On Friday’s CNN This Morning, Democratic panelist Maria Cardona treated $200 billion in Iran war spending as excessive—echoing the party’s familiar line about struggling American families—despite years of Democrats pushing far larger spending on their own priorities. Never-Trumper Michael Warren of The Dispatch joined in, arguing there has been “no case made” for the war—not to “the American people…foreign allies…[or] even to members of Congress.” Host Audie Cornish largely followed that line, even as she acknowledged the U.S. has “done a lot to diminish Iran’s capabilities,” and suggested the debate could shift as questions arise about whether to “finish the job.” But it was Cardona who made the affordability argument explicit: “When you ask for $200 billion… and you have American families who can't make ends meet?” Cardona also flatly accused the Bush administration of lying about the justification for war after 9/11—an assertion that appeared to conflate the U.S. response in Afghanistan with the later Iraq war and disputed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Cornish reinforced Cardona’s affordability talking point, framing the issue as “horseshoe politics,” suggesting that both parties are raising concerns about spending abroad while Americans struggle at home. Criticism came from a Democratic partisan and a Never-Trump conservative—but no one was brought on to actually defend the spending or explain the administration’s rationale. Cardona’s sudden concern over $200 billion raises an obvious question: where was that concern when Democrats pushed programs costing far more? CNN Dem: $200B ‘Too Much’—When Trump Spends It pic.twitter.com/OnuXLasJkR — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) March 20, 2026   The Paycheck Protection Program during COVID totaled more than $800 billion and was rife with fraud. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act included roughly $370 billion in climate spending. Meanwhile, improper payments in Medicare and Medicaid run into tens of billions every year—adding up to well over $200 billion in just a few years. Those sums rarely provoke the kind of concern seen on CNN Friday morning. For Democrats, $200 billion is outrageous—unless they’re the ones spending it. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 3/20/26 6:07 am EDT MICHAEL WARREN: There's been no case made, no sustained and consistent and frequent case from the president either before, certainly before that this war happened, and now, since the war has started, [Maria Cardona nods head in agreement] not to the American people, not to foreign allies, not to allies within his party, and not even to members of Congress.  And I think that these questions are the kind of questions that Congress is supposed to ask. I have a feeling that they're gonna find this $200 billion for this, but it's gonna be difficult.  AUDIE CORNISH: I was about to say, are they really gonna stop once you have so many people in the theater of war? We're not at boots yet. We're gonna talk about that later, about whether or not there'll be troops on the ground in some capacity.  But it's fair to say, the US has done a lot to diminish Iran's capabilities. Can you say no now, when there's the potential to finish the job by whatever metric that is?  WARREN: Right. Well, it's also confusing because the president says the job is already done and yet we need more money.  . . .  CORNISH: And then Democrats can jump on that. Can you make sense of the messaging here?  MARIA CARDONA: Yeah, absolutely. And you're right. He has not made the case not only to Congress or to the allies, but more importantly to the American people.  And this is where I -- CORNISH: Do you think that would make a difference, though? Like, when I think back to the forever wars, you know, 9-11, the U.S. was attacked, okay? It was not imminent. It happened. And it changed the public opinion and atmosphere. And gave a lot of leeway to those administrations after.  CARDONA: That's right. But do you know why? Because they actually, I mean, they at least had the audacity and the courage to tell us a lie about why we went to war after 9-11.  They went to Congress. They made the case publicly. It ended up being wrong in the end, but at least they made the case.  CORNISH: So you're saying that's what helped with public opinion.  CARDONA: Yes, absolutely. Because they gathered everyone, and said this is about and they actually made sense. The problem here is every time that there's a microphone in front of Trump or Rubio or Hegseth, they say something different.  And then when you ask for 200 billion dollars after you spend a billion dollars from the start of the war, and you have American families who can't make ends meet? That I think -- CORNISH: We're going to follow up on that, because in the horseshoe politics of this, you hear both Republicans and some Democrats saying there are people here in the U.S. who need support. CARDONA: Yup. CORNISH: And that can really alter the conversation.

PBS News Hour anchor William Brangham and MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart tried on Friday to cast doubt on President Trump’s proclamations of military success. However, to do that, they had to employ a definition of success that would be impossible for any war to achieve. Making matters worse, The Atlantic’s David Brooks just finished hyping the possibility that Iran will no longer be a regional power, but Brangham was still keen to try to score points against Trump, “But in the interim, Jonathan, we're still in this position where Iran, although the president says their military has been utterly destroyed, they are showing, in that zero percent that they allegedly have left, remarkable tenacity to punish other Gulf states, to destroy critical oil and gas infrastructure. I mean, analysts have been arguing that what's been done in Qatar recently has be—could be years undoing. The Iranians don't seem to be ready to give up this fight yet.”   PBS's William Brangham tires to cast doubt on Trump's claim of military success, "although the president says their military has been utterly destroyed, they are showing, in that zero percent that they allegedly have left, remarkable tenacity to punish other Gulf states, to… pic.twitter.com/0Qs0oc9XDj — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) March 21, 2026   Brangham was alluding to Trump’s comments where he said that Iran’s military capabilities had been 100 percent destroyed, but this far into Trump’s political career, it should be well known that he is one to speak figuratively. In fact, in that Truth Social post, Trump conceded, “We have already destroyed 100% of Iran’s Military capability, but it’s easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close range missile somewhere along, or in, this Waterway, no matter how badly defeated they are.” Nevertheless, Capehart was eager to insist that Trump must have meant that every last bit of Iranian military equipment had been destroyed, “Right. And that's why there seems to be this dissonance and disconnect, certainly for me here in Washington, but I'm sure for the American people who are just loosely watching. The president says one thing, such as, ‘The straits are open, everything is great,’ and then the split screen tankers on fire.” He then added, “The words that are coming out of the president's mouth and out of his administration don't seem to match the facts on the ground, which is why I think it would be really important for the president to come to the American people and explain what's happened. The problem that he has, and the problem, admittedly, I would have watching such an Oval Office address is, I would not know how much of what he says I can trust.” That’s more of an indictment of Capehart and his media colleagues. The American-Israeli effort against Iran has been one of the most successful military operations in history, but because no war ever goes 100 percent perfectly, the media has spent a disproportionate amount of time hyping the fact that Iran’s ability to shoot back has not been reduced to absolutely zero in an effort to score political points. All wars involve assuming some level of risk, but taking that risk does not mean the operation has failed. Here is a transcript for the March 20 show: PBS News Hour 3/20/2026 7:44 PM ET  WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But in the interim, Jonathan, we're still in this position where Iran, although the president says their military has been utterly destroyed, they are showing, in that zero percent that they allegedly have left, remarkable tenacity to punish other Gulf states, to destroy critical oil and gas infrastructure. I mean, analysts have been arguing that what's been done in Qatar recently has be—could be years undoing. The Iranians don't seem to be ready to give up this fight yet. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right. And that's why there seems to be this dissonance and disconnect, certainly for me here in Washington, but I'm sure for the American people who are just loosely watching. The president says one thing, such as, “The straits are open, everything is great,” and then the split screen tankers on fire. The words that are coming out of the president's mouth and out of his administration don't seem to match the facts on the ground, which is why I think it would be really important for the president to come to the American people and explain what's happened. The problem that he has, and the problem, admittedly, I would have watching such an Oval Office address is, I would not know how much of what he says I can trust.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is a case study in liberal media hypocrisy regarding intervention in the Middle East. His opinions on the Iraq War (led by Republican president George W. Bush) were hateful, but when Democratic president Barack Obama invaded Libya (also without congressional approval), a newly war-mongering Kristof beamed that we were (yes) greeted as liberators. Now with Donald Trump in charge, going to war in the Middle East is once again dangerous and bad. Kristof’s March 18 column, “How Trump Should Extricate Himself From His Iran Quagmire,” opened “The ongoing debate about whether the Iran war will become a quagmire misses the point. President Trump and America are already in one.” In his March 14 column, “Does Trump Risk Turning America Into a Rogue State?” he lamented (after forward United Nation’s lies about Israel targeting children in Gaza): “Now in Iran, I fear we may be retreating even further from the principles we once proclaimed, loosening the shackles that civilized nations place on themselves to protect our shared humanity.” In a February 28 video opinion, “A War of Choice Does Not Make Us Safer,” Kristof said: Look, the first mission of a president is to keep Americans safe. In this case, I fear that President Trump, by embarking on a war of choice -- “The United States military began major combat operations in Iran.” he instead has made us less safe and may be putting Americans at risk for months or years to come. From a February 28 column, “War With Iran Is a Mistake.” War is uncertain. Sometimes it goes as smoothly as the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and sometimes you find yourself mired in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. I’ve reported from Iran over the years, and I’ve seen the popular resentment against the government, so maybe the attacks will lead Iran’s government to collapse the way its allies in Syria did in 2024. Notice there's no mention of the downside of a war Kristof sunnily supported: Obama’s 2011 war in Libya, which led to the overthrow of unstable dictator Moammar Qadhafi but helped usher in Islamic extremism. On March 24, 2011, the supposedly dovish Times columnist wrote jubilantly from Cairo for the pro-war side -- “Hugs From Libyans” -- announcing that (to coin a phrase) we were being welcomed as liberators in Benghazi -- a city whose name would become infamous 18 months later. This may be a first for the Arab world: An American airman who bailed out over Libya was rescued from his hiding place in a sheep pen by villagers who hugged him, served him juice and thanked him effusively for bombing their country. (Something similar happened to a female pilot who crash-landed in Kuwait in early March during the early stages of the Iran operation. Kristof hasn’t mentioned it.) On March 24, 2011, the Iraq dove claimed the U.S. was being welcomed as liberators in Libya, in a column headlined with a cloying plea: “Is It Better to Save No One?” (Does that standard not apply to the thousands of Iranian citizens slaughtered for protesting their own regime?) ….Mr. Obama and other world leaders did something truly extraordinary, wonderful and rare: they ordered a humanitarian intervention that saved thousands of lives and that even Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s closest aides seem to think will lead to his ouster. Kristof even called for "a SWAT team of Libyans and coalition forces" to swoop down and seize Qaddafi for trial in The Hague. On September 1 of that year, Kristof went to Tripoli himself and reported, “‘Thank You, America!’” Americans are not often heroes in the Arab world, but as nonstop celebrations unfold here in the Libyan capital I keep running into ordinary people who learn where I’m from and then fervently repeat variants of the same phrase: “Thank you, America!” Kristof hedged his bets on Libya’s future prospects (“The Libyan experiment could yet fail. Yet let’s also savor a historic moment…”) which turned out sadly necessary, exemplified by the September 2012 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, raising concerns that the Obama administration had been blind to the dangers of Libyan extremist groups.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has repeatedly claimed that the SAVE America Act that makes voter ID mandatory is "Jim Crow 2.0." PolitiFact doesn't find that outrageous smear worth a "fact check," just as it failed to check when President Biden repeatedly asserted it. It should be blatantly obvious that the Republicans aren't trying to reinstall segregation and deny the vote to all black people. On Thursday, Louis Jacobson nitpicked a different mathematical claim by Schumer:  The SAVE America Act “would force Americans to register (to vote) only in person, something only 5% of Americans do today." That was rated "Half True,' because the SAVE Act does require registration in person, but in 2024, anywhere from 11 to 42 percent of voters registered in person, "depending on how many registrations stemmed from in-person visits to motor vehicle agencies, a data point that is not being collected." If they were checking a Republican, it would probably be tagged "Mostly False."  But the point here is the curious way PolitiFact chooses what to check, and who is checked. Schumer hasn't been found "Mostly False" or worse since 2021. Since then, including the new one, he has two "Half Trues" and four "Mostly Trues." Last month, I noted PolitiFact's Amy Sherman put together an article attacking Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), asking “Does the US have stricter ID rules for buying beer than voting?” This one didn't have a "Truth-O-Meter" rating, but Amy Sherman argued "Why the beer vs ballots comparison falls short," On Friday, PolitiFact awarded a True to Sen. Elizabeth Warren for her March 3 statement: “In the modern era, no American president has ordered more military strikes against as many different countries as Donald Trump.”  Ohio University student Zoe Weyand does appear to be correct on this: Trump has ordered strikes on ten different countries. They suggested the "modern era" started with George W. Bush. But why are we only locating the True statements? Like Schumer, Warren hasn't been rated on the False side for a long time -- since 2020. Since then, including the new one, Warren has two "Half Trues" and three "Trues." As of  March 20, which is 79 days into 2026, PolitiFact hasn't flagged Democrat politicians or officials with a single "Truth-O-Meter" rating on the False side -- "Mostly False," "False," or "Pants On Fire." There are eight rated items: one "True," four "Mostly Trues," and three "Half Trues." PS: Here's Schumer on Wednesday, boasting he's called this bill "Jim Crow 2.0" over and over again. Think of how many claims here could be "fact checked."  Schumer on Wednesday: "So I have called this [SAVE] Act, over and over again, JIM CROW 2.0 and they hate it. I've gotten 50 million right-wing attacks on my email 'cause I said it. And you know why they attack it? Cause they know it's the truth. It is JIM CROW 2.0, but it's… pic.twitter.com/uOzD29CNSC — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 20, 2026

Media Research Center (MRC) President David Bozell joined Fox Business Network’s  Jackie DeAngelis and Brian Brengberg, hosts of The Bottom Line, on Friday, to talk about his letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requesting a formal investigation into Apple. Bozell said Apple News isn’t just curating news, it may be misleading consumers and shutting out competition in the process. In a formal complaint to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, Bozell laid out a pattern of deception surrounding Apple News. At the center of the controversy is control. Apple claims users can “tailor” their feeds, including blocking outlets. But MRC’s investigation found that’s simply not true. Bozell argued this isn’t a minor glitch, but a deliberate design choice that strips users of meaningful control over the information they consume. Then there’s the illusion of openness. Apple publicly suggests publishers can apply for inclusion, yet rejected MRC outlets like NewsBusters and Free Speech America after long delays — while continuing to advertise the platform as broadly accessible. Bozell said that contradiction raises serious questions about whether Apple is misleading publishers as well as users. MRC President @DavidBozell urges the FTC to investigate Apple News for its anticompetitive and deceptive trade practices. @FoxBusiness @BottomLineFBN pic.twitter.com/91oUpZshlr — Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 20, 2026 But the most explosive claim involves bias backed by data. MRC’s research found Apple News promoted thousands of left-leaning stories while virtually excluding right-leaning outlets, evidence Apple is “shaping, not reflecting, the news landscape.” The editor-in-chief at Apple News is the former editor of New York Times magazine. Apple News is handpicking leftist stories. @DavidBozell @BottomLineFBN @FoxBusiness pic.twitter.com/2xt84Herlt — Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 20, 2026 Bottom line: This isn’t just about bias, it’s about whether Big Tech is misleading the public while quietly controlling what Americans see,  and what they don’t. Read more at Fox News.