Round two of negotiations with Iran will take place this week despite attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said on Sunday— but he also put the regime on notice, warning that the United States is prepared to resume an all out barrage of strikes on Iran. While officials originally said the negotiation is being led by JD Vance, on Sunday morning the president revealed that the vice president would not be making the trip to Pakistan due to security concerns. Trump told several outlets by phone that the vice president would not be making the trip to the Pakistani capital for the second round of meetings, explaining that the Secret Service was not comfortable with him doing so with just 24 hours advance notice. Instead, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to arrive on Monday evening ahead of the talks and President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is also set to attend the Tuesday meetings. Trump did not rule out making a trip to Islamabad himself, The New York Post reported, but said that he wanted to see how the next round of negotiations went before he committed to his own next move: “I would say maybe at a little bit later date. We have to see how it works out tomorrow.” WATCH: President Trump told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl that Vice President JD Vance will not be leading the U.S. delegation to Islamabad, citing security concerns. https://t.co/LmXt4rhuxb pic.twitter.com/o35JiWTKIT — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) April 19, 2026 “I just got off the phone with President Trump yet again, he told me that Vice President Vance will not be leading the U.S. delegation to Islamabad, he said it’s because of security concerns,” ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl explained after also speaking with Trump. “The Secret Service did not feel comfortable having the vice president go to Pakistan on 24 hours notice. [Trump] added, ‘JD is great.'” Trump lashed out at the Iranian regime via Truth Social on Sunday morning, following reports that the Iranian military had opened fire on ships in the Strait of Hormuz after agreeing to keep it open. “Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement! Many of them were aimed at a French Ship, and a Freighter from the United Kingdom,” Trump posted, adding, “That wasn’t nice, was it?” “My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan — They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations,” he continued, and then confirmed to several outlets on Sunday that Vance would not be part of those conversations in person. Trump concluded by warning the Iranian regime to take the deal being offered by the United States, saying, “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END!”

Pope Leo attempted to put some distance between himself and the prevailing media narrative surrounding his relationship with President Donald Trump — namely that the two are at odds — and said that he was not at all interested in debating the American President. The Catholic leader framed the narrative as beginning with Trump’s most recent comments about him, calling him “weak” — although their public differences stretch back to comments Pope Leo made about the Trump administration’s military actions in Iran — and claimed that the media was creating a spectacle where one did not really exist. WATCH: NEW: Pope Leo downplays tensions with President Trump, addressing a “narrative that has not been accurate in all of its aspects.” He says it is “not in my interest at all” to debate the president and will keep preaching a message of peace. pic.twitter.com/DwG6BiUsaP — Fox News (@FoxNews) April 18, 2026 “There has been a certain narrative that has not been accurate in all of its aspects,” Pope Leo explained. “But because of the political situation created when — on the first day of the trip, the President of the United States made some comments about myself. Much of what has been written since then has been more commentary on commentary trying to interpret what has been said.” “Just one little example, the talk that I gave at the prayer meeting for peace a couple of days ago was prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting,” he said, arguing that it could not possibly have been a response to Trump’s attacks. “And yet, as it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate again the president, which is not in my interest at all.” Vice President JD Vance thanked the Pope for addressing the dishonest media narrative, saying, “I am grateful to Pope Leo for saying this. While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict – and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen – the reality is often much more complicated. Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day. The President – and the entire administration – work to apply those moral principles in a messy world. He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we’ll be in his.” Pope Leo has been broadly commenting on military action against Iran since the war between the Iranian regime and Israel in 2025 and through Operation Epic Fury, which began at the end of February. He has repeatedly called for peace through meaningful dialogue in spite of repeated demonstrations proving that the Iranian regime is neither interested in good faith negotiations nor willing to facilitate any kind of lasting peace. Trump has pushed back, pointing out the clear examples of Iran’s aggression and refusal to negotiate honestly and arguing that continuing diplomacy in the face of such aggression was as unwise as it was dangerous. During a recent press gaggle, when asked what he’d say to Iran about the fact that four civilian protesters — one of them a woman — were set to be executed, Trump suggested that the press inform the Pope of that development.

Apparently, Hollywood’s favorite “voice of God” and the high priestess of academic fiction have decided to spend their golden years moonlighting as amateur conspiracy theorists. Over the weekend, Oscar winner Morgan Freeman and celebrated author Joyce Carol Oates decided to dust off one of the Left’s most desperate fever dreams: the claim that the 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, was a theatrical production. Freeman, whose authoritative baritone usually lends gravitas to nature documentaries, took to X to drop a baseless bombshell, claiming Trump “personally shut down the investigation into his staged assassination attempt.” Not to be outdone in the department of creative writing, Oates suggested that Trump is actually “embarrassed” by the “staginess” of the event, positing that it was “staged but not rehearsed,” resulting in an “awkward, amateurish” performance. (to his credit, T***p has kept very quiet about the "assassination attempt" in Butler PA. likely, he is embarrassed about its staginess & doesn't want to draw any more attention to it. among numerous theories is the theory that it was "staged" but not rehearsed & much went… https://t.co/IKZGPJN2K5 — Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) April 18, 2026 There’s just one problem for the conspiracy crowd: the facts. Contrary to Freeman’s social media fiction, the investigation wasn’t “shut down”—it was completed with a mountain of bipartisan evidence. The House Task Force, chaired by Rep. Mike Kelly, released its final report in December 2024, meticulously documenting the security failures that allowed the shooter to take his position. In July 2025, a Senate report led by Rand Paul further slammed the Secret Service for “disturbing mismanagement.” Even the FBI’s criminal probe confirmed Thomas Matthew Crooks acted alone, a reality backed by the tragic, documented death of Corey Comperatore and the critical injuries of two others. This isn’t the first time Oates has played detective from her ivory tower. Back in July 2025, she was already dissecting the “hokey publicity shot” of a bloodied Trump raising his fist, marveling at how anyone in their “right mind” would stand up after being shot. She wrote: it seemed rehearsed, the positioning of officers to allow a hokey publicity shot of T***p with a fist raised for a MAGA poster. the call “shooter down!” certainly came quickly; how could anyone possibly know that there wasn’t a second shooter? Secret Service would surely be more thorough. … impossible to believe that in the confusion & panic of that moment anyone in his right mind would wish to stand up & face another bullet. impossible to believe that in the confusion & panic of that moment anyone in his right mind would wish to stand up & face another bullet. — Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) July 14, 2025 The pedigree of these two critics is undeniable. Freeman has an Oscar for Million Dollar Baby; Oates is a perennial Pulitzer finalist. Yet, they seem trapped in a 2016-era loop of hysteria. Oates has been sounding the alarm for years, comparing Trump’s rise to Nazi Germany, while Freeman recently told MSNBC that Trump is leading the country “down a sh*thole.” It appears that for the elite echelons of the arts, no fact is too stubborn to be twisted into a narrative of conspiratorial malice. When the “voice of God” and a literary legend start sounding like fringe Redditors—ignoring bipartisan congressional reports just to keep a narrative alive—it’s clear that Trump Derangement Syndrome remains the most persistent pandemic in Hollywood.

America’s most powerful group of pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), has called denying children puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries harmful. Denying a child so-called “gender-affirming care” was labeled a form of “medical neglect” and “emotional abuse” in a December 2023 paper published in the AAP’s medical journal, Pediatrics. Parents across the country have had children removed by child protective services for affirming their child’s natural sex. Buried in this belief is an open secret: pediatricians who embrace gender ideology view parents as harming — and possibly abusing — their children if they refuse to support the child’s transition to another sex. While the AAP suggests that not affirming a child’s transgender identity causes emotional and psychological harm, it has failed to clarify how this belief impacts parents and parental rights. The Daily Wire asked the AAP outright if it believes parents who affirm their child’s natural sex and refuse to provide so-called “gender affirming care” are abusing their children. The AAP did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Given the AAP’s extensive reach — the organization claims 67,000 members, while there are an estimated 60,000 active pediatricians in America — its views on gender ideology and non-affirming parents impact how medicine is practiced in pediatric offices across the country. A review of the group’s public statements and policies suggests the group views parental non-affirmation of gender identity as a form of child abuse — something doctors should actively look for. “A Pediatrician’s Guide to an LGBTQ+ Friendly Practice” gives pediatricians a road map to discover if a family “accepts” the gender identity of their “LGBTQ+” child and recommends that doctors routinely ask teens about their gender identity in private, without parental knowledge. “Normalize confidential, one-on-one discussions with adolescents and young adults as part of routine adolescent medical care,” states the guide. “Explore whether your [electronic health record] can ‘hide’ sensitive information.” The guide gives doctors a series of scripted questions to use when having confidential conversations with teens about gender identity and family dynamics, including:  ​ “Identities grow and evolve over time. Do you want to talk more about your gender or sexuality today?” “Do you need support or have any questions as you navigate your gender identity, sexual orientation, or relationships?” ​ “How much do your caregivers know about your identity? How does their behavior toward you/your friends reflect that? How safe do you feel at home?” Family acceptance of gender identity is viewed as a critical safety issue within several AAP policies, and the guide encourages doctors to ask teens, “How does your family accept and support you?” The AAP’s gender medicine policy has an entire section devoted to the importance of “family acceptance” and warns pediatricians to look out for families that deny their child sex-change medical interventions, saying this could raise “safety” concerns. “Some families may take issue with providers who address gender concerns or offer gender-affirming care,” states the policy. “In rare cases, a family may deny access to care that raises concerns about the youth’s welfare and safety; in those cases, additional legal or ethical support may be useful to consider.” The Family Acceptance Project (FAP), an intervention claiming to reduce “health risks” for “LGBTQ” youth by increasing family affirmation of a child’s gender identity, is listed as a resource on the AAP website. ​ The program has identified more than 50 harmful “rejecting” family behaviors and 50 “accepting” behaviors that create safety, according to its website. Harmful parental “rejecting” behaviors include not allowing children to cross-dress, not using a child’s chosen name or pronoun, and denying participation in LGBTQ support groups, documents show. Helpful parental “accepting” behaviors include connecting a child with an LGBTQ adult role model, using a child’s chosen pronouns, and participating in family LGBTQ support groups, documents show.​ The Family Acceptance Project did not respond to The Daily Wire’s request for comment. FAP’s documents were taken offline after The Daily Wire viewed them. Kurt Miceli, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Do No Harm, says pediatricians should not be pushing vulnerable kids towards medical transition. “Loving parents should not be treated as welfare risks requiring legal intervention; instead, they should be included as partners in supporting their child’s well‑being, helping their son or daughter navigate distress, and fulfilling their responsibility to protect their child from irreversible harm,” Miceli told The Daily Wire.  ​ The AAP co-sponsored an event in October 2024 focused on expanding the use of “family acceptance” interventions, which try to convince skeptical parents to affirm their child’s transgender identity. Hosted by the Biden administration, the event brought together government officials, philanthropists, and transgender activists, with the common goal of furthering the impact of gender ideology in child welfare systems. ​ Biden officials viewed “family acceptance” of so-called gender identity as an important step in “preventing” LGBTQI+ children from entering foster care. Representatives of the AAP were invited to take part in a special breakout session with government officials and child welfare leaders to discuss “big ideas” for the “cross-sector” promotion of family acceptance programs that re-educate parents to embrace gender ideology, records show. “We know that family support around LGBTQI+ identity, as early as possible, is a key protective factor against … entry into the child welfare and juvenile justice systems for LGBTQI+ youth,” Julie Kruse, a contracted senior advisor for the LGBTQI+ Initiatives, wrote in an email describing the event. “These programs are critical to preventing LGBTQI+ youth homelessness and entry into foster care.”​ The Daily Wire inquired about the AAP’s role in this event and whether it believes pediatricians should encourage parents to be re-educated through “family acceptance” programs to prevent a child from being removed from their home. The AAP did not respond to The Daily Wire’s requests for comment. “The American Academy of Pediatrics claims to be a reliable guide for pediatricians and families, yet its misguided approach to children experiencing gender distress is harmful and unsupported by the evidence. Its embrace of ‘family acceptance’ frameworks — and its promotion of the Family Acceptance Project as a community resource — only heightens these concerns,” Miceli told The Daily Wire.

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. *** A patient recently stopped midsentence during a session. He was describing a routine disagreement at work — a minor conflict over scheduling and communication — when he suddenly froze, backtracked, and added an unnecessary disclaimer: “I know I’m saying this as a white guy…” The comment had nothing to do with race. But in his mind, race had already entered the room. That moment reflects something I’m seeing more and more among successful adults, especially white professionals in elite settings. Ordinary conversations that should feel routine are now approached like potential danger zones. Before they even know whether what they’re about to say is remotely controversial, people are editing themselves, adding disclaimers, and mentally preparing for how they might need to explain or retreat. What they think is heightened social awareness is often something closer to chronic anxiety. Race has become a psychological minefield. Therapeutic language and anxiety-driven habits have moved beyond the consulting room into everyday life, reshaping how people think, speak, and relate to one another. The problem isn’t empathy, reflection, or a sincere desire to get it right. Those are healthy. The problem is when reflection turns into constant self-monitoring, when people overanalyze ordinary phrasing and start treating basic exchanges like potential liabilities. At that point, it’s no longer sensitivity. It’s anxiety. In therapy, this is a familiar pattern. People rehearse conversations before they happen, over-monitor their wording in real time, and replay exchanges afterward searching for signs they crossed a line. In workplaces, schools, and social circles, race discourse now trains people into that same habit. The reality is, people aren’t becoming more honest. They’re becoming more afraid. The clearest example shows up among white professionals who feel the need to preface even basic observations with disclaimers about identity or privilege. But it doesn’t stop there. Teachers start second-guessing harmless classroom discussions. Parents tense up talking about race in front of their children’s friends. Executives over-script routine feedback conversations. Friends replay things they said at dinner, wondering whether a phrase landed the wrong way. The pattern is the same: Ordinary speech starts to feel loaded before the conversation even begins. Silence becomes the coping mechanism. That’s where this stops being just cultural and becomes psychological. Once people begin avoiding ordinary conversations because the fear of social consequences, avoidance itself becomes the habit. And once that habit takes hold, the anxiety only deepens. What’s especially concerning to me as a therapist is how familiar the pattern is. Someone feels a spike of fear, adds a disclaimer, softens the phrase, or avoids the comment altogether, and immediately feels a sense of relief. That teaches the brain the wrong lesson: that the danger was real and that self-censorship is what prevented the fallout. So the next time a similar conversation comes up, the anxiety shows up faster and hits harder because the brain has started to associate silence and over-editing with safety. Over time, people become so afraid of saying the wrong thing that ordinary conversation starts to feel risky. They check every sentence for possible offense, replay exchanges long after they’re over, and fall into habits such as disclaimers, over-prefacing, and moral throat-clearing, all meant to signal innocence before anyone has even accused them of anything. The irony is that the very habits meant to calm the fear only make race feel more dangerous to discuss honestly. That is how a culture meant to encourage dialogue slowly trains people to avoid honest conversation. Elite institutions have made this worse. In workplaces, schools, and media, people are trained to second-guess ordinary language and over-explain even basic observations. The result is a constant habit of second-guessing. People become so focused on how every word might land that real conversation disappears, and exchange gives way to performance. This doesn’t improve dialogue. It shuts it down. Good therapy helps people tolerate discomfort, reality-test their fears, and speak honestly without assuming the worst. A healthy culture should do the same. It should make room for candid discussion, curiosity, and disagreement without teaching adults to treat ordinary language like danger. What much of elite race discourse now produces instead is self-censorship, guilt, and a widening culture of silence. That may spare people short-term discomfort, but it’s also normalizing the same fear patterns we usually associate with anxiety. That is far from social progress. It’s a culture teaching healthy adults to think like anxious patients. *** Jonathan Alpert is a psychotherapist in New York City and Washington, D.C., and author of the forthcoming book “Therapy Nation.” Find him on X @JonathanAlpert.