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

DR MARC SIEGEL: A racial slur at BAFTA — and what tolerance really means

The 79th British Academy Film Awards, or BAFTAs, were broadcast on the BBC on Sunday, February 22. As Fox News reported, the BBC was forced to issue an apology “after a racial slur was shouted by an audience member with Tourette syndrome” during the BAFTA broadcast. this audience member was none other than the renowned Scottish Tourette’s activist, John Davidson.

“John Davidson, who has severe Tourette syndrome and was the inspiration for the BAFTA-nominated biographical film ‘I Swear,’ was heard shouting the n-word while Black actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were on stage. During other portions of the program, Davidson was heard shouting profanities, including ‘f— you’ and ‘shut the f— up.’”

Beginning with “John’s Not Angry,” a documentary about John Davidson’s behavior due to Tourette’s syndrome released in 1989, to “I Swear,” which won multiple awards at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts this week, Davidson has been an incredible ambassador for the disease, culminating in his being awarded an MBE (Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) in 2019. 

It is now ironic that the very unprovoked and unbridled manifestations of the disease — which led him to say again that he feels ashamed — are the very manifestations that require forbearance and understanding on the part of others.

Actors at the BAFTA awards who said that Davidson was being racist for hurling racial epithets are not correct. His outbursts are organic, were a manifestation of the disease, not evidence of some underlying belief that many people try to mask. The BBC has admitted fault for not editing them out, but performers and presenters at BAFTA should also have been forewarned. I don’t believe that Davidson should have been barred from being present at the very awards that celebrated his condition and the need to accept it.

John Davidson is 54-years-old and first knew there was something seriously wrong at age 9, when he began skipping down the streets and licking the lampposts of London. 

This was followed by episodes of spitting food at family members, which led to his father leaving the family altogether. John Davidson — the man whose true story beat the A-list at the BAFTAs — has refused to be defined by his condition. This is inspiring.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

But Davidson has never given in to the debilitating life of severe Tourette’s. In fact, his advocacy for increased awareness is heroic and has led to a growing effort to destigmatize an embarrassing and demoralizing disease, which leads almost 50 percent of its adult sufferers to consider suicide — Davidson among them.

Davidson has lived a life of stress and shame and has had a heart attack, as well as heart surgery. He has tried various treatments, including antipsychotic medications (which he didn’t tolerate) and a wristband called Neupulse, which releases electrical pulses in an attempt to decrease the urge to tic (it worked for him to some extent). Deep brain stimulation is a promising treatment for severe Tourette’s that is still being studied.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Keep in mind that Tourette’s is a spectrum disorder, meaning it has a range of associated symptoms. “Tics” can be mild, repetitive body movements, twitches or sounds, all the way up to the coprolalia that Davidson exhibited, which involves “the involuntary outburst of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks.” It affects only 10 to 30 percent of Tourette’s sufferers. Most importantly, the lack of control that it causes does not reveal underlying racism, disrespect or rage. It is a neurological condition involving increased disruption of dopamine release and sensitivity, as well as problems with the limbic system of the brain.

With over 300,000 people suffering from some form of Tourette’s in the U.K. and more than 1 million in the U.S. — and up to 1 percent of the world’s population living with some form of the disorder — it is important that we pursue not only more advanced treatments but also greater sensitivity and empathy.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DR. MARC SIEGEL

Our Boeing ‘Freedom Plane’ is bringing founding documents to all Americans

In an era when our shared history should be celebrated, our founding principles cherished and the extraordinary sacrifices that built this nation remembered, Boeing is proud to partner with the National Archives an unprecedented mission: bringing some of America’s founding documents directly to the American people.

The Freedom Plane National Tour: Documents That Forged a Nation represents something rare in modern America: a commitment to unifying, educating and honoring the timeless truths that have made our republic the greatest force for freedom the world has ever known.

Beginning Monday, March 2, a Boeing 737 in a historic, commemorative Freedom Plane livery – will carry original, founding-era documents to eight cities across the nation. These are the actual documents some of our Founders held in their hands: the Treaty of Paris, an original engraving of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Association, Oaths of Allegiance and more.

For most Americans, experiencing these documents has meant traveling to Washington, D.C. The Freedom Plane changes that equation. From Kansas City to Atlanta, from Denver to Seattle, from Miami to Los Angeles, the tour is helping to bring history home to the American people using the innovation of modern flight.

The Freedom Plane offers something our digital age desperately needs: a tangible connection to the past. Inspired by the 1976 Bicentennial Freedom Train that captivated millions of Americans during our 200th anniversary, the Freedom Plane revives that vision for America’s 250th birthday.

Boeing is honored to provide not only the 737 – an aircraft that helped make air travel more accessible – but also the professionalism and operational support necessary to safely transport these irreplaceable treasures. Just as Boeing airplanes have connected people and places for generations, the Freedom Plane will connect Americans to the ideas and sacrifices that forged our nation.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Boeing has been building the future of American aviation for over a century, and that future is only possible because of the freedoms our Founders secured. The same Constitution that protects free enterprise and rewards innovation has enabled Boeing and countless American companies to thrive. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who came before us, and the Freedom Plane is just one way we can acknowledge that.

This tour also reflects Boeing’s deep roots in American defense and our ongoing commitment to the men and women who defend these founding principles in uniform today. Our service members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Freedom Plane ensures that document and the vision it represents remains accessible to the citizens they protect.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

From coast to coast, the Freedom Plane will carry more than documents. It will carry the promise that America’s story belongs to every American, in every city, in every generation. Boeing is proud to help make history accessible, tangible, and inspiring for millions who might never otherwise experience these national treasures.

The ideas that forged our nation are worth preserving, celebrating and sharing with our children and grandchildren. The Freedom Plane will help us do exactly that.

America strikes Iran again — has Washington planned for what comes next?

The second round has begun. The United States and Israel have launched coordinated military strikes inside Iran, citing an existential threat tied to Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs. Explosions have been reported in Tehran and other cities. Iranian airspace was penetrated. Iran’s Supreme Leader has reportedly been moved to a secure location. Tehran has already launched counter-missiles and is vowing further retaliation, including potential strikes against U.S. bases if attacks continue.

The strikes are called “Operation Epic Fury.” It is the most significant U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran since last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer.

The military question was never whether we could strike.

It was always what happens next.

We’ve Been Here Before

Last June, Operation Midnight Hammer sent seven B-2 stealth bombers and a guided-missile submarine against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Fourteen 30,000-pound bunker-busters and more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles struck in under half an hour. President Donald Trump called it “complete and total obliteration.”

It was not. Damage was severe. But subsequent intelligence assessments concluded the program was set back by months, not years. Iran had reportedly moved portions of its enriched uranium stockpile before the strikes. By late 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency acknowledged it could no longer fully verify Iran’s nuclear inventory after inspectors were restricted or expelled.

Military force destroyed facilities. It did not erase knowledge. It did not dissolve intent.

Tehran absorbed that lesson.

Now Washington must show it has absorbed lessons of its own.

The Retaliation Ladder

Iran has already begun responding. The likely pattern is familiar: calibrated escalation.

Expect proxy attacks, cyber operations, missile signaling and maritime pressure. The Strait of Hormuz remains Tehran’s most powerful economic lever. Roughly one-fifth of global petroleum flows through that corridor. After the first strike, Iran’s parliament voted to close it, then backed down. A second confrontation, with succession dynamics now in play, may not follow the same script.

If Iran directly targets U.S. forces in large numbers, escalation could move quickly beyond limited strike-for-strike exchanges. The difference between a punitive raid and a sustained campaign is often one missile too many.

The Regime is Damaged — Not Gone

Those expecting collapse should be cautious. On December 28, 2025, protests erupted in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar and spread nationwide. Thousands were killed or detained. The regime shook — but did not fall.

Security forces did not fracture. Senior defections did not materialize. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is eighty-six. Succession is looming. Karim Sadjadpour has described the moment as the “Autumn of the Ayatollahs,” a system under strain but still intact. The Council on Foreign Relations outlines three plausible post-Khamenei outcomes: continuity, IRGC dominance, or fragmentation. None guarantees moderation.

If clerical rule weakens further, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains the most organized institution in the country.

External strikes can fracture regimes. They can also consolidate hardliners.

The Revolutionary Guard may emerge stronger, not weaker.

The Opposition Question 

Some outside Iran look to Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. He has name recognition and diaspora support. But symbolic leadership and governing capacity are not interchangeable. He does not command a structured internal apparatus capable of immediately administering a 92 million-person state.

AYATOLLAH’S ARSENAL VS. AMERICAN FIREPOWER: IRAN’S TOP 4 THREATS AND HOW WE FIGHT BACK

Others point to the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) and the NCRI. They maintain an organized external network and cite congressional resolutions such as H.Res. 100 and H.Res. 1148 supporting a democratic, secular, non-nuclear Iran. Reports have described MEK-linked fighters mounting coordinated operations against regime compounds, signaling operational reach.

But operational reach does not equal governing legitimacy. The MEK’s wartime alignment with Saddam Hussein continues to shadow its domestic credibility. An armed opposition group can destabilize a regime. Governing the aftermath requires broader national consent.

At present, there is no clear post-regime blueprint.

That matters more today than it did yesterday.

China and Russia Will Not Sit Idle

Beijing and Moscow condemned earlier strikes but avoided direct confrontation. That restraint does not mean passivity. China remains Iran’s largest oil customer. Russia has conducted joint exercises with Iranian naval forces. Neither needs to send troops to complicate Washington’s objectives. Arms transfers, intelligence cooperation, cyber support and diplomatic shielding at the United Nations are sufficient to shape outcomes.

The conflict may remain regionally contained. But great-power friction always lurks at the margins.

The Real Test Begins Now

The second strike has happened.

The military demonstration is complete.

Now comes the harder phase.

Has Washington accounted for escalation in Hormuz? Has it gamed out IRGC consolidation? Has it prepared for succession turbulence? Has it defined clear objectives beyond “degrade and deter”? Has it established exit criteria?

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Iran learned from the first round. It dispersed material. It tightened security. It survived shock.

America must demonstrate it has learned, too.

Military strength can crater runways, collapse tunnels and silence radars.

Strategy determines whether that force reshapes the regime’s behavior — or merely resets the clock.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The world is watching the explosions.

History will judge what follows the morning after.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ROBERT MAGINNES

BROADCAST BIAS: Network gold meddling proves there’s no thrill of victory for leftists

One of the feel-good moments of the State of the Union address this week was President Donald Trump recognizing America’s gold medal-winning men’s hockey team. This should have been a great unifying and patriotic moment, but our elitist media never want any moments of unity under Trump. They had to make it about how the hockey team became his mascots.

One of the annoying trends of the Olympics was witnessing sports reporters – whether American or European – asking questions to our Olympians about how they could represent America with this horrible president at the helm and his immigration-enforcement actions. Does anyone recall these reporters bothering athletes about how they could represent America when Barack Obama or Joe Biden were president? Of course not.

On “CBS Evening News” on Wednesday, Feb. 25, reporter Jonah Kaplan pushed around USA hockey goalie Jeremy Swayman over Trump’s locker-room call to the victorious men. The president joked “I must tell you, we’re gonna have to bring the women’s team, You do know that.” The men laughed at the joke, and the left treated that as some kind of human-rights violation.

Kaplan urged Swayman to confess the sin in the laughter: “Yep, we should have reacted differently. We know that. We are so excited for the women’s team, we have so much respect for the women’s team.” Then women’s hockey player Kelly Panek agreed that the teams had mutual admiration. But the media wanted to separate them and villainize the men. Once again, CBS doesn’t look like it’s become “MAGA-coded” under Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, as the press claims.

On Thursday’s “Good Morning America” on ABC, Co-host Michael Strahan asked Olympic women’s hockey team captain Hilary Knight partway through the interview: “But Hilary, there has been a lot of talk about that call the president made to the men’s hockey team. Will the women’s team be accepting his offer to come to the White House?”

Knight made it seem like it won’t happen: “I’m not sure. I’m really not sure where that stands. There was an announcement the other day. As far as my knowledge, like, I have not seen anything.”

She then took her swipe at Trump: “I thought the call in itself was distasteful and an awesome learning moment to refocus the narrative and understand our words matter, and how we speak about women matters.”

OLYMPIC LEGEND KAILLIE HUMPHRIES REVEALS SUPPORT FOR TRUMP, ICE, SAVING WOMEN’S SPORTS AND MEN’S HOCKEY TEAM

Co-host Robin Roberts reacted as though Knight and the team had been subjected to some tremendous misogyny: “Well, I hope that you — and you’ve handled it — everyone — with such — with such grace and strength.”

It was the same on Thursday’s “CBS Mornings,” as Co-host Vladimir Duthiers underlined “the men are taking some heat for laughing along with the president at that joke [at] the expense of the women’s hockey team.”    

CBS aired a clip of Knight from ESPN: “There’s a genuine level of support there and respect. I think that’s being overshadowed by a quick lapse. I think the guys were in a tough spot, so I think it’s a shame this storyline and narrative has kind of blown up and overshadowing that connection and genuine interest in one another and cheering each other on.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

On Thursday night’s “World News Tonight,” ABC reporter Will Reeve ran Swayman’s confession alongside fellow men’s Olympian Charlie McAvoy taking his place in the line of regrets: “Certainly sorry for how we responded to it. And if you know the men’s team and if you know the relationships that we have, the amount of time that we’ve spent, you know, with the women’s team and how we’ve supported them, it’s certainly not reflective of how we feel.” Reeve also repeated Knight’s scolding answer about Trump’s “distasteful” phone call to the men’s team.

The Big Three broadcast networks also played up the controversy over FBI Director Kash Patel showing up to the men’s hockey victory celebration in the locker room and drinking beers with them. From Feb. 23 through the evening of Feb. 27 there were five mentions of Patel hanging out with Team USA for a total of 215 seconds aired on ABC (129 seconds), CBS (52 seconds), and NBC (34 seconds) or more than three and a half minutes’ worth.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The women’s hockey team declined a White House invite, citing “previously scheduled academic and professional commitments.” But the networks wanted a “snub” narrative. NPR ran this online headline about a ’90s rapper from the group Public Enemy: “Flavor Flav is among women’s hockey team fans outraged by presidential snub.” Cultural reporter Neda Ulaby quoted the rapper offering an alternative celebration on his Instagram channel: “If the USA Women’s Hockey Team wants a real celebration and invite… I’ll host them in Las Vegas.” Ulaby included a leftist critic trashing “anti-trans” conservatives who claim to support women’s sports.

Other leftist media commentators trashed the men’s hockey team after the State of the Union, calling them “lickspittles” and “self-absorbed scumbag misogynists.” Nothing can be an occasion for unity when Trump brings champions to the White House or the State of the Union. It was never an occasion for broadcast network muckraking or mud-throwing when Obama or Biden did it. The media are world-class competitors in partisanship. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TIM GRAHAM

Supreme Court blocks Trump tariffs—but hands him a smarter path forward

President Donald Trump has lost his tariff case in the Supreme Court. However, with careful and prudent use of the tariff powers he does have, he can turn this into a win for his policies and for America.

The Supreme Court has just ruled in Learning Services v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. While the act unquestionably gives him the power to regulate imports in the event of unusual and extraordinary emergencies, the dispute was whether tariffs — a kind of tax — are legally and constitutionally “regulation.”

While there were reasonable arguments on both sides, six of the nine justices ruled they are not, and that the IEEPA does not empower the president to impose tariffs. What are the likely economic consequences of this ruling, and what should it imply for future Trump trade policy?

First, note that as economic policy, tariffs are a bad idea. International trade raises incomes and promotes economic growth in every country that trades. Trade is mutually beneficial, win-win for all trading parties. It is a popular myth that trade destroyed American manufacturing. American manufacturing has steadily increased since 1970, more than doubling, as shown by data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

On the other hand, roughly 90% of the costs of the “liberation day” tariffs have been borne by American businesses and consumers, as shown in analysis by economists at the New York Federal Reserve. The American economy has had solid growth and low unemployment under Trump, but this is owing to his excellent energy and deregulation policies, which have reduced regulatory burdens. Tariff costs are another burden on the economy. Removing this drag should further encourage economic growth and employment.

VOTERS REACT AS TRUMP TOUTS SIGNATURE TARIFF PLAN AT STATE OF THE UNION

It is also a popular myth that a trade deficit is a loss for a country. The trade deficit, or current account, is balanced by the capital and financial accounts, that is, foreigners investing in America. There are two reasons why foreign investment flows into America. One is that America’s security and dynamism make it an attractive place to invest, a good thing. The other is the federal government’s growing appetite for borrowing to cover its burgeoning deficits, a bad thing. Tariffs and trade restrictions make America’s economy less dynamic and do nothing to curb the government’s fiscal irresponsibility. There is no good economic argument for tariffs.

However, for foreign policy and national security purposes, tariffs can have an important role. Numerous other laws authorize the president to impose such tariffs. For example, the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122 (under which Trump has now imposed 10% tariffs) authorizes tariffs in the event of severe balance-of-payments deficits. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232, authorizes tariffs on goods for national security purposes.

Numerous other laws authorize the president to impose tariffs. However, all of these include various reasonable conditions and limits. For example, if the president imposes a national security tariff, Section 232 gives the administration 270 days to develop a study justifying the tariff. Trump still holds broad power to impose tariffs, but now it is more constrained and requires transparent reasons for any particular exercise of this power.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

While this constrains Trump somewhat, he can turn this into a win for his presidency. Tariff power can be useful as a foreign policy tool, and by using a more nuanced and targeted approach to tariff policy, he can accomplish a lot of good for the American economy.

For example, the European Union is attempting to impose its ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards on American firms doing business in Europe, via the EU’s Corporate Due Diligence and Sustainability Mandates. EU mandates would apply to all of a firm’s activities everywhere, not just those in Europe.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Similarly, the EU has attempted to impose its Digital Services Act on American media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and Meta. This would require firms to monitor and censor free speech, despite America’s First Amendment protections. Targeted tariffs could be a very useful tool for punching back at this, protecting free commerce and defending American firms from such attacks. This would have the effect of strengthening America’s economy and position in the world.

President Trump has lost a round in the Supreme Court and his ability to impose tariffs is constrained. But with judicious use of the powers he retains, he can turn this into an opportunity to make America stronger and his presidency a greater success.

RICK PERRY: Where’s the beef? Trump knows and he’s trying to make it affordable

“America First” has been more than a slogan for President Trump. It has become a governing framework and near-mandate for his administration. America First policy decisions have manifested across immigration strategy, energy regulation, and, perhaps most clearly, trade policy.

The beef market has been in desperate need of an America First recalibration after President Joe Biden’s failed policies. Ground beef prices have become astronomical, reaching an average of $6.69 per pound in December, the highest price since tracking began in the 1980s.

These price increases are outpacing those of other food categories due to structural problems within the domestic beef market. Analysis from the American Farm Bureau Federation shows the domestic herd has fallen to a 75-year low and is continuing to shrink as fewer calves are retained for breeding. As a result, the U.S. cattle herd is unlikely to expand until at least 2028.

From my time as governor of Texas and agriculture commissioner for the nation’s leading cattle-producing state, I understand both the gravity of this situation and the need for a deliberate policy response.

In October, President Donald Trump addressed the need for beef affordability measures and signaled plans to increase imports, which he recently finalized through an executive order, opening the U.S. to an additional 80,000 metric tons of lean beef trimmings from Argentina this year.

This step is valuable because the U.S. does not produce enough beef to meet domestic demand, necessitating imports. Argentina is a strategic and well-suited partner to remedy our beef shortage because they specialize in lower-cost, lean beef. These trimmings from Argentina will be blended with fattier domestic beef to produce hamburgers and ground beef products – affordable staples in high demand.

Importing the specific type of affordable beef directly addresses supply and aligns with an America First approach. Expanding lean beef imports will reduce pressures on our beef supply, thus reducing costs for consumers while protecting cattle ranchers’ premium production.

THE SURPRISING REASON WHY AMERICANS COULD FACE HIGH BEEF PRICES FOR YEARS

The impacts of these smart imports are complemented and multiplied by broader efforts to strengthen the cattle sector, including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ October plan to fortify the American beef industry and President Trump’s directive for the Department of Justice to crack down on foreign-owned meat packing cartels.

Beyond these efforts, the administration should reassess the existing allocation of tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), which were configured in 1995. Reworking would acknowledge shifts in global production patterns and domestic market needs, putting U.S. ranchers in a better position.

Today, the overwhelming share of tariff-free beef imports are dedicated to Australia and New Zealand. Both countries focus heavily on premium, grass-fed exports – products that compete directly with higher-end U.S. beef in domestic and international markets.

By contrast, lean beef imports from South America primarily serve the lower-cost blended segment. Ranchers and their supporters criticizing the import increase from Argentina, but failing to push back about the near-unlimited market access Australia and New Zealand have are fighting the wrong battles.

The beef market has been in desperate need of an America First recalibration after President Joe Biden’s failed policies. 

Some policymakers have raised concerns that imports would sideline American ranchers and that we should focus on cutting red tape, lowering production costs and supporting cattle herd growth. These priorities are valid – but they’re not mutually exclusive with strategic imports.

RFK JR BACKS BEEF, DECLARING ‘WAR ON PROTEIN IS OVER’ AS HE THANKS AMERICA’S CATTLE RANCHERS

The notion that imports should be avoided is misguided and ignores structural supply realities. Strategic imports like lean trimmings can stabilize prices while allowing U.S. producers to concentrate on premium markets, where profitability is strongest. This is how we pave the path for rancher success.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

If U.S. ranchers are forced to simultaneously try and dominate serving both low-margin ground products and high-margin premium markets with higher-end cuts, they may become overwhelmed. From a long-term market perspective, overextension can discourage heifer retention and delay necessary herd rebuilding.

President Trump and his team are on the right path with the Argentina deal. This expansion should be defended unapologetically, incorporated beyond just 2026, and considered as part of a long-term strategy rather than a temporary measure.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Permanently expanding Argentina’s tariff-free access to the U.S. market for lean beef trimmings is how we ensure prices stop rising. The administration should also consider opportunities for expanded imports from other South American nations, such as Paraguay and Uruguay, where production aligns with U.S. market gaps.

Building an American First beef market requires precision and long-term thinking. The current policy shifts are moving in the right direction, which will support ranchers, strengthen our market and deliver affordability for American consumers.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RICK PERRY

If Trump wants to smash Mexican cartels, he’s got history and law on his side

With Puerto Vallarta and the state of Jalisco under siege from the cartels, American policymakers need to know that President Donald Trump would be on strong legal ground if he chooses to hit the cartels in Mexico or anywhere in the world.

Over the last four decades, the drug cartels have transported tens of thousands of military-age men over our borders, many of them carrying weapons of mass destruction like fentanyl or carfentanil. This isn’t “migration.” It’s an invasion, and, under the Constitution, the president not only has the authority, but the duty to act.

Though the drug cartels are non-state actors, they effectively control roughly one-third of Mexican territory, exerting quasi-sovereignty by extracting “taxes,” controlling the movement of people, and intimidating and extorting government into doing their will.

Trump has done what no president in decades could do: he secured the southern border and stopped the massive influx of illegal aliens and dangerous drugs. But is America required to stand back and wait for criminals to cross our borders in order to defend itself? Of course not. There is ample precedent for presidents using the military to take on non-state actors abroad who threatened the lives and livelihoods of Americans — even without congressional authorization.

Shortly after taking office in 1801, President Thomas Jefferson famously sent the Marines “to the shores of Tripoli” to punish pirates who for years had harassed American merchant ships and demanded tribute payments. Congress was not in session, but Jefferson neither waited for authorization nor called them into session. Despite having a relatively small navy for the time, the new president sent a squadron to the Mediterranean with orders to sink the pirates if necessary. In August 1801, the squadron sank a ship off the coast of Malta without congressional authorization. In February 1802, Congress passed an authorization of force — not a declaration of war.

On March 9, 1916, the outlaw Pancho Villa’s raiders killed three American citizens and then crossed the border to attack Columbus, New Mexico, killing 10 American soldiers, robbing American businesses and killing eight more civilians. Maj. Frank Tompkins’s men pursued the raiders 15 miles across the Mexican border, killing 100 of them and capturing 30. Villa’s men had previously executed a train car full of American engineers who were on their way to work in Mexico’s mines. The Mexican government continually proved unable to bring Villa and his men to justice.

President Woodrow Wilson called an emergency cabinet meeting on March 10. Wilson decided to send the Army into Northern Mexico, citing an 1882 treaty that allowed “hot pursuit” over the border. Wilson sent 4,800 soldiers into Mexico under General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing on a “punitive expedition” to track down Villa and his men. Congress showed their approval with a concurrent resolution two days after the fact. The Mexican government protested and even fought back against the Army, but ultimately backed down in the face of American strength.

JONATHAN TURLEY: MADURO OPERATION WAS LEGAL, BUT TRUMP MAKES IT COMPLICATED

Drug cartels have killed far more Americans than either the Barbary Pirates or Pancho Villa ever did. As the DEA has said repeatedly, nearly all of the drugs killing Americans today were trafficked over our southern border.

Some liberals and libertarians would likely object that attacking the cartels in Mexico or outside our borders would violate the War Powers Act, which Congress passed over President Nixon’s veto in 1973. But even if a court upheld the War Powers Act on its merits — which has still never happened — the law merely requires that the president notify Congress of an attack within 48 hours and limits an attack to 90 days without congressional authorization.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Since the WPA’s passage, presidents of both parties have conducted military operations all over the world without congressional authorization — from Haiti to Libya to Bosnia.

Declarations of war have been extremely rare in our history: the last was in 1942. The Founders intentionally gave the president broad and fulsome powers to conduct military operations after the sclerotic Articles of Confederation proved unable to respond to Shay’s Rebellion and the British refusal to remove troops from newly independent American territory. Presidents must be able to act quickly and decisively to protect Americans from national security threats, and the Founders gave them the tools to do just that.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Wilson sent 4,800 soldiers into Mexico under General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing on a “punitive expedition” to track down Villa and his men. Congress showed their approval with a concurrent resolution two days after the fact. 

After President Trump took office last January, the military began Operation Southern Spear, which has involved direct attacks on drug smuggling boats from Venezuela. Like Jefferson’s squadron against the Barbary Pirates or Wilson’s “punitive expedition” against Pancho Villa, the Trump administration isn’t waiting until the criminals cross our border — nor should they.

The cartels have been enriching themselves for decades by getting Americans addicted to deadly drugs, bringing tens of thousands of military-age men into our country and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives. Whether the cartels stand on American soil or on foreign soil, the president stands on solid legal ground in bringing them to justice.

Schools blow $30 billion on laptops and tablets that wrecked Gen Z

Leave it to the government school monopoly to blow $30 billion of taxpayer money on laptops and tablets that were supposed to revolutionize learning but instead produced a generation of kids less cognitively equipped than their parents.

U.S. schools spent that staggering sum on educational technology in 2024 alone – roughly 10 times what they shelled out for textbooks. The promise was access to endless knowledge at every student’s fingertips, but the outcome has been a cognitive nosedive that leaves Gen Z struggling with basic skills like attention, memory, literacy and numeracy.

Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath laid it out plainly in his Senate testimony: Gen Z marks the first generation in modern history to score lower on standardized tests than the one before them. Data from over 80 countries shows the same pattern — declines in IQ, executive function and creativity, all accelerating around 2010 when digital devices flooded classrooms.

This disaster stems from the same old story: a bloated, unaccountable system that throws money at shiny gadgets to mask its failures. Public schools lack real incentives to innovate wisely or face consequences for poor results, so administrators chase trends. They’ll buy devices en masse under the guise of “equity” and “modernization,” but without strategies to ensure those tools enhance actual instruction.

Kids end up parked in front of screens for hours, scrolling through low-effort apps instead of engaging in deep, hands-on learning. The result is atrophy in critical thinking and problem-solving — the very skills education should build. Horvath pointed to Program for International Student Assessment data revealing a direct link: more screen time in school correlates with worse performance.

Technology itself holds immense promise for education. Personalized learning apps can adapt to a student’s pace, virtual simulations can bring history or science to life, and online resources can connect rural kids to world-class experts. Properly harnessed, these tools could boost achievement and close gaps. The problem arises when schools treat tech as a lazy substitute for high-quality teaching.

Teachers unions exacerbate the issue by pushing for more EdTech spending that lightens their members’ workloads without demanding better outcomes. Think AI grading papers, automated lesson plans and screens essentially babysitting students. Unions demand less handwritten work and more outsourcing of core teaching tasks, all while shielding underperforming educators from accountability.

JILLIAN MICHAELS: BIG TECH BUILT A DIGITAL DRUG — AND OUR KIDS ARE HOOKED

In July 2025, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) announced a formal partnership with OpenAI. Microsoft and Anthropic joined in, creating a $23 million initiative for free AI training and curriculum.

Unions are positioning themselves to control how AI rolls out, potentially programming it with biased narratives that serve their agendas rather than students’ needs. AFT President Randi Weingarten has already signaled as much. She revealed a partnership between her union and the World Economic Forum (WEF) to “create a curriculum that will lead to good jobs and solid careers in U.S. manufacturing.”

Handing curriculum design to globalist organizations like the WEF raises red flags. They want to impose a one-size-fits-all agenda on American kids, bypassing parents and local communities. If unions and international bodies dictate AI and tech integration, expect more indoctrination disguised as innovation — leftist narratives embedded in algorithms, all funded by taxpayers.

TRUMP WHITE HOUSE READIES SCHOOL CHOICE TAX CREDIT AS SOME DEM STATES PUSH BACK. HERE’S WHERE IT STANDS

This over-reliance on technology as a crutch harms kids in tangible ways. Teens now spend more than half their waking hours staring at screens, and the cognitive toll is evident. Humans learn best through interaction with real people and immersive study, not endless swiping for summaries. Excessive device use weakens focus and deep processing, leading to the declines we’re seeing.

Yet unions protect the status quo, fighting measures like performance-based pay or easier dismissal of ineffective teachers. In this environment, tech becomes a band-aid for systemic rot, reducing actual instruction time and stunting development.

The problem arises when schools treat tech as a lazy substitute for high-quality teaching.

The solution lies in breaking the government school monopoly through school choice. Competition forces providers to innovate responsibly — using tech as a true tool, not a shortcut. Charter schools and private options already show how this plays out: they integrate devices thoughtfully, with accountability tied to results.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

In choice-rich states like Arizona and Florida, achievement rises because schools must earn families’ trust. A thousand flowers can bloom when markets drive education, harnessing technology to personalize learning without the waste and over-dependence plaguing public systems.

Imagine a landscape where parents select schools that balance screens with proven methods like phonics-based reading or project-based math. Teachers, freed from union-mandated bureaucracy, could leverage AI for efficiency while focusing on mentorship. Underperforming institutions would close or reform, replaced by better alternatives. This model aligns incentives with student success, not special interests.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The $30-billion debacle proves the current system can’t adapt. It squanders resources on fads while kids suffer. Gen Z’s lower scores demand urgency. We can’t afford another generation handicapped by monopoly incompetence.

School choice is the imperative to rescue education from this self-serving cycle. Parents know their kids best, and they deserve the power to choose environments where teachers and technology enhance cognition. Let’s fund students, not systems, and watch innovation thrive.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY COREY DEANGELIS

Workers say ‘I like unions, I just don’t like my union’ — here’s what they’re discovering

“I like unions. I just don’t like my union.” 

Time and time again, I hear this sentiment from employees nationwide. Most will express frustration with their union officials, who’ve disappointed or even mistreated them and other members. Some tell me how they tried and failed to improve their own union from within. They imagine there’s a better union out there — one where union officials actively improve the workplace and help employees achieve some measure of personal freedom.

Polling confirms this sentiment. Gallup found that about two-thirds of Americans broadly approve of unions, but only 9% say they belong to one.

New numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) corroborate these findings. Despite a minuscule increase over last year, the percentage of workers who choose to be union members remains historically low at 10% — up from an all-time low of 9.9% the previous year.

Private sector unions were especially unpopular with employees, whose membership rate held steady at a record-low 5.9%. For reference, in 1980, over 20% of all private sector employees were union members.  

And it’s possible this year’s numbers overstate workers’ interest in unionizing. The National Labor Relations Board oversaw 30% fewer union elections in 2025 than it did in 2024, according to the Center for American Progress. The total number of workers participating in those elections fell even further, down 42% from 2024.

Meanwhile, in the public sector, the numbers tell a similar story.

TEACHERS UNION PRESIDENT CALLS TRUMP A ‘DICTATOR’ ON UNEARTHED CALL WITH ANTIFA-LINKED GROUP

According to the BLS, government employees — including teachers, state employees and city and county workers — have a much higher union membership rate: 32.9%. That marks a tiny increase since 2024 (less than a percentage point) and the first year-over-year increase since 2020. This marginal increase stems from federal and state employees’ membership rates, both of which rose by almost two percentage points.

But this relatively high unionization rate doesn’t mean their government union officials are outperforming their private sector counterparts. For one, government and private sector employees increasingly share the exact same union officials. The United Auto Workers (UAW) union, for example, represents more graduate student workers and postdoctoral researchers than any other union, and those workers — many of whom serve at public institutions — now make up a whopping 25% of UAW’s membership. By contrast, less than half of UAW’s existing members are autoworkers.

More likely, these varying private and public sector unionization rates point to the fundamental difference between the sectors.

RANDI WEINGARTEN GIVES TEACHERS GOOD ADVICE FOR ONCE

In the private sector, a strong, aggressive union can negotiate its way out of business. For example, in 2023, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters celebrated a massive victory against UPS, delivering pay increases and improved benefits for its members. Just over two years later, however, UPS cut 48,000 positions, then announced plans to cut 30,000 more.

Assuredly, external economic factors, such as tariffs, played a part. But unions aren’t off the hook. 

Private sector unions were especially unpopular with employees, whose membership rate held steady at a record-low 5.9%. For reference, in 1980, over 20% of all private sector employees were union members.  

“UPS is not an outlier,” writes Liya Palagashvilli, an economist with the Mercatus Center. “It is a case study in how monopoly bargaining can generate short-run wins that give way to long-run adjustment costs.”

CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION SPARKS BACKLASH WITH VIDEO HARASSING TARGET EMPLOYEES OVER ICE AS TEST SCORES PLUMMET

A literature review of 147 studies by Mercatus demonstrates that union victories can increase employer costs, resulting in higher costs and less volume for customers. Inevitably, employers cut workers, resulting in fewer union members.

But public employers rarely cut services and never go out of business. Thus, when government unions secure increases in salary or benefits, taxpayers pay the price. In January, Teamsters secured a 13% wage increase for school administrative assistants, food services managers and plant managers in the Los Angeles School District. The school district now faces a projected $877 million deficit, but its recent layoff plans will result in only 650 layoffs, less than 1% of its 83,000 employees.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Moreover, public sector unions have become experts at getting their friends elected to positions of power, hoping that government officials repay the favor in negotiations using taxpayer dollars. Union officials have no such power over private employers, where the individuals with whom they negotiate are driven to keep the business afloat and can only draw on profits earned in a competitive marketplace.

To be sure, government unions are also losing members. The membership rate among public employees has steadily dropped since 1994, when it peaked at 38.7%. Also, remember the union members who told me they wish they had another union? They were mostly public school teachers.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Paradoxically, by befriending greedy politicians and milking taxpayers, government union executives have done a disservice not only to these teachers but also to unionized civil servants and first responders. In 2024, the four biggest government unions collectively spent $650 million on political activism and electioneering — 86% of which came from their membership dues. The deeper they get into politics, the more public sector unions have become obsessed with ideology and power, betraying the individual government employees they are supposed to represent.

Workers’ patience has worn thin. Employees continue to express their disapproval with unions by simply walking away. Until unions refocus on better serving and representing their members, rather than chasing short-term gains and political favors, union executives — and their members’ confidence in them — will continue to dwindle.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Jack Smith’s secret surveillance of Patel and Wiles should alarm us all

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has long operated under the Irish poet, playwright and novelist Oscar Wilde’s rule that “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.”

Over the last few months, the public has learned of a wide array of secret orders targeting members of Congress, Trump allies and others. Now, the Trump administration has learned that FBI Director Kash Patel and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles were also targeted by Smith in 2022 and 2023 when they were private citizens.

Smith was a controversial choice as special counsel because of his history of aggressive legal arguments and tactics, including his unanimous loss before the Supreme Court in the case that overturned the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell.

His tendency to stretch the law to the breaking point also did not play well with juries in high-profile cases, including his case against former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who was accused of using campaign funds to hide an extramarital affair. That case ended in an acquittal.

Despite such criticisms, Smith immediately returned to his past pattern of tossing aside any restraint or caution. Even Democrats earlier this year expressed objections to his targeting of Republican members of Congress, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Smith told carriers not to tell members of Congress that their calls were being seized. Not only did such records reveal potentially confidential sources, ranging from journalists to whistleblowers, but Smith’s gag order prevented Congress from responding to or challenging the allegedly abusive demand.

GOP LAWMAKER ACCUSES JACK SMITH OF ‘SPYING’ ON CONGRESS AT TENSE HOUSE HEARING OVER TRUMP PROBE

Now, the Trump administration is alleging that Smith and the prior Biden administration effectively buried the targeting of Patel and Wiles. It took a year into the new Trump administration for these orders to be uncovered.

The early accounts of the orders contained equally disturbing elements. Reuters reported that “In 2023, the FBI recorded a phone call between Wiles and her attorney, according to two FBI officials. Wiles’ attorney was aware that the call was being recorded and consented to it, but Susie Wiles was not.”

It is astonishing to hear of a lawyer agreeing to the FBI recording of an attorney-client conversation as a general matter. However, recording such a call without informing the client would be a breathtaking invasion of protected communications.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM JACK SMITH’S TESTIMONY TO HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

There is much we still do not know.

On its face, these orders appear consistent with the earlier allegedly abusive demands. Smith had virtually no basis for targeting Republican members and Trump allies. It was a fishing expedition in which Smith simply compiled lists of every well-known ally of President Donald Trump.

There are also concerns over the response to this controversy. There are reports of 10 FBI employees being fired. Agents often carry out the orders of superiors in such investigations. The administration should assure the public that these agents were afforded due process before being ousted for their roles in carrying out orders.

AT&T GAVE JACK SMITH THEN-HOUSE SPEAKER MCCARTHY’S PERSONAL CELLPHONE RECORDS AMID J6 INVESTIGATION

The recently disclosed files from these investigations are an indictment of Smith himself. He was given a historic mandate to investigate a former president. Rather than exercise a modicum of restraint to show the public that this was not a partisan effort, Smith yielded to his worst temptations in targeting a long list of Republicans.

In his prior testimony, Smith offered little to justify these orders beyond a shrug that such secret orders routinely occur. However, he was targeting a “who’s who” of top political opponents of President Biden and the Democrats.

To make matters worse, Smith struggled to release damaging information — and even schedule a trial — on the very eve of the 2024 presidential election. Every action by Smith only magnified the perception that he sought to influence the election. He became a prosecutor consumed by his antagonism toward Trump and his unchecked power.

Nothing was sacred for Smith. His demands in the investigation from the courts included a wholesale attack on free speech principles.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Ultimately, these files are not only an indictment of Jack Smith but also of former Attorney General Merrick Garland, who failed to exercise his authority to oversee Smith and protect core constitutional values.

It is essential that Congress and the Trump administration fully investigate Smith’s surveillance demands. Smith has long demanded accountability for others while evading such accountability for his own actions.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If past orders are any indication, the Patel and Wiles orders were likely based on sweeping generalities and demands for absolute secrecy. That is the signature of Jack Smith. Indeed, Smith appears to have replicated his increasingly infamous record, with the collapse of two high-profile cases and lingering questions over his judgment and actions.

He has again yielded to his temptations — and the public has paid the price.

WILL CHAMBERLAIN: How the FBI trampled attorney-client privilege to hunt Trump allies

FBI Director Kash Patel just dropped a bombshell that should horrify Americans of all political stripes. In 2022 and 2023, Jack Smith, the illicitly-appointed “special counsel,” and the Biden Justice Department subpoenaed toll records of calls from Patel and now-White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. Both were private citizens, and this surveillance continued while Wiles was co-managing President Trump’s election campaign. The FBI even wiretapped a call between Wiles and her lawyer in which the lawyer, knowing of the wiretap, failed to inform Wiles. This conduct is ghastly, and there must be dire legal consequences.

The attorney-client privilege is one of the most sacred legal principles in the Republic. To represent their clients effectively, lawyers need to be able to engage in frank discussions. Clients must feel secure in the knowledge that what they say cannot be used against them. The privilege is so sacred that, in Swidler & Berlin v. United States (1998), the Supreme Court held that it survives the death of a client under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The lawyer who colluded with the FBI to record his client should be disbarred. Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in every jurisdiction imposes strict limitations on disclosure of confidential information by attorneys, such as instances where a client is threatening to commit a serious crime. That obviously wouldn’t apply here. Further, Rule 1.7 delineates strict guardrails to safeguard clients from conflicted lawyers. A lawyer cannot represent both sides. That would be antithetical to the adversarial process.

For some reason, Wiles’ lawyer agreed to let the FBI wiretap the call. A lawyer working with the FBI against their client’s interests would be a clear-cut violation of this rule. And that’s not the end of potential ethical violations: Rule 1.4 requires attorneys to communicate pertinent information to their clients (which clearly didn’t happen here), and Rule 8.4(c) prohibits behavior involving dishonesty and misrepresentation by omission. It’s hard to think of a more glaring omission than not telling your client that the FBI is listening to what you think is a privileged conversation.

Wiles also could sue the lawyer for malpractice, as well as the lawyer and the FBI agent(s) under the Wiretap Act. This suit would be appropriate if the FBI failed to minimize the interception of privileged communications. Title III wiretaps, so called based on the 1968 law that authorizes them, are subject to approval from the Justice Department and a federal judge. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5) mandates minimization procedures for privileged communications, and appellate courts universally have interpreted this provision strictly. Minimization is crucial in many contexts; for instance, government prosecutors employ so-called taint teams of lawyers not involved with the case to screen for privileged information to prevent its falling into the hands of the prosecution.

In addition to civil liability, those involved could face criminal repercussions. The FBI agents involved could be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2511, which prohibits the unauthorized interception and disclosure of communications in interstate commerce. The lawyer could be charged as a coconspirator under 18 U.S.C. § 371 for participating in the violation of the wiretap statute. Even if they had a warrant to surveil Patel and Wiles, that would in no way justify intentionally recording what are supposed to be privileged conversations between an attorney and their client.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Take a moment to digest the gravity of what happened. The Biden Justice Department subpoenaed records of allies of President Trump, Biden’s main political opponent, against whom there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Smith also subpoenaed records of nearly a dozen members of Congress. Then, the government wiretapped a call between a private citizen and her lawyer. J. Edgar Hoover, the infamous former FBI director who served for nearly half a century, regularly wiretapped political opponents. Under the Biden administration, the FBI degenerated into the abyss of the Hoover era. We must determine who else was the subject of these outrageous investigations, especially if there were other violations of attorney-client privilege.

Patel deserves massive credit for exposing this unconscionable conduct. The FBI worked hard to conceal it, labeling the files as “prohibited.” This means that the files were not readily accessible even to the new FBI leadership. Patel has stopped the “prohibited” subterfuge to prevent future abuse, and ten FBI agents no longer have jobs as a result of their involvement. That is a good start, but those involved in this monstrosity must face severe legal, political, and financial consequences. The anti-Trump lawfare nearly destroyed the Republic, and it must never happen again.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM WILL CHAMBERLAIN

REP RO KHANNA: We need a new tech social contract to reclaim AI from billionaires

On February 20th, I was at Stanford University with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. to speak to over 1,600 students about the defining issues of our time: inequality and AI. We had the largest turnout since President Barack Obama visited the campus in 2015. I laid out my vision for a new tech social contract and seven seminal principles for a more democratic AI. Here is the essence of what I had to say.

We live in a new gilded age. Tech billionaires, believing they would have been heroic conquerors in a different era, are wresting control of our economy, our media and our politics.

Most Americans feel they have little say in shaping their own future or that of their kids. This has contributed to anger, resentment and a hopeless cynicism in places across our nation.

A nation cannot survive with islands of prosperity and seas of despair.

Professor Gabriel Zucman has shown that today’s wealth concentration is at the highest it has been in our nation’s history. About 19 billionaires have 3.4 trillion — the equivalent of 12.5 percent of all the goods and services that are produced in the U.S. in a year. This is nearly three times more than the wealthiest Americans were worth relative to the size of the economy at the peak of the Gilded Age. 

Extreme wealth forms an unholy alliance with power leading to two tiers of justice and stripping ordinary citizens of an equal voice in our democratic experiment.

We see the future from here. We know what is coming in a way most politicians and D.C. bureaucrats simply can’t see. And the question we need to ask ourselves is this: What kind of future are we going to build? Will this future be only for the tech lords or for all of us?

We convened this town hall at the epicenter of this wealth concentration and AI innovation. The 50-mile radius around my district, which includes Stanford, Apple, Google, Nvidia, Broadcom and Tesla, is worth over $18 trillion. Their market capitalization is nearly one-third of the entire U.S. stock market. One-third of our nation’s wealth originates here and in the one surrounding congressional district.

We see the future from here. We know what is coming in a way most politicians and D.C. bureaucrats simply can’t see. And the question we need to ask ourselves: What kind of future are we going to build? Will this future be only for the tech lords or for all of us?

TRUMP CALLS FOR FEDERAL AI STANDARDS, END TO STATE ‘PATCHWORK’ REGULATIONS ‘THREATENING’ ECONOMIC GROWTH

That is why I am calling for a new tech social contract. To whom much is given, at least, a little is expected.

The truth is our taxpayer dollars and philanthropic dollars funded the development of AI at Dartmouth, MIT, and at Stanford with ImageNet and with the Digital Library Project that helped give birth to Google.

Let us acknowledge that tech entrepreneurs have taken risks and shown skill and imagination in scaling and adopting the technology. But just like every successful generation of American entrepreneurs over the past two centuries, they stand on a foundation of public investment.

AI RAISES THE STAKES FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. HERE’S HOW TO GET IT RIGHT

That is why we must ask not what America can do for Silicon Valley, but what Silicon Valley must do for America.

The AI revolution can help cure cancer and rare diseases, slash housing costs, make it easier to start businesses and factories, address our energy needs, and lower medical and educational costs for the working class.

But in the hands of a few billionaires, the priority is to eliminate jobs, extract profits and addict us to outrageous content that turns us from citizens to combatants.

PALANTIR’S SHYAM SANKAR: AMERICANS ARE ‘BEING LIED TO’ ABOUT AI JOB DISPLACEMENT FEARS

I am not an AI accelerationist.

I am not an AI doomer.

I am an AI democratist.

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

So I want to lay out seven principles for what a democratic AI looks like. This vision is part of a broader call of patriotic renewal to have shared prosperity in our nation, not oligarchic capture and dominance. I have a vision for a new economic patriotism where we have a thriving middle class with good jobs in rural communities, factory towns, suburban neighborhoods and our urban centers.

Here is what that means for AI in America.

First, we must keep humans in the loop.

AI POWER PLAYERS POUR CASH INTO COMPETITIVE PRIMARIES AS 2026 MIDTERMS HEAT UP

We need real protections against mass displacement, beginning with our 3.5 million truck drivers. Even as self-driving trucks improve safety and efficiency, human drivers must remain, just like pilots must still fly our planes. This will allow us to develop AI that augments human capability instead of eliminating jobs.

Second, every large company must bargain with its workers.

Unions or elected representatives should ensure displaced workers move into new value-creating roles and can share in AI’s productivity gains through higher wages, profit sharing and shorter workweeks.

WE’RE ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE AISLE. BUT WE KNOW AMERICA MUST WIN THE AI RACE, OR ELSE

Third, we have to fix the tax code’s anti-human bias.

Robots get accelerated depreciation, while hiring humans comes with payroll taxes. Nobel Laureate Daron Acemoglu estimates that companies pay about zero tax on digital tools, while paying something like 30% in taxes between employers and employees when they hire workers.  This makes no sense. We must make it easier to hire workers, not AI agents. 

We also need to create an annual data dividend so every American gets a check from the data they generate both for private businesses and our government activities like public health, traffic management and policy research.

PALANTIR’S SHYAM SANKAR: US MUST USE AI AS ‘SLINGSHOT’ AGAINST CHINA OR FACE ECONOMIC DEFEAT

Fourth, we must launch a Future Workforce Administration.

We should seize this moment of anxiety among white-collar and blue-collar families alike and answer it with the boldest, most patriotic jobs agenda in generations.

Funded by a modest wealth tax on the trillions created here and by a token tax on AI used by businesses that displaces labor, this program will put Americans to work in public service. The initiative will drive moonshot projects that expand the frontiers of science, clean energy, and biotech.

REP PRESSLEY PUSHES AI CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, AIMED TO ‘ESPECIALLY’ PROTECT BLACK, BROWN AND MARGINALIZED PEOPLE

It will mobilize young people to rebuild towns, teach our children, provide childcare and eldercare, and strengthen small businesses in every community.

And we will launch 1,000 new trade schools and tech institutes — so the next generation are prepared for careers AI can’t replace.

Fifth, data centers must serve the communities who power them.

CHINA RACES AHEAD ON AI —TRUMP WARNS AMERICA CAN’T REGULATE ITSELF INTO DEFEAT

Right now, data centers are one-way extraction centers from communities to the wealthiest corporations.

That must end.

Tech companies need to provide local communities with compute resources for schools and libraries, create local tech jobs and fund startups, and use renewable energy and dry cooling technology. We should look to what Singapore has done with their data centers for a balanced solution and invest in massively increasing the supply of clean energy. Most importantly, tech companies must pay their full electricity bills instead of shifting costs onto our communities.

AI OUT OF CONTROL? HOW A SINGLE ARTICLE IS SENDING SHOCK WAVES WITH AN APOCALYPTIC WARNING

Sixth, we must prevent AI from weaponizing our public discourse.

We can unite across party lines to stop engagement-driven algorithms from spreading hate. End Section 230 protection for amplified violent content and require platforms to open up so Americans can connect freely across them.

Seventh, we must regulate AI so it is used to improve humanity, not damage it.

MIKE DAVIS: CONGRESS MUST STOP BIG TECH’S AI AMNESTY SCAM BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE

We need clear enforceable guardrails with mandatory third-party verification of advanced AI models, so this powerful technology does not cause serious societal harm. It needs to be more than the voluntary collaboration taking place at the Center for AI Standards and Innovation at NIST at Commerce. We need a robust federal agency to regulate AI like we regulate nuclear energy or federal aviation.

We need a program with the boldness and scale of the New Deal, a democratic project for our time. Not to slow innovation, but to ensure its benefits reach every American.

The United States will benefit with access to global markets for our AI models by ensuring their safety — preventing agentic AI from doing harm — and data privacy.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

These principles are the beginning of a framework to ensure that AI does not usher in a level of wealth and power concentration that further rips our democracy apart. If we continue with the status quo or adopt poll-tested incrementalism, we will leave ordinary Americans out in the cold, and modern prosperity will be only for the privileged.  

I will not sit by and watch that happen. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

We need a program with the boldness and scale of the New Deal, a democratic project for our time. Not to slow innovation, but to ensure its benefits reach every American. A program that, by its very substance, says there will be no surrender to tech lords. None. Only a reclaiming of AI for the American people.

And so, my challenge to Stanford students — emerging technology and business leaders — is simple. The future must not be written by AI agents that serve San Francisco billionaires. Like at any other pivotal moment in American history, it must be written by all of us, together, in a way that binds our divides and gives us a new national purpose of economic renewal and independence for every American in every place of our beloved nation.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM REP. RO KHANNA

DAVID MARCUS: Delusional Dems ‘ dancing pet frogs are Antifa thugs

As President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address Tuesday, many congressional Democrats skipped it to attend a Robert De Niro-headlined counter program called the “State of the Swamp.” One group celebrated there, the “Portland Frog Brigade,” are quite literally Antifa thugs in cutesy clothing.

By now, you have probably seen these big inflatable frogs, if not from clips of Tuesday’s brain-dead anti-Trump bash, then from protests at ICE facilities, first in Portland, then Chicago, Minneapolis, and across the country.

If you watch the news coverage about these supposedly amiable amphibians, even in most conservative outlets, they are treated as goofy, but harmless, activists playing dress up, not as the dangerous thugs they are. And that is the whole point: It’s not a costume, it’s a tactical uniform.

The standard-issue inflatable frog costume serves two key purposes: First, it hides the identity of the agitator. Second, and more importantly, it makes the agitator appear to be the exact opposite of a physical threat.

How do I know all this about the frog brigade? Well, I witnessed the whole thing begin in Portland last October and even had a brief scuffle with one of the Antifa leaders who popularized the demented trend.

Here is how I described Portland Antifa agitators, including the original frogman, harassing and trapping a pro-Trump woman in her car at the Immigration Customs and Enforcement facility there:

DHS UNLOADS ON ANTI-ICE DEMS AFTER MAN ARRESTED WITH MANIFESTO, ‘DISTURBING’ ALLEGED PLOT TO KILL AGENTS

According to intrepid reporter Andy Ngo, who knows more about Antifa than Vin Scully knew about the LA Dodgers, the man credited with starting the frog suit ploy is a known agitator who was arrested in January protesting the arrest of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members in Portland.

By then, the frog suit had taken off, like a biblical plague. The frogs were suddenly everywhere, but why?

What Antifa and its allies realized was that the childish absurdity of the costume makes anyone claiming that those wearing them are some sort of serious threat look ridiculous. Even just writing this column feels that way, but in this case, the truth is very important.

ICE ASSAULTS SPIKE 1,500% AS DEMS DRAW ‘HARD RED LINE’ TO UNMASK AGENTS IN DHS BATTLE

In addition to the multiple Antifa frogs being praised at the Democrat shindig, there was a man in a giraffe outfit doing slam poetry, proudly proclaiming that he had been detained in ICE facilities three times for his agitating, and to cheers, no less.

Again, the cute Sesame Street-style furry costume is meant to make claims that this lunatic is a dangerous criminal seem nonsensical, even when he openly admits to being arrested trying to protect foreign gangbangers from deportation.

It is possible that many Democratic elected officials really did not know these frog people are Antifa, though Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Maxine Dexter, both Democrats from Oregon, certainly should, since their constituents started it all.

ANTI-ICE ‘DIGITAL MINUTEMEN’ USE MILITARY-GRADE SURVEILLANCE TACTICS AGAINST FEDS

Let’s not forget that it was just a few short years ago that Democrats told us Antifa doesn’t even exist. In fact, Rep. Gerry Nadler, D-N.Y., called the group a “myth” and Biden FBI Director Christopher Wray called it an “ideology,” not an organization. My, how times have changed.

Last month, The Nation magazine, which knows a thing or two about the left, ran an article with the headline, “Liberals Think Antifa Isn’t Real. But It Is—and It Knows How to Win.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Now that the Trump administration has labeled Antifa a terrorist organization and The Nation has declared it a forceful faction in the progressive fight, the cowardly communists have begun to shed their menacing black gear for goofy animal costumes.

But make no mistake, at night, in the shadows, the costumes come off and the thugs with gas masks and sticks show up to menace our federal agents.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

This is what the clueless and myopic politicians and celebrities were celebrating at their counter program on Tuesday. They will support literally anything that opposes Trump, even grown men in frog costumes who accost women in so-called political protests.

So the next time you see one of those frogs, don’t be fooled. Don’t be taken in by the absurd charade. Just know these are anti-American thugs who regularly employ violence in their attempt to take down the United States of America, as Democrats cheer them on.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAVID MARCUS

Power play: How US-Canada cooperation can skip the games and secure our borders

The U.S. hockey team’s stunning victory in the Olympics has thrilled Americans and stunned and disappointed Canadians: two peoples who are experiencing their own icy relations right now.

Nonetheless, the fact that five of the U.S. players, including star goalie Connor Hellebuyck, play on Canadian NHL teams, while no less than 22 Canadian team members play on American teams, reminds us how closely tied both countries actually are, no matter what their respective politicians say about each other.

Indeed, leaders need to set aside their personal pique and see the U.S.-Canada relationship for what it is, a partnership forged in history with common economic and strategic interests to advance, as well as the resources to match.

“Forged in history” isn’t just a matter of both countries being part of the English-speaking people’s legacy of freedom and prosperity for the world, alongside the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. It also reflects Canada’s essential contribution to Allied victory in World War II. The battle of the Atlantic, and hence victory over Nazi Germany, would not have been possible without the Canadian Royal Navy, which grew to become the world’s third-largest, from 13 ships in 1939 to over 400 by 1945, as its frigates, destroyers and destroyer escorts shielded vital Allied convoys. More than 1.1 million Canadians served in uniform, with 45,000 losing their lives — a higher proportion of military deaths relative to population (roughly 0.4%) than the United States (0.32%).

Canada also worked hand in glove with the U.S. and U.K. on secret atomic research during World War II. In the Cold War, Canadians were essential to the creation of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, the most successful intelligence network in history. The Five Eyes’s division of global labor allotted to Canada two areas even more crucial today: the polar regions of Russia and the interior of China.

Yet Canada’s opportunities for cooperation with the United States go further than that of any other Five Eyes member, or even other NATO members. The future of the Western Hemisphere — perhaps even the free world — may depend on how Washington and Ottawa find common ground in shaping the future of the global economy. 

The most obvious sector is energy. Between them, the United States and Canada produce roughly 30% of the world’s natural gas and 25% of the world’s oil. By promoting cooperation in LNG exports across the Atlantic and Pacific and in building cross-border pipelines like the still-suspended XL Pipeline, Ottawa and Washington would dominate global markets as never before. And while bringing Venezuela’s oil industry back to peak efficiency will take years, a U.S.-Canada energy consortium can reshape the geopolitics of energy production, far sooner.

AMERICA DOESN’T NEED TO OWN GREENLAND — THERE’S A BETTER, MORE PEACEFUL WAY

The next opportunity is strategic mineral extraction and refining. Any mineral extraction plan centered on American possession of Greenland or deals with Ukraine will take years — even decades — to yield results. By contrast, Canada is already a major producer of gold, iron, nickel and copper. It’s also involved in important projects to tap into its rich reserves in rare earth elements such as cobalt, graphite, vanadium and lithium (Canada currently has the sixth-largest lithium reserves in the world, and the sixth or seventh-largest reserves in cobalt).

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

While China currently dominates supply chains in these critical minerals, a vigorous U.S.-Canada consortium could displace China as a major supplier to world markets. Indeed, Canadian companies could help to revive the United States’ own mining industry, and together set clean and environmentally safe standards for the extraction of all these materials.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In terms of strategic goals, Canada owns half of North America’s “Fourth Coast,” i.e. the 10,000-mile plus shoreline of the Great Lakes and one of the great historic centers of U.S. shipbuilding. Currently ranked 6th or 7th in world shipbuilding, Canada, like the U.S. is looking to democratic allies like South Korea and Japan to beef up large-scale shipbuilding and naval defense capacity. Indeed, this past week, Ontario Shipyards partnered with South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean to bring large-scale shipbuilding back to Ontario, including naval vessels. In short, cooperation with Canadian companies like Ontario Shipyards can be part of restoring America’s own maritime strength.

Finally, Canada will be an essential partner in plans for the Golden Dome missile defense system, offering critical Arctic territory, sensors, and radar infrastructure for continental missile defense.

Mentioning the Arctic also leads to thinking about icebreakers. As this region becomes increasingly vital thanks to climate change, Canada’s fleet of 18 icebreakers — the second largest fleet in the world after Russia — will be indispensable for keeping shipping lanes open both for civilian and military use (today the U.S. has only three operational icebreakers).

Breaking up the ice is essential — not just in the Arctic, but in the current US-Canada relations deep freeze. The future of the free world may depend on where the thaw comes, and how soon.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ARTHUR HERMAN

Why capping credit card interest rates will kill credit for working families

Americans are rightfully concerned about affordability. From healthcare and housing to groceries and utility bills, Americans have been finding these everyday necessities difficult to afford for far too many years. 

In response, President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are pursuing multiple policies meant to lower costs for the American people. 

While the President and our former Republican congressional colleagues usually have good economic and regulatory instincts, there are some policies worth reconsidering, as they could exacerbate the affordability crisis.

For example, as Congress assesses the proposed 10% price cap on credit, Republicans should follow their instincts by recognizing price controls like this have a long history of producing harmful unintended consequences for working families and small businesses.

When governments mandate an artificially low price for a product or service in a competitive market, the result is always the same: reduced supply. This is not just a theory. It’s historical fact. 

In 1971, President Nixon set price controls on retail gasoline sales. Because drivers paid less at the pump than the true cost of gas, demand increased. But since producers and gasoline retailers could not recover their full costs from the artificially low prices, they supplied less to the market. The result was a predictable shortage of gasoline and Americans waiting in long lines at the gas pumps.

In several large American cities, including New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles, rent increases are capped at varying rates, preventing landlords from being able to recoup investment in maintenance and improvements, causing neglected maintenance, reduced improvements and a shortage of new housing.

CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCER CALLS OUT TRUMP’S CREDIT CARD CAP AS PROPOSAL THAT ‘SOCIALISTS’ SUPPORT

Price controls on credit cards would have a similar effect. They would reduce the availability of credit.

Banks charge interest on credit cards because there are costs and risks associated with issuing and managing them. For example, banks must cover the infrastructure cost of the credit card, including administration, maintaining security, applying chargebacks and offering credit card rewards programs. Credit card balances are unsecured loans with high default rates, creating a significant cost for banks.

By capping rates at an arbitrary and artificially low level, such as 10%, banks would either have to make up for the lost revenue elsewhere with higher fees and charges, or discontinue issuing credit cards to high-risk and low-income customers.

Consumers who lose access to credit cards altogether would be forced to turn to more expensive, riskier alternatives, such as loan sharks and payday lenders. The Cato Institute emphasizes that, “History has shown that these [price] controls result in shortages, black markets, and suffering. In any event, consumers lose.” 

For those consumers who could keep their credit cards, banks would “likely respond to a credit card cap by reducing rewards programs and other card benefits, including fraud protection, while replacing lost interest revenue with fees to be paid by all credit card users,” the American Action Forum explains.

A credit card rate cap would also bring government interference where free market competition is already working to the benefit of customers. In fact, there are already dozens of credit cards with 0% APR introductory rates for significant lengths of time. Economist Stephen Moore authored a report last year detailing the harm a rate cap would have on consumers, concluding that the “System isn’t broken. Credit cards are more popular than ever… But rules that make cards less profitable and more vulnerable to the risk of losses from non-payments threaten this well-functioning and economically vital market.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

For decades, Americans have voluntarily used credit cards to build businesses, borrow money— and facilitate the purchases of daily life. The free market has enabled these activities and should not be upended by the government. The government’s role in regulating the financial services industry is to ensure proper disclosures, competitive markets and systemic stability — not to set prices. Rate caps would undermine market function and competition and return us to a badly failed policy of price controls.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters have long supported caps on credit card interest rates. Fortunately, most Republicans know better. Leaders, including Sen. Mike Rounds, Sen. Pete Ricketts, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have voiced strong concerns about these price controls, with Sen. Thune correctly observing that the proposal “would probably deprive an awful lot of people access to credit around the country.”

Free markets deliver consumers better products, services and choices than price-setters in Washington. Congress should let the marketplace continue to offer consumers, working-class families and Main Street businesses, of all incomes, access to the credit they need.