The World and Everything in It: April 2, 2026

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

President Trump makes a historic visit to the Supreme Court as it takes up the issue of illegal immigration and birthright citizenship.

GORSUCH: It seems to me it’s a mess..

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: We’ll talk to our reporter who was there.

Also, a report from Florida on the Artemis II launch.

And does government welfare reduce private charity?

MICHIE: Private philanthropy is dwarfed by the role the government can play at all levels.

And WORLD Commentator Cal Thomas on why the “lone wolf” terrorist may be an endangered species.

REICHARD: It’s Thursday, April 2nd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. 

I’m Mary Reichard.

BROWN: And I’m Myrna Brown. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump address » President Trump addressed the nation last night from the White House about the war in Iran.

TRUMP:  Tonight, Iran's Navy is gone. Their air force is in ruins. Their leaders, most of them terrorist regime they led are now dead.

The president made the case for why the military action was needed. He said despite his warnings, the Iranian regime had no intention of abandoning its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

TRUMP:  They were also rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles and would soon have had missiles that could reach the American homeland, Europe, and virtually any other place on Earth.

He said Iran’s strategy had been to stockpile powerful nuclear-capable ballistic missiles before making the final push to develop nuclear weapons.

TRUMP:  They were right at the doorstep for years. Everyone has said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, but in the end, those are just words. If you are not willing to take action when the time comes.

And he again said the United States has nearly completed its objectives in Iran.

Democrats were quick to criticize the president’s address. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a “rambling, disjointed, and pathetic presidential war speech.”

Other Iran latest » Meanwhile in Israel:

SOUND: [Sirens again]

...sirens rang out in Tel Aviv Wednesday to warn of an incoming missile. Those sirens were followed shortly by this sound:

SOUND: [BOOM]

...recorded by an Associated Press reporter. There were no immediate reports of casualties from that attack, but earlier in the day officials said an 11-year-old girl was severely injured from an Iranian missile in a separate incident.

DEFRIN: [Speaking Hebrew]

Israeli military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin says it's possible that Iran and the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah will fire on Israeli territory in an effort to harm civilians celebrating Passover.

Passover began at sundown Wednesday and runs for more than a week.

Russia claims control of Luhansk » Russia claims it has taken full control of the strategically important Luhansk region of Ukraine. But Kyiv says that’s not so. WORLD’s Benjamin Eicher has more.

BENJAMIN EICHER: A Ukrainian military official refuted Moscow’s claim, saying his forces still hold small positions in the Luhansk region and have not given up the fight.

That came as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke by video with two of President Trump's envoys — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — to discuss the possibility of broader peace talks.

ZELENSKYY: [Speaking Ukrainian]

EICHER: Zelenskyy said he told the Americans that Kyiv needs a sign that Russia is serious about discussing peace. He said if Russia were to withhold attacks on Easter Sunday, that could be one such sign.

Zelenskyy says front-line fighting remains intense, but that Ukrainian forces are holding their ground. Other Russian battlefield claims in the past have proven false

For WORLD, I’m Benjamin Eicher.

U.S. lifts sanctions on Delcy Rodríguez » The Trump administration has lifted sanctions on Venezuela's acting president … opening the door to closer economic ties with Caracas.

The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that Delcy Rodríguez is off the sanctions list — freeing her to work with American companies and investors.

Washington had already recognized her as Venezuela's head of state in legal and diplomatic settings. She stepped in after the U.S. military captured her predecessor, dictator Nicolás Maduro, in January … and put him on trial on drug trafficking charges.

Rodríguez was originally sanctioned during Trump's first term. She called Wednesday's move a step toward normalizing the two countries' relationship.

Artemis II » At Florida’s Kennedy Space Center last night …

AUDIO: 4, 3, 2, 1, booster ignition, and liftoff! The crew of Artemis II now bound for the moon. Humanity’s next great voyage begins.

The 32-story moon rocket blasted off carrying four astronauts on a high-stakes flight around the moon. They will not land on the lunar surface … but this mission is an important step in that direction … with the next moon landing potentially about two-and-a-half years away.

I'm Kent Covington.

Still ahead, President Trump’s historic visit to the Supreme Court. And we’ll have a report from the Space Coast of Florida on the Artemis II launch.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Thursday the 2nd of April.

You’re listening to The World and Everything in It and we’re so glad you’ve joined us today! Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

First up, the President visits the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the Court heard the case of Trump v Barbara. The case deals with an Executive Order signed by President Trump his first day back in office last year. It deals with birthright citizenship: deterring illegal immigrants or so-called birth tourists from having children on American soil. Doing so means those children become American citizens, something the President wants to stop.

The case hinges on whether that violates the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

REICHARD: In a moment, we’ll look briefly at the arguments. But first, some scene setting as the Court took up this significant case.

The issue is a controversial one. Before the arguments, protesters from both sides showed up outside the Court.

AUDIO: Uphold the 14th Amendment! We say no! (duelling voices)

BROWN: Frank Lukacs was holding signs quoting the text of the 14th Amendment. He says his parents immigrated here legally.

LUKACS: We waited in our own country for a decade. And once we came out here, we had to wait another decade to get citizenship. Versus illegal immigrants, they come in, birthright citizenship, done. And that I see as kind of unfair. That's not a constitutional issue. That's a practical, procedural issue. Like, which would they pick? Of course they're just going to come in illegally.

But Homa Zarrinnahadsaid he thinks the issue is cut-and-dry:

ZARRINNAHAD: I think they're not going to ban the 14th Amendment. Their interpretation should be what it is.

REICHARD: Inside the court, a first: a sitting President came to watch the proceedings. President Trump broke with tradition to come hear the arguments surrounding one of his biggest domestic policies, immigration. Here he is Tuesday, talking about why:

TRUMP: If you look at the original birthright citizenship papers, they all happened right after the Civil War. The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves. And hopefully it's going to say because our country is being scammed. We're getting all of these people. They're selling the rights to them. People are making a living, a big living, getting hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars from bringing people in and saying, "Congratulations, your whole family is going to be a citizen of the United States of America." That's not what it was for.

BROWN:  Our Legal Correspondent Jenny Rough was in the courtroom yesterday. She talked to us from outside the courtroom just after the arguments. Hi Jenny!

JENNY ROUGH: Hi there. Yes, I am outside the Supreme Court on the corner of Maryland Avenue and First.

BROWN: You’ve been in the court for a number of cases before. How did this one compare–in terms of activity outside, number of people inside, things like that?

ROUGH: Well, let me just back up a little bit. I'll just start with this morning. We were all told to get here really early, earlier than normal, 8:45 instead of 9:30 So I hopped in a ride-share, and my driver was foreign. He had a pregnant wife who's about to give birth, so he was really interested in hearing about what was going to happen at the courtroom today. And then I got here, again early, so there were some protesters. There was a bull horn alarm going off, but not a ton of protesters. I think they came later, when I was already inside the court. And then, you know, the press room was absolutely packed. You know, I come for a lot of cases, and even yesterday, in a case that touched on the death penalty, you know, there were, I don't know, maybe a dozen reporters. Don't hold me to that. But just today, it was just completely packed. I couldn't even guesstimate, but all of the there's sort of three areas of press seating inside the courtroom. There's  the hard pass reporters, where you're going to have NPR and CNN, and then you have the day pass reporters, and there's a handful of alcoves, and then there's even, like a backup space in the hallway. I was in one of the alcoves, so I had a great view of the justices, but I could not see the president, who was sitting in the middle of the courtroom, like in the public gallery. I was looking for just like a wisp of his hair, but I couldn't even see that.

BROWN: President Trump was the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court proceedings–what did you notice was different with him being there?

ROUGH: I mean, I kind there was maybe slightly increased security, but the Supreme Court has pretty tight security to begin with. So the only thing I really noticed was that we had to walk through a metal detector again before we walked into the room. You know, despite the two that we'd already been through beforehand. I will say, the oral arguments, I think, were a little more subdued than usual, and I have no idea if that's because the President was there, or if it was just the nature of the arguments.

BROWN: You aren’t at every case at the court, but you already had plans to be there yesterday before the President put it on his schedule. Why?

ROUGH: The Court is hearing so many big cases, I keep thinking I have to go because I feel like I'm seeing history in the making, and I keep saying that over and over again. But with this case, I definitely felt that. And, um, just being there in person, it's really interesting to watch the advocates before the justices. I mean, just to see Solicitor General Sauer, he turns directly to the justice who asked him a question. He kind of had his hand up on his chin as he's sort of thinking and contemplating and engaging with the justices, and then Cecillia Wang, for the respondents, she did a great job too.

ROUGH: Oh, yeah. Well, this is, this is just an introverted, deep thinker person thing. But I do see reporters all the time, kind of pop out of the courtroom after oral argument, and they love to give predictions. It's going to be seven to two, it's going to be six to three, it's going to be five to four. And I'm just, I always, always think of those verses in proverbs that warn about predicting the future. And I never quite know. You know, you just don't know what they're thinking. I mean, you can get a clue from the questions that they ask. And so I would want to give the oral arguments a lot more deep thought, read all the briefs, read the amicus briefs, before I would ever even come close to giving a prediction. But that's just me. 

BROWN: Jenny Rough outside the Supreme Court, Jenny thank you so much!

ROUGH: Thanks so much.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: As Jenny alluded to, it’s newsworthy that a sitting U.S. President attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Does it matter to the justices, though? I spoke with constitutional law experts Josh Blackman from South Texas College of Law in Houston and Ilya Shapiro from the Manhattan Institute.

SHAPIRO: I don't think it affected the argument one whit. It signaled how important this issue is to President Trump. The executive order on birthright citizenship was signed his very first day back in office. And this is one of his signature issues along with the tariffs which he thought about attending, ultimately did not.

Josh Blackman agreed:

BLACKMAN: I don't think he was trying to intimidate the justices….He was sitting in the front row of the gala, which is about 40, 50 feet away from the justices, the lawyers were up front. So he wasn't even right in front of the justice's face... I think he's probably just curious. He wanted to see how it was going to go.

The justices stayed focused on the legal arguments before them:

BLACKMAN: Anytime the lawyers tried to argue a policy that is, you know, this might encourage birth tourism, other countries in Europe don't have this birthright citizenship, and the justice is like, 'Well, that's not what we're talking about. We're about legal issues.' And so it was actually a very sober affair, was no partisanship…For an issue of such gravity, you wouldn't have known it based on the tenor of the arguments.

The core legal issue is birthright citizenship, stemming from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause that says: “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.” It’s that second part, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that’s in contention.

During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch summed up what many may think:

GORSUCH: It seems to me it’s a mess.

And Justice Samuel Alito wondered how to think of modern legal troubles like people in the country illegally, when the drafters of the 14th Amendment weren’t thinking about that at all:

ALITO: Justice Scalia had an example that dealt with this situation. He imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven, and then afterwards someone is charged with a crime of stealing a microwave oven. And this --this fellow says: Well, I can't be convicted under this because a microwave oven didn't exist at that time. And he dismissed that.

Justice Alito making the point that general rules do get applied to future applications, unknown at the time the rule was written.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the government’s lawyer on practicalities:

SOTOMAYOR: You asked us to concentrate only on the prospective nature of the citizens order, but the logic of your position, if accepted, is that the next president --this president or the next president or a Congress or someone else could decide that it shouldn't be prospective. There would be nothing limiting that according to your theory.

The justices must grapple with putting historical text to modern-day dilemmas. And my two legal experts went ahead with predictions that the president will lose this one, by a 7-2 vote, but with splintered reasoning.

I’ll have much more details on oral arguments on Monday’s Legal Docket, so I hope you’ll join us then.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Up next, a trip to space.

Yesterday evening, four astronauts took off into space… making sure their systems work before circling around the moon. They won’t land on the moon this time, but still, it’s the first time humans have been out of low Earth orbit in more than 50 years.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Astronomer Danny Faulkner says this new mission is built practically from the ground up.

DANNY FAULKNER: We do everything differently today, and so back then, they didn't have computer chips for the most part, aboard spacecraft.

NASA wants to put people back on the moon by 2028… Faulkner says the whole plan sounds a lot like the Apollo Mission.

FAULKNER: It's sort of like the Apollo 8 back in 1968. That was a dress rehearsal. They were still developing the lunar excursion module, so they weren't ready to land on the moon, but they wanted to go there in order to kind of test the system. They were testing different parts of the system, and I suspect the same thing is going on with Artemis.

BROWN: WORLD’s Mary Muncy went to see the launch and brings us our story.

SOUND: [RIGHT BEFORE THE LAUNCH]

MARY MUNCY: Crowds jammed the beaches and roads near the Kennedy Space Center yesterday to watch the Orion Spacecraft hurtle into the sky.

As the final countdown started, everyone at Space View Park stood up.

Then:

SOUND: [CHEERS]

Lift off! The Orion streaked through the sky with a fireball that was hard to look at, the rumble hit us almost a minute later.

SOUND: [RUMBLE]

It turned and we lost sight of it after about two minutes.

AUDIO: [USA CHANT]

People from all over the world and the country were packed along the coast. One man flew in from Ohio for the day. Others happened to be in town for spring break.

Jacquelyn Daigneault brought her two daughters to watch the launch.

AUDIO: That was amazing. That was just so awesome. You got a cool video. Cool video.

JACQUELYN: Can you believe there's humans in that?

Now the astronauts are checking the Orion’s systems and how it maneuvers in space. If all goes well, in a few days they’ll go 4,700 miles beyond the far side of the moon. That’s the farthest any human has gone into space.

They’ll be there when the sun hits the far side of the moon so they’ll be able to get some of the first views it. NASA says when the astronauts look out the window, the moon will look about the size of a basketball held at arm’s length.

BARBAROSA: Space, it's pretty vast, as you can imagine.

Mattia Barbarosa is an Italian rocket scientist. He was here on business and just happened to catch the launch.

BARBAROSA: The International Space Station, where most of the human mission go nowadays, it's about 500 kilometers above our head, so about 300 miles away. When we are talking about the moon, we are talking about 300,000 miles.

The rocket is the size of a skyscraper, But the actual Orion capsule where the astronauts will live is about the size of a six person tent.

Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, and Mission Specialists Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen boarded the Orion Spacecraft, and will be watching movies like Point Break when they’re not performing tests.

Their other job is scoping out a landing point for the next mission: putting humans back on the moon in 2028.

MUNCY: Do you want to go to space?

BARBAROSA: I'm working actively to build a rocket to do so.

Back on the other side of the park, Daigneault’s 10-year-old Clara has a different opinion:

CLARA: I don't want to die… It's predictless, like you don't. You can't predict what's gonna happen.

Her dad is an engineer working at NASA just across the river, so she watched the Artemis I launch, too.

CLARA: It was really nice. It looks like a fireball is going to space.

Her mom thinks it’s important for humanity to explore. It’s part of what makes us human.

AUDIO: I think it's really important for kids to be inspired. And this is really inspiring. It's the next generation of scientists, engineers, astronauts. That's what happened with the Apollo program, right? So here we are again, going to the moon.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Mary Muncy in Titusville, Florida.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: In bowling, one challenge is to roll the ball down the lane — knocking down as many pins as possible.

But for David Rush, holder of some 300 Guinness World Records, remaining upright was the key.

So he climbed onto a unicycle—which, for some, I can attest, is already the whole trick—and started adding greater difficulty… specifically, loading himself up with bowling balls.

DAVID RUSH: Okay on the one …

The first …

RUSH: … on the other …

Then one more, two …

and another, three. Four—five—six—

RUSH: and one more on top … K.

Seven bowling balls … cradled in his arms.

RUSH: … two, one, go!

And off he went … for a record-breaking ride.

RUSH: COME ON!!!

Seven bowling balls … one wheel … ten seconds to a new world record.

RUSH: WOO!!!

Go David!

It’s The World and Everything in It.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Thursday, April 2nd.

Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day.

Good morning. I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

Coming next on The World and Everything in It: generosity and the government.

Proverbs chapter 18, verse 16 says: “A gift opens the way and ushers the giver into the presence of the Great.” During the hard economic times of COVID, American donors seemed to live up to that verse. They gave at record levels—even though, on average, disposable income was shrinking.

BROWN: Also during COVID, government programs provided about $4.6 trillion in pandemic aid. A lot of money—enough, some say, to keep private donation from reaching its full potential.

WORLD’s Lauren Smyth has the story.

LAUREN SMYTH: Mark Horton has lived in New York City on and off for the past 30 years. He can’t walk like he once did, so he uses the city’s public transport for the disabled, Access-A-Ride, to get around.

HORTON: It's very helpful, because I can go door to door for the same amount that I would have to pay for a subway or a bus.

But those inexpensive rides might come with a hidden cost that Horton is increasingly reluctant to pay.

HORTON: That shouldn't be a government program—that should be the church. When we have the government doing welfare programs and taking care of the homeless and taking care of the elderly or the disabled, it lets a lot of churches [say] ‘You know, well, the government’s taking care of them. I can go on my vacation now.’

Economists call this “crowding out,” when public welfare spending causes a decrease in private charitable giving. If the government provides, donors may feel their contributions aren’t needed. Welfare programs may also bring higher taxes, leaving less income available for donation.

Since 2000, the government has taken a larger share of the economy. Economists call that gross domestic product, or GDP—the total value of everything produced in a year’s time. Churches, charities, and other nonprofits have grown too, but much more slowly. That could be evidence of crowding out—but if so, it’s not clear how big the effect is. One report from the Philanthropy Roundtable suggests that for every dollar of public welfare spending, private giving falls by about fifty cents. Here’s Claudia Cummings, vice president of public affairs.

CUMMINGS: One of the things that happens when you take government funding, there are always strings attached. And so the government can, through this financial mechanism, control the activities of the nonprofit that has received those dollars.

Many large charities now expect the government to cover more than half of their operating costs. That makes them less resilient to policy changes like the DOGE cuts last year, which canceled more than $3 billion in grants.

CUMMINGS: Twenty percent is kind of a maximum that you would want to look for from a single source.

But it can be tough for a nonprofit to diversify its donor base, says Kristine Michie, who runs the charity consulting firm Impactfull. And even when diversification is possible, one donor is still a whole lot richer than the rest.

MICHIE: The government just has so much more money than private philanthropy. Private philanthropy is dwarfed by the role the government can play at all levels.

Michie sees the relationship between public spending and private donations as a partnership between a customer and a client. When the government can’t do something well, it uses grants to “hire”—so to speak—a nonprofit to do it better. Michie and her clients see public and private philanthropy as complimentary, not opposed.

MICHIE: I never have ever once heard anyone say, ‘Well, don’t they have government money for that?’ or ‘They don’t really need …’ I never have heard that.

Michie says nonprofits rely on the government in the same way businesses rely on customers. Dramatic policy changes might disrupt things for a while, but she believes nonprofits are resilient in the long run.

So does economist Paul Mueller. But he takes it a step further. In his Colorado hometown, Mueller says private charities have already proven they could handle a total break from government funds.

MUELLER: When it looked like food stamps were going to be suspended last fall with the government shutdown, people at my church, we started talking about it: ‘Okay, are there people in our congregation who are on food stamps, people we know—what do we do in terms of helping them?’ And we were not alone in that. Thousands, tens of thousands of organizations, especially churches but others as well, began thinking through, okay, what do we do if this SNAP benefit is suspended?

For Mueller, the real danger of the crowding-out effect isn’t that the government can’t feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Instead, he worries that impersonal government programs ignore the human connection private charities nurture.

MUELLER: If we were only concerned about people starving, we could send them rice and beans. That’d be very cheap. But we should care about them as flourishing human beings, who are not only desires and needs, but are creative and made in God’s image.

That lines up with Horton’s concerns about Access-A-Ride and the lack of personal responsibility for providing the service.

HORTON: I get conflicted because I'm like, “I don't know how I'm supposed to participate in this.” Am I supposed to say, “Well, you know, the Lord will provide. I don't need the Access-A-Ride, you know. And if I can't get there, if I can't afford to get there, I just won't go”? Or is it something that's: “Well, Lord, it's there. And … it's a way of you providing”? I just don't know how I feel about that.

Still, Michie points out that not everyone wants a personal connection. Some just need the help—and value their autonomy.

MICHIE: I think you have to be careful for that intrusion … Any one of us, on any given day, doesn’t necessarily need to welcome somebody into our problem, our pain, or just our day-to-day.

They may not agree on how exactly to fund nonprofits, but Cummings, Michie, and Mueller do agree that the spirit of generosity is alive and well in the United States. In 2024, the most recent data available, Americans donated nearly $600 billion, smashing the previous year’s record by more than 6%.

CUMMINGS: Americans are incredibly generous. It’s baked into who we are. From before we were even a nation, it was decided that we would be a nation that relies heavily on a voluntary society. And we rise to that occasion day after day.

For WORLD, I’m Lauren Smyth in New York City.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

CAL THOMAS: The FBI says the attack on a Michigan synagogue last month was not the act of an isolated “lone wolf.” WORLD Commentator Cal Thomas says that distinction matters.

Since the attacks of September 11th, government officials have warned about what they call “lone wolf” terrorists—individuals who radicalize on their own and strike without direct orders.

That idea has shaped how we think about terrorism for a generation.

But after the March 12th attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, that label looks increasingly misleading.

Here’s FBI Detroit Special Agent in Charge Jennifer Runyan:

RUNYAN: Based on the evidence gathered to date, we assess this attack to be a Hezbollah-inspired act of terrorism purposely targeting the Jewish community…

A Hezbollah-inspired act of terrorism.

Not random.

Not isolated.

And not, in any meaningful sense, alone.

Investigators say the suspect spent weeks consuming pro-Hezbollah propaganda…searching for synagogues…buying weapons…and preparing for violence.

Runyan again:

RUNYAN: In this case, the evidence shows the attacker was motivated and inspired by Hezbollah’s militant ideology…

Now, think about that for a moment.

We tend to hear inspired by and assume something less serious than directed by.

As if one is real terrorism…and the other is something smaller.

But listen to U.S. Attorney Jerome Gorgon:

GORGON: I’ve seen some odd attempts to explain away or even lessen this terrorist attack by claiming that he was an isolated “lone wolf”. But that is misleading.

Misleading—because terrorist organizations have adapted.

They no longer need to dispatch operatives or issue direct commands.

They broadcast.

They repeat.

They saturate the digital space with ideology—and wait for someone to answer the call.

Gorgon again:

GORGON: Terrorist propaganda is designed to activate the so-called “lone wolf” to act on behalf of the terrorist organization…

Activate.

That’s the word.

And once you understand that, the phrase “lone wolf” starts to sound less like a description…and more like a misunderstanding.

Because this attacker didn’t emerge from nowhere.

He was shaped—over time—by what he watched, what he read, and what he chose to believe.

According to investigators, he targeted what he believed would be the largest gathering of Jewish people in Michigan…including children.

He bought a rifle.

He stockpiled fuel and fireworks.

He sent messages declaring his intent to carry out the attack.

RUNYAN: This evidence makes very clear the attacker intended to cause significant amounts of harm…

Now, authorities say there’s no evidence of co-conspirators.

But that doesn’t mean he was acting in isolation.

Because ideology can function as a kind of remote command structure.

And that brings us back to Gorgon’s key point:

GORGON: It makes no legal difference if the current leader of Hezbollah himself, Naim Qassem, called this man and told him to attack Temple Israel, or whether he simply heeded Hezbollah's call to kill Jews and, in his words, burn their world. So do not be misled. This terrorist acted on behalf of Hezbollah.

No legal difference.

And arguably—no practical difference either.

So perhaps it’s time to retire the comforting phrase “lone wolf”.

Because it suggests randomness.

It suggests isolation.

And it can blind us to the broader reality—that terrorist movements today often operate not through direct orders, but through influence.

And when that influence turns into action, the result is no less organized, no less intentional—and no less deadly.

For WORLD, I’m Cal Thomas.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: Culture Friday with John Stonestreet. We’ll talk about the 2026 Dirty Dozen List, revealing which mainstream websites contribute to sexual abuse and exploitation. 

And, Collin Garbarino reviews Nintendo’s latest: the Super Mario Galaxy movie. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says, “And he came out and went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. And when he came to the place, he said to them, ‘Pray that you may not enter into temptation.’ And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, ‘Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.’

And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” —Luke 22:39-44

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.