Feds Should Stop Funding The Massachusetts Schools Welcoming Boys To Girls’ Bathrooms
The DOE should pursue every reasonable legal remedy it can to stop persistent gender ideology in schools.The DOE should pursue every reasonable legal remedy it can to stop persistent gender ideology in schools.Montana’s Top Court Says It’s Unconstitutional For Driver’s Licenses To Say Men Are Men
'If words retain their factual meaning, there is no discrimination at all,' the dissent noted.Sara Gonzales exposes Maine school for inviting sexually charged queer dancer to perform for middle and high school kids
As a mother and a conservative American patriot, BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales refuses to tolerate the indoctrination of children in public schools. That’s why she regularly exposes how radical activists and woke school administrators are pushing sexual and gender ideology on kids instead of focusing on real education.
On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara invites former Oklahoma State Superintendent and current CEO of Teacher Freedom Alliance Ryan Walters to the show to dive into a recent scandal in a Maine public school district.
Earlier this month, Fort Fairfield Schools in Fort Fairfield, Maine, invited a self-described queer musician and dancer by the name of “J-Line” to perform for the middle and high school student bodies.
Sara points out that J-Line’s profile is “filled with cross-dressing, LGBTQ propaganda, and pretty sexually charged content.”
“If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. Public schools are just trying to make your kids trans, gay, and retarded,” she says.
Walters is equally repulsed by Fort Fairfield Schools’ decision to pour resources into the LGBTQ+ agenda as opposed to genuine education. “We'd love to have our kids understand Washington crossing the Delaware, but instead we're doing how to be a gay dancer,” he sighs, lamenting the “extremes” public schools go to make everything about “sexual orientation.”
Sara shares that when she was still in school, she participated in choir and theater, but never once was she subjected to the LGBTQ+ agenda.
“Not one time did my choir teacher or my vocal coach ever talk about actually anything related to sexuality — ever,” she says.
“If they would put one ounce of the effort they push into trying to get kids to be gay or trans into understanding our history and reading on proficient levels, I mean, we would be crushing it right now in education, but unfortunately, they're not doing that,” Walters adds.
Sara points out that under the current Trump administration, public schools are not supposed to be promoting gender or DEI ideology, but she speculates that some are just “doing it in secret.”
Walters says that’s exactly what’s happening — even when parents explicitly complain about it.
Some of the teachers he works with at Teacher Freedom Alliance have reported that in their districts, they are given instructions by administration to “placate” parents who complain about certain progressive ideologies being pushed on their child and then “keep doing it anyway.”
“The left isn't just going to back away,” Walters warns, noting that despite the current Republican administration, liberals are still largely “controlling” many institutions, including education.
“They understand that they control the future if they control the next generation. And so the fight is far from over.”
To hear more of the conversation, watch the video above.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
3 must-watch highlights from Allie Beth Stuckey’s David French debate
Yesterday, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey debated New York Times columnist David French, who has long identified as an evangelical Christian and a conservative.
Despite their shared theological and political identities, Stuckey and French clash on a number of issues, including transgender pronouns and gender ideology, abortion, and Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico, among others.
In their 95-minute debate, the duo respectfully went head-to-head on topics that have drawn strong criticism of French from many on the conservative right.
Here are three highlights from the debate:
Talarico dispute
Allie brought up French’s recent article in which he praised Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico as a Christian who sets a positive example of the faith in politics compared to “MAGA Christianity.”
In contrast, Allie has sharply criticized Talarico’s progressive theological views, accusing him of twisting Scripture to support abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and left-wing policies
But French doubled down: “I’m just really not willing to say James Talarico is not a Christian.”
He continued, “When I look at our political discourse around Christianity in this country and political Christianity, it’s so broken. ... We’re writing people out of Christianity based on policy positions.”
Allie pushed back, arguing that Talarico is pushing far more than policy positions.
“They’re not policy positions to say God is non-binary ... or to say our trans neighbors need abortion care too, or to say that, ‘I think all religions share the same central truth,’” she countered, insisting that these are primarily “theological” issues.
Given that Talarico refuses to “affirm Genesis 1,” Allie made it clear that it’s “going to be tough” to agree that he’s the Christian he identifies as.
The Harris vote
In another part of the debate, Allie brought up French’s 2024 endorsement of Kamala Harris.
“I don’t understand voting for someone like Kamala Harris,” she said, referencing the Biden DOJ’s removal of SNAP benefits for public schools that refused to allow biological males to use girls’ facilities or compete on girls’ teams.
She also pointed to Harris’ pledge to restore the Roe v. Wade framework and her opposition to bills banning late-term abortions.
“I agree with you on so many of these issues. ... I just don’t think I could ever vote for Kamala Harris,” she reiterated.
French countered by arguing that for him, the Russia-Ukraine War took precedence over gender and abortion issues.
“I would place a war in which a million people are being killed and injured, which could potentially lead to a World War III that we may not survive as a species ... way above things like pronouns,” he said.
But Allie pushed back on what she saw as “diminishment” of her original argument.
“You know I’m not just talking about pronouns,” she resisted.
“I’m talking about medical guidance for hospitals to chemically castrate kids. I’m talking about in Democrat states ... taking kids out of the custody of their parents because the parents won’t affirm this newfound gender of the child,” she continued.
Pronoun clash
Allie also called out what she perceived to be conflicting statements regarding French’s position on “pronoun politeness.”
Last year during a podcast, French referred to his male colleague (Brian Riedl) who identifies as a woman using female pronouns — an act many, including Allie, perceived as a contradiction to his 2018 article, in which he wrote, “The use of a pronoun isn’t a matter of mere manners. It’s a declaration of a fact. I won’t call Chelsea Manning ‘she’ for a very simple reason. He’s a man.”
“Is your stance one of pronoun politeness that you believe that a man who identifies as a woman should be referred to as ‘she/her’?” Allie inquired.
French claimed he “didn’t remember” using female pronouns to refer to Riedl and partially reaffirmed his 2018 statement.
After praising Riedl as a “brilliant analyst,” French stated, “I’m going to be kind to [trans people], but I also don’t want to say things that I don’t believe are true, and so the way I deal with that is, I use people’s names.”
He caveated, however, by declaring that he’s “definitely not going to go out of [his] way” to call trans-identifying people by the pronouns matching their biological sex.
Allie replied, “I don’t see it as unkind calling someone, whether it’s to their face or not to their face, the gender that God made them.”
But French dissented. “Oh, I think if somebody is dealing with gender dysphoria, ... I don’t see the value in me saying something to them that I know and they know is going to be hurtful to them.”
“It’s just normal, complete politeness and manners,” he continued.
“I’m just not going to go out of my way to say something that I know is going to be hurtful just because I can justify it as being true. All true words are not kind by virtue of just simply being true.”
Allie conceded, “I agree that you don’t have to be rude to someone and say, ‘That shirt looks bad on you.’”
“But when it comes to [gender], when we know it’s a lie that damages someone, that hurts them spiritually and physically and emotionally, hurts their family, I just can’t get on board with assenting to the idea that 2+2=5.”
Overall, the debate offered a revealing look at the growing divide within evangelical Christianity over truth, compassion, and cultural engagement. Watch the full hour-and-a-half exchange below.
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.
The 'Malcolm in the Middle' reboot is so woke even Hollywood hates it
Life is not only unfair in the new "Malcolm in the Middle," but it is also very oppressive.
The beloved 2000s series that went for seven seasons received a four-episode reboot on Disney+ recently, aptly titled "Malcolm in the Middle: Life's Still Unfair."
However, it was likely the viewer who felt most mistreated.
'I was like, 5, when I started feeling wrong.'
The series went live April 10 with all four episodes available simultaneously. It was the finale though that got the most traction, but for the wrong reasons.
'They' live
In this iteration of the show, Frankie Muniz — now a race car driver — returns as adult Malcolm and has since become a father to a teenage girl. Unfortunately, the mother abandoned her family just three days after the child's birth, according to the show's Wiki page. The mother's name is Dreamer.
Nonetheless, Malcolm has a new girlfriend, Tristan, who accompanies him through a reconciliation with his family and eventually to the 40th anniversary party of his parents, Hal and Lois. This is where the real woke magic happens.
The finale takes viewers on a whirlwind tour of progressive gender and sexuality obsessions. What garnered the most attention online was a speech by the family's sixth child (still in utero at the time the original series ended), Kelly, a new "nonbinary" character referred to as "they."
Ok, Boomer
Played by actress Vaughan Murrae — who purports to be nonbinary herself — Kelly is included in a video tribute to Hal where each sibling says what they love about their father. Kelly's portion instead explains her gender epiphany, saying, "I was like, 5, when I started feeling wrong. I thought I was great at hiding it, because you guys never said anything."
"I knew that he knew and had always known," she said about Hal, lovingly pointing out his acceptance.
Executive producer Tracy Katsky revealed in an interview with Deadline that the character was very much intentional in its messaging.
"It's a really important thing to us. Three out of four of our kids are queer," Katsky claimed. Her husband, Linwood Boomer, is the creator of the show. "Without making it a thing and without making an issue, I think it's really nice to have a character that, that's just a facet of their personality as opposed to the entire story. So we're really happy."
RELATED: 'Wtf': Still-living Michael J. Fox reacts to CNN 'in memoriam' video
- YouTube
Didn't ask, don't tell
Several other characters in the show are inexplicably gay as well. For example, Stevie, Malcolm's best friend with one lung, is now gay and has since adopted a baby with his husband, Glen.
Malcolm's trio of nerdy, male friends have a child together made possible by some sort of scientific experiment, but the show fails to provide specifics. When Malcolm asks if it happened through surrogacy, the men trail off. They do take a shot at the Department of Defense though, saying they got contracts before they graduated college and are doing a lot of "crazy s**t."
The child later makes an appearance as his three fathers are dancing (embarrassingly so), and one asks the boy to come dance with "dada, dada, and dada," referring to all three fathers.
To add in a creepiness factor, Malcolm's daughter, Leah, purported to be around 14 or 15 years old, sends a photo of herself from the event to her crush. She then gets a response that reads, "Show me your boobs."
The teen tells the camera, "What a creep! My first crush is a creep."
The attempted lesson at phone decorum still comes across as unnecessary, given that an adult wrote the scene.
RELATED: Sabrina Carpenter CLEARED of 'Islamophobia' after viral ululation confrontation
Reboot rebut
For good measure, the show also takes a gratuitous swipe at Christianity: Francis, the eldest brother, finds out during the anniversary party that his nitwit friends accidentally sawed off the head of a Jesus statue outside of a church. They are later arrested.
TV critic Christian Toto told Blaze News he felt "the reboot was either written several years ago or comes from a creative team eager to relive the woke era."
"Fans crave reboots for the nostalgia factor. The original show's edge came from its humor and singular take on family, not for any culture war broadsides," he continued.
The writer added, "The new 'changes' reflect a modern viewpoint that doesn't align with anything legitimately subversive or fresh. If anything, it's the most predictable way to take a reboot."
While some critics welcomed the reboot's manic energy, most noticed an emptiness beneath its progressive "updates" — even if they didn't name them as such.
Screenrant said the show "underwhelms by wasting too much time to fully bring the family back together."
The New York Times said the reboot "never has a chance to develop."
The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and New York Magazine all scored the show a 4/10, while the Telegraph provided possibly the most simple yet accurate takeaway:
"It is, sadly, a disappointing reunion."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
QUACK MEDICINE: Feds have insurance code for 'struck by a duck,' but not for gender detransition
Medical insurance claims in the United States are built around the federal government’s standardized system of diagnostic codes, designed to classify every conceivable injury and condition.
Yet among its more than 70,000 designations, there is no dedicated classification for a growing class of patients: regretful recipients of transgender "health care."
Patients requiring hormone replacement following gonad removal ... may face barriers to coverage without clearer diagnostic pathways.
The omission is all the more glaring when you consider some of the system’s more unusual distinctions.
Duck and cover
"There's a code for a spacecraft collision injuring the occupant, getting ... struck by a duck" as well as "walking into a lamppost," said Dr. Kurt Miceli in a recent interview with Align. “But nothing for those who are trying to revert a gender transition.”
“So effectively, if you are someone who has been harmed by the medical system and you are trying to get medical care, there’s really no diagnosis,” he continued.
Miceli’s work centers on helping children through Stop the Harm, an organization that tracks gender-related medical interventions among minors. According to its database, more than 5,700 surgical procedures were performed on minors in the United States between 2019 and 2023.
California accounted for an estimated 1,359 of those cases, while Massachusetts reported approximately 300.
Miceli said he wants to “give a voice” to detransitioners by creating at least “some visibility” within the existing system of more than 70,000 codes. Such recognition, he argued, would signal that “this is a condition that we must direct resources to, we must appropriately treat, [and] we must build guidelines to help support.”
RELATED: 'Truly a fool's errand': Top CDC adviser, RFK Jr. ally resigns from vaccine panel
Cease and desistance
Beyond recognition, Miceli said the absence of a dedicated classification complicates care. Without it, patients may face challenges navigating billing systems, obtaining reimbursement, or receiving coordinated follow-up treatment.
He added that there is room for multiple distinctions — separating medical complications, social transition, and surgical outcomes, for example.
One step in that direction may come as soon as October 2026, when an update to the ICD-10-CM is expected to include a new designation: “Gender Identity Disorder, in Remission.”
The term, petitioned by Miceli, is defined as the resolution of “clinical symptoms associated with gender dysphoria, where the cognitive experience of incongruence between experienced/expressed gender and natal sex has remitted, leading to alignment of experienced/expressed gender and natal sex.”
Miceli said he hopes future updates will go further, including classifications that explicitly recognize “desistance.”
RELATED: 'Looksmaxxing' and the war on male self-improvement
In a bind
At the same time, he argued that legislative action may be necessary to ensure patients receive appropriate care and to “correct the harms that have been done to them.”
For example, patients requiring hormone replacement following gonad removal — or medical care after practices such as breast binding or genital tucking — may face barriers to coverage without clearer diagnostic pathways.
More comprehensive coding, he added, would also improve research and communication across the medical system.
“It’ll allow our physicians, our medical community to place that code onto the chart. We can get a better understanding of what’s going on,” Miceli said. “We can look at that code in association with other potential complications and, again, collect much more accurate real-world data.”
'Infinite diversity': Actress in canned 'Star Trek' series warns against 'whitewashed' sci-fi
The most notably progressive "Star Trek" series will be canceled by CBS Studios and Paramount+, prompting one of its actors to demand the show's lore nevertheless become more "woke."
Studios were so supportive of "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy" that Paramount+ picked it up for a second season before the show even aired; but that will be all.
'The world is still not ready to hear the message of love, peace, [and] infinite diversity.'
The show's demise began when it launched for free on YouTube — an already bad sign — garnering just over 85,000 views in the first 24 hours; not good for a show with an estimated budget of $10 to $20 million per episode.
Nothing could prepare audiences for the show's trajectory though. The new series boasted polyamorous refugee Klingons, Stephen Colbert, and gender activist Tig Notaro playing a teacher pushing DEI ideology on cadets.
Progressivism certainly flowed through the series' actors. Case in point, Gina Yashere, who played Lura Thok.
Yashere took to Instagram after the show's cancelation to declare that audiences aren't ready to hear about love and tolerance and that future iterations must avoid becoming too white.
RELATED: New 'Star Trek' DEI disaster flops despite airing for free: A 'huge, gay, glee club middle finger'
"Obviously, the world is still not ready to hear the message of love, peace, infinite diversity, acceptance, the eschewing of violence and senseless wars," she said in a video, first reported by Fandom Pulse.
She added, "And 'Star Trek' will be back stronger than ever. And preferably with the same message and not completely whitewashed."
In her written caption, Yashere made it abundantly clear she was proud of the show's woke ideology as well.
"Be safe out there peeps. Stay woke. Wokeywoke. Wokest of the woke. Wokeyliscious. A cacophony of woke."
The show's messaging was never left for interpretation either. Its actors and showrunners will have to come to terms with the fact that they fully presented their intent, and it was not viewed favorably.
RELATED: Polyamorous refugee Klingons: New 'Star Trek' writer makes 'three-parent household' a priority
When the show first aired, series creator Alex Kurtzman said he was "not slowing down on representation in any way," while characterizing "representation" as being the "beating heart" of the show.
Karim Diane, who played the aforementioned Klingon who wore a skirt and dress, said back in January that his character would have his sexuality "explored."
This manifested in a Klingon/human love story the character had with an allegedly "nonbinary" person.
Diane has since promised the second season is "basically just Season 1 turned all the way up."
In a statement to Variety, both CBS and Paramount said that while they were "incredibly proud of the ambition, passion, and creativity" the series showcased, it will not receive a third season.
Variety also reported that "Starfleet Academy" failed to secure a significant audience and did not rank among Nielsen's Top 10 charts for streaming viewership.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Massachusetts stands firm on denying Catholic couple foster parent license — even after state scraps woke policy
Massachusetts officials are standing by their decision to ban a Catholic couple, who hold biblical views on marriage and sexuality, from fostering children, despite a December policy change that removed the state's radical gender ideology mandate for caregivers.
Mike and Kitty Burke, long desiring to become parents, applied to become foster parents in 2022 after learning they would not be able to have children on their own.
'The Commonwealth's doublespeak is exactly why they are pressing for a clear ruling from the court protecting the freedom of religious families to foster and adopt children.'
Despite the couple successfully completing hours of training, extensive interviews, and a home study, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families denied their request.
The DCF's Licensing Review Team stated that the Burkes were rejected "based on the couple's statements/responses regarding placement of children who identified LGBTQIA," according to the couple's 2023 federal lawsuit against state officials.
At the time of the denial, Massachusetts foster parent licensing policy required applicant parents to "promote the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of a child placed in his or her care, including supporting and respecting a child's sexual orientation or gender identity."
This policy did not include any exemptions for religious perspectives.
In December, the DCF issued an emergency amendment that removed the "sexual orientation or gender identity" language in the policy.
The DCF stated that the amendment would "strike the requirement that a foster/pre-adoptive parent or applicant affirm a child's sexual orientation or gender identity and [replace] it with a requirement that a foster/pre-adoptive parent or applicant affirm a child's individual identity and needs."
In a March court filing, Massachusetts officials contended that policy change was irrelevant in the Burkes' case because their denial was based on the rules in effect at the time. Further, they asserted that the denial "did not violate the Constitution" and was "not hostile to religion."
Massachusetts officials argued that "the mere fact that the Burkes could not satisfy" the LGBTQ+ requirements, "whether due to their religion or otherwise, does not clearly establish that denying their license application was unconstitutional."
The Burkes maintained that the discovery process proved that their religious beliefs were "the only reason for that denial."
"Mike and Kitty were cautiously hopeful that Massachusetts would finally end its religious discrimination," Lori Windham, senior counsel for Becket, the law firm representing the Burkes, told Blaze News. "But that hope turned to heartbreak when Massachusetts chose to keep fighting them in court. The Commonwealth's doublespeak is exactly why they are pressing for a clear ruling from the court protecting the freedom of religious families to foster and adopt children."
"Mike and Kitty are still open to fostering or adopting children in the future. But Massachusetts has made it harder for them to adopt any child with its discriminatory decision on their record, and that's why they are asking the court to erase it," she added.
A decision in the case is expected by the fall, Windham stated.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump should not fill Alito’s seat with a ‘meh’ in robes
At the beginning of the year, one of my crystal-ball predictions for 2026 was that Samuel Alito and/or Clarence Thomas would retire so President Trump could replace them before the midterms.
Recent reporting suggests that prediction may prove correct, especially with speculation that Alito is considering stepping down. So I checked with some sources to see which names are circulating as possible replacements.
Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?
The reality is Alito is not easily replaced. He has been one of the best Supreme Court justices of this century. His successor cannot be some C-plus or B-minus judge with a fuzzy record and a habit of folding at the wrong moment. The stakes are too high.
That is why one name worries me: Judge Andrew Oldham.
Trump already passed on Oldham for the Supreme Court in 2020 and for good reason. What remains of our constitutional republic does not have time for a “meh” nominee.
Oldham, a former general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), now serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A quick look at his record shows a pattern that should alarm anyone hoping for another Alito.
Let’s start with life.
Alito authored the phenomenal majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, one of the most wicked decisions in American history. Oldham’s record points the other way. In 2000, Bill Clinton’s FDA treated pregnancy as an “illness” to justify accelerated approval of abortion drugs as the supposed “cure.” Years later, a Trump-appointed district judge rightly rejected that decision, and a Trump-appointed circuit judge backed him. Oldham, however, became the first circuit judge to side with the Clinton FDA’s position on procedural grounds.
The American Family Association called that decision “shockingly weak” at the time. The Supreme Court effectively vindicated that criticism in 2024 when it overturned Oldham by a 6-3 vote.
Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?
The concerns do not stop there.
AFA, which tracks judicial nominations as well as any group on the right, has also described Oldham as “soft” on COVID shot mandates. He earned that reputation when he wrote an opinion saying schools need not require children to wear masks, not because masks do not work, but because schools could instead adopt other COVID policies involving vaccines, plexiglass, hand sanitizer, distancing, and more.
The opinion was so weak that no other judge joined it.
Then came gender ideology. Last year, my Blaze Media colleague Daniel Horowitz reported on Oldham siding against doctors and with the Biden administration’s edict that they must perform gender-transition procedures on children by refusing even to hear their challenge. Oldham had a chance to join a Trump-appointed judge who rejected Biden’s grotesque mandate. He passed.
His immigration record raises more red flags.
Oldham declined to back a Trump-appointed district judge who ruled against allowing illegal aliens to receive cheaper in-state college tuition than out-of-state Americans. That alone should have disqualified him from serious consideration.
Thankfully, Trump’s Justice Department sued last year to end that practice in Texas, where Oldham’s former client is governor. Once the Justice Department sued, Texas finally conceded the point. Now left-wing groups want the courts to restore that anti-American policy. And which legal precedent are they citing? Oldham’s.
You cannot make it up.
Nor was that his only immigration failure. Oldham also ruled against Abbott when the governor declared an invasion at the southern border two years ago. Does that sound like a judge ready to overturn Plyler v. Doe, the disastrous precedent that for illegal immigration serves much the same function Roe once served for abortion?
Now sensing that his moment may have arrived, Oldham appears to be trying to retcon himself as a reliably based jurist. Even Slate has noticed the pattern — the judicial equivalent of a comb-over meant to hide an obvious weakness. The result has been embarrassing. He now gets overturned with some regularity by one of the most right-leaning Supreme Courts in recent memory.
That tends to happen when ambition outruns conviction.
Oldham once lobbied Barack Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren, of all people, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now he wants conservatives to view him as Alito’s natural heir. That kind of ideological shape-shifting should make everyone nervous. When a man’s career seems driven more by advancement than by principle, it becomes hard to know where he actually stands.
That was never a question with Alito.
Replacing a sure thing requires another sure thing. Oldham is not that. Maybe he has good explanations for parts of his record. But maybe Trump can do better.
This may be Trump’s last chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It would amount to a self-own of historic proportions for the most based president of modern times to replace Alito with someone appreciably weaker than a George W. Bush appointee turned out to be.
Thank Feisty Parents For Transgender Ideology’s Retreat
Parents took on these fights because of one simple truth: Their children are worth fighting for.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com