dollars in abortion income on the heels of Mother’s Day weekend,” observed American Life League (ALL) Director Katie Brown Xavios. Planned Parenthood’s actions “included 402,230 abortions, sex education for young children, cross sex hormone distribution, and of course, the distribution of the deadly abortion pill.” ALL noted the report did not specify the number of abortions carried out by telehealth medication abortion.

Planned Parenthood increased its promotion of transgender procedures, primarily cross-sex hormone injections, introducing “Virtual Health Centers” at 23 Planned Parenthood affiliates. But as it did last year, Planned Parenthood lumped in the number of “transgender services” with “other procedures,” which fell dramatically to 77,858 from 177,237 in the 2023 report.

At least one Planned Parenthood affiliate has begun advertising transgender surgeries. “Planned Parenthood also offers some gender affirming surgeries to patients in the St. Louis area and refers to other providers when needed,” proclaims Planned Parenthood Great Rivers (PPGR) in Missouri.

“For yet another year, pregnant women seeking help at Planned Parenthood are sold an abortion 97% of the time, while prenatal services, miscarriage care and adoption referrals make up a minuscule minority of the options they offer. Meanwhile their priorities include their assault on parental rights, transgender ‘treatments’ and political spending to defeat Republicans,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America told TWS. “This report heightens the urgency to defund Big Abortion and stop forcing taxpayers to fund an industry that destroys unborn lives and preys on women and girls.”

Planned Parenthood employs 90 “patient navigators” whose actions “potentially break laws in pro-life states,” noted SFLAction.

Yet the “health care provider” reduced its health care services sharply since last year: Cancer screenings decreased 8.1%, pap tests fell 12.3%, and primary care visits declined by 13.7%, according to Michael New, a professor at The Catholic University of America.

Planned Parenthood: Undergoing STI Testing Is a Time of ‘Hope’

The nation’s largest abortion business styled its work as inspiring hope. “Every time a patient walks through the doors of a Planned Parenthood health center, it is an act of hope,” begins Planned Parenthood’s annual report. “Every time someone … goes with their partner for STI testing, they are filled with hope that the future they plan is possible.”

The report boasts of its ties to partisan political figures in the Democratic Party, noting Democrat Kamala Harris became the first sitting vice president to visit an abortion business, choosing a Minnesota Planned Parenthood. It vows to continue its activism “to educate people about sexual and reproductive health and rights” — a concept Planned Parenthood believes endows all American minors and illegal immigrants with the right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, as well as transgender procedures.

Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson also vowed Planned Parenthood will continue to promote “abortion care” to “communities of color, low-income communities, those without documentation.” Her promise would cheer Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who once attended a Ku Klux Klan rally. “That’s who Planned Parenthood is and who we’ll continue to be,” promised Johnson.

House Committee Moves to Defund Planned Parenthood

The report came as the House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee, chaired by Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), approved language to end federal funding to any entity that carries out abortions. On Monday, 183 legislators from almost every state urged Congress to defund Planned Parenthood.

“We commend our House Republican allies for working hard on a budget reconciliation process that finally gets taxpayers out of the abortion business and we encourage them to persevere,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America told TWS. “Now more than ever, we can hardly wait to see the ‘one big beautiful bill’ advance in Congress.”

Yet defunding efforts are reportedly opposed by Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), and Jen Kiggans (R-Va.).

“Demanding that Americans prop up an organization that sells wrong-sex hormone treatments, that sterilizes minors, and that ends precious lives in the womb violates the consciences of many Americans,” Hawkins told TWS. “Planned Parenthood is a case study in how access to power equals wealth, and for those in the GOP who are inclined to support them, remember at election time they are coming for you!”

Until the bill passes, pro-life advocates vowed to fight on. “The fight isn’t over,” said an email sent Monday night by FRC Action, urging recipients to take action. “In fact, it’s really just begun.”

“As Congress looks to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, it’s high time that we end taxpayer funding of gender transition procedures and abortion providers,” says the FRC Action letter.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

West Virginia Strengthens Law Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Procedures

Experts Decry Washington State Law Singling out Clergy

Pope Leo XIV Plans to Address Artificial Intelligence Concerns

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Our Revenue Hit a Cliff’: Radical LGBT Groups See Mass Layoffs in Trump Era

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

As the legacy media highlight questionable polls and short-term economic dislocations to portray President Donald Trump as uniquely unpopular with the American people, some of the main financial and political movements of the Democratic Party have engaged in a series of mass layoffs — especially groups focused on promoting LGBT ideology.

GLSEN — founded by Kevin Jennings in 1990 as the “Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network” to promote extreme transgender ideology in public schools — announced in February it would lay off 60% of its workforce. The announcement came one day before the nation’s leading LGBTQIA+ pressure group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), announced it would cut 20% of its staff in February, laying off about 50 people.

GLSEN’s leader “says that the business decision was painful and necessary in response to mounting financial pressures and coordinated right-wing attacks,” which the LGBT lobby is apparently losing, reported The Advocate. GLSEN Executive Director Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, whom the outlet describes as “the first [b]lack and nonbinary person to lead the organization,” announced the LGBT pressure group fired 18 employees on February 3. “We are not an injured version of the GLSEN we were before Monday. We are a new organization,” the director insisted.

But Willingham-Jaggers admitted the lack of corporate support blew a hole in the organization’s bottom line. “We hit a ceiling — and then our revenue hit a cliff because of right-wing attacks … [T]otal revenue is down,” said Willingham-Jaggers. “They saw Target back off, and then they came for us even harder.” Willingham-Jaggers chided donors that they “need to fund us like they want us to win.” In the same vein, HRC President Kelley Robinson said “the last several years” have presented “historic challenges to our progress,” specifically from “historical softening’ of HRC’s support “in institutions, out of fear.”

These moves underline “the broader financial strain facing LGBTQ+ advocacy groups amid a shifting political and philanthropic landscape,” reported The Advocate.

According to the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent financial disclosures, HRC raised $75 million in its 2024 fiscal year — a $10 million decrease from the previous year — but spent $88.9 million, cutting its total assets by $12.6 million. (HRC still had robust total net assets totaling $45.7 million as of March 31, 2024.) With HRC, too, the largest funding decreases came from “Corporate & foundation grants & contracts” (down $5 million year over year) and “planned giving” ($1.9 million).

GLSEN’s ‘Rainbow Library’ and HRC’s ‘Gender Snowperson’ Meet the DNC

Both GLSEN and HRC have long sought to indoctrinate public school students with extreme LGBT ideology. The nation’s largest public schools union, the National Education Association (NEA), instructed teachers in 33 states how they can obtain a free “Rainbow Library” from which GLSEN describes as “an initiative that provides LGBTQ+ affirming text sets to schools free of charge. We have already sent Rainbow Library sets to 8,100 schools and libraries.”

GLSEN encouraged teachers to insert transgender ideology into math problems. For instance, in one of GLSEN’s suggested word problems, teachers would ask math students to calculate how long it will take to “spread the use of the singular they/them/their pronoun” used by individuals who identify as “nonbinary.” Since “any encounter will lead to a percent of the population adopting the they/them/their pronouns as part of regular use, the students can determine how long it will take for the entire population to adopt the use.”

GLSEN also suggested inserting multiple gender identities into student surveys that traditionally ask for a student’s sex. “[T]eachers need to be sure they include both intersex and other as choices,” and if “the students want to include data for gender, a variety of choices need to be included, such as agender, genderfluid, female, male, nonbinary, transman, transwoman, and other,” insisted GLSEN.

As this author has detailed at The Washington Stand:

“HRC’s ‘Welcoming Schools” program instructs teachers to read the book ‘They, She, He, Easy as ABC’ to children in preschool or kindergarten. Its pre-Klesson plan defines ‘gender identity’ as ‘How you feel. Girl, boy, both or neither. Everyone has a gender identity,’ conducts school trainings, and creates lesson plans for teachers beginning in ‘pre-K.’ By third grade, it encourages students to use the ‘Gender Snowperson’ exercise to ‘understand the differences between gender identity, sexual orientation and sex assigned at birth.’

“The HRC … opposes laws protecting minors from transgender procedures and has denounced laws ‘allowing misgendering of transgender students’ or regulating ‘drag performances.’”

Ironically, Robinson has accused conservatives who resist the forced insertion of LGBT ideology into their children’s curriculum of “launching a culture war against our kids.”

Both also have ties to the Democratic Party. HRC has crossed into the partisan sphere, hosting Jill Biden and dedicating $15 million to the 2024 presidential election. Shortly before election day, Robinson reassured her followers Republican ads highlighting Democrats’ extremism on the transgender issue “would fall flat again in 2024.”

GLSEN, too, has enjoyed ties to the Democratic Party since President Barack Obama nominated its controversial founder, Kevin Jennings, to serve as his “Safe Schools Czar.”

Yet corporations which accurately forecasted President Trump’s victory in 2024 have backed off support for his ideological, and political, foes in the LGBT movement. The president has taken swift action to defund, and at times prosecute, those who impose transgenderism in the schools. In his first 100 days in office, Trump has signed executive orders defining sex as a biological reality, protecting women’s sports, and prosecuting states that force girls to change in front of trans-identifying males for Title IX violations.

GLSEN, HRC to Focus on Schools, Workplace Policies, and Redefining Religion

Yet both groups insist they will double-down on propagandizing our nation’s youth in the schools — and changing their views of what the Bible teaches about sexual morality issues.

GLSEN’s plans for the future include a focus on young people and teachers, described as “supporting educators and students in local communities, amplifying youth voices” by The Advocate. Similarly, going forward, The Advocate reported, “HRC officials said schools and workplaces will be a primary area of emphasis.”

HRC will also attempt to redefine the position of the Christian religion on LGBTQ ideology. The Advocate reports that HRC plans to launch new “storytelling initiatives,” one of which will ask Mariann Edgar Budde — the cleric whom The Episcopal Church considers a bishop, who confronted President Trump in a service at the National Cathedral shortly after his inauguration — to provide “moral clarity on LGBTQ+ rights from a religious vantage point.”

In the future, both groups will have to implement their agenda with decimated workforces, thanks to the cultural winds ushered in by last November’s election.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Trans Is Out’: DOD Begins Removing Trans-Identifying Military Members

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Explainer: How Trump ’s Proposed 2026 Budget Impacts Transgenderism, Abortion, Education, Immigration, and More

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump won the 2024 election with a promise to end divisive, taxpayer-funded programs, and his proposed budget for the next fiscal year proves he is willing to save your money where his mouth is. The president’s budget specifically asks Congress to cut billions of dollars from government programs promoting “radical transgender ideology,” “LGBTQIA+” programs, and government “targeting [of] peaceful pro-life protesters” while transferring power back to the states and increasing federal funding for national defense, border security, and public safety.

President Trump detailed his proposed FY 2026 budget in a 46-page overview of major discretionary funding changes, revealing a fiscal and ideological break with his Democratic predecessors. In all, Trump would spend $1.69 trillion, including requesting more than $1 trillion in defense spending for the first time in U.S. history to assist in “repelling the invasion of our border” and “to clean up the mess President Trump inherited from the prior administration.”

Yet the White House refers to the spending guidelines as the “skinny budget,” since it offsets significant spending hikes with $136 billion in reductions that slash 22.6% from non-defense discretionary spending. “Savings come from eliminating radical diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory programs, Green New Scam funding, large swaths of the Federal Government weaponized against the American people, and moving programs that are better suited for States and localities to provide,” according to a White House fact sheet that accompanied the budget release.

If the Biden-Harris administration’s proposed FY 2025 budget sought to insert equity into every program through a whole-of-government approach, the second Trump administration has set out to uproot every vestige of compulsory taxpayer funding of the radical Left. “Over the last four years, Government spending aggressively turned against the American people and trillions of our dollars were used to fund cultural Marxism … and even our own invasion” by illegal immigrants, said Russ Vought, director of the Office and Management and Budget (OMB). “No agency was spared in the Left’s taxpayer-funded cultural revolution.” The administration cited $315 million the Biden administration spent on grant programs “to push ‘intersectionality,’ ‘racial equity,’ and LGBTQIA+ programming for preschoolers,” adding that the FY 2026 budget “ends all of that.”

The budget also promises to advance “the Administration’s goal of restoring federalism,” tying the well-being of families to the U.S. government’s respect for states’ rights and constitutional order. “Just as the Federal Government has intruded on matters best left to American families, it has intruded on matters best left to the levels of government closest to the people,” writes Vought in a letter transmitting the budget.

Here are the specific cuts and dollar amounts removed from the federal budget.

Abortion and the Right-to-Life Movement

President Trump’s proposed FY 2026 budget slashes or eliminates abortion funding while protecting pro-life advocates’ constitutional rights. Specifically, the budget would cut $6.2 billion from Global Health Programs and Family Planning initiatives. “The United States is the largest global contributor to programs that provide so-called family planning services through liberal NGOs, and have funded abortions. This stands in direct conflict with the President’s action reinstating the ‘Mexico City Policy.’ The Budget protects life and prevents a pro-abortion agenda from being promoted abroad with taxpayer dollars.” The president reinstated his 2017 Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy, which bars any group that receives taxpayer funding from carrying out or advocating for abortion overseas. But the budget maintains funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) for current recipients.

The proposed budget also safeguards pro-life advocates’ rights by eliminating $545 million from Biden-Harris administration policies that charged the FBI with “targeting peaceful pro-life protesters, concerned parents at school board meetings, and citizens opposed to radical transgender ideology,” as well as erasing “DEI programs.” The budget also reestablishes fairness by cutting $193 million from General Legal Activities at the Justice Department, prioritizing criminal prosecutions but reducing the budget of the Civil Rights Division, “which the previous administration weaponized against States implementing election integrity measures, local police departments, and pro-life Americans.”

Slashing LGBTQ Radicalism and DEI Programs

President Trump made eliminating DEI, critical race theory, and government-sponsored racism and sexism a focus of his successful 2024 campaign, cementing the approach through a series of executive actions that prosecute race-based discrimination. Similarly, the Republican Party spent $65 million on ads highlighting the Democratic Party’s extremism on transgender ideology, making it the top reason swing voters decided not to vote for Kamala Harris, according to the Democratic polling firm Blueprint. The proposed FY 2026 budget cuts tens of billions of dollars in DEI and LGBTQIA+ funding, as well as climate change ideology.

The proposed budget cuts $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to restore “accountability, public trust, and transparency at the NIH. NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health” by denying the likely lab leak origin of COVID-19 and promoting gain-of-function research, which the president recently banned by executive order. Yet “NIH has also promoted radical gender ideology to the detriment of America’s youth. For example, the NIH funded a study titled ‘Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones,’ in which two participants tragically committed suicide,” the budget notes. The president also cuts $3.6 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a blueprint that “eliminates duplicative, DEI, or simply unnecessary programs.”

The president would cut $8.3 billion from Economic Support Fund, Development Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia, as part of a broader foreign policy to place American interests first and save Europe from itself, but also because “U.S. economic and development aid has been funneled to radical, leftist priorities, including climate change, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and LGBTQ activities around the world.”

The budget cuts $3.5 billion from the National Science Foundation’s grants and research on “climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences.” That comes in addition to another $1.1 billion cut to NSF’s Broadening Participation activities, which have underwritten such programs as “Reimagining Educator Learning Pathways Through Storywork for Racial Equity in STEM”; “addressing White Supremacy in the STEM profession”; and preparing “the next generation of DEI leaders to promote long-term, sustainable racial equity initiatives.”

The president moved dramatically against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) after taking office: exposing their radical grants before firing most of their staff and placing the agency under the authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The FY 2026 budget cuts $2.5 billion from USAID and “eliminates non-essential staff that were hired based on DEI and preferencing practices” while implementing executive orders 14169 to realign foreign aid and 14151 to eliminate DEI programs.

The budget cuts more than $1 billion in grants nestled under the Department of Justice, such as “$1 million to the National Opinion Research Center to ‘investigate the social ecological context of anti-LGBTQ+ hate crime reporting.’ Further, the Budget realigns Violence Against Women Act funding with its original core mission to combat violence against women and directly serve victims — eliminating extraneous programs that divert resources from these core functions. For example, grant funding from the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) had been offered for biological men. In addition, OVW’s Rural Program grants were sent to train community-based Fa’afafine advocates — an organization of biological men that describes themselves as a ‘third-gender.’”

Pro-family experts singled out the VAWA proposal as a welcome gesture. “VAWA programs are intended to help women who are the victims of abuse and in recent years it has been invaded by gender ideology. Currently, women who escape abuse in a VAWA funded shelter could be forced to share private spaces with a man,” Mary Beth Waddell, director of Federal Affairs for Family and Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “We are grateful that the president is calling out this injustice.”

The budget cuts $4.5 billion from the Department of Education while maintaining full federal funding for K-12 schools, consolidating 18 programs into one formula grant that allows the DOE to do as much work with fewer employees. “The new approach allows States and districts to focus on the core subjects — math, reading, science, and history — without the distractions of DEI and weaponization from the previous administration,” notes the budget. It also saves $127 million in administrative costs.

At the college level, the budget cuts $195 million from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Ed (FIPSE), noting that Congress has “abused FIPSE by using it to fund initiatives unrelated to students or institutional reforms, including earmarking $1.2 million for San Diego Community College’s LGBTQIA+ PRIDE Center staffing.” It also cuts $1.6 billion from TRIO and GEAR UP, two programs that incentivized colleges to engage low-income students. The administration argues that economic incentives have eliminated the need for the federal government to continue underwriting colleges and universities’ outreach. “A renewed focus on academics and scholastic accomplishment by [Institutions of Higher Education], rather than engaging in woke ideology with Federal taxpayer subsidies, would be a welcome change for students and the future of the Nation.” The budget also removes $691 million in cultural exchanges for foreign exchange students that prevent American students from acquiring high-demand skills, which the foreign students then take back to their home countries.

The budget cuts $1.6 billion by consolidating the Labor Department’s Make America Skilled Again (MASA) grants, defunding nonprofits promoting DEI, and “the hiring of illegal aliens and migrants; sometimes providing them subsidized housing in addition to a job.”

It cuts $1.3 billion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), scrutinizing NOAA grants for “George Mason University’s ‘Policy Experience in Equity Climate and Health’ fellowship, a workshop for ‘transgender women, and those who identify as nonbinary.’”

Trump’s budget cuts $646 million from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s non-disaster grant programs, seeking to curtail such FEMA activities as “webinars promoting the distribution of disaster aid based on ‘intersectional’ factors like sexual orientation and prioritizing ‘investment in diversity and inclusion efforts … and multicultural training’ over disaster prevention and response.” Under the Trump administration, “FEMA will no longer ‘instill equity as a foundation of emergency management.’” The document rightly notes that “FEMA discriminated against Americans who voted for the President in the wake of recent hurricanes, skipping over their homes when providing aid. This activity will no longer be tolerated.”

The budget cuts $624 million from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), specifically citing an EDA grant “constructing a ‘Pride Plaza’ in Portland, Oregon.”

It cuts $602 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), effectively eliminating “wasteful, woke programming in NIFA, such as activities related to climate change, renewable energy, and promoting DEI in education that were prioritized under the Biden Administration.”

The Trump administration aims to gut federally funded woke programs aimed at Americans at both ends of life. The proposed FY 2026 budget eliminates $405 million from the Labor Department’s Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), which is supposed to subsidize jobs and employment for poor senior citizens but “is effectively an earmark to leftist, DEI-promoting entities like the National Urban League, the Center for Workforce Inclusion, and Easter Seals.” At the same time, it cuts $315 million from Preschool Development Grants (PDG), which was “weaponized by the Biden-Harris Administration to extend the Federal reach and push DEI policies on to toddlers.” For instance, the “guiding principles” implemented by the Minnesota Department of Education for its PDG program include “intersectionality” and “racial equity.”

The budget cuts roughly $19 billion from programs promoting what the White House calls the “Green New Scam.”

The government’s proposed budget generally reins in government grants flowing to radical causes:

  • It cuts $167 million by consolidating the Small Business Administration’s Entrepreneurial Development Programs (EDP), deleting such programs as SCORE, “which in 2023 posted ‘Six Ways to Support LGBTQIA-Owned Businesses.’”
  • It cuts $129 million from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which “pushed radical gender ideology onto children, funding a project at the Seattle Children’s Hospital titled, ‘Using Telehealth to Improve Access to Gender-Affirming Care for BIPOC and Rural Gender-Diverse Youth.’”
  • It cuts $112 million from programs aimed at “Strengthening Institutions,” noting, “It is not the responsibility of Federal taxpayers to support a new ‘Guided Pathways Village, expanding the current Learning Communities and creating a new Ethnic and Pride Inclusion Center for historically underserved students, including LGBTQ+ students.’”
  • It cuts $100 million in “divisive racial discrimination and environmental justice grants that were destined to go to organizations that advance radical ideologies.”
  • It cuts $70 million from Teacher Quality Partnerships, which field grants indoctrinating teachers to begin “acknowledging and responding to systemic forms of oppression and inequity, including racism, ableism, ‘gender-based’ discrimination, homophobia, and ageism.”
  • It cuts $55 million from Complex Crisis Fund, “a catch-all slush fund for nation-building projects and political interference” which “has been weaponized to mandate DEI and LGBTQ policies be implemented in recipient countries as a condition of aid to small businesses.”
  • It cuts $49 million from the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights, a 35% strategic reduction to “refocus away from DEI and Title IX transgender cases … while removing their ability to push DEI programs and promote radical transgender ideology.”

The proposed FY 2026 budget also cuts a total of $19.2 billion from Energy Department initiatives it describes as part of the “Green New Scam.”

Getting the Government Out of the ‘Disinformation’ Business

The proposed FY 2026 budget cuts $491 million from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) as part of its efforts to eliminate “weaponization and waste.” The budget “eliminates programs focused on so-called misinformation and propaganda as well as external engagement offices such as international affairs. These programs and offices were used as a hub in the Censorship Industrial Complex to violate the First Amendment.”

It also cuts $315 million for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which supported Ukrainian government efforts to brand critics as exponents of Russian disinformation and “funded the now-infamous Disinformation Index Foundation that targeted and blacklisted conservative media outlets like Federalist, Newsmax, TAC, the Blaze,” and others.

Restoring National Sovereignty

President Trump has identified himself with the words “America First,” and his budget stakes out similar priorities. It cuts $1.7 billion from the United Nations, UNESCO, and World Health Organization dues, implementing executive order 14199. However, the president may fund these organizations out of a separate funding source “to preserve maximum negotiating leverage.” It also eliminates $1.6 billion from United Nations “peacekeeping” missions that wage war under the U.N.’s blue-helmeted auspices. And it cuts $1.5 billion from Food for Peace, recognizing the waste and abuse of foreign aid transfers from U.S. taxpayers to foreign oligarchs.

The budget also acknowledges that the free market and local business development create sustainable prosperity, not foreign aid. “The program also distorts and undermines local and regional markets where the aid often could be purchased for less and with less waste,” says the budget. Similarly, it cuts $75 million from Transition Initiatives, a program that leads to “further destabilization” around the world and “funds a wasteful tangle of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and partisan cutouts pushing a leftist agenda around the world.”

Borders, Patriotism, National Unity

The budget increases funding for the Department of Homeland Security — which oversees many border enforcement and deportation efforts — by a whopping 65%, or $43.8 billion in additional funds. It cuts nearly $2 billion from programs for refugees and Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs), funds which “were weaponized by the Biden-Harris Administration to give cash handouts, medical services, and job training to illegal immigrants” and to release children in the custody of “insufficiently vetted sponsors,” effectively making the government complicit in child trafficking.

It cuts $650 million from the Shelter and Services Program earmarked for “non-citizen migrants,” tax payments which “funded radical leftist NGOs, who spent funding to facilitate mass illegal migration into the interior of the Nation … weakening the United States from within, taking resources away from American citizens, and promoting crime and decay in America’s cities.” And it cuts $247 million from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which the Biden administration used “to facilitate mass illegal migration by allowing illegal migrants to fly into the interior without proper documentation.”

Yet the budget radically increases funding for the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to hire more air traffic controllers; for Rail Safety and Infrastructure grants to prevent tragedies such as the train derailment and intentional detonation of a train in East Palestine, Ohio; for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to intercept fentanyl; and for stronger trade enforcement against technological and competitiveness threats from the People’s Republic of China.

“Linking proposed decreases in funding to areas of egregious mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and reorienting these dollars to their intended purpose, as opposed to ideological ones, sends a strong message that taxpayers deserve respect, and the use of their hard-earned money should be stewarded well,” Waddell told TWS.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Makes Judge Jeanine Interim US Attorney For D.C.

Democrat Judge Indicted For Voter Fraud In Texas

EXCLUSIVE: States Urge Clinton-Appointed Judge To Stop ‘Extreme’ Effort To Undermine Trump’s Authority Over Agencies

Senate Dems Use ‘Jim Crow’ Filibuster Fourth Time To Block Major Bipartisan Bill

New Database Exposes Extent Of Federal Thought Control Money Machine

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump’s First Federal Judicial Nominees Fought Against Sex Changes For Kids, Limitless Abortion

/in , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump began making his first few federal judicial appointments in recent days, naming several individuals who have been prosecuting violent crime, arguing in front of the Supreme Court and defending various culture-war issues.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Caller in March she did not have an update on when the nominations or vetting would begin, but said she would provide a list of names to the outlet.

Nearly two months later, Trump began those appointments, naming a handful of Missourians to district courts as well as one individual to sit on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Joshua M. Divine of Missouri was appointed Tuesday by Trump to serve as judge on both the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and Western District of Missouri. Divine is the solicitor general of Missouri and director of special litigation in the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. He was previously chief counsel to Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and deputy solicitor general in the Missouri Attorney General’s (AG) Office.

Divine was also a law clerk to both Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge William H. Pryor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He attended Yale Law School, where he was a member of the Yale Law Journal and the Yale Law & Policy Review, according a White House press release.

During his time with the Missouri Attorney General’s office, Divine represented the state against a lawsuit attempting to overturn Missouri’s restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone treatment for minors. Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter ultimately sided with Divine and the state.

Divine also argued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in favor of a block of President Joe Biden’s proposed income-driven repayment plan for borrowers. The court later granted the state its motion to block the student loan forgiveness plan.

While working under Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Divine argued on behalf of the state for a $24 billion judgment against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for its role in the COVID-19 pandemic. A federal judge later granted the judgement after finding the CCP liable for damages concerning the hoarding of personal protective equipment during the 2020 pandemic.

Whitney Hermandorfer, Trump’s pick for the Appeals Court for the Sixth Circuit, is the director of the Strategic Litigation Unit in the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General. Hermandorfer was previously a law clerk to Supreme Court Justices Samuel A. Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Hermandorfer played Division I basketball at Princeton University, attended George Washington University Law School and was editor-in-chief of the George Washington University Law Review.

Recently, Hermandorfer argued on behalf of the state of Tennessee in front of the Supreme Court for the case United States v. Skrmetti. During Biden’s term, his administration challenged the state of Tennessee’s law banning child sex-change procedures.

Hermandorfer has also argued against broadening sex discrimination laws to protect individuals from being discriminated based on their gender identity, which often extends to bathroom and locker room use. Additionally, she challenged a government rule that required states to help employees who elected to obtain an abortion.

Maria A. Lanahan, Trump’s pick to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, is the principal deputy solicitor general in the Missouri AG’s Office. She clerked for Judge Raymond Gruender of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Brian K. Zahra. Lanahan played Division I basketball at Gonzaga University and attended the University of Chicago Law School, where she served as an Articles Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review.

While working under Bailey, Lanahan has focused on statutory interpretation, tax litigation, writs, and constitutional issues, according to the AG’s press release. Lanahan argued in 2023 on behalf of the state in defense of Missouri’s decision to outlaw abortion.

Trump also nominated Zachary M. Bluestone, of Missouri, to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Bluestone is the appellate chief and violent crimes prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri. He previously served in the Missouri AG’s Office as deputy solicitor general and was a law clerk to Judge Raymond Gruender of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Bluestone attended Harvard Law School, where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. As an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri, he focused on the prosecution of violent crimes and criminal appeals.

In one case Bluestone was a prosecutor for, a judge sentenced a former St. Louis middle school principal to two consecutive life terms in prison after he was found guilty of hiring a friend to kill his pregnant schoolteacher girlfriend.

Edward Aloysius O’Connell was nominated Tuesday by Trump to serve as associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. He was previously chief of staff and deputy general counsel of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. O’Connell was also a prosecutor in the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for nearly two decades where he prosecuted homicides, felony major crimes, domestic violence, organized crime, and narcotics offenses, according to the White House press release.

O’Connell clerked for Judge Rufus King III of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia after he graduated from Quinnipiac University School of Law.

“Our Court System is not letting me do the job I was Elected to do. Activist judges must let the Trump Administration deport murderers, and other criminals who have come into our Country illegally, WITHOUT DELAY!!!” Trump said in a Truth Social post following his appointments.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent. Follow Reagan on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Deadly Sabotage Could Destroy Trump’s Legacy, And America Too

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.