The White House
✓

@WhiteHouse · Sat, Aug 22, 6:00 PM

TRUTH.

ANOTHER AMERICAN BROUGHT HOME. "Kevin Rideout, a brave Christian missionary, was held hostage by ISIS Jihadists for ten months! We never leave Americans behind, unlike Sleepy Joe and Obama, because we are America First. Today I invited Kevin, his lovely wife, father and beautiful children, to the White House to see the Oval Office, and meet our dedicated hostage recovery team. Welcome back home Kevin — It was an Honor to help you!" – President Donald J. Trump

View on Truth Social →

Rideout, 50, works with the Christian missionary organization Serving In Mission (SIM) International, a faith-based group that has operated in West Africa for decades. The organization focuses on community development, education, and religious outreach in some of the continent’s most challenging and dangerous regions. On October 21, 2025, gunmen seized him outside his home in Niamey, Niger’s capital city. The abduction occurred in a region where ISIS-affiliated groups have steadily expanded their presence in recent years, taking advantage of political instability and limited government control in parts of the Sahel.

Trump announced the homecoming in a Truth Social post, declaring victory over the hostage-takers and contrasting his administration’s approach with that of his predecessors. The post reflected the president’s characteristic style of framing foreign policy successes in stark political terms while emphasizing his administration’s commitment to American citizens in peril overseas.

“Today we brought another American home! Kevin Rideout, a brave Christian missionary, was held hostage by ISIS Jihadists for ten months! We never leave Americans behind, unlike Sleepy Joe and Obama, because we are America First. Today I invited Kevin, his lovely wife, father and beautiful children, to the White House to see the Oval Office, and meet our dedicated hostage recovery team. Welcome back home Kevin — It was an Honor to help you!”

The exact mechanics of Rideout’s release remain classified, reflecting the sensitive nature of hostage negotiations and the diplomatic relationships involved. U.S. officials confirmed it was secured “by other means” — not through a military raid or rescue mission. This language typically indicates that diplomatic channels, intermediaries, or negotiations played a central role rather than direct military intervention, which can carry significant risks for hostages and rescue teams alike.

Reuters reported, citing five sources, that Libyan authorities under military commander Khalifa Haftar helped secure his release from an ISIS affiliate. Haftar, who controls much of eastern Libya, has positioned himself as a counterterrorism partner to Western nations despite his controversial role in Libya’s ongoing civil conflict. His involvement suggests the complex regional dynamics and unconventional partnerships sometimes necessary to recover Americans held in lawless territories. No group officially claimed responsibility for the abduction, a pattern common among smaller ISIS-affiliated cells operating in the Sahel region.

In a Friday statement, Kevin and his wife Krista Rideout thanked the U.S. government and the global Christian community that prayed for his safe return. Their words reflected both relief and gratitude after months of uncertainty and fear for his safety.

“We are profoundly thankful to the United States government and to all those who worked tirelessly for Kevin’s safe release, and to SIM for its steadfast care and support throughout this long season. We are also grateful to our SIM family around the world, and for the countless friends, churches, and brothers and sisters in Christ who faithfully petitioned the Lord for Kevin’s protection and release.”

The Oval Office meeting included Rideout’s wife, father, and children, offering the family a moment of celebration after their prolonged ordeal. Trump’s hostage recovery team briefed the family on the operation, though details of what was shared remain private. Such meetings serve both ceremonial and substantive purposes, allowing families to understand the efforts undertaken on their behalf while providing the administration an opportunity to showcase its commitment to hostage recovery.

The release marks another contrast Trump is drawing with prior administrations on hostage negotiations, a theme he has repeatedly emphasized throughout his political career. The president has made “America First” foreign policy a centerpiece of his messaging, particularly around protecting Americans abroad. This approach prioritizes the safe return of U.S. citizens detained overseas, even when it requires engaging with controversial actors or employing unconventional diplomatic strategies.

Rideout’s nine-month ordeal in ISIS captivity is over. He’s home — and Trump made sure the world knows it. The successful recovery adds to the administration’s track record on hostage cases and reinforces the message that securing Americans’ freedom remains a top presidential priority, regardless of the political or diplomatic complexity involved.

CatholicVote is now pressing Massachusetts bishops to declare whether Healey, who is Catholic, automatically excommunicated herself under canon law when she signed the law in mid-August.

“TO WEAPONIZE CATHOLIC VIRTUES IN THE DEFENSE OF SOMETHING SO EGREGIOUSLY CONTRARY TO THE FAITH IS A NEW MOMENT IN THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.”

The law, set to take effect Nov. 8, eliminates the state’s previous 24-week restriction on abortion. Now, physicians can perform the procedure at any point in pregnancy based on their “professional judgment.”

CatholicVote President and CEO Kelsey Reinhardt told Fox News Digital that Healey should be considered an “accomplice” in abortion under Catholic canon law — and that her actions warrant formal excommunication.

“To weaponize Catholic virtues, to weaponize Christian virtues in the defense of something so egregiously contrary to the faith is a new moment in the political landscape and in the way in which bishops should deal with politicians,” Reinhardt said.

Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, didn’t hold back in condemning what he called a “barbaric provision.”

“Please understand what this means. A fully-formed child, moments before exiting the birth canal, can be eviscerated, chopped into pieces, have its head crushed or skin burned off,” Barron wrote on X.

“What I found particularly gross was the reaction of the entirely female crowd around the female governor of Massachusetts as she signed this barbaric provision into law,” the bishop added, referencing those surrounding Healey during the signing ceremony.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, reposted Barron’s comments with his own reaction: “They were clapping and cackling with delight because what can only be called infanticide can now be practiced with impunity in their state.”

The backlash has reignited a decades-old debate: should Catholic bishops move beyond public condemnation and impose actual consequences on Catholic politicians who champion abortion rights?

“WE’VE SEEN GENERATIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS NOW CLAIM THIS SAME EXCEPTION. IT GAVE COVER FOR TOO MANY YEARS AND NOW THAT COVER IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE.”

Reinhardt pointed to former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s 1984 Notre Dame speech, where he argued Catholic politicians could personally accept the Church’s opposition to abortion without necessarily imposing that belief through civil law.

“We’ve seen generations of Catholic politicians now claim this same exception,” Reinhardt said. “It gave cover for too many years and now that cover is no longer possible.”

There is precedent for bishops taking action. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was barred from receiving Holy Communion in the Archdiocese of San Francisco by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone in 2022 because of her public support for abortion rights.

“It’s certainly a tool that bishops have in their legislative disciplinary toolbox, which is to say, you know, actually you’ve found yourself in a state of grave sin because you’ve publicly advocated for this so I can no longer give you the Holy Sacrament,” Reinhardt said.

“It’s left entirely to the bishops,” Reinhardt added, noting that when politicians are allowed to publicly take positions “so contrary to the faith,” it “creates confusion for people in the pews.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Healey’s office and Massachusetts Catholic bishops for comment.

I know I’ve been posting a lot recently, but as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus used to say, “it’s a target-rich environment” right now.

The governor of Massachusetts just signed into law a statute that permits abortion up until the moment of birth, as long as mother and doctor give…

— Bishop Robert Barron (@BishopBarron) August 12, 2026

“They were clapping and cackling with delight because what can only be called infanticide can now be practiced with impunity in their state.”

dropped https://t.co/eECQTKgOy3

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) August 13, 2026

The performance sparked immediate backlash online from conservatives who saw it as desecrating the memory of the influential 31-year-old Turning Point USA founder, who was fatally attacked last September during an appearance at Utah Valley University.

Dressed in what’s becoming his trademark Maoist grey suit, Piker sang, “We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We’ll fight for the Gospel, we’ll honor his name.”

“We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We’ll fight for the Gospel, we’ll honor his name.”

Piker sang as audience members joined in, following lyrics scrolling on a large screen behind the stage. His co-hosts laughed. One waved his lit cellphone over his head like a fan at a pop concert.

After he finished, Piker told the screaming audience, “that was the most surreal moment in my entire life.”

The tribute song Piker mocked is thought to be AI-generated. It was released just eight days after Kirk was attacked by an alleged gunman with a high velocity hunting rifle fired from a nearby rooftop.

“We Are Charlie Kirk” is styled as a Christian power ballad, with lyrics like, “He spoke the truth when the cost was high / He lived for Jesus, unafraid to die.”

The song is frequently used online in memes to mock Kirk and other conservatives, Fox News reported.

Piker’s Friday performance became a viral lightning rod.

Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet wrote on X: “Hasan Piker is engaging in pure, unadulterated evil. Whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. Proverbs 17:5.”

Washington Free Beacon investigative reporter Chuck Ross wrote on X: “He’s just a trash human being. Piker was supposed to debate Charlie Kirk a few days after he was attacked. Piker actually talked about how much it shook him. Now, he’s mocking it all for the pleasure of his loser fans.”

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley posted on X that more shocking than Piker was the “ecstasy of the crowd in relishing the death of someone with opposing views.”

“Ecstasy of the crowd in relishing the death of someone with opposing views.” — Jonathan Turley

Ironically, another X account posted video showing Kirk and Piker joking with one another — the conservative activist even giving the left-wing streamer a friendly fist bump on the shoulder. In the past, Kirk had debated Piker on socialism.

According to Fox News, Piker’s influence over the Democratic Party as democratic socialists rise in the 2026 cycle has become one of the top media stories this year. He has campaigned alongside several prominent candidates, including Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

Piker also reposted an account going after his critics, which read, “The same conservatives crying over Hasan singing a meme song were openly celebrating the murder of American citizens. These people don’t care about anything.”

It hasn’t been made clear what “murder of American citizens” Piker was talking about.

The callous performance comes just two weeks before the anniversary of Kirk’s passing last September.

Hasan sings “We Are Charlie Kirk” at the Fear& live tour pic.twitter.com/n4rGVTREyB

— yeet (@Awk20000) August 22, 2026

carried the flame tn pic.twitter.com/l5pMpFW4nd

— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) August 22, 2026

The decision to be baptized as adults, particularly after decades in the entertainment industry, represents a significant spiritual milestone. Baptism in the Christian tradition symbolizes a believer’s identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, marking a public commitment to follow Him. For celebrities with established public personas, such declarations carry additional weight, as they open themselves to both support and potential criticism from fans, colleagues, and the media.

On Monday, the Blue Bloods star posted the video to his 2.3 million Instagram followers, describing how Christ has transformed his life over the past year.

“Looking back over the past year of my life, the Lord has been renewing my mind, rebuilding my spirit, rearranging my priorities, recentering my focus, recharging my energy, reshaping my heart, refining my faith, restoring my joy and redeeming my life!”

Wahlberg’s post concluded with a powerful testimony: “I don’t know where I would be without Jesus, but I know where I will be with Him! All the glory is His!”

View this post on Instagram

The couple were baptized by pastor Dudley Rutherford of Shepherd Church, a nondenominational congregation in Porter Ranch, California.

Shepherd Church, which has been a fixture in the Los Angeles area for decades, represents the growing nondenominational movement within American Christianity. These churches often attract believers from diverse backgrounds who are seeking a personal relationship with Christ outside traditional denominational structures. The church’s location in the greater Los Angeles area also positions it as a spiritual home for entertainment industry professionals seeking faith community.

Wahlberg also posted photos from a CeCe Winans concert the couple attended, signaling their growing involvement in Christian community and worship.

CeCe Winans is a multi-Grammy Award-winning gospel artist whose music has bridged the gap between traditional gospel and contemporary Christian worship for decades. The couple’s attendance at her concert indicates they are actively engaging with Christian culture and seeking to deepen their faith through worship experiences beyond Sunday services.

The actor currently stars in the CBS police drama Boston Blue, reprising his role as Detective Danny Reagan from the long-running series Blue Bloods, which aired for 14 seasons.

Wahlberg’s career has spanned music, television, and film, making him a recognizable figure across multiple generations. His willingness to speak openly about faith at this stage of his career demonstrates a priority shift that he himself acknowledged in recent interviews.

In an April appearance on The George Janko Show, Wahlberg opened up about the spiritual emptiness he felt despite outward success.

“It’s been so difficult in the last year to realize I don’t… I don’t have them all. I can try and I know God’s doing all the work, but I finally got to a point where I was like, I can’t do it anymore without Him. I’m missing something in my life,” he said.

“And I have a wonderful wife, wonderful kids. I have everything. So, as I am testifying right now, I don’t have a story of having everything and losing it. I don’t have a story of being a drug addict and recovery. God bless all those people who find their way,” Wahlberg continued.

“Everything to the outside, to everyone, looks perfect and I was empty. I was empty without Him.”

This testimony speaks to a recurring theme in Christian conversion narratives: that material success, family, and career achievement, while good in themselves, cannot fill the spiritual void that many describe experiencing. Wahlberg’s acknowledgment that he had “everything” by worldly standards yet felt empty echoes the broader Christian teaching that human beings are created for relationship with God, and that no earthly substitute can replace that connection.

Wahlberg’s brother Mark, also a famous actor, has for many years professed that his Catholic faith is “the anchor that supports everything I do in life.”

The Wahlberg family’s public expressions of faith, spanning different denominational traditions, reflect the diverse landscape of American Christianity. While Mark has remained committed to his Catholic roots, Donnie’s journey into nondenominational Christianity shows how faith can take different forms within the same family while maintaining a common foundation in Christ.

The baptism video comes as more public figures are openly embracing Christian faith — a counter-cultural move in an entertainment industry where religious conviction often invites mockery or career risk.

In recent years, a growing number of entertainers, athletes, and public figures have begun speaking more openly about their Christian faith, suggesting a potential cultural shift. Whether this represents a broader spiritual awakening or simply greater willingness among believers to be public about convictions they already held privately remains to be seen. What is clear is that figures like Wahlberg are leveraging their platforms to share their faith journeys with millions of followers.

Donnie Wahlberg and jenny McCarthy, his wife were baptized pic.twitter.com/TjX70P7AUo

— LIZZIE (@farmingandJesus) August 19, 2026

Jenny McCarthy and husband Donnie Wahlberg singing 'Holy Forever' shortly after getting baptized is the best timeline. pic.twitter.com/kjbvpBP2BU

— Protestia (@Protestia) August 19, 2026

The Great American Road Trip dropped Wednesday as America barrels toward its 250th birthday. The timing isn’t accidental.

While educators push divisive ideology over American history and society makes no effort to hide its hostility to families, the Duffy family is doing something radical: celebrating the country with their kids in tow.

The series highlights landmarks from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia, Boston, Fort Worth, and beyond — but the Duffys don’t just visit. They immerse themselves in the experiences.

President Trump sent the family off from the White House before their first stop: Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell and Independence Hall.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum — who oversees national parks — met the family at the Liberty Bell. He walked them through the first reading of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia before the Revolutionary War was won, emphasizing the courage of the signers who risked treason for independence.

No DEI caveats. No scholarly debates. Just the declaration that our founders were brave and we owe our way of life to them.

Years of cultural Marxism have seeped into governments and schools, diminishing the achievements of the founders. Anti-American propaganda now litters museums and national parks, essentially telling citizens to be ashamed of their home.

The Trump administration has launched efforts to rip out the rot, but damage from years of indoctrination lingers.

That’s what makes this series refreshing. It returns to the basics and cuts through ideological noise.

The series doesn’t explicitly mention the cultural battles over anti-American messaging in museums. It simply emphasizes the historical locations themselves — and that focus counters radicalism by inspiring Americans to see America for themselves.

Executive Director Tori Barnes told The Federalist the nonprofit behind the series selected destinations “from all corners of the country to offer a snapshot of America’s remarkable diversity.”

She added: “Loving and celebrating America should be a nonpartisan pursuit.”

The series relies on everyday Americans to tell the story of America. When the family travels to Texas, Sec. Duffy visits employees at CRH — the leading asphalt and concrete provider in America.

“You don’t have many of our interstates unless you have plants like this to make sure those roads stay operational … and keeps you and your family safe,” Duffy said.

Later, after learning ranch life from a cowboy, Duffy said he has “the utmost respect for the cowboys and ranchers that do this work every single day.”

They “make America great.”

The episodes also spotlight local restaurants and businesses the family visits along the way.

Like every reality-style show, The Great American Road Trip has its moments of silly family drama and goofy interview dialogue. But amid the “controlled chaos,” the love this family has for each other gives the series its meaning.

Birth rates are dangerously low. Families continue to be torn apart by radical ideologies and policies that don’t value life or traditional structures.

Saving America starts in the family. Road trips are a uniquely American way to spend time with family and develop these bonds.

The series shows siblings who laugh with each other, parents who know the personalities of the little ones entrusted to them, a family praying together before bed, eating together, teasing one another.

Even if some interactions are scripted, its emphasis on experiencing America as a family may be its most inspiring aspect.

With high gas prices and affordability issues, taking a long road trip may not be possible for some families. But there are ways to scale it down or create meaningful learning experiences close to home.

“A road trip is still the most affordable get away for families — especially large ones,” Barnes told The Federalist. “The Great American Road Trip is a campaign to inspire families to fall in love with America,” which can include “rediscovering your own state, or even your hometown, too.”

The series website links to dozens of stops throughout the U.S. that could be worked into a road trip. There are also plenty of pro-American resources families can use to explore America without even leaving the house.

Oldest daughter Evita Duffy-Alfonso admits the family lacks musical coordination — but that didn’t stop them from learning a Texas line dance and enjoying farm life on camera.

That’s the point. Real America. Real families. Real patriotism.

Allison Roberts is now suing Portland Public Schools for violating her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, alleging the district weaponized a vague harassment policy to silence her peaceful advocacy.

The lawsuit, filed by the Liberty Justice Center’s new PARENTS Initiative, seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the Oregon district from enforcing its harassment and nondisclosure policies against Roberts. It also demands the district stop making public statements “denigrating her character” and cease its ongoing investigation.

The district threatened a permanent ban if Roberts didn’t stop her “harassment” — which consisted of distributing letters on public property.

“To this day, Allison remains unaware of what specific speech or other activities the District deems ‘harassment,’ and out of fear of permanent trespass has ceased all speech and petitioning efforts.”

Portland Public Schools Director of Media Relations Valerie Feder declined to comment on the litigation.

‘Identity Flower’ From LGBTQ Activist Group

Roberts, described in the lawsuit as a “liberal” Christian who loves Portland’s “vibrant multi-cultural and gay community,” first raised concerns when her son brought home an “identity flower” assignment.

The materials came from GLSEN, an LGBTQ activist group that recently rebranded to “Glisten” to hide its gay and lesbian origins, according to the lawsuit.

The assignment was “part of a larger lesson encouraging children to question their sex and gender identity” and even consider that their gender changes day to day, the suit alleges. Roberts also learned students were taught about “puberty blockers for transgender youth.”

When Roberts met with Principal Deanne Froehlich to ask how many gender assignments students were given without parental notice, she was ambushed by both of her children’s teachers and a school counselor. Her son’s teacher snapped at her when she pressed for answers, according to the lawsuit.

Roberts received no satisfactory response — and no notice or opt-out opportunity for the following school year.

Sidewalk Advocacy Triggers Trespass Order

In January, Roberts wrote an open letter to other parents criticizing school leaders for rebuffing her concerns. She alleged the school was presenting a “hotly contested subject” as “instructional” and that gender identity lessons “blur the line between same sex attraction and medicalized identity.”

Roberts and a companion handed out the letter on a public sidewalk outside the school — without incident and without targeting students.

But after a “respectful” conversation with another mother during school pickup about PTA matters, the woman’s husband confronted Roberts the next day, grilled her about her politics, and yelled “White people are disgusting!” when she said she had voted for Donald Trump.

The next day, police served Roberts a one-year trespass order alleging she committed “harmful, unlawful and/or disruptive behavior” and was “threatening and intimidating members of the school community.”

When Roberts asked for specifics, Senior Director of Schools Chandra Wilson-Cooper emailed her nothing more than “generalized statements,” saying she violated district harassment policy.

Principal Froehlich sent an email to the school community accusing Roberts of “harassment, intimidation, and threatening behavior” toward “vulnerable members of our community” for the “past several months.” Froehlich said district “teams” for civil rights and social justice were investigating Roberts’ “hate speech” and encouraged parents to report Roberts if they felt “unsafe.”

‘Two Janitors and a Basketball Coach’

Roberts appealed the trespass order. Her hearing panel consisted of “two janitors and a basketball coach” in a half-hour Zoom call with no witnesses and no specifics of her alleged harassment, according to the lawsuit.

The district rejected her appeal two days later. Roberts missed her son’s graduation.

After the graduation she was barred from attending, Roberts wrote a second open letter challenging officials’ allegations and punishments. She passed it out with a family friend on the sidewalk outside the school, “this time offered via QR code.”

Principal Froehlich again criticized Roberts in an email to the school community, calling her speech “antithetical to everything we stand for as a community” and saying the school was responding to “disrupt the harm” she caused.

Three days later, the district threatened a permanent district-wide trespass order if Roberts didn’t stop her “harassment” — evidenced by having “distributed a letter.”

Roberts has stopped speaking on the issue entirely out of fear. She asked the district to clarify the scope of the harassment policy and specify what’s prohibited. The district hasn’t answered.

“The district can’t use vague harassment policies and trespass threats to punish a mother for peacefully expressing her views and seeking transparency about her children’s education.” — Timothy Snowball, Liberty Justice Center senior counsel

Supreme Court Just Reaffirmed Parental Rights

The Portland case comes on the heels of two major Supreme Court rulings on parental rights in public education.

The high court first ordered Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools to notify parents before exposing their children to LGBTQ “storybooks” and let them opt out. Then it issued an emergency order reinstating a permanent injunction against California’s so-called gender secrecy policies, accusing lower courts of ignoring a century of its precedents.

Earlier this month, the California ruling prompted U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in Michigan to reinstate religious liberty claims against Rockford Public School District’s gender secrecy policies.

“Likely this court made a[n] error of law by relying” on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the Maryland ruling as a “narrow and limited decision,” the judge wrote Aug. 7, acknowledging that “at least three” justices rejected that reading.

Portland Public Schools is already under federal investigation by the Trump administration for alleged racial discrimination for giving money to a black-focused program while rejecting funding for an indigenous program.

The lawsuit targets Iowa’s Department of Administrative Services Director Mark Campbell and forum Director Adam Steen, alleging they violated the temple’s rights by denying the event request.

The legal action raises questions about how state governments navigate the increasingly contentious territory of public forum access and religious expression in government buildings. Capitol rotundas and public spaces have traditionally been open to citizen groups under forum access policies, which are designed to ensure equal treatment regardless of viewpoint. When government officials deny access to one group while permitting others, constitutional questions of viewpoint discrimination can arise.

The proposed event would feature carol singing, crafts, and a Krampus costume contest — Krampus being a half-goat, half-demon figure from European folklore that punishes misbehaving children at Christmas.

The Krampus tradition, which originates from Alpine regions of Europe, has seen a cultural resurgence in recent years in the United States, with various communities hosting Krampus-themed events during the holiday season. The folklore figure represents the darker counterpart to Saint Nicholas in Central European Christmas traditions.

“The lawsuit arises from state officials repeatedly denying the group permission to have a family-friendly winter holiday event in the Iowa Capitol rotunda on the same basis as other religious and civic groups.”

Matt Kezhaya, general counsel for The Satanic Temple, claimed officials were concerned about the costume contest aspect.

“The state said that we were going to beat children with sticks because we were going to have a costume contest which involved people holding sticks,” Kezhaya stated. “The local congregation of TST Iowa was very emphatic that wasn’t going to happen. For reasons not subject of judicial admissions, they just would not budge from that position.”

The dispute highlights the challenge government officials face when evaluating event proposals for security and appropriateness while avoiding content-based discrimination. State officials must balance legitimate safety concerns with constitutional requirements to provide equal access to public forums regardless of the popularity or controversy surrounding particular viewpoints.

The Satanic Temple has a recent history of targeting Iowa’s Capitol. In December 2023, the group set up a holiday display honoring the occult deity Baphomet inside the Iowa Statehouse.

That display became a flashpoint in the broader national debate over religious pluralism in government spaces. The incident drew widespread attention and sparked conversations about the limits of religious accommodation in public buildings, with some arguing that equal access principles require inclusion of all faith perspectives, while others contend that certain expressions cross beyond the bounds of community standards.

Christian U.S. Navy veteran Michael Cassidy was charged with a hate crime after beheading that statue in what he described as an effort to “awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government.”

Cassidy, who turned himself in to officers at the building, said Christians shouldn’t “submissively accept the legitimization of Satan.”

“None of the founders would have considered government sanction of Satanic altars inside Capitol buildings as protected by the First Amendment. Anti-Christian values have steadily been mainstreamed more and more in recent decades, and Christians have largely acted like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot of water.”

His actions and subsequent legal consequences reflect the deep divisions over how First Amendment protections should be applied in practice. The hate crime charges against Cassidy raised additional questions about whether destruction of religious displays constitutes bias-motivated criminal conduct, and whether such prosecutorial decisions are applied consistently across different religious traditions.

The ACLU has shown a pattern of targeting religious expression on public property. The organization recently joined a legal fight to block statues of Catholic saints in Massachusetts.

The civil liberties organization has increasingly involved itself in cases involving religious symbols and displays on government property, arguing that such litigation protects the separation of church and state. Critics, however, contend that the ACLU’s selective advocacy reveals an ideological bias against traditional religious expression while championing controversial alternatives.

The Satanic Temple, meanwhile, openly embraces pro-abortion activism. The group has opened abortion clinics and promotes what it calls “abortion rituals” — including one clinic launched on President Trump’s birthday in Maine.

The organization describes itself as a non-theistic religious group that uses Satanic imagery to promote secularism and challenge what it views as religious overreach in public policy. This approach has made the temple a lightning rod in culture war battles, with supporters viewing it as defending pluralism and critics seeing it as deliberately provocative.

Iowa Christians are now facing another round of legal pressure to accept Satanic displays alongside traditional Christmas celebrations in their state Capitol.

The outcome of this lawsuit could have implications beyond Iowa, potentially setting precedents for how other states handle similar requests for public forum access during holiday seasons. As communities across America grapple with increasing religious diversity and competing visions of pluralism, government officials find themselves navigating complex constitutional terrain with significant cultural and political ramifications.

The Satanic Temple has set up an altar at the Iowa State Capitol building…..

What's your thoughts on this..? #WeWantAnswers pic.twitter.com/wSIXGbT3kf

— Isaac’s Army (@ReturnOfKappy) December 12, 2023

BREAKING: @RepubSentinel can reveal that Michael Cassidy, a Christian and former military officer, tore down and beheaded the Satan altar in the Iowa Capitol:https://t.co/rIYIdZOzee pic.twitter.com/tZDsmKM5Pm

— The Sentinel (@RepubSentinel) December 14, 2023

The Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act passed 119-33 in the state House on July 22. Democratic Governor Maura Healey signed it this week, making Massachusetts one of the most permissive states in the nation when it comes to abortion access. The legislation marks a significant shift in state policy, even in a commonwealth long considered a progressive stronghold on reproductive rights.

The new law eliminates all time restrictions on abortion in Massachusetts. Physicians can now perform the procedure at any stage of pregnancy based on their professional medical judgment — with greater legal protection from penalties. This represents a departure from the previous framework that had been in place for decades, and positions Massachusetts alongside a small number of states with similarly expansive abortion laws. The law also includes provisions strengthening protections for abortion providers against potential legal challenges from other states.

“THIS NEW LAW REPRESENTS AN EXTREMIST AND DANGEROUS POSITION. TO BE CLEAR, IT ALLOWS ABORTION ANY TIME, UNRESTRICTED, AND IN MANY CASES, PUBLICLY FUNDED UNTIL THE MOMENT OF BIRTH.”

That’s Democratic State Rep. Jeffrey Turco of Winthrop, who voted against the bill alongside eight other Democrats and a solid block of Republicans. His concerns reflect growing unease among some members of his own party about how far abortion protections should extend, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy when questions of fetal viability become more medically and ethically complex.

Turco told Fox News Digital the bill was “rushed through the legislative process in two weeks without an opportunity for the public to weigh in.” The accelerated timeline left many constituents unaware of the full scope of the changes until after the vote had already taken place, he argued.

“The new law is barbaric,” he said.

Other Democrats were just as vocal in their opposition, raising concerns that transcend typical partisan divides on reproductive rights.

State Rep. Chris Markey of Dartmouth said the bill creates a troubling precedent — putting doctors in a “very difficult ethical dilemma” that conflicts with long-standing criminal case law. His concerns centered on how the new statute might interact with existing legal frameworks governing medical practice and the treatment of viable fetuses.

“I BELIEVE THIS LAW IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE BELIEFS OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY CONSTITUENTS. WHILE MANY ARE PRO-CHOICE, YOU CAN STILL BE PRO-CHOICE AND SEE THIS LAW AS GOING BEYOND THE NORMS OF ACCEPTABILITY.”

Markey’s statement highlights a tension that exists even in liberal-leaning districts: voters who support abortion rights in principle may still have reservations about removing all restrictions, particularly in the third trimester. Public polling has consistently shown that Americans hold more nuanced views on abortion than simple pro-choice or pro-life labels suggest, with support for abortion access generally declining as pregnancy progresses.

State Rep. Dennis Gallagher, representing the 8th Plymouth District, said changes to the existing law weren’t necessary. Prior Massachusetts law already permitted abortions after 24 weeks to preserve the mother’s health or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. That framework, Gallagher suggested, had provided sufficient protection for women facing serious medical complications while maintaining some ethical boundaries around late-term procedures.

“At that point in a pregnancy, if the health of the mother is fine and the baby’s health is fine, I just think alternatives should be encouraged for that baby,” Gallagher said. “So that’s what I struggled with.” His comments point to adoption and other options that become more viable as pregnancy advances, particularly in cases where no medical emergency exists.

State Rep. Alan Silvia, a pro-life Democrat from Bristol, vehemently opposed expanding abortion in the state. His presence in the Democratic caucus represents a diminishing faction within the party, as abortion rights have become an increasingly central litmus test for Democratic candidates nationwide.

“My position has been consistent: I believe in protecting human life, including the life of the unborn,” Silvia said. “We go to extraordinary lengths as a society to protect vulnerable life, saving whales and saving strays, yet when it comes to an unborn child, that same sense of protection too often seems to disappear.”

Governor Healey defended signing the legislation, citing “unprecedented attacks across the country” on abortion following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Dobbs decision eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion and returned the issue to individual states, prompting a patchwork of laws nationwide. Many Democratic-led states have moved to expand abortion access in response, while Republican-controlled states have implemented new restrictions.

In a statement early this week, she claimed the law guarantees families won’t have to “travel hundreds of miles” out of state and that “patients can continue to receive compassionate, medically appropriate care in Massachusetts during some of the most difficult moments of their lives.” Her framing emphasized rare but heartbreaking cases of wanted pregnancies that develop severe complications late in gestation.

The vote breakdown: 119-33 in favor. Nine Democrats joined Republicans in opposition — a rare break on abortion policy within the Democratic caucus. The bipartisan opposition, though ultimately unsuccessful in blocking the bill, signals that even in deep-blue Massachusetts, consensus on abortion policy remains elusive when the debate moves beyond general principles to specific gestational limits.

Trone Garriott, an Iowa state senator challenging Republican Rep. Zach Nunn in the Third Congressional District, made the remarks in an unearthed clip from a January 31, 2023, interview on the Uncommon Wealth podcast.

“THE CHURCH WAS A BARRIER” TO ABUSE VICTIMS RECEIVING HELP.

While discussing why she initially considered becoming a lawyer to help victims of domestic abuse, Trone Garriott said, “There were a lot of problems with religion related to violence against women.”

She claimed that religious leaders tell domestic abuse victims that their husband abusing them is “their cross to bear and God is punishing you through your husband.”

“Don’t leave because it’s against God’s will,” she continued.

Trone Garriott ultimately said “the church was a barrier” to abuse victims receiving help.

Her criticism stands in sharp contrast to reality on the ground in Iowa. Religious organizations across the state provide direct support to abuse victims — including Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Des Moines, the Iowa Conference of the United Methodist Church, and other faith-based groups working with churches to assist victims.

“Even for the Wicked Witch of Woke this is a new low and completely disgusting. Sarah Trone Garriott has nothing but criticisms of Christianity and lectures for Iowans but when it comes to satanists, she sings their praises,” RNC spokesman Zach Kraft told Breitbart News.

The remarks add to mounting scrutiny Trone Garriott has faced over previous comments about Christianity and religion.

Trone Garriott defended reading a Muslim prayer in the Iowa Senate, arguing that Christian voices had been “overwhelmingly represented” and that minority voices should be elevated. In an op-ed, she wrote that beginning theological studies at Harvard immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks made her more aware of “the rising anti-Muslim bigotry and its harm” — while the piece did not mention the Americans who died in the attacks.

She cosponsored legislation that would begin sex-education instruction in kindergarten and later declined to answer questions about the proposal.

During her time in the Iowa Senate, Trone Garriott voted against legislation prohibiting gender-transition procedures for minors, preventing biological males from competing in girls’ sports, and requiring students to use school bathrooms corresponding with their biological sex.

She also voted against legislation prohibiting instruction on gender identity for kindergarten through sixth-grade students and has criticized private school vouchers.

Trone Garriott’s support for transgender-related causes includes a 2020 post saying transgender people experience high rates of food insecurity and “may not feel safe seeking assistance from food pantries.”

She later recognized Transgender Day of Visibility, shared an article titled the “Catholic Case for Choosing Your Own Pronouns,” which she called “thoughtful and faithful reflections,” and described the LGBTQ movement as challenging traditional understandings of men, women, and relationships and as “very threatening to the idea of the white male, powerful figure.”

She also defended a Wiccan-led prayer at the Iowa Statehouse by arguing that “Jesus engaged with pagans.”

During a 2023 speech at a Methodist church, Trone Garriott said it was “uncomfortable” to see “faith and political power” collide and described “religion and political violence” appearing in public life as “very threatening.”

She connected what she called “Christian nationalism” to “white patriarchy — masculine power, violence, and dominance over and against others” and said evangelist Billy Graham “really modeled” an image of “white, Christian masculinity,” describing him as having cultivated an “attractive, strong, macho guy persona.”

Trone Garriott also delivered a 2021 sermon for Downtown Disciples, a progressive Christian community that describes itself as LGBTQIA+ affirming and supportive of Black Lives Matter.

The organization hosts a “Queer and Christian Book Club,” operates child and youth ministries, promotes an all-ages transgender festival, and lists a partnership with the Iowa Trans Mutual Aid Fund, which provides grants to transgender and nonbinary individuals seeking gender-related care.

Trone Garriott was elevated in July to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Red to Blue program, which the DCCC describes as a “highly competitive” program for “top-tier candidates.”

Her Iowa Senate record also includes opposing a measure restricting SNAP benefits for those in the country illegally, voting against a bill requiring citizenship verification in elections, and missing a vote on legislation that ultimately delivered a $4.2 billion property-tax cut.

She has also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s actions make Americans “less safe,” while calling for immigration legislation that would deport criminals and create a path to citizenship for immigrants who work and pay taxes.

The lawsuit argues Nebraska’s system is unconstitutional: parents get a free education for their kids only if they submit to public school viewpoints on gender, race, and climate — or they pay the full cost themselves.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing the Jacobsen and Menter families of Lincoln, who pulled their children from Lincoln Public Schools after exposure to transgender ideology, critical race theory programming, and climate activism that turned their kids against them.

“Nebraska cannot ban parents from teaching their own children their own values—so instead it penalizes them for exercising that recognized right. But the Constitution does not tolerate that abridgement of parents’ free speech rights.”

The suit argues education is a form of government speech — schools choose teachers, curriculum, textbooks, and which ideas to emphasize. When Nebraska funds only its preferred viewpoint, parents are forced to either accept that messaging or pay to escape it.

That’s a First Amendment violation, according to the filing obtained by The Federalist.

Nebraska law makes it a Class III misdemeanor not to enroll children in some form of school. Parents face up to three months in jail and a $500 fine if they don’t comply.

But while education is legally required, only public school families get the benefits of a free education. Families choosing private schools, religious schools, or homeschooling must cover every dollar themselves.

Nebraska ranks among the worst states in the nation for parental choice. The state offers zero tax credits, scholarships, or education savings accounts that would make alternatives attainable for working families.

The Jacobsen daughter was told she must accommodate biological males in girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms at Lincoln Public Schools. If she felt uncomfortable, she was told to remove herself from those spaces, the lawsuit states.

She was also required to use false pronouns for students claiming to be the opposite gender.

The district exposed the Jacobsen children to programming that labeled some races as oppressors and others as victims based entirely on skin color, according to the suit.

The Menter family pulled two children out after the district displayed stickers endorsing alternative sexuality and transgender ideologies. A school librarian recommended books promoting transgender ideology to one of their children.

Climate change indoctrination was so effective that one Menter child became hostile toward her own parents, demanding they reduce driving because the school taught her carbon dioxide would destroy the planet.

“The government’s education was motivating conduct through fear. Not only that, but the child was coached to take a hostile or disrespectful tone toward adults concerning this topic.”

Both families now face financial strain. They’ve been forced to pay for education costs public school parents never shoulder — or submit to government messaging they fundamentally reject.

Nebraska spent about $19,038 per student in the 2024-2025 school year. Lincoln Public Schools spent about $17,432.

Private elementary school tuition in Nebraska averages $7,100 per year. High school runs about $11,000. Homeschooling costs less in overhead but typically requires one parent to leave the workforce entirely.

The lawsuit cites the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which held the government cannot condition the benefit of a free public education on parents accepting instruction that violates their First Amendment rights.

Another Supreme Court precedent says the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prevents the government from coercing people into surrendering enumerated constitutional rights.

The families are not asking the court to change Lincoln Public Schools’ curriculum or dictate a legislative remedy.

They want the court to declare Nebraska’s system unconstitutional and award them damages equal to the per-pupil funding Lincoln Public Schools receives.

“That formal education is speech is largely undisputable. That parents have the primary right to provide educational speech to their children is legally established,” said Zhonette Brown, general counsel at NCLA. “Courts have long recognized speech rights in the education context, protecting parents’ educational speech is the next logical step.”

The case could set a nationwide precedent for states with zero school choice options — forcing them to either fund alternatives or face constitutional liability.