The Editor

Trump's approval numbers are sliding. The Iran conflict is squeezing the economy. An honest editorial demands we ask: what exactly are we winning, and who's paying for it?

A cable news pundit invoked the Nazi comparison against the United States military. This isn't commentary. It's a moral obscenity.

Spain's defense minister banned US military aircraft from Spanish airspace over the Iran campaign. NATO's western flank is showing cracks, and Washington needs to reckon with what that means.

Marco Rubio is in Brussels trying to hold a G7 coalition together on Iran. Europe's skepticism isn't principled opposition — it's commercial interest wearing the clothes of diplomacy.

The Senate funded DHS but left TSA workers in limbo. What looks like a budget fight is actually a test of whether Congress still controls the border — or whether it's outsourced that job to bureaucratic inertia.

The ceasefire fantasy is collapsing in real time. Iran has never wanted peace — it wants survival on its own terms. That's not negotiable.

When a real woman fights her way to the top, the same crowd that claims to champion women goes silent. Claressa Shields deserves better than their hypocrisy.

Modern warfare is increasingly decided by who can eliminate enemy command before the first tank crosses the border. America needs to be serious about this.

We've built the most technologically sophisticated fighting force in history and then handed potential adversaries a roadmap for taking it apart.

Bringing gas prices down while simultaneously running a military operation in the Persian Gulf requires threading a needle that has broken stronger administrations.

Tulsi Gabbard faced the Senate's hardest questions on Iran and didn't flinch. The question now is whether her skepticism of the intelligence community will survive contact with it.

Critics who blame American intervention in Iran for today's crisis have the causation exactly backwards — and the prescription they're selling would make everything worse.

While other states argue about whose feelings to center in history class, Florida rewrote the curriculum around facts, chronology, and the actual American story. The results speak for themselves.

Every time a politician brags about tariffs hitting foreign countries, your grocery receipt tells a different story. The math has never changed.

A Senate Republican says the Iran strikes send a signal to China and Russia. He's right — and the message is more consequential than the strike itself.

When a president announces a military strike date in advance, it's not a threat. It's a message. The question is who's receiving it.

Twenty years of European-led diplomacy got us a nuclear Iran on the doorstep of the bomb. Trump's willingness to put military options on the table isn't recklessness — it's the first honest policy in a generation.

The tariff debate has been dishonest from the start. A tax on imports is a tax on Americans — and the people hurt worst are the ones with the least margin for error.

Suddenly Democrats care about military readiness. The same party that gutted defense budgets for a decade is now fretting about munitions stockpiles.

The House voted to let Trump's Iran operation continue. Good. Now let's talk about what it actually means for American deterrence in the Middle East.