Former professional soccer player Elizabeth Eddy made headlines when she wrote an op-ed in the New York Post calling for clear biological sex eligibility standards in the National Women’s Soccer League to protect the fairness of women’s soccer — but it was not received well by her fellow players.

Eddy received intense backlash from her Angel City FC teammates, who publicly accused the piece of being harmful, transphobic, and racially motivated.

Unlike those teammates, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is grateful to Eddy for sounding the alarm on what’s really going on in women’s sports.

“She did not back down,” Stuckey says, before asking Eddy about the initial response to her article.

“What ended up happening is, the article came out … and then before every game, our captains get sent out to the press to do media. … And the two captains shared their thoughts on the article, and they spoke on behalf of the team and the organization,” Eddy tells Stuckey.

“And that was really, really hard to hear because I’d had conversations with both of them in the past, and I was really close with both of them to the point where they were both invited to our wedding. One of them helped my fiancé plan the proposal,” she continues.

And while the article was not “racist” or “transphobic,” her teammates still claimed it was.

“I’ve had a lot of convos with my teammates in the past few days, and they are hurt and they are harmed by the article, and also they are disgusted by some of the things that were said in the article, and it’s really important for me to say that,” one of her teammates said at the press conference.

“And we don’t agree with the things written for a plethora of reasons, but mostly the undertones come across as transphobic and racist as well,” her teammate added.

“I was 100% shocked because … the words I wrote, there’s no way that could be conceived,” Eddy explains.

“Were you able to have a private conversation with them? … After they accused you, racist, transphobic, all of these things, were you able to have a reasonable discussion to be able to say, ‘Well, no, this is what I meant, and this is why it’s not racist,’ or was that not able to happen?” Stuckey asks.

While Eddy admits that those teammates who publicly discussed her article were not willing to have a private discussion with her, she did hear from multiple teammates that they didn’t stand by what the captain said.

“Were you disappointed by any people who said, ‘I completely agree with you, I support you, but I could never do that’?” Stuckey asks.

“Yeah, there’s a part of me that’s like, come on, because if you do, it snowballs and this thing actually changes in a shorter time frame than not. But at the same time, I can totally empathize with them because it was so hard for me to do this,” Eddy answers.

“I was waffling for months about it,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Angel city fc, Racism, Transphobia, Transphobic, Elizabeth eddy, New york post 

Picture this: A 12-year-old stands at the edge of a cold lake at 0600, staring down his swimming merit badge. Nobody asked if he was emotionally ready. Nobody offered a participation ribbon. His scoutmaster told him to jump in. He jumped. He earned it.

That is Scouting — or rather, that is what Scouting was and, if the Pentagon has anything to say about it, what Scouting will be again.

The entire architecture is an applied Aristotelian curriculum. The national office spent a decade dismantling it in favor of ideological programming.

I earned my Eagle Scout rank in the mid-1980s amid the last flicker of Reagan-era optimism. My father served as a district executive with the Boy Scouts of America from the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, when the mission of Scouting was unambiguous and its reputation beyond question.

I served as an assistant scoutmaster at summer camps. My son earned his Eagle Scout rank, went on to graduate from West Point, and now flies as an Army aviator. Three generations; one through-line.

When I graduated from Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in 1988, the discipline I carried with me — compass work, land navigation, physical endurance, mental toughness under discomfort — owed no small debt to what Scouting had already built into me.

The memorandum of understanding signed on February 27, 2026, between Scouting America and the Pentagon is not bureaucratic fine print. It is a cultural rescue operation.

Under pressure from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Scouting America agreed to abandon divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; enforce biological sex distinctions in membership and facilities; and discontinue the politicized “Citizenship in Society” merit badge.

The organization will introduce a new military service merit badge developed with the Department of War; waive registration fees for children of active-duty, Guard, and Reserve families; and rededicate itself formally to duty to God, duty to country, and service.

The agreement aligns with President Trump’s executive order, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The Pentagon gave Scouting six months to demonstrate meaningful compliance. Hegseth was unambiguous: “Ideally, I believe the Boy Scouts should go back to being the Boy Scouts as originally founded — a group that develops boys into men.”

Scouting has long served as a reliable pipeline to the U.S. armed forces, with Eagle Scouts heavily represented in ROTC, service academies, and military leadership tracks at rates far exceeding the general population.

Meanwhile, roughly 77% of young Americans are currently ineligible for military service, with obesity as the single leading disqualifier. The U.S. Army fell 25% short of its 2022 recruitment goals, and that trend has not reversed.

RELATED: Why do state schools bankroll people who despise the state?

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

An institution that once produced physically prepared, morally grounded young men willing to serve their country is not a luxury. It is a national security asset.

Scouting’s founding philosophy was never complicated. William D. Boyce chartered the Boy Scouts of America in 1910 after an unnamed Scout in fog-shrouded London refused a tip for guiding a lost American — because a Scout does not accept payment for a good turn.

Robert Baden-Powell’s Scouting model translated Aristotelian virtue ethics into an applied curriculum. Character, as Aristotle argued in the “Nicomachean Ethics,” is not innate — it is forged through repeated habit and deliberate challenge. One does not become courageous by reading about courage. One becomes courageous by building a fire in the rain, navigating by stars at 0200, and rappelling down a cliff face with a scoutmaster who has no interest in excuses.

The patrol method, rank advancement, merit badge requirements — the entire architecture is an applied Aristotelian curriculum. The national office spent a decade dismantling it in favor of ideological programming. The irony is almost too rich to catalog.

The membership figures tell the story no press release can obscure. Enrollment peaked at roughly 6.5 million in the early 1970s. By 2026, fewer than one million combined boys and girls remained enrolled. The 2020 bankruptcy filing, driven by sexual abuse claims, produced a $2.4 billion settlement compensating more than 82,000 claimants in 2023 — a catastrophic institutional failure that, to put it with considerable understatement, did not help recruitment.

The progression of policy changes is well documented: Gay youth membership opened in 2013; openly gay adult leaders followed in 2015; a 2017 case in New Jersey involving an 8-year-old opened transgender membership; girls entered Cub Scouts in 2018 and the flagship program in 2019. The 2025 rebrand to “Scouting America” completed the transformation — apparently because “Boy Scouts” contained the word “boy,” which had become inconvenient.

The “Citizenship in Society” merit badge, required for Eagle Scout rank, captured the broader problem with admirable brevity. The badge directed participants to “realize the benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion” and practice “ethical leadership” through the lens of identity politics.

Think about that sequencing: instead of studying the Declaration of Independence, constitutional structure, or proper flag etiquette, Scouts were directed to contemplate microaggressions and systemic bias.

RELATED: Why America’s enemies always target Western civilization first

VCG Wilson/Corbis/Getty Images

As someone who earned merit badges in camping, first aid, and rifle shooting — skills that translated directly into my experience at Marine Corps OCS — the substitution struck me as roughly equivalent to replacing a wilderness survival course with a corporate HR seminar and then expressing genuine puzzlement at falling enrollment. The memorandum of understanding eliminates that badge effective immediately. Eagle Scout rank now requires 13 merit badges instead of 14.

The reforms are a start. The next step is enrollment. Parents with sons in the target age range should investigate local troops directly, ask hard questions about how the new biological sex policies are actually being implemented, not just acknowledged, and choose units that are executing the reforms in good faith rather than grudging compliance.

Adults with relevant skills should volunteer. The merit badge counselor system runs entirely on people with genuine expertise: navigation, wilderness medicine, marksmanship, engineering. If you served in uniform, your experience is directly applicable and badly needed.

Watching a hesitant 12-year-old master the bowline knot and then use it confidently three days later on a climbing wall is, I can report firsthand, among the more satisfying experiences available to a middle-aged man who has otherwise run out of things left to prove.

My father spent a decade building boys into men because he believed the mission mattered. I carried that conviction into my own service at summer camp. My son carried it all the way to West Point. The Scout motto, “Be prepared,” has never been more operationally relevant. These reforms restore a foundation. What gets built on it is up to us.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

​Boy scouts of america, Scouting america, Pentagon, Pete hegseth, Trump, Executive order, Merit badge, Scoutmaster, Boy scouts, Opinion & analysis 

Defending Education, an advocacy organization that combats leftist indoctrination in K-12 public schools, recently obtained documents outlining the talking points and marching orders being fed to radicals ahead of leftist May Day protests planned across the country.

Among the leftist outfits poised to train would-be protesters is the Midwest Academy, a liberal activist-grooming center that has reportedly received over $1.7 million in recent years from the National Education Association.

‘Congress should revoke the NEA’s federal charter.’

The Midwest Academy, joined by the the NYU Metro Center and organizers from Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools member groups, is coordinating a four-week training series titled “Four Weeks of Power” with the purported aim of building “a broader, stronger base of parents, educators and students taking action to defend and transform public schools.”

Although organized by the NEA-backed outfit, sessions will be provided by the leftist organization Free the Future, part of the NEA-aligned Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools network.

Free the Future will start off the sessions by providing “an introduction to community organizing in the context of the rising authoritarianism we’re seeing in real time.” Free the Future will conclude the sessions by helping fellow travelers “better understand power mapping and targets, understanding which actions make sense for our team and community, and the logistics of planning a successful action.”

RELATED: Why Johnny still can’t read: The curriculum cartel doesn’t want reform

Dominic Di Palermo/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Free the Future is evidently keen to train up radicals with the NEA-backed group in time for mass protests on May 1. Free the Future has partnered with May Day Strong “to plan hundreds of actions in the streets” next month.

May Day Strong’s tool kit reveals that radicals are reskinning their No Kings protests for May Day.

The tool kit recommends not only protesting outside lawmakers’ offices and “one of the many corporate targets we need to take on,” but that radicals stage “school walk-ins” and rally outside schools.

Hilton Hotels, Chevron, Citgo, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car are the corporations targeted by May Day Strong.

The organizers have furnished would-be protesters with a template press release that contains the following talking points:

“Tax the rich so our families, not their fortunes, come first.” “No ICE, NO War. No private army serving authoritarian power.” “Expand democracy, not corporate rule. Defend free and fair elections.”

NEA’s official May Day 2026 “Solidarity Toolkit,” which is greatly similar to the May Day Strong tool kit right down to the advocacy for school walk-ins, states, “This May Day will be a day of rallies, marches, teach-ins, labor actions, and a refusal of business as usual — because when those at the top rig the system, collective action is how we set it right.”

According to NEA’s tool kit, “walk-ins” seem to involve a school invasion:

During school walk-ins, parents, educators, and students, along with neighbors and community leaders, gather in front of their school 30-45 minutes before the school day begins. We rally and listen to a few speakers discuss what they want for the school, and then we all walk into the school together. Walk-ins can be used to celebrate your school, collaborate with school officials, or protest harmful school conditions and policies.

Rhyen Staley, director of research at Defending Education, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, “This is yet another example of how activists and teachers’ unions view schools as a tool to advance their political agenda.”

“It should be deeply concerning that one of the suggested tactics is to enter schools to protest against policies they don’t like,” continued Staley. “Putting children’s education and safety at risk for political gain is unethical and immoral.”

Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, told Blaze News, “Congress should revoke the NEA’s federal charter or at least bar them from engaging in political activity altogether.”

DeAngelis noted further, “These radicals are providing free advertising for homeschooling, showing us exactly who they are, and parents need to pull their kids out of these institutions.”

Becky Pringle, the Democrat NEA president who reportedly made over $500,000 while fighting to keep schools closed at kids’ expense between September 2020 and August 2021, made clear in her keynote address at last year’s National Education Association convention that her union is committed to undermining the Trump administration.

“We must use our power to take action that leads, action that liberates, action that lasts,” Pringle said in her speech.

At the convention, the NEA adopted a resolution declaring its support for mass movements against the government, including No Kings protests and anti-ICE rallies.

Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​May day, Protest, No kings, Leftist, Nea, National education association, Teachers unions, Teachers, Education, Leftism, Radical, Demonstrations, School, Schools, Politics 

The Supreme Court recently heard more than two hours of argument in Trump v. Barbara, the case testing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

Trump himself sat in the courtroom for part of the session, the first time a sitting president has done so. The moment was striking not for its symbolism alone but for what it revealed: a fundamental challenge to a 150-year-old interpretation of American identity.

The American ‘exception’ was built on a conscious break from notions of blood and soil.

The executive order, issued on Trump’s first day back in office in January 2025, directs federal agencies not to recognize automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or present on temporary visas. It turns on the opening words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The administration’s core argument — one rooted in a “consensualist” theory of citizenship — is that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires more than mere presence on the soil. They argue it requires full and exclusive political allegiance, a condition that undocumented immigrants and short-term visa holders, who remain subjects of their home countries, cannot meet.

The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Barbara, insist the clause was meant to be a simple, sweeping geographical rule. They point to the common-law tradition of jus soli — citizenship by place of birth — that they argue the framers of the amendment endorsed.

Constitutional history, however, is rarely so settled. While the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 — to overturn the Dred Scott decision — scholars on the right point to the intent of the amendment’s authors, like Sen. Jacob Howard, who suggested the clause excluded those who owed allegiance to a foreign power.

While the Court applied the clause to children of legal residents in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the administration argues that case never explicitly addressed the children of those present in violation of federal law.

Lower courts have struck down the executive order, but the justices’ questions on Wednesday showed they are wrestling with the modern reality of mass migration. Several asked how a “narrow” jurisdiction rule would work in a hospital delivery room. Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the solicitor general that the Constitution is not a “living” document that changes with the wind, but conservative justices also pressed the government on whether this executive action bypasses the legislative role of Congress.

The skepticism was notable because the case arrives after the Court’s 2025 ruling that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions, ensuring the policy reached the high court on its merits.

This debate is not abstract. Birthright citizenship has long set the United States apart from the “Old World.” Most countries grant citizenship primarily by descent — jus sanguinis. In Pakistan, as in India and much of Europe, a child acquires citizenship through a parent’s nationality.

The American “exception” was built on a conscious break from notions of blood and soil, but critics argue that the exception has become an unintended magnet for illegal entry and birth tourism.

RELATED: A birthright citizenship fix is more important than the SAVE Act

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

The executive order does not seek to formally amend the Constitution, but rather to correct what its supporters see as a century of judicial and administrative drift. It would not strip citizenship from anyone already born; it applies prospectively.

Still a decision to uphold it would effectively align the United States with the legislative models of Britain, Australia, and Ireland, all of which moved away from pure jus soli to better manage migration pressures.

The Court’s eventual ruling — expected by early summer — matters profoundly. If the justices narrow the clause, they will have restored what originalists believe was the 14th Amendment’s true meaning: that citizenship is a mutual contract between a sovereign and a subject.

If they preserve the status quo, they will affirm that the 14th Amendment’s promise remains a geographical absolute.

The hearing did not settle the question, but it forced a reckoning. In an age of porous borders, the United States must decide whether its rule of soil remains a pillar of strength or an outdated incentive that undermines the very concept of national sovereignty.

The Court’s answer will help determine the terms on which future generations enter the American story.

​Supreme court, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, Trump administration, Executive order, Wong kim ark, Trump v barbara, Aclu, Opinion & analysis 

For years, Daniel Horowitz has been sounding the alarm about the deliberate replacement of American workers with foreigners. From H-1B visas to the OPT program for foreign graduates, the conservative commentator has been exposing the policies that keep Americans — especially young graduates — barred from high-paying tech, software engineering, and other STEM jobs.

Now the same pattern is hitting medicine.

Right now, many highly qualified American medical graduates are losing residency spots to foreign medical graduates.

On a recent episode of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz,” Horowitz and Houston ENT specialist Dr. Mary Talley Bowden dove into the startling statistics and offered a clear solution to the issue harming would-be American doctors.

Horowitz bemoans the reality that taxpayer dollars via Medicare are going toward programs that won’t even guarantee American students a residency placement. “We’re basically funding our replacement,” he says.

Dr. Bowden points to the shocking numbers from the residency match.

“6,600 foreign medical students got residency spots, and meanwhile … over 1,300 U.S. medical students did not get a spot,” she says, arguing that Americans are “getting the leftovers at that point.”

But it’s not just residencies — Americans are also being shut out of medical schools. “We are rejecting about 30,000 American students a year from medical school,” Dr. Bowden adds.

The solution, she says, is straightforward: Fill residency spots with American graduates first, then offer any remaining positions to foreign graduates. “We could just say, ‘Hey, everybody in the U.S. has to match first, and then we can do a match for the foreign residents,’” she tells Horowitz, who strongly agrees.

“No foreigner should be admitted into a medical school or residency program until every qualified American has a spot,” he says.

To hear more, watch the full episode above.

​Conservative review with daniel horowitz, Daniel horowitz, Great replacement, Medical industry, Replacement of american workers, Blazetv, Blaze media, H-1b visas