Trans student ARRESTED for using women’s bathroom tells all



Marcy Rheintgen is a transgender Florida student who was arrested and jailed for using the women’s bathroom under Florida’s anti-trans bathroom law.

The week before the arrest, Rheintgen sent around 160 letters to Florida lawmakers telling them it was his intention to use the restroom he was arrested in, in protest of the Facility Requirements Based on Sex Act.

When he arrived on the campus, two police officers met him outside the bathroom and warned him not to enter. When he did anyway, he was arrested.

“So you told them you were going to do this. It was one hundred percent a stunt, which I’m all about political stunts; I like this. And yet they still arrested you,” Alex Stein of “Prime Time with Alex Stein” says to Rheintgen.


“They trespassed me and then they arrested me, because they were like, ‘You got to be good, you got to not use the women’s bathroom in here again, you got to promise,’ and I’m like, ‘Who knows, maybe I will use the women’s bathroom’ and I was kind of a little bit sassy about it,” Rheintgen tells Stein.

“I applaud you for getting arrested,” Stein responds. “Obviously, you’re down for the cause. But isn't this kind of stupid in the grand scheme of things?”

“I think the law is stupid that I went to jail for this. I’m protesting the punishment. You know, I spent a night in like a sticky, disgusting, scary prison with all these like MS-13 people,” Rheintgen says.

While Rheintgen is very pleased with himself for standing up for transgender rights, Stein can’t understand why he wants to be a woman in the first place.

“Why be a girl, Marcy? You’re in good shape, you seem like you’re smart, you’re politically active, you’re religious, why are you taking up this fight for the transgender community?” Stein asks.

“Well, I have always had dysphoria since I was like 6, and this is my only effective way of treating it. I was a very handsome guy, and now I’ll be a very pretty girl,” Rheintgen says. “Some people say it’s a mental illness, and they might be right, honestly.”

“You wouldn’t tell an anorexic person to continue to not eat right. I mean, wouldn’t you say that what you’re going through is a mental health issue?” Stein asks, adding, “I have mental health issues; I’m not perfect. I’m not coming here to be Mr. Judgemental. I’m not Dr. Phil.”

“It is a mental health issue, and you wouldn’t, in that application, you wouldn’t tell the person with an eating disorder to continue to not eat,” he adds.

Want more from Alex Stein?

To enjoy more of Alex's culture jamming, comedic monologues, skits, and street segments, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How DEI took a sledgehammer to the US military’s war ethos



U.S. civil-military relations rest on a fundamental contradiction. The United States operates as a liberal society — one designed to protect individual rights and liberty. Yet the military, which defends that society, cannot function under the same liberal principles.

To succeed, the military must maintain effectiveness, which demands a distinct and separate ethos. Liberal norms do not translate to battlefield realities.

Trust and cohesion — core elements of military success — cannot survive a system that prioritizes categories over character.

Civil society may tolerate — or even celebrate — behaviors the military must prohibit. The armed forces uphold virtues many civilians regard as harsh or barbaric, but those values serve a purpose. The military remains one of the few professions where issuing a direct order to “go die” is not only possible but sometimes necessary.

Transmutation ‘on steroids’

In his classic 1957 study, “The Soldier and the State,” Samuel Huntington defined a central tension in American civil-military relations: the clash between the military’s functional imperative — to fight and win wars — and the social imperative, the prevailing ideologies and institutions of civilian society.

Huntington broke down the societal imperative into two main components. First, the U.S. constitutional framework that governs politics and military oversight. Second, the dominant political ideology, which he called liberalism — “the gravest domestic threat to American military security” because of its deep anti-military bias.

Huntington warned that over time, the societal imperative would eclipse the functional one. Civilian ideology, not military necessity, would shape the armed forces, weakening the virtues essential for combat effectiveness.

He also identified two outcomes of this liberal pressure. In peacetime, liberalism pushed for “extirpation” — shrinking or abolishing military power altogether. In times of danger, it favored “transmutation” — reshaping the military in its own image by erasing the traits that make it distinctly martial.

Today, the ideology of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has taken that process to an extreme. This isn’t just transmutation. It’s transmutation on steroids.

Identity politics destroys unity

The military began its embrace of DEI during Barack Obama’s administration, following the 2011 report “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century” by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. That report shifted military priorities away from the functional imperative — effectiveness rooted in merit, performance, and mission — toward the societal imperative, with “diversity, equity, and inclusion” elevated as the new ideal.

In practice, the Department of Defense replaced equal opportunity with “equity,” enforcing outcome-based preferences that favor certain demographic groups over others. Military leaders declared “diversity a strategic goal,” sidelining effectiveness as the primary objective.

This shift has fractured the ranks. By treating race and sex as markers of justice instead of emphasizing individual excellence, DEI pushes identity politics into the chain of command. That approach divides more than it unites. Trust and cohesion — core elements of military success — cannot survive a system that prioritizes categories over character.

The military depends on unity to function. DEI erodes that unity. As a governing ethos, it has proven deeply destructive — undermining the very effectiveness the armed forces exist to deliver.

The rise of DEI has created a generation of senior officers who place ideological conformity above military effectiveness. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley spoke openly about “white rage” and promoted critical race theory. His successor, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown, and former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti followed the same script — championing diversity for its own sake while sidelining readiness and merit.

Restoring the mission

The Trump administration aims to reverse course and re-establish the military’s functional imperative as its central mission. It has issued executive orders with three clear goals: restore meritocracy and nondiscrimination in place of equity quotas; define sex in commonsense terms and respect biological differences; and eliminate divisive programs rooted in critical race theory.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth now carries the mandate to restore the military’s traditional ethos — and put war fighting, not social engineering, back at the heart of military policy.

Standing in opposition to a president elected to root out DEI from the military is a generation of flag and general officers molded by an era of “woke” liberalism. These leaders embraced the demand that the military mirror the politics and ideologies of civil society. Many now cling to the dangerous fiction that the military can remain professional and effective while operating under the dictates of identity politics.

Officers once defended the military’s traditional ethos against efforts to civilianize the chain of command. Today, many senior leaders treat DEI as essential to military identity — and believe they can ignore the lawful orders of the commander in chief. That isn’t leadership. It’s insubordination, plain and simple.

The Trump administration has made clear its intent: restore a professional, apolitical military ethos and rebuild public trust in an institution weakened by a decade of ideological drift. This return to principle marks the path toward healthier civil-military relations — where the armed forces serve their proper purpose: protecting and defending the United States.

Destruction of male-only spaces needs to stop — if we want masculinity to survive



The fight for women to maintain their spaces without males infiltrating them is important and only just beginning — but they’re not the only ones whose sacred spaces are being threatened.

“We’ve had this debate here over the past few years about women’s-only spaces and how guys who say that they’re women seem to be invading them quite a bit, and I think that’s set off the appropriate amount of outrage,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” tells Independent Women’s Forum senior legal analyst Inez Stepman.

“We’ve been having this huge national conversation mostly spurred by people of one sex who claim to be the opposite sex, and of men, biological men, invading women’s spaces. And of course, that’s a big deal in some ways, more sort of direct or obvious or urgent, when we see girls losing sports competitions and in a totally unfair way,” Stepman explains.


“Or even we see women’s safety threatened in prisons because we’re putting male sex offenders who claim that they’re women in women’s prisons,” she continues, noting that when the tables are turned and it’s men losing their spaces, it's a “slower burn.”

“Slowly, one by one, since the 1990s and early 2000s, there have been virtually no organized spaces where men can gather together and know that there won’t be any women around, and I think that’s been a negative,” she adds.

And this has been affecting their social lives gravely, as one in four men under 30 don’t consider themselves to have any close friends.

Stepman believes this to be a consequence of not only having fewer and fewer male only spaces, but also the modern obsession with sexualizing male friendships.

In a piece she wrote for National Review on this topic called “Men Need Single-Sex Spaces Too,” Stepman uses Frodo and Sam from "The Lord of the Rings" as an example.

“There’s all those gay jokes; it seems homoerotic to people because we’re so unfamiliar with the idea of close bonds and close friendships,” she explains, adding that even the military has now been infiltrated by women.

But it doesn’t stop there. Once just for boys learning survival skills and, ultimately, how to be men, the Boy Scouts are now allowing girls to join.

“I just think we have lost a lot by making sure that even the Boy Scouts is not allowed to be just for boys to learn how to be boys and grow up into men,” Stepman says.

“I think it’s really time to reconsider that cultural push,” she adds.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Hysterical liberal podcaster screams at Rahm Emanuel for 'selling out' transgender agenda: 'That is total bulls**t!'



A left-wing podcaster exploded in anger against Democrat Rahm Emanuel for daring to admit that bathroom access to transgender people was not a major issue that should be a focus for Democrats.

Emanuel, who was chief of staff in the Obama administration, was being interviewed on the "I've Had It" podcast by host Jennifer Welch when he offered a familiar criticism of the Democratic Party.

'We gotta f**king fight! They’re the gender-obsessed weirdos, not us. We’re the ones who fight for Social Security.'

Emanuel opined that Democrats lost the election by focusing on the "bathroom issue" rather than on "kitchen table” and "family room" issues. Welch immediately blew up at him in defense of the transgender agenda.

“That is such bulls**t! That is total bulls**t! That is buying in to the right-wing media narrative, and I’m so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this. You know who talks about trans people more than anybody? MAGA!” Welch shouted.

“MAGA is the most genital-obsessed political party I have ever seen. Kamala Harris talked about home ownership. She talked about kitchen table issues. Trump’s over there droning on about Hannibal Lecter. Are you kidding me?” she continued.

“This is where the Democrats lose, because we’re playing the game with the rulebook — they’ve ripped the rulebook up and are cramming it down everybody’s throat. And Democrats are upset because [former President] Joe Biden pardoned his son?” she yelled. “We gotta f**king fight! They’re the gender-obsessed weirdos, not us. We’re the ones who fight for Social Security. We fight for Medicare. And yeah, we’re not going to bully trans people. We’re not going to f**king do it. If you want to do it, fine.”

She went on to accuse Emanuel of allowing "some MAGA moron" to define the issues that progressives will fight.

Video of the hysterics was widely circulated on social media.

Emanuel is also considering a presidential campaign after the devastating failure of the Democrats in the 2024 elections. Welch is an interior designer who lives in Oklahoma and introduced her husband as America's "head metrosexual in charge."

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

Meet the Millennial influencer running to be Michigan’s next US senator



The 2026 U.S. Senate race in Michigan now has its first official candidate: State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Millennial Democrat from Oakland County who shot to national attention with a viral floor speech. She’s betting that moment can carry her all the way to the world’s greatest deliberative body.

Before Democrats and their media lapdogs start drafting puff pieces and polishing the pedestal, they should ask a harder question: Who is Mallory McMorrow — and more importantly, who is she not?

This isn’t just political positioning. It’s a fundamental disconnect. McMorrow’s politics are tailored for retweets, not results.

McMorrow isn’t a product of Michigan grit. She’s a coastal transplant from suburban New Jersey with a degree from Notre Dame and a résumé that reads like a LinkedIn influencer’s dream. She landed in Michigan less than a decade ago and began branding herself as the conscience of the Midwest. But Michiganders know the difference between authenticity and ambition.

McMorrow presents herself as a pragmatic progressive. In reality, she mimics the Instagram-ready style of coastal elites and peddles the kind of policies that might play in Brooklyn or Silver Lake, but not in Battle Creek or Midland.

Take her recent appearance on “Off the Record” with Tim Skubick, a Michigan political staple. Asked about boys competing in girls’ sports, McMorrow didn’t just sidestep the issue — she leaned into it, defending the far-left line with social media polish and no concern for the working-class parents listening at home.

This isn’t just political positioning. It’s a fundamental disconnect. McMorrow talks unity and moderation while aligning herself with activists who push fringe agendas. She sells herself as a consensus-builder while alienating the very voters she claims to represent. Her politics are tailored for retweets, not results.

If Attorney General Dana Nessel jumps into the primary, that contrast will become impossible to ignore. Say what you will about Nessel — she’s blunt, combative, and never confused for anything but herself. She doesn’t hide her ideology or try to sugarcoat her record for the national press. In a matchup, McMorrow won’t just have to explain her platform — she’ll have to explain her reinvention.

A real race demands contrast and courage. Michigan voters don’t need more social media senators. They need leaders who know the price of gas, not just the latest polling memo. They need fighters who understand what Michigan families face every day — not what’s trending in a D.C. group chat.

To her credit, McMorrow is young, articulate, and eager to chart a new course. That’s not nothing. But the path forward for Michigan isn’t progressive posturing. It’s common-sense governance rooted in the lives of working families — not curated identities shaped by PR consultants and filtered through national donor networks.

Republicans need to seize this opportunity. Michigan requires a new generation of GOP leadership — grounded, principled, and ready to fight. I know that generation exists. I see it in the state legislature. I see it in young constitutional conservatives who understand the dignity of work, the sanctity of family, and the value of a dollar.

As a Millennial myself, I know we don’t need more viral fame. We need values. We don’t need slogans. We need substance.

In the coming months, you’ll hear a lot about Mallory McMorrow — there will be glossy profiles, glowing press, and lots of digital fanfare. But underneath the branding is a clear ambition: to take Michigan’s Senate seat and turn it into a springboard for the next liberal celebrity.

We’ve seen that movie before. We know how it ends.

The real question is whether Michigan voters will choose performance or principle.

I believe they’ll choose principle. Because in Michigan, authenticity still matters. Common sense still counts. And we still believe a senator should represent everyday citizens worried about the price of a gallon of milk — not the Met Gala elite sipping champagne just across the Hudson from McMorrow’s home state.

Keith Self shuts down woke delusions with one word: 'Mr.'



More people recognize Patrick Henry’s declaration — “Give me liberty or give me death!” — than recall the details of Revolutionary War battles. Words often drive action. They inspire courage, shape conviction, and influence history.

But words can also be empty. The right has spent a generation embracing rhetoric for its own sake, using talking points to signal virtue at the water cooler or from anonymous X accounts. Instead of taking action, many defer responsibility, expecting Moms for Liberty and Riley Gaines to handle everything. That complacency won’t solve anything.

When the emperor wears no clothes, you never bow to him. You either laugh at him or you overthrow him.

Well, Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) demonstrated clarity last week when he ignored the delusions of a man in lipstick during a subcommittee meeting and addressed him as “Mr.,” as God intended.

That moment carried psychological weight for the nation, especially for men. Despite the constant connectivity of modern technology, people feel more isolated than ever. Many retreat into a world that demands no conflict, rejection, initiative, or risk, distancing themselves from their moral and civic responsibilities.

We have built a demonic treadmill for ourselves. On social media, people unleash outrage alongside thousands who share their views. But in real life, they hesitate. At work or in public, they watch as the Flat Earth Society takes victory laps. Words alone won’t reclaim the high ground — action will.

As this chaos unfolds, we lose our grip on reality. Because when the world keeps getting crazier and all you see are people bowing down to the weakest and most ridiculous gender-bending tyrants of all time, you start to question whether maybe your original programming is just a fairy tale and you should just get it over with and join the circus.

Or maybe not. Keith Self said enough of that. The “MASH” theme song was wrong — suicide isn’t painless. The decline of Western civilization is real, and ignoring it won’t make it go away. It’s time to expose the lies behind transgender activism and refuse to back down.

Hey, crazy person! You don’t have the support you claim. And I don’t think the media can bail you out much longer. Your pronouns and emotional manipulation don’t demand our time. Parents will no longer tolerate your control over their children’s sports teams or bathrooms. Science does not justify mutilating healthy bodies to accommodate feelings.

But maybe I’m mistaken. Maybe the trans mob still has the goods. Maybe they’re somehow sitting on pocket aces. They might have the nuts and I might be called a mean word or maybe even lose my job. But this time, I'm going to make them show me or see me in court instead of giving up before the fight even starts.

Since Mr. Tim McBride from the state of Delaware is utter ridiculousness, we will simply treat him as such and not entertain one more minute of his foolishness. We will dismiss it. We will mock it. But we will never honor it in any way, shape, or form.

Want to know why Christ spent his time at the temple debating his fellow Jews instead of going to the temple of Saturn to debate the pagans? Total foolishness! No point to that! And why was He silent when he went before King Herod? More foolishness.

Just gavel out like Keith Self. We were done when we started. We’re moving on to the sane people now. Because when the emperor wears no clothes, you never bow to him.

You either laugh at him or you overthrow him.

Why coexistence with the left is impossible



President Donald Trump’s MAGA Supreme speech to Congress on Tuesday made one thing clear. After a Democrat responded to the speech who promotes trans propaganda and MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace attacked a kid with brain cancer, it is clear: We can’t share a country with these people.

Another generation of my family was born last year, and I want to be able to tell them honestly that they can pursue their dreams in the greatest country on Earth. But that vision feels increasingly out of reach when much of our culture appears to sympathize more with a fired federal worker than with a girl who was raped and murdered by an illegal immigrant or with a young athlete harassed by a troubled boy in her sports team’s locker room or bathroom.

These people hate us. There’s no point in pandering to them, no point in negotiating, and no point in making concessions. Just defeat them.

Trump’s speech sharply underscored the real problem: If we can’t live peacefully with our neighbors and don’t trust our institutions, how can we maintain a country?

This issue goes far beyond theoretical debates in political science 101. Democrat women attended Trump’s speech dressed in all pink to promote so-called women’s rights, despite every Democrat in the U.S. Senate recently voting against protecting female athletes from transgender terrorism.

This absurd and unsustainable reality was a point we drove home to weak-kneed Iowa Republicans who were poised to block efforts to remove gender identity from Iowa’s civil rights protections. My show called out about 10 of them by name, exposing how their actions aligned more with the governor of Maine’s betrayal of girls than with the interests of Iowans. In less than 24 hours, a potentially close vote turned into a landslide victory.

If you agree with Democrats on their insanity, just be honest and switch sides. But never bow to people who will never vote for you, no matter how many woke boxes you check while keeping an “R” next to your name. The math is simple now, and it doesn’t matter if it makes you uncomfortable. This is Thunderdome: Two enter, one leaves. Which side are you on?

As bloody and terrible as it was, the European countries that fought each other in World War I had far more in common with each other than a Blaze News subscriber has with modern progressives. It’s not even close. Life in early 20th-century Berlin wasn’t much different from life in early 20th-century London. They shared similar values, the same ruling families intermarrying, and even the same DNA strands. Yet they still went to war. Meanwhile, a century later, modern blue-state Americans let politicians like Boston’s mayor offer empty thoughts and prayers for a lunatic who had to be shot by an off-duty police officer to stop him from stabbing innocent bystanders at a Chick-fil-A.

The cosmic gap between worldviews and the duties of citizenship in America has grown so vast that it’s hard to imagine so-called Americans — like the 45 U.S. senators who can’t figure out the difference between male and female — ever agreeing on enough to fight alongside us in a war. Our fundamentals aren’t just different; they’re in direct opposition. The debate over women’s sports is just the starting point for a much larger battle about the very nature of reality and whether we can continue to coexist.

Have we become existential enemies? Our opponents seem to think so. That’s why they constantly label us as racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and homophobic bigots at every opportunity. Those are the kinds of accusations you throw when the time for compromise has passed and the only thing left is to fight for the best possible outcome. These people hate us. There’s no point in pandering to them, no point in negotiating, and no point in making concessions.

Just defeat them. No apologies, no remorse. Have some dignity and do what needs to be done, for the love of God and the future of your children. Take back this country — and do it now, before it’s too late.

China builds roads, USAID funds gender theory — who’s winning?



As the Department of Government Efficiency continues exposing waste and fraud in Washington, the revelations about the United States Agency for International Development have drawn the most attention. While USAID’s waste is staggering, many conservatives aren’t surprised. They long suspected that a massive portion of federal revenue was being spent unnecessarily on initiatives that serve no real purpose.

The real scandal isn’t just USAID’s graft — it’s the reaction to it, particularly from Democrats. While moderates and conservatives were outraged at the depth of corruption, establishment leftists didn’t dismiss the findings as a “nothingburger.” They didn’t even attempt to defend USAID by highlighting its legitimate contributions to national interests. Instead, they claimed that any attempt to reform or defund USAID was an “attack on democracy.”

With the right policies, a revitalized infrastructure strategy, and a radical rethinking of foreign aid, America can regain the upper hand.

In other words, the story isn’t just the waste itself — it’s that many on the left, and even some on the right, view waste and misappropriation as essential functions of American governance.

At first glance, this seems absurd. But a look at history helps explain how USAID came to exist and why its defenders refuse to let it go. U.S. foreign aid efforts expanded dramatically after World War II, initially falling under various government agencies. While some programs had altruistic goals, most were strategic — forms of “soft power” designed to advance American interests.

After the war, only two nations remained in the race for global dominance: the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War became a battle between free-market capitalism and Soviet communism, and foreign aid was one of many tools the U.S. used to secure influence. USAID, like many institutions born in that era, was designed to serve geopolitical objectives under the guise of humanitarian assistance. Today, however, it has become an unchecked slush fund — one that many in Washington see as untouchable.

A slush fund for ideological experiments

Most Americans agree that the Cold War was a battle the United States needed to win. Foreign aid programs played a key role in that fight, but they were not purely humanitarian. In many cases, they were designed to create economic dependency among developing nations, securing their loyalty and compliance with American geopolitical objectives. This approach wasn’t unique to the U.S. — power dynamics like these have always been central to global politics.

It’s no coincidence that USAID was created during a period of rapid expansion in the U.S. intelligence community. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 consolidated various foreign aid initiatives into a single agency, making them a formal part of American foreign policy. USAID’s early operations worked in tandem with the CIA, leveraging aid not just to stabilize allies but also to undermine adversaries. The Cold War-era mission of USAID was clear: solidify America’s role as a global superpower.

After the Cold War ended and the U.S. emerged as the undisputed leader of the liberal world order, USAID’s mission shifted from gaining global hegemony to maintaining it. This shift makes the agency’s recent spending priorities even more scandalous. When USAID directs $2 million toward sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala, is it trying to improve Guatemalan society — or destabilize it? What about the $1.5 million it sent to Serbia for DEI initiatives? Or the millions allegedly allocated to Gaza for condoms?

Regardless of USAID’s intent, these expenditures expose why Americans should be outraged — and why the agency needs to be dismantled. If USAID genuinely believes that increasing the number of sex changes in Guatemala is a marker of societal progress, it reveals just how ideologically compromised U.S. foreign policy has become.

The left often speaks about respecting “cultural diversity,” yet USAID seems determined to impose progressive American social norms on other nations. If gender ideology remains one of the most divisive issues in the United States, why should our government assume it benefits foreign nations? If USAID believes these policies are necessary abroad, its leaders undoubtedly believe they’re necessary at home — raising the disturbing possibility that the federal government is actively undermining one side of a live and fractious political debate.

So much for defending democracy.

Cultural revolution abroad and at home

USAID may claim that funding sex changes in Guatemala is about helping vulnerable people, but it is just as likely to create deep divisions in a society that remains largely traditional. Why would the U.S. government actively fund policies that disrupt social cohesion in another country?

And if this is the goal abroad, we must also consider whether similar efforts at home serve the same purpose. The federal push to expand access to “gender reassignment surgery” in the United States raises a troubling question: Is this about individual rights, or is it part of a broader attempt to destabilize traditionalist regions within America itself? By amplifying cultural divisions, the federal government exerts control over states and communities that resist its progressive agenda.

The real issue isn’t just USAID’s sex change initiative in Guatemala. Whether this program is meant to “help” or “harm” the country, it reveals the federal government’s priorities — and they are deeply at odds with the American political tradition.

If USAID genuinely believes increasing the number of sex changes improves a society, then its approach to “nation-building” has been corrupted by far-left ideology. If, on the other hand, these initiatives are meant to disrupt and weaken Guatemala’s social fabric, then it becomes clear that the same tactics are being deployed domestically to erode traditional values and institutions.

These contradictions are not unique to Guatemala. USAID’s budget is filled with similarly questionable expenditures, all of which reflect a larger scandal: A government agency originally designed to advance U.S. interests abroad is now subverting culture and politics both overseas and at home.

USAID was created to establish and maintain an American-led global order, but that order is now falling apart. Instead of adapting to these geopolitical shifts, USAID seems more focused on promoting ideological agendas than securing strategic alliances. Worse still, many of the nations receiving American tax dollars no longer feel any obligation to align with U.S. interests.

Rather than reinforcing America’s influence, USAID has fostered a dangerous sense of entitlement among foreign governments. These nations have come to expect U.S. aid as a permanent fixture, while contributing little in return. The left, unwilling to acknowledge the geopolitical reality, continues to push the fiction that foreign aid is purely humanitarian. Any attempt to scrutinize USAID’s operations is met with hysteria, as though reforming an outdated and dysfunctional agency is an attack on moral decency itself.

That is the real scandal.

Why China is winning the soft power battle

The global landscape of 2025 differs dramatically from the world of 1980, and America needs a new strategic plan to compete in the 21st century. China has clearly replaced Russia as our primary geopolitical rival, and its Belt and Road Initiative mirrors the foreign aid strategies the United States once used. But China’s motives are at least as self-serving as ours ever were — if not more.

The rapid rise of China as a global power is proof that the post-World War II order America built is crumbling. China’s foreign aid programs present both a challenge and an opportunity for the United States.

The bad news? China isn’t funding sex changes in Guatemala. China is building roads, bridges, and railways. While these projects undoubtedly serve China’s economic and strategic interests, they also provide tangible benefits to the nations receiving assistance. Many of these countries will see infrastructure development as a net gain — while America offers little more than ideological activism. If the best we can export is gender studies and cultural upheaval, China will win the loyalty of nations that could have been in our corner as a new Cold War takes shape.

The good news? China's focus on infrastructure shows that America can still compete and win using soft power. We built a transcontinental railroad over 150 years ago. For 75 years, we have maintained the world’s most comprehensive highway system. We know how to build roads and rails — at least, we used to. If we have forgotten, now is the time to remember.

With the right policies, a revitalized infrastructure strategy, and a radical rethinking of foreign aid — who we fund, what we fund, and what strings we attach — America can regain the upper hand. We need a plan that prioritizes economic development, strengthens strategic alliances, and reinforces America’s leadership in an increasingly unstable world.

Ending USAID would be a powerful acknowledgment that the geopolitical realities of 2025 are vastly different from those of the postwar era. Recognizing this shift is a necessary first step toward crafting a foreign policy that secures American interests in a world undergoing massive technological, economic, and cultural upheaval.

President Trump SLAMS Maine governor for keeping MEN in women’s sports



President Donald Trump has clearly been listening to the American people, as within just a month of taking the presidency back, he’s reclaimed the definition of what it means to be a woman and is no longer allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports.

Yet in the state of Maine, Governor Janet Mills (D) has defied President Trump’s order — despite Trump specifically signing an order that said states will face repercussions if they do so.

“Maine is doing just that,” Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” comments. “Maine is defying President Trump and says that they will continue to allow biological men to play in women’s sports.”


Trump was clearly not amused.

“I heard men are still playing in Maine,” Trump said to a crowd. “Well, I hate to tell you this, but we’re not going to give them any federal money. They are still saying, ‘We want men to play in women’s sports,’ and I cannot believe that they’re doing that.”

“So we’re not going to give them any federal funding, none whatsoever, until they clean that up,” he added.

In a meeting with the governors, Trump got into what Wheeler calls “a war of words” with Mills.

“He of course was talking about his executive order banning transgender-identifying athletes in sports, when she objected, and Trump responded to her by saying, ‘You better do it, because you’re not going to get federal funding,’” Wheeler explains.

According to Reuters, Mills responded with, “We’re going to follow the law, sir. We’ll see you in court.”

Trump shot back, “And enjoy your life after, Governor, 'cause I don't think you'll be in elected politics."

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

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

Black pastors are at a crossroads as faith bends to politics



Donald Trump’s return to the White House must have been a bitter pill for black pastors who vocally supported Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. They likely would have preferred to spend Black History Month celebrating Harris rather than bracing for another four years of the "Orange Menace."

But many black clergy now face an even more sobering reality.

Black pastors and churches now stand at a crossroads. 'Authentic' blackness has been tied to a political ideology that opposes biblical truth.

The black church is on life support, and its decline stems from the same sins that plagued Israel in the Old Testament and every wayward church throughout history.

Millions of black Christians in the United States still attend majority-black churches that preach the gospel and believe the Bible. But the term “black church” serves more as a sociopolitical descriptor than a spiritual qualifier.

Many churches that have lost their spiritual power view poverty, racism, and inequality as the greatest sources of oppression. To them, the sins that “marginalized” people need salvation from are those committed by those in power.

The preachers leading these churches are learning a painful lesson — there is a heavy price for chasing false gods. No greater form of idolatry exists in America today than Christians who force the unchangeable truth of God's word to conform to the shifting positions of their preferred political party.

Politicians set tax rates, allocate funding for schools and roads, negotiate trade agreements, and craft immigration policy. Some may even promote healthy eating or discourage drug use. But politics should never take precedence over faith.

No one has the authority to declare that a man can become a woman or that two men can form a marriage. Political leaders who reject Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 should be challenged by pastors who boldly declare biblical truth and warn of the consequences of abusing political power. Any Christian, pastor, church, or denomination that justifies rebellion against the Bible by appealing to political consensus engages in spiritual adultery.

Kamala Harris visited New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, led by Rev. Jamal Bryant, just days before the election. Bryant, a charismatic speaker, leads one of the most influential black churches in America. In 2022, he condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade shortly before performing a baby dedication and declaring, “Children are our future.” Nearly 70% of all babies aborted in Georgia are black, yet preachers like Bryant refuse to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s abortion extremism as a form of systemic racism.

Sen. Raphael Warnock represents Georgia in Washington and leads Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, following in the footsteps of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The debates over King’s theology are well-documented. But while King used the Bible to challenge racial divisions, Warnock invokes his faith to reject the biblical view of sex and gender.

These men are not isolated cases of theological drift. The most politically engaged black pastors in America have become surrogates for the Democratic Party. They claim to be bold prophets denouncing injustice, but in reality, they serve as cupbearers — protecting, not challenging, those in power.

Warnock may seem like a direct spiritual heir to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but the truth is that today’s most influential black preachers follow a different tradition — one rooted in the teachings of Dr. James Cone, the father of black liberation theology. Cone’s open embrace of Marxism led to the ultimate devil’s bargain. His theology sacrifices biblical fidelity for the illusion of social justice:

First, in a revolutionary situation there can never be just theology. It is always theology identified with a particular community. It is either identified with those who inflict oppression or with those who are its victims. A theology of the latter is authentic Christian theology, and a theology of the former is a theology of the Antichrist.

The men and women who consider themselves heirs to Cone’s theology have continued down the same path. The clearest sign of the black church’s declining cultural influence was the rise of Black Lives Matter. A movement that openly touted its “queerness” and pledged to “disrupt” the nuclear family would never have gained national prominence in previous generations. But rather than rebuke BLM’s leaders, many black preachers followed their lead.

Black pastors and churches now stand at a crossroads. “Authentic” blackness has been tied to a political ideology that opposes biblical truth. Black pastors who frame “gender-affirming care” for their “trans brothers and sisters” as the next civil rights cause have allowed the twin idols of race and politics to pull their hearts — and pulpits — away from God.

Thankfully, the Lord is merciful and willing to forgive all who repent and follow Jesus. Christians should always remember that what happens in God’s households is of far greater eternal value than who occupies the White House.