In a recent episode of her podcast, Megan Rapinoe, the former co-captain of the U.S. National team, railed against the IOC for a decision to protect women’s sports for female athletes by requiring a cheek swab for sex screening. This traitorous position is now a deliberate choice by Rapinoe, Bird, and others like them. Now that their professional athletic careers are over, they have become henchwomen for men intent on blowing up the safeguarding boundaries young female athletes need in sports and in locker rooms. It’s time to recognize that athletes like Rapinoe and Bird have lost touch with reality. When you undermine the fundamental principle that women and girls deserve their own protected sports category, you forfeit any credibility you once had as a voice in women’s sports. Their own careers and platforms are entirely due to the women who carved out space for female athletes, but now hypocritically advocate to destroy the safety and opportunities they enjoyed. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently made a policy statement affirming that women in sports deserve fairness, safety, and integrity. They recognize that screening for eligibility in competition is a necessary step to ensure women can compete on a level playing field. There is nothing controversial about that. Nothing. We use scales to determine eligibility for weight categories. We use drug testing to ensure fairness across all categories. We require detailed physicals and medical assessments for para categories. We verify age for age-group competition. Screening for the male SRY gene through a quick and simple cheek swab is among the least invasive eligibility checks in sport. Rapinoe, however, took issue with this decision, calling it “really hateful.” Her wife and podcast guest, former WNBA player Sue Bird, emphatically agreed, nodding along with each claim. Rapinoe is correct in one respect: the decision is intended to “ultimately prevent people from competing in the women’s category that they feel have an unfair advantage.” Those individuals are male. The “people” the IOC is finally working to exclude from women’s sports are men, who possess inherent biological advantages. The IOC’s screening focuses on the SRY gene, which is necessary for the development of male testes. If you have the SRY gene, you almost certainly undergo male development. Male athletes like Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya have made the rounds on public television after seizing Olympic glory and causing physical harm to the women they face in competition. Semenya’s statement that his “testicles do not make [me] less of a woman” has been widely cited. We now understand that these male athletes are not isolated cases but two of dozens and dozens at the elite level. This has been a major scandal in women’s sports, and one that the IOC is finally trying to make right. It’s a return to common sense and a recognition that women absolutely deserve fair competition apart from men. Megan Rapinoe’s suggestion that we cannot figure out what a woman is is crazy and simply untrue. She knows firsthand the performance differences between men and women and the effects of sex on athletic outcomes. It was her team, after all, who lost to a group of boys playing for a U-15 team. If professional women athletes lose to a bunch of 15-year-olds, what chance would the women have against grown men? Her former co-captain, Carli Lloyd, rightfully defended the loss by noting that the size difference between the boys and the women all but guaranteed the youth team’s victory. “They should beat us. Bigger, stronger, faster!” This isn’t hard. Eligibility screening for the women’s category is necessary. The real issue now is ensuring these protections extend beyond elite sport. Women and girls should not have to reach the Olympic level to be treated fairly. SRY gene screening should be implemented at every level. Young girls who love sports deserve the chance to dream, compete, and succeed without being measured against a male standard. The IOC’s decision to deliver women’s sports back to women is the beginning of the end to this utter nonsense, and we’re leaving the traitors of women, like Rapinoe and Bird, in our dust. *** Kim Jones and Marshi Smith are former NCAA athletes and the co-founders of ICONS, or Independent Council on Women’s Sports, a network and advocacy group comprised of current and former collegiate and professional women athletes, their families, and supporters. 

After President Donald Trump warned that the United States could target Iran’s energy infrastructure, critics overlooked that such strikes have been a standard practice of modern warfare for nearly a century. “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran,” Trump posted Sunday on Truth Social. “There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F*ckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.” He reiterated the warning Monday, telling reporters, “Every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o’clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again. I mean complete demolition by 12 o’clock, and it will happen over a period of four hours if we wanted to — we don’t want that to happen.” Critics responded by warning such actions could violate international law. A spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned against targeting civilian infrastructure. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-NJ) accused Trump of proposing “mass war crimes,” arguing that destroying bridges and power plants would both harm innocent civilians and fail to reopen the Strait. Erika Guevara-Rosas of Amnesty International similarly stated that attacks on power plants are “generally prohibited” and could be unlawful if they cause disproportionate civilian harm. Yet targeting energy and infrastructure has long been a cornerstone of military strategy. During World War II, during the Ploești Raids in 1943 (Operation Tidal Wave), U.S. bombers launched a high-risk raid on the Romanian oil refineries that supplied roughly 30% of Nazi Germany’s fuel. By 1944, relentless bombing of coal-to-liquid fuel plants (like those at Leuna) helped cripple German military operations due to fuel shortages. In the Korean War, Operation Pressure Pump in 1952 saw U.S. forces attack major hydroelectric plants, knocking out roughly 90% of North Korea’s power grid and even causing blackouts in parts of China. During the Vietnam War, in Operation Rolling Thunder, the U.S. targeted North Vietnamese petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) storage facilities. Later in the war, during Operation Linebacker, the U.S. used “smart bombs” (laser-guided) to strike the thermal power plants in Hanoi, significantly disrupting the city’s electricity. In the 1991 Gulf War, U.S.-led coalition forces destroyed or disabled nearly 90% of Iraq’s national power grid within days. The United States used specialized “Graphite Bombs” (non-lethal wire-dropping canisters) to short-circuit electrical substations. More recently, during the 2011 Libya intervention, NATO forces targeted fuel and logistics infrastructure (including refueling equipment) used by Muammar Gaddafi’s military. In the war against ISIS, Operation Tidal Wave II  targeted the oil infrastructure controlled by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

Foreign adversaries have figured out what American political campaigns are still learning: in a world where public opinion shapes policy, the battle for hearts and minds is fought on your phone. Iran, China, and Russia cannot compete with the United States militarily. But they can reach directly into your living room through social media, front organizations, and direct support of protest movements. All of this with the intent of making voters question whether the fight du jour, in this case Iran, is even worth it. The bombs were falling on Iran when the protesters hit the streets. Within hours, people flooded Times Square and other cities across the country. Signs were already printed, chants rehearsed, and logistics arranged. That kind of speed doesn’t happen organically. Truth-exposing outlets like Daily Wire, Free Press, and others have highlighted this now routine phenomenon. In this case, at the center of the anti-Iran war movement sits the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). This is the same type of group that organized anti-ICE protests, pro-Maduro rallies, and anti-Israel demonstrations in recent months. They are part of the “demonstration-industrial complex.” They’re pivoting to Iran right on cue. America’s foes aren’t the only ones who want to sway American public opinion. Ukraine built a sophisticated information campaign in the early days of the Russian invasion: the Ghost of Kyiv, the Snake Island defenders, a little girl playing violin in a bomb shelter. The most devastating piece of content wasn’t a battlefield report, but a photograph of a dead woman’s outstretched hand, a keychain with a small EU flag lying in the street beside her. Those stories made an impact, and the public continues to support Ukraine in its fight today. Every government and non-state actor that understands the opportunity will, and does, weaponize social media accordingly. And now these wars have made social media a front of modern battlefields. But here’s where I would push back as a pollster, because the data compels me to. Our most recent Cygnal National Voter Trends (NVT) survey, conducted March 3-4 among 1,500 likely voters, found Americans are genuinely split on the Iran strikes: 50% support and 44% oppose. These numbers aren’t fringe on either side, and when you look underneath the surface, the ideological geography is revealing. Among Democratic women under 45, opposition to the strikes reaches 89%. Put another way, nine in 10 Democratic women under 45 oppose American strikes against Iran. That’s a substantial bloc of the American public that has absorbed a coherent, emotionally resonant narrative about American aggression, and they believe it. The data on accepting law-breaking, something Daily Wire has covered extensively, is equally striking and tragically relevant. In October, Cygnal asked whether it was acceptable to go beyond peaceful protest to oppose ICE raids, like those in Minneapolis. Overall, 42 percent of self-identified liberals said yes. Among liberal women 18-44, that number climbed to 61 percent. These are Americans angry enough about what they’re witnessing in this country that they are willing to risk arrest, or worse. That’s precisely what happened when Renee Good was killed in Minneapolis while using her vehicle to block law enforcement from executing an ICE operation. What she did was not a peaceful protest. It was illegal. And yet, a solid majority of Gen Z and Millennial women who share her politics believed (and as of March still believe) that physically impeding ICE agents is perfectly acceptable. Many Americans (predominantly young and liberal) have convinced themselves they’re resisting literal Nazis. They consume media that constantly reinforces the message and have become radicalized. Radicals always believe they are the hero in their own story, fighting villains so terrible that breaking all the rules is justified. The logic is the same whether the villain is Donald Trump, Zionists, or someone new. That belief structure is real. It’s not just a bot farm in Beijing. This is the new landscape of American foreign policy. Every major action the U.S. takes abroad now triggers an immediate domestic information battle. Foreign adversaries don’t manufacture voter sentiment from scratch; they find real grievances, real emotions, real people, and pour accelerant on the fire. No doubt this is an alarming confluence that requires holding two things in one’s head at once: that many protesters are genuinely motivated Americans, and that the machinery amplifying their voices deserves real scrutiny. It is possible to take individual protesters seriously while also asking hard questions about who is organizing, funding, and benefitting from movements that materialize within hours of a military strike against the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism. Ukraine understood that American public opinion was a battleground and fought for it effectively. Iran’s proxies and China understand the same thing. The only question is whether we do. *** Alex Tarascio is a pollster and Partner at Cygnal.

The Trump administration is considering a new plan to pressure sanctuary cities to change their ways. In his first interview since his confirmation, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said Monday that he’s weighing pulling Customs officers from major airports in sanctuary cities to force them to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The move would effectively prevent international travel through those airports. “I believe sanctuary cities is not lawful,” Mullin told Fox News’ Bret Baier. “I don’t think they’re able to do that, and so we’re gonna take a hard look at this.” He pointed specifically to international airports as a potential pressure point. “If they’re sanctuary cities, should they really be processing Customs into their city?” Mullin asked. “If they’re a sanctuary city and they’re receiving international flights, and we’re asking them to partner with us at the airport, but once they walk out of the airport they’re not gonna enforce immigration policy, maybe we need to have a really hard look at that because we need to focus on cities that want to work with us.” President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement effort has targeted some sanctuary cities by flooding them with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and Border Patrol agents. One such operation took place in Chicago last year, where local authorities are restricted from working with ICE. Mullin suggested the potential policy change comes alongside broader resource constraints and political battles in Washington, including a partial government shutdown over Democrats’ demands to dramatically reform ICE. “We’re gonna have to start prioritizing things at some point,” Mullin said. “Right now, a number of the Democrats are wanting to defund Customs and Border Patrol. Well, who processes those individuals when they walk off a plane? And so I’m gonna have to be forced to make hard decisions,” he added. Mullin: I believe sanctuary cities is not lawful. Some of these cities have international airports. If they are a sanctuary city, should they really be processing customs into their city? We need to have a really hard look at that. Baier: So you are saying that big cities that… pic.twitter.com/UAJxWFZtZI — Acyn (@Acyn) April 6, 2026 During his confirmation hearing last month, Mullin offered a willingness to implement “a better approach” for ICE, saying he “would love to see” the agency “become a transport more than the frontline.” “If we can get back into just simply working with law enforcement, we’re going to them and we’re picking up these criminals from their jail. One, we’re gonna reimburse them for having the person there, and that partnership is vitally important,” he said.

A congressional candidate running as a “100% pro-life” conservative with a “titanium backbone” once said a Georgia law banning abortion after an unborn baby’s heartbeat could be detected was “counter” to the majority of society and passed to satisfy the far right.  Former Hollywood executive Ryan Millsap, who’s running for Congress in Georgia’s 10th Congressional district, says he is fully pro-life. But years ago he said that the state’s heartbeat law was bad for business and urged lawmakers to reconsider pro-life protections, according to multiple interviews unearthed by The Daily Wire.  Millsap said Georgia’s heartbeat law, signed by Governor Brian Kemp in May 2019, was out of step with the western world in an interview with Deadline. He was CEO of the production company Blackhall Studios at the time.  “It was a scary time for those of us in the entertainment industry because a law like that would certainly put Georgia in a very awkward position relative to the modern English-speaking world,” Millsap said in June 2020. “It is a huge disadvantage if you live in a state that has laws on its books that are counter to the majority of society.” In the same interview, Millsap said that the law was only passed because Kemp was bowing to the far right. “The governor’s farthest-right support base wanted it and the governor’s farthest right support base asked him for it and … played a key role in getting him elected,” he said. “That put him in a very complicated position. … I believe the political winds required a bill.” After the bill was first passed by the legislature, Millsap said that boycotts from film studios targeting the state were economically, not politically driven. He said Hollywood was not “trying to impose its values” on the state.  “The production companies don’t care, necessarily, about the moral consequences, one way or the other, of a law. They care about their supply chain and business. And when we pass laws that disrupt their supply chain, it makes us less competitive to London or Canada,” he said in October 2019. “I think that the biggest worry is just whether or not Georgian politicians understand the value of the entertainment industry, understand that it’s a non-political set.”  Millsap also suggested that an injunction blocking the law after it went into effect allowed “business as usual” to move forward, but that the state had “some ground to make up” politically.  The heartbeat law went into full effect in October 2024 when the state Supreme Court ruled in its favor. At least 12 Republican-led states have enacted heartbeat or total bans on abortion.  “Ryan Millsap is a husband and father who believes in the miracle of life, has always been 100% pro-life and supports the state’s law now that the issue has been settled,” his campaign told The Daily Wire. “He believes that the Dobbs decision was correctly decided and that states should address this issue and that no federal funds should be used for abortion.” Millsap, who launched his campaign last month, is running as a political outsider and is campaigning on deporting illegal immigrants, banning congressional stock trading, and supporting cryptocurrency.  “I’m running to smash the status quo and fight back against the radical Left and the RINOs. I bought into their lies, too. But COVID and Antifa made me realize they sold us out,” he said in his campaign launch ad. He told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he was running “because we need someone with a titanium backbone who doesn’t care about climbing the political ladder but is running to defeat the radical left once and for all and end the reign of radical lunatic liberals and impotent RINOs in Congress.” The other two candidates running for the district are plumber Jeff Baker and state Rep. Houston Gaines. The Daily Wire reached out to both to ask for their position on abortion.  Gaines voted for the heartbeat bill during his time in the legislature shortly after he flipped a state House seat back Republican.  “As a Christian and a conservative, I’m proud to be pro-life and will always stand up for what’s right. When Democrats tried to threaten me, I stood strong and passed Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill,” Gaines told The Daily Wire. “While my opponent joined Hollywood to fight Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill with everything he had, we got it done. Georgia stands for life.” Baker said he is “100% pro-life with exception to health of mother. Abortion in any other respect is murder and is against my Christian beliefs.” “I would support a Constitutional Amendment that states life begins at conception,” he added. Gaines has been endorsed by House GOP leaders like Reps. Jim Jordan, Steve Scalise, and Tom Emmer. A debate for the GOP candidates is set for April 12.