The FBI thwarted a plot involving explosive-carrying drones and snipers targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House Sunday night, FBI Director Kash Patel said.  Patel revealed on Tuesday that the FBI first became aware of the plot on June 10 before arresting five suspects in the lead-up to the UFC event. Officials told Fox News that the plot involved using explosive-laden drones targeting buildings to herd people in front of a group of snipers. An apparent “second wave” would have then targeted the White House, an official said.  “On June 10, FBI and our law enforcement partners became aware of a potential threat to the UFC America 250 event in Washington, D.C. involving individuals outside of the National Capital Region – and thanks to the rapid action of this FBI, our partners, and the Department of Justice in a multi-state operation, multiple individuals are now in custody and allegedly planned attacks were stopped cold,” Patel said.  A total of 23 individuals were reportedly investigated over suspected ties to the plot. One suspect was arrested in Cincinnati, Ohio, and others planned to travel to Fredericksburg, Virginia, in the days leading up to the UFC event, the official told Fox News. Plans for the attack were found in Signal chats, investigators said.  One suspect allegedly told officials that he wanted to target “capitalist elites,” “billionaires,” and politicians who received donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Over 4,000 people showed up to the event, including President Donald Trump, key administration officials, and prominent businessmen like Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.  “While the result represented the best of investigative work, it was also nothing out of the ordinary for this law enforcement team — we are built to detect, respond to, and bring to justice those who threaten the lives of American citizens — particularly during large gatherings like the historic UFC 250 fight,” Patel added. “That’s exactly what we did here. I want to thank our great agents and partners, this work remains ongoing and we will continue to update the public as permitted.” The attack was allegedly planned after a recent surge in Left-wing violence with the assassination of Charlie Kirk, attacks targeting Trump and administration officials, and the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The man accused of starting the Lachman and Palisades fires was reportedly inspired by Luigi Mangione, who is accused of murdering Thompson.

Major League Baseball has officially warned San Francisco Giants players who counter-signaled or rejected the team’s LGBT “Pride Night.” Starting pitcher Landen Roupp on Friday etched a Bible passage found in Genesis onto his Giants cap, right next to the LGBT-themed rainbow logo he was directed to wear. Other players, JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker, followed suit in standing up for their Christian faith, also adding Bible verses. And relief pitcher Sam Hentges refused to wear the rainbow cap altogether, stating, “I don’t morally support it.” MLB’s chief communications officer Pat Courtney told The Athletic on Monday that these players have been “warned” about “future violations.” He said that writing on the team’s baseball caps “violates our rules.” The Giants also addressed the Christian players. In a statement ironically about “inclusion,” the team apologized for its players apparently causing “pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community.” “The San Francisco Giants are proud to support Pride Night and the LGBTQ+ community,” the statement said. “Baseball should be a place where everyone feels welcome, respected, and valued.” “We also respect that individuals may make personal choices about participating in team activations,” the team continued. “We understand that the choices by individual players have caused pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community and we are sorry for that.” “Those choices do not change our organization’s commitment to inclusion, belonging, and creating a welcoming environment for all,” the statement closed. “We remain grateful to our fans, partners, employees, players, and coaches who help make Pride Night a meaningful celebration.” Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet reacted to the MLB “warning” with his own warning — a sentiment widely expressed online. “MLB should tread carefully,” he posted. “There’s a lot more us fans that agree with the pitchers than with the league when it comes to pride night propaganda. Let the MLB be warned, not the pitchers. Be careful, MLB.” MLB should tread carefully. There’s a lot more us fans that agree with the pitchers than with the league when it comes to pride night propaganda. Let the MLB be warned, not the pitchers. Be careful, MLB. https://t.co/pCeHh009y5 — Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) June 16, 2026 Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham noted that the rainbow symbol is Christian based. “The LGBTQ movement appropriated the rainbow symbol from Christianity. Now Christians are taking it back. Deal with it,” she wrote. The LGBTQ movement appropriated the rainbow symbol from Christianity. Now Christians are taking it back. Deal with it. https://t.co/i2XmwXeyQR — Megan Basham (@megbasham) June 16, 2026 Actor Rob Schneider called the MLB “anti-Christian” and said he’d “pay the fines for any [MLB] Christian player who wears a Bible verse on their uniform.” I will pay the fines for any @MLB Christian player who wears a Bible verse on their uniform.@MLB is ANTI-CHRISTIAN https://t.co/miAT89eXJu — Rob Schneider

Despite being among Hollywood’s top box office draws, one of the most memorable scenes in Will Smith’s acting career was from his time on the hit television sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. In the episode “Papa’s Got a Brand New Excuse,” Will’s biological father, Lou, comes to see him 14 years after walking out of his life. Phillip Banks, Will’s uncle and legal guardian, is skeptical of Lou’s sudden reappearance. Uncle Phil reluctantly comes to support Lou’s efforts to reconcile with Will, but that goodwill is quickly exhausted after Lou postpones the cross-country trip he’d planned with his son. The scene ends with Will Smith giving an iconic monologue about all the things he learned to do in the past—and would accomplish in the future—without his father, punctuated by the actor’s unforgettable cry, “How come he don’t want me, man?” That episode is over 30 years old, yet all these years later it still evokes powerful emotions from viewers, some of whom saw their own life story reflected on the screen. But underneath the masterclass in acting was a deeper message. It is clear that Will missed his father and was hurt by his absence. What is easier to miss, however, is that the void created by Lou’s abandonment was too large for even Uncle Phil’s massive frame — and wealth — to fill. Will’s dad was a truck driver. Uncle Phil was a successful lawyer who eventually became a judge. The former left his son with little but disappointments and broken promises. The latter gave Will a lifestyle his father could never have afforded. Yet, for all Phillip and his wife Vivian offered Will — the mansion, elite private school, nice clothes — nothing could satisfy the teen’s longing for a father. The reason why is simple: children desire a father’s presence more than his presents. Children who grow up with a father in the home earn better grades, are more likely to attend college, and are less likely to live in poverty or go to prison. Conversely, father absence is associated with higher rates of poverty, teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, and substance abuse. Fathers also help answer deeper questions of purpose and belonging that every child has at some point, such as “who am I?” and “whose am I?” Unfortunately, 15 million American children live without a father in the home. That figure, which is slightly more than 20% of all children under 18, is the highest rate in the world. The family statistics for black children are even more sobering. Nearly 70% of black children are born to unmarried parents, and 44% grow up in a single-mother household. For all the attention progressives normally give to racial disparities in social outcomes, they are noticeably silent when it comes to such vast differences in family formation. My new book, The Vanishing Black Family, challenges African American leaders to marshal their political, cultural, and financial capital to launch a new movement to increase the number of children growing up in loving homes with married parents. The book begins with a scene from a 1986 CBS documentary on the collapse of the married, two-parent family structure in Newark, New Jersey. The host, Bill Moyers, asks a group of young black mothers whether any of them were married. No one raised a hand. Later, one mom expresses a view that — decades later — has been accepted in far too many neighborhoods, “Male figures are not substantially important in the family.” This way of thinking has quietly become an accepted norm that not only drives family formation patterns but also policy decisions. In January 2022, Washington, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser announced the launch of Strong Families, Strong Futures, a $1.5 million pilot program that provided financial assistance to new and expecting low-income mothers. According to Mayor Bowser, “This program is about supporting new and expectant moms with cash so that they can have the autonomy and flexibility to make the best choices for them and their baby.” There was not a single reference to fathers in her announcement. Given the geographic and demographic focus of the program, it was no surprise that the moms in the pilot were black. Similar programs for moms and babies exist in Atlanta and Philadelphia. They all rest on the flawed idea that when it comes to low-income black families, it takes two for nature but only one for nurture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Children of every race and socioeconomic background need both parents, and they are most likely to have daily access to them when their parents are married. Any attempt to ensure more children have the type of paternal connection that improves their chances of thriving in life will require an all-hands-on-deck effort from black pastors, elected officials, HBCU presidents, business leaders, civil rights organizations, entertainers, political pundits, and media outlets. This movement will need to include everything from “marriage bootcamps” for cohabiting couples with children to “success sequence” awareness campaigns that give teens the three-step plan for escaping poverty: finish high school, get a job, and get married before having children. These may seem like small steps, but they all support the goal of restoring a culture of marriage in communities where one has not existed for decades. Father’s Day is a perfect time to acknowledge the dads who give their kids the home life they need to thrive. It also provides a good opportunity to push current — and future — fathers to think about how their relationship decisions will impact their children. Marriage and fatherhood go hand in hand. It is hard for a man who lives apart from his child and feels little commitment to the child’s mother to be as present and involved a dad as his child needs him to be. Dads matter, and the safety and security children feel from their love and consistent presence is worth more than anything money can buy. *** Delano Squires is the director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Human Flourishing at The Heritage Foundation and author of The Vanishing Black Family: How Welfare and Feminism Made Marriage Optional and Children Vulnerable (out June 16, 2026 from Penguin Random House/Sentinel).

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. *** “Off Campus” serves millennial women all the soapy college romance they could ever want. But even though it trounced “The Summer I Turned Pretty” in views, Amazon’s third most-watched show ever didn’t need to go so hard on the explicit content to tell the story.  “I’m Six Flags, baby. Everybody wants a ride,” hockey hunk Dean Di Laurentis says with a smirk. “They come for a good time, not a long time. And that’s fine by me.” Heh heh heh. Aaand action on shenanigans. Like “Heated Rivalry” for moms with Prime accounts, “Off Campus” comes out swinging with a lingering closeup on main squeeze Garrett Graham’s backside less than two minutes into the series. Directing the female gaze slightly north, a tattoo between his shoulder blades reads “nullum gratuitum prandium,” Latin for “there is no free lunch.” (I feel like the only nerd who ever paused the show and ChatGPT-ed this, but now you know.) By 16:34, I was fully floored by the revelation that a streaming series on the same platform where I buy Paul Newman dog treats could show NSFW body parts doing NSFW stuff to an audience that most definitely includes teens. Despite the TV-MA alert (meaning the mature content is allegedly suitable for ages 18-plus), it gave me the ick.  I was a kid once, in a home without cable. If ever a PG kissing scene made it past the nine levels of network censorship and onto primetime, my mom would fly to the TV to cover it with a blue throw from our sofa (the censorship blanket!) until the scene was over.  I have since seen some things. Three-quarters of the way through the first episode of “Off Campus,” my eyes were already fully dilated with gender equitable top-and-bottomlessness, as well as a wide variety of inspiration for when mommy and daddy really love each other. For the record, I’m not a prude. I spent decades working in Hollywood and went to art school where we regularly sketched nude strangers to learn to interpret the human form like the Old Masters. I appreciate the cinematography of “Jack, I want you to draw me like one of your French girls” from “Titanic” and the “Cry To Me” sequence in “Dirty Dancing,” which threaded the needle on tasteful late-’80s dirty dancingness. Even though the premise of “Off Campus” didn’t hook me right away (the main college co-eds pretend to be a believable couple so an outside love interest will suddenly want the girl he can’t have), and the classroom backdrop smacked of vampirey werewolf love triangles of the aughts, I was determined to watch the eight-part series with my boyfriend and finally discover what all the fuss was about. “You’re on your own,” he announced, after suffering through episode one. Not for guys. Noted. Still, I was fascinated by a girl from my gym who was already watching the season for a third time — and editing her Hinge profile to describe her ideal match as a “Garrett Graham type” — less than a month after the series debuted. Actual hockey entered the chat halfway through the first episode. Guys, I’m neither Catholic nor plain folk, but I felt like an Amish nun streaming this stuff, covering my head, my ankles, and my eyes. At least figuratively. I wondered aloud to female friends if they, like the Allie Hayes character, ever just popped off their bras and held serious conversations with same-sex roommates with the headlights on. “Yes.” “No!” Respondents were divided. Before episode two began, I got an ad for the dating site Tinder, which apparently streams Spotify now. The show returned with a lingerie-clad makeout and a bored couple flipping through a Kama Sutra-style calendar for ideas. But 20:30 hit with a “we have to practice kissing in the weight room” scene. Ten minutes later, Allie was dancing at a frat party dressed like JLo in barely there, plunging Versace. By episode three, I briefly blacked out thinking that maybe the show was mellowing out on the mature themes. But 1:45 brought me back to reality with an intimate dream sequence involving a piano; 8:55 involved a couple taking a shower. At 12:37, lead Hannah Wells walks in on her “fake boyfriend” Garrett and another girl. He wipes his mouth as they do the “don’t you ever lock your door” routine, and at 18:49 we keep things moving with another spicy dream sequence. At the time of filming, the actress playing Hannah, Ella Bright, was just 18. The rest of the cast was roughly a decade older.  Episode four notoriously featured Hannah hoping her nonboyfriend-friend Garrett could help her overcome her trauma to finally experience pleasure. Separately but in Garrett’s bedroom together, at 20 minutes in, they … pop the champagne. (I’m running out of words.) Shortly after this, at the halfway point in the season, they realize they have feelings for each other. Utterly shocking, seeing as how much “practicing” they’ve done together.  It’s this moment where Hannah ditches her third wheel crush and goes all in on Garrett. The scene unfolds in the arena, as Garrett busily battles his inner demons on the ice, rage-shooting pucks on an open goal. Hannah’s beautiful voice echoes through the empty seats; Garrett whips off his skates and runs to her. They embrace. They kiss. The chemistry has never been so real. I briefly consider where the show goes from here if the will-they-won’t-they leads just got together. As I begrudgingly acknowledge my investment in the storyline, I realize — wait a minute. They had all their clothes on for the most compelling scene of the show!  All those bras, bath towels, and perfectly rumpled sheets were just shiny objects. For a good show to become great, the relationships need to ring true. That compelling moment was followed by episode five (1:11 through 4:19), literally the longest unpaywalled or age-gated montage of Garrett and Hannah’s highly amorous relationship. Do they ever study? Does all the stress about hockey and music scholarships from earlier matter? I’m aware that the series is based on the books by New York Times bestselling author Elle Kennedy, but it seems to be adapted for TV by out-of-work adult entertainment writers. With the explosion of OnlyFans, it’s surely been tough times for the industry.  I take more notes as I trudge through the rest of the season. Episode six didn’t load until I watched an ad for Liquid I.V.’s “Ring Pop Cherry” flavor, which is related to the show in at least two ways. Bedroom scenes and bare chests do nothing for the story, and a bright pink “intimacy device” gets in on the fun as part of an interrupted bathtub romp.  For those of you hoping for none of this, please see PG story-driven episode seven. But by the final episode, prepare yourself for the full monty in the men’s locker room. Don’t worry, it’s the camera, not you, gawking at each player’s private parts.   “Off Campus” season two will descend in 2027. And while the storyline is set to shift to other faces in the friend group, I imagine that, once again, there won’t be much need for the wardrobe department. 

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. *** After hearing about the infamous couple who just aborted their unborn baby with Down syndrome, some pro-lifers are turning against genetic testing. The argument goes something like this: Prenatal testing enables eugenics, so conservatives and Christians shouldn’t do it. “Fetal genetic testing and tests to ensure a ‘perfect’ baby are doing more harm than good,” concluded Sadie Gannett, a registered nurse with over half a million followers on Instagram. “Both my pregnancies I’ve denied the genetic [test] because to me it wouldn’t make a difference. Baby will still be loved, baby will still be carried to full term and given a chance of life,” said another influencer. One Gospel Coalition article from 2022 similarly discouraged prenatal testing, arguing “we should carefully weigh our motives and consider if such testing is truly prudent.” I understand exactly where this response comes from. I, like many pro-life conservatives, was outraged by the termination of YouTubers Jesse and Ashley Ridgway’s unborn child. The Ridgways decided to end the life of their child because he, diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero, was not the healthy, normal child for which they had hoped. Eugenics, yes. Terrible, absolutely. But is prenatal testing the culprit? No. Prenatal, newborn, or maternal genetic screening should not be held responsible for the evil that is eugenics and which is enabled by the pro-choice ideology. The pro-choice movement has turned what should be a lifesaving tool for parents into a deadly litmus test for babies “perfect enough” to be allowed to continue to live. It is vital that we reclaim genetic testing, whether prenatal, maternal, or newborn genetic screening, and bring it back within the rightful umbrella of life-affirming medical practices as all medical care should be.  My reasons for this are personal. Last November, our neighbors’ two-year-old daughter, Rosie, stopped walking unassisted and began waking up with pain in her legs at night. After rounds of testing, our neighbors received the news that is every parent’s worst fear. Their daughter is suffering from a rare genetic disease called Metachromatic leukodystrophy, or MLD, which is always fatal after symptoms began to manifest. Rosie, who met all of her developmental milestones up until about 18 months old, will be robbed of everything in mere months’ time. It is difficult for me even to catalogue what will happen to their sweet child: Her muscles will slowly stop working, and she will lose the ability to move. At the time of writing this, she can no longer walk, and she had a feeding tube put in three weeks ago. Then she will lose her ability to speak. Her memories will go, and she will suffer from childhood dementia. She will eventually slip into a vegetative state, and, depending on how long it takes for a significant bodily system to give out, she will remain in a vegetative state until she dies.  She will suffer the unimaginable. And for her parents and siblings, well, it’s an understatement to say that this will change them forever. But here’s the thing: Genetic testing would have spared Rosie this terrible suffering and would have saved her life.  MLD is caused by a gene mutation that can only be meaningfully corrected with gene therapy if the disease is caught before nerve damage begins to manifest. Unfortunately, by the time children like Rosie begin showing symptoms, the nerve damage is already too far along, and treatment is not lifesaving. Gene therapy involves high-intensity chemotherapy, which can accelerate disease progression and death in symptomatic kids. Comprehensive genetic testing is vital in catching MLD and diseases like it and treating them in early infancy before it’s too late. Though the treatment process is arduous, it is nothing compared to the terrible progression of the disease, and there are now many children living normal, healthy lives with MLD thanks to stem cell gene therapy administered as soon as possible. Currently, MLD is not included in routine prenatal screening, but an extra comprehensive genetic panel can be requested and taken by the mother to determine if the baby is at risk of inheriting the disorder and others like it, or the newborn can be screened for MLD immediately post birth. In fact, last year, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recommended that MLD be added to newborn screenings. According to Rosie’s mother, “The regret of our lives will always be that we didn’t realize it was important to do extra genetic testing.”  My heart breaks with her because I also did not understand how lifesaving genetic testing can be. Our neighbors’ little girl would be running around with her peers right now if her parents had known that she carried the deadly gene mutation. She’d be facing a long road of treatment, not slow physical and cognitive degeneration and death. This comes back to the fact that most parents don’t see genetic testing, especially non-routine or extra testing, as potentially lifesaving for their children. Rosie’s parents didn’t realize this, or they’d have done it in a heartbeat.  And that’s often the case with pro-life moms like myself. I also did not understand how valuable genetic testing can be until our neighborhood was rocked by this little girl’s diagnosis. When I explained to my midwife why I wanted to do extra comprehensive genetic testing during my current pregnancy (specifically stressing that it would not change the outcome of the pregnancy), she told me that there are many such diseases like MLD, that new gene therapies are continually being developed to combat the diseases, and that, like with our neighbor, most rely on immediate diagnosis in order to save the baby’s life. I am carrying my fourth baby, and I only just understood how lifesaving genetic testing can be because of our neighbor’s situation. Had I not known to ask my midwife because of our neighbor, I never would have known how cruel some of these genetic diseases are, the evolving breakthroughs in medical treatments, or that the earlier the diseases are caught the higher the chance of a cure is. But in the pro-life camp, we are not only largely unaware of how important these kinds of tests can be, but pro-life mothers are particularly wary of genetic screening for multiple reasons. According to one mom in my mother’s group, made up of like-minded pro-life women, she refused genetic testing because she was under the mindset that it “wouldn’t change anything” and that she would cherish her baby regardless of genetic condition. Another mom said she avoided it because she wanted to avoid unwanted stress and to trust God with her pregnancy. The crunchy movement is at play here as well. Some mothers would rather have an all “natural” pregnancy and birth experience, so they do not do any kind of genetic testing to maintain as natural of a pregnancy and postpartum experience as possible. And then there are the more sinister reasons that pro-life mothers avoid genetic testing; one mom said she avoided genetic testing because, shockingly, her doctor told her that they would not attempt to stop early labor if it resulted from certain genetic conditions. Pro-life parents see genetic testing as, at best, a tool to help inform parents of how to care for their child, or, at worst, a litmus test for selective abortions, which rightfully generates their animosity toward it. Too often genetic screening is a tool of eugenics and not advertised in the lifesaving manner that it should be.  That needs to change. When used to help prepare birth experiences or enhance newborn care, genetic testing appeals to most pro-life parents. But almost all mothers I spoke with did not understand, as I didn’t, that genetic testing can allow families to diagnose diseases that would otherwise go unnoticed until it is too late, and that the earlier the diagnosis the better the outcome. We cannot let genetic testing, which can save the lives of precious children like my neighbor’s child, become the scapegoat for the real culprit: a disregard for human life that is larger than, but certainly encompasses, ableism.   Consider the mother who was told that care would be withheld should her baby test positive for certain genetic conditions. We as mothers must hold doctors accountable for this kind of blatant disregard for human life. We should seek out pro-life minded medical professionals (I have had a lot more luck with finding like-minded midwives vs. obstetricians) who we feel assured would do anything in their power to save babies regardless of how grim their prognosis. We need to demand that doctors promote genetic testing as the lifesaving tool that it can be, not as a litmus test for the “normal” baby. We as pro-life mothers need to continue to speak out over its misuse (the rightful outrage over Ridgways, for instance). Our goal should always be that the sacredness of all persons, regardless of gestational age, dependency, health, socioeconomic status, disability, or any other qualifier, be promoted and safeguarded through life-affirming healthcare, whether that be fertility, midwifery, OBGYN, or newborn care. And if the pro-life movement is to apply this kind of comprehensive, life-affirming approach to maternal-fetal medicine, we cannot shy away from the new advancements in genetic disease testing and treatment. Because lives like Rosie’s are way too precious not to fight for.  *** Rebekah Bills is a freelance writer and mother of three. She previously served as a civilian intelligence officer in the Defense Intelligence Agency.