President Donald Trump on Saturday blasted Iran in a fiery Truth Social post as fighting in the region continues, claiming the regime has apologized to its neighbors and pledged to stop launching missiles at other Middle Eastern countries following sustained U.S. and Israeli military pressure. “Iran, which is being beat to HELL, has apologized and surrendered to its Middle East neighbors, and promised that it will not shoot at them anymore,” Trump wrote. “Iran is no longer the ‘Bully of the Middle East,’ they are, instead, ‘THE LOSER OF THE MIDDLE EAST.’” Trump argued the promise was only made because of what he described as relentless joint pressure from the United States and Israel. Over 40% of Iran’s drones and missiles have been launched at UAE over the past week. pic.twitter.com/b7dXMDrWWK — Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) March 7, 2026 The comments come as new data on Iran’s missile campaign reveals a broader regional targeting pattern than initially understood. According to updated tracking figures, more than 40 percent of Iranian missile launches during the current conflict have been directed at the United Arab Emirates, totaling more than 1,200 missiles, making it the most heavily targeted country in the region. By comparison, roughly 20 percent of Iran’s missiles have been fired toward Israel. The remaining launches have been spread across several neighboring Middle Eastern countries, highlighting the wider regional scope of the conflict. The distribution challenges early assumptions that Israel was the primary target of Iran’s missile campaign. Instead, the data suggest Tehran has directed a significant portion of its attacks toward Gulf states and other regional actors amid the widening war. President Masoud Pezeshkian, one member of the three-man leadership council overseeing the country after the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, released a video message apologizing to neighboring countries struck by Iranian missiles, according to the Associated Press. “I should apologize to the neighboring countries that were attacked by Iran, on my own behalf,” Pezeshkian said. “From now on, they should not attack neighboring countries or fire missiles at them, unless we are attacked by those countries. I think we should solve this through diplomacy.” Despite this, Trump’s post also warned that further military action against Iran could be imminent. In the same post, he wrote that Iran “will be hit very hard today,” suggesting the United States and its allies are considering expanding their list of targets inside the country. Trump added that “areas and groups of people” previously not under consideration are now being evaluated for strikes because of what he described as Iran’s “bad behavior,” though he did not specify which targets could be affected. The comments come as U.S. and Israeli forces continue operations against Iranian military infrastructure and regional proxy networks as the conflict enters its second week. Trump’s post also claimed officials around the Middle East had privately expressed gratitude toward him, writing that leaders had said “Thank you President Trump,” to which he responded, “You’re welcome.” The president further asserted that Iran’s regional ambitions had been decisively checked, saying the regime had sought to “take over and rule the Middle East,” but had now suffered a historic defeat. “It is the first time that Iran has ever lost, in thousands of years, to surrounding Middle Eastern countries,” Trump wrote. The escalating rhetoric comes as tensions across the region remain high and military operations continue; the conflict could expand further depending on Iran’s next moves in response to the president’s comments and the coming strikes on Saturday.

The IRS and the Department of Treasury released a series of rules regarding eligibility and procedures for Trump Accounts yesterday. Under the Trump Accounts, which were part of the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” the federal government will mark the birth of U.S. citizens by depositing $1,000 into a deferred, low-cost index fund, The Daily Wire previously reported. While the accounts start at $1,000, families and others can contribute up to $5,000 total per year per child, including employer contributions. Parents have until Dec. 31 of the calendar year in which their child turns 17 to open the initial account, the IRS said in a press release. “Trump Accounts are a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up this generation and generations to follow and unlock the American Dream,” IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said in the release. “Creating Trump Accounts was one of the most important provisions in President Trump’s historic One, Big, Beautiful Bill, and these regulations are an example of the hard work of Treasury and the IRS in developing the guidance needed to ensure that eligible families can take advantage of Trump Accounts.” Parents can open the account with Form 4547 when filing taxes or through a separate online portal, the IRS said. Instructions for opening an account can be found online. The IRS said the person who opens the account will be responsible for it. For a child to be eligible for the accounts, he must have been born between 2025–2028, be a U.S. citizen, and have a valid Social Security number. Parents can choose to receive the initial $1,000 when they open the account. If they choose not to claim it then, individuals who can claim the pilot amount are, in order: a legal guardian, a parent, an adult sibling, and a grandparent. “It is a trust fund, a piece of the American economy for every child that they will be able to take out when they are 18, or they could convert it to a more IRA-type program,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in December. In February, Bessent said about two million forms for three million children have been filed for the Trump Accounts, according to CNBC. “They’ll be getting a big jump on life,” President Donald Trump said last year of the babies benefitting from the accounts. The program will officially launch in July 2026.

When President Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for HHS Secretary in late 2024, some Beltway Republicans tried to tank his nomination. For conservatives, these critics’ strongest argument was that Kennedy was for decades a liberal Democrat who supported abortion on demand. I’m a pro-life conservative. So why did I, along with millions of others like me, support Kennedy’s nomination and tell skeptical pro-life critics to give him the benefit of the doubt? For me, the story starts with the COVID lockdowns in 2020. I spent the better part of that year co-authoring the first book to make the case that locking down the population would do far more harm than good. COVID was the greatest test of wisdom and courage in a generation. Most public officials, from both parties, failed the test. Kennedy aced it. The raspy-voiced lawyer helped millions of Americans see the dangers of a “biomedical security state” that blurred the binary mental map of free versus communist countries that had served us well during the Cold War. That framework was of limited value for fighting this new, domestic threat to our civil and medical freedom: a corporatist state. Post-Covid, millions of Americans realized our problem was not just Big Government or Big Business. The problem is, in effect, a cartel that blurs the lines of public and private — one often enabled by a corporate media too dependent on ad revenue to speak truth to the real power. The lockdowns and draconian vaccine mandates taught another lesson: past partisan ties do not guarantee good future results. For many of us, resisting the COVID-inspired assaults on our liberty was a better credential than party affiliation. This is one of several reasons millions of conservative voters began to warm to Kennedy, even if they planned to vote for Donald Trump in the general election. And that latent support for Kennedy exploded after he announced his support for Donald Trump on August 23, 2024. This was no mere marriage of convenience. It was the first sign of a political realignment. No doubt many staunch progressives abandoned Kennedy when he endorsed Donald Trump. But many independents and disgruntled Democrats stayed. A new MAGA-MAHA coalition was born. What made Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump truly historic was the topic he chose to elevate — one of deep concern to tens of millions of American families across the political spectrum but mostly missing from our two major party platforms: the staggering rise of chronic diseases among American children. As HHS secretary, Kennedy has made the fight against childhood chronic disease his lodestar. And despite constant efforts by critics to paint him as extreme, almost everyone is now taking chronic disease seriously. But what about the year-old charge that Kennedy would be a cheerleader for abortion? It was wrong. As HHS Secretary, he lacks the power to stop all abortions or close every Planned Parenthood clinic. Kennedy must also work within the constraints of the president who nominated him. But within Kennedy’s remit, his actions have been encouraging. Last September, for instance, he announced a new FDA review of the safety and approval process of the abortion pill mifepristone. Abortion advocates are not pleased. After all, in a Post-Roe world, most abortions are chemical, not surgical. In late January, he beefed up federal conscience safeguards for healthcare workers. This protects providers from being forced to participate in abortions or other procedures. This includes new policy guidance and investigations into violations. Most dramatically, he has just barred HHS-funded research from using human fetal tissue from elective abortions. Pro-life Americans have asked for this ban for decades. The practice continued even during the tenure of NIH director Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, who explicitly defended it. Like Nixon visiting China, I hope Kennedy will do more to defend pre-born human life. It’s not a vain hope. During one telling interview last year, Kennedy denounced a CDC publication that listed “abortion” as one of the top 10 health achievements of the 20th century. The press “fact-checked” the comment, since the document he likely had in mind listed “family planning” rather than “abortion.” (Pro-life advocates recognize the family planning as a euphemism for abortion.) But most missed the crucial “tell”: Kennedy recoiled from the notion that abortion could be cited as a health care achievement. For pro-life conservatives, supporting Kennedy’s nomination posed some risk. One year in, however, my choice to support Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is an easy one. * * * Jay W. Richards, PhD, is Vice President for Social and Domestic Policy at The Heritage Foundation. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Javier Milei’s economic revolution represents more than a policy pivot; it’s a moral restoration of economic freedom in a country long suffocated by political patronage and false populism. For over half a century, Argentina sabotaged its own potential through destructive experiments in statism. Now, at last, a government in Buenos Aires is aligning economic reality with moral clarity: wealth is created by entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats. This return to first principles is rekindling optimism not only among Argentines but across a region desperate for proof that markets and democracy still deliver shared prosperity. One crucial reform remains for President Milei: fulfilling his campaign promise to replace the discredited peso with the U.S. dollar, which would slay the inflation dragon once and for all. Other Latin American nations have successfully done this. This weekend, President Milei will join President Donald Trump in Miami, where several Latin American leaders will discuss a renewed hemispheric push for pro-growth cooperation. The very fact that Argentina now sits at such a table signals how far it has come in restoring credibility. A nation once dismissed as ungovernable is suddenly at the center of regional attention, reminding the world that bold ideas grounded in free markets can reshape national destiny. The discussions will also test whether Argentina can sustain reform momentum amid political resistance at home. Shortly afterward, Milei’s administration will host “Argentina Week“ in New York, showcasing opportunities for American investment in energy, agriculture, and finance. The symbolism is powerful: Buenos Aires is stepping out of its long isolation and back into a world governed by trust and transparency. For many investors who had written off Argentina years ago, this gathering marks the ultimate test of Milei’s reforms under political and legal scrutiny that past regimes failed. Clear progress will bring capital home, along with the modern infrastructure, technology, and competition needed to reinvigorate Argentina’s middle class and stabilize its currency. Markets, however, are built on trust, not slogans. The outcome of the Petersen v. Republic of Argentina case — a $16 billion judgment tied to the Peronism-driven seizure of the energy company YPF — will test Argentina’s commitment to the rule of law. YPF’s nationalization back in 2012 was another failed experiment of Argentina’s Peronist past – one that resulted in major fallout for American investors. If the government honors that judgment and turns this costly dispute into a milestone of legal redemption, it would signal that the old habits of expropriation are truly over. Refusing to honor that decision would risk undermining the very revival Milei seeks. It would chill investment just as confidence begins to return and cast doubt on Argentina’s reliability as a trading and financial partner. Upholding accountability, by contrast, would not only calm financial markets but also energize entrepreneurs at home, eager to build without fear of arbitrary intervention. It would confirm to foreign investors that Argentina’s new age of reform is anchored in institutions, not personalities. The United States has already shown its faith in Argentina’s reform course. President Trump‘s $20 billion swap line was more than financial aid — it was a vote of confidence that free people and free markets can succeed where socialism failed. That confidence, however, will last only if Argentina maintains predictable legal and economic rules. Milei has shown rare determination by slashing spending, ending price controls, and dismantling the bureaucracies that choked private enterprise. But lasting success depends on consistency: clear rules, sound money (hence the need for dollarization), and dependable institutions. Property rights are the oxygen of capitalism. When governments confiscate, investment dies. When they keep their word, growth flourishes. The temptation to cut corners in the name of short-term relief always lurks nearby. But the only sustainable path forward is steady adherence to economic liberty and institutional reliability. The meetings in Miami and New York offer the ideal stage for Milei to affirm those values — and to show that Argentina’s new direction is not a passing wave but a permanent shift in national character. If Argentina stays this course — resolving old debts, deepening ties with the United States, and proving that freedom and responsibility are inseparable — it can once again become a beacon of prosperity in the Western Hemisphere. The world is watching, and this time Argentina has a real chance to prove that freedom works. * * * Steve Forbes is Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Here we go again. Minnesota’s elected officials have proven that the extreme progressives are in charge in the North Star State, beholden to the radical progressive activists who crawl out of every nook and cranny of the Twin Cities’s prestigious, white, liberal suburbs and exurbs. If you thought this was still the land of the milquetoast, “Minnesota Nice,” I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. In the aftermath of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation that began last summer and ramped up as the White House began cracking down on widespread fraud, Minnesota has been ground zero for purity tests of the far-Left regime. Now, there’s a horse race for the Democrat Farmer Labor candidate for Minnesota’s Senate seat, after current Senator Tina Smith announced her retirement at the end of this term. The race to the Left — or the bottom, depending on which way the political winds are blowing — is between current Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan and Rep. Angie Craig. Both women flash their “girl power” bone fides at every chance, except when they’re appealing to the trans-affirmative activists who claim sex is a social construct, or to the abortion rights radicals who endanger women’s health and applaud the death of baby girls up to the moment of birth. The latest show of extreme views comes from Craig, who, in a commentary in The Minnesota Star Tribune, writes of her “regret” in voting for the Laken Riley Act, the first bill that President Donald Trump signed into law in his second term. It’s “become clear that supporting any bill that gives ICE new authority in this administration was the wrong decision,” Craig writes. She cites the act’s expansion of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to include the detention without bail of noncitizen aliens while their immigration proceedings were pending to nonviolent offenders and provides for detaining aliens who are charged with or convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer. Craig comes to her lament after standing “side by side with protesters on the streets of Minneapolis and opposite dozens of armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Whipple Federal Building.” She makes no mention of the victims of these aliens’ crimes — crimes that put them on the ICE radar and, thanks to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, were free to live as “neighbors” instead of being detained by law enforcement in the local jails. How did her fellow DFL-er and political rival Peggy Flanagan respond? She pounced on it as an inexcusable failing in the moral purity test that the Minnesota extremist cabal uses as the standard operating procedure in politics. Flanagan posted on X a video clip of Craig voicing her support for the bill before her walk-back, adding, “Nothing can undo the damage that has been done.” Shots fired. “Minnesotans want common sense,” Michele Tafoya, a Republican seeking that seat, told The Daily Wire. “We want law and order. But we are run by far Left career politicians who put their own careers ahead of the safety of innocent, law-abiding Minnesotans. Some of them are crazy, some of them are cowards and some of them are both. It has to change.” “Angie Craig turning her back on the Laken Riley Act because her far Left base demands it is a craven act. Moderate Democrats have gone extinct in Minnesota,” she added. In Minnesota, we were offered a bait-and-switch with Walz, who, in statewide elections and in his miserable bid for vice president alongside Kamala Harris, was touted as an American Everyman action figure, complete with a vintage truck, Mountain Dew, and hunting accessories. But his record reveals extremist policies and disdain for the average fellas he was recruited to represent. Walz is one example of a new trend on the Left: Campaign as a moderate and, once elected, push hard-Left, radical policies. California Governor Gavin Newsom has appeared on various conservative platforms with a moderate tone. Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s State of the Union rebuttal last month displayed rank hypocrisy and a laughable attempt at “Moderate Dem” rebranding. Spanberger, who ran as a moderate, is now proposing sweeping, state-wide tax hikes, and criticizing immigration enforcement to the point of denying an ICE detainer for an illegal immigrant with over 30 arrests accused of stabbing a 41-year-old woman to death at a bus stop in Fairfax County. Even socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani leveraged the “affordability” buzzword and an inclusive demeanor to obfuscate sky-high tax policies and his anti-Jewish, anti-Israel history. We’ll continue to see this leftward march, purity tests, and hyperbolic rhetoric in support of these extreme measures — unhindered hormone and surgical procedures on minors for sex transitions, unlimited abortion, allowing males to compete against females in sports and opening bathrooms and locker rooms to all genders — and now siding with criminal aliens against law abiding citizens who truly want their neighborhoods safe rather than be battlegrounds for the latest Karen to proclaim her woke creds with an “ICE OUT” sign and safety whistle. What do you expect from a governor who publicly called ICE officers Nazis and compared them to the Gestapo? Rest in peace to the moderate Democrat who understood the errors of the Biden administration’s open border policy, who saw the damage of crime, rising welfare burdens, failed assimilation, and the deaths of innocent Americans at the hands of illegal aliens, and worked toward a common-sense solution — even (gasp!) voting with Republicans. In fact, high-profile wins like Mamdani’s and Spanberger’s have emboldened the progressive wing, raising the possibility of an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presidential bid in 2028 over a moderate candidate. Bucking the far-Left puts politicians and civilians alike squarely in the fascist camp — just ask former Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips or Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. If you’re a moderate, you’re owed any targeted violence, protest, or condemnation coming your way, even if it’s in a house of worship. How far Left are Democrats willing to go? If it’s a way to rile up the extremist base, keep the spotlight off the bottomless fraud scandals, and make the Trump administration Public Enemy Number One, the sky’s the limit. The extremists are at the wheel, and after flattening any moderates in their party, they’ve backed up the truck, ready for another round of hit-and-run. * * * Jenna Stocker is editor and publisher of American Experiment’s quarterly magazine. A former Marine Corps officer, Stocker also contributes to The Federalist and National Review. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.