President Donald Trump said on Monday that he had initially been a little bit “upset” when he learned the United States military had destroyed high quality Iranian ships instead of capturing and repurposing them. Trump made the comments while speaking at the Republican Members Conference, saying that he’d wondered at first why it wouldn’t have made more sense to keep the ships for American use rather than sink them. WATCH:

Over the weekend, reports started circulating about one of the prison guards who was on duty the night that Jeffrey Epstein died. The reports mention strange Google searches and mysterious cash deposits. So I decided to look into it. The DOJ, of course, released a batch of Epstein files a few weeks ago, but as a practical matter, it was impossible for anyone to go through all of the files in a timely fashion. There’s a lot of information to go over, and as a result, some very important stuff was missed. Today we’re going to go through some of that information, and what it means. Most of the revelations concern this security guard who was assigned to guard Epstein, and who was later charged in federal court for falsifying her logs. NEW BOMBSHELL

Just before Pixar celebrated their first big win of the year at the box office with “Hoppers,” Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter explained why the company decided to cut the gay storyline in the original film “Elio” last year. “Hoppers” is being lauded because it doesn’t push any inkling of LGBT themes that have become quite common in animated films recently. “Elio,” meanwhile, flirted with the idea, and it was widely considered to be a box office flop. The original narrative included tidbits about former director Adrian Molina’s experience growing up gay, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. But Docter said the studio opted to change it up because parents weren’t necessarily ready to have those discussions with their young children watching the film. “We’re making a movie, not hundreds of millions of dollars of therapy,” the Pixar exec said. “As time’s gone on, I realized my job is to make sure the films appeal to everybody.” The film tells the tale of an 11-year-old boy, Elio, who bonds with aliens. The outlet noted that the original storyline showed Elio raising a child in the future with a same sex partner. Upon its release, The Hollywood Reporter described Elio as a “queer-coded character” whose “characterization gradually faded away throughout the production process.” LGBT activists who worked on the film blamed these edits for its poor performance. “Suddenly, you remove this big, key piece, which is all about identity, and Elio just becomes about totally nothing,” one former Pixar artist told THR. “The Elio that is in theaters right now is far worse than Adrian’s best version of the original.” Another said the final character version was “generic.” Meanwhile, there was speculation that “Elio” never took off because those “queer coded” themes were leaked to the media and parents were avoiding it. After being understood as a hitmaker for years with beloved projects such as the “Toy Story” franchise beginning in 1995, “Monsters Inc” (2001), “Finding Nemo” (2003), “The Incredibles” (2004), “Up” (2009), “Inside Out,” (2015), and a slew of others, Pixar, which was acquired by Disney in 2006, seemed to lose its way by going too niche. It produced sequels to some of its most popular titles, but also came up with out-of-the-box concepts like the controversial “Turning Red” (2022), a movie about puberty. Then there was that whole “Lightyear” same sex kiss fiasco in 2022, which proved that even Pixar films based on treasured IP weren’t guaranteed to hit, especially if they included topics parents didn’t want their kids to see.

At the high-profile United Nations Commission on the Status of Women this week, the United States was the only nation in the world to vote against a woke document that failed to define what a woman is and promoted gender ideology and diversity, equity, and inclusion principles, The Daily Wire can first report. Thirty-six nations are members of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, and every single year during the commission, there is an agreed-upon document that focuses on topics affecting women around the world, including injustices. This year’s document was a disappointment to Bethany Kozma, Director of Global Affairs (OGA) at the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the other members of President Donald Trump’s administration who had traveled to the commission in New York. The document was filled with mentions of DEI, gender ideology, and ambiguous language about “reproductive rights,” but was bereft of language unique to womanhood, according to Kozma. “No mention of motherhood or unique female experiences,” she said, adding, “and it failed to define what a woman is.” In short, The Daily Wire has learned, it was not aligned with the Trump administration’s policies and views on these issues. Since the president took office again in 2025, the United States has clearly defined what a woman is, banned boys from girls’ spaces and sports, fought back against transgenderism in the medical world, and shut down many DEI projects in corporations and academia. “The UN Commission on Women is supposed to be for women, yet for years, it’s been co-opted to include men pretending to be women,” she explained. “Many countries claim to support and empower women, yet some of them cannot even answer the simple question: ‘What is a woman?'” “Thanks to the moral leadership of President Trump, the tide is changing and we’re standing up for women and girls,” she emphasized. “And I really was hopeful that we could come to an agreement.” Kozma and her delegation from the United States worked hard to participate in good faith, offering amendments to the document that they knew some countries might sign onto. Natalie Dodson, senior advisor to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., shared that their delegation worked aggressively to negotiate with the other countries in order to include language defending the integrity of women. “The text was not something that the U.S. liked at all,” Kozma explained. “It would not have been something that we would have ever put out on behalf of the United States government, but we had offered several amendments that were just very common sense.” One amendment that they had been asking for, over and over, was an amendment that essentially defined men and women so that there would be no ambiguity. Members of the United States Delegation at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. The Commission on the Status of Women wasn’t interested in the American amendments, Kozma and Dodson explained to The Daily Wire. Minutes before midnight on Sunday night, the council sent the final draft to the United States without acknowledging any of the American red lines that Kozma’s team had outlined. And when it came time to vote on the amendments, which were intended to be voted on separately, the council bundled all the amendments together. Some nations might have voted for one amendment but not another, and bundled together, the amendments failed. During Monday’s vote, the United States was the only nation in the world to vote against the document. Six nations abstained: Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia. Kozma believes it was a deliberate attempt at “isolation” by the council to make the United States look like “we won’t don’t defend women and girls.” “I’m really proud of us,” she told The Daily Wire over the phone. “We were the only country that was voting to protect women and girls.”

When Islamists on horseback can intimidate and chase down anti-regime protesters on British streets without consequence, it raises a question no modern Briton ever expected to ask: is this still a country confident enough to protect dissent? That is the question behind the startling suggestion from U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers to the Telegraph — Britons may soon be justified in seeking asylum in America. She was not being casually provocative for effect. She was serious — and each passing day strengthens her case. With war now raging between the United States, Israel, and Iran, Britain is confronting a humiliating question: what does it say about our country when anti-Ayatollah Iranians can be harassed on British streets while police stand idly by? In Manchester, rival demonstrations erupted after the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and reports circulated — alongside widely shared footage — that pro-regime Islamists on horseback were intimidating and chasing away Iranians near the Islamic Centre. UK: Pro-regime Iranian enforcers chased anti-Ayatollah Iranians near the Islamic Centre in Manchester. The police declined to intervene. pic.twitter.com/HNkOOLH75p — @amuse (@amuse) March 7, 2026 Source: @amuse/X.com To the shock of bystanders, police made no arrests. The astounded man filming the giant steeds and their bearded Islamic riders pleaded with police to know why the men weren’t being “nicked” (that’s arrested, in Northern parlance). “They’ve just chased people with their ‘orses!” he shouts; his broad Manchester accent starkly at odds with the Middle Eastern politics playing out on his streets. “What are we supposed to do?” shrugs the short, young police officer, “Pull him off his horse?” “Yes!” exclaimed the terrified onlooker. This is the state of affairs in Britain: if your safety, social norms, or free speech are being compromised by Islamic agitators, the police stand by. Our accidental documentary-maker behind the cell phone summed it up nicely, “If he had a Union Jack on, he’d be off the horse.” He’s right. Over the past thirty years, the United Kingdom has quietly redefined the social contract that underpinned British society. But even those of us who have watched a stream of Trojan horses sneak in cultural change didn’t foresee it morphing into actual horses on our streets. And as Rogers correctly identifies, it is all underpinned by the demise of free speech. This has fallen off a cliff: not through dramatic constitutional rupture, but via bureaucratic growth under both Left and Right-wing governments. Millions of Brits, many of whom are my viewers on GB News, are relieved that the Trump Administration has been ringing the alarm bell on our behalf. A growing number of ordinary citizens are being swept into the criminal justice system for social media posts, venting frustration on WhatsApp groups, and even uttering unkind words at protests. There were more than 12,000 arrests in 2023 under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 — laws that criminalize posting messages deemed “grossly offensive,” “indecent, obscene,” or causing “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety.” That’s roughly 33 arrests per day in a country where shoplifting is practically decriminalized, and less than 5% of home burglaries are solved. While the laws curtailing speech were originally intended to deal with serious threats and targeted harassment, in practice, they can be applied far more broadly. Civil liberties groups argue that the vagueness of what constitutes “offensive” content allows authorities to monitor or detain people for expressing controversial political opinions, satire, or clumsy humor. Things became more extreme with the 2023 Online Safety Act, one of the most significant legal changes of the decade, granting the communications regulator (Ofcom) wide authority to compel platforms to remove content. It also creates new criminal offenses for incidents of “false and threatening communications.” But the act’s overly broad, subjective definitions and heavy penalties will lead to the censorship of lawful and harmless speech by tech firms trying to avoid multi-million dollar fines. Hundreds of people have already been charged under the new regime for “illegal fake news” and “threatening communications,” with dozens convicted just months after it came into force. Rogers is right to observe that this environment has produced something historically novel: a liberal democracy in which citizens increasingly self-censor not out of politeness, but out of fear. Comedy writer Graham Linehan was arrested last September at London’s Heathrow Airport after traveling from America, where he had posted on X about protecting women’s spaces from trans-identified males. 2023 also saw the arrival of enforcement against “non-crime hate incidents,” a uniquely British invention that allowed police to record speech as hateful even when no law had been broken. The message is unmistakable: speech is tolerated only so long as it causes no discomfort to those empowered to define harm. Contrast this with the American approach Rogers implicitly praises — the First Amendment as the cultural spine of American life. It protects speech precisely because it is offensive, destabilizing, or unpopular. American courts do not ask whether speech might cause emotional unease; they ask whether the state has any business interfering at all. Critics will argue that Britain’s model is merely more “civilized” and that Americans fetishize absolutism. But balance presumes a neutral arbiter, and Britain no longer has one. When regulators, universities, employers, and police all share the same ideological assumptions, moderation becomes enforcement by another name. What Rogers understands — and what many in Britain still resist — is that free speech is not primarily about manners: it is about power and control. Once the power to determine acceptable opinion shifts decisively to institutions, citizens become subjects in all but name. You may still speak, but only at your own risk. This is why talk of asylum, literal or not, resonates deeply. Asylum is sought not only when bombs fall, but when rights erode so completely that dissent becomes untenable. We are not quite there yet — but the trajectory is headed nowhere good. How could it? The British government is currently proposing the abolition of jury trials for all but the most heinous crimes. America’s free-speech culture survives not because Americans are uniquely virtuous or diplomatic but because their system assumes fallibility — of governments, of majorities, of individual morality. Britain, by contrast, increasingly assumes moral consensus and builds enforcement mechanisms around it. Sarah Rogers has done the UK a service by saying the quiet part aloud. If Britain wishes to remain a nation of free speakers rather than shy whisperers, it must relearn a lesson America never forgot: the price of liberty is not silence, but tolerance of speech we would rather not hear. * * * Bev Turner is a host of “The Late Show Live” for Great Britain’s GBNews, based out of Washington, D.C. Follow her on X @BeverleyTurner The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.