🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:

Response:

Calculated Shard: 26 (from laksa022)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:

curl -X POST \
  'http://laksa026.int.ahrefs:8124/' \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  -H 'X-ClickHouse-Database: crawler3' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic YXBpOg==' \
  -d 'SELECT getAhrefsURLFromUnparsed(src_unparsed) AS found_url, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(download_stamp), 0) AS crawl_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(props_url_first_seen), 0) AS first_indexed_time, download_http_code AS http_code, src_unparsed AS src_unparsed, src_root_hash AS src_root_hash, history_drop_reason AS history_drop_reason, meta_title AS meta_title, meta_descriptions AS meta_descriptions, attrs_boilerpipe_text AS attrs_boilerpipe_text, attrs_markdown AS attrs_markdown, attrs_readable_markdown AS attrs_readable_markdown, meta_canonical AS meta_canonical, ml_categories_json AS ml_categories_json, ml_types_json AS ml_types_json, ml_intent_types_json AS ml_intent_types_json, meta_language AS meta_language, attrs_author AS attrs_author, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(attrs_publish_time), 0) AS attrs_publish_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(attrs_original_publish_time), 0) AS attrs_original_publish_time, ifNull(attrs_is_republished, 0) AS attrs_is_republished, ifNull(attrs_nr_words, 0) AS attrs_nr_words, ifNull(attrs_boilerpipe_nr_words, 0) AS attrs_boilerpipe_nr_words, ifNull(body_ext_links_number, 0) AS body_ext_links_number, ifNull(body_int_links_number, 0) AS body_int_links_number, ifNull(meta_nofollow, 0) AS meta_nofollow, ifNull(meta_noarchive, 0) AS meta_noarchive, ifNull(props_was_rendered, 0) AS props_was_rendered, ifNull(src_redirect, \'\') AS src_redirect, ifNull(download_time_msec, 0) AS download_time_msec, ifNull(download_ttfb_msec, 0) AS download_ttfb_msec, ifNull(download_size, 0) AS download_size FROM crawler3.page_info_local FINAL PREWHERE (src_root_hash, src_unparsed) IN ((getAhrefsRootHashFromUnparsed(getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/\')), getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/\'))) FORMAT JSONEachRow'

Response:

{"found_url":"https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/","crawl_time":1776229845,"first_indexed_time":1772100473,"http_code":200,"src_unparsed":"com,albertmohler!\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/ s443","src_root_hash":"15731983553888329626","history_drop_reason":null,"meta_title":"Thursday, February 26, 2026 - AlbertMohler.com","meta_descriptions":["Cultural commentary from a Biblical perspective","Cultural commentary from a Biblical perspective"],"attrs_boilerpipe_text":"It’s Thursday, February 26th, 2026. \nI’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing. A daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.\nPart I\nWhat the Press Don’t Want to Talk About: The Press is Ignoring President Trump’s Moral Clarity on So-Called Gender Reassignment Procedures for Youth\nWell, the President’s State of the Union address continues to be one of the primary issues of public debate. And as we discussed right after the President gave his speech, it was very clear that the President had given, first of all, an historically long address by most records, the longest yet recorded. And many in the media gave that a lot of attention. And it’s not insignificant, but what is most significant, I will argue today, is what the press is avoiding talking about. What’s most important right now is what the press, the mainstream press, what they don’t want to touch. They’re glad to take apart to go after, to respond to just about everything the President said on Tuesday night during a joint session of Congress.\nHere’s the big tell, here’s what they don’t want to talk about. They don’t want to talk about the President with the example of a young woman right there in the assembly. They do not want to talk about the President calling out the transgender insanity. And frankly, when the Democrats would not stand in honor of this young woman and the fact that she was claiming, reclaiming her biological sex as her gender identity, she was escaping this transgender confusion. When the President noted that in his own words, not a single Democrat would stand, he simply cried out, “These people are crazy.” And if you were looking at the President’s face, here’s the amazing thing, it was pretty clear this was a statement of conviction. This was the President of the United States making a moral judgment. “You people are crazy.”\nNow, some people will question the politics of that. What I do not want to question is the moral importance of that development. So as I said on The Briefing yesterday, I was determined to see how the mainstream media would reveal itself in terms of that particular event. So far as I can tell, most in the mainstream media have done everything they can to avoid any reference to this whatsoever. I’m going to talk about why that is so. The New York Times did run one standalone news story. It didn’t tell us anything new, but it did, honestly, and I think pretty straightforwardly recapitulate what the President said. The Telegraph, in a major newspaper in London also ran a standalone story, and again, I think it was quite fair.\nSo what are we talking about? We’re talking about the fact that most of the mainstream media said nothing, not a word, not a whisper, not a whimper. Let’s ask the question, why? The President called out the Democrats, but more than that, he made a very clear statement. Like he did in his inaugural address back in January of 2025, when he said that in his administration there would be two and only two genders, male and female, corresponding to biology. When the President said that federal government and all right-minded people should stand a defense of children over against the transgender ideologies, and the President put himself on the line and again, I’m so thankful for that on this issue.\nThe interesting thing is how many in the media have done everything to ignore the President did any such thing? Now you’ll notice they’ll criticize him on just about everything else. And in a political context, criticism’s fair. That’s why you have political debate. The President knew what he was doing on Tuesday night, he did exactly what he went there to do. He made a lot of headlines, he irritated a lot of people, he made a lot of points, he called out a lot of arguments. He did so in a way that is in many cases nontraditional in American politics. He broke a lot of the rules that had existed for a long time in American politics.\nBut what we’re also seeing is that the issues are quite different. No President of the United States had ever had to say as a matter of clarification, that his administration would recognize two and only two genders. And other two previous Democratic administrations that had intentionally confused the issue. But let’s just say you go back even to conservative, to Republican, go back to Ronald Reagan elected President in the 1980 election, he never knew he would have to say this. He never said it. This issue wasn’t even on the radar at the time.\nBut President Trump I think showed remarkable clarity and courage by not just making a glancing reference to the issue. But by making sure that Sage Blair, this young woman and her mother were both present there and willing to be recognized. And so when you look at that, the young woman’s right there with her mother right there in the assembly, the fact that as the President said, “Democrats would not stand and respect and honor to her.” That says just about everything. The President went on at considerable length, “These people are crazy.”\nSo again, my purpose in returning to this today at this point is primarily to say the mainstream media doesn’t want to touch that. They don’t even want to criticize the President. Let’s ask ourselves the question, why? Well, it is because when it comes to this particular issue, and in some sense it applies to, of course, all the LGBTQIA+ issues. But especially on the transgender confusion, you’re actually, if you’re a transgender activist, you are asking people to deny biological reality. You’re asking them to suspend their moral judgment. You’re actually asking them to see what they don’t see. You’re actually asking them to deny what their own eyes are telling them.\nAnd you know that’s a hard argument. It’s so hard as a matter of fact, that the American people are showing a moral reflex in terms of rethinking this issue. So what had been considered by LGBTQ activists an onward march of unbroken progress according to their own determination, they thought they were winning this barrier after barrier was falling. Calling a boy a girl or a girl a boy is just a barrier that Americans, thanks be to God, are not willing to cross, at least not yet.\nOkay, so the most important thing we could see today is the fact that the mainstream media want to stay away from this. And we need to learn the lesson, why? This is just good worldview analysis. Why would they avoid the issue? It’s not because they agree with the President. We know that, that’s pretty clear. It is because I think they know the more attention they give to this issue, the more ground do they lose. I think the average American looking at this, seeing that young woman sitting and eventually standing with her mother, they’re going to say, “This is the way the world ought to be.” Even when they don’t have a comprehensive biblical theology, even when they don’t have an adequate understanding of creation order, they do understand the distinction between boy and girl and they understand that it does matter. And denying that it matters means you’re denying what is most basic even in terms of human biology. And it gets back to the President’s statement, “You people are crazy.” And that’s language that a traditional President wouldn’t use, but it is a form of moral insanity, period.\nPart II\nWe are at a Watershed Moment on the Transgender Revolution: The New York Times has Allowed an Opinion Column That Claims Ideology Has Trumped Science on the Issue\nBut okay, it’s also interesting that the very day that the President made this very bold reference in his State of the Union address, The New York Times did run an article. And I’m going to call them out in this case because I appreciate the fact they did run this article. They ran the article. It’s an opinion piece, a guest essay. It’s by Jesse Singal, and he’s identified as, “writing a book about the debate over youth gender medicine in the United States.” He writes the newsletter called Singal Minded. Okay, well that’s interesting. The headline is, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care.\nYou look at turning points in terms of a moral trajectory and you say, how did that happen? Well, now you’re looking at a major turning point. This is The New York Times, the most influential newspaper arguably in the world, and it is totally, has been totally sold out to the LGBTQ agenda. I mean sold out as in sold out. But now it’s at least allowing a guest essay of this kind of clarity making the central claim that those who’ve been pushing the transgender agenda, particularly when it comes to children and teenagers, they have been basically peddling an untruth. They “trusted belief over science on youth gender care.”\nBut it’s not just that. Remember the headline is this, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. That’s an incredible indictment. Here you have a writer in an article published as a guest piece in The New York Times. It is being run by someone who accuses the major medical associations in the United States basically of going with ideology rather than science. Now let’s just get to the bottom line, that’s exactly right, and that’s exactly what they have done.\nBut it is a turning point, we need to recognize this. This tells us that we are at a turning point, a transition moment in this public argument. And that The New York Times would actually run this kind of article that tells you The New York Times at least can figure out there is something new in the air, something they’re going to have to recognize.\nOkay, Jesse Singal, by the way, does a very good job in this article, The New York Times ran, basically pointing out that groups even including say the American Medical Association, he tracks it. He goes back to historic statements they made. I’ve done that also on The Briefing and in writing, I’ve gone back and said, “Here’s what they said, say two or three years ago. Here’s what they’re saying now.” And in this article, Jesse Singal does this, and really effectively for The New York Times. He points out that cracks are now appearing in what he calls the supposed wall of consensus. What was that wall of consensus? As one LGBTQ activist organization said and still says, by the way, “Every major medical association supports healthcare for transgender people and youth as safe and lifesaving.”\nSo you’ll notice that that’s pretty sly. It’s very effective. He says they’re still saying that. And that’s weeks after major medical associations have actually said the exact opposite. That there’s not adequate scientific data to go ahead with these kinds of treatments and interventions with children and teenagers. Very interesting.\nAs Singal says, “Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus.” Singal goes on to write, speaking of what the activist community’s been saying, “The science doesn’t seem so settled after all.” And it’s important to understand what happened here, listen to this carefully, “The approach of left of center Americans and our institutions to assume that when a scientific organization releases a policy statement on a hot button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate is a deeply naive understanding of science, human nature and politics and how they intersect.”\nThat’s what we talk about regularly right here. We talk regularly about the fact that when people say, research experts, all these academic groups, all these professional affiliations, they say based on science, this or that. It is often a political statement, it is often a statement of moral judgment disguised as a scientific statement. And again, it’s one thing for us to make that observation. It’s another thing to have this called out in this particular context. And of course Singal also goes back to the Cass Review back in 2024, that was the blockbuster headline centered development in the United Kingdom where the Cass report came out and basically said, there is no adequate science or medical authority for justifying these kinds of hormonal and surgical treatments when it comes to children and teenagers. The scientific evidence that was presented turns out not to be, well in some cases either scientific nor truly evidence.\nAs Singal points out, oftentimes what comes out from these organizations, and that includes the American Academy of Pediatrics mentioned here. He goes on to say, “Policy statements like this one can reflect the complex and opaque internal politics of an organization rather than dispassionate scientific analysis.” I think if anything’s a little too generous there, yeah, it’s about politics. It’s about pandering to these activist groups. It is about major institutional representations. Whether it’s a major medical association or a subspecialty association or society. The fact is, they’re very susceptible to this kind of ideological intrusion. And yet they claim the mantle of science.\nNow, I also want to point to one other thing, this is not in this article. It’s just something for you to observe looking forward. An awful lot of this comes down to money. And for these very people, it comes down to insurance coverage. Okay so watch what’s going to happen. You’re going to see re-evaluations of all of this. And at some point, some of these folks are going to determine, I am more likely to be sued for doing this than for not doing it. Now, that’s not the keenest moral judgment in a Christian perspective, but you know what? Sometimes it comes down to that. And eventually even the people writing the insurance coverage are going to figure out, this isn’t working. That might also point out it’s wrong.\nPart III\nThe Profane is Becoming Routine: The Public Use of Profanity is Our New Normal – And Our Society is Worse For It\nOkay, speaking about wrong, it is interesting how our society has changed so many judgments on so many issues. I often point to the fact that USA Today is kind of a barometer of moral change. It’s generally coming pretty much solidly from the left in terms of championing most moral change in a leftward direction. But every once in a while, even those who are generally in that directive in terms of moral change in society, sometimes they see something and they just have to wonder, how did this happen?\nSo for example, a front page article in USA Today just days ago by Bart Jansen, here’s the headline, “Profanity Vitriol in Political Discourse Surging.” Profanity, you know it is surging, and let’s be really candid. Profanity is showing up all kinds of places where it would never have been seen or heard before. It’s not just in movies and on the screen, it’s not just about movie ratings or the rest. It’s showing up in cable news networks. It’s showing up in political routine, daily political discussion. It is showing up in the White House, is showing up in the President of the United States, and in response to that, it is showing up now among many other politicians on both sides of the aisle.\nBack several years ago, the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed to a process he called defining deviancy down. That’s a very keen and essential moral insight. We’re in a society that keeps renegotiating the deviancy line. Something that previous generations would’ve thought would be unthinkable and unquestionably wrong. Well deviancy gets defined downward, constantly downward according to Moynihan in a society that’s losing its moral mind. And so even as some words would have been used only in extreme circumstances such as, for example, in a time of war in the heat of battle, you now have the same kind of language showing up in routine political debate. Not only that, you have people who are just dropping these words and don’t worry, I’m not going to repeat them, you know what they are. They’re dropping these words all over the place. And thus you even have them written all over, showing up on billboards. And I don’t mean spray-painted on, I mean a part of the advertised text. \nYou also have the routine use of so many of these words of profanity. You also have shortcuts, and that means that you can just use the first letter and the entire word is invoked. And there were even people who wore buttons invoking some of the worst of this language at the State of the Union Address. Is this just normal now? I think the answer to that question is assuredly, yes, this is just normal now.\nUSA Today had this front page news article. Listen to this, “Most of this story isn’t fit for a family newspaper.” That’s the first line in the article at USA Today. Now, obviously it’s a hook. Journalistically, that’s a hook. Very interesting. The article goes on to say, “The country’s political discourse has deteriorated to the point or become so robust that the President can drop a [I’m not going to say, a word] and get one lobbed back in return.” Okay, so there it is.\nThe President probably gets as good as he gives, but the point is, you’ve got this language now being used. Even just a matter of a few years ago, this language would not have been used in two different places I can think of almost immediately. One is on cable news, talk shows or debate shows. The other thing is it wouldn’t have been used in the White House. I’m not saying the word was never used. We know from the Watergate tapes, no, the word was used. But you know what? It wasn’t used by presidents at least in public. Why? Well, at least going back to George Washington, there was the clear understanding that there are things a President must never be seen to do, simply because it isn’t presidential, it isn’t morally right. It’s not something you want to hear coming out of the mouths of your children. So a President shouldn’t say such words.\nWe’re now living in a very different world on both sides of the aisle, regrettably. But you know what? The President does have some special responsibility in this, and it seems that the longer he is in office, the more routinely he drops some of these words. It’s also interesting that this USA Today article wants to suggest that there’s a tie between the use of this language and political violence. I can’t tell you if that’s true or not. I can just tell you, you don’t have to get to political violence to see the problem. If you have to get to political violence in order to admit there’s a problem and causality is the issue, you’re really missing the moral point. The moral point is words come with moral weight. This is something that is essential to a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview tells us that our words reveal the heart. Our words reveal how we think. Our words reveal who we are. And we are to use words that bring honor to the Lord. We are not to speak in a way that is either blasphemous on the one hand and offensive to God. We’re not to use words that are not, well, let’s put it this way, not words that we are willing to be associated with, publicly and privately.\nI will give some credit to USA Today and to this writer, again, it’s Bart Jansen. I’ll give him some credit for finding a way to talk about this so that you get it and you don’t say it. Listen to this paragraph. Trust me, it’s safe, but just listen to this, it tells you a whole lot. “Some lawmakers are worried because the most offensive language about procreation and defecation has emerged from the shadows and into everyday discourse.” Okay? I think that’s a pretty brilliant way to put it. Procreation and defecation, yeah. Words, which by the way, don’t need to be used in this kind of news article unless it is about a kind of moral problem, which this is a kind of.\nSo I thought you would find that interesting. I think parents and others would be particularly interested to know that we really are up against some challenges that previous generations didn’t have to face. This language isn’t new. It was often referred to as gutter language. At other times it was referred to as locker room language, not that it’s appropriate there either. But now it is political language, it’s White House language, it’s US Capitol language, it’s cable news and broadcast reality language. So there’s a warning to us. \nFor Christians, we understand it’s a moral challenge, and I think Christians understand it’s one that’s not going to be resolved quickly or easily. Furthermore, it’s not just a matter of etiquette, we understand it should be and must be eventually a matter of conscience.\nPart IV\nJeff Bezos Orders Massive Force Reduction at Washington Post — Leftists are Outraged at The Post’s Layoffs, But No Business Can Survive Losing $100 Million Per Year\nAll right, while we were talking about the media, I’ve mentioned The New York Times and USA Today, of course there have been so many headlines about the media and in particular about one major American newspaper. When a newspaper is the news, rather than publishing the news, that’s interesting. And the big news is about The Washington Post. We’re talking about one of the nation’s most important newspapers. By the way, it was not always so at a national level. Until the Watergate controversy in that entire development in the 1970s, The Washington Post was largely a Washington directed daily newspaper. It became more than that after Watergate. And in a day in which you had emerging national media, The Washington Post, and its syndicated writers, particularly opinion writers, and its news stories sent across different news systems. These became very, very influential.\nThe paper was under the control and ownership of the Graham family for a very long time until eventually the paper was sold. And the paper is now under the ownership eventually of Jeff Bezos, who was the founder of Amazon, and of course is one of the richest men on the planet. Okay so in buying The Washington Post, all kinds of people were complaining, all the journalistic community was up in arms. Because the journalistic community wants to act as if they’re the people who control their own destiny, they control their own universe. It is to be done by what they define as press and journalistic standards. And as you know, the press in the United States, it’s not exclusively liberal, but it is overwhelmingly leftist and liberal.\nAnd so when Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, there are all kinds of cries about the fact that he’s going to make cuts at the paper, he’s going to make changes at the paper. Well, he did make changes at the paper. He also intervened editorially in terms of the 2024 presidential election, and he used his authority as the owner of the paper, he is the, let’s repeat it, owner of the paper. He made the decision to stop an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board intended to endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The paper did not endorse Donald Trump, but it did not endorse Kamala Harris. And thus you had the journalistic community absolutely up in arms.\nBut the big news came just in the last few weeks, as Jeff Bezos has laid off hundreds of employees at The Washington Post and cut entire sections. The sports section, largely, the book review section, other sections of the paper, including the depth of international coverage, it is all being cut back. Why is it being cut back? It is because on average, The Washington Post has been losing more than $100 million a year. Okay, so let me just paint a picture for you. If you have an entity that is losing more than $100 million a year, let’s just do some simple math. You better stop that in a hurry.\nNow, it’s interesting to see some of the supporters of the liberal media come back and say, “He’s a billionaire, he can afford it.” The point is, no one should have to cover $100 million losses year after year. What does that tell you? The Washington Post has lost so many subscribers. Like I say, it’s also losing $100 million a year. The New York Times has a worldwide circulation of 13 million. The Washington Post, it’s falling fast. And frankly, it is below what can support financially the newspaper.\nAnd by the way, in these politically polarized times, a paper generally is going to be more to the left or more to the right, and this means the vast majority or more to the left and the majority of the majority, within the majority, they lean pretty far left. But in this case, Jeff Bezos is saying he’s simply not going to be willing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. And so he’s at least making some kind of effort to cut back on those losses.\nIt’s very interesting to see the howling coming from the journalistic community. You would think he just took an ocean liner out to the sea and blew it up. Now, we’re also looking at a major shift in the entire media landscape. Fewer people are paying for newspaper subscriptions. First of all, fewer newspapers are even being printed by far. Fewer are being sold. And that’s just about the print form of the media. You also have online presences, and of course, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and many others, including major British newspapers have made much of that. They’re actually capitalizing on that online presence. The Washington Post, it’s fallen behind. And here’s another lesson, in this kind of fast-changing economy, this fast-changing media landscape, when you fall behind, almost overnight, you’re far behind. And then at some point you’re too far behind.\nBut there’s another fascinating aspect to all of this, and we’ll close with this today. And that is, that if you are selling something, and this isn’t free. If you are selling newspapers, here’s an obvious truth. Someone has to be willing to pay for that newspaper. In other words, if you’re selling something and no one’s buying it, you don’t stay in business for long. As many people have pointed out, those have been writing and editing The Washington Post evidently didn’t care to answer the question, why are people not buying our product? I don’t think they really cared. But all of a sudden, those jobs disappeared, and guess what? They care now.\nIt has been very interesting to see some people say, “It’s just tawdry. It’s just wrong that Jeff Bezos has made this decision based upon financial considerations.” But you know what? Let me tell you what happens when you don’t worry about financial considerations. You end up out of business. And in this case, you end up out of business because you deserve to be.\nThanks for listening to The Briefing. \nFor more information, go to my website at\nalbertmohler.com\n. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to\nx.com\/albertmohler\n. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to\nsbts.edu\n. For information on Boyce College, just go to\nboycecollege.com\n. \nI’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.\nR. Albert Mohler, Jr.\nI am always glad to hear from readers. Write me using the\ncontact form\n. Follow regular updates on Twitter at\n@albertmohler\n.\nSubscribe\nvia email for daily Briefings and more (unsubscribe\n    at any time).","attrs_markdown":"- [About](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/about\/)\n- [Contact](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/contact\/)\n\n[![AlbertMohler.com](https:\/\/cf.albertmohler.com\/uploads\/2024\/02\/logo-2024_new.svg)](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/%20https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/)\n\n- [Donate](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/donate\/)\n- [Subscribe](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/subscribe\/)\n\n- [Articles](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/articles\/)\n- [The Briefing](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/the-briefing\/)\n- [Thinking in Public](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/thinking-in-public\/)\n- [Speaking & Teaching](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/speaking-teaching\/)\n- [Ask Anything](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/ask-anything\/)\n- [Exposition](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/exposition\/)\n- [Books](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/books\/)\n\n[![AlbertMohler.com](https:\/\/cf.albertmohler.com\/uploads\/2024\/02\/logo-2024_new.svg)](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/)\n\n- [Articles](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/articles\/)\n- [The Briefing](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/the-briefing\/)\n- [Thinking in Public](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/thinking-in-public\/)\n- [Speaking & Teaching](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/speaking-teaching\/)\n- [Ask Anything](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/ask-anything\/)\n- [Exposition](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/exposition\/)\n- [Books](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/books\/)\n\n[![AlbertMohler.com](https:\/\/cf.albertmohler.com\/uploads\/2024\/02\/logo-2024_new.svg)](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/%20https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/)\n\n- [Articles](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/articles\/)\n- [The Briefing](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/the-briefing\/)\n- [Thinking in Public](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/thinking-in-public\/)\n- [Speaking & Teaching](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/speaking-teaching\/)\n- [Ask Anything](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/ask-anything\/)\n- [Exposition](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/exposition\/)\n- [Books](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/books\/)\n\n- [About](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/about\/)\n- [Contact](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/contact\/)\n\n- [Donate](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/donate\/)\n- [Subscribe](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/subscribe\/)\n\n[Home](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/) \/ [The Briefing](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/the-briefing\/) \/ Thursday, February 26, 2026\n\n# Thursday, February 26, 2026\n[Download MP3](https:\/\/p.podderapp.com\/9103131664\/https:\/\/pod.albertmohler.com\/Podcast\/20260226_thebriefing.mp3)\n\n###### Documentation and Additional Reading\n[PART I](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/#part1)\n\nThe New York Times (Katie Rogers)\n\n[Trump Puts On a Show, Casting Democrats as the Villains](https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/02\/25\/us\/politics\/trump-state-of-the-union-speech.html)\n\nThe Telegraph (Lily Shanagher)\n\n[A marathon speech, a game show flair, and a clear message from Trump](https:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/world-news\/2026\/02\/25\/donald-trump-returns-game-show-style-state-of-union-address\/)\n\n[PART II](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/#part2)\n\nThe New York Times (Jesse Singal)\n\n[Medical Associations Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care](https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/02\/24\/opinion\/medical-associations-youth-gender-care.html)\n\nThe Cass Review (Hilary Cass)\n\n[Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people](https:\/\/webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ukgwa\/20250310143642\/https:\/\/cass.independent-review.uk\/)\n\n[PART III](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/#part3)\n\nUSA Today (Bart Jansen)\n\n[F-bombs, profanity and politics: a story not fit for this family newspaper](https:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/politics\/2026\/02\/22\/political-rhetoric-america-profane-occasional-violence\/88722687007\/)\n\n[PART IWhat the Press Don’t Want to Talk About: The Press is Ignoring President Trump’s Moral Clarity on So-Called Gender Reassignment Procedures for Youth]()\n\n[PART IIWe are at a Watershed Moment on the Transgender Revolution: The New York Times has Allowed an Opinion Column That Claims Ideology Has Trumped Science on the Issue]()\n\n[PART IIIThe Profane is Becoming Routine: The Public Use of Profanity is Our New Normal – And Our Society is Worse For It]()\n\n[PART IVJeff Bezos Orders Massive Force Reduction at Washington Post — Leftists are Outraged at The Post’s Layoffs, But No Business Can Survive Losing \\$100 Million Per Year]()\n\nIt’s Thursday, February 26th, 2026.\n\nI’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing. A daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.\n\n### [Part I]()\n***\n## What the Press Don’t Want to Talk About: The Press is Ignoring President Trump’s Moral Clarity on So-Called Gender Reassignment Procedures for Youth\nWell, the President’s State of the Union address continues to be one of the primary issues of public debate. And as we discussed right after the President gave his speech, it was very clear that the President had given, first of all, an historically long address by most records, the longest yet recorded. And many in the media gave that a lot of attention. And it’s not insignificant, but what is most significant, I will argue today, is what the press is avoiding talking about. What’s most important right now is what the press, the mainstream press, what they don’t want to touch. They’re glad to take apart to go after, to respond to just about everything the President said on Tuesday night during a joint session of Congress.\n\nHere’s the big tell, here’s what they don’t want to talk about. They don’t want to talk about the President with the example of a young woman right there in the assembly. They do not want to talk about the President calling out the transgender insanity. And frankly, when the Democrats would not stand in honor of this young woman and the fact that she was claiming, reclaiming her biological sex as her gender identity, she was escaping this transgender confusion. When the President noted that in his own words, not a single Democrat would stand, he simply cried out, “These people are crazy.” And if you were looking at the President’s face, here’s the amazing thing, it was pretty clear this was a statement of conviction. This was the President of the United States making a moral judgment. “You people are crazy.”\n\nNow, some people will question the politics of that. What I do not want to question is the moral importance of that development. So as I said on The Briefing yesterday, I was determined to see how the mainstream media would reveal itself in terms of that particular event. So far as I can tell, most in the mainstream media have done everything they can to avoid any reference to this whatsoever. I’m going to talk about why that is so. The New York Times did run one standalone news story. It didn’t tell us anything new, but it did, honestly, and I think pretty straightforwardly recapitulate what the President said. The Telegraph, in a major newspaper in London also ran a standalone story, and again, I think it was quite fair.\n\nSo what are we talking about? We’re talking about the fact that most of the mainstream media said nothing, not a word, not a whisper, not a whimper. Let’s ask the question, why? The President called out the Democrats, but more than that, he made a very clear statement. Like he did in his inaugural address back in January of 2025, when he said that in his administration there would be two and only two genders, male and female, corresponding to biology. When the President said that federal government and all right-minded people should stand a defense of children over against the transgender ideologies, and the President put himself on the line and again, I’m so thankful for that on this issue.\n\nThe interesting thing is how many in the media have done everything to ignore the President did any such thing? Now you’ll notice they’ll criticize him on just about everything else. And in a political context, criticism’s fair. That’s why you have political debate. The President knew what he was doing on Tuesday night, he did exactly what he went there to do. He made a lot of headlines, he irritated a lot of people, he made a lot of points, he called out a lot of arguments. He did so in a way that is in many cases nontraditional in American politics. He broke a lot of the rules that had existed for a long time in American politics.\n\nBut what we’re also seeing is that the issues are quite different. No President of the United States had ever had to say as a matter of clarification, that his administration would recognize two and only two genders. And other two previous Democratic administrations that had intentionally confused the issue. But let’s just say you go back even to conservative, to Republican, go back to Ronald Reagan elected President in the 1980 election, he never knew he would have to say this. He never said it. This issue wasn’t even on the radar at the time.\n\nBut President Trump I think showed remarkable clarity and courage by not just making a glancing reference to the issue. But by making sure that Sage Blair, this young woman and her mother were both present there and willing to be recognized. And so when you look at that, the young woman’s right there with her mother right there in the assembly, the fact that as the President said, “Democrats would not stand and respect and honor to her.” That says just about everything. The President went on at considerable length, “These people are crazy.”\n\nSo again, my purpose in returning to this today at this point is primarily to say the mainstream media doesn’t want to touch that. They don’t even want to criticize the President. Let’s ask ourselves the question, why? Well, it is because when it comes to this particular issue, and in some sense it applies to, of course, all the LGBTQIA+ issues. But especially on the transgender confusion, you’re actually, if you’re a transgender activist, you are asking people to deny biological reality. You’re asking them to suspend their moral judgment. You’re actually asking them to see what they don’t see. You’re actually asking them to deny what their own eyes are telling them.\n\nAnd you know that’s a hard argument. It’s so hard as a matter of fact, that the American people are showing a moral reflex in terms of rethinking this issue. So what had been considered by LGBTQ activists an onward march of unbroken progress according to their own determination, they thought they were winning this barrier after barrier was falling. Calling a boy a girl or a girl a boy is just a barrier that Americans, thanks be to God, are not willing to cross, at least not yet.\n\nOkay, so the most important thing we could see today is the fact that the mainstream media want to stay away from this. And we need to learn the lesson, why? This is just good worldview analysis. Why would they avoid the issue? It’s not because they agree with the President. We know that, that’s pretty clear. It is because I think they know the more attention they give to this issue, the more ground do they lose. I think the average American looking at this, seeing that young woman sitting and eventually standing with her mother, they’re going to say, “This is the way the world ought to be.” Even when they don’t have a comprehensive biblical theology, even when they don’t have an adequate understanding of creation order, they do understand the distinction between boy and girl and they understand that it does matter. And denying that it matters means you’re denying what is most basic even in terms of human biology. And it gets back to the President’s statement, “You people are crazy.” And that’s language that a traditional President wouldn’t use, but it is a form of moral insanity, period.\n\n### [Part II]()\n***\n## We are at a Watershed Moment on the Transgender Revolution: The New York Times has Allowed an Opinion Column That Claims Ideology Has Trumped Science on the Issue\nBut okay, it’s also interesting that the very day that the President made this very bold reference in his State of the Union address, The New York Times did run an article. And I’m going to call them out in this case because I appreciate the fact they did run this article. They ran the article. It’s an opinion piece, a guest essay. It’s by Jesse Singal, and he’s identified as, “writing a book about the debate over youth gender medicine in the United States.” He writes the newsletter called Singal Minded. Okay, well that’s interesting. The headline is, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care.\n\nYou look at turning points in terms of a moral trajectory and you say, how did that happen? Well, now you’re looking at a major turning point. This is The New York Times, the most influential newspaper arguably in the world, and it is totally, has been totally sold out to the LGBTQ agenda. I mean sold out as in sold out. But now it’s at least allowing a guest essay of this kind of clarity making the central claim that those who’ve been pushing the transgender agenda, particularly when it comes to children and teenagers, they have been basically peddling an untruth. They “trusted belief over science on youth gender care.”\n\nBut it’s not just that. Remember the headline is this, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. That’s an incredible indictment. Here you have a writer in an article published as a guest piece in The New York Times. It is being run by someone who accuses the major medical associations in the United States basically of going with ideology rather than science. Now let’s just get to the bottom line, that’s exactly right, and that’s exactly what they have done.\n\nBut it is a turning point, we need to recognize this. This tells us that we are at a turning point, a transition moment in this public argument. And that The New York Times would actually run this kind of article that tells you The New York Times at least can figure out there is something new in the air, something they’re going to have to recognize.\n\nOkay, Jesse Singal, by the way, does a very good job in this article, The New York Times ran, basically pointing out that groups even including say the American Medical Association, he tracks it. He goes back to historic statements they made. I’ve done that also on The Briefing and in writing, I’ve gone back and said, “Here’s what they said, say two or three years ago. Here’s what they’re saying now.” And in this article, Jesse Singal does this, and really effectively for The New York Times. He points out that cracks are now appearing in what he calls the supposed wall of consensus. What was that wall of consensus? As one LGBTQ activist organization said and still says, by the way, “Every major medical association supports healthcare for transgender people and youth as safe and lifesaving.”\n\nSo you’ll notice that that’s pretty sly. It’s very effective. He says they’re still saying that. And that’s weeks after major medical associations have actually said the exact opposite. That there’s not adequate scientific data to go ahead with these kinds of treatments and interventions with children and teenagers. Very interesting.\n\nAs Singal says, “Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus.” Singal goes on to write, speaking of what the activist community’s been saying, “The science doesn’t seem so settled after all.” And it’s important to understand what happened here, listen to this carefully, “The approach of left of center Americans and our institutions to assume that when a scientific organization releases a policy statement on a hot button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate is a deeply naive understanding of science, human nature and politics and how they intersect.”\n\nThat’s what we talk about regularly right here. We talk regularly about the fact that when people say, research experts, all these academic groups, all these professional affiliations, they say based on science, this or that. It is often a political statement, it is often a statement of moral judgment disguised as a scientific statement. And again, it’s one thing for us to make that observation. It’s another thing to have this called out in this particular context. And of course Singal also goes back to the Cass Review back in 2024, that was the blockbuster headline centered development in the United Kingdom where the Cass report came out and basically said, there is no adequate science or medical authority for justifying these kinds of hormonal and surgical treatments when it comes to children and teenagers. The scientific evidence that was presented turns out not to be, well in some cases either scientific nor truly evidence.\n\nAs Singal points out, oftentimes what comes out from these organizations, and that includes the American Academy of Pediatrics mentioned here. He goes on to say, “Policy statements like this one can reflect the complex and opaque internal politics of an organization rather than dispassionate scientific analysis.” I think if anything’s a little too generous there, yeah, it’s about politics. It’s about pandering to these activist groups. It is about major institutional representations. Whether it’s a major medical association or a subspecialty association or society. The fact is, they’re very susceptible to this kind of ideological intrusion. And yet they claim the mantle of science.\n\nNow, I also want to point to one other thing, this is not in this article. It’s just something for you to observe looking forward. An awful lot of this comes down to money. And for these very people, it comes down to insurance coverage. Okay so watch what’s going to happen. You’re going to see re-evaluations of all of this. And at some point, some of these folks are going to determine, I am more likely to be sued for doing this than for not doing it. Now, that’s not the keenest moral judgment in a Christian perspective, but you know what? Sometimes it comes down to that. And eventually even the people writing the insurance coverage are going to figure out, this isn’t working. That might also point out it’s wrong.\n\n### [Part III]()\n***\n## The Profane is Becoming Routine: The Public Use of Profanity is Our New Normal – And Our Society is Worse For It\nOkay, speaking about wrong, it is interesting how our society has changed so many judgments on so many issues. I often point to the fact that USA Today is kind of a barometer of moral change. It’s generally coming pretty much solidly from the left in terms of championing most moral change in a leftward direction. But every once in a while, even those who are generally in that directive in terms of moral change in society, sometimes they see something and they just have to wonder, how did this happen?\n\nSo for example, a front page article in USA Today just days ago by Bart Jansen, here’s the headline, “Profanity Vitriol in Political Discourse Surging.” Profanity, you know it is surging, and let’s be really candid. Profanity is showing up all kinds of places where it would never have been seen or heard before. It’s not just in movies and on the screen, it’s not just about movie ratings or the rest. It’s showing up in cable news networks. It’s showing up in political routine, daily political discussion. It is showing up in the White House, is showing up in the President of the United States, and in response to that, it is showing up now among many other politicians on both sides of the aisle.\n\nBack several years ago, the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed to a process he called defining deviancy down. That’s a very keen and essential moral insight. We’re in a society that keeps renegotiating the deviancy line. Something that previous generations would’ve thought would be unthinkable and unquestionably wrong. Well deviancy gets defined downward, constantly downward according to Moynihan in a society that’s losing its moral mind. And so even as some words would have been used only in extreme circumstances such as, for example, in a time of war in the heat of battle, you now have the same kind of language showing up in routine political debate. Not only that, you have people who are just dropping these words and don’t worry, I’m not going to repeat them, you know what they are. They’re dropping these words all over the place. And thus you even have them written all over, showing up on billboards. And I don’t mean spray-painted on, I mean a part of the advertised text.\n\nYou also have the routine use of so many of these words of profanity. You also have shortcuts, and that means that you can just use the first letter and the entire word is invoked. And there were even people who wore buttons invoking some of the worst of this language at the State of the Union Address. Is this just normal now? I think the answer to that question is assuredly, yes, this is just normal now.\n\nUSA Today had this front page news article. Listen to this, “Most of this story isn’t fit for a family newspaper.” That’s the first line in the article at USA Today. Now, obviously it’s a hook. Journalistically, that’s a hook. Very interesting. The article goes on to say, “The country’s political discourse has deteriorated to the point or become so robust that the President can drop a \\[I’m not going to say, a word\\] and get one lobbed back in return.” Okay, so there it is.\n\nThe President probably gets as good as he gives, but the point is, you’ve got this language now being used. Even just a matter of a few years ago, this language would not have been used in two different places I can think of almost immediately. One is on cable news, talk shows or debate shows. The other thing is it wouldn’t have been used in the White House. I’m not saying the word was never used. We know from the Watergate tapes, no, the word was used. But you know what? It wasn’t used by presidents at least in public. Why? Well, at least going back to George Washington, there was the clear understanding that there are things a President must never be seen to do, simply because it isn’t presidential, it isn’t morally right. It’s not something you want to hear coming out of the mouths of your children. So a President shouldn’t say such words.\n\nWe’re now living in a very different world on both sides of the aisle, regrettably. But you know what? The President does have some special responsibility in this, and it seems that the longer he is in office, the more routinely he drops some of these words. It’s also interesting that this USA Today article wants to suggest that there’s a tie between the use of this language and political violence. I can’t tell you if that’s true or not. I can just tell you, you don’t have to get to political violence to see the problem. If you have to get to political violence in order to admit there’s a problem and causality is the issue, you’re really missing the moral point. The moral point is words come with moral weight. This is something that is essential to a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview tells us that our words reveal the heart. Our words reveal how we think. Our words reveal who we are. And we are to use words that bring honor to the Lord. We are not to speak in a way that is either blasphemous on the one hand and offensive to God. We’re not to use words that are not, well, let’s put it this way, not words that we are willing to be associated with, publicly and privately.\n\nI will give some credit to USA Today and to this writer, again, it’s Bart Jansen. I’ll give him some credit for finding a way to talk about this so that you get it and you don’t say it. Listen to this paragraph. Trust me, it’s safe, but just listen to this, it tells you a whole lot. “Some lawmakers are worried because the most offensive language about procreation and defecation has emerged from the shadows and into everyday discourse.” Okay? I think that’s a pretty brilliant way to put it. Procreation and defecation, yeah. Words, which by the way, don’t need to be used in this kind of news article unless it is about a kind of moral problem, which this is a kind of.\n\nSo I thought you would find that interesting. I think parents and others would be particularly interested to know that we really are up against some challenges that previous generations didn’t have to face. This language isn’t new. It was often referred to as gutter language. At other times it was referred to as locker room language, not that it’s appropriate there either. But now it is political language, it’s White House language, it’s US Capitol language, it’s cable news and broadcast reality language. So there’s a warning to us.\n\nFor Christians, we understand it’s a moral challenge, and I think Christians understand it’s one that’s not going to be resolved quickly or easily. Furthermore, it’s not just a matter of etiquette, we understand it should be and must be eventually a matter of conscience.\n\n### [Part IV]()\n***\n## Jeff Bezos Orders Massive Force Reduction at Washington Post — Leftists are Outraged at The Post’s Layoffs, But No Business Can Survive Losing \\$100 Million Per Year\nAll right, while we were talking about the media, I’ve mentioned The New York Times and USA Today, of course there have been so many headlines about the media and in particular about one major American newspaper. When a newspaper is the news, rather than publishing the news, that’s interesting. And the big news is about The Washington Post. We’re talking about one of the nation’s most important newspapers. By the way, it was not always so at a national level. Until the Watergate controversy in that entire development in the 1970s, The Washington Post was largely a Washington directed daily newspaper. It became more than that after Watergate. And in a day in which you had emerging national media, The Washington Post, and its syndicated writers, particularly opinion writers, and its news stories sent across different news systems. These became very, very influential.\n\nThe paper was under the control and ownership of the Graham family for a very long time until eventually the paper was sold. And the paper is now under the ownership eventually of Jeff Bezos, who was the founder of Amazon, and of course is one of the richest men on the planet. Okay so in buying The Washington Post, all kinds of people were complaining, all the journalistic community was up in arms. Because the journalistic community wants to act as if they’re the people who control their own destiny, they control their own universe. It is to be done by what they define as press and journalistic standards. And as you know, the press in the United States, it’s not exclusively liberal, but it is overwhelmingly leftist and liberal.\n\nAnd so when Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, there are all kinds of cries about the fact that he’s going to make cuts at the paper, he’s going to make changes at the paper. Well, he did make changes at the paper. He also intervened editorially in terms of the 2024 presidential election, and he used his authority as the owner of the paper, he is the, let’s repeat it, owner of the paper. He made the decision to stop an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board intended to endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The paper did not endorse Donald Trump, but it did not endorse Kamala Harris. And thus you had the journalistic community absolutely up in arms.\n\nBut the big news came just in the last few weeks, as Jeff Bezos has laid off hundreds of employees at The Washington Post and cut entire sections. The sports section, largely, the book review section, other sections of the paper, including the depth of international coverage, it is all being cut back. Why is it being cut back? It is because on average, The Washington Post has been losing more than \\$100 million a year. Okay, so let me just paint a picture for you. If you have an entity that is losing more than \\$100 million a year, let’s just do some simple math. You better stop that in a hurry.\n\nNow, it’s interesting to see some of the supporters of the liberal media come back and say, “He’s a billionaire, he can afford it.” The point is, no one should have to cover \\$100 million losses year after year. What does that tell you? The Washington Post has lost so many subscribers. Like I say, it’s also losing \\$100 million a year. The New York Times has a worldwide circulation of 13 million. The Washington Post, it’s falling fast. And frankly, it is below what can support financially the newspaper.\n\nAnd by the way, in these politically polarized times, a paper generally is going to be more to the left or more to the right, and this means the vast majority or more to the left and the majority of the majority, within the majority, they lean pretty far left. But in this case, Jeff Bezos is saying he’s simply not going to be willing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. And so he’s at least making some kind of effort to cut back on those losses.\n\nIt’s very interesting to see the howling coming from the journalistic community. You would think he just took an ocean liner out to the sea and blew it up. Now, we’re also looking at a major shift in the entire media landscape. Fewer people are paying for newspaper subscriptions. First of all, fewer newspapers are even being printed by far. Fewer are being sold. And that’s just about the print form of the media. You also have online presences, and of course, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and many others, including major British newspapers have made much of that. They’re actually capitalizing on that online presence. The Washington Post, it’s fallen behind. And here’s another lesson, in this kind of fast-changing economy, this fast-changing media landscape, when you fall behind, almost overnight, you’re far behind. And then at some point you’re too far behind.\n\nBut there’s another fascinating aspect to all of this, and we’ll close with this today. And that is, that if you are selling something, and this isn’t free. If you are selling newspapers, here’s an obvious truth. Someone has to be willing to pay for that newspaper. In other words, if you’re selling something and no one’s buying it, you don’t stay in business for long. As many people have pointed out, those have been writing and editing The Washington Post evidently didn’t care to answer the question, why are people not buying our product? I don’t think they really cared. But all of a sudden, those jobs disappeared, and guess what? They care now.\n\nIt has been very interesting to see some people say, “It’s just tawdry. It’s just wrong that Jeff Bezos has made this decision based upon financial considerations.” But you know what? Let me tell you what happens when you don’t worry about financial considerations. You end up out of business. And in this case, you end up out of business because you deserve to be.\n\nThanks for listening to The Briefing.\n\nFor more information, go to my website at [albertmohler.com](http:\/\/albertmohler.com\/). You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to [x.com\/albertmohler](http:\/\/x.com\/albertmohler). For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to [sbts.edu](http:\/\/sbts.edu\/). For information on Boyce College, just go to [boycecollege.com](http:\/\/boycecollege.com\/).\n\nI’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.\n\n###### Documentation and Additional Reading\n[PART I](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/#part1)\n\nThe New York Times (Katie Rogers)\n\n[Trump Puts On a Show, Casting Democrats as the Villains](https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/02\/25\/us\/politics\/trump-state-of-the-union-speech.html)\n\nThe Telegraph (Lily Shanagher)\n\n[A marathon speech, a game show flair, and a clear message from Trump](https:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/world-news\/2026\/02\/25\/donald-trump-returns-game-show-style-state-of-union-address\/)\n\n[PART II](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/#part2)\n\nThe New York Times (Jesse Singal)\n\n[Medical Associations Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care](https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/02\/24\/opinion\/medical-associations-youth-gender-care.html)\n\nThe Cass Review (Hilary Cass)\n\n[Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people](https:\/\/webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ukgwa\/20250310143642\/https:\/\/cass.independent-review.uk\/)\n\n[PART III](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/2026\/02\/26\/briefing-2-26-26\/#part3)\n\nUSA Today (Bart Jansen)\n\n[F-bombs, profanity and politics: a story not fit for this family newspaper](https:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/politics\/2026\/02\/22\/political-rhetoric-america-profane-occasional-violence\/88722687007\/)\n\n***\n![](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/wp-content\/themes\/AlbertMohler-2024\/assets\/images\/sign.png)\n***\nR. Albert Mohler, Jr.\n\nI am always glad to hear from readers. Write me using the [contact form](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/contact\/). Follow regular updates on Twitter at [@albertmohler](https:\/\/twitter.com\/albertmohler).\n\n[Subscribe](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/subscribe\/) via email for daily Briefings and more (unsubscribe at any time).\n\n## Topics\n- [Abortion](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/abortion-topics\/)\n- [Adultery](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/adultery-topics\/)\n- [Anglicanism](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/anglicanism-topics\/)\n- [Animals](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/animals\/)\n- [Art & Culture](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/art-culture\/)\n- [Ask Anything](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/ask-anything\/)\n- [Atheism](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/atheism-topics\/)\n- [Bible](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/bible-topics\/)\n- [Birth Control](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/birth-control-topics\/)\n- [Books](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/books-topics\/)\n- [Childhood](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/childhood-topics-2\/)\n- [Church & Ministry](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/church-ministry\/)\n- [Church History](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/church-history\/)\n- [College & University](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/college-university\/)\n- [Coronavirus](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/coronavirus\/)\n- [Court Decisions](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/court-decisions\/)\n- [Death](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/death-topics\/)\n- [Divorce](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/divorce-topics\/)\n- [Economy & Work](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/economy-work\/)\n- [Education](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/education-topics\/)\n- [Embryos & Stem Cells](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/embryos-stem-cells\/)\n- [Environment](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/environment-topics\/)\n- [Ethics](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/ethics-topics\/)\n- [Euthanasia](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/euthanasia-topics\/)\n- [Evangelicalism](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/evangelicalism-topics-2\/)\n- [Evolutionism](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/evolutionism\/)\n- [Family](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/family-topics-2\/)\n- [Film](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/film-topics\/)\n- [Gambling](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/gambling-topics\/)\n- [Heaven and Hell](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/heaven-and-hell\/)\n- [History](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/history-topics\/)\n- [Homosexuality](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/homosexuality-topics-2\/)\n- [Islam](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/islam-topics\/)\n- [Jesus & the Gospel](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/jesus-the-gospel\/)\n- [Law & Justice](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/law-justice\/)\n- [Leadership](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/leadership-topics\/)\n- [Manhood](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/manhood-topics\/)\n- [Marriage](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/marriage-topics\/)\n- [Mormonism](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/mormonism-topics\/)\n- [Obituaries](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/obituaries\/)\n- [Parental Rights](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/parental-rights-topics\/)\n- [Pluralism](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/pluralism-topics\/)\n- [Politics](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/politics-topics\/)\n- [Population Control](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/population-control-topics\/)\n- [Pornography](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/pornography-topics\/)\n- [Preaching](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/preaching-topics\/)\n- [Publishing](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/publishing\/)\n- [Race](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/race-topics\/)\n- [Religious Freedom](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/religious-freedom\/)\n- [Roman Catholicism](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/roman-catholicism-topics\/)\n- [SBC](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/sbc-topics\/)\n- [Science](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/science-topics\/)\n- [Secularism](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/secularism-topics\/)\n- [Sex Education](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/sex-education-topics\/)\n- [Sexual Revolution](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/sexual-revolution\/)\n- [Singleness](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/singleness\/)\n- [Social Media & Internet](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/social-media-internet\/)\n- [Spirituality](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/spirituality\/)\n- [Sports](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/sports-topics\/)\n- [Technology](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/technology-topics\/)\n- [The Apostles’ Creed](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/the-apostles-creed\/)\n- [The Gathering Storm](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/the-gathering-storm\/)\n- [The Mailbox](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/the-mailbox\/)\n- [The Prayer That Turns the World Upside Down](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/the-prayer-that-turns-the-world-upside-down\/)\n- [Theology](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/theology-topics\/)\n- [Tragedy](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/tragedy\/)\n- [Trends](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/trends\/)\n- [United States](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/united-states-topics\/)\n- [Womanhood](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/topics\/womanhood-topics\/)\n\n## Sermon Series\n- [Apologetics Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/apologetics\/)\n- [Colossians Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/colossians\/)\n- [Deuteronomy Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/deuteronomy\/)\n- [Exodus Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/exodus\/)\n- [Genesis Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/genesis-powerline\/)\n- [Hebrews Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/hebrews-powerline\/)\n- [James Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/james\/)\n- [John Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/john\/)\n- [Leviticus Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/leviticus\/)\n- [Life In Four Stages Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/life-in-four-stages\/)\n- [Matthew Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/matthew\/)\n- [Numbers Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/numbers\/)\n- [Parables of Jesus](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/parables-of-jesus\/)\n- [Romans Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/romans\/)\n- [Titus Series](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/exposition\/titus\/)\n\n## Sermons and Speeches\n- [Address](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/address\/)\n- [Ask Anything Live](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/ask-anything-live\/)\n- [Biblical Topics](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/biblical-topics\/)\n- [Chapel](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/chapel-sermons-and-speeches\/)\n- [Conference](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/conference\/)\n- [Debate](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/debate\/)\n- [Interview](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/interview\/)\n- [Leadership Briefing](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/leadership-briefing\/)\n- [Message](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/message\/)\n- [Panel Discussion](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/panel-discussion\/)\n\n- [Articles](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/articles\/)\n- [The Briefing](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/the-briefing\/)\n- [Thinking in Public](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/thinking-in-public\/)\n- [Speaking & Teaching](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/speaking-teaching\/)\n\n- [Ask Anything](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/ask-anything\/)\n- [Exposition](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/exposition\/)\n- [Leadership Briefing](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/category\/speaking-teaching\/leadership-briefing\/)\n- [Books](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/books\/)\n\n- [About](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/about\/)\n- [Contact](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/contact\/)\n- [Privacy Policy](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/privacy-policy\/)\n- [Terms of Use](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/terms-of-use\/)\n\nGet The Briefing sent directly to your inbox every morning.\n\n© 2025, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. All rights reserved.","attrs_readable_markdown":"It’s Thursday, February 26th, 2026.\n\nI’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing. A daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.\n\n### [Part I]()\n***\n## What the Press Don’t Want to Talk About: The Press is Ignoring President Trump’s Moral Clarity on So-Called Gender Reassignment Procedures for Youth\nWell, the President’s State of the Union address continues to be one of the primary issues of public debate. And as we discussed right after the President gave his speech, it was very clear that the President had given, first of all, an historically long address by most records, the longest yet recorded. And many in the media gave that a lot of attention. And it’s not insignificant, but what is most significant, I will argue today, is what the press is avoiding talking about. What’s most important right now is what the press, the mainstream press, what they don’t want to touch. They’re glad to take apart to go after, to respond to just about everything the President said on Tuesday night during a joint session of Congress.\n\nHere’s the big tell, here’s what they don’t want to talk about. They don’t want to talk about the President with the example of a young woman right there in the assembly. They do not want to talk about the President calling out the transgender insanity. And frankly, when the Democrats would not stand in honor of this young woman and the fact that she was claiming, reclaiming her biological sex as her gender identity, she was escaping this transgender confusion. When the President noted that in his own words, not a single Democrat would stand, he simply cried out, “These people are crazy.” And if you were looking at the President’s face, here’s the amazing thing, it was pretty clear this was a statement of conviction. This was the President of the United States making a moral judgment. “You people are crazy.”\n\nNow, some people will question the politics of that. What I do not want to question is the moral importance of that development. So as I said on The Briefing yesterday, I was determined to see how the mainstream media would reveal itself in terms of that particular event. So far as I can tell, most in the mainstream media have done everything they can to avoid any reference to this whatsoever. I’m going to talk about why that is so. The New York Times did run one standalone news story. It didn’t tell us anything new, but it did, honestly, and I think pretty straightforwardly recapitulate what the President said. The Telegraph, in a major newspaper in London also ran a standalone story, and again, I think it was quite fair.\n\nSo what are we talking about? We’re talking about the fact that most of the mainstream media said nothing, not a word, not a whisper, not a whimper. Let’s ask the question, why? The President called out the Democrats, but more than that, he made a very clear statement. Like he did in his inaugural address back in January of 2025, when he said that in his administration there would be two and only two genders, male and female, corresponding to biology. When the President said that federal government and all right-minded people should stand a defense of children over against the transgender ideologies, and the President put himself on the line and again, I’m so thankful for that on this issue.\n\nThe interesting thing is how many in the media have done everything to ignore the President did any such thing? Now you’ll notice they’ll criticize him on just about everything else. And in a political context, criticism’s fair. That’s why you have political debate. The President knew what he was doing on Tuesday night, he did exactly what he went there to do. He made a lot of headlines, he irritated a lot of people, he made a lot of points, he called out a lot of arguments. He did so in a way that is in many cases nontraditional in American politics. He broke a lot of the rules that had existed for a long time in American politics.\n\nBut what we’re also seeing is that the issues are quite different. No President of the United States had ever had to say as a matter of clarification, that his administration would recognize two and only two genders. And other two previous Democratic administrations that had intentionally confused the issue. But let’s just say you go back even to conservative, to Republican, go back to Ronald Reagan elected President in the 1980 election, he never knew he would have to say this. He never said it. This issue wasn’t even on the radar at the time.\n\nBut President Trump I think showed remarkable clarity and courage by not just making a glancing reference to the issue. But by making sure that Sage Blair, this young woman and her mother were both present there and willing to be recognized. And so when you look at that, the young woman’s right there with her mother right there in the assembly, the fact that as the President said, “Democrats would not stand and respect and honor to her.” That says just about everything. The President went on at considerable length, “These people are crazy.”\n\nSo again, my purpose in returning to this today at this point is primarily to say the mainstream media doesn’t want to touch that. They don’t even want to criticize the President. Let’s ask ourselves the question, why? Well, it is because when it comes to this particular issue, and in some sense it applies to, of course, all the LGBTQIA+ issues. But especially on the transgender confusion, you’re actually, if you’re a transgender activist, you are asking people to deny biological reality. You’re asking them to suspend their moral judgment. You’re actually asking them to see what they don’t see. You’re actually asking them to deny what their own eyes are telling them.\n\nAnd you know that’s a hard argument. It’s so hard as a matter of fact, that the American people are showing a moral reflex in terms of rethinking this issue. So what had been considered by LGBTQ activists an onward march of unbroken progress according to their own determination, they thought they were winning this barrier after barrier was falling. Calling a boy a girl or a girl a boy is just a barrier that Americans, thanks be to God, are not willing to cross, at least not yet.\n\nOkay, so the most important thing we could see today is the fact that the mainstream media want to stay away from this. And we need to learn the lesson, why? This is just good worldview analysis. Why would they avoid the issue? It’s not because they agree with the President. We know that, that’s pretty clear. It is because I think they know the more attention they give to this issue, the more ground do they lose. I think the average American looking at this, seeing that young woman sitting and eventually standing with her mother, they’re going to say, “This is the way the world ought to be.” Even when they don’t have a comprehensive biblical theology, even when they don’t have an adequate understanding of creation order, they do understand the distinction between boy and girl and they understand that it does matter. And denying that it matters means you’re denying what is most basic even in terms of human biology. And it gets back to the President’s statement, “You people are crazy.” And that’s language that a traditional President wouldn’t use, but it is a form of moral insanity, period.\n\n### [Part II]()\n***\n## We are at a Watershed Moment on the Transgender Revolution: The New York Times has Allowed an Opinion Column That Claims Ideology Has Trumped Science on the Issue\nBut okay, it’s also interesting that the very day that the President made this very bold reference in his State of the Union address, The New York Times did run an article. And I’m going to call them out in this case because I appreciate the fact they did run this article. They ran the article. It’s an opinion piece, a guest essay. It’s by Jesse Singal, and he’s identified as, “writing a book about the debate over youth gender medicine in the United States.” He writes the newsletter called Singal Minded. Okay, well that’s interesting. The headline is, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care.\n\nYou look at turning points in terms of a moral trajectory and you say, how did that happen? Well, now you’re looking at a major turning point. This is The New York Times, the most influential newspaper arguably in the world, and it is totally, has been totally sold out to the LGBTQ agenda. I mean sold out as in sold out. But now it’s at least allowing a guest essay of this kind of clarity making the central claim that those who’ve been pushing the transgender agenda, particularly when it comes to children and teenagers, they have been basically peddling an untruth. They “trusted belief over science on youth gender care.”\n\nBut it’s not just that. Remember the headline is this, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. That’s an incredible indictment. Here you have a writer in an article published as a guest piece in The New York Times. It is being run by someone who accuses the major medical associations in the United States basically of going with ideology rather than science. Now let’s just get to the bottom line, that’s exactly right, and that’s exactly what they have done.\n\nBut it is a turning point, we need to recognize this. This tells us that we are at a turning point, a transition moment in this public argument. And that The New York Times would actually run this kind of article that tells you The New York Times at least can figure out there is something new in the air, something they’re going to have to recognize.\n\nOkay, Jesse Singal, by the way, does a very good job in this article, The New York Times ran, basically pointing out that groups even including say the American Medical Association, he tracks it. He goes back to historic statements they made. I’ve done that also on The Briefing and in writing, I’ve gone back and said, “Here’s what they said, say two or three years ago. Here’s what they’re saying now.” And in this article, Jesse Singal does this, and really effectively for The New York Times. He points out that cracks are now appearing in what he calls the supposed wall of consensus. What was that wall of consensus? As one LGBTQ activist organization said and still says, by the way, “Every major medical association supports healthcare for transgender people and youth as safe and lifesaving.”\n\nSo you’ll notice that that’s pretty sly. It’s very effective. He says they’re still saying that. And that’s weeks after major medical associations have actually said the exact opposite. That there’s not adequate scientific data to go ahead with these kinds of treatments and interventions with children and teenagers. Very interesting.\n\nAs Singal says, “Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus.” Singal goes on to write, speaking of what the activist community’s been saying, “The science doesn’t seem so settled after all.” And it’s important to understand what happened here, listen to this carefully, “The approach of left of center Americans and our institutions to assume that when a scientific organization releases a policy statement on a hot button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate is a deeply naive understanding of science, human nature and politics and how they intersect.”\n\nThat’s what we talk about regularly right here. We talk regularly about the fact that when people say, research experts, all these academic groups, all these professional affiliations, they say based on science, this or that. It is often a political statement, it is often a statement of moral judgment disguised as a scientific statement. And again, it’s one thing for us to make that observation. It’s another thing to have this called out in this particular context. And of course Singal also goes back to the Cass Review back in 2024, that was the blockbuster headline centered development in the United Kingdom where the Cass report came out and basically said, there is no adequate science or medical authority for justifying these kinds of hormonal and surgical treatments when it comes to children and teenagers. The scientific evidence that was presented turns out not to be, well in some cases either scientific nor truly evidence.\n\nAs Singal points out, oftentimes what comes out from these organizations, and that includes the American Academy of Pediatrics mentioned here. He goes on to say, “Policy statements like this one can reflect the complex and opaque internal politics of an organization rather than dispassionate scientific analysis.” I think if anything’s a little too generous there, yeah, it’s about politics. It’s about pandering to these activist groups. It is about major institutional representations. Whether it’s a major medical association or a subspecialty association or society. The fact is, they’re very susceptible to this kind of ideological intrusion. And yet they claim the mantle of science.\n\nNow, I also want to point to one other thing, this is not in this article. It’s just something for you to observe looking forward. An awful lot of this comes down to money. And for these very people, it comes down to insurance coverage. Okay so watch what’s going to happen. You’re going to see re-evaluations of all of this. And at some point, some of these folks are going to determine, I am more likely to be sued for doing this than for not doing it. Now, that’s not the keenest moral judgment in a Christian perspective, but you know what? Sometimes it comes down to that. And eventually even the people writing the insurance coverage are going to figure out, this isn’t working. That might also point out it’s wrong.\n\n### [Part III]()\n***\n## The Profane is Becoming Routine: The Public Use of Profanity is Our New Normal – And Our Society is Worse For It\nOkay, speaking about wrong, it is interesting how our society has changed so many judgments on so many issues. I often point to the fact that USA Today is kind of a barometer of moral change. It’s generally coming pretty much solidly from the left in terms of championing most moral change in a leftward direction. But every once in a while, even those who are generally in that directive in terms of moral change in society, sometimes they see something and they just have to wonder, how did this happen?\n\nSo for example, a front page article in USA Today just days ago by Bart Jansen, here’s the headline, “Profanity Vitriol in Political Discourse Surging.” Profanity, you know it is surging, and let’s be really candid. Profanity is showing up all kinds of places where it would never have been seen or heard before. It’s not just in movies and on the screen, it’s not just about movie ratings or the rest. It’s showing up in cable news networks. It’s showing up in political routine, daily political discussion. It is showing up in the White House, is showing up in the President of the United States, and in response to that, it is showing up now among many other politicians on both sides of the aisle.\n\nBack several years ago, the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed to a process he called defining deviancy down. That’s a very keen and essential moral insight. We’re in a society that keeps renegotiating the deviancy line. Something that previous generations would’ve thought would be unthinkable and unquestionably wrong. Well deviancy gets defined downward, constantly downward according to Moynihan in a society that’s losing its moral mind. And so even as some words would have been used only in extreme circumstances such as, for example, in a time of war in the heat of battle, you now have the same kind of language showing up in routine political debate. Not only that, you have people who are just dropping these words and don’t worry, I’m not going to repeat them, you know what they are. They’re dropping these words all over the place. And thus you even have them written all over, showing up on billboards. And I don’t mean spray-painted on, I mean a part of the advertised text.\n\nYou also have the routine use of so many of these words of profanity. You also have shortcuts, and that means that you can just use the first letter and the entire word is invoked. And there were even people who wore buttons invoking some of the worst of this language at the State of the Union Address. Is this just normal now? I think the answer to that question is assuredly, yes, this is just normal now.\n\nUSA Today had this front page news article. Listen to this, “Most of this story isn’t fit for a family newspaper.” That’s the first line in the article at USA Today. Now, obviously it’s a hook. Journalistically, that’s a hook. Very interesting. The article goes on to say, “The country’s political discourse has deteriorated to the point or become so robust that the President can drop a \\[I’m not going to say, a word\\] and get one lobbed back in return.” Okay, so there it is.\n\nThe President probably gets as good as he gives, but the point is, you’ve got this language now being used. Even just a matter of a few years ago, this language would not have been used in two different places I can think of almost immediately. One is on cable news, talk shows or debate shows. The other thing is it wouldn’t have been used in the White House. I’m not saying the word was never used. We know from the Watergate tapes, no, the word was used. But you know what? It wasn’t used by presidents at least in public. Why? Well, at least going back to George Washington, there was the clear understanding that there are things a President must never be seen to do, simply because it isn’t presidential, it isn’t morally right. It’s not something you want to hear coming out of the mouths of your children. So a President shouldn’t say such words.\n\nWe’re now living in a very different world on both sides of the aisle, regrettably. But you know what? The President does have some special responsibility in this, and it seems that the longer he is in office, the more routinely he drops some of these words. It’s also interesting that this USA Today article wants to suggest that there’s a tie between the use of this language and political violence. I can’t tell you if that’s true or not. I can just tell you, you don’t have to get to political violence to see the problem. If you have to get to political violence in order to admit there’s a problem and causality is the issue, you’re really missing the moral point. The moral point is words come with moral weight. This is something that is essential to a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview tells us that our words reveal the heart. Our words reveal how we think. Our words reveal who we are. And we are to use words that bring honor to the Lord. We are not to speak in a way that is either blasphemous on the one hand and offensive to God. We’re not to use words that are not, well, let’s put it this way, not words that we are willing to be associated with, publicly and privately.\n\nI will give some credit to USA Today and to this writer, again, it’s Bart Jansen. I’ll give him some credit for finding a way to talk about this so that you get it and you don’t say it. Listen to this paragraph. Trust me, it’s safe, but just listen to this, it tells you a whole lot. “Some lawmakers are worried because the most offensive language about procreation and defecation has emerged from the shadows and into everyday discourse.” Okay? I think that’s a pretty brilliant way to put it. Procreation and defecation, yeah. Words, which by the way, don’t need to be used in this kind of news article unless it is about a kind of moral problem, which this is a kind of.\n\nSo I thought you would find that interesting. I think parents and others would be particularly interested to know that we really are up against some challenges that previous generations didn’t have to face. This language isn’t new. It was often referred to as gutter language. At other times it was referred to as locker room language, not that it’s appropriate there either. But now it is political language, it’s White House language, it’s US Capitol language, it’s cable news and broadcast reality language. So there’s a warning to us.\n\nFor Christians, we understand it’s a moral challenge, and I think Christians understand it’s one that’s not going to be resolved quickly or easily. Furthermore, it’s not just a matter of etiquette, we understand it should be and must be eventually a matter of conscience.\n\n### [Part IV]()\n***\n## Jeff Bezos Orders Massive Force Reduction at Washington Post — Leftists are Outraged at The Post’s Layoffs, But No Business Can Survive Losing \\$100 Million Per Year\nAll right, while we were talking about the media, I’ve mentioned The New York Times and USA Today, of course there have been so many headlines about the media and in particular about one major American newspaper. When a newspaper is the news, rather than publishing the news, that’s interesting. And the big news is about The Washington Post. We’re talking about one of the nation’s most important newspapers. By the way, it was not always so at a national level. Until the Watergate controversy in that entire development in the 1970s, The Washington Post was largely a Washington directed daily newspaper. It became more than that after Watergate. And in a day in which you had emerging national media, The Washington Post, and its syndicated writers, particularly opinion writers, and its news stories sent across different news systems. These became very, very influential.\n\nThe paper was under the control and ownership of the Graham family for a very long time until eventually the paper was sold. And the paper is now under the ownership eventually of Jeff Bezos, who was the founder of Amazon, and of course is one of the richest men on the planet. Okay so in buying The Washington Post, all kinds of people were complaining, all the journalistic community was up in arms. Because the journalistic community wants to act as if they’re the people who control their own destiny, they control their own universe. It is to be done by what they define as press and journalistic standards. And as you know, the press in the United States, it’s not exclusively liberal, but it is overwhelmingly leftist and liberal.\n\nAnd so when Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, there are all kinds of cries about the fact that he’s going to make cuts at the paper, he’s going to make changes at the paper. Well, he did make changes at the paper. He also intervened editorially in terms of the 2024 presidential election, and he used his authority as the owner of the paper, he is the, let’s repeat it, owner of the paper. He made the decision to stop an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board intended to endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The paper did not endorse Donald Trump, but it did not endorse Kamala Harris. And thus you had the journalistic community absolutely up in arms.\n\nBut the big news came just in the last few weeks, as Jeff Bezos has laid off hundreds of employees at The Washington Post and cut entire sections. The sports section, largely, the book review section, other sections of the paper, including the depth of international coverage, it is all being cut back. Why is it being cut back? It is because on average, The Washington Post has been losing more than \\$100 million a year. Okay, so let me just paint a picture for you. If you have an entity that is losing more than \\$100 million a year, let’s just do some simple math. You better stop that in a hurry.\n\nNow, it’s interesting to see some of the supporters of the liberal media come back and say, “He’s a billionaire, he can afford it.” The point is, no one should have to cover \\$100 million losses year after year. What does that tell you? The Washington Post has lost so many subscribers. Like I say, it’s also losing \\$100 million a year. The New York Times has a worldwide circulation of 13 million. The Washington Post, it’s falling fast. And frankly, it is below what can support financially the newspaper.\n\nAnd by the way, in these politically polarized times, a paper generally is going to be more to the left or more to the right, and this means the vast majority or more to the left and the majority of the majority, within the majority, they lean pretty far left. But in this case, Jeff Bezos is saying he’s simply not going to be willing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. And so he’s at least making some kind of effort to cut back on those losses.\n\nIt’s very interesting to see the howling coming from the journalistic community. You would think he just took an ocean liner out to the sea and blew it up. Now, we’re also looking at a major shift in the entire media landscape. Fewer people are paying for newspaper subscriptions. First of all, fewer newspapers are even being printed by far. Fewer are being sold. And that’s just about the print form of the media. You also have online presences, and of course, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and many others, including major British newspapers have made much of that. They’re actually capitalizing on that online presence. The Washington Post, it’s fallen behind. And here’s another lesson, in this kind of fast-changing economy, this fast-changing media landscape, when you fall behind, almost overnight, you’re far behind. And then at some point you’re too far behind.\n\nBut there’s another fascinating aspect to all of this, and we’ll close with this today. And that is, that if you are selling something, and this isn’t free. If you are selling newspapers, here’s an obvious truth. Someone has to be willing to pay for that newspaper. In other words, if you’re selling something and no one’s buying it, you don’t stay in business for long. As many people have pointed out, those have been writing and editing The Washington Post evidently didn’t care to answer the question, why are people not buying our product? I don’t think they really cared. But all of a sudden, those jobs disappeared, and guess what? They care now.\n\nIt has been very interesting to see some people say, “It’s just tawdry. It’s just wrong that Jeff Bezos has made this decision based upon financial considerations.” But you know what? Let me tell you what happens when you don’t worry about financial considerations. You end up out of business. And in this case, you end up out of business because you deserve to be.\n\nThanks for listening to The Briefing.\n\nFor more information, go to my website at [albertmohler.com](http:\/\/albertmohler.com\/). You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to [x.com\/albertmohler](http:\/\/x.com\/albertmohler). For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to [sbts.edu](http:\/\/sbts.edu\/). For information on Boyce College, just go to [boycecollege.com](http:\/\/boycecollege.com\/).\n\nI’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.\n\n***\n![](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/wp-content\/themes\/AlbertMohler-2024\/assets\/images\/sign.png)\n***\nR. Albert Mohler, Jr.\n\nI am always glad to hear from readers. Write me using the [contact form](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/contact\/). Follow regular updates on Twitter at [@albertmohler](https:\/\/twitter.com\/albertmohler).\n\n[Subscribe](https:\/\/albertmohler.com\/subscribe\/) via email for daily Briefings and more (unsubscribe at any time).","meta_canonical":null,"ml_categories_json":"{\"\/People_and_Society\":962,\"\/People_and_Society\/Religion_and_Belief\":807,\"\/News\":103}","ml_types_json":"{\"\/Article\":963,\"\/Article\/Opinion_Piece\":843}","ml_intent_types_json":"{\"Informational\":999}","meta_language":"en","attrs_author":"R. Albert Mohler","attrs_publish_time":1772099448,"attrs_original_publish_time":1772099448,"attrs_is_republished":0,"attrs_nr_words":"5295","attrs_boilerpipe_nr_words":"4727","body_ext_links_number":17,"body_int_links_number":110,"meta_nofollow":0,"meta_noarchive":0,"props_was_rendered":0,"src_redirect":"","download_time_msec":374,"download_ttfb_msec":359,"download_size":30914}

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:

Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:

Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

📄

INDEXABLE

✅

CRAWLED

8 days ago

🤖

ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

Filter	Status	Condition	Details
HTTP status	PASS	`download_http_code = 200`	HTTP 200
Age cutoff	PASS	`download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH`	0.3 months ago
History drop	PASS	`isNull(history_drop_reason)`	No drop reason
Spam/ban	PASS	`fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0`	ml_spam_score=0
Canonical	PASS	`meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed`	Not set

Page Details

Property

Value

URL

https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/

Last Crawled

2026-04-15 05:10:45 (8 days ago)

First Indexed

2026-02-26 10:07:53 (1 month ago)

HTTP Status Code

200

Content

Meta Title

Thursday, February 26, 2026 - AlbertMohler.com

Meta Description

Cultural commentary from a Biblical perspective, Cultural commentary from a Biblical perspective

Meta Canonical

null

Boilerpipe Text

It’s Thursday, February 26th, 2026. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing. A daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Part I What the Press Don’t Want to Talk About: The Press is Ignoring President Trump’s Moral Clarity on So-Called Gender Reassignment Procedures for Youth Well, the President’s State of the Union address continues to be one of the primary issues of public debate. And as we discussed right after the President gave his speech, it was very clear that the President had given, first of all, an historically long address by most records, the longest yet recorded. And many in the media gave that a lot of attention. And it’s not insignificant, but what is most significant, I will argue today, is what the press is avoiding talking about. What’s most important right now is what the press, the mainstream press, what they don’t want to touch. They’re glad to take apart to go after, to respond to just about everything the President said on Tuesday night during a joint session of Congress. Here’s the big tell, here’s what they don’t want to talk about. They don’t want to talk about the President with the example of a young woman right there in the assembly. They do not want to talk about the President calling out the transgender insanity. And frankly, when the Democrats would not stand in honor of this young woman and the fact that she was claiming, reclaiming her biological sex as her gender identity, she was escaping this transgender confusion. When the President noted that in his own words, not a single Democrat would stand, he simply cried out, “These people are crazy.” And if you were looking at the President’s face, here’s the amazing thing, it was pretty clear this was a statement of conviction. This was the President of the United States making a moral judgment. “You people are crazy.” Now, some people will question the politics of that. What I do not want to question is the moral importance of that development. So as I said on The Briefing yesterday, I was determined to see how the mainstream media would reveal itself in terms of that particular event. So far as I can tell, most in the mainstream media have done everything they can to avoid any reference to this whatsoever. I’m going to talk about why that is so. The New York Times did run one standalone news story. It didn’t tell us anything new, but it did, honestly, and I think pretty straightforwardly recapitulate what the President said. The Telegraph, in a major newspaper in London also ran a standalone story, and again, I think it was quite fair. So what are we talking about? We’re talking about the fact that most of the mainstream media said nothing, not a word, not a whisper, not a whimper. Let’s ask the question, why? The President called out the Democrats, but more than that, he made a very clear statement. Like he did in his inaugural address back in January of 2025, when he said that in his administration there would be two and only two genders, male and female, corresponding to biology. When the President said that federal government and all right-minded people should stand a defense of children over against the transgender ideologies, and the President put himself on the line and again, I’m so thankful for that on this issue. The interesting thing is how many in the media have done everything to ignore the President did any such thing? Now you’ll notice they’ll criticize him on just about everything else. And in a political context, criticism’s fair. That’s why you have political debate. The President knew what he was doing on Tuesday night, he did exactly what he went there to do. He made a lot of headlines, he irritated a lot of people, he made a lot of points, he called out a lot of arguments. He did so in a way that is in many cases nontraditional in American politics. He broke a lot of the rules that had existed for a long time in American politics. But what we’re also seeing is that the issues are quite different. No President of the United States had ever had to say as a matter of clarification, that his administration would recognize two and only two genders. And other two previous Democratic administrations that had intentionally confused the issue. But let’s just say you go back even to conservative, to Republican, go back to Ronald Reagan elected President in the 1980 election, he never knew he would have to say this. He never said it. This issue wasn’t even on the radar at the time. But President Trump I think showed remarkable clarity and courage by not just making a glancing reference to the issue. But by making sure that Sage Blair, this young woman and her mother were both present there and willing to be recognized. And so when you look at that, the young woman’s right there with her mother right there in the assembly, the fact that as the President said, “Democrats would not stand and respect and honor to her.” That says just about everything. The President went on at considerable length, “These people are crazy.” So again, my purpose in returning to this today at this point is primarily to say the mainstream media doesn’t want to touch that. They don’t even want to criticize the President. Let’s ask ourselves the question, why? Well, it is because when it comes to this particular issue, and in some sense it applies to, of course, all the LGBTQIA+ issues. But especially on the transgender confusion, you’re actually, if you’re a transgender activist, you are asking people to deny biological reality. You’re asking them to suspend their moral judgment. You’re actually asking them to see what they don’t see. You’re actually asking them to deny what their own eyes are telling them. And you know that’s a hard argument. It’s so hard as a matter of fact, that the American people are showing a moral reflex in terms of rethinking this issue. So what had been considered by LGBTQ activists an onward march of unbroken progress according to their own determination, they thought they were winning this barrier after barrier was falling. Calling a boy a girl or a girl a boy is just a barrier that Americans, thanks be to God, are not willing to cross, at least not yet. Okay, so the most important thing we could see today is the fact that the mainstream media want to stay away from this. And we need to learn the lesson, why? This is just good worldview analysis. Why would they avoid the issue? It’s not because they agree with the President. We know that, that’s pretty clear. It is because I think they know the more attention they give to this issue, the more ground do they lose. I think the average American looking at this, seeing that young woman sitting and eventually standing with her mother, they’re going to say, “This is the way the world ought to be.” Even when they don’t have a comprehensive biblical theology, even when they don’t have an adequate understanding of creation order, they do understand the distinction between boy and girl and they understand that it does matter. And denying that it matters means you’re denying what is most basic even in terms of human biology. And it gets back to the President’s statement, “You people are crazy.” And that’s language that a traditional President wouldn’t use, but it is a form of moral insanity, period. Part II We are at a Watershed Moment on the Transgender Revolution: The New York Times has Allowed an Opinion Column That Claims Ideology Has Trumped Science on the Issue But okay, it’s also interesting that the very day that the President made this very bold reference in his State of the Union address, The New York Times did run an article. And I’m going to call them out in this case because I appreciate the fact they did run this article. They ran the article. It’s an opinion piece, a guest essay. It’s by Jesse Singal, and he’s identified as, “writing a book about the debate over youth gender medicine in the United States.” He writes the newsletter called Singal Minded. Okay, well that’s interesting. The headline is, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. You look at turning points in terms of a moral trajectory and you say, how did that happen? Well, now you’re looking at a major turning point. This is The New York Times, the most influential newspaper arguably in the world, and it is totally, has been totally sold out to the LGBTQ agenda. I mean sold out as in sold out. But now it’s at least allowing a guest essay of this kind of clarity making the central claim that those who’ve been pushing the transgender agenda, particularly when it comes to children and teenagers, they have been basically peddling an untruth. They “trusted belief over science on youth gender care.” But it’s not just that. Remember the headline is this, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. That’s an incredible indictment. Here you have a writer in an article published as a guest piece in The New York Times. It is being run by someone who accuses the major medical associations in the United States basically of going with ideology rather than science. Now let’s just get to the bottom line, that’s exactly right, and that’s exactly what they have done. But it is a turning point, we need to recognize this. This tells us that we are at a turning point, a transition moment in this public argument. And that The New York Times would actually run this kind of article that tells you The New York Times at least can figure out there is something new in the air, something they’re going to have to recognize. Okay, Jesse Singal, by the way, does a very good job in this article, The New York Times ran, basically pointing out that groups even including say the American Medical Association, he tracks it. He goes back to historic statements they made. I’ve done that also on The Briefing and in writing, I’ve gone back and said, “Here’s what they said, say two or three years ago. Here’s what they’re saying now.” And in this article, Jesse Singal does this, and really effectively for The New York Times. He points out that cracks are now appearing in what he calls the supposed wall of consensus. What was that wall of consensus? As one LGBTQ activist organization said and still says, by the way, “Every major medical association supports healthcare for transgender people and youth as safe and lifesaving.” So you’ll notice that that’s pretty sly. It’s very effective. He says they’re still saying that. And that’s weeks after major medical associations have actually said the exact opposite. That there’s not adequate scientific data to go ahead with these kinds of treatments and interventions with children and teenagers. Very interesting. As Singal says, “Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus.” Singal goes on to write, speaking of what the activist community’s been saying, “The science doesn’t seem so settled after all.” And it’s important to understand what happened here, listen to this carefully, “The approach of left of center Americans and our institutions to assume that when a scientific organization releases a policy statement on a hot button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate is a deeply naive understanding of science, human nature and politics and how they intersect.” That’s what we talk about regularly right here. We talk regularly about the fact that when people say, research experts, all these academic groups, all these professional affiliations, they say based on science, this or that. It is often a political statement, it is often a statement of moral judgment disguised as a scientific statement. And again, it’s one thing for us to make that observation. It’s another thing to have this called out in this particular context. And of course Singal also goes back to the Cass Review back in 2024, that was the blockbuster headline centered development in the United Kingdom where the Cass report came out and basically said, there is no adequate science or medical authority for justifying these kinds of hormonal and surgical treatments when it comes to children and teenagers. The scientific evidence that was presented turns out not to be, well in some cases either scientific nor truly evidence. As Singal points out, oftentimes what comes out from these organizations, and that includes the American Academy of Pediatrics mentioned here. He goes on to say, “Policy statements like this one can reflect the complex and opaque internal politics of an organization rather than dispassionate scientific analysis.” I think if anything’s a little too generous there, yeah, it’s about politics. It’s about pandering to these activist groups. It is about major institutional representations. Whether it’s a major medical association or a subspecialty association or society. The fact is, they’re very susceptible to this kind of ideological intrusion. And yet they claim the mantle of science. Now, I also want to point to one other thing, this is not in this article. It’s just something for you to observe looking forward. An awful lot of this comes down to money. And for these very people, it comes down to insurance coverage. Okay so watch what’s going to happen. You’re going to see re-evaluations of all of this. And at some point, some of these folks are going to determine, I am more likely to be sued for doing this than for not doing it. Now, that’s not the keenest moral judgment in a Christian perspective, but you know what? Sometimes it comes down to that. And eventually even the people writing the insurance coverage are going to figure out, this isn’t working. That might also point out it’s wrong. Part III The Profane is Becoming Routine: The Public Use of Profanity is Our New Normal – And Our Society is Worse For It Okay, speaking about wrong, it is interesting how our society has changed so many judgments on so many issues. I often point to the fact that USA Today is kind of a barometer of moral change. It’s generally coming pretty much solidly from the left in terms of championing most moral change in a leftward direction. But every once in a while, even those who are generally in that directive in terms of moral change in society, sometimes they see something and they just have to wonder, how did this happen? So for example, a front page article in USA Today just days ago by Bart Jansen, here’s the headline, “Profanity Vitriol in Political Discourse Surging.” Profanity, you know it is surging, and let’s be really candid. Profanity is showing up all kinds of places where it would never have been seen or heard before. It’s not just in movies and on the screen, it’s not just about movie ratings or the rest. It’s showing up in cable news networks. It’s showing up in political routine, daily political discussion. It is showing up in the White House, is showing up in the President of the United States, and in response to that, it is showing up now among many other politicians on both sides of the aisle. Back several years ago, the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed to a process he called defining deviancy down. That’s a very keen and essential moral insight. We’re in a society that keeps renegotiating the deviancy line. Something that previous generations would’ve thought would be unthinkable and unquestionably wrong. Well deviancy gets defined downward, constantly downward according to Moynihan in a society that’s losing its moral mind. And so even as some words would have been used only in extreme circumstances such as, for example, in a time of war in the heat of battle, you now have the same kind of language showing up in routine political debate. Not only that, you have people who are just dropping these words and don’t worry, I’m not going to repeat them, you know what they are. They’re dropping these words all over the place. And thus you even have them written all over, showing up on billboards. And I don’t mean spray-painted on, I mean a part of the advertised text. You also have the routine use of so many of these words of profanity. You also have shortcuts, and that means that you can just use the first letter and the entire word is invoked. And there were even people who wore buttons invoking some of the worst of this language at the State of the Union Address. Is this just normal now? I think the answer to that question is assuredly, yes, this is just normal now. USA Today had this front page news article. Listen to this, “Most of this story isn’t fit for a family newspaper.” That’s the first line in the article at USA Today. Now, obviously it’s a hook. Journalistically, that’s a hook. Very interesting. The article goes on to say, “The country’s political discourse has deteriorated to the point or become so robust that the President can drop a [I’m not going to say, a word] and get one lobbed back in return.” Okay, so there it is. The President probably gets as good as he gives, but the point is, you’ve got this language now being used. Even just a matter of a few years ago, this language would not have been used in two different places I can think of almost immediately. One is on cable news, talk shows or debate shows. The other thing is it wouldn’t have been used in the White House. I’m not saying the word was never used. We know from the Watergate tapes, no, the word was used. But you know what? It wasn’t used by presidents at least in public. Why? Well, at least going back to George Washington, there was the clear understanding that there are things a President must never be seen to do, simply because it isn’t presidential, it isn’t morally right. It’s not something you want to hear coming out of the mouths of your children. So a President shouldn’t say such words. We’re now living in a very different world on both sides of the aisle, regrettably. But you know what? The President does have some special responsibility in this, and it seems that the longer he is in office, the more routinely he drops some of these words. It’s also interesting that this USA Today article wants to suggest that there’s a tie between the use of this language and political violence. I can’t tell you if that’s true or not. I can just tell you, you don’t have to get to political violence to see the problem. If you have to get to political violence in order to admit there’s a problem and causality is the issue, you’re really missing the moral point. The moral point is words come with moral weight. This is something that is essential to a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview tells us that our words reveal the heart. Our words reveal how we think. Our words reveal who we are. And we are to use words that bring honor to the Lord. We are not to speak in a way that is either blasphemous on the one hand and offensive to God. We’re not to use words that are not, well, let’s put it this way, not words that we are willing to be associated with, publicly and privately. I will give some credit to USA Today and to this writer, again, it’s Bart Jansen. I’ll give him some credit for finding a way to talk about this so that you get it and you don’t say it. Listen to this paragraph. Trust me, it’s safe, but just listen to this, it tells you a whole lot. “Some lawmakers are worried because the most offensive language about procreation and defecation has emerged from the shadows and into everyday discourse.” Okay? I think that’s a pretty brilliant way to put it. Procreation and defecation, yeah. Words, which by the way, don’t need to be used in this kind of news article unless it is about a kind of moral problem, which this is a kind of. So I thought you would find that interesting. I think parents and others would be particularly interested to know that we really are up against some challenges that previous generations didn’t have to face. This language isn’t new. It was often referred to as gutter language. At other times it was referred to as locker room language, not that it’s appropriate there either. But now it is political language, it’s White House language, it’s US Capitol language, it’s cable news and broadcast reality language. So there’s a warning to us. For Christians, we understand it’s a moral challenge, and I think Christians understand it’s one that’s not going to be resolved quickly or easily. Furthermore, it’s not just a matter of etiquette, we understand it should be and must be eventually a matter of conscience. Part IV Jeff Bezos Orders Massive Force Reduction at Washington Post — Leftists are Outraged at The Post’s Layoffs, But No Business Can Survive Losing $100 Million Per Year All right, while we were talking about the media, I’ve mentioned The New York Times and USA Today, of course there have been so many headlines about the media and in particular about one major American newspaper. When a newspaper is the news, rather than publishing the news, that’s interesting. And the big news is about The Washington Post. We’re talking about one of the nation’s most important newspapers. By the way, it was not always so at a national level. Until the Watergate controversy in that entire development in the 1970s, The Washington Post was largely a Washington directed daily newspaper. It became more than that after Watergate. And in a day in which you had emerging national media, The Washington Post, and its syndicated writers, particularly opinion writers, and its news stories sent across different news systems. These became very, very influential. The paper was under the control and ownership of the Graham family for a very long time until eventually the paper was sold. And the paper is now under the ownership eventually of Jeff Bezos, who was the founder of Amazon, and of course is one of the richest men on the planet. Okay so in buying The Washington Post, all kinds of people were complaining, all the journalistic community was up in arms. Because the journalistic community wants to act as if they’re the people who control their own destiny, they control their own universe. It is to be done by what they define as press and journalistic standards. And as you know, the press in the United States, it’s not exclusively liberal, but it is overwhelmingly leftist and liberal. And so when Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, there are all kinds of cries about the fact that he’s going to make cuts at the paper, he’s going to make changes at the paper. Well, he did make changes at the paper. He also intervened editorially in terms of the 2024 presidential election, and he used his authority as the owner of the paper, he is the, let’s repeat it, owner of the paper. He made the decision to stop an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board intended to endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The paper did not endorse Donald Trump, but it did not endorse Kamala Harris. And thus you had the journalistic community absolutely up in arms. But the big news came just in the last few weeks, as Jeff Bezos has laid off hundreds of employees at The Washington Post and cut entire sections. The sports section, largely, the book review section, other sections of the paper, including the depth of international coverage, it is all being cut back. Why is it being cut back? It is because on average, The Washington Post has been losing more than $100 million a year. Okay, so let me just paint a picture for you. If you have an entity that is losing more than $100 million a year, let’s just do some simple math. You better stop that in a hurry. Now, it’s interesting to see some of the supporters of the liberal media come back and say, “He’s a billionaire, he can afford it.” The point is, no one should have to cover $100 million losses year after year. What does that tell you? The Washington Post has lost so many subscribers. Like I say, it’s also losing $100 million a year. The New York Times has a worldwide circulation of 13 million. The Washington Post, it’s falling fast. And frankly, it is below what can support financially the newspaper. And by the way, in these politically polarized times, a paper generally is going to be more to the left or more to the right, and this means the vast majority or more to the left and the majority of the majority, within the majority, they lean pretty far left. But in this case, Jeff Bezos is saying he’s simply not going to be willing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. And so he’s at least making some kind of effort to cut back on those losses. It’s very interesting to see the howling coming from the journalistic community. You would think he just took an ocean liner out to the sea and blew it up. Now, we’re also looking at a major shift in the entire media landscape. Fewer people are paying for newspaper subscriptions. First of all, fewer newspapers are even being printed by far. Fewer are being sold. And that’s just about the print form of the media. You also have online presences, and of course, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and many others, including major British newspapers have made much of that. They’re actually capitalizing on that online presence. The Washington Post, it’s fallen behind. And here’s another lesson, in this kind of fast-changing economy, this fast-changing media landscape, when you fall behind, almost overnight, you’re far behind. And then at some point you’re too far behind. But there’s another fascinating aspect to all of this, and we’ll close with this today. And that is, that if you are selling something, and this isn’t free. If you are selling newspapers, here’s an obvious truth. Someone has to be willing to pay for that newspaper. In other words, if you’re selling something and no one’s buying it, you don’t stay in business for long. As many people have pointed out, those have been writing and editing The Washington Post evidently didn’t care to answer the question, why are people not buying our product? I don’t think they really cared. But all of a sudden, those jobs disappeared, and guess what? They care now. It has been very interesting to see some people say, “It’s just tawdry. It’s just wrong that Jeff Bezos has made this decision based upon financial considerations.” But you know what? Let me tell you what happens when you don’t worry about financial considerations. You end up out of business. And in this case, you end up out of business because you deserve to be. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com . You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com/albertmohler . For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu . For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com . I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me using the contact form . Follow regular updates on Twitter at @albertmohler . Subscribe via email for daily Briefings and more (unsubscribe at any time).

Markdown

- [About](https://albertmohler.com/about/) - [Contact](https://albertmohler.com/contact/) [![AlbertMohler.com](https://cf.albertmohler.com/uploads/2024/02/logo-2024_new.svg)](https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/%20https://albertmohler.com/) - [Donate](https://albertmohler.com/donate/) - [Subscribe](https://albertmohler.com/subscribe/) - [Articles](https://albertmohler.com/articles/) - [The Briefing](https://albertmohler.com/the-briefing/) - [Thinking in Public](https://albertmohler.com/thinking-in-public/) - [Speaking & Teaching](https://albertmohler.com/speaking-teaching/) - [Ask Anything](https://albertmohler.com/ask-anything/) - [Exposition](https://albertmohler.com/exposition/) - [Books](https://albertmohler.com/books/) [![AlbertMohler.com](https://cf.albertmohler.com/uploads/2024/02/logo-2024_new.svg)](https://albertmohler.com/) - [Articles](https://albertmohler.com/articles/) - [The Briefing](https://albertmohler.com/the-briefing/) - [Thinking in Public](https://albertmohler.com/thinking-in-public/) - [Speaking & Teaching](https://albertmohler.com/speaking-teaching/) - [Ask Anything](https://albertmohler.com/ask-anything/) - [Exposition](https://albertmohler.com/exposition/) - [Books](https://albertmohler.com/books/) [![AlbertMohler.com](https://cf.albertmohler.com/uploads/2024/02/logo-2024_new.svg)](https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/%20https://albertmohler.com/) - [Articles](https://albertmohler.com/articles/) - [The Briefing](https://albertmohler.com/the-briefing/) - [Thinking in Public](https://albertmohler.com/thinking-in-public/) - [Speaking & Teaching](https://albertmohler.com/speaking-teaching/) - [Ask Anything](https://albertmohler.com/ask-anything/) - [Exposition](https://albertmohler.com/exposition/) - [Books](https://albertmohler.com/books/) - [About](https://albertmohler.com/about/) - [Contact](https://albertmohler.com/contact/) - [Donate](https://albertmohler.com/donate/) - [Subscribe](https://albertmohler.com/subscribe/) [Home](https://albertmohler.com/) / [The Briefing](https://albertmohler.com/the-briefing/) / Thursday, February 26, 2026 # Thursday, February 26, 2026 [Download MP3](https://p.podderapp.com/9103131664/https://pod.albertmohler.com/Podcast/20260226_thebriefing.mp3) ###### Documentation and Additional Reading [PART I](https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/#part1) The New York Times (Katie Rogers) [Trump Puts On a Show, Casting Democrats as the Villains](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/politics/trump-state-of-the-union-speech.html) The Telegraph (Lily Shanagher) [A marathon speech, a game show flair, and a clear message from Trump](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/02/25/donald-trump-returns-game-show-style-state-of-union-address/) [PART II](https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/#part2) The New York Times (Jesse Singal) [Medical Associations Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/24/opinion/medical-associations-youth-gender-care.html) The Cass Review (Hilary Cass) [Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143642/https://cass.independent-review.uk/) [PART III](https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/#part3) USA Today (Bart Jansen) [F-bombs, profanity and politics: a story not fit for this family newspaper](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/02/22/political-rhetoric-america-profane-occasional-violence/88722687007/) [PART IWhat the Press Don’t Want to Talk About: The Press is Ignoring President Trump’s Moral Clarity on So-Called Gender Reassignment Procedures for Youth]() [PART IIWe are at a Watershed Moment on the Transgender Revolution: The New York Times has Allowed an Opinion Column That Claims Ideology Has Trumped Science on the Issue]() [PART IIIThe Profane is Becoming Routine: The Public Use of Profanity is Our New Normal – And Our Society is Worse For It]() [PART IVJeff Bezos Orders Massive Force Reduction at Washington Post — Leftists are Outraged at The Post’s Layoffs, But No Business Can Survive Losing \$100 Million Per Year]() It’s Thursday, February 26th, 2026. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing. A daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. ### [Part I]() *** ## What the Press Don’t Want to Talk About: The Press is Ignoring President Trump’s Moral Clarity on So-Called Gender Reassignment Procedures for Youth Well, the President’s State of the Union address continues to be one of the primary issues of public debate. And as we discussed right after the President gave his speech, it was very clear that the President had given, first of all, an historically long address by most records, the longest yet recorded. And many in the media gave that a lot of attention. And it’s not insignificant, but what is most significant, I will argue today, is what the press is avoiding talking about. What’s most important right now is what the press, the mainstream press, what they don’t want to touch. They’re glad to take apart to go after, to respond to just about everything the President said on Tuesday night during a joint session of Congress. Here’s the big tell, here’s what they don’t want to talk about. They don’t want to talk about the President with the example of a young woman right there in the assembly. They do not want to talk about the President calling out the transgender insanity. And frankly, when the Democrats would not stand in honor of this young woman and the fact that she was claiming, reclaiming her biological sex as her gender identity, she was escaping this transgender confusion. When the President noted that in his own words, not a single Democrat would stand, he simply cried out, “These people are crazy.” And if you were looking at the President’s face, here’s the amazing thing, it was pretty clear this was a statement of conviction. This was the President of the United States making a moral judgment. “You people are crazy.” Now, some people will question the politics of that. What I do not want to question is the moral importance of that development. So as I said on The Briefing yesterday, I was determined to see how the mainstream media would reveal itself in terms of that particular event. So far as I can tell, most in the mainstream media have done everything they can to avoid any reference to this whatsoever. I’m going to talk about why that is so. The New York Times did run one standalone news story. It didn’t tell us anything new, but it did, honestly, and I think pretty straightforwardly recapitulate what the President said. The Telegraph, in a major newspaper in London also ran a standalone story, and again, I think it was quite fair. So what are we talking about? We’re talking about the fact that most of the mainstream media said nothing, not a word, not a whisper, not a whimper. Let’s ask the question, why? The President called out the Democrats, but more than that, he made a very clear statement. Like he did in his inaugural address back in January of 2025, when he said that in his administration there would be two and only two genders, male and female, corresponding to biology. When the President said that federal government and all right-minded people should stand a defense of children over against the transgender ideologies, and the President put himself on the line and again, I’m so thankful for that on this issue. The interesting thing is how many in the media have done everything to ignore the President did any such thing? Now you’ll notice they’ll criticize him on just about everything else. And in a political context, criticism’s fair. That’s why you have political debate. The President knew what he was doing on Tuesday night, he did exactly what he went there to do. He made a lot of headlines, he irritated a lot of people, he made a lot of points, he called out a lot of arguments. He did so in a way that is in many cases nontraditional in American politics. He broke a lot of the rules that had existed for a long time in American politics. But what we’re also seeing is that the issues are quite different. No President of the United States had ever had to say as a matter of clarification, that his administration would recognize two and only two genders. And other two previous Democratic administrations that had intentionally confused the issue. But let’s just say you go back even to conservative, to Republican, go back to Ronald Reagan elected President in the 1980 election, he never knew he would have to say this. He never said it. This issue wasn’t even on the radar at the time. But President Trump I think showed remarkable clarity and courage by not just making a glancing reference to the issue. But by making sure that Sage Blair, this young woman and her mother were both present there and willing to be recognized. And so when you look at that, the young woman’s right there with her mother right there in the assembly, the fact that as the President said, “Democrats would not stand and respect and honor to her.” That says just about everything. The President went on at considerable length, “These people are crazy.” So again, my purpose in returning to this today at this point is primarily to say the mainstream media doesn’t want to touch that. They don’t even want to criticize the President. Let’s ask ourselves the question, why? Well, it is because when it comes to this particular issue, and in some sense it applies to, of course, all the LGBTQIA+ issues. But especially on the transgender confusion, you’re actually, if you’re a transgender activist, you are asking people to deny biological reality. You’re asking them to suspend their moral judgment. You’re actually asking them to see what they don’t see. You’re actually asking them to deny what their own eyes are telling them. And you know that’s a hard argument. It’s so hard as a matter of fact, that the American people are showing a moral reflex in terms of rethinking this issue. So what had been considered by LGBTQ activists an onward march of unbroken progress according to their own determination, they thought they were winning this barrier after barrier was falling. Calling a boy a girl or a girl a boy is just a barrier that Americans, thanks be to God, are not willing to cross, at least not yet. Okay, so the most important thing we could see today is the fact that the mainstream media want to stay away from this. And we need to learn the lesson, why? This is just good worldview analysis. Why would they avoid the issue? It’s not because they agree with the President. We know that, that’s pretty clear. It is because I think they know the more attention they give to this issue, the more ground do they lose. I think the average American looking at this, seeing that young woman sitting and eventually standing with her mother, they’re going to say, “This is the way the world ought to be.” Even when they don’t have a comprehensive biblical theology, even when they don’t have an adequate understanding of creation order, they do understand the distinction between boy and girl and they understand that it does matter. And denying that it matters means you’re denying what is most basic even in terms of human biology. And it gets back to the President’s statement, “You people are crazy.” And that’s language that a traditional President wouldn’t use, but it is a form of moral insanity, period. ### [Part II]() *** ## We are at a Watershed Moment on the Transgender Revolution: The New York Times has Allowed an Opinion Column That Claims Ideology Has Trumped Science on the Issue But okay, it’s also interesting that the very day that the President made this very bold reference in his State of the Union address, The New York Times did run an article. And I’m going to call them out in this case because I appreciate the fact they did run this article. They ran the article. It’s an opinion piece, a guest essay. It’s by Jesse Singal, and he’s identified as, “writing a book about the debate over youth gender medicine in the United States.” He writes the newsletter called Singal Minded. Okay, well that’s interesting. The headline is, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. You look at turning points in terms of a moral trajectory and you say, how did that happen? Well, now you’re looking at a major turning point. This is The New York Times, the most influential newspaper arguably in the world, and it is totally, has been totally sold out to the LGBTQ agenda. I mean sold out as in sold out. But now it’s at least allowing a guest essay of this kind of clarity making the central claim that those who’ve been pushing the transgender agenda, particularly when it comes to children and teenagers, they have been basically peddling an untruth. They “trusted belief over science on youth gender care.” But it’s not just that. Remember the headline is this, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. That’s an incredible indictment. Here you have a writer in an article published as a guest piece in The New York Times. It is being run by someone who accuses the major medical associations in the United States basically of going with ideology rather than science. Now let’s just get to the bottom line, that’s exactly right, and that’s exactly what they have done. But it is a turning point, we need to recognize this. This tells us that we are at a turning point, a transition moment in this public argument. And that The New York Times would actually run this kind of article that tells you The New York Times at least can figure out there is something new in the air, something they’re going to have to recognize. Okay, Jesse Singal, by the way, does a very good job in this article, The New York Times ran, basically pointing out that groups even including say the American Medical Association, he tracks it. He goes back to historic statements they made. I’ve done that also on The Briefing and in writing, I’ve gone back and said, “Here’s what they said, say two or three years ago. Here’s what they’re saying now.” And in this article, Jesse Singal does this, and really effectively for The New York Times. He points out that cracks are now appearing in what he calls the supposed wall of consensus. What was that wall of consensus? As one LGBTQ activist organization said and still says, by the way, “Every major medical association supports healthcare for transgender people and youth as safe and lifesaving.” So you’ll notice that that’s pretty sly. It’s very effective. He says they’re still saying that. And that’s weeks after major medical associations have actually said the exact opposite. That there’s not adequate scientific data to go ahead with these kinds of treatments and interventions with children and teenagers. Very interesting. As Singal says, “Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus.” Singal goes on to write, speaking of what the activist community’s been saying, “The science doesn’t seem so settled after all.” And it’s important to understand what happened here, listen to this carefully, “The approach of left of center Americans and our institutions to assume that when a scientific organization releases a policy statement on a hot button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate is a deeply naive understanding of science, human nature and politics and how they intersect.” That’s what we talk about regularly right here. We talk regularly about the fact that when people say, research experts, all these academic groups, all these professional affiliations, they say based on science, this or that. It is often a political statement, it is often a statement of moral judgment disguised as a scientific statement. And again, it’s one thing for us to make that observation. It’s another thing to have this called out in this particular context. And of course Singal also goes back to the Cass Review back in 2024, that was the blockbuster headline centered development in the United Kingdom where the Cass report came out and basically said, there is no adequate science or medical authority for justifying these kinds of hormonal and surgical treatments when it comes to children and teenagers. The scientific evidence that was presented turns out not to be, well in some cases either scientific nor truly evidence. As Singal points out, oftentimes what comes out from these organizations, and that includes the American Academy of Pediatrics mentioned here. He goes on to say, “Policy statements like this one can reflect the complex and opaque internal politics of an organization rather than dispassionate scientific analysis.” I think if anything’s a little too generous there, yeah, it’s about politics. It’s about pandering to these activist groups. It is about major institutional representations. Whether it’s a major medical association or a subspecialty association or society. The fact is, they’re very susceptible to this kind of ideological intrusion. And yet they claim the mantle of science. Now, I also want to point to one other thing, this is not in this article. It’s just something for you to observe looking forward. An awful lot of this comes down to money. And for these very people, it comes down to insurance coverage. Okay so watch what’s going to happen. You’re going to see re-evaluations of all of this. And at some point, some of these folks are going to determine, I am more likely to be sued for doing this than for not doing it. Now, that’s not the keenest moral judgment in a Christian perspective, but you know what? Sometimes it comes down to that. And eventually even the people writing the insurance coverage are going to figure out, this isn’t working. That might also point out it’s wrong. ### [Part III]() *** ## The Profane is Becoming Routine: The Public Use of Profanity is Our New Normal – And Our Society is Worse For It Okay, speaking about wrong, it is interesting how our society has changed so many judgments on so many issues. I often point to the fact that USA Today is kind of a barometer of moral change. It’s generally coming pretty much solidly from the left in terms of championing most moral change in a leftward direction. But every once in a while, even those who are generally in that directive in terms of moral change in society, sometimes they see something and they just have to wonder, how did this happen? So for example, a front page article in USA Today just days ago by Bart Jansen, here’s the headline, “Profanity Vitriol in Political Discourse Surging.” Profanity, you know it is surging, and let’s be really candid. Profanity is showing up all kinds of places where it would never have been seen or heard before. It’s not just in movies and on the screen, it’s not just about movie ratings or the rest. It’s showing up in cable news networks. It’s showing up in political routine, daily political discussion. It is showing up in the White House, is showing up in the President of the United States, and in response to that, it is showing up now among many other politicians on both sides of the aisle. Back several years ago, the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed to a process he called defining deviancy down. That’s a very keen and essential moral insight. We’re in a society that keeps renegotiating the deviancy line. Something that previous generations would’ve thought would be unthinkable and unquestionably wrong. Well deviancy gets defined downward, constantly downward according to Moynihan in a society that’s losing its moral mind. And so even as some words would have been used only in extreme circumstances such as, for example, in a time of war in the heat of battle, you now have the same kind of language showing up in routine political debate. Not only that, you have people who are just dropping these words and don’t worry, I’m not going to repeat them, you know what they are. They’re dropping these words all over the place. And thus you even have them written all over, showing up on billboards. And I don’t mean spray-painted on, I mean a part of the advertised text. You also have the routine use of so many of these words of profanity. You also have shortcuts, and that means that you can just use the first letter and the entire word is invoked. And there were even people who wore buttons invoking some of the worst of this language at the State of the Union Address. Is this just normal now? I think the answer to that question is assuredly, yes, this is just normal now. USA Today had this front page news article. Listen to this, “Most of this story isn’t fit for a family newspaper.” That’s the first line in the article at USA Today. Now, obviously it’s a hook. Journalistically, that’s a hook. Very interesting. The article goes on to say, “The country’s political discourse has deteriorated to the point or become so robust that the President can drop a \[I’m not going to say, a word\] and get one lobbed back in return.” Okay, so there it is. The President probably gets as good as he gives, but the point is, you’ve got this language now being used. Even just a matter of a few years ago, this language would not have been used in two different places I can think of almost immediately. One is on cable news, talk shows or debate shows. The other thing is it wouldn’t have been used in the White House. I’m not saying the word was never used. We know from the Watergate tapes, no, the word was used. But you know what? It wasn’t used by presidents at least in public. Why? Well, at least going back to George Washington, there was the clear understanding that there are things a President must never be seen to do, simply because it isn’t presidential, it isn’t morally right. It’s not something you want to hear coming out of the mouths of your children. So a President shouldn’t say such words. We’re now living in a very different world on both sides of the aisle, regrettably. But you know what? The President does have some special responsibility in this, and it seems that the longer he is in office, the more routinely he drops some of these words. It’s also interesting that this USA Today article wants to suggest that there’s a tie between the use of this language and political violence. I can’t tell you if that’s true or not. I can just tell you, you don’t have to get to political violence to see the problem. If you have to get to political violence in order to admit there’s a problem and causality is the issue, you’re really missing the moral point. The moral point is words come with moral weight. This is something that is essential to a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview tells us that our words reveal the heart. Our words reveal how we think. Our words reveal who we are. And we are to use words that bring honor to the Lord. We are not to speak in a way that is either blasphemous on the one hand and offensive to God. We’re not to use words that are not, well, let’s put it this way, not words that we are willing to be associated with, publicly and privately. I will give some credit to USA Today and to this writer, again, it’s Bart Jansen. I’ll give him some credit for finding a way to talk about this so that you get it and you don’t say it. Listen to this paragraph. Trust me, it’s safe, but just listen to this, it tells you a whole lot. “Some lawmakers are worried because the most offensive language about procreation and defecation has emerged from the shadows and into everyday discourse.” Okay? I think that’s a pretty brilliant way to put it. Procreation and defecation, yeah. Words, which by the way, don’t need to be used in this kind of news article unless it is about a kind of moral problem, which this is a kind of. So I thought you would find that interesting. I think parents and others would be particularly interested to know that we really are up against some challenges that previous generations didn’t have to face. This language isn’t new. It was often referred to as gutter language. At other times it was referred to as locker room language, not that it’s appropriate there either. But now it is political language, it’s White House language, it’s US Capitol language, it’s cable news and broadcast reality language. So there’s a warning to us. For Christians, we understand it’s a moral challenge, and I think Christians understand it’s one that’s not going to be resolved quickly or easily. Furthermore, it’s not just a matter of etiquette, we understand it should be and must be eventually a matter of conscience. ### [Part IV]() *** ## Jeff Bezos Orders Massive Force Reduction at Washington Post — Leftists are Outraged at The Post’s Layoffs, But No Business Can Survive Losing \$100 Million Per Year All right, while we were talking about the media, I’ve mentioned The New York Times and USA Today, of course there have been so many headlines about the media and in particular about one major American newspaper. When a newspaper is the news, rather than publishing the news, that’s interesting. And the big news is about The Washington Post. We’re talking about one of the nation’s most important newspapers. By the way, it was not always so at a national level. Until the Watergate controversy in that entire development in the 1970s, The Washington Post was largely a Washington directed daily newspaper. It became more than that after Watergate. And in a day in which you had emerging national media, The Washington Post, and its syndicated writers, particularly opinion writers, and its news stories sent across different news systems. These became very, very influential. The paper was under the control and ownership of the Graham family for a very long time until eventually the paper was sold. And the paper is now under the ownership eventually of Jeff Bezos, who was the founder of Amazon, and of course is one of the richest men on the planet. Okay so in buying The Washington Post, all kinds of people were complaining, all the journalistic community was up in arms. Because the journalistic community wants to act as if they’re the people who control their own destiny, they control their own universe. It is to be done by what they define as press and journalistic standards. And as you know, the press in the United States, it’s not exclusively liberal, but it is overwhelmingly leftist and liberal. And so when Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, there are all kinds of cries about the fact that he’s going to make cuts at the paper, he’s going to make changes at the paper. Well, he did make changes at the paper. He also intervened editorially in terms of the 2024 presidential election, and he used his authority as the owner of the paper, he is the, let’s repeat it, owner of the paper. He made the decision to stop an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board intended to endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The paper did not endorse Donald Trump, but it did not endorse Kamala Harris. And thus you had the journalistic community absolutely up in arms. But the big news came just in the last few weeks, as Jeff Bezos has laid off hundreds of employees at The Washington Post and cut entire sections. The sports section, largely, the book review section, other sections of the paper, including the depth of international coverage, it is all being cut back. Why is it being cut back? It is because on average, The Washington Post has been losing more than \$100 million a year. Okay, so let me just paint a picture for you. If you have an entity that is losing more than \$100 million a year, let’s just do some simple math. You better stop that in a hurry. Now, it’s interesting to see some of the supporters of the liberal media come back and say, “He’s a billionaire, he can afford it.” The point is, no one should have to cover \$100 million losses year after year. What does that tell you? The Washington Post has lost so many subscribers. Like I say, it’s also losing \$100 million a year. The New York Times has a worldwide circulation of 13 million. The Washington Post, it’s falling fast. And frankly, it is below what can support financially the newspaper. And by the way, in these politically polarized times, a paper generally is going to be more to the left or more to the right, and this means the vast majority or more to the left and the majority of the majority, within the majority, they lean pretty far left. But in this case, Jeff Bezos is saying he’s simply not going to be willing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. And so he’s at least making some kind of effort to cut back on those losses. It’s very interesting to see the howling coming from the journalistic community. You would think he just took an ocean liner out to the sea and blew it up. Now, we’re also looking at a major shift in the entire media landscape. Fewer people are paying for newspaper subscriptions. First of all, fewer newspapers are even being printed by far. Fewer are being sold. And that’s just about the print form of the media. You also have online presences, and of course, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and many others, including major British newspapers have made much of that. They’re actually capitalizing on that online presence. The Washington Post, it’s fallen behind. And here’s another lesson, in this kind of fast-changing economy, this fast-changing media landscape, when you fall behind, almost overnight, you’re far behind. And then at some point you’re too far behind. But there’s another fascinating aspect to all of this, and we’ll close with this today. And that is, that if you are selling something, and this isn’t free. If you are selling newspapers, here’s an obvious truth. Someone has to be willing to pay for that newspaper. In other words, if you’re selling something and no one’s buying it, you don’t stay in business for long. As many people have pointed out, those have been writing and editing The Washington Post evidently didn’t care to answer the question, why are people not buying our product? I don’t think they really cared. But all of a sudden, those jobs disappeared, and guess what? They care now. It has been very interesting to see some people say, “It’s just tawdry. It’s just wrong that Jeff Bezos has made this decision based upon financial considerations.” But you know what? Let me tell you what happens when you don’t worry about financial considerations. You end up out of business. And in this case, you end up out of business because you deserve to be. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at [albertmohler.com](http://albertmohler.com/). You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to [x.com/albertmohler](http://x.com/albertmohler). For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to [sbts.edu](http://sbts.edu/). For information on Boyce College, just go to [boycecollege.com](http://boycecollege.com/). I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing. ###### Documentation and Additional Reading [PART I](https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/#part1) The New York Times (Katie Rogers) [Trump Puts On a Show, Casting Democrats as the Villains](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/politics/trump-state-of-the-union-speech.html) The Telegraph (Lily Shanagher) [A marathon speech, a game show flair, and a clear message from Trump](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/02/25/donald-trump-returns-game-show-style-state-of-union-address/) [PART II](https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/#part2) The New York Times (Jesse Singal) [Medical Associations Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/24/opinion/medical-associations-youth-gender-care.html) The Cass Review (Hilary Cass) [Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143642/https://cass.independent-review.uk/) [PART III](https://albertmohler.com/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/#part3) USA Today (Bart Jansen) [F-bombs, profanity and politics: a story not fit for this family newspaper](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/02/22/political-rhetoric-america-profane-occasional-violence/88722687007/) *** ![](https://albertmohler.com/wp-content/themes/AlbertMohler-2024/assets/images/sign.png) *** R. Albert Mohler, Jr. I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me using the [contact form](https://albertmohler.com/contact/). Follow regular updates on Twitter at [@albertmohler](https://twitter.com/albertmohler). [Subscribe](https://albertmohler.com/subscribe/) via email for daily Briefings and more (unsubscribe at any time). ## Topics - [Abortion](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/abortion-topics/) - [Adultery](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/adultery-topics/) - [Anglicanism](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/anglicanism-topics/) - [Animals](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/animals/) - [Art & Culture](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/art-culture/) - [Ask Anything](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/ask-anything/) - [Atheism](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/atheism-topics/) - [Bible](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/bible-topics/) - [Birth Control](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/birth-control-topics/) - [Books](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/books-topics/) - [Childhood](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/childhood-topics-2/) - [Church & Ministry](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/church-ministry/) - [Church History](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/church-history/) - [College & University](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/college-university/) - [Coronavirus](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/coronavirus/) - [Court Decisions](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/court-decisions/) - [Death](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/death-topics/) - [Divorce](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/divorce-topics/) - [Economy & Work](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/economy-work/) - [Education](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/education-topics/) - [Embryos & Stem Cells](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/embryos-stem-cells/) - [Environment](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/environment-topics/) - [Ethics](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/ethics-topics/) - [Euthanasia](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/euthanasia-topics/) - [Evangelicalism](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/evangelicalism-topics-2/) - [Evolutionism](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/evolutionism/) - [Family](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/family-topics-2/) - [Film](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/film-topics/) - [Gambling](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/gambling-topics/) - [Heaven and Hell](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/heaven-and-hell/) - [History](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/history-topics/) - [Homosexuality](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/homosexuality-topics-2/) - [Islam](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/islam-topics/) - [Jesus & the Gospel](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/jesus-the-gospel/) - [Law & Justice](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/law-justice/) - [Leadership](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/leadership-topics/) - [Manhood](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/manhood-topics/) - [Marriage](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/marriage-topics/) - [Mormonism](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/mormonism-topics/) - [Obituaries](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/obituaries/) - [Parental Rights](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/parental-rights-topics/) - [Pluralism](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/pluralism-topics/) - [Politics](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/politics-topics/) - [Population Control](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/population-control-topics/) - [Pornography](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/pornography-topics/) - [Preaching](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/preaching-topics/) - [Publishing](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/publishing/) - [Race](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/race-topics/) - [Religious Freedom](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/religious-freedom/) - [Roman Catholicism](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/roman-catholicism-topics/) - [SBC](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/sbc-topics/) - [Science](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/science-topics/) - [Secularism](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/secularism-topics/) - [Sex Education](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/sex-education-topics/) - [Sexual Revolution](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/sexual-revolution/) - [Singleness](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/singleness/) - [Social Media & Internet](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/social-media-internet/) - [Spirituality](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/spirituality/) - [Sports](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/sports-topics/) - [Technology](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/technology-topics/) - [The Apostles’ Creed](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/the-apostles-creed/) - [The Gathering Storm](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/the-gathering-storm/) - [The Mailbox](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/the-mailbox/) - [The Prayer That Turns the World Upside Down](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/the-prayer-that-turns-the-world-upside-down/) - [Theology](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/theology-topics/) - [Tragedy](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/tragedy/) - [Trends](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/trends/) - [United States](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/united-states-topics/) - [Womanhood](https://albertmohler.com/category/topics/womanhood-topics/) ## Sermon Series - [Apologetics Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/apologetics/) - [Colossians Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/colossians/) - [Deuteronomy Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/deuteronomy/) - [Exodus Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/exodus/) - [Genesis Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/genesis-powerline/) - [Hebrews Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/hebrews-powerline/) - [James Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/james/) - [John Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/john/) - [Leviticus Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/leviticus/) - [Life In Four Stages Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/life-in-four-stages/) - [Matthew Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/matthew/) - [Numbers Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/numbers/) - [Parables of Jesus](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/parables-of-jesus/) - [Romans Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/romans/) - [Titus Series](https://albertmohler.com/category/exposition/titus/) ## Sermons and Speeches - [Address](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/address/) - [Ask Anything Live](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/ask-anything-live/) - [Biblical Topics](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/biblical-topics/) - [Chapel](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/chapel-sermons-and-speeches/) - [Conference](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/conference/) - [Debate](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/debate/) - [Interview](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/interview/) - [Leadership Briefing](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/leadership-briefing/) - [Message](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/message/) - [Panel Discussion](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/panel-discussion/) - [Articles](https://albertmohler.com/articles/) - [The Briefing](https://albertmohler.com/the-briefing/) - [Thinking in Public](https://albertmohler.com/thinking-in-public/) - [Speaking & Teaching](https://albertmohler.com/speaking-teaching/) - [Ask Anything](https://albertmohler.com/ask-anything/) - [Exposition](https://albertmohler.com/exposition/) - [Leadership Briefing](https://albertmohler.com/category/speaking-teaching/leadership-briefing/) - [Books](https://albertmohler.com/books/) - [About](https://albertmohler.com/about/) - [Contact](https://albertmohler.com/contact/) - [Privacy Policy](https://albertmohler.com/privacy-policy/) - [Terms of Use](https://albertmohler.com/terms-of-use/) Get The Briefing sent directly to your inbox every morning. © 2025, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. All rights reserved.

Readable Markdown

It’s Thursday, February 26th, 2026. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing. A daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. ### [Part I]() *** ## What the Press Don’t Want to Talk About: The Press is Ignoring President Trump’s Moral Clarity on So-Called Gender Reassignment Procedures for Youth Well, the President’s State of the Union address continues to be one of the primary issues of public debate. And as we discussed right after the President gave his speech, it was very clear that the President had given, first of all, an historically long address by most records, the longest yet recorded. And many in the media gave that a lot of attention. And it’s not insignificant, but what is most significant, I will argue today, is what the press is avoiding talking about. What’s most important right now is what the press, the mainstream press, what they don’t want to touch. They’re glad to take apart to go after, to respond to just about everything the President said on Tuesday night during a joint session of Congress. Here’s the big tell, here’s what they don’t want to talk about. They don’t want to talk about the President with the example of a young woman right there in the assembly. They do not want to talk about the President calling out the transgender insanity. And frankly, when the Democrats would not stand in honor of this young woman and the fact that she was claiming, reclaiming her biological sex as her gender identity, she was escaping this transgender confusion. When the President noted that in his own words, not a single Democrat would stand, he simply cried out, “These people are crazy.” And if you were looking at the President’s face, here’s the amazing thing, it was pretty clear this was a statement of conviction. This was the President of the United States making a moral judgment. “You people are crazy.” Now, some people will question the politics of that. What I do not want to question is the moral importance of that development. So as I said on The Briefing yesterday, I was determined to see how the mainstream media would reveal itself in terms of that particular event. So far as I can tell, most in the mainstream media have done everything they can to avoid any reference to this whatsoever. I’m going to talk about why that is so. The New York Times did run one standalone news story. It didn’t tell us anything new, but it did, honestly, and I think pretty straightforwardly recapitulate what the President said. The Telegraph, in a major newspaper in London also ran a standalone story, and again, I think it was quite fair. So what are we talking about? We’re talking about the fact that most of the mainstream media said nothing, not a word, not a whisper, not a whimper. Let’s ask the question, why? The President called out the Democrats, but more than that, he made a very clear statement. Like he did in his inaugural address back in January of 2025, when he said that in his administration there would be two and only two genders, male and female, corresponding to biology. When the President said that federal government and all right-minded people should stand a defense of children over against the transgender ideologies, and the President put himself on the line and again, I’m so thankful for that on this issue. The interesting thing is how many in the media have done everything to ignore the President did any such thing? Now you’ll notice they’ll criticize him on just about everything else. And in a political context, criticism’s fair. That’s why you have political debate. The President knew what he was doing on Tuesday night, he did exactly what he went there to do. He made a lot of headlines, he irritated a lot of people, he made a lot of points, he called out a lot of arguments. He did so in a way that is in many cases nontraditional in American politics. He broke a lot of the rules that had existed for a long time in American politics. But what we’re also seeing is that the issues are quite different. No President of the United States had ever had to say as a matter of clarification, that his administration would recognize two and only two genders. And other two previous Democratic administrations that had intentionally confused the issue. But let’s just say you go back even to conservative, to Republican, go back to Ronald Reagan elected President in the 1980 election, he never knew he would have to say this. He never said it. This issue wasn’t even on the radar at the time. But President Trump I think showed remarkable clarity and courage by not just making a glancing reference to the issue. But by making sure that Sage Blair, this young woman and her mother were both present there and willing to be recognized. And so when you look at that, the young woman’s right there with her mother right there in the assembly, the fact that as the President said, “Democrats would not stand and respect and honor to her.” That says just about everything. The President went on at considerable length, “These people are crazy.” So again, my purpose in returning to this today at this point is primarily to say the mainstream media doesn’t want to touch that. They don’t even want to criticize the President. Let’s ask ourselves the question, why? Well, it is because when it comes to this particular issue, and in some sense it applies to, of course, all the LGBTQIA+ issues. But especially on the transgender confusion, you’re actually, if you’re a transgender activist, you are asking people to deny biological reality. You’re asking them to suspend their moral judgment. You’re actually asking them to see what they don’t see. You’re actually asking them to deny what their own eyes are telling them. And you know that’s a hard argument. It’s so hard as a matter of fact, that the American people are showing a moral reflex in terms of rethinking this issue. So what had been considered by LGBTQ activists an onward march of unbroken progress according to their own determination, they thought they were winning this barrier after barrier was falling. Calling a boy a girl or a girl a boy is just a barrier that Americans, thanks be to God, are not willing to cross, at least not yet. Okay, so the most important thing we could see today is the fact that the mainstream media want to stay away from this. And we need to learn the lesson, why? This is just good worldview analysis. Why would they avoid the issue? It’s not because they agree with the President. We know that, that’s pretty clear. It is because I think they know the more attention they give to this issue, the more ground do they lose. I think the average American looking at this, seeing that young woman sitting and eventually standing with her mother, they’re going to say, “This is the way the world ought to be.” Even when they don’t have a comprehensive biblical theology, even when they don’t have an adequate understanding of creation order, they do understand the distinction between boy and girl and they understand that it does matter. And denying that it matters means you’re denying what is most basic even in terms of human biology. And it gets back to the President’s statement, “You people are crazy.” And that’s language that a traditional President wouldn’t use, but it is a form of moral insanity, period. ### [Part II]() *** ## We are at a Watershed Moment on the Transgender Revolution: The New York Times has Allowed an Opinion Column That Claims Ideology Has Trumped Science on the Issue But okay, it’s also interesting that the very day that the President made this very bold reference in his State of the Union address, The New York Times did run an article. And I’m going to call them out in this case because I appreciate the fact they did run this article. They ran the article. It’s an opinion piece, a guest essay. It’s by Jesse Singal, and he’s identified as, “writing a book about the debate over youth gender medicine in the United States.” He writes the newsletter called Singal Minded. Okay, well that’s interesting. The headline is, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. You look at turning points in terms of a moral trajectory and you say, how did that happen? Well, now you’re looking at a major turning point. This is The New York Times, the most influential newspaper arguably in the world, and it is totally, has been totally sold out to the LGBTQ agenda. I mean sold out as in sold out. But now it’s at least allowing a guest essay of this kind of clarity making the central claim that those who’ve been pushing the transgender agenda, particularly when it comes to children and teenagers, they have been basically peddling an untruth. They “trusted belief over science on youth gender care.” But it’s not just that. Remember the headline is this, Medical Association’s Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care. That’s an incredible indictment. Here you have a writer in an article published as a guest piece in The New York Times. It is being run by someone who accuses the major medical associations in the United States basically of going with ideology rather than science. Now let’s just get to the bottom line, that’s exactly right, and that’s exactly what they have done. But it is a turning point, we need to recognize this. This tells us that we are at a turning point, a transition moment in this public argument. And that The New York Times would actually run this kind of article that tells you The New York Times at least can figure out there is something new in the air, something they’re going to have to recognize. Okay, Jesse Singal, by the way, does a very good job in this article, The New York Times ran, basically pointing out that groups even including say the American Medical Association, he tracks it. He goes back to historic statements they made. I’ve done that also on The Briefing and in writing, I’ve gone back and said, “Here’s what they said, say two or three years ago. Here’s what they’re saying now.” And in this article, Jesse Singal does this, and really effectively for The New York Times. He points out that cracks are now appearing in what he calls the supposed wall of consensus. What was that wall of consensus? As one LGBTQ activist organization said and still says, by the way, “Every major medical association supports healthcare for transgender people and youth as safe and lifesaving.” So you’ll notice that that’s pretty sly. It’s very effective. He says they’re still saying that. And that’s weeks after major medical associations have actually said the exact opposite. That there’s not adequate scientific data to go ahead with these kinds of treatments and interventions with children and teenagers. Very interesting. As Singal says, “Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus.” Singal goes on to write, speaking of what the activist community’s been saying, “The science doesn’t seem so settled after all.” And it’s important to understand what happened here, listen to this carefully, “The approach of left of center Americans and our institutions to assume that when a scientific organization releases a policy statement on a hot button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate is a deeply naive understanding of science, human nature and politics and how they intersect.” That’s what we talk about regularly right here. We talk regularly about the fact that when people say, research experts, all these academic groups, all these professional affiliations, they say based on science, this or that. It is often a political statement, it is often a statement of moral judgment disguised as a scientific statement. And again, it’s one thing for us to make that observation. It’s another thing to have this called out in this particular context. And of course Singal also goes back to the Cass Review back in 2024, that was the blockbuster headline centered development in the United Kingdom where the Cass report came out and basically said, there is no adequate science or medical authority for justifying these kinds of hormonal and surgical treatments when it comes to children and teenagers. The scientific evidence that was presented turns out not to be, well in some cases either scientific nor truly evidence. As Singal points out, oftentimes what comes out from these organizations, and that includes the American Academy of Pediatrics mentioned here. He goes on to say, “Policy statements like this one can reflect the complex and opaque internal politics of an organization rather than dispassionate scientific analysis.” I think if anything’s a little too generous there, yeah, it’s about politics. It’s about pandering to these activist groups. It is about major institutional representations. Whether it’s a major medical association or a subspecialty association or society. The fact is, they’re very susceptible to this kind of ideological intrusion. And yet they claim the mantle of science. Now, I also want to point to one other thing, this is not in this article. It’s just something for you to observe looking forward. An awful lot of this comes down to money. And for these very people, it comes down to insurance coverage. Okay so watch what’s going to happen. You’re going to see re-evaluations of all of this. And at some point, some of these folks are going to determine, I am more likely to be sued for doing this than for not doing it. Now, that’s not the keenest moral judgment in a Christian perspective, but you know what? Sometimes it comes down to that. And eventually even the people writing the insurance coverage are going to figure out, this isn’t working. That might also point out it’s wrong. ### [Part III]() *** ## The Profane is Becoming Routine: The Public Use of Profanity is Our New Normal – And Our Society is Worse For It Okay, speaking about wrong, it is interesting how our society has changed so many judgments on so many issues. I often point to the fact that USA Today is kind of a barometer of moral change. It’s generally coming pretty much solidly from the left in terms of championing most moral change in a leftward direction. But every once in a while, even those who are generally in that directive in terms of moral change in society, sometimes they see something and they just have to wonder, how did this happen? So for example, a front page article in USA Today just days ago by Bart Jansen, here’s the headline, “Profanity Vitriol in Political Discourse Surging.” Profanity, you know it is surging, and let’s be really candid. Profanity is showing up all kinds of places where it would never have been seen or heard before. It’s not just in movies and on the screen, it’s not just about movie ratings or the rest. It’s showing up in cable news networks. It’s showing up in political routine, daily political discussion. It is showing up in the White House, is showing up in the President of the United States, and in response to that, it is showing up now among many other politicians on both sides of the aisle. Back several years ago, the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed to a process he called defining deviancy down. That’s a very keen and essential moral insight. We’re in a society that keeps renegotiating the deviancy line. Something that previous generations would’ve thought would be unthinkable and unquestionably wrong. Well deviancy gets defined downward, constantly downward according to Moynihan in a society that’s losing its moral mind. And so even as some words would have been used only in extreme circumstances such as, for example, in a time of war in the heat of battle, you now have the same kind of language showing up in routine political debate. Not only that, you have people who are just dropping these words and don’t worry, I’m not going to repeat them, you know what they are. They’re dropping these words all over the place. And thus you even have them written all over, showing up on billboards. And I don’t mean spray-painted on, I mean a part of the advertised text. You also have the routine use of so many of these words of profanity. You also have shortcuts, and that means that you can just use the first letter and the entire word is invoked. And there were even people who wore buttons invoking some of the worst of this language at the State of the Union Address. Is this just normal now? I think the answer to that question is assuredly, yes, this is just normal now. USA Today had this front page news article. Listen to this, “Most of this story isn’t fit for a family newspaper.” That’s the first line in the article at USA Today. Now, obviously it’s a hook. Journalistically, that’s a hook. Very interesting. The article goes on to say, “The country’s political discourse has deteriorated to the point or become so robust that the President can drop a \[I’m not going to say, a word\] and get one lobbed back in return.” Okay, so there it is. The President probably gets as good as he gives, but the point is, you’ve got this language now being used. Even just a matter of a few years ago, this language would not have been used in two different places I can think of almost immediately. One is on cable news, talk shows or debate shows. The other thing is it wouldn’t have been used in the White House. I’m not saying the word was never used. We know from the Watergate tapes, no, the word was used. But you know what? It wasn’t used by presidents at least in public. Why? Well, at least going back to George Washington, there was the clear understanding that there are things a President must never be seen to do, simply because it isn’t presidential, it isn’t morally right. It’s not something you want to hear coming out of the mouths of your children. So a President shouldn’t say such words. We’re now living in a very different world on both sides of the aisle, regrettably. But you know what? The President does have some special responsibility in this, and it seems that the longer he is in office, the more routinely he drops some of these words. It’s also interesting that this USA Today article wants to suggest that there’s a tie between the use of this language and political violence. I can’t tell you if that’s true or not. I can just tell you, you don’t have to get to political violence to see the problem. If you have to get to political violence in order to admit there’s a problem and causality is the issue, you’re really missing the moral point. The moral point is words come with moral weight. This is something that is essential to a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview tells us that our words reveal the heart. Our words reveal how we think. Our words reveal who we are. And we are to use words that bring honor to the Lord. We are not to speak in a way that is either blasphemous on the one hand and offensive to God. We’re not to use words that are not, well, let’s put it this way, not words that we are willing to be associated with, publicly and privately. I will give some credit to USA Today and to this writer, again, it’s Bart Jansen. I’ll give him some credit for finding a way to talk about this so that you get it and you don’t say it. Listen to this paragraph. Trust me, it’s safe, but just listen to this, it tells you a whole lot. “Some lawmakers are worried because the most offensive language about procreation and defecation has emerged from the shadows and into everyday discourse.” Okay? I think that’s a pretty brilliant way to put it. Procreation and defecation, yeah. Words, which by the way, don’t need to be used in this kind of news article unless it is about a kind of moral problem, which this is a kind of. So I thought you would find that interesting. I think parents and others would be particularly interested to know that we really are up against some challenges that previous generations didn’t have to face. This language isn’t new. It was often referred to as gutter language. At other times it was referred to as locker room language, not that it’s appropriate there either. But now it is political language, it’s White House language, it’s US Capitol language, it’s cable news and broadcast reality language. So there’s a warning to us. For Christians, we understand it’s a moral challenge, and I think Christians understand it’s one that’s not going to be resolved quickly or easily. Furthermore, it’s not just a matter of etiquette, we understand it should be and must be eventually a matter of conscience. ### [Part IV]() *** ## Jeff Bezos Orders Massive Force Reduction at Washington Post — Leftists are Outraged at The Post’s Layoffs, But No Business Can Survive Losing \$100 Million Per Year All right, while we were talking about the media, I’ve mentioned The New York Times and USA Today, of course there have been so many headlines about the media and in particular about one major American newspaper. When a newspaper is the news, rather than publishing the news, that’s interesting. And the big news is about The Washington Post. We’re talking about one of the nation’s most important newspapers. By the way, it was not always so at a national level. Until the Watergate controversy in that entire development in the 1970s, The Washington Post was largely a Washington directed daily newspaper. It became more than that after Watergate. And in a day in which you had emerging national media, The Washington Post, and its syndicated writers, particularly opinion writers, and its news stories sent across different news systems. These became very, very influential. The paper was under the control and ownership of the Graham family for a very long time until eventually the paper was sold. And the paper is now under the ownership eventually of Jeff Bezos, who was the founder of Amazon, and of course is one of the richest men on the planet. Okay so in buying The Washington Post, all kinds of people were complaining, all the journalistic community was up in arms. Because the journalistic community wants to act as if they’re the people who control their own destiny, they control their own universe. It is to be done by what they define as press and journalistic standards. And as you know, the press in the United States, it’s not exclusively liberal, but it is overwhelmingly leftist and liberal. And so when Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, there are all kinds of cries about the fact that he’s going to make cuts at the paper, he’s going to make changes at the paper. Well, he did make changes at the paper. He also intervened editorially in terms of the 2024 presidential election, and he used his authority as the owner of the paper, he is the, let’s repeat it, owner of the paper. He made the decision to stop an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board intended to endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The paper did not endorse Donald Trump, but it did not endorse Kamala Harris. And thus you had the journalistic community absolutely up in arms. But the big news came just in the last few weeks, as Jeff Bezos has laid off hundreds of employees at The Washington Post and cut entire sections. The sports section, largely, the book review section, other sections of the paper, including the depth of international coverage, it is all being cut back. Why is it being cut back? It is because on average, The Washington Post has been losing more than \$100 million a year. Okay, so let me just paint a picture for you. If you have an entity that is losing more than \$100 million a year, let’s just do some simple math. You better stop that in a hurry. Now, it’s interesting to see some of the supporters of the liberal media come back and say, “He’s a billionaire, he can afford it.” The point is, no one should have to cover \$100 million losses year after year. What does that tell you? The Washington Post has lost so many subscribers. Like I say, it’s also losing \$100 million a year. The New York Times has a worldwide circulation of 13 million. The Washington Post, it’s falling fast. And frankly, it is below what can support financially the newspaper. And by the way, in these politically polarized times, a paper generally is going to be more to the left or more to the right, and this means the vast majority or more to the left and the majority of the majority, within the majority, they lean pretty far left. But in this case, Jeff Bezos is saying he’s simply not going to be willing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. And so he’s at least making some kind of effort to cut back on those losses. It’s very interesting to see the howling coming from the journalistic community. You would think he just took an ocean liner out to the sea and blew it up. Now, we’re also looking at a major shift in the entire media landscape. Fewer people are paying for newspaper subscriptions. First of all, fewer newspapers are even being printed by far. Fewer are being sold. And that’s just about the print form of the media. You also have online presences, and of course, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and many others, including major British newspapers have made much of that. They’re actually capitalizing on that online presence. The Washington Post, it’s fallen behind. And here’s another lesson, in this kind of fast-changing economy, this fast-changing media landscape, when you fall behind, almost overnight, you’re far behind. And then at some point you’re too far behind. But there’s another fascinating aspect to all of this, and we’ll close with this today. And that is, that if you are selling something, and this isn’t free. If you are selling newspapers, here’s an obvious truth. Someone has to be willing to pay for that newspaper. In other words, if you’re selling something and no one’s buying it, you don’t stay in business for long. As many people have pointed out, those have been writing and editing The Washington Post evidently didn’t care to answer the question, why are people not buying our product? I don’t think they really cared. But all of a sudden, those jobs disappeared, and guess what? They care now. It has been very interesting to see some people say, “It’s just tawdry. It’s just wrong that Jeff Bezos has made this decision based upon financial considerations.” But you know what? Let me tell you what happens when you don’t worry about financial considerations. You end up out of business. And in this case, you end up out of business because you deserve to be. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at [albertmohler.com](http://albertmohler.com/). You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to [x.com/albertmohler](http://x.com/albertmohler). For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to [sbts.edu](http://sbts.edu/). For information on Boyce College, just go to [boycecollege.com](http://boycecollege.com/). I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing. *** ![](https://albertmohler.com/wp-content/themes/AlbertMohler-2024/assets/images/sign.png) *** R. Albert Mohler, Jr. I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me using the [contact form](https://albertmohler.com/contact/). Follow regular updates on Twitter at [@albertmohler](https://twitter.com/albertmohler). [Subscribe](https://albertmohler.com/subscribe/) via email for daily Briefings and more (unsubscribe at any time).

ML Classification

ML Categories

/People_and_Society		96.2%
/People_and_Society/Religion_and_Belief		80.7%
/News		10.3%

Raw JSON

{
    "/People_and_Society": 962,
    "/People_and_Society/Religion_and_Belief": 807,
    "/News": 103
}

ML Page Types

/Article		96.3%
/Article/Opinion_Piece		84.3%

Raw JSON

{
    "/Article": 963,
    "/Article/Opinion_Piece": 843
}

ML Intent Types

Informational

99.9%

Raw JSON

{
    "Informational": 999
}

Content Metadata

Language

Author

R. Albert Mohler

Publish Time

2026-02-26 09:50:48 (1 month ago)

Original Publish Time

2026-02-26 09:50:48 (1 month ago)

Republished

Word Count (Total)

5,295

Word Count (Content)

4,727

Links

External Links

Internal Links

110

Technical SEO

Meta Nofollow

Meta Noarchive

JS Rendered

Redirect Target

null

Performance

Download Time (ms)

374

TTFB (ms)

359

Download Size (bytes)

30,914

Shard

26 (laksa)

Root Hash

15731983553888329626

Unparsed URL

com,albertmohler!/2026/02/26/briefing-2-26-26/ s443