The Washington Stand

The blood of Christians is irrigating Africa’s soil, with Nigeria as an epicenter. As a senior research analyst at the Observatory of Religious Freedom in that continent (ORFA), Steven Kefas has been following closely horrific stories of martyrdom.

He is now one of the principal contributors to the explosive ORFA six-year study on violence and religious freedom in Nigeria. Because of Kefas’s investigative journalism, documenting human rights abuses and insecurity in Kaduna State, he faced growing pressure from authorities until he was arrested and imprisoned for 162 days in May 2019.

Kefas witnessed deaths among inmates and suffered health challenges. “An experience that only strengthened my resolve to continue exposing injustice,” he said for this interview.

For more than a decade, he has meticulously documented religious persecution, terrorism, mass killings, kidnappings, and forced displacement across Nigeria’s Middle Belt and other affected regions, combining field investigations, survivor interviews, and data analysis to better understand the drivers of violence and to ensure that the voices of victims are not ignored.

What were the key findings of the recent ORFA report on violence and faith in Nigeria?

The scale of violence documented by ORFA is staggering.

Between 2020 and 2025, our research documented 79,323 people killed and 34,773 civilians abducted across Nigeria. On average, that translates to about seven attacks and 36 deaths every single day over the six-year reporting period.

Of those killed, 42,033 were civilians, while 37,290 were security personnel or members of armed groups. One of the report’s most significant findings is that Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), despite receiving the most international attention, accounted for only about 12% of civilian deaths during the reporting period.

By contrast, the groups ORFA classifies as Fulani terror groups were responsible for 18,577 civilian deaths — about 44% of all civilian killings documented.

The religious dimension of the violence is equally concerning. ORFA documented the killing of 28,551 Christians and 13,224 Muslims. After adjusting for the population of affected states, Christians were killed at approximately 4.4 times the rate of Muslims.

While abductions appeared relatively similar in raw numbers — 15,932 Christians and 15,272 Muslims — our companion study, Captivity by Creed, found significant differences in how victims were treated. Christian captives consistently faced higher ransom demands, longer periods in captivity, harsher treatment, greater pressure to renounce their faith, and a higher likelihood of being executed even after ransom payments had been made.

These findings challenge many prevailing assumptions about the conflict and underscore the need for a more evidence-based understanding of the violence affecting Nigeria.

What challenges did ORFA face in conducting field research?

The greatest challenges were security and funding.

Many of the communities we studied are active conflict zones where attacks remain frequent. Conducting field investigations often meant travelling into areas where there was a genuine risk of terrorist attacks, kidnappings, or ambushes. In many cases, our researchers had to work under extremely difficult conditions while ensuring the safety of survivors who agreed to speak with us.

Funding has also been a major limitation. ORFA has carried out this extensive research with relatively modest resources. Despite those constraints, we have built one of the most comprehensive datasets on religious freedom-related violence in Nigeria.

With greater financial support, we could expand our geographic coverage, increase the frequency of field investigations, verify even more incidents, and provide a more complete picture of the crisis.

Could you share some of the stories that had the greatest impact on you or your team while collecting the data?

The testimonies of survivors who spent months, and in some cases hundreds of days, in terrorist captivity had the greatest impact on me personally. Their accounts gave us rare insight into the internal operations of terrorist groups, their methods and, importantly, the motivations behind many of their atrocities.

One story that continues to haunt me involves Christian women abducted from communities in Southern Kaduna. Many were repeatedly sexually assaulted by their captors, forcibly impregnated, and pressured or compelled to convert to Islam while in captivity. After enduring months of unimaginable suffering and finally regaining their freedom, some returned home only to face rejection by their own families. In several cases, their husbands refused to accept them back because they returned with children conceived through rape.

These women survived terrorism only to encounter another form of trauma upon returning home. Their stories remind us that the consequences of terrorism extend far beyond the attack itself and often continue long after victims escape captivity.

What is the typical reaction of Nigerian authorities to reports of this kind?

The reaction has too often been one of denial or dismissal rather than serious engagement with the evidence.

Instead of acknowledging the scale of the crisis and responding to the concerns raised by independent researchers, authorities have frequently sought to downplay reports documenting religiously targeted violence. We saw this clearly when the U.S. government under President Donald Trump raised concerns about the persecution of Christians in Nigeria.

Rather than addressing the underlying issues, the Nigerian government strongly rejected those characterizations and publicly disputed the findings. It also retained the U.S.-based lobbying firm DCI Group under a contract reportedly worth approximately $9 million to improve Nigeria’s international image.

My hope is that future reports will be met not with denial but with constructive engagement, transparent investigation, and meaningful action to protect vulnerable communities.

Could it be said that the efforts of terrorist groups in Nigeria are aimed at eliminating or diminishing the Christian presence in the country, especially in the geographical and socio-political transition zone in central Nigeria known as The Middle Belt?

Based on ORFA’s findings, I believe there is compelling evidence that, particularly in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, many attacks by Fulani terror groups disproportionately target Christian communities.

The pattern we documented extends beyond isolated attacks.

The Middle Belt separates the predominantly Muslim far North from the mostly Christian South and is characterized by its high ethno-linguistic diversity and crucial agricultural output. Is that a factor for the violence?

Entire Christian farming villages have repeatedly been attacked, churches destroyed, clergy killed or abducted, and thousands of predominantly Christian communities forcibly displaced. In numerous cases, displaced communities have remained unable to return to their ancestral lands for years, with reports that some abandoned villages have subsequently been occupied by the attackers or others.

While motivations can vary across different armed groups and regions of Nigeria, the evidence from many parts of the Middle Belt indicates that Christian communities have been disproportionately targeted in ways that have significantly reduced their presence in affected areas.

In 2016, the BBC and other major media outlets framed the violence in Nigeria as disputes between herders. Have you seen any shift in the mainstream media narrative regarding the violence in Nigeria?

Yes, I believe there has been a gradual shift.

A decade ago, much of the international media described the violence primarily as “farmer-herder clashes,” implying that both sides were engaged in roughly equivalent communal disputes over land and grazing resources.

That framing overlooked the organized, sustained, and often highly lethal attacks against civilian communities that many local researchers and affected communities had been documenting for years.

Increasingly, however, journalists, researchers, policymakers, and international organizations are recognizing that many of these incidents cannot be adequately explained as resource conflicts alone. The scale, organization, and recurring targeting of civilian populations point to a much more serious security challenge involving terrorist violence carried out by armed Fulani militant groups in many parts of Nigeria.

While some media outlets continue to use the farmer-herder narrative, there is now a broader appreciation that the violence is more complex. Also, that terrorism, ideological extremism, criminality, and religious targeting all play significant roles in different parts of the country. I believe this more nuanced understanding is an important step toward developing effective responses.

This article was originally written by Yoe Suarez and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

WNBA player Sophie Cunningham grabbed a lot of headlines this week after saying she believes “truth” requires protecting women from biological men invading their sports.

The basketball star told ESPN on Tuesday, “I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

One user slammed her position on X, “Sophie Cunningham is unafraid. Unafraid to be blatantly transphobic.”

Another account posted, “Sophie Cunningham has to be suspended today. You @WNBA can’’t claim to have ‘No Space for Hate’ and then suspend Sandy Brondelo for her comments but allow Sophie to be wildly transphobic in a ESPN article and skate away without consequences. The punishment must be equal.”

After generating chatter on social media, the 29-year-old guard for the Indiana Fever doubled down on Wednesday when speaking with reporters before her team’s game against the Connecticut Sun. “I said what I said. I think it’s kind of common sense,” Cunningham asserted. “And I think I’ll always believe in that. I think it’s really important to protect children, and that’s little girls who are also involved in that category. I stand on what I said.”

Cunningham and Caitlin Clark, another guard for the Indiana Fever, are considered to be the two most popular WNBA stars.

“Sophie has proven she is a defender, she is bold, and she is completely in tune with the spirit of sport. She isn’t letting brand deals or politics control or distract her — she’s simply unafraid to say what everyone is thinking,” Macy Charles, a legislative strategist for Concerned Women of America told The Washington Stand.

Cunningham cited Title IX as a reason for fairness in women’s sports. “That’s why you have some of the greats in women’s sports,” Cunningham said. “If Title IX and women’s sports weren’t protected, then you wouldn’t hear about any type of women in sport. And so, I think in the future, it’s just really important to protect.”

“And, like I said, I’m gonna stand true to that,” she continued. I’ll never falter in my beliefs in that.”

Despite speaking out, Cunningham is tight-lipped about her political beliefs.

Charles pointed out that Cunningham recognizes the commonsense purpose of the WNBA. “She also knows her opportunities were made possible because she wasn’t expected to participate in the NBA — equality and fairness were exactly why the WNBA was created. She is preserving that for those coming after her. Sophie said she spoke ‘in love,’ and that’s important. Scripture tells us that love rejoices in the truth. Speaking truth in love isn’t a contradiction. It’s exactly what we’re called to do.”

Cunningham’s views are also incredibly mainstream, New York Times/Ipsos polling shows. A whopping 80% of Americans believe biological men should not compete in women’s sports — including 67% of Democrats. Among Republicans, support for the star guard’s position is almost unanimous: 94%.

At a press conference at the White House on Thursday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the situation.

“The backlash she [Sophie Cunningham] is receiving from Democrats and left-wing figures across the country is astonishing. They are clearly very out of touch with the American public on this issue, which again, is an 80/20 issue. It’s common sense. It’s rooted in basic biological fact that men should not be competing against women on playing fields across the country,” Leavitt said.

Other politicians outside of the White House rallied behind Cunningham on X, including Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), and Rep. Eli Crane (Ariz.). Fellow athletes Riley Gaines and Martina Navratilova also showed support.

Jennifer Sey, the founder and CEO of XX-XY Athletics, posted on X, “Let this be a lesson to other high level female athletes ... if you are a draw, speak up. They won’t can you.”

Ella Frei, a 17-year-old high school volleyball player from Wisconsin who has said she faced online harassment after criticizing her school’s transgender bathroom policy, also posted, “Thank you @sophaller for being the first female superstar athlete to have my back. It means the world to me.”

Briley Lechner, a high school volleyball player in Michigan who was forced to share a locker room with a biological male identifying as a female from an opposing team, commented that she is inspired by Cunningham as well: “Watching @sophaller say it out loud — that girls shouldn’t have to give up fair competition or our privacy — meant more than she’ll ever know. When a WNBA star says it, maybe people finally listen. I know what it’s like to have your voice on this treated like it’s hateful. It isn’t. Wanting a fair game and a private locker room was never hate. It’s just the truth, and I’m done being afraid to say it. Thank you, Sophie, for going first. You made it easier for the rest of us.”

This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

House Republicans are advocating for protecting children from being exposed to transgender content in TV shows.

On July 13, 47 House members wrote a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imploring a “review of the TV Parental Guidelines to ensure that children are not being indoctrinated with radical gender ideology behind their parents’ backs.” Some of the GOP members who signed on included Andy Ogles (Tenn.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), and Randy Fine (Fla.).

“American children and families are under attack. Parents deserve full transparency from television and streaming services regarding unwanted sexual content in programming rated for children, and it is our intention to provide them with the tools and information they need to make informed choices for their families,” stated the letter. “Unfortunately for America’s children, Democrats disagree.”

This comes after a Public Notice issued by the FCC in April stated that “parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents,” specifically referring to shows with transgender and “non-binary” programming.

“We believe that families should not be blindsided by ideological content hidden inside entertainment marketed to minors,” the House members penned in their letter.

An analysis by Concerned Women for America found that “Netflix programming rated appropriate for children revealed that 41% of G-rated series and 41% of TV-Y7-rated series contain LGBTQ+ content.”

“Parents are highly concerned about content indoctrinating their children, and our recent polling shows a majority of parents say it is crucial for TV programs to disclose sensitive themes in children’s TV programming. We are grateful to those 47 House Republican members who have stood up for children and families,” said Penny Nance, CEO and president of Concerned Women for America.

CWA discovered in a poll that 87% of Americans think it is “very important or somewhat important” that children’s content includes labels indicating themes such as gender and sexual orientation.

“We believe the FCC needs to ensure that the TV content ratings system is transparent and accurate so parents can make informed viewing decisions for their children. Right now, the TV ratings system does not alert parents to LGBTQ+ themes in their children’s TV shows. Parents should have that information, and it’s time to give them that choice,” Nance said.

The April FCC note added that per the Telecommunications Act of 1996, “parents should be provided with timely information about the nature of upcoming video programming and have the ability to block violent, sexual, or other programming that parents believe is harmful to their children. Congress specifically excluded ratings based on political or religious content.”

In recent years, progressive and “woke” themes have become increasingly ever-present in TV shows made for children.

One such show, “The Owl House,” is a cartoon that aired from 2020-2023 on the Disney Channel. The media recommendations site Screenwise described the show as “...(suitable for ages 7+), following a teen girl who stumbles into a magical world full of witches, demons, and surprisingly deep feelings. It features LGBTQ+ representation, moderate fantasy violence, and some genuinely intense/scary moments…”.

According to a press release, CWA filed a comment with the FCC “about why TV programs should alert parents to LGBTQ+ and other sensitive content in shows, especially those targeted to children.”

This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Optimism is insufficient to hold you up against the harsh reality of telling your daughters you won’t be alive long enough to walk them down the aisle or letting your parents know they’ll have to bury their son, Ben Sasse shared in The Wall Street Journal late last year.

Sasse is a 44-year-old former senator from Nebraska who was diagnosed with metastasized, stage 4 pancreatic cancer in December 2025 and given mere months to live. He is also a husband and father of three children.

“I already had a death sentence before last week too — we all do,” Sasse said. “As a Christian, the weeks running up to Christmas are a time to orient our hearts toward the hope of what’s to come,” he continued. “Death and dying aren’t the same — the process of dying is still something to be lived.”

Sasse’s response to his diagnosis created shockwaves. While optimism is insufficient for Sasse, there’s one thing that isn’t: the hope, security, and comfort found in Jesus Christ.

“We [Christians] hope in a real Deliverer — a rescuing God, born at a real time, in a real place,” he wrote.

For the believer, Sasse’s response is not confusing — it makes sense. A Christian’s inheritance is the perfect peace of Christ.

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid,” Jesus reassures us in John 14:27.

“The way in which the former senator and his family are clinging to Christ in the midst of profound suffering is a vivid reminder for so many of us that a Christian’s hope is not rooted ultimately in favorable circumstances, but really in the character of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” David Closson, the director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand.

In a recent survey, the American Bible Society asked respondents if they turn to the Bible when they encounter difficulties in life or if they blame God for their troubles and reject any religious expression.

The organization found an increase in Bible reading, which directly results in an increase in hope for those who have put their trust in the Lord.

“From a biblical perspective, this makes sense. Scripture never promises that Christians will be spared suffering. In John 16:33 Jesus tells his followers that in this world you will have tribulation,” Closson said. “But Scripture consistently teaches that suffering has a way of stripping away false securities, and reminding us of our dependence on God, and then we could also say trials often expose the inadequacy of the other things we are tempted to trust in, such as our health, careers, finances, relationships, or sense of control.”

The report shows that those who experience difficult life circumstances and trauma are even more likely to read the Bible and rely on their faith for peace and healing than those who haven’t dealt with hardships.

Steadfast faith does not deny the reality of pain, Closson said. “It rather demonstrates that suffering does not have the final word.”

Bible reading was recorded to be 48% for those who faced a life-threatening illness or injury, like Sasse, compared to 37% for those who have not.

The report also found that 38% of those dealing with a life-threatening illness or injury said that their faith was “a great source of comfort to them” as they navigated “life issues,” compared to 31% of those not experiencing a tragedy.

“The mind regulates more effectively when attention is gently anchored to something safe, meaningful and true,” Joanna Hargreaves, a Christian psychotherapist, posted. “Regular Biblical Meditation soothes your amygdala. The amygdala is your brain’s alarm system triggering fear, stress, and anger.”

It is the natural tendency of the heart of the believer to turn to God in the midst of trials and tribulations. It is a mark of spiritual health to lean on the promises of eternity found in God’s word rather than looking to the world for comfort during times of impossible pain.

Closson also observed that unique opportunities for gospel ministry are presented when people are confronted with their own mortality. “As believers, we should be prepared to meet those moments with compassion and care and share the hope that’s ultimately found in the gospel,” he argued. “This report confirms something that Christians have believed for centuries, which is that while God does not waste suffering, he often does use it to draw people closer to himself.”

Because of sin, we live in a world where dads lose their lives to cancer too early, where divorce is common, and confusion about gender and sexuality runs rampant.

But God.

“The testimony of many believers is the suffering that has become the very context in which the promises of God become most precious. Bible passages that maybe seemed abstract in times of ease suddenly become more personal when read from a hospital room or while caring for a sick loved one,” Closson mused.

Take heart, for I have overcome the world, Jesus tells his followers. He calls us not to be discouraged. Sasse is a living example of what it means to embrace this. Amid the trial, he understands what we could all benefit from as a reminder: though we live in a fleeting world, there is an unfailing hope.

This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

In a sign of the continuing breakdown of religious freedom in Europe, Finnish parliament member Päivi Räsänen was banned by the U.K. from traveling to Heathrow Airport for a planned layover due to her Finnish Supreme Court conviction in March for authoring a pamphlet containing supposed “hate speech” toward those who identify as LGBT.

Räsänen’s legal saga began in 2019, when she wrote a post on social media questioning why her Finnish Lutheran Church was choosing to participate in an LGBT Pride event, citing the scriptural prohibition against same-sex conduct from Romans 1:24-27. Finnish authorities eventually charged her and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola with “hate speech” for authoring a pamphlet advocating for a biblical view of sexuality and for the social media post.

Even after Räsänen and Pohjola’s eventual unanimous acquittal of the charges by two lower courts in 2023, prosecutors continued to press the case by appealing it. In March of this year, a narrow 3-2 Finland Supreme Court decision found Räsänen and Pohjola guilty of “hate speech” for authoring the pamphlet and sentenced them to pay a €1,800 fine. The decision also ordered that the pamphlet be removed from public access and that all physical copies be destroyed. She was not found guilty for two other charges based on the social media post and a radio debate.

Notably, the court admitted in its ruling that Räsänen and Pohjola’s conduct was not “serious.” “[I]t must be taken into account that the text forming the basis for the conviction did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred,” the court wrote. “The conduct is therefore not particularly serious in terms of the nature of the offense.”

Nevertheless, Räsänen recently revealed that because of this single “not particularly serious” charge, the U.K. has rejected her Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) merely to pass through the country via Heathrow Airport (after initially approving it) while traveling from the U.S. to Helsinki, Finland’s capital. Räsänen further revealed that the U.K.’s revocation of her ETA could imperil her plans to attend an upcoming conference and speaking engagement in Northern Ireland next month about — ironically — freedom of speech.

Experts like author and columnist Rod Dreher say that the decision of a Western nation like the U.K. to bar Räsänen from stepping foot in the country because of perceived “hate speech” is a sign that Europe is rapidly sliding toward totalitarianism.

“Now that I hear someone as innocent and gentle as this Finnish granny has been forbidden by the British government even for setting foot in their international airport … well, it confirms my suspicions,” he posted last week on his Substack page. Dreher went on to note how the European Parliament is currently considering a measure that would “enable monitoring of people’s private, encrypted chats” to find any hint of perceived “hate speech” and further erode the ability of Europeans to freely express their religious beliefs.

“I think Päivi is a canary in the civilizational coal mine,” Dreher added. “The progressive bureaucratic order in European countries would rather attack faithful Christians as Enemies Of Society than deal with the actual problems they have. We can expect more of this. It’s a Finnish Lutheran lawmaker and grandmother today; it could easily be you tomorrow.”

European free speech advocates like Peter McIlvenna agree, noting that the U.K. barring Räsänen from entering is just the latest in a recent string of travel bans.

“We had a similar situation a couple of months ago whenever we had a United Kingdom rally organized by Tommy Robinson, and the U.K. government blocked 11 individuals who were traveling from Europe, I think, including Ezra Levant [who] was from Canada,” he pointed out during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “They were given this statement, ‘Your presence is not conducive to the common good and therefore you are being blocked for entering.’ Of course, any government can have that ability to stop people coming in. I wish they used it to stop illegal immigrants coming in, but hey, they’re using it for members of Parliament. … [Räsänen] has been a member of [Finland’s] Parliament there for decades and decades.”

McIlvenna, the co-founder of Hearts of Oak, a U.K.-based free speech alliance, went on to describe the extent of the free speech violations that are occurring in his country.

“[T]o think that [Räsänen] is a danger in the U.K. is utter, utter madness,” he lamented. “But that’s where we’re going. … [The government] arrests people for statements online. We have 30 arrests a day for people saying things online that the government does not like … and that fits into our hate crimes. Anything you say that may be perceived as offensive to someone else, then you’ve committed an offense. So it’s where we are.”

“[Europe is] very dark place now,” McIlvenna added. “Finland is a very secular country. Scandinavia and Britain have always prided themselves on our Christian heritage or tradition — 1,700 years of that Christian thread that is very quickly disappearing with an apostate church and very few Christians involved in public office. So that is where we are going, far away from our traditional Christian faith.”

Still, Räsänen sees a thread of hope within the persecution that she has faced, recently describing how it has opened up opportunities for her to share her faith. She recalled that after her “hate speech” case became public in 2019, a young man who identified as an atheist sent her an angry message. After she replied in kindness and shared the gospel with him, she described that he later reached out to her again.

“He said that after his conversation with me, he has found Christ, and he has found a way to eternal life,” Räsänen remembered. “I understood that this is not in vain. It is not in vain to defend these freedoms. It is not in vain to share the message of the Bible.”

This article was originally written by Dan Hart and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

The U.S. government remains alert to Iranian threats against President Donald Trump, even here on U.S. soil, according to remarks by Mike Waltz, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former National Security Advisor, on Sunday. The Islamist regime in Tehran has plotted to assassinate Trump on at least two prior occasions, both in peacetime and wartime, and recently redoubled its rhetoric vowing Trump’s death.

“I won’t get into specific intelligence, but this regime, going all the way up to the ayatollah, has plotted to kill President Trump for many years,” Waltz said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “They have operatives here in the United States. Plots are ongoing. But our intelligence community, the FBI, our law enforcement entities are absolutely on top of it.”

The remarks followed reporting last week that Israeli officials had warned President Trump of a fresh Iranian plot against his life, although no official spokesperson confirmed this.

The report came as no surprise, given the Iranian regime’s open vendetta against Trump since his first term in office. Iran has vowed retaliation against Trump ever since he ordered the airstrike that killed IRGC general Qassem Soleimani in Iraq on January 3, 2020.

More recently, Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has a more personal cause for revenge, after his father and predecessor, Ali Khamenei, died amid Operation Epic Fury. In only his second public statement, Khamenei the Younger vowed vengeance for “the blood of all those martyred … by bringing the criminal and dishonorable killers to justice. … These criminals — whose names are known from top to bottom — will take to their graves the unfulfilled wish of dying peacefully in their beds.”

Attendees of Khamenei the Elder’s July 4 memorial ceremonies displayed a banner declaring, “We Will Kill Trump.”

Recent history has shown that Iranian attempts on Trump’s life are neither Israeli fiction, nor too low to stoop for a regime that has unwaveringly declared “Death to America” for the past 47 years.

On November 8, 2024, the Biden Justice Department (the same one that spent so many years persecuting Trump) announced an indictment against Farhad Shakeri, an Iranian national, for “a plot to murder a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin in New York,” as well as a plot to assassinate then-president-elect Donald Trump.

“According to statements made by Shakeri in recorded interviews with law enforcement agents, the IRGC has also tasked Shakeri with carrying out other assassinations against U.S. and Israeli citizens located in the United States,” the DOJ stated. “In particular, Shakeri has informed law enforcement that he was tasked on Oct. 7, 2024 with providing a plan to kill President-elect Donald J. Trump.” However, “Shakeri claimed he did not intend to propose a plan to kill Trump within the timeframe set by the IRGC.”

While the DOJ did arrest two co-conspirators, “Shakeri remains at large and is believed to reside in Iran,” the statement admitted. “Shakeri immigrated to the United States as a child and was deported in or about 2008 after serving 14 years in prison for a robbery conviction.” According to the DOJ, he “used a network of criminal associates he met in prison in the United States” to plan his attacks. However, due to his physical absence, the charges against Shakeri have never gone to trial.

On the other hand, the DOJ did obtain a conviction in the case of Asif Merchant. On March 6, 2026, the DOJ announced that a federal jury had convicted Merchant “of murder for hire and attempting to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries.” The Pakistani national was a trained IRGC operative who tried to recruit hitmen “to steal documents, stage a protest, and arrange the murder of one of three specific U.S. government officials,” including President Trump. In June 2024 (still under the Biden administration), Merchant paid a $5,000 advance to men he believed to be hitmen, but who were in fact undercover federal law enforcement officers.

Thus, the DOJ has publicly revealed at least two Iranian plots from 2024 to assassinate Donald Trump. Other less mature plots may have been foiled before attaining the same level of threat, and some may remain undisclosed to protect intelligence assets. In any event, the same regime that sought revenge on Trump in 2024 has much more reason to seek revenge now — and fewer inhibitions against making the attempt.

President Trump responded stoically to the report, suggesting his prior awareness of the threat or at least an acceptance of the risks attending his high station. “They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” he told reporters in Ankara, Turkey, before the U.S. Secret Service insisted that he fly home on his old Air Force One, not the jet gifted by Qatar. “I’m on every list. I saw this morning, I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a little bit lucky, but that maybe doesn’t last very long.”

Trump has even gone so far as to give instructions about how much firepower to unload on Iran in the event that one of their assassination plots succeeds.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!” Trump blasted out on Truth Social. “Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran — PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!”

This reveals once again the spirit of defiance in the face of mortal peril that Trump displayed when he lifted a fist after being grazed by a would-be assassin’s bullet at an outdoor rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The renewed effort by Iran to assassinate a sitting U.S. president — even during a ceasefire — provides Americans with a fresh reminder that the Islamist regime in Tehran remains a mortal enemy of the United States. Theirs is an ideological hatred that cannot be placated by gifts of cash or appeased by endless diplomacy, or even military surrender. They want to destroy the United States. Although they lack the firepower to do so openly, they do not and will not show any qualms about stooping to use an assassin’s bullet.

This article was originally written by Joshua Arnold and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

In a setback for religious freedom, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled last Thursday that Christian schools in Maine must comply with pro-LGBT regulations that conflict with their religious beliefs, if they want to participate in a public tuition assistance program. “Essentially what the court has said is that you can believe what you want to believe, you can talk about what you believe, but once you exercise what you believe, that’s conduct that the state of Maine can regulate,” said Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, which brought the lawsuit.

In Crosspoint Church v. Makin, a two-judge panel (one judge died before the opinion was issued) partially upheld a lower court order denying a preliminary injunction against Maine’s pro-LGBT regulations. Crosspoint Church runs Bangor Christian School (BCS). The court decided a second lawsuit featuring a Catholic school (St. Dominic Academy v. Makin) on the same day, on almost identical grounds.

BCS holds employees and students to basic biblical standards for gender and sexuality, and requires teachers to ascribe to a statement of faith. But those standards run afoul of provisions in the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), which Maine now applies to schools seeking to participate in its tuition assistance program. “A private school that participates in the tuition-assistance program and then violates the MHRA exposes itself to civil suits from both the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) and private alleged victims, with remedies including injunctive relief and monetary damages,” the court described.

Specifically, the MHRA “‘Religious Nondiscrimination Rule’ bars covered schools from discriminating in admissions, financial aid, academics, and the like on the basis of religion,” as the court described, and its “‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule’ bars discrimination in all the same activities on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity but exempts religious schools that do not receive public funding.”

In practice, this rule would have the effect of preventing BCS’s attempts to enforce its biblical norms of sexuality and gender, Dys told The Washington Stand. For instance, if a male student identified as transgender and wished to use the female restrooms and locker rooms, BCS could not enforce its policies against him without violating the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule. “When the state of Maine presents this sort of regulation on conduct, it creates a real problem,” he said.

Yet the court concluded the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Rule “works no constitutional violation.” It also held that “certain of BCS’s policies” violated the Religious Nondiscrimination Rule, including “church member discounts” and “consideration of ‘prospective students’ spiritual fit.’”

Besides these rules, the MHRA also establishes an “Employment Rule” that “bars employment discrimination based on ‘race or color, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry, national origin or familial status,’” as the court described. With regard to this rule, the court partially reversed the district court, finding that Crosspoint Church fell into a carveout in the rule, thereby eliminating the “case or controversy.”

Finally, the MHRA’s “Religious Expression Rule” stipulates that, “to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing.” The court rightly held that “the Religious Expression Rule unconstitutionally violates Crosspoint’s free-exercise rights” and remanded it to the district court for an injunction.

In the lawsuit, Crosspoint argued that “a set of recent amendments to the MHRA specifically targets BCS, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause,” as the court characterized it, based on a years-long history of litigation.

Maine has offered state tuition assistance to enable parents to send their children to the school of their choice since 1980. However, the program excluded Christian schools until 2022, when a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutional in Carson v. Makin. Parents at BCS were at the center of that case.

Based on its recent decisions in Trinity Lutheran (2016) and Espinoza v. Montana (2019), where government entities tried to block Christian schools from generally available public benefits, the Supreme Court in Carson held that “Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”

In anticipation of a defeat in front of the Supreme Court, the Maine legislature amended the law in 2021, allowing Christian schools to receive state tuition assistance, but only if they complied with the state’s rules for nondiscrimination towards sexual orientation and gender identity.

In 2023, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey (D) professed to be scandalized at the very nature of a Christian school. “The education provided by the schools at issue here is inimical to a public education,” he complained. “They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff.”

Frey’s comments came in response to another federal lawsuit filed by Crosspoint Church, alleging that attaching general state funding to LGBT strings amounted to a “poison pill” for accepting the money. “Putting Plaintiff to the choice of participating in a generally available benefit program or surrendering its constitutionally protected religious exercise penalizes its religious exercise and constitutes a substantial burden,” the lawsuit argued.

However, the district court refused to view the circumstances in that light, or to apply the recent string of Supreme Court precedents. Instead, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in February 2024 that “the educational antidiscrimination provisions do not violate the Free Exercise Clause because they are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”

This language reached further back to the “neutrality” test established in the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, the controversial decision that prompted a furious Congress to overwhelmingly pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991.

Dys contended that both the district court and the appellate court were wrong to rely on the neutrality test in this context, “because you can’t simply exclude religious exercise because it’s religious,” he told TWS. “You have to give full faith and credit to that part of the Constitution,” referring to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

“I suspect there’s going to be further action on this case,” he concluded. First Liberty is still reviewing whether to appeal the case to the full First Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. In either case, Dys said, “We’re going to seek further review.”

“We are disappointed that though the First Circuit acknowledges that religious institutions can teach what they believe, it would then refuse to allow conduct consistent with those beliefs,” Dys declared. “Religious education plays a critical role in our diverse society, but Maine’s leadership will not tolerate conduct consistent with those religious beliefs. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, punishing religious institutions for being religious is odious to our Constitution.”

This article was originally written by Joshua Arnold and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Patience is a 19-year-old Christian girl who has suffered far more grave injustices than most people are forced to endure in their lifetime.

In 2018, her father was killed by Fulani terrorists who broke into their house in the middle of the night.

In 2019, her grandfather and three of her extended relatives were killed in another Fulani attack on her village.

In 2020, she was raped by Fulani terrorists. At the time, she was just 14 years old.

In February 2026, her uncle also died at the hands of a Fulani terrorist.

Patience is from Plateau State, Nigeria, where I visited with the humanitarian organization Christian Freedom International a few months ago.

We were able to meet Patience and dozens of other Nigerian survivors of persecution and attacks. Many people rightly point out that the situation in Nigeria is complex, but staying next to a village known for facing repeated attacks and visiting survivors of persecution in their homes starts to bring the picture into focus.

I visited the small corner shop belonging to Amarachi, a middle-aged woman who could not be more ecstatic to see us. She showed us around her small shop — which she managed to start with the help of an organization who gave her seed money and taught her the basics about business.

After having us try a Nigerian snack, she wanted to show us her home several blocks away. In the modest rented house that she shared with her adult children, she told us about her husband’s death several years prior.

He was on his way home from a weekday prayer meeting at church when he was ambushed. Fulani militants rushed out of tall grass nearby and slaughtered him on the path. It was believed they were looking to target Christians leaving the church that day.

His wife and children were left to mourn their father’s death and do the best they could to carry on. His children are in college now. Amarachi had to provide for the family, so she opened her small store.

But Amarachi’s husband’s death wasn’t the end of the terror the family would face. Her village — located close to a Nigerian military lookout — routinely faces raids from Fulani militants. Typically, the militants target this village for kidnappings, charging steep ransoms to release the kidnapped victims. Families and churches must band together to offer a ransom and negotiate down to a feasible price.

One expert told me that kidnappings and ransoms are the militants’ largest source of income. These groups are often better equipped than the Nigerian military itself. When a large group of Fulani militants launches an attack, the military has been known to tell villagers to flee because they cannot defend against the militants.

My friend from Christian Freedom International asked Amarachi if she felt safe from local Fulani attacks since she had a courtyard door, main door to her house, and bedroom door — all with sturdy-looking locks. She gave us a confused look and said no. Our Nigerian driver explained that these would do little to stop attackers. He said they could break through any lock and gain entrance to any building. He called them “experts” at it.

I asked what she does during the overnight raids. Amarachi said that she simply lies in her bed and prays and tells her children to do the same. She doesn’t flee the village like many residents do during an attack. She believes that she has suffered enough, and God will not let her suffer more. So far, the militants haven’t targeted Amarachi’s house.

As an outsider, it’s difficult to grasp the normalized level of fear that must accompany daily life in a Christian village in Northern Nigeria. Yet, terrorism isn’t new for Nigerian Christians. The last few decades have seen an increase in the rise of Islamist terrorism and general violence against vulnerable Christian communities in Northern Nigeria. In 2014, the infamous terrorist group Boko Haram was at its height, seizing control of approximately 70,000 square miles in Northeast Nigeria.

In Jos, we met siblings Joy and Gabriel. They are now teenagers, but as children, they and their mother were captured by Boko Haram and held in one of their camps for over a month before being released. Their father was killed. Tears streaming down her face, Joy wanted to press through and share how Boko Haram destroyed her village in Northeast Nigeria, forcing those who survived to flee.

Patience, Joy, and Gabriel are now living at Christian Faith Institute (CFI), a non-denominational Bible school and ministry in Jos, Nigeria, where I was able to meet them. Founded by Australian missionaries Kent and Ruth Hodges, the ministry is dedicated to serving on the frontlines.

The Hodges, with their great African team, train Nigerians (and many from surrounding Sahel nations also impacted by terrorism), mainly from rural northern areas, to be pastors and missionaries themselves, equipping them to return to their villages across the north and share the good news of the gospel. At the Bible school, students are equipped with income-generating practical vocational training to be able to provide for themselves and their families. The Hodges also have a children’s crisis home and school that serves hundreds of kids, almost all of whom have faced persecution and terrorism themselves, like Joy and Gabriel.

While the violence in Nigeria has been ramping up for decades, it has gained more public awareness in the United States over the last few years. In November 2025, President Trump designated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” on religious freedom. The designation was first instated in the last year of President Trump’s first term and undone in President Biden’s first year in office.

On Christmas Day in 2025, the United States launched strikes against ISIS in northwestern Nigeria. In May 2026, the U.S. worked with Nigerian forces to strike more ISIS targets, killing the global ISIS second-in-command. However, experts and those on the ground say that the situation for Nigerian Christians has worsened, not improved, in recent months.

Now, religious freedom advocates are hoping the Trump administration keeps up the pressure on the Nigerian government until its leaders take concrete action and successfully protect Christians in Northern Nigeria. Though the darkness and gravity of the situation in Nigeria feel overwhelming, ministries like CFI are a reminder that God is at work there and hope is not lost.

On the last day of my trip, I spent time with one mother whose daughter asked when the “crisis” will end. She told her daughter she didn’t know if it would end, but to pray for protection for their family and for comfort for those experiencing loss.

Note: Names of the victims featured in this piece have been changed for their protection.

This article was originally published by The Washington Stand and written by Arielle Del Turco. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

When ideologically opposed governments clash, those caught in the middle usually duck for cover like pedestrians in Godzilla’s shadow. Such instinctive acts of self-preservation can produce absurd situations, like the one Colorado Children’s Hospital found itself in on Monday. After the Colorado Supreme Court judicially compelled the hospital to resume providing gender transition hormones to minors, not one doctor in its gender center was willing to shoulder the risk, out of fear of federal consequences.

Through 2025, Colorado Children’s in Aurora was the state’s largest supplier of gender transition hormones to minors, subjecting 257 children to puberty blockers and 549 children to cross-sex hormones last year alone (though it reportedly never carried out transgender surgeries).

But that practice came to an abrupt halt on January 5, when the hospital announced it would no longer provide gender transition hormones to minors. Along with dozens of other hospitals, Colorado Children’s had received a federal subpoena for information on its provision of the drugs to minors, which it is trying to quash in court. The hospital was also concerned about losing access, even temporarily to federal Medicaid funding, which covers roughly half of the hospital’s patients.

But the Rivendell of Californian expats could not long endure any behavior — however rational its basis — that smelled like compliance with the Trump administration, which Colorado treats with all the hatred and disgust of elves for orcs. Left-wing activist groups brought a state lawsuit to force the hospital to reverse its suspension of services, arguing that a state anti-discrimination statute required it.

After losing in a district court, the activists won a favorable (5-2) ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court on May 18. “Any potential harm to the public’s interest in access to healthcare is speculative,” wrote Supreme Court Justice William Hood. In a dissent, Justice Brian Boatright countered that “CHC’s decision to terminate gender-affirming care for minors was plainly not ‘because of’ petitioners’ gender identity, sex or disability. It was a decision driven by the direct threat to the viability of the entire hospital.”

Nevertheless, the pro-transgender position prevailed by a sizable majority, holding that the hospital must provide gender transition hormones as a matter of law and returning the case to a lower court to deliver the final order. Denver District Judge Ericka Englert issued that order on Thursday.

The hospital initially asked the judge to require its opponents to post a $250,000 bond to cover the hospital’s financial risk but withdrew that request the next day. In the final analysis, Judge Englert set the bond at one dollar.

Thus, on Monday, Colorado Children’s announced that it had “reinstated medical gender-affirming care into our scope of services,” to comply with the Colorado courts. But the announcement contained one major twist: not one of the doctors who worked at Colorado Children’s TRUE Center for Gender Diversity was willing to prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. Instead, each doctor “has independently decided they will not prescribe or renew gender-affirming medications for patients under age 18,” the hospital said.

How the hospital is complying with the court order without the cooperation of any of the doctors remains unexplained. Are the prescriptions being written by nurses or by doctors from other departments? Or is this the hospital’s way of saying, we wish to comply, but it is out of our hands?

The reason why the doctors could refuse to cooperate with the hospital is that “Children’s Colorado does not employ the medical providers at the TRUE Center or direct their independent clinical decisions,” the hospital explained. Instead, the doctors are all employed by the nearby University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine and retain control over their care and prescription decisions.

It turns out that the doctors had each individually reached the same rational conclusion the hospital had reached on January 5 — that the risk of consequences for carrying out gender transition procedures on minors had become greater than the benefit of providing them for an interim period.

“At this time, the medical providers at the TRUE Center have each determined that we will not be prescribing, refilling, or renewing gender-affirming prescriptions for patients under 18 years old,” the doctors said in a statement. “We were each individually forced to make a very difficult decision and none of us reach this decision lightly. Ultimately each of our decisions is driven by the serious risk of federal action that could result in the inability to continue serving and caring for any patients for years into the future.”

The risk of federal action to individual practitioners is not hypothetical. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital after which the hospital paid $10 million to cover fraudulent medical billing, agreed to open a detransitioner clinic, and permanently fired five doctors who had provided gender transition procedures to minors there. Weeks later, the DOJ reached another settlement with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio that included “a decades-long commitment to not perform or offer sex-rejecting procedures.”

Unsurprisingly, these Colorado doctors had no wish to become the next whitecoats in the DOJ’s crosshairs.

Nor is it surprising that left-wing activists responded with outrage to the news. “Instead of complying with the court order, Children’s Hospital is now claiming that it is not responsible for whether its medical staff discriminates against children based on sex, gender identity, race, religion, or any other protected category,” complained Attorney Paula Greisen, who brought the lawsuit. “The hospital at first sacrificed the children and now they’re throwing the doctors under the bus, basically raising their hands in the air, saying we have no control over these doctors.”

The better question is, who is under which bus? With state penalties looming on one side and federal penalties on the other, the many hospitals and doctors who conducted gender transition procedures merely to make a quick buck are scrambling for the nearest exit.

This has been the hope of pro-children strategists for years. One goal behind state laws protecting minors from gender transition procedures was to increase the risk of liability. For many doctors, this is a far more effective method of deterrence than any amount of state prosecution. Thus, most state laws allowed for private civil suits over a long period of time. Already, this spring, a detransitioner won the first ever malpractice suit for $2 million, even under New York’s pro-transgender laws.

But state laws and individual lawsuits could only slow the runaway semi of transgender medicine one speed bump at a time. It took the might of the federal government — with its massive law enforcement apparatus and control of incentives through Medicaid — to finally pull out a titanium lasso strong enough to halt its momentum mid-career and begin to reel it backward.

It’s a rare day when such positive news washes down from the marijuana-scented slopes of the Rocky Mountains’ majesty. The bizarre situation demonstrates that, even in far-left jurisdictions, there are rational actors who will respond to incentives — if the government sets the incentives properly. It also demonstrates that the Colorado Supreme Court remains far out on the Left fringe, where it would force a hospital to shoulder massive liability against federal wrath in the misguided pursuit of non-discrimination.

‍

This article was originally written by Joshua Arnold and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and attorneys general in four states filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), accusing the group of misleading doctors, parents, and children to promote the lucrative business of administering transgender procedures to minors. In a 123-page complaint, the FTC lays out “ten specific unlawful misrepresentations or omissions” by WPATH and seeks “a permanent injunction to prevent future violations.”

“When an organization provides guidance designed to mislead families about the risks, benefits, or medical consensus behind a treatment, it undermines trust in those responsible for providing medical care,” declared FTC Commissioner Mark R. Meador. The FTC was joined in its lawsuit by attorneys general from Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas.

The lawsuit is significant because it goes directly to the source of claims undergirding transgender medical practice. In countless other legal battles, pro-transgender activists have invariably cited WPATH as the foremost authority on transgender procedures for minors. Now, the FTC has challenged WPATH itself to prove that its claims, often cited as an expert authority, can hold up in a court of law.

The lawsuit challenged the accuracy of specific claims made by WPATH, as well as omissions in the most recent version of its so-called, unofficial “Standards of Care” (SOC-8):

“(1) WPATH misrepresents that pediatric medical transition is medically necessary to prevent suicide in children who express dissatisfaction with or report distress about their sex traits.

“(2) WPATH misrepresents that pediatric medical transition is effective at preventing suicide in children who express dissatisfaction with or report distress about their sex traits.

“(3) WPATH misrepresents that puberty blockers are fully reversible.

“(4) WPATH misrepresents that cross-sex hormones improve mental health.

“(5) WPATH misrepresents that performing breast amputations on children is safe, effective, and consistently results in better health and quality of life.

“(6) WPATH misrepresents SOC-8 to be the result of unbiased, evidence-based expert consensus.

“(7) WPATH misrepresents that pediatric medical transition is the “standard of care” for children who express dissatisfaction with or report distress about their sex traits.

“(8) WPATH fails in SOC-8 to adequately disclose certain side effects of puberty blockers including hot flashes, lethargy, and cognitive problems.

“(9) WPATH fails in SOC-8 to adequately disclose certain side effects of cross-sex hormones including mood disturbances, vocal pain, pelvic pain, pelvic floor dysfunction, clitoral discomfort, vaginal pain, persistent sexual dysfunction continuing after cessation of use, and erectile pain.

“(10) WPATH fails in SOC-8 to adequately disclose certain side effects of breast amputations including inability to breastfeed, nerve damage, and necrosis of the nipples.”

“WPATH made each of these ten misrepresentations or omissions expressly or by implication,” the complaint declared. “WPATH knew they were false or misleading, and WPATH further knew — and intended — that they would provide WPATH members and other providers of medical transition services with the means to mislead consumers.”

The FTC challenged WPATH’s SOC-8 in detail, alleging that its methodology “does not satisfy accepted medical standards of evidence” for at least four reasons. “WPATH selected authors who had conflicts of interest; WPATH ignored the consensus protocol that SOC-8 purports to follow; WPATH failed to adhere to proper protocols both in evaluating scientific and medical evidence and in making recommendations based on that evidence; and WPATH made material changes to its recommendations in response to external pressure rather than scientific evidence.”

Regarding conflicts of interest, the FTC argued that WPATH selected drafters for SOC-8 who had both “intellectual conflicts of interest” and “financial … conflicts of interest.” The intellectual conflicts of interest stemmed from the fact that its selection criteria required every team leader to be a “longstanding WPATH Full Member in good standing” and a “well recognized advocate for WPATH” — in other words, professionals “who already supported medical transition services.”

The financial conflicts of interest concerned the fact that many authors directly performed and thereby profited from the procedures under review, such as Dr. Marci Bowers. Bowers, the complaint stated, “made more than a million dollars in a single year from transition surgeries but declared it ‘absurd’ to disclose that conflict or attempt to account for it in SOC-8.”

Regarding external pressure, the FTC referenced “the removal of age minimums for pediatric medical transition drugs, surgeries, and services including cross-sex hormones, breast amputations, surgical penis removal, and facial surgery.” This removal came after the Biden administration Department of Health and Human Services asked in 2022 “if the specific ages can be taken out” to combat “the conservative anti trans agenda.” In addition, “According to a WPATH leader, the American Academy of Pediatrics threatened to ‘actively publicly oppose’ SOC-8 if WPATH did not remove the age minimums,” although without “any sound evidence-based argument(s) underpinning” the change it demanded.

“One WPATH committee member acknowledged that it was ‘the most strange experience’ to see WPATH eliminate minimum age recommendations at the ‘last minute’ after internal discussion made clear that ‘nobody [on the committee] wanted to [eliminate] them, and personally not agreeing with the change,’” the complaint stated.

Regarding consensus protocol, the FTC elaborated on the same issue, noting that WPATH failed to strictly follow its own selected “Delphi process” for achieving expert consensus. “At least one WPATH member could not ‘see how we can simply remove something that important from the document — without going through a Delphi — at this final stage of the game.’”

Regarding the quality of evidence, the FTC excoriated WPATH for “a deliberate decision to obfuscate the strength of the evidence supporting WPATH’s recommendations and allow WPATH to overstate the strength of its evidence.” WPATH claimed to use an evidence-rating system called “GRADE,” but it chose not to include the GRADE ratings to make the evidence look stronger than it really was. One draft leader, Dr. Eli Coleman, admitted in 2023, “[a]ll of us are painfully aware that there are many gaps in research to back up our recommendations.”

Yet the SOC-8 authors “knew ‘what we should end up with,’” the complaint alleged, because “SOC-8 authors had prejudged that SOC-8 would ultimately make strong recommendations in favor of pediatric medical transition regardless of whether the quality of the evidence supported such recommendations.” As one author, Dr. Amy Tishelman, said in February 2026, “The sun and the moon existed before we understood anything about why. Lots of things we observe in life, we know to be true, and we don’t understand them.”

The complaint goes on to argue that WPATH failed to “follow the science” in other important respects. For instance, “SOC-8’s authors commissioned systematic reviews of evidence regarding pediatric medical transition from Johns Hopkins University,” according to the complaint. However, “WPATH secured significant control over … they would ultimately be published.” When the reviews “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents,” “WPATH rejected multiple Johns Hopkins manuscripts, causing” the head of the research team “to express frustration that WPATH was ‘trying to restrict our ability to publish.’”

The incident echoes the 2024 controversy involving Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, later head of USPATH (WPATH’s American outpost), who refused to publish the results of a taxpayer-funded study after they contradicted her belief in using puberty blockers for the purpose of gender transition. The complaint referenced another “notable evidentiary exclusion” involving Olson-Kennedy. Although a study she conducted “formed the evidence base of SOC-8,” SOC-8 “did not disclose” that two subjects of the study committed suicide during the observation period or “discuss … how they might undermine SOC-8’s conclusion that pediatric medical transition improved psychological well-being.”

Finally, the complaint alleges that WPATH’s guidelines discourage clinicians from exploring other “numerous potential root causes of a child’s distress about or discomfort with their sex traits,” such as sexual assault or other mental illnesses. Although it acknowledges that such intervening factors do exist, SOC-8 attacks them as “gatekeeping practices” that act as a “barrier to the provision of” transgender procedures.

“Even if WPATH legitimately encouraged clinicians to investigate whether medical transition treatment is appropriate for a given child, SOC-8 offers no genuine method for making such a determination,” the complaint continued. “Indeed, WPATH defines ‘gender incongruence’ as a subjective ‘experience’ that is ‘deeply felt’ by the child. It offers no objective diagnosis criteria for clinicians,” even though “SOC-8 purports to require rigorous diagnostic procedures.” So much for following the science.

These accusations raise an important question: what would motivate the physicians associated with WPATH to venture so far from established science. Beyond the obvious ideological reasons, the complaint focuses on another motive: profit.

“WPATH misrepresents scientific and medical consensus and makes false, deceptive, or unsubstantiated claims regarding pediatric medical transition and related services for a simple reason: WPATH’s members generate significant profit because of the organization’s representations and guidance,” it declared. “Two of the five current members of WPATH’s executive committee are surgeons who specialize in medical transition procedures, and a third member specializes in medical transition procedures for children.”

As a result of WPATH’s non-scientific, profit-motivated guidelines, the complaint continued, children and their families were misled and thereby harmed. “WPATH’s assertions that its recommendations represent evidence-based and “consensus-based expert opinion” give members and other clinicians the means to misrepresent to consumers that the SOC reflects expert scientific consensus,” it argued, “and to repeat the unsubstantiated statements therein when persuading parents and children.”

Whether they visit a family doctor with no specialized training, a gender transition specialist, or an activist center, “children and parents are unlikely to avoid being influenced by WPATH’s deceptive claims and omissions. Indeed, WPATH board member and former president Dr. Marci Bowers claims that ‘the vast majority of mental health providers in the country that [Dr. Bowers is] familiar with follow the WPATH standards of care.’”

“Clinicians begin selling parents and children on medical transition procedures once they arrive at a medical transition provider’s clinic,” the complaint explained. “Sometimes, clinicians make the sale by directly invoking WPATH’s name and providing parents with the SOC or other material containing WPATH’s deceptive claims. Other times, clinicians repeat WPATH’s deceptive claims without attribution. And even without telling parents, clinicians often rely on WPATH’s deceptive claims in making diagnoses and recommending treatment.”

The complaint included numerous examples of WPATH’s malign influence:

• “For example, a pediatric endocrinologist in California told a pediatric patient's mother that he follows the recommendations of WPATH. When the patient’s mother asked for supporting studies and other evidence for medical transition, the doctor sent her a web link directly to WPATH’s SOC-7, which she then read.
• “Boston Children’s Hospital Center for Gender Surgery cited ‘WPATH standards of care’ on its page advertising breast implants for children.
• “One online medical transition clinic asserts that it follows SOC-8 and promises to provide monthly prescriptions for transition services without an in-person visit, covered by major US insurers. It asserts that ‘puberty blockers are fully reversible’ and that ‘children can begin their medical transition with puberty blockers.’
• “Stanford Medicine’s Transgender Surgery team promises that it ‘follows the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines to ensure patients are appropriate surgical candidates.’
• “One 13-year-old girl visited a Dallas, Texas clinic with her parents. A psychologist who has presented at WPATH conferences told the girl’s parents that their daughter needed to undergo medical transition, including cross-sex hormones and breast amputation. When these parents expressed skepticism and asked how the psychologist ‘knew that medical transition would help’ their daughter’s distress, the psychologist ‘answered that WPATH recommended it.’
• “One doctor at a large public university encouraged one 15-year-old patient to read the SOC. The girl, who was later prescribed testosterone and had her breasts amputated, believed based on her interaction with the doctor that WPATH was an official, authoritative medical organization.
• “A nurse, who worked at Texas Children’s Hospital, recalls that a pediatric endocrinologist at that hospital recorded in patient charts that he ‘told parents he was following WPATH’s Standards of Care’ and ‘explained WPATH’s Standards of Care’ to parents. This doctor ‘frequently referenced WPATH’ when communicating with parents.”

“Clinicians emphasize the need for pediatric medical transition by stating or strongly implying that if parents do not consent to medical transition, their children will commit suicide. Some clinicians tell parents that if their children die, the parents will be to blame. Clinicians often ask parents if they would ‘rather have a dead son or a living daughter,’ or vice versa,” the complaint added. “Clinicians make these statements because WPATH represents that medical transition is ‘lifesaving’ and SOC-8 expressly represents that medical transition is ‘medically necessary’ and reduces suicidality, thereby providing clinicians with the rationale that they use to pressure parents into consenting.”

The complaint provided another half dozen examples of this practice.

“Collectively, WPATH’s deceptive statements and material omissions cause parents to worry that their children are in mortal peril and that the only effective solution is to consent to pediatric medical transition,” it stated. “In many cases, the pressure created by WPATH’s unlawful conduct — and the fear it creates — causes parents to purchase pediatric medical transition drugs, surgeries, or services.”

For years, WPATH was cited not only in doctor’s offices but also in state houses. As some 27 states moved to pass legislation protecting minors from the irreversible effects of gender transition procedures, pro-transgender activists always lined up to appeal to WPATH as experts, citing the “scientific consensus” that “gender-affirming care” was “medically necessary” and “life-saving.” But the evidence never lived up to the buzzwords, and now the FTC is taking WPATH to task.

“Children, but especially their parents, must have complete and truthful information when making decisions to purchase medical services. … The complaint filed today reflects that same long-standing mandate: when an entity makes a claim about a medical treatment, the claim must be truthful, evidence-based and not misleading,” declared FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson. “WPATH … made false and unsubstantiated claims regarding the necessity, effectiveness and safety of puberty blockers, hormones and sex-change surgeries.”

‍This article was originally written by Joshua Arnold and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

When Augustine of Hippo wrote “The City of God” in the early fifth century, Rome was collapsing around him. He lamented the horrors of war, yet he also recognized that governments bear responsibility for preserving order and restraining evil. Augustine argued that just wars arise because of the wrongdoing of aggressors and that political authorities sometimes have a duty to protect the innocent when peaceful remedies fail. From that hard recognition emerged the Christian just war tradition: not a license to fight, but a moral framework designed to make war harder, not easier, to justify. Sixteen centuries later, Pope Leo XIV has declared it obsolete.

In paragraph 192 of “Magnifica Humanitas,” his encyclical released May 25, Pope Leo writes that just war theory “which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.” He argues that humanity now possesses “far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness.” While he does acknowledge in a footnote that military force can be used for “legitimate defense,” his insistence on “updating” just war theory implies that every part of the theory is on the table for adjustment, which could lead to an entirely new theory.

Every Christian can honor that desire for peace. The encyclical’s conclusion on this point, however, rests on a misunderstanding of what the just war tradition teaches — and it arrives at exactly the wrong moment, when artificial intelligence is remaking warfare at a pace no diplomatic instrument can match.

What the Just War Tradition Was Actually Designed to Do

Just war doctrine was never a theological permission slip for ambitious princes. When Thomas Aquinas codified Augustine’s reasoning into formal criteria in the 13th century, every element was conceived as a restraint on power. Legitimate authority prevents private actors from waging war on personal grievance. Just cause limits conflict to resisting genuine aggression. Right intention rules out conquest and vengeance as acceptable aims. Last resort requires that statesmen genuinely pursue peaceful remedies before reaching for the sword. Proportionality forbids using more force than the threat demands. Discrimination protects civilians from deliberate targeting.

Each criterion was designed to make going to war morally harder, not easier. The doctrine has been abused across centuries — Leo is right about that — but the answer to the abuse of a sound principle is to apply it more rigorously, not to abandon it. We do not discard contract law because contracts are sometimes breached.

History vindicates the doctrine when leaders follow it. The Allied response to Nazi Germany met every just war criterion: aggression was undeniable, diplomacy had been exhausted at Munich, and military resistance became morally necessary to halt a catastrophic evil. The 1991 Gulf War coalition rested on the same grounds — an aggressor had violated international borders, peaceful remedies had been genuinely pursued, and coalition forces acted with proportionate force to restore the status quo. History’s condemnation falls not on Augustine’s framework but on those leaders who chose to ignore it.

The ongoing conflict with Iran offers a more searching test. The United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026, targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and military leadership. Christians across denominations have invoked every just war criterion to evaluate those strikes — questioning whether last resort was truly satisfied when Omani mediators reported a diplomatic framework still within reach, whether a president acting without new congressional authorization met the standard of legitimate authority, and whether proportionality was observed given the civilian casualties that followed. Those are exactly the right questions to ask. That they are being asked — vigorously, publicly, across the church — proves the doctrine is functioning as Augustine intended: as a moral check on the temptation to use force. Remove the framework, and there is no vocabulary left with which to hold a government accountable. The answer to a contested war is not to abolish the criteria. It is to apply them with greater discipline.

The present makes the same case. Russian forces entered Ukraine in February 2022 and have continued to shell civilian infrastructure, occupy sovereign territory, and forcibly deport Ukrainian civilians. Ukrainian resistance satisfies the right Pope Leo himself acknowledges, self-defense “in the strictest sense.” The just war criteria are not making that resistance harder to justify — they are the only internationally legible moral framework by which Ukraine’s defense can be distinguished from Russia’s invasion, and on which the moral and material support sustaining Ukraine depends. The doctrine is not the obstacle to peace — the aggression is.

Where Leo Is Right — and Why It Points Back to the Tradition

Pope Leo is at his most persuasive when “Magnifica Humanitas” turns to autonomous weapons. He warns that any technology facilitating attacks “without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict,” and insists that decisions involving life and death “must not be entrusted to machines.” As a retired U.S. Army infantry officer who has written extensively on these questions in “The New AI Cold War,” I take that warning seriously.

The battlefield of the near future involves autonomous drone swarms, AI-assisted targeting, predictive intelligence networks, and cyber weapons operating at machine speed. The Department of War’s DoD Directive 3000.09, Autonomy in Weapon Systems, updated in January 2023, requires that commanders retain “appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force” precisely because machines making lethal decisions without human oversight is a live danger, not a hypothetical one.

Seen clearly, every danger Leo identifies in AI-enabled warfare is an argument for applying just war doctrine more rigorously, not for retiring it. Artificial intelligence compresses decision cycles and lowers the threshold for initiating conflict — which is precisely why last resort becomes more indispensable, not less. Autonomous systems distribute and obscure accountability across command-and-control chains, which is why legitimate authority becomes a sharper requirement than ever. Machine-speed targeting raises the risk of uncontrolled escalation, demanding more careful attention to proportionality. Targeting algorithms that cannot reliably distinguish combatants from civilians make the principle of discrimination more urgent, not obsolete. Augustine’s framework has not been overtaken by technology. It has vindicated it.

Leo’s diagnosis of the AI age’s dangers is sound. Where the encyclical goes astray is in concluding that those dangers discredit the tradition rather than calling it back into force.

Scripture’s teaching in Genesis 1:27 that human beings bear the image of God is the theological foundation on which just war reasoning rests. A machine carries no such image and bears no moral guilt. When an autonomous system misidentifies a civilian target, no algorithm faces a court-martial, and no targeting model confronts its conscience before God. That is not an argument for abandoning moral frameworks around warfare — it is the most powerful argument available for insisting that human beings, commanded in Romans 13 to bear the sword as God’s servants for good, must never surrender that accountability to a machine. The theological case for just war has seldom been more urgent than it is right now.

The Problem Has Always Been Disobedience to the Doctrine

The pope’s proposed alternatives — dialogue, diplomacy, and forgiveness — are not actually alternatives to just war doctrine; they are already embedded within it as requirements. Last resort has always been one of the tradition’s core requirements. The framework demands that peaceful options be genuinely pursued before force is ever considered, and that war be undertaken to restore peace rather than achieving conquest. Far from competing with diplomacy, just war doctrine elevates it by making recourse to arms morally difficult to justify. What no doctrine can do is substitute for diplomacy once diplomacy has already failed — which is precisely the situation Augustine was addressing, and precisely the situation that confronts the world today.

Pope Leo XIV has done something important. By devoting a major teaching document to artificial intelligence and warfare, he has forced a global conversation that Christian statesmen, military planners, and pastors have largely avoided. His warning that decisions involving life and death must remain in human hands, not in algorithms, deserves to be taken seriously across every faith group. That much of the encyclical stands.

Where the document falls short is in urging the retirement of a moral framework rather than its more disciplined application. The future battlefield will be shaped by lethal drones, AI-assisted command systems, and autonomous platforms operating at speeds that compress human decision-making toward the vanishing point. The questions that will matter most in that environment are the same ones Augustine posed in the ruins of Rome — who authorized the use of force, were peaceful alternatives genuinely exhausted, were the innocent protected — and no algorithm will ever be equipped to answer them.

As I develop in “AI for Mankind’s Future,” the church’s task in the age of artificial intelligence is not to retire the frameworks that discipline warfare but to insist, with renewed urgency, that they govern it. The human being created in God’s image — not the machine built in a laboratory — must remain the moral center of every decision about lethal force.

This article was originally written by Robert Maginnis and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Only days after U.S. President Donald Trump left a Beijing summit with CCP Chairman Xi Jinping, where religious freedom and jailed religious leaders were discussed, authorities in eastern China demolished a prominent church, razing the building with large excavators last week. Yazhong Church (also referred to as Yayang Church), an unregistered Protestant church in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province — a region known as “China’s Jerusalem” — has been under siege since late last year.

On December 14 and 15, local authorities arrested 103 church members in a pre-dawn raid and took control of the church building, as confirmed last week in new reporting by Le Monde. That same week, at a public event, an unidentified government official announced: “We will see this campaign through to the end.”

Five months later, on Sunday, May 17, heavy construction vehicles passed through tightly controlled security checkpoints set up by authorities, according to multiple sources confirmed by ChinaAid News. On May 18, crews began to demolish the multi-level structure from the top down. By 11 a.m. Beijing Time on Tuesday, May 19, the beautiful and ornate sanctuary had been reduced to rubble.

Concurrently with the demolition, authorities arrested four additional church members, one identified as You Ci’en, according to local sources, cited anonymously to protect their safety. They join 18 other members of Yazhong Church previously jailed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities.

The families of all detained individuals reportedly received official warnings instructing them to remain silent, sources familiar with the situation stated to ChinaAid News. Authorities reportedly imposed strict information controls ahead of the demolition, measures that sources said appeared intended to limit public scrutiny.

Multiple confidential sources said the area surrounding the church had been placed under lockdown in recent weeks, while checkpoints and guard posts were established roughly one kilometer from the site to prevent unauthorized access. The church cross was also covered with black cloth prior to the demolition.

Wenzhou has been called “China’s Jerusalem” due to its large Christian population. The destruction of Yazhong Church escalates a broader suppression campaign in Taishun County, documented over months by ChinaAid News.

The campaign has included continuous surveillance, stringent information controls, and the closure of businesses linked to alleged church members.

“My brothers and sisters in the faith have stood strong for so long,” said Bob Fu, president of Texas-based nonprofit group ChinaAid and a senior fellow at Family Research Council. “More so than the loss of a church building, I lament how the CCP has cracked down on this area known for its faithful Christians and oppressed them more and more day by day.”

He added, “These recent actions show that the persecution of Christians by Chinese authorities has intensified, becoming more institutionalized and targeted.”

Church Resisted Order to Display Chinese flag

The conflict originated from the church’s resistance to what congregants perceived as increasingly aggressive methods of religious repression imposed by local Chinese Communist Party authorities.

Yazhong Church is affiliated with the “Local Church” movement (also known as the “Assembly” movement), a faith tradition that traces its origins to the early 21st-century Chinese preacher Watchman Nee and shares historical roots with the British Closed Brethren movement.

Due to its location in the remote mountainous region of southern Zhejiang, the church has maintained the independent traditions characteristic of Wenzhou’s local churches and has historically kept a distance from local government authorities.

According to congregants, tensions escalated significantly during the previous summer. The immediate catalyst was a government directive requiring the Chinese national flag to be displayed inside the sanctuary and a flagpole erected on church grounds, which believers regarded as an infringement on the sanctity of their faith.

Subsequently, in June 2025, government personnel entered the church property by force, demolished part of the outer wall, and installed the flagpole, prompting collective protests and sparking a standoff between the church and the authorities.

Analysts who closely monitor religious freedom in China note that Wenzhou has been among the most aggressive regions in implementing religious policies over the past decade. Only churches affiliated with the state-controlled Three-Self Patriotic Movement are officially sanctioned.

“Any Christian church unwilling to submit to state power — even this one, without any political involvement — the Chinese Communist Party feels it has to silence and even destroy,” said Fu.

Pre-Christmas ‘Inspection’ Led to Mass Church Detentions

Chinese authorities planned the operation against Yazhong Church several months in advance, as previously reported by ChinaAid News.

On December 14 and 15, 2025, Zhejiang authorities deployed large numbers of special police and riot-control officers to Yayang Town, conducting coordinated “inspection operations” at 12 local church gathering sites.

During the operation targeting Yazhong Church, more than 100 believers were dispersed and temporarily detained.

As the government’s campaign intensified, the scope of detentions broadened. To date, 22 believers, including church leaders Lin Enzhao and Lin Enci, have been subjected to long-term criminal detention, according to multiple sources.

Authorities charged them with the ambiguous offense of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” a broad public-order offense frequently used against activists and religious groups.

However, sources note that four church members were recently released on bail pending trial.

Last week, French media outlet Le Monde continued its reporting on believers in Yayang last week with a video detailing new developments following an extensive January investigation.

‘Our Prayers Are Not Reduced to Rubble’

Despite ongoing international scrutiny, local authorities’ demolition of Yazhong Church reflects continuing tensions between Beijing and independent Christian communities across China. Observers have compared the incident to the 2014 demolition of Sanjiang Church in Wenzhou, which drew international attention. In this recent case, sources said authorities imposed a near-total ‘information vacuum’ before demolition crews arrived.

Law enforcement personnel at the scene reportedly imposed strict monitoring of electronic devices. Individuals attempting to take photographs or record video with mobile phones were immediately intercepted, expelled, or detained, sources tell ChinaAid News.

Human rights advocacy groups state that the authorities’ severe restrictions on online discussion and information dissemination highlight the sensitivity of such actions.

One analyst, granted anonymity for his safety, asked: “If the demolition was entirely lawful and proper, why would authorities go to such extraordinary lengths to impose a total information blackout?”

As of publication, neither the Wenzhou municipal government nor the Taishun County Public Security Bureau had issued a statement.

Sources indicated that local police continue to conduct sporadic arrests and interrogations targeting believers involved in the incident or those attempting to speak publicly about it.

“Our sources confirm that this beautiful and sacred place of worship has been destroyed — but our prayers are not reduced to rubble,” insisted Fu. “May this loss wake up the global church to what’s happening in China, a great conflict between faithful believers and state power.

This article was originally written by Goa Zhensai and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

If the internet can be trusted, we spend one third of our life at the office.

That’s a lot of time.

Work is all around us. It’s unavoidable. For most people, work involves hanging out with coworkers, stressing over projects, and joining the rest of the commuters on the highway heading home. Jobs can feel mundane, boring, routine, unspiritual. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Your job is your ministry, whether it’s considered “spiritual” or not.

Every occupation has a chance to be more than clocking in and out every day. All good work, ecclesiastical or otherwise, is a launchpad for kingdom work. The danger happens when we believe “secular” work is less meaningful than “sacred” work (occupations deemed “religious,” such as biblical counselors, church leaders, ministry partners).

Just as it takes a calling to be a pastor or spiritual leader, it also takes a calling to be a technician or a car salesman or a high school teacher or a stay-at-home mom. Each person is equipped with unique talents to serve the body of Christ and minister to the world. To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, we can’t all be eyes or ears. Someone’s gotta be the toes. And the beauty is that we can only step forward when everyone is working at the thing they are best at. Just as it would be wrong to force an eye to carry the weight of the body, so it is also wrong to force toes to use glasses.

English writer Dorothy Sayers provocatively puts it this way: “Let the Church remember this: that every maker and worker is called to serve God in his profession or trade — not outside it. The Apostles complained rightly when they said it was not meet they should leave the word of God and serve tables; their vocation was to preach the word. But the person whose vocation it is to prepare the meals beautifully might with equal justice protest: It is not meet for us to leave the service of our tables to preach the word.”

The mistake of categorizing work into sacred and secular is that we steal dominion from God. In essence, we’re saying “religious” work glorifies the Lord more than “non-religious” jobs do not. But this isn’t the case. As Abraham Kuyper famously said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” God seeks glory from the most mundane of tasks: eating and drinking (1 Cor 10:31). The God who blesses the farmer (2 Cor 9:10), cares for the field laborer (Ruth 2:19), and provides for tentmakers (Acts 18:3) is intensely interested in all good occupations. God demands more than just religious jobs; to him, all worthy jobs belong to the realm of sacred.

At the end of the day, it’s not what the job is (assuming it’s a non-sinful occupation), but rather how the job’s done. In Jesus’s parable of the Talents, it wasn’t ultimately about the sum of money the three servants received. The point was how they did — or didn’t — steward that money in the ruler’s absence. Jesus delights in faithfulness to small things. Erik Cooper, who (among many roles) serves as an executive leader for a nonprofit real estate company, comments, “There was never intended to be a sacred-secular divide. Whether we’re putting our hands to closing loans, making films, or accounting, it all matters to God. It is all part of his forming, filling, and subduing. It can all be redeemed by the finished work of Jesus because it was always intended to be part of God’s work in the world.”

As stewards in God’s kingdom, our calling is to labor well. God’s dominion extends far beyond the walls of church buildings. He cares about how you cultivate that one-third of your life. No task is too small or insignificant to go unnoticed by the King. Jon Bloom, co-founder of Desiring God, sums it up nicely, “According to 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, your job (assuming it’s not inherently unethical or immoral) is a ministry assignment from God. It may not be your career assignment, but it’s today’s assignment. And God wants you to carry out that assignment with dependent faith, diligence, and excellence.”

‍

This article was orginally written by Hannah Tu and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Humans are lonelier than ever before. Even before the pandemic, almost five out of 10 U.S. adults reported experiences of loneliness. For young adults aged 15-24, time spent in-person with friends has fallen almost 70% from 2003 to 2020, from about two and half hours down to 40 minutes per day. The lack of meaningful interaction comes with a cost. Research finds that a lack of social connections can be as dangerous to our health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Humans were designed for community, not for isolation. But the solution is always trickier than it first appears.

In a culture that values independence and autonomy, making time for community seems tangential or even burdensome. For some, the mere thought of a social event depletes their personal energy battery. In a fallen world, relationships are complicated. People can be our best friends, and cruelest enemies. We get burned, withdraw, and then experience loneliness while making little effort to socialize.

Our society subtly reinforces the concept that reality is something to flee or escape; a bad dream to smother underneath a barrage of entertainment, information, or other forms of distraction. With the proliferation of smartphones, unplugging from the current situation and escaping into the digital sphere has never been so easy or so tempting. Additionally, many in-person connection points have now moved to screens. Online college options, virtual training, and remote jobs are increasingly prevalent. That’s not to say that online spaces are somehow bad or should be avoided; rather, with every advantage (think flexibility, cost, and time-savings), there is always a disadvantage (a sense of association without the anchor of relationships).

The issue is that we don’t reinvest the time and resources gained by the virtual world back into in-person relationships and interactions. The data provides the proof. In 2018, Pew Research Center found, “A majority of Americans (59%) say they feel some attachment to their local community, but only 16% say they feel very attached; 41% say they are not too or not at all attached to the community where they live. Adults in urban, suburban and rural areas report nearly identical levels of attachment to their local community.”

Our immediate community often lacks the tailoring, diversity, and ability to fast-forward that the digitalscape so frequently offers. Marketers call this phenomenon fragmentation: the splintering of groups defined by distinct preferences or requirements. When we get used to such customization to our preferences, we naturally grow more isolated from one another as we become increasingly defined by what sets us apart.

But there’s no easy fix. After all, relationships are the result of time, energy, effort, and being authentic about ourselves and with others (not to mention the emotional stakes that come with the drama and messiness of other sinners). But that’s the interesting thing. Redemptive history starts with two people in a garden and reaches its climax as a cultivated city: a sanctified arena when God’s creation and a multitude of people coexist in community. Human flourishing happens in fellowship, not in isolation. And more than ever, Christians need to lead by example.

Brian Brown understands this tension well. He’s the founder and executive director of The Anselm Society, a Colorado-based organization dedicated to a renaissance of the Christian imagination and recapturing the sense of shared community among kingdom-minded creatives. “We live in a culture that has made escapism into a virtue. We’re encouraged by a million cues to be anywhere but here, anyone but who God made us to be,” he remarked to The Washington Stand. “In the face of that, the person who chooses to show up has tremendous power — to see and be seen, to invite others in, to treat the local church and the dinner table as essentials rather than extras. But to do that, we have to dare to see ourselves as God sees us: as beloved bearers of His image.”

As images of God, we reflect him best in our collectiveness and diversity. It’s when the body of Christ comes together in fellowship that we get a more accurate glimpse at the vastness and depth of divine character (Ephesians 4:11-13; 15-16). Through the Messiah’s redemptive work, Christians have the opportunity, indeed the calling, to work towards restoration of the vision.

Despite the digital advances in communication and connection points, people are lonelier than ever before. It’s easy to run with the culture, burying ourselves in the endless mountain of “extra things,” perhaps even attempting to fill our own ache for meaningful connection. There is both pain and reward in pulling our heads out of the mountain and “showing up” in acts of simple relationship-building. “Showing up” doesn’t need to be elaborate, but it needs to be essential and intentional if we are serious about changing the tide of isolation.

In a hurting world, the simple act of being there for someone matters. If Christians are to be known by our love for one another (John 13:35; 2 Corinthians 13:11), we must be willing to demonstrate it.

This was orginally written by Hannah Tu and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

Fifty-four-year-old former Nebraska senator, husband, and father of three, Ben Sasse, was tragically diagnosed only six months ago with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and told he had three to four months to live. While the clinical trial that his doctors put him on has given him more time on earth than doctors predicted, the cancer has sadly continued to spread to his liver, lymph nodes, lung, and vascular system.

Each day that he lives is a miracle. Knowing this has caused Sasse to focus on what is truly important, and he has graciously shared his wisdom in several interviews recently. The following are five insights that we would all be wise to listen to and reflect upon.

1. Spend More Time with Family, Including Extended Family

In a recent extended interview on “60 Minutes,” Scott Pelley asked Sasse, “If you had another 30 years, what would your priority be?”

Sasse reflected, “I wish we’d had more babies. We have three great kids. I wish we had four or five. If I had 30 years left from now, I’d be working hard to take my zealous achiever daughters and try to figure out how you build something that’s a little bit like a family compound. How do you build something where you can have different generations come and go from it and have a thickness and a support system? How could you spend more time around your cousins or build the opportunity for your kids and your grandkids to spend more time around their cousins?”

He went on to share his regret of having a period where he spent too much time working and not enough time with his family: “I would travel a little bit less for work. … I spent way too many nights in hotel rooms. And I don’t know if my family even knows this, but I never really threw away any of my hotel keys. I’d come back from every trip, and I threw them in a box in a closet in my office, and there are thousands and thousands of hotel room keys, and sometimes I just look at it and feel a heaviness of regret. I would make better decisions about that.”

Later in the interview, Sasse expressed how tragic it is that people around the world have stopped having babies. He explained, “Having a baby is a bet on the future. And almost everywhere in the world — and the world is richer and richer and richer statistically than it’s ever been — people have decided, ‘Ah, actually babies are kind of an inconvenience.’ Babies have always been an inconvenience and the most glorious thing you can do to enrich your family and to make a bet on the future. … We’ve stopped making babies. We’ve decided that being distracted by a dopamine hit around a Candy Crush might be a good way to spend your time. Not if you’re fully human.”

2. Observe the Sabbath: Instead of Trying to Be Self-Sufficient, Rest in Almighty God

Similar to fellow Christian Charlie Kirk, Sasse sees the importance of following God’s Fourth Commandment to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. In an interview with Focus on the Family President Jim Daly, he shared:

“I have repented to my family. It started before this diagnosis, but we’ve talked about it a lot more intentionally since then. I have repented to my family about not having been a good leader about the Lord’s day. We never missed Sunday morning worship, but often by [2:00 or 3:00] in the afternoon, our hearts and affections and attentions were getting on to all the achievements we had to do, starting Monday morning and all the work we needed to do. And a lot of that work is important and meaningful, but man, the feast day of the soul is more important than I gave it attention to. And I now want my kids to view the glory of not needing to strive from Saturday night to Sunday night as an unbelievable blessing that we get to rest.

“Martin Luther’s great ‘A Mighty Fortress’ is based on Psalm 46, and if you read Psalm 46, there’s pretty obviously three movements. There’s you don’t have to fear anything. You’re going to be fine. God’s got this. And then this command: ‘Be still.’ It means stop trying to be self-sufficient. You get to be a child of the eternal king. And every Sunday, we can live that. I didn’t do that enough.”

Similarly, when Daly asked Sasse what advice he would give dads, he reiterated the importance of family worship time on the Sabbath:

“Let’s be humble with our kids and say … it’s glorious to get to reflect on the things of the Lord. What can we read together as a family this Sunday? How can we lock up our phones? How can we set aside time on the Lord’s Day to just linger and reflect back on the sermon, not have to get out of church the second it’s over, but go find the folks who are in need there or the visitors there. But I’d say two of the most practical operationalizable ones for us: we lock up our phones most of Sunday and we read aloud together a lot.”

3. Help Government Restrain Evil and Protect Freedoms

During CBS News’s “Things That Matter” townhall, a member of the audience asked Sasse how a Christian’s faith should impact his politics. He responded by emphasizing that Christians should seek to maintain order through government, not try to force religion on citizens. He explained:

“The secular sphere is still God’s space and God’s sphere, but it’s a question of whether or not explicit revealed theology is guiding our government. And I think that the purposes of government are to maintain order. It’s not to be theologically precise or accurate about what anybody should believe. The First Amendment is the most glorious inheritance anybody’s ever gotten in the history of government. Government is not the most important thing in the world, but it is glorious that our First Amendment has freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, protest or redress of grievances. But that means that what I want government to do is create a space that is free from violence.

“So people can worship as they see fit, whether I agree with them or disagree with them. As a neighbor, I might want to wrestle with theology with somebody, but I don’t want to use the state to accomplish theological ends. I want to maintain order for a secular sphere that is free from violence.

“So I don’t subscribe to views of geopolitics as God is accomplishing a precise thing in those places. I think our servant leaders are responsible for using their time in office to try to minimize violence, maximize order [and] human liberty. In my view, the future of geopolitics 10 or 40 years from now is going to be more U.S.-led or more Chinese Communist Party-led, and I would rather have open navigation of the seaways, freedom of religion, human rights, commerce, trade, transparent contracts. And so, I would rather have there be more U.S.-led freedoms for the world — but not because the U.S. is an eternal entity. The U.S. is just the best experiment in government we’ve ever known. But governments are going to pass away ultimately. At the end of days, when we all wrestle through and with the questions around our own mortality, there will be no more tears, there will be no more cancer, there will also be no more government. Government is a tool. It’s a really important tool, but it’s a time-limited tool.”

In his interview with Daly, he explained, “Government is about restraining evil. It’s not about the glory of what happens at worship. It’s not about the warmth around your dinner table where you’re telling your kids how much you love them and asking them about their day. Government is just about a framework for ordered liberty. And so our passions [have to] hold moderately to certain institutions like government because they’re important, but they’re passing away.”

4. Community Is Essential: Escape Social Media Echo Chambers and Learn from Others

Sasse believes that how society handles the current communication revolution (especially social media and AI) is crucial, telling Daly, “I think a hundred years from now, if the Lord hasn’t returned yet, when we look back on this moment, we’re not going to talk very much about public policy. We’re going to talk about the fact that social media created a completely different kind of information ecosystem. And there [are] these grand temptations to steal our attention all the time. We know that only about 12% of Americans will read a book this year.”

Sasse told Pelley, “We’re living through a technological revolution which is creating an economic revolution. Let’s be clear, we’re the rich middle-class median. Americans are the richest people any time and place in all of human history. And yet, the economic revolutions that we’re living through are unsettling culture and place,” he pointed out. “And so people are incredibly rich at a material level statistically. And yet we’re pretty impoverished spiritually and communally in that we don’t have fit community. We don’t know our cousins. We don’t know the people who live two doors away from us. And we don’t feel like we’re in a common cause with people right now. And politics wants to trivialize that by screaming there’s some bad political actor somewhere. And if only that person were ripped out of the public square, politicians could fix all this. No, neighbors are going to have to fix this.”

He went on to say, “I do think social media is one of the fundamental problems that we’re dealing with right now. Right now, almost all politicians’ impulses and incentives … is to go narrow but deep and to do a lot of fan service. It doesn’t encourage a lot of self-scrutiny. It doesn’t encourage a lot of humility. It doesn’t encourage someone saying, ‘You know what, I used to believe this, but I listened to somebody else, and I realized I was wrong, and I’ve learned this new thing. There’s no audience for that. You want to just say more of, ‘We’re definitely right, and they’re definitely wrong.’ And that tribalism makes us pretty stupid.”

He continued, “One of the glorious things about the American experiment is believing in souls that can do deferred gratification. We can do deliberation that says, ‘Maybe I don’t have all the answers right now at my fingertips, and maybe the glories of a big and diverse creation is I can learn a lot from my neighbors.’”

5. Put Your Trust in Sovereign God, the Source of Peace

In the “60 Minutes” interview, Pelley observed, “You are completely devoted to your faith: what’s known as Reformed Christianity or Calvinism. And one of the tenets of that faith is that God ordains everything. And I wonder why you think God has put you to this test?”

Sasse answered, “Death is wicked. Death is evil. Death is not how it’s supposed to be. And me getting a cancer diagnosis again is pretty small on the grand scheme of things, but it’s a touch of grace because it forces me to tell the truth. And the lie I want to tell myself is that I’m the center of everything, and I’m going to be around forever, and I can work harder and store up enough that I can atone for my own brokenness. I can’t. And so, I hate cancer, but I’m also grateful for it. I tell a lot more truth to myself than I used to … when I thought I was super omnipotent and interesting.”

The most emotional and inspirational part of these interviews came at the end of this conversation. Everyone should listen and learn from this man of deep Christian faith.

Pelley, on the verge of tears, managed to say, “I make no comparison to what you’re going through, but there was a moment on 9/11 at the World Trade Center that I knew I was dead. And in that lightning flash of an instant, the only thing that crossed my mind was leaving my family behind. And I wonder how you reconcile that.”

Sasse responded, “Yeah … I’m incredibly blessed. My wife Melissa … we’ve been married 31 years. …We’re going to be apart for a time. But she’s tough and gritty and theologically rooted, and she’s going to be fine. My daughters are 24 and 22, and they’re extraordinary. I want to walk them down the aisle when they get married,” he paused, getting emotional. “That’s not likely to be. That’s not the math of my timecard. My son, we have a providential surprise. He’s a decade younger than big sisters. He’s … going to be fine, and he’ll have other wise men and women to put a hand on his shoulder. But I’m super bummed to not be there at 16 and 18 and 20 years old in his life. I want to give him more advice than he wants, and I want to put my arm on his shoulder, and I want his shoulders to get taller. But it’s not a surprise to God.”

Pelley noted, “And God, you believe, has a plan.”

Sasse, without hesitation, answered, “Absolutely. There are no maverick molecules in the universe.”

‍

This article was written by Kathy Athearn and originally published at The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

On April 26, I spoke at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, Florida, about AI’s impact on children and families. After the service, parents and grandparents lingered with questions — not about geopolitics or corporate boardrooms, but about what was already happening inside their own households. They wanted practical steps to protect their children. Their concern is well-founded.

Picture the moment: a child sits at the kitchen table, struggling with homework. He doesn’t ask a parent — he opens an AI app and types the question. Within seconds, a clear, confident answer appears. No friction. No conversation. No one who loves him is involved at all. Across the room, his mother consults her own parenting app for guidance on how to handle his behavior. The moment looks utterly ordinary, and that is the problem.

The question those parents in Milton were asking is the right one: who is raising our children — the parent or the algorithm?

A Pew Research Center survey of 1,458 U.S. teenagers found that 64% now use AI chatbots — including 12% who have sought emotional support from these tools and more than half who turn to them regularly for schoolwork. A companion Pew report found that only 51% of parents believe their teenager uses AI regularly, while 30% have no idea. What parents don’t see, they cannot shape.

The Brookings Institution, drawing on input from more than 500 participants across 50 countries, concluded in January 2026 that the risks of AI in children’s education “overshadow its benefits” — because those risks strike directly at foundational development: attention, reasoning, social relationships, and independent judgment. Children often cannot recognize, question, or even see the technologies quietly shaping their earliest experiences. This is not simply a technology problem. It is an authority problem.

For generations, parents controlled which outside voices entered the home. A television could be turned off. A book could be closed. A teacher could be called. AI operates differently. It is embedded in the devices children already carry, available at any hour, and patient in ways no human being can sustain. It does not raise its voice or express disappointment. It does not ask what the child thinks before delivering an answer. Those qualities feel reassuring to a child — which is precisely what makes them quietly formative.

A RAND Corporation study found student use of AI for schoolwork jumped from 48 to 62% in just seven months during 2025, with 67% of students acknowledging the practice weakens their critical thinking. In one conversation I had recently, a college student told me she has watched her Christian peers consult AI the way they would a pastor. That is not a metaphor any parent or pastor should let pass without reflection.

There is a relational cost embedded in all of this that rarely gets named. Real formation — the kind that produces character, judgment, and wisdom — happens through friction. When a child shares a tough question with a parent, they gain more than any AI can offer: the parent’s wisdom, a strong relationship, and an appreciation for patience. AI systems are engineered to be responsive, affirming, and conflict-free — optimized for engagement, not formation. Engagement sustained over years becomes its own kind of formation, only one running in a vastly different direction.

Scripture understood this before algorithms existed. “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). That charge was given to parents — not to AI platforms. The Hebrew verb for “train” — chanak — carries the sense of dedication, of establishing a direction through habitual influence. Formation is cumulative. Every time a child turns to an algorithm instead of a parent — and every time a parent turns to AI for guidance on how to respond — that cumulative process is quietly redirected.

Artificial intelligence has no conscience. It is not accountable to God. It cannot love your child, discern his heart, or distinguish between what he wants to hear and what he needs to know. As I examine at length in “AI for Mankind’s Future,” unchecked reliance on algorithmic systems erodes the very human judgment those systems were meant to supplement. The voice is confident, the answer is instant, and children are not equipped to evaluate what they are being handed. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). A child trained by habit of leaning on an algorithm rather than a parent is being pointed in a fundamentally wrong direction — not by malice, but by the steady drift of convenience.

Parents who think they are managing this problem by monitoring screen time are already behind it. Treating AI like a hazard to be filtered addresses the symptom while missing the cause. A more effective response means being present in the conversation — asking the question before the AI app gets to it, discussing what the app provided, modeling the slower and more honest work of thinking through a problem. It means teaching children that truth is different from a confident answer delivered in two seconds by a machine. Moses understood the principle: “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way” (Deuteronomy 6:7). The home was always the first classroom. Parents have always been the first teachers. AI has not changed that assignment — it has only made it more urgent.

Pastors need to address this with the same directness they bring to any other threat to spiritual formation. AI is shaping how young people think, relate to authority, and understand where truth comes from — and that is not a secondary concern. Policymakers need to move beyond phone bans — a political band-aid on a deeper wound — and confront the design incentives that make these systems so compelling, because removing a phone from a classroom does not fix a platform engineered to capture students’ attention the moment school ends.

In “The New AI Cold War,” I argue that the future security of this nation depends as much on the character and discipline of its people as on its technology. That argument starts in the home. A generation shaped more by algorithms than by parents will not have the judgment, resilience, or relational depth to defend what they have inherited.

The AI is already in your home. It is neither neutral nor passive, and it is not going away. The parents who understand that clearly will still have a chance to answer the question those families in Milton were asking. The ones who are still waiting to take it seriously may find the answer has already been made for them.

This article was originally written by Robert Maginnis and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.