House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) said Sunday that “something sinister” might be happening as officials probe a rash of disappearances and deaths of former top scientists who reportedly worked with classified information. Comer said he would bring in leaders of the agencies where the scientists worked for questioning about the matter. His comments come after the White House said last week it would be probing the strange cases and President Donald Trump said he hoped the disappearances were “random.” “We’ve put a notice out to the Department of War, to the FBI, to NASA, to the Department of Energy, that we want to know everything that they know about what happened with these scientists because those four agencies were predominantly the agencies that those 11 individuals were affiliated with. And we want to try to piece this together,” Comer told Fox News on Sunday. “We know there are many countries around the world that would love to have our knowledge and nuclear capabilities. And these are the people that were at the forefront of it, and they’re either dead or missing,” he added. A few of the strange cases include the disappearance of NASA scientist Monica Jacinto Reza, who went missing during a hike in June 2025; astrophysicist Carl Grillmair, who was shot on his front porch in February; Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Nuno Loureiro, who was shot and killed in his home in December 2025; and Air Force Maj. Gen. William McCasland, who went missing from his Albuquerque, New Mexico, home in March. The investigation into the deaths and disappearances is being led by the FBI. “These missing and killed scientists and former professional members of the Department of Energy vary [widely], and we’re working most importantly with our state and local partners who have the jurisdiction on each of these cases, whether they be a homicide or a missing person’s case, they have the evidence. What we’re going to do is collectively pull it all into one place,” FBI Director Kash Patel told Fox News on Sunday. Patel said that the investigation was focusing on whether there were any connections to classified information or foreign actors. Other examples of strange circumstances involving the scientists include the disappearance of Kansas City National Security Campus government contractor Steven Garcia in Albuquerque in 2025, allegedly with a handgun, and the discovery of pharmaceutical scientist Jason Thomas at the bottom of a Massachusetts pond after he went missing three months ago.

A truly heartwarming moment at a Pittsburgh Pirates baseball game reminded Americans why baseball has always been America’s game, no matter the numbers. Jake Mangum of the Pirates saw a young girl in the outfield bleachers wearing his jersey, and tossed the ball into the upper deck where her older brother caught it with his mitt. The young boy then turned and handed it to his sister, hugging her as he did so. Their father, behind them, was as excited as they were. Jake Mangum threw this baseball to a young fan … The moment that unfolded after will melt your heart

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. *** Country music singer and boy mom Maren Morris posted a video claiming she got into a heated argument with a man who told her boys need to “toughen up.” Well, Maren, they do. Morris said in her video that the man’s comment came at a party where the adults were discussing gender stereotypes, a totally normal and light conversation topic for a weekend soiree. “My son doesn’t need to be tough, especially in the way you’re using that word,” Morris shot back in her video. She explained that she was nervous her son was learning simplistic gender stereotypes like “only girls can like pink” and “girls can’t like Spider-Man.” She proceeded to admit she paints her six-year-old son’s nails and makes friendship bracelets with him. But the issue isn’t whether boys and girls can like the same things. It’s whether boys and girls should be developed in the same way. And the answer is no. I agree with Morris that children seeing gendered toys and colors in black and white, no pun intended, can have a detrimental impact on their impressionable minds. The West is undergoing a gender-obsessed craze wherein perfectly healthy young girls are chopping off their breasts because they like the color blue and “feel” like a boy. For most of history, we understood what it meant when girls appreciated traditionally masculine things. We called these girls “tomboys.” This wasn’t something to be medicalized, but a phase they grew out of or into. Through therapy-infected conversations on TikTok and Snapchat, a generation of girls has wiped the “tomboy” out of existence, replacing her with cross-sex hormones and chest compressors. I strongly believe in the sentiment that girls who like Spider-Man, the color blue, and trucks are still girls. Liking toys traditionally associated with boys doesn’t make girls — or any child — the opposite sex. Play exploration simply doesn’t work the same with boys, though. Parents who dress their boys in pink tutus, paint their nails, and encourage them to play with Polly Pockets (are those still cool?), are engaging in undeniably problematic behavior. Call me a hypocrite. I’ll wear it like a badge of honor. My take is simple: Boys and girls are different, and their creative exploration in childhood should be curated differently as well. This applies especially to the clothing choices of young boys. Boys don’t become men by accident. Masculinity is something that is crafted and reinforced by strong parents. When strength is treated as optional, even in play spaces, boys don’t just become softer versions of men. They become confused. This isn’t hypothetical. We are seeing in real time how toxic parenting that pushes gender non-conformity can shape a man’s identity later in life. In 2022, I had the privilege of interviewing detransitioners for a documentary highlighting individuals who underwent gender transition surgeries and later regretted their decisions. Detransitioner Walt Heyer was among those interviewed. Heyer “transitioned” and identified as a “woman” named Laura Jenson. He later detransitioned and dedicated his life to exposing the sham of “gender-affirming care.” In our interview, Heyer said he initially became confused about his gender when his grandmother, “Mamie,” would make him colorful dresses and give him preferential treatment when he was dressed like a girl. He said crossdressing was a common theme in the stories of boys who were confused about their gender in their teens. The same was not said of girls. This is not a coincidence — because boys and girls are different. People are quick to point out the asymmetry of how boys and girls should explore gendered toys and how the double standard “isn’t fair.” Good. Fairness, when defined as sameness, isn’t reality. Boys and girls are not interchangeable, and raising them as if they are doesn’t produce the equality feminists seek. It produces confusion in vulnerable young men. There are inherent differences between the sexes, and those must be developed in adolescence. Strong men showcase toughness, discipline, and emotional control, and that is developed through structure in their clothes and play, not gender fluidity. Boys, in the words of some unnamed Tennessee man, need to “toughen up.” *** Chrissy Clark is a journalist and conservative commentator. She hosts the “Underreported Stories” podcast, where she covers the news ignored by mainstream media.

On Friday, Allie Beth Stuckey’s “Relatable” podcast featured a debate between her and New York Times columnist David French. What was significant about the debate was French’s willingness to confront one of his sharpest critics head-on. What is doubly significant is why they were even debating to begin with: Over the last several years, French, who bills himself as an evangelical Christian and conservative, has staked out positions at serious odds with the constituency he purports to represent. The pair debated a number of topics, among them “toxic empathy,” gender ideology and pronouns, why David French voted for Kamala Harris, and his praise of progressive Christian James Talarico. While I cannot rehearse every facet of the debate in a single essay, the main takeaway was that all the topics centered on what I will call a “truth-emotion continuum.” By that, I mean Stuckey and French seemed to emphasize different priorities in how they communicate and what they communicate. On virtually every topic, French kept returning to the need to show compassion and kindness and to extend empathy to those across the political aisle. Those are all valuable, noble, and necessary. The question is whether, on their own, they are sufficient to advance Christian witness in the public square. Stuckey, in contrast, questioned French about whether the emphasis on kindness and empathy can lead persons to adopt a posture of inoffensiveness and non-judgmentalism to the point that biblical clarity is forfeited. Stuckey came out ahead in the debate for one main reason that colored every issue: She grounds her understanding of emotion and empathy in a biblical axis, whereas French elevates emotion and empathy to a disproportionate degree, subordinating biblical clarity to assuage the offended. The consequence of this approach leads, in the long run, to untethering emotions from truth. But here’s what needs to be said: Emotions need to be regulated by truth. Emotions are not self-regulating, nor should they be embraced without questioning their veracity. Also clear were the rhetorical differences in their respective approaches to the truth-emotion continuum. In rhetoric, speakers tend to focus on either logos (reason) or pathos (emotion) to make their case. In the debate, Stuckey focuses more on logos; French, on pathos. Stuckey succeeded by bringing in the missing element in rhetorical theory: ethos, the idea of the speaker’s credibility. Credibility refers to the ability to speak with authority on a given subject. In my view, Stuckey offers a more credible witness because her approach is more biblical and just as compassionate, whereas French’s view is all compassion but little clarity. In debates over “toxic empathy,” truth gets pitted against compassion. But Stuckey demonstrated ethos by refusing to play the game of pitting love against truth (1 Cor. 13:6; Eph. 4:15). She’s obviously no less interested in kindness or empathy than French, but she is properly grounded in Scripture. French’s focus on catering to emotional equilibria (and thus hewing to progressive niceties) results in him blurring biblical categories. We saw this, for example, in his unwillingness to call James Talarico a non-Christian despite Talarico abandoning core Christian doctrines. It’s ironic that outspoken atheists who at least know what Christianity teaches (but reject it) are better at assessing whether someone is a Christian than some Christians are. The avowed atheist Friedrich Nietzsche would have no problem calling Talarico a non-Christian because of the orthodox doctrines that Talarico rejects. Why can’t David French? In truth, biblical cultural engagement requires both logos and pathos undergirded by ethos, but our engagement must be ordered and governed with a proper foundation in Scripture. And notably, French’s outsized empathy leads him to extend that empathy more typically in one direction, toward those to his left. While French emphasizes the need for all sides to listen to one another, it struck me how much more empathy was extended to the Left. They deserve the benefit of the doubt, while “MAGA Christianity” deserves only generalization and ridicule. As I scored the debate, Stuckey focused on objectivity, reason, and right and wrong as the grounds of what constitutes love and kindness, whereas French’s instinct was to defer to emotion and the unpleasant aesthetics of culture war. But another element of the debate requires attention, namely, French’s somewhat dismissive relegation of Stuckey’s concerns to matters of triviality. In offering his own commentary on the debate, Baylor sociologist George Yancey (who sided more with French) argued that Stuckey seems unhelpfully preoccupied with topics like homosexuality and transgender issues, whereas French focused on issues of greater global significance, such as foreign policy. He writes that “it became clear to me that these issues are deeply linked to her theological framework and this makes them priority issues.” While I generally appreciate Yancey’s work and perspective, I think he fails to understand what motivates Stuckey and the significance of these issues. There was one key phrase she used in her discussion that demonstrates why she is so concerned about issues of life, gender, and sexuality. She named these “creation order” issues. “Creation order” is Christian parlance for “natural law.” In particular, it speaks to the foundational principles necessary to ground society’s coherence, stability, and flourishing. What Stuckey is concerned about is not only one’s eternal state and biblical fidelity, but also what is true about human nature being reflected in law and upheld by broader society. In her thinking (and mine), if civilization fails to respect human beings at all stages of life, it undermines society as a whole. Human dignity, in principle, is jeopardized. If human civilization cannot lay out definitions and expectations for what it means to be male and female, it robs society of the most basic facet of our existence. And if civilization fails to uphold the sexual arrangements and familial arrangements that optimize human flourishing, we are sawing off the branch that makes society possible. Far from abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism being niche culture war topics, they are building blocks that speak to the most essential foundations of human civilization. Regardless of how one scores this debate, the fact that figures like Allie Beth Stuckey and David French had this important conversation in person rather than online underscores the importance of individuals in different silos speaking to one another. While French’s and Stuckey’s disagreements remain stark, it was also apparent that they had much in common as they sought mutual understanding and clarity over one another’s views. And in this perpetually online age, we’re all better off for seeing an intense debate modeled with civility and charity. *** Andrew T. Walker is associate professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and managing editor of WORLD Opinions. He is a fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The internet pulled up its bootstraps, took to the streets of X, and started dragging the United Kingdom for being abysmal on pretty much every front: immigration, food, housing, the deletion of their culture in exchange for burqa shops, and now… their economy. A new report from the U.K.-based Institute of Economic Affairs revealed that Brits thought the UK ranked 7th against U.S. states in income per person, when in reality it ranks 51st. Worse yet, Mississippi, the poorest state in the United States, is richer than the United Kingdom. If they joined our great nation, they’d be the poorest state in the entire union. Absolutely bloody news there, mate. The beatdown didn’t stop there. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves posted to X: “As we say in Mississippi, ‘Bless Your Heart.’ Or as you say in the U.K., ‘As-Salamu Alaykum.'” Phenomenal clapback. I must say, this feels good. This was the rush of patriotism we all needed this week, amid war with terrorists, high-profile doxxing threats, Pope scuffles, and rape scandals. Despite our flaws as a nation, by golly, at least our weakest link (fiscally speaking) is more economically sound than the entirety of the United Kingdom. The mockery is the easy part. The harder question is how the country that gave us the Magna Carta, Winston Churchill, and the Industrial Revolution ended up here. The answer is a masterclass in what happens when a government prioritizes the feelings of newcomers over the well-being of its own citizens for decades without correction. Put the kettle on, because there is more tea to be spilled. The U.K.’s GDP technically has grown since 2008. That’s because the population grew, mostly from immigration. Real GDP per capita — the number that tells you whether individual Brits are actually better off — crawled just 7.8% over 16 years. Productivity has flatlined at its slowest rate in 200 years. Net migration hit a record 944,000 in 2023, with large portions being low-skilled migrants who consumed public housing, the National Health Service, and welfare faster than the infrastructure could absorb them. NHS waiting lists are catastrophic. Housing costs are suffocating. And on top of all of it, Britain’s punishing tax burden on its most productive citizens sent wealth, investment, and talent straight out the door. You cannot bleed your earners dry and wonder why the engine stalled. The country hasn’t collapsed, but it’s buckled badly, and everyone can see it and feel it. Their pocketbooks aren’t the only things threatened. Take the grooming gang scandal that rocked the U.K. over the past several years. Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford. It is one of the most documented and most deliberately suppressed institutional failures in modern Western history. Multiple official inquiries confirmed that networks of predominantly Pakistani-heritage men systematically targeted and sexually exploited vulnerable young British girls. Authorities knew. Police knew. Social workers knew. For years, they did nothing for fear of being called racist. Children were abused. Officials had the evidence. They chose institutional cowardice over the safety of British girls. This is the rot. Open borders without assimilation requirements created the conditions that allowed it to fester. Europe wasn’t only deluding itself over crime policy. It was deluding itself about everything. The problem was a government that imported millions of people over two decades, refused to enforce meaningful assimilation standards, and then labeled anyone who raised concerns a bigot. When you grow your population faster than your housing, your hospitals, and your schools, without requiring newcomers to adopt the legal and civic norms of the country they’re entering, you don’t get a multicultural utopia. You get broken public services, Muhammad as the number one baby name, and a GDP per capita that loses to Mississippi. We don’t get to enjoy this schadenfreude for long. The same ideological forces that hollowed out Britain — open borders dressed as compassion, multicultural paralysis dressed as tolerance, debilitating taxes on the most productive members of society — have not left our politics. They’re knocking on the door. Net migration in America is now negative for the first time in 50 years. That’s an absolute win. But Elmo is already out here celebrating National Arab American Heritage Month, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is one green light away from unleashing rent control and a tax regime that would gut the financial capital of the world, and a sizable chunk of the progressive coalition openly sympathizes with terror. The U.K. didn’t fall in a day. It made a thousand small policy decisions, each defended as the humane choice, each quietly making things worse for the people who were already there. Don’t be Britain, but Bless Their Hearts.