As Americans try to make sense of the latest mess in British politics, one name keeps coming up as the likely next occupant of 10 Downing Street: Andy Burnham. The former mayor of Greater Manchester, always camera-ready and quick with a soundbite, looks set to replace Keir Starmer as Labour leader and prime minister. If you’re not familiar with him, Burnham is a career politician—smooth, detached from reality, and firmly aligned with the progressive wing of his party. Look at his voting record, and it’s hard to miss where he stands. As an MP, he consistently opposed limits on abortion and showed little patience for pro-life arguments. On LGBTQ+ issues, he’s been all in: supporting same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and nearly every other “reform” that came along. These positions have endeared him to urban progressives, but left many traditional Labour voters feeling increasingly alienated from their own party. His approaches to security and Islam also raise red flags for many. As shadow home secretary, Burnham attacked the Prevent counterterrorism strategy, calling it “toxic” and likening it to internment. He often framed Muslims as victims of suspicion and labeled criticism of radical Islam as “Islamophobia.” Britain faces real integration problems—grooming gangs in northern towns, parallel societies, and rising extremism—but Burnham’s approach has prioritized optics over enforcement, critics say, making honest discussion harder and discouraging authorities from confronting uncomfortable issues. His handling of grooming gangs in Greater Manchester has drawn particularly sharp criticism from whistleblower and former Greater Manchester Police detective Maggie Oliver. While Burnham initially earned praise for commissioning independent reviews of historic cases such as Operation Augusta, Oliver accuses him of failing to follow through. Oliver has said Burnham “ducked out” at the crucial assurance review stage, looking after his own political position and protecting Greater Manchester Police rather than fully exposing whether similar abuses were continuing. She described the process as a “paper exercise” and said Burnham “did not grasp the nettle,” ultimately “fell short,” and “turned away” from victims. Survivors and campaigners argue this left many without proper justice or meaningful systemic reform. His take on English identity tells you a lot, too. He once ranked his own sense of self as British first, north-westerner second, Liverpudlian third—and English a distant fourth. Pride in traditional English heritage? Not really his thing. Instead, he’s championed multicultural Manchester, directing resources toward diversity initiatives while English working-class communities in places like Oldham and Rochdale have voiced frustration over rapid Islamic immigration and strained public services. His worldview sees national identity as something to be diluted rather than celebrated. Then there’s the faith question, which has a whiff of hypocrisy. Raised Catholic—he says he was even an altar boy—Burnham says he drifted away because the Church obsesses too much over sexuality. He’s “not particularly religious” these days. Yet he still sends his kids to Catholic schools for the “moral grounding.” It’s the classic “faith for thee but not for me” approach, one that lets him benefit from institutions he publicly undermines. Economically, homeowners should pay attention. Burnham has long floated scrapping council tax (which is paid to local authorities to help fund essential community services) and stamp duty in favor of an annual property or land value tax based on current market values. We’re talking something like half a percent of your home’s full value every year. That turns the old idea of “an Englishman’s home is his castle” into an ongoing wealth tax that hits retirees and middle-class families hardest. As mayor of Greater Manchester, he leaned hard into more state control over big-spending projects and issues such as public ownership of transport. He positions himself as the “King of the North” while constantly asking Westminster for more cash. His tenure saw mixed results: some improvements in public transport but persistent crime, housing shortages, and dependency on central government funding. With Starmer stepping down, nominations opening July 9, and big names like Wes Streeting already lining up behind him, Burnham could be installed as leader and prime minister by July 17. That would place the party firmly in the hands of its metropolitan, progressive wing. For observers across the Atlantic, this doesn’t look like change—it’s more of the same, with a sharper cultural edge and bigger tax ambitions. Britain would be trading one left-wing leader for another, but with more intensity on identity, security, and ownership. Burnham becoming prime minister would be leaping from the frying pan into the fire: a politician uneasy with his own Christian background, lukewarm on Englishness, soft on radical Islam, and eager to tax family homes like never before. His goals are clear: higher taxes, weaker cultural borders, and continued erosion of what once made the country distinct and Great. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The Left said Vice President JD Vance was weird when he was on the campaign trail. Now it’s obsessed with his wife’s pregnant belly. That’s weird. Usha Vance appeared on the most recent episode of “Storytime with the Second Lady” wearing a slightly off-the-shoulder, fitted coral maternity dress, and the chief fashion critic of The New York Times wrote an article about her clothing choice. The article blew up across the internet last week.  It didn’t note the fact that Vance has continued attending international functions while in the most uncomfortable trimester of pregnancy. Nor did it note that she has done so in high heels. It was an in-depth analysis of the politics behind why Vance wore a “stretchy” dress that “hugs her stomach.”  Surely it wasn’t because when a woman is eight months pregnant, most dresses—even maternity dresses—fit her stomach snugly.  No, the author, Vanessa Freidman, speculated that Vance, Karoline Leavitt, and Katie Miller have given “literal shape to the pronatalist movement” and that they are presenting an image of the administration’s support for family and fertility through their pregnancies. Their vehicles for propaganda? Their own bodies. Allegedly, the “body-aware” dresses and photos of the three women posing with their hands on their bellies are part of the White House’s agenda to promote having children. The article totally ignores the people and relationships involved in a pregnancy, as if the only reason why a woman would put a hand on her pregnant belly would be to direct people’s eyes to her stomach so that they too would jump on the baby bandwagon. We cannot forget that public figures are also human. Even if you disagree politically with these women in the White House, it’s unjust to overlook the physical and relational factors influencing their lives and to treat them as mere propaganda machines embodying their husbands’ political ideals.   Maybe, like any other woman, Vance likes wearing clothes that are flattering and don’t swallow her in yards of fabric. Maybe it’s because when you’re eight months pregnant and your waist is approximately 40 inches in circumference, it’s hard to hide your stomach or ignore that you have a basketball-sized belly. Or maybe she put her hand atop her belly when deplaning in China because within her belly is her son. Physical touch is part of the mother-child relationship, just like it’s part of any other relationship. In fact, putting a hand on her belly when she steps off the plane is not that different from walking into an event holding hands with the vice president.  No one would say in that situation that the Vances are pushing a pro-marriage agenda. It’s normal for a husband and wife to hold hands, and everyone accepts that. But it’s also normal for a mother to place a hand protectively on her pregnant belly, or to wear clothes that show she’s pregnant. So, why the press? Perhaps it’s because although Vance is the second lady of the United States in a Republican administration, she’s treating pregnancy like it’s completely natural—which it is. It’s almost like she’s getting hate because she’s not “weird” about being pregnant. There really is no particular standard for how the second lady should dress if she’s pregnant, because, as the New York Times noted, the last time a second lady was publicly pregnant was in 1870. And the most recent first lady who was pregnant in the White House was Jackie Kennedy in the 1960s. So the only standard for the second lady to follow is current maternity style.  Yet when she wears a dress that the fashion critic says, “mirrors much of modern style,” she receives attention for wearing typical 2026 maternity clothing and for not imitating the smock-style outfits that Kennedy wore.  Then-presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy says goodbye to his young daughter Caroline and pregnant wife Jackie before flying to Philadelphia. Jackie would give birth to John F. Kennedy Jr. just weeks after the election. (Bettmann/Getty Images) It seems that the second lady’s maternity style is more with the times than the fashion critic expected. Vance is not mimicking Kennedy’s maternity dresses of six decades ago. In fact, she’s wearing the attire of most pregnant women across America. Vance posted on X in response to the New York Times article that she bought her dress from Old Navy, the popular American retail store with over 1,000 locations in the United States. And with a mother’s eye for saving, she paid only $8.75 for the $50 dress that had gone on sale. And here’s the receipt! pic.twitter.com/tgICmpbapQ— Second Lady Usha Vance (@SLOTUS) June 24, 2026 Plus, Vance is wearing dresses with similar styles to what she has worn throughout her time as second lady. Just because she’s pregnant doesn’t mean she’s going to stop dressing in attractive clothes that suit her taste. And although she’s the second lady of the United States, she’s not going to hide her pregnancy like she’s ashamed of having a child. Sorry—it’s not the 1800s anymore. We don’t disguise pregnancies with confinement periods.  This is why feminists originally fought: so that women could have the same rights and public engagement as men without giving up their feminine dignity. That’s what Usha Vance is embodying. There’s nothing weird about the second lady wearing a fitted maternity dress from a popular retail store while hosting a read-aloud of “Winnie the Pooh.” In fact, it’s completely normal. And that seems to be why the Left is upset about it.

The “transgender” mask—no matter how convincingly applied through cross-sex hormones and cosmetic surgery—is an unachievable fantasy, and it is contrary to biological reality. I should know. I lived as a woman for eight years. Thirty trillion cells make up the human body, and they deliver undeniable evidence of one’s sexual identity, either XX (female) or XY (male). Cross-sex hormones and surgery cannot change intrinsic sex. In its 2024 declaration “Infinite Dignity,” the Vatican called gender-affirming surgery a grave violation of human dignity. God created man and woman as biologically different, separate beings, it said, and people must not tinker with that plan or try to “make oneself God.” On a personal level, after identifying as a female for eight years, I now understand all too well that “gender affirming care” serves up copious amounts of hormones in concert with a big bundle of cosmetic surgeries that only affect superficial appearance. None of the procedures can change the 30 billion cells that identify one’s sex. However, what the practices at gender clinics can do is dehumanize and destroy men and women by carving away at God’s design and harming their ability to reproduce. Gender clinics don’t make women out of men, or men out of women—they just leave vulnerable people in a lost state, wearing a mask to disguise the truth of biological sex. Gender ideology is so popular because of how reluctant so many of us are to speak this simple truth. Using phrases like “transgender female” or “transgender male” gives the impression that hormones and surgery magically transform the internal wonders of God’s stamp on each of 30 trillion cells. We must stop using language that suggests gender clinics have power over God’s design. Let’s instead use a more accurate phrase, “a man identifying as female,” which is true because men can identify as female all day long, but they can never become women. Our language should honor God’s design of male and female. This is particularly important for those of us who have faith in Jesus Christ; we must understand that our obedience to God will bring us life, stability in our faith, and salvation from sin. So, let’s boot the “men identifying as females” out of women’s sports and private spaces. Let’s stop saying someone “transitioned”—it isn’t possible. Likewise, no one is a “detransitioner” because they never “transitioned.” I do not call myself a “detransitioner,” because not even 12 years of hormones; numerous “top,” “bottom,” and facial surgeries; and a new birth certificate rose to the level of “transitioning” me into a female. I was always a man who mistakenly “identified as a woman.” I’m not a Catholic, but when the Vatican called gender-affirming surgery a grave violation of human dignity, I applauded. Language is important. Rejecting God’s truth by our choice of words can lead to spiritual apathy and confusion, lowered moral standards, and churches that, instead of honoring and glorifying God and changing the world, are being changed by the world. Consider how effective we can be if we stop using vocabulary that implies gender clinics are successfully turning men into women (and vice versa). The enormity of 30 trillion cells (that’s 29 trillion more cells than Elon Musk has dollars) testifies to God’s beautiful design of immutable sexual identity, male and female. As someone who started having identity confusion at 4 years of age and now is 85 years old, I have gained considerable knowledge and personally worked with many people who experienced regrettable outcomes from pursuing a “trans” identity. Cross-sex hormones and surgery brought harm to my body and were the biggest mistake of my life. But finding faith in Jesus was the biggest gift. He brought redemption and healing to me in 1990, and ever since then, I identify as a man, the man He created me to be in every cell of my body from the moment of conception. I pray all who have distress over their gender will come to Jesus in prayer and find the peace He offers. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The pages of tomorrow’s history are written by today’s decisions. History is littered with failed republics and democracies. The Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Democracy in ancient Greece turned into an aristocracy. This didn’t just happen in ancient history. In 1961, a new constitution in Venezuela divided the government into three branches. But in 1999, Hugo Chavez swept to power and rewrote the country’s constitution. He eventually became a dictator. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the fleeting nature of our form of government. In 1787, Elizabeth Willing Powell asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” For context, in Federalist 39, former President James Madison defined a republic as “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.” The term “democratic republic” references the role that popular elections play in selecting some of our leaders. But the Founding Fathers held a much dimmer view of democracy by itself. In Federalist 10, Madison observed that democracies “have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Even as America celebrates her 250th birthday, there are plenty of reasons to wonder about the country’s future. America has abandoned her Christian heritage. Government-funded schools teach children to hate America and Western Civilization more broadly. Birth rates have generally been below replacement level for decades. You can see the fruit of those trends. Darializa Avila Chevalier, a Democrat congressional nominee from New York City, founded a group that seeks “the total eradication of Western Civilization.” Chants of “Death to America” have rung out on college campuses and the streets of New York City. Muslims are openly plotting to turn America into a Muslim country. But concerning trends are not outcomes. Americans still have the freedom and ability to change course. The most important thing is for America to return to her Christian roots. Listen to our Founding Fathers, not the misinformation taught in most modern history classes. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson wrote. A version of that quote is on the Jefferson Memorial. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,” George Washington said in his farewell address. “In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” You can’t force people to become Christians. But students should learn historical truths, not skewed leftist narratives. Institutions should also elevate and honor other pillars of America’s past — like the ideas of Western Civilization and the family. Part of this requires political action. You can’t win the war of ideas when the government subsidizes the losing side. America needs leaders who will act vigorously to defend America’s values. That includes deporting immigrants who hate America. But it also requires individual action. Pray for your country. Urge your friends to vote. Use whatever influence you have to advance these ideas. Send your grandchild a great work of literature and talk about a chapter a week. Revive the lost art of matchmaking to encourage one more marriage. Offer the practical help, like watching kids or helping buy a home, that could help a responsible young couple have one more child. A few of those choices would make headlines. Most wouldn’t. But every one of them would help restore America’s greatness. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

On this Independence Day, by invitation of the White House Task Force 250, I will stand on the main stage of the Great American State Fair to lead a National Mall crowd in a one-hour program of music and prayers for our nation. This exciting moment marking 250 years of American independence was unimaginable for me, a woman whose childhood Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) score—a test used by courts in custody cases—is 8 out of 10. I am in roughly the top 1% of American childhood adversity, enduring physical, emotional, sexual, and mental abuse. From this, several of my 7 biological siblings attempted suicide, and I struggled with severe depression, PTSD, and anxiety—including multiple hospitalizations. My father died on Monday this week. Dad was a talented music professor and former protégé of guitar legend Andrés Segovia. He taught me to sing, bought my first violin, and taught me piano—starting around age 4. Dad introduced me to the timeless beauty of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. But Dad was molested by a babysitter as a child, never recovering. He became a violent, mentally ill man who believed he was a modern-day prophet and subjected our family of 10 to instability, fear, and traumas I have shared publicly. What My Father Gave—and Took Both of those histories are true; I have spent decades learning to hold them in paradox. That tension—between perpetrators’ harm and the gifts they nonetheless transmit—is, in miniature, the same tension America confronts at 250. We are a nation founded on self-evident truths by men who did not live them. We expanded liberty each generation while failing, sometimes catastrophically, those we claimed to protect. For some, America’s current temptation is to either burn the inheritance down or whitewash its flaws. Neither posture serves us. The more noble work is to grieve what was broken while receiving its goodness and restoration. I learned this from my family long before I applied it to my country. My father’s abuse cost my siblings and me nearly everything. I do not diminish his harm for the sake of a tidy redemption arc. Yet when I sing patriotic hymns on July 4, the breath support, phrasing, and instinct for the emotional center of a melody—that came from Dad, cultivated across years of training. He gave me, amid wrenching damage, an inheritance that enriches my life: music as a vessel for the beautiful and holy ideals of America’s founding. Holding Pain and Inheritance Together This is a quintessential American capacity—honoring an imperfect inheritance without erasing its history. We practice it with our Founders, who constructed a framework for liberty while many of them embraced the evil practice of slavery. We practice it with our institutions, which extended rights and dignity through generations of struggle even as they betrayed others. We practice it within our own families, which rarely arrive as clean stories of villains and heroes. Efforts like the 1619 Project go further than honest reckoning—they seek to recast the American founding as irredeemably corrupt, its ideals mere cover for exploitation and documents unworthy of reverence. That is not history; it is a prosecutorial brief dressed as scholarship. Our founding documents did not cause slavery; they eventually helped end it. Generations of Americans—many of them enslaved or excluded—appealed to America’s promises as their own and used them to demand what the Founders failed to deliver. To discard those promises because the men who wrote them were hypocrites is to punish the ideals for the failures of the men and to leave the most vulnerable Americans hopeless. A nation that cannot distinguish between acknowledging its sins and repudiating its founding principles has lost its truthful core. A Patriotism Worth Singing About Forgiveness, I have learned, is not the same as excusing. It is stopping someone else’s worst chapter from writing the rest of your story. America is engaged in this reckoning right now—across race, region, and generation—and the outcome is not certain. What is certain is that the alternative—complete rejection of anything tainted by failure—leaves nothing to build on. Every institution, nation, family, and person (myself included) is tainted by sin. The question is what we choose to promote and transmit. When I lead the crowd on the Mall in “America the Beautiful” and “Amazing Grace,” I will be standing on a stage made possible by the musical gifts my father cultivated in me on a birthday celebrating the quest for a more perfect union. That is patriotism worth singing about: not blind celebration, not cynical dismissal, but the harder work of holding a legacy—a family’s, a nation’s—and choosing, with clear eyes, to honor what is good, true, and beautiful.