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. *** Are todays’ kids too badly behaved and poorly parented to share adult-oriented spaces, such as restaurants, weddings, and public transportation? Or do the childless adults demanding insulation from children’s antics as they sip their lattes, say their vows, or commute to work just need to get a grip and grow up already?  This is one of those Internet Discourses in which people are talking endlessly past one another, ignoring that both things are true: Yes, American parents absolutely need to raise kids who behave better, and, yes, childless adults who want to live without interruptions from crying babies or laughing preschoolers need to be ignored like the overgrown toddlers they are. A couple things are happening at once here, confounding our collective ability to see and act on the nuanced reality. One, lack of accommodation for children and families is real, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as fewer people have children and it becomes less common to see children out and about. It then also becomes less presumptive to take children into true and special consideration when making policy and other decisions. Two, millennials, in mass thrall to gentle parenting and its lies about child development, have produced way too many badly behaved kids and not enough well-behaved ones. As a result, people see so little decent parenting in public that we’ve forgotten how varied even good child-rearing can look in relation to kids of different ages.  Children should be expected to exist in public A few weeks ago, I took my four children — ages 11, nine, five, and two — into the kind of Center City Philadelphia coffee shop where one does not typically see children (let alone four of them in one family). No one bothered us, and everyone was kind to us. But we sure got a lot of stares. You know who did not provoke that level of interest? The several dogs on leashes inside this same establishment. Why? Because that eatery, given its clientele, is clearly more commonly frequented by canines than by kids.  Is this a problem, in and of itself? Of course not. But when children’s presence is alien to large and growing swaths of the population, an unfamiliarity with kids’ norms and needs takes root far beyond a few froufrou coffee shops.  Take our response to the coronavirus pandemic. Remember how bars opened ahead of schools in many places? Remember how our inane decision to close schools at all was ultimately a regressive tax on poor and working-class children? Remember how senior citizens and childless adults tended to oppose the reopening of schools more than anyone else? When children are largely hidden from view — when their needs are not apparent to people beyond their parents — the devaluation of their well-being is normalized.  For example, my sons have provoked their fair share of adult upset over the years for existing in pools. In one memorable incident, an elderly woman came over to yell at my then seven-year-old and five-year-old (and me) because they were jumping repeatedly into the pool, giggling and splashing — and had gotten her wetter than she wished to be. I responded charitably due to her advanced age, but one has to wonder what manner of society produces senior citizens who enter pools of their own free choice during a time designated “family swim” and then publicly react in anger when they encounter, um, water. Such a curmudgeonly attitude toward children’s noise and play in shared spaces, and our acceptance of it, reflects values that are exactly backwards. Children’s needs should be our top priority; childless adults’ desires should be our last. In a healthy culture, any adult who said or behaved otherwise would thereby forfeit her right to any regard or respect.  Gentle parents are ruining America — and maybe your dinner As I have written many times, gentle parenting — defined as prioritizing young children’s feelings over their behavior — has many unintended, negative consequences for kids and parents alike. A baseline of decreased tolerance for children in public spaces is one of them.  There are two things at play here. One is that too many of today’s kids really are abominably behaved. A few months ago, I took my five-year-old in for a sleep study. The veteran nurse who cared for him shared with me that she could no longer count on children his age to sit still while she prepared them for evaluation. Many won’t listen when their parents instruct them to sit still. Some kick, scream, or hit. A substantial percentage need to be pacified with screens in order to complete their appointments.  If you ever frequent restaurants, churches, or other public spaces where children are present, none of this will surprise you. Beleaguered parents weakly pleading with five-year-olds who don’t sit still to “make a better choice” over a plate of French fries at the local diner is common. Indeed, this kind of permissiveness and abdication cuts across enough demographic divides of class and political ideology that it’s no longer accurate to associate it only with those who profess “gentle parenting.” It is, per Hannah Spier, normative “millennial parenting.” This is a colossal and multifaceted problem that requires swift and thorough remediation.   That said, the other aspect of decreasing tolerance for children in public spaces is childless adults’ determination to denigrate whatever inconveniences them without regard to the context — in other words, to be gentle parented by society, including by children, themselves.  As Stephanie Murray has pointed out, the child throwing a tantrum at Target may actually have great parents. After all, he’s screaming because he isn’t getting what he wants, and that’s likely because the adult in charge isn’t giving in. Sure, the five or six-year-old screaming wildly outside the grocery store while his mom attempts to comfort him is almost certainly a gentle-parented disaster with overindulgent parents. But the two- or three-year-old screaming just as wildly? She usually isn’t! Indeed, it’s the very parents who are willing to let their toddlers throw tantrums — in public and in private — who produce preschoolers who have long since stopped doing so. Children of such parents were told “no” constantly and consistently in toddlerhood, and they learned that tantrums neither changed “no” to “yes” nor garnered them any attention.  So, yes, it’s on parents to ensure that preschoolers are civilized into the ability to behave appropriately enough in adult-oriented spaces. But it’s also on the rest of society to have the maturity, decency, and grace to remember that the well-named “terrible twos” should not involve house arrest for young families. Moreover, to any right-thinking person, running and laughing kids are not an affront to public peace but the primary reason to preserve it. The dad of a crying toddler on an airplane or the mom of a grade schooler who accidentally drops some books with a thud at the library, for example, should garner genuine smiles and sincere sympathy from other adults, not scowls and eye rolls.  Frankly, we should all begin from a premise of gratitude to today’s parents for raising the next generation. After all, in this anti-child, anti-family ecology, that’s no longer a given. *** Elizabeth Grace Matthew writes about books, education, and culture, including on Substack.

Nearly 48 hours after the polls closed in California, the results of the gubernatorial primary and the Los Angeles mayor’s race remain unresolved as President Donald Trump has accused Democrats in the state of attempting to “steal” the elections. With just 58% of the vote reported Thursday evening, Republican Steve Hilton still leads the gubernatorial primary with 27.2% support, ahead of Democrat Xavier Becerra at 25.9%. Both were ahead of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, who was at 20.1%. On Wednesday evening, 55% of the vote had been counted. Despite Hilton’s lead, millions of ballots are still uncounted, making it too early to determine the final order of finish. Under California’s top-two primary system, candidates from the same party can advance to a runoff in November’s general election if they finish in the top two. In the Los Angeles mayoral race, just 66% of the vote had been counted by Thursday evening, up from 62% from Wednesday evening. Incumbent Democrat Mayor Karen Bass still leads with 35.1% support, followed by Republican Spencer Pratt at 29.4%. Far-left Councilmember Nithya Raman was third with 23.4%. The top two votegetters in the mayoral primary, regardless of party, secure a place in the November runoff if neither receives more than 50% of the vote. Bass has already secured a spot in the runoff, according to projections. Trump took to Truth Social late Wednesday night and again on Thursday to accuse Democrats of election fraud, asking, “Why the vote counting DELAY???” “Look what’s happening in California, the Dumocrats, right before our very eyes, are stealing the vote,” Trump posted on Thursday. Mayor Bass responded on X Thursday evening. Trump only says this when MAGA candidates, like Spencer Pratt, start losing. LA will count every vote. pic.twitter.com/gNi5m13uq7 — Karen Bass (@KarenBassLA) June 4, 2026 “Trump only says this when MAGA candidates, like Spencer Pratt, start losing,” she posted. “LA will count every vote.” Delayed results are routine in California because of the state’s extensive vote-by-mail system, signature verification, and procedures for resolving ballot errors. The final tally of California’s races could take as long as three weeks. Unlike many states that require mail ballots to arrive by Election Day, California accepts ballots that arrive up to 7 days later if postmarked on time. Then, those ballots have up to 7 days to reach a processing center. Counties must verify signatures, count provisional ballots, and allow voters to cure certain ballot defects before results are certified.

Senate Republicans on Thursday defeated a Democratic amendment that would have permanently barred the Justice Department from establishing its proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, despite a handful of GOP senators from competitive states breaking ranks to support the measure. The amendment, sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), failed in a 49-50 vote after nearly three hours of procedural wrangling on the Senate floor. All Democrats voted in favor, while Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and Jon Husted (R-OH) joined them. It would have permanently prohibited any future administration from using the federal Judgment Fund to establish the Anti-Weaponization Fund.  The vote highlighted growing political tensions surrounding the fund, which Democrats have repeatedly characterized as a “MAGA slush fund” and which some Republicans have privately worried could become a liability in the months leading up to the midterm elections. The three GOP senators who voted with Democrats are all facing competitive re-election campaigns this November. Collins is expected to face one of the toughest races of her career in Maine, while Sullivan and Husted are also preparing for competitive contests in states Democrats hope to contest aggressively. Democrats argued that verbal assurances from the Trump administration that the fund was dead were insufficient. “It’s heinous and it won’t die until we permanently ban it by law,” Schumer said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. The amendment came despite repeated statements from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that the Justice Department has abandoned plans to move forward with the fund. “We are not moving forward with the fund. Period,” Blanche told lawmakers during congressional testimony this week. The Anti-Weaponization Fund was initially proposed in May as a mechanism to compensate Americans who believe they were improperly targeted by government agencies. Supporters argued that victims of politically motivated prosecutions, including some January 6 defendants, pro-life activists, and others who believed they had been unfairly targeted by the federal government, should have an avenue for restitution. The proposal quickly drew backlash from both Democrats and several Senate Republicans, who expressed concerns about potential beneficiaries and the program’s projected cost. Thursday’s vote also exposed divisions within the Republican conference. Several senators who opposed Schumer’s amendment nonetheless pushed for alternative language that would codify Blanche’s pledge not to pursue the fund. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) reportedly threatened to support Schumer’s amendment unless Republican leadership allowed consideration of a separate proposal prohibiting the fund. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) similarly argued that formally eliminating the proposal would spare vulnerable Republicans from having to defend it on the campaign trail. “Why not use this moment to codify that?” Tillis told reporters. “Otherwise, you’re exposing every one of our members who are in an election cycle to having to deal with this between today and Election Day.” Ultimately, however, most Republicans voted against Schumer’s amendment, helping preserve the underlying $70 billion reconciliation package, which focuses primarily on immigration enforcement and border security. The fight over the Anti-Weaponization Fund has become one of several politically charged issues Democrats hope to use to divide Republicans ahead of November. With control of both chambers of Congress at stake, Democrats have sought to force difficult votes on issues ranging from government spending and tariffs to immigration enforcement and Trump’s legal battles. For Republicans, the challenge is maintaining unity while defending a narrow Senate majority in what is expected to be a difficult midterm environment. Thursday’s vote demonstrated that while some vulnerable GOP incumbents are willing to distance themselves from controversial Trump administration proposals, Republican leadership remains determined to avoid handing Democrats procedural victories that could derail the party’s broader legislative agenda. And despite Democratic efforts to permanently kill the proposal, the amendment’s failure means Republicans avoided a headline-grabbing rebuke of the administration — even as the administration itself insists the fund is already dead.

Employees at the Kennedy Center have been instructed to remove President Donald Trump’s name from official communications, branding materials, and signage following a federal court ruling that blocked efforts to rename the institution after the president. Staffers were directed Thursday to immediately begin removing Trump’s name from email signatures, letterhead, press releases, social media accounts, voicemail greetings, and other official materials, according to an internal memo obtained by Politico. The memo sets a June 12 deadline to update signage, brochures, website pages, identification cards, forms, and other materials that currently reference Trump. Employees were instructed to refer to the institution only as “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” or simply the “Kennedy Center.”  The directive comes less than a week after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the Kennedy Center’s board lacked the legal authority to add Trump’s name to the institution. “Congress named the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for President John F. Kennedy by federal statute,” Cooper wrote in his decision. “The Center may not be officially named for anyone else except by an Act of Congress.” The ruling dealt a setback to one of Trump’s most visible efforts to reshape the nation’s premier performing arts venue. The White House announced in December that the Kennedy Center’s board had voted unanimously to rename the institution the “Trump-Kennedy Center,” arguing the move recognized Trump’s role in restoring the facility’s finances, reputation, and infrastructure. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at the time that trustees believed the president’s leadership had helped save the institution. The vote followed Trump’s sweeping overhaul of the center’s leadership. Earlier in 2025, Trump removed several board members, including chairman David Rubenstein, and replaced them with allies who subsequently elected him chairman of the board. Within days of the vote, Trump’s name appeared prominently on the institution’s website and exterior signage. Justice Department attorneys later acknowledged in court filings that some of the signage appeared to have been prepared before the board formally approved the name change. The renaming effort immediately sparked backlash from Democrats, members of the Kennedy family, and arts advocates who argued that the center was established by Congress as a living memorial to the late President John F. Kennedy and could not legally be renamed without congressional approval. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who serves as an ex officio member of the board through her position in Congress, filed suit shortly after the vote. “Only Congress has the authority to rename the Kennedy Center. President Trump and his cronies must not be allowed to trample federal law and bypass Congress to feed his ego,” Beatty wrote when the lawsuit was filed. The newly released memo suggests Kennedy Center leadership is complying with Cooper’s ruling while weighing possible next steps. “We are complying with the court’s order while evaluating all legal options to preserve this revitalization and recognize President Trump’s leadership,” Kennedy Center spokeswoman Roma Daravi told the Associated Press. The memo also addressed a separate portion of Cooper’s ruling that blocked the board’s plans to close the center for two years during a major renovation project. While the court temporarily halted those plans, center officials indicated they are continuing to evaluate their options. The White House has signaled it may continue fighting the decision. The Justice Department has pledged to defend Trump’s authority over the center’s operations, while Trump himself has criticized the ruling and suggested he could step away from his efforts to remake the institution if he is prevented from exercising authority over its future direction.

After hosting Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Athletics for a third of their season with plans to do so until 2028, Sacramento announced its wager of one billion dollars of taxpayer money to bring an MLB team to the city for good. In what is being called “The Sacramento Pitch,” the city plans to raise $ 1.8 billion to fund a stadium and team. $800 million of the proposition would come from land and tribal investments, while the remaining billion would come from tax-increment financing from the stadium, parking, and hotels currently or soon to be in the area.  West Sacramento Mayor Martha Guerrero seemed unbothered by the large-scale gamble when discussing the plan. “Over 40 years, the ballpark district will lead to $1.77 billion in new revenue for the entire city, Yolo County, and our schools,” Mayor Guerrero stated in the announcement of the bid. “One billion of that will be dispersed to the City of West Sacramento and reinvested into the ballpark district. This one billion investment would be generated solely by activity in the ballpark district.” The area around the proposed stadium will use taxpayer dollars to fund the tax-increment financing that is discussed in “The Sacramento Pitch.” While Mayor Guerrero mentions that they will not tap into the general fund and no taxpayer vote will be necessary, concerns are still being raised about whether public resources are being committed indirectly. Future increases in property taxes may be used for stadium upgrades down the line if the ballpark is built in West Sacramento. This tension between economic development promises and the public’s part in the project is what led officials to propose the stadium initiative in the first place, as they attempt to structure financing in a way that appears fiscally neutral while still making the project viable. West Sacramento’s proposition was born after the current MLB commissioner expressed his desire to expand the league to 32 teams before he retires in January of 2029. Sacramento is among Salt Lake City, Nashville, and Portland as potential cities looking to add a team.  Currently, the capital region is home to the San Francisco Giants’ Triple-A affiliate, the Sacramento River Cats, as well as the former Oakland Athletics, who are waiting to relocate to Las Vegas in 2028. The support for baseball for a major league team that isn’t even theirs sparked the plan. “The momentum around the team is growing, attendance is increasing, and community enthusiasm is building because people are starting to think that if we do a lot for the Athletics, we’re also demonstrating to Major League Baseball that Sacramento is ready,” president and CEO of the Greater Sacramento Economic Council Barry Broome told Fox News. Regardless of how ready Sacramento believes they are for a baseball team, gambling close to $1 billion in tax-increment financing is not always the safest way to spend a city’s money.