Vice President JD Vance, who with second lady Usha Vance is expecting the delivery of their fourth child in July, told pro-life advocates gathered for the 52nd annual March of Life last year, “I want more babies in the United States of America; I want more happy children in our country; and I want beautiful young men and young women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them.”

While an American baby boom might be in the cards, it certainly did not take place last year.

‘This is the choice that Americans now face, and the stakes could not be higher.’

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that U.S. fertility rates dropped to an all-time low in 2025.

There were an estimated 3,606,400 births last year — a 1% decline from 2024. A plurality of babies — just over 1.11 million — were born to mothers in the 30-34 age group, which conforms to the years-long trend of women increasingly delaying family generation until older ages or putting it off altogether.

The general fertility rate, which references the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime if she were to experience the age-specific fertility rates of a given year, was 53.1 births per 1,000 women ages 15-44. The rate has decreased by 23% since 2007, the year of the Great Recession.

Whereas the year-over-year decline in births per woman in the 15-44 cohort was 1%, the fertility rate for females ages 15-19 declined by 7% last year, dropping to 11.7 births per 1,000 females — another record low. The CDC notes that the fertility rate for teenagers has decreased by 72% since 2007 and 81% since 1991.

RELATED: 5 steps to reset your body’s clock to God’s natural design

Bettman/Getty Images

The total fertility rate averaged 3.7 births per woman in 1960; 2.12 births in 2007; 1.64 in 2020; and 1.6 in 2024. It fell again last year to 1.57, according to a Wall Street Journal calculation using the new CDC data.

This is particularly bad news for those keen to bequeath the nation to heritage Americans since the total fertility rate necessary for a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without requiring replacement by foreign nationals — what is referred to as replacement level fertility — is 2.1.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said last year that a rate below replacement “is a national security threat to our country.”

Total fertility rates have plummeted across the first world. In the European Union, for example, the rate reportedly dropped from 2.62 in 1964 to 1.34 in 2024. The same year, the rate in Scotland dropped to 1.25 and to 1.41 in England and Wales.

Canada became one of the developed nations suffering “ultra-low fertility” in 2024, with a total fertility rate of 1.25 kids per woman. The Canadian government credited “increased educational levels, greater participation in the labor market, changing social norms, and the widespread use of contraception” for helping drive down the number.

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office projected in a report earlier this year that the fertility rate for foreign-born women in America this year will be substantially higher than the rate for native-born women, leading the home team 1.79 to 1.53.

The report noted further that:

on the basis of recent laws, policies, and demographic trends, CBO projects that the rate of population growth will generally slow over the next 30 years, from an average of 0.3% a year in the next decade to an average of 0.1% a year from 2037 to 2056. The total population is projected to stop growing in 2056 and remain roughly the same size as in the previous year.

The CBO added that net immigration is expected “to become an increasingly important source of population growth, especially if the annual number of deaths begin to exceed the annual number of births as expected in 2030.”

Some analysts have attempted to put a positive spin on America’s dwindling fertility rate.

“Women now have better control over their reproductive lives, so there’s not as much unintended pregnancy as there used to be,” Alison Gemmill, an associate professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health, told CNN. “Our timelines have shifted.”

According to data released last month by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, there were an estimated 1,126,000 clinician-provided abortions last year — nearly one-third the number of the reported live births.

In addition to exerting “better control” over their God-given procreative ability, Gemmill suggested that some would-be parents are rethinking having kids in light of concerns about so-called climate change, the economy, and raising a child in a supposedly “inequitable world.”

Karen Benjamin Guzzo, a demographer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, recently told the New York Times, “There’s been a lot of doom and gloom about the birth rate, but the decline is also a success story.”

The Heritage Foundation has, alternatively, acknowledged this bleak trend as a crisis, noting in a January report, “American family life is truly at a crossroads. One path is marked by unwed childbearing, low rates of marriage, low fertility, low commitment, and easy divorce. This path is associated with the view that family formation (or its avoidance) is primarily about fulfilling adult desires and adult needs.”

“The other path elevates the family unit as an inherent good based on the commitment and sacrifice of husbands and wives for each other’s sake and for the sake of children that their union would welcome into the world. This path is associated with the view that all life is sacred and that sees the family as a source of fulfillment for adults because they direct their energies to the good of the family unit instead of to themselves alone,” continued the report. “Underlying this view is a deep sense of gratitude in knowing that human beings are here by God’s grace and that children are divine gifts.”

“This is the choice that Americans now face, and the stakes could not be higher,” the report added.

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

​Society, Civilization, Baby, Crisis, Birth, Fertility, Fertility rate, United states, Replacement, Replacement theory, Natalism, Abortion, Life, Cdc, Politics 

Leftist radicals are throwing a temper tantrum now that a San Francisco-based coffee chain has decided to remove the LGBTQ+ Pride flag from its stores.

Philz Coffee began with a single store in the Bay Area in 2003 and has since expanded to 60 stores across California and Chicago. For some time, Philz cafes have notably displayed the Pride flag, implicitly lecturing about sexuality and gender to patrons who may simply want a cup of coffee or a pastry.

‘This is a change in how our stores look, not in who we are.’

But not for long.

On Wednesday, the company confirmed that all Philz stores will soon remove Pride and other flags and decor, claiming that doing so will create “a more consistent, inclusive experience.”

“Our long-standing support of the LGBTQIA+ community is unchanged. We are working toward creating a more consistent, inclusive experience across all our stores, including removing a variety of flags and other decor. This is a change in how our stores look, not in who we are,” said the statement from CEO Mahesh Sadarangani.

“Our allyship runs deeper than what is on our walls. It shows up in who we hire, how we treat one another, and in our annual Pride Month Unity celebration,” Sadarangani’s statement continued. “… Unity is fundamental to how we operate.”

RELATED: Unhinged 49-year-old female caught on video tossing coffee on McDonald’s worker enters her plea in court

OKrasyuk/Getty Images

LGBTQ+ activists have not taken the news well.

“It would be a huge mistake because the gay population won’t stand for it,” one unidentified individual told KRON. “We will boycott this place if that’s the case.”

“What’s the experience that Philz Coffee is selling? What is it that makes them distinctive? And the focus on the flags, the focus on Pride, that really has been an important part of what Philz Coffee is all about,” Berkeley professor Ann Harrison said, according to KGO.

Customer Todd Varney called the decision “pretty rotten” and speculated that it may have come as the result of “big money at the top.”

SF Pride Executive Director Suzanne Ford seemed to suggest the decision was part of a larger ongoing “global” effort against “queer” people. “There’s also a real frustration that comes with being a queer person right now — feeling like you want to respond to every headline, but not always knowing where your energy and bandwidth are best spent,” Ford said. “… It may seem small, but removing a Pride flag sends a message, and for many in this neighborhood, it feels like another blow right at home.”

A Change.org petition indicated that Philz “team members and customers” no longer feel “supported” by the company. “The Pride flags within the stores hold deep meaning and value to both staff and visitors, symbolizing that these locations are safe and welcoming spaces for all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity,” it said.

Sadarangani became CEO in 2021 after private equity firm Freeman Spogli & Co. bought Philz from founders Phil Jaber and his son, Jacob Jaber. Freeman Spogli & Co. also own other chains such as Popeyes and El Pollo Loco, according to the New York Post.

It is unclear when the flags will be removed.

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

​Philz, Philz coffee, San francisco, Lgbtq, Pride, Pride flag, Politics 

New polling from Pew Research shows a massive contrast in opinions about Israel between younger Republicans and their older allies.

The polling, conducted in late March, additionally showed not only the typical divide between conservatives and liberals with regard to support of Israel, but also a growing, unfavorable view of Israel and President Donald Trump’s ability to handle relations with Israeli leaders.

‘Across all US adults, 60% have an unfavorable view of Israel.’

While the majority of Republicans still have a favorable view of Israel, younger party members are currently showing the lowest level of support of any demographic.

For Republicans over 50, just 24% have a “very/somewhat unfavorable” opinion of Israel. That number is 57% for the 18-49 age group, up seven points in just one year, and showing a glaring 33-point difference within the party.

Democrats are more unified about their dislike of Israel. Just four points separate the two age groups, averaging out to an 80% negative view of the country overall.

Across all U.S. adults, 60% have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% in 2025, Pew Research reported.

When it comes to confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the sentiment among young Republicans remains the same. When asked if they have confidence in Netanyahu to “do the right thing regarding world affairs,” just 25% of Republicans 18-49 have some or a lot of confidence, while 58% said they have “not too much” or none at all.

RELATED: MEMBERS ONLY: Pro-Palestine posting no problem with ‘penis,’ claims fired Kate Beckinsale

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Republicans over 50 are confident in Netanyahu by a net of 66%, with just 30% having a net negative level of confidence in him. This demographic has the most confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu.

At the same time, more than 75% of Democrats have little or no faith in the Israeli leader’s ability to do the right thing.

Moreover, according to the poll, Republicans have the biggest contrast in opinions when it comes to the importance of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

RELATED: Israel ramps up attacks on Middle East target despite US-Iran ceasefire

Gergely BESENYEI/AFP/Getty Images

In terms of those who said the conflict between Israel and Hamas is important to them personally, Republicans over 50 years old found it important most often at a rate of 69%. That was 12 points more than the second-highest group, which was Democrats over 50 years old.

Republicans ages 18-49, however, were the demographic most likely to say the conflict was not personally important to them at 41%, seven points higher than Democrats of the same age.

In the end, Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to have confidence in President Trump’s handling of the United States’ relations with Israel, with nearly three-quarters either somewhat or very confident in him.

More than 80% of Democrats polled said they were not too confident or not at all confident in Trump’s handling of the situation.

The survey was conducted March 23-29 and involved 3,507 U.S. adults.

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

​News, Polling, Israel, Netanyahu, Trump, Palestine, Hamas, Republicans, Liberals, Democrats, Conservatives, Polls, Politics 

Conspiracy theories are swirling after several prominent U.S. scientists and defense researchers with ties to classified aerospace, nuclear, and UFO projects died or mysteriously vanished under suspicious circumstances in recent years.

Rumors about cover-ups, assassinations, and even stranger theories are ramping up, and now even mainstream outlets are beginning to take notice.

On a recent episode of “Pat Gray Unleashed,” Pat, Keith Malinak, and Jeffy watched and reacted to a recent segment from Fox News host Will Cain, who laid out seven of the most striking cases and asked the obvious question: Are these incidents connected, or is this just a tragic coincidence?

Cain presented the following cases of scientists and defense researchers who died or disappeared under suspicious circumstances:

Carl Grillmair: Caltech astrophysicist who worked on a NASA-supported space telescope project and infrared systems; “shot and killed at his home just two months ago.”Frank Maiwald: Senior scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab; “died nearly two years ago, but his cause of death has never been made public.”Monica Reza: NASA/JPL-connected aerospace scientist; disappeared while hiking in California last summer.William McCasland: Retired Air Force major general who formerly commanded the Air Force Research Lab and oversaw classified aerospace R&D; vanished from his home in February 2026. He had a direct professional connection to Monica Reza through funding her earlier materials research project.Melissa Casias: Worked an administrative role at Los Alamos National Lab with security clearances; has been “missing since last summer.”Anthony Chavez: Longtime Los Alamos National Laboratory employee; disappeared while out for a walk in May 2025.Nuno Loureiro: MIT plasma and fusion physicist; shot and killed in December 2025 at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts, after answering the doorbell.

Cain noted the overlap in their sensitive research ties, pointing out the same handful of institutions — NASA, Air Force Research, Los Alamos Laboratory — and asked: “Could they be connected, or is this something else entirely?”

Pat calls the entire situation “bizarre” and reacts with his trademark skepticism. To hear his full take and what he thinks might really be going on, watch the episode above.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Pat gray, Pat gray unleashed, Blazetv, Blaze media, Ufo, Nasa, Los alamos, Missing scientists 

Students have always enjoyed flaunting revolutionary politics — the posters, the slogans, the Che Guevara T-shirts.

Like gender fluidity and ultimate frisbee, these radical affectations often don’t survive graduation. It’s a tale as old as time: One day you’re shouting into a bullhorn; the next, you’re typing on Slack.

Members also earn ‘rays’ on a Sunrise patch as they progress through the ranks — a visible marker of participation and standing within the organization.

What does endure, however, is the sophisticated political machinery designed to harness this youthful fervor and put it into action.

‘Political revolution’

This week, watchdog group Defending Education published internal documents outlining a coordinated push for political upheaval from one of the country’s most visible youth activist organizations.

The Sunrise Movement is a 501(c)(4) environmental organization that describes itself as “a movement of young people fighting to stop the climate crisis.”

But slides leaked to Defending Education from a March 17, 2026, membership meeting reveal a highly structured and strategic operation calling for a “political revolution” and “structurally chang[ing] the foundations of this country” — language that goes well beyond climate advocacy.

The message is as simple as it is sobering: The goal is not reform, but replacement.

The revelation here is not the Sunrise Movement’s rhetoric. “Revolution” is already central to the group’s public-facing language; its homepage describes itself as part of a broader climate revolution. What the slides add is clarity: That “revolution” is not just metaphor, but a program laid out in concrete terms, from pressure campaigns and mass noncooperation to institutional targeting.

Defending Education

Path to a ‘New System’

The goal: “Eco-socialism, [a] multi-racial democracy, and Green New Deal legislation.”

A section titled “On the Road to Revolution” lays out a path to a “New System” — including passing Green New Deal policies and “ending the billionaire 2-party system.”

The slides also describe a strategy of “repolarizing” the country. One passage calls for “get[ting] majority of society out in the streets and an explosion in voting,” arguing that “we need to repolarize society” to move people away from what it describes as a “(corrupt) system” and toward a new one with “more democracy.”

Target: Hilton

The materials also outline how that shift is meant to occur in practice — through a sequence of escalating actions tied to specific campaigns.

It begins with a March 28 No Kings event and builds toward a May 1 national strike. In between: sustained pressure.

A slide titled “Hilton to May Day” points to coordinated economic disruption, including efforts to target “ICE enabler” Hilton Hotels over its alleged ties to immigration enforcement. Tactics listed include public boycotts, so-called “wide awake actions,” and coordinated booking and canceling of hotel reservations — designed to impose financial and reputational costs.

Defending Education

‘Dawn’ to ‘Dusk’

The slides also lay out what the group calls its internal “culture” — a set of guiding principles members are expected to adopt. The language reads less like loose organizing advice and more like a shared creed: “Nothing about us without us,” “Motivate the base, isolate the opposition,” and “It is our duty to fight for our freedom, it is our duty to win.” The effect is to define not just tactics, but a common vocabulary and moral framework for participants.

Another section details a tiered membership structure, with clearly defined ranks — “Dawn,” “Morning,” “High Noon,” “Afternoon,” and “Dusk” — each tied to specific benchmarks: recruiting new members, completing actions, attending meetings, and undergoing training. Advancement comes with increasing responsibilities, access, and internal status.

Members also earn “rays” on a Sunrise patch as they progress through the ranks — a visible marker of participation and standing within the organization. The structure resembles a formal pipeline, designed to scale participation and develop organizers over time.

‘Full Dictatorship’

The presentation outlines three possible futures, each portraying the current system as compromised and the stakes as existential — conditions that, in the materials’ framing, justify escalation.

The most extreme — “Full Dictatorship” — imagines Donald Trump consolidating power, using the military against opponents, and restricting speech.

The function is clear: Escalation isn’t optional. It’s required.

Defending Education

Defending Education

Defending Education, formerly Parents Defending Education, has focused on political activity in schools — curriculum, student protests, and institutional ties to advocacy groups.

Defending Education was founded in 2021 amid a surge of parental backlash to politicized curricula and school policies. The group uses public records requests, whistleblower tips, and document releases to surface what it describes as ideological activism inside education systems.

RELATED: Defending Education gives parents tools to fight leftist indoctrination

In recent years, it has zeroed in on the overlap between student organizing and outside advocacy groups — arguing that protests framed as grassroots are often supported and shaped by national networks. The Sunrise materials, it says, fit that pattern.

The Sunrise Movement has been linked to student walkouts, including protests tied to immigration enforcement. What the newly released slides add, Defending Education argues, is a clearer picture of how that organizing is structured and scaled.

“While calls for a ‘political revolution’ by left-wing activist groups are not unique, these coordinated plans to put economic and social pressure on universities … should raise serious concerns,” said Rhyen Staley, director of research at Defending Education.

“Our academic institutions should be places of higher learning … not weaponized or punished to achieve a ‘structural change’ to the political foundations of this country.”

Defending Education

Pushing left

Founded in 2017, the Sunrise Movement helped drive the Green New Deal into the political mainstream through protests, sit-ins, and youth mobilization.

The Sunrise Movement operates as a decentralized network of local “hubs,” many based on college and high school campuses. That structure has allowed it to scale quickly — turning student energy into coordinated national campaigns.

Since its founding, the Sunrise Movement has proven itself an effective pressure group within Democrat politics, helping push climate policy from the margins to the center of the party’s agenda. Its early backing of the Green New Deal helped turn what was once a fringe proposal into a defining litmus test for progressive candidates.

The group also played a visible role during the 2020 election cycle, applying sustained pressure on Joe Biden and his campaign to adopt more aggressive climate positions. While not all of its demands were met, Sunrise and allied activists helped shape the administration’s climate framework — demonstrating that its model of protest plus pressure can move policy, not just headlines.

Its strategy has consistently blended electoral pressure with direct action. What the newly released slides suggest is a continuation of that model, but with a more explicit emphasis on escalation and institutional leverage.

For a generation told that it is inheriting a world on the brink, the climate is the cause. For groups like Sunrise Movement, the target is something more immediate: the system itself.

What emerges is not just a campaign for the planet, but a bid to reshape political power around a broader program of systemic change.

​Lifestyle, Culture, Defending education, Culture war, Sunrise movement, Activism, Environmental activism, Radical politics, Education, Counterrevolution