This is part two of a Daily Wire series exposing the Biden administration’s previously unreported efforts to enact radical anti-family policies in the name of protecting transgender-identifying children. Part one told the story of Nicole, a mother whose refusal to indulge her daughter’s gender delusions led the state of Oregon to take custody of the child. Today, we peer behind the curtain of the Biden administration’s efforts to replicate Oregon’s system on a national level. In the waning days of the administration, Biden health officials pushed a rule they said would stop an epidemic of “family rejection” straining the foster care system. There was just one problem: even radical LGBT activists told the Biden team it had its facts wrong. That didn’t stop them. *** In April 2024, the Biden administration issued a rule pressing state child welfare agencies to stock their systems with foster homes that would “affirm” a child’s “gender identity,” insisting it was the best way to protect children’s mental health. Less than a month prior, Biden officials were scrambling to find data to support their claim. “I’m on a tight deadline and need to provide data on why LGBTQI+ children and youth are overrepresented in child welfare,” Julie Kruse, the Biden administration’s Senior Advisor for LGBTQI+ Initiatives at the Administration for Children and Families, wrote in an email to transgender activists unearthed by The Daily Wire. “There are so many great surveys on disproportionality of negative experiences, WHILE these youth are in care but less quantitative data I’ve been able to find on family rejection and other factors that led a disproportionate number of LGBTQI+ youth to be in foster care in the first case.” Kruse and others in the administration pushed the rule to fix what they believed was a massive problem with foster care: a dangerously high number of teens were entering the system because their parents did not accept their gender or sexual identity. The rule’s rationale pointed to “family rejection” — including refusing to use a child’s chosen pronouns or not letting a child “learn about their LGBTQ identity” — as harmful, and directed agencies to make placements that support a child’s gender identity. Bianca Wilson, an LGBT scholar, warned Kruse that this claim wasn’t supported by data. “I encourage you to avoid the go-to explanation of ‘family rejection’ that is often adopted by queer organizations that do so in the absence of data to support it,” Wilson wrote to Kruse in an August 28, 2023, email. “Most of the queerkids in care (based on what we saw In LA and what NYC found) entered care before they were teens,” wrote Wilson, the lead investigator of the first study to estimate the number of LGBT youth in foster care. “This means they likely entered care before [Sexual and Gender Minority] expression and identities were especially salient.” Kruse got somewhat luckier with Angela Weeks and Marlene Matarese. The pair had helped lead the cumbersomely named National Quality Improvement Center on Tailored Services, Placement Stability, and Permanency for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and Two-Spirit Children and Youth in Foster Care. The QIC-LGBTQ2S was launched in 2017 and worked with child welfare agencies in Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to develop and implement gender affirming child welfare interventions in partnership with the Children’s Bureau, with the goal of transforming child welfare systems to become LGBTQ+ affirming. The programs developed by the QIC-LGBTQ2S group were later housed and made accessible by the National SOGIE Center, a collaborative of transgender activist groups working to influence child welfare systems. Weeks sent Kruse a federally funded research survey conducted through the initiative she and Matarese led, which “found that 32% of young people (ages 12-21) identified as LGBTQ+.” But Weeks made clear that “there is less administrative data to help us understand the cause of this prevalence,” and that the extant data did not definitively show the reasons “LGBTQI+ youth” entered the foster care system. Bianca Wilson, the researcher who discouraged Kruse from employing “the go-to explanation of ‘family rejection,'” specifically named the Cuyahoga study as insufficient to demonstrate Kruse’s point in her message, insisting that “no one has yet done the research needed to examine this question adequately.” Wilson’s warnings did not dissuade Kruse. The Cuyahoga County report is the first study cited in the “family rejection” rule the Biden administration submitted to the Federal Register. “The rule was premised on the incorrect notion that not affirming and supporting a child’s self-proclaimed sexual identity or identity that rejects his or her sex is unsafe, harassment, mistreatment, and abuse,” Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Rachel Morrison told The Daily Wire. “This radical premise, if adopted, would not be contained to foster care; it would have far-reaching implications for adoption, custody disputes, child care, education, and athletics.” “The Biden rule created special rules for children in foster care who identify as ‘LGBTQI+’ based on misrepresentations of research and data, outdated studies, and biased surveys produced by ideologically-driven activist organizations,” she added. President Joe Biden continued pushing the idea that “family rejection” was driving kids into child welfare systems during his presidency. Kruse and Weeks worked together to plan an October 2024 “speed dating” event first exposed by The Daily Wire, which brought together transgender activists, government officials, and major progressive philanthropists to promote and expand the impact of “family acceptance” child welfare programs. The Biden foster care rule was vacated by a federal judge in June 2025. The Trump administration announced in March 2026 that it was taking action to rescind the rule. Wilson stood by her comment to Kruse on family rejection and told The Daily Wire that data indicate LGBTQ+ youth are overrepresented in foster care, but there is no systematic data to explain why. She attributed this to a lack of research funding and the government’s blocking efforts to collect SOGIE data. “Yet, if you look at some research studies, it is also clear that family rejection because of prejudice against a child or youth’s SOGIE is sometimes a major issue leading to placement in foster care. So, family rejection is sometimes a major issue, but we do not have clear data to explain whether it is central to creating LGBTQ youth disproportionality,” Wilson told The Daily Wire. READ PART ONE: SHE WOULDN’T CALL HER DAUGHTER ‘TRANS.’ THE STATE TOOK CUSTODY.

Former first lady Jill Biden on Tuesday shrugged when asked whether her husband would’ve been physically capable of serving another four years, despite her efforts to keep his re-election campaign alive. The 74-year-old’s media tour for “View from the East Wing: A Memoir” seeks to revisit the final chapter of Joe Biden’s presidency, his health, and the last-minute campaign to force him off the Democratic ticket. “Had he been elected again, would he have been able to serve as president? Would he have had to resign?” MS NOW host Jonathan Lemire pressed Biden. Jill Biden replied: “I don’t know the answer to that.” MS NOW: “Had [Biden] been elected again, would he be able to serve as President? Would he have to resign?” JILL BIDEN: “I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that.” pic.twitter.com/rIFHIEx5AB — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 2, 2026 During a Tuesday interview on “The View,” Biden suggested she did not have a blind spot regarding her husband’s cognitive decline and said no one had warned her about his advanced age. “You know, you’re saying many aides saw this. No one ever came to me and said, Jill, you know, Joe’s aging or something’s wrong. So when I saw that, I mean, no doctors came to me and said that, and Joe, like I said, you said, has a whole team of doctors around,” she said.  Over the weekend, Biden blamed the White House health care team for failing to detect Joe Biden’s advanced prostate cancer earlier. “Well, you know, the doctors said that according to the American Urological Association, that men over 70 don’t need a PSA, a blood test anymore because it’s a slow-growing cancer. I have to say, Rita, I do feel we had amazing care in The White House, but somehow that was missed,” she replied. “So you’re a little bit tense when it comes to his health, huh?” Braver pressed. “I don’t know if the word is ‘tense,’ but I think I’m vigilant,” Jill Biden replied. The former first lady also recently revealed that she had worried that her husband might have been having a stroke during his debate with President Donald Trump. In a Truth Social post, Trump called the former first lady’s bluff, arguing she should have rushed out onto the stage to help him if she was concerned.  “She said that she thought he was having a ‘stroke,’ and various other really bad things, and yet never rushed onto the stage to help her troubled husband, as any good wife would do,” he said. In the same interview, Jill Biden insisted Joe was best suited to beat Trump in the November 2024 election.  “I believe he would have beat Donald Trump in that election,” she said, adding the couple had confidence in Kamala Harris.  Jill Biden: “I believe [Joe] would have beat Donald Trump in that election.” Ok. pic.twitter.com/ielfUS5FAB — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 2, 2026 “Joe and Kamala, me, Doug, I thought we were a great team. We chose Kamala, or Joe chose Kamala to be VP, and so we were supportive of her,” she said. “And look, when Joe, when Joe got out, he handed over the reins to Kamala. He had full confidence in her.  “I went out on the road a lot, a lot for Kamala, and honestly, I truly believed she was going to win,” Biden added.  JILL BIDEN: “We chose Kamala…or Joe chose Kamala to be VP…he had full confidence in her.” pic.twitter.com/ECkhkIeT6V — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 2, 2026

For years, the federal government handed out money for important scientific research based on racially-focused “diversity” goals and requirements.  Since beginning his second term in office, President Donald Trump has moved to banish diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from the federal grant process through executive orders. Rep. Ralph Norman, a Republican from South Carolina, wants to ensure those racially-focused requirements, once implemented by the nation’s largest funders of scientific research, do not return.   “Taxpayer-funded research should be awarded based on merit, innovation, and results, not DEI-driven activist handouts,” Norman told The Daily Wire. “Americans are tired of watching universities prioritize ideological checkboxes over achievement.” Norman, running in the South Carolina governor’s race on an anti-DEI platform, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would ban the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health from using DEI requirements or diversity mandates when deciding which scientific projects to fund.  The bill, known as the Merit Restoration Act, states that federal research agencies “may not use any prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice in awarding, evaluating, or continuing a Federal research grant.” In archived pages, the National Science Foundation, which has an annual budget of more than $8 billion, said one of the agency’s main priorities was increasing the participation of “underrepresented groups” and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.  This focus was reflected in the agency’s Broadening Participation in Engineering program, designed to increase the involvement of racial and sexual minorities in engineering. It defined underrepresented races as people who are black, Hispanic, American Indians, and Pacific Islander.    Other NSF grants have also been used to fund travel to academic conferences that gave “priority” for scholarships to individuals from “underrepresented groups.”  Another example listed by Norman’s office was an NIH research education program focused on “educational activities that encourage individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in the biomedical and behavioral sciences, to pursue further studies or careers in research.” These types of programs came as NIH had an official statement on its “interest in diversity” that said that it encouraged “institutions to diversify their student and faculty populations to enhance the participation of individuals from groups that are underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences.” That NIH page has been deleted as the Trump administration has moved to eliminate DEI-focused funding. The Trump administration has also faced litigation over its decision to terminate more than 1,000 grants related to DEI or radical gender ideology. In December 2025, the agency agreed to a settlement to review grants on a standardized case-by-case basis. Many of the projects impacted were kept sealed from the public record, making it difficult to determine exactly which grants were involved. “Federal research dollars should support the strongest proposals and the best science, whether in medicine, engineering, or scientific innovation, not political agendas,” Norman told The Daily Wire. “That’s what taxpayers expect and deserve.”

I work in healthcare. I’ve spent my adult life caring for vulnerable people. I never imagined I would become one myself. I also never imagined the man I trusted, who took an oath to “Do No Harm,” would harm my life forever. At first, my ex-boyfriend seemed normal, calm, and successful. We bonded over our jobs in healthcare. We laughed a lot and built what I believed was a genuine relationship. But the person I thought I knew didn’t exist. A few months into our relationship, I found out I was pregnant. The moment I told him, everything changed. His calm demeanor disappeared. That was when his secrets spilled. He revealed he was still legally married. Then he commanded I abort our child. He spoke obsessively about appearances, his family, and his future career. He repeatedly pushed for an abortion. I firmly said, “No.” “You don’t have to be involved,” I said. I was financially stable and able to raise a child on my own. Days went by, and then his apology came. I was shocked; he had completely changed. He was saying he would be the man I needed him to be, and he wouldn’t fight against our baby. He offered acts of kindness. He even started getting me hot chocolates daily. Little did I know that he was slowly poisoning our baby and me with the abortion drugs he’d bought online using his ex-wife’s information. Tragically, that wasn’t even the worst of it. After going to bed one night, I woke up around four in the morning feeling like someone was staring. He was awake, hovering over me. Then, in a flash, he pinned me down and forced crushed abortion drugs into my mouth. I knew what he’d done. As someone in healthcare, I understood how quickly these crushed drugs would absorb through my gums. I fought him off and ran to call 911. He took my cell and my keys, blocking me from leaving. I rushed to the kitchen, trying to rinse the powder from my mouth. But he continued to restrain me, buying each minute for the drugs to do their intended purpose of killing our kid. He kept yelling the same things at me: “My father will cut me off. My family will be ashamed. My career will be ruined.” At no point did he show concern for our child or for me. When he assumed the drugs had sufficiently aborted our baby, he returned my belongings, and I went straight to the hospital. After arriving, I began hemorrhaging. Blood was everywhere. The ER staff had to clean me and change the sheets because it was so severe. And the trauma didn’t end there. The medical staff had to support me through the tragedy of miscarrying my child in front of them. Then the police came. Detectives found crushed drugs and recovered evidence that corroborated my account. Today, my ex-boyfriend has been charged with this crime and pleaded no contest. He’s lost his medical license but could still avoid prison time altogether. A terrifying fact that haunts me. But this story is much bigger than mine. What happened to me is a reality that should terrify every American. I had no idea that these abortion drugs could be obtained online with no oversight, no in-person exam, no safeguards, no follow-ups. Just a man on a computer in the comfort of his home using his ex-wife’s information to order these drugs and have them arrive at his doorstep two days later. People can argue endlessly about abortion, but no woman should fear being drugged against her will. No woman should wake up to someone forcing abortion drugs down her throat. What happened to me violated every principle of healthcare. I’m speaking out for the first time because silence protects people who commit acts like this. And, unfortunately, I’m one of many women harmed by these mail-order drugs. Look at Rosalie Markezich in Louisiana, who lived a nightmare like mine. Now she’s suing the FDA because her ex-boyfriend ordered the drugs online and pressured her to take them. All because the FDA removed basic safety rules that required in-person visits. Our leaders need to take women’s safety seriously, not just for me, but for anyone who could end up in this situation. I hope Rosalie’s lawsuit will be resolved to restore important safeguards so abusers can’t get abortion drugs in the mail. No one should suffer. If the drugs are powerful enough to end human life and cause massive hemorrhaging, then they shouldn’t be treated casually. My ex-boyfriend made a choice. He chose deception over honesty, force over consent. And to violate two human beings, me and my baby. No woman should endure this. And no society that values women’s safety should look away. *** Jona Affholder lives in Ohio and is an abortion drug poisoning survivor.

Now for a little dose of good news: while some companies are clinging to Pride-themed ad campaigns in June, one of the most notorious offenders is going all-in for Americana just ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday. Target’s homepage on Tuesday featured a man and woman with children smiling and clad in red, white, and blue. “Epic Style: Americana-inspired looks for everyone,” the website headline says. The retail giant still has an LGBT-themed section, because of course they do, but it’s way below the fold and not prominently featured. Target.com This is a significant change from years past. In 2021, the Minneapolis-based retailer pushed its Pride collection to the top of its homepage in all its rainbow-hued glory. The banner read, “#takepride everywhere” and included various people, and even a dog, sporting Pride-themed apparel. It also promoted a children’s book called “What Are Your Words? A Book About Pronouns.”  Target.com via Wayback Machine   In 2020, there was not a hint of red, white, or blue on the homepage. Instead, a rainbow-colored shirt that said, “Ask Me About My Pronouns,” was featured front and center.  Target.com via Wayback Machine By 2024, the Pride collection had been moved down toward the bottom of the homepage. But even that placement was far more prominent than its status in 2026.  Target.com via Wayback Machine The march back toward sanity comes as no surprise after Target announced it would be reversing its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in early 2025. “Many years of data, insights, listening and learning have been shaping this next chapter in our strategy,” Chief Community Impact and Equity Officer Kiera Fernandez said in an internal memo at the time. “And as a retailer that serves millions of consumers every day, we understand the importance of staying in step with the evolving external landscape, now and in the future – all in service of driving Target’s growth and winning together.” Target also stopped reporting to external diversity-focused groups, including the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. The retailer came under fire in 2023 for marketing a line of Pride-themed merchandise, including products like “tuck-friendly” swimming suits, in prominent displays near the front of its stores. Other products in its “Pride Collection” included small shirts with phrases like “Just Be You And Feel The Love,” Pride-themed onesies, rainbow-colored leggings, tutu skirts, and jumpers. Following widespread backlash and boycotts, the Pride collection was significantly scaled back in 2024. It was also confirmed at the time that the retailer would no longer market Pride merchandise to children, as The Daily Wire previously reported.