The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Thursday, April 2, 2026

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today’s edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses the amazing Artemis II launch, the oral arguments at SCOTUS over birthright citizenship, the moral dimension of reality tv, and the liberal outrage to the IOC ruling on men in women’s sports.Part I (00:14 – 06:48)Astronauts Begin Journey to the Dark Side of the Moon: The Amazing Artemis II Launch YesterdayPart II (06:48 – 16:12)Birthright Citizenship Before Supreme Court: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on Birthright Citizenship, and the Justices Seem Posed to Keep It in PlaceTrump v. Barbara by The Supreme Court of the United StatesPart III (16:12 – 23:16)The Moral Dimension of Reality TV: What The Bachelorette Reveals About the Morality of Our Entertainment ProgramsHer Past Was No Secret. Footage of a Child’s Cry Changed Everything. by The New York Times (Julia Jacobs and John Koblin)Part IV (23:16 – 28:20)The Liberal Outrage to the International Olympic Committee’s Ruling on Men in Women’s Sports – But the IOC Isn’t Exactly A Conservative ConspiracyOlympic ban on transgender women stems from fear and feelings, not facts by USA Today (Nancy Armour)More Right-Wingers Ban Trans Athletes by The Wall Street Journal (The Editorial Board)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 Thursday, April 2, 2006. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well, it happened. Artemis II took off yesterday from the Kennedy Space Center and is now progressing on its way to the dark side of the moon. It's an amazing story. If you saw the launch, and I hope you saw the launch, it was an amazing thing just to see. And I have to tell you, I am still the little boy who grew up in Florida very close to the the space center in such a way that I can see these launches. And I still feel the same wonder,

the same amazement, the same joy. And the same patriotic pride, I have to tell you, in seeing such things happen. We're talking about the largest manned vehicle the United States has ever sent into space. By some reckoning is the largest vehicle it is ever sent into outer space. We're talking about engines that produced 8.8 million pounds of thrust. It's hard even to imagine that. 8.8. million pounds of thrust. The thing shuddered. It shook. The flames came out. And then, of course, that vehicle took off, carrying four human beings, three Americans and one Canadian. And, of course, we were praying for them as that vehicle took off because, you know, that's one of the most dangerous

periods there in the first seconds of the launch of those unbelievable spacecraft. This particular crew is headed by Reed Weissman, who is a NASA astronaut and mission command. And serving with him, Victor Glover and Christina Koch, two fellow Americans, as well as Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hanson. And so three Americans and a Canadian, I'm just going to bet you they are not going to debate international affairs and terrorists up there in space. I think this is a happy melding of three Americans and a Canadian doing fantastically important to work. And indeed, if this mission goes as is planned and the trajectory of the spacecraft goes as is planned, this incredible Artemis, to rocket and space craft. If it goes as planned, they're going to go further than any human beings have ever gone

into outer space. And they're going to do so in an orbit, an elliptical orbit, around the moon, which is going to take them famously towards the dark side of the moon. They're going to cross the dark side of the moon and further from the moon than any previous moon mission, any previous manned mission. Human beings have just not gone this far or beyond this in all of human history. Amazing things to think about here. The last manned lunar mission was 1972.

That's more than 50 years ago. Now, by the way, I found some very interesting things in terms of parallel. Do you realize that much of the rocketry is actually the same? You take the Saturn 5 rocket that was used in the Apollo missions 50 years ago, and then you look at Artemis 2. Well, it's still the same basic technology, but then again, it's not. Even your smartphone has more sophisticated computing power than all of those committed to the Apollo mission going back to the 1960s and the 1970s. The technology is vastly improved.

I found something else interesting, just in terms of the chemistry and physics. It was basically the same fuel, the same fuel, especially the liquid fuel for the immediate propulsion. Just really fascinating stuff. And I just admit to you, I'm very fascinated. I'm still fascinated. I couldn't turn away from watching that launch. And I will be following this very, very closely along with you. Now, what is going to become known that wasn't known before? Well, there will be some studies of the dark side of the moon that will involve human beings that are likely to reveal new information. But of course, unmanned kinds of missions have taken place. And so it's not that this is a complete mystery,

But still, just imagine how many human beings throughout thousands of years in human history, going all the way back to creation. How many human beings have looked up at the moon and pondered it? And now just imagine there have been human beings in my lifetime who have stood upon it, American astronauts. And then there have been those who have gone around it. And now this crew is going to go around the dark side of the moon, the far side of the moon, in a further elliptical pattern than has ever been undertaken before. I'm just amazed by it. And, of course, the bottom line in all of this, by the way, is that the amazement is not ultimately

about technology. The amazement is not ultimately about patriotism. The amazement is not ultimately about the machinery, the science, the computing power, the patriotism, or anything else. For Christians, this comes back to looking at the entire cosmos and recognizing God made this for his glory. Every single Adam and molecule testifies of the creator's glory. The predictable patterns upon which this entire enterprise depends. That is all because of God's action, of God's creative glory, and it is all a testimony to God's own eternal attributes. It's just, it's amazing.

Christians look at this. We are no less buzzed about this than the rest of the world. Maybe even more so because we see it even in theological terms that doesn't subtract from it it infinitely adds to it okay by the way just a couple of things are a little different about this launch if you do remember the apollo launches and previous launches even the shuttle launches there's some things here that were different i'll tell you one thing that's different color you know you had that that main rocket segment that was orange and the the spacesuits are orange what's going on with these orange spacesuits well, you know, it's interesting. There's a good explanation for this. That bright orange was something that has been developed in order to spot that particular item. And so when you put an astronaut in that kind of bright orange flight suit, and for instance, when you're looking to pick them up after the need for their recovery, the splashdown or however in a given mission that might take place, the reality is that it's a lot easier to find people who are dressed in that kind of bright orange. It's a unique red orange. It's a unique red orange. by the way, that has been developed over time for optimal visibility.

And then you ask another question. Well, then why don't they wear these all the time? For instance, if you look at spacewalks, they're undertaken by astronauts. Even after the development of this color technology, they're still white. Why? Well, it is because we are told that the sun would otherwise create temperatures that are too hot. And the white is a highly reflective white in order to reduce the risk of heat. I don't know about you.

I find this kind of thing very, very interesting. All right, next we need to come back to Earth and go to Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court, where yesterday oral arguments were heard in the case over birthright citizenship claims. Now, the precipitating factor here is that President Trump and the Trump administration have pressed for a redefinition of American citizenship

to remove just being physically born in the United States under whatever circumstance from that just natural and automatic citizenship known as birthright citizenship and as a matter of fact one of the things that the trump administration is trying to shut down is so-called birth tourism and i can just tell you that having grown up in a place very close to the american border i can simply tell you this has been a thing for some time this birth tourism is not a brand new thing and there have been mothers and and for that matter parents who wanted to have a baby born in the united states for the benefit of uh you

of birthright citizenship and all that comes with it and undeniable citizenship rights, at least in terms of the classic understanding since 1868. And this is becoming an even more widespread problem with the advent of even more modern transportation and frankly some other historical developments. Now, at the same time, most Americans just assume birthright citizenship. And I think it's important for us to ask the question, why? Why do we assume it? It goes back to 1868 and the 14th Amendment.

And that's in the wake of the Civil War. And it's in the wake of the giant historical question, who is and is not a citizen of the United States. And this is where eventually you have the adoption of the 14th Amendment with a specific language, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, end quote. Now, okay, one of the most interesting questions there is what exactly reside?

means. Okay, I think it's abundantly clear that in the original context, modern transportation, of course, wasn't foreseen. Modern political dynamics were not foreseen. The abuse of this kind of birthright citizenship was not foreseen. And instead, it was an answer to a pressing question where there were those who were trying to deny lawful citizenship to persons who clearly should be considered citizens of the United States precisely because they were born in the United States. But it was really interesting to look at the oral arguments yesterday. Things got hot. I think things got very hot.

And let me just give you the bottom line. It appears that a clear majority of the justices are likely to continue and affirm the practice of earthright citizenship rather than to modify it, much less deny it. It is really fascinating how this issue has come up. It's come up in a very serious way. So in other words, there are those who suggest that the president, that President Trump and his, administration are way out on a limb in making these claims. Well, if they're way out on a limb, they've been in good company. And as a matter of fact, they've been in company with an awful lot of members of the Democratic Party who a generation ago were making this very argument. And so

it is interesting to see how there's been a partisan shift in this, because there were a lot of Democrats, including most famously Harry Reid, who would eventually become the Democratic leader in the Senate, who when he was running for the Senate, was basically against birthright citizenship. And so there's been a shift, no doubt, in terms of the politics about this. But it's not an irrational argument. And I do appreciate the fact that the court took the question seriously. And I do think that it's a serious challenge to the American future that you can have such open abuses of birthright citizenship.

But, you know, here's where we also have to raise a different issue. And that is that if we have a constitution, we are bound by the words. we are bound by the original intent. We are bound by the plain meaning of the text. That means that conservatives understand that over time, the only way to change the Constitution is to amend it. If there's need for clarity, we need to clarify it, but we have to do that through a constitutional process. We actually don't want the rule of judges on these issues, which is how we got into such

trouble in the Warren Court in the 20th century and why there had to be a conservative correction. And that's why there is likely to be, and I'm not a prophet, but I think you could listen to the oral arguments yesterday. And you can see that what is shaping up is likely to be an affirmation of what will be considered and declared to be the plain meaning of the text. That doesn't solve the issue of what America's immigration and citizenship pattern and law should be. It simply says, here's where the Constitution is, ever since 1868 and the adoption and ratification of the 14th Amendment. Okay, so one of the most interesting turns in what took place yesterday. When you had, for example, the Solicitor General of the United States representing the Trump administration, that Solicitor General John Sauer, who made the statement about how things have

changed since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, going back to the 19th century, he said, well, it's a new world. But then the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts shot back at him, quote, it's the same constitution, end quote. Okay, that is really really. really significant. There you have the Trump administration Solicitor General making an accurate statement. It's a new world. That's not false. That is correct in terms of the challenge. But then the Chief Justice just fired back. It's the same constitution. And that's one of the reasons why I think

it's going to be unlikely that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are going to come back and modify the plain meaning of the text. Rather, I think we're just going to have to take responsibility. And this is where I think President Trump and his administration are raising very good issues, pressing issues, even urgent issues, and we're going to have to address these issues. And I think the Democratic Party, which used to recognize the importance of these issues, at least in terms of many of us members, it's now basically so sold out to a different vision of the United States. It welcomes the transformation by means of basically unchecked immigration, including this immigration by birth and by even birth tourism.

I mentioned that this has been rising as an issue for some time. The New York Times cites, for example, John U. law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who had worked in the George W. Bush administration, he said this, quote, a lot of people when Trump first started talking about I thought this was crazy, but in the intervening years, a lot more serious people are taking it seriously.

That's just very, very important. This isn't a crazy argument. It's not a crazy question. It's one that might not actually be fixable in terms of the arguments the administration is bringing here, simply because of the plain writing and historic meaning of the Constitution. But it is something that as a larger issue desperately needs to be faced. And in that sense, I'm very sympathetic with the concerns being raised by the administration. And, you know, we are stuck with language.

This is what many people on the left absolutely hate and resist. we are stuck with language, the historic language of the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the longest-serving, historic, written constitution, so far as we know in all of world history. And, you know, if we have a Constitution and we have a government limited by, authorized by, and governed by that Constitution, then we're going to have to make the requisite changes, the needed changes to that Constitution, if we're going to accomplish some of these purposes. And, you know, that's going to be a long battle. It's going to be a very hot battle. It's going to be a very hard battle, but it's likely to be one of the shaping issues for years to come. Okay, we'll be watching this issue. Of course, the court will be deliberating the issue, the internal conference of the justices.

And because of the importance of this issue, we don't know exactly when this is likely to be handed down. But with the urgency of some election issues and other things facing, it could be, in this case, a bit sooner than other major cases. would come. Generally, when you have these giant constitutional questions, they're often adjudicated and eventually released by the court at the very end of its term, given the importance of this issue. And the looming midterm elections, this might be the case in which something comes out more quickly. One other issue about the oral arguments yesterday, that is something that I'm accustomed to watching. I've been there for several oral arguments there at the court. It's something very interesting to listen to, and thankfully through C-SPAN and even some of

of the cable news networks. They didn't have all of it, but you have C-SPAN that basically will have the entirety, the oral arguments in terms of audio. If you haven't done that before, let me tell you, there was something yesterday that was unprecedented in all of American history, and that is the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, showed up at the Supreme Court and sat in the gallery, which, by the way, is basically open to all Americans who can get there and stand in line and claim those spaces. The president of the United States came and sat. And, through at least the opening oral arguments in this case. If anything, it just underlines how important this case is to the president of the United States. President Trump was there. No president

has ever attended a session of the Supreme Court under similar terms. Never happened. And the president didn't draw attention to himself. He didn't say anything. He was just present. It's going to be very interesting to see how this is remembered historically. All right, there's some other big issues. And just to get at some of them today, one of them has to do with reality. TV. No kidding. Reality TV. And the program that was known as the Bachelorette, which has now been canceled, even as an entire season was recorded because of a scandal having to do with the woman at the center of this particular season, Taylor Frankie Paul, as the news, you probably heard it by now has revealed video was released showing her basically pitching a fit, throwing chairs at her

boyfriend with a screaming child in the background, and then it became known that there had been previous arrests and charges for child abuse and other forms of violent behavior. And here's the thing. What became known days later is that those who are behind this series knew all that and went ahead anyway. As the Wall Street Journal reports pulling the show is expensive, as the journal says, ABC could lose tens of millions of dollars in production, promotion, and marketing costs. The network will also have to placate advertisers who bought time during the Bachelorette, which hasn't had a new season since 2004. The journal describes this as the Bachelorette debacle, quote, harsh baptism for the new

leadership at Disney behind this, ultimately, Chief Executive Josh DeMorrow, and the president and chief creative officer Dana Walden. And so we are really talking about the new chief executive of Disney. Disney walking into a colossal mess. But you know, for Christians, there's just a lot here. And I think there's actually enough here we should discuss. We don't discuss an awful lot of stuff. There's just tabloid news.

This is bigger than that. And that's why it's getting on a mainstream news attention. First of all, it raises the whole worldview and moral constellation of issues related to so-called reality television. You know, here's the thing about reality television. If people are watching it, it is probably some kind of, let's just say, exaggeration of human reality. There's a certain kind of show that became popular years ago. And you just have to know that reality television is eventually going to bite you back with television reality. And that's exactly

what has happened in this case. According to all of the media authorities, this season of The Bachelorette is just going to have to be trash. There is no way they can bring it forward. And of course, it costs lots of money. We're talking about a ton of millions of dollars. We're going to We're also talking about a lot of publicity right up to the very end of this where the situation blew up. We're also talking about advertisers who had contracts and celebrity that have been built up. Okay, this is complicated, of course. I'm not going to go into all the soap opera elements of this, but at least part of it has to do with the fact that this woman at the center of this particular scandal,

Taylor Frankie Paul, had already been a rather famous or infamous as a rather, well, notorious character on the program having to do with Mormon wives. Okay, so here's what's really interesting. When the story broke of this video being released and of the child screaming, it also turns out that this particular actress had been brought up on charges and arrested for injury to the child before and also other forms of, well, just to say, a very colorful misbehavior. And it turns out that those behind the program knew this.

Listen to this. Quote, ABC was aware of the altercation. When the network agreed to cast Ms. Paul, and even before the videos released, the child's presence had been well documented. Ms. Paul was arrested that night and faced charges that included domestic violence in the presence of a child. Months later, she reached an agreement with prosecutors in which she pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault of Mr. Morton's and this, the man involved. Quote, the other charges, including one misdemeanor count of child abuse, were dismissed. Okay, this is just, let's just state the obvious. This is just a real mess.

But you know, in a Christian worldview perspective, again, I'm not interested in the tabloid angles of this. I'm interested in the moral dimension of this. And what it says about what entertains us and what is popular in American culture. Now, of course, there's some interesting patterns here. There's a distinction between, say, the percentage of women watching these programs and men and all kinds of complications like that. But here's the thing. This is referred to as reality television.

Reality television. Okay. So what makes reality television reality? Well, at least by one definition inside the industry, It's unscripted television programming. So, in other words, are conversations that are real. They're not reading a script. The actresses and the actors aren't necessarily playing a part.

But here's the other thing Christians have to know. If that's real, well, I'm an astronaut. In other words, you look at this. It is just implausible. You can refer to any of this program as reality TV. Unscripted, yeah, maybe. But reality? Of course not.

anyone who saw anything related to the program in the series known as The Bachelorette and said, that's reality? Well, you need to get in touch with reality. You look at all these other so-called reality shows. And the fact is that, again, you're making a huge category error if you think that's truly reality. By the way, there's another aspect of this, which Christians need to understand. And this is something that shows up in scripture in a very similar logic. And that is this. when you have persons observed, they behave differently than when they are not observed. You put a television camera into the context. The television camera itself is going to change what takes place.

And by either way, you're saying, well, what in the world is biblical about that? What in the world is theologically important about that? Well, it is the recognition for human beings that God is omnipotent and omniscient. he sees and hears all things. So in that sense, every single human being from Adam onward is part of a reality TV show in terms of what is known completely, comprehensively, perfectly to God. It is going to be very interesting to see how all of this comes down. There could be big legal issues, no doubt. And now ABC and the entire system behind this, including Disney, they're holding the bag on millions of dollars. And now the fact that this program

probably never going to see the light of day because it's scandalous. But that's another point, isn't it? It should have been scandalous long before they signed these contracts and moved ahead with this. And what is also scandalous is the fact that, as was reported in the mainstream media, those who produced this knew exactly what had happened in the past in some of the criminal charges. So you know what? I think just about anyone looking at that is going to say they got exactly what they deserved. Or to put it another way, if you intend to make money by reality television, you better know exactly what reality you're going to claim to be presenting. And pretty soon, the reality might be giant, multi-million dollar losses.

And, of course, the bigger loss here should be moral credibility, a bigger issue, of course, even than the money. All right. We talked about the fact that the International Olympic Committee has come out with a ban on transgender athletics, transgender athletes and events, which is to say biological males can't can't contend and compete in female sports and events. And furthermore, there's going to have to be a genetic test that reveals this is indeed a female, a woman, truly, a girl or a woman, in order to compete in the women's events.

That was released by the head of the International Olympic Committee, and it was announced with little fanfare, but of course a lot of controversy, because this is a very controversial issue. I think it's common sense. It is just plainly justice, righteousness, common sense in terms of this policy. But as you know, there's going to be pushback, and I was waiting for this.

It's come. Nancy Armour, a columnist in the sports section for USA Today, just released an article yesterday with the headline, ban on trans women rooted in fear and feelings. So, in other words, she's big as an LGBTQ advocate, big as a transgender advocate. And you would think, however, that writing in the sports section, Nancy Armour would have to be kind of careful about how to make this argument.

Her argument, by the way, comes down to the fact that the new policy isn't just, and one of the ways it's not just is that men aren't required to prove they are male to compete in events. So there's an injustice. Females have to prove their female. Males don't have to prove their male. Well, the reason for that is just obvious, and that is the fact that there's no sporting or athletic advantage for a woman to pretend to be a man. there's all kinds of advantage for a male to claim to be female. So it's just very interesting to say all that happens. It's also inevitable that you're going to have an interesting statement or two in all of this.

One of them came from Saad Kassas Mohamed, identified as chair of the Human Rights Association, who said, quote, this policy goes well beyond the boundaries of sporting governance, quote, mandating compulsory genetic testing for every woman competing at the Olympic level, and using that test to determine whether she's permitted to compete is a profound. human rights question he went on to say it demands independent scrutiny not a unilateral ruling and quote okay that that's just really interesting in other words requiring women to be women is now declared to be a human rights question a profound human rights question and of course this is how things get turned

upside down the human rights equation is actually that you should protect women's sports for women and obviously there are some difficult questions that arise but what I want you to see is that this is not an argument against thinking through some of those very difficult issues. This is an argument against recognizing that there's a biological male and a biological female that matters. That's how deep this rebellion is. That's what's helpful in this particular argument. We see the depth and the breadth of the rebellion. Also, in a way that can only be described as tongue and cheek, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial coming from the editorial board entitled more right-wingers ban trans athletes.

And let's just say the summary is this. Actually, it was the International Olympic Committee. Okay. So in other words, what those who are the LGBTQ activists would have you to think is that some kind of right-wing activism was involved here? Not so. This was the International Olympic Committee. Not exactly a meeting of a, let's just say, conservative evangelicals.

And let's just, as we conclude, make the point of why they came to this conclusion. Here's the morally significant bottom line. They had to. Just as I conclude, I want to tell you that preparing for ministry is one of the most important decisions a Christian can ever make. That's why at Southern Seminary, we are committed to providing an education that is trusted for truth, grounded in the Word of God, led by our world-class faculty and designed to prepare a young man who's a preacher for a lifetime of faithfulness in service to Christ and his church. If you're sensing God's call to ministry. You're trying to think and pray this through. You're trying to help someone who is also doing so. I want to invite you to join us for Preview Day at Southern Seminary. It's

going to be April 17th here in Louisville. You will meet our faculty, sit down on classes, tour of the campus, and experience firsthand what it means to be trained rightly to divide the word of truth. It will take place in a confessional community committed to the Great Commission and to the Holy Scriptures. Your registration includes two nights of complimentary meals and lodging. Your registration fee is waived when you use the promotional code, all one word, all caps, the briefing. Make plans to join us, register today at sbts.edu slash preview. I personally will look forward to seeing you there. Thanks for listening to the briefing.

For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to X.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsbtskleeu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boysccollage.com. I'll meet you.