FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The medical watchdog group Do No Harm is calling on 10 major medical associations to explicitly condemn transgender genital surgeries on minors. “Professional medical societies that endorse so-called gender-affirming care in minors bear tremendous responsibility for the harm done to American children in the name of gender ideology,” Dr. Kurt Miceli, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at Do No Harm, told the Daily Signal in a statement on the letters. Do No Harm sent ten largely identical open letters Wednesday morning, addressing the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, the American Urological Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the Pediatric Endocrine Society. While the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, an activist group often cited as the authority on sex-rejecting procedures, recommends genital surgeries only for patients over 18 years of age, it makes some exceptions for minors. The Letters “Do No Harm and its 54,000 members are calling on your society to publicly reject genital surgery on minors for the purpose of producing ‘gender transitions,’” the letters state (emphasis original). “While this process is uncommon, we believe that it should never occur.” The letters cite Komodo Health’s analysis of insurance claims data, which mentions 56 genital surgeries between 2019 and 2021 on minors aged 13 to 17 with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the painful and persistent condition of identifying with the gender opposite one’s sex. They also cite a JAMA Network analysis, finding 405 genital surgeries on adolescents from 2016 to 2020. The letters also cite Do No Harm’s own Stop the Harm database, showing similar results. “This number needs to be 0,” the letters flatly state. The letters warn that by supporting “the entire program of so-called gender-affirming care,” the associations in question suggest that sex-rejecting procedures confer some benefit, despite medical reviews to the contrary. They also note that genital surgeries have been “notorious for producing multiple complications.” “No matter what ill-conceived notions your organization has supported vis-á-vis children attempting ‘gender transitions,’ we call on your society to renounce all genital surgeries performed on minors,” the letters state (emphasis original). Such surgeries “should not be included in any clinical-care plan or treatment protocol.” Tide Turns Against Transgender ‘Medicine’ Many of these entities signed an open letter in April 2021 opposing state laws to restrict “gender-affirming care.” In recent years, however, systematic reviews have cast doubt on the effectiveness of experimental transgender medical procedures. A Department of Health and Human Services study found little evidence for positive impacts from sex-rejecting procedures, while studies show they can cause harm, from increased cancer risks to a higher risk of suicidal thoughts. A jury awarded a detransitioner $2 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit in February, and psychiatrists reportedly agreed to settle an Oregon detransitioner’s medical malpractice claim in January. In February, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommended that patients delay any transgender surgeries until reaching 19 years of age, and the American Medical Association responded with a statement agreeing that “surgical interventions in minors should generally be deferred to adulthood.” Dr. Miceli called on these institutions to clarify their stances, considering their history of vocally opposing restrictions on “gender-affirming care” coupled with a few recommendations that surgeries be “deferred” to adulthood. “These societies shape professional standards through their policy directives, clinical guidelines, and public statements,” the doctor explained. “In many cases they are viewed as the experts to whom providers, lawmakers, and the public defer judgment on the safety and efficacy of treatments. We therefore call on professional medical societies to begin to right wrongs and explicitly oppose the performance of transgender genital surgeries on minors.” “No high-quality evidence demonstrates that these surgeries have beneficial outcomes in children,” he concluded. “Medical societies must be clear and state their firm opposition to these unscientific and harmful procedures.” The Daily Signal has reached out to these medical associations and will update this article with any comments.

Almost four years before he was sworn in as president, Joe Biden showed numerous instances of apparent memory loss, recently released recordings show. Recordings of Biden’s conversations with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer became available through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Oversight Project, a watchdog group. The conversations took place on several occasions from October 2016 through April 2017. On Feb. 16, 2017, just weeks after he left office as vice president, Biden discussed his consideration of a 2016 presidential run with Zwonitzer and noted what he would have said. Then he paused as he was seemingly reading. “No one gets to the point in life I’ve gotten to without — I can’t read my own writing,” Biden said. “Enormous progress, Pres and I have done. I’m not going to stand by and see it undone.” On April 24, 2017, just months after leaving the vice presidency, Biden struggled to remember the names of two Obama administration economic advisers. “The guy at Princeton now. Economist. Good guy. Was our, our Chief Economic Advisor. Not Kaufman. I’ll think of his name,” Biden said to ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. “And the guy back at the University of Chicago with the funny name,” Biden said. “I’ll think of it in a second. I should write the names down because I keep forgetting them.” Biden appeared to be referencing Alan Krueger, a Princeton professor, and Austan Goolsbee, of the University of Chicago, who served as chairmen of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The Justice Department released the recordings, which were part of special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified information after his time as vice president and before he was sworn in as president. Hur opted not to bring charges, he explained in his 2024 report, in part because he thought a jury would see Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Also on April 24, 2017, Biden seemed to have trouble remembering the timeline of his terms in office. “I was, during the month of, of November, working real hard on the — had we passed ACA?” Biden stopped. “We had, hadn’t we?” The ghostwriter answered, “Yeah. That looks like ’13, 2013. … So that’s still a year early — too early for it.” Biden said, “Right, so what am I thinking of here?” The recordings are evidence that what appeared to be Biden’s mental decline was occurring years before he ran for president, said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project. Yet Biden’s inner circle kept the matter quiet, he added. “These tapes have so many pauses and ‘ums’ that it sounds like Biden is buffering like a dial-up Internet connection,” Howell said in a public statement. “The knowledge of his deterioration was well-established. The sin of the autopen administration is corporate and accountability should be had on all enablers.” The Daily Signal reached out to the Office of Joe and Jill Biden for comment for this story, as well as to Creative Artists Agency, which represents Biden for public speaking. A Biden spokesman told The Associated Press that the release of the recordings was the result of a weaponized Department of Justice. “President Biden’s conversations for a book a decade ago that discussed his late son are private, and were provided to the Department of Justice on the express condition they stay that way,” Biden spokesman TJ Ducklo said. “Reversing course and making them public is just the latest example of this Administration weaponizing the DOJ for political retribution.”

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed and Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., went head-to-head in the second and final Michigan Democratic Senate primary debate on Monday night. While Michigan voters may have hoped to learn the policy differences between the two Democrats, what they got instead was finger pointing about campaign funding and hateful speech. “Well, I don’t think there’s much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul or super PACs going in for me,” Stevens said. “We have a problem with campaign finance reform in this country.” Stevens repeatedly accused El-Sayed of not releasing his tax returns, asking what he was hiding from the Michigan people. She also said that El-Sayed has been on many podcasts and has even run his own. “Have you made a ton of money because of podcasts?” the moderator, Fox 2 news host Roop Raj, asked El-Sayed. “Yeah, I don’t know, I told all my viewers at the outset that while my opponent was going to make this about me and her, I want to make this about you,” El-Sayed said to the camera. The moderator also directly asked Stevens if she has received campaign funding from “big utility,” such as DTE Energy or Consumer’s Energy. “No, but let me say this Roop—I have been transparent,” Stevens said. “I have been transparent throughout this campaign, and the only thing that ever motivates my work is the people from Michigan, the people that I hear from.” Raj followed her response by restating that the question was whether utility companies had funded her campaign. “And I said no,” Stevens said. While El-Sayed denied receiving any funding himself, he claimed Stevens did not disclose money her campaign received from DTE. “But then $40,000 in direct receipts to her campaign from DTE’s corporate PAC. And then there’s, I don’t know, Center for Democratic Priorities, which released its funders, but then they’re behind these shell organizations, these 501(c)(4)s,” El-Sayed said. “So I’d really like to revisit that question, because I don’t know how to explain $40,000 directly to her campaign from DTE.” The candidates’ manner of speaking about each other was also a topic of discussion, prompted by a question from Raj about El-Sayed referring to an opponent as an “ogre on a pike.” “Look, I took to Twitter last week and said that the tone in which people talk about my opponent is unkind, and I asked anybody who supported me to not talk about her that way,” El-Sayed said. “In fact, when she got booed on the stage at the Michigan Democratic party convention, I called her personally and said that was unkind.” It’s become impossible to ignore the way that people online make fun of my opponent for things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics. It’s unkind and unhelpful. If you support me, please stop. Focus on the issues: Congresswoman Stevens has welcomed corporations…— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) July 17, 2026 El-Sayed later clarified that the “ogre” he was referring to was Sen. John Fetterman, whom he said has “done terrible things” and is “throwing those values in the mud” that got him elected. El-Sayed also challenged questions of “unkindness” by pointing out that AIPAC has run many ads attacking his character. Stevens did not respond to Raj’s question about whether AIPAC’s ads have done “an injustice to voters” by promoting hatred, and instead shifted the conversation to point out that El-Sayed said he would not be able to get much done as a senator. Although Stevens later conceded that El-Sayed is a good person, she pushed him to explain statements he previously made about Democrat women. “And look, Abdul is a great guy. He’s a great father,” Stevens said. “You know, only he can account for saying that Whitmer is bought and paid for, or that, you know, no one cares about Debbie Stabenow, or that Mallory McMorrow isn’t smart enough.” One week remains until Michigan voters decide which candidate will face Mike Rogers in the November general election.

Springfield, Ohio, and its Haitian population have been in the news all year as the fate of individuals granted Temporary Protected Status hung in the balance. A ruling last month from the U.S. Supreme Court, however, allowed the Trump administration to end the status, which came to an end on Monday. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine offered his response to the policy shift during an interview with CBS News.  “Haiti is hell today, so you’d be sending people literally back to hell,” he told Camilo Montoya-Galvez, the news outlet’s immigration correspondent. The governor pointed out that the U.S. government has said not to travel to Haiti or fly into its capital city, Port-au-Prince, due to gangs, shootings, and “dysfunctional” government and police. DeWine said that “very few of these Haitians will voluntarily go back to Haiti” and instead will go elsewhere to work and support their families. In answering a question as to whether those sent back to Haiti will face violence or even be killed, DeWine again argued that few people will return there. “All the Haitians who I have talked to, and when I’ve heard all the other things that they have said, no one is going to go back to Haiti. If they have any choice, they’re going to go somewhere else,” he said. “Once the TPS is removed, they can’t work. These are people who want to work, who have to work to support their families. So, they will get out of Ohio and go somewhere else,” DeWine explained, noting it will be “any place other than Haiti.” Ohio’s Republican Governor, Mike DeWine, is urging the Trump administration to back down from plans to deport Haitian migrants who are set to lose their Temporary Protected Status (TPS), telling CBS News' @camiloreports that such a move would mean sending Haitians “back to hell.” pic.twitter.com/e5oUsQGRO4— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 28, 2026 The official termination came as the Department of Homeland Security also highlighted local news coverage posted on X last week that Haitians in Springfield were self-deporting, a step the department offered to “help others with.” Haitians with terminated TPS in Springfield, Ohio, are SELF-DEPORTING following the Supreme Court’s ruling last month. To others in the US with terminated TPS: self-deport today and we’ll help you get back to your country with a $2,600 check and a FREE flight home.… pic.twitter.com/l0sfvKJLev— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) July 20, 2026 With Temporary Protected Status ended, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is expected to ramp up operations “to target, arrest, and ultimately deport” Haitians who are not in the country legally. The governor called that “a mistake” and “not good for the United States … and the state of Ohio.” DeWine also argued that Haitians formerly protected under protected status had been helping Springfield make “a real comeback,” especially as they took jobs that others would not take.  “It’s frankly a blow to Springfield,” the governor said of the policy change, adding that the influx of immigrants is good for population growth. Simon Hankinson, a senior fellow for the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, previously warned that illegal immigrants put a strain on resources. DeWine also said he has received “no notification at all” from Immigration and Customs Enforcement about any planned operations.  Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, called planned ICE operations targeting Haitian migrants “a mistake,” saying they “came here to work” and fill vacant jobs.He told @camiloreports that the deportation plans, first reported by CBS News, would be an economic “blow” to Ohio… pic.twitter.com/OSBjwQn3zA— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 28, 2026 On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security posted on X that illegal immigrants with temporary protected status are eligible to receive $2,600 and “a FREE flight home.” Temporary protected status is exactly that — TEMPORARY. For those with terminated TPS: it’s closing time. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.It’s not too late to get a $2,600 check and a FREE flight home: https://t.co/YGo3uuNvrE pic.twitter.com/8kPIp6AvBd— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) July 27, 2026

Four Texas congressional races remain competitive as Election Day approaches, drawing attention to some of the state’s most closely watched contests. In August 2025, the Texas Legislature passed a new congressional map during a special legislative session. Although the map was challenged in court, with a lower court ruling that it raised constitutional concerns over race, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to use the map for the 2026 midterm elections.  Since redistricting, four congressional races—most of them in South Texas—have become competitive, with both parties vying for key seats. 15th Congressional District Following redistricting, Texas’ 15th Congressional District covers the Rio Grande Valley and portions of Central and Coastal Bend counties. The incumbent is Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz. De La Cruz is facing Democrat Bobby Pulido, a Tejano singer who has faced scrutiny over his association with a former band member who is a registered sex offender. Pulido has centered his campaign on presenting himself as a moderate. While he opposes abortion, he says every woman has the right to make her own decision. He also pledged to protect Medicare, writing on his campaign website, “Medicare is a promise and a critical safety net that we have to keep and make stronger.” De La Cruz, who has held the seat since 2023, has continued to support President Donald Trump’s agenda, including voting in favor of the SAVE Act and the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” Although the race remains competitive, two polls show De La Cruz leading, while one shows Pulido ahead. 28th Congressional District The 28th Congressional District stretches from parts of San Antonio to the U.S.-Mexico border, including Laredo and Rio Grande City. The incumbent is Democrat Henry Cuellar, who is seeking reelection. Cuellar is facing Republican Tano Tijerina, who has served as a Webb County judge since 2015. Cuellar’s political career has been overshadowed by legal troubles. He and his wife, Imelda Cuellar, were indicted on federal bribery, money laundering, and foreign influence charges in May 2024. Trump pardoned the couple in December 2025. Tijerina points to his record of lowering property taxes during his tenure as county judge and says he supports an “America first” foreign policy. Polling as of July 20 shows Tijerina with an advantage. 34th Congressional District The 34th Congressional District covers parts of South Texas and the Gulf Coast, including Brownsville and Harlingen. The candidates are incumbent Democrat Vicente Gonzalez, who has represented the district since 2023, and Republican Eric Flores, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas.  Gonzalez voted against the One Big, Beautiful Bill, legislation Trump supported, that would help create a thriving economy, protect America’s borders, and end wasteful spending. He also voted against the SAVE Act, another Trump initiative that would require documented proof of citizenship to vote in U.S. elections. Flores says his priorities include border security, support for law enforcement, and U.S. energy independence. He has been endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, Americans for Prosperity, and Trump. The race is considered competitive, with some polling indicating that Gonzalez holds a slight advantage. 35th Congressional District In the 35th Congressional District, the redistricted map moved incumbent Democrat Greg Cesar to the 37th Congressional District, leaving the 35th District without an incumbent. The new district includes much of the south and northeast sides of San Antonio, along with parts of Bexar, Guadalupe, Wilson and Karnes counties. The candidates are Democrat Johnny Garcia, public information officer for Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar, and Republican Carlos De La Cruz, an Air Force veteran and the brother of Rep. Monica De La Cruz. Garcia says immigration reform should include border security, pathways to citizenship, and meeting economic needs. He also has advocated strengthening the Affordable Care Act, an Obama-era law that has been riddled with problems including fraud and skyrocketing premiums. De La Cruz has focused his campaign on border security, saying he is the “only candidate who has been deployed to the southern border.” He also has emphasized parental rights and barring transgender women from competing in women’s sports. Current political ratings indicate the district leans Republican. The Cook Political Report noted that Trump carried the newly drawn district by 10 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election. Election Day is Nov. 3, 2026.