Disney is preparing to fundamentally reshape the streaming landscape. After taking full ownership of Hulu in 2023, the company is now moving to shut the platform down and fold its entire library into Disney+ as part of a “one app experience.” That migration could occur imminently, and the scale of change is staggering. When Disney launched Disney+ in 2019, the streaming marketplace was already crowded. Amazon Prime Video debuted in 2006, Netflix in 2007, and Hulu in 2008. With few external restrictions on content — no oversight from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and no advertisers, at that time, to hold content in check. As a result, these platforms broke boundaries that even premium cable channels like HBO and Cinemax would not have dared. offering more vulgarity, more graphic violence, more sex and nudity. Disney+ promised to be different.  From the beginning, Disney positioned its platform as a safe haven for families; a platform parents could trust implicitly. That promise worked. More than 10 million subscribers signed up within the first 24 hours, many of them parents desperate to escape the exhausting and never-ending task of shielding young eyes from suggestive poster art and racy titles like “Zac and Miri Make a Porno” or “Nymphomaniac” while they searched menus for the handful of child-appropriate titles that might be available.  Market research confirmed this distinction. One industry analysis called Disney+ “the category’s most intentionally chosen service.” Morning Consult found Disney+ scored +45 for “entertaining the kids,” while competitors posted negative scores across the board. “Disney+ is not interchangeable here,” the analysis concluded. “In household decision-making, this is Disney+’s moat.” Disney executives publicly reinforced this family-first positioning. Months before launch, entertainment reporter Eric Vespe recalled asking a Disney representative whether R-rated content would appear on Disney+. The answer: Disney+ would remain PG-13 or softer, while more mature material would live on Hulu. Disney invested heavily in Hulu so adult-oriented material could remain off the Disney+ platform. That intentional separation is now being completely dismantled. In the summer of 2025, executives signaled plans to shut down Hulu and migrate its entire library into Disney+. Concerned Women for America (CWA) looked at the numbers and discovered that while Disney+ currently hosts fewer than 20 R-rated films, after the merger, that number will exceed 400 — a more than 2,200% increase. Mature-rated television series will escalate from 45 to nearly 400 — a more than 800% increase. Families who subscribed specifically for child-friendly programming will suddenly find their child’s favorite streaming platform flooded with volumes of adult material. Parents have already seen glimpses of what this future looks like. Last year, families reported surprise and frustration when mature-themed series promotions appeared on Disney+ home screens, prompting uncomfortable questions from young children. Many parents believed Disney+ was designed to prevent exactly this scenario. This shift represents more than a technical update. It represents a fundamental brand reversal. Disney was once synonymous with wholesome family entertainment. Parents built household media habits around that identity. Children were given access to Disney+ because families trusted the brand. That trust is now being put at risk. Even more concerning is the creative direction Disney leadership appears eager to embrace. One of the most striking examples is the company’s reported interest in hiring producer Ryan Murphy as soon as his development deal with Netflix ends; Murphy’s career has largely focused on dark, adult-themed dramas.  Murphy’s previous projects have centered on crime, horror, and provocative themes that were never intended for children. Yet Disney executives appear willing to fold this creative approach into a corporate ecosystem historically built around family audiences. Walt Disney famously said, “Our greatest natural resource is the minds of our children.” That philosophy guided decades of storytelling built around imagination, optimism, and moral clarity. Today’s leadership seems increasingly disconnected from that legacy. And while Disney may point to parental controls as a solution, technology cannot solve a branding problem. The issue is not whether filters exist. The issue is whether adult content belongs on the same platform that parents deliberately chose for preschoolers and elementary-age children. Mixing Mickey Mouse with mature television may make business sense on a spreadsheet. But it erodes the trust that made Disney+ successful in the first place. The question now is simple: Will Disney honor the promise that built its streaming success — or abandon the families who made it possible? The future of Disney+ may depend on how loudly parents answer that question. * * * Melissa Henson is the Senior Policy Advisor for Media and Culture for Concerned Women for America, the nation’s public policy women’s organization, dedicated to promoting biblical values and constitutional principles in public policy. On X: @CWforA The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s electoral success last year is producing downstream effects on Democrats in the Empire State. New York’s 17th District has a crowded field of Democrats vying to challenge GOP Rep. Mike Lawler, who is fighting for a third term in one of the most competitive districts in the country. In order to survive a primary, Democratic candidates are struggling to balance between the influence Mamdani and his socialist politics have had on the Democratic Party and the moderate appetites of general election voters. Army combat veteran Cait Conley and Rockland County lawmaker Beth Davidson are reputedly the establishment picks of NY-17’s Democratic primary. Both were the only candidates invited from the district to attend a “candidate week” for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in November. Conley and Davidson are facing a strong outside challenge from Briarcliff Manor Deputy Mayor Peter Chatzky, who made his fortune as founder and CEO of the small tech company Napa Group LLC. Chatzky is already one of the best-funded candidates in the country after loaning his campaign nearly $6 million. Those three candidates and a handful of others are still collecting signatures to qualify for the Democratic primary scheduled for June 23. Ahead of the primary ballot being finalized, candidates have taken steps to avoid alienating the far-Left of the Democratic base on issues such as defunding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a broadly unpopular stance. The self-funded Chatzky, who claims to be a “pragmatic progressive,” said in a video last month that “it is time to abolish ICE.” His website also touts his support for “universal health insurance” and “universal pre-K.” His campaign site additionally contains a nod to the progressive values of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity.” On all those issues and more, Chatzky’s platform overlaps with Mamdani. The New York City mayor’s endorsement has come up as somewhat of a litmus test for NY-17 Democrats, with none of them outright rejecting his potential support. In a sign of Mamdani’s direct influence on New York politics, Chatzky has also said that he would “probably” accept an endorsement from Mamdani after previously dodging questions related to the self-described “Democratic socialist.” “He’s energetic. He ran a very impressive campaign,” said Chatzky late last month. “He focused on affordability. It’s a problem in [Lawler’s] district as well.” Davidson, in her position as a legislator, is attempting to make Rockland County a sanctuary region that would offer some amount of protection for illegal aliens. Davidson is pushing a piece of legislation that she calls the “Our Safety and Dignity for All Act,” which would restrict how local law enforcement and other government workers cooperate with federal immigration officers. Davidson has become one of the leading faces of the push in Rockland County, which sits inside NY-17, to limit federal immigration enforcement. She has pointed to the recent clashes involving immigration officers in Minneapolis as the spark for the new law. “The Safety and Dignity Act is intended to address those concerns while honoring state and federal and judicial warrants and following the law,” said Davidson this week. She also gave a nod to Mamdani in a recent podcast episode, highlighting the New York City mayor’s focus on “affordability” during his mayoral campaign as a central focus for her race as well. But she has also kept her distance from Mamdani in what could be a tacit admission that Mamdani’s far-Left politics may not play well in the swing district of NY-17. “I’m not seeking endorsements from elected officials from New York City,” said Davidson last month. She did not reject the possibility of an endorsement from the New York City mayor, however. Conley has taken a similar line on a potential Mamdani endorsement: not seeking it, but not rejecting the democratic socialist, either. When asked last week whether she would welcome an endorsement from Mamdani, Conley said, “I think New York City is different than the Hudson Valley.” She went on to state that she seeks to emulate parts of Mamdani’s campaign, however, such as his “young energy.” “I respect what I believe Mamdani represents to so many people here in New York City, which is new leadership, which is young energy that isn’t afraid to tackle hard problems,” said Conley in an interview on PIX11. In the same interview, she appeared to struggle to answer a question on whether ICE should be defunded. When pressed, Conley said “abuses should be abolished” and ICE leadership held accountable. The Democratic candidate insisted that the focus on ICE is misplaced and that the real issue is executive branch accountability. She did not condemn calls within her party to abolish the agency.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is set to release a memoir in late February as the Democrat is considered a front-runner for the Democrat presidential primary in 2028. Newsom’s memoir, titled “Young Man in a Hurry,” covers Newsom’s personal life and early career, but ends his book before his controversial tenure as California governor. “This is me taking the mask off, and it’s not just me taking a mask off and then sanitizing what’s underneath,” Newsom claimed in a recent interview about the book. “It’s scrutinizing what’s underneath. It’s stress-testing it, and it’s trying to crack it open further and further.” Newsom’s forthcoming memoir will trace the life of a nerdy teen who later found himself rubbing elbows with the Golden State elite. Newsom describes his teenage self as a “gimpy geek,” bowl cut, pimples, and all. Even during his awkward phase, Newsom says he put large amounts of hair gel in his hair—a look that has made Newsom infamous as California’s governor. The hair gel, Newsom says in the book, became “armor,” according to Politico, “a crutch to get through his awkward teenage years.” Newsom, thanks to his father’s political connections, entered an elite milieu starting in the late 1980s.  His father was a lifelong confidante to businessman and oil heir Gordon Getty. “Gordon Getty and his wife Ann treated Gavin and his sister to lavish vacations, expensive clothes and a glimpse into how the upper echelon lived,” the Politico report read. But the custom designer suits and parties at Venetian palazzos with Jack Nicholson, which are also featured in the book, came at a cost. Accusations of nepotism and that Newsom was nothing but a beneficiary of his elite connections followed him. “I never considered that … my deeper entry into the Getty world would rob me of my own hard-earned story, a theft that would become one of the very reasons for writing this book,” Newsom writes in the memoir. The post Newsom ‘Taking the Mask Off’ in New Memoir appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The unrest in Minneapolis has died down, and the Trump administration is pulling 700 immigration-enforcement offers out of the area. But all of the national media scrutiny has obsessed over Team Trump. They have rarely acted to “hold government accountable” when the governing comes from Democrats, Gov. Tim Walz or Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. NPR was eagerly touting their new NPR/PBS Marist Poll to underline the effectiveness of their advocacy: 65 percent of Americans, up from 54 percent in June of 2025, think the actions of ICE have “gone too far” in enforcing immigration laws, and 62 percent of say the actions of ICE are making Americans “somewhat less safe, or much less safe.” The New Republic underlined what NPR and PBS were cooking: “Brutal New Poll Wrecks Trump’s Main Claim on ICE.” Now ask yourself this question. Did PBS and NPR ever ask the public for their evaluation of ICE under Biden, when there was a mass importation of illegal aliens? Pollsters may have asked about their approval of Biden on the immigration issue. But this polling is specific and suggestive, intended to punish ICE deportation efforts. Pollsters don’t ask if the actions of ICE protesters have “gone too far.” The media have soft-pedaled violent extremists in the streets, who are painted as passionate heroes, just as Black Lives Matters were boosted for their “racial reckoning” in the George Floyd riots of 2020. James Freeman at The Wall Street Journal asked the rhetorical question: “Who Watches the ‘ICE Watchers’?” National media outlets have implied that these protesters – including Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were shot by federal agents as they interfered and threatened law-enforcement activities – were somehow not radical activists, when their tactics were clearly radical. Freeman drew attention to a Christina Buttons article for City Journal about how leftists were training in Minneapolis to wreck ICE activities and protect illegal aliens, who they describe as “vulnerable community members.” Buttons entered into the training programs of “Defend the 612” (the Minneapolis area code): “Our reporting reveals that members and related officials have encouraged protesters to impede law enforcement; pushed civilians toward legally and physically risky confrontations; and helped mobilize a counterprotest that turned violent.” Good’s death represented a beautiful recruiting opportunity: “The evening Good died, Defend the 612 held an ‘emergency vigil,’ during which flyers were distributed directing attendees to join the group. At Defend the 612’s training session the following day, [organizer Andrew] Fahlstrom reported about 1,000 new signups.” These leftists were very focused on getting the “mainstream” media to reinforce their interference with ICE: “Members characterized their media work as ‘propaganda’ and insisted on the need to ‘maintain control of your narratives.’ To that end, participants discussed the need to condition their speech to journalists on retaining editorial control over how stories are written.” Buttons noted that Fahlstrom’s “ICE Watch” activist orientation on January 8 featured Jill Garvey, founder of a radical-left group called “States at the Core,” which were active in resisting ICE in Chicago last year. Here’s where National “Public” Radio re-enters the picture to help the left “maintain control of their narratives.” Last November, so-called “domestic extremism correspondent” Odette Yousef gushed over Garvey and did a “ride along” with the domestic extremists engaged in ICE-busting activities in Chicago. In the elitist media’s groupthink, the left-wing extremists never go too far, no matter how violent or destructive their tactics. Their goal isn’t keeping the streets safe. Their goal is destroying Trump and the Republicans. Any extreme tactic that hurts those people in the polls serves an important "progressive" purpose.

Florida police said they worked quickly to identify a 19-year-old man who allegedly drove 1,500 miles to kidnap two sisters he met on Roblox and spoke with on Snapchat.The sisters, 12 and 14 years old, were reported missing from their home in Indiantown on Saturday, which led to a multi-state search by local and federal law enforcement authorities.'There is no application online that is safe. If you can communicate with someone away from your house in the quiet of your own room, it can be a problem. So parents have to be vigilant.'They were found by the Georgia Highway Patrol the next day when they pulled over a vehicle they believed the sisters were in.Martin County Sheriff John Budensiek said the man was identified as Hser Mu Lah Say, who had driven 22 straight hours from Nebraska down to Florida on Friday."We're dealing with a grown man that drove all the way from another state, an individual they had never met in person, picked them up, and we really don't know what he was gonna do," Budensiek said.Surveillance video helped police identify the car Say was driving. They provided images of the man in what appeared to be a convenience store.Say was charged with two counts of kidnapping and three counts of interference of child custody. Budensiek said the man may face additional charges.The sheriff made it a point to say the girls were "rescued" from the "scenario that they had placed themselves in."The Roblox game is widely popular among children but has been criticized for not doing enough to keep predators away from underage users. The company released a statement about the latest incident."We are investigating this deeply troubling incident and will fully support law enforcement," the company statement reads."Roblox has robust safety policies to protect users that go beyond many other platforms, and advanced safeguards that monitor for harmful content and communications," it added. "We have filters designed to block the sharing of personal information, don't allow user-to-user image or video sharing, and recently rolled out age checks globally to limit kids and teens to chatting with others their age by default. While no system is perfect, our commitment to safety never ends, and we continue to strengthen protections to keep users safe."RELATED: 14-year-old girls that went missing from sleepover were forced into prostitution by men they met online, police say Budensiek warned parents to monitor their children's use of online apps."There is no application online that's safe. If you can communicate with someone away from your house in the quiet of your own room, it can be a problem. So parents have to be vigilant," he said.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A new bill before Congress claims it will curb lawsuit abuse. It won’t. In reality, it will limit ordinary Americans’ access to civil courts.The Protect Third Party Litigation Funding from Abuse Act, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), would force plaintiffs in “any civil action” to disclose “the identity of any person (other than counsel of record) that has a legal right to receive any payment or thing of value” from the case.Third-party funding is not clogging courts. It expands access to justice.Plaintiffs would need to provide that information to defendants and the court. Anyone with a functioning brain can see what will happen next: The names leak, activists and corporate PR shops pick targets, and the people financing the lawsuit get punished for it.If that sounds like a blackmail scheme, it is. And it would be perfectly legal.Third-party litigation funding works like this: An individual, company, or organization advances money to a plaintiff or law firm to cover the costs of a lawsuit. In exchange, the funder receives a share of any judgment or settlement. If the plaintiff loses, the funder gets nothing.The arrangement exists for a reason. Lawsuits can be expensive. Complex cases require investigators, expert witnesses, depositions, document review, and months or years of legal work. Deep-pocketed defendants know they can bury a plaintiff under delays, discovery fights, and endless motions while the meter runs at hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars an hour.Litigation funding helps level that field. It gives plaintiffs a fighting chance against defendants who can afford to grind them down.Issa calls this “abuse” because hedge funds and speculators sometimes fund cases in hopes of a return. “We believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world,” Issa said when he announced the bill.That sounds reasonable only if you ignore what trials are for.A civil trial asks three questions: Did the defendant do what the plaintiff alleges? Did the defendant’s actions cause harm? If so, what were the damages (if any)? The identity of a funder does not help a jury answer any of them. If anything, it distracts from the merits and invites a side show: the defendant arguing the plaintiff is a puppet and the case is illegitimate because someone with money helped pay the bills. That argument deserves no special protection.What counts is what the defendant did or didn’t do and whether it hurt the plaintiff. Who finances the plaintiff’s lawyers doesn’t change the facts of the case.RELATED: A one-way national divorce: Anarchy for them, coercion for us Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty ImagesA successful plaintiff also has the right to spend an award as he or she chooses, including paying debts and obligations incurred to bring the case. Issa’s bill would chill that option by scaring off funders through forced disclosure. The bill doesn’t touch defendants, who can hire every white-shoe law firm on the planet. It targets the side that usually needs help.Issa’s bill also pretends it’s solving a crisis that doesn’t exist. The number of lawsuits filed each year in the United States, at both state and federal levels, has fallen by roughly one-third since 2012, according to Consumer Shield. Meanwhile fewer than 1% of state civil cases go to trial, and fewer than 2% of federal civil cases do. Most settle or get dismissed. Third-party funding is not clogging courts. It expands access to justice.The bill also reaches far beyond any plausible federal interest. Federal cases account for only about 1.4% of civil litigation nationwide. States already have authority to regulate litigation funding — and some have. As of July 2025, seven states — Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — had regulations governing litigation funding, according to the Washington Legal Foundation. The fact that most states haven’t bothered tells you what lawmakers think: This isn’t a pressing problem.The broader claim — that litigation funding drives frivolous suits — fails under scrutiny. A 2022 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found funders vet cases carefully and avoid interfering in litigation. They do that for a simple reason: They get paid only if the claim succeeds. The report put it plainly: “Funders select the most meritorious cases to fund because they only receive returns when claims are successful.”Economic reality imposes its own discipline. Third-party funding does not “abuse” the system. It democratizes access to it.Issa’s bill would do the opposite. By threatening people who finance lawsuits, it would tilt the playing field further toward big corporations and the ultra-wealthy — the parties most able to outspend and outlast everyone else.Like it or not, civil suits help keep a free society free. They allow ordinary people to hold powerful actors accountable for harm. Restricting access to courts doesn’t stop abuse. It increases it — by giving the powerful more insulation from consequences. That’s the kind of “reform” Americans don’t need.

A vast, flat sheet of dark matter may solve the long-standing mystery of why our neighboring galaxy Andromeda is speeding toward us while our other neighbors are moving away from us.

Los Angeles Rams' Matthew Stafford accepts the AP Most Valuable Player award during the NFL Honors award show in San Francisco on Feb. 5, 2026. Charlie Riedel/AP PhotoSAN FRANCISCO—Matthew Stafford…

© 2026 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may…

The Chicago Bears fight song contains the words, “You’re the pride and joy of Illinois.”But might they move to Indiana? This is one of many questions facing the storied NFL franchise as it looks…