The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) on Tuesday became the first major medical organization to oppose gender transition for minors when it recommended “that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.” The ASPS represents “more than 11,000 physician members worldwide,” which is more than the number of surgeons the American Board of Plastic Surgery has certified since 1937. In support of this recommendation, the ASPS cited “recent publications reporting very low/low certainty of evidence regarding mental health outcomes,” “emerging concerns about potential long-term harms and the irreversible nature of surgical interventions,” and “insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio.” ASPS previously joined with other mainstream medical organizations in supporting gender transition surgeries for minors. However, it moderated its stance two years ago. “In August 2024, ASPS communicated to members that the Society had not endorsed any external organization’s clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for the treatment of children or adolescents with gender dysphoria,” ASPS described, citing the “considerable uncertainty” over such treatments. Since then, “ASPS’s understanding has continued to evolve in light of additional comprehensive evidence reviews,” the statement explained, including the United Kingdom’s Cass Review and the 2025 review by the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services. “In some areas,” the statement summarized, these reviews “have contributed to a clearer understanding of potential harms, while also highlighting limitations of the available evidence, including gaps in documenting long-term physical, psychological, and psychosocial outcomes.” Indeed, “available evidence” was a fundamental theme of the ASPS’s new position statement. “Available evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of children with prepubertal onset gender dysphoria experience resolution or significant reduction of distress by the time they reach adulthood, absent medical or surgical intervention,” they wrote. “Evidence regarding adolescent-onset presentation, which has become increasingly common since the mid-2010s, is more limited but similarly does not allow for confident prediction of long-term trajectories.” “Importantly, clinicians, even those with extensive experience, currently lack reliable methods to distinguish those whose distress will persist from those whose distress will remit,” the ASPS noted. “The HHS report underscores that this uncertainty has significant ethical implications: when the likelihood of spontaneous resolution is unknown and when irreversible interventions carry known and plausible risks, adhering to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence (i.e., promoting health and well-being while avoiding harm) requires a precautionary approach.” Despite the fact that “many plastic surgical clinical recommendations and standards rely on lower levels of evidence compared to those of other medical specialties,” they wrote, “ethical decision-making in medicine does not depend on evidence quality alone, but on the relationship between evidence uncertainty, anticipated benefit, potential harm, and patient vulnerability.” The statement committed to an “ongoing review of emerging evidence and to revisiting this position as higher-quality data become available. Should the evidence base evolve to demonstrate clear benefit with acceptable risk, ASPS will reassess its recommendations accordingly.” Naturally, the medical organization committed itself to its new evidence-based position so long as this is the position warranted by the evidence. In reaching this decision, the statement appealed to the ASPS Code of Ethics, which pledges “full respect for human dignity.” The language of human dignity reflects a view of human nature informed by a biblical worldview, which undergirds human dignity with the fact that “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). A modern, naturalistic conception of humanity, which posits evolutionary origins, has nothing on which to base a concept of human dignity, unless it borrows from the West’s Christian heritage, the very heritage it rejects. The ASPS statement also responded to various rationales offered for gender transition surgeries on minors. In response to appeals to “patient values and preferences,” it questioned “whether fully informed patients and their caregivers would endorse” a “framework that places a higher value on achieving more favorable aesthetic effects in adolescence and places a lower value on avoiding potential harm from early pubertal suppression.” In response to appeals to “emerging adolescent autonomy,” the statement argued that “patient autonomy is more properly defined as the right of a patient to accept or refuse appropriate treatment; it does not create an obligation for a physician to provide interventions in the absence of a favorable risk–benefit profile, particularly in adolescent populations where decision-making capabilities are still developing.” At the same time, ASPS did not fully endorse the patchwork of state laws that have been passed by lawmakers seeking to protect minors from the harmful effects of gender transition procedures. “The regulation of medical care is best achieved through professional self-regulation, rather than criminal law or punitive legislative approaches,” the statement argued. However, it advised members “to remain aware of state laws concerning transgender and gender-diverse individuals that may impact their practices.” This last statement underscored the overall nature of the ASPS statement as “a position statement, rather than a clinical practice guideline.” This choice was both because “ASPS has not undertaken a formal guideline development process” and because of “the current state of the evidence and variability in legal and regulatory environments.” The statement by ASPS is significant because its members are the physicians called upon to carry out gender transition surgeries, which are the most invasive, permanent, and harmful type of gender transition procedures. Its new position statement reflects a small but subtle change to the consensus pro-transgender medical organizations reached in response to conservative pushback. These organizations often claimed that gender transition surgeries on minors were vanishingly rare because they were almost never advisable — but they flatly repudiated any governmental attempt to ban the procedures they claimed never happened. When the Biden White House told the press, “We believe these [gender transition] surgeries should be limited to adults,” left-wing activists raised such a furor that the White House retreated to a milder claim, “Gender-affirming surgeries are typically reserved for adults, and we believe they should be.” In response to the ASPS decision, the American Medical Association — long infamous as one of the most vehement medical organizations in favor of gender transition procedures for minors — told National Review, “the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.” While National Review did not interpret this as a reversal of the AMA’s previous pro-transgender position, other news outlets were less careful; one claimed that the AMA “has reversed course on its position concerning transgender surgical procedures for minors.” In reality, the AMA statement leaves the door open to an undefined number of gender transition surgeries on minors — a stance identical to that taken by the Biden White House to satisfy left-wing activists. But perhaps the real fault lies with the AMA for claiming it “agree[d]” with ASPS, when in fact it does not. Regardless of the AMA’s obfuscation, Trump administration officials celebrated the change in ASPS’s position, which is attributable in part to the HHS evidence review. HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy commended ASPS “for standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and defending sound science,” as well as “helping protect future generations of American children from irreversible harm.” Meanwhile, Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O’Neill called it “another victory for biological truth,” as ASPS “has set the scientific and medical standard for all provider groups to follow.” Originally published in The Washington Stand The post American Society of Plastic Surgeons Recommends Against Transgender Surgery for Minors appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Katherine Howard has long been the most polarised of Henry VIII’s six wives. For centuries, her story has oscillated between two reductive extremes: was she an “oversexed tart” who brought about her own destruction through foolish promiscuity, or the “abused child,” a helpless pawn of a predatory court and a tyrannical king? In the first episode of History Hit’s new documentary series Katherine Howard: Vixen or Victim?, Professor Suzannah Lipscomb sets out to dismantle these caricatures. By visiting the spaces Katherine inhabited – from the drafty corridors of her youth to the glittering galleries of Hampton Court – Suzannah searches for the real woman hidden beneath five centuries of Tudor scandal and myth. Sign up to watch The ghost in the gallery The tragedy of Katherine Howard is often synonymous with the “Haunted Gallery” at Hampton Court Palace. Popular lore describes a desperate Queen running toward the Chapel Royal in November 1541, her screams echoing through the corridors as she begged for mercy while guards dragged her away from a husband who had just discovered her past. While Suzannah reveals that this specific, dramatic dash is likely an apocryphal Victorian invention, she acknowledges why the story persists: it perfectly captures the sheer, visceral horror felt by a young woman whose meteoric rise was met with an equally violent fall. Katherine ascended from a Maid of Honour to a Queen in mere months; just over a year later, she was headed for the block. Filming in the “Haunted Gallery” at Hampton Court PalaceImage Credit: History Hit Redefining the ‘child bride’ Episode One reveals a forensic re-examination of Katherine’s age. Traditional narratives often place her birth as late as 1526, making her a mere 14-year-old at the time of her marriage – a ‘child bride’ with little understanding of her situation. However, Suzannah points to evidence from the French Ambassador, Charles de Marillac, which suggests she was likely born around 1522. “This revised understanding significantly changes the way we see her,” explains Suzannah. “She was not the child bride that we have in our mind’s eye, in fact she was probably around 18 years old when she married Henry in July 1540” – a young woman with more agency than we often credit her. Portrait of a Young Woman, c. 1540–45, Workshop of Hans Holbein the YoungerImage Credit: Public Domain / History Hit Chesworth House: A world of “in-between” spaces To understand the Queen, we must first understand the girl. In Episode One, Suzannah travels to Chesworth House in Sussex, where, following her mother’s death, Katherine was raised under the guardianship of her step-grandmother, the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk. In the Tudor era, society believed that parental indulgence was a moral failing, consequently, noble children were often sent to be raised in another aristocratic household to ensure they received the rigorous discipline and social polishing deemed necessary for court life. Chesworth HouseImage Credit: History Hit The documentary dismantles Victorian myths of a “lax” or “immoral” household, revealing instead the complex reality of Tudor wardship. Suzannah meets historian Dr Nicola Clark who explains how in the Tudor era, social classes mixed with surprising freedom. “The Victorians probably thought that these women and men of lower status are dragging Katherine down to their level, where in fact the evidence does not really suggest that at all” says Nicky.  At the heart of this was the “Maiden’s Chamber” – a communal space where aristocratic young women shared beds, gossip, and secrets with those of lower social standing. It was in these “in-between” spaces that Katherine entered into relationships with two men: her music teacher, Henry Mannox, and the Duchess’s secretary, Francis Dereham. The Mannox Affair (c1536): Often framed as an abuse of power, research suggests her music teacher, Henry Mannox was only five years Katherine’s senior. Crucially, Katherine demonstrated a “head screwed on,” refusing to lose her virginity to a man of his low status despite his pressure. The Dereham Contract (1538): Her relationship with the Duchess’s secretary, Francis Dereham, was far more serious, and more widely known within Chesworth House. They referred to each other as husband and wife and engaged in full intercourse – a “pre-contract” that, under Canon Law, could be viewed as a legally binding marriage. Rather than seeing Katherine as a passive pawn, the evidence reveals a young woman navigating these illicit encounters with a surprising level of command. Prof Suzannah Lipscomb discusses Katherine Howard’s time at Chesworth House with historian Dr Nicola ClarkImage Credit: History Hit The “Party Queen” of Hampton Court By 1539, Katherine’s status as a Howard brought her to court as a Maid of Honour. She quickly broke things off with Dereham, who fled to Ireland heartbroken. At court, Katherine engaged in a flirtatious power play with the charismatic Thomas Culpeper, but the plan backfired; when she held him at arm’s length, he abruptly moved on, leaving her devastated and arguably more infatuated than ever. However, her arrival was a breath of fresh air for Henry VIII, who found his current wife, Anne of Cleves, physically repulsive. Henry was visibly infatuated, showering Katherine with jewels and public displays of affection.  Their courtship moved at a breakneck pace, and they married on 28 July 1540 – less than 3 weeks after his previous marriage was annulled. Katherine was probably just 18 years old, Henry was almost 50. As Suzannah points out, “the speed and intensity of Henry’s pursuit of Katherine raises the question of her agency. In what world could a young, noble woman reject the king’s advances, particularly one as strong-willed and powerful as Henry”. Historian Gareth RussellImage Credit: History Hit Historian Gareth Russell joins Suzannah to discuss Katherine’s early successes. Far from a political failure, Katherine was the star attraction of the court. She navigated Tudor politics with careful neutrality, choosing to remain apolitical to avoid the fate of her cousin, Anne Boleyn. “Doing nothing is a choice,” Russell notes. “Everything she did was a deliberate attempt to be the perfect, apolitical queen consort.” She even handled the potentially explosive meeting with the divorced Anne of Cleves with extraordinary grace, gifting her puppies and jewellery to signal to foreign ambassadors that the English court was a place of harmony. The turning point: The Progress North Episode One culminates with the Great Royal Progress of 1541 – a monumental political and military operation involving 5,000 horses and a mobile court of 200 tents. Designed to project power over the rebellious North, this strategic display of regal authority sought to suppress religious dissent and stabilise the realm ahead of a potential invasion of France. Katherine’s job was to shine at her husband’s side. At Lincoln Cathedral, Katherine reached the zenith of her power, embodying the perfect image of a pious, loyal Queen. Yet while she played her role flawlessly in the public eye, the ghosts of Chesworth House were beginning to stir.  Depiction of King Henry VIII on the Royal Progress in 1541.Image Credit: History Hit Vixen or victim? As Episode One concludes, Suzannah leaves us with a woman who was neither a fool nor a mere victim. Katherine Howard was a confident, commanded, and musically talented young woman who understood the social graces of her age. She made choices – for fun and for survival – in a world where the margin for error was zero. In the next episode, Suzannah explores how Katherine’s past finally collided with her present – and the “Rose Without a Thorn” found herself facing the executioner. Watch Episode 1 of Katherine Howard: Vixen or Victim? now on History Hit to see Suzannah Lipscomb uncover the real woman behind the Tudor legend. Episode 2 is also available to watch now. Sign up to watch

Classifieds: WaPo Guild Posts Want Ad For Sugar Daddy

Blasting meteorite samples with CERN’s Super Proton Synchrotron, the team found that the material "became stronger". That might not be bad news.

A pair of hot blobs under Africa and the Pacific would explain a lot.

Natural selection protecting us from our own stupidity.

Despite being a cheerleader for abortion and all things LGBTQ-related, CBS’s Stephen Colbert mocked Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday’s episode of The Late Show for trying “to correct the pope on the Bible.” More specifically, Colbert tried to ridicule Johnson for demanding immigrants assimilate into the country by noting he did not speak in Ojibwe and compared Johnson citing Biblical passages about respecting civil authority to loyalists during the Revolution and people who defended slavery. Colbert began by lamenting, “Republicans like to claim Jesus is their guy, which is why yesterday his eminence Mike Johnson tried to correct the pope on the Bible. No, Mike. Mike, don't go there. That's like trying to correct me on The Lord of the Rings… Okay, so you claim to know more about the Bible than the pope? Do you also claim to poop in the woods more than a bear? Then go for it, buddy.” The following clip of Johnson featured an interestingly placed jump cut, “Immigration is not something that's frowned upon in scripture. [jump cut] But what's also important in the Bible is that assimilation is expected and anticipated and proper. When someone comes into your country, comes into your nation, they do not have the right to change its laws or to change its society. They're expected to assimilate.”   Despite being pro-abortion and all in on the LGBTQ stuff, Stephen Colbert mocks Speaker Mike Johnson, "Mike Johnson tried to correct the pope on the Bible." After a clip of Johnson saying assimilation is important on immigration, Colbert sarcastically agrees, "Exactly. We must… pic.twitter.com/QeVk1oXpfZ — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 5, 2026   The part Colbert cut out featured Johnson claiming, “In fact, it’s welcomed. We are to welcome the sojourner and love our neighbor as ourselves.” Johnson was making a clear distinction between those who follow the law and those who don’t, but to acknowledge that would’ve undermined Colbert’s entire point. As it was, Colbert retorted, “Exactly. We must all assimilate, which is why Johnson gave that answer in perfect Ojibwe.” In another clip, Johnson added, “Romans 13 says that the civil authorities are God's agents of wrath to bring punishment upon the wrongdoer, and it says, if you do right, you have no fear of the civil authorities, but those civil authorities are necessary.” Colbert responded by initially ranting before breaking out into song: Okay. Technically, he's right. Romans 13 does say that. Because it's St. Paul's letter to the Romans trying to work within the system so Nero would stop killing everybody who had just joined the brand new religion, but Paul bendin' the knee to the Romans didn't help him all! He was arrested at least three times and then they chopped his head off! But I guess they were just God's agents of wrath, right, Mike? You wanna do this, buddy?! Let's do this, bucko! I did not suffer through a thousand hours of acoustic folk mass for nothing'! Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name! Again, Colbert took the simple demand that our immigration laws be respected and compared that to other periods in history: I'd say Romans 13 is an interesting Bible passage to be able to pluck from memory, Mike! According to one American history professor, ‘There are two dominant places in American history when Romans 13 is invoked. One is during the American Revolution when it was used by loyalists who opposed the revolution.’ And the other is in the 1840s and '50s, when it was invoked by defenders of slavery. Not great company, Mr. Speaker! You really don't want to be on the side with the bad guys in every single Ken Burns documentary. If this was the one on baseball, Mike Johnson would be rain.  If this was baseball, Colbert would have just struck out. Not only was he being hypocritical in choosing which papal teachings to champion, but his insinuation that assimilation and immigration enforcement per se are akin to supporting slavery or the British would mean the concept of law can be disregarded because he can’t tell the difference between people who break just laws and people who are oppressed by unjust laws. Here is a transcript for the February 4 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 2/4/2026 11:43 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Republicans like to claim Jesus is their guy, which is why yesterday his eminence Mike Johnson tried to correct the pope on the Bible. No, Mike. Mike, don't go there. That's like trying to correct me on The Lord of the Rings. Did I write it? No. Do I consider myself its spiritual emissary on Earth? You bet your Tom Bombadil I do. Okay, so you claim to know more about the Bible than the pope? Do you also claim to poop in the woods more than a bear? Then go for it, buddy. MIKE JOHNSON: Immigration is not something that's frowned upon in scripture. [jump cut] But what's also important in the Bible is that assimilation is expected and anticipated and proper. When someone comes into your country, comes into your nation, they do not have the right to change its laws or to change its society. They're expected to assimilate. COLBERT: Exactly. We must all assimilate, which is why Johnson gave that answer in perfect Ojibwe. Johnson eventually got down to chapter and verse. JOHNSON: Romans 12. You want to do this? COLBERT: No, not really. But ga'head. JOHNSON: Romans 13 says that the civil authorities are God's agents of wrath to bring punishment upon the wrongdoer, and it says, if you do right, you have no fear of the civil authorities, but those civil authorities are necessary. COLBERT: Okay. Technically, he's right. Romans 13 does say that. Because it's St. Paul's letter to the Romans trying to work within the system so Nero would stop killing everybody who had just joined the brand new religion, but Paul bendin' the knee to the Romans didn't help him all! He was arrested at least three times and then they chopped his head off! But I guess they were just God's agents of wrath, right, Mike? You wanna do this, buddy?! Let's do this, bucko! I did not suffer through a thousand hours of acoustic folk mass for nothing'! Our Father, who art in heaven hallowed be thy name! And listen up. listen up. I'd say Romans 13 is an interesting Bible passage to be able to pluck from memory, Mike! According to one American history professor, "There are two dominant places in American history when Romans 13 is invoked. One is during the American Revolution when it was used by loyalists who opposed the revolution.” And the other is in the 1840s and '50s, when it was invoked by defenders of slavery. Not great company, Mr. Speaker! You really don't want to be on the side with the bad guys in every single Ken Burns documentary. If this was the one on baseball, Mike Johnson would be rain. 

Court-packing — the act of adding judges to get favorable outcomes — is a no-go for anyone who cares about protecting a republic from backsliding into totalitarianism. Venezuela, Cuba, Poland, Hungary, and El Salvador, among other nations, are cautionary tales of what happens to countries who cheat the system by filling the courts with loyalists.And yet, Utah has just done exactly that. On January 31, Republican Governor Spencer Cox signed Senate Bill 134 into law, increasing the Supreme Court from five to seven justices.Glenn Beck is enraged that it was Republicans — who have historically rejected court-packing as a dangerous, anti-democratic move — who pushed this through. “Any country that has ever done this, they fall into totalitarianism because they realize they can just change the referees. They’ll just add more referees, and they’ll add the referees they like,” he says, dismissing the Utah Republicans behind this judicial move as “hypocrites.”Utah has been having problems with its judges legislating, instead of just interpreting existing laws, as is their designated role, he explains. This issue largely stems from the fact that Utah has adopted the Missouri Plan, in which a list of suitable judicial candidates is compiled by legal experts before the governor makes his or her selection.“Can we stop being a country run by experts? We see exactly what the experts have done in every category. Stop it,” Glenn pleads.The real issue, he says, is massive delays and overload in lower state courts. For years, Utahns have begged for reform but to no avail. Some may perceive the state government’s decision to add judges to the Supreme Court — which “wasn’t overrun” — as a solution to their woes, but it’s really just a power grab.“This is not about efficiency. This is all about control,” Glenn says, “and I understand you have bad judges and they’ve been legislating, but you don’t do this, Utah.”Republicans, accustomed to controlling Utah, have grown “soft,” “mushy,” and “embarrassed that they actually believe in the Constitution,” he explains, and now that they’ve “made all these mistakes, all these compromises,” they’re doing damage control by packing the Supreme Court.“Republicans, you don’t get a pass here because Democrats would do it too. That argument damns the republic. ... A legislature that expands a court after losing cases is not defending a republic. It’s announcing, constitutional limits only apply, you know, unless they’re inconvenient,” Glenn criticizes.The root issue of Utah’s hypocritical compromising, he argues, can be found in America’s universities, which “despise the Constitution” and are teaching America’s future judges, journalists, lawyers, and bureaucrats that Marxism is morality.“In a state that was raised on the Constitution, you know better than this,” Glenn says to Utah Republicans.“Why are you shrinking from conflict, as if defending principles is somehow impolite?” he asks. “It is not impolite. It is required of you to stand. A republic cannot survive this kind of shyness. ... You must stand, or you will lose everything.”To hear more, watch the video above.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

When it comes to the best Big Tech brands, Apple, Google, and Microsoft usually top the list (though not always in that order). Below that, the rest usually jockey for position based on a range of product launches and economic factors. However, thanks to the AI boom of 2025, one brand in particular leapt up the charts, and it could clamber even higher if AI growth continues apace. To understand what caused the market shift, let’s look at the top five most valuable Big Tech brands of 2026.If there were an award for most changed brand of the year, it would go straight to ...Apple at $608 billionAs the first trillion-dollar company on the stock market, Apple regularly occupies the top spot, thanks to its multi-tiered business strategy that covers premium products, cloud services, and entertainment content. This year is no different with the Cupertino giant earning a valuation of $608 billion for 2026, a 6% increase from last year. Apple is expected to make waves with a stacked list of innovative new hardware in 2026, including the long-anticipated foldable iPhone and a more affordable (i.e., financially accessible) base model MacBook alongside multiple new MacBooks Pro, and it will enter the smart home category with a smart home hub that includes an integrated display.Microsoft at $565 billionMicrosoft has spent several years in the second valuation slot, driven in part by the AI rush of the 2020s. As an early investor in OpenAI, Microsoft was one of the first brands that brought generative AI to market. Although Microsoft’s origin story is all about Windows, its business portfolio today covers a wide range of products and services, including its cloud platform Azure, office applications under Microsoft 365, AI endeavors built on the back of Copilot, and the gaming division under Microsoft Gaming and Xbox. All these together helped the brand grow 23% year over year, maintaining its spot on the chart.RELATED: US officials tell Nvidia not to send top AI chips to China, prompting backlash CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty ImagesGoogle at $433 billionAlso unchanged this year, Google maintains its third-place ranking due to its diverse portfolio driven largely by Google Cloud services, Google Ads, and revenue from Search. While these categories have long been value makers for Google’s brand, the company also built a robust AI platform known as Gemini. Last year, Google released Gemini 3, a generative AI solution so powerful that it made OpenAI sweat. This year, Google is partnering with Apple to build a custom version of Gemini 3 for Apple Intelligence in a deal worth $5 billion, further adding to Google’s 2026 valuation, which is 5% higher than last year. Amazon at $370 billionYou know Amazon as the world's largest online retailer, but it also runs the most popular cloud service provider known as AWS. With a leading 30% market share over Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure, Amazon’s steady sales performance and cloud market dominance led to a valuation increase of 4% from last year, helping the e-commerce giant maintain its 4th place slot for the third year in a row.Nvidia at $184 billionIf there were an award for most changed brand of the year, it would go straight to Nvidia.As a recent newcomer to the top 10 most valuable tech brands in the world, GPU maker Nvidia blew the market away, jumping four spots from number nine to number five. With rapid growth exceeding 110% of its market value since 2025, Nvidia rode the AI wave to grand success. Today its high-powered GPUs are used in data centers to train and maintain the LLM models for the biggest generative AI companies on the planet, including OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft. Nvidia is also a strategic partner in President Trump’s Stargate AI initiative.Nvidia’s meteoric leap up the charts highlights how important AI is for the brand, and it also shows that the company has a lot to lose if the AI bubble bursts. This may be why Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang is so adamant about pushing AI into society, adding AI agents into the workforce, and proclaiming AI as our digital manifest destiny.What happens next?This year marks the first time Nvidia has cracked the top five valuation list. Last year, it was barely in the top 10, and before that, it didn’t rank at all. Needless to say, the AI boom has been a huge boon to Nvidia’s business, catapulting it from a gaming GPU company to a vital AI hardware powerhouse. As for what will happen to the company next, that all depends on the future of AI itself.If generative AI continues to expand throughout our apps, work, and daily life, Nvidia’s valuation will inevitably grow with it, potentially overtaking Amazon as it rises up the chart with ever-evolving hardware for the next block of data centers. Still there is a wide value gap between fifth and fourth place and an even greater gap between Nvidia at the bottom and Apple perched on top. It’s hard to believe that Nvidia will ever crack the big three tech brands that power the U.S. economy, much less overtake the top spot entirely, but it’s fun to watch it try.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was hospitalized Monday night after experiencing "flu-like symptoms," raising more concerns about the 83-year-old's health.The Kentucky Republican is poised to retire at the end of his term early next year, but has been under scrutiny over the several medical episodes he has had in recent years. McConnell's spokesman David Popp said the former Senate leader checked himself into the hospital out of "an abundance of caution," noting that his "prognosis is positive."This is just the latest in a string of medical episodes McConnell has suffered."In an abundance of caution, after experiencing flu-like symptoms over the weekend, Senator McConnell checked himself into a local hospital for evaluation last night," Popp said in a statement Tuesday."He is grateful for the excellent care he is receiving. He is in regular contact with his staff and looks forward to returning to Senate business," Popp added.RELATED: Mitch McConnell falls following Senate vote: Report Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesThis is just the latest in a string of medical episodes McConnell has suffered. On multiple occasions, McConnell has been seen "freezing" on camera and made use of a wheelchair. In recent months, McConnell has been increasingly seen holding on to staff to walk up stairs and through corridors on Capitol Hill.McConnell sprained his wrist and cut his face after falling at a GOP staff lunch in 2024; took a fall at a D.C. hotel and was treated for a concussion in 2023; and fractured his shoulder when he fell in his home in Kentucky in 2019.RELATED: Mitch McConnell receives medical attention after fall Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesAfter several medical episodes, McConnell stepped down from his Senate leadership position in 2024. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) succeeding him.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!