Controversial influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate on Saturday were arrested by federal officials in Miami pursuant to rape charges and an outstanding arrest warrant in the United Kingdom. The Crown Prosecution Service last year charged Andrew Tate with 10 counts of crimes, including rape and human trafficking related to three women. His younger brother, Tristan, was charged with 11 counts of similar crimes tied to one woman. On Saturday, the Crown Prosecution Service announced additional counts for each brother, including 19 charges related to illegal child images and pornography for Andrew Tate. “We can confirm the arrest of the Tate brothers today in Miami,” the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement. “The warrant was sealed so we are unable to confirm the charges.” The office of Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier — who last year opened an investigation into the Tate brothers — confirmed to The Daily Wire that the pair were taken into custody on an arrest warrant from the United Kingdom. Florida AG’s office tells @realDailyWire the Tate brothers were taken into custody on a UK arrest warrant. https://t.co/6wDfk5xadK — Brent Scher (@BrentScher) July 19, 2026 “To me, when they’re making statements that sound an awful lot like criminal activity, I think as attorney general, I’ve got a duty to investigate and make sure that we’re not subjecting, you know, women in our state to dangers,” Uthmeier said last year. “If there’s a crime that occurred here in our jurisdiction, we’ve got a prerogative to prosecute it, and we will do so.” This is the latest bout of legal trouble for the Tates, who were first arrested in Romania in 2022 on charges of rape, human trafficking, sex with a minor, and trafficking minors. British prosecutors charged the brothers with those crimes last May. The Tates rose to prominence as central figures of the “manosphere,” a controversial internet community popular among disaffected young men. Figures like the Tates flaunt their lavish lifestyles and tell listeners that they too can achieve success and impress women by acting like “alpha males.” But behind the public bravado lurks a much darker reality. Last year, Andrew Tate’s ex-girlfriend, Brianna Stern, accused the former kickboxer of physical abuse. “The last time I saw Andrew was on March 11, 2025 at the Beverly Hill’s Hotel,” Stern wrote on social media. “The last words he said to me before I left the hotel were: ‘Shut the f*** up, b****. You will never backtalk me. You are my property.'” Months after Stern came forward with her allegations, Canadian YouTuber Lauren Southern accused Andrew Tate of sexual assault in a self-published memoir. “I said no, very clearly, multiple times, and tried to pull his hands off me,” Southern wrote of their encounter. “He put his arm around my neck and began strangling me unconscious. I tried to fight back. He repeatedly strangled me every time I regained enough consciousness to pull at his arms. I’d prefer not to share the rest. It’s pretty obvious.” Andrew and Tristan Tate have repeatedly denied all the allegations made against them. The brothers, who hold dual citizenship in the United States and the United Kingdom, moved to Romania in 2016 but returned to the United States last year as Romanian authorities investigated their activity. The United Kingdom is reportedly seeking to extradite the brothers.

Two American troops were killed Saturday by an Iranian strike on Jordan, according to U.S. Central Command. Another American service member remains missing. The deaths mark the first confirmed U.S. fatalities from Iranian attacks on Jordan this week. Four other American troops were medically evacuated to Jordanian hospitals and have since been discharged. CENTCOM says it will not release the names of the fallen until 24 hours after their families have been notified. Iran has attacked American allies in the region in recent days. Kuwait reported that an Iranian attack hit a power generation and water desalination facility, starting a fire and knocking units offline. A child was injured by shrapnel in Qatar, and Bahrain came under attack as well. The United States has ramped up strikes on Iranian targets in recent days, many of which were located around Bandar Abbas, Iran’s main strategic port city on the Strait of Hormuz. The city, home to more than half a million people, is home to Iran’s navy headquarters and serves as a key commercial hub for the regime. CENTCOM also confirmed the earlier destruction of the Chah Bahar Shahid Kalantari Port surveillance tower on July 16. “The destruction of the tower directly degrades IRGC’s ability to coordinate attacks on innocent civilian crew members,” CENTCOM said.  Secretary of War Pete Hegseth shared images of U.S. troops and wrote that “Iran does not control the SoH,” referring to the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Energy Ministry has reportedly ordered residents to cut back on electricity use during peak hours because attacks on energy facilities had affected the power grid in southern provinces Conflict in the region has escalated in the days since Iran announced it would no longer honor the interim peace deal with the United States. “The only way you can negotiate with these people is through strength,” President Donald Trump said in a July 14 interview. “And the only strength is military strength.”

“The Ramsey Show” co-host and financial literacy personality George Kamel blasted news agencies and influencers for urging Americans to withdraw Social Security early. Recently, the Social Security Administration announced in the 2026 Trustees Report that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund reserves “will become depleted” in 2032, and afterwards, “the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 78 percent of total scheduled benefits.” The Congressional Budget Office also previously warned that this would result in a direct cut in retirement benefits, stating, “because the government would not have the legal authority to make payments in excess of receipts, it would no longer be able to pay the full amounts scheduled or projected under current law.” News organizations took on the story about Social Security reaching its end, with Fox Business reporting that “Social Security has less than 10 years before reserves are exhausted.” Online financial influencers then started to call on their followers to take out their benefits early at 62 before Social Security goes ‘bankrupt.’ In an interview with Fox News, Kamel called the Fox Business headline and similar headlines in other outlets “classic fearmongering” that are not “based in reality.” “There’s a lot of context left out,” Kamel added. “But when you see ‘depletion 2032 Social Security,’ it’s like the toilet paper rush during COVID — everyone’s like ‘I gotta go to the store. Let’s clear the shelves. There’s not going to be any left for me.’” Kamel debunked the idea that Social Security is going to go bankrupt by noting that the last time Social Security reserves were expected to dry out in 1983, Congress and the Reagan administration did “several small tweaks” to fix the system. “A worst-case scenario is a 22% cut in monthly benefits,” Kamel said. “That’s a far cry from it going to 0, to bankruptcy. There is a lot of emotion here, and fear is a bad reason to grab it at 62.” “I don’t see a world where, in 2032, we’re all going, ‘Where’s our money? We’re all going to retire broke.’” Kamel added.  Kamel also mentioned that taking Social Security at 62 gives a 30% deduction in benefits, whereas waiting until 70 gives a 24% bonus. But he then noted that there is no “magic age” for taking Social Security. “There [are] a lot of factors that come into play when you decide to take Social Security, and it really depends on your life, your health, your income, your family situation,” Kamel said. Kamel advised listeners to take control of their finances rather than relying on the government. “I call it Social insecurity, because if you’re relying on it, you don’t have that security, you don’t have that control,” Kamel said. “So I want to let people know that you are your best shot at great retirement. It’s not the government’s job, it’s not Washington’s job, it’s not a headline, it’s not a trust fund aid, you control the controllables.” 

A secluded U.S. national park requires all parkgoers to show a valid passport or birth certificate to enter. The National Park of American Samoa is a unique sanctuary situated in a remote location and spread across three islands: Tutuila, Ofu, and Ta‘ū. The national park is surrounded by the South Pacific Ocean and located 2,600 miles Southwest of Hawaii.  Visitors to the park arrive at the Pago Pago International Airport, according to Fox Weather. The limited transportation options to the islands mean that visitors must prove their United States citizenship or nationality by showing their valid passport or certified birth certificate for entry, according to the Department of the Interior. The park is open year-round, and there are no fees to enter. This national park’s unique climate involves regular rainstorms during the wet season from October to May. The dry season, from June to September, is the ideal time for outdoor activities, such as hiking or enjoying the beaches. Visitors should also be prepared for humidity and warm temperatures year-round, according to the National Park Service (NPS) website. The islands are home to diverse wildlife and span over 4,000 acres of underwater landscape. There are 800 types of fish, 200 types of coral, humpback whales, sea turtles, and other native creatures, including flying foxes, according to the NPS. Across the three islands, the park offers scenic mountain trails, beautiful coastal views, Samoan villages, rainforest hikes, white sand beaches, and snorkeling through coral reefs. The NPS also provides a list of packing and safety tips for visitors while at the park. “Visiting the National Park of American Samoa is a unique and unforgettable experience,” it writes. “By following these tips, you’ll have a safe and enjoyable visit while helping to preserve the natural and cultural wonders of the park for future generations.” 

Move over, Leonardo Da Vinci. There’s a new Renaissance humanist on the block — at least, according to the internet. You might know her as the global pop star Dua Lipa, and she wants you to read banned books. This past week, the “Levitating” singer unveiled her new “Manifesto Library” in Portugal, which features hundreds of books she claims were once banned or otherwise controversial. Posing with a copy of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a book that has now sold more than 10 million copies worldwide, she tells her 650K+ “Book Club” followers that her initiative opens up “conversations around censorship, resistance and the importance of preserving voices that challenge power and refuse to be silenced.”  There’s only one problem. None of the books in her library were ever “banned” or “censored” in the first place.  Among the other titles in Dua Lipa’s library are George Orwell’s “1984,” a book that has sold over 30 million copies as of 2024, and J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye,” a novel that is read in virtually every single high school English class across the country. I don’t necessarily disagree with Dua Lipa that we all should read these great books, but calling “1984″ and “The Catcher in the Rye” “banned” books is like calling “Game of Thrones,” one of the world’s most widely watched TV shows, a “banned” show. As I pointed out the other day on X, you can call anything a “banned book” as long as it was removed from an elementary school library that one time in 1978.  That hasn’t stopped the political Left from co-opting the term “banned books” to create an imaginary controversy around censorship. Slapping the label onto virtually any novel with a remotely political bent, the Left frequently pretends conservatives are responsible for instituting Nazi-era book bans and for silencing leftist voices. Walk into any indie bookstore in a blue state, for instance, and you’ll immediately be met with a “banned books” display featuring carefully curated titles promoting a certain political agenda. One such display making the rounds on X contains Frantz Fanon’s “Black Skin, White Masks” (a far-leftist call to violence against “colonizers”), Sally Rooney’s “Normal People” (a novel she herself has called “Marxist propaganda”), and Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer” (I will let that one speak for itself).  Nor is the “banned books” trend a recent invention. Back in 2023, for example, the American Library Association referred to an effort to remove sexually explicit content from school libraries as a demand to “censor library books.” These books, meanwhile (the aforementioned “Gender Queer” among them), contained “graphic depictions of how children can masturbate,” as well as “cartoons of homosexual activity,” according to a Daily Wire report. And while these titles were removed from certain school libraries, they remain widely available for purchase on Amazon or your local bookstore.   One can only conclude that the “banned books” trend is nothing more than a convenient way for leftists to promote books with certain ideological messages over others.  Because the same people crying so vehemently about “banned books” when the books promote leftist ideologies are the very people quietly banning conservative-leaning books from ever hitting our shelves in the first place.  You can lament the removal of “Gender Queer” from an elementary school library all you want, but the fact is that the novel continues to enjoy mainstream institutional backing. The same goes for Sally Rooney’s Marxist BDSM fantasy “Normal People” and Caro Claire Burke’s “Yesteryear,” the internet’s latest literary fad attacking conservative Christian “tradwives.” Other recent celebrated titles include Pulitzer Prize finalist “Stag Dance,” which depicts a “Vegas transfeminine gathering” and NPR’s best book of the year “Bellies,” a trans romance that everyone’s favorite celebrity Elliot Page has called “smart, hilarious, and deeply moving.” I am not here to argue that these books shouldn’t be published in the first place. But it is undeniable that the publishing industry consciously prioritizes far-leftist stories, creating a homogenous reading culture in which contemporary fiction has become synonymous with far-leftist ideology.  Don’t believe me? Publishing professions can tell you themselves.  Before a book reaches the shelves of your local Barnes and Noble, it must first go through several stages of the editorial process, the first of which entails the procurement of representation from a literary agent. While several non-fiction literary agencies still (thankfully) devote themselves to conservative authors — someone has to publish Ben Shapiro, after all — the fiction world has become so ideologically captured by the “banned books” mob that it is now virtually impossible to get a book with a more “traditional” message published in the first place. I’m not even talking about books with overtly Christian themes or Zionist protagonists, though those are most certainly no-gos. Literary agents now explicitly declare that they will not even consider “dated ideals of partnership or relationship.” How come the “banned books” advocates are the same people making these lists that effectively ban certain books…? pic.twitter.com/aW3JNcnxFP — Liza Libes (@pensandpoison) July 15, 2026 I don’t speak leftist very well, but I’m pretty sure that means that this agent won’t look at a book that positively depicts marriage between a man and a woman.  One could argue that if these were just the preferences of a single agent, then we wouldn’t have a problem on our hands. But when an entire literary establishment begins declining certain morals and themes, then an entire publishing institution effectively institutes a soft ban on certain books.  Indeed, other agents decline to review “copaganda,” “protagonists who are aligned with American police or military,” or even “morality stories.” Meanwhile, one independent press warns that book submissions “must have a Muslim protagonist,” while a children’s editor at Hachette requests books that “center marginalized voices, especially related to queer women and femmes.” Editors at Macmillan’s Flatiron — the same imprint that publishes Elliot Page and Joe Biden — request “contemporary fiction that centers Black and queer voices” and “literary fiction that explores music and art, friendship, gender, and progressive politics.”  A single editor’s “preference” for progressive fiction and antipathy towards traditional messages does not constitute a book ban, but when large swaths of literary agents and editors across an entire industry begin parroting the same message, then it becomes clear that conservative fiction — or simply books with traditional moral messages in the vein of “The Brothers Karamazov” or “Anna Karenina” — are no longer welcome on our shelves.  The irony is impossible to ignore: the same people who have built an entire cultural identity around “banned books” are often the very people deciding which books never get the chance to exist in the first place. No, conservative books aren’t being banned in public squares or ritually burned at the stake. They are simply being filtered out long before they ever get the chance to find an audience in the first place.  Banned books are in. But they’re not the banned books that Dua Lipa wants you to read or the books that do not belong in elementary school libraries. They are the books with great moral messages that we once venerated as a society but whose contemporary iterations will be forever lost on us because they never made it to our shelves. That’s the book ban that should worry us the most.  *** Liza Libes is a writer and the founder of Pens and Poison. She holds degrees in English from Columbia University and writes about literature and culture at pensandpoison.org. Follow her on X @pensandpoison. 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.