President Donald Trump released new renderings of a limited edition passport commemorating America’s 250th anniversary. “The U.S.A.’s New Passport, which says, “Welcome, but be good!” Trump posted on Truth Social June 26. The U.S.A.’s New Passport, which says, “Welcome, but be good!” President DJT pic.twitter.com/6RkPqh94Kn — Just Trump on Truth (@JustTrumpTruth) June 26, 2026 The sample images show Trump at the Resolute Desk with the Declaration of Independence in the background and his signature at the bottom. The second page features “The Declaration of Independence” painting by John Trumbull. “These passports will feature customized artwork and enhanced imagery while maintaining the same security features that make the U.S. Passport the most secure documents in the world,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott told CNN in April, when the passports were first announced. The limited edition passport is only available through the Washington Passport Agency in Washington, D.C., beginning July 6 while supplies last, according to the State Department’s website. The new design will be the default version at the Washington location, but the regular passport design will remain available online and at other passport-issuing locations. Previous renderings of the passport featured a different portrait of Trump opposite the Trumbull painting, first published by Fox News. The new version appears to be based on a portrait of Trump in the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery. The special designs coincide with a variety of events celebrating the United States’ 250th anniversary. Earlier this month, the UFC held a “UFC Freedom 250” event at the White House, The Daily Wire previously reported. President Trump himself kicked off the Great American State Fair in the nation’s capital on June 24th, opening a 16-day exposition on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. In August, IndyCar will host a “Freedom 250 Grand Prix” around the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Comedian and HBO host Bill Maher admitted on Friday that his vote would be “in play” in coming elections if the Democratic Party continued its headlong gallop toward socialism. Maher spoke with Vice President JD Vance on Friday’s broadcast of “Real Time,” and the discussion turned to the recent wins — particularly in places like New York City — racked up by fringe Left candidates endorsed by Democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani. “Like, if this is where the Democratic Party is going, where this Democratic socialist — this obsession with Israel, with the Jew hating, they don’t believe in capitalism, no prisons…” “If this is where they’re going, my vote is in play,” Maher declared. “Okay, I like to hear that,” Vance replied. “It actually always has been,” Maher continued. “I just, every year, I don’t make my decision by who has an R or a D, I actually always came to the conclusion that the Democrat was probably better and voted for them. And Trump can’t run again and he’d be a little too exciting for me anyway. So it’s either going to be you or Rubio.” Maher underscored his point by jabbing at one of the Mamdani-backed Democratic socialist candidates who recently won her primary in New York — Darializa Avila Chevalier. TRUTH NUKE: Bill Maher on Democratic Socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier: “There’s one candidate she will be a congresswoman from New York’s 13th District, who the New York Times asked her if someone mu*ders someone randomly should they go to jail? Couldn’t get her to say yes to… pic.twitter.com/6zlnqGZKTz — RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) June 27, 2026 “There’s one candidate, she will be a congressperson from New York’s 13th District, who the New York Times asked her if someone murders someone randomly should they go to jail? Couldn’t get her to say yes to that,” Maher said. “She says, no more police ever at all. Ever. She says our veterans are war criminals. She said f*ck Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s a rapist.” “So there is a woke mind virus, and I think we found patient zero,” Maher concluded. And Maher is far from the only Democrat in the public eye raising concerns about the rapid influx from the party’s fringes: “The View” host Sara Haines raised the same issue during a recent “Behind the Table” podcast with executive producer Brian Teta and cohost Alyssa Farah Griffin.

Armie Hammer is back. So are Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Jonathan Majors, Louis C.K., Brett Ratner, and other canceled stars. Cancel Culture, which tore through Hollywood over the last decade, is losing its grip. No longer do comedians fear that an old stand-up routine might “resurface” and crush their careers. Artists with troubling pasts can work again, allowing audiences to judge whether they’re worthy of forgiveness. That’s great news, but a strain of Cancel Culture remains very much in place. It’s purely ideological in nature, and it’s supported by mainstream media outlets, Hollywood, Inc., and the culture at large. Embrace MAGA, President Donald Trump, or simply the Right, and watch it snap into action. For some stars, being apolitical is seen as an unofficial conservative pose and, sadly, worthy of condemnation. Sydney Sweeney has faced media scrutiny for not formally embracing a political party. That intensified after press outlets learned she had registered as a Republican in Florida but refused to share her ideological beliefs. That media focus intensified after her far-Left critics complained her American Eagle jeans ad, where she playfully said she had good “jeans,” was seen as a white supremacist dog whistle. Media outlets ran with the absurd attacks. Another tiny example happened recently with the opening of the Great American State Fair. Singer Leonard Cohen’s estate decried the potential use of the late singer’s “Hallelujah.” This particular event highlighted the enduring Cancel Culture movement. The Great American State Fair originally hired a gaggle of fading music stars, including Bret Michaels, Young MC, and Vanilla Ice, to entertain the crowd. The media played up the event’s loose connection to Team Trump – the administration tasked with creating the event to honor the nation’s 250th birthday. The assembled artists quickly fled the gala, either suggesting the concert would be too political in nature (without evidence) or that they’ve been threatened with violence for appearing (Michaels). Comedian Bill Maher called foul on the artists’ decision. Wouldn’t it have been better to play this gig? … It’s a month-long gig, lots of people, like — just celebrating America. Can’t we all just celebrate America itself and leave Trump out of it? That misses the point. The musicians want to keep performing, and they know that being associated with any event tied to President Trump might hurt their careers. Said careers weren’t exactly thriving to begin with, putting even more pressure on them to conform. Yet roughly the same time, we saw a group of high-profile musicians, including U2’s Bono and The Edge, and Bruce Springsteen, perform at President Barack Obama’s presidential museum opening. They didn’t fear professional pushback (nor should they). This wasn’t a patriotic event to honor a national holiday. The opening celebrated the most prominent Democrat in the nation, and in doing so, the musicians didn’t face violent threats or attacks on their professional future. That’s as it should be. Yet there’s an extreme double standard in play. Just ask British singer M.I.A. She joined Kid Cudi’s Rebel Ragers tour earlier this year as an opening act, but she quickly lost the gig for saying the “wrong” thing on stage. She shared Right-leaning opinions, and in a New York minute, she was gone. The singer later filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Kid Cudi. The media reported the lawsuit but didn’t share any outrage over the singer’s free speech rights or the potential of wrongful termination. Nor did reporters note the irony of Springsteen creating an entire tour to spread his far-Left views while M.I.A. lost her job for sharing a fraction (of a fraction) of that political commentary. Perhaps the best example of the media trying to cancel a superstar for aligning with MAGA came courtesy of Nate Bargatze. He’s the most successful comedian of the moment, a squeaky-clean stand-up who sells out arenas and never discusses politics on or off stage. Bargatze attended the recent White House/UFC extravaganza, an event meant to honor the nation’s upcoming birthday and showcase the popular sport. Bargatze was not only on hand for the fights but snapped pictures with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and his wife, actress Cheryl Hines. That sparked several media outlets to shame Bargatze for the snapshots, including The Daily Beast and Parade magazine. They played up a small sample of “outraged” social media users to buttress their flimsy argument. “USA TODAY has reached out to Bargatze’s rep for comment.” What comment? Yes, I attended the event. No, I don’t refuse photographs from people, regardless of their political leanings. It’s absurd and tantamount to press bullying. And it quickly got worse. A few days later, far-Left comedian W. Kamau Bell slammed Bargatze for palling around with “fascists,” sparking a fresh wave of media coverage, including Variety. The not-so-subtle message? Cozying up to MAGA in any way is like supporting fascism. That’s actually fascist. Bargatze had to issue a public statement saying he’s a big UFC fan and remains apolitical. Had Bargatze attended a similar event with a Democrat in the White House, the moment would have gotten little, if any, coverage. Or, it might have expanded his already huge career. Why would the media pile on Bargatze? He’s technically too big to cancel, but it’s all about sending a message. Align with the Right in any manner, be it a social media post or a simple selfie, and you’ll be “outed” and punished. The comedian will survive this news cycle. Lesser stars might not, and thus they’ll stay quiet moving forward. None of this should be surprising. Actors like James Woods, Kevin Sorbo, Scott Baio, and more have faced retribution for simply leaning to the Right. Hines hasn’t had an acting gig since her husband joined the Trump administration. She isn’t even a part of Larry David’s new HBO Max series, “Life, Larry and the Pursuit of Unhappiness.” That’s despite David working with stars he’s collaborated with over the decades on the show, including Jerry Seinfeld, Susie Essman, Vince Vaughn, and more. And she’s not even conservative. Her crime? She’s married to a former Democrat who felt he could do some good for the country by joining the Trump administration. It’s why Hollywood conservatives created Friends of Abe long ago. The secretive group once met to network, bond, and share horror stories about the professional pummeling they face for being on the Right. The group still exists and remains an off-the-record affair. The ironic part? Cancel Culture against conservatives has existed in Hollywood for some time. The term became popular when that punishment expanded to include anyone who ran afoul of the progressive narrative, AKA woke. Now, as woke fades and Cancel Culture cases shrink, it’s back to where it originally thrived, punishing conservative stars who dare speak their minds or pose for selfies. *** Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. He’s also the host of The Hollywood in Toto Podcast. Follow him at @HollywoodInToto. 

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.  *** For years, we were told not to worry about pediatric gender medicine because it was vanishingly rare. Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, we were assured, were reserved for a tiny number of carefully assessed children with severe and persistent distress. But when new data show that these treatments aren’t so rare, the same defenders suddenly change their tune: the numbers are no longer reassuring because they are small; now they are reassuring because they are large. More children receiving medical transition means that a previously hidden population finally feels safe enough to pursue the care it has always needed. Higher cross-sex identity persistence after social transition or administering puberty blockers means the interventions were obviously appropriate. Any outcome, it seems, can be interpreted as proof that “gender-affirming care” is successful. But this is not how evidence-based medicine is supposed to work. This is how an ideology protects itself from falsification. The latest example comes from Oregon. As Benjamin Ryan first reported, a new study in Research Connections analyzed insurance claims for 868,740 insured Oregon adolescents ages 8 to 17 from 2016 to 2023. The data cover roughly 80% of insured Oregonians. The figures were shocking. Click here for more Manhattan Institute content. By age 17, roughly one in 240 insured Oregon girls was taking testosterone, and about one in 630 boys was taking estrogen. Across all ages in the study, about 1% of insured Oregon youth had a gender-related diagnosis. For girls, the figure was 1.5%. These aren’t nationwide numbers. Oregon is an unusually progressive state with an unusually supportive legal and insurance environment for pediatric gender medicine. But they give us a glimpse of what happens when supporters of child transition receive little to no pushback. The study’s authors don’t view the numbers as alarming. They still describe medical transition as “rare” and emphasize that access remains “limited” even in Oregon. They suggest that the state’s supportive policy environment likely contributed to greater access, while “structural and systemic barriers” may still be holding treatment rates down. Whatever the data, they support the affirmative model. If the rates are low, that proves the panic is overblown. If the rates are high, that’s evidence that access is improving. If the rates rise, that means stigma is declining. If they don’t rise enough, that means barriers remain. Heads, they win; tails, you’re a bigot. This pattern shows up again and again. Years ago, when critics warned that puberty blockers appeared to function less as a “pause button” and more as the first step on a nearly automatic pathway to cross-sex hormones, defenders insisted that persistence meant the children had been properly selected. But if administering puberty blockers changes the likelihood that a child will persist in rejecting their sex from about 15–20% to more than 97%, then persistence isn’t proof that the child’s transgender identity was fixed all along — it’s evidence that the intervention made permanent what would have been ephemeral. Kenneth Zucker, one of the world’s leading experts on childhood gender dysphoria, has warned that even social transition is not a neutral act. Changing a child’s name, pronouns, clothing, and social identity is a psychosocial intervention. It may reduce distress in the short term, but it also seems to increase the likelihood that a child’s cross-sex identity persists into adolescence, when puberty blockers and hormones are put on the table. That possibility should haunt the field. Instead, it is dismissed. Consider a new Canadian study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health and shared by pediatric psychiatrist and gender medicine proponent Jack Turban on social media. Researchers examined 445 adolescents referred to gender clinics. After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 97.1% still identified as transgender or nonbinary, and only 1.1% of those who started cross-sex hormones stopped taking them. The study presents this as reassuring evidence that adolescent transgender identity is extremely stable, and that concerns about regret and potential detransition are overblown. The same logic appeared in response to the Oregon data. Trans activist Ari Drennen said on X that it “should not be shocking” that 0.4% of 17-year-old girls in Oregon are chemically transitioning. But it is shocking. If one in 240 girls aged 17 in a state were receiving any other powerful intervention for a new psychiatric diagnosis that permanently deepened their voice, caused them to grow beards, altered their sexual function, and affected their fertility, no serious person would shrug and say, “Sounds about right.” At some point, defenders of pediatric gender medicine must answer several simple questions: What result would make you reconsider? Would it be one in 100 girls on testosterone? What about one in 50? What rate of regret or detransition is too high? Would you accept that as evidence that suicidality and mental health don’t improve after treatment? How many systematic evidence reviews must conclude that the evidence of benefit is extremely weak while the risk of serious harm is significant? We should have insisted on answers long ago, before we ever started performing this medical experiment on children — not after the results come in, when activists have had ample time to devise explanations about why the latest horrific finding is actually wonderful news. Falsifiability is a basic principle of science. No claim that can be supported by every possible outcome has any business being called scientific or “evidence-based.” *** This is republished with permission from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. The original can be found here. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist and Manhattan Institute Fellow.

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. *** The field of psychology has its own special version of obtuse, especially when it comes to the trans debate. I am a therapist, but I’m an outlier nowadays, and that is simply because I have common sense. I continue to be dumbfounded by what passes as professional expertise, such as the mythological, non-scientific idea that people are “born in the wrong body.” It is Pride month, which means we are being surrounded by the LGBTQ alphabet soup. Most of us are sick and tired of the rainbows and perverted celebrations. However, behind these narcissistic displays, we must remember that there are still vulnerable populations being recruited into a cult. One of the largest vulnerable groups the rainbow cult exploits is autistic people.   While many young people overplay an autism label for clout or special treatment, it is undeniable that there are higher rates of autism compared to 20 years ago. The explanations for this phenomenon shall be saved for another day; the point is there are more vulnerable autistic young people, who are easy to recruit into gender ideology and are harder to pull out of it. In fact, the strong connection between autism and transgenderism is so apparent that the pro-trans crowd even acknowledges it. NPR  states uncritically, “Transgender and nonbinary people are up to six times more likely to have autism.” A 2021 study by the National Institutes of Health titled, “The lived experience of gender dysphoria in autistic adults: An interpretive phenomenological analysis,” begins by stating that “autistic people are more likely to be transgender.” Colleen Cira, one of many likeminded psychologists with large followings on social media, cites these statistics: “Autistic adults are 8.1 x more likely to identify as asexual and 7.6 x more likely to identify as non-heterosexual. Trans and gender diverse adults are three to six times more likely be autistic than cisgender adults.” But her response to these statistics is not curiosity or concern; it is affirmation. She continues, “This neuro-queer community deserves to be seen and celebrated, so this Pride Month I am celebrating every queer and autistic person out there.” Dr. Cira is not an outlier. You can find countless posts and websites of mental health professionals and institutions with a similar sentiment. Even autism organizations such as Autism Speaks promote so-called gender-affirming care as the only valid treatment for the population in which it claims to specialize. Never once do these professionals question why so many autistic people claim a trans identity. To them, the dogmatic belief that any declaration of a trans or queer identity is real and true, no matter the context, is all they need. Their blind spot is so big they make Ray Charles look like a hawk. It’s not a coincidence that trans communities love-bomb and provide a welcoming atmosphere for new recruits, something that easily attracts a lost soul who can’t figure out how to make friends. LGBTQ groups attract other “quirky” people who don’t otherwise fit in and provide a new sense of belonging. In addition, the trans community plays into the minority stress belief system, so the autistic individual can blame his or her problems on external oppression, rather than personal social deficits.  The identity also becomes a type of shield for the socially awkward person. When the autistic person behaves inappropriately, he gets a pass because he is trans. And in many circumstances, he is given extra positive attention for being trans. Finally, the trans culture provides a language and a script for people who can’t figure out the complexities of human-to-human interactions. Detransitioner Maia Poet wrote in her Substack, “My trans identity was the mask I wore, as an elaborate way to conceal the confusion and overwhelm I felt as I navigated the world encumbered by my autistic social deficits.” For anyone who knows an autistic person, the real explanations for this connection are glaringly obvious, and it is not because autistic people were suddenly disproportionately mismatched with their bodies. Autistic people struggle socially. They have difficulty interpreting social cues, understanding unspoken expectations, recognizing context-specific norms around clothing and behavior, and navigating social roles. Plus, they have trouble flirting, dating, and getting attention from the opposite sex. When you are truly different and get left behind, it would be natural to claim a “queer” identity instead of facing the pain of feeling ostracized.  Autistic people have sensory issues, which makes body changes and puberty even more difficult than normal. Also, they may prefer baggy clothing, which in and of itself is enough to identify as “nonbinary” or “trans masculine.” Binding (or flattening breasts) may feel good, or it can seem like a way to control changes happening to their bodies.  Autistic individuals often spend more time online than their peers, and many are drawn to activities such as gaming and online communities on platforms such as Discord, Reddit, Tumblr, and others. Digital spaces can feel easier to navigate because social expectations are more explicit and interactions can happen from the comfort and predictability of home. Features such as likes, reposts, and other forms of feedback also provide clearer social cues about what is rewarded or positively received online, for better or worse. Because of this, online communities can become especially influential during identity formation, and many young people are recruited to social movements and learn ways of understanding themselves through these digital environments. Flags, symbols, and categories attract the autistic mind. They enjoy categories and ways to acknowledge details. The many trans/pride flags are a great outlet for those who experience the world this way. There is even an autistic trans flag, which appears like a targeted marketing campaign. The most concerning aspect of the trans-autism connection is that many autistic individuals tend to be more inwardly focused and exhibit rigid patterns of thinking. Although much of gender ideology is not grounded in logic, it can still foster an inflexible mindset that becomes difficult to challenge. As a result, it can be especially hard to help an autistic person reconsider beliefs she has strongly adopted. Parents of autistic children face unique challenges in helping their children recognize when they may have been misled or influenced by systems and industries that financially benefit from reinforcing the belief that discomfort with oneself means being born in the wrong body. Despite these obvious factors, NPR repeats in its article that “researchers are working to understand the connection” as if it is a complete mystery. My profession used to understand that vulnerable people often seek certainty, categories, belonging, and explanations for pain. We once recognized that distress can be real while the explanation for that distress may still deserve exploration. Somehow, in this one area, psychology and medicine forget their own principles, pretend to ignore the obvious, and continue to remain obtuse. *** Pamela Garfield-Jaeger, LCSW, is a licensed therapist. She is the author of “A Practical Response to Gender Distress: Tips and Tools for Family” and “Froggy Girl.” You can find her on Instagram at @the.truthfultherapist, X as @pgarfieldjaeger, and Substack as Pamthetruthfultherapist.