The Biden blob is apparently trying to make a comeback and even Democrats sound exhausted by it. A growing fight is breaking out inside Democratic foreign policy circles as some of the same officials tied to President Joe Biden’s most controversial global decisions quietly begin regrouping for 2028. And according to a lengthy new report from Puck News, plenty of Democrats are openly asking the same question: seriously, these guys again? At the center of the drama is former Biden National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and the network of Obama-Biden foreign policy operatives often referred to inside Washington as the “Biden bros.” That circle includes familiar names like Antony Blinken, Jon Finer, Brett McGurk, and others who helped shape Biden-era policy on Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran. Now many of them are reemerging through a revived Democratic foreign policy group called National Security Action, which reportedly gathered party insiders in Manhattan recently to begin plotting what Democratic foreign policy could look like in 2028. The reaction inside parts of the Democratic Party has not exactly been enthusiastic. “This is the Jake and Jon Show: Redux, and nobody I know is happy about it,” one former senior State Department official told Puck. That pretty much sums up the vibe. The frustration appears to go far beyond Republicans criticizing Biden’s foreign policy record. According to the report, Democrats themselves are increasingly furious over everything from the Afghanistan withdrawal to the administration’s handling of Gaza, while others remain angry over what they describe as efforts to cover up Biden’s decline while still clinging to power politically. One Democrat quoted in the piece bluntly said the old Biden foreign policy crowd is “canceled and they don’t realize it.” Ouch. The article paints a picture of a Democratic Party quietly tearing itself apart behind closed doors over whether the same establishment figures who dominated the Obama and Biden years should continue controlling foreign policy heading into the next presidential cycle. And the backlash is not just ideological. Some Democrats reportedly view the group as arrogant, insulated, and unwilling to let a younger generation take over. The timing also matters. President Donald Trump is back in office, global tensions continue escalating, and Democrats are now trying to figure out what exactly their foreign policy identity even is after years of internal fighting over Israel, Ukraine, interventionism, and progressive activism. That is where the anxiety around Sullivan seems to hit hardest. For progressives, Sullivan became closely tied to Biden’s support for Israel during the Gaza war. For hawks, critics say the administration looked weak and indecisive abroad. For others, the issue is simpler: they believe the same people who helped run the last administration are already trying to reclaim influence before voters have even fully processed what happened. Still, the old guard does not appear interested in quietly disappearing. The revived organization recently brought in Maher Bitar, a Palestinian-American foreign policy official tied to Adam Schiff and Biden’s National Security Council, as part of an effort to present a newer face for the group. But even that move reportedly sparked skepticism from Democrats who saw it as little more than a rebrand of the same old network. For now, one thing seems clear. The Biden era may technically be over, but the people behind it are not ready to let go of power just yet.

Britain’s political establishment woke up this morning in a state of shock. Across England in the local council elections — the rough equivalent of a “midterm” on that side of the Atlantic — voters abandoned both Labour and the Conservatives in droves, handing huge gains to Reform U.K. in what commentators are already calling a political earthquake. The Westminster class will spend days analyzing swing percentages, demographic shifts, and campaign strategies. But the reason ordinary Britons revolted is much simpler than the experts would like to admit. Whether in rural towns or urban centers, people are sick of a political elite obsessed with policing speech, policing thought, and policing “offense” while failing to police actual crime. The message was clear: “Enough.” Enough of watching violent crime spiral in major cities while police forces spend their time monitoring tweets and recording “non-crime hate incidents.” Enough of hearing endless lectures about “harmful language” while grooming gang scandals continue to haunt communities across the North of England, with victims still waiting for justice and accountability. Enough of watching peaceful Christians being dragged through the courts for expressing their faith, while ordinary citizens increasingly feel unsafe in their own streets. And nowhere is that national frustration more vividly embodied than in the conviction this week of retired Northern Irish pastor Clive Johnston — on the very same day that Brits took to the polls. A 78-year-old grandfather now has a criminal record because he preached from the Bible outdoors. Not for harassment. Not for violence. Not for obstruction. Not even for mentioning abortion. His crime? Preaching a message from John 3:16 at a small outdoor Sunday service held near a hospital, where a large “buffer zone” is in place covering several streets, banning anything the police interpret to be “influence.” That is modern Britain in a nutshell. The authorities insist these buffer zone laws are designed to prevent intimidation outside abortion facilities. Of course, nobody should be harassed anywhere on British streets, and legislation already exists to prevent that. But Johnston’s case revealed something much bigger — and much darker. Police bodycam footage shown in court captured officers telling the pastor he should share the Gospel only inside a “safe area” like a chaplaincy, not on the public street where passers-by might hear him, and potentially take offense. Think carefully about what that means. Britain now has areas of public space where peaceful Christian expression can effectively become criminal if somebody decides it might “influence” another person. Christianity, apparently, is acceptable only when carefully confined to approved spaces. Meanwhile, in city after city, police forces that somehow lack the resources to tackle shoplifting epidemics, anti-social behavior, knife crime, or organized exploitation networks can apparently still find the time and manpower to prosecute elderly pastors quoting Scripture, or individual women stopping to pray in their own heads. It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of institutional priorities gone mad. This is precisely why voters are abandoning both establishment parties. The Conservatives spent years talking tough on culture war issues while presiding over the steady erosion of free speech and public order alike. Labour, meanwhile, has abysmally failed to restore confidence in basic law enforcement. Ordinary people look around their communities and see disorder tolerated, borders abused by criminal traffickers, anti-social behavior normalized, and public institutions increasingly hostile to traditional values — especially Christian ones. Then they watch a pensioner being prosecuted for preaching the Gospel. They conclude, quite rationally, that the people running the country no longer share their instincts about right and wrong. The revolt we witnessed in the elections was not simply economic, but moral and cultural. Across Britain, there is a growing sense that the authorities have become harsher toward the decent than toward the dangerous. They certainly seem more comfortable targeting peaceful Christians than confronting genuinely difficult social problems. A nation cannot function when millions of ordinary citizens begin to believe there are effectively two systems of policing: one lenient toward chaos, and another aggressively punitive toward citizens who hold unfashionable beliefs. Britain birthed America with all her understandings of liberty and democracy. This parental nation was not built on the idea that faith belongs hidden away in private rooms while the public square is handed over entirely to secular bureaucracies and activist-approved ideology. Britain was shaped by Christianity — culturally, morally, legally, and politically. From the abolition of slavery to the creation of charitable institutions, Christian belief has always shaped public life openly and unapologetically. What voters increasingly reject is not merely “wokeness” as a slogan. They reject a governing philosophy that treats traditional values and Christian beliefs as suspect while excusing failure everywhere else. The election results show that the old political consensus is breaking apart. People want order restored. They want police focused on violent criminals, traffickers, gangs, and repeat offenders — not elderly pastors preaching John 3:16. *** Lois McLatchie Miller (@loismclatch) is a writer and social commentator from Great Britain, focusing on the state of free speech, faith, and family across the globe.

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. *** Mother’s Day exalts womankind’s top job: motherhood. Roughly 86% of women qualify as mothers on this day of ‘grammable glory, but the celebration leaves 4 million women out in the cold. Casting a wide net, the price of admission into this 24-hour hall of fame is simple: your child. Your human child, not the furry kind with four legs and a tail — at least, if you hope to keep your dignity intact. Though Moms deserve their special moment, the cultural rush to get all types of “moms” in on the action raises the question: Why can’t we have another holiday to celebrate all the great ladies in our lives? National Dog Mom’s Day on the same weekend doesn’t quite do it. There should be another day to honor the women and mother figures we love, and, technically, there is: International Women’s Day. But here in the U.S., the day is synonymous with celebrating every leftist policy you can imagine. What started as a day meant to elevate all girls and women was largely co-opted by those insisting on wrestling it into something like a “Day for Women’s Rights” or “Feminist New Year’s Eve.” It was riddled with stats about women and girls who were murdered by male family members, alleged gender pay gaps, and lax laws against rape and domestic abuse.   This, according to the rules of fun parties, is the complete opposite of something a person outside the group would ever be inclined to celebrate. No offense to the tattooed girl with the fuzzy pink hair and cheek piercings working behind the counter of my local bookstore. Girl, Women’s Day is for xe/xem/you. Have the best time at the next protest for the current thing. My first encounter with the Women’s Day concept was enlightening. At the time, I was working a side job as a food delivery driver in Los Angeles (while I hustled on becoming a famous actor, naturally). A prolific blogger for my five subscribers, I happily detailed my life as a fun SoCal gal, totally buying into the message about not needing children in order to validate my existence. Hello, women were editors of high fashion magazines, famous actresses, and inventors of Spanx! I didn’t need to know if these boss babes had kids or could pay for nannies and IVF. The point was that their careers defined them, not their families. A killer shoe closet or a cute loft apartment was just as good. At least, that’s what I thought. I arrived at the Bel Air home of a woman who greeted me with a smile as she emerged from an entryway that was overflowing with flowers. I assumed her sunny glow meant no one had died.  “Ooo, is it someone’s birthday?” I couldn’t think of any other occasions on March 8 and was trying to attach a story to the $400 Sugarfish sushi order I had ferried to her door.  “We’re celebrating Women’s Day!” she said. “It’s like your Mother’s Day here, but in Sweden we honor all women. These are from my husband to me,” she explained, gesturing toward an obscene arrangement of luscious white roses. Pointing to two more, she added, “And these are for our daughters.” It included all the women in the home. The pure, loving gesture of appreciation seemed nice. I walked back to my car, wondering why the heck we didn’t do Women’s Day in the U.S. I found out later that Women’s Day was launched internationally by Marxist Clara Zetkin in early-1900s Denmark (stay with me!), spreading to millions of women worldwide who put their own spin on it. Italy’s practically covered with mimosa blossoms for La Festa della Donna. And in Russia, the national public holiday is marked by special meals, gifts, and champagne. Even in China, working women get half a day off for “self-care.” Without the heavy yoke of politics, it’s a day where every woman, young and old, blossoms into her own. Maybe the problem is that all holidays eventually become avenues for propaganda or corporate profit. The whole Mother’s Day idea started in 1908 as an initiative by Philadelphia teacher Anna Jarvis to celebrate moms with a modest white carnation and a visit to the local church. Once President Woodrow Wilson put it on the calendar, things went off the rails. Jarvis formally disowned the holiday before she died in 1948, lamenting its commercialization. These days, greeting cards and flower bouquets have turned Mother’s Day into a $38 billion industry.  Women make up more than half the population but control 85% of purchasing power in the U.S., and they drop more than $31 trillion worldwide. As L’Oréal drilled into generations of women’s heads, “If I pay more, I feel I get more. And I’m worth it.” Sold. On top of this relentless commercialization, Mother’s Day presents its own conundrum. The tragic loss of a child, a long struggle with infertility, or the estrangement of a family member can add stress to a day that’s marketed as being full of love and chocolate truffles. Maybe it’s an impossible task, getting it right for everyone. I was lucky enough to get the best mom in the biz. And I enjoy participating in motherhood and raising children in a supporting role as an aunt, daughter, and sister. I also recognize the incredible dedication and hard work it takes to be a parent. You don’t hear too many stories about someone’s last words being about a compelling corporate presentation. It’s family. Full stop.  Maybe someday we’ll find a real way to recognize the value in all women and girls, just as they are. Protect Mother’s Day for mothers, and let Women’s Day celebrate women without all the corporate feminist politics. There’s got to be a way to honor our sisters, aunts, girlfriends, daughters, nurturers, neighbors, and friends, no strings attached.

America is still lovin’ it. More than a year after President Donald Trump’s viral McDonald’s campaign stop took over the internet during the 2024 election, we are finally learning how the unforgettable fast-food moment actually came together. Speaking this week about the now-famous campaign event, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles revealed it was the campaign team that pitched the idea of Trump working the fryer at a McDonald’s during the final stretch of the race. Trump quickly signed off on it for one very simple reason: “He eats it every single day,” Wiles said. Back on October 20, 2024, Trump stopped at a McDonald’s in battleground Pennsylvania and instantly created one of the defining images of the election cycle. Wearing an apron and standing behind the fryer, Trump cooked fries, joked with workers, and handed food through the drive-thru window as supporters packed the area outside. The stop was also widely viewed as a jab at then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who had previously claimed she worked at McDonald’s when she was younger, though the story later became heavily debated during the campaign. But the event was about more than trolling political opponents. The campaign reportedly saw the stunt as a way to connect directly with working Americans, especially considering roughly one in eight Americans have worked at McDonald’s at some point in their lives. The message was simple: Trump wanted to position himself as someone who respected those jobs and the people working them every day. The unforgettable campaign gimmick exploded into a massive viral moment. Within hours, photos and videos of Trump behind the fryer flooded social media. Memes spread everywhere. Supporters turned the moment into merchandise. Even critics who mocked the stunt admitted it completely hijacked the news cycle. Now Wiles is pulling back the curtain on why the campaign believed it would connect so strongly in the first place. The answer was authenticity. Trump has spent decades openly talking about his love of McDonald’s and fast food. Whether aboard Trump Force One or on the campaign trail, stories about his McDonald’s habit have followed him for years. The campaign apparently understood something many political consultants still do not. Americans can spot a fake photo-op from a mile away. But Trump standing inside a McDonald’s looked less like a consultant-crafted stunt and more like something he would genuinely be doing on a random night. More than a year later, people are still talking about it.

“Tower, Frontier 4345, we’re stopping on the runway. Uh, we just hit somebody… we have an engine fire.” That transmission crackling over air traffic control audio Friday night after a Frontier Airlines jet struck a person on the runway during takeoff, triggering panic onboard and a fiery emergency evacuation. It happened shortly after 11:15 p.m. as Frontier Flight 4345 was accelerating for departure. According to officials and air traffic control audio, the aircraft hit an individual who was somehow on the runway during takeoff. The person who was struck was killed, according to reports. An official says the victim was at least partially pulled into one of the plane’s engines, sparking a brief fire that firefighters later extinguished. Inside the cabin, passengers reportedly began noticing smoke as pilots slammed the brakes and stopped the Airbus A321 on the runway. Emergency slides were deployed and travelers evacuated directly onto the tarmac before being bused back to the terminal. The flight was carrying 224 passengers and seven crew members. Officials said at least one passenger was hurt during the evacuation, though no major injuries onboard were immediately confirmed. Moments after the impact, the crew warned air traffic control that conditions onboard were deteriorating. “We’ve got smoke on the aircraft, we’re gonna evacuate on the runway,” the pilot said. Authorities still do not know why the person was on the runway in the middle of an active takeoff zone. A source briefed on the investigation told ABC News the individual does not appear connected to nearby construction work taking place around another runway area. The runway was shut down following the incident as investigators combed through the scene. The National Transportation Safety Board has been notified and Frontier says it is coordinating with airport officials to determine exactly what happened. Frontier called the incident “deeply saddening” in a statement released early Saturday morning. The flight to Los Angeles has since been rescheduled.