A nostalgic, feel-good series is heading to Fox for the 2027-28 television season. It was just announced that “Highway to Heaven,” a remake of the classic 1980s show starring Michael Landon, is currently in the works. The series follows a “probationary” angel who must perform good deeds on Earth to earn his wings. “I’m excited by the challenge of putting a contemporary lens on this classic tale,” showrunner Jason Katims (“Parenthood,” “Friday Night Lights”) said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter. “The idea of telling a very grounded, human story about an angel feels immediately emotional to me — and fun. I love going outside my comfort zone to tell a tale about someone trying to do better as an angel than he did as a man.” Amblin and Michael Landon Productions are also involved in making the series. The original star of “Highway to Heaven” died in 1991 after battling pancreatic cancer. Landon is also known for his role on “Little House on the Prairie,” which is getting its own reboot released on Netflix in July 2026. “Highway to Heaven has always been about connection, compassion and the idea that small acts can have big ripple effects and make a lasting difference,” Cindy Landon, Michael Landon’s widow and an executive producer of the new series, said in a statement. “I’m proud to help carry Michael’s legacy forward with partners like Fox and Amblin, who understand the heart of this series and are bringing it to a new generation at just the right moment.” Cindy also shared the news on Instagram, writing, “‘Highway to Heaven’ was always more than a television show — it was about humanity, compassion, hope, and the power of touching people’s lives through storytelling. Michael poured his heart and soul into these stories, and I know this new chapter would mean so much to him. I’m incredibly grateful to everyone involved for believing in the heart of this series and having the vision to bring it to life once again.” Landon told the Los Angeles Times in 1988 that “Highway to Heaven” was something he “had to get out of my system.” Brandon Tartikoff, then-president of entertainment at NBC, told the outlet that Landon did the show to “give the audience a good cry.” “You’re going to laugh or cry, one or the other — you’re not just going to watch a car chase,” Landon said of the original series. “I do the kind of shows that I like to sit down and watch with my family.”

President Donald Trump survived yet another serious assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Anti-gun advocates have wasted no time framing this as a gun control issue. Again. It’s a particularly unserious blame shift this time, given that the would-be assassin, Cole Allen, legally purchased his firearms in California and attempted to kill the president in Washington, D.C. — two places awash with the very types of “commonsense” gun laws that advocates demand be imposed on a national scale. The problem isn’t a lack of gun laws. The problem is that those laws, as we so often see, are incapable of stopping people like Allen from simply ignoring or sidestepping them. Federal law required Allen to declare his firearms in his checked luggage when transporting them interstate as a passenger on a common or contract carrier, such as Amtrak. California state law separately prohibited Allen from possessing his firearms in a public transit facility unless he complied with the appropriate policies for declaring them in checked baggage. He violated both laws when he failed to declare his firearms and transported them in his carry-on. Both California and D.C. make it a crime to transport guns outside the home unless certain conditions are met, including that the guns are transported for a lawful purpose and to a place where the person can legally possess them. “Attempting to assassinate the president” is not a lawful purpose. Although Allen may have lawfully owned his guns in California, he lacked valid D.C. firearm registration certifications, which are required to legally possess firearms in the nation’s capital. Moreover, because Allen didn’t have a valid D.C. gun registration certificate, merely possessing ammunition was a crime. It’s a felony in D.C. to carry a handgun in public without a D.C. concealed carry permit, something Allen didn’t possess. It’s another felony to carry any long gun in public in D.C. under any circumstance — and while federal prosecutors have a non-enforcement policy with respect to people carrying validly registered long guns, that wouldn’t apply to Allen. Yet, neither provision deterred him from charging through a D.C. hotel with both an unregistered shotgun and an illegally concealed handgun. Another provision of the D.C. Code prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns within 1,000 feet (roughly 3 football fields) of a government dignitary or high-ranking official moving under the protection of law enforcement, at least when signs, law enforcement perimeters, or other means make it obvious that there’s a designated area of protection. Not only was the security perimeter at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner obvious to everyone, but Allen knew the nature of the security perimeter and attempted to breach it for the purpose of shooting high-ranking officials within it. The number of “commonsense gun laws” that Allen simply ignored or sidestepped with ease is devastating to the narrative that such laws are necessary for public safety. But even more devastating is the shocking number of “commonsense gun laws” with which Allen actually complied. He didn’t just skip down to his nearest convenience store and buy a gun from a vending machine. The caricature of “easy access to firearms” exists apart from reality in any state, but particularly so in California, the Mecca of American gun control that virtually every activist group praises as the high-water mark of Second Amendment restrictions, whose policies they believe ought to be emulated nationwide. California not only prohibits residents from owning standard capacity magazines and semiautomatic long guns arbitrarily deemed to be “assault weapons,” but limits them to a state-maintained roster of handguns that the government pre-approves as “safe.” Prospective gun buyers must first obtain a Firearms Safety Certificate by passing a 30-question written exam covering the basics of gun handling, safe storage, and state and federal gun laws, and then pass an in-person “safe handling demonstration” with the firearm in front of the dealer. They cannot leave the store with a gun unless they purchase a state-approved firearm safety device or sign an affidavit stating they already own a state-approved lock box or gun safe (and provide proof of ownership). Californians don’t need an ID to vote, but they need one to buy a gun. Many of the state’s most populous counties require concealed carry permit applicants to provide proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency. Handgun purchasers must also provide secondary evidence of their California residency that matches their driver’s license address. The state has universal background check laws (including for ammunition sales). It imposes a 10-day waiting period on all gun purchases. It has virtually eliminated the right of law-abiding young adults to keep and bear arms. It punishes lawful gun sales with an 11 percent state excise tax on top of the existing 10-11 percent federal gun sales tax. It has de facto point-of-sale universal gun registration requirements. Short of completely banning guns, California and D.C. already had in place virtually all the burdens on the right to keep and bear arms that advocates insist are necessary for public safety. None of these “commonsense” gun laws protected the president of the United States from a man bent on murdering him — that credit belongs to the well-armed members of the president’s taxpayer-funded security detail. Perhaps it’s time that gun control advocates find another boogeyman for political violence. *** Amy Swearer is a senior legal fellow at the Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom Foundation.

Justice Clarence Thomas on Thursday became the second-longest-serving justice in U.S. Supreme Court history, surpassing Justice John Paul Stevens after more than 34 years on the bench. Thomas, 77, has become a powerhouse in the conservative legal movement, with his originalist jurisprudence now shaping the Supreme Court’s working majority. In recent years, Thomas has cast key votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, end affirmative action, strengthen gun rights, and expand religious liberty protections. In the landmark case weakening the Voting Rights Act, Thomas wrote a concurrence, calling race-based redistricting a “disastrous misadventure.” In total, he’s authored 835 Supreme Court opinions, according to SCOTUSBlog.  Cully Stimson, acting director of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation, called Thomas a “giant in the law.” “The only reason that the left and liberals hate him is because he doesn’t think the way they expect a black person to think, he’s a conservative, and that’s the cardinal sin that he committed,” Stimson told The Daily Wire. Born in Pin Point, Georgia, and raised in segregated Savannah, Thomas embodies the American Dream in many respects. His documentary, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, details his humble upbringing in poverty and learning the ropes of life from his grandfather. “He says to us, you’re going to go to school every day, and if you are sick, you’re still going, and if you die, I will take your body for three days to make sure you’re not faking,” Thomas said, recounting memories of his grandfather. “And he meant it. It’s one thing if somebody says it and you think they’re exaggerating — he wasn’t that kind of guy.”

President Donald Trump said his White House meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva “went very well” following hours of closed-door talks that shut out reporters despite originally being scheduled as open press. “Just concluded my meeting with Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the very dynamic President of Brazil,” Trump posted on Truth Social afterward, adding that the two leaders discussed trade and tariffs and that additional meetings between representatives from both countries are planned in the coming months. The bilateral meeting drew attention earlier in the day, after reporters waited roughly 3 hours before learning that the press would not be allowed into the session at all.  A source familiar with the meeting told The Daily Wire the Brazilian delegation opposed press access because Lula likely would have faced tough questions about his past attacks on Trump. Lula is still expected to give a news conference later at the Brazilian embassy in Washington, according to the BBC. Over the past two years, Trump and Lula have exchanged insults, clashed over trade and free speech, and sharply disagreed over Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Despite those tensions, both leaders have recently attempted to stabilize relations through private outreach and softer rhetoric. Encontro com o presidente dos Estados Unidos, @POTUS, em Washington.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** In a scene from “The Devil Wears Prada 2,” villainous fashion editor Miranda Priestly (played by Meryl Streep) laments missing out on much of her twin daughters’ lives. Climbing the fashion industry ladder comes at a cost, but to her, it was worth it because, as she puts it, “I love working. I really do … I just love it.”  In an interview, Streep revealed that the last line was an ad-lib, a nod to the generation of women who chased work instead of being dedicated to motherhood. Streep called the feeling of loving work analogous to sneaking a cigarette because women’s pursuit of work was labeled “selfish.” A generation of modern feminists is aghast at younger women’s embrace of traditional roles, traditional families, and traditional values. Streep is coy in this interview, but Sheryl Sandberg, former Facebook chief operating officer, is more explicit with her disdain toward the traditional wife movement. The woman who spent over a decade telling women to “lean in” to work outside of the home blasted the trad wife movement as “very detrimental to women” and founded on “sexist” notions of women’s roles. In a social media post, she chided us to “leave the 1950s where they belong: in the past.” The alarmism over how trad wives might derail women’s economic progress is overblown. Women continue to opt to work for different reasons, some for fulfillment and others out of necessity. The labor force participation rates among those of prime working age (25 to 54) have surged since the pandemic, with women driving more of the increase than men. The number of moms with underage children in the workforce has been rising over the past two decades. The labor force participation rate for mothers with children under age 18 was 73.9% in 2025, little changed from 2024, but up from 72.3% in 2019, 70.9% in 2010, and 72.3% in 2000. Not surprisingly, unwed mothers are consistently more likely to participate in the labor force than married mothers (78% and 72%, respectively, in 2025). Mothers of older kids are more likely to participate in the labor force than mothers with young children (78% and 68%, respectively). Those shares have all risen since 2000, indicating that female workers are still “leaning in” to work outside of the home.  Coming out of the pandemic, anecdotally, some high-earning women decided they didn’t want to miss the moments in their children’s lives that girl bosses like Sandberg gave up. Their spouses could sustain the household financially.  As prices surged in 2022 and onward, other women may have given up the lifestyle that two paychecks afforded them by quitting to save on childcare costs while gaining time with their little ones. Surveys consistently indicate that high childcare costs push some mothers out of the workforce or force them to reduce hours because the math no longer works. Deregulation and tax reforms are needed to expand childcare options for parents.  For some women, motherhood is their aspiration. Some “trad wife” influencers certainly go overboard and create unrealistic expectations for what you have to do to be a “good” mom or wife. But at its core, the “trad wife” movement is simply the modern version of “homemaking,” a term all but erased from modern vernacular by feminists. Many women find dignity, beauty, and value in fully dedicating their time to their spouses and children. That should not be denigrated.   Here’s what Sandberg gets right. It should be a woman’s choice to decide how much to prioritize family life over work. The good news is that women don’t just have a binary choice of girl boss or trad wife. Millions of women are engaged in a third way that grants them the flexibility to be a present mother while earning a respectable living or supplementing the household budget.  From full self-employment to gig work, about half of the over 70 million Americans who freelanced last year were women. Nine out of 10 women who left a traditional job to become an independent contractor did so for flexibility. This arrangement provides them the freedom to work while nestling a newborn at home or attending an afternoon soccer game. Employment without the motherhood guilt. As women and couples raise children farther away from longstanding caregiving support networks, such as grandparents, aunts, and cousins, self-employment through freelancing and gig work is all the more important. Not every mother can afford an army of nannies. This third way has champions in Washington. The Trump administration, which has several working mothers in high-ranking positions, recognizes that independent work is important to women. In a win for women, the Department of Labor recently proposed a sound and welcome worker classification standard that protects independent contracting. This rule is a 180-degree change from President Joe Biden’s anti-flexible work regulatory approach. However, unless Congress codifies this effort through pro-worker legislation such as the Modern Worker Empowerment Act, another freelancer-unfriendly administration could overturn it, as happened before.  This Mother’s Day, American women don’t need scoldings or slights, but respect for the choices we make. Thankfully, we live in a nation that generates pathways for women to craft fulfilling lives without the mommy guilt. *** Patrice Onwuka is the vice president for economic policy and director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at Independent Women. She also cohosts WMAL’s O’Connor & Company.