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.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** I have a confession to make: Even as a certified conservative, I miss loving the Oscars. I miss the anticipation of those Sunday nights. I miss the domestic clatter of it — the clanging of dishes in the kitchen, the gathering of popcorn, the descent into the basement to park myself before the glow of the television. I miss the shared post-mortem with my mother, dissecting hemlines and styling choices, simply admiring the objective beauty of the spectacle. Mostly, I miss loving what it celebrated: actors working at the top of their craft, called into a vocation with a unique sway over the human heart. Men and women tasked with reminding us of the dignity of the human experience — making us, especially as children, yearn for experiences we’d not yet had, feelings we’d had no occasion to feel. Actors reminding us that beauty exists, pointing us to its source, and ultimately helping people make meaning of their own stories within the ultimate one. The Hollywood class still believes the Oscars matter to the public in this way. They are sadly mistaken. The country stopped tuning in years ago. In 1998, when the ceremony was still a shared national ritual and “Titanic” swept the board, 57 million of us watched. Through the early 2000s, broadcasts often drew over 40 million viewers; even into the 2010s, over 30 million was common. By 2021, however, the ceremony had hit an all-time low of 10.4 million. Despite a modest rebound lately to roughly 19-20 million, the audience remains a ghost of its former self. Hollywood’s “national event” now resonates almost exclusively within Hollywood. The box office tells the same story. Many of this year’s nominees barely register as movies you’d actually go see on a Saturday night. Among the 2026 Best Picture contenders, a few grossed modestly well: “F1,” “Sinners,” and “One Battle After Another.” Most others were tiny in comparison: “Bugonia” has grossed around $40 million and “Sentimental Value” $22 million worldwide. Several played only at festivals or in limited art-house runs. These movies, praised in niche circles, were largely invisible to the rest of the country. Even when the ceremony pulls 20 million viewers, it is not America in the round. The audience skews older, wealthier, and disproportionately coastal; Los Angeles, New York, and other urban markets register above the national average. Many younger Americans aren’t interested at all. This is a cluster of affluent, urban viewers watching a show that reflects their own tastes and values — a clear marker of the gulf between Middle America and the coasts. The Great Divide in black tie. Why? Why have the Oscars become so siloed, watched mostly by an older, affluent, coastal audience while the rest of the country looks outward, upward, anywhere else? I believe it comes down to what we choose to celebrate. I’m not talking about the applause when winners wade up the stairs in heels and floor-length gowns. I mean everything else: the movies themselves, and the values embedded in them. The divide runs deeper than taste. It’s a question of what art is for. The late philosopher Roger Scruton wrote often of beauty as the form through which the sacred manifests itself to us. He warned that art fails when it abandons beauty for provocation alone. He was onto something. Too many Oscar favorites today have stopped prizing cinematic beauty or harmony of form. Instead, they prize “perceived importance” — trauma-laden narratives, abrasive aesthetics, and a certain grim moral instruction. The numbers tell the story of a public that feels lectured rather than lifted. According to a recent Rasmussen report, 54% of Americans believe movies have gotten worse over the past two decades, while only 27% say they’ve improved. Hollywood is delivering lectures instead of entertainment and wondering why half the country has stopped watching. “Assumed liberalism,” a term I leaned heavily on in theater school, runs through host monologues, speeches, and acceptance remarks alike. Americans with differing worldviews — the majority of the country, it turns out — must sift through leftist jargon just to figure out who won Best Picture. As Ross Douthat puts it, the Oscars have become a “boutique affair for American liberals,” a ceremony prioritizing social commentary and niche arthouse films over popular, mainstream cinema. It is also, in his words, a “venue for liberal soapboxing,” where ideology is celebrated as artistry, and the rest of the country is largely left out. Of course, there are other culprits. Short-form media has fractured our attention; the pandemic bruised the theater-going habit; streaming platforms have made us all shut-ins. But those are the mechanics of the decline, not the heart of it. The heart of the problem is what the Oscars now define as worthy of our attention. The result is a cultural echo chamber — a narrow slice of Americans celebrating messages that resonate little beyond their own zip codes. Some conservatives are happy about this; vindictive, even. I don’t count myself among them. The country needs these silly, glittering nights more than we like to admit — moments when we can look at the stars and see something of ourselves in them: our dignity, our aspirations, and our common story. *** Grace Salvatore is senior editor of media, arts, and culture for Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Restoring the West and a contributor to Independent Women’s Voice. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A violent synagogue terror attack in Michigan is taking on an even darker dimension after new intelligence revealed a chilling connection: the attacker’s brother was a Hezbollah terrorist commander responsible for rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. According to the official Israel Defense Forces social media account, Hezbollah commander Ibrahim Muhammad Ghazalioversaw weapons operations inside the group’s Badr Unit, a branch responsible for launching hundreds of rockets toward Israeli civilian areas during the war. His brother, Ayman Muhammad Ghazali, carried out the terror attack in Michigan on Thursday, where armed synagogue security guards exchanged gunfire with him during the confrontation. His body was later found burned inside the vehicle he rammed into the building. Israeli forces reportedly eliminated Ibrahim Ghazali in an Israeli Air Force strike on a Hezbollah military structure, just days before the synagogue attack unfolded in the United States. The newly revealed family connection is now prompting investigators to take a closer look at whether the Michigan attacker had deeper ties to the Iran-backed terror group. Hezbollah is designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization. The group has spent decades building global networks while carrying out attacks against Israeli and Western targets. Authorities have not yet said whether the suspect had direct operational ties to Hezbollah or whether the attack was carried out independently. But the discovery that his brother served as a weapons commander inside the group is likely to intensify scrutiny around the case. The synagogue attack already sent shockwaves through Jewish communities across the United States. Now investigators are working to determine whether the suspect’s background, contacts, or family connections point to any broader links.Federal authorities continue to investigate the suspect’s motive and whether anyone else may have been involved.