Key Point: A new gallium plant in Australia reveals a broader strategy: The United States and its allies are rebuilding the supply chains needed to manufacture advanced weapons without depending on Beijing.

Resources for this article

PAST-Department of War Awards $29.9 Million to Create a U.S. Domestic Supply of Gallium and Scandium

CURRENT- Department of War announcement

U.S. Geological Survey’s 2026 gallium report.

According to a Monday press statement, the Department of War is investing approximately $174 million in a new gallium-production facility at Alcoa’s Wagerup alumina refinery in Western Australia.

That may sound like an obscure industrial project involving an unfamiliar metal. In reality, it is one piece of a much larger contest with China over who can build—and keep building—the weapons and technologies of the future.

Gallium is used to produce specialized semiconductors capable of handling high power, heat and radio frequencies. Those chips are critical to advanced radar, missile-defense systems, secure military communications, satellite power systems, infrared sensors and precision missile guidance.

Modern weapons depend on far more than steel, explosives and computer code. They require small quantities of specialized materials that are difficult to replace. Without those materials, production lines can slow or stop—even when the United States possesses the money, workers and weapons designs.

That is where China gained enormous leverage.

China controls the chokepoint

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, China accounted for approximately 99% of the world’s primary low-purity gallium production in 2025.

That does not mean China owns 99% of the world’s gallium in the ground. Gallium is present in bauxite and other ores found in numerous countries. China dominates because it built the refining and recovery capacity needed to extract gallium economically.

The vulnerability became impossible to ignore after Beijing introduced export controls on gallium and germanium in 2023. China then prohibited exports of gallium and other dual-use materials to the United States in December 2024 as the confrontation over advanced semiconductors intensified.

Some restrictions have since been temporarily relaxed, but the underlying threat remains: Beijing can use control over critical materials as leverage against American technology and defense production.

The United States is now moving to remove that leverage before the next crisis.

Why the Australian project matters

The Wagerup facility is expected to produce 100 metric tons of gallium annually—potentially around one-tenth of current worldwide supply.

Gallium already exists in the bauxite processed at Alcoa’s refinery. The new facility will recover it during the alumina-refining process. That means the allies can create a substantial new supply without first developing an entirely separate gallium mine.

The project also brings together four important partners:

• The United States is supplying defense financing and demand.

• Australia provides the bauxite, refinery and secure location.

• Japan contributes government backing and industrial coordination.

• Alcoa and Japan’s Sojitz Corporation provide operating and supply-chain expertise.

This is not simply “buy American.” It is the construction of an allied industrial system that can continue operating if China closes its market.

More than another government grant

The structure of the investment may be as important as the facility itself.

The Department of War describes its $174 million commitment as an equity-financing investment. An earlier Alcoa announcement said the American and Australian governments and Alcoa planned to invest through a special-purpose entity and receive rights to future gallium production based on their respective interests.

In other words, Washington is not merely writing a check and hoping the market delivers. It is attempting to secure a position in the supply chain and access to the material the facility produces.

That represents a notable change in defense planning.

For decades, the Pentagon concentrated primarily on buying finished weapons. Now it is investing farther down the production chain—in mines, refineries, processing plants, magnets, semiconductor materials and national stockpiles.

The lesson is simple: A weapons contract cannot produce a radar or interceptor if an adversary controls a material inside it.

The larger metals war

Gallium is only one part of the struggle. China also holds powerful positions in rare-earth processing and supplies of germanium, antimony, graphite, tungsten and other strategic materials.

America’s response is becoming clearer: increase domestic production where possible, stockpile essential materials and build protected supply chains with reliable allies where domestic production is not practical.

This is industrial policy, trade policy and military strategy operating together.

The Wagerup plant will not end American dependence on China by itself. It will still take time to construct the facility, qualify its output and connect it to Western semiconductor manufacturers.

But it attacks one of Beijing’s most concentrated advantages. China’s control of critical minerals is most dangerous when it can threaten to interrupt American weapons production during a war or international crisis.

The United States, Australia and Japan are trying to make sure that threat no longer works.

America is not merely buying gallium. It is rebuilding the industrial foundation beneath its radar systems, satellites and missiles—and taking that foundation out of China’s hands.

Key Point: A recent ruling is more than a setback for one climate program. It could determine whether individual states can impose enormous costs on the national and global energy industry.

Resources for this article

Read the Justice Department’s statement

Reuters’ report on the decision.

New York lawmakers wanted energy companies to pay $75 billion for infrastructure needed to protect the state from flooding, extreme heat and other effects associated with climate change.

An Obama-era federal judge has now ruled that New York does not have the authority to impose that bill.

The decision is an important victory for the Trump administration’s effort to prevent individual states from making energy policy for the entire country.

What did New York try to do?

In 2024, New York enacted the Climate Change Superfund Act. It targeted large companies involved in producing or refining oil, natural gas and coal.

The state planned to collect $3 billion annually for 25 years, beginning in 2028. Each company’s share would be based on the greenhouse-gas emissions connected to its products between 2000 and 2018.

New York planned to use the money for projects such as stronger roads, improved sewer systems, flood protection and other climate-related infrastructure.

Supporters called it a “polluter pays” program. Their argument was straightforward: Taxpayers should not have to cover all the costs of climate damage when energy producers profited from selling fossil fuels.

But opponents saw something very different: a retroactive $75 billion penalty imposed on companies for producing legal products often outside New York and even outside the United States.

Why did the judge stop it?

Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, concluded that New York had stepped into an area controlled by federal law.

The Clean Air Act gives the federal government, primarily the Environmental Protection Agency, authority over national air-pollution policy. New York argued that it was not regulating emissions but merely collecting compensation for damage.

The judge was not persuaded by that distinction.

In practical terms, New York was calculating what companies owed based on worldwide emissions and then imposing financial liability for those emissions. The court concluded that this would allow one state to influence national and international energy policy.

Climate change, the judge explained, requires national standards and international participation. Fifty states imposing 50 different payment systems could produce conflicting rules and enormous overlapping liabilities.

The court also found a separate problem with targeting foreign companies. Decisions affecting foreign energy producers can influence international trade, diplomacy and national security—areas primarily controlled by the federal government.

Why did the Trump Justice Department get involved?

President Trump’s Executive Order 14260 directed the attorney general to challenge state laws that unreasonably burden domestic energy production.

The Justice Department joined the challengers and argued against New York’s law. It has also filed its own lawsuits against New York and Vermont over their climate-superfund programs.

The administration’s larger argument is that states should not be able to punish energy companies for lawful production or create policies that affect energy prices and supplies across the country.

This ruling gives that strategy substantial legal support.

What could this mean for voters?

The decision does not immediately lower anyone’s electric or gasoline bill. New York had not yet begun collecting the money.

But companies rarely absorb multibillion-dollar costs without consequences. Those costs can eventually reach consumers, workers, investors and communities through higher prices, reduced investment, lost jobs or business closures.

The ruling also raises a basic question about government power: Should one state be able to charge companies for energy production that occurred legally around the world?

For now, the court’s answer is no.

What happens next?

New York is expected to appeal. The ruling could therefore be reviewed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court.

Vermont’s similar law is now especially vulnerable, although this decision does not automatically invalidate it. States considering copycat legislation will also have to reconsider whether their proposals can survive the same federal-law challenge.

This is not a ruling against every environmental law or every climate-related lawsuit. States still possess considerable authority over pollution and business conduct inside their borders.

It does, however, draw an important line: A state cannot necessarily turn global emissions into a state-controlled collection system simply by calling the payments compensation.

New York tried to send the global energy industry a $75 billion bill. A federal court has ruled that the state did not have the power to collect it.

This publication is organized around four core areas that help citizens understand the country they live in and the decisions made in their name.

Culture
Documenting the shared institutions that hold the nation together, including sports, traditions, and civic life.

Work
Restoring dignity through American manufacturing, industry, and the people who build and produce.

Sovereignty
Explaining national security, strategy, and policy clearly so citizens understand power and the choices made by government.

Civics
Educating citizens about the systems of self-government so they can participate knowledgeably in a free society.

Informed citizens make better voters.

The Supreme Court Case That Could Redefine Who Controls America’s Voter Rolls

Resources for this article:

Supreme Court docket

Justice Department filing

Arizona’s brief

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, an Arizona dispute with national consequences. Although the case is often described as another “proof of citizenship” fight, it actually presents two larger questions: How much control do states retain over voter registration, and does federal law prevent states from removing confirmed noncitizens from voter rolls during the 90 days before an election?

Arizona already requires voters to be American citizens. The dispute concerns how the state may verify that qualification.

In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, requiring documentary proof of citizenship. But in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council in 2013, the Supreme Court held that Arizona must accept the federal voter-registration form, which asks applicants to attest to citizenship without necessarily producing a birth certificate, passport or similar document.

That produced a two-track system. People using the federal form without documents could register for federal elections, while Arizona demanded documentation from people using its state form.

A 2018 consent decree complicated matters further. Arizona officials agreed to treat state and federal forms similarly, permitting applicants without located citizenship records to become “federal-only” voters. Arizona subsequently enacted H.B. 2492, directing officials to reject undocumented state-form applications. The Ninth Circuit held that both the National Voter Registration Act and the consent decree prevented Arizona from enforcing that requirement.

The second issue comes from H.B. 2243. It requires officials to check registration records and remove a registrant when information confirms that the person is not a citizen. The Ninth Circuit ruled that systematic removals within 90 days of a federal election violate the NVRA’s “quiet period”—even when the state says the individuals were never legally eligible to register.

The RNC’s strategy

The RNC is pursuing a deliberately narrow but potentially powerful strategy. Instead of asking the Court to overturn the federal registration system altogether, it argues that the NVRA establishes a federal minimum while leaving states free to demand additional information on their own forms.

On removals, the RNC distinguishes between someone who was properly registered but later became ineligible and a noncitizen who was never eligible. Under its reading, the 90-day protection covers the former, not the latter.

A victory could establish a nationwide legal foundation for proof-of-citizenship laws and pre-election citizenship checks without requiring Congress to pass the SAVE America Act.

The RNC also selected what the Justice Department previously called a particularly useful “vehicle”: The Court can resolve the questions outside a contested election, when judges are ordinarily reluctant to change rules.

The Justice Department’s significant intervention

The Trump Justice Department is supporting the RNC even though the United States remains formally listed as a respondent because the federal government originally challenged Arizona’s laws.

DOJ argues that the Ninth Circuit misread both the NVRA and Supreme Court precedent. More significantly, it asks the Court to prevent private litigants from using the 2018 consent decree against the RNC and other nonparties. This is a broader attack on the ability of outgoing officials and advocacy organizations to lock future governments into election rules through negotiated decrees.

Arizona’s Democratic attorney general, Kristin Mayes, has adopted an unusual middle position: Arizona may require proof from state-form applicants, she argues, but the consent decree remains binding until someone properly moves to modify or vacate it. That gives the Court a narrower escape route—recognize Arizona’s underlying authority while requiring another procedural step before enforcement.

What the coverage is missing

Most coverage divides predictably between “election integrity” and “voter suppression.” Mi Familia Vota warns that imperfect databases and documentation barriers could wrongly ensnare eligible citizens, particularly naturalized, tribal and low-income voters. Republicans emphasize that citizenship is a basic voting qualification.

Both concerns are real, but the decisive legal issue is statutory architecture: Did Congress’s 1993 law create a uniform national ceiling, or merely a registration floor that states may supplement?

The Court granted review on June 29, 2026. Opening merits briefs were filed August 28; the opposing briefs are due October 13. The eventual ruling could determine not merely what Arizona does, but how aggressively every state may verify citizenship and clean its voter rolls immediately before an election.

Key Point: The Marines aboard USS San Antonio are part of a larger transformation that moves the fight against cartels, hostile regimes, and foreign influence beyond America’s physical border.

The Marine loading ordnance aboard USS San Antonio was not preparing for an ordinary training exercise. The photograph captures the operational edge of a strategy the Trump administration has been assembling since January 2025: treat the Western Hemisphere as America’s forward defensive perimeter and confront threats before they reach the United States.

That strategy began when President Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border. The proclamation described cartels, gangs, traffickers, terrorists and narcotics as threats to American sovereignty—not simply domestic law-enforcement problems.

The same day, Trump ordered the government to begin designating certain cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. That decision changed the government’s framework. Cartels would no longer be viewed exclusively as criminal enterprises. They could also be treated as transnational security organizations possessing territory, weapons, financing networks and relationships with hostile governments.

By late 2025, the military component had emerged as Operation Southern Spear. Joint Task Force Southern Spear began conducting surveillance, maritime interdictions and lethal strikes against vessels the government identified as supporting designated terrorist organizations and narcotics trafficking.

Its mission soon expanded beyond intercepting drug boats. The task force supported the seizure of sanctioned vessels and targeted the financial and logistical networks sustaining cartels and hostile regimes. By April 2026, SOUTHCOM reported that the operation had intercepted six vessels transporting sanctioned oil, striking what it called the “critical financial nodes” supporting criminal organizations and designated terrorists. SOUTHCOM described this as an interagency operation involving Marines, sailors and Coast Guard personnel operating under their respective capabilities and authorities.

The White House’s 2026 National Drug Control Strategy supplied the policy doctrine. It called for taking the fight to cartels in their safe havens, dismantling laboratories, seizing assets and severing supply lines through every available instrument of American power.

Littoral Combat Force-24 supplies the muscle for that doctrine. Built around more than 1,300 Marines and sailors from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, it is a specially configured air-ground force capable of boarding ships, reinforcing embassies, recovering personnel, responding to disasters and operating from ships or shore bases. Its aircraft, raid forces and amphibious ships give SOUTHCOM options that ordinary counterdrug patrols cannot provide. The Marine Corps calls it the region’s immediate crisis-response force.

On August 4, SOUTHCOM consolidated the expanding mission by activating Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere. The new headquarters integrates intelligence, surveillance, military planning and operations with the 18 countries participating in the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition.

The photograph from August 28 shows what that structure looks like in action. That day, Marines and sailors launched from USS San Antonio and boarded a vessel in international waters of the Eastern Pacific. According to SOUTHCOM’s official account, it was serving as a floating refueling station for Los Choneros, an Ecuadorian organization classified by Washington as narco-terrorist. The crew was transferred safely to Ecuador, and American forces sank the cleared vessel.

But the phrase “deter malign actors” signals the still-bigger story. SOUTHCOM explicitly identifies China, Russia and Iran as competitors seeking influence over ports, infrastructure, communications and strategic terrain—including the Panama Canal.

This is no longer border security conducted only at the border. It is a layered forward-defense strategy linking cartels, illicit finance, hostile states and strategic infrastructure into one Western Hemisphere mission.

The Four Pillars of American Revival

This publication is organized around four core areas that help citizens understand the country they live in and the decisions made in their name.

Culture
Documenting the shared institutions that hold the nation together, including sports, traditions, and civic life.

Work
Restoring dignity through American manufacturing, industry, and the people who build and produce.

Sovereignty
Explaining national security, strategy, and policy clearly so citizens understand power and the choices made by government.

Civics
Educating citizens about the systems of self-government so they can participate knowledgeably in a free society.

Informed citizens make better voters.

Key point: Media is covering a recent referendum on European Union membership that hopefully keeps China at Bay. The State Department released a statement about it. The larger contest involves NATO surveillance, undersea cables, renewable power, and the infrastructure required to win the AI race.

Iceland’s August 29 Referendum

The Trump administration issued a notably forward-looking statement after Icelanders rejected reopening negotiations to join the European Union.

“The United States takes note of Iceland’s August 29 Referendum,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said, affirming confidence in Iceland’s “continuing trajectory as a strong and valuable NATO ally.”

But Washington did more than acknowledge the vote. The administration pledged to strengthen cooperation with Iceland in four areas: security, energy, innovation and economic ties.

Those words reveal the larger story.

Iceland may be a small nation of fewer than 400,000 people, but it occupies one of the most strategically valuable positions in the North Atlantic. As competition intensifies over the Arctic, artificial intelligence, energy and undersea infrastructure, Iceland is becoming far more important than its size suggests.

Iceland rejects Brussels

Media reports show that Icelanders voted 52.8% to 47.2% against resuming EU accession negotiations, with turnout exceeding 82%.

The result was not necessarily a rejection of Europe. Iceland already participates in the European Economic Area, giving it access to much of the EU single market, and it belongs to the Schengen travel area.

What Iceland does not have to accept under the EEA arrangement is the EU’s common fisheries policy. That distinction matters enormously in a country where fishing remains a foundational industry and an important source of export revenue.

Many Icelanders concluded that their country already receives substantial economic access without surrendering additional authority over its waters, currency and natural resources.

According to reports from Reuters, Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir said her government would respect the result and would not continue the accession process during its present term.

But rejecting EU accession does not make Iceland strategically neutral.

It makes Iceland’s relationships with NATO and the United States even more consequential.

NATO’s eyes and ears in the North

Iceland sits near the center of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom Gap, commonly called the GIUK Gap.

That maritime corridor connects the Arctic and Norwegian seas to the broader Atlantic. Russian submarines and naval vessels moving into the North Atlantic must pass through or near this region, making it critical for surveillance, anti-submarine warfare and the protection of shipping routes between North America and Europe.

NATO officials visiting Iceland in June described the country as the Alliance’s “eyes and ears” in the North.

Watch

The Control and Reporting Centre at Keflavík helps feed information into NATO’s integrated air-and-missile-defense system. Iceland also hosts allied aircraft and supports maritime patrols, submarine tracking and military exercises across the North Atlantic.

“Iceland remains committed to hosting and enabling Allied operations while contributing to NATO’s situational awareness in the GIUK Gap,” Iceland’s chief of defense told NATO’s Military Committee.

That contribution is especially important because Iceland has no standing army. Its defense rests primarily upon NATO membership, allied access to Icelandic facilities and its longstanding bilateral defense agreement with the United States.

The referendum therefore did not remove Iceland from the Western security system. It increased the importance of keeping that system strong.

Iceland could become an AI power station

The administration’s references to “energy” and “innovation” deserve particular attention.

Artificial intelligence requires enormous computing capacity. Computing requires data centers, and data centers require reliable electricity, cooling systems and secure connections to the outside world.

Iceland possesses all three.

Its electricity is produced overwhelmingly from domestic geothermal and hydroelectric resources. Its cold climate reduces the energy required to cool powerful servers. Its position between North America and Europe allows data to move through high-capacity submarine fiber-optic cables connecting Iceland to both sides of the Atlantic.

The U.S. Commerce Department describes Iceland as a favorable data-center location because of its renewable power, naturally cold climate and generally secure operating environment. It also warns that expansion could be constrained by the availability of additional electricity capacity.

Iceland’s data-center industry is already moving away from its early association with cryptocurrency mining and toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing. One 2026 forecast projected that the Icelandic data-center market could grow from approximately $449 million in 2025 to $769 million by 2031.

That makes Iceland’s electricity, computing facilities and communications links strategic assets—not merely commercial ones.

The Trump administration’s own AI policy defines the AI technology stack as encompassing chips, servers, accelerators, data-center storage, cloud services, networks, cybersecurity and the physical infrastructure needed to support them.

Iceland potentially offers a secure Western location where portions of that infrastructure can be powered without depending on Chinese-controlled supply chains, imported fuel or an already overloaded continental electricity grid.

The same cables carry opportunity and risk

Iceland’s AI opportunity also creates a NATO security problem.

As an island, Iceland depends heavily on undersea cables for communications with Europe and North America. Those cables could carry commercial data, government communications and AI workloads—but they are also vulnerable to sabotage, espionage, accidents and coercion.

Protecting Iceland can no longer mean guarding only its airfields and territorial waters. It increasingly means protecting:

• Submarine communications cables.

• Cable landing stations.

• Data centers and cloud infrastructure.

• Electricity generation and transmission.

• Satellite and maritime surveillance systems.

• AI models, computing equipment and sensitive data.

The military and digital maps are beginning to overlap.

The same geographical position that allows Iceland to monitor the North Atlantic also makes it a natural bridge for Western data. The same geothermal and hydroelectric resources that support Iceland’s economy could power strategically important AI computing. And the same undersea corridors monitored for Russian submarines contain the cables upon which the digital economy increasingly depends.

America’s opportunity after the referendum

Iceland’s vote should not be read as a retreat from the West. It was a decision to preserve national control while continuing cooperation through NATO, the EEA and bilateral partnerships.

Iceland’s foreign minister has already said the country must strengthen security relationships with the United States, the Nordic countries, Canada, Japan and the European Union, according to reporting from Rueters.

That creates an opening for Washington.

The United States can offer Iceland a partnership built around sovereignty rather than supranational control: stronger Arctic surveillance, protection for undersea cables, investment in secure data infrastructure, expanded energy cooperation and joint development of dual-use technologies.

That appears to be the significance of the State Department’s carefully constructed response.

Iceland said no to deeper government from Brussels. It did not say no to the West.

Now the United States must demonstrate that an independent Iceland can remain secure, prosperous and technologically competitive because the country sitting astride the North Atlantic gateway may also become one of the most valuable AI and energy outposts in the Western alliance.

The Four Pillars of American Revival

This publication is organized around four core areas that help citizens understand the country they live in and the decisions made in their name.

Culture
Documenting the shared institutions that hold the nation together, including sports, traditions, and civic life.

Work
Restoring dignity through American manufacturing, industry, and the people who build and produce.

Sovereignty
Explaining national security, strategy, and policy clearly so citizens understand power and the choices made by government.

Civics
Educating citizens about the systems of self-government so they can participate knowledgeably in a free society.

Informed citizens make better voters.

Key Point: New factories, thousands of jobs, and major technology investments show American manufacturing gaining ground as China’s broader economy struggles.

The latest manufacturing news tells an encouraging story for the United States but not one that calls for a victory lap.

American factories are receiving new orders. Companies are building facilities. Technology once produced overseas is beginning to come home. Meanwhile, China’s enormous factory sector has now shrunk for two consecutive months.

Put simply: America is moving forward while China is losing some momentum.

American factories are getting busier

The clearest nationwide figures currently available show American manufacturing growing.

The Institute for Supply Management reported that U.S. manufacturing expanded for the seventh consecutive month in July. Its factory index reached 55.6, the strongest reading since May 2022. Production, new orders and factory employment all improved. ISM’s July manufacturing report also showed manufacturing employment growing for the first time in 33 months.

A preliminary August survey from S&P Global placed the U.S. manufacturing index at 53.2. These indexes are essentially factory report cards: a number above 50 generally means business is growing, while a number below 50 suggests it is shrinking.

The final August ISM report has not yet been released, so the full monthly picture is still developing. Nevertheless, the available evidence shows that American manufacturing entered late summer in expansion.

China’s factories are struggling but not collapsing

China’s official factory index rose from 49.2 in July to 49.8 in August, but it remained below the 50 line for a second consecutive month.

That means China’s manufacturing sector is still shrinking, although more slowly than it was in July.

The weakness comes from problems throughout the Chinese economy. Chinese consumers are not spending enough, the country’s long-running property crisis continues and businesses remain cautious about investing.

But Americans should not mistake weakness for defeat.

Chinese factory production and new orders improved during August. Export orders also returned to growth, supported by overseas demand for semiconductors, electric vehicles and equipment used in artificial intelligence systems. China remains a powerful exporter with enormous production capacity and government support behind strategic industries. CNBC’s report shows a manufacturing giant under pressure—not one disappearing from the competition.

AI is creating American factory work

One of the strongest examples of America’s opportunity comes from Corning, the 175-year-old glass and materials company.

Artificial intelligence requires much more than software. The massive data centers running AI systems need servers, chips, electrical equipment and tremendous quantities of specialized optical fiber to move information quickly.

Corning and NVIDIA have announced a multiyear partnership that will:

• Build three advanced manufacturing plants in North Carolina and Texas.

• Create more than 3,000 American jobs.

• Increase Corning’s domestic optical-connectivity capacity tenfold.

• Expand its U.S. fiber-production capacity by more than 50%.

According to the companies’ official announcement, these plants will supply equipment needed for next-generation American AI infrastructure.

That is an important part of the manufacturing story. AI may eliminate or change some jobs, but it is also creating demand for factories, skilled trades, technicians, engineers and American-made materials.

Apple is moving important production home

Apple is also building more of its technology supply chain inside the United States.

Its Houston facility is already producing and shipping advanced AI servers that were previously manufactured overseas. The same facility is expected to begin producing the Mac mini later this year.

Apple has also opened an Advanced Manufacturing Center at the Houston site. It will provide free training to workers and smaller businesses in modern factory processes and equipment.

“In less than nine months, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into this Houston facility,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said in the company’s August announcement.

Apple has committed to spending and investing a broader $600 billion in the United States over four years, including work with American chip, glass, semiconductor and communications-component producers.

This does not mean the iPhone is about to be made entirely in America. Apple still depends heavily on a worldwide network of suppliers. But servers, computers, chips and other critical components are beginning to move closer to home.

That makes Apple less vulnerable to tariffs, foreign disruptions and political pressure—and gives American workers a larger role in producing the technology Americans use.

The manufacturing contest is changing

The United States is not trying to recreate every factory that existed 50 years ago. The new contest centers on the products that will power the next 50 years:

• Semiconductors

• AI servers

• Optical fiber

• Advanced computers

• Energy equipment

• Defense systems

• Robotics and automated machinery

America’s advantage is its ability to invent advanced products and attract large private investments. China’s advantage remains its massive factory network, experienced industrial workforce and ability to produce at scale.

The latest numbers suggest that America is beginning to connect its technological leadership with actual domestic production. That is progress—but announcements must still become completed factories, trained workers and products moving off American assembly lines.

China’s slowdown gives the United States an opening. Corning, NVIDIA and Apple show what American companies can do with that opening.

The next test is whether these projects become the beginning of a durable industrial rebuilding—or merely a collection of impressive headlines.

The Four Pillars of American Revival

This publication is organized around four core areas that help citizens understand the country they live in and the decisions made in their name.

Culture
Documenting the shared institutions that hold the nation together, including sports, traditions, and civic life.

Work
Restoring dignity through American manufacturing, industry, and the people who build and produce.

Sovereignty
Explaining national security, strategy, and policy clearly so citizens understand power and the choices made by government.

Civics
Educating citizens about the systems of self-government so they can participate knowledgeably in a free society.

Informed citizens make better voters.

Key Point: A new national emergency order empowers the Energy Department to block dangerous foreign equipment—and identify, isolate, or replace technology already embedded in America’s critical infrastructure.

President Donald Trump is moving to prevent foreign adversaries from turning the machinery inside America’s power grid into a weapon against the United States.

On Wednesday, Trump declared a national emergency involving foreign-produced equipment used in the nation’s bulk-power system. The order authorizes the Department of Energy to block dangerous purchases, investigate equipment already operating in the grid and potentially require foreign-made systems to be monitored, isolated, disconnected or replaced.

According to a “Fact Sheet from the administration, the concern is not limited to traditional cyberattacks launched against the grid from outside the country. Trump’s order warns that foreign-produced equipment could contain digital backdoors, remote-access capabilities or compromised software allowing an adversary to reach into the system from within.

“The rapid growth of advanced manufacturing, data centers, artificial intelligence, and defense production has increased the Nation’s dependence on abundant, reliable electricity,” Trump wrote in the executive order.

The president said that dependence has magnified the consequences of a successful attack or supply disruption.

The Threat May Already Be Inside the Grid

The order covers far more than large transformers. It reaches generating stations, substations, control rooms, industrial-control systems, turbines, circuit breakers, battery-storage systems, inverters, protective relays, software, firmware, maintenance services and remote-access arrangements.

Future transactions involving a “covered foreign entity” can be blocked when the Energy secretary determines that they create an undue risk of sabotage, unauthorized access, malicious remote action, supply disruption or catastrophic damage to critical infrastructure.

More significantly, the order reaches equipment already installed.

The Energy Department can require existing foreign-manufactured equipment to be identified, monitored, secured, isolated, disconnected, replaced or removed. Before directing removal, however, officials must consider reliability, safety, the availability of secure replacements and continuity of essential services.

This is not an immediate ban on every foreign-made electrical component. The Energy Department must identify the countries, companies, equipment and transactions presenting an unacceptable risk. It has 120 days to issue implementing rules and 180 days to recommend changes that would prioritize American-made infrastructure in federal procurement.

But the direction is unmistakable: America will begin treating the provenance of grid equipment as a national-security concern, not merely a purchasing decision.

China’s Cyber Operations Make the Warning Hard to Dismiss

The order arrived on the same day the Justice Department and FBI announced that they had dismantled two hacking platforms allegedly operated by a Chinese state-sponsored group.

According to the Justice Department, the QScan and QTRouter platforms were used to target American critical infrastructure and sensitive government networks. Identified victims included NASA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Energy, the Justice Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Senate.

DOJ said the China-based company operating the platforms offered hacking services to customers that included China’s Ministry of State Security and People’s Liberation Army.

The operation allegedly infected internet-connected devices and used them to conceal the Chinese origin of subsequent intrusions. Because attacks could appear to come from compromised devices located near their American targets, the network made attribution and detection more difficult.

That announcement provides important context for Trump’s order. The threat is not theoretical: Chinese state-linked actors have demonstrated both the intention and technical capacity to penetrate sensitive American networks.

The Election-Security Connection

America’s elections also depend upon electricity, communications networks, voter databases, electronic pollbooks and ballot-counting systems. A foreign adversary would not necessarily have to change recorded votes to cause serious damage. Disrupting power, communications, registration databases or election-reporting systems at a critical moment could delay voting, create confusion and undermine public confidence.

In July, the Trump administration released previously classified assessments concerning vulnerabilities in electronic voting and ballot-counting systems. Those documents concluded that American adversaries—including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea—possessed the capability to compromise portions of U.S. election infrastructure.

The administration’s election-integrity release also included material concerning foreign-made voting-machine components and China’s acquisition and exploitation of American voter data.

Supply-chain concerns surrounding voting machines are not new. A 2019 supply-chain analysis reportedly found extensive links between components inside a widely used voting machine and suppliers operating in China or Russia. That finding identified a potential vulnerability; it did not establish that the components were deliberately compromised or that votes had been changed.

That distinction is essential. A subsequent analysis of the 2026 intelligence release concluded that the documents showed real vulnerabilities but no evidence that votes were changed during the 2020 election. The materials also indicated that voter-registration databases, electronic pollbooks and election websites may be more accessible targets than vote-counting machines themselves.

The responsible conclusion is not that China secretly controlled an American election. It is that allowing foreign adversaries into the supply chains supporting elections, communications and electricity creates risks that should be addressed before an attack occurs.

Trump Is Rebuilding an Unfinished Security Policy

Trump first addressed foreign grid equipment in Executive Order 13920 in May 2020. The Biden administration suspended that policy on January 20, 2021, and the Energy Department later revoked a prohibition covering certain equipment serving critical defense facilities. The official Federal Register history records the suspension of Trump’s original bulk-power order.

Trump has now returned to the issue with broader language covering physical equipment, software, firmware, updates, maintenance providers and remote access.

The result is a larger America First security doctrine: the United States cannot claim industrial, military, technological or electoral independence while the systems supporting those functions remain dependent upon potentially hostile foreign suppliers.

America’s electrical grid is no longer simply an energy issue. It is the operating system for the nation’s factories, artificial-intelligence centers, military installations, emergency services, communications networks and elections.

Trump’s order recognizes a hard truth: national sovereignty requires controlling not only the electricity America produces, but also the equipment, software and supply chains through which that power flows.

Key point: Trump’s election started the work. The midterms will determine whether Republicans can finish it.

Republicans have a midterm problem that rallies, campaign advertisements and viral social-media posts cannot solve by themselves.

Millions of Americans who turned out for President Donald Trump in 2024 are not habitual Republican voters. Some are working-class populists, independents, younger men, first-time voters or disaffected former Democrats. They came out to elect Trump, but Republicans cannot assume they will return automatically when his name is not on the ballot.

Current polling suggests Democrats understand the stakes and may presently have the more engaged coalition.

Ipsos reports that Democratic-leaning voters are more likely than Republican leaners to say they are “absolutely certain” to vote. Pew Research Center has likewise found that Democrats hold both an early congressional-ballot advantage and an engagement advantage among their voters.

In Pew’s July survey, Democrats led Republicans 43%–37% on the generic congressional ballot. Approximately one-fifth of registered voters remained uncertain or preferred another candidate, leaving considerable room for the election to move. Pew described the economy as the central issue confronting voters.

The warning is also appearing in actual election results. According to MultiState’s special-election tracker, Democrats have flipped five Republican-held state legislative seats during 2026, while Republicans have flipped none.

Special elections are not perfect forecasts of November. Their electorates are smaller and unusually engaged. But that is precisely what makes them relevant: Democrats are showing up while too many Republican-leaning voters are staying home.

Republicans need a plan built for that reality.

Every Activist Finds 25 Voters

The answer can begin with a simple assignment:

Every Republican activist finds 25 Trump voters who might otherwise skip the midterms and personally helps each one vote.

These should not be the habitual voters who participate in every election. Campaigns already know how to reach them.

The priority should be the neighbor who voted only when Trump was on the ballot, the newly registered voter who does not understand the midterm ballot, the working-class voter who distrusts both parties, and the supporter who is angry about Washington but has not connected congressional control to Trump’s ability to govern.

The activist’s job is straightforward:

• Confirm that each person is registered.

• Explain what is at stake in congressional and local races.

• Help each voter decide when and where to vote.

• Encourage early voting when available.

• Follow up until the ballot is cast.

• Help resolve transportation or procedural obstacles.

This is not an arbitrary approach. Political-science field research has repeatedly found that personal contact can increase political participation. A Cambridge University Press review of field-campaign research notes the positive effect personal contact can have on turnout.

Other research published by the American Political Science Review found that placing people in a relational organizing environment made them more likely to participate, attend meetings and recruit others. The evidence supports building political participation through personal relationships.

Twenty-five is not a scientifically proven magic number. It is a manageable organizing target. One hundred activists reaching 25 voters apiece creates a network of 2,500 potential votes. One thousand activists can reach 25,000.

That is how a coalition becomes an electorate.

Give Them an Economic Reason to Vote

Republicans must also recognize that “protect Trump” may motivate the strongest supporters, but it will not be enough for every voter.

The midterms are becoming an affordability election.

Pew found that only 24% of Americans rated economic conditions as excellent or good. The remaining 76% described them as fair or poor. Six in ten said Trump’s economic policies had made economic conditions worse.

Republicans may believe that judgment overlooks improvements or misattributes the causes. Activists still must address the perception honestly. Voters judge the economy through grocery receipts, utility bills, gasoline prices, rent, insurance premiums and medical expenses.

A Reuters/Ipsos survey found Democrats leading Republicans 36%–28% on handling the cost of living. But 37% trusted neither party or remained uncertain. That undecided group represents a major opportunity.

Republican activists therefore need more than the statement that the economy is improving. They need to explain how Republican policies can produce affordable energy, better-paying American jobs, greater domestic production, competitive markets and relief for working families.

Every policy must be connected to something voters encounter in their homes.

Make the Stakes Clear

The most concise midterm message may be this:

Trump’s election started the work. The midterms determine whether he can finish it.

Losing Congress could mean legislative paralysis, investigations and potentially impeachment efforts. It could stall the border, energy, tax, trade, defense and government-reform agenda voters elected Trump to pursue.

That does not mean every campaign should depend entirely on Trump’s name. Candidates must introduce themselves, demonstrate their own value and tell voters what they will accomplish locally.

North Carolina demonstrates the danger. Polling has consistently shown former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper leading Republican Michael Whatley. One poll found that 92% of voters were familiar with Cooper, compared with 69% who knew Whatley. It also found that more Republican voters remained undecided. Public Policy Polling concluded that Whatley still had a path—but needed to consolidate Republicans and overcome the familiarity gap.

Activists cannot merely tell voters to oppose Cooper. They must be able to explain who Whatley is, what he has accomplished and why his election matters to North Carolina and the national agenda.

Stop Measuring the Wrong Things

A rally crowd is not a turnout operation. A viral post is not a returned ballot. A yard sign is not a vote.

Republican activists cannot spend the remaining campaign fighting one another, conducting endless loyalty tests or speaking only to people already certain to vote.

The meaningful question is simpler:

How many uncertain or infrequent voters have we personally moved from supporting the agenda to casting a ballot for it?

The Trump coalition already exists. The challenge is converting it from a presidential coalition into a governing coalition.

That work will be accomplished voter by voter, neighborhood by neighborhood and county by county.

Find 25 Trump voters. Give them a concrete reason to participate. Help each one make a voting plan. Stay with them until their ballots are cast.

If Republicans do that at scale, the coalition that returned Trump to the White House can also give him the Congress required to finish the job.

Key Point: Rubio’s demands on Mexico are part of a larger transformation that treats illegal migration, fentanyl, and cartel power as national-security threats, not isolated border-control problems

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s latest message to Mexico was about far more than stopping people and drugs at the southern border. It reflected a fundamental change in how the Trump administration defines and intends to defend the American homeland.

During an August 26 meeting in Washington with Mexican Foreign Secretary Roberto Velasco, Rubio called for “decisive action” to end illegal immigration, stop fentanyl and other illicit drugs from entering the United States, and dismantle terrorist-designated cartels and deprive them of weapons.

The meeting signaled that border security is being absorbed into a broader national-security campaign extending across the Western Hemisphere.

From Immigration Enforcement to Homeland Defense

President Donald Trump issued an order declaring that America’s borders must be protected against more than unauthorized immigration. The order identified potential terrorists, foreign spies, gang members, cartels and other hostile actors among the threats entering through an inadequately controlled border.

The administration then designated major cartels and transnational gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

Trump’s cartel-designation order said their operations threaten American security and “the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere.”

That language moved the issue beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of conventional domestic policing. Cartels were no longer described simply as criminal organizations whose members should be arrested after crossing into the United States. They were identified as foreign organizations presenting a national-security threat before reaching the border.

The administration has not removed Customs and Border Protection or the Department of Homeland Security from their traditional roles. Immigration arrests, inspections and removals remain civilian law-enforcement responsibilities.

What has changed is the strategic layer surrounding those responsibilities.

The Border Becomes the Last Line

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that change explicitly in March.

Speaking about the deployment of military forces to the southern border, Hegseth said the administration was not treating border security “simply as a law enforcement function.” He called it a “core military function” connected to defending the country against narco-terrorists and trafficking organizations.

According to the Defense Department, the 101st Airborne Division command was placed in operational control of the military’s southern-border mission.

But the administration’s strategy does not stop at the boundary with Mexico.

At the Reagan National Defense Forum, Hegseth explained the concept in one sentence:

“Our borders shouldn’t be the first line of defense for the American homeland.”

Instead, he said, the United States would prioritize the cartel fight throughout the Western Hemisphere. The objective is to disrupt the organizations, routes and supply systems before their products and operatives reach American territory.

That is the larger context for Rubio’s demand that Mexico dismantle cartels and deprive them of arms.

Operation Southern Spear Takes the Fight Offshore

Operation Southern Spear provides the clearest operational evidence of this transition.

A July 2026 inspector-general report describes Southern Spear as the military’s overarching operation to disrupt narcotics flows from terrorist-designated cartels throughout the hemisphere.

The operation is intended to defend the homeland, protect partner countries and strengthen regional security, according to the latest report to Congress.

The Defense Intelligence Agency has also realigned intelligence collection and analysis within the U.S. Southern Command area to support the operation. Its work includes tracking narcotics routes, trafficking organizations and supporting networks.

This represents defense in depth: identifying, tracking and disrupting threats across the Caribbean, Eastern Pacific, Central America and South America rather than waiting for them to arrive at a port of entry in Texas, Arizona or California.

An “Order of Battle” Against the Cartels

The same doctrine appears in the White House’s 2026 National Drug Control Strategy.

The document calls the strategy an “order of battle” for hunting cartels in their safe havens, dismantling laboratories, seizing assets and cutting supply lines.

It declares that “the era of containment has failed.”

That is an important change. Previous strategies frequently concentrated on interdiction, prosecution, treatment and reducing the domestic demand for drugs. Those elements have not disappeared, but the new strategy adds a more aggressive national-security mission aimed at destroying the organizations responsible for producing and transporting the drugs.

Trump reinforced that policy in a March 2026 proclamation stating that cartels and foreign terrorist organizations operating in the Western Hemisphere should be demolished to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Building a Hemispheric Coalition

The administration is also attempting to internationalize the campaign.

In August, SOUTHCOM reported that the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition had grown to 19 participating countries. The coalition brings regional forces together for training, intelligence cooperation and coordinated pressure against cartel networks.

Hegseth said those governments face “the same threat of drugs” and the same criminal organizations threatening Americans.

The SOUTHCOM account connects enforcement at the American border with military training and security partnerships across Central and South America.

This creates a layered model of homeland defense:

• Target cartel leadership, laboratories and financial networks at their sources.

• Interdict drugs and operatives along maritime and land routes.

• Train regional partners to fight organizations operating inside their countries.

• Use intelligence, sanctions, terrorist designations and criminal prosecutions against supporting networks.

• Maintain the physical U.S. border as the final barrier.

Mexico Draws a Line at Subordination

Mexico is indispensable to this strategy, but it is also where its limitations may become most apparent.

Following the Rubio meeting, Mexico emphasized progress against drugs, weapons trafficking and transnational organized crime. Velasco simultaneously insisted that cooperation must respect Mexican sovereignty and proceed through “collaboration without subordination.”

That qualification was not incidental.

Rubio is asking Mexico to dismantle organizations the United States now classifies as foreign terrorist threats. Mexico wants American cooperation, intelligence and resources without allowing Washington to direct operations inside Mexican territory.

Both governments agree that the cartels must be confronted. They may not yet agree on who controls the campaign or how far American action may extend.

The emerging story is therefore larger than border enforcement. Trump is constructing a Western Hemisphere security doctrine in which illegal migration, fentanyl, human trafficking, cartel-controlled territory and hostile foreign influence are treated as interconnected threats to the homeland.

Under that doctrine, the Rio Grande is no longer supposed to be America’s first encounter with the enemy.

It is supposed to be the last line the enemy must cross.

Key Point: A new $514 million engineering award offers a window into the much larger transformation underway as Trump moves missile defense from a limited response to rogue states toward a layered defense of the American homeland.

Resource for this article

Parsons Secures $514 Million Missile Defense Agency Contract Option

A new $514 million Missile Defense Agency contract option awarded to Parsons Corporation is easy to misunderstand.

It is not an order for hundreds of new interceptors. It will not, by itself, produce President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome. Parsons will provide engineering, analysis, evaluation and oversight for the existing integrated Missile Defense System.

But the award offers Americans a useful window into the larger missile-defense transformation now underway.

Trump is attempting to move the United States beyond a homeland-defense posture primarily designed around limited attacks from rogue states. His goal is a broader, layered architecture capable of detecting and responding to ballistic missiles, maneuvering hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles, and other advanced aerial attacks, including threats developed by peer and near-peer adversaries.

That undertaking requires more than manufacturing missiles. It requires space-based sensors, ground and sea radars, command networks, electronic warfare, secure communications, multiple interceptor layers and an industrial base capable of producing and maintaining them.

In other words, Trump is not proposing one giant weapon or a literal dome over the country.

He is attempting to build a shield composed of many different systems and make them operate as one.

Trump Changed the Mission

Trump began the shift on January 27, 2025, when he signed the Iron Dome for America executive order, which later became known as Golden Dome.

The order declared it U.S. policy to deploy and maintain a next-generation missile-defense shield capable of protecting American citizens and critical infrastructure from foreign aerial attack.

That represented an important strategic change.

For decades, American homeland missile-defense policy concentrated largely on staying ahead of limited ballistic-missile threats from countries such as North Korea and Iran. Deterring large-scale attacks from Russia or China remained primarily the responsibility of America’s nuclear forces and their ability to retaliate.

Trump’s directive explicitly widened the mission to include threats from peer, near-peer and rogue adversaries. It also extended the problem beyond traditional ballistic missiles to include hypersonic weapons, advanced cruise missiles and other next-generation attacks.

The reason is straightforward: the threat has changed.

Traditional intercontinental ballistic missiles generally follow trajectories that existing early-warning systems were designed to detect and track. Hypersonic glide vehicles can maneuver during flight. Cruise missiles can travel at lower altitudes and approach from unexpected directions. An adversary could also combine missiles, drones, electronic attacks and decoys in an attempt to confuse or overwhelm American defenses.

A system designed for yesterday’s threat cannot simply be enlarged and expected to defeat tomorrow’s attack.

Golden Dome Is a Layered Architecture

Trump’s plan calls for a network of defensive layers rather than dependence upon a single interceptor.

The White House fact sheet identified several elements of that architecture:

• Space-based sensors capable of detecting and following hypersonic and ballistic threats

• Space-based interceptors

• A proliferated military space architecture

• Capabilities to defeat missile salvos before launch

• Non-kinetic defensive capabilities

• Additional lower and terminal-phase interceptor layers

• Protected domestic supply chains for missile-defense components

Each layer provides another opportunity to identify, disrupt or destroy an attack.

Satellites might first detect a launch. Tracking information could then pass to other sensors and command centers, which would determine the trajectory, identify the threat, and select the most effective defensive weapon.

Depending on the circumstances, the United States might use electronic or cyber capabilities to disrupt the attack, intercept the weapon during an earlier phase of flight, or engage it closer to its target with a terminal-defense system.

That is why systems engineering and integration matter.

The interceptor supplies the muscle, but sensors and command-and-control networks supply the eyes, nerves, and brain.

The Parsons Award Shows the Work Behind the Shield

The Parsons press statement does not identify its contract as a Golden Dome award, and it should not be reported as one.

Its importance is that it illustrates the kind of technical work required to build any credible national missile-defense architecture.

Parsons will continue supporting studies, engineering, analysis, evaluation and oversight across the integrated Missile Defense System. The company says its work spans air, land, sea, space and cyber domains and includes ballistic and hypersonic threats.

“As missile threats grow more advanced,” Parsons executive Mike Kushin said, the United States requires “integrated, battle-ready air and missile defense capabilities.”

That integration is one of the central challenges facing Golden Dome.

The Pentagon has described the project as a “system of systems” that will build upon existing American capabilities while adding new sensors, interceptors and non-kinetic weapons. Some components already exist. Others must be improved, produced in greater numbers or developed from the ground up.

All of them must exchange reliable information fast enough for commanders and warfighters to act.

The Parsons option is therefore not the whole story. It is one piece of the engineering foundation underneath the much larger missile-defense mission Trump has ordered.

Trump Is Putting Money Behind the Strategy

The administration’s Golden Dome plan moved beyond presidential rhetoric when the fiscal year 2026 defense proposal included an initial $25 billion investment.

According to the Pentagon’s budget briefing, that funding covered increased interceptor procurement, development of new interception capabilities, advanced sensors, integrated command and control, space-based systems and ways to defeat an attack before launch.

The administration is now seeking an even larger defense buildup in fiscal year 2027. The Pentagon’s proposed $1.5 trillion budget emphasizes Golden Dome, space superiority, expanded weapons production and stronger military supply chains.

Pentagon officials described the request as a generational investment intended to rebuild the “arsenal of freedom.” Approximately $750 billion would be directed toward developing capabilities and procuring military systems, according to the Defense Department’s April 2026 budget presentation.

That matters because a missile-defense strategy is only as credible as the industrial base supporting it.

The United States needs factories, skilled workers, reliable sources of critical materials, secure electronics and long-term orders that give companies a reason to expand capacity. It also needs sufficient inventories so that defensive systems cannot be exhausted after the first waves of an attack.

Trump’s approach connects homeland defense, space capabilities, missile production and industrial renewal. They are not separate subjects. They are parts of the same national-security problem.

Why Build a Shield if America Already Has Nuclear Deterrence?

The United States already possesses a nuclear triad designed to deter a catastrophic attack by guaranteeing that America could retaliate.

Trump is not abandoning that deterrent. His executive order specifically connects Golden Dome with preserving a secure second-strike capability.

Missile defense adds another layer to deterrence by making an attack more difficult, uncertain and expensive.

An adversary should not be able to assume that launching a missile automatically means striking an American city, military base, energy facility or command center. If defensive systems can preserve U.S. leadership, military forces and retaliatory capabilities, they strengthen America’s ability to survive an initial attack and discourage the enemy from attempting one.

No missile shield can honestly promise that every weapon in a massive attack will be intercepted. Geography, cost, technical limitations and an adversary’s ability to launch large salvos make an airtight shield an extraordinarily difficult objective.

But perfection is not the only measure of value.

A defense that reduces damage, protects critical infrastructure, complicates enemy planning and preserves America’s ability to respond can still change an adversary’s calculations.

That is the peace-through-strength argument behind Golden Dome: deterrence becomes stronger when the enemy knows America can both retaliate and defend itself.

Americans Should Watch the Results

Golden Dome is an ambitious undertaking that will require sustained funding, technical discipline and serious congressional oversight.

The public deserves measurable answers:

• What threats is each layer designed to defeat?

• Which existing systems can be integrated immediately?

• What new technologies must still be demonstrated?

• How quickly can interceptors and sensors be produced?

• Are the supply chains secure?

• What testing will prove the system works?

• How much protection will each phase actually provide?

Those questions should strengthen the mission, not undermine it.

Trump has directed the Pentagon to make protection of the American homeland a central military priority. The funding proposals, space directives, production investments and engineering awards now emerging show the machinery beginning to move behind that decision.

The Parsons contract is only one small part of that picture.

The larger story is that the United States is attempting to connect its satellites, radars, ships, launchers, electronic capabilities, command networks and industrial base into a layered national shield.

Trump is not merely ordering more missiles.

He is trying to ensure America can see the attack coming, understand it, survive it—and defeat it.

We have covered the Golden Dome many times- for more, search for Golden Dome

The Four Pillars of American Revival

This publication is organized around four core areas that help citizens understand the country they live in and the decisions made in their name.

Culture
Documenting the shared institutions that hold the nation together, including sports, traditions, and civic life.

Work
Restoring dignity through American manufacturing, industry, and the people who build and produce.

Sovereignty
Explaining national security, strategy, and policy clearly so citizens understand power and the choices made by government.

Civics
Educating citizens about the systems of self-government so they can participate knowledgeably in a free society.

Informed citizens make better voters.

A new Medicaid-fraud indictment provides a clear example of how federal prosecutors connect an organization, its members, alleged crimes, violence and money into one racketeering prosecution.

The word “RICO” is frequently thrown around whenever several people appear to be involved in wrongdoing. But coordination alone does not automatically create a racketeering case.

The federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act allows prosecutors to pursue people accused of conducting an organization’s affairs through a continuing pattern of specified crimes. Instead of treating every robbery, fraudulent transaction or money transfer as an entirely separate event, RICO can present those acts as parts of one criminal enterprise.

A newly unsealed federal indictment involving a Bronx organization called the “War Room” provides an unusually clear illustration of how that works.

Important clarification: This organization is not connected to Steve Bannon’s WarRoom program. According to prosecutors, the defendants called an office inside one defendant’s Bronx residence the “War Room.” The similarity in names appears coincidental.

The charges are also allegations. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

What Is RICO?

Congress enacted RICO in 1970 as part of the Organized Crime Control Act. Although the law was created amid concerns about traditional organized crime, its language is not restricted to the Mafia.

RICO can be applied to an enterprise consisting of a corporation, partnership, association or other organized group. The organization does not have to be formally incorporated—and it does not have to exist exclusively for criminal purposes.

The central substantive RICO provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), prohibits someone associated with an enterprise affecting interstate commerce from conducting its affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.

Section 1962(d) separately makes it a crime to conspire to violate RICO.

In ordinary language, prosecutors generally look for several connected components:

• An enterprise.

• People associated with the enterprise.

• A common criminal objective.

• A qualifying pattern of criminal activity.

• An agreement to advance or participate in that operation.

The Bronx case alleges all of them.

First Element: The Enterprise

An “enterprise” is the organization, association or continuing group through which the alleged racketeering activity is conducted.

Prosecutors say Louis Trejo, Kenneth Garner, Harold Stevenson and Erihk Belis operated an organization they called the “War Room.” The group allegedly worked from an office in Trejo’s residence and used a purported charity called the Forward Foundation as a front.

Investigators reportedly found an organizational chart on a whiteboard identifying Trejo as “CEO,” Garner as “COO,” Belis as “Vice President” and Stevenson as an outreach manager.

That chart could be important because it appears to show:

• Identifiable participants.

• Defined responsibilities.

• A leadership structure.

• A continuing organization.

• A shared operational purpose.

RICO does not require an enterprise to possess corporate bylaws, formal membership cards or an elaborate chain of command. But evidence of assigned roles and coordinated activity can help prosecutors demonstrate that the defendants were allegedly operating as an organization rather than committing unrelated crimes independently.

Second Element: A Common Purpose

The Justice Department alleges that the enterprise’s principal purpose was generating fraudulent Medicaid transportation claims.

According to the DOJ announcement, members recruited Medicaid patients receiving treatment at methadone clinics. They allegedly obtained those patients’ information and used phones equipped with a ride-tracking application to record transportation services that were never provided.

Prosecutors say GPS-spoofing software was used to make the phones appear to travel between legitimate pickup and drop-off locations.

The resulting data was allegedly supplied to cooperating transportation companies, which submitted claims to Medicaid. Three companies that reportedly paid the organization subsequently submitted more than $12 million in “unmatched” transportation claims—rides for which no corresponding medical-service claims could be located.

This alleged common purpose connects the organization, its participants and its activities.

Third Element: Racketeering Predicates

Not every criminal offense qualifies as “racketeering activity.” Congress established a lengthy list of qualifying state and federal crimes commonly called RICO predicates.

Depending on the circumstances, predicates may include:

• Murder and kidnapping.

• Robbery and extortion.

• Bribery.

• Drug trafficking.

• Wire and mail fraud.

• Obstruction and witness tampering.

• Money laundering.

• Certain forms of financial and commercial fraud.

The indictment accuses members of the Bronx “War Room” of conduct involving wire fraud, health-care fraud, narcotics distribution, robbery and money laundering.

Several of those alleged crimes can serve as RICO predicates. Other charges may help establish the broader conspiracy or may be prosecuted as separate offenses even when they do not independently supply a RICO predicate.

This is one reason that a RICO indictment frequently contains numerous counts. The racketeering count addresses the alleged enterprise and pattern, while additional counts prosecute specific underlying conduct.

Fourth Element: A Pattern

The statute says a pattern requires at least two acts of racketeering activity within the legally defined period. But two crimes do not automatically establish a RICO pattern.

The alleged acts must also be related and demonstrate or threaten the kind of continuing criminal activity RICO was designed to address.

In the Bronx case, prosecutors allege that the organization operated from approximately 2023 through 2025 and generated data supporting hundreds of fictitious rides every week.

That allegation is materially different from claiming that four people committed one isolated offense together. Prosecutors are describing an ongoing operation involving repeated recruitment, fabricated records, purported kickbacks, fraudulent billing and movement of proceeds.

The duration, repetition and common purpose are what potentially transform individual alleged crimes into a racketeering pattern.

Why the Alleged Home Invasion Matters

The indictment also alleges that multiple fraud organizations competed for access to Medicaid patients around the same methadone clinics.

Prosecutors say Trejo and Garner directed members of the “War Room” to rob the leader of a competing fraud ring. During the January 2024 home invasion, masked assailants allegedly restrained occupants with zip ties, held them at gunpoint, pistol-whipped one victim and cut another victim’s hands.

The alleged attackers reportedly expected to find millions of dollars in proceeds and drugs but escaped with approximately $25,000 and other property.

That episode is important to the RICO theory because prosecutors do not portray it as random violence. They allege it was undertaken to protect and expand the enterprise’s profits.

Count Two charges Trejo and Garner with assault with a deadly weapon in aid of racketeering. That type of charge—frequently called VICAR—focuses specifically on violent conduct allegedly committed to advance, maintain status within or benefit a racketeering enterprise.

Count Three adds a related firearms charge.

Where the Money Laundering Fits

The alleged scheme did not end when Medicaid approved the claims.

Prosecutors say transportation companies paid the “War Room” for generating fictitious ride records. Members then allegedly laundered the money to conceal its source and nature.

Following the money can help demonstrate both the operation’s purpose and the relationships among its participants. It may also expose additional businesses, accounts or individuals not named in the initial indictment.

Why This Is a RICO Conspiracy Case

Count One charges all four defendants with racketeering conspiracy.

A RICO conspiracy charge focuses heavily on the alleged agreement. The government does not necessarily have to prove that every defendant personally committed every predicate offense.

But mere association is not enough. Knowing someone involved in an enterprise or being present around people committing crimes does not by itself establish RICO conspiracy.

Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly agreed to advance an enterprise whose affairs would be conducted through a racketeering pattern. The Supreme Court has explained that a conspirator must adopt the criminal objective, even if other participants perform some of the underlying acts.

That distinction matters when defendants allegedly occupy different roles. One person might recruit participants, another generate records, another coordinate payments and another manage proceeds. RICO conspiracy allows prosecutors to present those roles as parts of the same agreed-upon operation provided they can prove the required knowledge and agreement for each defendant.

Why Charge the Individual Crimes Too?

The nine-count indictment includes:

1. Racketeering conspiracy.

2. Assault with a deadly weapon in aid of racketeering.

3. Firearms use.

4. Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health-care fraud.

5. Wire fraud.

6. Health-care fraud.

7. Conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute.

8. Narcotics conspiracy.

9. Money-laundering conspiracy.

The racketeering count presents the alleged criminal organization as a whole. The remaining counts target particular agreements and acts attributed to particular defendants.

This gives the jury a count-by-count decision. A juror could potentially find the evidence sufficient for one offense but insufficient for another.

What This Case Teaches About RICO

The Bronx “War Room” case demonstrates that RICO is not simply a synonym for a large fraud case.

RICO is a framework for connecting an alleged enterprise to a continuing pattern of qualifying criminal conduct. Here, prosecutors allege an organization with named leaders, assigned roles, a fraudulent revenue system, cooperating companies, repeated offenses, kickbacks, narcotics, laundering and violence against a rival.

That is the kind of interconnected allegation RICO was built to address.

Whether prosecutors can prove it remains for the court and, if the case reaches trial, a jury to decide. But as a primer on how federal racketeering law organizes a complex prosecution, this indictment offers a remarkably clear example.

Key point: The United States has serious munitions-production challenges, but viral comparisons with China often confuse delivery lead times, annual output, and completely different classes of weapons.

America’s industrial base is already demonstrating that it can expand if Washington and the public provide sustained demand, resources, and oversight.

Resource for this article from the US Department of War:

Department of War and RTX Accelerate Critical Munitions Production Through Navy Tomahawk Award

America needs an honest conversation about missiles. Not panic. Not complacency. Not drama for clicks, and certainly not viral claims built from numbers that mean something entirely different from what audiences are told.

One particularly misleading claim is that the United States requires approximately three years to build a single Tomahawk missile while China can manufacture several missiles every day.

That is not a valid comparison.

A production lead time of nearly three years does not mean workers spend three years constructing one missile. It means a particular order may take that long to move through contracting, long-lead component purchasing, supplier queues, assembly, testing and final delivery. Many missiles can be moving through different stages of that pipeline simultaneously.

The distinction became especially important this week. On August 17, the Pentagon announced a seven-year, $22.9 billion agreement with Raytheon to expand Tomahawk production from approximately 60 missiles annually to more than 1,000 per year.

“We called on industry to rapidly scale up munitions output, and RTX is delivering,” Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao said, according to Reuters.

That is not one missile every three years. Once the planned production capacity is operating, it represents an average of more than 19 Tomahawks per week.

What Does “Missile Production” Actually Mean?

Before comparing the United States with China, several different measurements must be separated:

• Development time: How long it takes to design, test and approve a new weapon.

• Procurement lead time: The period between placing an order and receiving completed missiles.

• Production rate: How many missiles a factory delivers during a month or year.

• Maximum capacity: What the production system could deliver with sufficient orders, workers, materials and equipment.

• Stockpile size: How many usable missiles have already been accumulated.

• Surge capacity: How rapidly production can expand during an emergency.

A 34-month lead time for a newly ordered batch can coexist with a production line delivering dozens—or eventually hundreds—of missiles during the same year.

The real criticism is not that American workers require years to assemble each weapon. It is that Washington historically ordered relatively small and inconsistent quantities, leaving manufacturers without the predictable demand needed to invest in additional plants, tooling, suppliers and skilled workers.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies found that Tomahawk procurement averaged only 86 missiles annually between fiscal years 2015 and 2026. CSIS concluded that recent production remained below 200 missiles per year “because of small past orders.” The Navy’s fiscal 2027 request, however, calls for 785 additional Tomahawks. Read the CSIS inventory analysis.

Industry cannot maintain wartime capacity when government purchases arrive at peacetime levels—and sometimes disappear altogether.

The China Comparison: A Real Challenge Wrapped in Bad Information

China’s missile buildup is serious. The Pentagon’s 2025 China Military Power Report documents a rapidly expanding PLA Rocket Force, more than 100 likely loaded ICBM silos and the world’s largest inventory of ground-based conventional and dual-capable missiles.

America should not minimize that threat.

But neither the Pentagon report nor other reliable public evidence establishes a comprehensive, like-for-like finding that China produces every class of missile faster than the United States. Precise Chinese production figures are generally secret. Statements claiming that China produces “multiple missiles per day”—or even thousands—often fail to identify:

• Which missile is being discussed.

• Whether the number describes actual production or theoretical capacity.

• Whether the weapons are inexpensive short-range missiles or sophisticated long-range systems.

• Whether launchers, guidance systems and usable inventories are included.

• Whether the original source is the Chinese government, an intelligence estimate or speculation.

China probably does hold a substantial numerical advantage in certain land-based theater missiles. It spent decades building those systems around a conflict close to its own territory. Until 2019, the United States was also constrained by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty from fielding many comparable ground-launched missiles.

That is a strategic imbalance, not proof that American industry has lost the ability to lead.

A Chinese short-range ballistic missile should not be casually compared with a Tomahawk, a PAC-3 missile-defense interceptor, an SM-6 naval interceptor or a long-range hypersonic weapon. They have different missions, components, costs, testing requirements and performance standards.

The honest conclusion is therefore more precise: China has built a dangerous missile arsenal and possesses major manufacturing advantages in certain sectors, but public evidence does not substantiate the sweeping claim that China categorically “beats America at missile production.”

Where America Really Is Vulnerable

Looking at the problem with our eyes open means acknowledging genuine weaknesses.

The post-Cold War defense industry was optimized for efficient peacetime production rather than sustained combat. CSIS reports that the number of major aerospace and defense prime contractors contracted from 51 to five. Munitions also routinely lost budget battles to ships, aircraft and other platforms expected to remain in service for decades. CSIS describes the resulting structural problem here.

Supply chains remain another vulnerability. Missiles depend upon explosives, rocket motors, microelectronics, specialized metals, energetic materials and rare-earth magnets. China dominates much of the global rare-earth processing and magnet-manufacturing market.

The Government Accountability Office has also identified weaknesses in how the Pentagon develops and delivers artillery and missile programs. Its recommendations include more iterative testing, better coordination and faster incorporation of feedback. Read the June 2025 GAO report.

Those are reasons for sustained reform and investment not reasons to disparage American workers or declare the country incapable of competing.

Evidence That America Can Surge

The new Tomahawk agreement is the strongest current rebuttal to the defeatist narrative. Moving from approximately 60 missiles annually toward more than 1,000 would be a dramatic industrial expansion.

The Tomahawk is not the only system being increased. Current plans also call for major expansions in Patriot, THAAD, AMRAAM and SM-6 production. The objective is not merely to purchase additional missiles but to finance the facilities, equipment, suppliers and workforce required to maintain higher output.

There are broader signs of recovery. A recent CSIS assessment of the defense industrial base found that approximately 5,000 new firms entered the defense market in each of fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Federal support for domestic rare-earth projects has also grown substantially as the country begins rebuilding a secure mine-to-magnet supply chain.

America’s decisive advantage is not simply one factory or one weapons system. It is the combination of advanced research, combat-tested technology, private capital, universities, experienced manufacturers, innovative new companies and a network of allied industrial partners.

That system can lead—but it must be activated and sustained.

The Citizens’ Role in Restoring American Power

Supporting the military industrial base does not require giving the Pentagon or defense contractors a blank check. Serious support demands serious oversight.

Americans should ask:

• Is Congress providing predictable multiyear orders instead of erratic annual purchases?

• Is the Pentagon protecting critical supply chains from Chinese dependence?

• Are contracts producing measurable increases in delivered weapons?

• Are smaller manufacturers able to compete?

• Are we training enough machinists, engineers, welders and technicians?

• Are expensive interceptors being reserved for threats that actually require them?

• Is production capacity keeping pace with operational plans and treaty commitments?

The choice is not between pretending everything is fine and declaring that China has already won. America’s missile industrial base has real shortages created by decades of inconsistent demand, industry consolidation and peacetime assumptions.

But the newest production agreements demonstrate something equally important: when the United States establishes a clear requirement and gives industry sustained demand, American manufacturers can expand on a massive scale.

The proper message is neither panic nor denial. It is national mobilization.

America still possesses the talent, technology and industrial foundation required to lead. Restoring unquestioned superpower capacity will require Congress, the Pentagon, manufacturers and citizens to treat missile production as a long-term national-security mission—not as a talking point that receives attention only after the shooting starts.

Dig deeper :

Follow the Technology: America’s CCP Cleanup Cannot Stop at Israel’s Borderollow the Technology: America’s CCP Cleanup Cannot Stop at Israel’s Border

The Trump administration is treating American research and technology as national-security assets. Recent media reports indicate that the Pentagon has ordered 30 universities to audit potentially dangerous foreign partnerships. Newly released FBI records have reopened the Eric Swalwell and Christine Fang controversy. The White House has also released a new strategy warning that American technology is being targeted for foreign theft and exploitation.

This is exactly the kind of cleanup America needs. It must also be applied consistently.

If universities can lose federal funding for relationships with institutions connected to the Chinese Communist Party, foreign allies receiving privileged access to American defense technology, artificial intelligence and taxpayer-funded research should face an equally serious review.

That includes Israel.

The Pentagon Follows the Research

The Pentagon has ordered 30 American universities to review relationships with foreign institutions considered potential threats to U.S.-funded research. According to Associated Press reporting, the institutions must identify and potentially terminate problematic partnerships or risk losing federal funding.

The order reportedly focuses primarily on relationships with Chinese institutions, including universities connected to China’s military and defense-industrial system.

That follows a simple America First principle: American taxpayers should not finance research that can be absorbed into the military capabilities of a foreign adversary.

The newly released National Security Science and Technology Strategy makes the danger unmistakable. It warns that potential adversaries are attempting to steal American “intellectual property, sensitive data, and emerging technologies.”

The strategy declares that the United States will protect its science and technology ecosystem from “foreign theft, diversion, and exploitation.”

Those words matter. Diversion does not always involve a scientist walking directly out of an American laboratory with classified documents. Technology can travel through joint projects, investment relationships, academic exchanges and foreign partner institutions.

The Swalwell Case Shows How Access Is Cultivated

The newly declassified FBI records concerning former Rep. Eric Swalwell demonstrate why apparently ordinary associations can require counterintelligence scrutiny.

According to ABC7’s report on the records, Swalwell told FBI investigators that he had physical relations with Christine Fang “on a handful of occasions.” Fang was the suspected Chinese operative at the center of a lengthy counterintelligence investigation.

The records reportedly show that investigators examined suspected campaign-finance and internship arrangements. They did not find evidence sufficient to indict Swalwell, and the FBI concluded that it had not found violations of federal corruption statutes committed by him. His attorney maintains that he did nothing wrong.

That distinction belongs in the record. So does the larger lesson: the CCP does not pursue influence only through formal government negotiations. It cultivates access through politics, education, investment, professional relationships and personal proximity.

If Washington understands that vulnerability when examining Swalwell, Harvard or MIT, it should understand it when examining foreign allies.

Israel’s China Relationships Are Public

Israel’s connections to China are not merely speculative.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry’s consulate in Shanghai openly says it facilitates collaboration in “trade, technology, culture, and academia.” It says the consulate works to “enhance technological exchange” and facilitates joint research projects, university relationships and academic partnerships.

Ordinary diplomacy and lawful trade are not espionage. Still, the sectors involved are precisely those Washington now considers vulnerable to Chinese technology acquisition.

The Congressional Research Service reports that Israel has ended its formal defense and security ties with China. That is important. Those ties previously produced serious disputes with Washington, including the proposed PHALCON airborne-radar sale and work involving Chinese Harpy drones.

Civilian commercial connections remain substantial. CRS says Israeli-Chinese trade averaged approximately $15.7 billion annually from 2021 through 2023, making China Israel’s third-largest trading partner after the United States and European Union.

Chinese investment has been concentrated in Israeli technology. CRS identifies companies including Xiaomi, Lenovo, ChemChina and Alibaba as having a presence in Israel. It also notes that Israel’s foreign-investment review mechanism reportedly lacks authority over parts of the high-tech sector where much of the Chinese investment has occurred.

Then there is Haifa. A Chinese state-owned company received a 25-year agreement to operate the new Bay Port terminal, where ships from the U.S. Sixth Fleet have docked. The arrangement drew scrutiny from both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration.

These are documented national-security questions. Raising them is neither anti-Israel nor an accusation that Israel is controlled by Beijing.

Trump Already Established the Standard

President Trump’s America First Investment Policy created a fast-track process for investment from trusted allies, but with conditions intended to prevent cooperation with foreign adversaries in sensitive areas.

Trump also promised to stop Chinese-connected firms from “stealing our intellectual property” and sending it back to Communist China.

That standard should apply throughout America’s alliance system.

Israel receives privileged access to American weapons, missile-defense research and critical technologies. The United States is expanding cooperation with Israel in AI and other sensitive fields. Before those channels expand further, Washington should know exactly where Israel’s Chinese technology partnerships begin, where they end and what protections prevent American research from moving through them.

America cannot clean CCP influence out of its universities while ignoring potential exposure through a favored foreign government. Friendship does not eliminate the need for safeguards. Privileged access makes those safeguards more important.

The administration should require a comprehensive U.S.-Israeli technology-security review covering Chinese investment, university collaborations, dual-use research, data access, infrastructure and corporate ownership.

If the CCP is the threat Washington says it is, the investigation cannot stop at America’s border. It must follow the technology wherever it goes.

For more details about Trump’s latest actions, please read:

Key Point: The Frederick Douglass Republicans president says America must teach the next generation that Marxism offers another form of bondage

KCarl Smith delivered a direct warning on Wednesday’s WarRoom: America is facing a contest between liberty and tyranny, and young people are being taught to embrace the ideology that would take their freedom away.

Smith, president of the Frederick Douglass Republicans and a retired Army officer, told Steve Bannon that his military oath did not expire when he left the service.

Watch:

“I can’t remove myself from the oath that I took to defend my country from all threats, domestic and external,” Smith said. “We have a domestic threat.”

He identified that threat as the effort to transform the United States into a socialist Marxist nation.

“We’ve got a fight,” Smith said. “Liberty versus tyranny. This is slavery versus liberty, and it’s right before us.”

Douglass Versus Marx

Smith’s argument is developed in his fourth book, Douglass vs. Marx: The Battle for America’s Soul. The book places Frederick Douglass and Karl Marx into 31 imagined debates based upon what each man actually wrote and believed.

Douglass and Marx were both born in 1818, but Smith emphasized the profound difference between them.

“Karl Marx wrote about oppression, something he never experienced,” Smith said. “Douglass wrote about oppression because he had real-life experiences.”

Douglass was born enslaved, escaped bondage and became one of America’s most powerful advocates for liberty. Smith argues that Douglass understood oppression from the inside and recognized its methods long before the term Marxism was created.

“The techniques of oppression used by the plantation slave master are identical to the techniques of oppression used by a slave government, Marxism,” Smith said.

Smith’s point is about who controls the individual. Slavery places a person’s labor, choices and future under the authority of a master. Marxism transfers enormous authority over labor, property and opportunity to the government. Smith sees both systems as attacks on self-ownership.

“Douglass said, ‘I just came from a plantation to accept another form of slavery,’ and that’s what Marxism is,” Smith said.

Teach Liberty Before Marxism Takes Root

Smith’s greatest concern is the next generation. He said America’s institutions are failing to teach young people the value of liberty while Marxist ideas are being promoted as compassion, equality and freedom.

“We’ve got to make sure they understand the value of liberty because they have been indoctrinated right in front of our eyes,” Smith said. “Sadly, we have not effectively had a counterstrategy to push back against the Marxist agenda that’s coming after our children.”

He argued that Republicans should return to the party’s abolitionist foundations and present Frederick Douglass as the answer to Marx.

“Douglass embraced the Constitution,” Smith said. “He asked America to live up to it, not to tear it down or to destroy it.”

Smith concluded that Republicans already possess the right message. Their failure has been persuading Americans to embrace it.

“We don’t have a messaging problem. We have a persuasion problem,” he said. “The best liberty message to defeat Marxism is Frederick Douglass. We’ve got to learn.

The Four Pillars of American Revival

This publication is organized around four core areas that help citizens understand the country they live in and the decisions made in their name.

Culture
Documenting the shared institutions that hold the nation together, including sports, traditions, and civic life.

Work
Restoring dignity through American manufacturing, industry, and the people who build and produce.

Sovereignty
Explaining national security, strategy, and policy clearly so citizens understand power and the choices made by government.

Civics
Educating citizens about the systems of self-government so they can participate knowledgeably in a free society.

Informed citizens make better voters.

Key Point: New filings connect James Comey’s seashell message, his wife’s text and a novel about powerful figures using coded language to inspire violence

The Justice Department has offered its most detailed explanation yet for prosecuting former FBI Director James Comey over his “86 47” Instagram post. The government’s case now reaches beyond the controversial photograph and into Comey’s newly released novel, which happens to explore how influential public figures can use ambiguous online messages to inspire violence while maintaining plausible deniability.

Comey has been charged with threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. The charges arise from a May 15, 2025 photograph showing seashells arranged as “86 47,” widely understood as a reference to removing Donald Trump, the 47th president.

Comey maintains that he and his wife encountered the formation during a beach walk, interpreted it as harmless political commentary and never considered that anyone would read it as a call for assassination.

New filings challenge portions of that account.

Paul Sperry Flagged DOJ’s Book-Profit Theory Months Ago

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry identified the book connection months before prosecutors disclosed the evidence now supporting it.

On April 29, Sperry reported that DOJ sources believed Comey posted “86 47” partly to generate attention for FDR Drive, which was scheduled for release only five days later. Sperry also reported that prosecutors were examining whether proceeds connected to that alleged conduct could be subject to forfeiture.

The indictment includes a forfeiture notice allowing the government, following a conviction, to pursue property constituting or derived from proceeds traceable to the charged offenses. The notice does not establish that all profits from Comey’s book are forfeitable. DOJ would still have to demonstrate a connection between the alleged crime and identifiable proceeds.

The government’s latest filing now gives Sperry’s earlier reporting important evidentiary support.

After the post created a national controversy, Comey’s publishing agent reportedly told him, “On the bright side, you’ve gone viral.” Comey responded, “Not my intention, but I’ll be OK if it sells books.” His agent replied, “Music to an agent’s ears.”

The exchange does not prove Comey planned the post as a marketing stunt. It does show that Comey and his agent immediately recognized its commercial potential while the controversy was directing attention toward a novel about coded online messages and political violence.

Sperry has also drawn attention to the search-warrant disclosure showing that Patrice Comey sent her husband a definition of “86” two minutes before he posted the photograph. The definition said “to get rid of or refuse service,” not “kill.” That distinction matters, but so does the timing: the message was discussed and interpreted before Comey presented it to millions of potential viewers as something he had innocently discovered during a beach walk.

Did the Controversy Become a Book Promotion?

That exchange with the Publisher supports the conclusion that Comey recognized the controversy’s promotional value. It does not establish that he engineered the controversy beforehand.

Prosecutors nevertheless argue that the timing, the book’s subject matter and Comey’s response to the publicity belong in the jury’s consideration of his intent. Reuters reports that DOJ is using parallels between the novel and the Instagram post to counter Comey’s effort to have the charges dismissed.

Comey’s Wife Sent Him the Meaning of “86”

According to prosecutors, Comey’s wife sent him a screenshot defining “86” approximately two minutes before he published the photograph.

That is significant because it undermines any suggestion that Comey posted an entirely mysterious collection of numbers without first discussing its meaning. However, the definition reportedly sent to him said “to get rid of or refuse service.” It did not explicitly define “86” as “kill.”

Comey previously told NPR that his wife initially thought the formation might be an address. After studying it, they concluded that it was a political message. Comey said his wife, who had worked as a server, recognized “86” as restaurant terminology and suggested that he photograph the shells.

Prosecutors also question Comey’s claim that they simply happened upon the formation. They reportedly contend that it was located approximately four miles down the beach from the property where Comey was staying, in an isolated area separated from the ocean by a sand dune. Investigators say they found no evidence identifying anyone else who arranged, photographed or even saw the shells.

Those circumstances do not establish that Comey created the formation. They do provide prosecutors with grounds to challenge his version of how the post originated.

The Book May Be the Government’s Most Provocative Evidence

Five days after Comey published “86 47,” his novel FDR Drive was released.

The book follows federal prosecutor Nora Carleton as she attempts to hold right-wing podcaster Samuel Buchanan criminally responsible for violence committed by his followers. Buchanan identifies political enemies, promotes inflammatory claims and encourages alienated Americans to resist. His messages allegedly motivate followers to commit assaults and murders while allowing him to deny that he directly ordered anyone to act.

The publisher’s description says Carleton must convince a jury that “some speech is actually a deadly crime.”

One passage cited by prosecutors describes “stochastic terrorism” as a process in which a charismatic leader inflames followers through the internet while avoiding a direct connection to the violence that follows.

DOJ argues that Comey had just written a book demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of coded online incitement when he posted his own ambiguous message about a president who had survived assassination attempts.

Prosecutors summarized their theory bluntly: an objective viewer could interpret the post as “Kill President Trump.”

Comey Explained the Same Legal Problem After the Post

The connection became more pronounced during Comey’s May 23, 2025 NPR interview.

Comey described FDR Drive as a story about a podcaster “trying to motivate his followers to engage in acts of violence against the targets of his vitriol.” He said the fictional figure “clearly knows what he’s doing,” even though the boundary between protected speech and criminal conduct is “fuzzy.”

During the same interview, Comey insisted that his “86 47” message had no connection to violence.

That does not prove Comey intended to threaten Trump. It does complicate the image of a politically unsophisticated beachgoer who could not imagine how an indirect message might be interpreted by an online audience.

The Legal Fight Is About Intent, Not Whether People Were Offended

Comey argues that “86” commonly means to eject, remove or refuse service and that “86 47” was already used as an anti-Trump political slogan. His attorneys contend that prosecuting the post violates the First Amendment and represents selective retaliation against a longtime Trump critic.

DOJ answers that context matters. Trump had faced actual assassination attempts, Comey possessed extensive law-enforcement experience, his book examined coded incitement and the post was reasonably interpreted by law-enforcement officials and members of the public as threatening violence.

The novel is not a confession, and fiction cannot substitute for proof of criminal intent. But FDR Drive gives prosecutors something more substantial than an argument over slang. It shows that Comey had recently examined how an influential person could communicate an inflammatory message, inspire followers and later insist that he never explicitly called for violence.

Comey’s replies are due September 1. The court must then decide whether these disputes can be resolved before trial or whether a jury should determine what James Comey intended when he put “86 47” before his online audience.

Key Point: American taxpayers should not finance research that ultimately strengthens China, Russia or Iran

The Pentagon has ordered 30 American universities to examine their academic, financial and research relationships with foreign institutions considered national security risks. The message is direct: protect American research or risk losing access to future federal funding.

The order marks a serious escalation in Washington’s effort to prevent taxpayer-funded discoveries, sensitive technology and intellectual property from reaching foreign adversaries through academic partnerships.

DefenseScoop first reported the complete list of institutions on August 17 after a U.S. official provided the outlet with the names of the universities receiving formal notifications.

The list includes Harvard University, MIT, Johns Hopkins University, Georgetown University, Cornell University, Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Virginia Tech, Penn State, New York University and several University of California campuses.

The schools have until August 31 to report their findings and corrective actions to the Pentagon.

The Pentagon Is Following the Money and the Research

The universities must conduct comprehensive audits of collaborations with designated foreign entities of concern. That includes examining whether sensitive or export-controlled research may have been exposed.

The institutions must also develop mitigation plans. Those plans may require terminating partnerships the Pentagon determines are problematic.

“The Department of War has zero tolerance for academic partnerships that compromise our national security,” Under Secretary for Research and Engineering Emil Michael said in the Pentagon’s official announcement.

Michael added that institutions receiving American taxpayer funding must maintain the highest standards of research security.

This is not a suggestion. According to the press statement, the university’s eligibility for future Pentagon research funding may depend on its compliance.

The audits will examine relationships with foreign institutions identified under Section 1286 of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. They will also cover organizations connected to rebranded Confucius Institutes.

A Larger National Security Review Is Already Underway

The Pentagon’s action did not suddenly appear without an established government process behind it.

On July 23, the department released an updated list of 130 academic and research institutions in China, Russia and Iran that it says have engaged in activities increasing the danger that American government-funded research could be misappropriated.

The Pentagon warned American researchers and institutions to exercise strict caution before entering collaborations, sharing data or accepting funding connected to entities on that list.

The official Section 1286 announcement describes unauthorized technology transfer as a threat to national security and the integrity of American science.

The concern is easy to understand. American universities perform cutting-edge work in aerospace engineering, artificial intelligence, advanced materials, biotechnology, medicine, quantum science and other fields with potential military applications.

Academic research may be publicly presented as civilian or fundamental science while still producing knowledge valuable to a foreign military, weapons program or intelligence service.

The American people should not be financing both sides of a technological competition.

An Audit Is Not a Conviction

The Pentagon has not publicly explained which foreign relationship caused each university to be selected. Inclusion on the list of 30 does not prove that a school illegally exported technology, deliberately assisted a foreign military or knowingly endangered national security.

That distinction matters.

The government must present evidence, establish understandable standards and give institutions an opportunity to explain or correct questionable arrangements. Universities should not be declared guilty because they received an audit notice.

At the same time, universities accepting defense research money cannot treat their international partnerships as entirely private academic affairs. American taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing where federally funded research travels, who gains access to it and whether foreign institutions have military or intelligence connections.

Academic freedom does not require the federal government to fund partnerships it considers dangerous.

North Carolina Universities Are Included

Three institutions with major North Carolina connections appear on the list: Duke University, UNC Chapel Hill and Virginia Tech in neighboring Virginia.

That gives North Carolina voters and members of Congress a direct reason to follow the August 31 reports.

The public should expect answers to several basic questions. Which foreign partnerships were identified? What kinds of research were involved? Did the universities previously disclose those relationships to federal agencies? Were any partnerships terminated? Will federal funding be suspended?

Those answers will determine whether this is primarily a compliance problem, an institutional judgment failure or something serious enough to require further investigation.

Congress Must Follow the Audit Trail

This initiative is being pursued with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the appropriations committees and the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

Congress should not allow the process to disappear after universities submit paperwork.

The findings should be made public wherever national security and legitimate privacy restrictions permit. If the reviews uncover grant fraud, false statements, export-control violations or theft of intellectual property, the evidence should be referred to the appropriate investigative agencies.

The purpose is accountability, not another Washington report that no voter ever sees.

American universities remain essential to defense innovation. That is precisely why their research relationships deserve serious scrutiny.

The country cannot invest billions of dollars developing advanced technology while ignoring the possibility that foreign adversaries are gaining access through partnerships carrying the respectable label of academic cooperation.

The Pentagon has put 30 universities on notice. Now Americans should watch what those universities find, what they terminate and whether Washington follows through.

For more of our coverage on academic research, please read:

Key point: Howell says mass deportation, draining the swamp and confronting corporate power will determine whether the Trump coalition survives

Mike Howell, President of the Oversight Project, delivered a message on Tuesday to Steve Bannon that some Republicans may not want to hear: President Donald Trump’s coalition cannot be sustained by rhetoric, social media posts, or promises of enforcement sometime in the future.

It needs results.

Howell’s segment opened with Howell speaking during a Mass Deportation Coalition discussion, and the discussion continued later, with him joining WarRoom host Steve Bannon.

Watch full WarRoom segment:

Howell argued that immigration enforcement has become more than another item on the Republican platform. It is now a test of whether the political realignment Trump began will actually transfer power away from Washington’s donor and consultant classes and return it to the voters.

Howell’s criticism was unmistakably tough, but it was not offered as an attack on Trump. He presented it as a warning intended to protect Trump’s legacy and prevent the Republican Party from sliding back into its pre-Trump condition.

“This is absolutely constructive, if uncomfortable,” Howell said.

That distinction matters. A political movement that cannot examine its own performance will eventually become captive to the people most interested in concealing failure.

First: Fall Back in Love With the Promise

When Bannon asked Howell what Trump should do immediately, Howell’s first recommendation was direct.

“The president needs to boldly fall back in love with his promise,” Howell said.

That means declaring that business interests will not be permitted to limit immigration enforcement. Howell said the administration should demonstrate that commitment through large enforcement operations targeting employers that knowingly rely upon illegal labor.

His point is that enforcement cannot remain focused almost exclusively on individual workers while the businesses creating the demand escape serious consequences. If employers can continue profiting from illegal labor, the economic machinery driving illegal immigration remains intact.

Howell also questioned whether the deportation numbers being presented to the public accurately reflect the administration’s performance. He said his organization sued the Department of Homeland Security seeking the underlying data.

Those claims must ultimately be tested against the records Howell obtains. But demanding the records is not disloyalty. Transparency allows voters to determine whether the government is delivering what it promised.

Second: Drain the Swamp Again

Howell’s second recommendation was to revive one of Trump’s most important original promises: drain the swamp.

“The special interests are getting what they want and the voters are not,” he argued.

Howell believes business leaders, major donors and established political interests have recovered too much influence inside the Republican Party. In his telling, the people who voted for a political revolution are watching the old power structure quietly reassemble itself under America First branding.

That would be more damaging than an ordinary policy failure. It would convince voters that elections can change the slogans without changing who exercises power.

Trump’s appeal came in part from his willingness to challenge interests that conventional Republicans treated as untouchable. Howell is warning that the movement will lose its purpose if those interests once again determine what can and cannot be done.

Third: Address What Voters Actually Care About

Howell’s final message was woven through the remainder of his answer: Republicans must stop allowing consultants and corporate interests to set their priorities.

Voters are worried about finding good jobs, raising families, the proliferation of data centers, foreign labor, government surveillance and wars that lack a clearly articulated American interest. They want their government to protect their ability to build secure lives in their own country.

Republicans must offer those voters something concrete and positive.

Howell warned that when the Republican Party appears controlled by corporations and special interests, it strengthens the central argument made by democratic socialists: that the existing system serves powerful institutions while abandoning working people.

That is where this discussion becomes larger than deportation statistics.

The Difference Between Liberty and Marxism

Marxist politics advances when citizens conclude that the free system has been corrupted beyond repair. When corporations obtain political favors, donors dictate policy and elected officials disregard the voters, socialists are handed evidence for their case.

The answer is not socialism. The answer is to restore accountable government, enforce the law equally and return political power to American citizens.

Liberty requires more than leaving people alone. It requires a government that protects citizens from being displaced, manipulated or overruled by concentrated political and economic power.

Howell’s warning may be unwelcome inside parts of the administration and the Republican establishment. It is nevertheless a discussion the America First movement needs to have.

This is the moment for tough love. Trump’s voters did not ask for better messaging around the old system. They voted to change it.

For more of our recent coverage on campaign issues and coalition building, please consider these articles:

The Factory Lights Are Coming Back On. America Has to Show Up for Work

Reviving American Manufacturing Requires Better Policy, Better Jobs and a Renewed Work Ethic

Key Point: America has spent years talking about bringing manufacturing home. Now evidence suggests that factories are expanding and employers are searching for workers. The question is whether the American workforce is prepared to meet the moment.

HireQuest reported this week that revenue from its manufacturing staffing business is running at approximately three times its pre-pandemic level. The company sees demand for production workers, machine operators, machinists, maintenance technicians, automation specialists and process engineers.

That is one company’s internal measurement, but it is still a significant signal from a staffing network operating across 35 states. Manufacturers appear to be testing new workers through temporary and temp-to-permanent positions before adding them to permanent payrolls.

The broader numbers support the conclusion that something is moving. The Federal Reserve reported that manufacturing production increased 0.2 percent in July, while factory output excluding vehicles rose 0.4 percent. Production of computer and electronic products increased 1.9 percent. Defense and space equipment production jumped 1.8 percent.

The Institute for Supply Management found that manufacturing expanded for a seventh consecutive month in July. Its production index reached its highest level since November 2021.

The factory lights are coming back on. America has to show up for work.

COVID Damaged More Than the Economy

Government lockdowns shattered routines, disconnected people from workplaces and trained millions of Americans to see ordinary economic life as optional. Businesses closed. Careers were interrupted. Schools stopped preparing young people for adulthood. Government checks and emergency programs blurred the connection between work, production and income.

Many Americans worked throughout the crisis. Others desperately wanted to return but faced closed businesses, child-care disruptions, illness or government restrictions. Those people should not be blamed for decisions imposed upon them.

Still, the cultural damage cannot be ignored. Five years after the emergency, too much of the country remains trapped in an emergency mindset. The labor-force participation rate stood at 61.4 percent in July, down 0.7 percentage point since January. America cannot rebuild its industrial base while a growing share of its population remains detached from work.

Government policy carries enormous responsibility. Taxes, regulations, housing costs, credential requirements, unreliable transportation and the loss of vocational education can keep willing Americans from available jobs. Employers also have responsibilities. A temporary position must offer a credible path toward stable employment, useful training and wages that make work worthwhile.

Then comes the obligation that belongs to us.

Freedom Requires People Who Produce

Socialism and communism become attractive when people are taught to view production as someone else’s responsibility. These ideologies promise distribution while avoiding the harder question of who will build, repair, transport and maintain everything being distributed.

A free society depends upon citizens who can support themselves, develop useful skills and contribute to the communities around them. Smaller government becomes possible when fewer people require government to organize their lives. Economic independence gives citizens the confidence to resist centralized power.

That is why rebuilding the American work ethic is a civic issue.

It is acceptable to say that America needs to level up. We need machinists, welders, technicians, engineers, mechanics and production workers. We need young people willing to learn difficult skills. We need experienced Americans willing to return, retrain or step into industries they may have overlooked.

We should demand that Washington stop treating foreign labor as the automatic solution to every reported worker shortage. Employers claiming that Americans cannot fill their jobs should be expected to demonstrate serious domestic recruiting, training and wage efforts first.

That demand creates a responsibility for Americans as well. When jobs are available and real pathways exist, we have to step into them. We cannot insist that the government protect American workers while refusing to become the workers American industry needs.

The revival of American manufacturing will require sound trade policy, affordable energy, vocational training and relief from destructive regulations. It will also require discipline, ambition and the belief that productive work has dignity.

COVID interrupted America’s working culture. It does not get to define it forever.

The Four Pillars of American Revival

This publication is organized around four core areas that help citizens understand the country they live in and the decisions made in their name.

Culture
Documenting the shared institutions that hold the nation together, including sports, traditions, and civic life.

Work
Restoring dignity through American manufacturing, industry, and the people who build and produce.

Sovereignty
Explaining national security, strategy, and policy clearly so citizens understand power and the choices made by government.

Civics
Educating citizens about the systems of self-government so they can participate knowledgeably in a free society.

Informed citizens make better voters.

Key Point: America Did Not Just Lose Jobs. It Lost the Inventions Those Workers Never Got to Build

“Our country lives or dies based on how we address the very real problems that have put the American Dream far out of reach for most people,” Sean Davis wrote in his recent Federalist piece.

Sean Davis tells Bannon that immigration and DEI pushed capable American men beneath their potential, creating an opportunity loss the country may never be able to calculate.

Watch Tuesday’s WarRoom interview:

Federalist CEO Sean Davis joined Steve Bannon on Tuesday’s WarRoom with a warning that goes far beyond wages, unemployment numbers or the affordability crisis.

America has spent decades forcing capable citizens into jobs below their abilities. The country did not merely damage their careers. It lost the businesses, inventions, scientific advances and productivity they might have created.

Bannon opened the discussion by pointing to Davis’ August 14 Federalist article, “We Can’t Save the American Dream by Pretending Everything Is Just Fine.”

Davis argues that the American Dream has become inaccessible to millions of people who worked hard and made responsible choices. On WarRoom, he described intelligent young men who finished college, avoided overwhelming debt and performed well academically, only to spend years submitting résumés without receiving meaningful opportunities.

“They end up in jobs that are far below their capabilities,” Davis said.

That sentence identifies a loss that conventional employment statistics conceal. A man can be counted as employed while working in a position that uses only a fraction of his ability. The government records a job. It does not record the engineer he could have become, the company he might have built or the invention America will never receive.

Bannon Asks What Crushed the American Dream

Bannon asked Davis to rank the forces that placed the American Dream beyond the reach of younger generations.

Davis placed mass immigration first, arguing that legal and illegal immigration brought replacement-level numbers of workers into jobs Americans once performed.

He identified the DEI infrastructure throughout government and corporate America as the second force. Davis argued that hiring systems deliberately excluded applicants based on race and sex, regardless of their abilities.

His third factor was federal overspending and monetary expansion, which reduced the value of wages and savings while helping drive housing and other assets beyond what ordinary working people could afford.

Bannon pressed Davis on whether the Trump administration had already resolved the first two problems by securing the border and dismantling DEI.

Davis said stopping the flow does not remove the accumulated damage.

He compared the country to a flooded house. Plugging the leak is necessary, but the water remains. The damaged walls, flooring and insulation still have to be repaired.

“Just because we have stopped the flow of illegal immigration doesn’t mean we have eliminated the effect,” Davis said.

He also pointed to guest-worker programs, including J-1 and H-1B visas, that continue to affect the labor market even after the border is secured.

The Opportunity Loss America Never Counted

Davis’ most important point concerned what America lost while capable men were locked out of suitable work.

“We have had one, maybe two full generations of men who have been locked out of the economy,” he said.

Davis then asked the questions Washington has largely ignored:

“What was the opportunity loss of doing that? How many people were in jobs that were not up to their capabilities and abilities? How many inventions did we lose? How many innovations did we lose?”

This is a national productivity problem.

When a capable American is denied an opportunity because a company can import less expensive labor, the loss is greater than one paycheck. When a qualified young man is screened out by a diversity mandate, the damage extends beyond his personal career.

America loses whatever that person might have produced.

A business remains unbuilt. A manufacturing process is never improved. A scientific problem remains unsolved. A family delays children because the income needed for a home never arrives. Years of education and human potential are diverted into survival instead of innovation.

Those losses do not appear in the monthly jobs report. They compound quietly over decades.

Ending a Policy Does Not Restore the Lost Years

Davis cautioned that eliminating DEI policies now cannot immediately restore the careers they disrupted.

“We had decades of it wrecking people’s lives and careers,” he said. “You can’t undo them overnight.”

That distinction matters. Washington often treats a policy announcement as proof that the underlying problem has disappeared. Davis argued that stopping the harmful practice is only the beginning. America must still deal with workers who lost years of experience, advancement, earnings and professional development.

Some of that lost opportunity may never be recovered.

The government cannot recreate an invention that was never developed. It cannot know which underemployed worker might have founded an important company. It cannot return ten or twenty years to someone whose career was redirected by an unfair hiring system.

America Must Recover Its Own Talent

Davis’ argument arrives as the Trump administration’s new National Security Science and Technology Strategy calls for attracting “top-tier global talent” in critical fields.

America may need a limited number of exceptional foreign scientists to compete with China. But Davis’ warning raises the question that must come first: How much extraordinary talent already exists inside America but was cut out of the workplace or forced into jobs beneath its capabilities?

Before Washington declares another talent shortage, it should find the Americans its own policies overlooked.

The country cannot restore the American Dream by pretending the damage is gone. It also cannot secure its technological future while leaving American talent buried in the wrong jobs.

Davis’ message to Bannon was ultimately about national recovery. Stopping mass immigration and dismantling DEI are necessary steps. Recovering the people, productivity, and potential lost under those systems will be the much harder work.

We know the country suffered under these policies, and we know the consequences affect our elections.

Going down a rabbit hole:

Key Point: America needs rare scientific talent to beat China, but national security cannot become a loophole for importing workers Americans can replace

Resource for this article:

OSTP Director Releases Landmark Report and Recommendations for Renewing American Scientific Discovery

The Trump administration has released a new science and technology strategy designed to protect American research, accelerate military innovation and prevent adversaries from exploiting discoveries financed by American taxpayers.

The strategy also reopens one of the most contentious questions inside the America First movement: When does America genuinely need foreign talent, and when is “global talent” simply another justification for importing workers Americans could replace?

Edward Graham, managing editor of Nextgov/FCW, highlighted the tension in his report, “White House S&T Strategy Calls for New Approaches to Safeguard US Research.”

The 2025 National Security Strategy warned that America “cannot allow meritocracy to be used as a justification to open America’s labor market to the world in the name of finding ‘global talent’ that undercuts American workers.”

The new National Security Science and Technology Strategy says the United States will attract and retain “top-tier global talent in critical national security S&T fields.”

Those positions are not necessarily contradictory. The administration appears to be distinguishing ordinary corporate labor from rare scientists whose knowledge could determine whether America or China controls the next generation of military technology.

The problem is that the strategy never defines that distinction.

Why America Still Needs Outside Talent

America should educate and employ its own scientists first. National security, however, cannot always wait for the domestic education system to produce every specialist the country needs.

Quantum engineering, hypersonic propulsion, advanced nuclear physics, semiconductor manufacturing and certain forms of artificial intelligence require extremely specialized knowledge. In some cases, only a small number of people in the world possess the experience necessary to move a project forward.

America also faces a timing problem. Training an advanced scientist can take ten or fifteen years. China is investing aggressively in these fields right now while recruiting researchers who trained or worked at American universities and laboratories.

A scientist working in an American laboratory can help preserve an American battlefield advantage. That same scientist working in Beijing could help China erase it.

Carefully recruiting an exceptional scientist can therefore serve America First. The United States has historically benefited by attracting ambitious people who built companies, joined laboratories and committed their futures to this country. America should not surrender that advantage to China.

But a uniquely qualified quantum scientist is not the same as a technology company importing hundreds of employees for positions qualified Americans can already perform.

The H-1B Question Remains Unanswered

The new strategy does not say how the government will determine whether foreign expertise is actually necessary. It does not establish:

• A requirement to search for qualified Americans first

• A definition of “top-tier global talent”

• Evidence standards for proving a genuine skills shortage

• Wage protections preventing cheaper foreign labor

• Limits confining recruitment to designated national security fields

• A separate pathway for truly exceptional scientists

• A plan for training Americans to eliminate the shortage

The phrase “existing authorities” leaves federal agencies considerable discretion. It may also allow universities, defense contractors and technology companies to use existing visa programs without resolving the weaknesses that made H-1B visas so unpopular with American workers.

That omission should concern voters. National security cannot become a new label placed over the old practice of importing less expensive labor.

A defensible policy would distinguish among three groups: exceptional scientists whose knowledge America genuinely lacks, foreign researchers whose affiliations require careful scrutiny and ordinary workers brought in for jobs Americans can perform.

America needs a narrow pathway for the first group, counterintelligence safeguards for the second and strong worker protections against abuse involving the third.

Recruitment and Monitoring Are Moving Together

The foreign-talent provision is only one part of the strategy. The White House is also calling for automated vetting of federally funded research proposals, continuous monitoring of funded projects, stronger cybersecurity standards and expanded counterintelligence support for universities and laboratories.

That combination is important.

The strategy does not say the government will bring foreign scientists into the country specifically to spy on them. It does, however, create a system capable of detecting undisclosed foreign funding, suspicious institutional relationships and attempts to transfer American research abroad.

Washington may be trying to bring valuable knowledge inside an American-controlled research environment while watching more closely for adversarial networks attempting to reach it. That is an inference from the combined policies, not a publicly acknowledged intelligence operation.

The Department of War is already putting the security side into motion. On August 17, it ordered 30 American academic institutions to audit their academic, financial and research relationships with foreign entities of concern.

Universities must examine their exposure to sensitive or export-controlled research and terminate problematic partnerships or risk losing eligibility for future federal funding.

Congress Must Define the Guardrails

The administration is right to recognize that America cannot win a technological competition by closing itself off from every exceptional scientist who wants to work here.

It is also right to recognize that open universities and international research partnerships have been exploited by foreign governments seeking American technology without paying the cost of developing it.

But recruitment, monitoring and worker protection must operate together.

Congress and the administration should define “top-tier global talent,” require proof that the expertise is genuinely scarce, protect American wages and restrict national security recruitment to clearly identified fields. Foreign recruitment should also be paired with scholarships and training programs that develop American replacements.

America should import knowledge it genuinely lacks, capture talent that might otherwise strengthen an adversary and protect the resulting research from foreign exploitation.

What it must never do is allow “global talent” to become another name for cheaper labor.

The Four Pillars of American Revival

This publication is organized around four core areas that help citizens understand the country they live in and the decisions made in their name.

Culture
Documenting the shared institutions that hold the nation together, including sports, traditions, and civic life.

Work
Restoring dignity through American manufacturing, industry, and the people who build and produce.

Sovereignty
Explaining national security, strategy, and policy clearly so citizens understand power and the choices made by government.

Civics
Educating citizens about the systems of self-government so they can participate knowledgeably in a free society.

Informed citizens make better voters.