DAVID MARCUS: Legacy media anoints Talarico, downplays Crockett in Texas Democratic primary

Over the past two weeks, the liberal media has been boosting Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico in ways rarely seen in a state primary, including what critics call misleading coverage and manipulation. 

But his opponent, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, known for being outspoken, is not going away quietly.

It all started Feb. 16, when late-night political pundit Stephen Colbert falsely claimed the Trump administration and CBS had banned an interview with Talarico from airing. It never happened. Colbert later acknowledged the segment was satirical, but the controversy helped raise $2.5 million for the candidate and elevate his national stature.

At that time, Crockett had a firm, if not overwhelming, lead in the polls. Since then, without any major endorsements from elected Democrats, Talarico has been treated like a golden boy by liberal media outlets ranging from the far-left outlet The Nation to The New York Times.

But some voters I talked to in Dallas this weekend said they aren’t buying the hype.

I typically do not describe the skin color of people I talk to for my columns. It rarely has relevance. But in the case of Cedric, who is Black and works for the sanitation department cleaning parks, I made an exception because he brought it up.

“They don’t think the Black woman can win,” he told me, referring to what he sees as the media’s preference for the White Talarico. “But everyone I know is voting for her, and the unions are. Don’t count that woman out.”

DEMOCRATS HAVE ‘DONE JASMINE CROCKETT DIRTY,’ IN ATTEMPT TO WOUND CAMPAIGN, GOP STRATEGIST TELLS MS NOW

It brought to mind a recent viral video clip of a White woman in Texas who was literally crying because she loves Crockett but thought she had to vote for Talarico based on electability. The overwhelming emotion she felt was almost certainly shame at the idea of betraying a Black woman for the would-be greater good.

And I found evidence that these scare tactics from the Democratic media might be working.

One Democrat voter in his 70s told me Sunday he had still not made up his mind, but, “I like what I see in the Talarico ads, and it seems many people think he has the best shot. Guess I have some thinking to do.”

CROCKETT BLASTS ‘LEFT’ FOR ALLEGED SKIN DARKENING IN ADS AS TEXAS SENATE CLASH HEATS UP

Adding to the general sense of confusion over this Senate primary is the fact that the polling has been as schizophrenic as Dr. Jekyll. One day last week, two polls came out, one with Talarico up 12 points, the other with Crockett up 12 points. What is anyone supposed to do with that?

The only way this kind of polling gap can happen, short of intentional manipulation — of which there is no evidence — is if these pollsters have wildly different ideas about what the makeup of the electorate will be, which is the subjective side of that particular social science.

The polling averages have pushed Talarico into a slight lead, heralded at every turn by liberal commentators on TV celebrating the shift. But, on the ground, this supposed wind at Talarico’s back is harder to feel.

TEXAS SENATE PRIMARIES EXPLODE AS CORNYN WARNS PAXTON COULD COST GOP MAJORITY, DEMOCRATS CLASH OVER RACE

Cindy, in her 20s, who is a barista, told me, “I don’t trust the polls at all. I just vote for who I think is best.” In classic Texas tight-lipped style, she declined to tell me who that was.

The conventional wisdom here in Texas is that Talarico has done enough to get over the top. I even heard this from GOP operatives. But, importantly, the people crafting that conventional wisdom all seem to be on Team Talarico.

As the results come in on Tuesday night, there is an important side bet to watch as well, because Vice President Kamala Harris has endorsed Crockett, a risk for a woman with a pretty wide lead in the 2028 primary polling.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Believe me when I say that the very same left-leaning news anchors and producers who are criticizing Crockett’s campaign want Harris nowhere near the top of the ’28 ticket. But does Kamala know something they don’t?

This primary in Texas is now, among other things, a test of the power of the liberal mainstream media. They are all in on Talarico. A Crockett win would expose just how little influence the former giants of news now have.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The good news for Democrats is that both Talarico and Crockett have pledged to support the other should they lose, which is nice but may not heal the divides.

At some point, Democratic voters, especially Black voters, will grow tired of being forced to always vote for the nice, plain White guy in tight races. It is, at bottom, an illogical effort to fight racism with racism, and its center may not hold.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAVID MARCUS

Stop trusting political parties to save urban America. It’s time for us to rise and rebuild

Urban America does not need a political party. For decades, we were told that if we only had the right political savior, our problems would be solved. But no one is coming.

What Urban America needs are principles: the timeless, universal values of faith, family, agency, ownership, discipline, safety and accountability.

We don’t need any more of this Republican vs. Democrat talk. We’ve done it to death, and we cannot afford to succumb to false promises any longer — not when our communities have only worsened. A man once told me that progress can only happen the moment we stop lying to ourselves. It is far easier to believe in false promises than to look at the cold reality of where most of urban America, including my South Side Chicago neighborhood, stands — at the bottom of the American totem pole.

In my Walk Across America, which is now taking me through the Cotton Belt in the Deep South, I have seen many urban communities. In far too many of these areas, I’ve met people whose dreams have been dimmed by a cycle of government dependency that saps dignity and stifles growth. These people have been cut off from the greatness of America.

We don’t need any more of this Republican vs. Democrat talk. What Urban America needs are principles: the timeless, universal values of faith, family, agency, ownership, discipline, safety and accountability.

That is why I’ve come to believe that what Urban America needs most are American principles. Those principles do not belong to any political party. They are universal and timeless. They are why people from all over the world want to come here.

The greatest sin is that we who live in Urban America have allowed ourselves to be separated from these principles. We have sold ourselves short by embracing inferior ideologies. How can anything grounded solely in race lift us up? But the principles of individualism — from accountability to responsibility — can do wonders for developing one’s talents and capabilities.

MISSISSIPPI’S SCHOOL MIRACLE SHAMES FAILING CHICAGO LEADERS ON EDUCATION

Many Urban American neighborhoods rank at the bottom in statistics when it comes to education, violence and two-parent families. We don’t even go to church that often, which is very telling in itself. The only way out is development grounded in American principles.

Our Johnny, at his core, is no different than suburban Johnny. Our Johnny may not have all the resources that suburban Johnny has, but so what? We’ve used that as an excuse for too long. We focus on the differences between the two Johnnys, but they are all external. What we don’t focus on are the commonalities. Both Johnnys share the miracle of the human body: two feet, two hands, two eyes, two ears and the wonder of the brain. That is why we must embrace the belief that Urban Johnny can embrace the same American principles that suburban Johnny uses and rise to the top. We have no other choice but to try.

What I’m talking about here, ultimately, is a mind reset. We’ve been told for decades that America is a horrible and racist country, where police lurk behind every corner waiting to shoot us dead. That’s a lie. People in Urban America kill each other at far greater rates than any outsider, and yet no one points to that fact. I wonder why.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

That is why this mind reset is so needed. I met an immigrant on my walk. He was selling fruit from a stand on the side of the street. I asked him where he was from. Ireland. I asked him what he thought of America. “The greatest country in the world,” he said without hesitation. He went on to tell me that at night he works as a waiter and makes $300 in tips. But what he said next stayed with me:

“No one tells me what to do. I get up in the morning. I have a family to support — three kids and a dog. I have to get up. If I don’t go to work, we get nothing. It’s all on us. So I work and work. Someday, I will have my own business.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He’s hoping to become a citizen, along with his family, soon.

There’s no magic here. The man gets up and works 16-hour days at two jobs. It’s all up to him. It’s that simple. But that’s the beauty of America and her principles. America gives us absolute freedom as long as we follow the law. That is the mindset that Urban America must embrace if she is to undergo a revival. And if she does, she will no longer be at the bottom. Guaranteed.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM PASTOR COREY BROOKS

REP RO KHANNA: Congress must reclaim war powers from an out-of-control Trump over Iran

As a principled opponent of military adventurism since America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, I was devastated this weekend when we learned that once again, American servicemembers will be coming home in body bags. Trump announced, “There will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is.”

No. That’s not the way it is. That must not be the way it is. As Trump now refuses to rule out sending ground troops to Iran, I believe we must do everything in our power to stop this horrific war of choice before more Americans are killed. That is why this week, I am forcing a vote in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan resolution with my Republican colleague, Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, to end this illegal and unconstitutional conflict. These families are in my thoughts and prayers. But we also owe our fallen soldiers’ families and every military family with sons and daughters still in harm’s way a debate and vote in Congress.

The framers of our Constitution knew that any president would have incentives to start unnecessary, costly and destabilizing wars. As James Madison wrote, “War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.” That’s why they entrusted the authority over war and peace “fully and exclusively” to the people’s representatives in Congress — not the president.

Trump once seemed to understand this. In his 2024 election night victory speech, Trump promised, “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.” In 2016, he channeled Republicans’ resentments with the Iraq War, saying that conflict “started ISIS, it started Libya, it started Syria,” and its architects “lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none.”

Ten years later, the administration is promoting a new set of lies, including the false claim that U.S.-Israeli airstrikes were actually preemptive, against imminent threats from Iran, even as a peaceful diplomatic solution appeared to be within reach.

We owe our fallen soldiers’ families and every military family with sons and daughters still in harm’s way a debate and vote in Congress.

Let’s be clear: Just 1 in 4 Americans support this war with Iran. This country does not want to see more dead Americans. Americans don’t want higher gas prices, which will spike at the pump because of this stupid conflict. They don’t want higher inflation. They don’t want us to waste tens of billions of dollars on this war, all while millions of Americans lose their healthcare. They don’t want to throw the Middle East into more chaos and unpredictable violence while well-connected Pentagon contractors enrich themselves. Americans want Washington to focus on jobs, childcare, infrastructure, schools and healthcare at home.

MIKE DAVIS: WHY TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKE WAS NECESSARY AND LAWFUL

Yet the president who warned in 2023 of those who “want to squander all of America’s strength, blood and treasure, chasing monsters and phantoms overseas while keeping us distracted from the havoc they’re creating here at home” is plunging this country into a reckless war with barely an explanation for why.

This week’s vote could be one of the most consequential in our nation’s history. Congress can play a critical check on this unthinking march into deeper and more reckless war.

I believe no one individual should decide whether to put American sons’ and daughters’ lives on the line for a war of choice. Every member of Congress, collectively representing 340 million Americans, must participate in this solemn debate. And each of us must be held accountable for the consequences.

This isn’t a partisan issue. I am informed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who argued that “every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” I am forcing this vote this week on behalf of millions of mothers and fathers. If enough like-minded Democrats and Republicans join together against the permanent-war party and the military industrial complex, the House can pass this resolution and send a powerful and unmistakable directive to the Executive Branch: remove U.S. forces from this ill-conceived and unconstitutional war.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

After all, the longer this war drags on, the more dangerous it becomes. Iran is a complex society of 90 million people — more than three times larger than Iraq in area and more than triple its population when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Top U.S. military advisers warned that with limited stocks of air defense systems, American and Israeli forces will be forced to absorb incoming fire from Iran’s missile arsenal in the coming days and weeks. Our 40,000 American troops in the region remain at risk from Iran’s retaliatory attacks.

Instead, we must assemble a global coalition that is ironclad in our shared commitment that Iran must never be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. A smart approach should have targeted sanctions and other tools to prevent the Iranian government from obtaining nuclear weapons. We can and must deal with the regime’s horrific crimes, violations of human rights and its slaughter of brave Iranian protesters. But bombs will not end Iran’s nuclear program, which Trump supposedly “obliterated” eight months ago. Nor will bombs bring regional stability or justice for the protesters. America, in John Quincy Adams’ words, should be “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all,” but should not go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

This week’s vote could be one of the most consequential in our nation’s history. Congress can play a critical check on this unthinking march into deeper and more reckless war. I will be urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on House Concurrent Resolution 38. And I respectfully ask Americans across the political spectrum to engage with their lawmakers to support this measure.

After decades of wars launched by presidents of both parties, it’s time for Congress to build a new bipartisan majority: Congress must reclaim these war authorities from an out-of-control Executive Branch and use this moment of crisis to unify our country around a shared priority: No war with Iran.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM REP RO KHANNA

LIZ PEEK: Democrats rage over Trump’s Iran strikes as exiles cheer ayatollah’s fall

Leftists in the U.S. are seriously confused. While Iranians around the world celebrate the death of the thuggish Ayatollah Khamanei, who ruled their country with an iron fist, liberals in the U.S. are condemning President Donald Trump’s war to liberate the Persian nation.  

Opposition to the U.S.-Israel joint attack on Iran was broad and swift, powered in part by Trump Derangement Syndrome — if he’s behind it, they’re reliably against it — and also tinged with antisemitism.  

The smoke had not yet cleared from the bombings in Iran before Democrats started shrieking their objections, with Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy, for instance, calling it “dangerously illegal and a mistake of staggering scale,” and denouncing the president as a “would-be dictator.” Murphy has also called Israel’s policy in Gaza and in the West Bank “immoral” and recently announced that he would not support additional military aid to Israel.

Anti-Israel Democrats in the House were especially strident, with “Squad” member Rashida Tlaib from Michigan posting, “It’s clear that the genocidal govt of Israel doesn’t care about children + human life including our own loved ones in the military.” She also posted, “The government of Israel is addicted to bombing hospitals, schools, refugee camps which are all war crimes.” 

Democrats have been pulling away from their traditional backing of Israel for some time, and especially since the far left took hold of their party. Axios reported in December that the DNC’s still-secret “autopsy” of why Vice President Kamala Harris was defeated by Trump in 2024 concluded that the former VP “lost significant support because of the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Gaza…” 

Iran has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to Israel, the United States and the Middle East for decades.

That is, in sifting the ashes of the 2024 election for clues as to why an inarticulate candidate who admitted she couldn’t think of a thing she’d do differently from the wildly unpopular Joe Biden went down in flames, Democrat officials determined…it was Israel’s fault! Democrats are quick learners — their support of the Jewish state is dwindling fast.

It isn’t just Democrats piling on. Criticism also came from far-right conspiracy theorists, too.

FROM MISSILES TO MINERALS: THE STRATEGIC MEANING BEHIND THE IRAN STRIKE

We also heard criticism from the utterly worthless and anti-Israel U.N., with Secretary-General António Guterres condemning the U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran and demanding immediate negotiations “to pull the region, and our world, back from the brink.” 

Guterres has overseen a U.N. with “a glaring anti-Israel bias, advancing biased and one-sided efforts to isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state,” reports the pro-Jewish group AIPAC. A bias AIPAC can document and which, astonishingly, has “escalated dramatically since Hamas’ October 7 attack.”

Spineless European leaders stood on the sidelines, initially distancing themselves from the U.S.-Israeli initiative. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer at first declined to give the U.S. permission to use its air bases, thus forcing American jets to undertake a 20-plus hour flight to carry out their mission. He then relented, earning ridicule from all sides.   

US CLEARED TO USE BRITISH BASES FOR LIMITED STRIKES ON IRANIAN MISSILE CAPABILITIES

Of course, witless students also weighed in, with Columbia University’s most renowned anti-Israel group, responsible for last year’s “encampment” built to protest the Gaza conflict, posting “death to America” in Persian after the U.S. and Israel killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. That prompted Sen. Tex Cruz, R-Texas, to demand that foreign students sending out such anti-American messages be “deported immediately.” He’s right.

One student protester told an interviewer that the U.S. “should align with Iranian regime instead of Israel because Iran ‘is not fascist.'”

Zohran Mamdani, the newly installed Muslim mayor of New York, harshly condemned President Trump’s war with Iran, saying, “Today’s military strikes on Iran — carried out by the United States and Israel — mark a catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression.” He also said, “Additionally, I want to speak directly to Iranian New Yorkers: you are part of the fabric of this city — you are our neighbors, small business owners, students, artists, workers and community leaders.” The mayor assured them, “You will be safe here.” 

Mamdani misread the room, assuming that Iranians living in the U.S. would react as he had to the attack on the mullahs. Instead, joyful Iranians gathered in Times Square to celebrate the end of one of the most hated and savage regimes in history.

IRANIAN-AMERICAN DEMOCRAT ‘INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTED’ WITH PARTY’S RESPONSE TO US-ISRAEL STRIKES

They apparently felt perfectly safe, as indeed they were.

There are certainly valid reasons to fear a military confrontation with Iran. The country hosts a huge arsenal of ballistic missiles, it has a well-trained and now vengeful military, and it can disrupt the world’s oil supply by mining the Straits of Hormuz. Also, it is a large country of 90 million people; Iran’s citizens may hate the mullahs, but they have no weapons with which to bring down the theocracy.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

But Iran has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to Israel, the United States and the Middle East for decades. There could be no peace or progress in the region while Iran continues to fund its terror proxies and doggedly pursues long-range missiles and a nuclear bomb. 

Democrats who mourn the scrapping of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, protesting that the JCPOA was preventing the regime from acquiring a nuke, surely know better. The deal was seriously flawed, it was unverifiable and from day one the mullahs prevented U.N. inspectors from carrying out agreed-upon certification of the pact.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Trump has ended the mullahs’ reign of terror and united the region in a manner no one could have imagined.

This is a righteous endeavor. Let us hope that on the other side, a free Iran will become a trusted ally.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM LIZ PEEK

MORNING GLORY: Why Trump must finish what he started with Iran’s regime

President Donald Trump has proven again and again to have mastered strategic and tactical surprise in conflict, and to depend upon the military professionals advising him. Now, however, he faces a decision on when to end the battle with the Islamic Republic of Iran or whatever regime follows its collapse. 

In making that decision, the events of 35 years ago should figure in his calculation. 

The American-led international coalition that assembled to drive Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi troops from Kuwait began that war with a massive aerial and naval bombardment of Saddam’s forces in Kuwait and some targets in Iraq on January 17, 1991. The first phase of the first Gulf War lasted five weeks. The second phase, a ground invasion of Kuwait, began on February 24, 1991, and famously (or infamously) concluded after 100 hours.

Serious military professionals have long debated the decision by then President George H.W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell to end military operations when they did. A huge tactical success had been achieved and the strategic benefit of such an overwhelming display of force, and almost certainly some Americans are alive today who would not have survived an extended campaign to depose Saddam Hussein 35 years ago.

But..

The “Marsh Arabs” of Iraq, the Shi’a Muslim population that inhabited the marshlands around the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the southern part of the country still controlled by Saddam after the 100-hours campaign, attempted to wrest their freedom from Saddam’s remaining forces.  A 1992 Human Rights Watch report concluded: “In their attempt to retake cities, and after consolidating control, loyalist forces killed thousands of unarmed civilians by firing indiscriminately into residential areas; executing young people on the streets, in homes and in hospitals; rounding up suspects especially young men, during house-to-house searches, and arresting them without charge or shooting them en masse; and using helicopters to attack unarmed civilians as they fled the cities”

Add to that massacre another decade of atrocities by Saddam against his people that did not end until the second President Bush, this time with Dick Cheney as the vice president and Colin Powell as secretary of state, ordered the military to invade Iraq and topple the dictator. In the dozen years between the two wars came the expense and danger of the two “no-fly zones” which the United Nations authorized and the U.S. enforced.

EX-CIA CHIEF WARNS NOT TO UNDERESTIMATE IRAN’S RESPONSE AFTER OPERATION EPIC FURY EXPOSED REGIME ‘ARROGANCE’

A friendly fire incident — U.S. F-15s mistakenly shot down two American Black Hawk helicopters with the loss of 26 military and civilian lives. 

The extended deployment of American forces in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is also believed to have led to the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers on June 25, 1996, a housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 Airmen were killed and more than 400 U.S. and international military members and civilians were injured in the attack, which has been attributed to either or both al Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The towers were home to troops and civilians supporting Operation Southern Watch, the no-fly zone operation in Southern Iraq.

Counter-factuals are not useful for debate. — American officials make the most difficult decisions with limited information, some of which we still don’t know — but the actual history that followed the 100 hours of war can inform the decisions ahead of President Trump.

MARK LEVIN: HANDS OFF POST-WAR IRAN? THAT COULD BE A GRAVE STRATEGIC MISTAKE FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD

Had the first Gulf War not been halted at the arbitrary elapse of 100 hours, but instead extended into a ground campaign in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein in 1991, a completely different history of the Middle East would have followed, one perhaps free of the Iranian nuclear and missile programs which have precipitated this battle. But the coalition assembled by the first President Bush might have frayed and fallen apart. The American casualties of that war would have exceeded the 300 killed and 450 wounded. Again, the debate about “What might have happened” is a ridiculous one to conduct. We cannot know.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

But President Trump and his advisors can, and no doubt are, reflecting that with the Islamic Republic on its back, without much in the way of defenses, but still with striking power, the United States may want to persevere in the ongoing battle until a new set of rulers free of the medieval theological motivations of the now dead Ayatollah Khamenei are in place.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

It is not for civilians to draw up war plans, but presidents ought to study the decisions of their predecessors. A premature end to this battle will almost certainly lead to another one, perhaps without the advantage that the tactical surprise of this weekend’s attack brought us. We can fairly guess that because this regime refused to stop its nuclear program, its missile program and its export of terrorism after President Trump ordered Qassem Soleimani killed in January 2020, and again after Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated the nuclear weapons program of the Islamic Republic. Instead, the fanatics atop this barbarous regime began to rebuild their killing capabilities and displayed their true nature with the stunning massacre of more than 35,000 of its own citizens in January. This regime is incapable of changing. The regime must be changed. 

Persevere President Trump. Americans have been dying at the hands of this wicked regime since it came to power in 1979. More have died this week. Do not let it survive to kill again. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM HUGH HEWITT

America must power AI with speed and discipline — or China will dominate

Artificial Intelligence is reshaping the global economy, strengthening national security and redefining geopolitical competition. The hyperscale data centers that power AI are becoming as foundational to this century as railroads and interstate highways were to the last.

The Trump administration has made American leadership in AI a priority, accelerating permitting, securing energy supply and clearing barriers to critical infrastructure. That urgency is warranted. China has committed more than $125 billion to artificial intelligence, advanced computing and the energy systems needed to dominate emerging technologies. Beijing understands that whoever controls AI will shape markets and military capability for decades.

If the United States hesitates, China will not.

But speed without discipline invites backlash, and that backlash can quickly harden into delay, litigation and sometimes outright prohibition.

Across the country, AI data center projects are encountering growing resistance. In 2025 alone, at least 25 projects were canceled, four times more than the year before, eliminating gigawatts of planned capacity. Nearly 100 projects nationwide are now contested. Opposition spans party lines, from rural landowners to environmental advocates to ratepayer groups worried that rapid AI expansion will drive up electricity and water bills for local families.

In many communities, the central fear is straightforward: Big Tech will profit while residents pay higher utility costs.

In December, more than 230 environmental organizations urged Congress to impose a nationwide moratorium on new data center approvals. A moratorium would freeze investment, stall innovation and hand China a strategic advantage.

KYRSTEN SINEMA WARNS US ADVERSARY WILL PROGRAM AI WITH ‘CHINESE VALUES’ IF AMERICA FALLS BEHIND IN TECH RACE

At the same time, community concerns are legitimate. Residents want to know whether data centers will strain local grids, raise electricity bills, increase water rates, divert scarce supplies, consume farmland or wildlife habitat, and overpromise economic gains. When those questions are not addressed early, delay becomes the norm and cancellation the outcome. Nearly 40% of heavily contested projects ultimately fail. At a time of intensifying global competition, that kind of self-inflicted drag is a strategic mistake.

The choice is not between heavy federal regulation and ignoring local concerns. There is a better path rooted in market discipline, transparency and voluntary standards. 

Voluntary standards are not a concession to opposition; they are a strategy for sustaining durable public confidence, what some call a “social license to operate.” In a democratic system, infrastructure depends not only on permits but on continued public trust.

SCOOP: TRUMP BRINGS BIG TECH TO WHITE HOUSE TO CURB POWER COSTS AMID AI BOOM

America learned this lesson during the early years of the shale natural gas boom. Producers that improved water stewardship, reduced air impacts and engaged communities early were able to continue development. Where public confidence collapsed, moratoria and bans often followed. Trust, once lost, is far more difficult to rebuild than to establish from the outset.

AI infrastructure now faces a similar inflection point. If projects move forward without clear performance commitments, they risk becoming politically untenable. But if developers adopt credible, independently verified standards early, they can reduce uncertainty, limit conflict and accelerate responsible buildout.

China has committed more than $125 billion to artificial intelligence, advanced computing and the energy systems needed to dominate emerging technologies. Beijing understands that whoever controls AI will shape markets and military capability for decades.

Encouragingly, federal policymakers are exploring voluntary compacts with leading AI infrastructure providers. That model of partnership, rather than prescriptive mandates, can create national consistency without freezing innovation.

TRUMP’S SCIENCE AND TECH MAN LAYS OUT WHITE HOUSE’S GLOBAL AI STRATEGY

Developers should adopt independently verified standards for responsible AI infrastructure, with clear benchmarks for energy reliability, electricity affordability, water stewardship, responsible siting, community engagement and transparency. Congress and federal agencies can reinforce this approach by recognizing credible voluntary standards in permitting and infrastructure planning.

Energy reliability and electricity affordability must come first. AI infrastructure cannot destabilize regional grids or shift rising power costs onto working families and small businesses. Projects must demonstrate that new demand will not force rate increases or undermine long-term grid stability.

Water use must be addressed candidly, particularly in arid regions. Developers should show that operations will not increase local water rates, crowd out existing residential or agricultural needs, or strain long-term supply security.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Responsible siting should prioritize industrial or previously disturbed land and, where possible, avoid sensitive habitats. Where practicable, projects should incorporate forested buffers to soften visual impacts and protect neighboring land uses. Communities deserve early engagement, not assurances after permits are filed, and commitments should be subject to independent verification rather than glossy sustainability reports.

This approach does not expand federal bureaucracy. It aligns market incentives with community trust and reduces litigation risk. It allows projects to move faster precisely because concerns are addressed upfront rather than in court.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

America has learned that infrastructure without public confidence leads to paralysis. After years of delay in energy projects, lawmakers are only now restoring momentum through permitting reform. We should not repeat the cycle with AI.

AI will shape the next generation of prosperity and security. America must build the infrastructure to power it with speed and discipline. If we do not, China will.

DAVID MARCUS: Ken Paxton devours John Cornyn as Texas GOP craves a fighter in Senate primary showdown

There is a scene in “The Godfather” when Michael Corleone tells his childhood friend Tom Hagan that he will be out of leadership during the film’s mob war, saying, “You’re not a wartime consigliere, Tom. Things might get rough with the moves we are trying.” That line echoes what many Texas GOP voters are saying about Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn.

I met Tim for lunch at Pegasus Plaza in downtown Dallas just three days before Cornyn’s Tuesday matchup against Attorney General Ken Paxton, and he told me, “I like Cornyn. He’s a good guy, but Trump needs fighters in D.C.”

Tim is in his 30s, works in banking, and went on to say, “Cornyn just seems to be from a different time. Maybe it was a better time, but it’s not now.”

Another Texan backing Paxton I met was Patti, who is retired and told me, “Cornyn is great if the other side is playing fair, but they aren’t.”

What Cornyn, who is behind in the polls but still within reach of victory, may be realizing is that there is a political price to pay for running on electability — that when an electorate is angry, affability is not an asset.

Ads are currently running in the Lone Star State urging senators to break the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act, which requires voter ID in American elections. Every person I talked to, including Democrats, told me they thought Paxton would do it and Cornyn wouldn’t.

Not just in Texas but around the country, I hear enormous frustration from Republican voters about senators like Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, John Barrasso and even Majority Leader John Thune for bringing a whack-a-mole hammer to a gunfight.

KEN PAXTON BELIEVES HE’LL CRUSH ‘FAKE JOHN CORNYN’ EVEN WITHOUT A TRUMP ENDORSEMENT

As one man quipped to me this weekend, “Trump has enough Democrats who hate him to fight. He doesn’t need Republicans to fight, too.”

Cornyn appears to be waiting out Trump’s term in office, confident that the kind of GOP he came up in will reappear once Trump is out of its orbit, no longer pulled by his political gravity.

But with JD Vance holding a commanding lead in the — albeit very early — 2028 GOP presidential primary polls, Cornyn’s desire to return the party to its lovable-loser status, in which congressional Democrats regularly roll them, seems remote at best.

JASMINE CROCKETT SAYS SOME REPUBLICANS WOULD ‘ABSOLUTELY’ VOTE FOR HER IN A GENERAL ELECTION

Cornyn belongs to a political age in which the most vital job of Republicans was to hold the status quo on domestic and even foreign policy against the emerging radicalism of the Democrats. But his defensive, Maginot Line-style approach is not landing today.

In Trump, Republican voters found a chaos agent — one who would play offense against the left and, frankly, break a few things along the way.

Take foreign policy. Trump’s view of the neoliberal world order was that the U.S. paid to protect everyone, accepted bad trade deals to maintain stability and asked others to lead — all while apologizing for being in charge. He is now blowing up that model.

TEXAS EARLY VOTING BEGINS AHEAD OF CONTENTIOUS MARCH 3 PRIMARY ELECTIONS

Paxton has shown a willingness to have the president’s back on everything from tariffs to war to “Making America Healthy Again.” Could that be criticized as running as a rubber stamp for Trump? Sure. But that is exactly what many voters want.

As for Paxton’s scandals, which his opponents argue negatively impact his electability in the general election against either Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, or her “Beto 2.0” challenger, James Talarico, I see little evidence of that.

Several voters I spoke to were not even aware of Paxton’s personal life issues and brushed off his alleged corruption. But what they did know about were his accomplishments as a tough-as-nails attorney general.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Even one Democrat I spoke with, a Talarico voter, praised Paxton’s work cracking down on H-1B visa “ghost offices” that are allegedly committing millions of dollars of fraud against the American people.

One hope for John Cornyn is that moderate voters might be quieter voters, less likely to speak with me or even answer polls. But with some frequency, so-called silent majorities turn into electoral losses.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Almost nobody I spoke with disliked Cornyn. There were a few who spoke more like an X feed than a human being, but in general, the sense was that he is a good man — but not the right man to go to the mattresses with Trump against the left.

In the end, in “The Godfather,” Michael made the right decision by demoting Tom. He needed loyal fighters, not a smart man who could figure out how to please all sides. Now it is up to Texas Republicans to decide who their wartime consigliere will be. From what I can see, it is very likely to be Ken Paxton.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAVID MARCUS

From missiles to minerals: The strategic meaning behind the Iran strike

The death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, following coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes in late February 2026 marks one of the most consequential geopolitical moments of the decade. In the immediate aftermath, Iran launched retaliatory missile and drone attacks across Israel and against U.S. and Gulf-linked infrastructure, while internet disruptions spread domestically and internal unrest intensified. Analysts, journalists and policymakers quickly filled the information space with competing interpretations — some emphasizing escalation risks, others focusing on humanitarian fallout or regime durability.

Yet viewed through the lens increasingly guiding U.S. national security doctrine, the operation appears less as an isolated military escalation and more as part of a broader strategic transition already underway: the integration of economic security, technological dominance and supply-chain resilience into core American grand strategy.

Over the past five years, Washington’s strategic thinking has shifted decisively away from counterterrorism-era priorities toward competition defined by industrial capacity, infrastructure control and technological ecosystems. Energy routes, mineral supply chains, semiconductor inputs and data networks are no longer treated as commercial concerns alone; they are now regarded as national security assets. In that framework, instability surrounding Iran intersected directly with several emerging pillars of U.S. strategy.

Iran occupies a uniquely sensitive position in the global economic system. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical maritime arteries, carrying roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil and a substantial share of liquefied natural gas exports. Persistent uncertainty around the waterway — whether through missile capabilities, naval harassment risks or proxy-linked disruptions across adjacent shipping zones — has imposed structural costs on global trade. Energy volatility feeds directly into inflation, manufacturing competitiveness and industrial planning across allied economies.

At the same time, Iran’s resource base places it squarely within the emerging competition over critical minerals essential for advanced manufacturing, clean energy technologies and defense systems. Copper, zinc, lithium deposits and rare-earth complexes position the country as a potential long-term supplier within next-generation industrial supply chains. Much of this output has increasingly moved toward Asian markets, particularly China, often through sanction-evasion networks operating beyond formal financial oversight.

From Washington’s perspective, this convergence created a strategic contradiction: while the United States and its partners were attempting to build resilient industrial ecosystems independent of geopolitical rivals, a key regional actor sat astride both energy choke points and alternative resource flows benefiting competing economic blocs.

This tension became more pronounced as new connectivity initiatives accelerated. The India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), first introduced in 2023, aims to link South Asian manufacturing capacity with Gulf energy hubs and European markets through integrated rail, port and hydrogen infrastructure. The project represents more than logistics efficiency; it reflects an attempt to reshape Eurasian trade geography around aligned partners rather than contested transit routes.

GORDON SONDLAND: NO MORE ‘RESTRAINT’: EUROPE MUST STAND WITH AMERICA ON IRAN

Parallel efforts expanded through what policymakers and industry leaders increasingly describe as coordinated economic security frameworks. The expansion of mineral cooperation agreements under initiatives such as FORGE brought dozens of countries into shared financing, refining and procurement arrangements designed to stabilize access to critical inputs. Simultaneously, private-sector coalitions — often grouped under the emerging concept of “Pax Silica” — have begun aligning advanced economies across semiconductors, artificial intelligence infrastructure and materials processing.

Together, these initiatives signal a new organizing principle of U.S. grand strategy: secure the physical and digital foundations of economic power before systemic rivalry fully hardens.

The timing of the strikes becomes clearer within this context.

DOUG SCHOEN: AS A DEMOCRAT, I BACK TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKE — MY PARTY IS WRONG

By early 2026, multiple pressures had significantly weakened Iran’s strategic leverage. Years of sanctions targeting oil transport networks sharply constrained revenue flows. The Iranian rial experienced sustained depreciation amid high inflation, eroding purchasing power and amplifying domestic dissatisfaction. Informal trade mechanisms that once mitigated sanctions pressure faced increasing enforcement, narrowing fiscal space for the state.

Regionally, Iran’s network of partner militias faced mounting operational strain following sustained military campaigns across several theaters. Analysts observed reduced coordination effectiveness and growing logistical stress among groups previously central to Tehran’s deterrence posture. While still capable of retaliation, the broader network appeared less synchronized than in earlier phases of regional confrontation.

Internally, political authority increasingly consolidated among security-linked elites focused on regime preservation rather than strategic expansion. Reports circulating among diplomatic observers suggested limited room for negotiated compromise on core deterrence capabilities, even as economic pressures intensified.

HORMUZ ERUPTS: ATTACKS, GPS JAMMING, HOUTHI THREATS ROCK STRAIT AMID US-ISRAELI STRIKES

Taken together, these factors may have produced what strategists often describe as a narrowing operational window — a period in which adversary capabilities are constrained while competing infrastructure initiatives approach implementation milestones.

February 2026 represented precisely such a moment. Mineral partnerships expanded, Gulf–India economic negotiations advanced, and major subsea cable investments linking North America, South Asia, and Middle Eastern data hubs moved from planning into deployment. These networks are designed to underpin artificial intelligence development, cloud computing markets and next-generation digital trade across rapidly growing economies.

In modern strategic competition, vulnerability no longer resides solely in territory but in systems: shipping lanes, refining capacity, data transmission routes and industrial inputs. Any actor capable of disrupting these systems acquires disproportionate leverage.

KEANE WARNS IRAN STRIKE BECOMING ‘REGIONAL WAR,’ SAYS THREE GULF STATES PREPARING FOR COMBAT

From this perspective, the strikes addressed not only immediate security concerns but the perceived long-term risk that continued instability surrounding Iran could undermine emerging economic architectures central to U.S. strategy.

The question of “why now” therefore extends beyond battlefield calculations. Acting earlier would have risked confrontation while Iran retained stronger regional coordination and financial flexibility. Acting later might have allowed entrenched disruptions to harden around critical trade and technology networks just as allied investment accelerated.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Whether this assessment proves strategically sound remains uncertain. Iran retains significant retaliatory capacity and the trajectory of its internal political evolution is far from predetermined. Elite consolidation could stabilize the system, while fragmentation could introduce new forms of regional volatility affecting energy markets and transit corridors alike.

What is clear, however, is that global competition has entered a phase where military action, economic planning and technological infrastructure operate within a single strategic continuum. The United States increasingly frames national security not only in terms of territorial defense but in safeguarding the systems that sustain industrial production, digital connectivity and allied economic integration.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The debate unfolding across social media often centers on immediate moral or political judgments. Yet the deeper transformation may lie in how power itself is being exercised. Security policy is becoming indistinguishable from economic architecture.

If so, the events in Iran may ultimately be understood less as an endpoint and more as a signal of a wider transition — one in which great-power competition is decided not only by armies or alliances, but by who secures the energy routes, mineral flows and data networks that will define the global economy for decades to come.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TANVI RATNA

Don’t let Washington politicians turn your local bank into a government spy

There are recent reports that the Trump administration is considering an executive order or Treasury action requiring banks to collect customers’ citizenship information. This could include collecting documents such as passports for existing customers, not just new account holders. That is not “tightening the rules.” It is a sweeping expansion of federal data collection that will raise costs for banks and customers, shrink access to basic banking services and push more activity into the shadows.

The intention may be to address illegal immigration and tighten enforcement, but this approach treats banks like a substitute for a functioning immigration system. Washington’s struggle to consistently enforce immigration policy does not justify shifting the burden onto financial institutions and law-abiding Americans. Expanding government reach into private financial relationships is not a solution to immigration failures. Fixing immigration policy is. Offloading enforcement costs to banks is just another way politicians shift the blame and hide the price tag.

Banks already operate under serious identity verification mandates. Federal Customer Identification Program requirements under 31 CFR 1020.220 require banks to collect identifying information and use risk-based procedures to verify identity so they can form a “reasonable belief” that they know the customer’s true identity. Identity verification is already the law. This proposal adds a new, separate layer: citizenship classification at scale.

That means unforeseen costs imposed on people who are already complying with the law. Banks will need new systems, new staff training, new vendors, new audits and new exception-handling processes for customers who cannot meet the new demands immediately. Compliance costs do not stay at the bank. They show up in higher fees, fewer low-cost accounts and worse service.

It also means more friction just to participate in the modern economy. A “citizenship information” mandate would make it harder for people to open accounts and could impose extensive new documentation obligations on existing customers. Put simply, this is a regulatory landmine. When regulators increase penalties for getting it wrong, banks are forced to become more conservative about whom they can serve and to do so at a higher cost.

That is how debanking gets worse. President Donald Trump’s executive order — Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans — sought to address the root cause of this very issue by pushing back on the governmental regulatory overreach that has driven account closures at financial institutions across the country. A new nationwide citizenship-data mandate would only turbocharge the same dynamics that force banks to close accounts rather than risk running afoul of compliance errors.

Now, the privacy problem. This proposal would require financial institutions to collect and transmit large amounts of highly sensitive personal information. The larger the dataset, the bigger the target. More collection and more transmission create more points of failure along with a greater risk of breach, internal misuse and mission creep. Once the federal government builds the pipeline, it will not be limited to the original justification.

SENATE REPUBLICANS PUSH TO DEPORT, DENATURALIZE FRAUDSTERS AMID MINNESOTA SCANDAL

Conservatives have pushed back for years against government intrusion into personal financial matters, including mandates that compel private disclosure to the government. The battle over beneficial ownership reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act is a recent example of how quickly “anti-crime” justifications turn into broad surveillance architecture. Requiring banks to collect citizenship information on hundreds of millions of customers would be an even broader expansion of federal data collection than what small businesses were told to accept. 

And the burden will not be evenly distributed. Many Americans do not have passports or easy access to formal documentation. The Washington Post reports that roughly half the population lacks a passport, and banking industry experts warn that the requirement could restrict access to financial services and push people toward higher-cost options. Seniors, rural residents and lower-income individuals are the most likely to get caught in the gears. For rural communities, the challenge is worse because documentation offices and support services are farther away and harder to reach. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

That leads to the most self-defeating outcome of all: forcing people out of traditional banking. When compliance barriers rise, people do not stop earning, spending and saving. They route around the system. That means more cash-heavy activity and more informal transactions, making financial crime harder to detect and reducing transparency. This is why heavy-handed financial mandates often backfire. They can drive legitimate activity away from institutions where patterns can be monitored and toward channels where law enforcement sees less, not more.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

This is not an argument for weak enforcement of existing law. It is an argument for doing enforcement the right way, using targeted tools aimed at bad actors, not building an ever-expanding registry through the banking system that sweeps up everyone else. Banks exist to safeguard deposits and allocate capital, not to become a nationwide citizenship checkpoint.

If Washington wants a more secure and lawful system, it should start with policies that increase compliance where it matters and reduce compliance burdens where it does not. This proposal does the opposite: it punishes the compliant, expands government reach and makes the system less transparent by pushing people away from it.

When even Obama calls your homeless situation an ‘atrocity,’ it’s time for new solutions

In one of the wealthiest places on Earth, thousands are living in tent cities on the streets of Los Angeles, an “atrocity” that even former Democrat President Barack Obama recently acknowledged on a podcast. He slammed the moral failure of allowing people to languish without real help while noting that encampments downtown are a “losing political strategy.” He demanded policies that “recognize their full humanity” and provide genuine resources for success.

But this is not simply a moral failure, it is a structural one.

Though Obama didn’t name Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom directly, the critique lands squarely on his doorstep — after all, Newsom has been at the helm as California’s homelessness ballooned to record highs, even after more than $24 billion was funneled into solving the problem since 2019. Newsom’s team claims agreement with Obama, touting mental health reforms and encampment cleanups, but the reality on the ground tells a different story.

As a California native who has spent years working directly on the streets helping move homeless veterans into treatment and off encampments, I’ve seen firsthand that this crisis is not simply about housing, it’s about untreated trauma, addiction and lack of structured support.

Newsom is crowing about a minor drop in unsheltered homelessness for 2025, calling it the largest decline in 15 years. And while it’s a very small step in the right direction, let’s not break out the champagne. This “progress” comes after record-breaking homelessness under Newsom’s watch, despite historic levels of spending that created an entire ecosystem built to manage the crisis rather than resolve it. This isn’t a victory lap; this is pre-campaign damage control for a system that has grown financially dependent on the existence of the problem.

As I detail in my book, “The Race to Save California,” the heart of the homelessness issue isn’t a lack of funding or awareness. After all, with $24 billion spent and almost every sidewalk occupied, California has both in spades and is still a disaster. The problem is not scarcity, it is misaligned incentives created by how the money is used and deployed.

Politicians like Newsom obsess over housing shortages because that’s a simpler and more straightforward ‘fix’ that makes for easy soundbites to virtue signal accomplishment, even if they don’t really fix anything. Housing became the preferred “solution” not because it worked, but because it justified enormous spending pipelines.

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT ADOPTS NO-TOLERANCE POLICY FOR HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS IN WASHINGTON, DC

Because why deal with the important, messy stuff — like addiction recovery, mental health treatment, life skills training and social reintegration — when they could channel billions into construction-heavy programs that sustain funding flows long after ribbon cuttings?

This mindset mirrors the now-failing “Housing First” model, which turned homelessness into a housing initiative, and with it, a vehicle for sustained government spending.

That approach is now beginning to shift. Under President Donald Trump, HUD Secretary Scott Turner has recognized that homelessness cannot be treated as a housing issue alone. The crisis isn’t simply about shelter, it’s about stability. You can’t build your way out of a fentanyl addiction, untreated schizophrenia, or PTSD. Many need treatment, structure and accountability, not handouts and disingenuous ‘compassion’ that feeds the cycle.

NEWSOM JUST MADE A CATASTROPHIC MISTAKE ON CALIFORNIA’S HOMELESSNESS DISASTER

The homeless veteran population is a prime example of what’s really needed. There are over 35,000 homeless veterans nationwide on any given night. It’s a travesty: heroes who once led under fire now sleep in tents because bureaucracy and profits trump substantive solutions.

These vets don’t need pity and handouts. They need purpose — leadership opportunities, job training, treatment and a place in a community that both supports and depends on each other. Instead, veterans are warehoused in misery, their potential wasted and the crisis dragging on while politicians brag about the number of housing units constructed.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I’ve seen firsthand that this crisis is not simply about housing, it’s about untreated trauma, addiction, and lack of structured support.

To be frank, the crisis persists because the funding structure rewards continuation over resolution. When problems worsen, emergency funds flow with minimal oversight, expanding the budgets of politically connected nonprofits, consultants and agencies that are sustained by managing — not ending — homelessness. They know that the money slows if the problem shrinks, while failure often results in larger future appropriations.

The real solution? Cost-effective hybrid camps offering community, structure and transformation at a fraction of the luxury housing costs, while tying funding to measurable reductions in homelessness. Picture cafeterias, chapels, laundry, life-skills classes and work opportunities where residents grow through contribution to the community and their future, moving onward and upward. Because transition without transformation is futile.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Obama’s right — this is an atrocity, and Newsom’s spin on a modest drop doesn’t erase years of a spending-first approach that prioritized funding flows over functional outcomes. Californians deserve streets free of chaos and our homeless neighbors deserve real support from a system that solves problems, not sustains them.

We know the fixes: Treatment-focused intervention, enforcement of existing laws, outcome-based funding. Let’s demand them before another “progress” report can be spun as campaign propaganda at the expense of human lives. Our nation is worth at least that much.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM KATE MONROE

5 VIRGINIA CONGRESSMEN: Democrats are rejecting voters to gerrymander our state

Virginia voters settled the redistricting question in 2020. Nearly two-thirds of Virginians amended our Constitution to create an independent redistricting commission and take map-drawing power away from politicians. The message was unmistakable: stop the gerrymander. Stop letting politicians choose their voters.

Democrats applauded that reform. House of Delegates Speaker Don Scott praised fairness and transparency. Senate President pro tempore L. Louise Lucas declared it would ensure “an equitable, transparent and bipartisan process to ensure our electoral maps are drawn fairly.” Rep. Don Beyer said plainly, “Gerrymandering is cheating. It allows politicians to select their voters, when it should be the other way around.” They were right.

In 2019, Abigail Spanberger said, “Gerrymandering is detrimental to our democracy. Opposing gerrymandering should be a bipartisan priority.” While running for governor, she added, “Short answer is no. I have no plans to redistrict Virginia.”

That was before she took office.

Now Gov. Spanberger has signed legislation clearing the way for an extreme 10-1 congressional map, a plan that would give Democrats 10 of Virginia’s 11 seats in a closely divided state.

When Democrats unveiled their 10-1 map, they were explicit about their intent. “We said 10-1 and we meant it,” Lucas declared. Scott called it “leveling the playing field across the country.” That language is revealing. This is not about communities of interest, compact districts, or neutrality. It is about national partisan math.

Scott has also said that manipulating election maps “overrides the will of the people.” Yet he now defends a map designed to give one party nearly total control of Virginia’s representation in Congress.

DEMOCRATS SAY TRUMP REDISTRICTING PUSH BACKFIRING AS VIRGINIA ADVANCES NEW HOUSE MAPS

You cannot condemn gerrymandering nationally and celebrate it locally. The answer to partisan map manipulation in another state is not to import it here. In 2020, 65% of Virginia voters decided to take map drawing out of the hands of politicians to prevent partisan gerrymandering. This is exactly why.

Virginia is a competitive state. Our congressional delegation stands at six Democrats and five Republicans. Republicans represent roughly 45% to 48% of the electorate. A 10-1 map does not reflect Virginia’s political reality. It manufactures a result.

The map Democrats released was crafted behind closed doors to engineer one of the most extreme partisan outcomes in the nation. It splits Northern Virginia into five districts, not to preserve communities of interest, but to manufacture advantage. It stretches regions that share little in common socially or economically, all to achieve a predetermined partisan outcome.

‘GIVE ME LIBERTY’ FOUNDING FATHER’S DESCENDANT BLASTS SPANBERGER’S REDISTRICTING PUSH

That is gerrymandering.

And it conflicts directly with Virginia state law, which requires that districts not “unduly favor or disfavor any political party” statewide. A 10-1 map in a 6-5 state raises serious constitutional concerns. It reflects politicians choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives, the very practice Virginians rejected in 2020.

In 2019, Abigail Spanberger said, “Gerrymandering is detrimental to our democracy. Opposing gerrymandering should be a bipartisan priority.” 

The General Assembly has scheduled an April 21 referendum on a constitutional amendment that would bypass the independent commission and allow politicians to redraw congressional districts mid-decade. Put simply, this is an attempt to change the rules before the 2026 midterms.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Constitutional guardrails exist for the moments when politicians most want to bend them. If those guardrails can be suspended once for partisan advantage, every future election becomes an excuse to do it again. That is how trust in elections erodes, not in one dramatic moment, but through repeated rule changes justified as “exceptions.”

Democrats argue Virginia must respond to what other states are doing. But if gerrymandering is detrimental to democracy, it does not become acceptable simply because it benefits your side.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If independent redistricting was the right model in 2020, it is the right model now. And if Virginia voters placed guardrails in the Constitution to stop partisan manipulation, those guardrails should not be suspended because the political math has shifted.

Virginia chose fairness in 2020.  That choice should stand.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM REP. ROB WITTMAN

WILLIAM BENNETT: We owe it to our fallen to wage war against Mexican cartels

In the early morning hours of Feb. 22, Mexican army special forces — acting on U.S. intelligence — waged a brutal gun battle at a luxury villa in the Sierra Madre mountains, killing the cartel boss known as El Mencho, leader of the Jalisco New Generation cartel (CJNG).

It was a historic victory in President Donald Trump’s war against the narco-terrorists who have poisoned America for decades. Let us pray it is the first of many.

Six major Mexican cartels dominate the flow of deadly drugs into the United States. The CJNG is the most savage. Its sales of fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine top $12 billion annually. Inside Mexico, it uses mass executions, torture and kidnappings to strike fear into both the population and law enforcement.

The Trump administration rightfully designated all six major Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, but they are more than that. They are among the most powerful criminal organizations the world has ever seen, and the single deadliest enemy in American history.

The cartels maintain cells in all 50 states, using them to control the importation and distribution of nearly all the fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin and much of the cocaine entering our country. Since 1999, their poison has killed more than 1 million Americans. The opioid crisis alone has claimed nearly eight times as many American lives as every U.S. military conflict since World War II combined.

When I served as U.S. drug czar under President George H.W. Bush, I often heard the argument that the real problem was demand for drugs in America — that the cartels were merely meeting it.

The evidence tells a different story: oversupply of drugs directly contributes to demand.

MAJOR DRUG LORD ‘EL MENCHO’ KILLED IN MEXICAN MILITARY OPERATION WITH US INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT

In the opioid epidemic, overdose deaths are tightly correlated with surges in supply. Cartels flood the market with cheap, ultra-potent fentanyl and press it into counterfeit pills that look like legitimate prescription medicine, hooking unsuspecting users. They also use sophisticated social media tactics to target teenagers and young adults. These are not passive suppliers but industrial-scale predators cultivating new generations of addicts.

The human and economic toll is staggering. The cartels have hollowed out American communities and fueled waves of crime in cities and small towns across the country. They have cost America hundreds of billions in healthcare and law enforcement expenses, to say nothing of lost productivity.

For years, politicians largely sat by and watched. It took Trump to name the cartels for what they are — a national security threat — and commit our military, diplomatic and intelligence resources to stopping them.

The death of El Mencho was a good start, but not more than that. This was immediately clear when cartel loyalists conducted a widespread campaign of retaliation across Mexico, burning vehicles to create roadblocks and killing at least 25 Mexican national guard members.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

When a kingpin falls, there is no shortage of evil to take his place. Cartels survive decapitations unless we attack the broader structures supporting them, including the money, chemical inputs, weapons pipelines, logistics networks and corruption tactics that shield them from justice.

The Trump administration rightfully designated all six major Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, but they are more than that. 

Trump said after the raid that Mexico must continue to “step up their effort” on cartels and drugs. He is right, and America must do the same.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

That requires being honest about what is at stake. This is not just a strategic fight but a moral one. The drugs from these cartels corrode our national spirit and attack the dignity of human life. They normalize lawlessness and target our most vulnerable, including our youth — our future. 

The war against the cartels will require persistence and moral clarity to win outright. And win outright we must. We owe it to the more than 1 million Americans already lost, and the many more who hang in the balance. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM WILLIAM J. BENNETT

GORDON SONDLAND: No more ‘restraint’: Europe must stand with America on Iran

The United States and Israel are doing the heavy lifting. On February 28, joint American-Israeli strikes — Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion — eliminated Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran’s defense minister, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. 

American service members and Israeli pilots are in harm’s way at this very moment, absorbing retaliatory strikes so that the free world does not have to live under the shadow of a nuclear-armed theocracy. And what has Europe offered? Ursula von der Leyen called the situation “greatly concerning.” Emmanuel Macron warned of an “outbreak of war.” France, Germany and the United Kingdom rushed to clarify that their forces did not participate. 

The collective message from the continent was not solidarity but distance. If the transatlantic alliance cannot count on Europe for even full-throated public support while Americans and Israelis bear the costs and the risks, then what, exactly, is the alliance for?

I write from experience. As the United States ambassador to the European Union, I was charged with urging our allies to abandon the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and join America’s maximum-pressure campaign. 

What I encountered in Brussels was willful denial. European officials performed extraordinary contortions to avoid acknowledging what the intelligence made plain: Iran had already violated the deal. Federica Mogherini, the EU’s then-High Representative, was simply uninterested in any evidence that contradicted her narrative. And the creation of INSTEX — a financial vehicle designed to circumvent American sanctions and keep European trade with Iran flowing — was a breathtaking display of misplaced priorities. 

At a moment when the democratic world should have been tightening the vice, Europe was engineering workarounds to do business with the mullahs. Iran took note and then systematically violated every enrichment limit the JCPOA imposed, reaching 60% purity — a short technical step from weapons-grade material. Europe’s fidelity to the JCPOA did not restrain Iran. It enabled Iran.

IRAN DIDN’T ADAPT TO AMERICA’S PLAYBOOK. RUSSIA AND CHINA ALREADY HAVE

What makes Europe’s sideline posture not merely disappointing but absurd is that Iran has been attacking Europe for years. 

In 2018, an Iranian diplomat operating out of the Vienna Embassy was convicted in Belgium for masterminding a plot to bomb a rally of Iranian dissidents near Paris — a gathering of tens of thousands, including a sitting British MP who said that, had the plot succeeded, it would have been the deadliest terror operation ever carried out on European soil. 

In London, a journalist with Iran International was stabbed near his home by assailants linked to Tehran. MI5’s director general disclosed that British security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots in a single year. 

Dutch intelligence linked Tehran to assassination attempts in the Netherlands. German and French authorities exposed Iranian agents hiring European criminals to surveil Jewish targets in Paris, Munich and Berlin. 

OPERATION EPIC FURY: HOW AMERICA’S AIR POWER IS CRUSHING IRAN’S TERROR REGIME

Iran has not merely threatened Europe in the abstract. It has deployed operatives, recruited criminal proxies and attempted mass-casualty attacks on European soil. And still, Europe equivocates.

The regime in Tehran chose this path. It enriched uranium to near-weapons-grade levels. It armed and directed Hamas in the barbaric Oct. 7 attack. It unleashed the Houthis on international shipping. And when its own people rose up in the largest protests since the 1979 revolution, the regime slaughtered thousands of unarmed civilians on Khamenei’s direct orders — the largest street massacres in modern Iranian history. 

Even as Oman’s foreign minister announced a supposed breakthrough in nuclear talks two days before the strikes, Iran was tripling its oil exports to sanction-proof its economy. The diplomatic runway was exhausted.

Now Khamenei is dead. The IRGC’s senior leadership has been eliminated. Ali Larijani’s hastily announced temporary leadership council is a sign of desperation, not stability. The regime’s retaliatory strikes demonstrate that even a mortally wounded theocracy remains dangerous — which is precisely why the pressure must not relent. 

MARK LEVIN: HANDS OFF POST-WAR IRAN? THAT COULD BE A GRAVE STRATEGIC MISTAKE FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD

The United States and Israel must sustain operations until Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missile capability and capacity to wage proxy war are permanently degraded and until whatever authority emerges in Tehran understands that reconstituting these programs means annihilation.

No one is asking Europe to fire a single shot. The United States and Israel have assumed that burden. But the least — the very least — that our closest allies can do is offer unequivocal public support. Not mealy-mouthed calls for “maximum restraint.” Not frantic clarifications of nonparticipation. Not Macron calling for an emergency Security Council session, as though the problem is the response to 40 years of Iranian aggression rather than the aggression itself. 

Europe must publicly back the campaign to dismantle the regime’s military capabilities, enforce the full scope of sanctions with no carve-outs and tell the Iranian people that the democracies of the world stand with them — not with the apparatus that has butchered them.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

There is a broader dimension European leaders would be wise to consider. No one is watching more carefully than Beijing. China has deepened ties with Tehran, purchasing discounted oil in defiance of sanctions. 

If Europe sits on the sidelines while America and Israel shoulder the burden alone, China will conclude that the Western alliance lacks the cohesion to confront determined adversaries — a conclusion that will inform Beijing’s calculations on Taiwan and beyond. 

A unified front sends the opposite message: The democratic world will not be divided, and the cost of backing rogue regimes is real and escalating.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The window for capitulation is open now, and it will not stay open forever. The United States and Israel have demonstrated the resolve to act and are paying the price in treasure, risk and blood.  Europe owes it to its allies, to the Iranian people and to its own stated values to stand beside them — publicly, unequivocally and with no daylight in between. 

Now is the time to prove it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GORDON SONDLAND

DOUG SCHOEN: As a Democrat, I back Trump’s Iran strike — my party is wrong

As a Democrat, it is profoundly disturbing to me that many in my party have widely condemned what appears to be, at least initially, a successful, coordinated effort to promote fundamental and lasting change in Iran.

It falls to me, a Democrat who has supported my party and its candidates for many years, to state what is obvious: the Trump administration and our military deserve strong support for leading a coordinated strike with Israel that has already led to the death of Iran’s supreme leader and multiple senior Iranian officials and continues to degrade Tehran’s nuclear and conventional weapons programs. 

This action also offers the potential for long-overdue regime change, where large percentages of the Iranian population have long supported removing the current illegitimate regime — one of the rationales the president offered for striking Tehran and other Iranian cities at this time.

Very sadly, many in my party seem more interested in regime change in Jerusalem than they are in regime change in Teheran and the possibility of lasting political change.

Given that Iran is arguably the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism and repeatedly refused to voluntarily dismantle its nuclear program through peaceful means, the threat to U.S. and allied national security is real and imminent, requiring decisive action by the U.S. and Israeli governments.

Very sadly, many in my party seem more interested in regime change in Jerusalem than they are in regime change in Teheran and the possibility of lasting political change.

I fervently hope my party will now focus in a bipartisan way on supporting our efforts in the Middle East, rather than condemning President Trump for not seeking to formally invoke the War Powers Act before launching the coordinated strike on Iran with Israel.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I doubt this will happen.

But as someone who remains committed to the Democratic Party and its traditional ideals, I believe it is critically important to acknowledge the courageous role President Trump played in these events — from arresting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to now contributing to the removal of the supreme leader of one of the most dangerous theocratic states, Iran.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

I very much hope that the leaders of my party will stand with the administration and the people of Iran in the coming days to support an effort that — for the first time in many years — offers the prospect of peace and democratization in the Middle East.

What could be more important?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DOUG SCHOEN

BENJAMIN HALL: The hedgehog I took to war — and the journalist he’s become

This week is a special one for me. My first children’s book, “Read All About It!” comes out, and I’m immensely proud of it.

I wrote it because I’m a father of four daughters and because I’m a journalist. I wrote it because I look at the world they’re growing up in, and I keep thinking one thing over and over:

We have to teach our children how to find the truth — and in this world, that is more difficult than ever.

Social media gives everyone a voice, and yes, sometimes it’s a gift, and sometimes it’s the fastest way to get information from people close to the story.

But it’s often half-truths, reused and recycled, with people “reporting” on subjects they know nothing about or places they have never been.

And with AI, we’re entering a new era where you can’t trust what you see, what you hear or what’s put in front of you.

Today, our children often see clips before context, or outrage before evidence, and if we don’t teach them the difference, someone else will. Which is why journalism is so essential and more important than ever — proper journalism.

Journalism is going to the place itself. It’s looking someone in the eye and telling the story as it really is — even when it doesn’t fit the narrative or when it’s dangerous. Time and again in my own career, when I thought I knew the story, I would arrive on site only to find out that it was different from the one I’d imagined, or that it had countless levels I had been unaware of.

And that is why journalism matters more than ever — because truth matters, and we have to hold it up and pass it on to the next generation.

And that starts at home. Small questions such as, “Where did that come from?” “Who said that?” “Why would they do that?” “Is that true?” all begin building that interest in truth and in journalism.

It is our children who make us want to build a better world and I know that journalism helps us do that.

And if you keep asking your kids those questions, you make them more interested in the world around them, and they will care far more about it.

And that’s one of the reasons I wrote “Read All About It!” — to inspire them and encourage them.

Let me tell you briefly what the book is about — without giving too much away.

It’s about a little hedgehog who wants an adventurous day. He heads out for a walk looking for adventure. And then he sees a baby owl that has fallen from a tree and a big brown bear running toward it.

And the hedgehog has a decision to make.

Does he stay safe? Does he hope someone else handles it? Or does he do something?

JOHNNY CAN’T READ — EVEN IN COLLEGE. I LEAD A UNIVERSITY AND IT’S TERRIFYING

Now people ask me, why did I pick a hedgehog? And the answer is, because there really was a hedgehog.

For my entire career as a war correspondent, I traveled with a little toy hedgehog in my pocket. It was my daughter’s toy. She gave it to me, and I took it everywhere.

And when I was overseas, that hedgehog would send videos back to them, telling them where we were, what we’d seen. Telling them that I was OK, while keeping them curious about the world.

I learned later that I needed the hedgehog more than they did.

When our team was attacked in Ukraine in 2022 and Fox News cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski, Ukrainian journalist Oleksandra “Sasha” Kuvshynova and two Ukrainians with us were tragically killed, that little hedgehog was inside my body armor. And in the days that followed, when I was barely alive and trying to survive, I held that hedgehog tight. I gripped it, and I talked to it.

BENJAMIN HALL SPEAKS ABOUT THE STRENGTH HE FOUND DURING HIS RECOVERY FROM DEADLY MISSILE ATTACK IN UKRAINE

It reminded me of home, and it reminded me of my family, and it reminded me of what I was fighting for. It was like a voice saying, “You are going home. You are going to survive. You will see them again.”

When I finally made it to the hospital and had some serious facial injuries that at first I didn’t want them to see, it was again the hedgehog who sent many messages back to them.

That’s why the hedgehog — and family — are at the center of this book.

Because family is the center of everything. It is our children who make us want to build a better world, and I know that journalism helps us do that. Knowledge does, too.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I became a journalist because I wanted to travel. I loved meeting people, loved geopolitics, loved chasing a story. But more than that, I love journalism because it is truth — because it holds people in power to account. And that’s what creates a better world.

In “Read All About It!” Hedgehog does save the day and then spreads the message around the forest. He warns them all about the bear and about what’s happening. He doesn’t just watch from a distance. He tries to make others understand the truth, because the truth allows people to act.

And that’s one of the other morals I wanted to include in the book: Don’t just witness. Participate.

How often do we see people watching something go wrong and just filming it? Or posting it? Or commenting on it, but not stepping in? Not saying, “Stop, that’s not right.” Not helping the person who needs help.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

We should teach children they are not meant to be spectators, that they can be active. That they can be engaged. And I know that journalism and an interest in the world around them will inspire them to do that.

I hope that “Read All About It!” does that — and that after reading it, you can sit with your children and talk to them about the ideas in it, and about some of the values that make the world a better place: adventure, courage and truth. Follow those, and we will keep building a better, stronger world.

Iran didn’t adapt to America’s playbook. Russia and China already have

The world now knows that, in a daring daylight strike on a clear Saturday in Tehran, the United States and Israel opened what President Donald Trump, in his address to the nation, called “major combat operations” against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Operation Epic Fury is the very sort of thing that was not supposed to happen under President Donald J. Trump: America appears to be pursuing an open-ended regime-change operation in the Middle East. Having committed the prestige of his presidency to this project, Trump must now see it through. We should be open to the possibility that it will be achieved swiftly. If it is not, then it becomes the dominating project of his second term — and, moreover, the defining one.

There are significant differences between this regime-change project and the ones preceding it in Iraq and Afghanistan. First and foremost, there is no American occupation force in the offing. American aircraft will range across Iran at will; American soldiers will not.

The president made it explicit in his address that he expects the people of Iran to overthrow their own regime, and there is reason to believe they will. (Alleged footage of Iranians cheering the death of the ayatollah lends credence to this belief.) The good news, if one wishes, is that those other models are not being followed. The bad news is that the most applicable precedent for regime change by airpower alone is Libya.

Yet all this is speculative in these opening days. Iranians are not Libyans, nor Iraqis nor Afghans. After the elaborate machinations in the Venezuelan operation — in which, we now know, human intelligence and canny political calculus played a major role in American success — who can say the same is not underway in Iran? The benefit of the doubt is functionally irrelevant post facto, yet this war-making team has earned it.

The Iranian regime staggers under Israeli-American blows now in part because it is not a learning entity. Having had the opportunity to study the American way of war, especially under Trump — who has, after all, attacked them more than once before — it has apparently failed to adapt. The same is not true of America’s two great-power adversaries, Russia and China. They will have drawn two major lessons already.

MAMDANI’S RESPONSE TO TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKE SPARKS CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH: ‘ROOTING FOR THE AYATOLLAH’

One is that the Americans must never be allowed the time and space to assemble the sort of striking force that took weeks to put in place against Iran. For nearly 40 years, every major American war has begun with a de facto Operation Desert Shield: a prolonged and very visible movement of forces and materiel to the theater of action. This movement almost inevitably becomes war, with only the early 1998 American buildup against Iraq being an exception.

In the generation leading into World War I, mobilization as such became a casus belli — the threat of troops on railways and in position alone was sufficient to justify war — and it would be rational for America’s enemies to draw a similar conclusion now. When American forces mass, an American attack usually follows. Preventing that massing is therefore both urgent and compelling.

The other major lesson America’s adversaries will draw is that American power projection is deeply reliant on free access to bases in allied nations. No American campaign at scale would be possible without land-based access: this was true even against Venezuela, and it is absolutely true against Iran.

TRUMP ORDERS STRIKES ON IRAN — EXPERTS SAY HE CAN BYPASS CONGRESS (FOR NOW)

That access, in the present case, does not extend merely to Middle Eastern facilities in Israel, Jordan and elsewhere — it also extends to the network of European facilities that have constituted a hub of American power abroad for generations. Access to those European bases, along with European logistics and support, is essential to what America does now.

This is a reality that American policymakers and officeholders ought to internalize, because our enemies already have. Just as precluding American massing becomes imperative for them, so too does denial of American access — through the weakening of alliances or other means. Expect efforts to fracture and disperse those alliances to accelerate. Even if every corner of American politics does not understand our alliance structure to be a benefit to America, every corner of Russian and Chinese politics does.

The consequences of these lessons will unfold in ways visible and invisible in the very near future.

MIKE DAVIS: WHY TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKE WAS NECESSARY AND LAWFUL

This is the sort of thing that was not supposed to happen under Trump, but it is happening because, unlike the ayatollah and his regime, the president does learn and adapt. 

What has come to the fore is a set of realities and enduring American interests that drive his actions now, along with his unique preference for cutting the Gordian knot in perennial strategic problems.

A president who ended the Venezuelan regime and who contemplates the end of the Cuban regime is entirely willing to do the same to the Iranian regime.

He has his ideological priors, to be sure, but unlike so many in the Beltway, they are orienting rather than confining. They are also informed by his own sense of history, invoked in his address, which drew upon half a century of bitter Iranian war against the United States. He sought peace and was rebuffed. Now the Iranian regime — what’s left of it — reaps the whirlwind.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

There will be much conversation about the Washington consequences of all this, not least in how the edifice of “restrainers,” despite feeling themselves at a historic apogee of Beltway influence, failed to prevent this outcome. In fairness, they might note that they may well stand vindicated in a decade’s time.

One faction is, however, defeated — and deservedly so. It is the squalid chorus of antisemites who have emerged from left and right in recent years, often under the guise of anti-Zionism or “having the conversation we need to have about Israel.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Here is a conversation starter for them: At this very moment, American men and women are in harm’s way, waging war against one of America’s cruelest and most implacable enemies. With them are our allies, our friends and now our brothers in arms, the Israelis. That is a fact that ought to carry finality.

We are at war, and in the skies above Iran, it is the Stars and Stripes and the Star of David — together — fighting for you and me.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JOSHUA TREVINO

Operation Epic Fury: How America’s air power is crushing Iran’s terror regime

The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, offers a new day for Iran and the prospects of peace across the Middle East. And it’s come as a direct result of precision U.S. air and space power.

“He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do,” President Donald Trump posted Saturday afternoon.

The list is long: the B-2s of Operation Midnight Hammer, Space Force satellites tracking missile launches, the incredible hit-to-kill technology for exo-atmospheric intercepts, crystalline surveillance and teams of Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps fighter pilots on strike missions and drone zone defense.

The astonishing blow of Operation Epic Fury is a surge of hope. Trump was right to seize the moment. The airspace of Iran was still laid bare after the attacks by the U.S. and Israel through 2025. Over the coming days, Operation Epic Fury must wipe out the remaining military capabilities of Iran. This is the way to build peace in the region, and to leave America free to concentrate on deterring China and safeguarding the home shores of the Western hemisphere.

Air Force F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters, along with two aircraft carriers, and more land-based fighters, are leading the most sophisticated air campaign ever launched by U.S. forces. The death of Khamenei is historic. However, the number one metric for success is the destruction of Iran’s military power. Here are the top three priorities as Operation Epic Fury unfolds.

Destroy the Missiles 

The core military objective and the biggest target set is destroying Iran’s missile complex. You can see why; just look at the strikes launched by Iran at Israel, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and more. Left to simmer, it would have been the U.S. next. “They are trying to achieve intercontinental ballistic missiles,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Missile targets are spread across the country, from the solid-fuel missile production facilities at Shahroud in the northeast to the cratered airbase at Hamadan, near Iran’s western border. Iran’s missiles can already reach Europe and the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated Iran would have an intercontinental missile to hit the U.S. within 10 years. With Operation Epic Fury, President Trump just saved your kids from worrying about a nuclear attack by Iran.

WHERE IRAN’S BALLISTIC MISSILES CAN REACH — AND HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO THE US

Air strike campaigns are typically planned with three days of targets selected and forces allocated down to the tanker aerial refueling tracks. Expect at least three to four days to complete the first-round target set and bomb damage assessments. All aircraft rolling off the target after their strikes have immediate “gun camera” images of impact points, and the aircrews debrief on the mission and any threats encountered. Chasing any leadership “got-aways” and ensuring fixed site destruction could be a prime factor in how long Operation Epic Fury lasts.

Also, Iran’s salvoes against Israel, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and other locations are revealing more potential targets. Target sets expand as sensors pick up what the military calls “dynamic” targets — targets you see when they start shooting.

TOMAHAWKS SPEARHEADED US STRIKE ON IRAN — WHY PRESIDENTS REACH FOR THIS MISSILE FIRST

With so many targets, it’s a possibility that some must be hit multiple times. An occasional hung bomb or near miss will lead to decisions about restrikes. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and Adm. Brad Cooper, commander, U.S. Central Command, will be working 24/7 to steer the campaign — but they will take the time needed to finish the job. No one is running out of munitions. Don’t forget dozens of U.S. Air Force C-17 flights were tracked heading into Saudi Arabia and other locations recently. They were stuffed full of munitions and other supplies. They won’t run out anytime soon. For the Navy, underway replenishment ships are standing by, and larger missile reloads can take place at regional ports.

Defend U.S. Forces

U.S. forces are playing offense and defense at the same time. Make no mistake. This is a combat zone. President Trump has been briefed on possible losses.

DOZENS OF TOP IRANIAN REGIME OFFICIALS, SUPREME LEADER KILLED IN ISRAELI STRIKES

Crucial to both offense and defense is the U.S. Space Force. Their satellites are the first alert against Iranian missile launches. Guardians have calibrated American space assets to sharpen precision weapons guidance and scramble up Iran’s efforts to employ drones and missiles.

Defense against Iran’s intermediate-range ballistic missiles comes from as many as 10 U.S. Navy Aegis-class destroyers with their Standard Missile SM-3 and SM-6 variants. SM-3s hit Iranian ballistic missiles at 65,000 feet up. Their job is mid-course missile kills when Iran attacks bases such as Al Udeid in Qatar. What if Iran takes a wild shot at a U.S. aircraft carrier? Doubt the Iranians can spot and target them, but U.S. aircraft carriers have blast-resistant, double hulls and layers of defensive tactics to chew up Iranian missiles or drones.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Speaking of which, count on the U.S. Air Force F-22s, F-35s, F-15s and F-16s and the Navy’s F/A-18EFs and F-35Cs for drone defense. Their extremely sensitive radars detect drones and cruise missiles. Fortunately, U.S. Navy and Air Force pilots got plenty of anti-drone practice dealing with the Houthis and Iran over the last two years. Carrier Air Wing 9 on USS Abraham Lincoln bagged an Iranian drone with a Marine Corps F-35C stealth fighter back on Feb. 3. Adding Carrier Air Wing 8 embarked on USS Gerald R. Ford extended the Navy’s ability to maintain 24/7 combat air patrols.

And of course, Patriot and THAAD batteries at U.S. bases are the lethal “catcher’s mitt” destroying missiles headed towards bases. 

Deter China 

While not a direct objective of Operation Epic Fury, these in-your-face strikes should scare China. Two Chinese warships sitting off the Strait of Hormuz will be trying to watch all this. They are seeing that the U.S. can wield stealthy, precision airpower along a 2,000-mile arc. For there is another strategic reality driving Operation Epic Fury. Trump needs to complete the takedown of Iran’s military capability now, so our military can concentrate on deterring China.

Iran’s murder of 32,000 or more of its own people hardened Trump’s resolve. Their foolish refusal to give up nuclear enrichment and missiles doomed the regime.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“They just wanted to practice evil,” Trump said Saturday morning.

That horrible chapter of Iran’s history is over.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM REBECCA GRANT

DAVID MARCUS: In Dallas, voters weigh two Senate primaries and now, a war

DALLAS – It was almost the perfect microcosm for current American politics when I met Lizbeth, a lovely young Latina woman who had spent 10 minutes chanting along at the wrong rally. 

She thought she was attending an anti-Trump event that I had also come to cover. Instead there was a small group of mostly Iranians yelling, “No Mullahs, No Shahs!” in support of dissident leader Maryam Rajavi, and for a while, Lizbeth just joined in.

It was easy to sense in Dallas, just by talking to people, that our strikes on Iran were overshadowing what had been a pair of U.S. Senate primaries and capturing not just the imagination of Texas but of the nation.

I met John and Jill, who have both worked for the same insurance company for over 20 years and are about to be empty nesters with a plan to move to the beach in Alabama. He is a Republican and she is a Democrat, a situation I find much more often than people might expect.

Notably, before delving into Texas politics as we casually watched coverage of the NFL combine, the three of us toasted the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, with John tossing in, “Not a moment too soon.”

I’ll be honest, it took all of my banter and Irish charm to try to find out who they supported. In fact, Jill wouldn’t spill the beans at all, but John told me he voted for Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and expects him to win, though he looked a bit nervous when he said it.

“He’s steady, we all know him, I think he’ll pull it out,” John said. But when I asked if he had friends frustrated by the moderate senator who were voting for the more MAGA-aligned Attorney General Ken Paxton, he smiled, nodded and said, “Yeah, for sure.”

KEN PAXTON BELIEVES HE’LL CRUSH ‘FAKE JOHN CORNYN’ EVEN WITHOUT A TRUMP ENDORSEMENT

Jill was more circumspect, as if she intuitively sensed that the division between supporters of Rep. Jasmine Crockett and state Rep. James Talarico made it dangerous to state an opinion.

“The main thing is to get someone in there who can fight Trump, someone who can turn Texas blue again,” she said. When I pressed if that was the more apparently “moderate” Talarico, she just shot me a look that said, “You don’t get to know that.”

Chopping it up with John and Jill took me back to a conversation I had with Rajiv, one of the leaders of the anti-regime rally earlier that day, “We just want democracy in Iran,” he told me. “There is just so much joy today with the ayatollah gone.”

TEXAS DEMOCRAT FEUD GROWS AS COLLIN ALLRED CLAIMS JAMES TALARICO MADE OFFENSIVE REMARK ABOUT FAMILY, CAMPAIGNS

It made me wonder if we sometimes hold our own democracy and freedoms a bit cheap. 

Soon, John, Jill and I were joined in our conversation by Lari, a young woman in her 20s who is also in a politically divided relationship, this time between her, who voted for Talarico, and her boyfriend, who wasn’t present, who pulled the lever for Crockett.

“I just think he has the best chance to win,” she told us, music to the ears of Stephen Colbert and every other left-wing haircut who thinks the Bible-quoting Beto O’Rourke 2.0 can pull it out. But she added, “I really love Crockett.”

TRUMP WITHHOLDS ENDORSEMENT IN FIERY GOP SENATE PRIMARY AS EARLY VOTING BEGINS IN TEXAS

Electability is a funny thing. Both the Talarico and Cornyn camps are counting on it to be the driving force that gets them over the top. But electability can also be a bit like a Greek tragedy, because sometimes it is the safe choice that leaves new potential voters on the sidelines.

It was plain to me that Lari had voted with her head, not her heart, and that might best describe the vibe of the Democratic contest. In such cases, I always tend to think the heart has the inside track.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

“I feel pretty stupid,” Lizbeth told me, as we parted ways after her accidental moments as an anti-Iranian regime protester. I told her not to. “Hey,” I said, “you took some time before work to try to make the world a better place. That’s nothing to be ashamed of.”

Lizbeth nodded and smiled, “That’s true,” she said, her handmade sign folded in her hands.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Oh, by the way,” I called out, as she was walking away, “who are you voting for in the Senate race?”

She thought for a moment and told me, “I haven’t decided,” which means over the next three days, every candidate still has work to do, and still has a chance to be celebrating on Tuesday night.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAVID MARCUS

JONATHAN TURLEY: How Trump boxed Congress into fight or flight choice on Iran

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine promised to force a vote on a war powers resolution to bar further prosecution of the war against Iran. Republicans such as Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., have joined in the call to bar further hostilities. These members are certainly within their rights to call for such resolutions, and the Framers wanted such debates to occur in Congress. However, it is too late to make this cat walk backwards.

While there are good-faith reasons to oppose the commencement of the attacks, the United States is now in close combat with Iran. Drafting a war powers resolution at this stage would be nearly impossible without putting U.S. personnel and allies at risk.

The Constitution divides war powers between the legislative and executive branches. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declares that “the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.” However, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, only Congress may declare wars.

The result has been over two centuries of conflicts between presidents and Congress. Presidents are clearly authorized to respond to threats to national security by commencing military operations. Past presidents, including Democrats such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have asserted the unilateral power to attack other nations when they believe that combat is warranted by national security.

The War Powers Act was the response of Congress to try to curtail such unilateral authority. Overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon, Congress mandated that presidents must consult with them and cease all combat operations within 60 days if Congress has not approved the use of force. Presidents, and some academics, have long argued that the WPA is unconstitutional in part or in whole.

Now to the current conflict. The 60-day period is likely ample for what President Donald Trump is planning for Iran since he has ruled out putting American boots on the ground in the conflict. That is why Kaine, Massie and others are moving to cut off authorization immediately.

The problem is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are now launching a full-fledged attack with thousands of missiles against the United States, its assets and its allies around the world. It has also declared that the key Strait of Hormuz is now closed – potentially choking off 20% of the world’s oil reserves.

KAINE WANTS TO REIN IN TRUMP’S WAR POWERS, BUT NEVER DID THE SAME FOR BIDEN, OBAMA

So how are these members going to draft a War Powers Resolution?

The WPA requires that:

“The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.”

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Kaine and others insist that hostilities were not imminent when we attacked. Even if that were true, they are now. We are in a full engagement with Iran with mounting injuries and destruction. All threats are now imminent and all attacks are arguably preemptive.

The War Powers Act specifically allows for the use of force in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Those attacks are now occurring.

In these circumstances, it would be nearly impossible to limit the war powers of the president without putting American personnel or allies at risk. After decapitating the leadership in Iran, Iranian assets are clearly operating under prior orders in a decentralized structure. That means that the United States must neutralize any and all assets that they can find in preemptive attacks while trying to further degrade the command structure of the Iranian government.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S IRAN WARNING IS SERIOUS — BUT AMERICANS NEED THE FULL FACTS

Is Congress going to require the United States to only act responsively, rather than preemptively, to attacks? That would be absurd from an operational standpoint.

The most a resolution could demand is the cessation of hostilities once imminent threats are removed. That would be practically meaningless given the fact that hostilities will continue so long as the current Iranian government remains in power. Both the IRG and de facto Iranian leader Ali Larijani pledged that they are now unleashing every asset against the United States and its allies. Larijani declared, “They stabbed heart of the nation, their heart will be stabbed too.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The other problem with the resolution is the glaring disconnect for Democrats from their silence in the face of Democratic presidents using the same claimed inherent authority as Trump.

Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attacked the capital city of Libya and that country’s military assets without any imminent threat to the United States. Many of the current members were entirely silent. After calling for the rescission of the broadly interpreted 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Biden then claimed that same authority to launch his own attacks on Iraq and Yemen.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The choice now for Democrats is either a senseless or suicidal resolution. It can either resolve to end hostilities as soon as practically possible (an objective already stated by the administration) or it can actually seek to limit the administration’s options amid full-fledged war.

In other words, Trump (like some of his predecessors) has boxed in Congress. Presidents are allowed to initiate hostilities, and Congress will not end them by limiting our options. The choice is now to finish the fight or flee the battlefield.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

Theologian bishop says AOC pushed culture aside in heated response to Marco Rubio speech

The head of a Roman Catholic Diocese in Minnesota says Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., pushed “culture off to the side” in her response to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last month.  

Rubio spoke about Western civilization and the shared culture of Europe and America in a well-received address to the conference.

“We are part of one civilization – Western civilization,” Rubio said. “We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.”

AOC, MAMDANI URGE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PARENTS TO SIGN KIDS UP FOR FREE PRE-K 

Rubio used his speech to call to mind cultural achievements associated with Western civilization and expressed the desire for allies to be proud of their culture and heritage.  He also used the speech to call out illegal immigration and certain climate agendas. 

AOC offered a heated response to Rubio’s address when asked about it at the Munich conference. She called his remarks an appeal to “Western culture,” saying the foundation is “thin,” as culture is “fluid.” 

“Culture is changing,” she said, according to a video of her response. “Culture always changes. Culture, for the entire history of human civilization, has been a fluid, evolving thing that is a response to the conditions that we live in, and so, they want to take this mantle of culture, at the end of the day though, is very thin. So, the response that we have to have again, is again, it’s material, it’s class-based, it’s common interest.” 

Theologian Bishop Robert Barron, who leads the Roman Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, told “The Will Cain Show” last week that the congresswoman’s response was right out of Karl Marx’s playbook.  

“When AOC was commenting on that… she kind of pushed culture off to the side,” Barron said. ” ‘Well, Western civilization, Western culture, is a very thin idea. Shouldn’t we be focused on,’ as she put it, ‘the material,’ you know, substructure and the class situation?’ Well, that’s right out of the Karl Marx playbook.”

RUBIO SHINES ON GLOBAL STAGE WHILE AOC, WHITMER, AND NEWSOM TAKE HEAT

The bishop explained that Marx viewed culture as simply “a superstructure that protects the economic substructure” and viewed religion as a “problem.” 

“That’s what I found chilling, is to move away from a cultural orientation, a religious orientation, to a much more explicitly Marxist one,” Barron said. “Because, you know, look at the 20th century, there’s plenty of evidence of what happens when Marxist societies come into being.” 

Barron recalled how religious leaders played a critical role in great social reform movements of the 20th century and the Civil Rights Movement, but he said this pattern has taken a turn. 

“So much of the social reform movements going on today are antipathetic to religion,” the bishop reflected. “They would see religion as the problem. They’re not led by religious people. Religion is looked upon with suspicion. That, I suspect, too, comes from a lot of, at least implicitly, Marxist formation people are getting in the universities, sad to say.” 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 

While Barron recognizes “every civilization is marked by sin,” he believes it is important not to set aside all of Western civilization because of its flaws.  

We should do, I think, what Rubio suggested,” Barron explained. “(That) is to celebrate these great principles and intuitions from… Aristotle through Thomas Aquinas to Thomas Jefferson to Martin Luther King. You can trace a… golden thread that defines Western civilization. We should celebrate that, not denigrate it, or characterize it as thin in contradistinction to the economic substructure.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s office, and her representative said there were no additional comments about the Munich Security Conference.

I’ve been a pastor for 40 years. Young men are struggling and I think I know why

Young men aren’t toxic, so much as they are unformed. The major paths to community, life advancement, and social and personal intelligibility have all more or less disintegrated in the past few decades. That disintegration was accelerated dramatically, even completed, by the pandemic.

Which means that men aren’t getting the formation they desperately need to become good men — and that they have historically received.

One in four of American young men report feeling lonesome. Many of them have either been excluded from or dropped out of their generation’s dating scene.

Their educational attainment and motivation continue to fall further and further behind those of their female peers. Suicide rates among men — and especially young men — are growing at alarming rates. They’re also worryingly prone to political and religious radicalization.

A generation of malformed or unformed young men is a serious social and political issue, in addition to being a real tragedy for each and every young man struggling this way.

But when discussing how and why young men seem to have lost their way, we tend to over-focus on the problem and over-simplify the solution. We tend to discuss all the ways these young men fail themselves and others, and focus far too little on what has failed them.

Our culture is quick to take the worst expressions of male behavior and label masculinity as toxic. But as Scott Galloway writes in “Notes on Being a Man,” “[There’s] no such thing as ‘toxic masculinity — that’s the emperor of all oxymorons. There’s cruelty, criminality, bullying, predation, and abuse of power. If you’re guilty of any of these things, or conflate being male with coarseness and savagery, you’re not masculine; you’re anti-masculine.”

BILL MAHER SYMPATHIZES WITH YOUNG MEN WHO STRUGGLE WITH DATING, BUT TELLS THEM TO GROW UP

Masculinity itself is not and cannot be toxic. But individual men can be. They often are, if they’re left unguided.

What’s failing young men today isn’t who they are, but the absence of guidance and formation shaping who they’re becoming.

Learning how to be a man is a crucial and difficult process. You just can’t do it alone. I certainly didn’t. I look back on the men who reached out to me in high school and college — managers, teachers, coaches and friends of my family — and marvel at how different my life could have been without their intervention.

VANITY FAIR DECLARES THE END OF THE OLD-SCHOOL MOVIE STAR, THE RISE OF HOLLYWOOD’S ‘VULNERABLE’ LEADING MEN

One of my earliest mentors was a man named Mr. Lewis. He taught me how to play basketball with the city kids. My mom told me I needed to play on their team, so she dropped me off and introduced us.

And he changed my life. He challenged me. My teammates challenged me. He helped me feel safe, helped me learn confidence and humility. I was one of the worst players on the team, but I loved it — largely because I loved him.

But when discussing how and why young men seem to have lost their way, we tend to over-focus on the problem and over-simplify the solution. 

Men need loving, mature, stable relationships with people who care about them and can guide them well. They need mentors, friends, managers, coaches, colleagues, teachers, professors and neighbors who will help guide them into flourishing masculinity. They need all of us to remain explicitly and charitably committed to supporting their formation.

DR MARC SIEGEL: WHY GEN Z IS TURNING BACK TO GOD, MIRACLES AND REAL-WORLD COMMUNITY

I’ve also seen this underscored repeatedly, working with young men over all my years as a pastor. Young men who flourish have other men who care for them and are willing to actively and specifically guide them. Young men who struggle usually don’t.

That’s why I think the crisis of masculinity is in fact a crisis of men. It’s a failure of men who need to help form other men, but don’t; and a failure of men who need formation and don’t receive it.

One precipitating factor in this crisis is simply that the formation young men need is opposed to the kind of autonomy we’ve unleashed on society in recent decades.

FROM ‘HAPPILY EVER AFTER’ TO ‘NOT SO FAST’: WHY YOUNG WOMEN ARE TURNING FROM MARRIAGE

We tell men to self-define, self-direct, self-construct. We replaced formation with autonomy, and they began to destroy themselves. Society labels this kind of direction as control, when in fact, it’s formation.

In ‘Why are single men so miserable?’ Allie Volpe explores the emotional and social difficulties young men face when they try and fail at self-directed formation and end up lonely.

“A lack of social support has myriad negative effects, regardless of gender: higher risk of mortality, depression, poor sleep quality, weakened immunity, anxiety and low self-esteem,” Volpe writes. “Having a network to rely on has been found to strengthen a person’s coping abilities, and quality of life, even while stressed.”

MAHER ARGUES TRUMP APPEALS TO YOUNG MEN TIRED OF BEING SHAMED FOR WHO THEY ARE

Social media doesn’t fix the isolation, no matter how much it may feel like it connects us to movements, meaning and other people. The “formation” young men in particular receive from social media, influencer culture or television is often just another form of destructive self-creation. After all, they choose (to some extent) the content they consume. They are shaped by their interests and prejudices and unformed desires.

Men need loving, mature, stable relationships with people who care about them and can guide them well. 

But nothing they consume online can give them the depth or direction they need to grow into good men. Nothing they can find online will give them the resources they need to endure real hardship or suffering. Their “autonomy” is just tragic, deforming isolation.

And this confusing, isolating, fractured digital “formation” that has largely begun to serve the purpose of bygone mediating institutions.

HOW FEMINISM HIJACKED THE CONVERSATION ON MASCULINITY

The local organizations that used to so richly populate our lives asked something of us — responsibilities, expectations, standards — and in doing so, helped us all grow, individually and together. We had labor unions, civic societies, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, a rich school club culture. Churches were active and socially dynamic.

Towns used to have many generations closely tied together, so that the very young and very old were regularly in contact and developed friendships and mentor relationships with relative ease.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

These embodied, specific, personal relationships embedded in and organized by real and lasting communities are essential for young men’s formation. There simply is no internet substitute.

All of these institutions helped support strong men with clear formative and normative relationships. Every single one fostered the kinds of social interactions men are more prone to engage in and provided them a social network to lean on.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

While almost all of these institutions are a faint shadow of what they once were, this remains unchanged: Formation requires real people, real sacrifice, and real community — and young men will not flourish without it.

If we want good young men — and we should — then we must stop outsourcing their formation to screens and self-direction, and once again take responsibility for shaping them with our presence, our intention and our lives.

MARK LEVIN: Hands off postwar Iran? That could be a grave strategic mistake for America and the world

What will the Iranian government look like after this military conflict? This question is being asked across the media. And, we are told, it could be a disaster, depending on who or what replaces the current Islamic dictatorship.

Well, this is interesting.

So, I will answer this apparently complicated question: We have no idea what it will look like. In fact, since we have no desire to be involved in any kind of postwar “democracy project,” how can we know?

We have declared to the Iranian people that once most hostilities have ended, it is up to them to overthrow the government. And, logically, it will be up to them to determine what replaces it — especially if we have no intention of getting involved in a postwar project.

Of course, hostility to “democracy projects” stems largely from our experience in Iraq, where the word “democracy” was used constantly as justification for fighting that war. It did not turn out well, and we suffered significant casualties.

The question before us is not what a postwar Iran will look like, but whether it is in our best interest, for a variety of reasons, to get involved in shaping that outcome — and, if so, to what extent and in what way.

But every case is unique. Not all conflicts are Iraq. Post-World War II, we played a significant role in establishing governments in Japan and Western Europe. We followed with the Marshall Plan in Europe, and that effort proved successful.

But if one is going to ask about postwar Iran — if we have no intention of playing a role in establishing a new government, even though noninvolvement carries consequences — then the question is either unserious or unknowable. Most of those asking it do so out of concern about what might happen.

AMERICA STRIKES IRAN AGAIN — HAS WASHINGTON PLANNED FOR WHAT COMES NEXT?

The more important question, it seems to me, is whether we will play any role at all in postwar Iran, especially if the nature of the new government is a matter of serious consequence. It clearly is. I am not arguing for a “democracy project,” but I am suggesting that a hands-off approach can be problematic, if not disastrous.

Thus, the question before us is not what a postwar Iran will look like, but whether it is in our best interest, for a variety of reasons, to get involved in shaping that outcome — and, if so, to what extent and in what way.

The truth is that if we are completely hands-off, we risk a rerun of the regime we have destroyed. There will undoubtedly be remnants of the existing regime, or even a sizable population hellbent on sabotaging the establishment of a democratic or nonauthoritarian government. If they are not disarmed, they may well succeed in a power struggle for control.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Moreover, let us not pretend that China, Russia or Turkey — and perhaps others — will not see our absence as an opportunity to influence or impose their will on Iran. In short, to do nothing would be a potentially dangerous and grave mistake.

I am concerned that not enough thought has been given to this, particularly if our position is to leave the matter entirely to others. This is not to say that we should commit troops to impose democracy on the country. But there are other options well short of that.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Again, Iran is not Iraq. The Persian people share many, if not most, of our Western values. Persian culture has been among the most advanced of any civilization. Its roots are ancient, and its history is marked by accomplishments in education, science and the arts.

Of course, the immediate matter at hand is the total defeat of the regime that hijacked the Iranian government, enslaved its people and has been an existential threat to our country and the world for nearly half a century. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The nature of a postwar Iranian government is a crucial issue for both the Iranian people and our country, lest the battle we are fighting today be for naught.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM MARK LEVIN

MIKE DAVIS: Why Trump’s Iran strike was necessary and lawful

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s [dead] supreme leader, has met his well-deserved demise after a barrage of airstrikes announced by President Trump Saturday morning. A slate of Khamenei’s fellow Islamic terrorists in the Iranian government have met the same fate.

Khamenei never tried to hide his thirst for American blood. Two weeks ago, he posted on X threatening to sink American ships. He plotted to assassinate President Trump prior to the November 2024 election, deploying a hit squad to U.S. soil armed with surface-to-air missiles. 

This forced Trump’s Secret Service team to use a decoy plane.

These are just the most recent incidents in the Islamic terrorist war Iran has waged against the U.S. for 47 years. In 1979, Iran took American hostages at our embassy in Tehran, torturing them in appalling captivity for 444 days. 

In 1983, Iran bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 U.S. military personnel. In 1996, Iran bombed and murdered Americans in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. And, in 2000, Iran attacked the USS Cole. During the Iraq war, Iran armed terrorist insurgents, who then used their weapons to slaughter and maim hundreds of American troops.

Iran declared — and has relentlessly waged — war on America for 47 years. Yet President Trump’s pathological critics are now insisting his highly surgical and successful operation to take out Khamenei and his fellow Islamic terrorists was unlawful because Article I of the U.S. Constitution extends Congress, not the chief executive, the power to declare war. As usual, the peanut gallery is as incorrect as it is feckless.

The U.S. Constitution indeed grants Congress the power to “declare” war, and the Founders were deliberate with their word choice: James Madison and Founding Father Elbridge Gerry chose it as a replacement for the power to “make” war. Their rationale? To leave “to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.” 

Or as Alexander Hamilton explained to Congress in 1801, “When a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then, by the very fact, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory.” 

There is no such thing as a one-sided war.

In turn, the president possesses the authority — the constitutional duty — as the commander in chief to repel invasions and defend Americans from attacks. This argument hasn’t remained mere legal theory. Shortly after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, Hitler declared war against the United States. 

Although the Germans had beaten us to the punch, FDR didn’t need to wait for a formal declaration of war from Congress to strike back. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson deployed the Navy against the Barbary pirates, the predecessors to today’s Iranian Islamist terrorists, without waiting for a congressional go-ahead.

In 1973, Congress attempted to curb presidential military authority through the War Powers Resolution. Passed over President Nixon’s veto, the resolution requires presidents to withdraw troops from combat if, after 60 days, Congress has not ratified their deployment, a mechanism referred to as a “legislative veto.”

OBAMA OFFICIAL WHO BACKED IRAN DEAL SPARKS ONLINE OUTRAGE WITH REACTION TO TRUMP’S STRIKE: ‘SIT THIS ONE OUT’

Every president since Nixon, whether Democrat or Republican, has dismissed the War Powers Resolution as unconstitutional. In 1999, President Clinton undertook military action to stop the mass murders of Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević. In 2011, President Obama deployed the military to take out Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi. 

In both cases, members of Congress sued, claiming violations of the War Powers Resolution. In both cases, they lost. Now, having learned nothing, members of Congress are threatening to do the same thing to President Trump.

If the legislature wants to stop military action, it has lawful avenues to do so. It could pass a resolution as it would any other act of Congress. It could refuse to fund the military. The very concept of the legislative veto was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1983, and for good reason. Our Constitution has outlined a procedure for legislative change. Congressmen do not get to bypass our system of checks and balances for the sake of convenience.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Last year, our commander in chief sent Iran a crystal-clear warning when Trump crippled Iran’s nuclear weapons program in Operation Midnight Hammer. The regime didn’t get the message. President Obama dealt with an obstinate Iran by sending Khamenei pallets of cash. President Trump has dealt with a stubborn and deadly Iran by sending Khamenei planeloads of bombs. 

President Trump does not need permission from Congress to prevent the next Pearl Harbor. As it turns out, it’s hard for Iran’s supreme leader to sink American ships when his house is reduced to rubble, and he is turned into a charred skeleton. Good riddance, Ayatollah. And, to his defenders in Congress, sorry for your loss.

CLICK FOR MORE FROM MIKE DAVIS

MIKE POMPEO: Operation Epic Fury is righteous, and regime change must follow

The joint U.S.-Israeli military operation against the Iranian regime is just and imperative. 

After drawing clear red lines over the continued mass execution of Iranian civilians, the pursuit of nuclear weapons and continued support for global terrorism, President Donald Trump has made the judicious decision that the ayatollah could no longer be permitted to act with impunity. 

With God’s help, our troops will be able to fulfill this mission safely and secure an outcome that keeps all Americans safe.

This action by itself is an important step toward removing the threat posed by this evil regime, and a natural follow-up to the joint U.S.-Israeli mission to degrade Iran’s nuclear program, Operation Midnight Hammer. However, kinetic strikes alone are not sufficient. America will never be safe as long as this fundamentalist, anti-American dictatorship remains in power.

President Trump understands this and has called on the Iranian people to take advantage of this unique chance to take back their country: “The hour of your freedom is at hand… For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it… Now you have a president who is giving you what you want.”

It’s difficult to understate the historic implications of that statement, a move that is as strategically necessary as it is morally appropriate. It affirms the central truth that there will be no chance for peace or stability in the region until the ayatollah and his entire rotten regime are gone for good, and the Iranian people are given the chance to determine their own future.

We have nearly five decades of experience to confirm that the Islamic Republic is an entirely irredeemable governing entity. Terrorism, oppression and vicious hatred of America, Israel and the West are part of its DNA; and its fundamentalist, millenarian vision is incompatible with peaceful coexistence with the civilized world. America — and the world — will never be safe if this regime survives in any form.

For those who blanch at the mention of “regime change,” let’s be clear: The Iranian dictatorship is not just any authoritarian state. The United States government has often had to make deals with governments we find abhorrent, yet whose cooperation is necessary to protect our interests. As Jeane Kirkpatrick famously argued in her landmark essay, “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” protecting America’s interests requires stakesmen to be able to distinguish temporary partnerships with unsavory governments from appeasing enemies of the United States.

From Day 1, the Islamic Republic’s position on America has been clear: They hate us and would like to see us obliterated. From the Americans taken hostage in the earliest days of the Islamic Revolution; to the years of funding and orchestrating terrorist attacks against American civilians and military personnel; to the weekly chants of “Death to America;” to funding the proxy forces wreaking havoc throughout the Middle East; to partnering with our adversaries to undermine us in every theater, the Islamic Republic has been a consistent, highly dangerous enemy of the United States and to all who desire peace in the Middle East.

There can be no resolution to this problem until this regime is consigned to the dustbin of history. That doesn’t mean the U.S. should conquer Iran or install some kind of puppet government. It means attacking each pillar of the regime’s power in order to make its continued survival impossible, while creating the space for Iran’s organized democratic opposition to come to the fore and form a new government.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

That transition can only come from the Iranian people, and, thankfully, there is an expansive national movement ready to do just that. Indeed, the Iranian people have made their preference abundantly clear in repeated waves of resistance stretching back to the beginnings of the Islamic Republic. 

They do not want a theocracy. They want a republic that is free, democratic and accountable to the citizenry. This is the only viable path to neutralize the threat from Iran and integrate it into the community of nations.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The benefits of such a shift would be truly historic. Terrorists would lose their primary sponsor; America’s adversaries would lose a key outpost; incredible economic opportunities would develop; and the highly-educated Iranian population could emerge as a natural partner for the United States.

We’ve taken the first step toward a future in which this uniquely destructive and truly evil dictatorship can no longer hold the world hostage. But we can’t resolve this problem if we don’t finish the job. Supporting a free Iran isn’t just the right thing to do; it is a strategic necessity that will make the world a far safer and more prosperous place. 

May God bless our servicemen and women as they carry out this noble endeavor, and may the Lord give the people of Iran the courage to embrace this chance for freedom.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM MIKE POMPEO

JONATHAN TURLEY: Trump strikes Iran — precedent and history are on his side

With the launch of attacks on Iran, some have already declared the strikes unconstitutional. That includes the immediate condemnation of Rep. Thomas Massie. The precedent, however, favors the president in this action, though the attack triggers obligations of notice and consultation with Congress.

I am highly sympathetic to those who criticize the failure to seek declarations of war from Congress before carrying out such operations. Indeed, I have represented members of Congress in opposing such wars. We lost. The courts have allowed presidents to order such attacks unilaterally. 

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that “the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.” However, the Constitution also expressly states that Congress has the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

Our last declared war was World War II. Since that time, Congress and the courts have allowed for resolutions to supplant the declaration requirement. They have also allowed for unilateral attacks on other nations.

President Trump has referred to this action as a “war” and said that it will not be a limited operation.

The attack will result in calls for compliance with the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973.

The resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that a president report to Congress within 48 hours after introducing United States military forces into hostilities. The WPR mandates that operations must end within 60 days absent congressional approval.

Notably, there was a recent secret briefing of the “Gang of Eight” that may have included a foreshadowing of this operation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed on Saturday that he has given notice to those senators.

Under the WPR:

“The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.”

The WPR limits such authority to “hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,” and can be exercised “only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

President Trump has cited the documented attacks of Iran and its proxies on U.S. forces and its allies. It is also a state sponsor of terrorism and has continued to seek nuclear weapons in defiance of the demands of the international community. Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran had again barred it from these sites.

There has historically been deference to presidents exercising such judgments under this vague standard. That was certainly the case with the attacks in Bosnia and Libya under Democratic presidents.

Even with the highly deferential language, presidents have long chaffed at the limitations of WPR. Nixon’s veto of the legislation was overridden. Past Democratic and Republican presidents, including Obama, have asserted their inherent authority under Article II to carry out such operations.

There is always a fair amount of hypocrisy in these moments. There was no widespread outcry when Obama attacked Libya, particularly from Democrats. When I represented members to challenge the undeclared war in Libya, Obama (like Trump) dismissed any need to get congressional approval in attacking the capital city of a foreign nation and military sites to force regime change. Figures like then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were lionized for their tough action in Libya.

Critics can also rely on Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to assert limits on the president when authorizing limited, defined military actions. Such resolutions date back to the Adams Administration in the Quasi-War with France.

A 2001 AUMF authorized the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” It also authorized presidents to take military action to prevent future acts of terrorism against the United States.

The 2002 AUMF authorizes the President to use “necessary and appropriate” force to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Past presidents have interpreted these AUMFs to extend to new threats and beyond countries like Iraq.

In a 2018 report, the Trump Administration declared that the 2002 AUMF “contains no geographic limitation on where authorized force may be employed.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Obama, Biden, and Trump have cited the 2002 AUMF as supporting past attacks in Syria. The Biden attacks included targets in Iraq and Yemen. Trump also cited the 2002 AUMF in taking out Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force.

President Biden’s reliance on the 2002 AUMF (and the 2001 AUMF) for “necessary and proportionate” attacks was ironic since he previously supported rescinding the 2002 AUMF.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The administration is likely to consult with Congress in light of these attacks. Congress can seek to bar or limit operations in the coming days. Given the fluid events, many members are likely to wait to watch the initial results and, frankly, the polling on the attacks. However, these operations could take days or even weeks. The longer the operation continues, the calls for congressional action will likely increase.

As an initial matter, however, Trump is using authority that prior presidents, including Democratic presidents, have cited in carrying out major attacks on other countries. History and prior precedent are on his side in carrying out these initial attacks.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY