The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Thursday, August 27, 2026

Episode Date: August 27, 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 Meta’s lawsuit settlement over social media harm to young people, Harvard Medical School’s director caught in black market body part scandal, and the CIA Director’s rare and undisclosed trip to Moscow.Part I (00:13 – 09:23)Meta Agrees to Settle Massive Lawsuit Over Social Media Harm to Young People: Parents Will Now Bear More Power and Responsibility in How Their Children Access Social MediaMeta to Pay Up to $17.1 Billion in Landmark Settlement Over Social Media Addiction Claims by The New York Times (Cecilia Kang and Eli Tan)Part II (09:23 – 21:08)Why Is This Unspeakably Wrong? Medical School Morgue Director Caught in Black Market Body Part ScandalHarvard settles stolen body parts lawsuits. Here’s what happened by USA Today (Saleen Martin)Part III (21:08 – 26:44)CIA Director Makes a Rare and Undisclosed Trip to Moscow: Is This an Indicator That Putin is About to Attack NATO?CIA director’s secretive visit to Moscow stirs mystery by The Washington Post (Alex Horton, Michael Birnbaum, Warren P. Strobel and Joyce Sohyun Lee)The CIA might just have given an alarming signal that Putin is about to attack Nato by The Telegraph (Tom Tugendhat)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, August 27, 2006. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. There are settlements, and there are settlements. The big news yesterday is the settlement that was reached between four states representing 48 states and META with other defendants in a social media trial over child safety accusations claims. Now, the settlement means that META is going to pay out $18 billion. According to some press reports, it's $17.1 to $18 billion. Now, that's a lot. Now, it's not nearly what the four states, which were representing in this federal trial in the Northern District of California, federal court. It is not just that it is these four states, the states of Kentucky, New Jersey, Colorado,

and California. It's that the court designated those four states to make the argument representing the other states and territories. So there were 51 attorneys general for the states and territories. And again, because of some of the variability in some of the case, it's going to be reported. It's 47 states, 48 states. It has to do also with the fact that the state of Tennessee has to settle in this a separate case from the one that is in the federal court there in the Northern District of California. But the bottom line is, it's just massive. It is massive. And it's massive, I think, in ways that.

that go far beyond the numbers. The numbers are impressive. You're talking about billions of dollars. Now, the states had asked for, demanded in terms of this what could have been hundreds of billions of dollars. So 18 billion is a lot less than that. On the other hand, this is one of the biggest settlements in all of legal history, certainly in any kind of case like this. And what meta is going to do in terms of changing its policies is far more important than the money they're paying out. Because in one sense, if you're talking billions of dollars, dollars, a company like meta, goes through that in a matter of weeks. But what we are talking about here is the changing of the systems. The settlement includes the fact that parents are going to be

given the default setting in so many different issues. And so when it comes to access, there are going to be hours when the default setting for meta products, which would include Facebook and Instagram, that will mean that the default, just in terms of a minor, that is to say a young teenager or a child, their access to those social media sites will have blackout hours having to do with school time and sleep time. And you also have other kinds of issues that Meta's agreed to. And by the way, when it agrees to this, it basically admits that it wasn't doing this before. So the biggest issue, perhaps just in terms of how families are going to engage this, is that under the old plan, meta, and other companies, which are also to a much

smaller extent, parties to this suit. They were also defendants in this suit. Meta was basically encouraging constant scrolling, constant comment, the likes and all of that in terms of teenage social media postings. A lot of that now is simply going to disappear. And even access to some of these things is just going to be put entirely in the hands of parents as the default. So that's a different thing. In other words, here's a big issue for parents. Under the old system, that meta had put in place, even though they claim there are all these protections and all the rest. The settlement shows that they know that real damage has been done and real vulnerabilities were in their explicit business model. But what they're talking about now is the fact that parents, and parents better

pay attention to this, parents are going to bear responsibility for changing the settings. That is a massive moral shift. Now, I'm not saying there won't be a way around this. that is not something I think I can predict. I can predict that teenagers are going to try to get around it, and this has been a problem in other countries, which have tried to put on similar kinds of bans. But at least in terms of how you just think of a stereotypical family, and you think of parents and children in the same house,

and you look at children having access because they've been allowed to sign on to these systems. And again, you have age verification problems, you have all kinds of problems. But the big issue is this. This is an agreement that should, in principle, put far more authority in the hands of parents rather than vulnerable children and teenagers. And that is big. Now, I think it's important in worldview terms that we simply admit that when it comes to the digital world, all kinds of things could go wrong. And that can go wrong in unexpected ways. But this is a significant grown-up moment for social media in the United States of America. It's also important to recognize that the timing of this settlement tells you something.

It came before the founder of Facebook and the CEO of the company and eventually Meta, which would include Instagram, Mark Zuckerberg, before he had to testify. And let's just say that I think it's a fair assessment that Mark Zuckerberg and his legal team did not want that to happen. How much did they not want that to happen? Well, I don't know how much of the $17 plus billion. it was worth, but I think that's probably a significant part of it, because when it comes to something like that, that's really putting the entire company on the line. Now, is this the end of all these cases? No, those cases are going to continue. For one thing, you have the states of Florida and New Mexico,

which are not party to this. The Attorney General in Florida said they're looking for a much more significant settlement. That would be interesting to see if that comes or not. But at this point, you are talking about 51 different legal entities, the U.S. states and territories. and depending upon the portion of the settlement 47 or 48 states. But, you know, I think one of the big problems is that a lot of people will look at this and say, well, I guess this makes sense. And now it's been set right, so we don't have to worry about this anymore. That is not the case.

Parental responsibility here is just a massive, massive issue. Nobody said it was going to be easy. But when you look at the real harms that these states were quite willing to set before a federal court and harms that, you know, were enough that you had meta settle for, you know, multiple billions of dollars, between 17 and 18 billion dollars. It should tell you something about what's at stake. And what's at stake, as Christians know, is much more than what can be quantified in a financial settlement. We're talking about the hearts and minds of our young people, our children and teenagers. And of course, there are other things that are still very much

off the table here. Once they turn 18, guess what? That's a different category. And, you know, I mean at least in terms of the legal situation. And so there are all kinds of other things that come up here. The states will get a pro rata payout according to their population. So Rob Bonta, the Attorney General in California, says that California is going to receive between $1.5 and $2.1 billion. And it's not certain what the state of California is going to do with that. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said that Kentucky's part of the settlement will be $358 million. So again, that's just population, California, as compared to Kentucky, $358 million is a very significant amount of money. On the other hand, the moral victory is, I think, worth a great deal more. Attorney General Coleman said, quote, while META is certainly paying for what it did to our kids, this was never just about the money. I think that's really important. Kentucky's Attorney General made that statement in a video posted online.

He also said, quote, kids deserve a childhood that isn't measured in likes and followers. the settlement will bring a generational change that will make the Internet safer for Kentucky families, end quote. Now, I think just in terms of the material changes, that statement is right. I think the Attorney General can rightfully say this will make a change, even a generational change. I just want to say to Kentucky parents and to Kentucky pastors. And frankly, not just here in Kentucky, but all over the country and all the states covered by this settlement, this puts more, it puts greater moral response. on parents in terms of their direct supervision of what we now know is a very harmful world for children and teenagers. Attorney General Russell Coleman here in Kentucky said that among the big issues in his mind in the settlement, two-hour daily time limits and mandatory productive pauses for children on both of these meta-platforms that kick in after 1560 and 90 minutes of continuous use. Nighttime blocks restricting children's access from midnight to 6 a.m. limited school time access.

for children, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Better age verification for underage users. That's got to be crucial. And then I'm reading here, quote, stronger and more user-friendly parental controls and safer age-appropriate content controls, including safeguards against bullying,

content promoting, eating disorders, and content related to suicide and self-harm. End quote. I don't think I have to say that those are such huge moral categories. If this does not have the attention of Christian parents, Christian pastors and others, I don't know what would. But now I want to shift to a very different subject, and one that I think is incredibly

disclosive in worldview terms. But it's not getting much attention nationwide other than just the controversy, the salaciousness, the scandal in the headline. Here's the headline. Harvard settles suits over stolen body parts. Okay, that's a big story. You would think it would be headline news all over the country. And indeed, major media have given it.

some attention. I found the most interesting article to be the print edition of USA Today on Tuesday of this week. Selene Martin is the reporter, the subhead, school will pay $53 million and plan a medical scholarship. Okay, does this have your attention? Harvard settled suits over stolen body parts. How do you get stolen body parts? Well, you have to have the body parts. And it has to do with the fact that there is not only, of course, this settlement. There's also, we come to know criminal prosecution in the background, and the criminal prosecution was most importantly against a man who was the manager of the Harvard Medical School morgue. He worked at the morgue there at the Harvard Medical School for nearly three decades were told, beginning in February 1995.

Cedric Lodge's man were talking about, his wife was also convicted of being at least a part of this in a much lesser sentence. But nonetheless, as USA Today says, quote, He worked there for nearly three decades, beginning in February, 1995. The scheme unfolded between 2018 and March 2020, prosecutor said, in a news release. Okay, so what came to light is the fact that you had these bodies that were given for medical science, and that included the kinds of lessons that medical students have to learn about the human body. And so, at least in terms of legitimate usage,

there are policies that were in place. This man was violating those policies and was actually making money by removing strategic body parts from cadavers and medical research. And rather than going through the supposedly respectful process whereby bodies were to be disposed of, he was taking parts and selling them. Now, I assure you, my interest in this is not the sheer scandal of it. it's the theological principle behind that scandal. So we're talking about something here. We're talking about human bodies. We're talking about human body parts.

We're talking about them being sold on what amounts to a black market for body parts. We are told that criminal charges were brought and a conviction was reached. Last year, we were told in USA Today, quote, both Lodge 58 and his wife, 65, were sentenced for interstate transport of stolen human remains.

Another very interesting little worldview angle here. Going all the way back to the 19th century, but big time in the 20th century, you had the question, especially in the United States, with a federal system, you have so many things that are in terms of criminal law, a state responsibility. The federal laws have a different status. And so with respect to the states, for instance, homicide and things like this would largely be a state trial, state criminal charges. But when you have interstate transport, or you have the use of the post, or anything like that, that also becomes a federal crime. And that can become very, very crucial in the

prosecution of a case like this. So, for instance, sometimes you would have a gangster in the age of all the mobsters in the 1920s and 30s and 40s. And they would commit horrible crimes, but the states would be unable to come up with the prosecution that would work. Sometimes they would go to jail for income tax evasion or for a conspiracy against the postal service or interstate commerce and illegal goods. also prohibition, bootlegging, and all the rest. So it is interesting, just in moral terms, that sometimes, you know, you go down for sending something out of a state. And that was also a huge issue in the federal prosecution in shutting down prostitution rings because that became an interstate crime. Okay, so it is interesting that all that plays into this. But going back to the

story, quote, according to court documents, the families, that is the families of those who were the deceased, suffered significant mental anguish and severe emotional distress once they found out about the situation. Well, I guess so. I guess so. There's a moral revulsion here. And in particular, when you had people who had left their bodies to medical science, there's some worldview issues there for us to consider. But at least this is in the context of a medical school clearly for anatomical lessons. And this was clearly a violation of trust, clearly a violation of law, clearly a violation of moral principle. And we are also talking about the fact that this was a very in-depth conspiracy. Now, I don't know about this man's employment background, but it sounds

troubled. USA Today says that Lodge, quote, was placed on leaves of absence in 2021, 2022, and 2003. He was fired in May, 2003. There's a story there, I can tell you. But nonetheless, the big issue here is that USA Today, in the print edition, give us about two-thirds of a full page, it's page four, in terms of the news section, the front section in the newspaper, to this. And clearly, the background in this is that it is morally reprehensible. And this is just unthinkable, right? Should be morally unthinkable. Here you have someone desecrating human bodies and selling human body parts. Well, okay, they're going to be facing time in prison, and Harvard is facing a $53 million settlement. Again, once again, kind of in the

meta story, similar, parallel. It's illegal substance. this did not go to trial. And I can understand why Harvard would have an interest in this not going to trial. But you look at this and you think about the moral revulsion, a rightful, righteous moral revulsion. You look at that and you have to ask the question, why all this revulsion? And by the way, it's a new story. As I say, it's big. USA Today gave it two-thirds of a full page in Tuesday's print edition of the paper. So they think it's a big story, but they never actually say why. It simply says that this is what happened, and this was the settlement that Harvard reached. But there's a reason why it's two-thirds of a print page. There's a reason why it's in the front

section in the newspaper. There's a reason why we're talking about it, and it's a reason the secular world doesn't want to confront. And that is, why in the world is this morally wrong? Let's just ask ourselves a hard question. Why is there such moral revulsion? Why is this wrong? And of course, we as Christians have a fundamental answer to why it's wrong. The point is, I don't know if you come from an entirely materialist, secularist, just secularized worldview. I don't know how you can make a sustained argument that this is particularly wrong. And clearly, we're talking about a distinction here between human beings and, say, animals. And so even if this happened in a veterinary setting, I think there'd be people who would be offended, but not offended in the same way.

and I think there might be some media attention, but not in the same way. What we're talking about here underlines the distinctive dignity that is possessed by every single human being right down to that human being's body. Because we are made. A creator made us and made us in his image. And by the way, a part of being made in God's image is every single one of us as human beings has the capacity even to know ourselves and to know God. that is the point. And so we are talking about the fact that here you have USA Today and here you have Harvard Medical School and you have these others reaching this agreement USA Today reporting on it along with other major media in a lesser sense. And they're just not addressing why this is such a horrible thing in the first place.

Why are these laws on the books? Why is it illegal to do this? Because if we're just stuff, if we're just atoms and molecules, then what does it matter all that much? If there is no soul and there is no spirit, there is no spiritual dimension to what it means to be a human being made in the image of God, then why are we talking about this? How do you talk about human dignity and all the rest if you're just talking about a material worldview? I mean, the fact is, this is where the whole thing's breaking down. And it's breaking down all over the world.

You have people like Princeton bioethesis Peter Singer who says that there's nothing particular dignified about a human being. It's more intelligence and higher consciousness, but he goes on to say, you know, you look at a human baby, it has less self-consciousness than an adult pig. So, you know, why is human dignity, you know, what's invoked? And we have an answer for that. It is because every single human being from fertilization until natural death is a human being made in God's image bearing full dignity. We also believe that death is not the final word, but we do believe that death is the transition from a living body to a dead body, but it's Christianity profoundly that speaks to the dignity even of the dead body. And you know, that's a dignity that is oddly and unacknowledged

a fundamental issue to the story. It's unacknowledged. There's something distinctively wrong with mutilating a human body for no purpose. I think it's also interesting to note that in terms of Christian ethics, even, you know, a body used in medical research is justified. only because it is to be handled in a respectful way, and this is research is absolutely necessary to try to help to come up with medical therapies or other things that would help the living. But even then, at the end of that process,

they're supposed to be an entirely respectful process. This man and his wife, with a lesser sentence, this man who ran this morgue is serving time in prison because he broke those rules. But how do you justify those rules on an entirely secular worldview? I just want to ask the question. this very, very interesting. I find the whole thing very, very troubling. I just want to ask the jury.

I want to ask the judge. I want to ask Harvard. I want to ask all involved here, why is this so wrong? I agree it's wrong. I think it may be even more wrong than they think it's wrong. Because once you understand this is the desecration and the criminal conspiracy to profit by the desecration of human beings made in God's image and even the body, which we believe has dignity because the Creator made it. And we also believe there will be a day when all will rise for the judgment of God. And I do believe we will be held to account for everything,

and that includes how we even think about the body. We're also in an interesting Christian predicament when this kind of thing comes up because we look at this headline, and, you know, there's no moral satisfaction. But there is a sense of moral rightness, and that is it is right that this was criminally prosecuted. right that there is a civil liability here. This is right because there's a moral issue at stake.

But for Christians, we look at this and say, you know, here's another point. Sometimes we need to be thankful that even in an increasingly secularized age, some vestiges of creation truth remain, even sometimes hidden in the conscience in which when you look at this kind of action, you see, that these folks may not be able to really argue fundamentally why this thing is so wrong. But, you know, they're ready now to pay up because it's so wrong. Finally for today, a story that isn't getting, I think, enough attention here in the United States. But interestingly, and understandably enough, is getting a lot of attention in Europe and in Britain in particular. It has to do with the fact that just in recent days, the director of the Central Intellectual

agency that would be John Ratcliffe, he flew to Moscow on a U.S. military plane. C-130, specially equipped for this kind of mission, landed in Moscow. And here's the new thing. We're not talking about the Cold War where you had to have spies who might be able to get word here in a briefcase there, you know, a hidden code there. You're now talking about people on the streets of Moscow who can use their smartphone to make a video of the U.S. Air Force plane landing. and there are also apps.

You can get right on your phone. So we're kind of back to the meta story here and the power of the digital age. You can on your phone have apps in which you can track the movement of such planes. You don't have to be a spy. All you have to do is download the app and in many cases pay the subscription fee.

But the point is, you're not going to hide the director of the CIA landing in Moscow now. Okay, so here's the headline in the Washington Post. CIA director makes rare unannounced visit to Moscow. Okay, so that's just, A few days ago, the visit's over, and presumably the CIA director is on his way back. But in Britain, the headline's very different.

I think in worldview terms, this is really interesting. That's because Britain is a lot closer to Ukraine. Britain's a lot closer to Russia. Britain's a lot closer. Europe and Western European nations, NATO member states, are in general terms much closer to this military action. Here's the headline in a major London newspaper, The Telegraph. The CIA might just have given an alarming signal, that Putin is about to attack NATO.

Okay, two different headlines. Washington Post, CIA, director makes rare, unannounced visit to Moscow. The Telegraph in London, CIA might just have given an alarming signal that Putin is about to attack NATO. There have been very troubling signs about Russian incursions, Russian military actions, also covert actions in many Western nations, including Britain. There's an interesting unfolding in all of this.

But a part of the interesting unfolding has to do with the fact that in November of 2021, another director of the CIA, William J. Burns, that was President Biden's director of the CIA, was sent by President Biden on a similar trip flying to Moscow. Why? Well, it is believed this is why, that the director of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America flew to meet with very high, I say very high Russian officials in order to show. show sophisticated intelligence data indicating that Russia was about to invade Ukraine. And presumably the CIA director went to say, don't do it. Now, with that is the historic background, very similar plane, very similar mission, very similar context, same exact Russian government. You can understand why if you are in Europe, or in this case, if you're in the United Kingdom, if you're in Britain, the headline would not just be that this is interesting and unannounced, the headline just might be that something very bad is about to happen.

Again, the telegraphs headline, an alarming signal that Putin is about to attack NATO. Once again, you go back to CIA Director Burns. His message to the Russians was, don't do it. We know the Russians did it anyway. What's its stake in this visit? Quite honestly, we don't know. We can understand why the Europeans in particular are so concerned. Tom Tuganhot, the author of that report in the telegraph, includes these words.

He says, quote, I hope I'm wrong, but hope is not a policy. We know that Putin has consistently seen Britain as the embodiment of all he rejects. He sees us as the all-powerful intelligence-led Machavelian geniuses who spurned him and constrain him. I only wish we were. That has put us in his crosshairs without the capabilities we need to push back. We are running out of time to be ready. End quote. The fear here is something that,

ought to remind us of what it means to live in a very dangerous world. When this kind of airplane from the United States Air Force lands on this kind of mission in this context in Moscow, it is very, very significant. We live in a fallen world where all kinds of bad things can happen, and there are parallels, of course, that reach back even to the invasion of Ukraine. What does it mean in this case? We don't know. But there's every reason to believe this was not just a visit for hospitality. One final thought on this. It just has to be somewhat frustrating to the Central Intelligence Agency that the movement of the CIA director and something that just is obviously a very important official visit can be documented and released to the world by a 14-year-old

with a smartphone in Moscow. That too is a world changer. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter about going to X.com forward slash Albert Mueller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsbtsk.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boyscology.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.