In a candid exchange aboard Air Force One on Sunday, President Donald Trump said that the new 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom is merely the surface layer of a much larger, “massive” subterranean military installation. “Now the military is building a big complex under the ballroom,” Trump stated. “But the military’s building a massive complex under the ballroom. And that’s under construction and we’re doing very well. So we’re ahead of schedule. That’s part of it. The ballroom essentially becomes a shed for what’s being built under the military, including from drones.” The president’s comments provide the first official acknowledgment of the scale of the underground works. According to Trump, the facility is designed to meet modern security threats and capacity limitations at the aging White House. He emphasized that the site is being outfitted with high-grade bulletproof glass and “drone-proof” roofs and ceilings. “When we have dignitaries coming, like President Xi of China or anybody else, we have very small rooms; they’re not big enough to handle the kind of capacity that you need,” Trump explained, justifying the expansion. He dismissed reports of “fake windows,” asserting that the entire structure is built to the highest tactical specifications. The comments come as the administration battles the National Trust for Historic Preservation in federal court. The Trust sued in December 2025, alleging that the administration bypassed mandatory environmental reviews and violated federal statutes requiring “express authority of Congress” for new construction on federal grounds. Trump called the lawsuit “stupid.” A central pillar of the legal challenge is the project’s funding mechanism. Trump reiterated on Sunday that it is privately funded. “We’re ahead of schedule and under budget. And all of this money, all of the money paid by myself and donors; it’s all donors. There’s not one dime of government money going into the ballroom.” The fate of the “ballroom-turned-shed” now rests with U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who is expected to rule on a request to halt construction. If the injunction is denied, the military’s “massive complex” will likely proceed toward completion.

Sheryl Sandberg thinks women are stupid. The former chief operating officer of Meta and the founder of the nonprofit Lean In, based on the ideas in her 2013 book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, is back in the news, this time (again) voicing her disappointment in the fairer sex’s inability to conquer corporate America. Sandberg has pivoted from her claims that women aren’t fulfilling the DEI prophecy because of a systemic failure in American corporate culture (patriarchy!), to aiming her sites on the manosphere and pushing back on the “tradwives” movement. In a recent LinkedIn post, Sandberg writes: The problem with the romanticized vision of the tradwife is that it signals to women that to be a good wife, partner, or mother, you have to do it full-time. This gives working women one more burden to carry on top of everything they already manage: guilt. Arianna Huffington says it best: “As a working mother, it feels like they take the baby out and put the guilt in.” As I told People magazine last week, I’m worried that the glamorization of the tradwife trend risks putting that guilt back into women — guilt that many of us have worked long and hard to shed. As a full-time working mom of three (4- and 2-year-olds and a one-month-old that I’m holding while writing this essay) who has never taken a maternity leave and has felt the intense pressure of being a good — or at least not so bad — mom, wife, employee, and colleague, Sandberg is partly right about the guilt; she just wants to own all of it. Twenty-first-century feminists emphasize choice the same way Henry Ford offered color options for the Model-T: You can choose any path, as long as it’s the one prescribed by the Lean In feminists. It’s been over a decade since Sandberg proclaimed that she does not “believe two countries run by women would go to war. Full stop,” and she’s still making the case that more women in positions of power and influence would make for a better world — especially for women. First, it’s obvious by this statement that Sandberg has never seen an episode of The View, and second, she’s denying an inherent truism of human nature: that the most cruel and unforgiving people toward women are…other women. Note to my fellow women: Sheryl Sandberg is angry at you for taking her advice and exercising your agency just as readily as any man’s. The trouble is you chose unwisely in the eyes of the pseudo-empowering world of Lean In feminism. Sometime after Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote her revealing 2012 Atlantic essay, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” (to which Sandberg’s book is a reply), society pivoted from the “Mommy Wars” of the 1990s to flattening the sexes into androgynous groups where there should be no differences in the types of ambitions or motivations between sexes. So, when outcomes are disparate by sex, there must be something wrong with the individual or the system. It couldn’t possibly be because women have a natural tendency to choose maternal roles or prioritize home and child care over professional advancement. Women have been duped again! Don’t you understand that deep down under all that maternal instinct is a girlboss destined for the C-Suite? In the journal Fairer Disputations, Elizabeth Grace Matthew writes, “Modern feminists’ failure to acknowledge the well-established desire of most women to spend more time mothering and less time working involves no mystique, but an unwillingness to recognize women’s average differences with men. Declining marriage rates, a fertility crisis, and increasing rates of female anxiety and unhappiness are all perpetuated by a hegemonic bill of goods about women’s desire for a functionally androgynous identity.” Sandberg wants to guilt women into denying their intuition, ironically, something society fully acknowledged with the oft-used phrase “women’s intuition.” I was a Division I collegiate athlete, a U.S. Marine, and a working professional, all so-called “male-dominated” activities (one might label the “manosphere”). No one told me I was less than; no one challenged my ability based on sex. What I did hear was other women trying to convince me I would fail because the deck was stacked against me, or that if I came to the realization that being a tech overlord wasn’t my true ambition, I was a tool of a sexist system. There is nothing more toxic than a supposed feminist saying you shouldn’t try because you’re set up for failure. That’s nonsense and a lie. In reality, women need to follow their instinct despite the upside-down, passive-aggressive, pantsuit messaging from their fellow travelers. The real threat to women carving their own paths and finding fulfillment, purpose, and happiness isn’t the patriarchy, the manosphere, or tradwives; it’s women like Sheryl Sandberg who don’t believe average American women have the capacity or mental wherewithal for making the “correct” choice for themselves, their families, or their careers, and who get angry when they don’t want to be Sheryl Sandberg. That women are exercising real choice and have life ambitions outside the boardroom signals a shift away from the guilt-ridden Lean In feminism lie and shows that we’re not as stupid as Sheryl Sandberg wants us to be.

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. *** My husband and I are expecting our fourth baby, but it took us a few births under our belt to figure out which birth plan worked for us. After two hospital births and a home birth, our decision for baby number four was easy: We’re planning to have another home birth. Not every baby can or should be born at home. But if you’re lucky enough to have a healthy baby and a healthy pregnancy, home birth is a beautiful option. And it’s one that more and more families are choosing. While home births are still a small share of overall births in the United States (less than 2% of total births), this rate has increased roughly 60% over the last seven years.  It’s not a mystery why we’re seeing such rapid growth in this seemingly radical birth plan. There is something seriously wrong with how hospitals handle childbirth in America. The United States has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy countries. In the 1980s, maternal mortality rates began to increase after about 50 years of decline. Some studies suggest that between 2000 and 2021, maternal mortality in the United States nearly doubled. That’s pretty shocking considering the medical advancements we’ve made. Childbirth has been around as long as people have. How are we still getting this so wrong? When I first explored home birth during my third pregnancy, I found the philosophical differences between OBGYNs and home birth midwives staggering. OBGYNs are doctors. They are looking for medical problems and often find them. Midwives, by contrast, do not see childbirth as a medical problem to be solved. And, if you have a good midwife, she will guide you during pregnancy to set you up for a healthy delivery, preventing problems before they arise.  In every meeting with my midwife, she checked in on my diet. I was given a nutrition plan (my pseudo-vegetarian diet had to go), encouraged to exercise, eat a lot of protein, and cut out sugar. “Sugar is hard on you, and it’s hard on the baby,” my midwife told me. This really struck me. It’s hard on the baby. Would an OBGYN ever be that brutally honest? Maybe. But usually after a mother has already been diagnosed with gestational diabetes. Women in the United States face a cascading series of complications during pregnancy and birth. It is reasonable to assume that poor maternal nutrition plays a role. But my decision to have a home birth didn’t come from a belief that doctors are bad or doing something inherently wrong. It came from my two experiences with hospital births.  I went into my first childbirth having no “birth plan.” I gave birth at a hospital because that’s what you do. I had an epidural because why not? I want to be clear: There is nothing wrong with getting an epidural. But there are some things to consider before making this choice. The ability to move your body during labor can be vitally important. If the baby is in an undesirable position for birth because you’ve been lying immobile on your back for hours due to the epidural, the baby could get in a bad spot. This could put the baby in distress and lead to an emergency C-section or, in the case of my oldest son, a vacuum birth.   Flash forward to my second pregnancy, and my plan was to try to go without the epidural, but I would get one if I needed it. This was a ridiculous plan. If you would like a natural childbirth, you cannot leave the door open to the epidural. You need to be committed, your husband needs to be committed, and your doctors need to be committed. Because once things get hard, you will ask for the epidural. And that’s exactly what I did. Everything was going well with the epidural until it wasn’t. The pain was gone, I was starting to feel like I might be able to get some rest, and then I started feeling exhausted. I couldn’t keep my eyes open. My heart rate and blood pressure tanked quickly, and I lost consciousness. The next thing I remember, nurses were screaming at me to open my eyes. I felt horrible. I felt weak. I felt like I was dying.  They backed off the epidural medication, and my vitals improved. I was able to start talking, but I felt so weak. I couldn’t imagine how I could deliver a baby feeling this way. That’s when they told me they wanted to try the epidural medication again, confident that they could do it while keeping my vitals strong. I very groggily said, “Ok.” Minutes later, I was unconscious again.  I have now learned that what I went through was just something that happens sometimes, but apparently, it’s not common enough for any of my nurses to have seen it before. They all looked terrified. Once they stabilized me, they shockingly wanted to try the epidural medication a third time. I had the wherewithal to say absolutely not. I need to be awake. After about an hour, the pain of the contractions came back, and I was relieved. I didn’t want any remnants of the epidural medication in my body (although I’m sure there were some). I was still feeling very weak. After begging for and guzzling a strong cup of coffee, I delivered my beautiful second baby boy, and I felt incredible. I was completely connected to what was happening because I could feel it. It was hard, but I did it. I felt happier and stronger than I ever had in my life. The weakness was gone, replaced by pure euphoria. I felt like I could do anything. When it was time for baby number three, I knew what I wanted. No epidural, no Pitocin (the drug given to almost every woman in a hospital, unless they specifically opt out, to speed up the labor process). I wanted a completely natural childbirth, which led me to pursue home birth. My home birth was beautiful. I was in the comfort of my own home, with my own things. My midwife was with me the entire time. In a hospital, the doctor basically comes in when it’s time to push; it’s impersonal, rushed, and dehumanizing. At home, I didn’t have to ask permission to drink a cup of coffee. I didn’t have to ask permission to stand up and move around. There were no other patients for a doctor to tend. I felt completely taken care of. When I gave birth at home, I felt the same way I did after my second. I can do anything. I felt euphoric because women have a natural hormone release that is supposed to happen during birth, which is vitally important for bonding with your baby and avoiding postpartum depression. An overly medicated birth can disrupt that important hormone release. Many women who have struggled with postpartum depression in the past choose an unmedicated birth for exactly this reason. After I gave birth, my midwife stayed for about an hour and then left. We were able to rest. After being up all night, my husband, baby, and I took the best nap of our lives. No nurses came to wake us up every hour. Our baby wasn’t subjected to endless unnecessary tests that could wait until her first pediatrician appointment. We got what all three of us needed: sleep. We were comfortable, happy, and at peace with our beautiful baby girl. My midwife came back several times to check on us. I didn’t have to go anywhere. Home birth isn’t for everyone, but my husband and I discovered it’s definitely for us. And if God continues to bless us with a healthy pregnancy, I am looking forward to another beautiful, unmedicated birth in the comfort of my own home. *** Mary Clare Amselem is a stay-at-home mother and a former education policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Catholic Church authorities and Israeli police said Monday they had “resolved” a dispute after senior church leaders were initially prevented from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday over safety concerns.  The announcement comes after officials representing the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Custody of the Holy Land said police blocked them from celebrating Palm Sunday Mass at the historic site. Israeli authorities pointed to safety concerns, noting that shrapnel from Iranian missile attacks had fallen near the church in recent days.  On Monday morning, both sides said they had reached an agreement on how to handle church customs amid wartime conditions. Israeli police said “a mutual framework has been established for upcoming Easter ceremonies,” adding that events would be scaled back. “Due to the complex security reality of Operation ‘Roaring Lion,’ ceremonies including the ‘Holy Fire’ will be held in a symbolic, limited format,” police said. “This coordination ensures that freedom of worship is maintained alongside our shared, primary duty: the protection of human life.” Officials added that Iranian missile debris had recently impacted areas within Jerusalem’s Old City, prompting restrictions.  An Iranian missile exploded over Jerusalem’s Old City. Its fragments fell on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Armenian Patriarchate, the Jewish Quarter and on the Temple Mount near the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Iranian regime is firing missiles toward Jerusalem’s holy sites,… pic.twitter.com/8vKyURiGVW — Israel ישראל (@Israel) March 16, 2026 The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Custody of the Holy Land also released a statement saying “that the matters concerning the Holy Week and Easter celebrations at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre have been addressed and resolved in coordination with the relevant authorities.” They added that, given the ongoing war, limits on public gatherings will remain in place, with services “broadcast live to the faithful in the Holy Land and throughout the world.” “It is our hope that appropriate arrangements will continue to be found, enabling prayer to take place in places of worship, particularly in the Holy Places of all religions, in a manner that respects both legitimate safety needs and the religious observances and prayers that are of profound importance to hundreds of millions of believers,” the statement said. Photos from earlier this month show shrapnel from Iranian missiles landing near several religious sites in Jerusalem’s Old City, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Armenian Patriarchate, the Jewish Quarter, and on the Temple Mount.  Here is a photo of the giant shrapnel fragment that fell beside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre earlier today. pic.twitter.com/Hh3Mq2OyDK — Marc Zell – מארק צל (@GOPIsrael) March 16, 2026

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. *** One of the most important moments in baseball history occurred on Saturday, in the 6th inning of a closely contested but otherwise ordinary early-season game between the Cincinnati Reds and the Boston Red Sox.  With two outs and the bases loaded, with the Reds up 5-3, C.B. Bucknor, one of the worst home-plate umpires in Major League Baseball, rung up Reds third baseman Eugenio Suarez on a called strike three. Suarez immediately tapped his helmet, indicating he was disputing the call. This activated the computerized ABS, Automated Balls and Strikes system, which the MLB is officially implementing this year after several years of trial and error.  TV viewers immediately saw the pitch, as did people in the Reds home stadium. The computer animation showed that Bucknor was wrong. It was a ball. The crowd roared. Any true baseball fan — and the Reds have a passionate and well-informed fan base — knows that Bucknor has long been a problem for the sport, an out-of-control, marginally-competent egomaniac who often gets calls wrong in key situations, imposing his will, deciding games in inappropriate situations.  On the very next pitch, Bucknor rung up Suarez again. Again, Suarez challenged, and again, Bucknor was wrong. It was a ball. The stadium reacted like the Reds had just won the World Series. The Reds announcers remarked that it was the loudest cheer on a day where the Reds had already hit two home runs.  On the next pitch after that, Suarez grounded out to end the inning. But even though the Reds ended up walking off the game in the 11th with a single, winning a 6-5 thriller, the real headline was the gauntlet that this new technology laid down to the home-plate umpire’s authority. The Red Sox and Reds challenged Bucknor eight times. And they were right six of those times. Tensions boiled over so extremely that Bucknor ended up ejecting Red Sox manager Alex Cora in the eighth inning. But that was the desperate act of exactly the type of professionally doomed person that the ABS means to expose. The game will never be the same.   One of baseball’s most beautiful features is that it’s always changing. It used to take nine balls to draw a walk. Black players had a separate league. There were no night games. People rooted for players with names like “Dizzy” and “Dazzy” and “Moose.” And the game today, though basically the same as the one I knew as a kid, also has some significant differences. The Houston Astros used to be in the National League. The Milwaukee Brewers were in the American League. There were no Wild Card teams until 1995. There were no divisions until 1969. The introduction of in-season interleague play seemed like a dumb idea, and it remains a dumb idea, but there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it now. When the MLB added the designated hitter to the National League, it was a violation of all that’s holy. But that was before Shohei Ohtani signed with my beloved Dodgers. Now I like the DH.  There was also a time when we couldn’t even conceive of robot umps, except on an episode of Futurama, but now they feel like they’ve always been inevitable. Fans used to have a lot of fun when fat old managers roared out of the dugout to scream at fat old umpires over ball-strike calls. But that was decades ago, when the calls were guesswork for everyone involved, fans, players, managers, and umpires alike. After TV broadcasts introduced pitch-tracking technology in 2008 and StatCast in 2015, suddenly everyone could see exactly what the umps were getting wrong. The era of “YER BLIND, UMP!” ended. It stopped being amusing and started just feeling pathetic.  MLB first tried out the ABS system in the minor leagues and then last season in Spring Training. The system uses 12 Hawk-Eye cameras and T-Mobile’s 5G network to track pitches within one-sixth of an inch of accuracy. It takes the guesswork out of the way, removing the last major bone of contention that teams have with umpires.  If a pitcher, catcher, or batter thinks an umpire has missed a strike call, they can “challenge.” This triggers an automatic robot review. If the challenger is right, the call is overturned. But the challenger can also be wrong, which allows the game to retain an element of human error. From Thursday through Sunday, roughly 54% of all challenged calls were overturned, which means that players were right slightly more often than umpires.  Umpires are often right, but the bad ones can no longer take charge of a game behind the plate through bad calls, briefly becoming the main character when the focus should be on the players. Also, the ABS mostly gets rid of “pitch-framing,” a sub-skill among certain catchers where they can micro-jerk their mitts into the strike zone, sleight-of-hand fooling umpires into making the wrong call. It’s going to get a lot harder for catchers to pull a rabbit out of that hat, just like it’s going to get a lot harder for batters to throw temper tantrums when they think the umpire has done them dirty. The rational ABS will quickly dump ice water on those hotheads.  Most importantly, it will be a lot harder for a missed ball-strike call to determine a game’s outcome. We saw perhaps the last instance of this in modern history in the 9th inning of the World Baseball Classic semifinal between the USA and the Dominican Republic. The WBC didn’t use the ABS, and it sure showed. With the 2-1 game on the line and a runner on third with a three-ball and two-strike count, U.S. pitcher Mason Miller threw a low slider to the DR’s Geraldo Perdomo. It was clearly a ball. Perdomo didn’t swing. Umpire Cory Blaser called it a strike anyway, and that was ballgame.  Cory Blaser may be the last umpire ever to crush a national fan base’s dreams. The ABS cannot make a mistake like that. It sees all.  Over the weekend, the Baltimore Orioles successfully challenged two separate pitches in the 9th inning against the Minnesota Twins, turning a potential walk into a strikeout to nail down an 8-6 win. We’ve yet to see a dramatic game-ending ABS overturn, but it’s coming, and the stadium will go nuts like a stadium has never gone nuts before. Because the robot umps are here to save baseball. *** Neal Pollack, “the greatest living American writer,” is the author of 12 semi-bestselling books of fiction and nonfiction and is a three-time “Jeopardy!” champion.