Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a segment from today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. President Donald Trump is positioning the largest naval and air forces with submarines off the coast of Iran—in the Persian Gulf, in the Mediterranean, in the Red Sea—that we’ve seen since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And there are pros and cons about striking Iran. We’re not at war with them right now, so this is what we would call either a preventive war, long-term threat, or a preemptive war, that there’s a short-term threat that has to be precluded by the use of force. It’s very controversial, and we don’t know whether he’s going to pull the trigger or not. He said help was on the way when the protests were maximized. Anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 people, estimates say, were killed. Those protests are now—we haven’t seen much of them, given the mass death and murder on this awful regime of some, it’s getting nearer, as you know, a half-century, 46 years. So, what are the pros and cons of what we’re doing? Does he have to go to Congress to get a declaration of war? No. No more than the Obama administration had to do when they bombed Libya, for example. But there are pros and cons, and let’s go through the pros first. It has been the dream of eight presidencies, going back to Jimmy Carter, all the way to Donald Trump, to have some type of regime change. There’s one exception, Barack Obama. He had a harebrained scheme, remember, that he was going to empower Iran. He had the Iran deal. He brought in $400 million at night on pallets to give them money that had been sanctioned. He lifted the sanctions. So did Joe Biden. The idea was to balance off Israel and the Arab countries with a Shia revolutionary country. And then that would produce creative tension, I suppose, that Obama thought he would adjudicate. But other than that, every president has wanted an end to that anti-American regime. They have killed more Americans than any terrorist organization, probably as much as ISIS or more than ISIS, given the use of shaped charges in Iraq. So, that makes sense that you’d want to get rid of it. You would also, in this cat-and-mouse game that we played for 20 years about Iranian nukes, it’s a given that anytime they sign a nuclear nonproliferation deal or they give someone their word, it’s not going to happen. They can’t be trusted. They’re a revolutionary, ideologically driven, not rational regime. But it would be very good if they didn’t have the ability with their hypersonic missiles or their other ballistic missiles to hit Europe or our allies in the Middle East or even, at some future date, us. So, you could end that project for good. They’re in remission now, thanks to our prior bombing missions, but we haven’t ended that threat. It’s existential as long as the regime is in. It would be a moral thing, as I said, 10,000 to 30,000 protesters were murdered. Their bodies were not even given back, in some cases, to their families, secretly buried. And this regime, as we speak, is hanging people, executing people. It’s a rogue regime. And the moral case is strong to help out the protesters, and there might be a chance that Donald Trump could time his attack with a second wave of protests. It would also stabilize. Everybody thinks it’s going to destabilize the Middle East. It would probably stabilize the Middle East. And with the source of funding for Hamas, for the Houthis, and for Hezbollah completely cut off, those terrorist organizations may die in the vine, and the Arab countries might feel more secure that they could cut a deal according to the Abraham Accords with Israel. But there are cons. Let’s make no mistake about it. When you park 200,000-ton displacement carriers, one in the Persian Gulf and one in the Mediterranean, those are big targets. They’ve got some of the best air defenses in the history of naval warfare. They have a fleet of accompanying ships. Hopefully, their air arms could take out the ability of the Iranians to hit them with either drones or missiles, but it’s not a sure thing. And they’re big targets. And we’ve got about 5,000 Americans on each one of those carriers, and they’re a $13 billion, $14 billion investment. So, that’s a great risk. The midterms are coming up in November. Most presidents are very wary to take on an optional military engagement when there’s so many unknowns up in the air, and it could either sink the Trump administration’s prospects in November or, if he was able to displace and get rid of this horrific regime, the first of, as I said, eight presidents to be able to do that, that would be quite an achievement, it might help him in the midterms. He has another problem. That is the MAGA base. The MAGA base is neo-isolationist. He campaigned in 2016 and 2020 against so-called forever wars, optional military engagements, especially in the Middle East. In the past, he’s been able to square that circle by limited engagements. In other words, the taking out of the Wagner Group in Syria, the killing of Qasem Soleimani or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or the bombing of the nuclear facilities. They were all finite, very short, solved the problem. Bombed ISIS into oblivion. Said he was going to bomb them, he did. This is a little different. There’s not so easily an endgame here because this is a huge country and it’s got a very ideologically fervent population. There’s another thing, too. The protesters themselves, we think, are pro-Western. They want to bring back the shah, but we’re not sure of that. So, if you’re a protester and they killed 30,000 of you and you’re afraid to go back out and you’re sitting in your apartment and you see bombs raining, and they’re not going to be completely accurate, and take my word for it and your word for it, these Iranians know how to do Hamas and Hezbollah-like tactics. Their missiles and their command and control will not be in something that says a secure bunker. They will be near hospitals. They will be near mosques. They will be near schools. They will be, as we saw in Lebanon, in residential areas. So, there will be collateral damage. Will the Iranian public have the long-term view that that’s in their interest, or the short-term view and turn on the Americans? These are all pros and cons, but ultimately, Donald Trump will have to make that decision. He’ll have to make the decision pretty quickly because you can’t just take those many naval assets and stick them halfway across the world. In terms of deployment, wear and tear on the machinery, deployment time, etc., there is a window. And the window is probably about another six weeks. He’ll have to make that decision. We have the Olympics. You would not want to strike during the Olympics, apparently. He’s got to worry about the Israelis. On the one hand, they want the regime gone. On the other hand, the last time they exchanged missiles and attacks with Iran, they were getting very low on anti-ballistic missile defense weaponry. So, we don’t know quite where their stocks are now. Finally, what should Trump do? I’m not going to advise him. I don’t have the expertise or the knowledge to advise him. But I do think that he might want to have a brief press conference or address to the nation, five minutes, not detailed, just say that we are facing an existential threat for nearly 50 years with this country. It’s killed thousands of Americans in Iraq and Lebanon. And it is a human rights abuser. It murders its own people. And it’s very important, given its key role in controlling the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% to 30% of the world’s oil passes every day. And more importantly, the price of oil will depend on it as well. And here are the dangers and here are the advantages, and I’m going to make my—it doesn’t have to be that explicit, but he needs to give some information to the American people. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Preventive or Preemptive? The Pros and Cons of a Potential US Strike on Iran appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The State Department says it is cracking down on foreign fraud networks that exploit American citizens, The Daily Signal can first report. President Donald Trump has mobilized the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department to to dismantle Asia-based criminal networks that defraud and financially exploit American families, seniors, and small businesses. “The Trump Administration has made protecting the American people from overseas scam operations a top priority,” said Tommy Pigott, principal deputy spokesperson at the State Department. Transnational organized crime, particularly Chinese-led fraud syndicates, has scaled to an industrial level in Southeast Asia, a State Department official said. In 2023, the UN estimated that 120,000 people worked in scam centers in Burma alone. A new report from the UN’s human rights office says at least 300,000 people are estimated to have been trafficked into cyber scam operations in Southeast Asia. “I was generally aware that online ‘scam centers’ had popped up across Southeast Asia in recent years, but did not appreciate their scale,” Deputy State Department Secretary Chris Landau said in December. “This is a major problem for the US and other countries: in 2024, such operations scammed over $10 BILLION from Americans,” Landau continued. “Until recently, many of these centers had been operating with impunity, but we’re working hard with countries in the region to crack down on them.” As technology evolves, so too must diplomacy. I was generally aware that online “scam centers” had popped up across Southeast Asia in recent years, but did not appreciate their scale. These are not "mom and pop" operations where a hacker works out of his parents' basement! For… pic.twitter.com/2Uy2A8uVuT— Christopher Landau (@DeputySecState) December 12, 2025 The Treasury Department announced sanctions against such scam centers in September, including nine targets operating in Shwe Kokko, Burma and ten targets based in Cambodia.  “Southeast Asia’s cyber scam industry not only threatens the well-being and financial security of Americans, but also subjects thousands of people to modern slavery,” said Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence John K. Hurley.   Southeast Asia-based scam centers often fraudulently recruit employees from other countries, many from China, and coerce them into forced labor, Landau said. The State Department recommends that Americans refrain from sending money abroad to someone they have not met and sharing personal details online in order to avoid these fraud scams. The post EXCLUSIVE: State Department Targets ‘Scam Centers’ in Asia appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The White House is engaging against a Florida bill that would establish limits on artificial intelligence including protections for minors, sources familiar with the matter tell The Daily Signal.  The White House has contacted Florida Speaker of the House Daniel Perez and his staff members about opposing Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights, sources said.  So far, Perez has sent the bill through four committees in the House since its introduction early this year. Perez told reporters on Tuesday that he is skeptical states should pass legislation on an issue where the federal government has “first dibs.”  “I’ve been very clear that I think AI is an issue that should be dealt with by the federal government. I have massive concerns with the state’s ability to deal with anything in tech,” Perez said. The view mirrors that of the White House and Silicon Valley, who favor a uniform federal standard over local attempts to address the potential perils of AI. The White House has already been revealed to be exerting pressure in Utah to kill an AI child safety and transparency bill. “The speaker believes the states should not interfere with President Trump’s ability to lead on this important issue,” Amelia Angleton, Perez’s communications director, told The Daily Signal.   DeSantis’ AI Bill of Rights would affirm existing protections against AI porn, including explicit images featuring minors; prohibit Florida government offices from using Chinese-created AI tools; and provide parental controls on AI for minors.  In December, Perez asked committee leaders to consider the “potentially positive and negative impacts” of AI ahead of the 2026 legislative session. Perez opposed the AI Bill of Rights before hearing from the White House due to his belief that the federal government should lead the AI conversation, a source close to Florida House leadership told The Daily Signal. A White House official pointed to President Donald Trump’s Dec. 11 executive order, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which ordered the attorney general to establish an AI litigation task force that would challenge state efforts to regulate AI. “The White House supports AI regulation that supports minors, as outlined in the Executive Order – ‘That framework should also ensure that children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected, and communities are safeguarded,'” the official said in response to a request for comment from The Daily Signal. “Any reporting otherwise is fatally flawed,” the official said. “The Trump Administration is committed to protecting the dignity, privacy, and safety of children in the digital age,” the official continued. “In May 2025, President Trump signed the Take It Down Act, legislation championed by the First Lady to protect young Americans from deepfake exploitation online.” Keith Flaugh, CEO of Florida Citizens Alliance, which has lobbied the state legislature to protect children with the AI Bill of Rights, sees the Florida legislation as necessary and is concerned it will not move forward in the Florida House.  “AI, without regulation, will destroy the family unit when every child, either through the education system or just through getting a chat, has their own personal, godlike authority figure in their life, starting at age five or less,” Flaugh told The Daily Signal.  Utah AI Bill  Last week, the White House sent a letter pressuring a Utah lawmaker to kill his bill requiring tech companies to publish safety and child-protection plans, Axios first reported.  The letter, which was subsequently obtained by The Daily Signal, asserts, “We are categorically opposed to Utah HB 286 and view it as an unfixable bill that goes against the Administration’s AI Agenda.” White House “AI czar” David Sacks, a Silicon Valley investor close to technology companies, previously indicated that the administration would not to oppose existing AI laws that protect kids. “Preemption would not apply to generally applicable state laws,” he wrote on X. “So state laws requiring online platforms to protect children from online predators or sexually explicit material (CSAM) would remain in effect.” ONE RULEBOOK FOR AII wanted to share a few thoughts on AI preemption and address some of the concerns.First, this is not an “AI amnesty” or “AI moratorium.” It is an attempt to settle a question of jurisdiction.When an AI model is developed in state A, trained in state B,… pic.twitter.com/tO3yyc0A8M— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) December 8, 2025 Now that the White House has opposed the AI laws in Florida and Utah, sources familiar with the matter fear it will interfere in Tennessee and Nebraska, where state legislatures are considering similar bills.  “This is clearly a warning to the rest of the country that the Trump administration is opposed to any legislation, political candidate, or governor, or state that is going to do anything that would make the AI companies unhappy,” said Michael Toscano, director of the Institute for Family Studies’ technology initiative. Why Oppose State AI Laws?  The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy opposes state AI laws because it believes they harm tech companies, an administration official told The Daily Signal. Some AI experts tell The Daily Signal they believe the Trump administration is challenging state AI laws to lower the bar for the national AI framework. Trump’s AI preemption order directed Sacks and Michael Kratsios, the assistant to the president for Science and Technology, to prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform federal policy framework for AI.  If red states have serious protections against AI on the books, it sets a higher bar for the national framework. The White House appears to be trying to keep the bar for national AI regulation as low as possible, Toscano said.   The Utah law “has very simple transparency requirements, asking large frontier AI companies to just be clear about what its plans are for keeping the public safe and for children safe,” Toscano told The Daily Signal. “It strikes me that if that is a bar too high for the administration, what they’re trying to do is aim extremely low,” Toscano said. The Utah bill introduced by Republican state Rep. Doug Fiefia would require frontier AI companies to publish safety and child-protection plans and include whistleblower protections for employees who report safety concerns. “I don’t know how much lower you go than that, with a transparency requirement,” Toscano added. “It’s hard to actually imagine what lower looks like.” But Utah voters want AI companies held accountable for harms to the public and harms to kids, according to an Institute for Family Studies poll. Trump voters in Utah also said they are more likely to support candidates that protect kids and oppose preemption. “This is a culture war against Trump’s own base,” Toscano said. “I’ve never seen anything like this, the dynamic where the White House is doing everything in its power to stop red states from passing common sense laws to protect people is shocking to the conscience.”  The post SCOOP: White House Working Against Florida Attempt to Limit AI for Minors, Seeking Federal Solution appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Environmental protection is long, hard work, and it usually involves managing complex systems. If politics takes center stage–as it did at this year’s Everglades Coalition conference–then communication breaks down, and systems begin to suffer. Unlike in previous years, several agencies and state officials that have historically participated in the conference chose not to attend in 2026. Insider sources noted that the conference environment had shifted from technical coordination to activism and public confrontation. That perception matters. Agencies attend these gatherings to exchange information, assess risk, develop programs, and maintain working relationships necessary for delivery. Participation in the conference this time around came with reputational risk, which made a clear operational benefit hard to perceive. And now there is division among the ranks.  The immediate issue has been Alligator Alcatraz, a detention facility for illegal aliens in Florida. But public disputes over that development are not a sufficient reason to disengage from sustained coordination on one of the most complex ecological systems in the United States. The Everglades is an extraordinary ecosystem. Managing the Everglades encompasses water infrastructure, flood control, and habitat, and the area just so happens to support one of the most densely populated regions in the country. That scale has always required cooperation across institutions that do not share the same politics. Conflict has never been absent, but professionalism has always prevailed.For many years, the Everglades Conference has been a central node where stakeholders and major political figures alike could gather. Officials attended because it was useful. It allowed agencies to share information and resolve practical problems. After all, this is infrastructure of the utmost importance.  Florida’s recent progress on Everglades restoration shows what happens when conservation sidesteps ideology. Under Gov. Ron DeSantis, the state has assumed greater responsibility for execution. That shift is often described as stepping on the federal government’s toes, but in practice, it has been a great benefit to the region. Federal environmental law remains essential, but the federal approach has its challenges. Implementation can be slow and vulnerable to disruption. Funding uncertainty, leadership turnover, procedural delays, and litigation all have consequences on the ground. Increasing state responsibility often ensures that work continues when federal systems stall. Environmental problems are deeply regional and geographic, so defaulting to federal control can limit the effectiveness of a solution. When state and federal governments operate deftly together, that’s how you get a durable system. Florida’s agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accelerate construction of the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir illustrates this balance. That arrangement has taken years off the timeline without abandoning environmental protections. It was practical, not political, and everyone involved made a priority of delivering the goods. The economic case for this approach is well established. A historical report prepared by Mather Economics, commissioned by the Everglades Foundation, found that Everglades restoration generates large net economic benefits for South Florida. The analysis showed billions of dollars in ecosystem services, strong benefit cost ratios, and long-term gains tied to clean water, flood protection, property values, and regional employment. In economic terms, on top of being an obligation of environmental stewardship, restoration has the added benefit of being a smart infrastructure investment. It is also notable that the Everglades Trust has publicly credited DeSantis with unprecedented progress on restoration. In a formal statement following the State of the State address, the Trust recognized record funding, acceleration of the EAA Reservoir, and nearly $9.5 billion in environmental investment over DeSantis’s two terms. If there is friction in the political realm, it’s clear that that friction is about politics. But when it comes to what we’re all supposed to really care about–environmental restoration–this coalition chose politics over progress. I have seen the same institutional logic work elsewhere. When I worked on HB 2726 in Illinois, the bill advanced because it was built around agreement on function. No one asked about personal political beliefs or checked ideological alignment. The focus was on moving a complex task forward. The result was the first rewilding framework enacted in the United States and a durable structure for the state Department of Natural Resources to incorporate best practices in restoring wildlife, biodiversity, and protecting native species. This way of working is not partisan, nor is it new. Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., frames environmental protection as a matter of stewardship and civic responsibility, following the venerable example of Theodore Roosevelt. On this matter, he doesn’t have time for an agenda driven culture war. A useful parallel can be found in the conservation of the Siberian Tiger. When that effort first took shape, authorities in Russia and China, and later the United States, joined with local park managers and international conservation organizations. Political squabbles and jockeying for position went by the wayside, at least as much as these things can in any human endeavor. The goal was simply to save the species, and it worked out spectacularly. That same principle should guide the Everglades Coalition conference. Florida’s governor is openly aligned with President Donald Trump. Florida is one of the country’s most economically and environmentally important states, and the president maintains a residence there. Alignment does not preclude independence or environmental seriousness. Florida has delivered tangible environmental progress by prioritizing execution rather than rhetoric. If environmental organizations care deeply about advocacy, let them advocate. No one is trying to take that away from them. But there’s a time for advocacy, and there’s a time for clarity of purpose. When Florida offers a hand of cooperation, let the other players take it. That’s how to achieve lasting conservation, even in the midst of the politics of the moment. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Environmentalists Put Leftwing Partisanship Before Restoration appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Virginia voters are more likely to oppose than support Democrats’ push for congressional redistricting, a newly released poll suggests. Virginia’s Democrat-controlled legislature has approved legislation which would likely make ten of the state’s eleven House districts favorable for Democrats. The state’s U.S. House delegation is currently made up of six Democrats and five Republicans. In order for this new map to become reality, voters will have to approve the legislature’s proposal to amend the constitution to allow for redistricting in a special election Democrats are attempting to hold in the spring. The Roanoke College poll suggests 62% of respondents favor the current method of redistricting, which is conducted once every ten years after the census. A mere 30% oppose this approach. Eight percent did not know or refused to answer. When asked if they would vote to approve a constitutional amendment to allow for pro-Democrat mid-cycle redistricting, a minority of 44% said they would. 52% would vote to keep the redistricting system “as it is now,” and 4% did not know or refused to answer. The polling, which surveyed 800 Virginians from Feb. 9 to Feb. 16, has a margin of error of 4.43%. Virginia Democrats have presented their pro-Democrat redistricting as a response to pro-Republican redistricting in states such as Texas and North Carolina. “We are leveling the playing field,” Democrat Senate president pro tempore L. Louise Lucas said in February of the redistricting push. “Our maps are ready. Virginia is ready. We said ’10-1,’ and we meant it.” Virginia has reached a 10-1 redistricting agreement. This moment reflects commitment to fair representation for communities across the Commonwealth and our nation. pic.twitter.com/lqS9IuwJzr— L. Louise Lucas (@SenLouiseLucas) February 5, 2026 A Virginia circuit court judge has placed a restraining order on Democrats’ attempt to hold a referendum on redistricting, potentially disrupting early voting in March.  Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones has said he will appeal the decision. The post NEW POLL: Virginia Voters Lean Against Redistricting appeared first on The Daily Signal.