Liberal outlet MS NOW — formerly MSNBC — ran a segment on Saturday during which one of the cohosts complained about the way that President Donald Trump’s administration have described the “opponent” in recent American military action against the Iranian regime. Antonia Hylton, during Saturday’s broadcast of “The Weekend: Primetime,” complained that “racism” was fueling the way President Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth talked about Iran and the regime’s terrorist proxies. “The other piece of this that I found really disturbing in the messaging around the war recently — and Ayman, I really want your thoughts on this in particular — is some of the language in the description of their opponent,” Hylton said, describing the regime that has murdered more than 1000 Americans, both military and civilian. “Sort of the way they seem to create this image of the Iranians and all of their sort of proxies or allies, the sort of imagery that they conjure up,” she continued. “And I think that it takes a certain amount of arrogance and I’m also going to say it, a bit of racism, to constantly talk about people like they are savages. That is a word that we have heard Hegseth use. [They] talk about people as though they are subhuman, too stupid to engage in a war with the United States, incapable of possibly out-maneuvering us, and then find ourselves in the exact position in which it appears they are consistently out-maneuvering us.” The Iranian regime’s efforts to kill Americans have stretched across the decades since the Islamic takeover in 1979. In 1983, 258 Americans were killed between a suicide bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, and a truck bombing in the same city. Iran-backed Hezbollah killed 19 U.S. Airmen in Saudi Arabia at the Khobar Towers in 1996. Iranian proxies are estimated to have killed nearly 700 between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nearly 50 Americans were killed by Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists during the attack on Israel that took place October 7, 2023.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Mike Waltz said on Sunday that he did not believe President Donald Trump was likely to take any options off the table with regard to the ongoing military action in Iran — even options that could compromise oil production in the region. Waltz, a Green Beret veteran, addressed recent attacks on Iran’s “crown jewel” — Kharg Island — and said that while the initial attacks specifically targeted military assets, he did not believe Trump would rule out the possibility of strikes that damaged the regime’s oil infrastructure. WATCH: TAPPER: Is President Trump prepared to target those oil facilities on Kharg Island? UN AMB. MIKE WALTZ: “Well President Trump’s not going to take any options off the table… I would certainly think he would maintain that optionality if he wants to take down their energy… pic.twitter.com/EIonYFHELY — State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) March 15, 2026 Tapper noted that Kharg Island was Iran’s “key oil hub” — and that the attacks thus far had been limited to solely military targets — but turned to Waltz and asked, “Iran says oil production on the island is proceeding normally. If Iran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, is President Trump prepared to target those oil facilities — which, as you know, handle 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports — and if so, are you worried that could risk even more of an escalation when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz?” “Well President Trump’s not going to take any options off the table, Jake, and he pointed out in his Truth [post] when he announced the military infrastructure strikes on Kharg, which by the way they used to project their fast boats, drones, and other types of attacks into the Gulf, that he deliberately hit the military infrastructure only — for now,” Waltz replied. “I would certainly think he would maintain that optionality if he wants to take down their energy infrastructure,” he added. Waltz went on to say that an unrestrained Iran had been using those military assets to put a stranglehold on shipping — whether of oil or other goods — from other countries, and that those efforts would only redouble and get more dangerous for all involved if Iran had been allowed to obtain nuclear capabilities. Trump said late on Friday, after ordering the strikes on Kharg Island, that his intention was to only hit military targets unless Iran continued to wreak havoc on any ships attempting to travel through the Strait of Hormuz.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy asked on Sunday whether Democrats were waiting for Americans to die before they would be willing to take action to ensure national security. Duffy joined host Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox Business Channel, and he specifically questioned the recent flip-flop from Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) — who repeatedly voted against funding the Department of Homeland Security only to demand that Congress fund DHS when a terror attack rocked her home state. WATCH: Are Democrats waiting for Americans to get hurt or killed before they make YOUR security a top priority?@SenatorSlotkin voted EVERY TIME against funding @DHS. And now that an attacker tried to kill Jews at a synagogue in her home state of Michigan, she’s ready to fund Homeland… pic.twitter.com/YyDhOlydAO — Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) March 15, 2026 “Look at Senator Slotkin from Michigan, where there was a synagogue attack,” Duffy began. “She voted every time against funding DHS, and once the threat to her community was real, from radicals, now she says let’s open up DHS.” “I think that begs the question, are Democrats to get hurt, to get killed before they actually put your security before those who have come to this country unlawfully and illegally?” Duffy asked. “I hope that’s not their position, but we can get to a better place if they would just come to their senses and negotiate after they open it up.” Slotkin called for DHS to be funded in the wake of the attack on Temple Israel, during which armed security guards were able to thwart an attacker who crashed his vehicle into the building, armed with a rifle. She had voted with her party against fully funding the Department of Homeland Security, prolonging the partial government shutdown. The partial shutdown, largely driven by Democrat criticisms of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), does not actually impact the funding already carved out for ICE but has cut off pay for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the United States Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), among others.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg appeared to acknowledge that the ongoing Senate standoff over funding the Department of Homeland Security is largely a political dispute rather than a pure funding crisis, conceding in a television interview that immigration enforcement agencies already have substantial funding. The admission came during an appearance Sunday on State of the Union with host Jake Tapper, as Democrats continue blocking a House-passed bill that would fund the entire department. Tapper asked Buttigieg whether Democrats should accept what he described as a partial victory and move to reopen DHS. “Don’t you think Democrats should take what’s something of a win and start funding DHS again?” Tapper asked. Buttigieg responded by arguing that Republicans were blocking Democratic proposals to fund most parts of the department while negotiations continue over immigration enforcement agencies. “I think Republicans should stop blocking the Democratic proposals to fund all of DHS including TSA and other parts, except for the parts that should be negotiated over which is ICE and Customs and Border Patrol,” Buttigieg said. “Remember ICE has already gotten tens of billions of dollars of funding — it’s larger than many of the world’s militaries.” Democrat Pete Buttigieg admits Democrats are the ones shutting down DHS knowing ICE is already funded. BUTTIGIEG: “ICE has already gotten…funding.” pic.twitter.com/EVFsBEOzwA — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 15, 2026 The comments come as Senate Democrats have repeatedly voted to block a motion to proceed on a House-passed funding bill for DHS. The latest vote failed 51–46, short of the 60 votes needed to advance. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans to move the legislation forward. Democrats have argued that the bill should not advance because it includes funding for ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) without changes to immigration enforcement practices. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Democrats want reforms that would require immigration agents to operate more like traditional law enforcement. “We all know that we do not have agreement on how to deal with ICE,” Schumer said before the vote. “Democrats just want ICE to behave like any police department in America and use warrants and not wear masks.” He added on the Senate floor on Thursday, “Who’s standing in the way? America, look at it. We’re not putting any preconditions on funding TSA; the Republicans are.” Republicans argue the stalemate is the result of Democrats refusing to fund core immigration enforcement agencies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said GOP negotiators had repeatedly offered compromise proposals, including a short-term resolution that would reopen the entire department. “There have been offers made repeatedly,” Thune said on the Senate floor, urging lawmakers to fund not only the Transportation Security Administration but also agencies such as the United States Coast Guard and FEMA. Democrats, meanwhile, attempted to pass funding bills for individual components of DHS, including the TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA. Republicans blocked those efforts, trying to keep the funding package whole, to prevent what would essentially be an unlegislated freeze on ICE and CBP. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) accused Democrats of political “gamesmanship” on the Senate floor. “The Democrats do not want to fund the Coast Guard because they’re hell-bent on defunding ICE,” Schmitt said. Buttigieg’s remarks highlighting the existing funding levels for ICE could add a new dimension to the debate, as lawmakers continue to clash over whether the standoff is about government funding or broader disagreements over immigration enforcement policy.