Second Trump Administration Archives

Tag Archive for: Second Trump Administration

Iran Says No Talks Are Under Way with United States after Trump Calls off Attacks

August 3, 2026/in Anti-Semitism, Assassination attempt, Hot Topics, Iranian influence, Islam, Islamo-Nazi, Marxism, Marxist, Must Read, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Terrorism, Violence/by Family Research Council

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE/DUBAI (Reuters) — Iran said on Monday there were no talks under way with the United States and no plans for any meetings, contradicting U.S. President Donald Trump who had cited talks he said would take place that afternoon as justification for calling off attacks.

Over the weekend Trump repeated a pattern that has emerged throughout the past five months: announcing plans for “massive attacks” on Iran, only to cancel them at the last minute.

“Would I rather make a deal? I’m not looking to kill people,” Trump said aboard Air Force One on Sunday.

“Now what we’re doing is talking to them, in the form of a negotiation. It begins tomorrow afternoon,” he said, without identifying a venue or participants for such talks.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei rejected the claim, saying no negotiations with the United States were taking place and no meetings were scheduled. Iran had no plans to host foreign delegations or send negotiators abroad in the coming days, he said.

Baghaei added that all Iranian negotiators were currently in the country, apart from Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, who was on a religious pilgrimage in Iraq. The only talks under way, he said, were discussions with Oman over management of the Strait of Hormuz.

A senior Iranian source also told Reuters that no talks were planned and that Araqchi would be unavailable at least until the end of the week.

Repeated Pattern

Monday’s developments appeared to fit a pattern that has emerged since Trump launched “Operation Epic Fury” alongside Israel more than five months ago. On several occasions, Trump has threatened military action only to later cite diplomatic contacts as a reason for stepping back.

Iran, however, has publicly rejected negotiations with Washington since a June memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the conflict collapsed in early July.

Trump has yet to achieve the objectives he set out at the outset of the war: dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, curbing its ability to attack regional rivals and creating conditions for Iranians to overthrow their clerical rulers.

Repeated U.S. escalations have been met by escalating Iranian responses against U.S. forces in the region, Washington’s Gulf Arab allies and shipping, each time ending with Trump stepping back.

The dispute over the Strait of Hormuz remains a central point of contention. Washington says the June memorandum required Iran to open the strategically vital waterway, while Tehran argues the text explicitly preserved its authority over shipping traffic.

That would leave Tehran with greater leverage over the strait than before the war, a result that would likely be seen as a significant setback for Trump.

So far the United States has failed to compel Iran to relinquish its grip on the waterway, sending global oil prices higher and pushing up politically sensitive gasoline prices in the United States.

Oil prices fell on Monday after Trump’s latest decision to hold back from military action, with Brent crude futures down more than 4% to around $84 a barrel.

In the latest reported incident in the strait, the British maritime security body UKMTO said overnight that the master of a vessel had reported an explosion in the water near the ship. No one was hurt.

(By Steve Holland, Elwely Elwelly and Parisa Hafezi. Writing by Peter Graff. Editing by Ros Russell)

AUTHOR

Reuters

RELATED ARTICLE: When War Reaches the Water Tower

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Defunds the Left’s Graphic Sex Ed in Favor of Lessons on Marriage, Family

July 30, 2026/in anti-Christian, Education, Elections, Healthcare, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Queers and pedophiles, Social Issues, The Truth/by Family Research Council

Americans have been so busy fighting against radical gender ideology and critical race theory in schools that one of the Left’s favorite ways to undermine parents has fallen under the radar. But the Trump administration hasn’t lost sight of graphic sex education, and parents everywhere should be grateful for it. In a very underreported move, the president’s team went on the offensive this summer, zeroing out millions of taxpayer dollars for controversial “Teen Pregnancy Prevention” programs in favor of solid curriculum that emphasizes abstinence and marriage.

The New York Times picked up on the cuts weeks after the fact in a sob story lamenting how caught off guard local nonprofits had been by HHS’s announcement. But frankly, no one should be surprised. The Trump administration slashed dozens of grants like this in its first term, arguing — rightly — that they only existed to sexualize children, not equip them to make positive and healthy choices. A whopping 53 programs ended up on the chopping block, saving Americans $67 million in what the president’s budget called “radical leftist ideology.” If anything, the administration argued, the Biden- and Obama-era sex ed models have only “normalize[ed] sexual activity for minors.”

Thanks to liberal ideologues masquerading as health experts, activists like Planned Parenthood have had unlimited access to America’s classrooms, knowing if they hook kids on sex, they’re grooming the next generation of abortion customers. It’s been a great down payment on future business — until now. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) made it clear that the department is under new management where all of this is concerned, posting a list of priorities that should relieve every sane parent in America.

First of all, the agency vows to ensure that adolescent program materials are “age-appropriate” and “do not promote harmful ideologies, such as gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology. OASH will focus on programs that do not promote material that depicts, describes, exposes or presents obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit content,” the document notes, “including content that encourages, normalizes or promotes sexual activity for minors. OASH will prioritize OASH programs and funding that are in compliance with these priorities and applicable law.”

Second, OASH promises to defend parental rights “to the fullest extent of its authority under the law … including parents’ right to protect their children from exposure to content that burdens the exercise of their religious beliefs.”

Under this new criteria, NYT complains, anyone applying for taxpayer dollars “must teach abstinence,” also known as sexual risk avoidance, “as the only means to prevent teen pregnancy. Courses must stress the importance of marriage and procreation and instruct young people how to safeguard their fertility. They make scant reference to preventing sexually transmitted infections and virtually none to lesbian, gay and transgender sexuality.”

As FRC’s Quena González pointed out to The Washington Stand, “The fact that some professional sex ed providers who receive millions of dollars in federal funds are complaining that these priorities are now required to continue receiving taxpayer dollars should alarm parents and enrage taxpayers. We shouldn’t be allowing, much less paying for, schools to tell students, ‘We know you’re going to experiment, wink wink, so here’s how to derive the most sexual pleasure from underage sex.’”

González applauded the overhaul as an overdue change to the dangerous status quo. “Insisting that taxpayers pay adults to teach middle schoolers — typically 11-14 years old — about ‘sexual consent,’ pleasurable condom use, or how adolescent girls can use intrauterine devices and implants to avoid pregnancy, is just plain creepy,” he said. “Kids need to be taught that sex is a wonderful gift and a powerful expression of adult love when it is exercised within the safety of a loving marriage covenant. Sex isn’t a toy, and the harms of offering it to minors are well documented and not really debated; studies show that delaying sexual contact until marriage increases the chances of a stable marriage and decreases the chance of living in poverty.”

Valerie Huber, who’s spent decades fighting for this kind of principled approach to sex ed, had one reaction to the administration’s pivot: relief. “Mostly for the young people,” the president of The Institute for Women’s Health told TWS. “For years, sexual risk avoidance had to justify itself while the alternative was funded as though its results were settled. That was never a research question. It was a worldview question dressed up as one.” Now, thanks to Trump, “risk avoidance is being treated as a legitimate public health goal for adolescents, the way it already is for every other youth risk behavior. We do not teach teenagers to smoke carefully. We tell them the truth about risk, and we help them stay at no risk or move from high risk to low risk to no risk,” she emphasized. “Sexual health is the one place we abandoned that model, but now HHS is being consistent across all youth risk behaviors. Bravo!”

Huber looked back over the last several years, lamenting the damage that the Left’s “if-it-feels-good-do-it” message has done. “When adults in authority signal that sexual activity is expected of a 14-year-old, that is not neutral information,” she insisted. “It is permission, and for many students it is pressure.” Under Obama and Biden, she noted, “These programs routinely positioned outside providers, including organizations whose business model depends on abortion, as the trusted adult in a young person’s life — and treated parents as an obstacle to be managed. A curriculum that teaches a 15-year-old how to obtain services without telling her mother is not a health program,” Valerie argued.

With the exception of Trump’s first term, “Students have been offered risk reduction at best and rarely offered risk avoidance,” Huber stressed, “which is the only approach that eliminates risk rather than managing it.”

Although teen pregnancies have dropped over time, she acknowledges, it was a hollow victory. “We counted births. We counted birth control. We did not count infections, we did not count coercion, and we did not measure what happens when pregnancy prevention becomes a substitute for holistic health and thriving for young people,” Valerie said. “We called it a win. In those same years, the emotional, social, intellectual, and spiritual health of American adolescents all declined. If your scorecard shows success while the young people on it are falling apart, you are measuring the wrong thing.”

Of course, the nonprofits who’ve been suddenly cut off from this federal gravy train are complaining that this creates an “existential dilemma” for sex ed. Some, the Times reports, are even suing HHS over the new requirements. But the reality is, there’s no “right” to taxpayer dollars — especially not for an indoctrination scheme that’s only exacerbating the problems they claim to solve.

What’s more, America needs to stop believing that young people can only meet the low bars we set. “Hand a young person a high standard and tell them you believe they can meet it, and most of them rise to it,” Huber underscored. “What they resent instantly is the adult who tells them they cannot be expected to control themselves. They hear that for exactly what it is, which is a low opinion of them.” The Left’s model assumes “every teenager is sexually active,” she shook her head. “Most high school students are not. … No one argues that because some teenagers will use drugs, prevention is unrealistic and we should teach safer use instead. We hold the optimal health standard, and we surround it with skills, support, and honesty about risk.”

To those who say the approach isn’t proven, Dr. Michelle Cretella strongly disagrees. “A rigorous review by the Institute for Research demonstrates that sexual risk avoidance education (SRAE) holds great promise. It aligns with the primary public health principle acknowledged by the CDC: abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent STDs and pregnancy, as condoms cannot guarantee absolute protection.” Unlike the Planned Parenthood-style programs, “effective SRAE is medically accurate,” she told TWS, citing an article she just authored for an online medical journal. It “discusses condoms and contraceptives and helps students commit to abstinence without decreasing contraceptive use among those who are already sexually active.”

At the end of the day, our schools were never meant to be a substitute for moms and dads, who have the ultimate responsibility to raise their children in a way that reflects their values. It’s not the job of teachers or outside “experts” to contradict those beliefs or commandeer a parent’s authority on topics that, in all honesty, don’t belong in classrooms in the first place. Now, instead of shipping off tens of millions of dollars to graphic programs that double as LGBT recruiting programs and abortion infomercials, the president is letting research, parents, and common sense dictate how America approaches sex ed. And we should all be thankful for it!

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

The Trump Administration Is Making Sure America’s Safety Net Is for Americans

July 25, 2026/in America 250, Elections, Hot Topics, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, The Truth/by The Daily Signal

For at least 30 years, the American welfare state has become a global magnet for immigrants, both legal and illegal, despite longstanding law to prevent exactly that.

Since the late 19th century, federal law has barred any immigrant likely to become a public charge from entering the country. In 1996, with bipartisan support, Congress declared self-sufficiency the explicit policy of the United States and required many legal immigrants to have a sponsor sign a legally binding contract that they would support the immigrant to prevent their enrollment on welfare programs.

But, to put it mildly, Democrats have changed in the years since. Most recently, the Biden administration’s 2022 “public charge” rule gutted a principle as old as the Republic itself: Those who come to America should get to work, not get on welfare.

Yet, half of all households headed by noncitizens use at least one welfare program—a rate much higher than that of households headed by the American-born, according to census data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies. Some countries’ immigrants, like those from Somalia living in Minnesota, receive welfare at more than a 70% clip when they show up in the U.S.

That is not healthy immigration. And it is certainly not the immigration policy Americans want, one defined by eager newcomers ready to take advantage of a once-in-a-family-tree opportunity to participate in the world’s most dynamic and work-rewarding economy.

Instead, it is a predictable and ruinous subsidization of third world dependency and depravity. And a shameful subversion of American generosity.

But that era is ending. And it is thanks to President Donald Trump.

This past week, the Trump administration’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rescinded former President Joe Biden’s disastrous 2022 public charge regulation and restored the plain meaning of federal law.

This reverses 30 years of shadow government subterfuge, beginning with the Clinton administration’s lieutenants, including then-Deputy Assistant to the President Elena Kagan, gutting the law through regulation. More recently, the Biden administration largely ignored the law.

Trump and Stephen Miller, homeland security adviser and deputy chief of staff for policy, in particular, deserve credit for their determination to defend American sovereignty.

This is not only measured in miles of border wall built. It is also measured in the extent to which American welfare goes where it belongs: to truly needy Americans.

It’s a simple principle but has required work from Secretaries Marco Rubio, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Brooke Rollins, and Scott Turner, as well as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz and many others to end the U.S. Agency for International Development scam, audit Medicaid and food stamp rolls to remove illegal aliens, announce that illegal aliens should be deemed ineligible for Head Start funds, remove illegal aliens from public housing, and more.

Every dollar siphoned off by someone who came here specifically to game the system is a dollar stolen from a disabled veteran, a struggling single mom, an elderly widow on a fixed income. These are the truly needy Americans these programs were built to serve.

Restoring self-sufficiency is not cruelty. It is justice.

But the Trump administration cannot win this fight alone. States must step up.

The blueprint exists. States should run every welfare applicant through the federal SAVE database to check immigration status before a single dollar goes out the door.

They should report every non-citizen on the welfare rolls to federal authorities so public charge determinations can be made and the law can be enforced exactly as written.

They should share enrollment data for federal auditing.

And they should collect the cost of welfare given to immigrants from the sponsors who promised to pay taxpayers back.

That money belongs to the American people. Let’s go get it back for them.

Same goes for our safety net—and our country.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

AUTHORS

Sam Adolphsen

Sam Adolphsen served as a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy. He is a founding partner at Red Door Consulting, LLC.

Scott Centorino

Scott Centorino served as a special assistant to the president for domestic policy. He is a founding partner at Red Door Consulting, LLC.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After DHS Release of Noncitizens on Voter Rolls, How Have States Responded?

10 States Checked Their Voter Rolls With a DHS Database to Find Startling Info

California’s Medi-Cal Crisis Leaves Taxpayers Paying for Fraud, Waste, and Runaway Costs

Utah Taxpayers Lost Almost $1 Million to Fake Students

Why Would Congress Want to Punish People for Their IRA Savings?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserve.

As U.S.-Iran Conflict Expands, Possible Ground Operation Comes into Focus

July 23, 2026/in Culture War, Hot Topics, Iranian influence, Islam, Must Read, National Security, News, Policy, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Terrorism, Violence/by Family Research Council

With U.S. casualties mounting amid renewed attacks on American military installations from Iran’s Islamist regime, some officials within the Trump administration are reportedly pushing for kickstarting a regime change in Tehran through supporting Kurdish forces.

Tuesday saw the Islamist regime continue to target U.S. assets in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan as well as a civilian vessel in the Strait of Hormuz. The increase in attacks has led to the deaths of at least three U.S. servicemembers in recent weeks, with outlets reporting that almost 100 troops have been injured so far this month. The Pentagon stated that most of the injuries have not been serious, with 96% having reported back to duty.

In response to Iran’s continued aggression, U.S. Central Command announced Monday that American forces have “struck Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and air defense systems to degrade Iran’s ability to continue attacking commercial vessels flowing through the Strait of Hormuz.” CENTCOM further noted that since early May, U.S. forces “have helped facilitate the transit of approximately 900 commercial vessels and 450 million barrels of crude oil.”

Meanwhile, President Trump remarked Tuesday that the U.S. is continuing to keep a close eye on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and plans to keep a tight lid on any attempts the regime might make to resurrect its devastated program. After reports surfaced that Iran may have transported nuclear centrifuges to an underground enrichment site known as Pickaxe Mountain, the president responded that the U.S. would strike the site “probably pretty soon.” The U.S. has claimed that the regime cannot access its enriched nuclear materials because they are buried deep underground underneath rubble after American forces struck the sites, which are being continually monitored.

At the same time, a possible new front in the war materialized Monday after the Yemen-based Houthi terrorist group threatened to initiate a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the country’s “aggressive” behavior, with the terrorist group claiming that Riyadh had bombed Sanaa International Airport.

With signs that the conflict is slipping toward a quagmire, some officials within the Trump administration are reportedly advocating for more direct action to topple the Iranian regime by reconsidering a previously rejected option to further arm Kurdish forces who are opposed to the ayatollahs that are stationed in parts of northwestern Iran and northern Iraq.

Experts like Brigadier General (Ret.) John Teichert, the former Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for the Air Force for International Affairs, say that significant use of force is the only way to resolve the conflict. “[W]e’ve got to use a language that they understand in Tehran, which is strength, capability, will, and resolve and return to major kinetic operations,” he contended during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Monday. “The ceasefire period has been a disaster. Iran has been enticed by our weakness, and now is the time to return to a language they actually understand.”

Teichert went on to highlight the U.S. strategy behind its recent strikes on ports, energy infrastructure, and bridges in Iran.

“There [are] two primary purposes to the striking of bridges and logistics facilities in the area around the Strait of Hormuz,” he explained. “Number one, it is isolating the Iranian forces in that area so that it will be easier for us to impose our will and stop them from projecting power into the region and into the strait. And number two, it gives the president the option of a ground invasion in that area. It’s preparation of the battlefield, and what that means is that because we’re isolating their forces and cutting off supplies, it would make it easier and safer for us to undertake a ground invasion of operationally significant areas.” Teichert also pushed for the striking of Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub, which he argued would “irreversibly and irreparably strangle the regime.”

The former brigadier general further insisted that arming and supporting a Kurdish invading force into Iran could accelerate a regime change within Iran. “[T]here was actually another threat from the Iranian regime today against the Kurds getting involved, and that’s another tell that they’re afraid that if there is some sort of an opposition force that can either be a catalyst for regime change or the nucleus around which we could see regime change supported by American air power, then that could threaten the regime.”

“There’s about 40 million Kurdish people in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran,” Teichert explained. “I’ve worked directly with [them] in the northern part of Iraq when I was a senior defense official to Baghdad. … [T]hey are a powerful, capable Western fighting force, and at least according to some pretty good intelligence, they were on the verge during the six weeks of active combat operations, of starting to attack against the regime in Iran and starting to build out from the Iraqi enclave of the Kurds into northwest Iran. And apparently, a Turkish conversation with our president caused us to hold them back. But I have seen them in action, and they are massively capable and we have armed them sufficiently.”

While acknowledging that the U.S.’s lack of support has “burned” the Kurds in the past, Teichert emphasized that empowering them could turn the tide. “If we provided them the top cover of air power … coupled with a real threat of a ground invasion, not by Americans, not by Israelis, but by the Kurds, if they trust us, would be sufficient to potentially create the wave of what we would need to see the regime flip.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

Shooting Strait: The Iranian Ceasefire That Wasn’t

May 6, 2026/in Anti-Semitism, Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Iranian influence, Islam, National Security, News, Policy, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Social Issues, Socialism, Terrorism, The Truth, Violence/by Family Research Council

President Donald Trump had no sooner declared the Iran war “terminated” in a Friday letter to Congress than fighting broke out afresh. On Monday, Iranian forces chose to attack the merchant ships, the U.S. Navy, and other peaceful neighbors, and the U.S. sank six small Iranian attack boats in response. The Trump administration would rather not let such skirmishes derail the fragile ceasefire, but the Iranian regime still appears unwilling to play ball.

Two days after President Trump told Congress that hostilities with the Iranian regime were “terminated,” he announced a new operation, Project Freedom, whereby the U.S. military would create a safe corridor for civilian ships to leave the Persian Gulf. On Monday, U.S. destroyers escorted two U.S.-flagged tankers through the Strait, near the Omani shore, demonstrating that the U.S. military had cleared a “free lane” of Iranian mines. U.S. Central Command then advised commercial vessels to use the lane, while American naval vessels and military aircraft in the Strait provided a defensive shield.

For the Iranian regime, whose only remaining leverage in negotiations are the oil tankers trapped in the Persian Gulf, allowing America’s gambit to succeed would be effectively a final defeat. The “ceasefire” that President Trump unilaterally declared on April 7 largely consisted of the U.S. keeping its assets out of the Iranian regime’s diminished reach. But here was the U.S. Navy traipsing across Iran’s own backyard, practically daring Iran to attack. The remnants of the ruined regime reasoned they might never receive a better opportunity.

So, Iran attacked. They launched cruise missiles at American destroyers, and they launched drones on an empty Emirati tanker and a South Korean vessel trying to flee. They launched a squadron of fast attack boats — whether to lay mines, attack vessels, or capture them is unclear. And, for good measure, the Iranian regime also launched some 15 missiles and drones at its peaceful neighbor, the UAE, striking the Fujairah Oil Industry Zone on a UAE pipeline that bypasses the Strait.

Iran’s best available opportunity was still not a good one. The attack only demonstrated the regime’s impotence. The U.S. Navy intercepted the incoming missiles, and Apache helicopters sank the speedboats. Iran did manage to damage the civilian vessels and civilian targets in the UAE, but striking defenseless civilian targets is not really an impressive feat.

Iran’s pitiful provocations may elicit escalation in one form or another. President Trump declared that Iranian ships that attacked U.S. vessels would be “blown off the face of the earth,” and the furious Emiratis will insist that attacks against them must be answered. “The Iranians have fired the first shots to end the cease-fire,” observed The Wall Street Journal editors, “which is all the reason Mr. Trump needs to use the force to stop them from getting away with it again.”

However, the Trump administration has not publicly declared that Iran is in violation of the agreement. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the ceasefire “certainly holds” for now. What value there is in a “ceasefire” where both parties have resumed firing is a matter for debate.

The Trump administration’s reason for sticking to the ceasefire has nothing to do with the Iranian regime and everything to do with its domestic political situation. Finding Congress unwilling to support a campaign to finish the job, the Trump administration decided instead to tell Congress that the war was already over — whether Congress believes it or not.

“The greatest enemy is our own political dynamics,” lamented Michael Rubin, director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum, on “Washington Watch.” “The Iranians know that the Iranians have lost by any metric. It’s quite amazing how many people think that the United States has been stalemated.”

“In this case, the Iranians have lost a top three or four layers of their leadership,” he explained. “They’ve lost most of their military equipment, they’ve lost their economy, and so forth. We are in a position to dictate to them. We shouldn’t go into a game of poker having a full house or a royal flush and be out-bluffed by a pair of twos.”

“Historically, the American people have a short temperament for these types of things,” agreed Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “You get a new administration, and they’ll completely reverse course.”

The Iranian regime is likely counting on just that. “Their usual playbook … is simply to run down the clock in the hope that the people with whom they’re negotiating will eventually move on,” Rubin responded. “Because, of course, while Iran is a dictatorship, we’re a democracy. And therefore, what they’re doing is fishing for a future official who might rescue them from the mess which the Iranians now find themselves in.”

Of course, such a claim requires a definition of the Iranian regime — some understanding of who is actually running the country. Over the past month, the Iranian regime has maintained a defiant military posture, even with “certain conversations taking place, but the actions are not meshing with the conversations,” Perkins described. To him, this suggested that “the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is actually driving the train.”

“That is precisely correct,” assented former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “I would add, I think that’s largely been true for 47 years. I think it has been the hardest of the hardcore that’s been driving this, with a theocratic veneer that’s now been shed because of the ayatollah’s demise.”

When dealing with the Iranian regime, said the man who actually did so, it’s important to remember that “there aren’t any ‘moderates’ … in the sense that we would understand people who don’t want to destroy the nation of Israel, who aren’t trying to create a caliphate. They believe all the same things that the radicals do. Their methodologies, their timing may be different, but there is not a leader inside of Iran that doesn’t believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to rule the Middle East, and that Israel has no place in the region.”

“The IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] is a powerful, capable military,” but “we’ve taken out much of that,” Pompeo described. However, in addition, IRGC operatives “are important politically — that is, they have the guns inside. They have capacity to control the populace. But they’re also an economic juggernaut. They own as much as one-fifth or one-third of the Iranian economy.”

“I happen to agree with Secretary Pompeo on this,” Rubin confirmed. “When some people have said that Donald Trump’s actions have only radicalized the regime, I don’t think they’re actually seeing the big picture. Iran, of course, is a conscript society. And therefore, you either were conscripted into the army or you had to join the Revolutionary Guard. … And as soon as the bombs started dropping, these guys who weren’t true believers simply faded into the woodwork. What remained were the true believers.”

Rubin also explained how the IRGC cultivates such “true believers” in its failing ideology. “You can go into that bubble when you’re eight years old, because they run the equivalent of evil Boy Scout programs,” he said. “Then they have student clubs. They run their own universities. And so, if you’ve been indoctrinated since the age of eight, you may actually believe what may sound like nonsense to us, which so many previous administrations in Washington were willing to dismiss as rhetorical flourish. They’re not rhetorical flourish.”

The ideological commitment of those driving Iranian policy is one reason why the Islamic regime has so stubbornly refused to negotiate a surrender of its fissile material — even after its military was all but destroyed. In its latest 14-point peace proposal, “almost each of those 14 points” was “so ridiculous on the face that really what the Iranians are trying to do is signal to the United States they’re not interested in negotiating,” said Rubin. “Ideologically, they will never accept a solution.”

Iran’s ideological inflexibility is a “conundrum that President Trump and, frankly, every president before him” has faced, said Pompeo. Rubin agreed, “The United States is very bad, traditionally, at understanding the ideology of its adversaries. And Donald Trump … is a fabulous negotiator … from this milieu of real estate dealing and so forth. But … you can’t be transactional with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”

This belated realization prompted Trump to blockade Iran’s ports, deciding that the only way to break the IRGC’s hold on power was to box in the economic engine they control. “President Trump is on the right track,” cheered Pompeo. “The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz is certainly impacting their revenue, their ability to pay their soldiers, their proxy forces.”

“The Iranians have never been in such poor economic straits,” reiterated Rubin. “The Iranian currency is now 1.8 million to the dollar. At the time of the revolution, it was 70 to the dollar. It’s in freefall. They can’t export their oil. They can’t import their gasoline. And remember, the Persian Gulf might be huge, but there’s only about 10 Iranian ports there that we need to control. And, right now, we’re controlling them.”

“If we’re going to negotiate, we negotiate from a position of strength,” Rubin urged. The blockade achieves that, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz strips away the last bit of leverage the Iranian regime has. Neither measure, however, is strictly peaceful. Even still, Pompeo said, “There is no negotiated solution that actually gets to a place where the regime will acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, that the United States should exist, and that the Iranian regime should not be in possession of a nuclear weapons capability.”

Pompeo and Rubin both agreed that weakening the IRGC also opened a pathway for internal revolt — though a slim one. “There’s an analogy with regard to Serbia,” Rubin proposed, “where, when Bill Clinton bombed Serbia, he didn’t unseat Slobodan Milosevic. That happened the next year because Slobodan Milosevic wasn’t able to pay the salaries, and a lot of his allies had simply been killed in this bombing.”

However, “the difference between Slobodan Milosevic and the Iranian leadership is that Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian nationalists weren’t willing to wholesale slaughter everyone in their country,” Rubin cautioned. “It appears that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are. And, even if the Iranians among them aren’t, they’re importing Hezbollah and Iraqi militias to do the same thing.”

An internal uprising “is possible,” said Pompeo. “I don’t think that’s the most likely outcome, but it’s the one that we should support and pray and root for.”

Rather, the aim of the American blockade is to so weaken Iran that the IRGC is forced to agree to a deal which is effectively a surrender, Pompeo suggested. “I think that’s how this ultimately ends up being resolved. And that means more time, a little bit more patience by the American people — some more cost to the American consumers, for sure. But this is a resolve that I think is really important for Western civilization to achieve.”

However, he warned that such a “surrender” would not represent a change in heart or ideology, only a temporary surrender to circumstances. “So long as the regime is in power, they may pause for two years or five years or 10, but their determination will remain,” he said. “And so, from a Western perspective, the objective is to wipe out their capability materially. Get a verification regime around their nuclear program so that there’s no enrichment, no capacity to actually ever threaten the world again with a nuclear weapon. And then, be mindful.”

There is no permanent peace with the radical Islamic regime that rules Iran, only ceasefires of more or less value, lasting for shorter or longer periods of time.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

DOJ Report Reveals Biden Admin.’s Expansive Religious Liberty Violations and Hostility to American Christians

May 1, 2026/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Elections, Featured, Government Transparency, Hot Topics, Marxism, News, Policy, Politics, Religion, Social Issues, The Truth, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

The presidency of Joe Biden was a dark, though relatively brief, chapter in American history, replete with widespread prosecution and persecution of American Christians. President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged on the campaign trail to establish a federal task force to investigate and eradicate the anti-Christian bias evinced and enacted by the Biden administration, and has delivered on that promise. On Thursday morning, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published a 209-page report entitled, “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias within the Federal Government,” detailing not only the numerous abuses of the Biden administration but also the remedies put in place by the Trump administration.

“Our Nation’s origin and system of government bear the imprint of a Christian worldview and ethic, even as its laws protect religious pluralism. Christian beliefs, in conjunction with contemporary political thought and economic realities, influenced colonial settlers in their decision to overthrow tyranny and pursue independence,” the report’s introduction states. “After the Revolutionary War, Christians then informed the structure and contents of the United States Constitution, its amendments, and contemporaneous state constitutions.”

“But, when Christian beliefs about morality and human nature conflicted with the Biden Administration’s views, religious rights often suffered,” the report’s introduction continues. “The Biden Administration generally tolerated religious beliefs that were privately held but zealously pursued actions to limit Christians’ ability to act in accordance with their faith. This affected matters of deep personal importance to nearly every American: life, family, marriage, and self-identity,” it continues. “The Biden Administration’s policies regularly clashed with a Christian worldview and burdened traditional religious practices. These conflicts frequently arose over abortion, gender ideology, and sexual orientation. Ultimately, the Biden Administration penalized Christians who lived in accordance with their beliefs.”

The report details 14 “key findings” regarding the Biden administration’s abuse of power and violation of religious liberties, ranging from a two-tiered justice system and aggressive prosecution of pro-life activists to the coercive violation of conscience rights and the rabid promotion of LGBT ideology. The taskforce also identifies several “remedies” that the Trump administration has enacted to ensure that the federal government is not weaponized against American Christians.

“No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, chair of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, in a statement. He said that the Biden administration’s actions “devastated the lives of many Christian Americans,” adding, “That devastation ended with President Trump. The Department of Justice will continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith.”

During an appearance on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Thursday, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Camille Varone further emphasized that the report was “a whole of government effort,” noting that “the task force has 17 cabinet level members and other agency heads. But there were other agencies who were hearing about the work we were doing and were excited to participate. And so the report has findings from far more than just the task force members.”

Below are the report’s key findings and the Trump administration’s proposed actions to eradicate anti-Christian bias from the federal government.

FACE Act Weaponization

The DOJ previously published a report tracking how the Biden administration used the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act to aggressively target pro-life Americans, while largely ignoring the law’s provisions protecting pro-life pregnancy resource centers and houses of worship. The new report characterizes the Biden administration’s DOJ as “an enforcement arm” for the abortion industry.

Over the course of Biden’s tenure in the White House, his DOJ “routinely” collaborated with pro-abortion non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — chiefly the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and the Feminist Majority Foundation — to prosecute pro-life Americans. The Biden DOJ would regularly request information from the abortion agencies relating to pro-life protests, prayer vigils, and other pro-life activities. In several cases, the Biden DOJ would even launch prosecutions at the request of pro-abortion NGOs, all while “mostly disregard[ing] pro-life groups.”

Varone also observed that “non-governmental organizations could poke around on the internet in ways that the department couldn’t. There were so many different documents that we found from the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood compiling dossiers where they were monitoring pro-life Americans — collecting information about their travel, their whereabouts, their social media posts, including posting of Bible verses. There were even information about the cars that they drove and photos of some of their children. And they compiled all of this to give it to the Department of Justice, to the people who were charged with prosecuting under the FACE Act in case something might happen [that the DOJ] may view as a potential crime.”

The Biden DOJ also withheld evidence requested by defense attorneys for pro-lifers and regularly pursued harsher penalties for pro-lifers than for pro-abortion activists. “The Biden DOJ pursued significantly higher sentences (near the top range of sentencing guidelines) for pro-life defendants, while pursuing more lenient sentences against the handful of pro-abortion defendants that it charged,” the report notes. On average, the Biden DOJ requested an average sentence of 26.8 months for the 21 pro-life defendants it successfully prosecuted, while requesting an average sentence of only 12.3 months for the six pro-abortion defendants it prosecuted. The most stringent sentence was handed to Lauren Handy, who was sentenced to 58 months (nearly five years) in prison. The Biden DOJ originally requested that she be sentenced to 78 months (six-and-a-half years).

Upon taking office last year, Trump pardoned the pro-life activists targeted by the Biden administration and directed his DOJ to dismiss “with prejudice” three civil lawsuits against pro-life defendants. The Trump DOJ also issued a directive ordering that prosecutors “may only bring FACE Act civil actions and prosecutions in extraordinary circumstances or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors.”

Targeting Traditionalist Catholics

In 2023, it was revealed that the Biden administration’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) illegally targeted American Catholics devoted to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the liturgy celebrated prior to the Second Vatican Council, and even spied on traditionalist Catholic parishes. The FBI’s Richmond, Virginia, field office drafted a memo labeling “radical traditionalist Catholics” as potential “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” and detailing plans to infiltrate and spy on traditionalist Catholic parishes. While the Trump DOJ notes that the FBI’s Weaponization Working Group will release a more in-depth report “detailing the day-to-day weaponization of the Richmond Field Office against conservative, practicing Catholics on the basis of guilt-by-association because one career criminal attended a local Catholic church,” the DOJ’s report provides an “overview” of the discrimination.

Citing the recently-indicted Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Richmond field office labeled traditionalist Catholics as potential “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” and began crafting its memo, which was originally intended to be circulated nationwide across the agency. The arrest of career criminal Xavier Louis Lopez for possession of weapons including Molotov cocktails, improvised napalm, and hollow-point bullets provided an opportunity for the Richmond FBI to target a Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) parish with which Lopez was affiliated. Although Our Lady of Fatima parish in Richmond “played no role whatsoever in Lopez’s acquisition or possession of the destructive devices,” the FBI interviewed the pastor, Father James Hewko, who asked to speak with the parish’s legal representation before speaking to the FBI about Lopez. The FBI subsequently monitored both Hewko and his uncle, in addition to interviewing and monitoring others associated with the parish.

Trump’s FBI Director, Kash Patel, has vowed that this “weaponization and politicization of law enforcement” will never be “allowed to happen again.” The FBI’s Weaponization Working Group will disclose further details.

Targeting Concerned Parents

In 2021, as parents across the country were voicing their discontent with radical LGBT policies at local school board meetings, Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, issued a DOJ-wide memo alleging that parents who protest at local school board meetings should be treated as potentially violent domestic extremists. Garland recommended forming a DOJ task force to explore the use of domestic terrorism statutes against parents and “recommended that United States Attorney’s Offices and FBI Field Offices coordinate with local law enforcement and school districts, and that the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center assist by directing credible threats to appropriate law enforcement partners.”

Although some within the DOJ warned that the actions of parents at school board meetings were almost certainly protected under the First Amendment and, even when parents did take action that constituted crimes, those crimes were often not federal offenses. “Those concerns did not win the day,” the Trump DOJ’s report notes. Garland revised his memo, but still urged the Biden DOJ to target concerned parents, who were characterized as “threats” to school boards. The Biden DOJ “quickly acted to follow through.” While the Biden DOJ’s criminal division was “skeptical,” Garland and his team forged ahead with plans to prosecute parents who protested at school board meetings via “possible application of color of law provisions that criminalize conduct that interfere with those participating in programs receiving federal financial assistance.”

Investigation of Christian Charities

Under Biden, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) weaponized the Johnson Amendment against Christian nonprofit organizations. The Johnson Amendment is a U.S. tax code provision prohibiting most nonprofit organizations from endorsing or explicitly opposing political candidates. Biden’s IRS, the Trump DOJ’s report explains, used the Johnson Amendment to target “Christian churches and non-profit institutions, particularly those who espoused traditional Christian views that could be construed with a political valence, scrutinizing their statements for violations.”

The Biden IRS seemingly singled out churches and nonprofit organizations that were characterized as supportive of Republican candidates and conservative issues, while failing to apply the Johnson Amendment to churches and nonprofit organizations aligned or affiliated with Democrats, even those that explicitly supported Democratic candidates or politicians. The investigations were not limited to the speech of pastors, but sought wide-ranging information on the finances and operations of targeted churches and nonprofit organizations. “The Biden IRS’s pattern of enforcement,” the Trump DOJ’s report says, “raised serious concerns about the IRS attempting to regulate what certain pastors could say from the pulpit and chilled the speech of many other clergy.”

The Trump administration’s Treasury Department has subsequently revised its standards for application of the Johnson Amendment, clarifying that houses of worship can communicate to their congregations regarding moral and political matters in accord with their respective teachings without falling afoul of the Johnson Amendment. “Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services,” neither “participate” nor “intervene” in political campaigns, “any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates.”

Fining Christian Universities

The Biden administration’s Department of Education levied hefty fines against Christian colleges and universities, while largely failing to pursue similar penalties against secular, non-religious institutions for similar regulatory violations. According to the Trump DOJ’s report, the “average fine against a Christian school was $815,000, compared to $228,571 against public and private institutions.” The two largest fines levied against Christian universities were against Grand Canyon University ($37.7 million) and Liberty university ($14 million).

The fines against Liberty University were for supposed violations of the Clery Act, which provides the public with information regarding a university’s safety. The Trump DOJ’s report notes that the fines against Grand Canyon University and Liberty University “dwarfed the fines levied against Pennsylvania State University ($2.4 million) for 11 Clery Act violations involving the school’s failure to report sex offenses relating to its assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky’s serial child molestation, and against Michigan State University ($4.5 million) for its failure to disclose sex offenses committed by Larry Nassar, a team physician who sexually assaulted hundreds of athletes.”

Under the Trump administration, the Department of Education has not only dismissed its case against Grand Canyon University, but rescinded its fine and has “also committed to no longer disproportionately targeting Christian colleges and universities and to affirming the rights of Christian colleges and universities to act in accordance with their faith-based identity.”

Conscience Violations

In numerous cases, the Biden administration also failed or refused to prosecute federal conscience violation cases, allowing institutions to coerce Christians into violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or penalizing them for adhering to their Christian morals. In one example, the Biden DOJ dropped a lawsuit against the University of Vermont Medical Center for compelling Christian employees to participate in committing abortions.

“This case is emblematic of the Biden Administration’s approach to conscience enforcement: When the scope of federal protections was legally contested, the Administration generally chose the interpretation least protective of religious objectors and resolved active enforcement matters through administrative means, if possible, rather than litigation,” the Trump DOJ’s report comments. “Government inaction of this kind is an especially damaging source of anti-Christian bias precisely because it is difficult to see and harder to remedy.”

Anti-Christian Policy

The Biden administration’s anti-Christian bias was not relegated to enforcement actions, but also to policy choices. The administration supported the “Equality Act,” which would have “fully eliminate[d] statutory religious protections for Christians and other religions that hold traditional social values” by barring, without exemption, “discrimination” on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity in areas such as public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Although numerous academics and religious leaders warned that the legislation would amount to a significant infringement on First Amendment rights, the Biden administration forcefully supported the legislation in Congress.

“Although the Biden Administration was ultimately unsuccessful in its push to enact the Equality Act, it sought to implement the same policy goals wherever possible through executive actions, guidance memoranda, and rulemakings,” the Trump DOJ’s report announced. The administration’s “overbroad” application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock v. Clayton County targeted Christians and Christian organizations for their biblical worldview on biological sex and human sexuality, while Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) worked overtime to entrench transgender ideology in the federal bureaucracy and classify gender transition procedures as necessary and life-saving medicine.

Biden’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “dismissed sincerely held religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity as ‘discrimination in hiring … cloaked as religious practice,’” while the Department of Education likewise shifted its non-discrimination policies to promote and hide gender transition procedures for children. The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Labor, and Agriculture all similarly revised their guidance on key statutes and legal precedents, such as Bostock and Titles VII, IX, and X of the Civil Rights Act, to shield progressive agenda items.

In many cases, when Christians and other professionals or professional organizations suggested, based on empirical evidence and research, that gender transition procedures (especially for children) may not be harmless or beneficial, the Biden administration and its agencies often sidelined or outright silenced those voices, or ignored them. For example, when the British government published the extensive Cass Review, detailing the significant dangers posed by exposing minors to gender transition procedures and ultimately terminating the British government’s support for the practice, the Biden administration “maintained that the report did not alter their support for minors’ access to sex-rejecting procedures and medical intervention.”

The Biden administration’s policy decisions also encouraged state and local governments to bar Christian couples from participating in foster programs, claiming that the couples’ sincerely held religious beliefs on biological sex or human sexuality would pose a threat to children who identify as transgender or homosexual. Other actions targeted talk-based Christian therapy designed to assist those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction and even attempted to bar Christians from practicing therapy in many areas.

Numerous executive actions were also taken by the Biden administration to proliferate the practice of abortion, even after the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Biden administration actions attempted to skirt federal statutes barring taxpayer funding from being used for abortions and directly used federal agencies to facilitate abortions. The Biden administration regularly replaced departmental faith offices with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and repeatedly sidelined Christians and Christian organizations.

Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for example, hosted 59 meetings and roundtables with non-Christian faith-based organizations to discuss potential terrorist threats and safety. The Biden DHS hosted only two such meetings with Christian organizations. The Trump DOJ referred to Family Research Council’s report on increasing hostility against Christians to note that the “disparity is notable given that Christians comprise an estimated 62 percent of the U.S. population and have faced increased hostility and violence in recent years.”

Other Biden administration actions that targeted Christians included adverse employment actions, such as eliminating religious discrimination safeguards in the EEOC and issuing blanket denials of religious exemption requests, particularly those related to COVID-19 restrictions and mandates. According to a survey of federal employees, nearly one third (30.1%) were denied pay based on their religious objections to COVID-19 mandates, while others were denied travel, reassigned, lost their security clearances, or were formally reprimanded. Nearly one fifth (18.3%) reported having been removed from their posts and nearly 12% said that they were fired.

What’s Next?

While the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias will continue its work through 2027, it has already begun working to eradicate anti-Christian bias from the federal government. Pursuant to the taskforce’s recommendations, most federal agencies have opened and operate faith offices, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued memos reinforcing religious liberties, and the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued guidance on religious liberty protections afforded by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, in addition to other actions taken by federal agencies. The task force will publish further remedial actions taken in its 2027 report.

Religious liberty advocates have thanked the Trump administration for its efforts to tackle the issue of anti-Christian bias and the weaponization of the federal government against Americans of faith, but have warned that there is still much work to be done. “This is a very good report on the pervasive anti-Christian bias under the Biden administration; capturing many of the domestic religious liberty concerns we have noticed in recent years, especially on marriage, family, sexuality, and life issues — as well as hostility against Christianity in general,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in a statement. He noted that hostility towards Christians skyrocketed under Biden’s tenure, including violent attacks on pro-life pregnancy resource centers and Christian churches. “Yet, as this DOJ report shows, the Biden administration did very little in response and instead weaponized its resources to target Christians including imprisoning grandmothers praying outside of abortion centers.”

“This report does raise questions about what comes next. And what happens the next time a radical progressive like President Biden comes to power? We must ensure this targeting never happens again under any future administration,” Perkins asserted. “We must ensure that the bedrock of American society and culture is placed on a firm footing in which freedom is respected for everyone. What better time to do this than our nation’s 250th birthday? Religious freedom is seldom handed to the passive; it is claimed by those who exercise it even when a hostile culture says they may not.”

“Now is the time to take this insight and put in safeguards at the federal, state, and local levels that will prevent future Democrat administrations from hollowing out the First Amendment, making it difficult for them to pervert America,” Perkins continued. “Ultimately, the preventative prescription to anti-Christian bias from our own government is Christians sharing the gospel and living out their faith in a God honoring way. While we should press on the government to act justly, it’s up to the church to change the culture that has given rise to this anti-Christian bias.”

During “Washington Watch” Thursday, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Varone indicated that the DOJ is currently investigating whether leftist NGOs violated the law in their dealings with the Biden administration. “At minimum, it would violate best practices,” she noted. “And so we’d start with that. There are concerns that some of the conduct here may have gone further. I can’t get into specifics because DOJ handles all of its internal personnel and investigations privately. But as the report mentions, appropriate referrals have been made.”

Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at FRC, said in comments to The Washington Stand, “With this report, President Trump and his administration have issued an important corrective to the anti-Christian bias that was tolerated, advanced, and/or enabled for too long by the Biden administration. Yet we must not stop here, but rather must determine next steps and consider how this hostility manifests in our culture and the local communities on which our country is knit together.” He added, “For America to flourish in the long-term, we must move beyond the political ‘see-saw’ we are currently on and regain that ‘common ground’ of national consensus on which freedom rests.”

“We must remember that what the Trump administration is responding to politically is — more deeply — a cultural and spiritual issue,” Weber observed. “We are often ‘responding’ to bias and hostility. Instead, we need to think proactively about how to shift our culture back toward a respect for freedom and faith — and the role that both play in society, for the benefit of ALL members of society. As the Trump administration considers what to do with the findings detailed in this report, Christians in America also need to be asking ourselves the same question: ‘What’s our next step?’”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Biden Admin’s Anti-Christian Bias Was Even Worse Than You Think

Amid Rising Anti-Christian Hostility in Public Schools, LifeWise Wins Court Victory

PERKINS: New Report Thaws the Chill of Bias against Christians

Stop Listening to the Wrong Experts

April 14, 2026/in America 250, Featured, Hot Topics, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, The Truth/by Family Research Council

Every night for the past six weeks, cable news has assembled its panels — retired generals and decorated pilots breaking down the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, the missile exchanges across the Gulf, China’s shadow role in arming Tehran’s defenses. Confident. Credentialed. And often missing the most critical part of the picture.

I know, because I have been one of them.

Since 1993, I have provided military analysis on television — cable news, network programs, the full circuit. I know this world firsthand: the green room, the earpiece, the producer counting you down to air, the certainty expected of you in 90 seconds on a situation that took years to develop. In early 2003, I sat in a Pentagon briefing on Iraq’s alleged weapons stockpiles, looked at satellite photographs and classified assessments, and walked out certain that the analysts present — myself included — were being steered toward a conclusion the evidence did not fully support. I said nothing.

The New York Times later exposed it in David Barstow’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 2008 investigation. I am not proud of that silence. The problem I was part of hasn’t been fixed. The Iran war has made it urgent.

The Mismatch Nobody Names

Since the strikes began February 28, television audiences have watched combat veterans describe operational details — carrier strike group movements, strike package composition, air defense suppression. That analysis matters. But the questions consuming Washington right now are different: Why did Iranian missile accuracy surprise U.S. planners? What is Beijing doing — intelligence support, spare parts, diplomatic cover — and why? What drove Tehran’s calculus on the Strait of Hormuz? What do the April 7 ceasefire terms signal about the next phase?

Those are not military operations questions. They require people who have lived inside those societies, learned those languages, and spent their careers reading those political systems. Researchers at War on the Rocks and investigative journalists at The Washington Post have spent years documenting how systematically television fails to make this distinction. The current crisis is why that failure matters.

The Experts Nobody Books

The U.S. military has built exactly the right people for this moment. They are called Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) — Functional Area 48 — the most rigorously trained regional specialists in uniform.

FAOs spend three to four years in a structured pipeline before advising anyone: intensive language training at the Defense Language Institute, a fully-funded graduate degree in their assigned region, and up to 12 months living and working on the ground inside the country they will spend their careers analyzing. They serve as defense attachés in U.S. embassies and as political-military advisors to combatant commanders. They bring the cultural, historical, and religious context that no amount of combat experience can substitute for.

The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies calls them “strategic scouts” — officers who read political and military terrain from the inside out. There are roughly 1,200 Army FAOs either qualified or in training right now. Almost none of them are on television explaining why Chinese satellite systems enhanced Iranian targeting accuracy, or what a ceasefire brokered through Pakistan means for Beijing’s influence in the Gulf. That is not an oversight. It is a failure with consequences that show up in body counts.

What Philip Tetlock Knew

The political scientist Philip Tetlock put hard numbers to this problem in his landmark study “Expert Political Judgment”: credentialed experts’ geopolitical forecasts are barely better than chance. Worse, the analysts who television values most — those who deliver the most confident, unqualified assessments — perform worst of all. Confidence reads as authority. Authority generates bookings. Bookings generate more perceived authority. Accuracy gets crowded out.

As Task & Purpose has reported, members of Congress and their staffers watch the same cable news as everyone else. The experts assembled nightly shape legislative priorities, budget votes, and policy judgments. In the run-up to Iraq, voices like mine made a contested decision look more settled than it was. Right now, with U.S. forces committed in the Gulf, a fragile ceasefire holding on borrowed time, and Beijing watching whether American attention has drifted far enough to move on Taiwan, getting the analysis wrong carries a cost that doesn’t show up in ratings.

What to Demand

Combat veterans belong in the public square. Their expertise on operations, readiness, and the human cost of war is irreplaceable. That is not what’s in dispute.

The point is simpler: rank is not regional expertise. Before accepting an analyst’s authority on Iran, China, or what comes next, ask whether this person has studied this country in its language and on the ground — and whether they have financial ties to defense contractors with a stake in the policy being discussed. Then ask whose expertise is missing from the panel entirely.

We would never accept a general practitioner’s opinion on a surgery he has never performed. The men and women in uniform — and the families who send them — deserve at least that same standard from the voices shaping the decisions that put them in harm’s way.

Proverbs 11:14 says there is safety in a multitude of counselors — but only when those counselors are honest and qualified to speak. Six weeks into a Middle East war with no clear off-ramp, the gap between the experts we are hearing and the experts we need has never been more visible or more costly.

The wrong experts are still talking. Someone should stop listening.

AUTHOR

Robert Maginnis

Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 14 books. His latest, “The New AI Cold War,” releases in April 2026.

UH OH…The Iran War Is Much Bigger Than You Think!

Congressman Keith Self Calls for Banning Islamic Laws in All U.S. courts

PERKINS: Leadership by Principle, Not Polling

March 13, 2026/in Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, Immigration, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, The Truth/by Family Research Council

Sir Edmund Burke, in a speech to the Electors of Bristol in 1774, said: “Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

That may not sit well in an age of polling and clamor for direct democracy, but the reality is this: the duty of statesmen is not to follow public opinion, but to lead it. In moments of crisis, leaders are not called to read the polls — they are called to rise above them.

And that is exactly what President Donald Trump has done to this point in the war with Iran. When asked about public polling — where most surveys show a majority opposing the war — Trump responded, “I don’t care about polling.”

That statement gained my immediate attention, because in almost every conversation or meeting I have had with the president, he often references the polls — favorable polls.

I note this not as criticism, but to commend the president for stepping into the role of a statesman who leads in the direction the nation needs to go, regardless of the political consequences.

The stock market — very familiar territory for the president — has gone a bit wobbly. Gas prices have risen quickly, though they remain below the peak Americans experienced in the summer of 2022, when the average gallon approached $5. Some congressional Republicans are also expressing concern about the possible impact on the midterm elections.

These are big issues — in the short term. That is why most administrations confronting the Iranian nuclear threat sought to contain it, if they could not avoid it altogether.

To use a familiar phrase from American politics over the last 60 or 70 years, they simply kicked the can down the road so the next administration — or the next generation — would deal with it.

Donald Trump concluded there was no road left.

Open sources suggest Iran possessed roughly 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60% before the launch of Operation Epic Fury. Iran was racing to reach the 90% weapons-grade level — enough material for roughly 10 nuclear warheads. Enough to hold the world hostage, if not destroy large parts of it.

If there has been a justifiable war since World War II, this may be it. This is not defending oil-rich countries made wealthy by American dependence. This is confronting a direct threat to our security and to that of our natural ally, Israel.

When the leadership of a rogue regime repeatedly calls America the “Great Satan,” vows to destroy us, and sponsors repeated terrorist attacks against Americans — at what point should we believe them?

As president, Donald Trump had the constitutional authority to act. Based on the available facts, the war is justified, and the stated purpose is right: peace in the Middle East and justice for the Iranian people.

President Trump should be commended for taking the regime at its word and responding — not because it was politically popular, but because it was justified, militarily and morally.

And in doing so, he illustrated the very principle Burke described 250 years ago: a leader who governs not by the polls, but by judgment.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US and Israel Strike ‘Regime’s Protest-Crushing Machine’

Muslim Gunman Mohamed Jalloh Who Shouted “ALLAHU AKBAR!” In Fatal Old Dominion University Shooting ID’d as Convicted Islamic State Supporter

Armed Siege at Norway Synagogue: Elite Police Swarm Trondheim in Major Operation

Active Shooter at Temple Israel, Synagogue and School in Michigan

ISIS Signs Inside Mamdani’s Mansion After Jihad Shrapnel Bombing

Three Muslim Brothers Arrested in Terror Bomb Blast at US Embassy in Norway

Dems Refuse to Fund DHS as Iran-Related Terror Threat Grows

March 4, 2026/in Anti-Semitism, Assassination attempt, Courts & Law, Culture War, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, Immigration, Iranian influence, Narco-Socialism, Narco-Terrorism, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Socialism, Terrorism, The Truth, Violence, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

As far as campaign strategies go, risking American lives to make a political point seems like a pretty flawed approach. But it is, incredibly, the path Democrats have chosen — perhaps fatally — to meet the critical moment the U.S. finds itself in. As bombs drop in the Middle East and our country braces for possible retaliation, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) party still insists on choking off crucial dollars to Homeland Security. The reality is, if our nation is attacked — and the growing number of terror sleeper cells within our borders makes that a real possibility —Democrats will own it. But so far, that’s a gamble the party seems willing to make.

On Monday, two days into the offensive in Iran, the Democrats’ second in command, Senator Dick Durbin (Ill.) shot down any suggestion that the war changed anything for the Left where the partial shutdown is concerned. “We gave fair warning to the Republicans that we were serious about reining in what the ICE forces are doing. What we’re talking about is responsible.”

Those talking points were echoed by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on “Face the Nation” Sunday, who implied that the president’s strikes and ICE mission were both unconstitutional, justifying the party’s ill-advised stance. “They should stop this illegal war, and they should stop ICE from terrorizing our communities. We should demand that they do both things,” he argued.

But the optics of stonewalling Homeland Security are anything but flattering — especially as Congress enjoys heightened protections during the conflict. House Sergeant-at-Arms William McFarland explained in an email Monday afternoon that his office is “working closely with … law enforcement and intelligence partners to monitor the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East” as extra measures are taken to safeguard members.

The weekend’s deadly Austin shooting, which was carried out by a man wearing a “Property of Allah” sweatshirt, also makes the Democrats’ current obstruction look absurdly petty and perilous. Even now, the FBI and several U.S. cities are on high alert, adding extra patrols and other anti-terrorism safeguards. “While the military handles force protection overseas, the FBI remains at the forefront of deterring attacks here at home — and will continue to have our team work around the clock to protect Americans,” Director Kash Patel insisted.

“The threats of terrorism are higher right now,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) warned. “Our forces are on alert because we are actively taking out the Iranian leadership in the Ayatollah,” he said, calling it “shocking” that Democrats continue to hold up DHS funding.

His colleague, Army veteran Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), agreed. “Unfortunately, we had a wide-open border for four years under Joe Biden. We have no idea who may have gotten into the country during those four years. I don’t want to comment specifically on what happened in Austin until all the facts are known, but I did speak with [FBI Director] Kash Patel yesterday, and I can tell you that the FBI is taking every potential threat around the nation very seriously,” he said. But, Cotton underscored, “This is another very compelling reason that we need to fund the Department of Homeland Security immediately.”

Sitting down with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch,” former Secret Service special agent Tim Miller detailed some of the chilling scenarios that could be facing Americans thanks to the 15 million illegal immigrants who invaded our country under Biden. “The reason we have legal entry,” he stressed, “is so we can screen them. Now, I will tell you firsthand, from talking to folks on the border and well into Mexico, there were groups of people walking across the border that absolutely raised every suspicion … and we’re still trying to identify them.” And the reality is, Miller said, “If they’re here, which we know segments of them are here, and if they’re organized, not only is the threat real, it’s pending. And that’s a time for all believers to pray and prepare. It’s time.”

There are the Iranian sympathizers, as many believe we saw in Texas on Saturday, but Miller insists that’s only part of the issue, the former Marine pointed out. “There could be a wide range of attacks. That lone actor [is] just mad, angry, [and] ideologically driven. [But] you put two or three of them together with a little bit of planning, [and] you’ve got a bigger problem.” He pointed to the spike in protests across the country. “It wasn’t too long ago they were screaming ‘Death to America!’ from Tehran. Now they’re doing it in downtown New York City? So it’s a totally different threat if they’re organized, housed in a certain area, and supported.”

Remember, he continued, “Too many of the folks that crossed the border, there’s no legitimate way to track them back. That’s what we used to do after 9/11. But now it’s much more difficult because we’re not even sure who they are or where they are.” He paused, “And credit to President Trump. He’s doing everything he can to deal with this mess. But if you think of a percentage, people go, it’s a small percentage of radical ideologues of 15 million people. But imagine the carnage they [could create].”

In other words, this is not the time to leave major gaps in Homeland Security, as several frustrated Republicans continue to remind their Democratic colleagues. Schumer and his caucus are “putting the country at risk” by not funding DHS, Senator Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) argued, and they “should work with the administration to come up with something they can vote for.”

Cybersecurity is another area that remains vulnerable the longer the shutdown goes on, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board notes. “Only 800 of the more than 2,000 employees at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are currently working, according to data shared with us by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Most have been furloughed,” the WSJ highlights. “The agency has cancelled assessments that detect vulnerabilities in America’s critical infrastructure, which seems like bad timing in light of the Iranian regime’s expertise at hacking.”

The other thing to consider, Lt. Colonel (Ret.) Bob Maginnis, FRC’s senior fellow for National Security, emphasized to The Washington Stand, is that America’s enemies look for “signs of division and dysfunction.” When “domestic political inflexibility interferes with national security readiness, it sends the wrong signal,” he argued.

“When America is confronting threats abroad, especially from a hostile regime like Iran, we must assume the increased risk of retaliation at home,” Maginnis reiterated to TWS. “Weakening elements of the Department of Homeland Security during such a period only heightens our vulnerability.” And yet, what we’re seeing is that several facets of our infrastructure have been disrupted because “congressional Democrats have chosen to shutter key operations. That kind of political brinksmanship carries real-world consequences,” he warned. “This is not the time for partisan standoffs. It is a time for seriousness. Members of Congress must put the safety of the American people ahead of political leverage.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

Iran’s Horrors Take Shape in the Emotional Accounts of Dozens of Doctors and Nurses

March 3, 2026/in Anti-Semitism, Assassination attempt, Culture War, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, Iranian influence, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Terrorism, Violence, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

“I saw scenes that would have brought any other human being to their knees.” — General practitioner, Tehran

When the missiles started raining down on Iran Saturday, there was a sense of urgency for people to get to safety, yes, but there was also another overriding emotion for many: relief. The show of force by the U.S. and Israel was the violent answer to countless prayers offered up since January, when leaders massacred thousands of innocents to stop the wave of anti-regime protests gripping the country. Most of the nation had started to worry that the bloodbath would go unpunished by the world. They were wrong.

No one will ever know the true depth of suffering the country endured under the cover of Iran’s communications blackout, but the testimonies that have started to emerge from the brave men and women on the ground are starting to put the horrifying pieces of those weeks together — pieces, some say, of “one of the worst mass killings in contemporary world history.”

Worried that no one would believe the nightmare unfolding across Iran’s provinces earlier this year, a medical worker in Rasht risked his life to smuggle information out of the country and to The New York Times. After working four days in the trauma center, he went home and “instead of sleeping, he began compiling 11 gigabytes of X-rays, CT scans, and medical records, later sending them to us on an encrypted messaging app,” Roxana Saberi and Fatemeh write in their sobering piece. “They want to sweep it under the rug,” he cautioned them.

When the regime cut off the internet, covering their crimes in a blanket of darkness, most of the world had no idea the true scale of evil that had been unleashed on the Iranian people in the bloody crackdown that followed, the Times notes. “But the doctors and nurses did.”

In a powerful collection of eye-witness accounts from hospitals and emergency rooms across 14 cities, a common theme of horror emerges — one that makes this past weekend’s attacks feel like the justice Iran has been waiting for.

One by one, the doctors talked about the “extreme distress, including nightmares, flashbacks, grief, anger, and anxiety” they’d experienced from the grisly scenes they can’t unsee. Some confess they’ve become suicidal. “As a doctor,” one said, “I could not come to terms with the fact that so many warlike injuries were inflicted on my own people on the streets of my own city.”

The same pain echoed across the medical landscape. “Our hospital is a small facility,” a general practitioner from Isfahan described. “We had never had trauma patients before. We were not prepared to handle this number of injured people. Handle them? Even the cleaning staff could not collect the blood from the hospital floor — it was that much. I was walking through blood. I still smell blood in my nose.”

The inability to keep up with the savagery was a common theme. “The hospital corridors were full of bloodied people. All the hallways and walls were covered in blood,” a medical worker from Shiraz remembers. “I saw exposure of the brain and abdominal organs, amputation and dismemberment, multiple knife and machete blows, pellet wounds, and bullet entry and exit sites.” The number of injured was so high, others pointed out, that they tried calling every doctor and nurse they knew to come help, but it was no use. “About 15 minutes later, the phones were cut off. There were almost no orderlies or assistants, no IV fluids, no IV starter packs, and no IV poles. No one expected this volume, and it took a long time until supplies were made available,” a trauma doctor lamented.

The sheer number of patients — “from a nine-year-old child to a 70-year-old man” — a nurse from the Tehran province said, was overwhelming. “A single eye surgeon might perform 10 major surgeries like this in their entire career,” an ophthalmologist told the reporters, “but we performed thousands of surgeries of this kind. Another issue was the severity of the injuries — mostly intended to blind. We had many cases involving both eyes.” One man was beaten so severely that his eyes had come out of their sockets.

An ER doctor grieved the number of patients who died just because the phones were cut off. “We had no access to surgical or anesthesia support.” And they continued to be shocked by the waves of gruesome injuries flooding their hallways. “A shotgun is for hunting animals — it has logic in that context. It is not an anti-riot weapon. And even if it were, it would be for shooting at the legs, not the face and head,” an ophthalmologist insisted. “I saw shots to the head and neck, shots from behind, shots to the genitals, injuries from being shot from about one meter away, and severe stab wound injuries,” one nurse from Tehran recounted. “Many people had their arms or legs amputated, many suffered spinal cord injuries or paralysis, many also went blind.”

These were the kinds of wounds that one surgical worker said they would have expected to witness “in a face-to-face war with a foreign enemy — not during domestic protests.” The memories that replay in their minds are of the hundreds of children who died agonizing deaths. “A breastfeeding mother was holding her baby when security forces opened fire on their car,” a doctor from South Tehran told Saberi and Jamalpour. “They arrived at the hospital in that same vehicle, riddled with bullets. The bullet passed through the baby’s hand and into the mother’s chest.”

There was a pattern, others shudder, of children being shot in the head — a fact that Tehran’s hospital workers confirmed. “The number of children killed by sniper fire or heavy machine gun fire was high,” a doctor in the province said sorrowfully. “These scenes replay in front of my mind maybe eight or nine times a day, and I see them all, both when I’m awake and when I sleep,” a Rasht staffer admits.

“I feel like it was a nightmare or a dream,” one ER doctor agonized. “The worst scene was keeping the bodies in one room. Hours later, their mobile phones would ring, and we would cry outside the room.”

But it wasn’t as if the hospitals and trauma centers were safe. “Many of the doctors and nurses told us they went to great lengths to prevent the Iranian authorities from identifying their patients as protesters — for example, by falsifying their medical records, erasing security camera footage or treating them in private homes. They were worried their patients could be abducted or even killed,” the reporters explained. “Doing so put the medical workers themselves in danger. Many reported that they or their co-workers had been threatened, interrogated or summoned to appear before the authorities. Several said they had colleagues who had been detained.”

Some got threatening texts from anonymous numbers they didn’t recognize. In Shiraz, medical staff said later, “Several plainclothes agents in the emergency department were threatening to kill the injured and the doctors.” One was arrested after talking to the Times, his family informed the outlet.

It was very clear that “security forces were trying to identify the wounded,” an anonymous source in Rasht said. “For those who had a bank card or any form of identification, they would take a photo of it and write down the information in the notebook. For those who had no ID, they would photograph their faces with a professional camera, likely to use later to arrest them.” Eventually, people just vanished. “I witnessed bodies disappearing at the hospital,” one general practitioner reported.

Together, all of these doctors and nurses broke their silence and risked their lives to plead for one thing — help. “They are asking the world not to look away.”

Fortunately for Iran, the Trump administration did not. Finally, the haunting images and stories these people carry with them from these terror-filled weeks and years are being avenged. This is the reckoning the country’s tyrants deserve, the witnesses of Iran’s brutality argue. “I don’t want them to get away with this. I want them to be punished. I don’t want all the blood to go unanswered,” one ER doctor argued passionately. A nurse agreed. “Every night, I fall asleep hoping for the freedom of Iran.” It was and is, she insisted, “the hope of those killed, wounded, or detained.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

Stonewall’s Rainbow Falls: Trump Pulls Pride Flag from ‘Birthplace’ of Modern LGBT Movement

February 15, 2026/in Child Sex, Child Sex Trafficking, Commentary, Communism, Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Propaganda, Queers and pedophiles, Socialism, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

The Stonewall National Monument, located in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village, has become the epicenter of LGBT-related symbolism. Having been designated by President Obama in 2016, this is the location of the 1969 Stonewall Uprising, which many have argued to be the birthplace for the so-called LGBT rights movement. But now, the Trump administration has directed the National Park Service (NPS) to remove a large rainbow Pride flag from the monument, causing a flurry of both outrage and celebration.

The change came quietly over the weekend of February 7-9 in conjunction with a January 2026 memorandum from the Department of the Interior. Signed by NPS Acting Director Jessica Bowron, the guidance is meant to reinforce a longstanding federal policy that only the U.S. flag, the Department of the Interior flag, and the POW/MIA flag are permitted on NPS-managed flagpoles. While there are a narrow set of exceptions — like historical flags in context, military banners, or those of federally recognized tribal nations — there remains no special exemption for advocacy, activist, or identity-based symbols.

Predictably, leftist voices erupted in outrage. Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal, for example, claimed in an Instagram post that the removal was part of an attempt to “erase” LGBT-related history, further noting that this very history “cannot” be erased, and that “our Pride flag will be raised again.” New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin (D) echoed this, calling it “a deliberate and cowardly attempt to erase that history” and “an attack on LGBTQ+ New Yorkers.” Menin insisted that “our history will not be rewritten, and our rights will not be rolled back.”

Government officials chimed in as well, with State Senator Erik Bottcher claiming the move was “a shameful attempt to rewrite history. Stonewall is where our community fought back and demanded to be seen. You cannot separate that place from the symbol that grew out of it.”

Yet despite this criticism, NPS officials have firmly emphasized that this isn’t about diminishing historical events. In a statement, they clarified: “Under government-wide guidance, including General Services Administration policy and Department of the Interior direction, only the U.S. flag and other congressionally or departmentally authorized flags are flown on NPS-managed flagpoles, with limited exceptions. Any changes to flag displays are made to ensure consistency with that guidance. Stonewall National Monument continues to preserve and interpret the site’s historic significance through exhibits and programs.”

Ultimately, this move aligns with broader efforts from President Donald Trump to eliminate what many view as preferential treatment in federal operations toward progressive ideologies — particularly during the Biden administration — and refocus on shared American symbols. As many have wondered, why fly one group’s flag on public land while denying others the same privilege? Some argue that this policy levels the playing field, especially for taxpayers, who are often forced to fund the favoritism of political or cultural causes.

Many supporters of the recent action have also argued that preserving history doesn’t require flying a modern advocacy flag year-round on federal property. The monument’s exhibits, signage, and educational programs remain intact, meaning that visitors will still learn about the Stonewall riots and their aftermath. Independent journalist Nick Sorter, for example, stated in a post on X how “the gay flag has NO BUSINESS being flown next to the American flag.”

In related developments, several conservative-led states have advanced or enacted their own legislation to ensure Pride and other ideological flags are not displayed in classrooms, government buildings, or on public property. The assertion is that these measures promote neutrality on public land and in taxpayer-funded institutions, preventing any one group from receiving preferential symbolic treatment while allowing focus on unifying American and state symbols.

Utah led the way as the first state to enact a comprehensive ban in 2025, which took effect in May of that year, by prohibiting schools and government entities from flying any flags outside a strict list, which included the U.S. flag, state flag, military/POW-MIA flags, tribal flags, university flags, and Olympic banners. The law restricts flags from being flown that represent both sides of the political spectrum — from Pride flags to others like MAGA or BLM symbols. Violators could face fines of up to $500 per day.

Idaho followed closely behind, passing bills in 2025. One restricted displays of flags representing “political viewpoints” such as sexual orientation or gender ideology, while another limited government entities to official flags only. Montana enacted similar restrictions through HB819, signed in May 2025, which stated that “government property, including state buildings and grounds, public schools, and other government-owned facilities, should serve neutral governmental functions and not be used to promote political or ideological advocacy.”

These state-level actions, which go beyond the states mentioned, mirror the Trump administration’s federal guidance at Stonewall: refocusing public institutions on shared national identity rather than divisive activism. And so, as critics frame this as an assault on rights, supporters see it as common-sense governance that puts America first, honors the flag that unites all Americans, and stops turning national landmarks into platforms for one-sided activism.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mohler Condemns Ky. Gov. Beshear for Using Bible to Affirm LGBT Ideology: ‘Stupid’

Pro-Life, Pro-Family Members of Congress Stand Tall amid Washington’s Political Chaos

Iran’s Ayatollah Is Facing Defeat instead of Admitting Failure

February 15, 2026/in Elections, Hot Topics, Iranian influence, Must Read, National Security, News, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Terrorism, Violence, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

Time is running out for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his repressive regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, a unique window of opportunity for the Iranian people opens next week, and the Trump administration is likely preparing to lend support this time before the window closes yet again.

Like he did in early 2025, President Donald Trump is giving Iran a limited opportunity to negotiate a satisfactory solution. As in 2025, however, Iran has shown no signs of negotiating in good faith, indicating its reluctance to fully surrender their nuclear program and refusal to discuss a ballistic missile program that is an existential threat to Israel and a malign proxy network that has destabilized the region for decades.

The strategy of suppressing at home and threatening abroad has been an abject failure. Yet despite their weakness, the ayatollah and his loyalists appear more willing to face defeat than admit failure.

The United States and its allies and partners in the region have had a month to marshal offensive resources and array defensive measures. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime is using the same negotiating playbook of stalling, threatening, and avoiding while the possibility of strikes against them looms large.

Trading away their nuclear program would be to admit failure, and that is a bridge too far for a regime whose pride may be the only thing more motivating than its own survival. The Iranian nuclear program has been the centerpiece of the conceit of Iran’s leaders, worthy of up to a half trillion dollars of investment and opportunity cost. Even though the program was largely turned to rubble in one night last June by seven American B-2s, trading it away would acknowledge that the ayatollah and his loyalists have wasted the well-being of the Iranian people and squandered their future.

Next week, the 17th and the 18th of February specifically, mark the end of the 40-day mourning period for the thousands — if not tens of thousands — of protestors who were ruthlessly slaughtered by the Iranian regime in early January. Reports indicate that there is a surge of dissatisfaction simmering among the Iranian people, and these mourning people will uniquely combine large crowds with powerful passion. The United States is properly postured to support the protestors this time around and may see strikes as a catalyst to allow the bubbling frustration to burst forth yet again.

The preparations by the United States for such a situation are made even more evident by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House this week. A visit that had been scheduled for next week has been accelerated, indicating that preparations made next week may be too late. That the prime minister is bringing along his incoming air chief, an atypical plus-one for such a strategic meeting, is a telling indication of operational planning. Thus, the United States and Israel are telegraphing strategic steps that indicate a looming military operation.

Finally, President Trump’s credibility is on the line. After claims that the United States is “locked and loaded” — on top of presidential promises to protestors that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” — Iran has blatantly exceeded Trump’s red lines. Without an active response that supports his claims, Trump realizes that his legacy will include a condemning asterisk of weakness. He is unlikely to allow such a blemish on his record.

Next week offers an opportunity where geopolitical pretext meets military preparation. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime negotiates in bad faith, creating a situation where they would rather face defeat instead of admitting failure. By using the same failed negotiating tactics, the repressive regime in Iran should expect the same ruinous outcome from a year ago, this time accompanied by a defeat that may allow the Iranian people to finally shed their repressive regime.

AUTHOR

John Teichert

United States Air Force Brig. General (Ret.) John Teichert is a leading expert on foreign affairs and military strategy. He served as commander of Joint Base Andrews and Edwards Air Force Base, was the U.S. senior defense official to Iraq, and recently retired as the assistant deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs.

Trump, Greenland, and American World Order

January 21, 2026/in America 250, Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Marxism, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Socialism, Terrorism, Violence, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

As the second Trump administration reaches its one-year anniversary, no one can deny that President Donald Trump has reshaped not only American politics but the entire world. But Trump is no longer satisfied with tariffs and peace talks; he has set his eyes on a grander prize, an object America has rarely sought since the days of President Theodore Roosevelt: territorial acquisition. The territory in Trump’s crosshairs is the world’s largest island, a mostly glacier-covered wilderness deceptively called “Greenland.”

Despite widespread opposition, President Trump manages to mention his desire to own Greenland nearly every day. “I had a very good telephone call with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, concerning Greenland,” Trump posted to Truth Social shortly after midnight on Tuesday. “As I expressed to everyone, very plainly, Greenland is imperative for National and World Security. There can be no going back — On that, everyone agrees! The United States of America is the most powerful Country anywhere on the Globe, by far.”

This past weekend, Trump escalated the Greenland question into an international incident when he threatened on Saturday to levy punitive tariffs against eight European nations opposed to his plan to annex Greenland. Last Wednesday, seven nations in western and northern Europe deployed token forces (for a combined total of slightly more than 30) to Greenland for Arctic military drills, signaling their continued support for Danish sovereignty over the island. Denmark boosted its military footprint in Greenland by just over 100 soldiers.

In a Saturday Truth Social post, Trump interpreted these small deployments in a nefarious light. “Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown,” the president wrote. “These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable.”

As a result, Trump said he would impose a 10% tariff on these seven countries for “any and all goods sent to the United States of America … until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” The tariff would take effect on February 1 and increased to 25% on June 1.

The European response to this announcement was apoplectic. The European Union’s 27 member states convened an emergency meeting in Cyprus on Sunday to discuss their response, with leaders floating ideas ranging from reciprocal tariffs to boycotting the World Cup.

The leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest bloc in the European Parliament, responded that Trump’s tariff threat compromises the passage of the EU-U.S. trade deal. “The EPP is in favour of the EU-U.S. trade deal, but given Donald Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, approval is not possible at this stage,” he wrote. “The 0% tariffs on U.S. products must be put on hold.”

Europe’s pique points to the greatest risk in Trump’s gamble for Greenland. As Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen put it, any American invasion of Greenland would spell “the end of NATO,” as one member would be invading the territory of another. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, whose member nations cover most of North America and Europe, is the world’s largest military alliance and an important part of America’s globally dominant position since World War II.

As readers may find it strange that President Trump would bet America’s largest military alliance for the territory of Greenland, an explanation of his reasoning is in order.

Both the president and his top officials have repeatedly cited America’s national security as the top reason for annexing Greenland. In his Truth Social post on tariffs, Trump declared that “the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake” in the Greenland question. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued in a recent interview, “For over a century, American presidents have wanted to acquire Greenland, and what we can see is that Greenland is essential to the U.S. national security.”

Why does Greenland factor into American security considerations? Trump explained, “China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it.” Bessent explained that Trump is thinking ahead to an inevitable competition with America’s geopolitical rivals over Arctic resources. “It might not be next year, might not be in five years, but down the road, this fight for the Arctic is real,” he insisted. “President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security.”

But how does possession of Greenland actually bolster U.S. national security? Two considerations come into play. First, Greenland holds vast, undeveloped mineral reserves, including rare earth elements, uranium, copper, graphite, gallium, tungsten, zinc, gold, silver, and iron ore. Controlling these resources would ensure America’s future access to critical military equipment and technology.

Second, Greenland plays a key role in Trump’s scheme for a “Golden Dome,” a continent-wide missile system that would make the U.S. nearly impervious to an intercontinental missile strike. With Alaska and the continental U.S., Greenland would form the third point in a vast triangle of geopolitical security. “Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with ‘The Dome,’” wrote Trump, but “this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land [Greenland] is included in it.”

Ironically, Trump’s concern for Greenland was heightened by the shift Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has made to align his nation with China, not the United States. In his Tuesday comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Carney declared that the “old … rules-based international order” was dead, leading Canada to “fundamentally shift our strategic posture.” On Friday, Carney announced a preliminary trade deal with China during a visit to Beijing, which his office described as “the foundation for a new strategic partnership.”

The “rules-based international order” Carney rejected is one built by the U.S. and like-minded allies after World War II. Principles such as territorial integrity were enshrined in the NATO treaty and other documents of the era. Territorial integrity is a corollary of national sovereignty and is ultimately rooted in Just War Theory. The aim was to forestall future wars by ruling out the ambition for territorial conquest, which characterized Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, imperial Japan, and the communist USSR.

Defending the principle of territorial integrity — which had the added bonus of constraining America’s communist rivals — led America into the Korean War (to defend South Korea) and the first Gulf War (to defend Kuwait). But these actions showed that America was willing to enforce this principle, thus deterring an unknown number of other aggressor nations over at least half a century, contributing to an environment of global peace that benefited America’s status as a worldwide merchant.

In other words, the international order which Canada has now rejected is one created by America for America’s benefit. A major reason why Canada rejected this order is because the government has increasingly lost faith in the will of the U.S. — particularly the Trump administration — to uphold it. This lack of faith is largely due to Trump’s own actions, which have called the principle of territorial integrity into question.

Even in an era defined by conflict with non-state terrorists, who do not hold territory, the principle of territorial integrity remains relevant. For instance, it provides a basis for condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also provides a basis for deterring conflicts that have been threatened but not yet begun, such as communist China’s planned annexation of Taiwan.

The principle of territorial integrity even restrains ambitious leaders from acting on their ambitions, such as Turkish President Recep Erdogan’s ambition to reforge the Ottoman Empire. One ranking places Turkey’s military as the 9th most powerful in the world, the strongest state between India and France. If Erdogan did embark on a campaign to recapture lost Ottoman lands, he could easily gobble up prostrate Syria, divided Lebanon, fledgling Iraq, and non-entity Libya, enabling him to train considerable firepower against Israel from east, north, and west. But Erdogan is not able to conquer these struggling states because of the influence (and presence) of powerful Western nations, who insist that strong states are not allowed to steal territory from weaker ones.

If the U.S. wrestles Greenland away from our own NATO ally Denmark, then this U.S.-built international order loses all credibility.

America’s international order does provide a way for national borders to change: the people of that country can vote for a change (usually independence, not reunification). In January 2025 (the most recent poll available), 85% of Greenlanders opposed joining the U.S., while only 6% favored the change.

There is one other factor that may have influenced Trump’s thinking on Greenland, one which is more personal than U.S. national security. Trump himself revealed this motive in a text exchange with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Trump wrote, according to wording first published by The Independent, a British paper. “I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” Trump concluded.

Trump has made no secret about his desire to win the distinguished Nobel Peace Prize. But, last year, the Nobel Committee awarded the prize to Venezuelan opposition leader in exile Maria Corina Machado — a worthy candidate, but not Trump. Last week, Machado presented her Nobel Prize as a gift to Trump during her first visit to the White House. However, Trump doubtless remains hungry to win the prize in his own right.

The deadline for Nobel nominations is January 31 of every year, less than two weeks away. Trump may have ramped up his Greenland rhetoric and explicitly connected it to his Nobel snub as a way to pressure the committee into giving his nomination a harder look. If so, then it’s more than ironic that Trump is hoping to win a peace prize by threatening to take territory from an ally.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

HANNITY MONOLOGUE: European Countries’ ‘Show of Force’ in Greenland was ‘Embarrassing’

EXCLUSIVE: Suicide Hotline Operator Pushes ‘Radical’ Trans Ideology In Open Revolt Against Trump Admin

January 9, 2026/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Healthcare, Hot Topics, Policy, Politics, Queers and pedophiles, Social Issues, Socialism, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Caller

At least one major suicide hotline operator continues sending callers in some states to transgender activists, despite the Trump administration prohibiting the use of federal funds to promote gender ideology, internal documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The 988 suicide hotline’s “press 3” option that routed young LGBTQ-identifying callers to transgender activist groups ended in July when the Trump administration announced it would instead “focus on serving all help seekers.” Yet the move hasn’t uprooted gender ideology from a system intended to support the most vulnerable in times of crisis.

Protocall, a taxpayer-funded 988 service provider, tells its employees that “gender affirming care is an appropriate decision for minors.” The company did not respond to questions about its policies.

When a caller dials the 988 hotline, they are routed to their local crisis center or a national backup if the local center is unavailable. Protocall functions as a national 988 backup and operates the state crisis response lines in New Hampshire and New Mexico, as well as holding contracts with public colleges in states like Arizona, Virginia, Pennsylvania, California and New York.

Subcontractors like Protocall, who receive funds from government grantees, must still comply with federal law and executive orders, including President Donald Trump’s day-one order stating funds “shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) spokesperson told the DCNF.

Counselors who work for Protocall are expected to agree with the company’s stances on gender identity — and are tested on their understanding of the issues nearly every three months, former employee Jaime Brooks told the DCNF. Brooks left the company in December after working there for just over a year.

“LGBTQ2SIA individuals, often out of necessity, learn to build community and their own families of choice that we can count on for acceptance, support, and sharing in the jobs and important moments of life,” a Protocall guide on “Supporting LGBTQSIA Callers/Visitors” states. “As crisis counselors, helping individuals identify their supports and possible avenues for finding support (such as through social media, local queer resource centers, queer recovery groups and affirming/queer spiritual and religious organizations) can be invaluable.”

If an adult must be involved in “mitigating risk” for youth, counselors should “ask the youth if they feel safe involving their parent and how we should refer to them with their parent (i.e. it may not be safe for them if we use their chosen name or their pronouns),” the guide recommends.

“We can be creative in considering who is a safe adult in their life who we might be able to involve in safety planning,” it states.

Brooks told the DCNF she was required to review and discuss this document with a group. Quizzes accompany other company trainings, such as a “Trans* 101” training that claims that transgender individuals’ “right to exist, socially, medically and legally, are actively and increasingly legislated against every year.”

“It is deeply troubling that the organization operating our nation’s suicide hotline is pushing a radical, disproven ideology onto vulnerable adolescents in crisis,” Do No Harm Executive Director Kristina Rasmussen told the DCNF. “This taxpayer-subsidized program should provide compassionate, life-saving care to confused children, not send them further down a path that can lead to lasting mental and physical harm.”

‘Unethical Behavior’

In her Dec. 23 resignation letter, Brooks raised issues with the company “distributing resources to minors that facilitate their access to sex rejecting medical procedures and drugs.”

“I no longer wish to be an accomplice to such criminal and unethical behavior,” she wrote, citing recent actions by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that will restrict Medicaid-participating hospitals from offering sex-change procedures to minors.

Protocall Company Trans 101 training (Credit: Daily Caller News Foundation)

A list of resources provided to counselors recommends the Trevor Project, the initial sole operator of the federal government’s LGBTQ youth hotline. The Trevor Project still operates its own private crisis hotline, as well as Trevor Space, an online community that parents have criticized for allowing minors and adults ages 13-24 to discuss topics related to sexuality.

Trevor Space is “a breeding ground for grooming,” Kevin Brown, a former law enforcement officer who founded a nonprofit that identifies victims of human trafficking, warned California lawmakers in June. As a 70-year-old man, Brown was able to create an account on Trevor Space posing as a 15-year-old boy and connect with other users in a chat room, including an individual who wanted to take their conversation to Discord.

The Trevor Project opposes policies that require educators to inform parents if their child is using a new name or pronouns at school, while supporting policies that allow men to use women’s’ bathrooms and locker rooms

The Trevor Project told the DCNF that TrevorSpace, which is separate from its crisis services, “is built with LGBTQ+ youth safety as a top priority.”

“The platform was created for LGBTQ+ young people ages 13-24, and there are safeguards in place to prevent direct messaging between minors and those who are over the age of 18,” the organization said in a statement. “TrevorSpace actively collaborates with leading safety solution organizations to ensure the safety and security of all users, especially those under age 18.”

Protocall’s recommended resource list also includes PFLAG, an activist group that defends irreversible sex-change procedures as “medically necessary” for minors, and the Family Acceptance Project, an organization that develops resources and programs designed to convince families to accept their child’s gender confusion.

Though hotline callers can request to speak with a male or female counselor, their calls are sometimes received by individuals of the opposite sex who identify as transgender, according to Brooks. Young callers who request to speak with a counselor of the same sex often have sensitive concerns about issues like sexual assault and puberty, she explained.

“The fact that the training documents suggest hiding information from parents is both alarming and part and parcel of the gender activist playbook,” Rasmussen told the DCNF. “That the CEO of Protocall has doubled down on DEI, the twin pillar of the crumbling identity politics movement, is further proof that there must be additional scrutiny on the training provided to the people tasked with the critical job of interceding in young people’s times of crisis. It also calls into question why groups like this continue to hold key public service contracts at all.”

‘We Will Not Retreat’

Protocall has pulled in millions from the federally-funded administrator of the 988 hotline, Vibrant Emotional Health, previously known by another name, the Mental Health Association of New York City.

It received nearly $5.85 million in the 2023 fiscal year and $2.67 million in the 2022 fiscal year, according to Vibrant Emotional Health’s tax records. Vibrant Emotional Health did not respond to a request for comment.

Protocall has a contract with New Hampshire worth $10,328,136, effective through June 2027. New Hampshire’s funding for the company draws on federal grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), according to the contract.

“SAMHSA funds cannot be used for activities that violate federal law or the requirements set forth in current Executive Orders,” HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told the DCNF.

“This applies to SAMHSA funding of grantees through subcontractors,” he said. “As of October 1, all SAMHSA grantees, including Vibrant, were required to certify that every federally supported activity complies fully with Title IX, Title VI, and Executive Order 14168.”

Meanwhile, the company’s Chief Executive Officer Phil Evans vowed to resist the administration when Trump took office, reaffirming the “company’s commitment to our ongoing DEl work as well as our unwavering support of our LGBTQ2SIA+ employees.”

“Here at Protocall, we will not retreat from the progress our organization has made, the diversity we’ve built, and the safe community we’ve sought to create for every single person we work with,” Evans wrote in an internal Jan. 27, 2025 email to staff.

Email from Protocall CEO affirming commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion after President Trump took office. (Credit: Daily Caller News Foundation)

“Here at Protocall, we full-throatedly reject this Administration’s efforts to roll back basic civil rights and DEl programs,” he wrote. “Here at Protocall, no executive order from this President, or any law this congress may eventually pass, will change how we choose to treat each other and the culture we seek to create. As a private company, our continued pursuit of these values is outside the purview of this Administration’s agenda.”

Evans did not respond to a request for comment.

Protocall’s website notes that its DEI committee, as well as its “BIPOC and LGBTQ2SIA” groups, help “create and review policies and initiatives.” In an end-of-year Leadership Q&A shared with staff, executives stated that affirming DEI commitments made them especially proud of Protocall in 2025.

“When we stood up and proudly reaffirmed our commitment to DEI when other organizations were forced, or chose, to shrink away from it, and when other organizations had to shut their doors, we were able to open ours even wider,” the internal document states.

Other company guidance recommends “normalizing” adverse impacts of minority stress, validating “unique strengths of LGBTQ people” and affirming “healthy, rewarding expressions of sexuality and gender.”

“Collaborate with the caller about how they want to be described in documentation (‘what would you like me to put down for your gender?’” counselors are told. “Protocall follows the nationally recognized standard that gender affirming care is an appropriate decision for minors and their families, and not in any way child abuse or reportable as such.”

Along with funding it receives through states and the national 988 administrator, Protocall is part of an ongoing federal grant project with a tech company, Lyssn.io, to develop an AI-based tool that helps assess the suicide risk of callers.

“Protocall serves a diverse clientele with an equally diverse community of call-takers,” Lyssn Co-Founder Dr. Zac Imel said in a 2023 statement. “It’s so important that Lyssn’s AI algorithms continue to advance in a way that reflects and honors all providers and clients across the spectrum. Partnering with Protocall to do just that is a step toward that kind of inclusion.”

While the Trump administration pulled the plug on the specialized LGBTQ+ hotline, several states are pursuing alternatives. In Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro announced state officials would work with call centers to “facilitate LGBTQ+ clinical trainings.”

Trainings ensured centers can provide “a warm handoff to the Trevor Project,” Secretary Val Arkoosh wrote on X.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Dec. 9 to reinstate the “press 3” option locally.

“SAMHSA plans to issue a new cooperative agreement for its 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Administrator in early FY26 ensuring that anyone who contacts the 988 Lifeline will receive access to skilled, caring, culturally competent crisis counselors who will help with suicidal, substance misuse, or mental health crises, or any other kind of emotional distress,” Nixon told the DCNF. “Anyone who calls the Lifeline will receive compassion and help.”

AUTHOR

Katelynn Richardson

Investigative Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Docs Knew Gender Science Was ‘Shoddy,’ But Pushed Chemical Sex Changes On Kids Anyway

EXCLUSIVE: Trans-Industrial Complex Trains New Wave Of Radical Doctors Right Under Trump Admin’s Nose

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Manuel Noriega: The Precedent for Maduro’s Capture

January 8, 2026/in America 250, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, Narco-Socialism, Narco-Terrorism, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Family Research Council

The Trump administration’s sudden capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro caught many Americans by surprise, giving Democrats a leg up in the subsequent messaging war. Democratic leaders in Congress asserted that the operation was executive overreach, an act of war, and the beginning of another foolish attempt at nation-building. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on Sunday and Monday, only 11% of Democrats, 23% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans approved of the overseas military operation.

But this lack of support is likely due in large part to Americans’ unfamiliarity with such a display of total military dominance — something rarely implemented in this century. Its execution left many Americans wondering: what was the justification? Are there any precedents? Does the Constitution allow this? And, perhaps most of all, are we now at war with Venezuela?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio answered the first and last questions during a Sunday interview on NBC. “This was, at essence, at its core, a law enforcement function,” he stated. “There’s not a war. I mean, we are at war against drug trafficking organizations and not at war against Venezuela. We are enforcing American laws.”

The Trump administration contends that they arrested Maduro on the basis of an outstanding warrant, issued by a U.S. federal court. Based on reports from his Monday court appearance, “it sounds like a criminal enterprise: they were working with the cartels, running drugs, weapons,” assessed Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch.” “He was using the country as a launching pad for criminal activity that was affecting the United States.”

This criminal indictment for drug trafficking establishes a connection to a precedent. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush authorized a military invasion of Panama to capture General Manuel Noriega, the country’s de facto leader, for his connection to the Medellin cartel.

“This is exactly the same scenario,” argued retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, an original member of the U.S. Army Delta Force that helped capture Noriega, and now executive vice president of FRC. “You had a guy that was pushing drugs into America, and nobody had done anything to try and stop him. … Those people are killing Americans. And our president’s first duty to the people is to protect the nation.”

“What prompted George H.W. Bush to finally pull the trigger on that,” Boykin explained, “was that Noriega’s thugs down there killed an American naval officer and, and in some ways brutalized his wife.” Maduro had not taken so bold a step, but his regime had detained at least five Americans in recent months.

The circumstances for the two episodes are not identical. For one thing, “the U.S. already had a military in Panama. We were still controlling the Panama Canal at the time,” listed Richard Gregorie, a DOJ veteran of four decades who indicted Noriega and also investigated corruption inside the Maduro regime, on “Washington Watch.”

“Secondly,” Gregorie continued, “Noriega was the military head in Panama … he was never made the head of the government. The U.S. did not recognize him as the head of state.” Whether Maduro is considered the head of state for Venezuela is a relevant legal question because active heads of state are immune from prosecution for actions taken in the course of their official duties.

However, that second distinction may not actually be a difference, as the Trump administration contends that the U.S. did not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of state for Venezuela. “Determining who is the head of state is a diplomatic question, which is handled by the executive branch of government and not the legislative branch of government,” said Gregorie. “So, technically, when our secretary of state and our president say you are not a head of state … then Mr. Maduro was not a head of state and not entitled to head of state immunity.”

The un-recognition of Maduro is not some squirrely move made by the Trump administration to evade their legal obligations, as some might choose to argue. Rather, it is consistent with the policy pursued by the Biden administration, after the opposition collected conclusive evidence that Maduro had himself fraudulently declared the winner of the 2024 election.

Ten days before President Trump re-assumed the office of president, Biden administration Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote:

“Today, Nicolás Maduro held an illegitimate presidential inauguration in Venezuela in a desperate attempt to seize power. The Venezuelan people and world know the truth — Maduro clearly lost the 2024 presidential election and has no right to claim the presidency. The United States rejects the National Electoral Council’s fraudulent announcement that Maduro won the presidential election and does not recognize Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela. President-elect Edmundo González Urrutia should be sworn in, and the democratic transition should begin.”

Blinken also announced that the Biden administration was raising the bounty on Maduro to a sizable $25 million, while imposing additional “visa restrictions on Maduro-aligned individuals for their roles in undermining the electoral process.”

The other main question Americans want answered is whether Maduro’s capture was constitutional. Since the U.S. Constitution invests the power to declare war in the Congress, and Congress has not authorized a war against Venezuela, the question remains whether the Maduro raid constituted an act of war.

“If we’re going to declare war or take some serious military action, Congress should be informed and there should be some congressional action taken,” Gregorie contended. He did not hazard an answer to that important question. Instead, he predicted, “This is a question that will start with the district court in New York and will work its way up, I’m sure, all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Notably, the lack of constitutional authorization is another parallel Maduro’s capture shares with Noriega’s capture. The 1989 Panama invasion lacked congressional authority, too. That did not stop the U.S. judicial system from convicting Noriega, who served a 20-year prison sentence before being extradited to France.

What is true is that hours-long Maduro raid presents a favorable contrast with America’s pursuit of Noriega. Even with twice the military presence, it took the U.S. weeks to capture Noriega, after a military campaign in which 23 American soldiers were killed, besides 500 Panamanians. In the Maduro raid, the U.S. did not suffer a single fatality; the only reported deaths were those of Maduro’s bodyguard, largely comprised of Cuban mercenaries.

While American courts sort out the legal issues at play, that display of power sends a message sure to chill any dictator’s spine.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.