$10M Bounty For Iranian Leader Intel; U.S. Securing Flights For Americans | NTD Newsroom (March 13)

Welcome to NTD newsroom. I'm Don Ma. Our stories today. President Trump declaring the U.S. totally destroying the Iranian regime. That's as the White House and Pentagon condemn media coverage of Operation Epic Fury. A U.S. refueling plane crashes in western Iraq. All six crew members are now confirmed dead. A 10 billion dollar bounty for information on Iranian regime leaders. The international community is continuously increasing sanctions on Iran. We take a look at what the European Union has been doing over the years to help combat the evils committed by the Iranian regime. A Utah judge today denying a defense motion in the Charlie Kirk case to keep certain court filings away from the public's view. What are the filings and why are they not being kept private? This is NTD newsroom live from our global headquarters in New York City. And thank you for joining us. President Trump declaring the U.S. is totally destroying the Iranian regime. He says their navy, air force, and leadership are gone. That's as the Pentagon and White House are condemning media coverage of the operation. NTD's Washington correspondent Mari Otsu was at the Pentagon Press Center this morning and has more for us. And this morning, our Secretary Pete Hegseth gave us an update on the first 13 days of the operation saying that between the U.S. Air Force and the Israeli Air Force, the two of them have taken out over 15,000 targets inside Iran. He's also saying that that's been more than a thousand a day and that Iranian missile volume is down 90 percent, while one-way attack drones have are down 95 percent since the beginning of the operation. And this is as President Trump overnight is declaring that the Iranian regime is, quote, being totally destroyed. Let me read this out for you fully. He says they're being destroyed, quote, militarily, economically, and otherwise. Yet, if you were to read the failing New York Times, you would incorrectly think that we are not winning. He says Iran's navy is gone. Their air force is no longer. Missiles, drones and everything else are being decimated, and their leaders have been wiped from the face of the earth. We have unparalleled firepower, unlimited ammunition and plenty of time. Watch what happens to these scumbags today. They've been killing innocent people all over the world for 47 years, and now I, as the 47th president of the United States of America, am killing them. And the war secretary is also saying this about the new leadership in Iran. Take a look. Iran's leadership is in no better shape. Desperate and hiding, they've gone underground, cowering. That's what rats do. We know the new so-called not-so-supreme leader is wounded and likely disfigured. He put out a statement yesterday, a weak one, actually, but there was no voice and there was no video. It was a written statement. Who's in charge? Iran may not even know. With every passing hour, we know and we know they know that the military capabilities of their evil regime are crumbling. President Trump also saying this morning that while he thinks the new Iranian leader, that's the son of the former Ayatollah, is, quote, probably alive in some form, he thinks that he's likely damaged, quote. And meanwhile, both the White House and Pentagon are continuing to condemn media coverage of Operation Epic Theory. Take a look. Mideast war intensifies, splashing on the screen the last couple of days alongside visuals of civilian or energy targets that Iran has hit because that's what they do. What should the banner read instead? About Iran increasingly desperate. Because they are. Or more fake news from CNN. Reports that the Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the Strait of Hormuz. Patently ridiculous, of course. For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This is always what they do, hold the Strait hostage. CNN doesn't think we thought of that. It's a fundamentally unserious report. Another example of a fake headline that I saw yesterday. War widening. Here's a real headline for you for an actual patriotic press. How about Iran shrinking, going underground? And Don, these specific examples of condemnation come as the White House is condemning media coverage more broadly since the beginning of the operation. Press Secretary Leavitt yesterday is condemning the media for quote, pushing the narrative that there has been mixed messaging or internal contradictions among the administration about the strikes in Iran, and also about airing uninterrupted segments of Iranian state TV on American media. Don, back to you. Okay, Mari, thank you for the report. And that was NTD's Mari Otsu reporting from the White House. The State Department is now offering up to $10 million for information on Iranian regime leaders. This comes as the US seeks to target the regime's new leadership. The department's Rewards for Justice program posted on X today saying, got information on these Iranian terrorist leaders? Send us a tip. It could make you eligible for a reward and relocation. The post shows 10 leaders of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. They include the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, his advisor, Deputy Chief of Staff, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Intelligence and Security, and the IRGC commander. Four of these figures have not been identified. The Department of State asks those with information to act via or signal. And we have some tragic news. An American refueling aircraft went down in western Iraq yesterday. All six crew members on board the aircraft are now confirmed deceased. The circumstances are under investigation. Central Command says the loss of the aircraft was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire. The identities of the service members are being withheld until 24 hours after the next of kin have been notified. Here's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Cain earlier today. The incident occurred over friendly territory in western Iraq while the crew was on a combat mission, and again, was not the result, as Senkama said, was not the result of hostile or friendly fire. The Air Force and U.S. Central Command will provide updates as information becomes available. Please keep these brave airmen, their families, friends, and units in your thoughts in the coming hours and days. Our service members make an incredible sacrifice to go forward and do the things that the nation asks of them. And that was U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance saying that they will go after fraud and saying that it's not just about tax dollars being stolen, it's that people who are in need are being stolen, the resources are being stolen by fraudsters, and saying that the administration is fully behind affordability. Also highlighting the fact that Democrats didn't stand up when the President said the U.S. government should work for the American people and not illegal immigrants. Okay, moving on from that, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson said the U.S. could deploy naval escorts for vessels in the Strait of Hormuz soon as military conditions allow it. Joining us now is retired U.S. Navy Captain Armin Kurdian. He's also a foreign policy and national security analyst as well as a California State Senate candidate. So Armin, good afternoon to you. Now, Besson says this could happen when the U.S. has complete control of the skies and when Iran's rebuilding capabilities for its missiles are completely degraded. So talk to us about this. What capabilities can the U.S. Navy offer these during escorts? Certainly. Good afternoon, Don. We have about 80 destroyers in our inventory, but we're not the only nation in the world with service combatants. A lot of our allies, NATO allies, have those ships as well, and they've got skin in this game and they should be helping and support. So you send a destroyer escort, let's say, almost like a convoy operation. You're not going to do these singly. You're going to do this kind of in a convoy operation, much like we did during World War II. You have destroyers that are going to be weaving in and out of the formation as it goes through the straits, positioning themselves in various locations in order that they can get the best angle of attack against perhaps an incoming missile or an incoming drone, depending on the type of weapon that's coming in. It determines the type of weapon that's going out. And you don't just need destroyers. Some of our NATO allies also have Corvettes, which are smaller, a little bit more nimble ships. They're not as heavily armed, but they would be ideal for something like this. So you look at a situation like this, you would probably send several tankers through the Gulf at one time and then bring them all out together again. So Armin, you mentioned drones and missiles. I'm not an expert on this, but are those the main types of threats that escorts could be protecting vessels from? Well, Iran still has midget submarines. I don't know how many of them are still operational, how many have been destroyed, or how many can get out to sea. So those are very small submarines. Submarines, even if they're a little noisy, are still very hard to detect under the water. Of course, you have mines. We've done what we can to take out Iran's mining operation, but any boat that can put out to sea could potentially drop some mines into the water, floating mines, mines that are attached to the bottom of the sea. You're never going to completely eliminate the threat, but you're going to make it lower and lower and try to reduce that risk to the point where you can send ships through. Back during the tanker war in the 1980s, Iran had silkworm missiles at the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz, and they were using those missiles against ships, and the US would go in and strike the radars or the missile sites to try to stop that from happening. But it was a low kinetic war until Operation Praying Mantis in 1987. So mines, midget submarines, missiles, drones, suicide boats, even, as a potential threat. So along with the ships that are out there, you would have helicopters as well, marching, watching the seas, checking things out, and engaging any threats that were heading towards the convoy, either with their Gatling gun or with missiles. So I'm thinking here, could this improve relations between the US and other countries? If the US successfully escorts vessels with fuel for other countries, could that also give the US more leverage in future negotiations? Well, I kind of see some of the nations saying, well, if you guys hadn't started the war in the first place, you wouldn't need to escort the ships. And that's really neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is, we're doing the world a favor by trying Iran's ability to project power as the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism. So frankly, the NATO allies, they need to pony up and they bring their ships into the area. If they don't want to engage in combat operations, that's fine. But at the very least, help escort the oil out of the Gulf that is perhaps going to your country or support yourself and your continent. So that is something I think that needs to be done. And they're behind the timeline and behind the power curve to do it. So can you compare and contrast for us the escorts now and the tanker war in previous years? It was kind of the same thing. Although back then, because the mine threat was even greater, perhaps, than it is right now, you almost had these tankers that were actually up in front some of the double hold. And they could take the damage of a mine strike while the US destroyers could not. And that's not acceptable. Our ability to detect mines is much better than it used to be in the past. But our mine countermeasure ships isn't where it needs to be, nor our own mine layers as well, for a matter of fact. There's a lot of capability gaps that we actually have. So in that sense, the weaponry, the ability to detect and shoot down missiles and drones is just orders of magnitude where it used to be in the past. It doesn't change the fact that the dynamics of the drones coming into the missiles coming in is still a very challenging problem to achieve. And that's why these missiles cost over a million dollars each, because they are the best in the world. They're not easy to make, but they're really good at what they do. So just one final question here. Is the simple fact that these escorts are happening, is that deterrence enough from Iran engaging anything in the Strait of Hormuz? No, I think we've seen that it is not. Iran has been lashing out. They were even shooting missiles at Cyprus and Turkey for crying out loud. So I'm sure if they have an opportunity to go strike a tanker, they will. They hit a couple, I think, in the Western Persian Gulf, set them on fire. Obviously, hitting a tanker fully laden with oil could be a massive environmental disaster. This is not something that we want to see. So in that sense, so long as Central Command and Naval Central Command believes that the threat is above a certain threshold, they're probably not even going to try to do it. For no other reason, because if they hit one of these tankers, the spill could be really, really bad. And they don't want that to happen. Plus, you're also losing all that oil, which was pulled out of the ground. So they have to reasonably believe they've brought the threat down below a certain level, that Iran can't really strike them with surface missiles that's been taken out. But it will require a lot of vigilance. It's certainly a much more complex, complicated and higher threat environment than it was 40 years ago. Okay. All right, Armand, good to speak to you. And thank you very much. Have a great weekend. You too. President Trump says he is looking at loosening shipping rules under the Jones Act. Here's what he said on Fox News Radio's The Brian Kilmeade Show earlier today. Do you believe you're going to suspend the Jones Act too? And if so, what would that do? Well, it lets you take the ships that are American made and have them go around to different ports. It's a restrictive act. It's got some tremendous support in Congress, support for it. Not to suspend it, but support for the Jones Act. But we'll take a look. We'll take a look at everything and it's all going to work out. Under the 1920 Jones Act, goods shipped between U.S. ports must be carried on vessels that are U.S. built, U.S. flagged and mostly U.S. owned. The requirement sharply limits the number of tankers available for domestic shipments. The White House says suspending the act would ensure energy and agricultural shipments can move freely amid supply disruptions caused by the Iran war. Speaking on Iran, the president says the operation is way ahead of schedule. U.S. military is focused on knocking out Iranian missiles and drones. The president also warning that the U.S. would strike Iran, quote, very hard over the next week. He says the U.S. has so far chosen not to destroy Iran's critical infrastructure to the point they could never rebuild as a nation. Trump also admits there are big hurdles to regime change, saying regime change will happen, but will probably not be immediate. Also, on the radio show, Trump says the U.S. will escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz if necessary. Trump's comments echo Treasury Secretary Scott Besant's remarks yesterday. Besant told Sky News that Washington could deploy naval escorts for commercial shipping in the Strait as soon as military conditions allow. The Treasury Department issuing a 30-day license allowing the sale of Russian oil currently stranded at sea. The authorization permits countries to buy Russian crude and petroleum products loaded onto ships as of yesterday. The temporary license runs through April 11th. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant says the move is aimed at stabilizing global energy markets and keeping prices down amid the Iran war. He says the measure is narrowly tailored and applies only to oil already in transit. Besant adding the move is not expected to provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government. Energy markets are under pressure, with shipping disrupted through the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is providing an update on the case involving Fed Chair Jay Powell. Let's take a look. Feeds in immunity preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve. This is wrong and it is without legal authority. In June of 2025, Jerome Powell testified before the Senate Banking Committee, making, quote, questionable statements that did not comport with publicly available documents. And that was regarding the atrocious cost overrun of more than $1 billion. I didn't say million. I said billion in renovations to his headquarters. This from the man who says that he is the steward of our public funds. OK, I want to say one more thing, and I think it's important that you guys hear this from me. There's another way of looking at this, and that is that it's not just the public being fed up with this stuff. It's the fact that what we've got are grand jurors who are supposed to hear this and they haven't been able to hear any of this because someone. One has decided that they're not entitled to hear this. Can you take this? And you're just watching D.C. attorney Jeanine Pirro giving updates on the Jerome Powell case where there was a billion dollars in overruns for building the Federal Reserve building. And she's saying that she disagrees with Judge Boasberg's decision and going ahead with a motion because the date was wrong in that judge's decision. OK, let's move on from that. The State Department says more than 50,000 Americans have safely returned to the United States from the Middle East. A department spokesperson says the government has organized over four dozen charter flights so far since the U.S. strikes against Iran late last month. The official adding that the State Department has assisted nearly 34,000 Americans through its 24-7 task force. Meanwhile, the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem says has reached an agreement with Israeli airline El Al. According to the embassy, American citizens will be able to travel on nonstop flights to the U.S. beginning March 16th. The embassy says those flights will operate outside current standard passenger camps. Americans still in need of assistance are advised to call 1-202-501-4444. For analysis of Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz and what it means for the U.S. more broadly, here is Kelly Sloan, energy policy consultant and columnist. So, Kelly, welcome. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Now, we're seeing reports saying that energy independent policy is protecting the U.S. from disruptions on the Strait of Hormuz. Can we just get your overall thoughts on the situation? Sure. So, as you know, as you just mentioned in the story right before this, Iran is still controlling the Straits of Hormuz, which means that no oil is moving from the Middle East to Western countries. The other thing that means is there is oil moving from Iran. Iran is supplying their own oil to get out of the Gulf and supplying China. Those are both bad things. And typically, when we see situations like this, and as we have in the past, this has a pretty enormous impact on the global oil market. You can't move oil, you get a supply glut, and the prices go up. It's interesting to note, though, this is not 1970s anymore. We aren't seeing the same prices that we saw in the 1973-1979 oil shocks when most of the world's global oil supply was controlled by OPEC. In the last several years, the United States has increased its domestic production to the point where the U.S. is now an exporter of oil. And that's helped mitigate a lot of the impacts that we would otherwise be seeing from the conflict and the lack of oil supply moving. Not only are we less dependent on Middle Eastern oil ourselves, but also our allies like Europe can take advantage of America's surplus of oil. So in that sense, we're not seeing, well, there is a spike. Obviously, with all that oil being held up in the Straits of Hormuz and not being able to move, that is going to drive up global prices. But with our domestic production being so much more than it was 20, 30 years ago, we've been able to weather that a little bit better. Right now, the prices aren't even at the highs that they were in parts of the Biden administration, which was driven by systemic inflation. So to that extent, American policy has helped, as you mentioned, cushion us from some of And could you also talk to us about this, Kelly? Energy analysts are suggesting that in the long term, the Iran war could provide opportunities for oil and gas producers in the United States. What do you say to that? Can you break this down for us? Well, possibly. I mean, anytime we're looking at ways that we can make ourselves less dependent on other nations for anything, especially something as critical as oil, which is the fuel for our entire economy, our industrial output, transportation networks, and so on and so forth, I think this will help spur some more movement in that direction. What we saw in the previous administration was a movement sort of away from that. The leadership at the time wanted to, for political reasons, try and limit America's oil production. They wanted to transit us to different types of energy, wind, solar, that kind of thing, and move away from fossil fuels. I think at times like this, reality kind of hits us directly in the nose, and we see how important this resource is for our economy, and how our dependence on other nations constricts us. Anytime that we can make ourselves less dependent, I think we need to take advantage of it. And a situation like this, where this is a huge shock to the global oil industry, there's no doubt about it, it just kind of reinforces that, puts a punctuation mark on it, that we need to continue down that path of not just energy independence, but energy dominance, so that we can help fill some of these gaps that are created in places like Europe and Taiwan. Taiwan, I think, is a country that's really going to be hurt by this, because they import 90% of their energy, a lot of it's natural gas, but a lot of oil as well. They have no domestic resources of their own. Most of their supply is coming from the Middle East right now. I think there are opportunities here for the United States to increase its exports, perhaps start building LNG terminals on the West Coast, that we can help supply, meet some of Taiwan's needs, for instance, some of the needs for some of the other Pacific Rim nations like Japan. Japan's incredibly hungry for our natural gas. So yes, you don't want to look at war as an opportunity, but we can look at it as an opportunity to reevaluate or evaluate where we're at, and move on from there in terms of policy. Can you talk to us now, we talked about oil prices, can you talk to us about gas prices as well? Certain media outlets have said it's gone up $0.60, it's gone up $0.03 today. But compare that for us, historically speaking, are we at a place where gas prices are extremely high right now? No, again, the gas prices are, of course, tied to oil prices, because natural gas has traditionally been thought of as a byproduct of oil production. In more recent years, we've found the value of natural gas as its own commodity, helping to produce cleaner energy than coal does and that kind of thing. So it's always been tied to the oil price. And obviously, the Middle East is a large supplier of natural gas, and that's not getting out as well. In a historical sense, no. And again, it's because the United States doesn't need to import any natural gas for its own needs. If we do, we get a lot from Canada, but we're not getting any from the Middle East. We're a net exporter. And again, having that, well, two big mistakes that the previous administration made in terms of energy policy, which we're kind of feeling right now, one was the LNG export ban. That was incredibly short-sighted. And we reinstituted that. If we reinstituted that earlier enough with the ban on it in the first place, we could have been exporting more natural gas to Europe and helping our allies in Europe absorb the shock. And certainly, if we would build some LNG export terminals, as I mentioned, on the West Coast, we might be able to more easily supply Taiwan with this natural gas. But the second big mistake that the Biden administration made in terms of energy policy, which is having a direct impact on us right now, is the premature drawdown of the strategic petroleum reserve. That reserve was specifically put in place for times like now, facing major international conflicts, major disruptions in the oil supply. The Biden administration, unfortunately, for political reasons, both in terms of policy as they were trying to wean the American economy off of fossil fuels, and also for political reasons, to try and draw down the price of oil, which was going up in inflation, they drew down that reserve, which we don't have now, to kind of backfill the market, which is why we're seeing prices even as high as they are. So, Kelly, I just want to ask you one more question. How do we secure the straight Hormuz? The administration is talking about potentially sending escorts there, U.S. Navy escorts. But the previous guest told me that even with escorts, it won't necessarily completely deter the Iranian regime from strikes, perhaps. So, I mean, it's definitely better than not having escorts. But just talk to us about this. How do we secure the waterway? Well, the first thing we need to do is complete this stage of the operation, which is continuing to degrade Iran's air assets, their missile capability, their drone capabilities, their Navy. We need to finish that part of the war first. We're not at the military place right now where we can start escorting those friendly tankers without undue risk. So, that's the first thing we need to do is finish the first stage of the operation. Next thing we'll probably have to do, we'll have to recommission some minesweepers. Largest wave with their Navy pretty much destroyed. The way that Iran, for the most part, is controlling straight is by mining. So, we need to deal with those and with the mines themselves. And we're probably also going to have to, one way or the other, seize or somehow bring offline their own oil export terminals and ports. So, it's going to be multi-pronged, but we do need to finish what we're doing first and get to a point militarily where we can, with less risk, start escorting some of those ships and restrict Iran from being able to get its oil, mostly going to China. And their ability to continue to export their oil and supply China is not only keeping them alive economically, figuratively, but it's also keeping China, People's Republic of China, in energy and keeping them supplied. And they, in turn, are more than likely supplying the Iranians with some of the material that they need. So, it's going to be a multi-pronged approach, but those are some things that need to be done for us to take back control of the situation, control of the strait. Right. A multi-pronged approach. Well, Kelly, it's good to hear your analysis today. Thank you for speaking with us and hope you have a great weekend. Thanks for having me on. The international community is continuously increasing sanctions on Iran. Countries and organizations from across the globe are ramping up pressure on the Islamic regime. NTD's international correspondent Arian Pasdar has what the European Union is doing to help combat the evils committed by the Iranian regime. The European Union on Friday releasing a new document laying out all the measures it has been taking against the Iranian regime in recent years. The new document states that the bloc has been sanctioning the Islamic regime for three main reasons. Those are human rights abuses in Iran, Iran's nuclear activities, and its military support for Russia. Let's first take a look at the human rights abuses. The European Union says it condemns the widespread and brutal use of force against peaceful protesters, death sentences against protesters, torture in Iranian prisons, arbitrary detention to silence critical voices, and restrictions on communications, including internet shutdowns. Over to Iran's nuclear activities. The bloc says Iran's nuclear actions, which have no credible civilian purpose, carry very significant proliferation-related risks. And lastly, another reason for the sanctions is Iran's military support for Russia and Iran's violent activity in the Middle East. In total, the bloc sanctioned almost 250 individuals, including high-ranking officials, ministers, members of parliament, and others. The EU also sanctioned 50 entities. The sanctions against the individuals and entities include travel bans, asset freezes, a ban on making funds available to those listed, a ban on selling equipment that might be used for internal repression in Iran, a ban on providing technical assistance to those individuals, and more. Aryan Pasdar, NTD News. Joining us now is Taylor Hathorne, visiting fellow at the Independent Women's Center for American Safety Security. Taylor, good afternoon to you. Thank you for joining us. Can you just give us your read of the recent alleged terror attacks in the U.S. just this week? We've had the shooting at Old Dominion University, an attack on a Michigan synagogue. FBI is investigating both as acts of terrorism. What do we know? Well, I think it's a larger conversation that we're having as a country, as a whole, where the terror attack that happened against Sarah Beckstrom, the National Guardsman, that was killed earlier this year. We've got the ODU attack. We've got the attacks in New York, which the IEDs or the explosives that were thrown last week that were bravely handled and disarmed by NYPD officers. We've got the, I believe I already said the ODU attacks, the Michigan attacks this week. And we've got the Austin attacks that happened two weeks ago that killed three people in a bar, all of them, which are tied to Islamic extremism. And so it's lending to a larger conversation in this country about all of these, I believe all of them, maybe with the exception of one, were committed by naturalized citizens. And so it's leading ourselves to a larger conversation about really looking at what our immigration process is, and if the right questions about family ties, if the right questions about ideologies, if the right questions about social media ties are really being asked appropriately by those doing the vetting. Is there anything to be said about the timing here? Why now? Are these recent attacks connected to the Iran war at all, your thoughts? So we've talked about this on this show before. Iran operates a series of proxies, you know, that Joe Kent, who does a lot of our counterintelligence for ODNI, has talked about the fact that there are somewhere upwards of 18,000 people who are in this country illegally that wish to do ill will to the United States, that we're tracking, that we're actively working to deport and get out of this country. And so there's a large conversation around, why these attacks are happening. Some of them are ISIS related, some of them are IRGC, but all of it truthfully funds back to, in one way or the other, Iran, which is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. So you have all of these different terrorism factions throughout the world, whether it's ISIS, whether it's ISIL, whether it's smaller groups and whether it's Hezbollah, but what it all really boils back to is that this is a radicalized Islamic ideology. We have got to get to a place in this country where we can call that out without feeling guilty. It is not Islamophobia to see something that is happening where you have these consistent attacks led by one group of people and to call that Islamic extremism. If we had Christians attacking people in the same way, we as a nation and we as a media would have no problem calling that out. As you know, I grew up in the Middle East. I have so many close friends who are Muslim, who live in the United States or who live abroad, who are equally disturbed and disgusted by the attacks that are happening inside of the United States that are carried out by Islamic extremists for one reason primarily is because it makes them look bad. It makes peace abiding, law abiding Muslims who love this country, who are American citizens look horrible too, because the American people do not understand the difference between Islam and these crazy ideologies. It's because in part, we're not calling it out and we're not calling a spade a spade. Very good point there, Taylor. I just want to point out as well as all of this is taking place, the Department of Homeland Security remains in a shutdown. The department remains operational because roughly 90% of its staff are considered essential, though they are working without pay. Can you talk to us about this? Does this shutdown at all heighten the risk of attacks? Of course it does. Even if you've got a butt in a seat at DHS, if that butt in the seat is worried about whether they're going to be able to put food on their table for their child, whether they're going to be able to come home at the end of the day and have their electricity shut off, that really puts your head in a different headspace. Truthfully, this is not something the terrorism threats and the safety and security of our nation's citizen is not something that really can afford to be messed with. One of the points that I was talking about earlier on TV is Senator Alyssa Slotkin did the press conference earlier today with the governor of Michigan talking about the attack against the synagogue. She specifically stated that she felt it was time that we reopened DHS to its full capacity because it was putting the life, safety, liberty, and security of Americans at risk. I think that I agree. I absolutely agree with her completely, but the one thing that I want to call out is that Alyssa Slotkin saw what happened at this synagogue and then posted about it on social media and then went on to vote on the floor during this vote and keep the government shut down, keep DHS shut down. They can say one thing publicly, but what your elected officials are doing behind closed doors or doing when the cameras are not necessarily rolling is a whole other action. I really encourage all of our senators, Democrat, Republican, Independent, wherever you land, to understand that the safety and security of American citizens is your number one calling and your number one priority and why you were sent to Washington, D.C. in the first place. If you are failing at that edict, you are failing at your job and you should be called into question. And there's a saying, Taylor, you don't look at what a lawmaker says, you look at what he votes for, right? So I want to point out as well, I want to take a moment here to highlight the fact that the folks at the Department of Homeland Security are still working tirelessly for our country to keep it safe despite receiving no pay and DHS has identified the deceased suspect who attacked the Temple Israel in Michigan and from what I understand, Taylor, do you think is working around the clock enough to ensure more attacks like this don't happen? Well, I certainly think that the political rhetoric that is being thrown at this from the left is not doing anything to help. You know, I don't really understand attacking a presidential administration who has had the gumption to go after the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, who has been consistently threatening not just us but our allies and partners around the world and who is retaliating exponentially causing the lives lost of, you know, over a dozen American servicemen now, servicemen and women now. I think it's incredibly important that we peel back the rhetoric and really focus what our jobs are. We all play a role here, right? Whether you're in Congress, whether you're the public, you're a taxpayer, you're in the media, we all play a role to making sure that America is safe and secure. And so I think having, you know, butts and seats at DHS is one thing, but when you're doing a job like that, you're working at ICE, you're working at CBP, you're working at TSA or CISA and you are working your hardest to make sure that Americans are safe and secure and you have all of this noise in the media, all of this noise from your elected officials talking about how your jobs just don't matter that much, how it's really not that essential, something that is your life calling to keep Americans, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of religious affiliation, safe and secure. And you're being told by lawmakers that that just simply doesn't matter. You know, DHS was founded in 2003 to really make sure that all of the avenues in which someone could get into this country and cause harm to this country, so land, sea and air, and eventually cyber was addressed, that all of those areas would be focused on and secured and protected. And the people who work at DHS, including ICE agents, including CBP agents, do work every single day to make sure that those edicts are followed and to make sure that they are doing their job. And it is a shame that lawmakers cannot saddle up and get on board with that too. All right, Taylor, very strong points today. Thank you for speaking with us and please enjoy the weekend. You too. Long security lines are being seen at more airports around the country as the Senate fails to pass a funding agreement to open back up the Department of Homeland Security. More news after this. How does the US's military capabilities compare to China's in the real world? Joining us now for analysis is international military analyst Rick Fisher, senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. Rick, good afternoon. Good to see you again. So based on recent operations, how would you say, how wide is the capability gap between the US military and China's? Well, Don, it's clear that American strategy, American organization, American weapons work very well. Indeed, the weapons that we've sold to Israel, that Israel has also used in this war, work very well. What we have not yet seen is a significant demonstration of China's weapons. We've seen the weapons that China has helped Iran to build. Most of the ballistic missiles, most of the drones that have been launched, contain some kind of Chinese content, either a lot or a little. And that is certainly significant in terms of assigning responsibility for the damage emerging from this conflict. But the one time in the last several years where we have actually seen a Chinese weapons system actually function well was about a year ago between India and Pakistan, when Chinese-made J-10C jet fighters, Chinese-made long-range air-to-air missiles, and Chinese-made AWACS guiding those missiles and aircraft actually worked to take down several Indian combat aircraft. The degree to which we can see Chinese weapons working in the current Iran war is simply not the kind of measure that we can expect should China launch a surprise strike against Taiwan, a massive surprise strike that takes Taiwan completely by surprise and potentially causes very grave damage to that democracy. So Rick, do you think these real-world demonstrations of Chinese equipment is hurting its credibility as a supplier, perhaps for weapons? Well, on one level, yes, of course. The countries that have purchased these weapons, like Venezuela, Iran most recently, and seeing that they don't work or get taken out very quickly, yes, that should be very disturbing to them. But we also have to be nuanced in our interpretation of this data. Was the Chinese weapon taken out because of the superiority of an American weapon, or was it taken out because of the superiority of American electronic and cyber warfare, or was it taken out because the Iranian or Venezuelan operators simply could not put their capabilities together and use those weapons as they were designed? Okay, so on that note, maybe you can break down some of the key differences about the discipline, skill, and values of American soldiers versus Chinese-trained soldiers. Well, in terms of commitment, striving for professionalism, being briefed about their enemy, I would say that the Chinese soldier is quite near a peer to that of the United States. If a Chinese soldier is ordered to shoot down a Taiwanese aircraft or an American aircraft, they will not hesitate and they will use the equipment that they're given as it's designed to be used. Will that weapon succeed? Again, that will also be dependent upon the training of the Chinese soldier, sailor, airman. And indeed, the People's Liberation Army has invested heavily in training over the last 30 years. And that training, as far as we can tell from open sources, has become far more sophisticated and is beginning to approach the realism that the United States and its allies seek in their large-scale training exercises. China is still behind the curve a bit, but it's catching up. Its investments in simulators is enormous. The use of simulated systems on their weapons, on their tanks, on their aircraft is, in my opinion, impressive. If China, again, was able to achieve broad strategic surprise, especially on the Taiwan Strait, it could do significant damage. And we need to understand that and prepare ourselves accordingly. Okay. So on another issue, the Chinese foreign ministry held a press conference and there's some points it made that caught your attention, specifically that, quote, China does not go along with attacks against countries in the Gulf region and condemns non-discrimination, non-discriminatory attacks against civilians or non-military targets. So what are your thoughts on that? Why did this catch your attention? Well, Don, this is evidence of vast and cruel, amazingly cruel hypocrisy on the part of the Chinese communist regime. They are, in a sense, condemning Iran's strikes against civilian targets in the Gulf states, in Iran, of course, I mean, Saudi Arabia. Of course, I don't mention Israel. But nowhere in that statement is there any acknowledgement that the missiles and drones causing the indiscriminate civilian casualties have been largely enabled by Chinese parts, Chinese technology, and perhaps more recently, by actual guidance cues provided by Chinese surveillance and targeting settlements. Just amazing callousness and hypocrisy. And is that being received in such a way that you described on the global stage? What has been the reception? Well, it's not clear that China's diplomatic actions, its statements are really getting the attention that they deserve. I mean, they're not getting attention because, in a sense, China really isn't doing anything to help anybody. It's not really doing anything to ameliorate the damage. It's sent a special envoy to the Middle East region, trying to gin up enthusiasm for a ceasefire. But the United States and Israel are not interested in that. And clearly, all of the statements emanating from what passes as a government in Iran indicates they're not interested either. So the Chinese are just cuddling around, being ineffectual. All of their investments in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and other organizations that have been part of a Chinese scheme to try to displace American influence in the Middle East has come crashing down. And so China is left making these ineffectual statements, such as was made by the foreign ministry spokesman on March 12, that, gosh, they're sorry for the indiscriminate missile and drone strikes against civilians. But golly, we had nothing to do with that. I mean, it's just inexcusable. Yeah. I'll just reiterate what you said. China's left to peddling and ineffectual statements. Just one last thing here, Rick. You got a new op-ed out today called The Space Dimensions of the Iran War. Can you just talk to us about this? You said there are direct lunar implications for the Iran War. What are they? Absolutely. War on Earth is increasingly determined by space power. Your satellite constellations in low Earth orbit, your satellites in deep space, your potential combat satellites in low Earth orbit, deep space, cislunar space. And very soon, the military capabilities that you can deploy from the moon itself. The moon is becoming the high ground for combat on Earth. So as this war continues, I was simply making the point that it is very, very important that the United States continue its Artemis lunar program, a program that now has been joined by 61 other nations on this planet. It's very important that the United States get to the moon. Not necessarily get there first, although yes, that's important at some level. But what is really important is that the United States populate the moon as quickly as possible, gather up strategic points on the moon so that we can defend our access if necessary, and also access for our 61 Artemis partners and the other democracies, especially. Russia's war against Ukraine, now in its fourth year, has forced massive diversion of resources from Russia's space program. And we simply cannot allow that to happen to the American space program, especially our lunar exploration program. Well, all right, Rick, let's leave it there. It's always good to talk to you. Thank you so much. Have a great weekend. Thank you, Don.