No, Trump Does NOT Have to Abide by Mythical “Judicial Supremacy” thumbnail

No, Trump Does NOT Have to Abide by Mythical “Judicial Supremacy”

By Selwyn Duke

It’s an old story: When people are allowed to get their way for too long, when they’re never told “No!” they may get too big for their britches. They may develop a sense of entitlement and even become narcissistic. And proving that judges are no exception are a number of recent court “opinions” designed to scuttle President Trump’s agenda.

One disallows DOGE from scrutinizing Treasury Department data.

Another states that the Trump administration must unfreeze funding on grants and loans.

A different opinion puts a freeze on Trump’s buyout offer for federal employees.

And yet another ordered the administration to restore sexual devolutionary (on “gender” and “sex changes”) government web pages Trump’s team had rightly deleted. So Biden could create those pages but, somehow, the current president may not remove them. Yes, it’s insane.

There’s a little known reason, however, why the rogue judges in question could so confidently engage in such insane judicial overreach. To wit:

We long ago accepted the overreach known as “judicial supremacy.”

This brings us to the simple remedy. Trump could just paraphrase the paraphrase of Andrew Jackson and say, “The courts have made their decisions — now let the judges enforce them.”

A “Constitutional Crisis”?

Some say this is illegal, that it would create a “constitutional crisis.” A “legal analyst” and ex-federal prosecutor named Elizabeth de la Vega, for example, condescendingly stated Monday that someone taking this position should “at least read Marbury v. Madison.” That’s a deal.

Note here that Marbury was the 1803 SCOTUS opinion declaring that the judiciary must be the ultimate arbiter of laws’ and actions’ constitutionality and that, consequently, its rulings can constrain the other two governmental branches. Translation:

The courts gave the courts their trump card (and Trump card) power.

Not the Constitution — the courts themselves.

Well, that’s like me crowning myself King of America and saying, “Now I get to rule — and you have to obey me.” Are you O.K. with that?

(And while we’re at it, off with those activist judges’ heads.)

As to this, there’s a reason Thomas Jefferson said in 1819 that if the judicial-supremacy opinion is valid, “then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (act of suicide).

There’s a reason a 5th Circuit judge pressed Barack Obama’s DOJ in 2012, after Obama had spoken dismissively of the courts, to submit a memo on the administration’s position on judicial supremacy.

And there’s a reason late Justice Antonin Scalia warned in his dissent against the outrageous 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage) opinion that with “each decision…unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.”

That is, judicial supremacy is not in the Constitution. That’s why Jefferson was incredulous about it, the 5th Circuit judge was insecure about it, and Scalia warned that the Court could be told to forget about it.

It’s an extra-constitutional power the courts enjoy at the other two branches’ pleasure. The moment they decide to stop playing the sub role in this master-servant relationship, the power goes bye-bye.

Method to the Madness

Now, it’s helpful understanding why, in a world in which arrogating power to oneself or one’s corps is status quo, the other two branches do play this sub role. First, it’s a tradition, one so entrenched that pseudo-intellectuals will defend it as if it’s law. But a very significant reason was epitomized by something then-Ohio governor John Kasich said in 2015 after the Obergefell decision.

“[T]he court has ruled,” he proclaimed — “and it’s time to move on.” He seemed almost gleeful. And why not?

Kasich no longer had to take a stand on the controversial marriage issue and thus alienate part of the electorate.

And Kasich’s attitude is the norm. It’s the same reason why, I can guarantee you, many Republicans got severe agita when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. Now they actually had to legislate, as they’re supposed to, on prenatal infanticide. So what legislators — and presidents often, too — get from judicial supremacy is the luxury of, like Pontius Pilate, being able to wash their hands of a matter: “The courts have ruled! Don’t look at me!”

Apropos here, just as legislators outsource their responsibility to judges, the latter outsourced their responsibility to bureaucrats with the now overturned Chevron opinion. What judges got from this was the benefit of lightening their case loads and not having to strain their gray matter trying to settle legislative ambiguities.

Regardless, whether the decisions are made by unelected judges or unelected bureaucrats, the result is identical: You don’t have a government of, by and for the people. In fact, it’s even worse than that.

If the courts can overturn law, contravening the will of the people’s duly elected representatives, then they’ve to an extent arrogated to themselves the legislative power. If they can dictate to the president what executive actions he may or may not take, they’ve to an extent arrogated to themselves the executive power. And, of course, they enjoy their judicial power.

Now consider something James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote in The Federalist Papers, Number 47: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands” is “the very definition of tyranny.”

We have for ages been venturing too close to judicial tyranny. In fact, Jefferson warned that judicial supremacy would reduce us to an oligarchy — of judges.

How it’s Supposed to Work

Remember, too, that federal and state officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

They do not take an oath to uphold judges’ opinions.

This means that if I’m a president or governor and a court issues a ruling I truly believe is unconstitutional, I have a duty to ignore it. Otherwise, I’m violating my oath.

“But what of rogue legislators or presidents?” some may ask. Well, what of rogue judges (who apparently are everywhere)?

The answer is the Founders’ one: No branch can intrude into the others’ spheres. This doesn’t mean there aren’t checks and balances. If, for example, a president believes a law is unconstitutional and refuses to enforce it, or takes an allegedly unconstitutional executive action, Congress can try to remove him; it can also impeach and remove renegade judges. As for House representatives themselves, the remedy is removal via the ballot box. This is why they must run for re-election every two years: Since they’re meant to be the most powerful branch (e.g., spending bills must originate in the House, and only it can file impeachment charges), they’re placed closest to the people’s reach.

Power means nothing, though, if not exercised. If congressional and executive powers are outsourced, it then can reduce us to what we’ve become: a government of, by and for judicial oligarchs.

So, no, President Trump doesn’t have to obey blatantly unconstitutional court opinions. This said, with how he’s shaking up the system and busy draining the bureaucratic swamp, it’s perhaps politically prudent to remedy the current judicial adventurism through the higher courts, as he’ll almost assuredly win on appeal. At some point, though, it will be time to drain that fetid judicial swamp and address the real constitutional crisis: the rule of judges who would be kings.

©2025 . All rights reserved.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on X (formerly Twitter), MeWe, Gettr, Tumblr, Instagram or Substack or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Trump’s plan may work! thumbnail

Trump’s plan may work!

By NEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Story

44% of young Gazans considered emigrating even before the war. 

The question being asked today around the world is whether President Donald Trump’s plan to resettle Gazans in other countries can succeed. Judging by a poll taken just prior to the war, before much of Gaza was destroyed, Trump’s proposal is reasonable.

The poll by the top Palestinian polling agency, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, found that a full 44% of Gazan youth between the ages of 18-29 were considering emigrating. Nearly a third (31%) of the entire population considered emigrating.

Gazans’ “most preferred destination for immigration is Turkey, followed by Germany, Canada, the United States, and Qatar,” the poll found.

The largest percentage said they want to leave for economic reasons; second and third reasons are “political” or educational opportunities. The fourth reason is security, and the fifth is corruption.

Since such a large number wanted to leave when there was no war and no destruction, there is no doubt that today, the numbers will be much higher.

Facing years of life in tents and rubble, breathing dust and hearing endless construction noise, the number wanting to leave today, especially among the youth who desire to start a life and build a future, will be far above 50%.

PA and Hamas will reject the plan

Two important things must be noted: Firstly, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas undoubtedly will reject this plan for political reasons, even though it is best for the residents. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas has put the good of its people ahead of political considerations. They will fight it in every possible way.

Secondly, if pollsters ask Palestinians what they want now, they might not choose emigration because of fear of being called traitors.

Accordingly, if Trump wants his plan to succeed, he must bypass the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and work directly with the people. Gazans who choose to leave must be guaranteed secrecy and protection during the process.

Once people start leaving, those left behind will feel jealous of those already out of the Gaza hell. Once those who are resettled start sending messages about their new lives and pictures of their new homes, the floodgates will open.

AUTHOR

Itamar Marcus

Itamar Marcus, Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, is one of the world’s foremost experts on the Palestinian Authority (PA). He travels the world speaking to members of Congress, parliaments, and governments presenting PMW’s findings that have literally changed the way the world sees the PA.

Marcus wrote the reports that exposed how the PA names schools, sporting events, and streets after terrorist murders; revealed the hate and terror promotion in the PA’s schoolbooks; brought to the world’s attention the PA’s indoctrination of its children to seek Martyrdom; and uncovered that the PA rewards all terrorist prisoners with high salaries. As a result, four countries have cut off all funding to the PA, and many more countries have significantly cut funding.

The PA has long disparaged PMW and Marcus. Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi called PMW a “toxic organization,” and Jibril Rajoub, the #2 in the PA, called Marcus “the Goebbels of the 21st Century.” In contrast, ZOA, EMET, and Israel Media Watch all honored Marcus and PMW with prestigious awards, and The Algemeiner named Marcus one of the world’s “top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life or the State of Israel.”

RELATED VIDEO: King Abdullah of Jordan has this to say to President Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This Palestinian Media Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

AI and Chatting with Your Future Self thumbnail

AI and Chatting with Your Future Self

By The Catholic Thing

Francis X. Maier: Clichés become clichés because they’re true.  So, it’s worth recalling this one: Fools with tools are still fools.

Earlier this month, in its regular Artificial Intelligence section, the Wall Street Journal ran a 2,000-word feature – for a newspaper, that’s serious ink – on the AI program “FutureYou.”  Developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), FutureYou allows you to talk with your 80-year-old self.  It also (regrettably) projects what you’ll look like.  The idea, according to the WSJ author, “is that if people can see and talk to their older selves, they will be able to think about them more concretely, and make changes now that will help them achieve the future they hope for.”

Thanks to FutureYou, the author discovered that she’d write a book, have six grandchildren, live in the suburbs, take up gardening, survive a health scare, make a solo visit to Japan, and take a family trip to Thailand.  In the years ahead, her FutureSelf said, she’d regret not starting a business.  She’d also need to jettison her doubts and fears.  And she would always work for positive change. . .however she might define that.  Immersed in an ongoing, engaging, intimate chat with herself, the author gradually achieved what the program’s creators call “future self continuity” – strong identification with her online octogenarian avatar.

Some 60,000 people in 190 countries currently use FutureYou.  With that kind of endorsement, what could go wrong?  So I signed up myself.  The registration process was free.  I duly provided a wide range of personal data, concerns, and aspirations to a series of questionnaires, and a photo snapped by my computer – all of which, per MIT, will remain anonymous.

Alas, it turns out that 80-year-old Fran is tediously familiar. He’s not a riveting chat partner.  And that’s not a surprise.  I’m already in my mid-70s; and at 80 (assuming I’m still around) I’m likely to be more of the same old me.  FutureYou seems geared to those with a longer takeoff ramp;  people in the 30-50 age cohort.  So I won’t be joining Elon on Mars or writing the sequel to Dostoyevsky’s The Devils.  Dashed dreams are bitter.

On the bright side, MIT’s developers describe FutureYou as an “imagination aid,” not a fortuneteller.  It offers possibilities, not prophecies.  It doesn’t give medical or financial counsel or outcomes.  It’s designed to help people think more clearly about the person they might become.  It’s simply another self-help tool, and similar tools can be very useful.  I use Google’s Gemini chatbot for quick research every day.  The results, while not perfect, are nonetheless impressive.

The Wall Street Journal is easily (I’d argue) the finest newspaper in the land.  But it has a bias toward shiny new tools if they suggest a profit downstream.  And that bias, that subtle boosterism, frames its treatment of AI.  The Journal does caution readers about AI’s various dangers, with stories highlighting Anthropic’s anti-Doomsday Frontier Red Team, or the hapless and very real guy who fell in love with “Charlie,” his female chatbot, or the problem of AI “hallucinations.”  But if progress is good for business, then – the reasoning goes – so are the tools that drive it.

And it’s true:  In practice, tools like AI are often very “good” for advancing improvements in medicine, communications, and education. The trouble, as the cultural critic Neil Postman warned, is that human tools tend to reshape and master the humans who make them, with unhappy results.  To put it in Biblical terms, humans have an instinct to worship, and Golden Calves come in all shapes and sizes.  This accounts for how easily we can anthropomorphize the AI voices on our phones.

The advertising for Google’s Gemini tool promotes exactly that delusion.  I’ve had conversations with the personality on my Gemini app that were astonishingly relaxed, informative, and real.  Except they weren’t.  It’s hard to be skeptical when you have a warm and fruitful relationship with the algorithm in a microchip.  Or your 80-year-old “self” online.

Simply put, AI is the most dramatic technological development in a very long time; one whose advantages are easy to venerate, and negatives easy to miss.  AI will have an impact on human affairs that dwarfs the printing press. It needs a thoughtful response from Christian believers.  And, to their credit, on January 28 the Vatican Dicasteries of Doctrine and Culture jointly issued Antiqua et Nova [“Ancient and New”]: A Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence.

At 21,000 words and 215 footnotes, the text might seem daunting.  Poolside browsing it’s not.  But it’s rich in content, highly relevant to the moment, and well worth reading.  Early on, the document reminds us that:

While AI is an extraordinary technological achievement capable of imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it operates by performing tasks, achieving goals, or making decisions based on quantitative data and computational logic. . . .[Even] as AI processes and simulates certain expressions of [human] intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes inherent limitations. . . .Although advanced AI systems can learn” through processes such as machine learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals within their personal history.  In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and knowledge.

            So here’s the lesson for the day:  We may be this planet’s dominant species, but along with our wonderful skills, humans have a genius for forgetting who and what we are, our limits, purpose and dignity as creatures, and what we can and can’t create.  The dead tools that serve us so well, including AI, are not and never will be “intelligent” or “conscious.”  But they do make great delusions, bad masters, and worse gods.

Clichés become clichés  because they’re true.  So it’s worth recalling this one:  Fools with tools are still fools.


You may also enjoy:

Robert Royal 1984 + 30
Brad Miner The Small World of ‘Her’


AUTHOR

Francis X. Maier

Francis X. Maier is a senior fellow in Catholic studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of True Confessions: Voices of Faith from a Life in the Church.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2025 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: Dr. Ann Gillies Interview On Trans-Killers, The Drugging of Our Youth Into Murderers thumbnail

VIDEO: Dr. Ann Gillies Interview On Trans-Killers, The Drugging of Our Youth Into Murderers

By Vlad Tepes Blog

We had the chance to interview Dr. Ann Gillies the other day who is one of the most outspoken and well informed experts on the Marxist intersectional line of attack against sexual identity, “Critical gender theory”.

This focuses more on the facts and somewhat the law. But apply your understanding of Marxist dialectical lines of intersectional destruction and the information here gives you a more complete picture.Critical Gender Theory is to human sexuality, what mass immigration + multiculturalism is to a cohesive nation state.

The transgender movement isn’t about ‘affirming gender identity’—it’s a government-backed experiment that drugs, radicalizes, and mutilates children while systematically destroying sexual identity itself, unleashing a wave of violence no one dares to acknowledge.

The transgender movement isn’t just about freedom of personal sexual identity. It’s a full-scale attack on Western and biological sexual identity altogether. one that’s being carried out on vulnerable young people with irreversible consequences. Canadian Doctor Ann Gillies has spent years warning about the dangers of Marxist radical gender ideology, and in an exclusive interview with RAIR Foundation, she pulled no punches.

From violent transgender gangs and the capture of medicine to a corporate and ideological agenda and for government-backed destruction of the family, Dr. Gillies made one thing clear: this isn’t about helping people—it’s about control, manipulation, and chaos.

Transgender Killers and the Media Blackout

It’s a story you won’t hear on the news: a group of self-identified transgender killers operating a cult out of California, tied to a cult-like organization. The details are disturbing, but what’s more shocking is the near-total silence surrounding it.

“In Canada, we don’t hear about this stuff happening, which is a little scary,” Dr. Gillies said. “At the same time, it’s not surprising to me because what we’ve witnessed at different events where these individuals show up is a lot of aggression.”

Dr. Gillies pointed out that while this gang may not be massive, it doesn’t need to be. The connection between violent behavior and radical transgender ideology is becoming undeniable.

“These individuals have been on very strong hormones,” she said. “It’s dangerous—very dangerous. A lot of them are women transitioning to men, which means they’re on super high doses of testosterone.”

And the effects of those hormones? It’s a ticking time bomb.

Testosterone Overload: A Recipe for Psychosis

The human body isn’t designed to handle massive hormonal shifts, and the numbers Dr. Gillies laid out are staggering.

“The normal range of total testosterone in a female is between 10 and 50 nanograms per liter. But what’s being prescribed under so-called ‘gender-affirming care’? Anywhere between 300 to 1,000 nanograms.”

That’s 600 to 100 times the normal level—the kind of hormonal surge that has never been studied long-term in healthy women.

“What we’re seeing now, from reports by doctors like Michael Laidlaw, is that these super high levels of testosterone are causing severe psychiatric conditions,” Gillies warned. “It’s a prescription for insanity.”

The effects of these high doses include:

  • Extreme aggression
  • Manic-like euphoria and grandiosity
  • Psychotic breaks from reality
  • Violent, uncontrolled rages

Gillies explained that historically, the only people with these kinds of hormone levels were bodybuilders abusing steroids or individuals with extremely rare tumors. Now, this level of hormonal manipulation is being intentionally prescribed to young women and teenage girls.

“I’ve talked to several detransitioners,” Gillies said, “and one of the things they’ve said to me is, ‘It made me crazy.’”

And it’s not just leading to self-harm—it’s pushing some of them toward homicidal behavior.

Transgender Homicidal Ideation: The Story No One Will Tell

For years, activists have used suicidal ideation as an argument for “affirming” gender confusion. But Gillies raised another issue, one the media refuses to acknowledge:

What about homicidal ideation?

“There’s a lot of pent-up anger,” she said. “Unexplained, violent rages. That could easily lead to homicidal behavior. Easily.”

She pointed to real-world cases of transgender-identifying killers.

“You look at that young woman who was transitioning to male, who shot up a Christian school,” Gillies said. “This is the reality of what happens when you take young people who are already struggling, pump them full of hormones, and put them in a radical ideological bubble.”

Gillies made it clear: the vast majority of these individuals had pre-existing mental health conditions before transitioning.

“You take kids who already have mental health struggles, you put them on testosterone—which we know can cause aggression and psychosis—and you push them into an environment where they’re encouraged to think everyone is their enemy. What do you expect?”

This isn’t a fringe theory. It’s happening. And it’s deliberate.

Unapproved, Off-Label Drugs: The Greatest Medical Scandal in Modern History?

One of the most shocking revelations from the interview was that these hormone treatments aren’t even approved for “gender transitioning”.

“These medications aren’t even approved for what they’re being used for. They are simply hormone replacement therapies,” Gillies said. “Doctors are prescribing them off-label, at extreme dosages, to children.”

This means there have been no long-term studies on the impact of these drugs when used for gender transition—yet they are being given out like candy.

“This is a giant experiment,” Gillies said bluntly. “But instead of lab rats, they’re experimenting on kids.”

Bill C-4: The Law Criminalizing Parents

If a teacher convinces a child they are transgender, they are protected by law. But if a parent suggests their child wait until adulthood before making irreversible decisions? They can be charged with a crime.

“That’s exactly what Bill C-4 does,” Gillies confirmed.

“If a parent tries to talk their child out of transitioning, they can be reported for ‘conversion therapy.’ The child can be taken out of their home. It’s happened multiple times across Canada.”

Meanwhile, radical teachers and activists are free to indoctrinate children into gender confusion with no consequences.

“This is about dismantling the family,” Gillies warned. “It’s about removing parental rights and putting the government in charge of children.

Trump’s Pushback: Will Canada Follow?

Gillies pointed out that while Canada is racing off the cliff, President Donald Trump has taken an unapologetic stance against this insanity.

“I wasn’t surprised when he said, ‘There are only two sexes,’” Gillies said. “I was thrilled. Because most people know that’s true.”

Trump is also going after the Department of Education, the driving force behind radical gender indoctrination in schools.

“Here’s a novel idea,” Gillies said. “Why don’t we have the money to follow the child? Let parents decide where to send their kids to school. That would end a lot of this garbage overnight.”

“We Need to Start Telling the Truth”

Gillies didn’t mince words: Canada is in trouble, and time is running out.

“Our children are being radicalized, medicalized, and mutilated. And if we don’t stop this, we’re going to see more and more violence—against them and by them.”

It’s not just about politics. It’s about basic reality.

“We need to start telling the truth,” she urged. “We need to stop being afraid of the mob. Because if we don’t fight back now, we’re going to lose a whole generation.”

The question is—will anyone listen before it’s too late?

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video posted by is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

USAID Funded Terrorist Regimes That Killed Thousands of U.S. Soldiers thumbnail

USAID Funded Terrorist Regimes That Killed Thousands of U.S. Soldiers

By Leo Hohmann

USAID sent $9.3B to Islamic terror states that killed 3,000 American soldiers. 

The explosive disclosures about how U.S. taxpayer monies are being used to subvert governments worldwide, while propping up others, continues to shed light on the outragious fools our own government must take us for. They steal our money and use it however they wish, often in secret deals that reward obedient foreign regimes while punishing the disobedient.

But the recent disclosures also reveal how the whole problem with modern Islamic terrorism is largely a creation of the West. Because without Western support, the modern Islamic jihadist movement would be broke and powerless. I would wager that the Western powers could wipe them out in a few months if they really wanted to, simply by cutting off the massive “aid” programs.

Yes, the Muslim terrorists hate Christians and Jews and wish them dead or subservient, according to their religious teachings. That’s a fact. But they would not be empowered to commit jihad were it not for the almighty U.S. dollar. And some of the dead end up being U.S. soldiers. U.S. taxpayer dollars being used to fund the murders of U.S. military personnel, imagine that!

And in the process of these needless wars, millions of Muslim refugees get driven into the Western countries. Talk about a duel bang for their buck, these globalists really know how to play the American people on their way to destroying nations and bringing in their one-world beast system. They are very good at what they do, you have to hand it to them.

The latest bombshell report comes from investigative reporter Daniel Greenfield.

Greenfield, in an article for Israel National News, reports that USAID doled out more than $9 billion to foreign terrorist groups that killed over 3,000 American soldiers in recent years. Below is an excerpt from Greenfield’s article.

Over the last two years, USAID doled out $2.3 billion in “humanitarian assistance” to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s native Somalia. Last year it reported a request for $1.6 billion in aid and even in December 2024, with the Biden administration on the way out the door, it sent an additional $29 million.

USAID support for Somalia doubled under the Biden administration and with $3.3 billion from USAID allocated in the last 5 years. the threatened withdrawal of funding must have been a painful blow for Omar, who is very close to the Somali regime. Former Somali Prime Minister Hassan Khaire had stated “the interest of Ilhan are not Ilhan’s, it’s not the interest of Minnesota, nor is it the interest of the American people, the interest of Ilhan is that of the Somalian people and Somalia.”

Somalia, along with other Islamic terrorist entities, including the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza, were among the top beneficiaries of USAID cash, Greenfield reports.

USAID sent $2.1 billion to Gaza and the “West Bank” since the Hamas attacks of Oct 7. In 2024 alone, $917 million was programmed for the terrorist areas occupying Israel.

USAID provided more than $3.7 billion to Afghanistan since the Taliban took over with $832 million in the previous fiscal year alone. The money was so unaccountable that USAID refused to cooperate with SIGAR: the government watchdog tracking spending in Afghanistan intent on blocking money from aiding terrorists.

Read the entire article by Daniel Greenfield here.

©2025 . All rights reserved.


Visit LeoHohmann.com: Investigative reporting on globalism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and where politics, culture and religion intersect.

VIDEO: Sorry, Liberals. DOGE Is 100% Legal. Here’s Why. thumbnail

VIDEO: Sorry, Liberals. DOGE Is 100% Legal. Here’s Why.

By Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

EDITORS NOTE: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. 

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I want to revisit the hysteria, controversy—whatever term we use—about Elon Musk and his role in the Department of Government Efficiency—or DOGE—using that term for the executive officer of Renaissance Florence. The Italian word “doge” is a meme, so to speak.

There’s a lot of controversy about Elon Musk, and let’s just dispel some of it right at the start. He is not a freelancer. He was appointed a government official. Donald Trump, by an executive order, created the Department of Government Efficiency, and he made Elon Musk the head of it, along with Vivek Ramaswamy, who now has resigned.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Elon Musk has statutory authority. This Department of Government Efficiency is not a Cabinet agency. He does not have to be approved by Congress. And it only is going to last until July 4, 2026. It’s not a permanent agency, but he has the same power, or lack of such, as the national security adviser, who does not have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

He’s more legitimate—or he has more statutory legitimacy—than earlier presidential advisers, like Harry Hopkins, who moved into the White House under the FDR administration, or Bernard Baruch, who basically ran two world wars, in terms of domestic production, under Woodrow Wilson and FDR. So, let’s just dispel the idea that he’s doing anything unusual.

As far as the executive orders that created the DOGE program and eliminated the U.S. Agency for International Development—that was perfectly legal in itself. USAID was created by John F. Kennedy in 1961 by an executive order. There was a statutory direction for the president to disperse foreign aid into a comprehensive body, but it didn’t say USAID—he could do whatever he wanted.

And so, Donald Trump has decided to end autonomous USAID and fold it into the State Department for disaster relief or poverty relief or famine relief.

But let’s get straight what Elon Musk is trying to do. He’s going through all of these agencies and finding waste and fraud. And he has executive authority to do so. The Democrats are suing on the principle that they have approved funds for some of these agencies and Donald Trump is not spending them. And they are also arguing that Elon must exist by an executive order and not a congressional statute.

And this is very ironic, to tell you the truth. If you look back at executive orders, the number of which have been issued by Democratic and Republican presidencies, you see two general terms: The two Bushes and Donald Trump are not that much different than the 16 years of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Where you see the big divide in the number of executive orders is a break between FDR and Harry Truman, and to a lesser extent, Herbert Hoover and Coolidge, and the present. And believe me, during the Roosevelt years and Truman years, that was an all-time record of executive orders, and that got Roosevelt in trouble, of course, with the Supreme Court.

As far as impounding funds, Joe Biden set the precedent. You all saw him on tape when he said, “SOB—the son of a—I went in, over there, to Ukraine and I said, ‘You’re not getting this billion dollars until you do this.’” Well, that money had been approved by Congress.

And when he became president, there was a statute that said, “Here’s the money to build the wall.”

And Joe Biden canceled the wall. That was illegal. But he came up with all these—“Oh, we have to do environmental studies, or on endangered species.” But he didn’t spend the money. All Donald Trump is doing is saying, “I don’t believe the Impoundment Control Act is legal. We’ll see what the Supreme Court—but I’m just following the precedent that Joe Biden did.” But now the shoe’s on the other foot.

And so, again, there is a statutory authority for Elon Musk to do what he does. He has the executive order justifying his agency, his 20-some employees. And more importantly—there’s another thing no one talks about—Elon Musk is a controversial figure and everybody is attacking him. And whom are they not attacking? Donald Trump.

So, while the media is trying to make a split—Time magazine had a cover of Elon Musk behind the presidential desk in the Oval Office, Donald Trump didn’t get angry about that. He said, “I didn’t even know Time magazine was still in existence.” Why? Because Elon Musk, in addition to all of these executive duties he’s doing to cut back wasteful spending, he is redirecting animus away from the president to him.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior contributor for The Daily Signal, is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and author of the book “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.” You can reach him by emailing authorvdh@gmail.com. Victor on X: @VDHanson.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DOGE Takes Over Washington, Literally and Figuratively

Trump’s Freeze of USAID Is a Blow to Global Leftist Empire

Ending the Taxpayer-Funded Blue Pipeline

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Trump Admin. Goes to War over Court Order Blocking DOGE from Treasury Dept. thumbnail

Trump Admin. Goes to War over Court Order Blocking DOGE from Treasury Dept.

By Family Research Council

The Trump administration is challenging a federal court order blocking the government’s efficiency agency from accessing U.S. Treasury records. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday, barring the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from having “access to Treasury Department payment systems or any other data maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information.”

DOGE has been tasked by President Donald Trump with investigating and auditing federal agencies and departments in order to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and fraud. Last week, the agency gained access to Treasury Department payment system records after Acting Treasury Secretary David Lebryk, a 35-year Treasury bureaucracy veteran who had been blocking DOGE’s access, was placed on leave. However, a coalition of 19 Democratic attorneys general — representing the states of New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin — filed a complaint asking that DOGE continue to be denied access to the Treasury.

Engelmayer received the Democrats’ complaint and, without seeking arguments from the president and his attorneys, temporarily blocked the president “from granting to political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department access to Treasury…” The judge further ordered that Trump and his administration be “restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees” to anyone outside the Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Services and “restrained from granting access” to any such records to “all political appointees, special government employees, and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department…” The order also demands that DOGE employees who have already been granted access to Treasury records destroy all copies they have obtained of those records.

The Trump administration was given until Tuesday evening to file a response, with the Democratic attorneys general being given until Thursday evening to file a follow-up response. However, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a response almost immediately, asking for the order to be dissolved. “On its face, the Order could be read to cover all political leadership within Treasury — including even [Treasury] Secretary [Scott] Bessent. This is a remarkable intrusion on the Executive Branch that is in direct conflict with Article II of the Constitution, and the unitary structure it provides,” the DOJ memorandum stated. It continued, “There is not and cannot be a basis for distinguishing between ‘civil servants’ and ‘political appointees.’ Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency’s work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the President.”

“A federal court, consistent with the separation of powers, cannot insulate any portion of that work from the specter of political accountability,” the DOJ explained. “No court can issue an injunction that directly severs the clear line of supervision Article II requires. Because the Order on its face draws an impermissible and anti-constitutional distinction, it should be dissolved immediately.”

Although the agency conceded that the Trump administration is “in compliance with” the court order and its stipulations, Trump and his allies have vowed to combat the court’s overreach and even hinted at the possibility of ignoring the court’s order if it is not dissolved or adjusted in a timely manner. When asked about the court order on Sunday, Trump himself said, “We’re talking about fraud, waste, abuse, and when a president can’t look for fraud and waste and abuse, we don’t have a country anymore.” He added, “We’re very disappointed with the judges that would make such a ruling.”

Vice President J.D. Vance issued a stern statement on the subject over social media. “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal,” he observed. He concluded, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

White House deputy chief of staff and top Trump policy advisor Stephen Miller called Engelmayer “a radical left judge” in an interview Sunday. He said of the court order, “This isn’t just unconstitutional. That ruling is an assault on the very idea of democracy itself.” He continued, “Donald Trump is engaging in the most important restoration of democracy in over a century by saying that we are going to restore power to the people through their elected president and his appointed officers.”

Miller added, “That is the only way we can have true democracy in this country.” The Trump counselor continued, “But this nonsense where we have rogue, unelected, unaccountable, and previously un-fire-able bureaucrats who do whatever the hell they want with no one telling them and no one controlling them, we’re not going to let that happen anymore.”

Commenting on the controversial court order, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) declared, “The elected president of the United States should be allowed to function as such.” He continued, “No federal court should replace the president’s team with Deep State bureaucrats.”

Trump ally and Article III Project founder Mike Davis, commented, “These DC uniparty judges are shockingly insulated from Real Americans in Real America. They are arrogant and delusional enough to believe they are saving America from Trump.” He added, “Even though Trump campaigned on doing precisely what he’s doing. And won a decisive electoral mandate.” In comments published by The New York Times, Davis clarified, “President Trump is not stealing other branches’ powers.” He continued to say that Trump “is exercising his Article II powers under the Constitution. And judges who say he can’t? They’re legally wrong. The Supreme Court is going to side with Trump.”

Despite the complaints of Democrats, several department heads in the federal government have welcomed DOGE’s efforts to identify and eliminate waste and fraud. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem insisted on Sunday that she is “absolutely” comfortable with DOGE auditing DHS records. “This is essentially an audit of the federal government, which is very powerful and needs to have happened,” she said, adding that American citizens “can’t trust our government anymore” after years of waste and fraud being covered up.

Department of Defense (DOD) Secretary Pete Hegseth also welcomed DOGE audits in a Sunday interview, adding that Trump is “correct that American taxpayers deserve to know exactly how and where their money is spent.” He stated, “We welcome Elon Musk and DOGE coming into our department to help us identify additional ways in which we can streamline costs, fast-track acquisitions, cut waste, cut tail to put it to tooth.” Hegseth continued, “We know in a world where America is $37 trillion in debt, resources will not be unlimited. Every dollar we can find that isn’t being spent wisely is one we can put toward warfighters. So we welcome DOGE at DOD. We will partner with them, and it’s long overdue.”

Prior to the fracas surrounding its audit of the Treasury, DOGE has investigated several other federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump ordered almost completely shut down after the DOGE team discovered and exposed rampant waste and the funding of left-wing projects and programs across the globe. Trump announced last week that DOGE will also audit the Pentagon and the Department of Education. Shortly afterwards, DOGE chief Elon Musk announced, without elaborating further, that the Department of Education “no longer exists.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

PERKINS: Executive Orders Are Good, but Congress Must Make Them Permanent

DOJ Reverses Position on State Law Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Procedures

RELATED VIDEO: Speaker Mike Johnson: ‘Crooked judges are illegally interfering with the Executive Branch’

RELATED PODCAST:  Free Speech — A Legal Analysis with Jim Campbell

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Panama Canal: An Artery for Global Trade thumbnail

The Panama Canal: An Artery for Global Trade

By MercatorNet – A Compass for Common Sense

In his inaugural address, Donald Trump declared that one of his administration’s priorities would be to regain control of the Panama Canal. This claim reopens a century-old debate over who built it, who lost it, and who truly owns this 80-kilometer engineering marvel that stitches together the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. With over 140 maritime routes, 1,700 ports, and 160 countries linked through it, the Canal is a key artery of global trade.

I visited the Canal a few years ago, and, beyond its logistical genius, what struck me the most was its turbulent history.

French vision, American execution, Caribbean workers

In 1869, fresh off his success with the Suez Canal, French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps set his sights on Central America. He was determined to carve a passage through the Isthmus of Darien, which was then part of Colombia.

This would be one of the 19th century’s most ambitious infrastructure projects.

report in The Economist from 1879 called it “a bolder enterprise even than the Suez Canal,” predicting the logistical, technical, and health nightmares ahead. As if they had a crystal ball, the project collapsed just a decade later, sunk by financial ruin, yellow fever, and an engineering failure. Lesseps’s Panama Canal Company would be bankrupt by 1888.

Yet where the French had failed, the United States saw an opportunity. Invoking the Monroe Doctrine—a US foreign policy that justified American influence in Latin America while keeping the continent off-limits to European colonial ambitions—Washington backed Panama’s independence from Colombia in 1903. It then secured the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty granting it full control over the Canal’s construction and operation. Nearly 40,000 workers from the Caribbean—mostly from Barbados—were recruited to build the Canal. And in August 1914, just as World War I erupted, the Panama Canal opened, redrawing the map of global trade.

Without the Canal, global shipping routes would be significantly different. Before 1914, ships traveling the east and west coasts of the American Continent faced a long and dangerous journey. The Canal slashed fuel consumption, cut transit times, and made global trade more efficient than ever.

Today, a San-Francisco–New-York voyage has five possible routes by sea. The fastest? Through the Panama Canal—10 days, 23 hours. The next-best option? A 27-day detour around the Strait of Magellan.

The canal moves the world… but at what cost?

For much of the 20th century, the Panama Canal was a geopolitical chess piece. The Canal Zone was US territory and a flashpoint for anticolonial sentiment in Central America. By the 1960s and ’70s, Panamanian resentment escalated, culminating in the 1964 Flag Riots. Clashes between Panamanians and US forces resulted in multiple casualties.

In 1977, the Torrijos-Carter Treaties established a phased transition plan that transferred control of the Canal to Panama by 1999, marking a major shift in US-Panama relations. Trump has called this handover “foolish,” blaming President Jimmy Carter for giving away a trade goldmine. At the time, the decision was intended to reduce anti-American sentiment in Latin America.

Today, the Panama Canal is a vital economic force. Managed by a private entity, it generates roughly 4% of Panama’s GDP, through the tolls paid by vessels using the Canal. About 5% of global trade flows through it annually, and the US is its biggest user—around 40% of US container traffic passes through each year.

Meanwhile, China is catching up fast. From October 2023 to September 2024, China accounted for 21.4% of the cargo volume transiting the Canal—making it the second largest user after the United States. Beijing has also been investing in Panamanian ports, raising concerns over who has more influence.

And the stakes are rising…

Water shortages in Lake Gatun (one of the lakes that feed the Canal) restrict ship crossings and raise questions about the Canal’s long-term viability, as does the fact that the century-old locks are not big enough to accommodate today’s largest container ships. All the while, Nicaragua is reviving dreams of an alternative Canal, backed by Chinese investors.

Trade is fragile

It’s easy to take global trade for granted—until it breaks. In 2021, one of the world’s largest container ships, the Ever Givengot stuck in the Suez Canal for six days, freezing $10 billion in global trade per day.

The lesson? Apart from countless memes, the Ever Given crisis reminded the world that maritime chokepoints matter.

Accidents are not the only threat to trade. Recent Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea—where 15% of global trade crosses—have forced shipping companies away from Suez, rerouting around Africa, adding weeks to delivery and millions in extra cost—proving just how vulnerable global trade is.

The Panama Canal’s strategic infrastructure has fuelled prosperity in a country that stands out among its peers, proving that commerce drives progress. But as history shows, when politicians meddle in trade, they distort it. Washington once controlled the Canal for geopolitical leverage, and now Beijing seeks influence over its ports. But the real power behind the Canal has never been politics—it has always been free trade.


What do you think of Trump’s plans for the Panama Canal?   


This article has been republished from FEE under a Creative Commons licence.

AUTHOR

Daphne Posadas

Daphne Posadas is the Associate Editorial Director at the Foundation for Economic Education.

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Don’t think egg shortage is coincidence: Billionaire businessmen and their buddies in politics are seizing the opportunity to force-feed their unhealthy factory food thumbnail

Don’t think egg shortage is coincidence: Billionaire businessmen and their buddies in politics are seizing the opportunity to force-feed their unhealthy factory food

By Leo Hohmann

The most disturbing aspect of the globalist plan to force alternative protein products onto the market is who is backing the initiative. Bill Gates, U.S. military and state of Israel are all involved. 

At a time when the cost of meat and eggs is skyrocketing, Bill Gates is working behind the scenes on a plan that would fill in the gaps with so-called affordable protein. Yes, he wants us to eat bugs and other questionable sources of protein.

But you won’t believe who he is partnered with in this diabolical venture.

It’s no coincidence that eggs are getting hard to come by, with grocery store shelves often bare, and hefty price tags on those eggs that are available. The government has culled the egg-laying hens by astonomical numbers. Over the last two years alone, nearly 75 million egg-layers have been slaughtered. Often, just one bird with the sniffles will result in hundreds of poultry being euthanized.

At the same time, beef cow herds are at their lowest levels in America since 1962.

We will soon start to see the desired outcome of the war on eggs and meat.

Disswire.com reports that Bill Gates is working with the U.S. Department of Defense to integrate genetically modified insects into the food supply, potentially as a step toward reducing traditional meat consumption.

Below is an excerpt from the article:

  • Crickets and grasshoppers are already making their way into the American diet in various forms, including protein bars, shakes, and even restaurant menus.
  • They are also promoted as sustainable options for pet food and animal feed.
  • Lax regulations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have allowed such products to bypass rigorous safety testing.
  • Many insect-based foods fall under the “Generally Regarded as Safe” (GRAS) category, enabling manufacturers to introduce them to the market with minimal oversight.
  • Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, expressed concerns to The Defender:
  • “How long will it take before we learn whether these foods are safe? It could take generations,” she said.
  • In 2012, the Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges Explorations program funded All Things Bugs, a project aimed at addressing malnutrition in famine-stricken regions through insect-based foods.
  • Since then, the project has evolved to include the development of genetically modified insects, with additional support from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
  • The company has openly stated its use of technologies like CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing to create insects as a new “bioresource.”
  • DARPA, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Defense, is a key partner in this initiative.
  • Claire Robinson, managing editor of GMWatch, emphasized the importance of rigorous testing for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including insects:
  • “They must be subjected to a pre-marketing risk assessment for health and the environment, including testing for pathogens, allergens, and toxins. Clear labeling for consumers is also essential.”
  • Bill Gates has been vocal about his investments in alternative proteins, aligning with his vision of a more “sustainable food system.”
  • Last year, Gates announced his investment in Savor, a company producing butter from air and water.
  • Additionally, the Gates Foundation awarded $4.76 million to Nature’s Fynd in 2022, a startup that develops fungi-based proteins.
  • The U.S. government has also joined the insects-as-food movement through initiatives like the National Science Foundation’s Center for Environmental Sustainability through Insect Farming (CEIF).

Indeed, the introduction of genetically modified insects, fungi and other slop being inserted into our food without our consent highlights the contempt these globalist predators have for we the people.

And don’t fall into the trap of thinking Bill Gates is the only powerful individual involved in preparing the world to accept lab-grown, insect-based and plant-based fake meat.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is another official with plans to deceive the world into thinking this garbage is healthy for human consumption.

Watch, in the video clip below, Netanyahu visiting an Israeli factory last year that makes 3D-cultivated fish.

The Times of Israel reported as far back as August 2023, that Netanyahu met with New York City Mayor Eric Adams in Jerusalem to promote Israeli lab-grown “meat.”

“The two discussed the unlimited possibilities for cooperation between New York City and the State of Israel in the fields of technology, innovation and tourism,” Netanyahu’s office said at the time.

“You are a great friend of Israel,” Netanyahu told Adams, according to the Israeli readout. “You live in a city that is the intellectual, cultural and financial center of the world, and we are another center of sorts.”

After their meeting, the pair attended an exhibit from Aleph Farms, taste-testing lab-grown meat and other alternative proteins being developed by the Israeli company.

Jewish Business News reported in January 2024, Israel became the first nation to allow marketing of cultured meat, giving the greenlight to Aleph Farms’ so-called “steaks.”

Just as Netanyahu opened up his country in 2021 as a laboratory for Pfizer’s toxic Covid jab, he is doing the same now for the fake-food industry.

The same reckless policies are coming to the United States under the deregulation policies of President Trump. We will need to be on our guard, and reading labels very carefully, to avoid this poison while praying for God’s continued provision during lean times.

©2025 . All rights reserved.


Please visit Leo’s Newsletter substack.

Brilliant and Eminently Fair: “Reciprocal Tariffs” thumbnail

Brilliant and Eminently Fair: “Reciprocal Tariffs”

By The Geller Report

President Trump to announce reciprocal tariffs on multiple countries this upcoming week. Nations that impose tariffs on U.S. products can expect similar policies in return.

Trump on Sunday said the U.S. would impose 25% tariffs starting Monday on steel and aluminum imports, with his reciprocal tariff announcement arriving Tues or Wednesday.

President Donald Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on all imports from China, which became effective last week.

This broad tariff had the potential to impact over $450 billion worth of goods, impacting a wide range of consumer products including footwear, toys, gaming consoles, clothing, and electronic devices that has helped keep the Chinese economy afloat.

Legal Insurrection:

Now Trump has paused on his closing of the de minimis trade exemption, a provision commonly used by Chinese e-commerce companies Temu and Shein.

The order states that de minimis will be restored for small packages shipped from China, “but shall cease to be available for such articles upon notification by the Secretary of Commerce to the President that adequate systems are in place to fully and expediently process and collect tariff revenue” on those items.

Trump on Saturday suspended the exemption as part of new tariffs that include an additional 10% tax on Chinese goods. The nearly century-old exception, known as de minimis, has been used by many e-commerce companies to send goods worth less than $800 into the U.S. duty-free, creating a competitive advantage.

It was predicted that its removal could overwhelm U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees, as the mountain of low-value shipments already making their way into the U.S. would suddenly require formal processing.

Over one billion of such exemptions were granted in 2023, so the impact of this pause is significant.

Introduced in 1938, the so-called de minimis exception was intended to facilitate the flow of small packages valued at no more than $5, the equivalent of about $106 today. The threshold increased to $200 in 1994 and $800 in 2016. But the rapid rise of cross-border e-commerce, driven by China, has challenged the intent of the decades-old customs exception rule.

Chinese exports of low-value packages soared to $66 billion in 2023, up from $5.3 billion in 2018, according to a report released last week by the Congressional Research Service. And the U.S. market has been a major destination.

In 2023, for the first time, more than 1 billion such packages came through U.S. customs, up from 134 million in 2015. By the end of last year, Customs and Border Protection said it was processing about 4 million small shipments a day, many of which came from China through online retail platforms such as Shein and Temu.

Meanwhile, Trump plans to announce reciprocal tariffs on other countries next week.

Mr. Trump did not say which countries he would target with reciprocal tariffs. He said that tariffs on Japan were an option if the U.S. trade deficit with that country didn’t fall to zero. But he also claimed that the roughly $68 billion trade deficit could be eliminated by Japan purchasing more oil and gas.

Earlier this week, Mr. Trump indicated he had the European Union in his sights, saying that the bloc would “definitely” face tariffs and “pretty soon.” Mr. Trump has often criticized the European Union for charging a higher tariff on American cars that the U.S. does for European ones, as well as for running a trade surplus with the United States.

Mr. Trump floated proposals in both his first term and his 2024 campaign of making trade more reciprocal by matching the tariff rates that other countries impose on American products.

He has also said in recent days that he planned to impose tariffs on a variety of critical industries, like copper, steel, aluminum, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. On Friday, he also said that tariffs on foreign cars are “always on the table.”

Savvy leaders are responding with good choices.

It looks like there are a lot of potential tariff options.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Accident Waiting To Happen’: Feds Ignored D.C. Death Trap For Years Despite Dozens Of Near Misses With Planes, Choppers thumbnail

‘Accident Waiting To Happen’: Feds Ignored D.C. Death Trap For Years Despite Dozens Of Near Misses With Planes, Choppers

By The Daily Caller

Washington’s Reagan National Airport has suffered countless near misses between aircrafts over the last few decades, many reported by pilots themselves, an issue the FAA has done little to solve, according to a Daily Caller review of public documents.

Just a few moments away from touching down at Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA) on Jan. 29, an American Airlines passenger jet collided with a military helicopter. There were no survivors. The most fatal crash in several decades has caused aviation experts and administration officials alike to parse through public information and determine how something so catastrophic happened. Was the helicopter too high? Did the airplane take the wrong approach? Did Air Traffic Control (ATC) give proper alerts?

Days after the crash, the FAA temporarily banned all mixed helicopter and fixed-wing flying aircrafts from flying over the Potomac River near the airport. New FAA guidance now allows some emergency helicopters to pass near the D.C. airport and requires civilian planes to hold when they are in the area.

But those changes only happened now, despite the fact that for years prior to the crash, helicopters and airplanes have been passing within feet of each other at DCA, causing pilots to make evasive maneuvers to avoid catastrophe. Pilots have been angrily reporting these incidents to an anonymous, public database, but little was done to address the issue until the tragedy last month.

“THIS HELI CONFLICT … AT DCA IS AN ONGOING PROB. HERE IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN,” a pilot furiously asserted after a January 2016 near miss.

The issue has become so frequent that pilots reported feeling that complaining about the incidents was useless and unlikely to spur any action. As such, they started treating the near misses as practically inevitable at the Washington, D.C. airport.

“Complacency is a killer,” one commercial pilot, who requested anonymity to speak freely about the reported incidents and the DCA crash, told the Caller.

The Daily Caller reviewed public reports pilots and air traffic control have filed through the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) between 1988 to 2025 while working at DCA. The reports address all sorts of aviation issues and are supposed to help the FAA “disseminate information to the proper authorities who can investigate and determine if action is warranted.”

The Caller looked specifically at self-reported airborne conflicts and near misses between aircrafts near Washington Reagan National Airport and found there had been 220 such incidents from 1988 to 2025. Of those, 30 have been between helicopters and airplanes, marking an almost annual occurrence.

By comparison, nearby Dulles National Airport has had 181 self-reported airborne conflicts and near misses between aircrafts in the same time period. Just five have been between helicopters and airplanes.

#BREAKING at 1048 pm Eastern: NBC Washington’s Mark Segraves, citing two sources, said the crash scene on the Potomac is closer toward the shore of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling and the American Airlines plane “split in two and is in about 7 feet of water…[T]he helicopter is… pic.twitter.com/rBZ8m7I0hQ

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 30, 2025

“Anyone can [self] report it for any reason, but usually it’s because pilots get afraid and they said, ‘Holy shit that was too close.’ Traffic was issued too late, or I didn’t see that issue report,’” Michael Pearson, a former air traffic controller and ATC training instructor, told the Caller of the ASRS reports.

The commercial pilot added, “Usually you are pretty pissed if you are willing to write the report and submit as an ASR. It’s not an ‘Oh, that was interesting’ moment. It’s a ‘Hey, this is a problem’ moment.”

The near miss reports cite numerous issues that pilots and ATC have faced over the last several decades at DCA. Some airplane pilots wrote that they never received any alert from the ATC of a helicopter flying just feet below the plane as it landed.

“Helicopter traffic was heading up the Potomac while we were on the river … visual approach did not alert us to the oncoming traffic,” a pilot wrote in January 2022.

Others were notified of the close aircraft only after it had passed by.

“After there was action taken to make a correction from the close call, we were then informed by DCA tower of close traffic,” a pilot recounted in July 2015, “although at that point it would have been too late.”

An American Airlines pilot reassured passengers after learning of the DC plane crash. “I have no higher calling,” American Airlines Captain Jeffrey Collins said, “than carefully, professionally, transporting you today.” https://t.co/lh0kGrNUIu pic.twitter.com/b0rEV3lpYn

— ABC News (@ABC) February 1, 2025

In other instances, pilots and ATC reported that helicopters flying near the DCA runways had climbed far higher than they were supposed to, putting them dangerously close — sometimes just 200 feet — from the airplane.

Even a helicopter potentially tasked with transporting the vice president has reportedly experienced a near miss in the last decade. In May 2017, a helicopter and airplane pilot reported an “an unsafe situation involving VIP movements.” It is not confirmed if the vice president — at the time, Mike Pence – was in the helicopter at the time, but the report notes that the craft was en route to the Naval Observatory.

One air traffic controller for the Potomac Consolidated TRACON wrote that they were holding airplanes in the sky during a presidential movement, but the controllers at DCA nonetheless launched two departures at the presidential aircraft “less than a mile and no altitude, converging.” The report suggests that towers need to coordinate better during VIP movements.

“How is it we on approach are not allowed to run arrivals yet they have the authority to release airplanes right at presidential aircraft?” the controller at Potomac Consolidated TRACON vents in his report.

DCA’s airport is one of the most difficult landings for pilots in the country. With congested airspace, short runways, frequent restricted airspace and landings right along the water, the reports showed that pilots found themselves having a difficult time juggling an already-tight landing zone with possible helicopter presence near the runways. Pilots were especially frustrated with the fact that helicopters are allowed to pass below airplanes, near runways, as commercial airplanes are descending to land.

“I cannot imagine what business is so pressing that these helicopters are allowed to cross the path of airliners carrying hundreds of people! I do not understand why they are not crossed IN-BETWEEN arrivals,” a pilot angrily wrote in 2013 after his aircraft came within just 200 feet of a helicopter. The pilot added that ATC only called out the traffic one time — and that the helicopter was several hundred feet above where he should’ve been. Upon landing and making a call up to the tower, the pilot wrote that it took some “prodding” to even get an explanation from ATC on why his aircraft nearly grazed the helicopter.

“The FAA allows these aircrafts to operate in this environment and we have no choice, but to accept it and deal with it,” the pilot added.

🚨 TRUMP: When the air traffic controller said – ‘do you see him?’ There was very little time left, when that was stated. Also, he said, ‘follow him in,’ and almost immediately after that, the crash happened. Well, you follow him in? That would mean everything is fine. It was a… pic.twitter.com/O99QkEnMr3

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 30, 2025

Of the self-reported incidents the Caller reviewed, many pilots described coming within a few hundred feet of helicopters while descending into the Washington airport. Some near misses took place while planes were trying to land on Runway 33, the runway that the crashed American Airlines craft was set to land on. The Washington Post reported that Runway 33’s landing route takes jets within 15 feet of the top of the Route 4 helicopter corridor.

“The width of the Potomac [helicopters] are allowed to … pass [below airplanes]. But it’s kind of insane. Honestly, they should not, they shouldn’t have those routes that close to descending airplanes,” Pearson told the Caller.

A report from March 2015 details an airplane and a helicopter coming just a few hundred feet apart as the aircraft lined up to land on Runway 33. The pilot notes in his report that while starting to land, they spotted a helicopter that was close in altitude and climbing. The report explains that the pilot made a decision to abort the landing ahead of getting an alert that the other aircraft was too close to the plane.

After landing on a different runway, the pilot spoke to the tower about the near miss, learning that the helicopter had climbed far beyond where it was supposed to be.

“The tower supervisor I spoke with told me a few things that explained what may have happened. Number one, he said that the helicopters operating in that area should NEVER be above 200 feet. According to him, the helicopter was at 800 feet, clearly not where he was supposed to be,” the pilot writes, noting that he had his airplane climbed to 2,000 feet to avoid a crash.

“[The tower supervisor] also explained that ATC may have taken their eyes off the helicopter for a second because they would never expect those helicopters to do something that egregious. That seems plausible given the fact that I’ve never seen a helicopter in that area at that altitude. He suggested that it was most probably a deviation on the part of the Pilot of the helicopter, and a loss of aircraft separation that was also the fault of the helicopter pilot,” the report states.

‘To back up what the president said…What I’ve seen so far, do I think this was preventable? ABSOLUTELY’ – Transportation Secretary Duffy on the tragic DC plane crash pic.twitter.com/h4ZEE0kmrd

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 30, 2025

Another 2015 report details a severe incident where the ATC failed to communicate another aircraft’s activity in the airplane’s path during its landing — just 400 feet from the ground.

“This occurred about 400 feet off the ground to the point where the pilot monitoring had to take the controls to make a correction in order to prevent it from becoming a midair collision,” the captain of the landing aircraft wrote.

“After there was action taken to make a correction from the close call, we were then informed by DCA tower of close traffic, although at that point it would have been too late,” the pilot added.

In May of 2013, another self report details another near miss while attempting to land on Runway 33. In this incident, the airplane pilot writes that, despite ATC asking the helicopter if it had the aircraft in sight and to maintain visual separation, the chopper made a turn that looked to be directly in the path of the airplane.

The turn caused the captain of the airplane to make a “hard turn” to avoid the helicopter.

Pearson explained to the Caller that one issue that is contributing to the near misses is that military and commercial pilots cannot hear each other because they are on different radio systems. Nearly all of the self-reported near misses reviewed by the Caller make a reference to Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems, which alert the plane and ATC if two aircrafts are on a collision course. These, Pearson told the Caller, are specifically designed to not be inhibited at low altitudes.

“Military and civilian traffic together adds a challenge. Part of our situational awareness is hearing what’s going on on the radio. When ATC transmits to the [military] guys we can hear them but can’t hear the [military] guys because they are on UHF and we are on VHF,” a commercial pilot told the Caller.

“A lot of accidents have been avoided by hearing another aircraft say something and it raising a red flag to you that you can bring to the attention of a controller,” the pilot continued to the Caller.

Several of the reports reviewed by the Caller cited the different radio frequencies as concerns for their near misses. Others said they had trouble understanding the helicopter pilots even if they were on the same frequency. Additional self reports made notes of the busy airport and the pressure to push airplanes in and out as quickly as possible as reasons for near misses.

“I understand DCA is a busy airport, I was based there for years. The military low-level helicopter traffic that routinely is in the DCA traffic area complicates matters,” a captain of a major carrier wrote in 2015. “But this is probably the most dangerous airport in the United States, strictly based on the fact the controllers are pushing, pushing, pushing, in an attempt to handle the traffic they have.”

Lack of communication between aircrafts and ATC regarding helicopters in the area of landing dates back to 1988, according to the Caller’s review of reports.

Pilots have also been expressing concern about the lack of separation between craft for decades.

“Non-standard separation over the river seems to be the norm for DCA for some reason. I have not encountered this type of [operation] at any other U.S. airport,” a pilot wrote in 2006.

The pilot details the difficult approach  at DCA and points out that his aircraft received several notifications through Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems. He opted to continue his landing, believing he had the two offending helicopters in sight, but later realized they had come within 200 feet of his plane. At the time, their Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems had also been inhibited because of low altitude.

“I have to question the wisdom of DCA [tower] letting helis fly in the [approach] path of one of the country’s highest profile airports, particularly on an [approach] as challenging as this one,” the pilot wrote.

And just two years ago, one air traffic controller flagged that control tower was short staffed, causing the individual to take on multiple roles at once. This contributed to a near miss between two military helicopters.

“I was working two positions combined of both helos/Local Control when the event happened,” the air traffic controller wrote.

A pilot summed up the general frustration with so many close calls after a 2006 incident: “Why does the tower allow such nonsense by the military in such a critical area? This is a safety issue, and needs to be fixed.”

Early reports about the Jan. 29 crash suggest several of the problems identified by pilots flying into DCA over the years contributed to the incident: a helicopter flying above altitude, limited visibility, a tight landing on Runway 33, and poor communication.

“Accidents are rarely result of a single failure but rather a series of failures that all have to line up. We refer to it as the swiss cheese model in the industry. ATC staffing, air space design, equipment limitations, night conditions. All the holes lined up that night. Plug one hole and everyone goes home to their families,” the commercial pilot explained.

As for the FAA, the agency did not have any explanation for why these reports were ignored for years, telling the Caller that its “reports are one of many data sources we use to identify system-level safety risks, which we can communicate through Safety Alerts for Operators.” It did not say whether any of the DCA reports over the decades had led to changes in DCA protocol or safety alerts to operators at the airport.

AUTHORS

Reagan Reese And Amber Duke

Contributors.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Bowing To Wokeness Since 2010’: Fmr Air Traffic Controller Says Short Staffing Is ‘Attributable To Obama Admin’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permisssion. ©All rights reserved.

ROOKE: Hidden Deep Inside New Polling Is A Major Warning For Democrats thumbnail

ROOKE: Hidden Deep Inside New Polling Is A Major Warning For Democrats

By The Daily Caller

New polling suggests that Democrats have a major problem with their voter stronghold, and it’s clear they have no idea how to fix it.

In 2022, legendary Democrat strategist and pollster Stanley Greenberg warned that Democrats were out of touch with middle-class blue-collar workers. He warned that if the party doesn’t change how it approaches these voters, Democrats face losing this vital demographic during election season.

Greenberg’s warnings were prophetic. Blue-collar workers overwhelmingly supported President Donald Trump and Republicans in the 2024 election, which won them the trifecta of political power in Washington, D.C. However, new polling from CBS News shows that Democrats aren’t just bleeding support from blue-collar workers but another demographic they have been courting for decades: Gen Z.

Trump’s new approval ratings show he is more favorable than ever, mainly due to his rising support among Gen Z voters. In the under-30 category, 55 percent of Gen Z voters approved Trump’s first 20 days in office. For decades, Democrats have been pursuing the young vote as a long-term strategy to overwhelm the Boomer vote, which typically skews toward Republicans.

However, the Democrats’ approach to this voter bloc is clearly failing to take root. In fact, they are swinging in the opposite direction, likely due to Trump’s quick action since taking back the White House. Over 60 percent of Gen Z respondents described Trump as “effective,” “focused,” “energetic,” and “tough.”

The polling shows that most Americans overwhelmingly support Trump’s plan to stop and reverse illegal immigration, which Democrats let balloon out of control over the last four years. Over half of Gen Z voters told pollsters that Trump is either focusing on deporting illegal immigrants the right amount or not enough. The majority of these voters want the Democrats’ open border system to end.

They also support his policies on cutting taxes, government spending, and imposing tariffs on foreign countries.

These are Trump’s best approval numbers ever. But look at the generational breakdown.

Boomers are 50/50. Millennials are +4.

Gen Z is +10.

I’ll keep saying it: Zoomers are going to be the most right-wing generation in recent memory. pic.twitter.com/ZMvT8RgE8V

— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) February 9, 2025

Still, probably the biggest knife to the heart of Democrats is Gen Z’s overwhelming disapproval of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. While 36 percent of young voters believe Trump is focusing too much on ending DEI programs, a whopping 63 percent said he needs to keep going at this speed or go even further to root it out. (ROOKE: Trump’s Simple Questionnaire Reveals Shocking Truth Behind Major Right-Wing Conspiracy)

It’s not a secret that Democrats put a heavy emphasis on promoting DEI as the new American Dream. The party promoted this ideology as our country’s chance to pay reparations for its so-called racist history. But the younger generations are no longer falling for the insidious charade. They’ve watched as colleges and employers used DEI as a cuddle to deny them entry into their world. These programs hurt them in tangible ways, and they resent the party that continues to push them to accept it as gospel.

Gen Z for Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump…

We registered 750+ new Gen Z voters at this campus event last week. pic.twitter.com/PrRPFewQps

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 7, 2024

In order to change their trajectory, Democrats will have to end their relationship with the far-left wing of their party. So far, despite their overwhelming loss in November, it doesn’t seem that Democrats have learned this lesson.

In the party’s recent campaign event to elect a new leader, the candidates blamed the 2024 election loss on racism and misogyny. It couldn’t have been because former Vice President Kamala Harris represented the type of Democrat that wants to continue open border, DEI, and anti-American sentiment. No, her loss had to have been because Americans are racist and hate women.

The only issue that Trump currently struggles with among voters is the everyday costs Americans endure when filling their fridges and gas tanks. This is understandable, considering prices haven’t improved since the November election, and the economy was a top priority for voters in 2024.

However, Americans saw what Trump was able to accomplish under his first administration. He has been in office less than a month, and the expectation is that he will tackle the failing economy with as much gusto as his first four years. If he successfully reduces everyday costs, his approval rating will likely only get higher.

🚨NEW: CNN’s Harry Enten blown away by Trump’s popularity surge 🚨

“Holy smokes. I mean, look at what the difference is between now versus eight years ago … You go back to 2017, Trump was already underwater at -5 points in the net approval rating … What a difference eight… pic.twitter.com/DYU1DiSI1A

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) February 10, 2025

Right now, the game is Trump’s to lose. They not only want him to continue his march through the federal government, ending illegal immigration, DEI, and corrupt spending, but they want more of it. If Republicans continue winning Gen Z votes at the rate they did in 2024, Democrats have little chance when the 2026 midterms roll around.

AUTHOR

Mary Rooke

Commentary and analysis writer. Sign up for Mary Rooke’s weekly newsletter here! Follow Mary Rooke on X: @MaryRooke.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ROOKE: It’s Time For Trump To Go To A School Board Meeting

Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Finally Met Its Match

Whoops! Democrats End Up Helping Trump’s Deportations After All

DOJ Tells New York To Stop Prosecuting Eric Adams — But There’s A Catch

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

HAMAS: ‘We are suspending the hostage releases’ and President Trump’s Response ‘all hell is going to break out’ thumbnail

HAMAS: ‘We are suspending the hostage releases’ and President Trump’s Response ‘all hell is going to break out’

By NEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Story

Hamas spokesman in a dramatic statement: The resistance leadership has been monitoring the enemy’s violations and failure to comply with the terms of the agreement over the past three weeks. 

“From the delay in the return of the displaced to the northern Gaza Strip, their shelling and shooting attacks in various areas of the Strip, and the failure to allow aid supplies of all kinds to enter in accordance with the agreement.

Therefore, the release of the hostages who were supposed to be released on Saturday will be postponed until further notice.”

ERAN MALKA ADDS:

A predictable move by Hamas, it was only a matter of time before it happened.

The words are aimed at Israel but in reality the US is being targeted to show Trump who is the sovereign in Gaza.

Hamas must release remaining hostages by midday Saturday, Trump warns

“After that, I would say, all hell is going to break out,” he threatened.

By Myah Ward

President Donald Trump said Monday that “all hell is going to break out” and that the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas should be terminated if Hamas doesn’t release the remaining hostages by midday on Saturday.

“If they’re not returned — all of them, not in dribs and drabs, not two and one and three and four and two — by Saturday at 12 o’clock,” Trump said. “And after that, I would say, all hell is going to break out.”

Trump added that it’s ultimately up to Israel to decide, but that “Hamas will find out” if the deadline isn’t met. He also said “we’ll see what happens,” when asked if he can rule out U.S. involvement once midday Saturday arrives.

Continue reading.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DM Katz orders the IDF to be put on highest alert

PM and Security arms holding assessments on Hamas move

EDITORS NOTE: This The Arab World column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


Download the Newsrael App: Google PlayAppStore

FBI ‘Mission Drift’ Targeted Christians, Ignored Islamist Threats: Fmr. Advisor thumbnail

FBI ‘Mission Drift’ Targeted Christians, Ignored Islamist Threats: Fmr. Advisor

By Family Research Council

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has drifted far off course, warned former FBI senior advisor Hedieh Mirahmadi Falco, a Christian convert from Islam, on “Washington Watch.” “It’s not just mission drift. It’s mission chaos. And the only way we can undo that is by putting a focus [on] these agencies to undo the harm that has been done.”

“I’ve been involved as a federal contractor for 20-plus years,” Falco explained. “We were building terrorism prevention programs to be to the ‘left of boom,’ which means we wanted to get ahead of a terrorist attack. And, in order to do that, we were developing all kinds of [tools], whether it’s countering radicalization, social cohesion, integration programs, how do we understand radicalization?”

This counter-terrorism focus continued throughout the Obama administration, she added. “Though the Obama administration called it CVE (countering violent extremism), clearly the focus was on Islamic extremism,” Falco said. “They just didn’t want to use the word and offend the community.”

But with the (surprise) election of President Trump, the FBI’s counter-terrorism work took a sharp turn. “Fast forward to 2016,” described Falco. “President Trump gets elected. He gets into the White House, and the building shuts down. I mean, our program was shut down. All of the efforts that we were focused on were shut down.” Falco didn’t know it at the time, but the FBI’s whole attention would be consumed by the fake investigation into the Russia collusion hoax, which the FBI already knew to be a plant of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

“The FBI has run like a paramilitary organization and takes its marching orders from the Department of Justice [DOJ],” Falco explained. “So, when that program shift, that mission shift occurs, the leadership is responsible. … And the fine men and women of the FBI who investigate crimes, who want to fight crime, are forced to follow the directives of their superiors.”

When President Trump left the Oval Office four years later, the FBI’s retooled investigative units had to find new targets. “After that, then you see all the grants and the programs after the J6 investigation,” Falco continued. “They open all of these cases … on grandmothers and people who were strolling by the Capitol.”

The massive number in J6-related cases led to an “uptick” in “the number of … what they described now as ‘racially motivated violent extremists,’ which is basically [code for] ‘white Christians.’ Even though … a lot of them are not white, they’re basically Christians, conservatives. And so, the whole department, the agency shifted to that focus,” Falco detailed.

The FBI used this to spin its own political narrative. “They elevated the threat by saying, we have all of these open investigations against racially-motivated, violent white people,” said Falco. “So the threat is no longer Islam. The threat is Americans practicing their religious liberty engag[ing] in all kinds of activity.” Falco described how the FBI borrowed a Pyramid of Radicalization — “a model used to define Islamic terrorism” — and filled it with disconnected groups that were Christian or right-leaning. “They inserted the names of organizations like CBN [Christian Broadcasting Network] and Charlie Kirk’s organization [Turning Point USA]” and the base of the pyramid, “and then KKK and the radical violent groups at the top.”

“The funding mechanisms that we had for radicalization and identifying terrorism prevention programs were shifted to crowdsource policing, basically, in a conservative town like Miami Valley, Ohio, to basically disrupt the access to the public square,” Falco continued. “Millions of dollars went to these kinds of programs.”

“Even though they identified this as probably illegal,” she added, the federal law enforcement bureau did it anyway. “The stated purpose was to prevent them from advancing their goals and their ideas.”

Unfortunately, such a grave departure from the FBI’s mission (“to protect the American people and uphold the U.S. Constitution”) did not harm only its new targets. Concentrating so much attention on peaceful Americans meant the FBI had to divert its attention from jihadist threats.

“This wasn’t just, ‘All right, so we’re going to start harassing these Christians.’ It was shifting the resources they had away from radical Islamists to focusing on grandmas and pro-life protesters outside of abortion clinics,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “But that came at a price. To shift that focus, we have events like occurred … on New Year’s Day in New Orleans, where you had a radicalized American — through Islamic influence, kill Americans on a street in America.”

Falco confirmed this analysis. “The program that I was hired … to scale and replicate — a program I built in the private sector — was shut down. And it was designed to help field offices identify cases like that and be able to intervene before an act of violence. So that individual was reported dozens of times. … And there should have been intervention programs in place, multidisciplinary teams that would have intervened, knocked on the door, said, ‘Hey, what’s going on?’”

Instead, the FBI was too busy parsing whether Grandma Becky stepped off the sidewalk in front of an abortion center six years ago, or what those traditionalist Catholics were really saying in their Latin mass, or whether those concerned parents were about to drive their Suburban through the school board meeting.

If the FBI had its way, Americans would not even know that the New Orleans attacker was motivated by Islamist extremism. “There was a real problem within the culture of the FBI … just kind of double talking,” said Perkins. “New Orleans [was] the latest example of that [because] the first words out of the FBI’s mouth [were], ‘This was not a terrorist incident.’” That lie exploded upon impact because “social media had already identified that [ISIS] flag” in the shooter’s truck, said Falco.

The point is not to make the FBI as a whole look ridiculous. “I know there are fine men and women at the agent level who think this stuff is preposterous,” noted Falco. But “Their management is telling them that the focus is on right-wing extremism, that this Islamic threat has diminished to the point where we don’t need to be concerned about it.”

At this point, said Perkins, it’s difficult to tell whether the FBI brass “want to cover up” their improper mission drift, or “they’re just that blind that they can’t see that this is a terrorist incident.” With the advantage of hindsight, it’s easy to claim (but harder to prove) that incidents like the New Orleans terror attack were preventable. But if the FBI could have prevented any terror attacks by maintaining its attention to radical jihadist plots, this attack would likely have been one of them.

That’s why “it is so fundamentally important for us to undo what has happened at the Bureau and at the Department of Justice and at DHS [the Department of Homeland Security],” Falco urged. Hopefully, the team selected by President Trump — including U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and (still awaiting confirmation) FBI Director Kash Patel — is up to the task of cleaning up America’s federal law enforcement agencies.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: USAID: From Cold War Sentinel to Ideological Sideshow

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

New Trump Admin Policies Promote Marriage, Having Kids thumbnail

New Trump Admin Policies Promote Marriage, Having Kids

By Family Research Council

In a clear contrast from the previous administration, the Trump administration is signaling that they are working to implement policies that support marriage and families and encourage couples to have children.

This week, Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Sean Duffy issued a memo announcing that the federal agency would “prioritize projects and goals” that “direct funding to local opportunity zones” and that “mitigate the unique impacts of DOT programs, policies, and activities on families and family-specific difficulties, such as the accessibility of transportation to families with young children, and give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.”

Brad Wilcox, a fellow at the Institute for Family Studies and sociology professor at the University of Virginia, called the new policy “a very big deal,” writing that it “represents a creative move by one cabinet secretary in the Trump administration to take family policy in a new administrative direction — to boost the fortunes of the family not just through new laws but also new regulations, in an age when marriage and fertility rates in America have hit record lows.”

Wilcox went on to observe that the move “is likely to reorient transportation dollars to lower-density communities where there are more single-family homes, family life is often more affordable, and family formation is higher. So, more money for highways, and less for subways and light rail. This suggests that suburbs, exurbs, towns and rural communities where families with kids are more common are more likely to benefit from this Trump administration move.”

The DOT policy will likely be just the beginning of the family-focused policies that the Trump administration will attempt to implement. On the campaign trail last year, President Trump signaled that he would pursue the “maximum” for the child tax credit, which his first administration doubled to $2,000.

Vice President J.D. Vance has also emphasized that the Trump administration will prioritize expanding the child tax credit as well as other family-friendly policies, as he described during an interview on the campaign trail last August:

“[W]hat President Trump and I want to do on family policy is make it easier for families to start in the first place. We want to bring down housing costs so that if you have a baby, there’s actually a place to raise that baby. [We] want to increase and expand the child tax credit. We want to make it easier for moms and dads to not be shocked by these surprise medical bills when they go to an out-of-network provider. We’re working on all this stuff, and I think that’s ultimately how we turn down the temperature a little bit, is to make it easier to choose life in the first place. Because when you talk to women, you talk to moms and dads, a lot of times they feel like, if you have a pregnancy, especially an unexpected pregnancy, there just aren’t options. We want to provide more options so that people are raising families in a thriving and happy way in this country.”

Wilcox believes that affordable housing should indeed be high on the new administration’s to-do list. “Legislatively, the new administration should work with leaders in the House and Senate to get some version of Utah Sen. Mike Lee’s HOUSES Act (Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter Act) passed, which would lead to the construction of more than 2 million homes by turning over existing federal land to development,” he argued.

In addition, he contended that “the Trump team could take regulatory actions at the Department of the Interior, HUD and the Department of Agriculture to eliminate regulations that make building homes more expensive and possibly even turn over public lands to development.”

Compared to Trump’s first administration, “there are growing signs the second Trump administration will move much more aggressively to make America more family friendly,” Wilcox remarked.

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Living in the World, Not of It: The Balance of Finding Unity While Standing Firm in Truth

Reflecting on an NFL Season of Players Boldly Sharing Their Faith

Trump Creates Federal ‘Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Teaching Children to Think Critically — #1 thumbnail

Teaching Children to Think Critically — #1

By John Droz, Jr.

Following a recent Substack commentary, I was asked this good question: “At what age can children be productively taught Critical Thinking?

I responded briefly, but the question is so important that it deserves a more detailed answer. So here goes…

My answer is: children come already predisposed to be Critical Thinkers!

Here’s a wonderful, straightforward discussion about how to handle the incessant questions of a young child, done in an easy-to-understand manner. (Note that even though this video is directed at parents, the same applies to K-12 teachers.) Please watch this carefully:

In other words, a child’s natural curiosity is up to parents and teachers to appreciateencourage, and direct. That is a MAJOR step toward producing a Critically Thinking high school graduate.

The following short video makes clear that instead of enabling students to be Critical Thinkers, US K-12 schools are a significant source of squelching this!

So how do communicative and curious children often turn into disengaged, know-it-all teenagers?

My hypothesis is that some of this is due to the fact that between parents and schools their natural inquisitiveness was largely shut down. Once they attain an age where they are starting to feel their oats (teenage), then they start fighting back (being rebellious) against this constraint.

Put another way, during the teenage years there is a strong urge to become their own person, i.e., independent. On the one hand, they love and admire their parents (and often want to be like them) — but on the other hand much of what they experienced from their parents is criticism and negativity (don’t do this, don’t do that). That reinforces their desire for independence.

An important way to minimize that common teenage curse, is to properly respond to younger children’s questions — which amounts to subconsciously communicating to them that you are actively encouraging their growth as an independent, productive human… If that message is solidly ingrained in them for 12+ years, there will likely be less friction during the teenage period.

Note: Parents need to be smart enough (and be paying sufficient attention) to appreciate that all questions are not equal! If the child’s question is about why a parent told them to do something — i.e., a question that is subtly questioning parental authority and competence — a very different response is called for. The answer is simple: “Because I said so!

So at what age is it appropriate to start teaching children how to be critical thinkers? As soon as they start asking questions!

The next commentary (#2) will elaborate on additional characteristics of a Critical Thinker —i.e., other key traits that should be taught to children.

©2025  All rights reserved.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Air Traffic Controllers say FAA’s DEI Hiring Practices Led to Washington, D.C. Plane Crash thumbnail

Air Traffic Controllers say FAA’s DEI Hiring Practices Led to Washington, D.C. Plane Crash

By The Geller Report

The FAA’s focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring practices has resulted in the employment of less qualified air traffic controllers (ATCs) and a staffing shortage.

It’s not enough to remove DEI, it must be banned.

Air traffic controllers say FAA hiring practices, ‘immunity program,’ led to DC plane crash

Air traffic controllers say an FAA “immunity program” fails to hold people accountable for their mistakes, even with deadly consequences.

By Natalia Mittelstadt, Just The News, February 8, 2025:

Current and former air traffic controllers warn that the Federal Aviation Administration’s hiring practices and “immunity program” have led to problems, such as those that may have resulted in the recent midair collison near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

The FAA’s focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring practices has resulted in the employment of less qualified air traffic controllers (ATCs) and a staffing shortage, former ATC’s say. This, in addition to an “immunity program” that fails to hold ATCs accountable for their mistakes, are likely contributing factors American Airlines plane collided with a military helicopter on Jan. 29 that resulted in both aircraft plunging into the Potomac River near the Washington, D.C.-area airport. All  67 people aboard died.

The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are investigating the incident.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Thursday that the helicopter’s advanced tracking system was turned off at the time of the crash. As for the FAA, an ATC tried unsuccessfully to contact the helicopter less than 30 seconds before the collision, according to audio from air traffic control.

Warned about dangers

The FAA was warned in a 2023 report that air traffic controllers were increasingly making last minute flight adjustments to deal with traffic and shortages of controllers in a trend that raised safety concerns. The safety expert report that warned America’s air traffic control system is suffering from quality-control issues and staffing shortages that put safety at risk.

The November 2023 report also warned that personnel shortages among air traffic controllers were forcing people to work longer hours and make sudden, last-minute changes to flight plans that increased risks.

Regulators acknowledged that in 2023 there were 19 serious near-misses at U.S. airports that could’ve been catastrophic, one of the largest totals in many years.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pilot of Blackhawk Helicopter In DC Plane Crashed Identified: Rebecca M. Lobach

Helicopter in Crash Near Washington Was Flying Higher Than Permitted and Outside of Its Flight Path

No Survivors: Military Helicopter Collides With American Airlines in Deadliest US Crash Since 2009

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

USAID Provided “Full Funding” for 9/11-Linked Terrorist Leader Anwar Awlaki thumbnail

USAID Provided “Full Funding” for 9/11-Linked Terrorist Leader Anwar Awlaki

By The Geller Report

Anwar al Awlaki, the dead imam whose sermons inspired atrocities including the 7/7 bombings, the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the Orlando Pulse nightclub massacre.

Devout Muslim Awlaki also provided succor and Islamic spiritual guidance to the 9/11 jihadis and the Christmas ball bomber. He was imam at the notorious jihad mosque Dar al Hijreh.

“Jihad is becoming as American as apple pie and as British as afternoon tea” Anwar al-Alwaki.

WATCH: Anwar al-Awlaki, Linked to 9/11 Attacks and Fort Hood Shootings, Killed in Yemen Airstrike 2011

USAID supported college tuition for Anwar Aulaqi (Awlaki) who later became a high level al Qaeda terrorist.

By Catherine Herridge

Looks like USAID supported college tuition for Anwar Aulaqi (Awlaki) who later became a high level al Qaeda terrorist. Aulaqi falsely claimed he was born in Yemen to secure the financial help via the State Dept. when he was actually a US citizen, born in Las Cruces New Mexico.

Aulaqi would later develop close ties with several 9/11 hijackers and attain leadership status in AQ’s Yemen affiliate.

Aulaqi was the godfather of the digital jihad that leveraged his writings and the web to radicalize Americans to AQ’s cause.

Aulaqi became the first American targeted for death by the CIA. In 2011, he was killed in a US drone strike.

Aulaqi falsely claimed he was born in Yemen to secure the financial help via the State Department when he was actually a U.S. citizen, born in Las Cruces New Mexico.

Aulaqi would later develop close ties with several 9/11 hijackers and attain leadership status in AQ’s Yemen affiliate.

Aulaqi was the godfather of the digital jihad that leveraged his writings and the web to radicalize Americans to AQ’s cause.

Aulaqi became the first American targeted for death by the CIA. In 2011, he was killed in a US drone strike.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

BILLIONS FOR JIHAD: USAID Sent Over $18,000,000,000 to Islamic Terror States

YouTube finally removes jihad terror mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki’s videos

YouTube fails to ban 70,000 VIDEOS of terror preacher Anwar al-Awlaki’s calls for violent jihad

KILL LIST: ISIS Posts Name, Address of US Commander who Gave the Order to Take Out Anwar Awlaki

Tennessee Jihad Mass-Murderer Followed American Imam Anwar Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki on Capitol Hill and the Problem of “Extremists” and “Moderates”

Moderate Islam in America: Anwar al-Awlaki leading Muslim prayers on Capitol Hill, 2002

Awlaki’s Al-Qaeda Recruitment Lectures Offered in Google Play Store App

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Administration Targets Opposition to Deportations thumbnail

Trump Administration Targets Opposition to Deportations

By Family Research Council

The Trump administration is preparing to prosecute officials and others for obstructing deportations and putting federal law enforcement agents at risk. President Donald Trump’s border czar, former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chief Tom Homan, confirmed on Thursday that plans for an immigration raid on Aurora, Colorado had been leaked and vowed to find whoever had leaked the information. An ICE raid originally planned for Wednesday was meant to target members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TDA), who had taken over parts of Aurora, just outside Denver. ICE had planned to arrest over 100 TDA members but, due to the leak, only arrested 30 illegal immigrants, including only one TDA member.

“When we show up at these sites, this is a dangerous job for the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol and all the DOJ agencies,” Homan stated in an interview following the leak. He continued, “To have this type of interference puts our officers at great risk — not only the officers, it puts the aliens at great risk because anything can happen when we take our eyes off the goal here, so we’re addressing it immediately today.” He told the person or persons responsible for the leak, “We’re not going to tolerate it anymore. This is not a game.” Hinting at prosecution, Homan added, “This is not a joke. This is serious business, and they need to stop, or we’re going to prosecute them through the Department of Justice.” He confirmed, “I’m addressing OPSEC today — operational security — and how the leaks are happening. We’ve identified how this operation got leaked, and I’ll deal with that today.”

A number of protestors also harassed ICE officers as they carried out the Aurora raid after Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D) suggested last year that he might organize protests to obstruct mass deportations. Homan warned city and state officials against interfering with ICE. “For any mayor or governor who doesn’t want public safety threats removed in the communities, I find it hard to believe that, but we’re going to do it with or without them,” he said. The border czar added, “If they’re not going to help, get out of the way. But don’t cross that line. Do not impede our operations. Do not knowingly conceal or harbor illegal aliens because we will seek prosecution.”

That warning has been a recurring theme of Homan’s tenure as border czar: he has previously advised mayors and governors against obstructing deportations, reiterating that prosecutions would ensue. When New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D) claimed last week that he was housing an illegal immigrant, for example, Homan pledged to “look into it,” adding, “I will seek prosecution — or the Secretary [of Homeland Security] will seek prosecution. So, maybe he’s bluffing. If he’s not, we’ll deal with that.”

Homan shared Thursday that he is already working with the DOJ on possible prosecutions. “I’m working very close starting this morning with the Department of Justice in — where do they cross the line of impediment? So they may find themselves in a pair of handcuffs soon,” he said regarding those who obstruct ICE operations. Trump’s DOJ has already moved to penalize “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with the federal government.

Under newly-minted U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ has filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago and state of Illinois, specifically citing city and state ordinances and statutes barring local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. Currently, measures in place in Chicago and Illinois prohibit state, county, or city law enforcement from investigating or inquiring about the immigration or citizenship status of those accused of crimes, detaining individuals on the basis or suspicion that they may be in the country illegally, or cooperating with ICE officers. The DOJ’s lawsuit argues that such state and local laws are “designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The lawsuit says that Chicago and Illinois laws “obstruct the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law and … impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe.” The lawsuit continues, “Upon information and belief, the conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing — and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting — federal immigration laws over a period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States.”

“For too long, leaders in Illinois and Chicago have abused their power by putting the comfort of illegal aliens over the safety and welfare of their own citizens. This ends today,” Bondi said in a statement to the New York Post. She continued, “The Department of Justice will no longer stand by as state and local leaders obstruct federal law enforcement efforts, endangering their citizens and the brave men and women in uniform.” Bondi added, “If you are a leader of a state or local jurisdiction that obstructs or impedes federal law enforcement, you will be next.”

“This lawsuit will put the spotlight on obstruction by state and local officials and their refusal to support the administration and compliance with the law. The law says people who are here illegally are not allowed to stay here, they should be deported. So we want to make sure those impediments are taken away,” a DOJ official said. He continued, “These states and localities advertise themselves as sanctuary jurisdictions. They are inviting people here who are illegal, and they’re promising to protect them from federal law enforcement. That’s inconsistent with federal law, and it’s impeding federal law enforcement efforts…” The official added, that “these laws need to be struck from the books because they’re incentivizing illegal immigration into the country.”

Previously, Homan has discussed the problems posed by “sanctuary cities” like Chicago. “Sanctuary cities are difficult to operate in. … [O]ne agent can arrest one bad guy in jail in 10 minutes. But when they release them back into the community, we’ve got to send a whole team to find him, and some of them don’t want to be found,” he explained. The border czar continued, “And it’s unsafe for the community because you’re putting a public safety threat back into the public, and that’s idiotic to begin with. It makes the job more dangerous for the agent, more dangerous for the alien, more dangerous for the community.” He added, “So, we’ve got to spend a lot of time trying to locate this person, write up an operational plan, and seek to arrest them. It’s not efficient. And so, not only is it difficult, it’s very dangerous.”

Initial deportation efforts in Chicago were personally led by Homan, who arrested illegal migrants who had been convicted of violent or predatory crimes. “This is an example of ‘sanctuary cities,’” Homan said after handcuffing a convicted sex offender and child predator from Thailand. He added, “You got an illegal alien convicted of sex crimes involving children, he’s walking the streets of Chicago.” Referencing Chicago’s “sanctuary” policies and provisions, the border czar continued, “The downfall, the problem with ‘sanctuary cities’ is where you have people like this walking the streets instead of local law enforcement working with federal agents. This is what we’re dealing with.”

Despite the efforts of Democratic leaders, a majority of Americans approve of ICE and the mass deportations spearheaded by Homan. According to an Economist/YouGov poll, 53% of American voters hold a favorable view of ICE as of the beginning of February, while only 37% hold an unfavorable view of the agency. Overall, 28% hold a “very favorable” view of ICE, compared to only 19% who hold a “very unfavorable” view.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Americans Rush to Enlist in Trump’s Military Recruitment Boom thumbnail

Americans Rush to Enlist in Trump’s Military Recruitment Boom

By Family Research Council

The Trump team may be slashing and burning lots of government jobs, but there’s one agency that’s been hanging a “We’re hiring” shingle for four years: the U.S. military. In yet another sign that the long and embarrassing chapter of the Biden administration is over, young men and women apparently can’t enlist fast enough, spiking recruitment numbers that had been at their lowest levels since World War II. Apparently, voters aren’t the only ones eager to exchange a commander in woke for a commander in chief.

The boom of sign-ups was celebrated by new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who tweeted on Tuesday, “BREAKING: In December 2024, the @USArmy had its best recruiting number in 12 years. In January 2025, the Army hit its best recruiting number in 15 YEARS. BOTTOM LINE: America’s youth want to serve under the bold & strong ‘America First’ leadership of @realDonaldTrump.”

Since the election, a steady stream of recruits have been pouring into local offices. The Army, which has been hemorrhaging soldiers over the last several years, reported that it was enlisting almost 350 soldiers a day in December. For a Pentagon that missed its goals by 41,000 in 2023, the burst of potential reinforcements was welcome news. “Our Recruiters have one of the toughest jobs — inspiring the next generation of #Soldiers to serve. Congratulations and keep up the great work! #BAYCB,” Army officials wrote on X.

The surge couldn’t come at a better time, as Daniel Driscoll, President Trump’s nominee for Army secretary, made quite clear. “We have the fewest number of active soldiers that we’ve had since World War II, even as conflict is erupting around the world. We need to fix that,” he said at his confirmation hearing earlier this month. And while the Biden administration’s solution was lowering standards and sweetening the pot with benefits and signing bonuses, Driscoll doesn’t think that approach attracts the people America needs. “I actually don’t think the answer is throwing more money at the problem. I think it’s nice to get things like GI Bill benefits. But I didn’t join for that. I enlisted to serve the country.”

That jives with what some of Biden’s critics have been saying for years. To them, it wasn’t just that Americans couldn’t be bought, but that this generation didn’t believe in the only battle the last president insisted on fighting: the culture war. Instead of raising up a warrior class, the previous commander in chief seemed preoccupied with drag shows on military basescritical race theorypreferred pronounsunderwriting gender transition surgeries, and projecting weakness on the world stage.

“It is no surprise to me that the recruiting figures have taken a turn for the better,” Lt. General (Ret.) William Boykin told The Washington Stand. “I think we will see this trend continue as young men and women step up to be part of our military now that DEI is no longer a part of it, and commanders are not bullying their people to take vaccinations that they don’t want. Now that Donald Trump is the commander in chief, the young men and women around the country see strength and resolve,” he pointed out. “They want to be part of something great, and our military will be great again when Donald Trump leaves office at the end of his term. Our enemies need to know that American military power is on the rise.”

Interestingly enough, this all comes on the heels of the annual Military Family Lifestyle Survey — which painted an unflattering picture of the state of service in the last year of the Biden administration. Conducted from March to May last year, more than 5,000 people chimed in about their experiences — from active-duty, National Guard, Reserve, veterans, and their families.

Among the more interesting findings, 69% agreed that military service has “added value to their family’s life,” but only 32% would recommend military service to a young family member. Equally as disheartening, there’s a national perception that the military is appreciated by the public at large when only 19% of active-duty families believe Americans are truly grateful for their sacrifice.

One area where the military does agree with civilians is that a major conflict is on the horizon. Eighty-three percent of active-duty families think America is on the cusp of global war within the next three to five years, as do 67% of everyday people. Clearly, the authors concluded, more needs to be done to bolster the troops and their families before those crisis times arrive.

Freshman Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.), a former Green Beret, emphatically agrees. He’s watched with disgust the decisions of the Biden administration — decisions, he says, that prompted him to run for Congress. “I [saw] Afghanistan fall,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Thursday’s “Washington Watch.” “And I knew at that point that we had just condemned the next generation of Americans to conflict.”

Widely viewed as one of the most catastrophic decisions of Joe Biden’s term (and there were many), Harrigan believes more than anything that the Afghan withdrawal emboldened our enemies. “We had never been weaker than that one moment in our nation’s history. And so, we need real change in this country,” the veteran insisted. “We need real leadership. Thankfully, we have it. And as you were talking about with the record-breaking January recruitment cycle that the Army had, I think that there is a resounding consensus that that leadership is back. And this is a military that our young men and women want to join again.”

Perkins, who served in the Marine Corps, nodded. “I know there [are] a lot of young men and women who are willing to serve this country, but they don’t want to serve for no reason,” he reiterated. “They want to serve, and they’re willing to make sacrifices if it’s for a purpose. And I think, as you pointed out, what happened in Afghanistan was disastrous. And it just, I think, it turned many, many young men and women away, thinking, ‘What’s the point?’”

And Harrigan was quick to make a spiritual connection to that mentality. “I think a lot of us — and a lot of your viewers — [who] have a biblical worldview would identify with this. I think there [was] a genuine question prior to President Trump getting elected: ‘What are we fighting for? Are we fighting for those time-tested concepts of freedom, democracy, free market economies, and the things that our fathers and forefathers have fought and died for in order to make this country the greatest country on the face of the earth? Or are we fighting for some sort of social agenda that we are actually trying to project across the globe?’”

Frankly, he pointed out, “I think that was a question in many folks’ minds prior to November 5th. And so it’s just great to see that America is back — that strong, principled America that traditionally leads the world is back. And it’s here to stay moving forward.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council,


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.