U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the Republican Party’s most influential voices on national security and a close ally of President Donald Trump, has died at 71 after what his office described as a “brief and sudden illness.” “On the evening of Saturday, July 11, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham passed away from a brief and sudden illness. Senator Graham’s family appreciates prayers at this time and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period,” his office said in a statement Sunday morning. A cause of death has not yet been released, though emergency responders were reportedly dispatched to Graham’s Capitol Hill home for a cardiac arrest. https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2076211412112670839 The longtime politician had served as a United States senator for South Carolina since 2003. This is a breaking story. Stay with The Daily Wire for updates.

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars. *** In 1775, a Harvard professor named Edward Wigglesworth sat down and did some math. The American colonies were doubling in population every 20 years, primarily due to a high birth rate. Projecting forward, he calculated that by the year 2000, America would have a population of 1.28 billion people. He wrote the number in capital letters, as he was so overwhelmed by the thought. When the year 2000 arrived, we came in about a billion short. A new report from the Institute for Family Studies, “The Demographic Dead End,” opens with Wigglesworth’s forecast and then explains, in careful and sometimes alarming detail, why it failed and what comes next. The authors, demographer Lyman Stone and researcher Peter Foreshaw Brookes, have built what they call the most reliable published reconstruction of historic American fertility: birth rates for every state back to 1917, and for Massachusetts back to 1660. The report was released to mark the country’s 250th birthday. Click here for more Manhattan Institute content. The headline finding is simple. The American birthrate has fallen below 1.6 children per woman. Replacement fertility requires about 2.1. The United States is now in its third extended period of below-replacement fertility, after the Great Depression years and a stretch from 1972 to 1989. The current period, though, has lasted longer and fallen lower than either of the previous two. If the trend continues, Stone and Brookes project that the American population will peak around 351 million in the 2050s and then decline. Why? Here the authors have uncovered something genuinely novel: evidence that the fertility collapse is not only economic, but social. Americans are not having fewer children because they want fewer children. They are having fewer children, in part, because friendship has thinned and social support for family life has weakened. Surveys show that Americans want more children than they are likely to have. The IFS report puts desired family size at about 2.4 children on average; a 2025 Gallup survey found an even higher ideal family size of 2.7 children. Americans are actually on track for fewer than 1.6. The gap between desired and actual family size is the widest it has been since the early 1970s. So what is blocking people? The standard answers are money and housing, and the report takes those seriously. But its centerpiece is a new survey of 4,784 Americans between 18 and 50, and the results point somewhere else: at peer culture. The researchers asked respondents how many kids their three closest friends had, and how those friends would react if the respondent had another baby. Would they offer to help? Cook meals after the birth? Or would they worry about their career stalling or stop inviting them out? The answers were associated, to a startling degree, with the desire to have children. For Americans under 30 with the least supportive friends, desired family size was about 1.7 children. For those with the most supportive friends, it was 2.8. That is a full extra child, associated with nothing more than having trusted friends who show up. Compare that with religion, the variable social scientists often concentrate on when looking at birth rates. Young Americans who never attend religious services want about two children. Regular attendees want about 2.7. Religion matters, but helpful friends matter just as much, if not more, and the statistical models suggest the two effects are separate. Additionally, having friends with kids predicts wanting more kids yourself. The report shares a striking null result: the closeness of people’s relationships with their own parents predicts almost nothing about how many children they want. The average family size of peers matters about twice as much as the respondent’s own number of siblings in childhood. Psychologists will not find this shocking. Humans are mimetic creatures. We calibrate our appetites, our outlooks, and our life plans by watching the people around us, as well as the people just above us. So it should not surprise us that the report finds a “celebrity effect” as well. Respondents named the public figure they most admired. The researchers then looked up how many children that figure had. Each additional child born to an admired celebrity predicted about 0.15 more desired children for the fan. The effect was strongest among young women. It is “empirically possible,” the authors write, “that paying Taylor Swift a billion dollars to have children might produce more children in society than spending the same money on child tax credits, if her choice sways her wide fanbase.” Still, there is a crucial catch in the data. Admired celebrities and friends with kids shape what people want. They do not shape what people do. When the researchers looked at actual intentions—meaning couples who wanted more children and concretely planned to have them—the celebrity effect nearly vanished. In fact, the only social variable that still moved intentions was having friends who would actually help: watch the baby, bring the meals, change the diapers. Having supportive friends raised the share of couples intending to have another child from around 30 percent to about 45 percent. Put simply: ambient culture sets the aspiration, but real-world friends lead to actual births. A society can be awash in pro-family influencers and still be barren if nobody is willing to babysit. Friendship, though, is collapsing. The number of close friends Americans report has been falling for decades. Time spent with friends has dropped sharply, particularly for the young. The report cites new economics research with a title that says it all: “Is the iPhone Birth Control?” The study contends that smartphone adoption itself depressed birthrates. Seen this way, the fertility crisis looks less like an economic problem and more like a downstream symptom of the loneliness problem. The friendship recession and the baby bust are the same recession. What to do? Stone and Brookes offer a policy program bolder than the usual child tax-credit tinkering. The flagship is what they call American Birthday Accounts: invest $15,000 at every citizen’s birth, let it compound, and unlock it only when that child grows up and has children of his or her own. A married couple could receive on the order of $100,000 at a first birth. The authors estimate that this could raise birthrates by 20 to 40 percent, at a cost of less than 1 percent of the federal budget. But the more original ideas are the cultural ones, and they follow from the friendship data. Perhaps most provocatively, the authors suggest “digital blue laws” that would tax smartphone data usage on weekends to nudge people off their phones and back into each other’s living rooms. Some of these ideas will strike readers as fanciful. But the diagnosis behind them is hard to dismiss. For most of human history, children were raised inside a thick web of siblings, neighbors, and friends. Nobody had to be persuaded that family life was aspirational, because it was visible everywhere. We have thinned that web to a few strands and are surprised that people hesitate to envision babies within it. The report ends with a note of optimism: demographic decline is a choice, and choices can be reversed. The question is whether Americans are willing to rebuild the ordinary social world that once made children thinkable: full pews, crowded porches, friends within walking distance. A country that cannot produce friendship will not produce much of anything else. *** This is republished with permission from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. The original can be found here. Rob Henderson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a City Journal contributing editor, and the best-selling author of Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class.

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance says there is “clear evidence” that 23-year-old accused assassin Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, he shared in an interview with The Daily Wire, but that he is “always going to wonder” who radicalized his friend’s killer. The vice president shared that he managed to follow parts of Utah hearing for Robinson, though not all of it, and he told The Daily Wire that “the evidence against Robinson is just really, really compelling.” In a wide ranging interview as the hearing concluded on Friday, Vance put a rest to the notion that he believes the viral conspiracy theories about Kirk’s death, stating firmly that Robinson killed his friend. “Do I think Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger and killed Charlie Kirk? Absolutely,” Vance said. “I think the evidence is clear on that.“ Throughout the past week, prosecutors spent days revealing surveillance footage, forensic evidence, an alleged confession note, and testimony from Robinson’s ex-roommate and transgender lover Lance Twiggs, as well as Robinson’s parents. Vance and Kirk were close friends, and Vance has spoken openly about the role Kirk played in convincing President Donald Trump to choose him as his vice president. Vance addressed claims in an upcoming book from New York Times journalists Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, who report that Vance’s “instincts told him that there was a larger plot behind” Kirk’s murder in the days following Kirk’s death. Swan and Haberman wrote that Vance “went down countless online rabbit holes, becoming so consumed by the videos and the theories that his wife, Usha, told him she was worried about him.” The vice president emphasized that the aspect of Kirk’s death that will always haunt him is the possibility that other individuals were involved in radicalizing Robinson. Vice President JD Vance, Usha Vance, and Erika Kirk escort the body of Charlie Kirk on September 11, 2025 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images) “Do I think that Tyler Robinson is part of a broader network of left wing radicals who have fomented and encouraged violence? Absolutely. Do I know that they communicated with Tyler Robinson before the shooting? No, I don’t have evidence for that.” “I’m always going to wonder,” Vance said. “I’m always going to wonder what was said and how many contacts he had beforehand. By the way, it doesn’t mean that [Robinson’s] any less guilty. But do I wonder if there are other people who are more directly involved in Charlie’s murder? Absolutely, because I don’t think that it’s possible for a young man to get radicalized like that without somebody encouraging him, whether informally or formally.” “I think there are a lot of people with blood on their hands in the case of Charlie Kirk, but of course, the person most directly who has blood on their hands is Tyler Robinson,” he concluded. “The truth is that Charlie is dead because a bunch of left-wing radicals have preached a message that it’s okay to kill people you disagree with, and unfortunately, for my friend and and importantly for his family, there’s at least one guy in Utah who took that message to heart and and and murdered a young innocent father,” Vance said. “The worst part about all of this is not my my personal grief, as much as that’s very real, and the country’s loss, but the fact that I know that Erika and two little kids are going to grow up without their husband and father.” Vance says his hope is that what transpired last September causes leftists to reconsider the violent rhetoric that they too often unleash against political opponents. “If I was on the left, whatever the ideas that I had about politics and policy, if I saw that the result of some of the violence that I pushed is the death of Charlie Kirk, I would think twice about what I said and what beliefs led me to advocate for violence against people,” he added. “Because way too many leftists have advocated for violence for too long in our country, and it’s had real consequences.”  Donald Trump Jr., then Vice President-elect JD Vance, and Charlie Kirk during the Turning Point USA Inaugural-Eve Ball.  (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images) During the court proceedings this week, the prosecution played an interview with Robinson’s ex-roommate and lover Lance Twiggs, showing some of their text exchanges about the murder. Twiggs revealed to the court that Robinson cried at their apartment after he shot and killed Kirk and said he wished “he hadn’t done it.” Vance said he had seen this report, calling it “very compelling evidence for a court of law.” He sighed as he added: “In all Christians, if we’re being honest for us, there is a thirst for justice and a thirst for vengeance. And you know what God encourages to do is to care about justice and not vengeance. And so, if I’m being honest, my mind wishes for justice and hopes that Tyler Robinson is able to find forgiveness and find mercy. But I don’t feel that, and I don’t particularly care about that person or what happens to him.” Reflecting on his own grief after the death of his friend, Vance said he remains as “heartbroken.” “I think selfishly, I was thinking about what it would mean for for us, for the movement, and then you know, non-selfishly, I was thinking about what it would mean for Erika and the kids,” he said. “And you know, Charlie was one of those guys who was not just a friend, he was sort of a confidant. He was a guy that I could rely on. He was a guy that I could confide in. And there aren’t that many people when you’re the vice president of the United States.” “It was a very, very big loss to me,” he shared. Vance also repeatedly returned to the impact that Kirk’s death has on his family, his wife Erika, and his two children.  “I think about this a lot as a young father, and this is probably the thought that I’ve had the most consistently since Charlie’s death: thank God, my kids are at an age where, if God forbid, something happened to me, they would they would have memories of me, and Charlie’s kids are at that age where, especially for his youngest child, but even for his oldest child, you just worry that a young father who poured his heart and soul into that family, you worry that those kids won’t have any memory of them, and I think that is the greatest tragedy of all of this.” “And I know it’s something Erika cares a lot about,” added Vance. “It’s certainly something I’ve thought a lot about over the last year, but I think we have to take some some, as Lincoln would say, some measure of devotion to that, that his kids should know at the very least who he was, that that they were beloved, and that their dad gave his life fighting for the very best principles of the country that he loved.”

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) this week provisionally lifted its suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), opening the door to Russia’s potential return for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The announcement paves the way for Russia’s broader return to Olympic competition after several years of sanctions, doping scandals, and restrictions tied to both state-sponsored cheating and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Within days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the IOC moved to bar Russian athletes and teams from competition — formally suspending the ROC in October 2023 over its absorption of sports organizations in occupied Ukrainian territory. According to The Guardian, only 27 Russian athletes were permitted to compete at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris and the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina after undergoing vetting to demonstrate they had not supported the war. Those athletes competed as Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN), without Russia’s flag or anthem. Russian athletes had already spent years competing under modified designations because of sanctions tied to the country’s state-sponsored doping scandal. They competed as Olympic Athletes from Russia in 2018 and later under the Russian Olympic Committee banner, rather than officially representing their country. Russia has historically been one of the strongest Olympic nations, meaning its return could significantly expand the field in several sports.  While the IOC has maintained its stance against the ongoing invasion, its president, Kirsty Coventry, doesn’t believe athletes should pay the price.  “We wanted to ensure all athletes have the possibility to compete at the Olympic Games and not be held responsible for their government’s actions,” Coventry said.  “The decision allows for Russian athletes to take part in sport competitions – but we have also been very clear that we do not support violence around the world,” she added. According to the IOC, the suspension was provisionally lifted after the Russian Olympic Committee removed regional sports organizations in Ukrainian territory from its membership. The IOC said the special participation conditions it imposed on Russian athletes following the suspension are no longer applicable. The decision does not amount to a complete restoration of Russia’s Olympic status. The IOC said all Russian athletes returning to international competition must continue to meet anti-doping requirements. It also will not organize IOC events in Russia or invite the Russian government or state officials to its events. The IOC said it will decide at a later date whether Russia may display its flag, colors, anthem, or other national identifiers at the Olympic Games.

Netflix has had some hits. The series finale of “Stranger Things,” for example, pulled in 31.3 million views worldwide, and it wasn’t even the streamer’s biggest show. That would be “Squid Game,” season one of which achieved 265.2 million views. Season one of the second-biggest series, “Wednesday,” released in 2022, drew 252.1 million views. Season two of “Wednesday,” released in 2025, dropped to 119.3 million views. Season three is slated for release in 2027 – that’s three seasons in five years. Since Netflix began offering original programming, though, it’s canceled 85 series, at least at the time of writing. The problem is that those cancellations are basically Netflix’s specialty. While easy to attribute the gaps between seasons to the dropoff in numbers, and thus the need to cancel, it’s not just that, though the gaps are ridiculous. It’s the business model. It lives to cancel series. And while the service is profitable, it also sucks. Killing programming shouldn’t be the goal of production studios. Substacker Aakash Gupta has a theory about why Netflix suffers in a way that, say, HBO Max does not. On X, he posited that the gaps punish Netflix twice. That is, since it releases series all at once, it encourages bingeing, but then when people have to wait years for another season, they’ve lost interest. HBO Max, which also has ridiculous gaps between seasons, at least draws them out, forcing people to wait between episodes. That creates a stickier product because viewers invest months in each season rather than a weekend. This could be accurate – or not. Streaming services don’t like sharing their data because it could be used by competitors. Perhaps it is that Netflix’s internal metrics reveal a much less popular show than it would seem to viewers. On the other hand, it could be that the company is simply quick to cancel rather than putting in the effort to develop a show, such as network favorite “The Office,” with massive potential. This happens, or at least used to happen, more than people realized. “Seinfeld” had a weak start, something even we fans have to admit. “Cheers,” which ended up wildly successful, was almost canceled in its first season. “Futurama” has been canceled twice, with its final season streaming this year. This isn’t a phenomenon that’s unique to television, either. Many bands and artists that ended up with long, successful careers started off with a flop or two. Bruce Springsteen, Hall and Oates, Genesis, Pantera, Tori Amos, David Bowie, Shakira, Black Sabbath, Bob Dylan, and Bon Jovi all would’ve been axed had they been streaming shows. Musicians and bands, though, can bypass the studio gatekeepers much more easily now. For starters, the barriers to entry are much lower than they once were. They don’t need recording studios, just some equipment, an interface, and a laptop. Second, once they have a product, they can simply upload it to Spotify, SoundCloud, Beatport, and YouTube. Unless, God forbid, AI becomes a popular way to produce video content, it still costs money to make a show. And unlike music, a field which also became more ruthless when sabermetrics came to dominate all, it’s not as easy for those who want to make it to bypass those gatekeepers. Gone are the days of deciders with good instincts willing to take a chance on a product. Now, it’s all analytics. (Unrelated, but please comment and share this article, and subscribe if you don’t already do so.) And there is nothing inherently wrong with an analytical approach to business. The problem is when the business of art, which is what streaming platforms sell, becomes purely analytically driven. No, something like “Eastbound and Down” isn’t what people would traditionally consider art, but when you really dig into just how juvenile and vulgar Shakespeare was, you gain an appreciation for how sometimes being really old can change people’s perceptions. Incidentally, “Eastbound and Down,” an HBO show, is a more modern example of beating the system, even though it aired on cable. Part of its brilliance was Danny McBride’s. The show was filmed in North Carolina. Although there were family concerns, a major reason was the lack of direct flights from L.A. to Wilmington, which allowed them to create season one without interference from the executives. Season one was successful, and the studio trusted them moving forward. Now, though, the execs are always watching, keeping up with the numbers, canceling without compunction. And while it makes money, the modern system, particularly as Netflix employs it, doesn’t tend to create the lasting sort of programming that the old ways did. For even though “Stranger Things” closed out with strong numbers, it also closed out with a very anticlimactic ending, after only five seasons over nine and a half years. As things currently stand, the Netflix formula is unlikely to change unless its profits turn south. Which is a shame, because the future would be better with a return to executives looking to make not just money, but also great programming, even if the numbers don’t initially justify keeping a show on for another season. Step one is to get rid of the ridiculous gaps and the focus on bingeing. Both are overrated, and as the push notification from the Wall Street Journal I received while writing this suggests, they actually aren’t working out so well for maintaining overall engagement. The proposed solution? Adding live television, which is a revolutionary idea. In any case, maybe it’s not that analytics are bad after all, but how the executives respond to them. *** Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin’ Up a Story podcast, which you can listen to here. You can also follow him on X: @rcromwell4