The Federal Trade Commission and four attorneys general filed a groundbreaking lawsuit Wednesday aiming to hold the World Professional Association for Transgender Health accountable for allegedly deceptive trade practices, an action that may dismantle the child gender mutilation pipeline. WPATH may not be a household acronym, but this activist group masquerading as a health authority has hoodwinked the medical establishment into enabling one of the worst medical scandals of our time. As the lawsuit explains, WPATH claims that experimental transgender medical interventions such as “puberty blockers,” cross-sex hormones, and surgeries—which all attempt to make boys appear to be girls or vice versa—are “medically necessary” to prevent suicide. WPATH allegedly hides the fact that there is no evidence to back up the claim that girls or boys who express discomfort with their sex characteristics will commit suicide without such interventions. (A Health and Human Services peer-reviewed study concluded that there was “extremely weak evidence” for any benefit from these interventions.) WPATH also allegedly falsely claims that its “standards of care” represent scientifically-based expert consensus. Finally, it allegedly hides the fact that these interventions cause serious side effects. These deceptive practices promote the sex-rejecting procedures euphemistically described as “gender-affirming care,” causing great harm, according to the lawsuit. WPATH presents itself as the expert, and medical authorities, insurance companies, and parents have cited it as such. WPATH’s influence has created a booming medical industry. The lawsuit notes that the first U.S. pediatric medical transition clinic opened in 2007, and by 2015, the number of such clinics grew to 41. Between 2017 and 2021, the number of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent identifying with the gender opposite one’s biological sex) nearly tripled, from 15,000 to 42,000. Notably, WPATH’s latest “Standards of Care” edition, published in 2022, removed age limitations for controversial procedures including breast amputation and penis removal. The lawsuit quotes one WPATH leader who admitted to “struggl[ing] to find any sound evidence-based argument(s) underpinning” the change. The lawsuit cites numerous side effects from the transgender interventions WPATH supports. The side effects of “puberty blockers”—drugs that law enforcement uses to chemically castrate sex offenders—include hot flashes, lethargy, and cognitive problems. The side effects of cross-sex hormones include mood disturbances, vocal pain, pelvic pain, clitoral discomfort, vaginal pain, and erectile pain. The side effects of breast amputations, often euphemistically described as “top surgery,” include the inability to breastfeed, nerve damage, and necrosis of the nipples. “Children, but especially their parents, must have complete and truthful information when making decisions to purchase medical services,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in a statement on the lawsuit. “For decades, the FTC has taken action against entities that make deceptive and unsubstantiated health-related claims. The complaint filed today reflects that same long-standing mandate: when an entity makes a claim about a medical treatment, the claim must be truthful, evidence-based and not misleading.” In the lawsuit, the FTC—joined by Attorneys General Cori Mills (Alaska), Brenna Bird (Iowa), Michael Hilgers (Nebraska), and Ken Paxton (Texas)—alleges three major violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. Plaintiffs claim WPATH violated the act by engaging in deceptive claims regarding the efficacy of pediatric medical transition, by misrepresenting the nature of the “Standards of Care,” and by failing to disclose side effects. The lawsuit also claims these deceptive practices violated consumer protection laws in each of the four states. For its part, WPATH claimed that the Trump administration “abused” its authority by aiming to “interfere with Americans’ rights to seek and obtain the healthcare that should be decided between a patient and their physician.” WPATH noted the Federal Trade Commission’s previous request for information, which a federal judge struck down. The pro-transgender group panned the lawsuit as an “end-around,” describing it as “baseless.” WPATH further claimed that the Federal Trade Commission is not a medical provider and “has no place interfering” with medical decision-making. James Boasberg, chief judge for the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, blocked the Federal Trade Commission from requiring WPATH to hand over documents, ruling that the commission’s order involved retaliation for WPATH’s speech, protected by the First Amendment. This order does not apply to the new lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas. Contrary to WPATH’s claims, the lawsuit does not aim to interfere with patients’ right to health care, but with WPATH’s own alleged misrepresentations in advocating for sex-rejecting procedures on minors. If WPATH does not want to face accusations about systemically deceiving Americans about transgender “medicine,” perhaps it should reconsider systematically deceiving Americans about transgender “medicine.”

It sounds too horrible to be true: Predominantly Muslim gangs reportedly kidnapped, raped, and trafficked 250,000 young white girls in Britain over a period of decades, and authorities repeatedly looked the other way due to “political correctness,” the woke ideology preaching that men from certain foreign countries could only ever be considered victims, not perpetrators. A horrifying new report provides further evidence clarifying the phenomenon, however, and it reveals the astonishing extent to which woke ideology can blind people, even to direct threats against Britain’s vulnerable young girls. The Rape Gang Inquiry published a report Tuesday finding that these “coordinated operations” extended “to all corners of the country,” in 149 local authority districts, about 40% of all such districts. Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe, leader of the Restore Britain party, led the initiative, and his report heavily criticizes both the leftist Labour Party and the establishment Conservative Party. The report accuses Labour leaders of having “framed legitimate concerns as ‘far-right’ agitation,” and claims the government “failed to impose mandatory ethnicity recording or launch a full statutory inquiry despite clear evidence.” Why ignore or suppress the investigations? Because they’re politically inconvenient. “Political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children,” the report states. Naturally, Rupert Lowe has an axe to grind, and the British government is running a separate investigation into the issue, but there’s good reason to take Lowe’s report seriously. The rape gang issue is politically explosive—and extremely problematic for the woke leftist worldview. The Rape Gangs The report lays out the general process: predominantly young Muslim men would entice girls as young as 11, giving them attention, drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. After a few months, taxis would pick the girls up and take them “to houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels where they were raped repeatedly by groups of men, tortured, filmed for blackmail, and told they were ‘white trash’ or ‘kuffar’ who merited punishment.” “Survivors described daily rapes, ‘red rooms’ of extreme torture, trafficking between cities, and institutional disbelief that compounded their suffering,” the report adds. The report notes that there is no exact figure for the victims, but estimates 250,000 victims over a period of decades. A British newspaper put the reported figure for one year at 18,700. The Rape Gang Inquiry ReportDownload A Politically Incorrect Story The report says most of the men in the rape gang networks came from Pakistani Muslim backgrounds, though Somalis, Iranians, Syrians, and Turks also took part as well. The report connects the threat with increased immigration levels, particularly after “the start of orchestrated mass immigration” under Tony Blair. As if that weren’t politically incorrect enough, the report cites aspects of Pakistani Muslim culture that treat “non-Muslim girls, especially white working class girls, as property available for sexual use.” It cites certain theological aspects of Islam that allow forced marriage and sexual slavery for non-Muslim captives. The U.S. State Department designates Pakistan as a country of particular concern on religious freedom, noting that police have killed members of religious minorities or failed to protect them from violent mobs. International Christian Concern reports that every year, Muslim men abduct approximately 1,000 Christian, Hindu, and Sikh women and girls, marry them, and force them to convert to Islam. According to the Left’s ideology, countries like Pakistan are poor because the evil white colonizers oppressed them, and Britain needs to make things right. The truth is far more complicated. Many immigrants from places like Pakistan do assimilate to Western culture and contribute to Western society. Enabling this assimilation on an individual level, however, is a unique strength of Western countries and cannot be taken for granted. Many non-Western cultures lack our respect for individualism and religious freedom, and we have to remain vigilant for potential threats. That’s not to say every Muslim, every Pakistani, or every Pakistani Muslim should be unwelcome—it is to say that we need to vet immigrants to protect the vulnerable. A Preventable Tragedy If Lowe’s report is correct, British authorities could have prevented this tragedy. Rather than take into consideration that certain Pakistani Muslims might bring problematic parts of their culture with them, authorities reportedly ignored the threat. “Authorities at every level—including the police, social services, health services, schools, licensing bodies, and politicians—knew the patterns, possessed the intelligence, and still failed to protect the country’s children,” Lowe’s report states. “The perpetrators operated with impunity because the state enabled them.” Lowe’s report presents a list of recommendations, including improved data recording ethnic and religious patterns among offenders, stronger sentencing, and a comprehensive deportation effort. It also recommends greater family involvement and closing gaps in British law that failed to protect victims. The West needs more than just tinkering around the edges if we are going to address civilizational threats like this. We need to believe in ourselves again—in the goodness of our heritage and the necessity of preserving it from malign forces. The only practical solution to mass immigration that enables violent crimes in a Western country is the systematic deportation of perpetrators. These rape gangs showed no mercy to their victims, and the law should treat them as the serious threats they are. We cannot stand for any ideology that would let such a thing happen.

As Senate Republicans hem and haw over the SAVE America Act, grassroots conservatives are beginning to lose patience.  During a recent GOP event in Texas, several Sentinels, members of Heritage Action’s nationwide grassroots network, voiced growing frustration with what they see as unnecessary Senate delays.   House Republicans acted months ago to pass the SAVE America Act; the legislation now sits in legislative limbo, waiting for Senate Republicans to bring the bill to a vote.   “Get your act together,” said Sylvia, a Sentinel of 10 years. “The longer you drag your feet, the more you look like dead weight to us. We’re sick of the games.”  Another Sentinel, John, put it in more serious terms. “American democracy is under threat with the way we mismanage our voting.”  Their frustration reflects a growing belief among concerned conservatives who view election integrity as a top priority and expect Republican lawmakers to act decisively. For such voters, the SAVE America Act is a baseline requirement for restoring trust in the electoral system, and anyone standing in the way of its passage is a liability.  But if Sentinels are impatient, House Republicans may be even more so.   “The SAVE America Act is a very popular bill, maybe the most popular bill in America right now,” Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, told Heritage Action. “The only place this is controversial is in the United States Senate.”  Cloud argued that election security shouldn’t be political, pointing to the bill’s bipartisan bona fides. “No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you want to know that elections are secure, that they’re safe, and that your vote is counted,” he said.  Though some Senate Republicans seem to minimize the importance of the SAVE America Act, strong public support for the legislation shows the American people have a different opinion. Heritage Action polling shows 71% of Americans support the SAVE America Act, including wide swathes of Republicans, Democrats, and independents.   At its core, the SAVE America Act seeks to strengthen election integrity through a series of common-sense reforms. The bill would require proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration and mandate photo identification to cast a ballot. It would also compel states to maintain accurate voter rolls by removing non-citizens, ensuring that only eligible voters participate in federal elections.  This would mean a more secure election system. Citizenship verification at registration ensures only eligible individuals are added to voter rolls in the first place, while photo ID requirements provide additional protection at the ballot box, confirming that the person voting is the same individual who registered. If someone makes it through the cracks, he would be removed during routine voter roll clean-ups.   Considering several blue states have expanded access to driver licenses for non-citizens, these provisions take on added importance. Such policies muddy the waters on election integrity and make it easier to cheat. By requiring both citizenship verification and voter ID, the SAVE America Act would go a long way in closing those vulnerabilities before they could be exploited.  Working alongside Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and other allies, Heritage Action has urged senators to cosponsor the legislation and Senate leadership to bring it to the floor, and to enforce the talking filibuster if the vote faces obstruction. Heritage Action also issued a Key Vote on the legislation in the House, putting dissenting members in the spotlight for failing to support conservative priorities.   As a result, all but four Republican senators have now signed on as co-sponsors.  Co-sponsorship is good; now the Senate must act. The SAVE America Act is a flagship election integrity bill strongly supported by the Trump administration, and Senate Republicans must move to pass it immediately.   The grassroots demand it, and America’s elections depend on it.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal. 

President Donald Trump announced that the United States and Iran are beginning discussions on a final deal. Trump said the memorandum of understanding could be signed Thursday or Friday, opening a round of negotiations to reach a final peace agreement in 60 days. The current memorandum of understanding, reached over the weekend with Iran, involves the U.S. removing its naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days, Iran ensuring safe passage of commercial vessels through the strait for 60 days, and both parties negotiating a final agreement within 60 days, a senior administration official told reporters on a press call Wednesday. “This is fundamentally an agreement that allows us to open the Strait of Hormuz immediately, commit the Iranians to destroying the nuclear dust, and then gives us a dial where if the Iranians dial up their good behavior, we respond by dialing up the kind of economic and sanctions relief that can make them a more prosperous country,” the senior official said. The U.S. will terminate all sanctions if Iran agrees not to procure or develop nuclear weapons. Iran has agreed to destroy its enriched uranium stockpile, the administration official said. The uranium will be down-blended on-site with lower-grade material, under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In a mutual agreement, the U.S. and regional partners will develop a definitive plan of at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran. The U.S. is not required to pay “a cent of money” to Iran, or contribute to the fund, the official said. However, if Iran “behaves,” Emirati authorities could build a power plant in Iran. Trump said the U.S. will resume attacks on Iran if talks on the new deal fail. “We’re going to bomb the hell out of them if they violate the agreement,” he said at the G7 summit in Evian, France.

While it appears unlikely the Democrat mayoral primary in the District of Columbia will go to a second round of vote tallies, a winner hasn’t been called as of Wednesday afternoon despite one candidate holding a majority of the vote. The race would likely have been called for Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. councilmember who is aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, if the city had not adopted ranked choice voting in a 2024 ballot initiative. The nation’s capital applied ranked choice voting for the first time in its local races, a system where voters rank a first, second, and third choice. If no candidate gets 50% or more, another round of counting commences in which the lowest‑ranked candidates are eliminated. Rounds continue until one candidate reaches a majority. By early Wednesday, with almost two-thirds of the vote reportedly counted, George had 52% of the vote. Her nearest opponent was Kenyan McDuffie with 36%. Other candidates received 3% or less, according to the Associated Press. The winner will replace outgoing three-term Mayor Muriel Bowser. Because D.C. is an overwhelmingly Democrat city, the party primary is usually the de facto deciding factor for who wins the general election. In another important D.C. race, Councilman Robert White Jr. won the Democrat primary for D.C. delegate to the House of Representatives, putting him in a position to replace the 18-term Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. White captured a decisive 63% of the vote, beating his nearest rival, Brooke Pinto, who won 21%, according to the Associated Press. Ranked choice voting was also used in the primary in New York City in 2025, where Zohran Mamdani, also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, won a clear majority to avoid a second round of voting. The city first tried it in 2021, and the results of the Democratic mayoral race were delayed by 14 days due to widespread absentee voting and multiple rounds of ranked choice vote counting, even as it appeared then-candidate Eric Adams was in the lead. As of March, 17 cities, counties, and states use ranked choice voting for local elections, according to FairVote. Alaska and Maine are the only states to adopt it statewide. FairVote and other proponents contend that ranking candidates will produce a more consensus candidate and reduce division. They also contend it is less likely a candidate getting a small plurality in a crowded primary will win without a broader appeal. Ranking votes can take longer and risks longer lines at the polls. Lengthier ballots are also more expensive to print and mail, according to the Honest Elections Project, which opposes the system. The group has also argued that complicated ballot tabulation can lead to errors, pointing out Oakland, California, officials failed to detect a tabulation error and certified the wrong winner in a 2022 ranked choice voting school board race.