FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL — The Food and Drug Administration has loosened its label on testosterone replacement therapy, or TRT, for short, in an attempt by President Donald Trump’s administration to reverse the historic testosterone decline among young men. TRT was recently considered to be harmful to men over potential risks of developing prostate cancer and/or heart complications. However, an FDA panel in December 2025 determined, through science-based evidence, that this is not the case, and the supplement helps more than it harms young men. The FDA hopes the new label on TRT will encourage men who are testosterone deficient to seek the treatment and reverse the country’s epidemic of obesity, substance abuse, suicide, and mental health challenges caused, in part, by a lack of testosterone. “20–25% of young men have testosterone deficiency,” HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Brian Christine, MD, told The Daily Signal. “This could be a product of environmental factors. It affects our libido, our vitality, our desire for intimacy. [Testosterone] is an important way to improve the health span and the quality of life for men.” “Low energy, low libido, low vitality, difficulty maintaining a lean muscle mass, and we know that replacing their testosterone, and getting their levels back up is extremely healthy,” Christine added. Christine says that lowering the barrier of entry for men who need the substance could be instrumental in reversing the epidemic of idiopathic hypogonadism, low testosterone levels without identifiable cause, or testosterone levels that simply drop over time without an identifiable driving cause. “We convened an expert panel on testosterone replacement in men,” Christine added. “That was kind of the genesis for this labeling change. If you had to look at one value in blood test for men, in my opinion, look at one value that would predict the longevity, the vitality, the lifespan, and the healthy life span of men, testosterone would probably be that number.” Now Christine did note that not all substances are perfect, and the harmful side effects for TRT users, especially for those who do not need it, are still prevalent. Therefore, the government agency continues to issue maximum caution to users who are at risk of experiencing acne, reduced sperm count, testicular shrinkage, breast growth, fluid retention, and increased red blood counts. “Testosterone is the medication that should be used like any medication with proper oversight,” Christine said. “It should be used while understanding that there can be side effects from testosterone. It has to be used under proper supervision.” Christine used his experience as a urologist to say that practitioners are “going to do what’s right for the patient, give the patient the information, always try to guide them in a way that’s healthy. We must advocate for the wellness of patients, not simply to say, oh, now we have some change labeling.” “We absolutely want to make sure as practitioners and as health care professionals and as a health administration, helping men understand that if they’re going to use testosterone, it absolutely must be done under the supervision of a qualified practitioner or qualified physician who understands this, it must be done with appropriate monitoring, periodic blood testing,” the admiral continued. While the admiral could not give an explanation as to why the previous administration refused to conduct in-depth studies on TRT, or how to end the low testosterone epidemic, Christine told The Daily Signal that it’s “all for the better” that the current administration is fighting this epidemic now. “I’m glad that the day has come when people realize the testosterone is an important way to improve the health span to improve the quality of life for men in this country,” the admiral continued. “I’m glad it’s happening under our administration. I’m glad that I’ve been a part of that, and I’m really glad that the FDA has taken steps to change that labeling.” Christine took a moment to acknowledge the importance of healthy men in this country, reiterating the point of reversing the universal decline in testosterone levels, before wishing America’s dads a happy Father’s Day. “We want to make a positive impact on men’s health during this administration. In this administration, men matter,” Christine said. “I wish a really happy Father’s Day to all the fathers out there. Fathers have such an incredible impact on making the country great and strong again.” “A strong, loving, committed, engaged father can do so much, obviously, for their children, for their wives. You know, we want strong fathers,” he added. “We realize that the vocation of fatherhood, it demands a lot. It requires a lot, but it most certainly gives so much to the men who choose that path in their life to be father. So we want to say happy Father’s Day.”

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a drug user could not lose his Second Amendment rights, in a case that put the ACLU and the National Rifle Association on the same side. The court held that a federal law that automatically disarms someone who unlawfully uses a controlled substance is unconstitutional. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the unanimous court. In the case of U.S. v. Hemani, a federal grand jury indicted Ali Danial Hemani, a marijuana user from Texas, in February 2023 for violating a law prohibiting firearm possession by a user of illegal drugs or a controlled substance. He sued to dismiss the indictment.  The federal prohibition is part of the 1968 Gun Control Act.  The government argued the law doesn’t infringe on the Second Amendment in part because of longstanding “habitual drunkard” laws that have been around since the Colonial era. Those laws impose certain restrictions on individuals with addiction that could pose a danger to themselves or others, argued Sarah Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general, in oral arguments March 2 in the case. The indictment said Hemani knowingly used illegal drugs while possessing a Glock 19 9mm pistol. The prosecution didn’t allege Hemani was intoxicated or using drugs at the time he possessed the firearm. Rather, prosecutors based their case on him being a regular drug user.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.

Earlier this spring, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released a new policy on protecting women’s sports in future Games. The committee concluded that “for all disciplines on the Sports Programme of an IOC Event, including individual and team sports, eligibility for any Female Category is limited to Biological Females.”  The IOC’s rationale was very thorough and scientific. The committee found that “to protect fairness in sports and events that rely on strength, power, and/or endurance, as well as safety particularly in contact sports, it is necessary and adequate to base eligibility for competition on biological sex.”   The IOC’s new policy should be applauded, yet it came on the backs of decisive and unapologetic leadership from President Donald Trump, former female athlete Riley Gaines, and many others.  For the vast majority of Americans, this finding was celebrated. Most people still use science and common sense to drive everyday life, including the line between men’s and women’s sports.   A 2025 NBC News Stay Tuned Poll showed that 75% of respondents disagreed with biological male athletes competing in female sports. In a January 2025 Ipsos survey, 94% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, and 64% of independents also indicated their preference for protecting the integrity of women’s sports.  While the IOC and the majority of the American public may agree on the scientific facts behind safeguarding women’s sports, many elected Democrats around the nation, including in my own state of Arizona, do not.   It was unfortunate to see that while only a minority of registered Democrats across the nation think boys should be able to play in girls’ sports, 100% of Arizona’s out-of-touch liberal legislators voted to allow boys in girls’ sports.   These elected Democrats are holding on to crazy, unscientific, and dangerous fantasies. They would rather jeopardize the safety of girls and women than dare to hurt the feelings of men pretending to be women.  The issue transcends women’s sports; it has included a malicious desire to allow men into women’s private spaces like bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. Across the country, Democrats have continually blurred the lines between men and women and what we have historically held sacred in this country.   Again, most people do not believe that a biological man should be allowed to walk into a woman’s restricted area. Yet this has been happening for years and celebrated by the Left.  The ultimate gaslighting is telling a boy that he is a girl or that he can invade girls’ private spaces and arenas. I can’t wake up one day and decide I want to identify as a cat—no matter how much I match my appearance to our feline friends. If I did so, then people would rightly think I had lost my mind. But this is effectively what has been happening around America. People are showing their insanity by working to bend the rules of biology.  That’s why, as president of the Arizona State Senate, I’ve refused to capitulate to the crazy and dangerous ideas of the Left—and I’ve gone on the offensive for what’s right.   I’ve led the charge on safeguarding girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports. I’ve even spearheaded the defense of Arizona’s commonsense law protecting the integrity of women’s sports, taking our case (Jane Doe v. Warren Petersen) all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).   Currently, SCOTUS is considering two of these women’s sports cases (from West Virginia and Idaho), and the forthcoming opinion will decide the fate of other laws being held up in federal litigation, including Arizona’s.   In fact, I was sitting in the Supreme Court next to Attorneys General McCuskey and Labrador during the oral arguments for this case at the beginning of the year. It was sadly unsurprising to hear that some of the justices didn’t know the biological definition of a woman. Fortunately, though, for the rest of real America, most of the justices did know the biological definition of a woman—and I believe we will receive a 6-3 ruling in favor of science and common sense.  Unfortunately for Arizonans—especially girls and women—our state has a Democratic governor and attorney general. Both are unwilling to listen to the majority of reasonable people and stand for the integrity of women’s sports or the decency of privacy in bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.   Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed several reasonable attempts by the Republican-led Arizona Legislature to protect women, while Attorney General Kris Mayes has been absent throughout the process to defend Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act.  As the IOC found in creating its new policy for future Olympic Games, “biological sex, which is divided into categories (Male and Female, based on their reproductive biology, including their sex chromosomes, gonads and hormones), is distinct from gender identity, which is a person’s sense of themselves as a woman or a man or neither/non-binary.”   This finding didn’t use to be controversial at all, and it still isn’t in most American circles. The problem is that we’ve allowed a small (though growing) number of radicals to influence our policies across our states, nation, and world, leading to chaos and insanity about unalterable scientific realities.  Though this debate has been raging now for several years, we are still in the early stages of the war over women’s sports and private spaces. We cannot lose this battle or allow future generations of Americans to grow up in a new normal, where boys and men are allowed unfettered access to girls’ and women’s restricted areas or sports.   That’s why I’m fighting every day to protect women’s sports and private spaces.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal. 

Government programs that claim to support families actually cut fathers out of the picture—and that results in broken families and higher poverty rates, according to Delano Squires. The Heritage Foundation hosted the director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center on Tuesday to lead a panel discussion titled “Invisible Men: How Guaranteed Income Programs for New Moms Diminish Dads,” based on Squires’ latest book. Squires and three other speakers addressed how welfare programs incentivize single-mother homes and how the black community, in particular, has suffered from a lack of attention to the importance of fathers. “Fathers are not, by definition, an attachment,” Anthony B. Bradley of the Acton Institute said. “They are crucial to the thriving of children. And if we want healthy families, healthy communities, and healthy societies, we have a duty to invest in fathers.” Most physical and behavioral issues are the result of absent fathers, according to Bradley. Fatherless children have a higher likelihood of juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, cancer, diabetes, and even an untimely onset of puberty.  Martin Brown, former assistant secretary of health and human resources in Virginia, said that he discovered while working in welfare that his state’s social policies “limited the ability of the dad to even be in their home.” “When you look at social policy, either the child or the mom is the recipient and not the family,” Brown said. “And so, we change the model from the child being the recipient of the government’s protection, or the mom being the recipient of the government’s largess, to the family unit, and by changing that goal, you’re going to change the outcomes, and so we focus on that as well.” When a married couple files jointly, their tax breaks should increase rather than decrease, according to James Jackson, CEO of Rooted in Healing. The IRS should not financially incentivize single motherhood and having children outside of marriage. “We shouldn’t just throw money at distress in the community,” Jackson said. “We should throw money in areas where we’re promoting good, where we’re promoting things like marriage, we’re promoting things like strong families.” But government policy won’t be enough to promote long-lasting marriages and good fathers. People have to see good marriages so that they desire to emulate them and have an example to follow. Bradley suggested that black families thrived the most in what he referred to as “’The Cosby Show’ era” because television programs such as “The Jeffersons” and “Good Times” celebrated family life and demonstrated both the difficulties and the joys of marriage. When author Joy Jones worked as a substitute elementary school teacher in Washington, D.C., in 2006, several boys said that when they grew up, they wanted to be fathers, according to Squires. But when Jones offered to bring in couples who could talk about marriage and having children, the boys were “unenthused.” “One told her plainly, ‘We’re not interested in the part about marriage, only about how to be good fathers,’” Squires said. “Another boy explained their stance with five words and jaw-dropping candor: ‘Marriage is for white people.’” In Washington, D.C., 77% of black children are born to unmarried parents, whereas 93% of white children are born to married parents, according to Squires. But it’s not just the black community that needs a better understanding of marriage. It’s the whole country. People today think of marriage as a capstone and a crowning achievement of adulthood, which is the opposite of what it should be, according to Bradley. “It’s the beginning of a good life. It’s not that you live a good life and then get married,” Bradley said. “You actually use marriage to ground and shape and structure a life that is characterized by flourishing. And I want all children, regardless of their income level, to see that as an aspiration above career and above the acquisition of stuff.” Social media, film, and music will help promote fatherhood and marriage. But ultimately, the responsibility to raise future fathers falls on families rather than on welfare programs and pop culture. “We need to actually disperse the work and put these young men and young women in homes with people,” Bradley said. “Let them come over for dinner, take them on vacation with you, let them see your family in action.”

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Jack Fowler: First of all, there have been protests—significant protests—against the murder of Henry Nowak in England and the attempted beheading of the gentleman, whose name I forget, forgive me, in Belfast. So throughout Ireland, throughout England, and including Scotland—Glasgow—there have been these protests.  So, here’s what I think is a typical response from your typical Eurocrat. This is John Swinney, the first minister of Scotland. Here’s the headline from The Scotsman newspaper over there:  “Scotland must stand against racism, hatred and intimidation.”  “First Minister John Swinney has said Scotland must stand against racism, hatred and intimidation after protests following a knife attack in Belfast.  “In a post on social media, Mr. Swinney said, ‘The scenes we saw in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Ayr last night are unacceptable. Scotland is a welcoming nation, and those who choose to make their lives here are valued members of our community. Racism, hatred and intimidation have no place in Scotland. We must stand against it.'”  Don’t you—  Victor Davis Hanson: Where do they get this? Do they have an AI thing that always turns out this boilerplate? “This has no place here. This isn’t who we are.” All that stuff?  Why doesn’t he just admit that there’s no audit of the people coming into the U.K.? They come in illegally for the most part. They come from areas that are governed illiberally. They come with religious differences. They have ideas about women and homosexuals, other tribal people, people not of their tribe. They have very negative views of them.  And they won’t assimilate, integrate, or acculturate at a pace that would be expected of any other immigrant. So, they have gotten the message that they’re going to be subsidized with housing, education, food, and medicine, and they feel that the host owes them that.  Then, when they’re deterred from the consequences of their behavior—whether it’s a rape gang or walking down the street and hitting somebody—they go to the next level.  Now, “they” is a collective stereotype and generalization. But this demagogic politician doesn’t say anything about this. But he wants to give a soapbox platitude so that he feels good about himself. But he doesn’t understand that no one is listening to him anymore.  There’s an entire European movement, and if they don’t intervene and say, “We expect every single person in the U.K. to have come legally, and they must reside legally. If you’re an immigrant, you must be self-supporting and fully employed, and you will face the full force of the law just like subjects of the Crown. If you can’t do that, would you please leave?” They can’t say that. I don’t know why they can’t say it.  I don’t know how they got in this position where some cities are 20% to 30% non-Indigenous people, but it’s not working, and it’s going to spread.  The next thing that’s going to happen is that if they won’t address it in a sober and moderate fashion, people are going to get frustrated. We saw those two girls, I think they were from Scotland, remember? They were defending themselves from that predator.  Fowler: With the knife and a hatchet?  Hanson: Yeah. And she was trying to protect, was it her sister or her friend?  Fowler: Her sister. Her sister.  Hanson: Yeah. Everybody demonized her and said, “Oh, this is…” You know.  Then he was found guilty the other day of actually trying to attack them or solicit them in some fashion.  But if you allow grooming gangs and you don’t do anything about it, people are going to get frustrated, and they’re going to get violent.  You have to treat everybody equally under the law, and you have to have the rule of law. That’s where we learned the rule of law—from the Western tradition via Britain.  And if there’s no rule of law…  You know, here in the United States, there was just a poll that said it was overwhelming. Seventy percent wanted everybody deported who was here illegally and committed a crime.  I thought, “Well, that doesn’t do anybody any good. Who wouldn’t?”  Then I read down further: 56% of the population wants everybody deported who came here illegally.   How could that be when we’re told by the leftist media that all these people who are spitting at ICE, throwing rocks at them, and waving plastic phallic symbols represent the public?  Well, the public is tired of that. They look at the ICE agents and don’t see demonic figures. They see largely minority people who want a living and want to protect their communities, which are the most impacted by illegal immigration.  Fowler: Yeah. Look, why is an elitist type—whether in government or media in England—who believes he has the right to say, “You lower-middle-class white dude are a racist for this and this reason”?  So, they have some racism calibration, but they won’t apply it to immigrants who have racial—  Hanson: Because they have this Marxist, Foucauldian, Lacanian, Derridean, postmodern, Frantz Fanon idea that there is a binary. There’s no middle. There’s a victim and an oppressed person, and there’s a victimizer and an oppressor.  And the duty of all good Marxists is to—and they have redefined this. Marx didn’t talk about race. He talked about class. They said class doesn’t matter because many people on their side of the binary are wealthier than the so-called oppressor side.  Barack Obama is much, much, much, much wealthier than Joe Biden. His children are in much better shape than Hunter Biden.  Yet they are on the oppressed side. Nobody can define it. We don’t know what makes a person part of the oppressed side. I guess it’s one Confederate drop, one-sixteenth non-white blood, non-Christian faith, or whatever standard they use.  Once they went down that road of racial essentialism, they had to have something.  Even Native American tribes who went down that side said that nobody can be in charge of this casino unless they have tribal blood. Well, in our society, what does that mean? It means they have to have DNA, and I think it’s one-sixteenth or one-eighth.  You can see how absurd this is. It’s going back to the antebellum South. And that’s what they’re doing.   You can be very, very wealthy. You can be very privileged. You can have every advantage.  Cory Booker’s parents were corporate grandees. He grew up in a very upscale environment, and we’re supposed to think he is a champion of the oppressed?  Jasmine Crockett has two accents: one that reflects her middle-class, upscale private schooling and another that she puts on when she wants to be authentically inner-city.  It’s a joke. The whole thing is performance art, and everybody’s tired of it.  So, this guy is going to get up and lecture, lecture, lecture. But he should ask himself: If you say “black” today, or “non-white,” it’s usually in a positive sense.   But if you hear a government bureaucrat, a media figure, or a celebrity say “white,” it’s almost always in a negative context. It’s a pejorative.  And people who are somewhere between 67% and 71% of the population—  By the way, I think it’s a ridiculous rubric anyway. I live in a Hispanic area, and in the summer I am darker than many of my Hispanic friends. I see people at the bank every day speaking Spanish and they’re pure white.  I don’t know why we call them non-white. I don’t know why anybody calls anybody white or non-white. But that’s another story.  The point I’m making is that it’s always used as a pejorative, and that’s not sustainable. People will not put up with that.  When you  add “deplorables,” “irredeemables,” Peter Strzok saying, “I smelled them all at Walmart,” the CNN commentator saying, “I have more teeth than everybody at a Trump rally,” Joe Biden saying, “ultra MAGA,” “semi-fascists,” “garbage,” and “chumps,” and then Barack Obama saying they cling to their guns and religion—  It’s time to quit that because there’s a big revolt, and you don’t want it to get like it is in Europe.  When you have the young Ukrainian woman butchered, and this conniver DeCarlos Brown is now suing the FBI, and then you just recently had the young kid walking outside his home in Philadelphia who was murdered, and the woman set on fire in Chicago—these high-profile black-on-white crimes—and then the reaction is…  I don’t know what the reaction is, but in the case of Karmelo Anthony, you had counter-demonstrations where they basically said he was the victim and the man he murdered was the oppressor.  When you have AI imagery of people urinating on Austin Metcalf’s supposed grave—I guess it was manufactured by AI, but the message was still hatred.  We have got to get rid of this university idea that if you’re on the victim side of the binary, you’re incapable of racism or oppression. That’s just a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is just an invitation to be racist.  The only thing that keeps us from behaving badly is some kind of deterrence, whether that’s religious, legal, social, or shame.  But if you remove those deterrents, you’re going to see human nature in the raw, with the veneer stripped off. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.