LANSING, MI — Michigan lawmakers are considering sweeping updates to the state’s Public Health Code and identification laws, which include provisions for gender marker changes on birth certificates, state identification cards, and driver’s licenses. The proposals have ignited debate, with supporters emphasizing inclusivity and detractors raising concerns about societal and administrative implications, particularly regarding the age at which such changes should be allowed.

Overview of the Proposal

The proposed legislation includes:

• Gender Marker Flexibility: Individuals may select "M," "F," or "X" as their gender on birth certificates, state IDs, and driver’s licenses without requiring additional medical or legal documentation, except for a court order in cases involving name changes.

• Streamlined Birth Certificate Updates: New certificates can be issued for changes in paternity, adoption, or gender identity.

• Privacy Protections: Victims of stalking, domestic violence, or human trafficking could request confidential records or name changes.

Support for the Legislation

Advocates argue the changes reflect a growing societal recognition of diverse gender identities. LGBTQ+ organizations and civil liberties groups say the proposed amendments simplify processes for individuals seeking to align their legal documents with their gender identity, fostering greater dignity and reducing bureaucratic barriers.

“This is about ensuring that all Michiganders, regardless of gender identity, can have documentation that accurately represents who they are,” said a representative from an LGBTQ+ advocacy group. “These changes bring Michigan’s laws in line with federal standards and practices in other progressive states.”

Support my independent journalism, if you haven’t already, by becoming a paid subscriber. I can’t keep doing this work without all of you.

Become a Supporter

Proponents also highlight the importance of privacy protections for victims of violence, saying that shielding sensitive information could save lives.

Michigan Rep. Brad Paquette posted the following on his X account:

“House Democrats would not let me speak in opposition to HB5300-5303, which allows children as young as 14 years old to change their sex on identifying documents like birth certificates... without even parent consent. They will also have the option to change it to an "X". Speaker Pro Temp Pohutsky took me aside and insinuated it was because @libsoftiktok saw my post covering the committee hearing on the bills. I was out of order for addressing the rest of the democrats and letting them know that we will allow appropriate dissent on every piece of legislation when we take the gavels back in January.”

 

 

Criticism of the Proposal

Critics, however, raise questions about the implications of allowing gender marker changes without medical or psychological evaluations, particularly for minors. Some argue that such decisions could have long-term consequences that young individuals might not fully understand.

“It’s one thing to respect an individual’s right to identify how they choose, but it’s another to allow these changes without sufficient checks and balances,” said a critic of the bill. “This legislation could have unintended effects, especially if minors are involved.”

The proposal does not specify a minimum age for requesting gender marker changes, which has sparked concerns from family advocates who believe that allowing such changes without parental consent or professional guidance could be problematic.

Click the bill number to read the legislation: Bill 5300, Bill 5301, Bill 5302, Bill 5303,

Broader Concerns

Business and administrative groups have also voiced concerns about potential implementation challenges. Adjusting systems to accommodate non-binary and changing gender markers could require significant investment and training, especially for smaller government offices.

Additionally, some question whether the legislation strikes the right balance between individual freedoms and broader societal norms. “While inclusivity is important, we need to consider the long-term effects of making these changes so easily accessible,” said a policy expert.

Impact on Michigan Families

The proposal has also drawn attention to questions about parental involvement. Critics argue that gender marker changes for minors, especially those under 18, should involve a higher degree of scrutiny, including medical or psychological evaluations and parental consent. Proponents counter that such restrictions could disproportionately harm young people struggling with gender dysphoria.

Next Steps

The bill is expected to undergo committee review and public hearings before it moves to a vote in the legislature. Both supporters and opponents plan to mobilize their efforts to influence the outcome.

“This is a conversation that requires thoughtful consideration of all perspectives,” said one lawmaker. “It’s about balancing individual rights with societal responsibilities.”

If passed, Michigan would join a growing number of states that allow flexible gender markers on legal documents, but the debate underscores the complex and deeply personal nature of these issues.

 

NEWARK, NJ - What in the world are these mysterious drones that have been flying over New Jersey the past couple weeks? Or, at least, we believe they’re drones. Nobody has really gone up there to confirm, and no one has brought one down to take a look at these things. Instead, for some bizarre reason, we’ve just been letting them fly around up there, causing a ruckus in the news and most government officials to simply shrug their shoulders. Are they new government technology, drones from a foreign adversary, a hobbyist project, or are they UFOs and UAPs?

Let’s start with what might probably be the easiest explanation. Most officials who have looked into the matter have stated these drones are not a hobbyist project. Given the scale of these objects, the numbers of them, and the sophistication of the technology they seem to display, if this were to be some sort of side project by a drone enthusiast, then this particular person (or group) would have to be wealthy or, at least, very well-funded. Sure, I could purchase a good-quality commercial drone for a few hundred dollars, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. These particular drones appear to be about six feet in diameter and contain a technology that eludes radar detection and is making it difficult for officials to track. The couple times police helicopters have gone up to take a look, the drones have turned off their lights and have seemingly disappeared into the night sky. However, to this point, these craft have only been witnessed over New Jersey which indicates a local point of origin. Could this be a billionaire’s practical joke? Click here to read more.

 

LANSING, Mich - Democrats in Lansing on Wednesday rammed a raft of anti-gun measures through two separate House committees.

Collectively, House Bills 6183, 6184 and 6185 would eliminate the firearm industry’s civil liability protections. It would also allow civil actions against firearm industry members for “contributing to a public nuisance” by manufacturing and distributing products or failing to implement “reasonable controls.”

On Wednesday, the Michigan House Committee on Judiciary voted 8-5 along party lines in favor of the three measures. The measures are part of a series of anti-gun bills Lansing Democrats filed in their last days holding majorities in the House and Senate.

State Rep. Andrew Fink, R-Adams Township, and other Republicans opposed the push as an attack on the firearm industry and a way to hinder lawful gun ownership.

“This legislation effectively suggests that a manufacturer of a product that Michigan citizens have a constitutional right to use, keep, and own could be held liable for the proper functioning of said product,” Fink said in a statement. “This would be like a car manufacturer being sued for a vehicle being used to intentionally harm another individual. The driver should be responsible for that crime, not the manufacturer. In this case, if a firearm is used for the purpose of committing a crime, it appears to me that this legislation would allow the attorney general or citizen to file an injunction against the manufacturer.” Click here to read more.

 

DEL RIO, TX - The Biden administration is using its final weeks to haul a massive amount of border wall materials away from the southern border to be sold off in a government auction, an apparent effort to hinder President-elect Donald Trump’s effort to secure the border, The Daily Wire has learned.

Videos obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire from a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent show unused sections of the wall being hauled away on the back of flatbed trucks from a section of the border just south of Tucson, a hotspot for illegal crossings during the Biden administration. The agent estimates that up to half a mile per day of unused border wall is being moved.

“They are taking it from three stations: Nogales, Tucson, and Three Points,” the border patrol agent, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, told The Daily Wire. “The goal is to move all of it off the border before Christmas.” Click here to read more.

 

WASHINGTON D.C. - Twenty-six confidential human sources (CHS) cooperating with the FBI were in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, in connection to the Capitol riot, a report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) revealed Thursday.

The CHSs, who were not undercover employees, provided information to FBI “handling agents,” the report states. FBI field offices tasked three of the sources to “report on domestic terrorism subjects” in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6.

The OIG noted that none of the CHSs were authorized to enter restricted areas — including the U.S. Capitol — or violate the law. Four sources, however, were inside the Capitol during the riot, and 13 entered a security perimeter around the building.

“None of the CHSs who entered the Capitol or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date,” the report states.

One CHS was reimbursed for travel on Jan. 6 and the inauguration, according to the report. The CHS was not tasked with attending the electoral certification, the OIG noted. Click here to read more.

 

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Washington state's governing body for high school athletics announced Tuesday it is considering forming a separate division for transgender athletes to compete in.

The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) currently allows high schoolers in the state to compete in sports based on gender identity. However, a proposed policy amendment would require athletic programs to be offered separately for a boys' division, a girls' division and an "open" division.

Any athletes who wish to compete based on their gender identity would be required to participate in the "open" division, according to the proposal. Eligibility for the "open" division would also include athletes "in the process of transition that have undertaken medical changes," the proposal says.

A separate proposed amendment would also require participation in girls' sports to be limited to students whose biological sex is female. The amendment, modeled after guidance in Alaska, acknowledges such a move may spark legal challenges due to some interpreting the policy as "discriminatory."

However, the language asserts the proposed change "emphasizes inclusivity" and still encourages transgender students to participate in athletics. Click here to read more.

A newly released report by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has revealed that the FBI had at least 26 confidential human sources (CHSs) embedded in the crowd during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. These sources, some of whom were in restricted areas or even entered the Capitol, provided intelligence both before and during the attack. However, the report highlights systemic failures in utilizing this intelligence, leaving critical questions about the federal response to one of the most significant security breaches in U.S. history.

The Role of Confidential Informants

The report outlines that the FBI's confidential informants were tasked with monitoring domestic terrorism threats and gathering intelligence from within extremist groups. Sources included individuals with connections to groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, both of which had members who played central roles in the attack. Several of these informants traveled to Washington, D.C., voluntarily, while others were specifically instructed to observe activities related to the rally and its aftermath.

Support my independent journalism by becoming a paid subscriber at $5 a month if you haven’t yet done so. I can’t do this without all of you. Lock in now at $5 before it goes up to $6 in 2025.

 

Become a Supporter

 

Out of the 26 identified informants, four entered the Capitol, and 13 others were present in restricted areas around the Capitol. None of these sources faced prosecution, reflecting the broader Department of Justice policy that prioritized prosecuting individuals involved in violent actions over those who trespassed without engaging in criminal conduct.

Despite the presence of these sources, the report notes critical intelligence and coordination failures within the FBI. While the agency gathered significant information in the weeks leading up to January 6, it failed to act on key warnings that could have shaped its response to the potential for violence.

The media seems to have missed the real details of this story. Take a look at the CNN headline, which is not accuate.

 

Missed Opportunities for Intelligence Gathering

One of the most striking findings of the OIG report is the FBI's failure to issue a comprehensive canvass of its field offices to gather intelligence ahead of January 6. This basic procedure is typically used to collect actionable information from local informants and law enforcement partners. The report criticized the FBI for overlooking this crucial step, with FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate admitting that the omission represented a missed opportunity.

The report revealed that several confidential sources warned the FBI of potential violence, including threats from individuals planning to travel to Washington, D.C., armed and prepared to engage in conflict. Informants also flagged communications among extremist groups discussing disrupting the certification of the Electoral College results.

Despite these warnings, the FBI's Washington Field Office (WFO) did not fully coordinate efforts to assess and act on this intelligence. The report described a lack of communication between field offices and federal leadership, as well as missed opportunities to share intelligence with partner agencies, including the U.S. Capitol Police and the Department of Homeland Security.

Failures in Anticipating the Scale of the Threat

While the FBI was not the lead agency responsible for securing the Capitol—jurisdiction fell primarily to the U.S. Capitol Police—the report criticized the lack of coordination between federal and local agencies. Senior FBI officials acknowledged that the agency underestimated the scale and nature of the threat posed by January 6, despite clear indications of potential violence.

For example, the FBI’s internal communications showed that some officials dismissed warnings as speculative or unlikely to materialize. This attitude, coupled with insufficient inter-agency coordination, left law enforcement woefully unprepared for the scale of violence that unfolded that day.

Accountability and Policy Changes

The presence of federal agents and informants in the January 6 crowd raises broader questions about the role of confidential informants in monitoring domestic events. While these sources provided critical insights into extremist planning and activities, the failure to act on their intelligence has drawn scrutiny.

The OIG report calls for reforms to ensure better utilization of confidential informants and improved communication between field offices and federal leadership. The report also recommends clearer protocols for intelligence sharing with local law enforcement agencies during high-risk events.

Renewed Debate Over Federal Response

The revelations are likely to intensify public debate over the federal government’s handling of January 6. Critics argue that the FBI’s intelligence failures represent a systemic issue that demands accountability. Others have raised concerns about the ethical and operational challenges of deploying informants in politically charged environments.

Proponents of the FBI’s approach point to the difficulty of balancing civil liberties with the need to monitor extremist threats. However, the OIG report underscores the need for the agency to act decisively when credible threats are identified, particularly in situations involving potential violence against democratic institutions.

Next Steps

In the wake of the report, lawmakers and public watchdogs are calling for hearings to scrutinize the FBI’s actions before and during January 6. These discussions are expected to focus on how the agency can improve its intelligence-gathering processes and avoid similar failures in the future.

The OIG’s findings add a new dimension to the ongoing investigation into January 6, offering a detailed account of how federal agencies monitored—and in some cases participated in—the events of that day. With the FBI facing increased scrutiny, the report serves as a reminder of the challenges inherent in safeguarding democracy while respecting civil liberties and ensuring accountability.