Foreign aid should offer resources, not liberal ideology



When news breaks that foreign aid programs are being paused or restructured, many Christians understandably fear the world’s most vulnerable will be left behind.

It is a fair concern. But it also raises a harder question: What if some of what we have called “help” was not helping in the way we thought?

The recent restructuring of foreign aid creates an opportunity. It allows the United States to reconsider not only how much it gives, but how it gives.

Imposed values

For decades, American foreign assistance has done real good in many places. But too often it has also come with expectations that placed struggling nations in an impossible position. Funding was tied to adopting policies on family life, sexuality, and bioethics that did not reflect the values of the communities receiving that aid. Governments that resisted those conditions risked losing support their people depended on.

From a Christian perspective, that should give us pause. Care for the poor is a moral calling. But care that requires communities to compromise their deepest convictions is not compassion. It is pressure, even if it is delivered in the language of progress.

Scripture calls us to love our neighbor, not to remake our neighbor in our own image.

Pursuing the good

That is why the Geneva Consensus Declaration matters. Today, 41 nations representing more than 2.5 billion people have joined this coalition, affirming that international law does not establish a universal right to abortion and that each country has the authority to determine its own laws on life and family.

These nations were not forced into agreement. Many joined because they were weary of outside institutions attempting to impose agenda-driven frameworks through funding conditions and international pressure. What they were seeking was not isolation, but partnership. They wanted to be treated not as projects to be managed, but as nations capable of shaping their own future.

This reflects a principle Christians should recognize. Human dignity includes moral agency. It includes the freedom of communities to pursue the good, before God, without coercion from more powerful actors.

RELATED: New book from Eric Metaxas shares the American Revolution's forgotten Christian roots

ericmetaxas.com

The Protego framework

There is also a practical reality the United States cannot ignore. Countries like China are expanding their influence across Africa and Latin America by offering infrastructure and investment with fewer visible conditions. America's advantage lies in offering something China cannot: genuine partnership that respects the nations it serves.

In practice, that means moving from a model of control to a model of partnership.

At the Institute for Women’s Health, we have sought to do this through what we call the Protego framework. Instead of arriving with predesigned solutions, we work alongside national leaders, faith communities, and local institutions to build programs that reflect the values and needs of each country.

In one African nation, this has meant developing a national framework for health and life-skills education with input from across society, including interfaith leaders. It is designed to reach tens of thousands of educators and health workers. The program belongs to that nation. The values behind it are its own. And when the partnership ends, the capacity to sustain it will remain.

This kind of work is slower. It requires listening, humility, and trust. But it reflects something essential to a Christian understanding of service.

Human flourishing

We are not called simply to deliver outcomes. We are called to serve people as people, not as instruments of our own priorities.

Faithful foreign engagement takes seriously the dignity of every nation and every community. It refuses to make care for the vulnerable conditional on ideological agreement. It invests in what supports human flourishing, strong families, healthy communities, and the well-being of women and children, while ensuring that these efforts are shaped locally rather than imposed from outside.

The recent restructuring of foreign aid creates an opportunity. It allows the United States to reconsider not only how much it gives, but how it gives.

For Christians, the goal should not be to defend every existing program. It should be to ensure that our engagement reflects the character of the One we serve. We are called to help the vulnerable. But faithful service cannot be separated from humility, respect, and truth about the human person.

'Evil and disgusting': Days-long Israeli LGBT festival planned near Sodom prompts biblical backlash



The Israeli government announced on Monday that this June, "the Dead Sea becomes Pride Land, the biggest LGBTQ+ festival ever in the Middle East," adding that "Pride rises at the lowest place on earth."

This celebration of degeneracy and non-straight lifestyle choices — set to take place near what is believed to be the site of Sodom, the city razed by God because of its brazen sexual corruption — will run 24 hours a day from June 1 to June 4.

'You won't see this anywhere else in the region.'

According the Jerusalem Post, the non-straight festival will raise a city in the desert featuring parties, a central performance arena, art complexes, "relaxation" areas, and "family-friendly areas with children's activities."

"This is not just another festival; it's the biggest thing we've done here," Aaron Cohen, the main producer behind "Pride Land," told the Post. "It's an experience that lives 24/7, from quiet visits to nights of Pride, with a living envelope of music and people."

The promotion of the event by the Israeli government — just one day after the Israel Defense Forces confirmed that one of its soldiers smashed a statue of the crucified Christ outside a church with a sledgehammer — prompted significant backlash among some conservative Christians.

RELATED: 'There is no mama': How a viral video accidentally exposed the true cost of gay adoption

Sepia Times/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

American theologian and pastor Dale Partridge tweeted, "The devil couldn’t have written it better. 'The lowest place on earth' 'The Dead Sea becomes pride land.'"

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre raised the matter of whether his tax dollars might be subsidizing the event, then asked, "Can anyone very carefully explain to me why American Christians owe anything to this?"

Conservative commentator Michael Knowles insinuated that the Israeli government's announcement answered the question recently posed by the New York Times about the cause of the recent increase in meteor sightings overhead.

Knowles' colleague, Matt Walsh, called the planned festival "absolutely evil and disgusting."

Tomasz Froelich, an Alternative for Germany politician who serves in the European Parliament, noted that "the Patriarch of Jerusalem was denied access to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday for security reasons, but there is comfort: The Pride can take place without a care!"

The eponymous host of BlazeTV's "The John Doyle Show" wrote, "God could do the funniest thing ever."

On Friday, the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., plugged the event, stating, "You won't see this anywhere else in the region."

While the Israeli government appears keen to get the word out about the Sodom-adjacent LGBT festival, the U.S. State Department has recommended that Americans reconsider travel to the country due to terrorism and civil unrest and instructed travelers to avoid crowds.

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

Four Women Accuse Lesbian Running For Congress in Utah Of Unwanted Sexual Advances

'Next thing I know she has leaned over'

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.

RELATED: Blaze News original: Trump gives willing parents hope by taking aim at anti-Christian bigotry in foster system

Photo by Ali Atmaca/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

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."

RELATED: Lawsuit: Massachusetts refuses to allow couple to foster or adopt children because of their Christian faith

Roxbury Department of Children and Families. Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

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!

Top Sociological Journal Says Young Kids Should Be Sexualized And It’s Colonizers’ Fault They Aren’t

This academic article, and any like it, must go down, as its clear objective is to violate children.

Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court



This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

RELATED: Free speech is a core American value

stellalevi via iStock/Getty Images

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

‘Erotic Pleasure And Exploration’: Disturbing Paper In Major Journal Calls To Sexualize Children

‘Challenge adult-centric ideas of sexuality’

'Sex recession': Study suggests Americans have lost their mojo



Movies and television programs reportedly have significantly more sexual content, nudity, and immodesty now than those shown just a few decades ago. The so-called "adult entertainment" industry has, meanwhile, exploded, with one projection suggesting that it will grow from an estimated global market size of $58.8 billion in 2023 to $74.7 billion by 2030.

While depictions of sex are ubiquitous in the media, a new study suggests that the real thing is disappearing from the lives of everyday Americans.

The delay and avoidance of marriage appear to be another major factor.

Citing General Social Survey data, the Institute for Family Studies recently indicated that "Americans are having a record-low amount of sex."

Whereas in 1990, 55% of adults ages 18 to 64 reportedly were having sex at least once a week, that number reportedly dropped to less than 50% by the turn of the century. As of last year, the percentage of adults ages 18-64 having sex weekly had fallen all the way down to 37%.

RELATED: Heritage Foundation's Kevin Roberts: Conservatives must get 'uncomfortably honest about our present crisis'

Photo by Toronto Star Archives/Toronto Star via Getty Images

When it comes to individuals ages 18-29 who reported not having sex in the last year, the number held steady at around 15% of respondents until 2010. However, between 2010 and 2024, that number skyrocketed to 24% in the General Social Survey.

There appear to be numerous factors at play, including shifting social norms; libido-killing prescription drugs; the pandemic; decreasing alcohol consumption; the interpersonal impact of social media, gaming, and the smartphone; and pornography. The delay and avoidance of marriage appear to be another major factor.

Dr. Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, and Lyman Stone, director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the IFS, noted in a 2019 article in the Atlantic that married people have sex more often but that the share of adults who are married was falling to record lows.

Whereas 46% of married men and women ages 18-64 reported having weekly sex, only 34% of their unmarried peers reported the same, said the new IFS study. However, married couples are also facing a so-called "sex recession," as 59% of married adults ages 18-64 reportedly had sex once a week in the period between 1996 and 2008.

RELATED: American fertility rate hits all-time low as Dems clamor for foreign replacements

Photo by Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

The new IFS study noted that younger generations are having less sex than their predecessors did in part because of a "decline in steady partnering, especially in marriage, and a decline in sexual frequency within couples."

This "sex recession" has some obvious implications besides youngsters' joylessness.

Data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in July revealed that U.S. fertility rates dropped to an all-time low in last year, with 1.599 children being born per woman. For comparison, the latest reported fertility rates in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, and China are 1.5, 1.44, 1.26, and 1.01, respectively.

The fertility rate necessary for a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without requiring replacement by foreign nationals is 2.1.

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

Don't be fooled: Why the Pride Month 'surrender' is another corporate lie



Something fascinating is happening in corporate America.

According to data from Gravity Research, 39% of corporations are scaling back external Pride Month engagements in 2025, a sharp increase from last year, when only 9% backed off. Only four NFL teams changed their logos to mark Pride this June, with most remaining silent.

Corporations didn’t back away from Pride because of conviction but calculation.

But here’s what makes this particularly interesting: Corporate Pride Month activism isn’t some long-standing American tradition. It’s a very recent phenomenon that represents a dramatic departure from how businesses operated for most of our nation’s history.

Corporate America’s enthusiastic embrace of Pride Month only became widespread in the last decade.

Before 2010, you’d be hard-pressed to find Fortune 500 companies plastering rainbow logos across social media, celebrating drag queens, or embracing “queerness.” This wasn’t because companies opposed LGBTQ individuals — but rather because they understood something fundamental: Corporations exist to provide goods and services, not to take positions on deeply personal matters of sexuality and identity.

The data: Americans want corporate neutrality

Recent polling reveals that corporate Pride Month activism was never as popular as media coverage suggested.

According to the consulting firm Weber Shandwick, 72% of consumers and 71% of employees expect political neutrality in the workplace. In a Pew Research Center survey, 48% said it was either “not too important” or “not at all important” for companies to make public statements on social issues, compared to 41% who thought it was important.

These numbers reveal a fundamental disconnect between corporate behavior and consumer preferences. While companies competed to demonstrate progressive credentials, nearly half of American consumers preferred businesses stay out of social and political issues entirely.

The traditional understanding: Sexuality is a private matter

For most of American history, corporations and society operated under a simple principle: Sexuality is a private matter.

This was based on practical wisdom about what makes for a functioning society and a successful business.

Successful companies in the past focused on product quality, customer service, and employee performance. They didn’t make customers’ private lives part of their brand identity. A bakery sold bread, a bank managed money, and a sports team played games. Personal relationships and sexual behavior weren’t part of the public conversation.

This approach served everyone well. Employees could focus on work without having private lives become matters of public scrutiny. Customers could purchase goods without navigating their provider’s stance on intimate matters.

When sexuality remained private, it retained dignity and personal meaning that gets lost when it becomes part of public performance and corporate branding.

When corporations became activists

The transformation of corporate America into an activist force regarding sexuality represents a fundamental shift. Historically, Fortune 500 companies practiced strategic framing and calculated positioning rather than deep ideological convictions.

By 2020, it seemed almost impossible to find a major corporation that wasn’t actively promoting Pride Month or taking public positions on transgender issues. The pressure for conformity was intense. Companies that didn’t participate risked being labeled discriminatory and being attacked, either online or physically.

But this represented something unprecedented in American business history. Never before had companies so systematically promoted particular views about sexuality, marriage, and gender identity.

This wasn’t about equal treatment under company policy; it was about the active promotion and celebration of specific sexual behaviors and identities.

The hidden costs of corporate activism

Unfortunately, business leaders failed to anticipate the substantial hidden costs of sexual activism. DEI initiatives often grew outside central compliance functions, creating legal risks.

According to employment attorney Michael Elkins, companies face “a catch-22”: uncertainty between “the fear of getting sued for having a program or the fear of getting taken to task by eliminating the program.”

Research shows diversity training programs — a cornerstone of corporate activism — often fail spectacularly.

"The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash," explains the Harvard Business Review.

Yet, companies spend millions on these ineffective programs.

Additional costs include compliance expenses; legal review; employee relations issues when activism conflicts with worker values; management time diverted from core business; and reputational risks.

By contrast, those companies that maintain appropriate boundaries can avoid these costs and focus these and other resources on their mission.

The market backlash

The corporate retreat is also the result of the market finally imposing discipline on misguided activism.

Anheuser-Busch InBev lost a total of $1.4 billion in sales due to the backlash it received over its partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. In addition, AB InBev’s stock fell 20% and the Mexican-brewed Modelo Especial dethroned Bud Light as America’s top-selling beer, a title that Bud Light had held for over two decades.

Target faced similar financial and reputational consequences and this year has either moved Pride Month products to a less-trafficked area of the store or removed them altogether, citing worker safety concerns.

These weren’t just minor market adjustments — they represented massive consumer rejection of corporate sexual activism.

Why 'but companies have always taken stands' misses the point

Critics argue that companies have always taken social positions, but this misunderstands what’s different about this “celebration.” Historical corporate social engagement focused on broadly supported community issues: education, disaster relief, economic development, and patriotism.

What’s unprecedented here is the systematic promotion of specific views about sexuality and gender identity.

The argument that this retreat is a temporary political positioning misses the deeper dynamics taking place. As Forbes contributor Alicia Gonzalez noted, “The corporate retreat in DEI issues is coming from the same companies that swore five years ago that diversity and inclusion were deeply held values. As soon as the political winds changed, they backtracked.”

This reveals that corporate activism was based on perceived social pressure — not genuine conviction.

Building long-term change

If approached strategically, the corporate retreat creates an opportunity for decency to be restored to civil society.

Consumer action works. Boycotts against Bud Light and Target led eight other companies to abandon DEI policies, including Tractor Supply Co., which lost $2 billion in less than a month.

Consumers should actively support businesses that maintain an appropriate focus on their core mission. In addition, consumers must research companies’ positions before purchasing and choose only those that avoid divisive positions. Customers should extend this action beyond boycotts by providing positive support for businesses operating according to traditional principles.

Business leaders must return to serving customers effectively, rather than advancing social causes. Companies maintaining institutional focus avoid legal, financial, and reputational risks.

Finally, investors should question whether investing according to Environmental, Social, and Governance scores measured by how much divisive social activism the company embraces actually serves shareholder interests. Financial losses at companies like Anheuser-Busch demonstrate that catering to social activist demands will destroy shareholder value rather than create it.

Restoring institutional focus

What’s at stake isn’t just corporate messaging but the nature of the social contract.

The traditional American approach favored institutional focus and neutrality. Schools educated children, businesses provided goods and services, sports leagues entertained fans. These institutions were able to serve everyone, no matter their background or political stance, because their mission and business model didn’t require agreement on controversial personal matters.

When every institution promotes particular views about sexuality and gender, people with traditional values can’t fully participate in public life.

Restoring institutional focus benefits everyone, with LGBTQ individuals judged on performance rather than sexual identity, people with traditional values not forced to choose between convictions and participation, and institutions focused on their core functions.

The opportunity before us

Pride organizations nationwide now face sponsorship challenges. San Francisco Pride has a $200,000 budget gap, Kansas City’s KC Pride lost $200,000 (half its budget), and New York’s Heritage of Pride needs $750,000 after corporate withdrawals.

This suggests that corporate Pride Month activism was never sustainable. Market forces have provided a correction that political pressure couldn’t achieve.

Now, the goal must be to rebuild a culture where institutions serve proper functions — and personal matters remain private.

Success requires market discipline, which means consistently rewarding appropriate focus while imposing costs on divisive activism. Recent conservative boycotts have worked. As Suzanne Bowdey notes, “For once, Americans are making companies think twice about their extreme politics.”

Combined with legal frameworks protecting institutional neutrality, this moment could restore proper relationships between public institutions and private life.

The data suggests that most Americans are ready for change. The question is whether we’ll build something lasting or celebrate temporary victories while ignoring underlying problems. Corporations didn’t back away from Pride because of conviction but calculation. They never had principles, just profits. When the pressure lifts, they’ll go right back to what they did before as if nothing has changed.

If we want lasting change, it has to be built on truth — not trends.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University's Standing for Freedom Center.

The Only Way To Make Abortion Unthinkable Is To Wipe Out The Feminism Fueling It

Feminism is the ideology that pro-lifers need to focus our energy against. Until we do, feminism will just keep on fueling abortion’s engine, one precious and innocent baby at a time.