Trump’s strike on Iran deals a major blow to Putin’s war machine in Ukraine

Within hours of American munitions striking Iranian soil, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy posted a statement that the Western press largely treated as a diplomatic footnote, but it was a signal that what happens in the skies over Tehran has a direct impact on the ground in Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy explicitly endorsed the strikes, called Iran “Putin’s accomplice,” noted that his country has absorbed over 57,000 Iranian-supplied drone attacks, and took aim at Moscow: “Whenever there is American resolve, global criminals weaken. This understanding must also come to the Russians.”

Zelenskyy’s framing of the war in Iran through the lens of Ukraine’s war is not incidental. Whatever Washington’s stated objectives, the president, who has lived through the Ukraine conflict since the 2022 invasion, understands that Iran has been an active accomplice in Russia’s war against Ukraine, and the United States has now acted against that accomplice.

THE FUTURE OF WAR? US-ISRAEL BLITZ ON IRAN UNVEILS NEXT-GEN ALLIED COMBAT

By striking the Iranian regime that provided the Shahed drones to Russia (and the ability to manufacture them) that have terrorized the Ukrainian civilian population for over four years, Washington has taken out a key Russian ally, which will negatively impact Russia’s ability to wage war in Europe.

When Iranian-provided drones began falling on Kyiv in October 2022, reducing apartment blocks to rubble and plunging cities into darkness, the world quickly learned a new word: Shahed. The Shahed-136 is not a sophisticated weapon. It is not fast (though Russian improvements have increased its capabilities significantly). It is not quite as precise as a cruise missile. What it is, and what it was always designed to be in Russia’s hands, is a weapon of civilian terror.

Russian Shahed’s targets power stations and apartment buildings. The destruction they reap contributes to the blackouts that leave families without light and heat in winter. It is the triangular silhouette Ukrainians have learned to dread in the night sky, the low distinctive buzz from its propeller that sends people running for shelters. I have watched Shaheds glide through Ukrainian airspace toward civilian targets. I have stood with interceptor teams in the darkness doing everything they could to bring Shaheds down before they found their targets. The images of these drones flying into buildings in Kyiv represent the human toll of Iran’s pernicious contribution to the war in Ukraine.

By early 2023, Iran signed a $1.75 billion contract for additional drones and complete manufacturing blueprints. Russia subsequently built its own production facility in Tatarstan. Ukrainian intelligence estimates Russia now produces up to 1,000 modified Geran drones per day using Iranian-derived technology. In essence, Tehran handed Moscow the blueprint for a terror campaign against civilians that Russia has since industrialized on its own soil.

CHINA PLEDGES AID TO UKRAINE AS US OFFICIALS WARN BEIJING IS QUIETLY FUELING RUSSIA’S WAR

Beyond drones, Iran delivered nearly $3 billion in ballistic and surface-to-air missiles before and during the invasion, including hundreds of Fath-360 ballistic missiles, numerous anti-aircraft systems, and hundreds of thousands of artillery shells, with total weapons value exceeding $4 billion.

Iranian munitions replenished Russia’s stockpile, dashing Western hopes that Russia might quickly run out of shells, drones, and missiles. In return, Russia offered Iran S-400 air defense systems, Su-35 fighter jets, nuclear reactor construction and geopolitical cover at the U.N. Security Council. A 20-year strategic partnership was formalized in early 2024. This was an axis built across military, nuclear, financial, and diplomatic dimensions, and due to U.S. action in Iran, this axis has crumbled in spectacular fashion. In a recent statement, Russian Foreign Minister Dimitry Peskov stated that Russia would not honor its defense agreement with Iran because he signed the agreement with Ayatollah Khameini, and Khamenei has been killed.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

However, Russia’s most important strategic partner, China, continues to supply vast quantities of microelectronics and components for Russia’s military-industrial complex at a scale Iran could not match. But Beijing has carefully avoided direct lethal hardware transfers to preserve a degree of deniability. Iran, on the other hand, filled the gap China deliberately left open: front-line weapons and production blueprints, deployed without hesitation.

Russia has fully indigenized Shahed production, even improving on the original design with the more sophisticated and expensive Geran variants. The Iranian government’s 50-year legacy of terror will live on not only in Middle Eastern states, but in Europe for as long as the war in Ukraine continues.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

With the U.S. campaign promising to last for at least several weeks, Iran’s capacity to supply additional ballistic missiles is now compromised. Its ability to upgrade drone designs at home and deliver replacement components is degraded. Moreover, every Russian asset potentially diverted to shield a battered Iran, air defense systems, aircraft components, logistics, is an asset unavailable in Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. Moscow is now burdened by a weakened, desperate partner at precisely the moment it can least afford the distraction.

This represents a different kind of pressure on Russia than sanctions or battlefield aid — one that works through the partnership networks and supply chains that have sustained the Russian war effort. Zelenskyy’s prescient statement that every act of aggression ultimately meets a just response was directed towards Moscow and Tehran. While Ukraine was not Washington’s primary consideration when President Trump decided to strike Iran, the calculus of the war in Ukraine will become more complicated for Russia, and that’s a good thing for Ukrainians fighting for their very right to survive.

All 4 Iran war assumptions dead wrong — Trump proves experts got fooled again

In these early days of Operation Epic Fury, while much remains unknown, one thing has become clear: how little the conventional wisdom about foreign policy in Washington, D.C., has to do with the realities taking shape on the battlefield. Traditionally, four things were assumed to be near inevitable if the United States and/or Israel were to take significant military action against Iran:

1. Iran’s supreme leader would be untouchable.
2. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would deploy its terrorist proxies to ignite a regional war.
3. Israel would be isolated in the Middle East and vulnerable to attack from Arab neighbors.
4. The United States would be isolated on the world stage and limited in what it could do to support Israel, which would benefit Russia and China.

All four assumptions are dead wrong.

Obviously, the supreme leader was not untouchable. He was eliminated in one of the opening strikes of the mission, along with much of Iran’s senior leadership. His arrogant foolishness in gathering that leadership together was in fact the opportunity that prompted Epic Fury in the first place.

THE FUTURE OF WAR? US-ISRAEL BLITZ ON IRAN UNVEILS NEXT-GEN ALLIED COMBAT

But that did not prevent the survivors from organizing a succession meeting on Tuesday, March 3, which was in turn targeted. The demoralized remnants of the regime are now attempting to re-establish command and control with little in terms of structure or internal communications.

In addition, the predicted mass regional attack on Israel has not materialized. Because of Iran’s disastrous decision to launch missiles against its neighbors — even those who had been acting as its mediators, such as Qatar and Oman — the region has unified not against Israel, but against Iran.

There are even reports of Arab nations potentially participating in the strikes on Iran. The Abraham Accords, although under strain since the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, have held.

LIZ PEEK: DEMOCRATS RAGE OVER TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKES AS EXILES CHEER AYATOLLAH’S FALL

Iran’s terrorist proxies, rather than rising up to attack Israel, have been remarkably inactive given their patron’s desperate straits. Hamas in Gaza has been all but silent. Hezbollah in Lebanon have fired some rockets, but nothing like the overwhelming barrage of precision-guided missiles that was once feared. The Houthi in Yemen have stuck to threats rather than attacks. None of them appear to be interested in a multi-front war against the combined might the U.S. and Israel have demonstrated.

While it is true that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have put out strong statements condemning the American action, they have actually done precious little to support their supposed ally Iran, which is reportedly registering complaints about the quality of the missile-defense systems they supplied.

Obviously, the supreme leader was not untouchable. He was eliminated in one of the opening strikes of the mission, along with much of Iran’s senior leadership.

And America, rather than being isolated, is re-established as the pre-eminent military power on the planet, while Russia and China hardly look like reliable partners. Even our originally timorous European allies have come around to supporting the mission.

PENTAGON POLICY CHIEF GRILLED AS DEM CLAIMS TRUMP BROKE PROMISE ABOUT GOING TO WAR WITH IRAN

Of course, this is a real war, and no one is claiming it will be neat or simple. It’s a difficult mission that has already and will continue to cost American lives and treasure to successfully prosecute. But there’s no denying it is very different from what the so-called “experts” have predicted for the last 47 years.

So, while success is far from guaranteed, this new reality presents several opportunities as well as risks, and should prompt a reassessment of other assumptions that have constrained American action against Iran for so long.

President Donald Trump has a history of doing things in the Middle East that had been declared impossible. Experts knew that moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would cause a massive regional attack on Israel. Eliminating Qasam Soleimani would ignite a regional war. Additional regional normalization between Israel and regional neighbors could not be reached until there was a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

See what I mean?

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Another piece of conventional wisdom Trump seems poised to disprove is the so-called “Pottery Barn Rule” for regime change — “you break it, you buy it.” This dictate that the U.S. had to rebuild a hostile country once its government was removed — even if that government had supported a vicious attack on our own soil — led to catastrophic mission creep in Afghanistan and Iraq as, after the success of those military campaigns, attempts to remake those countries dragged on for decades and ended in failure.

Iran’s terrorist proxies, rather than rising up to attack Israel, have been remarkably inactive given their patron’s desperate straits. 

America should not repeat this error. Presumably, Trump will want to bring the kinetic phase of this mission to a close as soon as his objectives are achieved. Then we will see if the Iranian people will take advantage of the best opportunity they have had since the revolution to reclaim their government.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Iran is, after all, a country, not a piece of crockery in a store, and President Trump’s mission is not nation-building. It is to give the American people the opportunity to go through the next half-century freed from the deadly threat of the Islamic Republic, especially if that regime were to acquire a nuclear weapon.

It would be even better to go through that period with a prosperous and secure partner in what the new Iran becomes. And that future will ultimately be for the people of Iran to secure.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM VICTORIA COATES

SEC TURNER, GOV SANDERS: Why HUD’s proposed rule is a springboard to the American Dream

Public Housing and Section 8 rental assistance in America were created to provide a temporary helping hand to families during times of hardship, not to trap them in long-term dependency. Yet almost half of non-elderly, able-bodied households getting support from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) didn’t have a single person working in 2024. It’s time for a change.

We got here because well-intentioned federal policies drifted away from their original purpose, leaving many people stuck in subsidized housing for years, sometimes decades, while millions of families sit on waiting lists with no help at all.

HUD’s proposed rule aims to correct that drift by restoring a simple, commonsense principle: HUD housing assistance should encourage work, self-sufficiency, and upward mobility while keeping a strong safety net for the elderly and disabled. Under the Trump administration’s proposed regulation, no longer would able-bodied, able-minded individuals be allowed to waste away on welfare with no hope or dignity.

THE BORDER GETS THE ATTENTION WHILE FRAUDULENT GOVERNMENT BENEFITS BLEED TAXPAYERS DRY

Arkansas became the first state in the nation to bring work requirements to the forefront in state law after I, Governor Sanders, signed the Housing Welfare Reform Act of 2023 into law. This commonsense law ensures that an individual who is able to work is required to work, train, or volunteer if they’re living on the taxpayers’ dime. Public housing authorities, however, have not been permitted to require work or limit time under current rules. Without HUD’s proposed rule, Arkansas is unable to enforce the law on the books.

Public housing was never meant to be a hammock, but a springboard to a life of self-sufficiency. Federal housing assistance, as currently structured, disincentivizes work and leads to a long national waitlist for housing assistance for those who need a hand up.

Capable adults receiving assistance are staying longer and longer on welfare. Recent evidence presented to Congress shows that nearly 90% of able-bodied Section 8 voucher recipients will spend more than five years in subsidized housing, and half will spend more than 15 years. It is not uncommon for multiple generations of a family to live in subsidized housing over decades. We must break this hopeless cycle.

There is extensive real-world evidence supporting work requirements and/or time limits on public housing benefits. Across the country, nearly 40 Moving to Work housing agencies have tested work requirements or time limits, showing America that these programs can change lives.

WASHINGTON POST CALLS FOR STRICTER SNAP QUALIFICATIONS, WIDESPREAD FRAUD CRACKDOWN AFTER MINNESOTA SCANDAL

This proposal would finally allow Arkansas to empower all public housing agencies and Section 8 residents in the state to move towards self-sufficiency, as the law intends.

Arkansas will set the example for more states to follow because the Trump administration is empowering state and local leaders who best understand their residents and communities to decide whether and how to implement these policies, within clear regulatory bounds. No longer will there be a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

HUD estimates that under our proposal, between 19,000 and 79,000 families nationally will move out of subsidized housing in the first year, opening doors for new families in need. This is a win-win situation. The families leaving assistance will earn more, contribute more to their own rent and stand on firmer financial ground, while the families finally getting assistance will receive the help they’ve been waiting on for years.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Most importantly, this is about dignity. Work is a pathway to meaning, independence, and stability. Study after study shows that prolonged unemployment erodes well-being, worsens health, decreases life expectancy and harms children’s prospects. By contrast, when adults work, families are healthier, communities are stronger, and futures are brighter. A rising tide lifts all boats

We believe in the potential of our fellow Americans. By restoring federal rental assistance to its intended role as temporary support, we can help more American families build brighter lives and better futures.

DAVID MARCUS: Timothée Chalamet’s right, the Left ruined ballet and opera

Timothée Chalamet is under fire this week and losing traction in the best actor Oscar race for saying just about the most obvious thing in the world: Nobody cares about ballet or opera in 2026.

Here is the exact quote from the “Dune” and “Marty Supreme” star during a recent CNN town hall: “I don’t want to be working in ballet, or opera, or things where it’s like, ‘Hey, keep this thing alive, even though like no one cares about this anymore.’ All respect to all the ballet and opera people out there.”

The backlash was swift and severe. According to the BBC, Canadian mezzo-soprano Deepa Johnny described Chalamet’s comments as a “disappointing take” while, American artist Franz Szony wrote, “Two classical art forms that have been around for hundreds of years, both of which take a massive amount of talent and discipline this man will never possess.”

But to today’s pretty boy of Hollywood’s point, who the hell are these people?

BROADWAY ICON PATTI LUPONE CALLS THE PRESIDENT A ‘BUFFOON’ OVER TRUMP-KENNEDY CENTER RENOVATION PLANS

When I was 10 years old, the greatest ballet dancer in the world was Mikhail Baryshnikov. He was as famous as Larry Bird or Doc Gooden, as was the greatest opera singer of the time, Luciano Pavarotti. That is gone today.

Today, almost no American has the slightest idea who the greatest ballet dancer or opera singer alive is, because it’s not for them any more. The fine performing arts have become a bubble of progressive intolerance. They don’t even want us unwashed non-believers involved.

The fine performing arts are the last trench that the sad wokesters are hunkered down in.

ROB SCHNEIDER EXPOSES HOLLYWOOD’S ‘ROT’ AS HE CLAIMS CONSERVATIVE ACTORS FACE INDUSTRY BLACKLIST

In the 1950s, there were published collections of the great works of the West. You may have seen some of these leather-bound volumes in your grandparents’ houses. They were very expensive, but publishers couldn’t print them fast enough.

The middle class ate it up.

On any given night in those 1950s and 1960s on television, one could see a Shakespeare play, or Leonard Bernstein describing symphonies or great philosophers of the day lecturing. But by the 1970s, it was decided that this was a bit much for the masses.

ROB SCHNEIDER: GO WOKE, GO BROKE ISN’T A SLOGAN — IT’S BECOMING HOLLYWOOD’S REALITY

The Pavarottis and Baryshnikovs would linger through the 1990s, but by the turn of the millennium, that was over. The leftist elites had rendered opera and ballet their own private dominions, a dwindling and now dying domain that Chalamet rightfully calls out.

The problem for opera and ballet, and indeed for straight theater and musicals as well, is that they stopped looking for audiences and started looking for grants. A bunch of woke, rich White people can give you money to produce the first Inuit opera but it doesn’t mean anybody wants to see it.

That includes Inuits.

DAVID MARCUS: MEMO TO BONO: PLEASE SHUT UP AND GO AWAY

Part of what Chalamet is realizing here is that opera and ballet have spent 50 years being protected. But protected from whom? 

The drive to diversify and move away from the standard repertoire that everyone loves — for a reason — made these art forms a delicate flower for the elites among us, not a strong crop that feeds the soul of the masses.

Now, the same people who refuse to attend their supposedly beloved opera and ballet won’t grace the door of the Trump Kennedy Center performances as their own performance protest, the upshot of which is that now there is no audience for these forms.

HOLLYWOOD KEEPS MAKING MOVIES FAMILIES WON’T WATCH WHILE ‘LORD OF THE RINGS’ RERELEASE RAKES IN MILLIONS

Sad to say, opera and ballet may truly be dead. There may be nobody left in those art forms who can breathe life back into their morose, woke corpses, but Chamamet knows that maybe movies can avoid this fate. Maybe.

I suspect that Hollywood’s new non-offensive “it guy” will walk this all back, making me long for the days of movie makers like John Cassavettes who know how to tell the industry and elites to stick it where the sun don’t shine.

But his point stands. It’s absurd to even argue. Ballet and opera have rendered themselves irrelevant by placating the shibboleths of wokeness and obeying its rules. Until that stops, they will remain dying forms.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

I think Chalamet has probably learned his lesson here, and his chastisement may well stick. But they can’t chastise us, and when they want to invite us back into the fine arts, we will be here. 

But the makers and shakers of opera, ballet, theater, painting and sculpture should be warned that while you fritter away your legacy of centuries, we might just be starting our own.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAVID MARCUS

What would Jesus say about AI? Are we building another golden calf?

If you don’t choose a religion, a religion will choose you. It’s somehow in our makeup. We need to worship something. The latest thing seems to be AI.

Talk about false idols. I log on to my computer, and all these voices are screaming out at me, sometimes using the exact same words Jesus did, asking me to “follow” them. “Follow them?” I ask myself. “Aren’t I supposed to follow you, Lord?”

I wonder: How much of all that talking is simply generated by AI? How much of what I read comes via AI? (I hope you don’t have to wonder if this was written by AI.) “Jesus,” I ask, “what would you think of all this?”

Sure, it’s convenient. If I’m looking for a Bible verse, I can click on ChatGPT and speak into my phone. The answer comes back in seconds — chapter and verse. It couldn’t be easier.

HERE’S HOW WE CAN LIVE AND WORK WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT LOSING OUR HUMANITY

If God is all-knowing, AI looks super-knowing. Sometimes it can be wrong. Occasionally, it is shockingly prejudiced. But then, where did it get what it knows? From us. From what it was fed. Similarly, where did we get what we know of Jesus? From his followers. From the stories they told and retold and finally wrote down.

It’s worth thinking about how our practice of faith has evolved as the means of communicating it have evolved. Back in Jesus’s day, few people could read, but they could listen to something read in a synagogue and remember it, reflecting on it, lodging it forever in their brains.

Over time, Jesus’s words were copied by hand onto parchment and passed along that way until the advent of printing in the 15th century. Believers could then get printed Bibles. With new translations into the vernacular, they spread like wildfire. When someone read from the Scriptures, you could follow along in your own copy. You could share it with them.

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

So isn’t AI just one more evolution in communicating the Word? Like I said, it’s much easier to find a particular Bible verse or passage using AI than thumbing through a concordance or flipping through dozens of pages. I don’t even have to ask for someone’s help. My phone or computer can do it for me.

And yet, I fear something is lost. Some of it is the experience of community. I can ask all sorts of questions through AI, sitting by myself on my sofa at home, typing away on my computer or speaking into my phone. But what about the wonder that comes when I’m with other believers in church, or when we come together for Bible study — even one on Zoom? There are always those enlightening moments when someone says something that clicks. Didn’t Jesus say, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them?”

What I also fear about AI is the way it’s changing our brains — changing mine. I used to remember people’s phone numbers easily enough. They were lodged in my head. But now that they’re stored in my phone, I don’t have to memorize them.

And I can’t live without my phone.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

It makes me think about what Jesus did before he launched his ministry. He went into the wilderness for 40 days, something we celebrate every year at Lent. He went without food and drink and didn’t have any friends hanging out with him. He was tempted by the devil. But he had to depend wholly on God. That’s all he had, and that was more than enough.

What do I think Jesus would say about AI? He understands us, and he understands the world far better than we do. He’s seen how innovations can improve our lives. But he’s also able to share something AI can never communicate — that deep, mystical side. A friend of mine asked ChatGPT if it had a soul. The reply: “I’m not programmed to have a soul.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

AI may seem all-knowing, yet it is in unknowing that we come to know Jesus. As he said, “Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.”

That’s my message to myself for Lent. Put away the phone for a while (it doesn’t have to be 40 days — even 40 minutes would be something). Turn away from the computer. Listen for and feel Jesus’s love. It’s bigger than anything AI can do or say. I don’t have to type it into ChatGPT. I can close my eyes and speak to the heavens: “Jesus, help me follow you.” He knows what I want more than I could possibly realize.

America’s boys need noble masculinity — not lowered expectations

Throughout the country, states are moving to curb student phone use in schools. From New Jersey’s push for a strict bell-to-bell ban to tighter rules in Indiana and Florida, lawmakers are responding to a growing consensus among parents and educators: constant distraction is harming children – and boys are often taking the hit hardest.

But phones are not the real story, they are just a symptom. Across America, something is wrong with too many of our young men. They are not stupid, and they are not hopeless, but too many are drifting, less resilient, less anchored and less prepared to carry adult responsibility when life stops being more negotiable than previous generations. 

As a university president, I see the consequences up close. Young men arrive with talent and ambition, yet too many struggle with the disciplines that make success possible, such as sustained focus, perseverance, teachability and the maturity to control impulses instead of being controlled by them. 

I have sat across from students who were bright enough to thrive and motivated enough to dream big – yet were repeatedly undone by ordinary responsibilities we all take for granted. They fell behind not because they lacked intelligence, but because they could not sustain attention, accept feedback without taking it as a personal attack or treat deadlines as real until they had already passed. By the time a university sees that pattern, it is not a campus issue alone, but a problem years in the making.

WELCOME TO THE DATING RECESSION: WHY YOUNG AMERICANS ARE GIVING UP ON LOVE

The broader evidence points in the same direction. In October 2024, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that among recent high school graduates aged 16-24, 69.5% of young women were enrolled in college, compared with 55.4% of young men.

Gallup reported in 2025 that 25% of U.S. men aged 15-34 said they felt lonely a lot of the previous day. A Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis found that labor force participation among men aged 20-24 fell from 82.6% in 2000 to 73.1% in 2022, with a further decline to 68.2% projected by 2032. 

Higher education is a powerful avenue for preparation, yet it is one of several honorable paths. Our country depends on builders, tradesmen, entrepreneurs, service members, skilled workers and professionals alike. But every young man does need a path that builds discipline, competence and purpose. When boys become men without durable friendships, meaningful work and mentors who not only inspire them but also know their names, the consequences do not stay private, they surface in families, workplaces and communities that depend on dependable men.

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

We should not be surprised by what we are seeing, because our culture has weakened the conditions that help boys become men. We have mistaken love for the removal of hardship, lowered standards in the name of compassion and avoided hard conversations in the name of sensitivity. Empathy matters, but empathy that never expects growth becomes surrender. Boys often rise or fall to expectations, and when expectations disappear, many do not become stronger, they become fragile. 

We have also outsourced too much of boyhood to screens and then wondered why attention, patience and self- control have eroded. Used without restraint, a phone becomes a training ground in impulse, distraction and endless stimulation. A boy formed by constant gratification will struggle with the unglamorous habits adulthood requires, such as showing up, sticking with difficult tasks, finishing what he starts and doing the right thing when nobody is watching. 

We have also made a serious mistake in the way we talk about masculinity. In condemning what is genuinely destructive in some expressions of manhood, we have too often treated manhood itself as suspect. Boys hear what not to be, but too rarely hear what they should become. That vacuum fills with apathy, anger or counterfeit bravado that imitates strength while evading responsibility. The answer to toxic masculinity is not hostility toward masculinity. It is noble masculinity, strength under control, courage in service of others, restraint over appetite and honor that does not need applause. 

If we are serious about changing this, we do not need to wait for a perfect federal plan or another national commission. Families, schools, churches, employers and civic leaders can begin now by rebuilding the conditions that form boys into men. That means mentorship must become normal again.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I have sat across from students who were bright enough to thrive and motivated enough to dream big – yet were repeatedly undone by ordinary responsibilities we all take for granted.

Every school community, church, civic club and neighborhood should be able to say, with integrity, that no boy grows up here alone. Boys need sustained contact with good men who showcase integrity, hard work, restraint and responsibility, and who challenge them, correct them and pull them into real life through service and honest conversation. 

It also means restoring standards that actually mean something, including respect for women and for authority figures. Schools should enforce conduct codes that protect learning and require decency. Coaches should bench talent that will not respect teammates. Employers should reward reliability and correct immaturity. Parents should insist on chores, punctuality and integrity at home and teach boys early on that strength is never an excuse to demean, objectify, intimidate or manipulate women. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

This is urgent, and we should stop pretending otherwise. The window to form boys into men does not stay open forever. Habits are learned early, reinforced often and either strengthened or neglected with every passing year. If we keep debating this as theory while boys continue drifting in real time, we will lose another generation, and the repair will be longer and harder than the prevention. 

America does not need more commentary about young men. It needs adults willing to rebuild the conditions that form them. Families, churches, schools and communities all have a role, and at universities like mine, we are taking up that responsibility by helping shape not only capable graduates, but men of character. Do it now, before drift becomes the default and before another generation is damaged in ways we will spend decades trying to undo. We are not simply trying to move boys into adulthood. We are trying to raise noble men. 

BROADCAST BIAS: From ‘without evidence’ to war panic, the media target Trump and America

In his second term, President Donald Trump has been more aggressive in attacking America’s enemies than he was in his first term. But whenever this commander in chief approves military action, the broadcast networks reflexively attack it and seek to undermine the effort. This certainly happened when America and Israel took military action against Iran on Feb. 28.

One sickening impulse is the networks offering a propaganda platform to the enemy, as they did repeatedly with Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Aragchi. On ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., called host George Stephanopoulos out for it when the host repeated the Iranian line that the American attack was “unprovoked.” Lankford began by quipping, “I would hope that Iranian TV is carrying Marco Rubio today, the same as you all just carried the Iranian foreign minister today.”

It’s obvious that it’s more controversial within these liberal networks to provide a platform for Trump than to interview a Baghdad Bob–like figure in the decapitated theocracy in Iran.

TRUMP SAYS US ‘DOING VERY WELL’ IN IRAN NEARLY 1 WEEK INTO JOINT ACTION AGAINST TEHRAN

On Monday morning, an ABC White House correspondent broke out the “without evidence” line against the president. Trump “has yet to make a robust case for war to explain why Iran presented an imminent threat to the U.S.” and has “insisted, without evidence, that a rebuild of their nuclear program was happening fast.”

NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel claimed Trump justified the military actions on the basis of “a theoretical threat . . . that if, in the future, Iran were to expand its ballistic missile program, it could threaten the United States. . . . He was talking about a theoretical future threat, and the rest was past grievances from the Iraq War.”

The Trump administration has made the case that the theocracy in Iran has been at war with the United States since it took American hostages in 1979. That argument is dismissed as “past grievances.” Iran’s campaign of killing American soldiers in Iraq with roadside bombs, which was downplayed in real time, is now just “past grievances.”

It’s obvious that it’s more controversial within these liberal broadcast networks to provide a platform for Trump than to interview a Baghdad Bob–like figure in the decapitated theocracy in Iran.

Then there’s the theme of economic blowback. On Tuesday night, ABC’s “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir warned, in his typically clipped verbiage, “Amid this war with Iran, the Strait of Hormuz essentially shut down where 20% of the world’s oil passes through. Tonight the stock market plunging, oil and gas prices already up. The Dow plunging more than 1,200 points today before clawing back some of its losses.”

MILLER SAYS TRUMP ‘UNLEASHED’ MILITARY FROM ‘WOKE PENTAGON’ CONSTRAINTS AFTER YEARS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

ABC News reporter Elizabeth Schultze echoed the gloom: “Tonight, growing fears of prolonged war sending the stock market tumbling and oil prices surging.” Then, on the same broadcast, came the cherry-picked “analysts,” who warned that “higher energy prices will ripple across the economy.” Economist Ryan Sweet argued, “The consumer can’t catch a break. So you’re going to see it in food prices, you’re going to see it in air fares. Overall, inflation is going to perk up a little bit over the next couple of months.”

Notice how neatly this matches the Democratic argument about affordability in a midterm election year. The dark clouds forever hang over everything Trump does. The “news” is manufactured to keep the bad weather rolling indefinitely.

The networks also reported polling results to insist the president launched an “unpopular war.” On Thursday’s “Today” show, guest host Hoda Kotb touted, “A new NBC News poll shows that most voters, 52 percent, say the U.S. should not have taken military action against Iran.” The numbers — 41% backing the war, 52% against — pretty closely match the current polling on President Trump’s approval rating. The broadcast networks are pushing the idea that this could hurt Republicans in the midterm elections.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

This week, the “PBS News Hour” turned to a contributor in Iran, Reza Sayah, who has pushed the Iranian regime’s perspective. 

On Monday, he announced, “Just keep in mind, from Tehran’s point of view, there’s no trust. This is the second time they’re in the middle of negotiations. Without warning, they have been under attack. … So they’re projecting resilience, toughness.”

On Tuesday, PBS anchor Amna Nawaz asked if there was an uprising afoot. Sayah wasn’t having it: “Obviously, when the death of the Supreme Leader was announced, there were pockets of celebrations throughout the country. But millions of others came out to mourn his death.”

Without discussing the recent murders of thousands of Iranian protesters, Sayah added that there was “no sign of any mass protests, mass uprising, and no indication of an organized opposition with a clear leader. If, in the coming days, it so happens that people come out, it is very likely that armed security forces are going to be waiting for them.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

These networks love to pose as the saviors of democracy in America, but they’re not coming across as favoring democracy in Islamic countries. They warn of “Christian nationalism” on the rise in America but have no problem with Islamic nationalism in Iran. They have compared Trump to Hitler while ignoring the Iranian regime’s Holocaust deniers who want to end the nation of Israel.

There’s a reason so many Americans have tuned these networks out.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TIM GRAHAM

DAN GAINOR: As troops face danger abroad, media wage war on Trump at home

America is in the midst of kicking the snot out of an enemy that has dominated Middle East headlines for nearly 50 years. Naturally, some in the press are targeting President Donald Trump with ridiculous new allegations buried in the depths of the Epstein files. 

Why? Because journalists still believe they can drag Trump through the mud, even in the middle of a war, and win elections for the D team.

If this sounds familiar, it sure as heck should. This has been the media strategy since Trump first decided to campaign as a Republican and ruin the left’s plans for global domination. The press has run with every phony claim it could find: the Russian collusion allegations, “mostly peaceful” riots and claims that the Hunter Biden laptop was 100% fake. 

MORNING GLORY: LEGACY MEDIA DIDN’T LOSE READERS, IT DROVE THEM AWAY

Remember this Politico headline from Oct. 19, 2020, just in time to influence the presidential election? “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

Now we know the laptop was real and full of scandalous information about President Biden and his family, which is why the truth was buried under a mountain of lies from Trump haters and the journalists who love them. They were protecting their guy — “the Big Guy,” from laptop fame. 

So big, in fact, that he ended up pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, before he left office. The 51 intel officials all lost their security clearances, but they did the damage they wanted. And the press — along with social media companies — hid the truth.

Even notorious NPR lefty CEO Katherine Maher admitted during congressional testimony that the outlet had screwed up in 2020.

“I do want to say that NPR acknowledges we were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively and sooner,” she said.

Of course, Biden still got the White House, NPR conveniently got funded and the GOP got defeated. NPR won the trifecta.

That’s the context for yet another claim of a Trump scandal. Everywhere the media went this week, the goal was to include two names in the headlines together: Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. It doesn’t matter whether it’s an allegation — an old and unproven one, at that. Why bother to hold back? All that matters is trying to hurt Trump.

And the press was on board for every bit of it. There are the bitter folks at NPR, now vastly poorer thanks to Trump, offering up this headline: “Justice Department publishes some missing Epstein files related to Trump.” Or Radar Online with the tabloid-style headline: “‘Missing’ Epstein Files Containing Explosive Trump Assault Claim Released by Pam Bondi Hours After She Was Subpoenaed by Congress.”

DAN GAINOR: TRUMP DEFEATED THE PRESS LIKE DAVID SMACKED GOLIATH. CAN THEY RECOVER?

Some of them just can’t hide who they are. The leftist Daily Beast ran multiple pieces on the story, including this classic: “Creepy Nicknames Trump Allegedly Used With Epstein Revealed by Accuser.” It included a subhead worthy of a gender studies major: “EWWWW.” 

The author of that story, Daily Beast reporter Catherine Bouris, was an American studies major, according to her website, and it shows. Consider this quote: “I understand feeling powerless when faced with the looming spectre of the patriarchy.”

Or her pro-trans complaint in another one of her articles: “Babes In TERFland.” Bouris at least doesn’t pretend to be neutral. From that piece: “I do not pretend to be an impartial witness, much like I’m not impartial when it comes to other forms of bigotry. I do not think journalism (or whatever this it is that I’m doing here) needs to be neutral in the face of oppression and injustice in order to be effective.”

That’s an important perspective as journalists grab their pitchforks and torches for the billionth time, convinced this time they will take down Orange Man Bad.

One interesting point is how some in the press are now terrified of Trump — or, more likely, his lawyers. Trump has scored two massive lawsuit victories against both ABC and CBS since he returned to the Oval Office. The two networks agreed to pay many millions in legal settlements. Now, when outlets cover Trump, they’ve grown more careful. Several opted to use the word “uncorroborated” in their articles, which I’m sure made their lawyers and accountants happy. The Los Angeles Times, CBS News and The Associated Press all fell into that category.

Other news organizations went with some form of “allegation,” another lawyer-preferred safe word. That included our friends at CNN, The Guardian and The Hill. MS NOW really covered its bases with “unsubstantiated Trump allegations.” That’s a double-word score in Scrabble — The Legal Edition.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

That kind of institutional CYA (cover your allegations) shows that this latest batch of stories isn’t worth the paper they’re mostly not even printed on.

Back during the heyday of the press actively censoring the Biden laptop story, The Washington Post ran an opinion piece arguing that we couldn’t trust claims either way. It was what that same outlet would have called a non-denial denial in the Watergate years. Here’s the headline: “Insisting that the Hunter Biden laptop is fake is a trap. So is insisting that it’s real.” Schrödinger’s propaganda, for the nerds out there.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

It was the subhead from that op-ed that really applies almost 10 years later: “The lesson of 2016 is to be even more careful with potential disinformation in 2020.” That’s what we’re dealing with here, in the midst of war where our enemies have turned the internet into a battleground, trying to endanger our troops and bombard us with lies. 

Where thousands of American lives are on the line every second, where the men and women who protect us are risking everything to do so. Because President Donald Trump and America are at war with Iran. And the press is at war with Trump. 

The late, great President Ronald Reagan used to advise us to “trust, but verify.” We should update that warning for the legacy media: “Distrust — they’ve earned it.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAN GAINOR

GREGG JARRETT: Democrat war powers vote was an unconstitutional way to halt Iran strikes

The Senate on March 4 wisely rejected a new war powers resolution aimed at halting or restricting President Donald Trump’s ability to carry out further military strikes against Iran. A House version also failed. 

Introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the resolution in the upper chamber called for ending hostilities “unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force” issued by Congress.

The resolution, supported by nearly all Democrats, was defective for several reasons.

First, the president can engage in military action with or without a declaration of war. He does not need permission from Congress. Second, there already exists a valid authorization for use of military force that applies directly to the current conflict. Third, such a resolution unconstitutionally violates the separation of powers.

HOUSE VOTES TO LET TRUMP’S OPERATION EPIC FURY CONTINUE IN IRAN

The fallacy of the Democrats’ argument is easily demonstrated by revisiting their own words. It was not that long ago that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that President Barack Obama did not need authorization from Congress to bomb Libya in 2011. Democrats in unison mimicked her point of view.

They maintained their immutable stance as Obama conducted air strikes in six more countries — Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Syria. President Joe Biden followed suit with similar strikes, and nary a complaint from Democrats. 

But when Trump does it, the partisan wolves are scratching at the White House door accusing him of acting lawlessly. Hypocrisy is always in vogue on Capitol Hill.

TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKES GET LEGAL COVER AS SCHOLARS SAY ARTICLE II PLAYBOOK SPANS OBAMA ERA AND BEYOND

Trump critics are wrong when they assert that the president is usurping the power of Congress to pursue military action. Quite the opposite. He is executing those powers granted directly to him by the people through the Constitution.

Democrats are the ones who are guilty of attempting to arrogate presidential power.

Constitutional powers

PENTAGON POLICY CHIEF GRILLED AS DEM CLAIMS TRUMP BROKE PROMISE ABOUT GOING TO WAR WITH IRAN

Our Founding Framers deliberately chose to separate responsibility between the president and Congress in all matters of military action. This separation of powers is embedded in the Constitution that the Founders composed in the summer of 1787.

In Article II, Section 1, “executive power” was granted to the president. An essential element was discretionary authority over foreign affairs and military action to counter threats. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the famous Marbury v. Madison decision by Chief Justice John Marshall, who explained that the legislature has “no power to control that discretion.”

Congress was not left out but given a limited function. In the original draft, it was empowered “to make War.” However, James Madison and others successfully argued that such language would give the legislature an outsize role in the conduct of war, which was purely an executive duty.

NIKKI HALEY SLAMS DEMOCRATS WHO SAY IRANIAN REGIME ‘WAS NO THREAT TO AMERICA’: ‘ABSURD’

Article I, Section 8 was therefore amended to give Congress only the power “to declare war.” What does that mean? It is a formal proclamation to initiate a state of war, typically at the request of the president. It is narrowly construed and is by no means the exclusive power to commence military action. That rests with the president, although Congress can always refuse appropriations to pay for it.

The U.S. has issued declarations of war 11 times in five conflicts. Yet, more than 200 times presidents have invoked their own constitutional authority to deploy and conduct aggressive military action against foreign foes to protect the national interest and secure the safety of Americans.

Article I does not grant Congress the power to prevent a president from doing so.

HASSELBECK CONFRONTS HOSTIN ON ‘THE VIEW’ OVER OBAMA BOMBING LIBYA AMID IRAN DEBATE

War Powers Resolution of 1973

During the undeclared “war” in Vietnam, Congress passed a resolution that sought to constrain President Richard Nixon’s power to conduct military operations. It essentially rewrote the Constitution, giving lawmakers the power they do not have while diluting the authority of the commander in chief.  

It is well established that the legislature cannot, by a simple vote, take away an executive power vested in the president by Article II of the Constitution and simultaneously recast Article I authority. That would require altering the Constitution by amendment.

REP BRIAN MAST: DEMOCRATS DON’T WANT WAR POWERS, THEY WANT TO WAVE A WHITE FLAG

For years, many prominent Democrats vigorously denounced the very resolution that their party passed in 1973 with majority control in both Houses. In 1988, Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, soon to become majority leader, criticized it as flagrantly unconstitutional.

“[T]he War Powers Resolution does not work because it oversteps the constitutional bounds on Congress’ power to control the Armed Forces in situations short of war and because it potentially undermines our ability to effectively defend our national interests,” Mitchell said. 

Mitchell, who was once a federal judge and knew a thing or two about the Constitution, was correct. However, since the Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the resolution, it remains an active but misbegotten law. No president since 1973 has accepted it as a valid constitutional constraint on their power.

SEN RAND PAUL: AMERICA IS AT WAR, BUT AMERICANS DIDN’T VOTE FOR IT

Some, including Obama, simply ignored it. All presidents in the last 53 years have reserved the right to act unilaterally while still following some of its dubious requirements. That is, notification to Congress within 48 hours and troop withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless specifically authorized by Congress. 

Thus far, President Donald Trump has fully complied.

If Congress chooses to demand cessation, Trump can disregard it knowing confidently that both precedence and the Constitution would fully justify it. In crafting that esteemed document, the Framers excluded the legislature from any definitive power to end hostilities or war.

PELOSI’S WAR POWERS FLIP-FLOP EXPOSED IN RESURFACED OBAMA-ERA CLIP CONTRADICTS TRUMP CRITICISM ON IRAN

Authorization for use of military force

Immediately after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It granted the president exclusive and extraordinary powers to target those groups and nations that “aided the terrorist attacks … or harbored” the perpetrators of 9/11. The stated goal was to “prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

One only needs to read the report of the 9/11 Commission to be reminded of Iran’s complicity. For years, the government in Tehran actively aided and abetted deadly attacks on America by offering al Qaeda terrorists extensive training, intelligence, transit, logistics, weaponry and funding. Some of the terrorists that Iran supported were the very same “future 9/11 hijackers,” the report explained.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, several top al Qaeda leaders fled to neighboring Iran, where they were given safe haven.

As the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, Iran has waged a blood-soaked war against the United States for 47 years. On its own and through its menacing proxies and militias, it has attacked our bases, targeted our citizens, kidnapped our diplomats and claimed the lives of more Americans than any terrorist regime on Earth.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The maniacal leadership has spent decades building a deadly arsenal of ballistic missiles and attempting to obtain nuclear weapons with the singular purpose of using them against the United States and our stalwart ally, Israel. The evidence of this is overwhelming.

For all these reasons, President Trump has ample constitutional authority — indeed, an affirmative duty — to take preemptive action to end the sinister threat once and for all. 

Here come the big bombs as US escalates strikes on Iran’s huge military arsenal

“Our stockpiles of defensive and offensive weapons allow us to sustain this campaign as long as we need to,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said at U.S. Central Command headquarters on Thursday.

From a tactical perspective, the scale of the airstrikes unleashed in Operation Epic Fury indicates that the U.S. almost waited too long. Starting the campaign to take out Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones required strikes on almost 2,000 aimpoints in just the first few days. That’s one munition per aimpoint, and there could be thousands more to go.

It was then or never. Iran planned to stockpile missiles and drones and build a handful of nuclear weapons that no military force could reach. “Iranian negotiators said to us directly, with no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60% and they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs,” U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said Tuesday. 

The terrifying scale of Iran’s target set went unnoticed by most of the world until last Saturday.

US ‘WINNING DECISIVELY’ AGAINST IRAN, WILL ACHIEVE ‘COMPLETE CONTROL’ OF AIRSPACE WITHIN DAYS, HEGSETH SAYS

Imagine how difficult this job would have been in a few years — especially with Russia and China helping Iran restock.

“This operation needed to happen because Iran, in about a year or a year and a half, would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones that no one could do anything about it, because they could hold the whole world hostage,” Rubio said on Capitol Hill on Monday. “Look at the damage they’re doing now. And this is a weakened Iran … imagine a year from now,” he added.

With Iran’s command and control degraded and air defenses flattened, the southern air ingress approaches to the country are wide open. “And now, with complete control of the skies, we will be using 500-pound, 1,000-pound and 2,000-pound GPS — and laser-guided precision gravity bombs, of which we have a nearly unlimited stockpile,” Hegseth said at the Pentagon on Wednesday.

Here come the big bombs to take on hundreds of targets. Those targets include factories, weapons storage sites and every IRGC facility U.S. forces can find. And it’s all happening while a 2,000-mile arc of aerial defense continues.

REP BRIAN MAST: DEMOCRATS DON’T WANT WAR POWERS, THEY WANT TO WAVE A WHITE FLAG

The U.S. is not running out of bombs for Operation Epic Fury. Here are seven systems seeing heavy action:

Joint Direct Attack Munition: JDAMs use GPS satellite guidance to hit precise coordinates. The combat-proven JDAM family of munitions is actually a kit. You take a Mk 82 500-pound free-fall gravity bomb, a Mk 83 1,000-pound bomb body or a Mk 84 2,000-pound bomb body, then attach a precision seeker and a tail kit with steering fins just before missions. Military munitions specialists — sometimes called AMMO troops — build the bombs before loading them onto the aircraft. In the Navy, for example, you can spot ordnance loaders on an aircraft carrier deck by their red jerseys. In 2003, U.S. fighter and bomber crews dropped 5,086 of the 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAMs in Operation Iraqi Freedom. So yes, planners knew to stock up. A new wing kit doubled the range for the JDAM Extended Range variant. JDAMs can attack “off-axis,” meaning behind or to the side of the fighter or bomber.

GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb: Combining precision with powerful explosives, the Small Diameter Bomb weighs 250 pounds and has a remarkable 40-nautical-mile range when launched, along with the ability to strike moving vehicles. The bomb body is advanced, with a more powerful but compact explosive that limits collateral damage. Aircrews can change coordinates in flight for this GPS-guided munition. F-22 Raptors can drop SDBs while flying supersonic.

VANCE SAYS US HAS ‘MUCH GREATER CAPACITY’ TO HIT IRAN, CAMPAIGN COULD ‘GO A LOT LONGER’

Patriot and THAAD: U.S. forces are leading the defense against missile and drone threats. Patriot remains the gold standard for terminal-phase intercepts, and Hegseth noted inventories were in good shape. THAAD — Terminal High Altitude Area Defense — is also widely used.

Air-to-air missiles: For drones, there are many options, starting with fighter aircraft armed with AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles) and AIM-9 Sidewinders. Drones can be tricky to detect on radar, but recent experience in Ukraine means the U.S. has fresh identifying characteristics to work with. Once in range, the slow, hot, whirring pusher engine of Iran’s Shahed drones is not difficult to target. However, Hegseth noted counter-UAS systems have been pushed forward. You knew American technology was the foundation of Ukraine’s superb air defenses, right?  

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

VAMPIRE and Coyote: The VAMPIRE counter-drone system’s name says it all: Vehicle-Agnostic Modular Palletized ISR Rocket Equipment. That means it can go on almost any truck and fire different missiles. The Navy rushed it to Ukraine in 2023, and since then, “VAMPIRE users have successfully shot down hundreds of enemy drones,” according to manufacturer L3Harris. Other examples include Coyote, a small drone that can launch from a sonobuoy to destroy hostile drones or loiter to disable them with electronic jamming in its “non-kinetic” variant. Both have been tested against drone swarms.

To be sure, some Standard Missile-3 Block 1A and Block 2B variants have been heavily taxed. U.S. Navy Aegis destroyers launch SM-3s for exo-atmospheric, midcourse hit-to-kill shots against Iranian ballistic missiles. 

On Feb. 4, the Pentagon anticipated the need and announced Tomahawk production would be boosted to 1,000 per year, AMRAAMs to at least 1,900 and SM-6 missiles to more than 500 annually, with SM-3 production accelerating to two to four times its classified annual rate. For obvious reasons, full munitions inventories are not public information.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Your joint force is steady, frosty, calm and focused,” Caine said.

And they have the weapons to carry out their missions.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM REBECCA GRANT

DAVID MARCUS: SCOTUS gets case on transing kids right, despite three clueless justices

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this week in a 6-3 decision that California teachers cannot hide from parents the fact that their child is identifying as trans in school while the broader case works its way through the courts, but the real question is, what on Earth were the three dissenting liberals thinking?

In fairness, our justices of the left, Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor and Katanji Brown-Jackson, did not render a final judgment in the case. But the idea that parents should be kept in the dark while it plays out is simply repulsive.

The majority, in as obvious a statement as one can make, decided that parents have the “primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,'” including “the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”

As every parent knows, their permission is needed at school for everything from field trips to special holiday meals, but apparently the dissenting trio believes there is an argument to be made for not telling parents their child has changed their gender. Abject madness.

CHLOE COLE ACT AIMED AT BLOCKING MINORS FROM UNDERGOING LIFE-ALTERING TRANSGENDER SURGERIES, GOP LAWMAKER SAYS

Worse, when you think it through, is that instead of talking about this legitimate mental health challenge with their folks, children are supposed to trust other adults more to make decisions about their gender and sexuality, an incredibly dangerous idea.

Most parents, if they discovered another adult was secretly encouraging their son to wear dresses, would immediately call the police, as they should.

What led the misguided liberals on the court here is the most fundamental misunderstanding, or flat-out lie, if you prefer, underlying the case, that people can be born in the wrong body or change genders.

PRISHA MOSLEY: DOCTORS TOOK MY BODY APART FOR GENDER ‘CARE.’ NOW THEY ADMIT IT WAS WRONG

Once the justices crack open this pandora’s box, it opens the door to arguments that parents are somehow violating their own children’s rights by refusing to accept their claim to be trans. All across the country, parents have lost access to their children for refusing to feed the trans delusion.

Take the case of Jeanette Cooper of Chicago, who lost custody of her 12-year-old daughter after she went to her father’s house and claimed she was a boy. Even after affirming her child’s pronouns, Cooper still lost custody under the same laws that protect kids from abuse.

“A difference in belief is not abuse,” Cooper told Fox News in 2023. “I think that children who are actually being abused in very material ways should be insulted by this.”

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICT LETS STUDENTS CHANGE NAMES AND GENDER IDENTITY IN SECRET FROM PARENTS

Apparently, the Supreme Court’s liberals and progressives in general believe that parents who do not just simply and blindly accept that their child has changed genders should have that kept from them, and perhaps even lose them if they refuse to give in.

Is it possible that there are a handful of parents out there who might actually abuse their kids for being trans? It is, but first of all, abuse is already illegal, and more importantly, we cannot disregard the basic rights of all parents because of a few alleged bad apples.

All of this is rooted in the creepy progressive idea that your kids belong to society, not to you, that it is the state, not the parents who bear ultimate responsibility for the child’s development and well-being.

MAINE MOM ASKS SUPREME COURT TO STEP IN AFTER SCHOOL ALLEGEDLY HID CHILD’S GENDER TRANSITION

If there is abuse or neglect, the state can and must step in, but this must be the extreme exception, never the rule, and it should not apply at all in terms of gender identity.

Along with the recent decision by Langone Medical Center and other major hospitals to cease the medical transition of children, this 6-3 decision by the court, and the likely final decision along those lines, are powerful steps back towards sanity.

The conservatives on the court are to be commended for this common-sense decision, but until all of our institutions reject the idea that gender is fluid or nonbinary, we will continue to have children confused about their gender.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

It is not enough to compel teachers to disclose to parents if a child thinks they are trans, they must also be compelled not to preach this fairy tale of gender identity in our schools at all. 

With this Supreme Court decision, that goal is firmly within reach.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAVID MARCUS

Parents, not bureaucrats, raise America’s children and the Supreme Court agrees

The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that should strike fear into woke school boards across America. In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Court held that a California law preventing schools from disclosing to parents their child’s claimed “gender identity” at school violated parents’ free exercise rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment and their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court determined that California’s policy of socially transitioning children to a different gender at school without parental consent likely violates the free exercise rights of those who have “sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs.” The court went on to note that this “unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition is greater than the indoctrination of LGBTQ story books” that the court addressed last summer in Mahmoud v. Taylor The court similarly found in Mahmoudthat Montgomery County Public Schools violated the rights of objecting parents. That school district paid out $1.5 million to settle the case.

The court also made clear that California’s policy requiring schools to keep a student’s “gender identity” secret from parents likely violated their well-established “rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children” and that the denial of these rights “constitutes irreparable harm.” 

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN ‘GENDER SECRECY’ POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The importance of this decision for parents cannot be overstated. Schools across America must now request parental consent before facilitating a child’s social transition to a different sex. In other words, if a student wants to be addressed at school by pronouns of the opposite sex or use the bathroom or locker room of the opposite sex, the school must get parental consent. Schools can no longer hide or abet the facilitation of a student’s gender transition from parents and pretend it is lawful.

Anyone who has been paying attention to what has been going on in America’s public schools over the last five years knows that California is not the only place where K-12 school districts have been actively hiding a student’s social transition from parents. For example, in Virginia, Loudoun County Public Schools’ Regulation 8040 states that “[a] student’s gender identity or transgender status should not be shared without the student’s consent.” The district’s teacher training documents state that “privacy and confidentiality are critical for transgender students who have family that do not support or affirm their gender identity,” and that when students “do not want their parents to know about their gender identity [] schools should address this on a case-by-case basis.” 

Applying the Supreme Court’s holding in Mirabelli to those policies leads to only one conclusion — they are blatantly unconstitutional. School boards that continue to maintain these policies will do so at their own peril, which arguably could include school board members and other officials being sued in their individual capacity and for punitive damages. And to be clear, the risk of litigation is not limited to parents whose children have been socially transitioned at school. Rather, as the court made clear, “parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions” have standing to sue “because they are objects of the challenged policy.” That means that any parent whose school district has a policy like Loudoun’s can sue, either individually or as part of a class action, for deprivation of their free exercise and substantive due process rights.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The Mirabelli decision provides robust rights for parents to demand that schools seek parental consent before their own child is referred to by opposite-sex pronouns, a different name, or uses a bathroom or locker room of the opposite sex. And, it doesn’t require a huge leap to argue that parents’ free exercise and substantive due process rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children can also be violated when someone else’s child begins using locker rooms or common restrooms of the opposite sex.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Consider a boy who is allowed to use a girls’ locker room as part of his social transition at school. Parents of the girls using that locker room may very well have religious, philosophical or safety objections to their daughters changing with members of the opposite sex. Unless the school informs parents that their daughters will be exposed to a male student in their locker room before it happens, the girls’ parents are denied the ability to take action they deem necessary to direct the upbringing and education of their children. That is exactly what happens in Loudoun County.

Unfortunately, even with the United States Supreme Court’s clear ruling, some of America’s woke school boards and administrators will likely continue violating the Constitution. They need to be hauled into court and forced to stop and then pay serious money for their intransigence. The Supreme Court’s ruling re-affirms what the Constitution states and legal precedent has affirmed: parents have a Constitutional right to parent their children. Parents have the legal authority and power to do exactly this — and they should use it.

KEN CUCCINELLI: Biden opened our border to Iranian terrorism threats

In the tense days following the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani on Jan. 3, 2020, Iran responded with missile barrages on American bases in Iraq, injuring scores of people but deliberately avoiding fatalities. Tehran promised “harsh retaliation,” but no attacks struck U.S. soil. The reason wasn’t deterrence alone or diplomatic restraint but something simpler: Iran lacked operational assets inside the United States.

At the time, the regime had only scattered sympathizers, not embedded networks capable of executing homeland strikes. U.S. intelligence assessments after the strike highlighted threats abroad but noted no credible, specific domestic dangers because Iran’s reach stopped short of American borders.

Secure frontiers and rigorous vetting under the Trump administration ensured that potential operatives couldn’t infiltrate U.S. defenses easily. Encounters with Iranians at the U.S. southern border averaged less than 20 annually from 2000 to 2019. The homeland remained insulated from the threat of terrorism from Iran.

Now, in March 2026, as U.S. and Israeli forces destroy Iran’s nuclear sites and tyrannical leadership in Operation Epic Fury — killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and sparking regional responses — the calculus has shifted perilously. Iran has fired missiles on U.S. outposts in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and beyond.

BEYOND THE IRAN DEAL: WHY TRUMP’S REFUSAL TO ‘KICK THE CAN’ JUST SAVED GENERATIONS

But the gravest risk simmers within the United States: potential activation of sleeper cells or lone actors on American soil. This vulnerability stems directly from four years of open-border policies under President Joe Biden, who flung doors wide open to unchecked immigration, swelling Iran’s pool of sympathizers in the United States and possibly embedding assets at the regime’s behest.

US ON HIGH ALERT FOR IRANIAN SLEEPER CELLS, PROXIES

After the Soleimani strike, Iran’s plots against the U.S. homeland were aspirational at best. The regime planned assassinations of U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump and former national security advisor John Bolton, as revenge for the general’s death. Yet these fizzled under vigilant counterterrorism efforts and gained no operational foothold in the United States.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bulletins warned of Iran’s intentions to use proxies such as Hezbollah, but emphasized its lack of immediate capability to carry out domestic attacks. Borders acted as a bulwark; Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions and law-based immigration enforcement choked infiltration routes. Iranian-backed networks lurked in South America’s tri-border area, but U.S. enforcement cut off their northward paths.

Biden’s reversal of these policies invited chaos. Starting on Inauguration Day, he dismantled the border wall, axed the very successful “Remain in Mexico” policy, and allowed catch-and-release numbers to balloon. Over 10 million encounters with illegal immigrants followed, including surges from terrorism-prone nations. Apprehensions of Iranians skyrocketed: Border Patrol arrested 1,504 Iranian nationals from fiscal year 2021 to 2024 — a twenty-fivefold leap from the two prior decades.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Alarmingly, 729 of them were released into the United States, often after scant vetting amid overwhelmed systems. This wasn’t mere oversight; policies such as expanded asylum loopholes and deportation reluctance effectively welcomed risks. In June 2025, ICE rounded up 11 Iranians illegally present in the country, including a former army sniper, a Revolutionary Guard member, and a Hezbollah affiliate — all of whom had slipped in during Biden’s tenure. Intelligence flagged 35 more Iranians plotting cartel-aided crossings that same month.

These entrants expanded Iran’s base of sympathizers and potentially provided support for assets of the Iranian regime. Border czar Tom Homan decried the fueling of “sleeper cells,” a sentiment echoed in DHS alerts about Iran’s use of proxies amid escalating conflicts. Biden’s approach to immigration didn’t just strain resources; it extended an invitation to adversaries. As one national security expert put it, U.S. borders became a “sieve” through which global threats could pass. Hezbollah’s long-standing Latin American hubs funneled operatives north, exploiting the lax border enforcement.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Today, with Khamenei dead and Iran’s regime cornered, desperation mounts. Trump warns of Tehran’s nuclear brinkmanship. Experts foresee retaliation against the U.S. homeland through infiltrated cells — cells likely planted during the Biden administration. Texas Governor Greg Abbott urges vigilance against “sleeper cells or lone wolves,” and former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe calls for elevated alerts over infiltration. A recent shooting in Austin, Texas, tied to an Iran-linked suspect heightens fears of terrorist attacks at home.

The explosion of risk is profound. In 2020, Iran’s dearth of assets spared the homeland. Now, Biden’s immigration policies have stocked a tinderbox of sympathizers and unknowns, ready for conflagration. Averting – or at least minimizing – disaster requires sealing the borders, reviving stringent vetting and expelling threats. These are all steps the Trump administration has pursued aggressively, but we must commit to maintain such a course for years to come and never let our country inflict such risks upon itself ever again.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY KEN CUCCINELLI

STEVE FORBES: The AI Cold War has begun and America cannot afford to lose

History teaches a simple lesson: the nation that sets the standards sets the future. In the 20th century, America wrote the rulebook for aviation, computing and finance. In the 21st, the decisive battleground is artificial intelligence. And make no mistake — Beijing intends to write the rules.

As everyone is now grasping, artificial intelligence will not be a niche technology. It will fundamentally reshape medicine, manufacturing, logistics, national defense and financial markets. It will create whole new industries. Analysts project trillions of dollars in economic value by decade’s end. For now, the United States remains the innovation leader. But leadership is not guaranteed — especially when the Chinese Communist Party is deploying cheap, coal-fired energy, massive state subsidies and underhanded tactics to close the gap.

Beijing’s strategy centers on so-called “open-weight” AI models — systems whose parameters are downloadable and customizable. These models are exportable by design. They allow foreign governments to run the software on their own infrastructure, keeping servers, chips and data within their borders. In other words, China is offering countries a turnkey path to sovereign AI clouds — powered by Chinese architecture.

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

By contrast, America’s most advanced labs — companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic — largely operate closed systems. These proprietary models are technological marvels, and U.S. enterprises and federal agencies are adopting them at scale. But they are controlled environments. The rules, safety frameworks and innovation pathways are set inside corporate boardrooms. They are not built to be downloaded, modified and deployed globally as infrastructure.

China has recognized an uncomfortable truth: most nations will not build their own AI from scratch. They will adopt existing systems. For developing or resource-constrained countries, the choice may become stark — expensive, proprietary American services hosted abroad, or high-performing Chinese systems that can be run domestically at low cost. If that binary hardens, Beijing’s model will win market share — and influence.

This is not a purely commercial contest. AI systems reflect the societies that build them. A system shaped by the authoritarian priorities of the Chinese Communist Party will inevitably encode censorship, surveillance bias and state control. Evidence already raises alarms. Chinese models such as those developed by DeepSeek have been shown to amplify Beijing’s propaganda narratives and exhibit troubling vulnerabilities, including susceptibility to “jailbreaks” that bypass safety controls. Combined with China’s documented history of embedding hidden access points in advanced technologies, these weaknesses present obvious national-security concerns.

Allowing Chinese open models to become the global template would export more than code. It would export governance assumptions — about speech, privacy and political power. That is unacceptable for a free society.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S TOP ‘SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY IS AI,’ ENERGY SECRETARY SAYS

The answer is not to retreat from openness but to compete in it. The United States must lead in open-weight AI grounded in American values and market incentives. As President Trump’s America’s AI Action Plan correctly observed, open-source and open-weight models can become global standards in business and academia. That gives them geostrategic weight. If we fail to provide credible, competitive alternatives, others will fill the vacuum.

Leadership requires policy clarity. First, Washington must embrace a light-touch regulatory framework that sets sensible guardrails without suffocating innovation. Excessive federal micromanagement would drive research offshore and hand Beijing a gift. Second, states should resist the temptation to erect a patchwork of conflicting AI regulations. Fifty different rulebooks will not strengthen American leadership; they will fracture it.

Third, policymakers must understand the enabling foundation of AI: abundant, affordable energy and cutting-edge semiconductor capacity. Affected companies should heed President Trump’s call to build their own power plants. Artificial intelligence runs on electricity and advanced chips. If we throttle domestic energy production or undermine our semiconductor ecosystem, we undercut our own ambitions.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Finally, we must integrate AI into our national-security architecture. Advanced systems will be indispensable in identifying emerging military threats, hardening critical infrastructure and safeguarding communications. The free world should build atop American-designed platforms, not those engineered to serve an authoritarian state.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The United States has always thrived thanks to innovation made possible by free markets. That’s why we have the world’s reserve currency, the dominant operating systems and the most dynamic capital markets. We did it not by copying others, but by setting the pace. Artificial intelligence is the next great arena.

If we allow Beijing to write the AI rulebook, we will inherit a world shaped by censorship and coercion. If we lead — boldly, intelligently and with faith in free enterprise — we will shape a future that reflects liberty, transparency and opportunity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM STEVE FORBES