Month: March 2026

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison will testify today in a House Oversight Committee hearing on the massive amount of welfare fraud in the state. 

The hearing, entitled “Oversight of Fraud and Misuse of Federal Funds in Minnesota: Part II,” will allow lawmakers to examine Walz and Ellison’s role in covering up the billions of dollars in fraud involving federal funds in their state.

“As fraudsters looted billions of taxpayer dollars from Minnesota’s social programs, state lawmakers recently testified that Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison ignored repeated warnings and retaliated against state employees who raised concerns. The American people deserve clear answers about how such widespread fraud was allowed to flourish under their watch,” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) said in a statement.

“While the Department of Justice continues to investigate, prosecute, and charge those responsible, Congress also has a duty to conduct rigorous oversight of this heist and enact stronger safeguards to prevent fraud in taxpayer-funded social programs. We look forward to questioning Governor Walz and Attorney General Ellison under oath to ensure transparency and accountability for the American people and to consider meaningful reforms that prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds.”

The billions of dollars stolen in Somali fraud schemes involving Minnesota daycare centers received national attention from investigating journalist Nick Shirley’s exposé late last year. It was also recently revealed that Somali fraudsters have transported nearly $1 billion in bulk cash through the Minneapolis airport alone to Somalia since 2024.

Trump has accused the Somali community in Minnesota of pillaging “an estimated $19 billion from the American taxpayer.”

“We have all the information, and in actuality, the number is much higher than that,” Trump said during his State of the Union Address.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump highlighted the massive crimes during his marquee speech, announcing that Vice President JD Vance will lead his administration’s “war on fraud.”

WATCH: Trump Goes Off on Somali Fraudsters During SOTU, Announces JD Vance will Serve as New Fraud Czar – “We Are Not Playing Games”

But the waste, fraud, and abuse of federal funds goes beyond Somalis in the state.

Ellison also testified during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing last month, where Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) called for his indictment for helping the corrupt Feeding Our Future officials get “investigators off their backs.” This is another $250 million COVID fraud scheme, which the Department of Justice described as the largest “in the country.” At least 78 defendants have been federally charged in the scandal, which Walz and Ellison allowed to operate in their state as they seemingly received kickbacks.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 am ET.

Watch live below:

The post WATCH LIVE: MN Gov Tim Walz and AG Kieth Ellison Testify in House Oversight Committee Probe – 9 AM ET appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Whatley has officially clinched the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina, clearing the path for a high-stakes showdown in November as Republicans look to hold the seat currently held by retiring RINO Senator Thom Tillis.

Whatley, who received the backing of President Donald Trump, secured the GOP primary victory Tuesday night after entering the race last year following Tillis’ decision not to seek another term.

Filthy RINO Senator Thom Tillis (NC) refused to seek reelection after President Trump scorched him.

The victory sets up a pivotal general election contest between Whatley and former Democrat Governor Roy Cooper, who also won his party’s primary and is viewed by Democrats as their best chance to flip the seat.

In a post on Truth Social Tuesday night, President Trump shared a graphic announcing, “Republican Nominee for U.S. Senator from North Carolina Michael Whatley Wins! Endorsed by President Trump!”

Trump also posted similar graphics highlighting other candidates he endorsed who secured victories.

The Senate seat became available after Republican Senator Thom Tillis announced he would not run for reelection following increasing tensions with Trump and conservative activists within the party.

Just this week, RINO Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) showed his true colors in a screaming rant in the House Judiciary Committee hearing to examine Kristi Noem’s leadership of the Department of Homeland Security.

Tillis went on an insane screaming session for ten straight minutes against Noem, accusing her of violating the law and threatening to stonewall Senate business over her leadership.

His rant included attacks on Trump’s pardoning of January 6 hostages, the Trump Administration’s handling of immigration enforcement operations, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding and responses, and Trump Administration officials, including Stephen Miller, who he accused of “aiding and abetting” in the arrests of American citizens during ICE operations.

It has also been revealed that Tillis is among the RINO senators blocking efforts to use a talking filibuster to force a vote on the SAVE Act.

The post Trump-Endorsed Michael Whatley WINS NC Senate Primary — Advances to Replace RINO Thom Tillis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

UK Special Coverage

Labour’s War on UK Pubs

Safetyism and political correctness are destroying a British institution.

UK Special Coverage

“When you have lost your inns,” warned writer Hilaire Belloc over 100 years ago, “drown your empty selves. For you have lost the heart of England.” A century later, his message could not be more pertinent. Since the beginning of this year, roughly four pubs have permanently closed their doors every day. By the end of 2026, something like 540 pubs could shut for good. 

For this British institution, no help can be expected to come from the current Labour government. In her Autumn Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced that Covid-era business rates relief will end in April this year, having previously been scaled back from 75 percent to 40 percent. Pubs unable to cope with the higher rates will be forced to close—something that has seen many Labour MPs being barred from their locals. Although Reeves did recently walk back the business rate increase and announce a temporary support package for struggling pubs, many landlords fear this will not be enough. 

After all, this is not the only battle currently being fought by weary publicans across the country. Employer National Insurance contributions, alcohol duty, and minimum wage have all recently been increased, making the running of a pub prohibitively expensive. To make matters worse, the government recently announced that it was planning to cut the blood alcohol limit in half, from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood to 50mg per 100ml. That would make having just one pint potentially criminal—and it would disproportionately impact rural pubs that rely on customers driving to and from them. None of this is to mention the fact that it’s becoming increasingly expensive to drink and eat out at all, with more and more customers, particularly young people, skipping after-work or weekend pints due to the extortionate cost of living. 

It’s not just a financial war that’s being waged against the pub. Its very character, too, is under attack. As of October this year, pub landlords will also have to worry about the so-called ‘banter ban’ being implemented by the Employment Rights Act of 2025. This makes employers liable for harassment by third parties (in this case, customers) while working. Unsurprisingly for any piece of legislation cooked up by Keir Starmer’s Labour government, “harassment” can essentially boil down to nothing more than overhearing an “offensive” conversation or banter between patrons. As such, landlords would effectively be forced to police customers’ speech, in case it crosses that line. 

Turning the pub into a kind of panopticon, where punters and publicans alike are constantly afraid that an off-color joke might land them in legal trouble, undermines its nature and purpose. It violates the spirit of the pub—a place that ought to be the natural home of free assembly and free speech of all kinds.  

It is for perhaps this reason that the pub so regularly draws the ire of the political classes. Those who would consider themselves our “betters” are horrified at the vulgarity and commonness of this British institution. Historically, taverns, inns, and alehouses acted as meeting places for radicals and anti-government conspirators. From the planning of election campaigns and revolts to being the target of the anti-alcohol temperance movement of the 19th century, pubs were often deeply political. Indeed, the infamous November 5 Gunpowder Plot—the failed attempt by English Catholics to blow up King James I and Parliament in 1605—was hatched and finalized in various taverns across London. 

Even today, the pub remains central to the British way of life, no matter how much our politicians may look down their noses at it. It might be difficult for non-British readers (or at least, those who have not spent a great deal of time in the UK) to understand how central the pub is to our cultural fabric and our identity. They are not simply places to buy food and drink; they are a fundamental part of many communities, and act as centers to bring people together. Whether your tipple of choice is a trendy craft beer, a traditional stout, or—Heaven forbid—an Aperol spritz, the pub offers a place of refuge for people from all walks of life. A good pub has less in common with a bar, club, or restaurant and more with a sitting room. It is somewhere comfortable, informal, and familiar. 

The long shadow of the temperance movement still hovers over the pub today. It now adopts the language of wellbeing and “self-care” rather than that of religion, with measures like minimum unit pricing, already in place in Scotland and Wales and mooted in England under the guise of concern for public health and shielding the NHS from mass alcoholism. Moderate drinkers, therefore, are punished for a problem they have no part in.  

If not an obsession over health, then the modern “teetotalitarian” impulse comes from good old-fashioned killjoyism. At any moment, pubs can have their licenses revoked over noise complaints. This is particularly a problem in London, where pubs are closing at a faster rate than most other cities in the country, and landlords are at the mercy of local residents—even in busy areas like Soho and Shoreditch, which are renowned for their nightlife. Pubs can be closed due to a few angry letters, if word gets out that punters dared to raise their voices past 10pm on a Saturday. This is the fate that almost befell George Orwell’s favorite pub, the Compton Arms in Islington, which was threatened in 2022 by the local council that it must quiet down or close its doors. It was apparently irrelevant that the pub has been operating since 1800, hundreds of years before any of the current residents were even born, and offers a very civilized-sounding “seasonally led” “small-plates menu”—hardly a wild nightclub. Nonetheless, the Compton Arms was considered simply too rowdy for some puritanical locals. Thankfully, the pub ultimately survived its brush with death. 

The Labour Party may not be all that bothered by the death of one of Britain’s most beloved institutions, but Reform UK is. Earlier this month, party leader Nigel Farage and Reform MP Lee Anderson launched the party’s Save Our Pubs campaign. At its core is a five-point plan to ease the tax and regulatory burden on landlords and cut costs across the hospitality sector. Crucially, Reform’s plan treats pubs as something more than just businesses. Rather, they are the beating hearts of many communities and a part of our national heritage. That is exactly the right instinct. Each pub that permanently closes its doors is a blow to a uniquely British institution. 

Belloc was right. When Britain loses a pub, it loses a piece of itself. If politicians refuse to stop taxing, regulating, and moralizing our locals out of existence, voters will back those who will. It’s high time that we called last orders on those destroying our pubs.

The post Labour’s War on UK Pubs appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics

Trump Is Right About Netflix’s Political Bias

The company’s board member Susan Rice seeks anti-Trump revenge.

President Donald Trump recently demanded Netflix fire Susan Rice from its board. “Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences,” the commander in chief wrote in a Truth Social post. “She’s got no talent or skills – Purely a political hack!”

Trump unleashed this fusillade against Rice in response to the former Obama official saying she wanted “accountability” for corporate interests that “bend the knee” to the president’s agenda. On a recent podcast, Rice threatened

If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to, you know, play by the old rules, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, never mind. We’ll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted.’ I think they’ve got another thing coming.

Rice strongly implied a Democratic administration would use all its powers to punish these entities—and that creates a real headache for Netflix. 

The streaming giant is currently trying to get its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery approved by the government. However, the proposed merger has faced staunch opposition from conservatives, who allege the company is too woke to acquire a larger share of the entertainment market. Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos insists that the merger is “not a political deal.” But Rice’s comments add further evidence that the company is political—and not favorable to conservatives.

The former national security advisor is just one example of Netflix’s commitment to liberalism, and of why conservatives are right to be suspicious of it gaining more power over what they watch.

Rice joined Netflix’s board in 2018, despite having no experience in the entertainment world. What she did have is a lengthy record of serving in Democratic administrations, extending all the way back to Bill Clinton’s tenure. But that experience is why Netflix hired her, according to a press release the company published eight years ago. “For decades, she has tackled difficult, complex global issues with intelligence, integrity and insight and we look forward to benefiting from her experience and wisdom,” it said.

Netflix was even generous enough to reserve her board spot for her when she went into the Biden administration. It was waiting for her as soon as she left the White House in 2023. 

The streaming giant has a real thing for Obama alumni. That shouldn’t be a surprise, considering Sarandos and company co-founder Reed Hastings were both huge donors to the 44th president. Hastings is considered one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors. His call for Biden to step aside in 2024 was noted by major media outlets. In that campaign, he gave $7 million to a Kamala Harris Super PAC. The political bias at top is no secret.

The company established a reputation for providing welfare for prominent Democrats. Besides Rice, Netflix signed a multiyear production deal with the Obamas. Like Rice, the 44th president and his wife had no entertainment experience. But Netflix still gave them an undisclosed amount (rumored to be for over $50 million) to make content for the streaming platform. It was very generous for Netflix to offer a golden parachute for the former president as he left the White House—something no Republican could ever expect to receive.

It would be one thing if Netflix just rewarded prominent Democrats with exorbitant production deals and plum board positions. The company could say it keeps itself non-partisan through its programming. But that’s not the case.

As plenty of Republicans have made clear, Netflix is one of the nation’s wokest entertainment companies. Republican senators Josh Hawley, Eric Schmitt, and Ted Cruz assailed Netflix at a hearing earlier this month over its LGBT children’s programming and deep commitment to DEI. At the hearing, Sarandos tried to argue that his company didn’t have a political agenda when it comes to its programming, claiming it features movies and shows from all across the political spectrum. GOP lawmakers made short work of that dubious assertion.

The Susan Rice matter is particularly bad for Netflix’s case to GOP lawmakers and the Trump admin. Here is a leader of the company relishing the prospect of weaponizing the federal government to go after anyone who followed the Trump administration’s directives on DEI and other matters. By not firing her, Netflix is essentially endorsing that position.

It’s also not a fringe opinion. It was endorsed by powerful Democratic operative Marc Elias in a column this week. The op-ed could win a gold medal in lack of self-awareness. Elias, like Rice, longs for a future where Democrats can punish companies and universities that worked with the Trump admin—while concluding that Netflix needs to stand up to Trump’s “despotic demand” to fire Rice. He advocates for Democrats doing far worse than what Trump called for, but still insists that he’s standing up for democracy and free expression.

“Trump’s attack on Rice is, in its own way, a gift,” he wrote. “It has given Netflix a clear and public opportunity to do what dozens of other institutions have declined to do: stand up, say no and demonstrate that not every pillar of civil society is too weak and too lacking in self-respect to face Trump’s threats with resolve.”

In reality, standing by Rice would signal that Netflix wants the left to embrace authoritarian governance when it gains power and thoroughly punish the right. At the same time, the company would still have the audacity to demand the Justice Department approve of its merger with Warner Bros. and accept its flimsy argument that it isn’t political at all.

If Netflix wants to prove it isn’t political, it should fire Rice for tarnishing its brand. If it doesn’t, that would vindicate conservative critics and their desire to block the Warner merger. Of course, one shouldn’t bet on Sarandos and Hastings doing the right thing. They’re too devoted to liberalism to undermine one of their own.

The post Trump Is Right About Netflix’s Political Bias appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

In Iran, Trump’s Luck Runs Out

Operation Epic Fiasco has punctured his mystique.

You can’t say The American Conservative didn’t warn you.

We’ve done everything in our power to stop this dumb war against Iran short of flying a big white banner above our DC office building that says Don’t do it, Mr. President—disaster awaits! (And that’s only because the landlord won’t let us go out on the roof.)

Now that President Donald Trump has launched the dumb war and courted the disaster, we’re not about to start waving the white flag of political surrender. Our updated position: Get out fast, Mr. President—or the disaster will worsen!

Trump’s never been inclined to fixate on the potential downsides of bold action, nor to admit mistakes, nor even to see himself as subject, like the rest of us, to the caprice of nature’s God. That’s been especially true of Trump’s persona since his attempted assassination in July 2024, when a slight turn of the head meant an incoming bullet nicked his right ear rather than obliterating his skull. In his inaugural address, Trump declared that “I was saved by God to make America great again.”

In his second term, Trump’s cabinet members and enthusiastic supporters have tended to see him as a quasi-mystical being whose political and financial success bespeaks a preternatural ability to rack up victories and defeat enemies. The perception intensified following the successful military raid in Venezuela this January, when U.S. special forces abducted then-President Nicolas Maduro and made Trump look like a masterful commander-in-chief.

Trump himself still holds that perception, judging by a recent exchange on ABC News between host George Stephanopoulos and correspondent Jonathan Karl:

Stephanopoulos: The president promised to keep the United States out of foreign wars, but at this point, no modern president has ordered more military strikes against more countries than Donald Trump.

Karl: I have to tell you George, I spoke to the president, and he sounded to me like a president who feels invincible…. He told me, “Nobody could have done this but me, and you know that.” In fact, George, he suggested that the success in Venezuela made him less likely to accept concessions in Iran that were offered in the final round of talks.

Evidently, Trump still feels he’s got the Midas touch, that he’s a geopolitical savant who can eliminate the dastardly Islamic Republic and bring “freedom” to Iranians—his professed top priority in launching the war, according to the Washington Post. 

But the results of the combat operations thus far don’t inspire confidence that a golden age is dawning in the Middle East. Indeed, after the joint U.S.–Israeli attack began early Saturday, Tehran started blowing up the Middle East, hitting U.S. bases as well as civilian and commercial targets. In airports and city centers and energy markets, mayhem ensued.

That Iran wound up going Yosemite Sam on Arab countries was “the biggest surprise” of the war so far, Trump told CNN on Monday. Not really. As TAC repeatedly highlighted for months, Iran credibly threatened to ignite a regional conflagration if the U.S. and Israel attacked again, to increase the costs of continued fighting.

Other not-really-surprising ramifications of the war have reached the American homeland. In Austin, Texas, a Senegalese-American gunman in clothes bearing an Iranian flag design and the words “Property of Allah” killed three and wounded over a dozen early Sunday. Permit me some leeway to speculate that this event was motivated by the new war. TAC warned in January that attacking Iran and killing its supreme leader could provoke terroristic events.

Tragically—and, again, predictably—six American service members have already been killed in action at the time of writing. Or rather, at least six have been killed. To my mind, comments by Trump to the New York Times on Sunday suggested he was aware that the true number was likely higher than the public tally at that time, which was three. “If you look at projections, they do projections, it, you know, it could be quite a bit higher than that,” Trump said.

Of course, decoding Trump’s statements has become more difficult since “Operation Epic Fury” began. In the same interview, Trump offered what the Times called “several seemingly contradictory visions” of a U.S. game plan for Iran’s political future: Perhaps Iran’s military would lay down their arms, or maybe the Iranian people would rise up and topple the government. Alternatively, the U.S. could implement the same template as in Venezuela, leaving the regime intact after taking out its top leader.

The Venezuela template seems irrelevant now. Trump revealed this weekend that the White House had been talking to some potential partners in Tehran, but that the strikes killed them inadvertently. “Some of the people we were dealing with are gone, because that was a big—that was a big hit,” he told The Atlantic Sunday morning. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead,” he told ABC News. And more big hits are coming. “The big wave hasn’t even happened,” Trump said Monday morning. “The big one is coming soon.”

Knocking the bejesus out of Iran is easy, and no one doubts the U.S. possesses enough air and sea power to escalate, but military action needs to serve a coherent political strategy—and so far, the administration hasn’t shown any signs of having formulated one. The devil-may-care attitude comes in part, I think, from a conviction that God is on America’s side.

“We ask God to protect all of our heroes in harm’s way, and we trust that, with his help, the men and women of the armed forces will prevail,” Trump said in a Saturday morning video address. “We have the greatest in the world, and they will prevail.” 

Quote-tweeting that video on X, the Fox News host and Israel-first blowhard Mark Levin wrote, “God bless our President and armed forces. And he will.”

Perhaps Trump and Levin could learn something from the Mideast Muslims they feel no apparent compunction about bombing into bloody smithereens: God’s will cannot be taken for granted. 

I myself hold somewhat complicated beliefs on this matter. I’ve never had trouble believing in God, but as for the idea that he loves us and cares about our affairs, well, that to me seems rather inconsistent with the facts. For example, this war kicked off with a missile strike on an all-girls elementary school in southern Iran. Around 200 souls were snuffed out. You can find images of tiny, blood-stained backpacks online. Am I to believe that God was too busy protecting Donald Trump and the State of Israel to save those little girls?

What I do believe in is Machiavelli. In The Prince, the Florentine political realist shares his teachings on Fortuna, the Roman goddess of fate and luck. To beguile Fortuna and partake in her delights, Machiavelli writes, a statesman must be bold and aggressive, yes, but also prudent and strategic and discerning. Trump, in launching his dumb Iran war, has evinced none of the latter qualities. As a Machiavellian, therefore, I can assure you Trump’s luck ends here.

The post In Iran, Trump’s Luck Runs Out appeared first on The American Conservative.

Fresh polling suggests Democratic hopes of a massive blue wave in the November midterms elections may be overblown.

A new national poll found that Republicans have erased Democrats’ advantage on the Congressional ballot.

The survey, conducted by the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard, the Harris Poll, and HarrisX, believes that exactly half of registered voters would support the Republican candidate in their congressional district if the election were held today.

The other 50 percent would back the Democrat, putting the two parties in a statistical dead heat.

New @Harvard / @HarrisXdata Poll:

The Hypothetical Congressional Ballot Is Now A Dead Heat.

50% Democrat (-4)
50% Republican

Republicans have gained ground from January, erasing the Democratic edge and tightening the race ahead of the midterms.

Read the latest Harvard… pic.twitter.com/ukfJT4vBUn

— HarrisX (@HarrisXdata) March 2, 2026

The online poll surveyed 1,999 registered voters between February 25 and 26.

Just one month ago, Democrats held an eight-point lead on the same question, 54 percent to 46 percent, indicating a significant shift in momentum.

Voters were also asked to evaluate sample campaign messages from both parties.

Some 54 percent said they found the following Republican message “believable”:

Republicans say that they are returning responsibility to government by arresting criminals, closing the borders, keeping tax es low, and lowering energy costs.

We can’t go back to the Democrats who were allowing our cities and way of life to deteriorate and prices on energy and food to soar while fraud took billions and billions of dollars of their giveaway programs.

By contrast, 48 percent said they found this Democratic message credible:

Democrats say we are for affordability. Free government services. Free housing and transportation. Healthcare for all. Free student loans.

We have the money and can provide these services if you elect us to office and we will bring down the billionaires.

The poll also tested a strongly anti-Trump message. Around 61 percent of respondents indicated they would be receptive to the following argument:

Suppose the Democrats say we need to stop Donald Trump. He is a runaway dictator, and we need a check on his power by returning the Congress to the Democrats. His tariffs are increasing prices, and he is off on foreign adventures.

Meanwhile, Trump’s net approval rating improved from -6 last month to -3.

Historically, voters often use midterm elections to punish the party in power, making it common for the president’s party to lose seats in Congress.

Democrats are desperately hoping for a blue wave in the hope that this will allow them to impeach the president and put the brakes on his agenda.

Yet with eight months until the midterms, the numbers suggest this is not as likely as it once seemed.

The post Stunning Harvard Poll Delivers Brutal Reality Check for Democrats Eyeing a Midterm Blue Wave appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

During a recent episode of his podcast, Joe Rogan noted the timing of the drop in the number of non-binary and trans people.

He suggests that it coincides with Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter/X and says that once people were allowed to discuss these topics openly and honestly, it shifted public perception.

It’s a very good point.

“Have you ever seen like how people identifying as nonbinary and trans dropped off right after @elonmusk’s purchase of Twitter?”

“It’s because people got a chance to talk about it, criticize it, put up memes and call it a mental illness again.”

Here’s the video:

NEW: Joe Rogan: “Have you ever seen like how people identifying as nonbinary and trans dropped off right after @elonmusk‘s purchase of Twitter?”

“It’s because people got a chance to talk about it, criticize it, put up memes and call it a mental illness again.”@DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/TgDFJnaDWd

— Jason Cohen (@JasonJournoDC) March 3, 2026

Rogan is right about the shift.

The Manhattan Institute reported in 2025:

Why Are Fewer Young People Identifying as Trans?

A surprising shift is taking place in the gender and sexual identities of young Americans. Data from my new Centre for Heterodox Social Science report, “The Decline of Trans and Queer Identity among Young Americans”, shows that since 2023 both trans and queer identification have dropped sharply within Generation Z.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. My analysis of the raw data shows that in that year, just 3.6% of respondents identified as a gender other than male or female. By comparison, the figure was 5.2% in 2024 and 6.8% in both 2022 and 2023. In other words, the share of trans-identified students has effectively halved in just two years.

This trend is especially marked in elite institutions. Andover Phillips Academy in suburban Boston surveys over three-quarters of its students annually. In 2023, 9.2% identified as neither male nor female. This year, that number has crashed to just 3%. A similar story emerges at Brown University: 5% of students identified as non-binary in 2022 and 2023, but by 2025 that share had dropped to 2.6%.

Rogan is also right about free speech and open debate playing a role. This is one the reasons that the radical left didn’t want people to be able to discuss these topics openly.

It’s the same reason that they have tried to take parents out of the conversation on this.

The post Joe Rogan Notes Curious Timing of Drop in Number of Non-Binary and Trans People (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The left’s creepy obsession with accused killer Luigi Mangione continues.

A musical comedy show about Mangione that was created and first ran in San Francisco, is coming to New York City this summer. So basically, this show is going to be staged somewhere near where Mangione allegedly gunned down an innocent man in cold blood by shooting him in the back. And the left loves him for this for some reason.

Did they really have to celebrate this guy with musical theater?

FOX News reports:

Luigi Mangione musical set to make New York City debut in the summer

“Luigi: The Musical,” a musical based around UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect Luigi Mangione, will premiere in New York City this June.

The Green Room 24 will hold a staged reading of the musical on June 15 with the cast yet to be announced. This will be one year after the musical premiered to sold-out shows in San Francisco.

According to a press release, the musical was “inspired by the bizarre true story of three high-profile inmates (Luigi Mangione, Diddy and Sam Bankman Fried) who were all held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn at the same time.”

The show’s description claims that the musical doesn’t “glorify violence,” but “interrogates it” while also “examining how violence is not just the act of individuals, but of elite institutions—like healthcare, Hollywood, and tech—through their neglect, indifference, and lack of accountability.”

The musical has also been criticized for being produced too quickly after the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and while Mangione continues to face legal proceedings.

Not everyone is impressed.

This is sick. https://t.co/zQaQRKsQBc

— Lionel (@LionelMedia) March 3, 2026

Someone tell me this is a joke. Please. https://t.co/Qfc2nl1JG6

— Surviving The Survivor Podcast (@PodcastSTS) March 3, 2026

Why I hate liberals in the arts, chapter 682. https://t.co/rAHvc6DLmC

— DamnManchus (@RealJohnGrace) March 3, 2026

Can you imagine being the family of the man he murdered and learning there’s a musical? My goodness. https://t.co/DExbILIllx

— Beverly Hallberg (@BeverlyHallberg) March 3, 2026

It is truly sickening the way that the left has tried to turn this guy into a hero.

The man he allegedly murdered was a father and husband, not to mention completely innocent.

The post SICK: Musical Comedy About Alleged Murderer Luigi Mangione Coming to New York City This Summer appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

When it comes to the 2028 election, the far left has a fever and the only prescription is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is the one they really want to be the Democrat nominee for president.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. She has been basically campaigning for the job for months by going on tour with Senator Bernie Sanders at their ridiculous ‘Fight Oligarchy’ rallies. She is seen as the apparent heir to Bernie’s legacy.

This far left faction of the Democrat party is on the rise. They think that the election of Zohran Mamdani is a sign of where the country is going and that this is their moment.

Breitbart News reports:

Hard-left Democrats have reportedly been pushing for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to run for president in 2028.

A report from Axios indicates that those Democrats view the young socialist as a replacement for the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Behind the scenes, allies of Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) said that she would have an opportunity to boost her national profile if she runs, potentially polling in the top five of candidates and raising well over $100 million in campaign funds.

“There’s a window of opportunity for a left-wing nominee that may not come again for a generation. Democratic-socialist and liberal victories in New York City and elsewhere — with potentially more this fall — have changed the political playing field,” noted Axios.

Even if her candidacy failed, supporters of Ocasio-Cortez said that she would likely highlight issues they care most about, like universal health care, adding that she could even use it to potentially run for U.S. Senator in New York after Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer retires or even challenge him in a primary.

“I think she’ll plan to run for both and end up a senator,” said one strategist.

This could end up causing some division in the Democrat party.

Dem Civil War: nominating far-left disasters & draining $$ from the battlefield.

“These candidates ‘don’t care what Hakeem thinks, they care what AOC may think..’”

“‘That’s the problem, and then you end up spending a fortune,’ the lawmaker said.” https://t.co/VSduemuwXz

— Jack Pandol (@jackpandol) March 3, 2026

Axios: “For many far-left Democrats, it’s AOC or bust in 2028.”

REMINDER: There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. pic.twitter.com/gNQvxev9l4

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 2, 2026

If AOC’s performance in Munich was a preview of her presidential run, Democrats might want to think this through very carefully.

The post REPORT: Far Left Democrats Really Want AOC to be Nominee for President in 2028 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The radical left is at it again with their “rules for thee, but not for me” playbook.

On Tuesday, Fox News reporter Bill Melugin absolutely cornered House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, exposing the staggering double standard Democrats hold when it comes to executive military action.

While the Democrats are currently screaming “unconstitutional” over President Trump’s decisive actions against the Iranian regime, they seem to have developed a convenient case of amnesia regarding 2011.

During the 2011 military intervention in Libya, Nancy Pelosi, then the House Minority Leader, publicly defended Barack Obama’s authority to conduct airstrikes without a formal vote from Congress.

In June 2011, Pelosi stated she was “satisfied that the president has the authority he needs” to continue military operations in Libya. She argued that because the engagement was of a “limited nature” and did not involve “boots on the ground,” it did not violate the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution.

The U.S.-led initial phase quickly transitioned to a NATO-led mission that lasted approximately 7 months from March to October 2011.

WATCH:

In 2011, Nancy Pelosi stood next to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and defended President Barack Obama’s decision to launch airstrikes in Libya without a congressional vote.

She said Obama, as Commander in Chief, had the authority to act. She described it as limited military… pic.twitter.com/4ySevZ3HCS

— Jammles (@jammles9) March 2, 2026

During a press gaggle, Melugin pressed Jeffries on comments made by Nancy Pelosi in 2011 defending Barack Obama’s decision to launch military strikes against Libya without first seeking congressional approval.

Jeffries, clearly caught off guard, stumbled through a word-salad response, trying to claim the situations were “very different” before eventually retreating to the classic “I wasn’t there” excuse.

Bill Melugin:
Back in 2011, Nancy Pelosi said that then-President Obama didn’t need congressional approval to bomb Libya. Now House Democrats say President Trump needs that approval to bomb Iran. What’s the difference?

Hakeem Jeffries:
Well, obviously Libya and the circumstances connected to that were very different than the circumstances that we face in Iran right now. I don’t even understand the genesis or basis of that question. I’m not suggesting that you’re not asking it in good faith.

Bill Melugin:
Libya went on for seven months.

Hakeem Jeffries:
As I’ve indicated, first of all, I was not in Congress at the time. We’re dealing with what we’re dealing with right now, which is a catastrophic, endless war, as Donald Trump has characterized it, without any justification that there was going to be a preeminent assault or attack on the United States of America—either in our homeland or as it relates to our interests in the Middle East.

The administration is not even pretending that they have intelligence or information at this point publicly. Certainly, there’s been nothing that has been presented to us privately to justify a preemptive strike of this nature that has triggered an all-out war in the Middle East.

By the way, Donald Trump is the one who said, in the aftermath of the 12-day war, that Iran’s nuclear program had been completely and totally obliterated. Not my words—his words. Was he lying to the American people then, or is he lying now?…

WATCH:

The post Fox’s Bill Melugin Confronts Hakeem Jeffries with Pelosi’s 2011 Claim Obama Didn’t Need Congress Authorization to Bomb Libya — But Now They Want to Stop Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.