The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Thursday, August 20, 2026

Episode Date: August 20, 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 primary election results on Tuesday from Alaska and Florida, the federal court battle between Meta and four state Attorneys General, and the appeal to SCOTUS over the 10 Commandments in Texas schools.Part I (00:13 – 08:17)Results From Primary Elections on Tuesday: A Ranked Choice Election in Alaska and a Democratic Socialist of America Wins a Stunning Victory in the Democratic Senate Primary in FloridaAnother democratic socialist victory – Angie Nixon in Florida – sends shock waves through party establishment by The Guardian (Richard Luscombe)Part II (08:17 – 16:59)Meta Faces Big Battle in Federal Court: Four State Attorneys General Take Lead in Lawsuit Against Meta Over Social Media Impact on Children and Young People – This is a Massively Important CasePart III (16:59 – 24:44)The 10 Commandments in Texas Schools in Headlines Again: Activists Against 10 Commandments in Schools Appeal to U.S. Supreme CourtSign 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, August 20, 2006. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Primaries, and understand this is pretty late, but primaries were held in three states on Tuesday of this week, the states, Alaska and Florida and Wyoming. Just looking at Alaska, really interesting, you're going to have four candidates on the ballot in November because Alaska has adopted ranked choice voting. So in most states, as most people think about this kind of statewide election, you would have a Democratic nominee facing off against a Republican nominee. In ranked choice voting, you just have multiple candidates and you set a number. In the case of Alaska, it's four. The top four vote getters end up on the final ballot. So in November, Alaska voters are going to face four names. One of them is going to be Mary Paltola, and she is the leading Democratic-identified contender. but you also have the incumbent U.S. Senator Republican Daniel Sullivan, and the big issue is that there are

going to be two Daniel Sullivan's, or at least two Dan Sullivan's on the ballot, and that's because another Dan Sullivan, and of course, this is not a coincidence, is on the ballot, and at least one of the anticipated reasons, the second Dan Sullivan is on the ballot, is to draw votes away from the Republican incumbent Senator Daniel Sullivan. Now, in the ranked choice voting that took place, in the primary this week, that didn't really happen. Daniel Sullivan ended up with a very solid vote. And right now, it's pretty much an even face-off between Daniel Sullivan, the incumbent senator, and Mary Paltola. So it's going to be very interesting to see where that goes. But that's Alaska. And we could talk about the worldview behind rank choice voting, whereas you traditionally,

again, have a Republican nominee and a Democratic nominee. In this kind of system, it is claimed it's more efficient because you rank your choices and if your number one choice doesn't get votes, you have all these total votes and it can be distributed in such a way that the argument is you might get your second choice or your third choice. In any event, I think it is something that confuses voters more than anything else, and I do not think it improves democratic efficiency or honesty. But that's the state of Alaska. We're going to go immediately now to Florida because that's the big news. The big news in Florida is that another Democratic Socialist is one. And in this case, we're talking about the Senate nomination there in the state of Florida.

Now, that Senate position is going to be for a two-year term, the final two years of the term for which former Senator Marco Rubio was elected four years ago. But of course, after President Trump was elected to the second term, he asked Senator Rubio to become U.S. Secretary of State. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appointed Ashley Moody, who had been a part of the state government. She was appointed to the unfulfilled section of the term until this election could be held. And so she won the Republican nomination, quite convincingly, not even really a race. On the Democratic side, the shocking thing is that you had a winner who is even recently identified with the Democratic Socialists of America. We're talking about Angie Nixon, state legislator, very much a president. progressive very much of the left. Now, one of the most interesting things about this is that she did not

have the affirmative endorsement of the Democratic Socialists in America. And that's the interesting thing. It's not to say they refused to do it. She just didn't have that formal endorsement, but she joined the Democratic Socialists of America officially herself. So it is interesting. You hear some people say, this isn't as big a thing as it appears, because the DSA has simply endorsed people who aren't really DSA. But in this case, you had the candidate herself join the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, just to make the point. So this gets really convoluted, but DSA is a big part of the story. Here's another big part of the story. The other candidate running for the Democratic nomination for that Senate seat was Alexander Vindman.

And he really became rather well known to at least some Americans in his role in the Trump impeachment process in the first term. And so you're talking about someone who was really trying to ride that. notoriety. He also had a lot of money. He raised and according to some results spent nearly $16.3 million dollars and that's by the way the end of July. So even just at the end of July, you're talking about $16.3 million in the Vindman campaign. On the other hand, you have the Nixon campaign. According to the Guardian and you had leading US newspapers who reported the same thing, she had and spent only $975,000. So just look at that. This is a giant story. You're talking about the insurgent candidate in the state of Florida, which is a deep red conservative Republican state,

the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate is an openly registered member of the Democratic Socialists of America. And the money, Vindman spent or had in hand, about $16.3 million, $16 million, $16 to $1, because in this case, Angie Nixon had less than a million dollars to spend. but she used direct organizing and quite frankly a long reputation as a progressive in the Democratic Party. This tells us that even in the state of Florida, which is a deep red state, Governor Ron DeSantis has had a lot to do

with the transformation of the political landscape there. And the Republican is going to have a real advantage just built in to the political equation there in Florida. But the Democrats, they went for a Democratic Socialist of America nominee in the state of Florida and one who had been outspent about 16 to 1. So if someone says to you, you know, all this socialism talk isn't really such a big deal. Oh, yeah, it's a big deal.

Let me tell you how big a deal it is, by the way. And it is true that more Democratic Socialist identified candidates have lost in the primaries than have won, and that affected two of the congressional races in Florida this week. But the fact is that you're still talking about spectacular number. So let's just look at it. Right now, how many DSA identified? members of Congress are there. The answer would be two, but you also have someone like Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who is often very much associated as a Democratic Socialist. He's used

that term of himself, although not officially a member of the DSA. But look at what's happened just over the course of the last several weeks. You have, for example, eight DSA candidates who have won major statewide or congressional elections in the course of just the last several weeks. Now, 17, have lost, but eight have won. And when you're looking at the primary there in Florida and the Democratic Party, the fact that it's a DSA progressivist, leftist candidate who's going to be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party in that statewide election for the Senate, that's just huge. Now, we'll be looking further at the situation there in Florida. You have the son of a Baptist pastor who was a Republican, now as a Democrat, was pro-life, now appears to be pro-abortion, won the Democratic

nomination at the same time that a Trump-supported candidate won the Republican nomination. So we'll be looking at that and taking that race into account as we look to the November general election. And by the way, that's where so much of the energy is going to flow. You're now talking about a matter of days and weeks until Americans go to the polls in the midterm election. And it is going to be a lot to think about and a lot to talk about any way you look at it. But right now, take a freeze frame. You just say, where are we on Thursday, August the 20th, 2006, we have a multiplication factor when it comes to Democratic Socialist candidates appearing in the picture of the Democratic Party on the ballot and at least at the

primary level and in other big ways winning at the ballot box. It's true that more lost than one, but more won than ever before in the history of the party. That shows you the trend line, and in politics, the trend line is what just about everybody's watching. Okay, a major court case in California is where we need to turn next. It is not a California state court issue. It is a federal court issue. It has to do with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The courthouses in Oakland, California, and that's where you had attorneys general for four states initiate the arguments in a case against meta, which includes, of course, Facebook and Instagram, and it is a massive, massive development because

these four states, these four state attorneys general, are representing actually a plurality of the states. We're looking at 29 states being a part of this lawsuit against META. The federal judge, in this case, decided to identify these four states as those whose attorney generals will be making the direct arguments. I'll tell you one thing that's immediately interesting. You're talking about four very different states. California, Colorado, Kentucky, New Jersey. Obviously, I'm speaking to you from the state of Kentucky. I'm very proud that Kentucky's Attorney General Russell Coleman is one of the four attorneys general who'll be making this case, framing the arguments, very much involved. More on that in just a moment. But you also, in this case, have California's Attorney General

Rob Bonta, very, very liberal. Russell Coleman is quite conservative. And so you have a cross-section in more ways than one here. And on this issue, they're on the same side. They're going to be making the same arguments or arguments on the same side of the case, that against Meta. And by the way, big money is involved here. The states are seeking penalties

that could reach as high as $1.4 trillion, although legal authorities say $2 billion is more likely. By the way, that $1.4 trillion figure is at least close to the value of meta. That just underscores the fact that we're talking about a major development here. It's a major development. These states, 29 states, but four of them running lead here.

And again, California, Colorado, Kentucky, New Jersey, they're going to be making the case that the problem with meta is what was known to be and designed to be an addictive pattern. And so it's a very interesting legal argument. This addictive pattern, this susceptibility to an addiction, especially when it comes to children and young people, is going to be key. So much so that many legal. observers have said this is going to run very similar to the kinds of arguments that were used

against big tobacco in terms of those legal arguments, and even more recently the opioid issue, in which you had the use of the argument that there is legal responsibility for what was intentionally and knowingly sold. It was an addictive substance, and it was known to be a harmful addiction, and yet the companies went forward with it. Now, in the opioid case, it's a giant settlement. And the tobacco case, it's a giant settlement. And the tobacco case, cases, not exactly the same, of course, but similar giant settlements. When it comes to social media, you're talking about giant money. You're talking about a giant case here. And by the way, this may not be the last word. This is in the U.S. District Court there in the Northern District of

California. And it's likely to go on in terms of appeals. And of course, there's the federal circuits and then the Supreme Court of the United States. It's not certain that it would go that way. But it is certain this is going to be a huge, huge legal development. The arguments being used in this case have a great deal to do with the legal responsibility that these states are alleging against meta. And once again, it comes down to the fact that it's an addictive platform or multiple addictive platforms. And the accusation is that the companies have known of the addictive pattern and basically have misrepresented it and capitalized upon it for their own commercial game. It's very, very interesting. So listen to this.

This is a statement made by Megan O'Neill. a lawyer for the states together, she said, quote, hook the users, hold them for as long as they can, harvest their data, hide the truth from the public when making public statements. And she just went on to specifically go at the business model saying META's business model worked especially well for kids. Now, as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and many others have noted, and by the way, they are sometimes taking different sides in this case. And so you had the Wall Street Journal actually coming out with a statement saying,

You know, this is real opportunism for a lot of plaintiffs. They're going to be looking for the opportunity to get a settlement at the expense of these companies. But it tells you a lot that Attorney General Rob Bonta of California and Attorney General Russell Coleman of Kentucky are on the same side. You're talking about 29 states. That's not a small number. It's going to be really, really hard to say that 29 states are not representative of the United States of America and that this is some kind of invented argument. By the way, if there is some kind of judgment against meta for not just $1.4 trillion, but say $200 billion, that amounts to about 15% of the stock value of the companies. So this is big. This is really, really big. And there are other aspects of this that are going to demand our attention ongoingly to because this is a case, a tort case in the district court there in Northern California, the federal district court.

But there are other nations that are involved in the same kind of concern. And as a matter of fact, just recently, you had the Times of London come out with a list of the countries that have been about this kind of legislation, about this kind of court action, about this kind of concern, and it's just growing. And, you know, a lot of the argument that is likely to be made by META and its attorneys in this case is going to be that much good comes by these platforms and that they're operating within the law. And by the way, that's going to be another big issue. it's going to be the legal status of these companies, more than we can talk about here today, but that's going to be a very big issue. I want to come back to the state of Kentucky, as I said, I'm very glad that our own Attorney General Russell Coleman is one of the lead figures in this case. Kentucky being one of the four cases

in the case proper. And he said to Fox News on Tuesday, quote, what is crystal clear is today in a courtroom here in the United States, half of the states in our country represented over half, represented by their attorneys general. They'll be sitting in a courtroom across from META seeking to hold this company responsible. Then he says this. When I say META, we're talking about Facebook and Instagram, responsible for damaging the mental health of a generation of our kids, holding them responsible for monetizing technology that was simply unsafe. He's saying that several of the attorneys general are disappointed in the position taken by the Wall Street Journal. The editorial

board of the journal said, you know, this is another one of these plaintiff of all your things. And they make a really good response. Attorney General Coleman made a great response by saying, this is not the plaintiff's bar involved here. These are the states that are involved. These are the attorneys general of the states that are involved. They have no personal financial stake in this whatsoever. Yes, the plaintiff's bar is likely to be involved in it almost assuredly, but at this point, the moral clarity, I think, is emphasized by the fact these are states

that are suing on behalf of their own citizens. This is not the plaintiff's bar. This is something very, very different. I think altogether more important in this case. It is interesting Fox News, raised some of the questions about different levels of responsibility to what degree are young people responsible. How about the parents of young people? To what degree are they liable, responsible?

And of course, those are huge questions, especially when it comes to the responsibility of parents. And let's just face the fact that a lot of parents, including Christian parents, really aren't taking that responsibility with adequate seriousness. But it is also very much a part of the moral context of this case that these, attorneys general are going to be making the argument that this is a company that has intentionally engaged in making money off of what it knows to be an addictive behavior, damaging, of course, addictive behavior when it comes to children and teenagers.

So there are other huge issues having to do with people who are older than children and teenagers, but it is really important to recognize that in the law, there is strong ground for taking a stand and for making arguments in defense of those who cannot speak or legislate or act for themselves in this kind of courtroom or this kind of context. I think this is going to be something that's going to be very, very interesting. It is likely this is not going to be a trial that it will be short. It's likely that there will be plenty of reasons to follow it as the days and weeks unfold. The stakes, just to be clear, the stakes are really, really high. And I think it's important for Christians who understand the moral stakes are far more important than what I think

the rest of the nation will be watching, which will be the monetary stakes. But next we need to turn to another federal case or potential federal case that should have our attention. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision in April. It was a 97 decision that upheld the action by the Texas legislature to adopt what is known formally as Texas Senate Bill 10. And as U.S. today says it was enacted last year and requires a poster of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a visible spot in every public elementary and secondary school classroom in the state. So now you have people who are saying it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution to have a posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms in Texas. Now, you understand what's behind this. You have people who are

making the argument that that is a violation of what they will define as the separation of church and state, you know, et cetera. I think it's going to be very interesting to see where this goes. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that, again, was handed down in April. It was 9-7, so that shows a divided court. But it also shows a trajectory in the federal courts to understand that there needed to be a correction over the course of the last several years and even decades in the kind of secularism in the decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1950s and 60s that really did lead to, constitutional judgment that created a sterile public square, which is to say you just have to

basically expunge religious claims. Now, when you look at this particular case, and by the way, you have the traditional alliance of those who are pushing a secular agenda, which unfortunately includes a good many Protestant liberals. The fact is they're making the argument that it is an unconstitutional establishment of religion, and some are making the argument it is an offense to the religious liberty of other citizens, and the parents of elementary school, and high school students, that you're going to have this posting in the Ten Commandments, which they're arguing is effectively an establishment of Christianity. And that's because there were Christians behind it.

Now, obviously, you're talking about the Ten Commandments. You're talking about the Old Testament. You're talking about God giving the law to Moses. And so there is a very clear Jewish dimension here, which Christians not only acknowledge, but celebrate. But this is an argument that this is unconstitutional. Now, again, the Fifth Circuit rejected that argument. But we also need to understand that history is very informative here.

If you look through the history of public education in the United States, you not only have the Pledge of Allegiance and sometimes a prayer, sometimes a moment of silence, but you also have the fact that you had readers used as textbooks, especially in the elementary level, throughout so many decades of American history. And many of them were not only a little bit religious, but they were saturated in religious Christian and biblical content. And let's just state the obvious that was not considered a violation of the so-called separation of church and state, which, of course, let's just remind ourselves, is not language in the Constitution. That's language used by President Thomas Jefferson. And I think it's a language that distorts the entire reality. I don't want a national established religion, but I do want the government to acknowledge that it is not the ultimate authority. It was the Christian worldview that was very much behind and animating. and driving the American Revolution, the American understanding of civilization. And so if you try to make

that completely secular, then you're left with absolutely no basis for morality whatsoever. I am not one of those who believes that posting the Ten Commandments in a public school classroom is going to lead to some kind of instantaneous national revival. I think that kind of claim is ridiculous. I do think, however, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that this entire society is based upon a moral order that isn't accidental and comes with an authority higher than the authority of the school board or the authority of the local government, or for that matter, the authority of the state or of the federal government, you have to have moral law coming from a far higher moral authority. Now, of course, that's one of the perplexities of the modern age, where you have the rise of those

who attempt to create a secular worldview. But, you know, a secular worldview can't say why anything, anything is absolutely wrong. It just simply doesn't have the moral authority to make those kinds of moral judgments. You look on the other hand at the law as given by God through Moses to Israel and thus also honored by Christ's people in the church. It includes the Ten Commandments that say, you shall and you shall not. And so you just look at that and you understand that's huge. You shall honor your mother and father. You shall not bear false witness.

This is very, very clear. And the most important thing to recognize is that, yes, God the Creator has impressed throughout the created order, that moral knowledge. And we should be thankful for that. It's in conscience. It's also in the world around us. That's why people who have never heard of the Ten Commandments know that it's wrong to lie and it's wrong to murder. But when you are trying to actually organize a society, you can look at the modern effort to try to establish an completely secular terms. But you know what? You've got to live with the fact that you just declared the only terms are secular. And that means there is no transcendent authority. There is no ontological authority. There is no

creator. There is no sovereign God. There is no sovereign Lord. There is no divine lawgiver. So you know what? Everything is up for negotiation and political maneuvering. It is very interesting to see some of the arguments that are being made. It's also very interesting to see some of the groups that have come together. we're told that some of the groups that have come together in this appeal include Americans United for separation of church and state, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, they're representing Texas families that have come together to bring this case. You know, something very interesting. You look at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It was originally called Protestants and others United for Separation of Church and State. So it was also anti-Catholic. That's obviously bad for PR these days. And so now it's just Americans United for separation of church and state. You know, you look at this and there are many who will make the argument that this is a violation of someone else's religious liberty, even to put the Ten Commandments up on the wall in a classroom. I just want to come back to the fact that if that is an unconstitutional establishment of religion,

then we have no fundamental answer at all. We just need to acknowledge this. We have no fundamental answer as to why even those who established this nation believed that you should not lie and you must not murder. These are very interesting questions. If there is no God who's the divine lawgiver, the creator of all behind those laws, his authority, absolutely in those laws, then everything is up for negotiation. And I'll just end by saying, we need to remind ourselves every once in a while that everything means everything. This is an appeal filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may or may not take the case, but in any event, whether it does or not, that's going to be a story. Thanks for listening to the briefing.

For more information, go to my website at Albertmobler.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 sbts.bts.org. For information on Voice College, just go to voicecollege.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.