For the first time in thirty-five years, there are no rap songs listed among the top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100 music chart, representing the most popular singles in America. This occurred after the track “Luther” by Kendrick Lamar and SZA dropped out of the top 40 following a 13-week run at number one. Currently, the highest-ranking songs in the rap genre are “Shot Callin” by YoungBoy Never Broke Again at number 44, “Safe” by Cardi B at 48, and “Hell at Night” by BigXthaPlug at 49. The last time there were no rap songs in the Billboard Top 40 was in February 1990, according to Billboard. Part of the reason for the change is new rules that say descending songs are “recurrent” and removed from the chart if they have appeared for certain durations on the chart while falling below prescribed thresholds. That’s what happened to “Luther,” which dropped to number 38 after being on the chart for 46 weeks.  Currently, the top song is Taylor Swift’s “The Fate of Ophelia,” which has been on the chart since its release three weeks ago. Out of the top 40, twelve of the songs are from the pop star’s “The Life of a Showgirl” album.  Other top ten songs include “Golden,” featured in the hit Netflix series “KPop Demon Hunters,” and the single “Ordinary” by Alex Warren, along with “Daisies” by Justin Bieber and Olivia Dean’s “Man I Need.” Billboard noted that many rap artists are in an “in-between” period, with fans eagerly awaiting Drake’s upcoming “Iceman” album and with his rival Kendrick Lamar being “somewhat dormant” after years in the spotlight. But per The San Francisco Chronicle, the market share for hip-hop music was almost 30% in 2020 but slipped to 24% this year. Five years ago, there were 16 rap songs in the top 40, while two years ago, that number decreased to 8 songs.

Actor Harrison Ford is not happy that President Trump won’t buy into climate change alarmism. The 83-year-old “Indiana Jones” star ripped into the president while speaking to The Guardian this week as he prepared to receive a conservation leadership award at Chicago’s Field Museum. “[Trump] doesn’t have any policies, he has whims. It scares the sh** out of me,” Ford told the outlet. “The ignorance, the hubris, the lies, the perfidy. [Trump] knows better, but he’s an instrument of the status quo and he’s making money, hand over fist, while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. It’s unbelievable. I don’t know of a greater criminal in history.” “I knew it was coming, I have been preaching this stuff for 30 years,” the actor said. “Everything we’ve said about climate change has come true. Why is that not sufficient that it alarms people that they change behaviors? Because of the entrenched status quo.” Ford’s tirade against Trump continued. “He’s losing ground because everything he says is a lie,” he added.  The “Star Wars” actor’s comments come just after climate activist Bill Gates admitted that there are bigger problems in the world that need solving before climate initiatives should be addressed. “Climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems,” the tech billionaire wrote in an essay earlier this week. “We should deal with them in proportion to the suffering they cause.” The Microsoft co-founder admitted that the Earth’s temperature is not the most important factor for improving life on the planet and said the “doomsday” view of climate change is “wrong.” “Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise,” Gates wrote.

The Trump administration will let in just 7,500 refugees this year, marking the lowest cap on admissions in United States history, according to a Thursday federal notice. The Trump administration said refugee status will “primarily be allocated among Afrikaners from South Africa … and other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands.” The latest refugee limit accounts for the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1. The Biden administration set the previous year’s limit at a whopping 125,000, according to The New York Times. When President Donald Trump reentered the White House, he paused refugee admissions, citing the “record levels of migration” flows under the Biden administration. In February, Trump signed an executive order freezing aid to South Africa after it enacted a law “to seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation.” Julius Malema, a member of the National Assembly of South Africa, earlier chanted “shoot to kill” and “kill the boer” at a political rally in reference to the white Afrikaner population. At another event, he said that his political movement is “cutting the throat of whiteness.” South Africa’s Julius Malema, the party leader of the EFF calls for killing white people: “Shoot to kiII. KiII the Boer, the farmer”pic.twitter.com/vFjqJ9l8GR https://t.co/sxzS0d0Dn4 — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) March 22, 2025 The U.S. welcomed the first group of Afrikaner refugees in May. At the time, Trump accused the South African government of committing a “genocide” against its white citizens. “It is a genocide that is taking place that you people don’t want to write about,” Trump told reporters at the White House at the time. “It’s a terrible thing that’s taking place and farmers are being killed,” he added. “They happen to be white, but whether they are white or black makes no difference to me.” Democrats, however, have expressed outrage over the Trump administration’s acceptance of white South African refugees, accusing officials of prioritizing them because of the color of their skin. The issue became a focal point of a Congressional hearing in May that featured Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Can you have a different standard based upon the color of somebody’s skin? Would that be acceptable?” Democrat Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine asked Rubio at the time. “I’m not the one arguing that, apparently you are because you don’t like the fact that they’re white and that’s why they’re coming,” Rubio shot back in response. “You’re the one that’s talking about the color of their skin, not me. These are people whose farms were burned down and they were killed because of the color of their skin,” the Secretary of State went on to add. The Episcopal Church’s refugee resettlement wing, which has resettled migrants in the U.S. for decades, announced in May that it would refuse to help settle the Afrikaners for explicitly racial reasons. The organization also pledged to cancel its existing resettlement contract with the federal government over the controversy.

The stars are aligning against artificial intelligence. It’s hard to blame them. One look at Tilly Norwood, the A.I. actress, as pretty as she is, forever young, and it’s clear why actors would be threatened by her digital existence. That explains why so many are raging against A.I. in interview after interview. Except there’s a flaw in their arguments, one few stars are willing to admit. Nor will major studios, for that matter. Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson excoriated the rise of A.I. during an appearance on the soon-to-be-extinct “Late Show” on CBS. She shared her “intense irritation” with the technological movement. “… when I’ve written something, I will put it into a Word document. And recently, the Word document is constantly saying, ‘Would you like me to rewrite that for you?’ And so I end up just saying, ’I don’t need you to rewrite what I’ve just written, will you f*** off?! Just f*** off!” Screenshot: Late Show with Stephen Colbert/YouTube.com “Parks & Recreation” alum Nick Offerman sang from a similar hymnal during a recent “View” appearance. “In this day and age where companies are taking over the curation of our lives, like, they want AI to think for us…I love my clumsy, stupid farmer voice, I would never want a robot to write my song for me, because my song is stupid in a wonderful, delicious way that’s all about my voice! I don’t want to give over my agency.” One of Offerman’s compositions mocked President Donald Trump during the 2024 campaign. “I’m proud to be a Kamala man, who’s quit the GOP/ I just can’t stick with the man convicted of 34 felonies.” It’s hard to imagine A.I. could belt out a tune quite that insightful. Some artists are doing more than talking about artificial intelligence. Author George R.R. Martin is suing OpenAI for copyright infringement. And he may have plenty of company, especially since said suit, albeit slowly, is moving forward. The collective fear is palpable, and not without reason. If a savvy 21-year-old can use A.I. to create a visually stunning film at the same price point as a studio’s catering budget, Hollywood could be on borrowed time. There’s another reason for the industry to give A.I. a long, hard look. The computer revolution excels at absorbing content and spitting out new material based on that data. How different is it from Hollywood in 2025? Yes, too many film and TV scripts feel like A.I. helped write them from start to finish. Hackneyed plots. Predictable story arcs. Canned dialogue lacking in wit and imagination. Here’s betting A.I. could create an annoying GirlBoss character as well as any woke scribe. Or almost as well. That’s part of the problem. What about the content itself? Hollywood recycling has reached a fever pitch, and it shows no signs of stopping. Recent examples include a deal to turn the ‘80s cop show “Miami Vice” into a feature film, one potentially starring Michael B. Jordan and Austin Butler. The original saga captured the Reagan era to a “T,” from its pastel-flavored suits to its synth-heavy soundtrack. Except we’ve already seen a “Miami Vice” movie directed by a key player behind the original series, auteur Michael Mann. That 2006 film featuring Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrell made only a modest dent at the box office. Now, it’s time to try again? Why not feed the show’s original episodes into Grok and see what it churns out? Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images Another upcoming project essentially reboots Sylvester Stallone’s early years. “I Play Rocky” recalls the actor’s battle to play the main character in his original, in-demand screenplay. Studio executives had little appetite for Stallone, then an unknown actor. They craved an established star to play the blue-collar boxer who dreams of greatness. The film cast young actors who resemble both Stallone and “Rocky” favorite Carl Weathers, respectively, although A.I. could have de-aged both for a fraction of the price. The problem isn’t relegated to the big screen. A new “Karate Kid” musical retells that now tired tale, one that inspired three sequels, a Jackie Chan-led reboot, a spinoff TV series (“Cobra Kai”), and last summer’s tepid “Karate Kid: Legends.” Here’s betting A.I. could write a few wisecracks about Hollywood’s recycling obsession. Actually, here’s one from Grok: Hollywood is so obsessed with sequels, prequels, and remakes that the next big blockbuster will be Spider-Man: The Origin of the Origin Story. Hardly a howler, but it’s not as awful as your average Stephen Colbert monologue. Now, imagine if today’s Hollywood threw off the shackles of its IP obsession and reclaimed the spirit of, say, ‘70s-era filmmaking. That decade delivered rich, complicated stories that brought out the best in Hollywood at all levels. Think “Three Days of the Condor,” “Dog Day Afternoon,” “Network,” “Taxi Driver,” and “Chinatown.” Those are just a few of the iconic films that defined the ‘70s. Photo by Warner Bros./Getty Images No A.I. bot could replicate those stories. Tilly Norwood would look foolish among the likes of Diane Keaton, Al Pacino, and Robert De Niro. Maybe Hollywood should view A.I. not as an existential threat but the ultimate challenge. Hollywood delivered some of the best stories of the modern era thanks to the intense competition fostered by the rise of cable and streaming outlets in the 21st century. “The Sopranos.” “Breaking Bad.” “Game of Thrones.” “Mad Men.” The industry should view the threat of A.I. as a chance to show those dumb robots what great storytelling is all about. * * * Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic, and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at HollywoodInToto.com. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now.

The first rule of a Marxist revolution is that it must always eat its own. We’re beginning to see that even before Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York, which has a very high likelihood according to the betting markets. The supposed heartburn is already setting in because here is the problem: Once people begin to govern, there are actual rules to governance. You have to be a person capable of carrying out the office of the mayor, and there are obstacles to that. Thus, all of the bizarre, radical signaling that Mamdani has been doing runs up against reality. Make no mistake, Mamdani has embraced Marxism and jihadism. This is a person whose parents are radical; he’s a second-generation radical. His father compared Abraham Lincoln to Adolf Hitler. Mamdani came to America as one of the privileged scions of an immigrant family. His father is a Columbia University anti-American professor; his mom is an anti-American producer, both of whom believe in a racial hierarchy of victimhood. POLITICO reported: Zohran Mamdani and New York City’s Democratic Socialists of America will have some relationship issues to iron out if he’s elected mayor of the nation’s largest metropolis. The DSA has been integral to his success. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a revolutionary movement. They’re not interested in governance. They’re interested in revolution. They want to overthrow capitalism. They want to overthrow the Constitution. They hate all of these things. But the problem is that once they get people elected to office, those people have to operate within some boundaries. More from POLITICO: How the arrangement will work should Mamdani win on Nov. 4 is uncharted territory. “One of two things will happen: They will give him a grace period and let him get his sea legs and recognize that compromise is a way to get something done, or they become one of his biggest obstacles,” said Christina Greer, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University. “And if that happens, he’ll be fighting people from the right and the left.” It is clear that that he is going to be moderate in some areas because he doesn’t want to completely destroy all credibility with the New York population; he wants to retain NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch; he’s committed to following through with the city’s plan to build for new jails to replace Rikers, which is something that both he and the DSA had previously opposed. We’ll see if the DSA will give him any space. My theory is that they will give him some space, that they will allow him to be as revolutionary as he wants to be within the format that has been provided to him, and then they will gradually hollow out the movement. What the DSA is realizing is something that people from all sides of the political aisle are realizing: If you maintain your extremely radical ground, but you operate within the party system, you’re able to more quickly take power than if you operate outside the party system and browbeat people. Hijacking a party is far easier than forming your own, and then ideologically twisting and turning it. All this heartburn, this angst, is going to be overplayed. The hard-leftists know exactly who Mamdani is. They know he’s a revolutionary, and they are perfectly happy to travel with him, knowing that his heart is in the revolutionary place. Perhaps he ends up stopping short. Maybe they end up turning on him when he’s no longer useful to the movement. Marxist movements have a real habit of doing this. They will turn on absolute butchers like Leon Trotsky if it turns out that he is now inhibiting the next step of the revolution. But I think they will give Zohran Mamdani an awful lot of rope with which to hang the city of New York before they make those sorts of moves. The Democratic Party has now built itself around the radicals, which is why you see Ilhan Omar out there as a chief advocate for Mamdani, on the basis that he is being attacked for his Islamic religion, not for the pro-jihadism or the pro-Marxism, or for the fact that he’s never held a real day job and that he’s one of the great leeches on the butt of American society. The revolution is the only thing that matters here. The truth doesn’t matter. That’s true even for many voters in New York. There’s a brand new poll out, talking about what New Yorkers think is going to happen if Mamdani is elected. The poll shows that many New Yorkers who do not support Mamdani are convinced he’s going to destroy New York. They think that his mayoralty will mark a return to the urban decay of the 1980s, when the city was blighted by poverty, rampant crime, crumbling infrastructure, and abandoned buildings. It’s not as though New Yorkers are unaware of what’s happening here. New Yorkers are perfectly aware. It’s just that they are willing to risk it. They’re willing to risk it because they want to make a revolutionary statement. The bottom line is that a plurality of New Yorkers understand things are going to be bad, but they don’t have the strength to stop him. That is the real key to this election. Many mainstream Democratic figures have swirled and swiveled behind Mamdani and decided that it’s perfectly fine for him to take a leadership position. This is what happens when the so-called moderates are more invested in the success of the party than they are in the principles of the party. They give way to people who are more interested in shifting and moving the principles of the party than they are in the success of the party. * * * Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now.

'Fraud is far-reaching'

'Keep the money spigot'

'I would use the opportunity to compare it with iran'

'Period'