Spend five minutes on social media and you might think the conservative movement is falling apart. Republicans are arguing about a lot these days, from foreign policy to strategy for the next election. Healthy debate is part of politics. But while those arguments dominate the headlines, something far more significant is happening quietly in the background. Conservatives are starting to win the culture war again. And the recent collapse of the proposed Netflix–Warner Bros. Discovery deal is a perfect example. Netflix sought to absorb the company, which would have created an even larger streaming giant with massive influence over what Americans watch and, increasingly, what messages they are expected to absorb. Hollywood and the streaming industry no longer just produce entertainment. They shape culture. They shape narratives. And for years, many of these institutions have leaned heavily into progressive activism and the kind of “woke” messaging that alienates millions of Americans who simply want to enjoy a movie or television show without being lectured. Then the political pressure began. President Trump publicly opposed the merger. Conservative voices raised concerns about media consolidation and about expanding the power of cultural institutions that already lean heavily to the Left. Suddenly, what looked like a routine corporate deal became something else entirely — a cultural flashpoint. And in late February, the deal collapsed. Even more interesting is what happened next. Paramount, another bidder — backed by Larry Ellison, one of the most outspoken pro-Trump voices in American business — stepped forward. That’s not just a business development. It’s a signal. For years, conservatives were told the culture war was unwinnable. Hollywood was too powerful. Silicon Valley was too dominant. Corporate America had permanently aligned itself with progressive politics. The message from the Left was simple: accept it. But over the past few years, conservatives discovered something important: pressure works. Bud Light learned that lesson the hard way. A tone-deaf marketing campaign sparked one of the most successful consumer boycotts in modern American history. Billions in market value evaporated and one of the country’s most recognizable brands suffered lasting damage. Cracker Barrel experienced similar backlash when customers pushed back against progressive messaging that had little to do with serving breakfast. Now Netflix is feeling that same pressure. For years, corporate executives believed they could align openly with progressive activism without facing real consequences. Diversity bureaucracies expanded. Political messaging crept into advertising campaigns, entertainment content, as well as corporate statements. The assumption was that conservatives might complain, but they would keep buying the product. That assumption is no longer safe. Businesses respond to incentives. They always have. When conservative consumers stay quiet, companies drift Left. When conservative consumers push back, companies suddenly start reconsidering their strategy. The Biden years showed what happens when one side dominates the cultural conversation. Progressive activists shaped corporate messaging. DEI programs spread rapidly across major institutions. Hollywood and streaming companies increasingly reflected the worldview of a narrow ideological class in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. How many culture-war victories did conservatives get during those years? Not many. But elections change incentives. President Trump’s election sent a clear signal: the cultural dominance of the Left was no longer inevitable. Corporate leaders began to realize that tens of millions of Americans were no longer willing to be dismissed or mocked by the cultural institutions that dominate entertainment and media. Does this mean conservatives suddenly control Hollywood? Of course not. The entertainment industry will remain overwhelmingly liberal for the foreseeable future. But the dynamic has changed. For the first time in a long time, the cultural institutions that shape American entertainment are being forced to recognize that half the country will no longer sit quietly while those institutions push politics into every corner of popular culture. That recognition alone represents a major shift. Conservatives win when they stay engaged. When they vote. When they speak up. And when they refuse to accept the idea that cultural power belongs exclusively to elites in Hollywood, Manhattan, and Silicon Valley. The culture war isn’t decided in one election or one corporate deal. It’s a long struggle over the values that shape American life. But corporate America is beginning to understand something it ignored for years: pressure works. Bud Light learned it. Cracker Barrel learned it. And now Netflix is learning it too. * * * Jason Chaffetz served as a member of the U.S. Congress from 2009 to 2017. He chaired the House Oversight Committee. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A peculiar ritual has emerged on Sunday afternoons in online evangelical discourse. After the benediction, after the coffee, after lunch, some settle in to read David French at The New York Times. He is, after all, a self-proclaimed evangelical and political conservative (this, despite using his platform to repeatedly hector evangelicals for all their supposed shortcomings, namely, voting overwhelmingly for Donald Trump). This past Sunday, French turned his column into something of a paean to James Talarico, the freshly minted Texas Democratic Senate nominee who has parlayed his Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary enrollment into a national brand. French called Talarico a “Christian X-ray” and reframed the country’s primary political divide not as Left versus Right but as decent versus indecent. The implication, apparently, is that a smiling seminarian who talks about love, who denies essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and who supports unfettered access to abortion and affirms gender ideology represents the decent side in opposition to “MAGA Christianity” that trades virtue for cruelty. In truth, Talarico is a walking caricature of the very worst elements of progressive Christianity, coupled with his Boy Scoutish looks and deep Southern folksiness. To be fair to French, he does note his disagreements with Talarico. That caveat deserves acknowledgment. But a caveat buried in a column is not a serious engagement. It is a cover for a bait-and-switch that occurs later in the column. While espousing heresy is a grave error for Talarico, only slightly less severe is papering over doctrinal errors and legitimizing them on the pages of The New York Times, as French has done. And French gets something else right before we can understand where he goes wrong. French has consistently and correctly argued that too many Christians have, at times, embraced a pragmatic ethic when evaluating Donald Trump. That is a real problem, and character defenses that are, in fact, indefensible can cheapen Christian witness. Paul’s instruction to Timothy is not optional: “Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim. 4:16). But in my estimate, I do not regard Donald Trump as a Christian (even while I maintain the importance of upholding good character for all politicians). The framing French relies upon is more acutely applied to Talarico than to Donald Trump. Doctrine and character go hand in glove. The Christian moral tradition has never treated them as divisible, even as we understand that on-the-ground politicians do not always neatly align with Christian desires. But what French is doing is far worse than the hypocrisy he accuses “MAGA Christians” of; he’s now embarking on a final phase of his transformation by downplaying doctrine and elevating practice, which is a historic trajectory seen in the journey toward theological progressivism. And here is the difficulty. French is making, in his treatment of Talarico, the precise error he has spent years denouncing, an error that malforms Christianity as a packaged whole. He is accepting the appeal of a charming political figure while setting aside the doctrinal catastrophe underneath. He is doing with progressive Christianity exactly what he accuses MAGA Christians of doing with Donald Trump: trading away sound doctrine for the aesthetic satisfaction of a candidate who seems nicer, nay, “decent.” But consider: Talarico says, “God is non-binary.” He supports the dismemberment of unborn children in the name of reproductive freedom. He does all of this with the backing of Christian moralism. He publicly positions Christian faith as the engine for a progressive political program that would have been unrecognizable to any historic expression of the Christian tradition. This is not a candidate with some character flaws. This is a candidate whose stated theology repudiates the faith he claims to represent. The Apostle Paul did not admonish his readers to focus solely on their ethics. He also admonished them to watch their doctrine, and to understand that the two cannot be disaggregated. Kindness is a genuine Christian virtue. It is not sufficient. A kind heretic is still a heretic. A man who speaks about Jesus with warmth while denying the moral order that Christ himself affirmed is not a Christian statesman. He is a wolf in a very well-pressed suit (Matt. 7:15). What French is doing in his column is making an unbiblical tradeoff—accepting the legitimacy of bankrupt doctrine under the ethics of character while accepting Talarico’s dubious, silver-tongued deceitfulness. What is saddest about French’s column is not the argument itself, but what the argument reveals. There is a deep and corrosive bitterness driving it. His contempt for conservative Christians who have voted for Trump has mutated over time into something uglier: a reflexive and condescending derision of anyone who refuses to share his political judgments, dressed up as prophetic moral clarity. Let us all take a lesson that deep-seated rage at Donald Trump and his Christian supporters does not justify placating doctrinal error. When you begin describing a progressive politician who affirms abortion as a “Christian X-ray” that illuminates the failures of orthodox Christians, you have not elevated your commentary. You have descended into trollish editorializing with a more elite platform. And here is the frustrating thing: none of this requires choosing between character and moral substance. Christians are perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum. We can and should refuse to excuse indefensible behavior from any politician, Republican or Democrat. We can acknowledge that character matters across the board. And we can simultaneously recognize that there are genuine, serious moral asymmetries between the two major party platforms on questions near and dear to evangelicals, namely abortion, human dignity, and religious liberty. Recognizing those asymmetries is not capitulation to MAGA Christianity. It is an honest moral assessment of less-than-ideal political realities. Progressive Christianity is not Christianity. Any movement, and any thirty-something seminarian, that denies the core doctrines of the Christian faith has not offered a fresh reading of the tradition. It has departed from the tradition. The tradition has a word for that departure. It is called heresy. And anyone, including certain New York Times columnists, who aids and abets such departures by insisting they still count as authentic Christianity, is not offering serious commentary on the Christian faith. It is offering theological malpractice to a very large audience. * * * Andrew T. Walker is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

One of the suspects accused of throwing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at protesters outside the New York City mayor’s residence purchased materials used in the attack just days beforehand at a Pennsylvania fireworks store, according to a report. Emir Balat, 18, allegedly bought a roll of safety fuse at a Phantom Fireworks store in Penndel, Pennsylvania, on March 2, five days before the incident near Gracie Mansion, the official residence of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, according to surveillance video obtained by CBS News. The footage reportedly shows Balat entering the store at 12:46 p.m. and purchasing a 20-foot roll of safety fuse for $6.89. “Coming in and buying that was uneventful,” Phantom Fireworks Vice President and General Counsel William Weimer told CBS News. “Had he bought 20 rolls of fuse, it might have raised eyebrows. But buying one or two items of anything in this store is almost a nonevent.” Emir Balat, the 18-year-old Muslim from Pennsylvania charged with terrorism for throwing two homemade bombs into a anti-Muslim crowd near Gracie Mansion on Saturday, reportedly bought the fuse used in the devices at Phantom Fireworks in Penndel, a Philadelphia suburb, on March 2.… pic.twitter.com/EHBslRqvyz — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 10, 2026 The FBI is investigating the attack as a potential act of terrorism. In a statement on Monday, FBI Director Kash Patel said, “The defendants allegedly support ISIS and tried to follow the path of that deadly group by attempting to detonate explosive devices in a crowd. The FBI and our partners have no tolerance for terrorist organizations or those inspired by them to engage in attacks. We are committed to stopping acts of violence and will hold accountable those who seek to harm our citizens.” The FBI contacted the company’s national security director on Monday, Weimer said. Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi, 19, both residents of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, are accused of traveling to New York City on Saturday to participate in a counter-protest against an anti-Islam demonstration organized by influencer Jake Lang. Video from the scene shows Balat throwing an ignited device toward police near the mayor’s residence. It has since been identified as an IED. According to the Associated Press, the first device struck a barrier and extinguished itself near officers. Balat allegedly ran away, retrieved a second device from Kayumi, lit it, and began running with it before dropping it. Law enforcement sources told CBS News the devices consisted of sports-drink bottles containing explosive material placed inside glass jars and packed with fragmentation such as nuts and bolts. The investigation has expanded beyond the initial attack, with law enforcement probing whether additional explosive materials were staged near the scene. A day after the attempted bombing outside Gracie Mansion, the New York City Police Department shut down nearby streets after officers discovered another suspicious device inside a parked vehicle on East End Avenue, only blocks from the mayor’s residence. Officials later determined the device did not pose an immediate threat, but investigators said the discovery underscored the seriousness of the incident and the possibility that additional materials tied to the suspects could still be uncovered. Authorities have also uncovered additional evidence linked to the two suspects in Pennsylvania. During searches connected to the case, investigators located explosive residue in a storage unit tied to the suspects and conducted controlled detonations as part of the investigation, according to federal officials. Prosecutors said Balat later told police he was inspired by ISIS and wanted the attack to be “even bigger” than the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. Balat and Kayumi have been charged with five counts related to terrorism and possession of explosive materials. Federal prosecutors say an indictment is expected.

Oil prices have dropped for two straight days following previous surges, having hit four-year highs on Monday before logging the biggest single-day percentage drop since 2022. Oil prices plunged on Tuesday when Secretary of Energy Chris Wright claimed in an X post that the U.S. Navy successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz. Brent Crude dropped to around $81 per barrel, according to MarketWatch. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt corrected that claim in her Tuesday afternoon press briefing, which sent oil prices back up, with Brent Crude closing around $91 per barrel. “I can confirm that the U.S. Navy has not escorted a tanker or a vessel at this time, though, of course, that’s an option that the president has said he will absolutely utilize if and when necessary at the appropriate time,” Leavitt said. Using the U.S. Navy to escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil travels, is just one of the options the Trump administration has announced that would bring down prices. The administration ordered the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to offer political risk insurance to tankers operating in the Gulf. Insurance policies covering a vessel traveling through the strait have reportedly jumped by as much as 37.5%, while others were canceled altogether. In addition, the Treasury Department lifted oil sanctions — most notably on Friday, when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent issued a temporary 30-day lift allowing India to buy Russian oil. Senate Democrats criticized the decision to lift oil sanctions, writing in a statement, “Now is not the time to clear the way for sales for Russian oil majors and Russian-owned and shadow fleet vessels.” Bessent argued that the lifted sanctions were narrow in scope and would not provide a substantial financial benefit to the Russian government. Russia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia lead the world in oil production.

If you asked someone to name a famous dystopian novel, they’d probably come up with something like George Orwell’s “1984” or “Animal Farm.” Or maybe they’d mention “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury. Or if they’re younger, something like “The Hunger Games.” These are all very well-known works of dystopian fiction, and pretty much every school forces students to read at least one of them. What’s interesting about all of these novels is that, in every case, the threat comes from within. You have the dictatorship “The Capitol” in “The Hunger Games,” Big Brother and “The Party” in 1984, the tyrannical pigs in “Animal Farm,” and the fire captain in “Fahrenheit 451.” That’s not a knock against the novels, but it’s worth pointing out. This is the “safe” message that’s approved to teach, in every school in the country. Students are bombarded with the message that domestic authoritarianism is the greatest threat. And then when these students grow up, unsurprisingly enough, many of them are sympathetic to Left-wing messaging about the alleged rise of “fascism” in the United States. But there is one dystopian novel that focuses on an external threat to a sovereign nation. And appropriately enough, this dystopian novel — unlike all the other ones I mentioned — has been censored relentlessly. No school in the United States will assign it. If you mention that you’ve even read this novel, you’ll instantly be labeled a white supremacist by the editors of The Atlantic. Reading this novel amounts to “wrongthink.” It was first published in the 1970s, but it was quickly dropped by major publishers because it was seen as racist and offensive. Currently, it’s only in print because of a small independent publishing house called “Vauban Books.” I’m talking about the book called “The Camp of the Saints,” by the French author Jean Raspail. Contrary to what you’re told, this book is not a “white supremacist” screed. Nor is it concerned solely with the rise of domestic “fascism.” Instead, “The Camp of the Saints” is about a threat that’s external to a sovereign nation — specifically, the threat of unchecked mass migration. As the author puts it, the book is not about “Big Brother.” It’s about “Big Other.” This is one dystopian plotline that you really aren’t supposed to read. But if you do read the book, you’ll quickly come across dialogue that doesn’t exactly mince words, and characters that aren’t exactly subtle. Certainly, back in the 1970s, the novel might have seemed a little over-the-top and hard to believe. For instance, in the very first chapter, a million foreigners from India are on boats, rapidly heading towards the coast of southern France. And as the foreign armada approaches, a white French hippie barges into the home of an old professor. And the hippie can’t contain his excitement about the foreign flood that’s descending on France, his home country. He states, Tomorrow, we won’t recognize this country anymore. It’s going to be reborn. … My real family is all the people coming off those boats. Now I have a million brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. A million wives. And then he talks about how he’s going to marry one of the foreigners, and all of his friends are going to do the same thing. And eventually, there won’t be any white people left in France. I won’t spoil the surprise of what the professor does to this hippie — it’s a book that’s worth reading, is all I’m going to say — but you get the idea. The book is full of quotes like this. And honestly, if you were a reader in France in the 1970s, the dialogue may have seemed fairly unconvincing. After all, who would actually welcome a horde of impoverished foreigners who were in the process of invading their home country? In real life, how many people would have so little respect for their own country, and harbor such obsessive disdain for their own skin color, that they would welcome the invasion of a million hostile migrants from a distant land? It’s been half a century since “The Camp of the Saints” was published. It’s still one of the only dystopian novels that you’re not allowed to talk about in polite company. But if there was ever any question of whether the characters in the novel were a little over-the-top and unbelievable, that conversation has now ended, as of today. After what just happened in New York City, we can definitively state that, if anything, “The Camp of the Saints” dramatically undersold the extent of the anti-white and anti-civilizational depravity that would take hold in the West. The book was ahead of its time, in other words. As of 2026, everyday Leftists walking around the streets of New York have far more suicidal empathy — and harbor far more anti-white hatred — than any character depicted in “The Camp of the Saints.” We briefly discussed the terrorist attack in New York yesterday. But in particular, we need to focus on how a man named “Walter Masterson” — who was present during the attack — responded to what he experienced. Masterson was in front of the Mayor’s residence demonstrating in favor of more migration to the United States. He was chanting, through a megaphone, that New York welcomes everyone. And then, as he was saying this, one of the Muslim terrorists jumps up behind him, yells “Allah Akbar” and throws a bomb at the conservative activist Jake Lang. This is some of the most extraordinary footage you’ll ever see. There are two angles: Watch: I was in the middle of saying “as a born and raised New Yorker, we welcome everyone into this city” when he threw that over my head. pic.twitter.com/i5iD3MVf7h — Walter Masterson (@waltermasterson) March 8, 2026 Source: @waltermasterson/X.com