Vance’s path to 2028 just got much more complicated



Until late 2025, the Republican Party appeared likely to carry the MAGA coalition more or less intact into the 2028 presidential election. No successor can reproduce Trump’s personality or political style. But the coalition he assembled — working-class voters, growing numbers of Latinos and other former Democrats, and disaffected liberals such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard — seemed durable.

JD Vance also appeared ready to clear the field. Marco Rubio, the only other plausible heir with national support, said just a few months ago that he would back Vance in 2028 if the vice president ran. The nomination looked less like a contest than a succession plan.

Much of the base may share Vance’s instincts, but the right is far from unanimous. His victory in an open contest cannot be assumed.

When I wrote my book, “JD Vance and the Future of the Republican Party,” the first sustained examination of Vance’s political thought and his place in the post-Trump GOP, that outcome seemed nearly certain. Vance would declare around the 2026 midterms. Rubio would endorse him. A few marginal candidates might enter, but none would reach double digits.

That scenario remains possible. It is no longer inevitable.

Two related developments have changed the equation: the fight over the U.S.-Israel relationship on the right and the war in Iran.

The first does not implicate Vance directly, but it has fractured the political world he must lead. Far-right podcasters and pundits have fixated on Israel and Jews for years. The dispute moved from the fringes toward the center when Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes on his podcast in October 2025, one month after Charlie Kirk — one of the right’s most effective coalition builders and gatekeepers — was assassinated. Influential voices soon moved beyond debating the wisdom and limits of the U.S.-Israel alliance to entertaining conspiratorial claims that Jews themselves threatened America.

The conservative movement has never been intellectually uniform. Libertarians, social conservatives, anti-communist liberals, nationalists, and other factions have long competed under the Republican tent. But the past nine months have produced something more corrosive. Positions on Israel, American Jews, and even individual media personalities have become loyalty tests. Conservatives increasingly sort themselves into camps and excommunicate dissenters.

Every presidential nominee must unite competing factions. Vance faces an unusual version of that task because he entered politics through the world of conservative intellectuals, think tanks, and media. He has friends and allies across rival camps. Preserving those relationships without appearing captive to any of them may become one of his hardest political tests.

RELATED: JD Vance reveals opinion on Epstein files, explains ‘demon’ alien theory, slams ‘full of s**t’ Gavin Newsom with Joe Rogan

Nathan Howard/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

The war in Iran has made that test harder. Trump’s coalition has always included incompatible foreign-policy factions: George W. Bush-era interventionists, advocates of a restrained and more hemispheric strategy, and hard-line isolationists. The alliance held as long as the administration avoided wars that lacked a clear connection to the American interest.

Iran forced the disagreement into the open. Will the Republican Party continue military campaigns in the Middle East, or will it reserve force for direct threats to the United States? Republicans answer that question very differently, and the war has split the party. Any 2028 nominee will have to navigate the divide.

Vance is no isolationist, but his instincts favor restraint. He is also more willing than many senior Republicans to question the scope of U.S. commitments to Israel. Those positions may appeal to much of the base while alarming interventionists, pro-Israel conservatives, and establishment donors.

Can Vance maintain relationships with controversial figures such as Carlson, reconsider American commitments in the Middle East, and still hold the Republican coalition together? A competitive 2028 primary would force those questions into the open. Much of the base may share Vance’s instincts, but the right is far from unanimous. His victory in an open contest cannot be assumed.

Rubio remains the likeliest challenger. He has said he will not oppose Vance if the vice president runs, but supporters continue to promote the popular secretary of state as a candidate. Rubio’s greater acceptability to establishment Republicans and his more interventionist foreign policy would turn the primary into a direct contest over the party’s future. He could expose every fault line Vance must bridge.

One factor may matter more than all the others: Trump’s endorsement.

RELATED: The GOP’s 2028 ticket math is already brutal

Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images

After the Iran war, Vance is less likely to coast through a genuinely open primary, especially if Rubio changes his mind. But Republicans may never receive an open primary. Trump still commands the party he reshaped, relishes the role of kingmaker, and will want to choose his successor.

An unequivocal Trump endorsement of Vance could end the contest before it begins. Other candidates could run, but they would struggle against a Trump-Vance succession. If Trump chooses Vance, the vice president may become the 2028 nominee by anointing rather than competition.

Trump has spoken more than once about the race to succeed him. Once he speaks definitively, the question may no longer be whether Vance can win the Republican primary. It may be whether the party is willing to hold one.

If Trump names Vance, he will likely become the future of the Republican Party. Trump will decide whether the party gets a primary or an anointing.

House vote exposes Democrat rift over Israel aid as Massie remains a party of one



Support for Israel is seemingly becoming a partisan issue in Congress.

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $3.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel. But the vote count told its own story: Nearly half the Democratic Caucus broke from party leadership to support it, while Republicans stayed almost entirely unified against it.

'They're the biggest welfare recipient of the United States and have been for many years.'

The amendment to the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for 2027, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), would have barred any funds in the bill from being spent on Israel.

Ahead of the vote, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) laid out his position in a "Dear Colleague" letter: He would vote no because the amendment was "overly broad," warning it would also cut off funding for humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, and embassy operations and make it harder to counter Hamas and Hezbollah.

House Democratic Whip Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.) broke with Jeffries publicly. In her statement, she agreed that the amendment was "overly broad" and called it "stunts from congressional Republicans who would rather score cheap political points than lead" — but reached the opposite conclusion.

"However, it is clear that the status quo is not tenable. We should not provide a blank check for military aid to any country that does not comply with U.S. law, interests, and values," Clark said. "The Netanyahu government has failed to meet that standard. I will be voting yes ... because I believe we must change course."

RELATED: Democrat congressman's Israel trip takes dramatic turn as officials dispute viral claims

ierney L. Cross/Bloomberg/Getty Images

In the end, 103 Democrats joined Massie in voting yes — including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said she remains "committed to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and supportive of a two-state solution," but that the amendment "presents an unfortunate choice to the House."

Ninety-eight Democrats joined 215 Republicans in voting no; Massie, who recently lost his House seat in the most expensive House primary in U.S. history, was the only Republican in favor. The measure failed 104-314.

In the floor debate ahead of the vote, Massie argued that the money would be better spent at home — on roads, bridges, and homeless veterans — before calling Israel "the biggest welfare recipient of the United States," citing $310 billion in inflation-adjusted aid received over the years from American taxpayers.

RELATED: 4 Republicans vote with Democrats to rebuke Trump on Iran war

Jon Cherry/Getty Images

"Israel has the strongest economy in the Middle East," he said. "Their debt per GDP is in much better shape than ours. They don't need our money."

Then he circled back to the word himself: "In fact, they've claimed recently they want to get off of the welfare, but I'm concerned that the other funding mechanisms they're talking about — commingling our technology and supply chains — will have even less transparency than what's going on here today."

Massie was careful to frame the measure as part of his broader principle: "I'm opposed to all foreign aid. I didn't pick on Israel here. I've offered an amendment to defund Egypt and also to defund the aid to Jordan … but I am particularly concerned this year about the foreign aid to Israel."

That concern, he said, came down to the war itself: “American taxpayers should not be conscripted into funding the military adventures of Israel," he said, urging the adoption of his amendment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

US brokers Israel-Hezbollah truce despite Israeli official's demand that 'all of Lebanon' burn



President Donald Trump signed the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding on Wednesday evening, immediately opening the Strait of Hormuz to the free flow of oil and setting the stage for a final peace deal with Tehran.

While the markets responded positively, there was a great deal of consternation both in the U.S. and in Israel about the terms of the deal, particularly the provisions requiring money for Iran's reconstruction and the "immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."

'For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep.'

The fragile peace has been undermined by more than just criticism on the sidelines.

Disregarding the demands for a cessation of hostilities, Hezbollah and Israel engaged in a brutal exchange on Thursday and Friday that has claimed multiple lives and delayed the permanent peace talks. This bloodletting has, however, since been put on pause, owing to a truce reportedly brokered by the United States and regional actors.

The Israel Defense Forces announced late on Thursday that an explosive Hezbollah drone had detonated near Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, injuring four soldiers. Another terrorist drone reportedly detonated several minutes later, injuring another Israeli soldier.

RELATED: Exclusive: JD Vance minces no words with BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey about Israeli influence, Iran deal

Jalaa MAREY/AFP/Getty Images

The Hezbollah strikes turned deadly early Friday morning when a suspected anti-tank missile struck a tank belonging to the 401st Armored Brigade's 52nd Battalion in Lebanon's Kfar Tebnit area, killing all four crew members, reported the Times of Israel.

Israel, in turn, launched numerous strikes — over 150 by early Friday — against alleged terrorist targets in Southern and Eastern Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had instructed the IDF to "strike Hezbollah with full force" and reiterated that "Israel will remain in the security zone in Southern Lebanon for as long as required to protect the settlements in the north."

The Lebanese health ministry claimed that the Israeli strikes killed at least 47 people — at least 18 of whom were reportedly civilians — and wounded nearly 100 others since midnight.

That toll was evidently not nearly enough for Israel National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who stated, "For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!"

"With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit. All of Lebanon must burn," continued Ben-Gvir, one of the most outspoken critics of Trump's deal with Iran. "In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and restraint — you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror.."

Three regional officials told the Associated Press that the U.S., Qatar, and Iran brokered a truce between Lebanon and Israel — a truce that a senior U.S. official told Reuters was set to begin Friday at 4 p.m. local time.

"Hezbollah and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire," said the American official on background. "We understand that after the exchange of fire ⁠earlier today, Israel and Hezbollah are ⁠now in a ceasefire."

A Hezbollah leader said in a statement to CNN that while the group's fighters will respect the ceasefire, the movement and actions of Israeli forces in Lebanon will receive "a suitable response."

The IDF said that it will continue its operations in Lebanon.

"These attacks by Hezbollah are violations of the ceasefire. They prove that Hezbollah’s goals remain the same: to remain on Israel’s borders and to plan and carry out attacks on our civilians," said an IDF spokesman. "This is not a reality we can accept, and this is exactly why the IDF continues to operate in Southern Lebanon."

Earlier this week, Trump bemoaned the loss of life in Lebanon — where the health authority reports that 3,980 people have been killed in Israeli attacks since March 2 — saying that "the Lebanon piece is something we'll have to work on a little bit."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Hit them again': US fires scores of Tomahawks into Iran after Apache helicopter shot down



Iran and the United States have riddled their fragile ceasefire with missiles in the 14th week of the war.

President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that the U.S. Army AH-64 Apache helicopter downed while patrolling the Strait of Hormuz on Monday had been shot down by Iranian forces. While the uninjured pilots were rescued, the president stressed that "the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack."

'US forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready.'

Hours later, U.S. Central Command announced that it had begun launching "self-defense strikes," which it characterized as a "proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression."

Early Wednesday, Trump noted on Truth Social that "they’ve taken too long to negotiate a deal that would have been great for them, now they will have to pay the price!!!"

The president clarified later in the day that more American strikes were forthcoming.

"We hit them hard yesterday. We're going to hit them again hard today, in case you miss it, in case you don’t turn on your television set, and we’ll see what happens with the deal," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

On Wednesday evening, CENTCOM launched another series of "self-defense" strikes, stating afterward that it had targeted "Iranian military surveillance capabilities, communication systems, and air defense sites across Iran."

RELATED: US Apache helicopter crashes near Strait of Hormuz on 100th day of Iran war; Trump says end in sight

Ford Williams/U.S. Navy/Getty Images

Iranian media claimed, however, that among the structures damaged in the American strikes was a pair of water tanks in the south of the country with a combined capacity of 2.5 million liters — tanks said to have supplied water to tens of thousands of civilians. When asked by the New York Times about reports of damage to water facilities, CENTCOM declined to comment.

"U.S. Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy assets fired precision munitions on Iranian targets that posed a threat to U.S. forces and international commercial ships transiting regional waters," CENTCOM said in a statement. "The strikes are in response to Iran's unwarranted and continued aggression. U.S. forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready."

According to Trey Yingst, an Israel-based Fox News reporter, Trump said that the U.S. fired at least 49 Tomahawk missiles into Iran and executed bombings via fighter jets, hitting targets as close as 40 miles outside Tehran. Trump also reportedly said that if the Iranians don't sign the peace agreement, "we'll bomb the s**t out of them."

Iranian state media reported on Thursday that in retaliation for the American strikes, "18 important targets belonging to the U.S. military in the region were successfully hit during two operational waves following the recent aggression against Iranian territorial integrity."

The Iranians maintain that their attacks constitute self-defense "as recognized under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations."

According to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the targets were located "at the Al-Salem and Ahmad al-Jaber air bases, as well as the Sheikh Isa air base."

Citing an unnamed military official, Jordanian state media reported that 20 missiles had been intercepted and neutralized by the country's air defense systems, adding there had been no human casualties or material damage.

Iranian drones and "hostile aerial targets" were reportedly intercepted over Bahrain and Kuwait.

While Iranian media also claimed that the Strait of Hormuz had been completely closed in response to the American strikes, CENTCOM stated on Wednesday evening that "commercial ships are continuing to transit in and out of the Strait of Hormuz."

Trump emphasized on Wednesday that "the UNITED STATES of AMERICA CONTROLS the Strait of Hormuz — NOT Iran."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Restraining Israel Is Not the Answer

Donald Trump is not known for hewing to convention, but this week he seemed to rerun a standard Beltway drama. During a phone call on Monday, the president called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "crazy" and pressured him to rein in the Israeli offensive in Lebanon. Two days later, the State Department announced it had brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

The post Restraining Israel Is Not the Answer appeared first on .

Thousands more American troops stationed in Middle East this Memorial Day as peace with Iran looms on the horizon



This Memorial Day, thousands more U.S. servicemen and -women than usual are stationed in the Middle East due to the ongoing tensions with Iran, even as recent developments suggest a peace agreement may be near.

In late March, the New York Times reported that 50,000 U.S. troops were in the Middle East, an increase of about 10,000 from the 40,000 troops who are typically in the region. Many of those troops were stationed "at sea," the outlet noted.

At the time, an additional 2,500 Marines, 2,500 sailors, and 2,000 Army soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division had just arrived. While the exact location of the Army paratroopers was not made public, they would be "within striking distance of Iran," the Times reported.

It seems that little has changed in the weeks since. The Times reported on May 6 that the 50,000-strong U.S. forces remain "on standby in the region" as the delicate ceasefire with Iran hangs in the balance.

As recently as May 11, Trump said the ceasefire is on "life support" after Iranian officials sent a proposal that Trump called a "piece of garbage."

RELATED: Trump administration establishes ‘red, white, and blue dome’ to allow safe passage through Strait of Hormuz

U.S. Navy/Getty Images

When reached for comment, the War Department referred Blaze News to U.S. Central Command. A source familiar with the matter told Blaze News that for safety reasons, CENTCOM does not comment on troop movements or schedules.

The four-to-six-week timetable President Donald Trump initially gave for the attacks on Iran has long since expired, but the president does not seem as focused on the protracted process as he is on the results.

And his patience may be paying off.

Over Memorial Day weekend, news of a possible peace deal began spreading online. While Trump has not divulged many details, he wrote on Sunday that "negotiations are proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner" and that America's "relationship with Iran is becoming a much more professional and productive one."

Trump even teased that should a deal be reached, Iran may someday join the "Nations of the historic Abraham Accords." Still, he cautioned that the U.S. would not "rush into a deal in that time is on our side."

Above all, Trump pledged that Iran will never have nuclear weapons and that any agreement he reaches with Iranian officials will be "THE EXACT OPPOSITE" of the "pallets of cash" deal former President Barack Obama made in 2016, quipping, "Unlike those before me who should have solved this problem many years ago, I don’t make bad deals!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Strait of Hormuz is a warning. Alaska is the answer.



We’re learning a lesson that should be unmistakably clear as the world watches instability ripple outward from the Middle East: Geography still matters.

The war with Iran and the ever-present threat of disruptions at the Strait of Hormuz are exposing how fragile global energy supply chains have become. When choke points half a world away can rattle prices at the pump throughout the nation, it is time to rethink how and where America produces its energy.

Alaska offers our nation something rare: stability, security, and strength without choke points.

That rethink points north to Alaska.

Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil moves through the Strait of Hormuz. When tensions rise, insurance rates surge, shipping slows, and prices spike. Families feel it immediately, particularly young families already struggling with affordability. These price shocks do not stem from resource scarcity; they stem from dependence on unstable routes and hostile actors.

Alaska has no Strait of Hormuz

What Alaska has is something the rest of the nation desperately needs right now: secure access to energy, open ocean shipping lanes, and proximity to Asian markets without relying on canals, narrow passages, or adversarial regimes. From the Gulf of Alaska, resources can move freely across the Pacific without transiting choke points that can be threatened, closed, or weaponized.

This geographic reality significantly cuts travel days and costs; it embodies freedom of access. It is geography that is Alaska’s destiny — and America’s — if we act on it.

For years, Alaska has been sidelined in national energy conversations, despite holding nearly all the critical minerals the United States depends on and vast reserves of oil and natural gas. Here at home, Alaskans pay some of the highest fuel prices in the nation, in part because we lack refining capacity and sufficient infrastructure to fully use what we already have.

A failure, not a shortage

When conflicts like the Iran war inject chaos into global markets, Alaska should be part of the solution. Responsible development of Alaskan oil, gas, and minerals strengthens national security, lowers costs for American families, and reduces reliance on adversaries who do not share our values or our interests.

Alaska should be treated as a critical asset, not an afterthought. That means advancing energy projects, encouraging refining capacity, and opening pathways for responsible exports. It also means making sure the benefits of development flow first to Alaskans — through jobs, lower costs, and long-term economic stability — rather than being locked away by red tape or federal neglect.

RELATED: The Iran war is causing another shortage — and it will directly affect every American

Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

The cost of service

The lesson of today’s uncertainty is not that America should retreat from the world, but that we should stand on firmer ground at home.

Wars are not measured by headlines, speculation, or the arguments that swirl in the middle of the conflict. They are measured at the end. If this conflict concludes with Iran defeated, its ability to threaten the world diminished, and our troops coming home safely, then Americans should unite in gratitude and pride.

Alaska understands the cost of service. We have one of the highest rates of veterans per capita in the nation. Our communities know sacrifice, duty, and resilience. If our sons and daughters in uniform succeed and return home victorious, we should celebrate their service and the removal of a dangerous foe from the world stage.

Alaska offers our nation something rare: stability, security, and strength without choke points. There is no Strait of Hormuz here, only opportunity. It is time we seize it. The time is right for Alaska and for the whole nation.

The true story of Israel's daring hostage rescue



Last year, I set out to tell a story that much of the media seemed determined to distort.

On June 8, 2024, Israeli special forces launched a daylight raid into the heart of Gaza’s Nuseirat refugee camp. Four hostages, Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv, were being held in civilian homes. The operation unfolded under heavy fire. Intelligence had to be near-perfect. One wrong move would mean death for everyone involved.

I documented the firsthand accounts of IDF soldiers on the ground, the grieving parents of a fallen hero, and the elite special operators who carried out one of the most daring hostage rescues in modern history — Operation Arnon.

Any sovereign nation subjected to such a vicious assault bears both a political and moral responsibility to bring its citizens home.

The mission succeeded. The four civilians, kidnapped on October 7, 2023, returned home alive. But not without cost. Chief Inspector Arnon Zmora was mortally wounded. The operation, originally known as Seeds of Summer, was renamed in his honor.

The heroes of Operation Arnon were buried under headlines focused solely on casualty counts or international criticism. While the world debates the operation’s justification, the firsthand accounts in my documentary "Operation Arnon" reveal its compelling operational necessity.

Operation Arnon was a proportionate and justified response to the October 7 attacks carried out by Hamas and other allied terrorist organizations.

Any sovereign nation subjected to such a vicious assault bears both a political and moral responsibility to bring its citizens home. This “no man left behind” ethos is present in any nation that places value on the lives of its civilians and military personnel. Every life matters. Everyone comes home.

The recent combat search and rescue operation for the United States F-15E pilots epitomizes this dogma. On April 3, 2026, two U.S. pilots ejected from their damaged aircraft, landing into Iranian territory. U.S. joint forces immediately executed a CSAR, deploying over 150 aircraft, hundreds of U.S. troops and special operators, including Delta Force and Dev Gru, and CIA operatives.

The United States actions demonstrated the same unyielding commitment to the ethos that fueled Operation Arnon, an ironclad conviction that no sovereign nation can abandon its people to terrorists.

Yet Jeremy Laurence, spokesperson for the U.N. high commissioner for Human Rights, preferred to denounce the operation’s success, questioning its grounds for “distinction, proportionality, and precaution,” drawn from the conclusion that hundreds of civilians had been haphazardly slain as a result of the operation.

RELATED: Your enemies aren't mentally ill. They apparently just want to kill you.

Blaze Media Illustration

The numbers of civilian deaths were reported by Gaza’s Ministry of Health, run by the Hamas government. The second “civilian” house has been confirmed to be owned by the Al-Jamal family, whose son, Abdullah Al-Jamal, was a Hamas operative and was complicit with the hostages being held in his house.

Article 34 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits hostage-taking in armed conflicts. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter affirms the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member state. This right, subject to necessity and proportionality, has been invoked in precedents such as the 1976 Israeli Operation Entebbe and supports targeted rescue operations.

Despite a long history of being held to a double standard by much of the international community, Israel continues to demonstrate what it means to value life. The U.N. General Assembly routinely passes more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined, including regimes like Syria, Iran, North Korea, and China.

In contrast, other nations conducting counterterrorism or rescue operations, such as U.S. and French strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, or broader military campaigns in urban areas, often face far less sustained international condemnation.

The heroic actions of every soldier who took part in Operation Arnon embody the enduring belief that freedom and human dignity are worth fighting for, even at the highest cost. That commitment remains a powerful reminder to the world that some principles are not negotiable.

Confirmed: Kamala Harris Is America's Worst Politician

It's one of the fiercest debates in politics these days: Who is the worst American politician of the 21st century? Some say Hillary Clinton, for obvious reasons. Others insist Kamala Harris is worse, also for obvious reasons. Correction: It was one of the fiercest debates in politics. For now, the matter has been settled. Kamala is definitely worse. Sorry, Hillary. Or congratulations.

The post Confirmed: Kamala Harris Is America's Worst Politician appeared first on .

Mexican Cartels’ New Target: Evangelical Christians. Here’s What’s Happening | Ryan Brown | Ep 1344
play icon

Mexican Cartels’ New Target: Evangelical Christians. Here’s What’s Happening | Ryan Brown | Ep 1344