The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Monday, March 9, 2026

Episode Date: March 9, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 – 10:11)The First Cabinet Firing of Trump’s Second Administration: Kristi Noem is Out, and Sen. Markwayne Mullin is In as Nominee for DHS SecretaryPart II (10:11 – 17:37)President Trump is Realigning the Global Order: The Consequences of President Trump’s Global Actions are MassiveAs Trump Out-Putins Putin, Russia’s Global Influence Erodes by The New York Times (Paul Sonne)For Xi, Trump’s Embrace of War Proves China Needs More Power by The New York Times (David Pierson)Part III (17:37 – 26:17)‘This is the Most Offender-Friendly Legislature We’ve Ever Had’: Liberal Colorado Lawmakers Propose Legislation to Redefine Crime and Punishment Colorado lawmakers want to carve a new path out of prison in second-look sentencing bill by The Denver Post (Shelly Bradbury)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Monday, March 9, 2006. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. So many headlines coming at us from around the world as we come out of the weekend, but first we need to go back to when we were going into the weekend. The big news then was the fact that Christy Nome, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, been fired by President Trump, the first cabinet-level firing of his second administration. Now, when you look at presidents and you look at the members of the president's cabinet, the fact is that virtually no administration has gone without someone being fired. And one of the reasons is that you have sometimes a clash of opinions or policies between the

president and the member of the cabinet. In that case, the cabinet member is out. You could also have events that drive some of these issues and personalities that drive some of these issues, even personal styles. And when it came to Christie Nome, well, frankly, it probably involved all of those things. But there are some really big issues here. First of all, let's just remind ourselves the Department of Homeland Security is very essential. And right now it's also at the center of headlines because the Democrats have led an effort to hold up funding for the entire department. There are essential functions that Congress doesn't stop and can't stop under this kind of measure, but we already had a face-off between the President and at least the Democrats in the Senate

over-continued funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Christine Ome was at the center of all of that controversy. And frankly, that turns out to be the biggest part of this story. Let's just remind ourselves of how the president's cabinet came to be in our constitutional order. Remember that with the separation of powers between the judicial, the legislative, and the executive, the president of the United States is the chief executive. That's what we often just use as nomenclature. But we need to remind ourselves, this means chief executive, first of all, of those who are direct reports to the president. And that amounts to the cabinet. And at this point, the cabinet officers are either in the Constitution or in

offices established by Congress through law. The Department of Homeland Security came after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, 2001. And in response to the fact that there was believed to have been inadequate coordination between federal authorities, they were put together in this new department. At the same time, when you look at the cabinet, you need to realize they really do serve the president of the United States. They represent their department. In many ways, it is not so much that they offer direct supervision. That's why they have undersecretaries and deputy secretaries, but rather they are the main executive officer between the president and the department that they have been nominated and confirmed to lead. Okay, so here's the other big rule about a president's

cabinet. The cabinet members serve at the president's pleasure. Now, this is just a very sophisticated way of putting that they're in when the president wants them in and they're out when the president wants them out. Presidents cannot unilaterally put them in office. They nominate them. The Senate has to confirm them, but a president can unilaterally terminate them. And that's a precedent that goes all the way back to the earliest years of the republic. Now, President Trump likes a colorful cabinet. Now, that's interesting in and of itself because most presidents have not wanted a colorful cabinet. They don't really want a controversial cabinet, and the reason for that is pretty simple. They don't want continued confusions or obstacles or just complications they have to deal with.

There is another big issue here. Most presidents do not want famous cabinet secretaries. Now, by that, I don't mean that they're not known to the nation and they're not well established in their fields, they don't have a great deal of respect. No, I mean that they aren't to be celebrity figures. Throughout most of America's history, members of the cabinet have been dutiful, loyalists to the country and then to the president they serve. The most brilliant of them have at strategic moments in our history just come through when it was needed. And that means secretaries of defense, secretaries of state, attorneys general of the United States. You can just go down those cabinet positions, there have been times when there was a crucial moment, particularly of war or

national emergency, or in the ongoing development of foreign policy. When you think of someone like Henry Kissinger, serving in the administrations of President Richard Nixon and President Gerald Ford. But actually, Henry Kissinger turns out to be a very interesting example. Now, when it came to competence, no one doubted Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger had been a faculty member at Harvard. He was one of the most thoughtful, he was one of the most documented, one of the most respected figures in American foreign policy, even in the history of American foreign policy. Henry Kissinger was, as many people called him, the master of the game. But when it came to Henry Kissinger, he also became a celebrity figure. And that did not help him with the two presidents he served.

Richard Nixon really didn't want a headline hog as a cabinet secretary, even in a position as important as Secretary of State. He might have been able to handle, say, a famous Secretary of State, but a celebrity Secretary of State, that's something different. President Gerald Ford, who became president, you'll recall, after President Nixon resigned his office in the Watergate scandal, President Ford wasn't a celebrity himself. Of course, he was president of the United States.

He just didn't want the kind of celebrity reputation. He really didn't appreciate one of the primary members of his cabinet having that kind of reputation. But when we're talking about Christy Noem, who, after all, has just served a matter of over a year as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the fact is she wanted to be a celebrity. But then you look at President Trump, and he began as a celebrity in terms of his national profile. He was a celebrity who was elected president of the United States. When it comes to President Trump, he understands the role of celebrity, and it appears he often revels in it. But when it comes to cabinet secretaries, Christy Nome came to his attention as a MAGA celebrity,

and of course she served prior to the president's appointment as the governor of South Dakota between 2019 and 2025. President Trump chose her precisely because he was attracted to the fact that she would add something to the cabinet. But at the end of the day, she ended up a celebrity in her own right. And when it comes to President Trump, frankly when it comes to any president, thing they want is a very, very famous cabinet secretary. Here's another principle from American history. If you have a very, very famous cabinet secretary, that person is usually famous for a politically awkward reason. There were other reasons as well, including all kinds of controversy

about her leadership at the department. Furthermore, there sometimes is a straw that breaks to Campbell's back, so to speak, and with President Trump, that may have been controversy over what Secretary Nome said in terms of congressional testimony just last week. Members of Congress, including senators, were quite concerned about an ad campaign. It was something like $200 million that the department had rolled out, and it appeared to present the cabinet secretary as a celebrity. Now, remember, this is taxpayer money. And there were many who were quite upset about it, and that included some Republicans as well as Democrats, and there was, as is often said, blood in the water. And when Secretary Nome was asked whether the president had approved, and furthermore,

known of the ad campaign, she implied that the president had approved. Now, the president himself subsequently said he had made no such approval. In any event, the handwriting is pretty much on the wall. And the secretary by the weekend was out. Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma was named as the replacement. And by the way, a couple of things that play into that. Number one, if you have a controversy when it comes to a cabinet position and you need to appoint a new cabinet member, it's really important to do so pretty quickly. Now, this is record speed. Rarely do you have the announcement of a firing and the announcement of a nomination for the same position in the same statement. But that's exactly what President Trump did. The second thing is that if you want an

approval under awkward circumstances, appoint a member of the United States Senate, because it is the Senate that will confirm the nomination. Now, that's not to say that all the Democrats will be pleased with Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, a very conservative Republican from Oklahoma. It is to say that the Senate, not never, but rarely turns down one of its own members for this kind of appointment. Just to sum up the politics of how this works, presidents like to pick up the newspaper and find the cabinet member talking about something the president has done. They don't like to wake up in the morning, finding themselves quoted about something a cabinet secretary has done. When that happens, well, politically speaking, a clock starts ticking. In terms of the Christian worldview, there's

another angle here that I think really is important, and that is that if you are going to bear responsibility for something like the Department of Homeland Security, you better appear to be a very serious person. And I think there's a moral dimension to that that Christians can understand. when you're talking about the gravity of this position, you need a personality that communicates gravitas or that kind of moral gravity. I think the very quick announcement about Senator Mark Wayne Mullen is a recognition on the part of the White House that they need some very instant gravity in that position. And a member of the Senate, elected by the people of the state, a state like Oklahoma, that's a pretty good place to begin. And so we will see exactly what happens

in coming days. But that will also mean. that if Senator Mullen is confirmed, there will be a new open Senate seat soon in Oklahoma. All right, now we need to shift to the other big headline news, and of course that means the military effort undertaken in Iran by Israel and the United States. This is an expanding story, and over the weekend it expanded even further. We're talking about the Gulf states being involved, several Arab states being involved with attacks undertaken with missiles and drones from Iran. we're also looking at some very interesting international developments.

First of all, let's just also acknowledge that the Council of Experts, as it is known, reportedly has chosen a new Supreme Leader for the country, who is the son of the now deceased second Supreme Leader, Ayatollah homine, and so it is his son, who is believed to have been appointed. President Trump almost immediately said it would be the effort of the United States to eliminate him as well. So very interesting. no official confirmation at this point. It's going to be interesting to see what happens

over the course of the day on Monday. But there are a couple of really big developments that have to do with how Christians understand the way nations relate to one another. And when we're looking at alliances and we're looking at different kinds of military treaties and we're looking at allies versus adversaries, well, sometimes this gets pretty complicated. But here's something for us all to remember. When we're talking about Iran, we're talking about the avowed enemy of Israel and the United States, but we're talking about a nation that has been increasingly formally tied to both Russia and China. And that's something many Americans simply don't think about. The BRIC coalition, BRIC, and it really started out with the Brazil, Russia, India, and China. It's not

like been expanded to 10 members. That is an alliance basically defined as one that offers an alternative to NATO, which means most importantly the United States and European powers. The big issue here is the fact that there has been an attempted subversion of Western civilization by Russia and China joined by Iran. Now, this doesn't mean that all of these nations see themselves in an equal sense as adversaries to the United States. It is to say that they wanted an alternative kind of international arena. And this is why when you're looking at Brazil and Russia and India and China, you also have to add Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia.

That pretty much rounds it out. And so you had something called the Bandug Generation, you had something called the non-aligned countries, and you basically have something very similar to that right now. The big issue is that Russia, which of course was represented during much of the 20th century by the totalitarian state known as the Soviet Union, it's new to this because when it was the Soviet Union, Union, it was a block unto itself with its own satellites and allies. That was the reality of the Cold War. So effectively, Russia has been demoted in this sense, and Russia doesn't like it one bit. I am speaking to you from Denver, Colorado, and Saturday's edition of the Denver Post included a headline that sources revealed Russia was giving Iran intelligence. As the subhead says,

from the Associated Press, information could help Tehran hit U.S. military. Well, now that's been confirmed. Even President Trump himself has basically confirmed this while dismissing that Russia was being of much help to Iran. But understand, we are at war with Iran. Now, I'm not saying we're under a formal declaration of war, but what we have is undeniably warlike activity. Certainly it is active hostilities with lives on the line. This is big news. It's big news to understand that Russia has been offering intelligence to Iran, perhaps even down to targeting American and Israel. Israeli forces. That's very, very troubling. But it's also a part of a larger picture. Just in recent days, the New York Times ran an article very revealing that the headline Putin sees influence in world is

eroding. And so the article says that even as Russia has at least a short-term benefit, especially in terms of oil prices with the U.S. and Israeli attack upon Iran, long term, Russia sees a darker picture. Quote, Mr. Putin is also grappling with the arrival of a new world of unbridled American power under President Trump, which is checking Russia's global influence and ripping up Moscow's playbook for partnerships abroad, end quote. Now, if you are Russia and China, you really are looking at a very assertive United States of America, and in particular, very assertive President Trump, who has removed Maduro from power in Venezuela. He was the pal to both China and Iran, and Russia, for that matter. And then he has also now waged war against Iran.

Iran, and of course, eliminating the Ayatollah who had been, at least to some extent, an ally to both China and Russia. And of course, that means also an ally of Xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin in Russia. So it's going to be very interesting to see what happens. But no doubt we are looking at a forced realignment, and the force of the realignment is really being driven by President Trump armed with American power. Okay, so there's another big angle on this, and this is China. the New York Times. For Xi, that means Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, quote, conflict proves weight of U.S.'s threat. David Pearson is making this argument, and it's really interesting. Listen to this. Quote, the sudden and furious attacks by U.S. and Israeli forces on

Iran, including the killing of the country's supreme leader, are confirming Xi Jinping's worldview that hard power is king. Listen to this. For years, Mr. Xi, China's top leader has warned his country about American military hostility and directed his generals to build a world-class army or what he called a great wall of steel strong enough to deter the United States and ensure peace on Beijing's terms." End quote. It's going to be very, very interesting to see how this turns out. Xi Jinping has said, quote, it is necessary to speak to invaders in the language they know. That is, a war must be fought to deter invasion and a victory is needed to win peace and respect. End quote. That's very bellicose language. But as your war,

watching this, observe the fact that it is bellicose language, but it's also backed up with a massive armament, and in particular, the massive buildup of China's defensive and military capabilities. You'd have to say, when it comes to China, both defensive and offensive. So what is really interesting here is that you're talking about Iran, you're talking about military efforts by the United States and Israel, but now you're talking about other Gulf nations and nations in being drawn in. You're looking at European nations trying to figure out what their role should be. President Trump's been pretty sharp in response to some of those nations, but you also have Russia and China trying to figure out how they're going to respond to

the United States. This is a very interesting new day. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens. Christians understand that realism is a natural Christian perspective. We want to really know what's going on. We want to know who our friends really are. We want to know what kinds of relationships really exist. And in a fallen world, we do not hold to some kind of utopian pretension that we can be at peace with everyone all at once. And of course, it's also interesting to note, sadly enough, that it is usually the enemies of the United States rather than our friends who make that point clear. All right now let's come not only back to the United States. Let's come back where I am right now to the state of Colorado. The Denver Post, the major newspaper in the state, on Saturday,

ran a front-page article this headline, State Considering a New Pathway Out of Prison. Okay, it looks interesting, I guarantee you, in terms of worldview content, this is really important. The sub-in in the article by Shelley Bradbury is this, quote, Bill would create process to reduce sentences for some inmates behind bars for 20 years. Here's how the story begins.

Quote, Colorado lawmakers are considering whether to carve a new path out of prison for some inmates who have served at least two decades behind bars. In a second-look sentencing bill introduced in late February, Democratic state senators Julie Gonzalez of Denver and Mike Weissman of Aurora seek to create a new legal process to allow judges to reduce sentences for prisoners who spent at least 20 years behind bars and who either committed their crimes when they were younger than 21 who are at least 60 years old, end quote. Now, understand this two categories are very different. We understand that there is a difference between those who are very young in their teenage years and those

who are older. That doesn't mean no moral responsibility, but we do understand that that is a different situation, or at least it's plausibly under some circumstances a different situation. The other provision is that the bill, this proposed legislation, would cover those who have served 20 years and are at least 60 years old. Now, that's arbitrary. That does not reflect to the kind of differential in capacities that you see often made in legal arguments about, say, teenagers. When you're talking about those who are 60 and over, this really looks like an attempt to redefine justice in the state of Colorado, and a closer look indicates that's exactly what it is. Now, one of the persons behind this makes an amazing statement.

This is one of the co-sponsors, Democratic State Senator Mike Weissman of Aurora. He said, quote, the basic idea is that when we sentence somebody, they are sentenced based upon who we understand them to be at that moment, who they have shown us to be through their conduct. and in the cases we're talking about, that is bad conduct and there needs to be consequences for, but he said a second look policy is about inviting the question, how much consequence, how many years, he went on to say, the question of when somebody should toll out of the Department of Corrections is really less a function of who the person was when they went in, in this case at least 20 years ago, than who they are now, end quote. Okay, so he's making an argument.

It's a little convoluted there, but his argument is this. They serve 20 years. They were sentenced based upon who they were then, and maybe that situation has changed. Maybe they have been rehabilitated over the course of the last, say, two decades or more. Now, there's an amazing statement that is embedded in his words, and that's the argument that it's not so much just the crime being committed, but evaluations and judgments being made of the person who committed the crime. And then that implies, say 20 years later, you can do a re-evaluation, and it's not so much the crime, the objective reality of the crime, it's not so much the objective reality

of the conviction, it's someone's contemporary assessment of whether this person, I guess you could say, has been rehabilitated, or has served enough time, or no longer poses a threat. We're really seeing here a face-off between two different visions of crime and punishment. And yes, you could say that one is conservative and one is liberal. But in this sense, it's liberal in the progressivist sense of trying to redefine so much crime and punishment, not so much is right and wrong, but rather in some kind of therapeutic construct in which you say, here's a person who over the last 20 years has grown a great deal. Let's just say that the original judge and the original jury,

they weren't making that kind of assessment. As a matter of fact, these two Democratic state senators are turning that into a positive argument. They're saying, well, now we need to think not so much of who that person was then, but who they are now. But of course, that does represent a very progressivist understanding of what crime and punishment are to be about, because in general terms, our entire Western civilization, and this is also looking at something of deep roots in Scripture, tells us that the issue is not who is the person, but what is the crime?

The crime doesn't change. This shows you how you have very different arguments from the left and from the right. and, as you might expect, coming from the right, some pretty clear arguments against this proposed legislation. Most importantly, the Denver Post cites George Brochler, who's identified as district attorney in the 23rd Judicial District, who told the paper that the second look proposal, as it's called, quote, undermines the will of Colorado voters who in 2024 voted to require that people convicted of certain violent crimes serve at least 85% of their prison sentences before they become eligible for parole or good time reductions, isn't that interesting? This district attorney, of course,

that means he's a prosecutor, comes back and says, look, the voters of Colorado put in place the requirement that those who commit certain violent crimes have to serve 85% of their sentences. This proposed legislation flies directly in the face of the expressed will of the people of Colorado. He went on to say, quote, every year this legislature finds a way to prove me right when I say this is the most offender-friendly legislature we've had. Every year they say, hold my bong, making a reference, of course, some marijuana use, and then he says they do something worse. The paper then says, quote, the second look process could be retramatizing to victims, the district attorney said, quote, it could also put cases

into the hands of judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, who likely were not involved when the defendants were sentenced decades earlier. The paper goes on to explain, quote, the original judges on cases who hear evidence and listen to testimony firsthand are best suited to decide on sentences. They're quoting here that district attorney, quote, not a judge who comes into the process years later. As the DA said, quote, it undermines the integrity of the system, end quote. Well, of course it does. Here you have a face off of two opposing worldviews. One's a very progressivist worldview in which you have people say, you know, I think it's about the person and who the person is now versus who the person was then. Speaking of the offender. But then the classical response of

civilization itself in the Western tradition has been to say, no, it's about not the subjective evaluation of who the person is. It's about the objective evaluation of the crime the person has committed, period. And the crime is what cries out for justice. The blood of the innocent cries out for justice. And just in case you're wondering, this report makes very clear that the proposed legislation would cover many people who have committed really horrible crimes, including murder. What we see here is a face-off, right on the front page of the Denver Post, and we see this often in different places in society, we have a face-off between a progressivist worldview that says we're going to redefine crime and punishment

in terms of a psychological or therapeutic understanding of the criminal. And then the classical judicial understanding, based in the requirements of justice, which is held from the beginning, that the issue is not so much who is the criminal, but what is the crime? The punishment should go with the crime regardless of the criminal. Now, even with exceptions, that is still to be the general rule. And this is based upon the fact that that conservative, traditional, civilizational pattern of justice believes that there is an objective reality to right and wrong and to crime and punishment.

We often speak of the great worldview clash, the great conflicts over worldview that occur in our civilization, abortion, LGBTQ issues, Everything right down to crime and war. You just look at the conflicts, but then you find one like this that just explodes on the front page of a paper like the Denver Post just over the weekend. You have to wonder, in reality, how many people even noticed. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter, but go to X.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsbts.org.

edu. For information on voice college, just go to voicecollege.com. I'm speaking to you from Denver, Colorado, and I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.