Under guise of 'math help,' HS pushed girl's gender transition — and state took her away, says her Catholic parents' lawyer



Under the guise of "math help," a Massachusetts high school pushed for a girl's gender transition — and soon the state took her away, her Catholic parents' lawyer tells Blaze News.

Indeed, the Trump administration has launched an investigation into the girl's school district after reports that school officials "allegedly facilitated" her "gender transition" without her parents’ "knowledge or consent."

'Sophie should not only be returned to her parents, but there should be civil and criminal penalties for such misconduct by government agents.'

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko said their daughter Sophie has been in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families since December 2024 — when she was 15 — after the Kutzkos refused to recognize her as a boy or call her by male names and pronouns, the Boston Herald reported, adding that the state also issued a permanent restraining order against the Kutzkos.

Vernadette Broyles, the Kutzkos' attorney, told Blaze News that the parents were kept in the dark and told that Sophie was getting "math help" at Algonquin Regional High School in Northborough while a counselor allegedly "socially transitioned" her — so the parents were "deceived, actually."

"They're a beautiful family," Broyles told Blaze News, adding that "it's been hell on earth" for the Kutzkos as they do battle with three separate courts in their quest to regain custody of her and are stretched to the limit financially.

Meanwhile, Democrat Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey told the Herald that the gender issue has nothing to do with why the Kutzkos' daughter was taken from them.

“Let me be clear about the facts in that matter," Healey said, according to the paper. "First of all, DCF did not remove the child because of a health issue or a gender-affirming care issue. DCF removed the child after there were criminal charges filed against the parents, including the father. As you know, DCF is responsible for the care and well-being of kids, and that’s what happened in this instance.”

But Broyles countered to the Herald that physical and sexual abuse charges against the parents were deemed unfounded in juvenile court, and there was no finding of guilt in criminal court following a non-guilty disposition with prosecutors: “It’s very dishonest, because there are no standing charges against them."

Meanwhile, as the Kutzkos' legal fees ballooned past $150,000, Broyles noted to the paper that an unidentified adult allegedly helped Sophie get a restraining order against her parents when she had been in state custody for nearly a year — and that the order still stands.

Broyles noted to Blaze News that the restraining order includes "no contact" and that "it's my understanding that [the Department of Children and Families] supported" the order.

What's more, an allegation of neglect against the Kutzkos still looms — and "it's never been explained to them," Broyles told Blaze News.

But Broyles said she has a good idea what it's all about.

Broyles told Blaze News the "implication" is that the neglect allegation has to do with the Kutzkos' refusal to agree to their daughter's desire for a medical gender transition — "but Massachusetts doesn't want to say that."

Meanwhile, despite no finding of guilt against the parents, the Kutzkos have "not been allowed to see or talk to their daughter or observe her for 20 months," Broyles told Blaze News.

"You've got to be kidding me," their attorney added to Blaze News. "How are these people so dangerous to her? ... I believe we have a state that, at its core, believes these parents are unsafe, [and] they are hiding behind a nebulous neglect. Nothing else adds up."

Despite Sophie having been a "very faithful Catholic girl" and "so active in the church," Broyles told Blaze News that "girls go down rabbit holes that suck them into this belief system" counter to parents' wishes, and that's "probably what happened to" Sophie, while those in custody of her are "championing" her gender transition. To wit: Broyles also told Blaze News that Sophie has been placed on birth control, is living in a male facility, and "now they want to give her testosterone," which her father — a scientist — is totally against.

"She's probably pretty manipulated by now," Broyles told Blaze News.

RELATED: Blaze News investigates: Democrats attack parents and parental rights in Colorado

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, added to Blaze News that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families "is an unelected and unaccountable government bureaucracy with a long and disreputable history of arbitrary, autocratic, and authoritarian behavior, hostile to both parental rights and religious freedom."

Doyle also told Blaze News that the DCF's actions against the Kutzkos amount to "nothing less than state-sponsored kidnapping and government-inflicted child abuse. It is a direct assault, by rogue state actors, on parental authority, family integrity, and constitutionally protected religious liberty."

Doyle also argued that "Sophie should not only be returned to her parents, but there should be civil and criminal penalties for such misconduct by government agents."

As for the Trump administration's involvement, the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office on Thursday launched an investigation into the Public Schools of Northborough and Southborough in Massachusetts to determine whether the school district violated the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act in relation to the Kutzkos' case.

“Parents have a right to know what is happening with their children at school, particularly when it concerns deeply personal matters involving their health and well-being,” said Frank Miller, director of the Student Privacy Policy Office. “These egregious allegations are not an isolated problem. Families deserve answers, and SPPO will thoroughly investigate reports like this and hold any educational institution that violates federal law accountable.”

Algonquin Regional High School and the Northborough-Southborough Regional School District denied all of the Kutzkos' allegations, calling them “baseless” and “grossly insensitive, intrusive, and dangerous toward the child," according to the Herald.

The paper said it has requested comment from the DCF.

The Kutzkos' next court appearance is scheduled for Oct. 29, the Herald said.

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

Scratch a liberal, find a censor



California tried to pass a law squelching dissident speech. Again. People are finally noticing.

Governor Gavin Newsom last week signed Assembly Bill 2624, aptly dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” The law establishes special privacy protections for qualifying “immigration-service workers” who claim threats or harassment. It also creates a formal process letting those workers demand restrictions on publication of their “personal information” and images — including names, employment, photographs, and video.

The First Amendment was written for precisely this sort of piggish government.

Shirley says this creates an obvious problem for investigative journalism. He’s right.

Suppose he investigates a taxpayer-funded hospice or nonprofit, films the people running it, and asks uncomfortable questions about where the money went. Under his reading of the law, one of those people could hand him a written demand not to publish his name or image. If Shirley publishes anyway and the subject claims fear or receives threats, Shirley says he could face legal consequences simply for reporting what he found.

That would be an outrageous law.

But the final law isn’t as broad as Shirley says it is. Not that it doesn’t deserve to be nuked. We need to be clear.

Somebody cannot simply hand him a piece of paper and prevent him from publishing a video. The enacted version requires “specific intent” to incite imminent great bodily harm or to threaten someone in a manner creating “objectively reasonable fear” for personal safety.

That distinction will matter when the courts take up the inevitable First Amendment challenge.

You know what else matters? What California Democrats originally tried to pass.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, the designated “victim” in Shirley’s investigations, was not merely a supporter of A.B. 2624. California’s own legislative analysis identifies the taxpayer-funded immigration organization as one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

So an organization receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer money helped sponsor a law creating a special legal regime under which the organization may demand restrictions on the publication of their names, workplace, photographs, and video.

That should raise an eyebrow.

When the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression looked at A.B. 2624 in April, the bill was substantially worse. The original version allowed a “protected person” to send someone a written demand and bar that person for four years from publishing “personal information” or an image — without the specific-intent requirement now written into law.

RELATED: Democrats love free speech — until conservatives get some

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg/Getty Images

FIRE warned that the bill could suppress criticism, newsworthy reporting, photographs, and ordinary social media posts. The original even contained a special exemption for journalists covered by California’s shield law.

Why would lawmakers need a press exemption if the bill merely prohibited “threats” and “doxxing”?

Then people complained. FIRE complained. UCLA First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh complained. Republicans like Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego complained loudly.

And Democrats retreated — a little.

The legislature added the specific-intent language, narrowed the publication restriction, and removed the journalist carve-out. FIRE now says the amendments prevent the law from being unconstitutional on its face, although the group still warns that the written-demand system could chill lawful speech.

Could?

At a raucous Capitol rally Wednesday, Shirley insisted that it absolutely will. Newsom’s office responded that critics were either “lying to create up fake conspiracy theories” or did not “know how to read.”

That is awfully cocky coming from an administration defending a law that had to be substantially rewritten to have a prayer of surviving First Amendment scrutiny.

And A.B. 2624 is hardly an aberration.

In 2024, Christopher Kohls, who posts online as “MrReagan USA,” created an obviously satirical AI-generated Kamala Harris campaign ad. Elon Musk shared it. Newsom saw it and declared that manipulating a voice in an ad “should be illegal.”

When Newsom signed A.B. 2839, he reposted Kohls’ parody and bragged: “I just signed a bill to make this illegal in the state of California.”

A federal judge almost immediately blocked the law on First Amendment grounds and later permanently enjoined its enforcement against Kohls and the other plaintiffs.

Newsom’s appalling candor was refreshing in a way. He saw political speech he disliked, announced it should be outlawed, then used the power of the state to try to make it so.

He would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for that meddling First Amendment.

RELATED: No, the founders did not ‘tell you so’

Wildpixel/Getty Images

Then there is Mirabelli v. Bonta, involving a preposterous law that allowed public schools to hide students’ “gender transitions” from their parents. California defended the law to the hilt. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the parent plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims.

Different subject. Same censorious reflex.

Who gets to say what? Democrats think they decide.

So never confuse retreat with innocence.

California Democrats did not begin with a carefully limited A.B. 2624 and painstakingly protect innocent victims while respecting the First Amendment. They reached much farther into protected speech and backed off only after people caught them.

If the problem was doxxing and threats, why did the original bill reach names, employment information, photographs, and video? Why did lawmakers think they needed a special exception for journalists? And why does the final law retain a formal four-year “do not publish me” demand if the only publication California may punish is a threat or incitement?

Patrick Henry had the proper American disposition toward government power: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

Especially in California.

Kohls was no accident. Neither was Mirabelli. Nor did A.B. 2624 accidentally offend the First Amendment. Scratch a “liberal,” find a censor.

Again and again, California Democrats reach for state power to control what people may say, publish, parody, disclose, or hear — then retreat only when courts, civil libertarians, or public outrage force them to.

The First Amendment was written for precisely this sort of piggish government.

‘The most psychotic Democrat’ wants to ‘cancel Thanksgiving’ — and might win her election



Wisconsin Democrats have a new front-runner for the “most psychotic Democrat,” and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is sounding the alarm.

“There’s a lot of competition. I get it. But I just would like to introduce you to a new player. Her name is Francesca Hong,” Gonzales begins.

Hong is a self-described democratic socialist who is running for governor in Wisconsin. And she “could win,” Gonzales says, pointing out that she’s “taking charge at 94.3%” in the Democrat primary.

“Now, I mentioned this woman is like a crackpot psycho crazy person. The reason that I say that … because she apparently is a psycho by like the Norman Bates definition,” she adds, before playing a clip from an interview with Hong.


“I think a lot of my insecurities and my struggles with mental health really came from a sense of never really feeling like I belonged. There was a deep shame and fear that I didn’t want to be Korean, and I think that’s where a lot of the mental health struggle started,” Hong recalled.

“I deeply wanted to be American, and I felt shame that my parents sacrificed so much to be here and that wasn’t who I wanted to be,” she added.

Hong went on to explain that “isolation and loneliness led into a lot of despair and depression,” leaving her hospitalized her senior year of high school. Hong explained that she was diagnosed as bipolar.

“She’s also admitted to taking SSRIs and overdosing on lithium,” Gonzales says.

“I feel like that should be pretty disqualifying to say, ‘I should run as governor,’” she adds.

Despite formerly being a restaurant owner and chef, Hong has called tipping “racist” and also lamented serving others on holidays like Valentine's day.

“If that wasn’t bad enough, she also hates Christmas,” Gonzales says.

In a 2019 post on X, Hong wrote: “IT bro who was working on ‘our’ computer remotely changed the background theme to snow and Christmas trees. I feel slightly attacked…”

But that’s not all, as in a now-deleted 2020 post on X, she wrote: “Cancel Thanksgiving. Should have done this in 1621. If it takes a worldwide pandemic for us to realize we should stop celebrating colonialism and the original superspreader event that killed Indegenous [sic] folx and women so be it.”

Even CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked Hong about her past take on Thanksgiving, to which Hong responded, “I always think my hospitality background in owning a restaurant ... to share conversation and build community is always a good thing, but Thanksgiving is also a time that’s incredibly painful for many people in our communities.”

Hong has also posted that she supports “defunding the police as a first step towards abolishing the police.”

And shockingly, it gets worse.

“I guess she wants to get away with calling for the assassination of President Trump, because she openly called for it on a Zoom call,” Gonzales says, before playing yet another damaging clip of Hong.

“In the restaurant industry, when we’re out of something, we say it’s 86’ed. And I’d say it’s about f**king time we 86 Trump. He represents the utter failure of our government to keep us safe from threats, both viral and systemic,” Hong said.

However, there is good news.

“People seem to be waking up to how much of an actual psycho she is. So much so that Republicans are now narrowly favored to win the general. 52% Republican, 48% Democrat,” Gonzales says.

“I will just say in closing,” she adds, “candidates like Francesca Hong are tearing the Democrat Party apart.”

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.

The quiet candidate is making noise in Florida



Political campaigns have a rhythm. At first, the questions are easy: Who raised the most money? Who landed the biggest endorsement? Who dominates the headlines? Consultants love this stage because it allows them to declare winners before most voters have begun paying attention.

Then the race changes.

The primary is no longer simply a contest over money, endorsements, or online attention. It is becoming a test of who understands what comes next — and who has prepared to govern through it.

Momentum gives way to scrutiny. Personality must give way to policy. Candidates who looked inevitable begin answering questions about their records, judgment, and ability to govern.

Florida’s Republican primary for governor has reached that stage.

Only a few months ago, the race appeared nearly settled. U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds had President Donald Trump’s endorsement, national attention, and a fundraising operation that dwarfed the rest of the field. Political insiders spoke of inevitability as though Republican voters had already rendered their verdict.

Donalds remains the front-runner. That position deserves acknowledgment — and scrutiny. Increased attention has brought new questions about his record, campaign, and legal controversies. Voters and the courts, where appropriate, will decide those issues. But they are now part of the race, whether his supporters welcome them or not.

James Fishback entered the race as an energetic outsider with a strong social media operation and a talent for commanding attention. He has proved capable of generating enthusiasm and headlines. Campaigns, however, eventually demand more than velocity.

Voters begin asking harder questions: Can this candidate govern? What’s the plan? How would bold promises become legislation and administration?

Those questions have become more urgent as Fishback defends himself against a legal challenge to his eligibility under Florida’s constitutional residency requirement. Fellow Republican candidate Jay Collins brought the challenge. Fishback disputes the allegations and says he meets the requirement. Whatever the outcome, the case has introduced uncertainty into a campaign built largely on momentum and personality.

Collins faces a different test.

A decorated Green Beret with a compelling personal story, Collins entered the race with credentials few could dismiss. Yet campaigns turn on trust as much as biography. Critics have questioned whether his rhetoric and financial support align, particularly on hyperscale data centers and real estate development. Collins has defended his positions, but the dispute illustrates how quickly Republican voters now demand consistency between campaign language and governing priorities.

That leaves the most overlooked candidate in the field: Paul Renner.

Renner lacks Donalds’ financial advantage and has not relied on celebrity, inevitability, or viral attention. Instead, he has offered voters something less theatrical and potentially more consequential: a governing program.

Voters may disagree with parts of his First 100 Days agenda, but it is a road map rather than a collection of applause lines.

Renner has addressed property insurance, affordability, infrastructure, parental rights, election integrity, illegal immigration, and Florida’s response to the emerging artificial intelligence economy. More important, he has tried to show how those priorities connect.

RELATED: ‘It’s past time’: Florida launches investigation into Fauci

Pedro Portal/El Nuevo Herald/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

That is where the race is changing.

Florida Republicans have spent years fighting over freedom. They are now asking how to preserve the quality of life that freedom was supposed to protect.

How does Florida keep teachers, firefighters, nurses, sheriff’s deputies, and young families from being priced out of the communities they serve? How can the state welcome investment without overwhelming roads, utilities, and water supplies? How should it embrace artificial intelligence while protecting property rights, local communities, and natural resources? How can growth enrich Floridians rather than merely raise their cost of living?

Those are real governing questions, not merely campaign slogans.

The next governor will inherit one of America’s fastest-growing states and most dynamic economies. He will also inherit rising insurance costs, strained infrastructure, rapid population growth, technological disruption, and mounting pressure on the affordability that helped make Florida attractive.

The primary is therefore no longer simply a contest over money, endorsements, or online attention. It is becoming a test of who understands what comes next — and who has prepared to govern through it.

Momentum changes. Fundraising advantages narrow. Polls rise and fall. Eventually, voters stop asking which candidate can win and start asking which candidate should govern.

Florida’s Republican primary has finally reached that question. The candidate who answers it most convincingly may discover that the race was never as settled as the consultants claimed.

Trump backs Mike Lindell in Minnesota as Democratic primary features anti-ICE Klobuchar and a convicted rapist



MyPillow founder and CEO Mike Lindell is a proud trailer park-raised Republican who, "through the grace of God" and a deepening relationship with Christ, beat a crippling crack cocaine addiction, then went on to enjoy massive personal success and found a recovery network.

Lindell has in recent years paid an enormous price personally and professionally for his claims both that President Donald Trump won the 2020 election and that the election was rigged, even becoming a target of the Biden FBI.

'This race looks all but over.'

Trump, evidently impressed with his steadfast defender, said in December after Lindell filed to run for governor of Minnesota that the 65-year-old businessman "deserves to be governor of Minnesota."

"That man suffered. What he did, what he went through because he knew the election was rigged. And he did it. I mean, he just did it as a citizen," Trump said. "These people went after him, they went after his company. They did that with me, too, but at least I knew what I was getting into. He was just a guy that said, 'Jeez, this election was so crooked; it was so rigged.' He fought like hell."

On Wednesday — just months after the Minnesota Republican Party endorsed Army veteran and former health care executive Kendall Qualls for governor — Trump formally endorsed Lindell, stating that "if given the chance, Mike will be SPECTACULAR!"

In addition to characterizing the "Pillow Man" as "one of America's greatest and most hard working Patriots," Trump said that Lindell "truly loves Minnesota, as do I, and wants to bring it back from oblivion and embarrassment. He can do it! Nobody has sacrificed more than Mike Lindell in fighting for our country, especially when it comes to Election Integrity. He truly deserves everything he gets — He will MAKE MINNESOTA GREAT AGAIN!"

RELATED: Former Miss North Dakota pleads guilty to day care fraud in Minnesota

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

The Minnesota GOP did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

In a survey of over 1,000 likely primary voters in late June, Big Data Poll found that Lindell led his closest competitor, Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth, by 6 points — 27% to 21%.

Qualls trailed far behind in third place with just 10% in the poll.

"Mike Lindell continues to lead among the core demographics that make up the primary coalition that nominated President Trump in the North Star State, to include the working class voters by income and education levels who were stalwart supporters of the president," Big Data Poll director Rich Baris said in a statement. "In giving Lindell the lead both before and after the convention, Republican primary voters are sending a clear message."

"With the president's endorsement, this race looks all but over," Baris added.

Following Trump's endorsement of Lindell, Qualls said that he will continue to support the president but that "this race won't be won by national endorsements."

"It will be decided by Minnesota Republicans — the same Republicans who supported President Trump in all three of his campaigns — and who time and time again have lined up behind our campaign as the only candidate endorsed by the Minnesota Republican Party," Qualls added.

Lindell has vowed, among other things, to

  • support state cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
  • oppose sanctuary policies and protect resources for citizens;
  • eliminate the in-person retail sales tax plan in order to reduce families' tax burden immediately as well as spur job growth;
  • "put real brakes on runaway property tax hikes" in part by limiting yearly increases and shifting some of the education burden to the state;
  • "encourage policies that make it easier to marry, raise children, and care for aging parents";
  • crack down on welfare fraud; and
  • expand school choice and bolster parental rights.

The Minnesota GOP primary will take place on Aug. 11.

Democratic primary voters, who will also go to the polls next month, have several radicals to choose from, including U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is running on an anti-ICE platform, and Thomas Evenstad, a convicted rapist.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Can MAHA Propel Unlikely Republican Nominee To Key Midterm Win?

'They saw the momentum'

Florida may free MILLIONS from property taxes — but will Texas follow?



For generations, homeowners have been told that paying property taxes is simply the price of owning a home. But Florida voters may soon have a chance to change that.

A proposed ballot amendment would remove an estimated 60% of homeowners from property tax rolls, a move supporters say would provide long-overdue relief and strengthen private property rights.

“Of course, they’re pushing back on the other side of this. And talking about Oviedo, a bedroom community outside Orlando, has been trying to build a new police station for a decade, but now with this property tax situation, they may not even have a police department to put in the new station,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray explains on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“They might have to merge with the county,” he says.


However, Gray is hopeful that Oviedo’s concerns may be ignored.

“In November, Florida voters decide on a ballot amendment that would remove roughly 60% of Florida residents from property tax rolls,” he says. “That’s amazing.”

“Why isn’t that happening in Texas?” he asks.

“Because our governor is a follower,” executive producer Keith Malinak answers.

“If you look at everything, whether it’s COVID or anything, religious stuff, that you’ve seen DeSantis stand up for ... Abbott goes, ‘Oh, the water seems fine. I guess now I’ll jump in,’” Malinak says.

“So, maybe this will happen,” he adds.

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.

Georgia GOP Chaos Erupts Just Days Before Primary Runoff

'It's like the stock market. They drop a bomb after hours'

3 years in JAIL for questioning the election? Gavin Newsom’s silencing bill EXPOSED.



As election integrity debates continue to rage across California, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck believes state leaders are making a dangerous mistake: treating skepticism as a threat instead of addressing the concerns behind it.

“What’s happening in California is dangerous, and ... if you can be reasonable and you can listen without the lens of your tribe, there is a way to an answer here. But nobody seems, especially on the left, nobody seems to want to actually fix the problem,” Glenn says.

“And so what do they want to do? They want to shut you up,” he adds, explaining that Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that “said fines and jail time [for] three years if you are interfering with the election.”

“This particular penalty is aimed at people who physically walk off with boxes of ballots,” Glenn explains. “Listen to the language around it.”


“The governor wrote a letter telling his officials to ‘count fast’ so the ‘election lies’ don’t take hold. Stop and think about that for a second. Wait a minute. The chief executive of the largest state in the union has appointed himself the man who decides which doubts are lies,” he says.

“And in the same season, his allies pass a provision that tells election observers they may no longer challenge the signatures on the ballot they’re watching get counted. So, they didn’t criminalize your doubt. They did something quieter,” he continues. “They turned down the lights in the room where the counting happens. And you’re told it’s a conspiracy theory to ask, ‘Why did it get so dark?’”

Glenn explains that a glaring issue with this is that the government cannot ever “be the arbiter of truth.”

“Especially when the question on the table is about the government itself. You cannot let the accused run the evidence room,” he says.

“You’re accusing California of having fraud, and what do they do? They say, ‘No, we’re in charge.’ Right? You’re the one that everybody’s saying is causing the fraud, and they’re saying, ‘No, you can’t question because there’s no fraud,’” he continues. “That doesn’t help anything.”

“This is not a conservative idea or a liberal idea. It’s just how you keep a free people free,” he adds.

Iowa’s Rob Sand Vows To Force Republicans To ‘Take Their Medicine’

'More like bitter and bluer'