Category: blaze media

On June 2, 2026, the White House released an executive order on artificial intelligence called “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” The administration was at pains to explain what the order was not. It was not a burden or the Biden administration’s “top-down regulatory approach.” It was not, the official fact sheet insisted, mandatory licensing or pre-clearance or permitting of any kind. The document spent considerable energy describing its own absence.

This is a familiar American style of governance: The regulation that will not say its name.

How much technical judgment should a republic outsource to its security bureaucracy?

However, the order’s responsibility is actually rather specific. Within 30 days of signing, it directs federal agencies to prioritize the cyber defense of their information systems and requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue binding operational directives expanding AI-enabled defensive tools to federal agencies, state and local governments, rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities. Within 60 days, it creates a classified benchmarking process, run by the Treasury Department and the NSA, to determine when an AI model’s capabilities have crossed a threshold and become what the order calls a “covered frontier model.” Developers may then voluntarily submit their model for government assessment. The government then gets 30 days to work with it before the developer shares it with anyone else.

The order is best understood as the third movement in a policy sequence that began with the first Trump administration. In 2019, the president signed an executive order framing American AI leadership as essential to both economic and national security but also emphasizing public trust, civil liberties, and privacy. In 2023, the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14110 described AI as holding both “promise and peril” and attempted something like a comprehensive social contract with the technology: safety and security, but also workers’ rights, civil rights, bias mitigation, and fraud prevention. On January 20, 2025, the new Trump administration rescinded that order. The declared rationale was ideological contamination. The Biden approach was “burdensome” and encoded “engineered social agendas.” The new policy would instead pursue American AI dominance, free from such considerations.

Government by bottleneck

What has been constructed is a security compact between the federal government and a small number of frontier-model developers. The developer will give the government access to a model, and the government will evaluate it. Together, they will decide who the “trusted partners” are who receive it next. The criteria for that evaluation are classified. The benchmarks are classified. The threshold for “covered” status is classified. Google and Sam Altman expressed support. The Business Software Alliance praised the order’s “voluntary and phased approach,” as though a process administered by the NSA with nondisclosure expectations was simply an industry working group.

RELATED: How to make DuckDuckGo your search bar go-to

herstockart/Getty Images

The order names its intended beneficiaries as “rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.” These institutions do not have cleared staff, government relationships, or the organizational bandwidth to absorb classified defensive intelligence. They are institutions named in the fact sheet because they are sympathetic. The institutions that will in fact operate inside the order’s core architecture are frontier developers and their vetted, trusted partners. Everyone else waits for whatever the clearinghouse sees fit to distribute, assuming they have the expertise to use it.

This is a recognizable form of 21st-century American governance: highly centralized technical judgment, thin public transparency, and broad downstream dependence. The polity is told that the infrastructure will be hardened. The decisive knowledge about how, by whom, and according to what criteria is held somewhere else.

The order speaks fluently about attack surfaces and remediation and covered models and patch distribution. In this language, every institution becomes a node. Hospitals, banks, utilities, and federal agencies are all nodes. They are surfaces of cyber vulnerability awaiting protection. The world is rendered as a network diagram, and the only question is whether the correct agencies have been directed to harden it.

What the order cannot conceal beneath its operational specificity is that this is a theory of governance as much as technology. The Atlantic Council, in criticizing the order, noted that classified criteria and delegated executive discretion create a serious accountability gap. That gap is the design.

Red tape on steroids

The order presents itself as the rejection of bureaucracy, yet is an elaborate bureaucratic instrument with deadlines and interagency consultations, directives, classifications, threshold determinations, and enforcement priorities. It relocates the machinery of governance away from NIST’s open and collaborative risk-management culture and toward the executive security apparatus: the NSA, the Treasury, the national cyber director. These institutions will now pass judgment about which AI systems are of concern.

One can stipulate that these institutions are serious, technically capable, and acting in good faith. One can stipulate that the cyber threats are real; the frontier labs’ own safety documentation already makes clear that the most capable models can automate sophisticated intrusions against hardened targets, discovering exploits and chaining vulnerabilities at a pace no human team can match. The question is how much technical judgment a republic should outsource to its security bureaucracy.

Administration officials’ bet is that urgency, expertise, and the specter of Chinese technological rivalry will supply sufficient legitimacy. They may be right. Urgency has carried American policy unquestioned a long way before. The order calls itself the enemy of regulation. It is instead regulation’s more exclusive cousin, with all the power, a fraction of the accountability, and a much shorter guest list.

​Tech 

Justin Gaethje put on the performance of a lifetime at the landmark UFC 250 event outside the White House Sunday night, finally capturing the undisputed, lightweight UFC championship belt.

Before the fight, Gaethje and his undefeated opponent, Ilia Topuria, both walked out to the UFC Octagon in epic fashion, starting in the Oval Office before making their way to the cage on the White House lawn.

‘I’m from America. Two hundred fifty years ago, we were way bigger than six-to-one dogs.’

A dark and cloudy sky served as the backdrop for the main event — which did not start until well after 12:30 a.m. ET — but once it started, there were only fireworks.

Gaethje overcame two significant near-defeat moments during the fight: first during the second round when devastating body shots from Topuria dropped him to the ground, and then a surprise takedown from the champion had Gaethje on the bottom and in trouble in the fourth round as well.

However, a mangled Topuria was unable to continue into the fifth, forcing the referee to stop the fight after he had already convinced ringside doctors to allow Topuria to keep fighting after the third round.

After the fight, announcer Joe Rogan asked Gaethje: “You have been waiting for this moment your entire career and to win it in such a spectacular fashion in a fight where you were at some points [a] six-to-one underdog. How good does this feel?”

“Hey, I’m from America. Two hundred fifty years ago, we were way bigger than six-to-one dogs, and look at us thriving now,” Gaethje patriotically replied.

The Safford, Arizona, native then immediately thanked all “current, former, and future military service members” for their service before revealing his true motivation for the fight.

“All glory to God. I prayed so much for this opportunity to do something legendary. And I know that was absolutely legendary ’cause I cannot even believe it,” Gaethje remarked.

RELATED: ‘I had the right papers’: Somali World Cup referee booted from US gets an answer from the White House

The 37-year-old then praised his mother’s “Mexican warrior spirit” and his father’s “German, hard-a** thick bones” for giving him the pedigree that saw him overcome abysmal odds. In fact, Gaethje was the only underdog to win a fight on the White House lawn on Sunday night.

Gaethje told Rogan that he used an unorthodox approach to get the best out of himself.

“I told myself I was going to get embarrassed so that I can go to my most primal place and dig deep. And I had to. That guy had me in trouble,” the fighter explained. “He rocked my chin, smoked my liver, and I stuck in it. And look at my face,” Gaethje laughed, suggesting the lack of damage showed that his skin needs to be studied by scientists.

Coming into the fight as only the interim lightweight champion, Gaethje is now undisputed, handing his Georgian opponent his first loss ever.

RELATED: Texas AG Ken Paxton threatens Big 12 over possible Texas Tech boycott

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

As reported by MMA Fighting, Gaethje was given two fight bonuses for his performance, which were heavily inflated sums due to sponsorships for the unique event.

With a Fight of the Night bonus of $400,000 and a Performance of the Night bonus of $425,000, Gaethje took home $825,000 in extra cash.

Heavyweight Ciryl Gane won the other Performance of the Night bonus for his second-round knockout of Alex Pereira to earn $425,000.

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

​Fearless, Ufc 250, White house, Justin gaethje, Mma, Sports 

A decade after starring in “Inception,” lesbian actress Ellen Page committed to her most challenging role yet: living her real life as an effeminate, short-haired transvestite named “Elliot Page.”

Page had her healthy beasts surgically removed, then announced in a Dec. 1, 2020, social media post, “I am trans, my pronouns are he/they and my name is Elliot.”

‘Sure sounds a lot like femininity.’

Having now played the role of Elliot for over five years, the biological female — who divorced her “wife” and leaned into her LGBT activism following the “transition” — now apparently feels sufficiently qualified to define what constitutes “healthy masculinity.”

As part of a broader media tour for her new LGBT propaganda film, “Second Nature,” Page recently sat down with the eponymous host of “It’s Open with Illana Glazer” for a heart-to-heart.

After claiming that the “gender binary … just doesn’t exist” and alluding to testosterone’s transformative impact on her baseline aggression, Page stated that healthy masculinity is “leaning away from whenever there is some sort of impulse or expectation you’ve put on yourself to, like, shut down or conform in a way that usually feels like this — like I am closing off.”

Page cited the reluctance among some men to smile in photos as typical of such emotional closure.

“To me, healthy masculinity would be, well, you know what — healthiness for anyone to just, you know, love themselves; be able to care for themselves; ideally get rest when they can, you know, like, just the practical basic — drink water, like, eat a banana. You know?” said Page.

RELATED: ‘Why don’t men go to therapy?’ It all comes down to one very good reason

The actress formerly known as Ellen Page, 2017. Jason LaVeris/FilmMagic/Getty Images

Page, 39, added in her rambling definition that healthy masculinity is “also just, you know, doing what you can to be intentionally and mindfully not letting yourself get, like, swayed or twisted by the rules that I feel like end up, like, leading to so many of the problems that we see that are, you know, do get inflicted by toxic masculinity, violence and abuse, just general cruelty.”

The actress, whose memoir details her history of depression and self-mutilation, padded her tortured definition by adding, “Healthy masculinity could just mean a really good cry.”

Critics relentlessly have mocked Page’s definition, which went viral on social media over the weekend.

Chris Elston, the anti-gender-ideology activist better known as Billboard Chris, quipped, “This is the most female conversation ever.”

Not the Bee, the non-satirical news companion to the Babylon Bee, wrote, “Wow, the healthy masculinity she’s talking about sure sounds a lot like femininity.”

“It’s so interesting that she embodies every female stereotype while trying to do her best impression of a man,” tweeted author and homeschooling advocate Rachel Wilson.

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

​Transgender, Lgbt, Leftism, Feminist, Masculinity, Man, Woman, Mental illness, Politics 

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday evening the finalization of an agreement that will tentatively bring an end to America’s 15-week war with Iran.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!” Trump noted in a Truth Social post. “I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”

‘I couldn’t believe it.’

In a subsequent post, the president said that this “Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region.”

The memorandum of understanding was confirmed by Iranian officials as well as by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who has been acting as a mediator.

“Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” Sharif posted to X a few minutes before Trump’s Truth Social announcement. “The official signing ceremony will be on Friday, 19 June in Switzerland. We would like to thank the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran for their commitment to finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict.”‘

The news was welcomed by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun — who expressed hope that “these understandings being transformed into practical steps” may “put a definitive end to the cycle of violence” — and by other leaders around the globe.

Iran hawks, particularly in Israel, are not similarly keen over the prospect of ending the conflict in this fashion.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, for instance, rushed to condemn the deal, claiming it was “bad for Israel and for the entire free world. Period.”

Smotrich noted further that Israel “will have to continue the campaign to topple the regime ourselves and in creative ways.”

RELATED: Trump boxes Netanyahu’s ears over Lebanon offensive, calls him ‘f**king crazy’: Report

Destroyed building in Nabatieh, Lebanon. Abbas FAKIH/AFP/Getty Images

Israel’s national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, also advocated for keeping the conflict alive, stating:

We are not partners to this agreement that does not ensure our security, and it does not bind us in any way. We must not compromise on anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah, we must not withdraw from any territory that our fighters have captured and cleared of terror infrastructure, we must not return to a situation where thousands of terrorists sit on the fences of northern settlements, and certainly we must not remain silent for a moment in the face of fire directed at the State of Israel.

Alleged attacks on Hezbollah — such as those championed by Ben-Gvir — nearly blew up the peace deal over the weekend, just as escalations in Israel’s offensive in Lebanon critically strained negotiations earlier this month.

Trump told Axios that the deadly Israeli airstrike in the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday “shook it up. It delayed the signing by a few hours. It was supposed to be now. Now it is scheduled for a few hours from now.”

The American president — who reportedly raced to save the deal as Iranians were threatening retaliation — said that he had been shocked to learn of the attack from his advisers.

“It is so bad — I couldn’t believe it. An hour before we are supposed to sign the deal,” said Trump.

Trump figured the attack — which took place after Hezbollah launched a drone attack on Northern Israel that reportedly caused neither injuries nor damage — was disproportionate. Weeks after calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “f**king crazy,” Trump once again blasted the foreign leader.

“Why did Bibi have to do a f**king attack? I was so pissed off,” said Trump. “I let him know. He has no f**king judgment. I let him know that.”

Trump expressed frustration with Netanyahu in another interview on Sunday, telling the New York Times that the Israeli prime minister, whose criminal trial is ongoing, is “a very difficult guy.”

“And to be honest with you,” continued Trump, “he should be very thankful to us for doing this. Because if Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel wouldn’t be around for two hours.”

Netanyahu’s former communications adviser, Aviv Bushinsky, emphasized that the Israeli prime minister “needs Trump” and that “evangelicals and many members of the Republican Party” will prevent his relationship with Trump from falling apart.

While Netanyahu has yet to publicly address the deal, Israeli officials told Ynet News that Netanyahu made clear to Trump that Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon.

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

​Israel, Donald trump, Benjamin netanyahu, War, Iran, Lebanon, Strait of hormuz, Blockade, Politics 

After ballots showed up overnight for Nithya Raman to secure her unlikely win over Spencer Pratt in the Los Angeles mayoral election, the integrity of the California voting system is once again being questioned.

And senior counsel for the Article III Project, Will Chamberlain, has a solution.

“If I were investigating, I’d start with the prediction markets where … pretty early on election day, well before there was any sort of public indication that the votes were going to start going Nithya Raman’s way so dramatically with late mail-ins, there was a big boost,” Chamberlain tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

“She was getting way ahead in her prediction market odds even though she was still down massively in the count at the point. So I think that’s the first place you start,” he says.

Wheeler, disturbed by the results of the election, points out that conservatives have a “moral imperative” to fix this problem for the “survival of our republic.”

And Chamberlain has a solution — which begins with recognizing that “we don’t have the votes” to pass the SAVE America Act.

Instead, he has a better idea.

“My basic idea is Mike Johnson in the House when it comes time to actually seat the representatives from California, any representative who wasn’t ahead on Election Day, you don’t provisionally seat them,” he explains, telling Wheeler that you then refer them to a committee that “evaluates these things.”

“And then you do an individualized process, and they have to show up and prove that they won legitimately. And if they can’t do that, then they don’t get sat and California can go back and do a special election again.”

Wheeler finds Chamberlain’s solution “interesting” because “Congress has the authority to do that.”

“It’s a way of auditing, you could say, the election integrity laws of states,” she says.

“That would be a very interesting way for Congress to say, well, maybe we don’t have authority, but we do have authority,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The liz wheeler show, The blaze, Article iii project, Will chamberlain, Save america act, California, Election, Spencer pratt, Nithya raman, Karen bass 

While some believe that the sentencing of Karmelo Anthony wasn’t harsh enough, others — including rapper Cardi B — are outraged that he got sentenced at all.

“Wow! Just freakin wow! DISGUSTING… This is not justice, this is trying to make an example!!!” Cardi B wrote in a post on X.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is disturbed by the rapper’s response, especially considering that it is shared by many on the left.

“What are you even saying?” Stuckey asks. “Not that I expected Cardi B to understand what due process is or to have this solid moral compass, but also, like, if Nicki Minaj can do it, I feel like you could too, Cardi B.”

“I feel like if you just tried and you turned your thinking cap on for a second, you could see that yeah, murder is bad and you should go to jail for murder,” she continues.

“He’s not getting the death penalty. He’s not getting life in prison. He’s going to get out when he’s in his mid-30s. He could get married. He could have kids. He could probably get a job,” she says, noting that Austin Metcalf will get none of that.

“And yeah, we should make an example out of murderers. That’s part of the reason for the justice system. It is preventative in that way. It is saying, ‘Hey, if you do this, you will also get this punishment, so don’t do it.’ Like, that’s a good thing. We want people who are potential murderers to see the justice system actually working and saying, ‘I’m going to think twice before I kill someone because I’m mad that they threatened to touch my backpack,’” Stuckey says.

“It’s not just rappers like Cardi B. It’s not just these random activists. It’s also representatives. It’s also congresspeople,” she adds, playing a clip of Jasmine Crockett responding to Anthony’s sentence.

“Black women, especially black women who have black male children, live in fear and agony every single day. A fear and agony that, I promise you, the Metcalfs probably never spend a day living that way,” Crockett said.

“Why? Why do they live in fear and agony?” Stuckey asks. “Why do moms of black boys, black men, live in fear and agony? Has nothing to do with Austin Metcalf. Has nothing to do with the police. Has nothing to do with white people.”

“If black mothers fear for their sons’ lives, the fear should be toward other black men, because statistically, black men are the ones killing black men,” 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, Allie beth stuckey, Karmelo anthony, Cardi b, Blazetv, Nicki minaj, Jasmine crockett, Austin metcalf, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

I’m in a particularly good mood as I write this. I’m on vacation, you see.

And not just anywhere; this is a very special destination. It’s not particularly luxurious or fashionable; I’m pretty sure most of the beautiful people are in St. Barth’s or the Hamptons. If you want a four-star resort experience, look elsewhere.

Unlike in our country, here it’s only customary to check in on the news once or twice a day. So people tend to focus less on what they can’t control.

But something about being here always puts my heart and soul at ease; when I return to normal life, it’s with a sense of deep contentment.

For one thing, I love the people. In many ways they are poorer than we are; they’re certainly not as technologically advanced. And yet the average person on the street seems to take special pride in his appearance. Good, presentable clothes; careful grooming; even posture is somehow straighter.

Continental breakfast

Welcome to the great nation of “Midcentury America.” They say the past is a foreign country. If so, the United States as it was 50 to 80 years ago is one of my favorite places to visit — if only via old photographs.

I love to explore all of its different regions. The 1960s is a favorite, closely followed by the ’50s. I also enjoy stopping by the ’40s every now and then.

And I have to admit there’s a special place in my heart for the ’70s. Avocado couches? Burnt orange blankets? Deep shag wall-to-wall carpets in Harvest Gold? Bring it on! It’s all part of the charm.

And the cars! Tesla and other marvels of modern automotive design haven’t gotten here yet. But take it from me, you barely miss them. How could you? When you’re on safari, you don’t long for the petting zoo. So many magnificent species of Detroit engineering and design: Lincoln Continentals, Pontiac GTOs, Chevy Impalas. I still remember the awe on my minivan-raised children’s faces the first time they encountered a Ford Country Squire.

RELATED: The one word that can help you use technology — without letting it use you

VCG/Getty Images

Peace and prosperity included

Despite how unusual many of the sights here may seem to visitors, Midcentury America somehow feels like home. No smartphones or flat-screen TVs, but you wouldn’t call it “backward.” Everything is modern, without collapsing into that flat, gray “spaceship” style we’re so fond of in 2026.

It all makes for a certain optimism that is all too rare where we live. And it’s a real, earned optimism; Midcentury’s proximity to two devastating world wars — not to mention a depression — means its citizens have no illusions about the fragility of life. And maybe that’s why they never seem to take what peace and prosperity they have for granted.

Yes, there’s the Cold War and nagging fears about nuclear annihilation. But unlike in our country, here it’s only customary to check in on the news once or twice a day. So people tend to focus less on what they can’t control and more on the people right in front of them.

This is a place where the future is always brighter. No wonder they have so many children!

Bring the kids

The more I visit, the more I’m convinced that the children are the key to it all. Each kid a family has is like a small “buy in” to their society; an unspoken, shared belief that this will all continue as one generation yields to another.

Trips to Midcentury America always seem to end just as you’ve really gotten the hang of the place; that’s the nature of a tourist visa. Leaving is always bittersweet, but the country always leaves its mark. I like to think that each time I return, I bring with me some of their gratitude and indefatigable optimism. Back home, a little of that goes a long way.

​Lifestyle, Travel, America, Nostalgia, Midcentury, Men’s style, The root of the matter 

A group of lawyers were caught red-handed by a judge who said she is tired of the courts being burdened.

What started out as a mundane case of a lawyer claiming he was owed legal fees turned into an embarrassing ordeal for both the municipal government and the lawyer seeking remuneration.

‘A prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp.’

Last October, a court in Aberdeen, Mississippi, awarded lawyer Tom Withers III attorney’s fees and expenses stemming from a previous case he worked on. Legal documents accessed by Blaze News stated that attorneys for the city, rather than the city itself, were held responsible for the payment of the fees.

This meant that those involved in the case included Withers, his attorneys Kathleen M. Wilson and Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway, and the city’s lawyers Kathryn Y. Williams and Mark C. McClinton.

Both parties filed submissions, and within a two-week period the legal process was ready to continue — until a review of the submitted briefs showed that both parties had submitted documents containing nonexistent citations that were hallucinated by AI.

Withers’ lawyers signed off on a filing that contained citations described as “hallucinatory,” while the city lawyers signed off on two filings that contained fake citations on behalf of the jurisdiction.

The court then asked the attorneys from both sides to show why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for their behavior.

RELATED: iPhone’s debut crushed young women’s fertility, new study says

Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images

Both parties eventually admitted that their citations resulted from unverified use of artificial intelligence.

In January, all the attorneys were in attendance for a hearing where they “expressed embarrassment and apologized to the Court,” the filing read.

Lawyer Williams admitted to using an AI tool to do legal research, while Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her filing. Neither verified their work before submitting it.

The other two lawyers, Ridgeway and McClinton, admitted that they did not review the filings before submitting them to the court, but signed off on them electronically anyway.

RELATED: Even if you don’t choose to use AI, you’re probably interacting with it

Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

This all fell on the desk of Judge Sharion Aycock, a senior U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Mississippi, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007.

Aycock wrote that the lawyers essentially had wasted court resources and called out the two local attorneys for their behavior.

“In an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp when acting as local counsel.”

Additionally, Aycock described the “unusual scenario” as one in which “attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct.”

Judge Aycock added, “This Court is yet again ‘burden[ed] [with] addressing AI hallucinations in court filings.’ … While ‘[g]enerative technology can produce words,’ it cannot attach ‘… sincerity, truth, or responsibility to what it writes. That remains the sacred duty of the lawyer who signs the page.'”

On X, lawyer Rob Freund reported that among the sanctions placed on the lawyers, they were handed fines ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 and a disqualification from practicing in the district for two years.

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

​News, Mississippi, Artificial intelligence, Tech, Court 

We feel it at the grocery store. We feel it when we pay our utility bills. We feel it every time we check our bank accounts and browse house listings. I especially feel it when just two bags of groceries cost me more than a hundred dollars.

America’s affordability crisis is real. Inflation is hurting families. Housing costs are through the roof. The American dream feels increasingly out of reach for many young people.

Our story isn’t unique. For most of history, families have built stability and wealth together rather than waiting until they had already achieved it.

But what if part of the problem isn’t just economic? What if it’s cultural?

What if it’s that more and more of us are postponing — or outright rejecting — the very milestones that once allowed our country to thrive?

For generations, marriage and family were some of the biggest building blocks of financial stability and success. Today, marriage rates are declining, family formation is delayed, and birth rates have fallen so low that we can’t even replace ourselves. At the same time, Americans are marrying later than ever, and first-time homebuyers are now 40 years old on average.

These aren’t isolated trends. They are interconnected signs of a culture that has turned family from a foundation for building a good life into a finish line that many feel they must reach only after they have “made it.”

Foundation, not finish line

I didn’t grow up in affluence by any means. Things were often tight at the Thorman household with nine children (yes, all from the same parents), though none of us went “without.” My parents and their friends welcomed kids into the world with open arms even though they had no idea how they were going to afford us.

When my older siblings were born, things were so tight that they mostly lived on beans and rice and a whole lot of prayer. My dad worked extremely hard, and with smart financial decisions coupled with his integrity and strong work ethic, his salary increased over the years — just as the data has long predicted.

But one thing my parents didn’t have was Pinterest-perfect homes, luxury vacations, or every financial box checked before starting a family. They just did it. They just got married young, committed to one another, welcomed children, and built a life together.

I’m not advocating for irresponsibility, but we need to regain knowledge that was once intuitive: Marriage and family don’t stand in the way of financial success; they help create it.

Having it all

Our culture has it all backward. The expectation that we have to travel the world, have perfect-looking homes, and “find ourselves” before settling down has not made us happier or more financially savvy. Rather, it has only made us more miserable, lonely, and empty.

The very lies society feeds us about delaying marriage and family in order to “have it all” often undermine the very things people are seeking: financial stability, purpose, belonging, and long-term happiness. These are not obstacles to marriage and family; they are the fruit of them. We have convinced an entire generation that family should come after success, when for much of human history, family was the primary way people built success.

The data bears this out. Marriage and stable two-parent households consistently produce better economic outcomes: higher household income, greater wealth accumulation, lower poverty rates, and greater financial stability for children. Imagine that. The family structure God designed not only benefits individuals spiritually and emotionally, but also creates some of the strongest economic outcomes for families and society alike.

Having a family will alter your priorities, and rightly so. For my husband and me, having two kids (with more to come, God willing) has changed how we spend our money, where we spend our time, and what we value the most. We hardly get to take vacations, let alone the kind “influencers” brag about on social media, and that’s OK. I’ll take my kids over luxury experiences every day. So yes, kids change your lifestyle — and that’s a good thing.

For me, I get to do life with my best friend and make carbon copies of us, and it’s exceptionally awesome. I want everyone to experience it, because my family isn’t the obstacle to a meaningful life; it’s the source of one.

My story isn’t unique. Social science has been documenting the economic benefits of marriage and family for decades.

RELATED: How to bring Charlie Kirk’s vision to life — starting in your own family

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Marriage: The great anti-poverty program

Washington politicians love to debate tax credits, subsidies, and government programs, yet one of the strongest predictors of economic stability isn’t a government policy at all — it’s marriage. Certainly, government policies matter. Washington can lower taxes, reduce burdensome regulations, and make housing more affordable. But no government program can replace what strong marriages and families provide: stability, sacrifice, belonging, and a purpose larger than ourselves.

Research from the Institute for Family Studies found that among Millennials who graduated high school, worked full-time, and married before having children, 97% avoided poverty altogether by their mid-30s. Far from being obstacles to financial stability, marriage and family are often among the strongest predictors of it.

My husband and I are a testament to that reality. We got married in our 20s with very little to our names. No trust funds or other “head starts”; nor did we have every financial box checked. We simply started building our life together anyway.

Since then, our careers have grown and our incomes have increased. After living in a small apartment and saving as much as possible, we purchased our first home — including a nice yard to play in — after welcoming our first child. Our story isn’t unique. For most of history, families have built stability and wealth together rather than waiting until they had already achieved it.

Worthy inheritance

The financial advantage enjoyed by married households extends to the whole family. Children raised in stable two-parent homes are far less likely to experience poverty and far more likely to move up the economic ladder. In 2021, just 9.5% of children living with two parents were in poverty, compared to 31.7% of children living with a single parent.

Strong families provide stability, support, and opportunity in ways that no government program can ever replicate. If we truly want to reduce poverty, expand opportunity, and strengthen our nation’s long-term prosperity, we must acknowledge the indispensable role marriage and family play in human flourishing.

Whatever efforts Washington makes to ease Americans’ financial burdens — whether through tax cuts or education reform — lasting change must start with us. Too many young people who tell themselves they’re putting off marriage and children for financial reasons are in fact mistaking risk for impossibility. Building a life has always required a leap of faith.

It’s a leap more of us have to make if we want to keep the American dream alive. Can we afford to have children? The better question is can we afford not to. If we want more prosperity, opportunity, and stability, we should start by strengthening the institution that has helped make those things possible for generations: the family.

​Marriage and family, Faith, Affordability, Lifestyle, Motherhood, Children, Christian living 

A UFC Freedom 250 event on the South Lawn of the White House — with a 5,000-seat temporary stadium and 85,000 tickets for viewing on massive screens on the Ellipse — has sparked controversy. The event is unprecedented, and it falls on President Trump’s birthday.

Put aside what you think of Sunday’s extravaganza. There is still a good reason to embrace June 14: Flag Day.

Those allergic to all things Trump should remember that Flag Day existed decades before he was born and, God willing, will endure for generations after.

Flag Day has a long tradition. Yet if not for its coincidence with Trump’s birthday, it would likely pass with little notice. That is a mistake. This is not a call to worship a colorful banner. It is a call to remember that Americans — left, center, and right — are united by founding principles from the Declaration of Independence, represented by Old Glory.

On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress approved a resolution establishing a uniform national flag. The 13-star flag, commonly associated with Betsy Ross, became a rallying banner and a source of pride. It was not yet revered as it would be later, but it symbolized the freest nation in world history.

Then came the Civil War and the lowering of the flag over Fort Sumter. That image triggered an outpouring of love for Old Glory.

Jonathan Flynt Morris, a banker and strong Republican Unionist, urged Charles Dudley Warner, editor of the Hartford Evening Press, to write about the need not merely to respect the flag, but to revere it. On June 10, 1861, Warner followed that advice and proposed a new holiday: Flag Day.

“This flag is our dearest symbol of nationality,” Warner wrote. “It stands for civil liberty on this continent. To keep it full high advanced is our highest pride; to strike at it is to arouse all the passion of the nation to defend it, and to punish the perpetrators of the outrage.”

Flag Day celebrations began in Warner’s home state of Connecticut. They slowly spread to schools in Wisconsin in 1885, New York schools in 1889, and then to Philadelphia and public buildings in New York state in 1894. An American Flag Day organization was created to further the movement.

President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, issued the first federal recognition of the holiday on May 30, 1916. Wilson’s proclamation called for patriotic exercises that would “give significant expression to our thoughtful love of America” and our understanding of “the great mission of liberty and justice to which we have devoted ourselves as a people.”

RELATED: Damning poll reveals what Democrats ACTUALLY think of America ahead of its 250th birthday

Stan Grossfeld/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

He also called Americans to rededicate themselves to the principles of “independence, liberty, and right,” which no person “can corrupt” and no influence could draw away from their ideals. Finally, on Aug. 3, 1949, President Harry S. Truman, also a Democrat, signed an act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day.

Flag Day exemplifies our shared American creed. It was the brainchild of Republicans, spread outside party politics, and was instituted nationally by Democrats. Its purpose is to recommit us to the founding principles declared in the Declaration of Independence and embedded in the Constitution: equality, limited government, the rule of law, unalienable rights, the social compact, and the right to alter or abolish oppressive government.

America did not fully live by those principles in 1776, and we do not perfectly live by them today. But belief in those principles has inspired generations of patriots to move us closer to their fulfillment. Abolitionism, women’s suffrage, and the civil rights movement all called upon America’s first principles to push the country toward its promise. At its best, our flag stands for liberty and equality.

Those allergic to all things Trump should remember that Flag Day existed decades before he was born and, God willing, will endure for generations after. It is not about one man. It is a call for all Americans to unite around the principles that made the country possible.

We should answer that call.

​Charles dudley warner, Civil war, Jonathan flynt morris, Opinion & analysis, White house, Woodrow wilson, Harry s truman, Flag day, American founding, Donald trump 

Augustine of Hippo is one of the most influential philosophers and Christian theologians in history, and he had a stark warning for the Western world: “A man has as many masters as he has vices.”

And Seth Gruber, CEO of White Rose Resistance, is relaying this warning, explaining that it means “by promoting vice, the regime promotes slavery, which can then be fashioned into a form of political control.”

“That sentence I just said Allie Beth is the beating heart of libido dominandi: the lust to dominate,” he tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“Dominion becomes domination when man listens to and accepts the serpent’s counterfeit kingdom. And the things that we were called to steward … become the very things we are now enslaved to,” he says.

“Domination is a reflection of your own slavery projected onto others. But dominion is a reflection of your own stewardship exercised on behalf of others. So one is the city of man, and one is the city of God,” he continues. “But in each case, it reveals who or what we really worship.”

“Vice,” Gruber explains, “is contagious.”

And like anything contagious, it’s easily spread.

“Tyrants work very hard to spread the infection,” he explains, “because they know that a virtuous populace cannot be controlled. So they have to corrupt, seduce, blackmail. They have to weaponize lust.”

Gruber likens this to Jeffrey Epstein, because if “you cannot defeat militarily, you can always corrupt through sexual enticement.”

“Maybe that’s why the Epstein list will never get released,” he adds.

Stuckey agrees, adding, “What a fascinating, very disturbing connection … Epstein, you can just see it.”

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.

​Allie beth stuckey, Augustine, Christian theologians, Jeffrey epstein, Libido dominandi, Seth gruber, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

For years, AI elites like Sam Altman, Jensen Huang, and even Elon Musk touted a future in which AI stole all the jobs and humanity simply accepted a life of meaningless unemployment while receiving a meager allowance of universal basic income until our dying days. Something changed recently, though, and several of those same elites are suddenly backpedaling on their promises of the past. What changed? There are a few possibilities.

Seemingly all at once, the CEOs of the world’s leading AI platforms, particularly OpenAI and Anthropic, both reneged on their opinions on artificial intelligence in the workplace. Where AI was once prophetically decreed to replace everyone’s jobs, now these bots are being positioned as tools to enhance human productivity instead.

But why? For what reason would the AI CEOs, who once plotted workplace domination, suddenly turn back on their greedy aspirations? Did they suddenly remember that humanity must somehow live on after all the jobs dry up? That their companies will lose money if consumers don’t exist to buy products and services? That it’s actually evil to force people into unemployment amid a hostile takeover of the entire economy?

Public sentiment around AI is at an all-time low, and it continues to bottom out.

Maybe. Or perhaps something is forcing their hands.

Four reasons the AI job apocalypse is finished

It’s IPO time

Both OpenAI and Anthropic are at pivotal points in their meteoric rise to ubiquity. Neither company is turning a profit, and as time drags on, venture capitalists, who will never get a return on investment with generative AI, are more likely to reduce or even pull their funding. That means AI companies looking to survive the impending bubble have to find funding elsewhere. The answer is to go public.

The two AI giants plan to launch IPOs this year, and they need strong public support to drive value. If the companies are perceived as harmful or even complicit in obliterating the workforce and killing the economy, their IPOs will tank. As a result, they have pulled back on the dystopian warnings of mass unemployment as they tidy up their reputations to portray benevolent corporations bent on helping humanity instead of hindering it.

Reality check

While the AI CEOs promised a workplace revolution on the backs of their LLMs, the real-world applications for these platforms have fallen short of expectations. In May, Starbucks retired its AI-powered inventory system, despite supposed “improved product availability in stores” ushered in by the service. Employees responded by praising the change, saying, in effect, thanks for discontinuing automatic counting! The thought behind it was great, but the execution was proving difficult.

Also in May, a Gartner study revealed that 80% of companies that replaced employees with AI did not see better returns. Meanwhile, companies that added AI to their workforce to enhance the productivity of existing employees without eliminations saw the strongest gains, highlighting the need for skilled employees to coexist alongside AI platforms.

RELATED: Google’s new daily helper knows all about you. Just how creepy is it?

Google’s new daily helper knows all about you. Just how creepy is it? Marina113/Getty Images

Lastly, some companies, like Meta, are learning the hard way that AI isn’t a replacement for human intellect. As we reported in early June, hackers tricked Meta’s AI customer support bot into changing the passwords on high-profile Instagram accounts with little security to stand in the way. This was a massive blunder for Meta — which recently laid off 8,000 employees in favor of AI — in what became the company’s largest account breach ever.

Public protests

Public sentiment around AI is at an all-time low, and it continues to bottom out as time goes on. Just last month, numerous videos surfaced of college graduates booing commencement speakers for merely bringing up AI. Young people looking to enter the workforce, where entry-level positions are among the first to dissolve in the AI race, seemingly appear to hate LLMs. Since this demographic is the future customer base for AI giants, OpenAI and Anthropic would be stupid to continue to ruin young people’s lives with more promises of job replacements.

Another point of contention among the people focuses around data centers. Not only do these massive buildings devour local energy, there are also growing reports that they generate loud noises that have caused some unsettling health effects, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, sleep disturbances, and more.

Hefty price tags

Finally, companies are learning that AI is expensive to run at scale. Microsoft, one of the leaders in the AI space, canceled its Claude Code licenses for employees just months after starting the program. Although no official reason was given, the high cost and volume of Claude tokens required for sophisticated projects is believed to be the culprit. At the same time, Uber’s chief operating officer cited concerns over the high cost of AI that made it difficult to justify. Even AI GPU maker NVIDIA admitted that human employees cost less than AI bots.

During a recent event, Sam Altman was asked about the sizeable AI costs for businesses. He feigned ignorance, stating that “the issue never came up” in the past when setting the prices for companies. “People were totally happy with the amount they were spending.” That appears to no longer be the case.

​Tech 

When Jase Robertson found himself in a movie theater featuring “Project Hail Mary,” he thought he was about to watch a football movie or a film on the Virgin Mary.

What he actually saw stunned him so intensely that it now ranks among his “top five” most shocking experiences ever.

“The reason I was shocked is there was so many spiritual vibes to this movie,” he said on a recent episode of “Unashamed.”

Between the main characters being named Grace and Rock, several nods to the idea of a “savior of the world,” and themes of self-sacrifice and redemption, Jase was astonished that Hollywood produced such a film, especially in this age.

But then the real stunner came.

“There is a Phil Robertson quote in the movie,” Jase exclaims.

After the movie ended, Jase set out with a mission to discover the “story” behind how a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster managed to slip a Phil quote into the script.

Artificial intelligence gave him a strange answer: The line in “Project Hail Mary” was not a Phil Robertson quote, even though it is “a universal accepted fact” that he coined the phrase.

But Jase doesn’t need AI to confirm what he knows is true. “There is a Phil Robertson quote in there, and I didn’t think that was an accident based on everything else I had seen.”

Jase, calling the movie “top-notch,” praises the directors for allowing the film to “play both sides” of the spiritual argument.

He recalls a scene in which Ryland Grace (played by Ryan Gosling) has a spiritual conversation with Eva Stratt, the no-nonsense administrator who gets tapped by world governments to lead Project Hail Mary.

Grace inquires whether or not she believes in God, to which she replies, “It’s better than the alternative.”

“It was just like, well, I know which side of the production that line came from,” says Jase, calling the film “a wonderful experience.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Unashamed with the robertsons, Jase robertson, Project hail mary, Unashamed 

One of the most common objections to Christianity is simple: The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians believe it?

Christians believe the Trinity because it is the inevitable conclusion of what Scripture teaches about God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore not an arbitrary invention. Nor is it a concession to polytheism. It is precisely the opposite: a refutation of polytheism.

The story begins in Genesis.

The Jewish Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament, taught something unique among the religions of the ancient world. Pagan nations treated their gods as physical beings within the universe. Israel taught that God created the heavens and the earth. God was not part of the system. He brought the system into existence.

God is therefore not made of matter, not located at one point in space, and not one deity among many. He alone existed from eternity. Everything else had a beginning.

Israel was repeatedly tempted to compromise with the polytheistic religions around it. Time after time, the prophets called the nation back to the worship of the one true God. Through Isaiah, God declared, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5).

The God of Israel was understood to be eternal, immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. These are not properties material deities could possess.

That raises an obvious question. If Christians inherited this uncompromising belief in one God, how did they arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity?

John opens his Gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

John then tells us that all things were made through the Word. The Word is distinguished from God, yet the Word is also called God. John 1:3 says all created things came into existence through Him. If all created things were made through the Word, then the Word Himself cannot belong to the class of created things.

Then John tells us, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). The eternal Son of God became incarnate as Jesus Christ.

RELATED: Don’t let ‘Disclosure Day’ doom you to spiritual death by discourse

The New Testament repeatedly presents the same pattern. At Jesus’ baptism, the Son stands in the water, the Spirit descends as a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven. The three are clearly distinguished from one another, yet elsewhere in Scripture the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identified as God.

Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Baptism is done in the name of God. Paul gives a Trinitarian benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14. Jesus, the Lamb of God, sits on the throne of God.

Jesus also claimed an existence that preceded Abraham: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). His words echo the divine name revealed to Moses. The Jews understood the implication and tried to stone Him for blasphemy. Elsewhere, they accused Him of making Himself equal with God.

Scripture also attributes personal qualities to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit teaches, speaks, guides, gives life, and can be grieved. He is not merely an impersonal force.

The early Christians therefore found themselves committed to three truths taught by Scripture:

There is only one God.The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another.

Deny any one of those truths, and you contradict the Bible.

Over the first several centuries, as pagan polytheists converted to Christianity or challenged it, the church debated how best to explain the doctrine of God from Scripture.

The Gnostics denied that Jesus was truly incarnate. They taught that He was a spirit who only appeared human. In doing so, they denied the incarnation.

Another early controversy involved Sabellius, who taught what later became known as modalism. According to this view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely different manifestations of the same divine person.

The church rejected this because Scripture repeatedly distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit from one another.

Then came Arius, who taught that the Father alone is eternal and that the Son is the first and greatest creature.

As Christians reflected on the biblical evidence, the church clarified its teaching: The Father is eternally unbegotten. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and, in Western theology, from the Father and the Son.

The doctrine can be summarized simply: God is one “what” — one divine essence — and three “whos” — three distinct persons.

The church eventually summarized the biblical teaching as one God in three persons. Not one God and three gods. Not one person appearing in three forms. One God, three persons.

RELATED: Contentious theological debate erupts about Mormons over War Department faith list

Brent Asay/iStock/Getty Images

The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore not an arbitrary invention. Nor is it a concession to polytheism. It is precisely the opposite: a refutation of polytheism. The doctrine preserves the full teaching of Scripture and answers the questions Scripture itself forces us to ask about God.

What is striking is how often modern religious movements that spin off from Christianity repeat ancient errors. Some deny the full deity of Christ, as Arius did. Others collapse the distinctions among the persons, as Sabellius did. Still others deny Christ’s full humanity or full deity. Some even teach polytheistic material gods.

What has united Christians across denominations and centuries is their shared commitment to the biblical doctrine of God. By contrast, new religious movements often claim allegiance to Scripture while introducing another authority that corrects, supplements, or supersedes it.

When Jesus called people to believe in Him, He did not require them to master centuries of theological debate. But neither did He leave them free to invent their own Jesus. They were to believe true things about Him and reject false things about Him.

A person may sincerely use the name “Jesus” while holding beliefs about Him that contradict the Jesus revealed in Scripture. The issue is not sincerity but identity. Not, “What do I feel?” but, “What does the Bible say?”

The question is whether the Jesus a person believes in is the Jesus revealed in the Bible or a Jesus drawn from some other source.

The church’s long debates about the Trinity were not abstract philosophical exercises. They were answers to the most important question any person can ask: Who is Jesus Christ in the Bible?

​Bible, Christianity, Doctrine, Genesis, God, Jesus christ, Old testament, Opinion & analysis, Trinity, New testament, Faith 

Growing up in our house, prayer was non-negotiable. Before meals, before bed, and before tests. My mother prayed before she turned the ignition. Every single time. Backing out of the driveway to grab milk? A petition went up. Driving less than a mile to church? Another one. I rolled my eyes the way Hamlet brooded, often and at length.

I figured Mom was a soft touch for superstition. A nice lady with a nervous habit dressed up as theology. Turns out the habit was sound — and the theology even sounder.

You are not emptying the mind. If anything, you are spilling the contents before a higher power who already knew what was in there.

A recent study published in Religion, Brain & Behavior by researchers in Ireland looked at 628 middle-aged adults from the Midlife in the United States project, a long-running national study that has tracked the health of thousands of Americans since 1995.

They put participants through a standardized stress test and measured what their hearts and blood pressure did under pressure. They found that people who scored higher on private religious practices showed lower systolic blood pressure reactivity to the stressor.

Essentially, when life throws a curveball, the praying person’s heart absorbs the hit.

Religious but not spiritual

The researchers separated two things most people lump together: private religious practices (prayer, Scripture reading, devotion at home) and what they called daily spiritual experiences (a general sense of the sacred, feelings of connectedness, vague “spiritual” vibes). Only the first category, the one with actual prayer in it, produced the cardiovascular benefit.

This matters because the modern wellness industry has spent two decades trying to sell Americans on a defanged, deracinated version of spiritual practice. Meditation retreats. Mindfulness courses. Breath-work seminars at $400 a weekend. All of it positioned as the secular, sophisticated alternative to what your grandmother was doing for free with a worn King James Bible.

But prayer and meditation are not the same animal. The wellness industry would like you to believe they are interchangeable, two flavors of the same practice, both leading to lower cortisol and better sleep. That is a lie.

RELATED: Secular bias, fake faith — beware the new chatbot ‘Christianity’

Empty promise

Meditation, in its popular Western form, is largely about emptying the mind. You sit, you breathe, you observe your thoughts like passing strangers you owe nothing to, you achieve a kind of inner stillness.

The goal is detachment. You are training yourself to step back from your own mental chatter and watch it from a distance. The self is the subject, the object, and the audience all at once. If it works, you feel calmer. If it doesn’t, you feel like you spent 20 minutes wondering if you turned off the stove

Prayer is the opposite. Prayer is a conversation. There is a Person on the other end of the line, and that Person is listening. You are addressing someone, asking, thanking, confessing, repenting, interceding for your sister’s job interview. You are not emptying the mind. If anything, you are spilling the contents before a higher power who already knew what was in there.

Meditation looks inward. Prayer looks up. Meditation is a monologue performed for an audience of one, who is also the performer. Prayer is a dialogue with the Creator of the universe. Meditation assumes the cosmos is indifferent and that the best you can do is make peace with that.

One assumes you are a bundle of neurons talking to itself. The other assumes you are a soul talking to its Maker.

That difference is the whole game.

Praying together, staying together

And the benefits extend well beyond the cardiac. A 2016 systematic review examined a dozen randomized trials and found prayer reduced anxiety in mothers of children with cancer, helped chemotherapy patients cope, and improved spiritual well-being across the board.

Then there is collective prayer, which deserves its own paragraph. Something happens when believers gather and pray together that doesn’t happen alone in your kitchen.

A hospital-based study published in ScienceDirect documented measurable benefits among patients and staff at an outpatient clinic that began every workday with group prayer. The faithful have known this for 2,000 years. Fears that felt enormous at three in the morning shrink to a manageable size when spoken aloud in the presence of people who love you and a God who loves you more.

Burdens get distributed. A timid believer hears a confident prayer spoken aloud and realizes that confidence is available, not reserved. A confident believer hears someone else struggle to find words and remembers that brokenness is not a disqualification. The result is a kind of mutual restocking.

Kneeling and dealing

Which brings me to the deeper point. America is in a mental health crisis. Antidepressant prescriptions keep climbing. In 2023, loneliness was declared a public health emergency by the surgeon general himself. Suicide rates among the youth are at generational highs.

Pundits offer theories that include smartphones, social media, economic precarity, and polarization. All are real, but all are partial. The fuller explanation is the one your pastor has been preaching for years. You cannot evict God from a culture and expect the building to stand. A nation that traded the sanctuary for the self-help aisle was always going to drown in despair. There is a God-shaped hole in the modern Western psyche; stuffing it with meditation apps and microdoses is like trying to plug a dam with Kleenex.

Prayer is older than the problem. Prayer is bigger than the diagnosis. The studies show it, and Christians know it.

​Christianity, Health, Lifestyle, Meditation, Mental health, Mindfulness, Prayer, Science, Wellness, Faith 

Last month, another family requested I play “It Is Well with My Soul” for their loved one’s funeral.

After nearly 50 years of playing the piano for funeral services, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve played that hymn.

The sorrows like sea billows are a given. They arrive for all of us eventually. The question is not whether suffering comes. The question is what we have been taught to do when it arrives.

Those years at the piano have provided an unusual vantage point. Most people attending a funeral spend the service looking toward the front of the sanctuary or chapel. They see the pastor, the flowers, the family, and the casket. Sitting at the piano, however, I’ve spent much of my life looking in the opposite direction.

I see the faces. I’ve watched businessmen, ranchers, physicians, pastors, politicians, mechanics, celebrities, schoolteachers, and grieving children. I’ve seen estranged family members share a pew for an hour. I’ve seen old wounds temporarily set aside. I’ve watched tears fall from people who spent a lifetime convincing the world they didn’t cry.

It’s hard to lie during a funeral service. The face and eyes give it away.

For a brief moment, the distractions of life are suspended in the face of death. Everyone in the room is confronted with the same reality: Life is fragile, time is limited, and something had the final word over a life that may have loomed very large only days before.

When I offer to help select the music, I often ask the family’s favorite hymn. “It Is Well with My Soul” almost invariably stands out.

This year marks 150 years since Philip Bliss set Horatio Spafford’s words to music. Ever since, grieving families have continued reaching for that hymn.

After hearing it and performing it for a lifetime, I’ve become convinced that something happens in the fifth measure where the word “sorrows” lands on the first minor chord of the hymn.

I leave room for that chord.

When I play the hymn, I take my time. I’ve had music ministers try to conduct me faster through it. I politely ignore them. Grief does not benefit from haste.

Not because I am trying to showcase the music, but because I have watched what happens in the room when people hear it. Heads lower. Shoulders sag. Eyes fill with tears. In that moment, the hymn permits grieving people to tell the truth.

The sea billows are rolling.

RELATED: What we lose when we rush past pain

iStock/Getty Images

Sometimes, when I invite the congregation to sing, I watch people exhale. Some simply mouth the words. Others sing through tears. Some stand motionless and stare straight ahead. I’ve watched grieving fathers, mothers, and spouses raise their hands heavenward as tears run down their faces.

Occasionally, I stop playing altogether on the last chorus and let the congregation carry the hymn themselves. There is something profound about hearing a room full of grieving people give collective grief a collective voice.

The hymn was written from within great sorrow. It never hurries people through it. It doesn’t offer clichés or pretend pain isn’t pain.

It acknowledges sorrow while refusing to grant it the final word.

Then comes the line that has occupied my thoughts more than any other: “Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say …”

Taught me.

The sorrows like sea billows are a given. They arrive for all of us eventually. The question is not whether suffering comes. The question is what we have been taught to do when it arrives.

What do we reach for when things around us feel so unsteady?

I’ve played this hymn for people who sang it with confidence and for people who could barely get the words out. I’ve watched some sing it as testimony and others sing it as prayer. Some seemed to embody it. Others seemed to aspire to it.

Yet, the requests keep arriving.

After nearly 50 years at the piano bench, I’ve never lost my sense of wonder at what happens when a room full of grieving people stand together and sing: It is well with my soul.

​Opinion & analysis, Funeral, Music, Philip bliss, Horatio spafford, Hymn, Christianity, Faith, Grief, Mourning, Soul 

In the beginning, there was a pool. It was green, and broken, and hemorrhaging millions of gallons a year into the soft earth beneath the National Mall. For decades, nobody fixed it.

America turns 250 this July. For a country that can’t agree on anything — especially about Donald Trump — what is reflected back isn’t always easy to look at.

‘It looks real good. And you know what, ‘scuse my French, but I f**king hate that.’

In preparation for the 250th celebration, the pool was drained, painted, and fenced off. It brought on lawsuits, court hearings, and more cable news segments than anyone expected from a paint job.

And then the water came back in. On June 4, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool refilled under a blazing June sun. Tourists, joggers, and D.C. regulars lined the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to watch the water rise.

The reflecting pool is the centerpiece of a broader $95 million push by the Trump administration to restore Washington ahead of the 250th. Under Executive Order 14252, “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful,” the National Park Service launched a sweeping effort to restore fountains, rehabilitate historic landscapes, and address aging infrastructure across the city.

The funds come not from the NPS’ congressional budget but from national park entrance fees — money the agency is legally permitted to redirect at its discretion.

More than 20 fountains that had sat dry for years — some for decades — are flowing again. The Columbus Circle fountain in front of Union Station was turned back on in late May for the first time since 2007. Meridian Hill Park’s cascading fountain — the longest in North America — is running again.

The reflecting pool is the latest in a series of restoration projects that have drawn surprisingly positive reactions across the city — even from residents who didn’t vote for Trump.

RELATED: The fountains in DC are back on. It turns out that decline was ‘a choice.’

Blaze News

The pool was designed by architect Henry Bacon and completed in 1923 — a long, narrow mirror stretching almost 2,030 feet between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. Trump compared the pool’s length to “skyscrapers.”

The nation’s reflecting pool has also been leaking for most of its existence. The original structure was built without pilings on the soft, dredged riverbed and started losing water almost immediately.

The Obama administration spent $34 million and closed the pool for nearly two years, rebuilding the structure with foundation support and installing a brand-new filtration system. The algae came back within a month. The leaks never stopped.

By the time Trump took office, Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said it was losing 45,000 gallons a day.

The Biden-era NPS received estimates “above $100 million” for another fix and didn’t move forward.

Trump ordered a different approach. Workers drained the pool, hauled away what he says were 12 truckloads of garbage, sealed the cracks, and replaced the filtration system with a state-of-the-art ozone nanobubbler — the first of its kind at the pool. Then, they coated the basin in what the president calls “American Flag Blue.”

When Trump first visited the drained pool on May 7, he said previous estimates to fix it had run as high as $355 million and 3.5 years. He initially said it would cost $1.8 million and take one week.

The contract was signed for almost $6.9 million — awarded to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a Virginia firm, through an expedited no-bid process. The DOI later revised the timeline to a month and added $6.2 million, citing the urgency of the July 4 deadline.

It took six weeks. Federal contracting records show the final cost came to just under $14.2 million — more than eight times Trump’s 1.8 million estimate, yet roughly 4% of the $355 million he said it could have cost otherwise. Trump says the work will last 50 to 100 years.

“Our country is about beauty, cleanliness, safety, great people,” he told reporters who questioned why he was focused on the pool during a period of international tension. “Not a filthy capital.”

Trump drove his motorcade across the drained floor to inspect it personally. He also posted an AI image of himself and other Cabinet members swimming in it.

“It won’t leak; it will shine and be the pride of Washington, D.C., for decades to come,” said Trump.

RELATED: America 250 UFC event at risk: Anti-Trump group sues to shut down event on behalf of Democratic activists

Blaze News

But the landscape architects and historic preservationists weren’t concerned about the preventable water loss. They were concerned about “American Flag Blue.”

“It wasn’t intended as a place that looks jolly like your local golf course,” said Judy Scott Feldman of the National Mall Coalition, a nonprofit that helps protect the area’s historic legacy. The Cultural Landscape Foundation filed suit, calling the project a “permanent blemish” that would turn a national landmark into a “theme park.”

The pool’s original bottom was dark asphalt and tile — not Obama’s 14-year-old tinted gray concrete that critics defended as “historic.” The NPS agreed that a darker bottom, like Trump’s dark navy, improves reflectivity.

An EarthCam time-lapse from the top of the Washington Monument shows what actually changed. The pool isn’t green any more. Trump’s new nanobubbler targets the algae, and the sealant addresses the leaking joints that the Obama renovation didn’t.

One problem reportedly remains: two miles of cracked underground pipes that, if they fail, could shut down the filtration system and bring the algae back. The Trump administration says pipe replacement will begin in the fall.

Blaze News went out to the National Mall and asked five people what they thought.

A resident who has run the Mall route for six years barely broke stride. “I didn’t like the construction, so I started running the Jefferson Memorial way. Honestly, I don’t even care who did it. It was Trump, right? I’m not really political — I work in tech. It looks fine.”

A 13-year-old on his school trip said his class had studied the “I Have a Dream” speech just weeks before. “I didn’t know the pool was broken. I just thought it was always like this.”

A retired couple from Western Pennsylvania had been here before — once for the Bicentennial in 1976 and twice since 2023. He pointed to their matching MAGA hats. “We promised to come back only to Trump’s Washington,” he said, “and seeing it completed makes me feel more patriotic than I already was.”

Not everyone Blaze News spoke with voted for Trump. In 2024, Washington, D.C., voted more than 92% for Kamala Harris.

A college junior interning on Capitol Hill had watched the construction drag on through her first weeks in the city. “I tried walking by here to romanticize, you know, my D.C. hot-girl summer,” she said. “The construction was low-key annoying. Our office has been talking about it, and besides the fact that it seems, yet again, like just another one of Trump’s pet projects, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it looks bad.”

A lifelong resident who works in education stopped at the edge of the pool, looked out at the water, and said: “I’m not going to give that man credit. I’m just not. But it does look good. It looks real good. And you know what, ‘scuse my French, but I f**king hate that.”

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

​Blaze news, Capitol hill, Donald trump, Education, Kamala harris, Lincoln memorial, Reflecting pool, Union station, Politics 

While the transgender movement has lost significant ground culturally and politically in recent years, it’s still probing for vulnerabilities — especially during Pride Month.

In a recent interview with women’s sports advocate and founder of XX-XY Athletics Jennifer Sey, Steve Deace highlighted a recent example: In California high school track and field, biological male athlete AB Hernandez (who identifies as transgender) has dominated the girls’ high jump and triple jump at state championships, leading to a California Interscholastic Federation policy where displaced biological girls are forced to share the top podium spot and co-champion status with him.

“You’re on the front lines of this battle. What do you think?” Deace asked Sey.

Sey believes that the transgender agenda has been “pushed back,” but it’s far from being defeated.

She explains that while 27 states currently have laws keeping women’s sports for biological females only, a pending Supreme Court decision this June will determine if those protections are constitutional. She expects the court to uphold them, but emphasizes that this victory would only apply to those 27 states. The remaining 23 states, which prioritize gender identity over biological sex, would still allow biological males to compete in girls’ sports.

In other words, even a favorable ruling from SCOTUS doesn’t end the fight nationwide.

“So we still have a ton of work to do,” she says.

That work, she argues, needs to focus on “[changing] the culture.”

“Seventy to 80% of Americans agree … that women’s sports should be for women … but I don’t think we’ve made meaningful progress in getting that 80% to stand up and say what they believe,” says Sey.

“All right, so how do we do that?” Deace asks.

As for her, Sey plans to “keep producing content, keep encouraging people to stand up and say what they think, to stand up and say the most commonsense thing that there is, which is that men and women are different.”

With every person who speaks this truth, the stronger the “permission structure” becomes in the broader culture, she argues.

“Yes, we need legislation. We need state legislation; we need national legislation to reify Title IX. But I think when we win the cultural battle is when we actually win,” she tells Deace.

He agrees and reiterates the need for people to have enough courage to endure public shaming if necessary — especially “dads at school board meetings” and “young women [willing] to say, ‘I refuse to take part in this charade.’”

Sey agrees that men specifically need to join the movement. “We need way more men in this fight. … We need moms to do it too, but dads have been particularly absent in this fight.”

While she agrees that young female athletes should take a stand for their own rights, she is unwilling to ask them to forgo competing in order to make a statement.

“How do I tell a 14-year-old girl that she needs to do it when a professional athlete with all the money in the world won’t do it because she’s afraid of losing endorsements?” she asks.

“These [professional athletes] are women with enough power and enough influence, and they pull enough dollars in for these brands that I’d be willing to bet that the brands won’t fire them,” Sey continues.

“I want to put the pressure on them more than these 14-year-old girls. They’re the leaders.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Steve deace show, Steve deace, California, Men in women’s sports, Jennifer sey 

For American Christians, biblical accounts of martyrdom can seem far removed from everyday life. And yet some 388 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution or discrimination — from imprisonment and government surveillance to mob violence and social exclusion — for practicing their religion.

Christ never promised his followers a life free from suffering; the New Testament repeatedly warns that persecution is part of the Christian experience. Yet Scripture couples that warning with a command: Christians are not to forget their fellow believers who suffer for the faith.

Few Christians in the United States or Europe will ever face the kinds of pressures endured by believers in North Korea, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, or Armenia.

“Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body” (Hebrews 13:3).

Christians today do respond in many ways, from prayer and advocacy to humanitarian aid and legal assistance. Here are five places where believers face significant challenges in 2026 — and five organizations working on the front lines to support them.

1. North Korea

North Korea remains one of the most dangerous places in the world to follow Christ. While North Korea’s constitution formally guarantees freedom of religion and the government permits a small number of state-controlled churches, independent Christian activity is treated as a threat to the regime. Believers caught with a Bible or participating in unauthorized worship can face imprisonment, forced labor, or worse. In some cases, punishment extends to entire families under the country’s system of collective responsibility.

Organization helping: Open Doors

Founded by the Dutch missionary known as Brother Andrew, Open Doors has spent decades serving Christians living under persecution. The ministry is best known for its annual World Watch List, which tracks countries where Christians face the most severe restrictions.

North Korea again ranked at the top of this year’s installment. The organization supports underground believers through networks operating outside the country, assists defectors, and helps document conditions that would otherwise remain hidden from the outside world.

Open Doors recently published the story of a North Korean Christian who spent more than a decade imprisoned because of his faith before being released. The testimony provided a rare firsthand account from inside the country and reflected the organization’s broader work supporting underground believers and documenting religious persecution that is otherwise difficult to verify from outside North Korea.

2. Nigeria

Nigeria remains one of the deadliest countries in the world for Christians. Islamist extremist groups, armed militants, and recurring attacks on villages have left thousands dead and displaced countless families in recent years. In May, suspected Fulani militants killed five people and abducted several others in attacks on Christian communities in Plateau State, highlighting the persistent insecurity facing many believers.

Organization helping: International Christian Concern

Based in Washington, D.C., International Christian Concern focuses on advocacy, reporting, and direct assistance for persecuted Christians worldwide.

In April 2025, ICC reported that more than 300 Christians had been killed in Nigeria in just over three months. The organization has consistently documented attacks on churches and Christian villages while advocating greater international attention to the crisis.

Last month, ICC released “Nigeria’s $10 Million Genocide Cover-Up,” a report alleging that government officials and international actors have obscured the religious dimensions of violence that has killed tens of thousands of Nigerian Christians over the past two decades.

3. Pakistan

In Pakistan, an accusation of blasphemy against Islam can upend a person’s life long before a verdict is reached. Christians have frequently found themselves among those targeted under the country’s controversial blasphemy laws, while recent investigations have raised concerns about organized networks that allegedly fabricate accusations and profit from the resulting prosecutions.

Organization helping: Voice of the Martyrs

Voice of the Martyrs was founded in 1967 by Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand, who spent 14 years imprisoned by the communist regime for his Christian faith before escaping to the West and launching a ministry dedicated to serving persecuted believers.

Because many of the Christians it serves live in dangerous environments, the organization often withholds names and identifying details from public reports.

In September 2025, Voice of the Martyrs Radio featured Pakistani Christian scholar Dr. Yousaf Sadiq discussing efforts to preserve and distribute the Punjabi Psalter, a collection of Scripture-based worship songs used by Christians in Pakistan. The project was presented as one way of strengthening believers living under pressure. VOM has also highlighted cases involving Christians accused under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and encouraged prayer for imprisoned believers.

4. China

Unlike North Korea, China does not ban Christianity outright. Instead, the government seeks to control it. Churches are expected to submit to state oversight, religious leaders face pressure to promote Communist Party priorities, and believers who resist can find themselves under surveillance or behind bars.

Organization helping: Aid to the Church in Need

Aid to the Church in Need is a Catholic pontifical foundation that supports clergy, seminarians, religious communities, and Christian families in countries facing hardship or persecution.

Like many ministries operating in sensitive regions, ACN does not always disclose detailed information about beneficiaries or projects in countries where publicity could place local Christians at risk.

This year, Aid to the Church in Need spotlighted the case of Jimmy Lai, the imprisoned Hong Kong Catholic publisher and pro-democracy activist serving a 20-year sentence under Hong Kong’s national security law. Through interviews with Lai’s family and its “Faith Under Siege” podcast, ACN has helped keep international attention focused on one of the world’s most prominent Christian prisoners of conscience.

RELATED: 5 pro athletes who boldly take a knee — for Jesus Christ

Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

5. Armenia

Armenia is one of the world’s oldest Christian nations and the first kingdom to adopt Christianity as its official religion. But recent disputes between the government and the Armenian Apostolic Church have prompted warnings from religious-freedom advocates who say one of Christianity’s oldest institutions faces mounting political pressure.

Unlike North Korea, Nigeria, or Pakistan, the concern in Armenia is not mass violence against Christians but an increasingly contentious relationship between the state and the church that has shaped Armenian identity for more than 1,700 years.

Organization helping: Christian Solidarity International

Christian Solidarity International, a Switzerland-based human rights organization, advocates on behalf of persecuted religious minorities around the world.

In 2026, CSI conducted a fact-finding mission in Armenia, where its delegation met with imprisoned Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan after negotiating access with Armenian authorities. The group later delivered letters from the archbishop to participants at the International Religious Freedom Summit in Washington, released a report on alleged state persecution of the Armenian Apostolic Church, and urged Western governments to raise concerns about detained clergy and religious freedom in Armenia.

Remembering the forgotten church

Few Christians in the United States or Europe will ever face the kinds of pressures endured by believers in North Korea, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, or Armenia. Yet their stories serve as a reminder of both the cost of discipleship and the fragility of religious freedom in a fallen world. They also challenge Christians elsewhere not to forget their brothers and sisters in Christ.

As the Apostle Paul reminded the early Church, “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (1 Corinthians 12:26).

​Armenia, China, Discrimination, Faith, Martyrdom, Nigeria, Persecution, Religious freedom, World watch list, North korea, Charity, Lifestyle 

Who kills more black males than anyone else? Other black males.

That is why the available data should tell you that if you are the parent of a black son, you should be far more concerned about what other young black men may do to him than what race-baiters and grievance-mongers may have to say about the Karmelo Anthony verdict.

We are tired of the fake black bravado culture that costs young men their lives and then demands that everyone else pretend the killer is the victim.

A jury in Texas deliberated for less than three hours this week before declaring Anthony guilty of first-degree murder for stabbing Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet last year. The judge sentenced the 19-year-old to 35 years in prison.

Justice was done. The facts are clear. And since this is 2026, not 1956, I am strenuously declaring any attempt to build an indefinite period of racial grievance around this case unavailable for the historically aggrieved. Those days are over.

I do not owe anyone moral deference because of skin color. I owe my neighbor love. I owe him fairness. I owe him the truth. I owe him the same moral standard I owe every other neighbor.

That cuts in every direction. You might be black, white, Hispanic, Asian, gay, straight, male, female, rich, poor, Christian, atheist, or whatever. None of it gives you permission to stab another young man and then demand that the country treat you as the victim.

My ancestors were so-called greasy Catholic dago wops who arrived with little, lived in real ghettos, worked thankless jobs, had children, and actually made their way in America in spite of it all. My mother had a kid at 15 — me — earned a GED, went to college, and improved her life. I was on food stamps and government cheese before we made our way forward together.

I owe you nothing.

The race-baiting Jezebel Jasmine Crockett has lived a far more privileged life than my mother or I ever did. She happens to be black, but I’m way more ghetto than she is.

So we’re done with her nonsense. The incendiary name-calling no longer works the way it once did. Americans under 60 are not moved by every accusation of racism. Many younger white male voters now respond with open contempt when activists try to turn criminal cases into racial theater. They don’t care — and they can’t wait to tell you so.

We are tired of the fake black bravado culture that costs young men their lives and then demands that everyone else pretend the killer is the victim. You do not get to stab someone because your feelings were hurt. You do not get to talk yourself into violence and then ask the public to blame society for your choices.

Two young men are gone from their families in different ways. One is dead. One will spend much of his life in prison. Both outcomes are terrible. Neither outcome can be fixed by pretending that race explains away responsibility.

If you are black in America, you face a choice: Are you black or are you American? It’s your call, and I’m praying you make the right one, because this nation needs all the loyal patriots it can get right now.

RELATED: White-hating agitator claiming Karmelo Anthony was ‘legally lynched’ is a criminal, disgraced ex-judge

LeoPatrizi/iStock/Getty Images

But if you make the wrong decision, please know that your fate will be yours and yours alone. We’ve run out of patience with any racial decadence, disarray, and deviance. We have no time to coddle you as we try to save what’s left of this culture. Try being a better human.

If a black male is more likely to be assaulted by a black male and a white male is more likely to be assaulted by a black male, then you’re only left with two options as to why that is the case: Either Charles Darwin was right about some races being favored over others — his book “Descent of Man” is the guidebook for modern eugenics and one of the most racist things you’ll ever read — or you can believe that despite being made in the likeness and image of God like the rest of us, modern black culture just sucks and we’re tired of paying for it.

For the record, I believe the latter. Either way, it’s 2026, and the time for a reckoning is at hand. It’s your sin, not mine. Take responsibility for your actions. Stop wasting your life. Leave the ghetto behind.

The choice is yours.

So are the consequences.

​Opinion & analysis, Karmelo anthony, Racism, Grievance, Crime, Austin metcalf, Texas, Murder trial, Morality, Charles darwin, Jasmine crockett