Berlin had asked an important question: Who owns the airplanes carrying people away? Who operates the detention centers? Which companies receive government money to make ICE’s deportation system work?

She did an extraordinary amount of research. Her map helped activists identify companies connected to ICE and pressure some of them to end those relationships.

But when I tried to use the map myself, I became frustrated.

The map contains thousands of colored markers layered across the country. Enlarging Michigan made the map collapse on my iPad. Clicking a marker opened a panel that covered much of the map. The colors represented different kinds of relationships, but those distinctions were not immediately understandable.

A company selling access to newspapers appeared alongside a supplier of restraints and a county jail holding ICE detainees.

I finally wondered: Wouldn’t it be easier simply to search for companies and facilities in Michigan that provide ICE with services or space?

So that is what I did.

What I found in Michigan

The North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin

The most significant ICE contractor in Michigan is the GEO Group, the private prison corporation operating the North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin.

The facility reopened as an ICE detention center in June 2025. It has space for approximately 1,800 people, making it one of the country’s largest immigration detention centers and the largest in the Midwest.

A GEO Group executive estimated that the Baldwin center could generate approximately $70 million a year for the company when fully operating. Bridge Michigan reported on the facility and its financial potential⁠.

This is not a company providing an incidental office service. GEO Group makes money by supplying beds, guards, buildings, and other detention services. Its financial success depends in part upon the government continuing to arrest and detain people.

Michigan county jails

ICE has also used space in county jails.

Bridge Michigan reported that jails in Calhoun, Chippewa, Monroe, and St. Clair counties were holding immigrants awaiting court proceedings or deportation. At the time of that report, those four jails had recently held a combined 346 ICE detainees.

The interactive map identified the Chippewa County facility at 325 Court Street in Sault Ste. Marie as an ICE detention location.

These arrangements deserve local attention because county governments may receive federal money for providing the space. Residents can ask their county commissioners and sheriffs whether such an agreement exists, how much ICE pays, and who approved it.

ICE’s expanding office network

In February 2026, Michigan Advance reported plans to expand ICE’s existing presence in the Rosa Parks Federal Building in Detroit and establish new offices in the Waters Center in Grand Rapids and the One Towne Square—or Oakland Towne Square—complex in Southfield. Michigan Advance identified the three locations⁠.

The Southfield space was described as supporting ICE’s “administrative and legal functions.”

But office space should not be dismissed as harmless merely because people are not detained there.

ICE needs offices in which agents and administrators can plan operations, examine records, process cases, coordinate arrests, prepare legal arguments, manage surveillance information, and arrange detention and removal. Describing the activity as “administrative” does not make it separate from the deportation system. Administration is how the system operates.

Those offices also raise another question: Who owns the buildings and receives the government’s rent?

Michigan companies providing ICE with services

The map helped identify several other Michigan businesses receiving ICE money. The relationships vary considerably:

• Clarivate/ProQuest in Ann Arbor received $58,363 for subscriptions to collections of dissertations, books, journals, and newspapers used by ICE’s legal office. Clarivate acquired ProQuest in 2021, although ProQuest remains a product name and legal entity.

• Gerald Hanson & Associates in Detroit received $7,110 for court-reporting services.

• Courage Tactical LLC, doing business as CopsPlus, in St. Clair Shores received $106,330 for restraints to support ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations.

• All American Cabling in Sterling Heights received $5,954 to install computer-network lines for forensic-analysis offices and a computer laboratory.

• Satellite Services Inc. in Marquette was listed as receiving approximately $1.6 million for operations and maintenance work at an ICE service-processing center.

These contracts are not identical. Supplying research publications is different from providing restraints or operating a detention center.

But together they demonstrate an important fact: ICE is not merely a group of federal agents. It is an infrastructure supported by private prison corporations, county governments, landlords, equipment suppliers, technology installers, legal-service providers, and many other businesses.

Without that infrastructure, mass detention and deportation would be much more difficult.

Michigan also stopped one proposed detention center

In early 2026, the federal government purchased a large warehouse in Romulus, near Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and planned to convert it into an ICE detention facility.

Residents, elected officials, the City of Romulus, and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel fought the proposal. Michigan and Romulus went to court, raising questions about environmental rules, permits, flooding, and the government’s failure to consult the community.

In June, the federal government abandoned the detention plan and said the warehouse would be sold. The Associated Press reported that community and legal opposition contributed to the retreat⁠.

That is worth remembering: discovering the infrastructure is not merely an academic exercise. Communities can sometimes stop it.

How to investigate your own state

You do not need to master a complicated national map. Begin with ordinary searches using your state, county, or city:

• “ICE detention facilities in Michigan”

• “Michigan companies with ICE contracts”

• “ICE office expansion Michigan”

• “Michigan county jails holding ICE detainees”

• “Michigan jail agreement with ICE”

• “GEO Group ICE Michigan”

• “CoreCivic ICE Michigan”

• “Southfield ICE office lease”

• “Who owns the building leased to ICE in Southfield?”

• “ICE contracts USAspending Michigan”

• “287(g) agreements Michigan”

Replace “Michigan” with the name of your own state.

If a company appears, search its name again:

• “[company name] ICE contract”

• “[company name] DHS contract”

• “[company name] USAspending”

• “[company name] parent company”

• “[company name] political contributions”

Record five basic facts:

1. Who is receiving the money?

2. Who owns the company or building?

3. What service or space is being provided?

4. How much is the government paying?

5. Does the work directly support detention, surveillance, enforcement, transportation, legal operations, or removal?

Local newspapers are often especially valuable because their reporters identify buildings, property owners, county agreements, protests, and government decisions that may be invisible in national reporting.

Laura Berlin performed an enormous public service by assembling the raw information. But a national map filled with thousands of markers can overwhelm the very people who might act upon it.

Perhaps the next step is simpler: choose one state, identify the machinery operating there, explain each relationship in plain language—and then invite people throughout the country to do the same.

If searching online is difficult

Not everyone is comfortable navigating interactive maps, government databases, or complicated websites. That should not prevent anyone from participating.

A community group could ask one or two web-savvy members to research a local company, landlord, jail, or government contract and prepare a simple one-page summary. Other members could then organize a letter-writing campaign.

Letters could be sent to:

• the company’s president or board of directors;

• the owner of a building leased for ICE operations;

• county commissioners and the county sheriff;

• state and federal representatives;

• local newspapers and television stations;

• churches, unions, neighborhood groups, and other community organizations.

The letter does not need to be complicated. It can identify the relationship with ICE, explain why it is harmful, and make one specific request: end the contract, refuse to renew the lease, stop providing detention space, or publicly disclose how much money is being received.

Boycott Citizens⁠ offers one example of a focused campaign. Organizers concentrated upon Citizens Bank because it helped finance GEO Group and CoreCivic, two major private detention corporations. Customers, community groups, and local governments withdrew money or threatened to do so while asking the bank to end those relationships. Citizens Bank ultimately announced that it would wind them down.

Some people can search databases. Others can write letters, make telephone calls, attend meetings, talk to neighbors, or contact a local reporter. Each person can contribute in the way that is most comfortable and possible for them.

References and Further Reading

The original investigation

● Nick Penzenstadler, “A mom’s website shows who profits from ICE. Why Feds call it a ‘threat,’” USA Today, August 31, 2026.

● Laura Berlin and Boycott Citizens, “Who’s Profiting from ICE?” interactive map.

ICE detention in Michigan

● Lauren Gibbons, “As ICE detention center opens, ‘dangerous times to be an immigrant in Michigan,’” Bridge Michigan, June 24, 2025. This report covers the 1,800-bed North Lake facility in Baldwin, GEO Group’s projected revenue, Michigan county jails holding ICE detainees, and several Michigan contractors.

● U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, North Lake Processing Center. ICE’s official facility listing.

ICE offices in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Southfield

● Katherine Dailey, “Report: One ICE facility to expand, two more to be established in Michigan,” Michigan Advance, February 10, 2026.

● Paula Wethington, “ICE to use administrative office space in Southfield, city says,” CBS Detroit, February 12, 2026. The report identifies REDICO as the landlord and says the space is intended to support administrative and legal functions associated with ICE.

The Romulus detention-center proposal

● Lauren Gibbons, “Can Michigan block new ICE facilities? How officials are fighting back,” Bridge Michigan, February 27, 2026.

● “Federal officials plan to offload some warehouses purchased for immigrant detention,” Associated Press, June 23, 2026. This report explains that the federal government abandoned its plan to use the Romulus warehouse for immigrant detention and intended to sell it.

Clarivate and ProQuest

● Clarivate, “Clarivate to acquire ProQuest,” May 17, 2021.

● Clarivate’s current office directory identifies 789 Eisenhower Parkway as its Ann Arbor location. ProQuest continues as a Clarivate brand and legal entity.

Federal contract records

The following USAspending.gov records provide the underlying federal award information:

● ProQuest LLC—digital publication and research subscriptions

● Gerald Hanson & Associates—court-reporting services

● Courage Tactical LLC—personal restraints for Enforcement and Removal Operations

● All American Cabling—computer-network installation

● Satellite Services Inc.—operations and maintenance at the Florence Service Processing Center

––—————————-

A note about the dollar amounts: Federal contract pages may display total award value, current obligations, and amounts obligated during different time periods. Those numbers are not necessarily identical. The “Who’s Profiting from ICE?” map showed approximately $1.6 million obligated to Satellite Services during its selected January 20, 2025–July 24, 2026 period, while Bridge Michigan reported the broader contract’s value as $9.4 million.

Leave a comment

Then I read Blumenthal’s article.

What emerged was not merely a story about Barron Trump recommending a few podcasts to his father. It was a story about an online political machine, the exploitation of disaffected young men, people accused of international crimes, pressure from American officials, Europe’s far right, and Russian influence.

Barron Trump helped his father build an online campaign aimed at young men. Some of the people inside that network were connected not only to ugly misogynistic propaganda, but also to alleged international crime, the European far right, and Russian influence.

Now many of those same influencers are turning against Trump.

First: What is the “manosphere”?

It is a loose collection of male podcasters, influencers, and online personalities. They attract young men who feel lonely, angry, overlooked, or uncertain about their future.

Some offer ordinary advice about exercise, money, or confidence. But its ugliest and most influential figures preach that:

• Men should dominate women.

• Feminism has ruined society.

• Compassion is weakness.

• A powerful “alpha male” should be obeyed.

Trump was marketed to this audience as the ultimate alpha male—fearless, invincible, and tougher than everyone else.

What did Barron Trump do?

During the 2024 campaign, Barron reportedly advised his father about which podcasters and influencers could reach young men. He helped connect the Trump campaign with that online world and hosted a dinner for influencers at Mar-a-Lago.

This was politically valuable. Trump appeared on their programs, they promoted him to millions of followers, and large numbers of young men moved toward Trump.

So Barron was not merely suggesting a few podcasts. According to Sidney Blumenthal’s account, he helped open the door to an organized and enormously powerful online political network.

Where do the Tate brothers enter the story?

Andrew and Tristan Tate were among the most notorious figures in that world. They had millions of followers and promoted extreme male domination.

They also faced serious charges in Romania involving human trafficking, rape, violence, and money laundering. They deny the charges.

People associated with the Tates reportedly helped turn portions of their enormous internet network into a Trump-promoting operation.

That is the first disturbing connection:

• A network accused of exploiting women was also being used to help elect an American president.

• And then American power appears to have helped the Tates

The Tates had been prohibited from leaving Romania while criminal cases against them proceeded. Trump administration officials reportedly began raising their case with Romanian officials.

At a European security conference, Trump envoy Richard Grenell asked Romania’s foreign minister about “the Tate boys.” According to reporting cited by Blumenthal, Romanian officials took this as a signal that the Trump administration wanted the restrictions lifted.

Soon afterward, the Tates were permitted to fly to the United States.

Roger Stone then publicly credited Grenell with securing their release. The Tates were welcomed at a UFC event attended by people close to Trump, including FBI Director Kash Patel.

The Tates had not been acquitted. The cases had not disappeared. Romania had simply allowed them to leave the country temporarily.

That produces the second disturbing connection:

The influencers helped Trump politically, and then Trump’s government appeared to use American diplomatic influence on the Tates’ behalf.

How did Russia become part of it?

The Tates also supported a pro-Putin, ultranationalist candidate in Romania. Romania’s presidential election was annulled after authorities reported massive cyberattacks and suspicious online manipulation associated with Russian influence.

Other people in Barron’s political-influencer network developed relationships with Europe’s pro-Putin far right. The Tates themselves later received a highly ceremonial welcome in Russia and praised Putin.

The podcast’s larger argument was not that every person involved was taking direct orders from Moscow. It was that the same online machinery could serve several related purposes:

• Promote Trump.

• Spread hatred of women and democratic values.

• Promote European far-right politicians.

• Amplify Russian propaganda.

• Protect people accused of serious crimes.

That is why the story felt so enormous. It was not simply about some repulsive podcasters. It was about an international web in which online propaganda, political influence, alleged criminal activity, and government power overlapped.

Why is the “manosphere falling apart” now?

Many of these influencers believed Trump’s promises to avoid foreign wars and expose the Epstein files.

They now believe he betrayed them on both:

• Joe Rogan accused Trump of concealing information or “gaslighting” people about Epstein.

• Rogan, Theo Von, and others strongly opposed Trump’s war with Iran.

• They no longer see Trump as the wise, unbeatable strongman they promoted.

The mythology they helped manufacture is collapsing.

And what does “Barron’s Bonfire” mean?

Barron helped assemble and ignite this political movement.

Now Trump’s own decisions are setting fire to it. The people who helped create his heroic image are publicly ridiculing and abandoning him.

The simplest possible version is:

Barron helped bring Trump an enormous online army of young men. That army included people accused of serious crimes and others connected to Putin’s political world and the European far right. Trump’s government subsequently appears to have intervened on behalf of some of them. Now the alliance is breaking because its influencers believe Trump betrayed them over Epstein and Iran.

That is what Blumenthal and Wilentz were trying to show.

And yes—it is shocking.

References and Further Reading

• Sidney Blumenthal, The New Republic, “Two Years Ago, They Revered Trump; Now, They Ridicule and Revile Him⁠” August 20, 2026.

• The Court of History, “Trump Runs Scared as His Manosphere Falls Apart!!!⁠,” August 2026. The program’s on-screen heading was “Barron’s Bonfire of the Manosphere.”

• Arwa Mahdawi, The Guardian, “How close is the Trump administration to the toxic Tate brothers? Let’s ask the president’s son Barron …⁠,” July 28, 2026.

• The New York Times, “The Tate Brothers, in Federal Custody, Watch Their Powerful Backers Go Quiet.”

• Heidi Blake, The New Yorker, “Andrew Tate’s Empire of Abuse⁠,” June 8, 2026.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

It was not simply one disturbing revelation. It was the accumulation of developments that, when considered together, raised a question I could not shake:

Why is Pete Hegseth still in charge of the American military?

Not everyone watches Rachel’s program. Some people may have difficulty finding it. Others may encounter these stories only as separate headlines, without realizing how they connect.

So I wanted to put the pieces together and provide references so readers can examine the evidence for themselves.

The answer to my question appears increasingly clear:

Loyalty—not competent stewardship of the armed forces—is evidently the qualification Trump values most.

But the consequences extend well beyond one cabinet secretary.

The people who are supposed to say no

The American military is designed to survive changes in political leadership. Presidents come and go. Cabinet secretaries come and go. Beneath them are experienced military officers, intelligence professionals, lawyers and career personnel whose obligations remain the same.

• They are supposed to provide honest assessments.

• They are supposed to identify dangerous decisions.

• They are supposed to explain when a proposed action violates the law.

• And they are supposed to remember that their oath is to the Constitution—not to a president.

Those safeguards become especially important when political leaders lack experience, dismiss unwelcome facts or value personal loyalty more than professional judgment.

Yet those safeguards are being weakened.

Experienced military leaders are being removed

Since Trump returned to office, the administration has fired or forced out numerous senior military leaders, including the previous chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army chief of staff, the chief of naval operations and the Air Force vice chief of staff.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is also reportedly expected to leave after months of tension with Hegseth. His departure would leave the Army without a Senate-confirmed civilian leader while the United States remains engaged in a war with Iran.

Reuters noted that Driscoll’s reported departure would add to continuing upheaval throughout the Pentagon. Reuters: Army secretary expected to step down⁠

Every administration makes personnel changes.

• But removing experienced military leadership during an ongoing war is not simply a matter of rearranging an organizational chart.

• These officers understand supply chains, troop readiness, intelligence, military strategy and the consequences of escalating a conflict.

• They are supposed to tell civilian leaders what they need to hear—not merely what they want to hear.

When those people are dismissed, everyone remaining receives a message: Your career may depend on whether your judgment pleases the president and his appointees.

Black officers and women are being singled out

The removal of experienced military leaders has not affected everyone equally.

Some of the most prominent officers dismissed or denied advancement have been Black, female or both.

Among them was Air Force General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and only the second Black officer to hold that position.

• Brown was an experienced combat pilot with decades of military service.

• He was dismissed without a publicly identified performance-related reason.

Another was Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to serve as chief of naval operations and the first woman to sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

• She, too, was removed.

• Major General William Green Jr., one of the few Black officers ever to serve as the Army’s chief of chaplains, was also dismissed. No public explanation was offered. Reuters: Senior Army officers fired by Hegseth⁠, Religion News Service: Questions raised over firing of Black Army chaplain⁠

• The concern extends beyond officers already holding senior positions.

NPR confirmed that Hegseth intervened to remove two Black men and two women from a list of Army officers recommended for promotion to one-star general.

Two officers from another military branch—one Black and one female—were also reportedly removed from a promotion list. NPR: Hegseth blocked promotions of Black and female officers⁠

There were additional reports that a senior Hegseth aide objected to Major General Antoinette Gant, a Black woman, serving in a prominent ceremonial military role. According to those reports, the aide suggested Trump would not want to stand beside a Black female officer at military events.

The aide denied making that statement. Gant ultimately assumed the position. People: Report concerning Major General Antoinette Gant⁠

The Pentagon says its decisions are based on merit. But these officers did not reach senior military ranks by accident. They spent decades serving their country, earning promotions, commanding personnel and acquiring expertise.

When qualified Black officers and women are repeatedly removed or passed over, the consequences extend beyond the individuals affected.

• Young service members notice.

• Future recruits notice.

• And experienced personnel may decide that their opportunities depend less on ability than on whether they fit the administration’s preferred image.

A military that discards talent because of race or gender does not become stronger.

It becomes smaller, narrower and less capable.

That is not merit. It is discrimination dressed up as military reform.

The military lawyers were pushed aside, too

Military lawyers advise commanders about whether orders comply with American law, military law and the rules of armed conflict.

Their work matters when decisions involve civilian casualties, the treatment of prisoners, potential war crimes or the deployment of troops within the United States.

Early in his tenure, Hegseth moved to replace the top military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force.

According to the Associated Press, he said he did not believe they were well suited to advise on lawful orders. Associated Press: Hegseth explains firing of top military lawyers⁠

But military lawyers do not exist to make every presidential order easier to carry out.

They exist, in part, to identify when an order may cross a legal line.

• If the people responsible for identifying those lines are removed, who protects the service members expected to carry out questionable orders?

• Who protects civilians?

• Who protects the country?

Russia is helping Iran

These leadership changes are occurring while American military personnel face dangers that extend beyond Iran itself.

The Associated Press reported that Russia provided Iran with information that could help it locate and attack American warships, aircraft and other military assets. The report was based on officials familiar with U.S. intelligence. Associated Press: Russia provided Iran with information that could help target U.S. forces⁠

The Associated Press also reported that Russia was sending Iran upgraded drones based on technology refined during Russia’s war against Ukraine. Associated Press: Russia sending upgraded drones to Iran⁠

Reuters separately reported allegations that Russia was assisting Iran with satellite imagery and cyber capabilities. Reuters: Russia supplies Iran with cyber support and spy imagery⁠

Pause and consider the contradiction.

While Russia is reportedly helping Iran locate American military assets, the Trump administration is removing experienced American commanders, intelligence officials and military lawyers.

We are weakening our own institutional safeguards while a nuclear-armed adversary helps the country our troops are confronting.

China helps sustain Iran economically

Iran also depends on international economic relationships.

China has been the largest buyer of Iranian oil for years. Reuters reported that China purchased more than 80 percent of Iran’s shipped oil, according to 2025 data. Reuters: Iranian oil sales to Chinese buyers⁠

That does not mean China is engaged in the same activities as Russia. But it does mean Iran has an important economic lifeline beyond its borders.

Wars are not sustained only by weapons. They are sustained by money, trade, fuel, banking and access to international markets.

• Understanding those connections requires experienced military, diplomatic, intelligence and financial professionals.

• It also requires consistent enforcement.

Which brings us to a Turkish bank.

The Turkish bank the Justice Department let go

Halkbank is a bank majority-owned by the Turkish government.

In 2019, American prosecutors charged it with participating in an enormous scheme to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions.

The government alleged that Halkbank helped move approximately $20 billion in restricted Iranian funds through transactions involving oil revenue, gold, cash, front companies and fraudulent documentation.

Halkbank denied wrongdoing.

For years, the bank fought the criminal case, arguing that it was protected from prosecution because it was owned by a foreign government.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act automatically protected Halkbank from criminal prosecution. Further legal challenges also failed. Supreme Court: ⁠Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States⁠

Then Trump’s Justice Department reached an agreement with the bank.

• There was no financial penalty.

• There was no admission of wrongdoing.

• Instead, the bank agreed to a compliance review and restrictions on future transactions benefiting Iran.

After that review, prosecutors asked a federal judge to dismiss the case.

The judge did so on June 17, 2026. Reuters: Judge formally ends prosecution of Turkey’s Halkbank⁠

Now consider what happened just two months later.

On August 24, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced “Operation Economic Outcast,” an expanded campaign intended to isolate Iran and punish the financial networks helping it evade sanctions. U.S. Treasury: Operation Economic Outcast announcement⁠

The administration is warning foreign countries and financial institutions against helping Iran.

Yet when the United States already had a major Iranian sanctions-evasion case against a Turkish government-owned bank in an American courtroom, the Justice Department allowed it to end without a fine or admission of wrongdoing.

Turkey is also a NATO ally and has participated in diplomatic efforts involving Iran. That does not make Turkey’s role equivalent to Russia’s military assistance. Reuters: Erdoğan urges Trump to pursue talks with Iran⁠

But it does make the Halkbank decision harder to ignore.

If stopping Iran’s access to money is so important, why abandon one of the most significant prosecutions involving alleged sanctions evasion?

Independent military journalism is also under pressure

Stars and Stripes is a newspaper serving American military personnel and their families. Although it receives government support, its value depends on editorial independence.

Service members need accurate reporting about the institution they serve—not simply whatever political leaders want them to hear.

Recently, the Pentagon dismissed the newspaper’s editor in chief, publisher and a reporter after journalists publicly defended that independence.

The Pentagon cited insubordination. Associated Press: Pentagon dismisses ⁠Stars and Stripes⁠ leadership and reporter⁠

The immediate victims were the people who lost their jobs.

But the larger consequence is the message sent to everyone else:

Independent reporting may carry a professional price.

What happens when journalists hesitate before reporting dangerous conditions, shortages, poor leadership or official misconduct?

• Service members hear less.

• Military families hear less.

• The public hears less.

And the people making decisions face less accountability.

Meanwhile, military aircraft become part of the show

Military flyovers are not inherently inappropriate. They can honor service members, commemorate significant occasions and demonstrate the skills of military pilots.

But legitimate commemoration is not the same as treating military aircraft as props.

At Trump’s recent automobile race in Washington, officials paused air traffic at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport for approximately three hours to accommodate military flyovers.

Reuters reported that the aircraft included a Boeing 747 used as Air Force One and what appeared to be a B-2 stealth bomber. Reuters: Military flyovers accompany Trump’s Washington race⁠

• Those flights consume fuel, maintenance resources, aircraft lifespan and the time of pilots and ground crews.

• They also disrupted civilian air travel.

In a separate incident, the Navy announced a safety review after a Blue Angels jet flew low over a crowded Florida beach.

Hegseth responded: The flyovers will continue until morale improves. Associated Press via WPLN: Hegseth backs low-altitude military flyovers⁠

Perhaps he meant it as a joke.

But safety concerns deserve something more serious from the person responsible for the armed forces.

• The military exists to protect the country.

• It does not exist to entertain the president.

Why is a Michigan senator asking about soldiers at polling places?

Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin recently asked Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for assurances that the military would not be deployed at polling places or used to seize election materials during the upcoming midterm elections. Associated Press: Slotkin seeks assurances military will stay out of elections⁠

Consider how extraordinary that is.

A United States senator felt compelled to ask whether American military personnel would remain outside the administration of an American election.

• The military does not determine election outcomes.

• It does not seize ballots.

• It does not decide which candidates won.

Those responsibilities belong to election officials, courts and Congress.

But when experienced officers are removed, legal advisers are sidelined and personal loyalty becomes the overriding qualification, questions that once seemed unthinkable begin to feel necessary.

How Hegseth got the job

Hegseth’s confirmation barely succeeded.

• The Senate split 50–50.

• Vice President JD Vance cast the deciding vote.

Republican senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitch McConnell joined Democrats in opposing his confirmation. The remaining Republican senators provided enough votes to put him in charge of the American military. U.S. Senate: Official Hegseth confirmation vote⁠

Once a cabinet secretary is confirmed, the Senate cannot simply reverse its decision.

• The president can fire him.

• He can resign.

• Congress can investigate, hold hearings, demand records, use its spending authority or pursue impeachment.

But none of those remedies works unless people in positions of authority choose to act.

• So why is Hegseth still there?

• Because Trump wants him there.

• And because too many people with the power to challenge that decision have chosen not to.

The consequences belong to all of us

These developments might appear unrelated:

• A general is fired.

• A lawyer is replaced.

• A journalist loses a job.

• A Turkish bank avoids a financial penalty.

• Russia provides intelligence to Iran.

• Military aircraft become part of a presidential spectacle.

• A senator asks whether soldiers will remain away from voting booths.

But they share a common danger. Institutions meant to protect the country are weakened when professional judgment, legal accountability and independent reporting are treated as obstacles.

The military can still look impressive from the outside.

• Jets can fly overhead.

• Bands can play.

• Flags can wave.

But military strength is not measured only by aircraft, weapons and enormous budgets.

It depends on experienced leaders, truthful intelligence, independent legal advice and accountability to the Constitution.

Above all, it depends on people who are willing—and permitted—to say:

Mr. President, no.

When those people are removed or intimidated, the most important question is no longer simply why Pete Hegseth remains in charge.

It is this: Who is protecting the country when the safeguards meant to protect it are being dismantled?

Leave a comment

It began in the 1980s, when I worked at a software company with an Iranian woman named Fatemeh. We became close friends.

Fatemeh had come to the United States with her family when she was a young teenager. They settled in Huntsville, Alabama. I always wondered why Huntsville—although, as home to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Redstone Arsenal, and a large scientific and engineering community, it may not have been an accidental destination.

When Fatemeh arrived, she spoke no English. Reading, history, and other language-dependent subjects were understandably difficult for her—not because she lacked ability, but because she was trying to learn the material and the English language simultaneously.

Mathematics was different. Numbers did not require translation. Her school recognized that her mathematical ability extended beyond what it could offer and sent her to the university so she could continue her studies.

Fatemeh was not an abstraction called “Iran.” She was my friend: intelligent, mathematically gifted, and navigating a new country in a language she had only begun to learn.

Fatemeh’s family did not leave because they rejected Iran. They left because the new government had endangered their family. Her little sister was imprisoned merely for criticizing it, and the others had to leave her behind. Yet the country they fled remained their home. Her parents continued returning because people do not stop loving their country simply because they fear its government. Her brothers and husband could not return.

The difference in travel for her brothers and husband was probably military status. Iranian men were subject to compulsory service, particularly during the 1980–88 Iran-Iraq War. A young man who returned without having served or received an exemption could be prevented from leaving and taken for military service. Fatemeh’s father was presumably beyond draft age or had already fulfilled any obligation. Her mother was not subject to conscription. If neither parent had been politically charged or placed under a travel ban, they could probably enter and leave normally.

Why the parents took turns visiting the US, is something I didn’t ask. They may have needed someone to remain in Iran—to protect a home, manage family affairs or remain close to the imprisoned daughter. Visa limitations could also have played a part. They may have been separated, as I wondered, but their alternating visits are not enough to establish that. I didn’t want to pry.

The Troubling Story

On the morning of August 5, an anonymous account on X in India posted a sensational claim.

According to the account, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps had declared that Iran would never abandon its nuclear-weapons ambitions as long as Israel and the United States possessed nuclear weapons.

There was one rather important problem. He apparently never said it.

There is no evidence for the quotation. Nor is there evidence that Iran has developed a nuclear weapon.

But the claim began traveling.

It appeared on Israeli social-media accounts. An Israeli television channel repeated it and described it as Iran’s first public admission that it was attempting to build a nuclear bomb.

By that evening, the invented statement had entered remarks delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Mount Herzl, Israel’s national cemetery.

Consider what happened.

• An anonymous post became a social-media story.

• The social-media story became a television report.

• The television report became part of an official speech by a head of government.

At each step, the claim acquired a little more authority. By the time Netanyahu repeated it, an unsupported internet rumor sounded almost like verified intelligence.

And the invented quotation supplied exactly what those warning about Iran needed most: evidence of intent.

Iran’s ability to enrich uranium is not the same as a decision to manufacture a nuclear weapon. But the false quotation erased that distinction. It transformed “Iran possesses nuclear knowledge and capability” into “Iran’s military commander has admitted that Iran intends to build a bomb.”

That is not a minor error.

It is the kind of claim that can be used to justify sanctions, military attacks and war.

What we actually know

Iran has an advanced nuclear program and has accumulated highly enriched uranium. Its limitations on access for international inspectors have created legitimate questions.

But questions are not proof.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said that it has not seen evidence of a structured Iranian program to manufacture nuclear weapons. American intelligence has also assessed that Iran was not actively building a bomb and that its suspended weapons program had not been reauthorized.

That does not prove what Iran may or may not decide to do in the future. It tells us what the available evidence supports now.

Yet Iran is routinely described not simply as a country whose nuclear activities require monitoring, but as a uniquely dangerous nation forever on the verge of attacking the world.

Iran has not launched the kind of conventional war of conquest commonly implied by that description.

Meanwhile, Israel possesses nuclear weapons and remains outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its arsenal is treated largely as an accepted fact—one that does not require the same international inspections or provoke the same continual demands for proof of peaceful intentions.

• Iran must somehow prove indefinitely that it does not possess a bomb, is not building a bomb and has no secret intention of someday building one.

• Israel already has nuclear weapons, but that is treated as background.

The sentence that stopped me

While discussing this story, a friend made the comment:

“Iran is not harmless. Its government represses its own people, arms regional groups and has engaged in attacks through proxies.”

I stopped there and said “And the Trump administration doesn’t?”

The original sentence was factually defensible. But it still carried the framing I was questioning: Iran must first be identified as a menace before we are permitted to examine whether accusations against it are true. My objection matters.

Iran’s government is repressive. It does exercise power through armed organizations beyond its borders. But those facts do not distinguish it from the United States, Israel or other powerful countries.

• The Trump administration has used militarized immigration enforcement against people inside the United States.

• It has used government power against perceived opponents.

• The United States supplies weapons to governments engaged in devastating military attacks.

• It has invaded countries, helped overthrow governments and maintained military forces far beyond its own borders.

• Israel possesses nuclear weapons, occupies Palestinian territory and has used overwhelming military power with American weapons and political protection.

Why, then, must any discussion of Iran begin with a ritual declaration that Iran is dangerous?

Why aren’t the United States and Israel required to pass the same moral examination before their assertions are repeated?

That is how deeply the double standard is embedded in our language. Even while attempting to expose it, we can reproduce it.

One measure for everyone

This is not an argument that Iran’s government is benevolent.

It is an argument for intellectual honesty.

• If repressing people makes a government dangerous, apply that standard to every government.

• If supplying armed groups or foreign governments makes a country responsible for their actions, apply that standard consistently.

• If possessing nuclear weapons threatens world peace, begin with the countries that actually possess them—not simply the country repeatedly accused of wanting one.

• And if a quotation could help justify military action, determine whether anyone truly said it before broadcasting it to the world.

A false claim should not become more truthful as it moves from an anonymous account to television and then into a prime minister’s speech.

It merely becomes more powerful.

That may be the real danger in this story—not an Iranian commander’s imaginary confession, but how readily an invented statement became an official “fact” because it supported what powerful people already wanted the public to believe.

Which Country Has Actually Started Wars?

Iran traces its history as Persia back approximately 2,575 years. The present Islamic Republic was established in 1979, making it 47 years old.¹

During those 47 years, Iran has not initiated a full-scale conventional war against another country.

Its great modern war was the Iran–Iraq War. Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980. Iran later carried the fighting into Iraq rather than accepting an early settlement, but Iran did not start the war.

Iran has supported armed groups, conducted covert operations, and participated indirectly in regional conflicts. But that is not the same as invading another country and beginning a conventional war.

If we reach further back into Persian history, the claim that Iran has “never started a war” becomes too absolute. Persia initiated a war against Russia in 1826 during the Russo-Persian War 1826–1828, attempting to reclaim territories lost under the Treaty of Gulistan. Its effort to capture Herat also helped precipitate the Anglo-Persian War of 1856–1857.

Now consider the United States.

The United States declared independence in 1776. It is 250 years old.

There is no universally accepted count of the wars America has started. Historians distinguish among formally declared wars, invasions, military interventions, covert operations, and wars entered after an attack by someone else.

But at least seven major wars or invasions are commonly cited as initiated or significantly initiated by the United States:

• The War of 1812

• The Mexican–American War 1846–1848

• The Spanish–American War 1898

• The Philippine–American War 1899–1902

• The invasion of Grenada 1983

• The invasion of Panama 1989

• The invasion of Iraq 2003

That list does not include the massive American escalation in Vietnam, the invasion of Afghanistan after September 11, the intervention in Libya 2011, or the numerous covert operations and regime-change efforts documented in historical scholarship.

The comparison is difficult to ignore:

The Islamic Republic of Iran is 47 years old and has initiated no full-scale interstate war. The United States is 250 years old and has initiated multiple major wars or invasions, along with numerous smaller military and covert interventions.

Yet Iran is continually required to prove that it is not a future aggressor, while America’s documented history of initiating wars rarely enters the moral accounting.

• Iran is treated as an inherent danger because of what it might someday do.

• The United States is treated as the responsible guardian of world order despite what it has repeatedly done.

References and Further Reading

• The New York Times, reporting on the false quotation and the path it traveled from an anonymous X account into Prime Minister Netanyahu’s remarks.

• Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Iran: History of Iran / Islamic Republic of Iran 1979–present.”

• Wikipedia, “The Iran Revolution, 1978-1979.”

• digitalcommons.odu.edu, On Whose Grounds? The Legality and Morality of Humanitarian intervention

• William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. Amazon

• International Atomic Energy Agency reports concerning Iran’s nuclear program and unresolved safeguards questions.

• Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.

• U.S. Congressional Research Service CRS, “The War in Afghanistan: Background and Issues.”

• Associated Press reporting on the difference between Iran’s uranium-enrichment capacity and evidence of an active nuclear-weapons program.

• Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

• How Do Countries Create Nuclear Weapons

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

For example, a single large data center can consume millions of gallons of water per day for cooling, and a hyperscaled facility can use as much electricity as a small city, depending on its size and workload.

• Does it recycle its cooling water?

• Is it using drinking water?

• Is electricity actually available?

• Who pays for new infrastructure?

• And ultimately: does the community have the power to say no?

Then I came across three ideas I had not considered: a moratorium before construction, an enforceable agreement governing the project, and a plan for what happens after the data center closes.

Together, they follow the entire life of the project.

Before: A moratorium

In July 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul imposed a one-year moratorium on new hyperscale data centers—facilities using 50 megawatts or more—while the state develops standards for their environmental effects, energy demands, and community benefits.

A moratorium does not necessarily mean never.

It can mean: Not until we understand the consequences and establish the rules.

During: A Community Benefit Agreement

The Federation of American Scientists proposes another important protection:

Will the developer enter into an enforceable Community Benefit Agreement with the affected community?

A Community Benefit Agreement, or CBA, is negotiated between a developer and representatives of the community that will live with the project’s impacts.

Unlike corporate promises, a properly structured CBA can be legally enforceable.

For an AI data center, it could address:

• Limits on water and electricity use

• Whether drinking water is used for cooling

• Who pays for new power lines, substations, roads, or water systems

• Environmental safeguards and emergency planning

• Local hiring and job training commitments

• Independent monitoring and public reporting

• Penalties if commitments are not met

A CBA would not make every data center harmless, nor would it eliminate all conflict. Its fairness would depend heavily on who is allowed to represent the community in negotiations.

But it could give residents something they often lack: real leverage before construction begins.

After: A decommissioning plan

Communities should also ask what happens at the other end of a data center’s life.

These are enormous, highly specialized buildings. If a company closes a facility—or if demand disappears—the property may be difficult to reuse. Residents could be left with a stranded industrial site and the cost of dealing with it.

Before construction begins, governments could require a decommissioning plan and financial assurance that the company—not the community—will pay for dismantling, cleanup, or responsible reuse.

Being heard is not the same as having power

Developers typically arrive with lawyers, engineers, consultants, and detailed financial plans already in place.

Residents may get a public meeting.

They can speak for a few minutes, raise concerns, and hope they are taken seriously.

That is participation—but it is not power.

Communities should have the power to pause a project until its consequences are understood, negotiate legally enforceable protections while it operates, and ensure that the public is not left with an abandoned facility after it closes.

The people who live there will carry the consequences long after construction is complete.

They deserve a seat at the table before decisions are locked in.

Public comment allows people to speak.

Rules, enforceable agreements, and financial guarantees give them power.

References

• Federation of American Scientists, “Americans Would Trust AI More if Policies Ensuring Fairness Were Implemented: Here Are Ten Ways to Start,” August 6, 2026⁠

• Clean Energy Transition Institute, “Community Benefits Agreements: Opportunities, Barriers, and Best Practices,” July 24, 2025⁠

• Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, “Decommissioning Data Centers: Avoiding Stranded Assets,” August 6, 2026⁠

• New York Executive Order No. 62, “Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers,” July 14, 2026⁠

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

But I didn’t completely understand what had happened.

What was FinCEN? What did Congress order it to do? And why would an agency responsible for investigating hidden money stop asking who owns American shell companies?

The answer leads to a question much larger than financial regulation:

Can a president effectively cancel a law without asking Congress to repeal it?

First, What Is a Shell Company?

A shell company is a legally registered business that may exist primarily on paper. It can have a name, an address, corporate documents and a bank account, while having few or no employees, products or ordinary business operations.

Shell companies are not automatically illegal. They can be used legitimately to hold property, manage investments or separate one business venture from another.

But they can also conceal the human beings behind money and property.

A person can create one company, have it owned by another company and place a third company above that one. Money can then be moved through those layers while investigators struggle to determine who ultimately owns or controls any of them.

That secrecy can be useful to drug traffickers, corrupt officials, tax evaders, sanctioned oligarchs, human traffickers and anyone else trying to separate a suspicious fortune from its real owner.

The essential question is not simply:

What is the company called?

It is:

Who is the person behind it?

What Is FinCEN?

FinCEN stands for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Despite its unusual name, it is an actual government bureau within the United States Treasury Department. Its job is to help uncover money laundering, financial fraud, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion and other financial crimes.

Banks and other financial institutions report certain suspicious transactions to FinCEN. The bureau analyzes financial information and makes it available, under strict safeguards, to authorized investigators.

FinCEN is, in plain language, one of the government agencies responsible for following the money.

It is not an independent agency. It operates within the Treasury Department, and its leadership answers to the Treasury secretary—a presidential appointee.

That chain of authority matters:

President Trump → Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent → FinCEN

FinCEN’s career investigators did not necessarily decide that identifying the owners of shell companies was no longer important. The bureau is carrying out the policy of the administration that controls it.

What Congress Required

In 2021, Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act as part of a larger defense authorization law.

The measure passed with bipartisan support. Its supporters included Republicans as well as Democrats. Then-senator Marco Rubio called it the most important anti-money-laundering and anti-corruption reform in decades.

The law required many corporations, limited liability companies and similar entities to report their beneficial owners to FinCEN.

A beneficial owner is not necessarily the name printed on a company document. It is a real person who either:

• Owns or controls at least 25 percent of the company, or

• Exercises substantial control over it.

The reports included identifying information such as the person’s name, birthdate, address and identification number.

This information was not intended to be placed on a website for everyone to see. It was to be kept in a secure, nonpublic database accessible under specific rules to law enforcement and other authorized users.

Congress was trying to ensure that investigators encountering “Maple Street Holdings LLC” could discover whether it was really controlled by a local property owner, a drug trafficker or a sanctioned foreign official.

The law contained exemptions. Banks, publicly traded corporations and many other businesses already subject to close federal or state oversight generally did not need to submit another report.

Congress also allowed the Treasury secretary to exempt additional classes of entities if requiring their reports would not serve the public interest and would not significantly assist national-security, intelligence or law-enforcement work.

That limited authority became the opening through which much of the law disappeared.

The Exception That Swallowed the Law

In March 2025, the Trump Treasury Department announced that it would no longer enforce the reporting requirement against American citizens or companies created in the United States.

FinCEN then issued a rule exempting domestic companies and American beneficial owners.

On August 11, 2026, FinCEN made that change permanent.

Under the new rule:

• American companies do not have to report their beneficial owners.

• American citizens do not have to supply that information.

• Only certain foreign companies registered to conduct business in the United States remain subject to reporting.

• Even those foreign companies generally do not have to identify American beneficial owners.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that the exemption covers more than 99 percent of the entities previously required to report.

• The administration did not ask Congress to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.

• It did not persuade Congress to amend the definition of a reporting company.

• Instead, Treasury interpreted one exemption so broadly that it removed almost everyone Congress intended the law to cover.

The law remains on the books. Its name survives. FinCEN still maintains a beneficial-ownership program.

But the great majority of American companies no longer have to participate in it.

Is the Administration Refusing to Implement the Law?

Treasury has not announced, “We refuse to obey Congress.”

It has done something more legally sophisticated.

The administration argues that Congress gave the Treasury secretary authority to exempt additional classes of companies. It maintains that the new exemption reduces unnecessary burdens on legitimate small-business owners without compromising national security.

But Congress specifically included American corporations and LLCs in its definition of a reporting company. It also described anonymous shell companies as a serious national-security and law-enforcement problem.

There is a profound difference between exempting a particular category of low-risk business and exempting virtually every domestic company in the country.

Treasury is effectively saying that collecting ownership information from American companies would not significantly assist law enforcement—even though obtaining that information was the central reason Congress enacted the law.

The exception has swallowed the law.

Whether Treasury had the legal authority to do that will ultimately be a question for the courts.

But the constitutional issue should concern us even before a court rules:

If an administration can use a narrow exemption to eliminate nearly everyone covered by a law, what remains of Congress’s power to make the law?

Who Benefits From Secrecy?

Treasury presents the change as relief for ordinary small businesses. There were legitimate concerns about paperwork, confusion, privacy and penalties for owners who may never have heard of the requirement.

Congress and FinCEN could have addressed those concerns with simpler forms, better notification, reasonable deadlines and protection for owners who made innocent mistakes.

• But eliminating nearly the entire reporting system does much more than relieve a neighborhood business of paperwork.

• It also protects people who deliberately use layers of anonymous companies to hide money, evade sanctions, conceal property or frustrate investigators.

Most American business owners are not criminals.

But a financial-transparency law is not designed around the assumption that most people are criminals. It is designed to make it harder for the relatively small number who are criminals to disappear among millions of legitimate companies.

FinCEN was supposed to help investigators see through a company name to the human being behind it.

Now, under the direction of the Trump Treasury Department, it has permanently exempted most American companies from providing that information.

The agency charged with following hidden money is no longer asking who owns much of it.

Something is indeed wrong at FinCEN—but the story is larger than one bureau.

It is the story of a presidential administration using its control over an executive agency to hollow out a bipartisan law without persuading Congress to repeal it.

• The shell of the law remains.

• Much of what was inside it is gone.

References and Further Reading

• U.S. Code, 31 U.S.C. § 5336 — Beneficial ownership information reporting requirements⁠

• FinCEN, Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting⁠

• Federal Register, Beneficial Ownershipj Information Reporting Requirement Revision — Final Rule⁠

• U.S. Government Accountability Office, Treasury Should Address Gaps in Ownership Information⁠

• U.S. Treasury Department, FinCEN Permanently Ends Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements for Millions of Small Business Owners⁠

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The electricity use was troubling. So was the constant noise some neighbors must endure.

But what stayed with me was the water.

Behind the apparently weightless exchange of words and images are enormous buildings filled with computers. Those computers produce heat. Many data centers remove that heat by evaporating water through cooling towers—and then replacing the water that has disappeared into the atmosphere.

My first thought was simple:

Couldn’t the water be reused?

It turns out that it can.

And that answer led me to a much larger set of questions.

The water does not have to be lost

Traditional cooling towers work somewhat like perspiration. Water evaporates, carrying heat away with it. The process is effective, but the evaporated water cannot simply be collected and used again at the facility.

There are other ways to cool computers.

In a closed-loop system, water circulates repeatedly between the computer equipment and the cooling system instead of being continually evaporated and replaced. Microsoft says its newer direct-to-chip cooling design requires water when the system is first filled, but then continuously recirculates it. The company estimates that the design can avoid the consumption of more than 125 million liters—about 33 million gallons—of water each year at a single data center.

That is Microsoft’s estimate, not an independently verified figure. But the technology itself is real.

Water that is consumed also does not have to be drinking water.

The Environmental Protection Agency describes a system in Quincy, Washington, where the city and Microsoft constructed a facility that treats cooling water and sends it back to the data center for reuse. This reduces the facility’s dependence on the community’s potable groundwater.

In Northern Virginia, reclaimed wastewater has been used to cool dozens of data centers.

Other possibilities include rainwater, condensation, cooling with outside air when the weather permits, and systems using refrigerants or other liquids instead of continually evaporating fresh water.

Some methods that save water may require more electricity. There are engineering tradeoffs. But that is an argument for careful design—not an excuse for consuming a community’s drinking water when better alternatives are available.

If the technology exists, why shouldn’t companies be required to use it?

Does AI require buildings this enormous?

That question brought me to another:

Do AI data centers have to be so large?

The honest answer is: sometimes size serves a genuine purpose.

Training the largest AI models requires thousands of specialized computer chips to work together. Concentrating those computers in one place can make their connections faster and simplify security, maintenance, cooling and power delivery.

Large data centers can also be more efficient per computation than a collection of poorly designed smaller facilities. Research by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory indicates that large “hyperscale” data centers can operate with more efficient electrical and airflow systems. Midsize centers may sometimes use more water relative to the computing they perform because of the cooling systems they employ.

In other words, smaller does not automatically mean better.

But training a model and using it are different jobs.

After a model has been trained, many everyday AI tasks can be performed in smaller regional centers, on local computers or even on phones and tablets. Smaller AI models can also handle many jobs without calling upon the most powerful—and most resource-intensive—model available.

Not every question requires the industrial furnace.

Sometimes the toaster will do.

Size alone, then, is not the decisive issue. Several smaller centers could collectively consume as much water and electricity as one large center.

The more important question is whether the computing—and the resources it consumes—are being used responsibly.

A race among a relatively small number of companies

The data-center boom is sometimes described as though millions of independent AI companies are each building their own facilities.

That isn’t quite how it works.

Much of the largest construction is driven by a small group of extremely wealthy cloud and technology companies: Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta and Oracle. They build or finance the infrastructure, develop AI products themselves and rent computing capacity to other companies.

Prominent AI developers—including OpenAI, Anthropic and others—often obtain their computing power through partnerships with those cloud companies or through specialized AI-computing providers.

The Federal Trade Commission examined three particularly important relationships: Microsoft and OpenAI, Amazon and Anthropic, and Google and Anthropic. According to the FTC, those partnerships involved more than $20 billion in cumulative investment, along with access to the scarce computer chips and cloud capacity needed to develop major AI models.

BloombergNEF estimated that capital spending by the largest data-center companies would approach $750 billion in 2026.

Certainly, demand for AI is growing. But companies are also competing against one another. Each wants enough computing capacity to avoid depending upon a rival—or being left behind by one.

That makes it reasonable to ask:

Are all these data centers being built to meet a demonstrated public need, or are some being built because enormously wealthy companies are afraid their competitors might build more first?

We cannot answer that confidently because companies do not disclose enough about how much planned capacity is already committed to actual use.

But communities are being asked to commit very real resources: land, water, electricity, tax concessions and new public infrastructure.

They should not have to rely on corporate assurances alone.

Who pays for the electricity?

Data centers do not merely consume electricity. Their enormous demand may require new power plants, substations and transmission lines.

Who pays for those?

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has warned that the cost of connecting large facilities—including necessary transmission improvements—could be shifted unfairly to ordinary electricity customers if regulators do not allocate those costs carefully.

In June 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered the nation’s regional grid operators to justify or reform their rules for connecting data centers and other large electricity users. The commission specifically identified protecting ratepayers as part of the problem.

A technology company should not be able to arrive in a community, receive tax advantages, place extraordinary demands on its electric system—and leave residents to finance the upgrades through higher utility bills.

The company creating the demand should bear the cost of meeting it.

What happens to all that heat?

Every unit of electricity used by a computer eventually becomes heat.

Usually, a data center treats that heat as waste: something to be carried away by water or released into the surrounding air.

But heat can be used.

The Department of Energy has studied sharing data-center heat with nearby buildings and industries. It has suggested uses such as supplying hot water to hospitals. At a federal research campus in Colorado, waste heat from a high-performance computing center is being used to help heat another laboratory.

In colder places, data centers could be located near hospitals, apartment complexes, greenhouses, universities or other facilities that need heat.

Capturing it requires planning and additional infrastructure. That is precisely why it must be considered before the data center is built—not after the heat is already being discarded.

The questions every community should ask

This is not an argument that all data centers are bad, that AI must be stopped or that every large facility is inherently irresponsible.

It is an argument against inevitability.

AI did not arrive without a physical footprint. Its buildings occupy land. Its computers consume electricity. Its cooling systems may consume water. Its infrastructure has costs, and those costs do not disappear simply because most of us cannot see them when we type a question into a screen.

Before any new data center is approved, the public deserves answers:

• How efficiently is it designed?

• Does it recycle its cooling water?

• Is it using drinking water?

• Is it located where water and electricity are genuinely available?

• Who pays for the new infrastructure?

• Is waste heat being captured and reused?

• Does the community have the power to say no?

There is one more question beneath all the others:

If less damaging technology already exists, why shouldn’t companies be required to use it before a community gives them access to its water, electricity and land?

AI may eventually help us solve some of our most difficult environmental problems.

It should not be permitted to create avoidable ones while we wait.

What Can You Do?

Most data-center decisions begin locally—often before the wider public realizes that a project is being considered.

If a data center is proposed near you, ask your city or township officials:

• Will the proposal require a public hearing?

• How much water will the facility use each day, and will that figure be made public?

• Will it use drinking water, reclaimed water or a closed-loop cooling system?

• How much electricity will it require?

• Who will pay for new substations, transmission lines, water systems or roads?

• What tax abatements or other public incentives are being offered?

• Will the company disclose its actual water and electricity use after it begins operating?

• Can approval require water recycling, energy-efficiency standards and public reporting?

You do not need to be an engineer to ask these questions.

The water belongs to the community. The electric grid is supported by its customers. And decisions affecting both should not be made before the public knows what it is being asked to provide.

References and Further Reading

Water and cooling

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Reuse Case Study: Quincy, Washington⁠

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrating Water Reuse into the Clean Water State Revolving Fund⁠

• Microsoft, Next-generation data centers consume zero water for cooling⁠

• U.S. Department of Energy, Cooling Water Efficiency Opportunities for Federal Data Centers⁠

Energy use, size and efficiency

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report⁠

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States Data Center Energy Usage Report: 2025 Update⁠

• U.S. Department of Energy, Technology Changes, but Energy-Efficiency Principles Remain Steadfast⁠

Competition and corporate partnerships

• Federal Trade Commission, Behind the FTC’s report on large AI partnerships and investments⁠

• BloombergNEF, AI Data Center Build Advances at Full Speed⁠

Infrastructure costs and ratepayers

• National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Resolution on large-load interconnections and ratepayer protection⁠

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Action on integrating data centers and other large electricity users⁠

Waste-heat reuse

• U.S. Department of Energy, Data Center Load Flexibility Workshop Summary⁠

• U.S. Department of Energy, Data-center waste-heat reuse at the Golden Field Office⁠.

Leave a comment

Todd Blanche appeared to make an important concession before the Senate confirmed him as attorney general.

He formally rescinded the nearly $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created as part of President Trump’s settlement with the Internal Revenue Service.

The fund would have used taxpayer money to compensate people claiming they had been victims of government “weaponization” or “lawfare”—terms with no established legal definition. Critics feared the money could be distributed to Trump’s political allies, including people prosecuted for participating in the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Two Republican senators, John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, had threatened to block Blanche’s confirmation unless the fund was eliminated.

Blanche declared it dead. The senators accepted his assurance. Blanche was confirmed and sworn in as attorney general.

But the fund was only one part of the settlement. The other part directly benefits Donald Trump and members of his family.

The IRS protection

Trump had sued the IRS and Treasury Department for $10 billion, alleging that the government had failed to protect the confidentiality of his tax returns.

The settlement negotiated between Trump’s attorneys and Trump’s own Justice Department did not award Trump monetary damages. Instead, it created the $1.776 billion fund—and included an extraordinary order protecting Trump and members of his family from certain government claims involving their past taxes.

That order purported to require the government to:

• terminate existing audits involving Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization; and

• refrain from beginning new audits or pursuing other claims involving tax returns filed before the settlement.

Its original language appeared broad enough to cover hundreds of businesses affiliated with the Trump Organization.

Blanche did not rescind that order.

Instead, he issued a “clarification.” He said the protection applies only retroactively, not to future tax returns, and only to the named plaintiffs: Trump, his two sons and the Trump Organization.

But a clarification is not the same thing as a cancellation.

The underlying order remains. Its legal force is being challenged, but the Justice Department continues to defend protection for Trump and the named family members concerning their past tax returns.

Can a president settle a lawsuit with his own government?

That question is now before the courts.

In July, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams concluded that Trump and the government he controls were not genuinely opposing parties in the IRS lawsuit.

She described the case as an attempt to use the courts to give legitimacy to an agreement conferring benefits on Trump and his allies. She barred the parties from relying upon the settlement in future legal proceedings and referred several attorneys involved—including Justice Department officials—to disciplinary authorities.

That ruling severely undermines the settlement, but it did not explicitly cancel Blanche’s separate order concerning the Trump family’s taxes. Trump has appealed.

A second lawsuit now directly challenges the IRS protection. The union representing IRS and Treasury employees has joined that case, arguing that the order could force government employees to choose between following tax law and obeying a politically imposed directive.

The challengers are asking the court to declare that the Trump family’s special protection is unlawful.

The disappearing fund that may not have disappeared

Even Blanche’s cancellation of the $1.776 billion fund may not be final.

The original settlement says it can be modified only through a written agreement signed by all the parties. Trump did not sign Blanche’s rescission order.

Blanche acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that Trump could attempt to sue the government to enforce the settlement.

After Blanche was confirmed, Trump said that the future of the fund would be “up to Blanche.”

That is not the language one ordinarily uses to describe something permanently abolished.

Watch what remained

The public was encouraged to focus on the enormous fund—and understandably so. The prospect of distributing $1.776 billion in taxpayer money to vaguely defined victims of “weaponization” was outrageous.

Blanche rescinded it just as Republican opposition threatened his confirmation.

But while attention centered on the fund he supposedly eliminated, Blanche preserved the portion of the arrangement that benefits Trump personally: protection from IRS scrutiny of past tax returns.

Perhaps the courts will ultimately strike it down.

For now, however, the most important part of this story may not be what Blanche announced that he had eliminated.

It may be what he quietly left in place.

Sources and Further Reading

• Democracy Forward: Federal Court Finds Trump v IRS Lawsuit Plaintiffs “Acted In Bad Faith”

• Associated Press: Trump’s tax-audit immunity remains in place⁠

• Associated Press: IRS employees’ union challenges the agreement⁠

• Ground News: Trump said that the future of the fund would be “up to Blanche.”

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

I am grateful for that inspiration. The analysis, reflections, and conclusions that follow are my own.

Every Supreme Court Justice Serves Two Courts

• The first is the Supreme Court of the United States.

• The second is the Court of History.

The first issues opinions.

The second issues verdicts—sometimes decades later.

History eventually judged:

• Dred Scott

• Plessy v. Ferguson

• Korematsu

• Brown v. Board of Education

• United States v. Nixon

The point is not that every controversial decision becomes infamous. The point is that history often asks different questions than the Court itself.

I. The Making of a Justice

Not a résumé. A judicial biography. Brett Kavanaugh did not arrive at the Supreme Court as a blank slate. Long before he was nominated, he had spent decades immersed in the legal and political institutions that shaped modern conservative constitutional thought.

Yale Law School

At Yale, Kavanaugh received one of the nation’s most prestigious legal educations. Like many future justices, he learned that constitutional law is not simply about statutes and precedents but about competing philosophies of how judges should interpret the Constitution.

The important question is not where he studied.

It is which ideas he embraced.

Ken Starr

His work for Independent Counsel Ken Starr placed him at the center of one of the most politically charged investigations in modern American history.

There he experienced firsthand the enormous powers of federal investigation—and the constitutional conflicts that arise when those powers are directed at a president.

The George W. Bush White House

Serving in the White House brought Kavanaugh inside the executive branch itself.

He was no longer observing presidential power. He was helping exercise it.

Those years gave him an unusually close view of the tensions between presidential authority and legal constraint.

The D.C. Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is often called the nation’s second most important court because it hears many disputes involving federal agencies and executive authority.

There Kavanaugh developed a substantial body of opinions on administrative law, separation of powers, and executive authority—issues that would later become central to his work on the Supreme Court.

The Federalist Society

Whether or not a judge is formally affiliated, the Federalist Society has become the most influential network in conservative legal thought, helping identify, mentor, and promote generations of conservative lawyers and judicial nominees.

Its emphasis on textualism, originalism, limited judicial policymaking, and skepticism toward the modern administrative state profoundly shaped the legal movement from which many recent Supreme Court nominees emerged.

Before Brett Kavanaugh ever took his seat on the Supreme Court, what constitutional assumptions had already become part of his understanding of government, executive power, and the role of the judiciary?

II. The Confirmation

The Hearings

Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings became one of the most contentious judicial confirmations in modern American history.

The Senate’s examination extended far beyond his judicial record. Senators questioned him extensively about his past drinking, allegations of sexual misconduct dating back to his youth, his credibility, and his temperament under intense public scrutiny.

For some Americans, the hearings raised profound concerns about character and accountability. For others, they became a symbol of due process and the presumption of innocence. The country watched the same testimony and often reached very different conclusions.

I watched his confirmation hearings from beginning to end, and when they were over, I opposed his confirmation.

There was one moment during the confirmation hearings that has never left me. His wife stood beside him, their daughters clinging to her. I don’t know what any of them were feeling. But when I watched them, I saw expressions that I interpreted as fear, and I felt a wave of dread. Whether that impression was accurate or not, it has remained with me ever since.

My purpose is not to revisit the Senate’s vote. It is to ask a different question: What constitutional vision has Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought to the Supreme Court?

In response to his testimony, more than 2,400 law professors signed a letter saying that the Senate should not confirm him because “he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.”

Whatever one’s view of the outcome, the hearings profoundly affected public confidence in the nomination process and, for many, in the Supreme Court itself.

Whether history ultimately agrees with that assessment is a different question—and one that can only be answered by examining the opinions Justice Kavanaugh has written and the constitutional principles they reveal.

III. A Constitutional Vision

Individual cases matter. Patterns matter more.

A Supreme Court justice is rarely remembered for one opinion. History looks for the principles that connect many opinions.

When I began reading Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions, I wasn’t looking for agreement or disagreement. I was looking for patterns.

What vision of government emerged?

Executive Power

One question appears again and again in Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions: When presidential authority and constitutional limits collide, where should the Court draw the line?

Justice Kavanaugh did not create that question. The tension between executive energy and executive accountability has existed since the founding of the Republic.

This isn’t about Trump alone. It’s about constitutional design.

Presidential Immunity

One of the defining constitutional questions of our time is whether a President can be held criminally accountable for actions taken while in office.

Justice Kavanaugh’s writings before joining the Supreme Court, and later his participation in the Court’s landmark immunity decision, reveal a consistent concern that criminal investigations and prosecutions of a sitting President can interfere with the functioning of the executive branch.

Supporters argue that this protects the Presidency as an institution from politically motivated prosecutions.

Critics argue that it risks placing the President above the law.

The deeper constitutional question is not simply about one President.

It is about how our Constitution balances energy in the executive against accountability under the law.

That concern with executive authority does not appear only in presidential immunity. It emerges repeatedly in Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions involving executive agencies, immigration, emergency powers, and the President’s ability to direct the executive branch.

Over the past year, I have written about presidential immunity, executive orders, Russell Vought, the Office of Management and Budget, and the expanding reach of executive power. At first these seemed like separate subjects. The more I learned, the more they appeared to be different pieces of the same constitutional puzzle.

That puzzle is not new.

More than two centuries ago, Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 70 that “energy in the executive” was essential to effective government. Yet the Framers also created a constitutional system of separated powers, checks and balances, and an independent judiciary designed to prevent energy from becoming unchecked power.

The Unitary Executive

Behind many of these debates lies an idea known as the unitary executive theory—the view that because the Constitution vests executive power in a single President, the President must retain broad authority to direct and control the executive branch. Supporters argue that this promotes accountability and effective government. Critics worry that it concentrates too much power in one person and weakens Congress’s role as a constitutional check.

The enduring question has never been whether the President should be strong.

It has always been how strong—and who decides where the limits lie.

Executive power is only one side of the constitutional equation. Every expansion of governmental authority raises a corresponding question about individual rights. Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions suggest that he is more concerned with preserving the effectiveness of government than the rights of individuals.

The next question is how that constitutional philosophy shapes Justice Kavanaugh’s understanding of individual rights.

IV. Immigration and Individual Rights

Every nation has the right to control its borders. That principle is widely accepted and deeply rooted in international law.

The more difficult constitutional question is not whether immigration laws should be enforced.

It is how they should be enforced.

• How much discretion should government officials have?

• What protections belong to individuals who may not be citizens?

• How do we balance effective enforcement with constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection?

These are not easy questions. They are questions the Supreme Court has wrestled with for generations.

That brings us to one of the most closely watched immigration decisions of Justice Kavanaugh’s tenure.

Immigration Stops

One of the oldest principles of American law is that government officials should have a legally sufficient reason before stopping an individual.

The recent immigration case asked how that principle applies during immigration enforcement.

What facts may officers consider?

• Can appearance be one factor?

• Language?

• Occupation?

• Location?

Or should those characteristics be excluded because they risk turning reasonable suspicion into racial or ethnic profiling?

When I read Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, I was struck by how much discretion it was willing to place in the hands of government officials, especially ICE officers. My concern was not simply the outcome of one case. It was the possibility that characteristics closely associated with race or ethnicity could become part of the practical reality of who gets stopped, questioned, or detained — including lawful residents and, in some reported cases, U.S. citizens.

History reminds us that broad governmental discretion, exercised without clear constitutional limits, has too often fallen most heavily on those with the least power.

Supporters of the decision argue that officers must be permitted to consider the totality of the circumstances. Looking at one fact in isolation, they argue, ignores how investigations actually work.

Critics respond that some factors—particularly those closely associated with ethnicity or national origin—carry such a high risk of discrimination that they should play little or no role in determining reasonable suspicion.

The constitutional issue extends well beyond immigration. It asks a broader question:

How much discretion should government possess before individual liberty is placed at risk?

The Court answered that question as a matter of law. Whether history reaches the same conclusion is a different question altogether.

Birthright Citizenship

Few constitutional provisions are written more plainly than the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….”

For more than 150 years, that sentence has been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

Justice Kavanaugh did not conclude that President Trump’s executive order could take effect. Instead, he concluded that the order conflicted with existing federal law.

That distinction matters.

His opinion left open a different constitutional question:

Could Congress redefine who is entitled to birthright citizenship?

If the answer is yes, then the constitutional debate changes fundamentally. The question is no longer whether one executive order was lawful. It becomes whether a future Congress could alter one of the nation’s oldest understandings of citizenship through ordinary legislation rather than a constitutional amendment

For many readers, that may sound like a technical legal issue. It is anything but.

Citizenship is the foundation upon which many other constitutional rights rest. The question is not merely who may live here. It is who belongs here.

When I read Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, I was struck less by what he rejected than by what he left open.

The executive order failed under existing law. But his reasoning suggested that Congress might possess broader authority than many Americans have long assumed. That possibility reaches far beyond one administration or one case. It reaches the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment itself.

V. Looking for the Pattern

By this point, I realized I was no longer reading individual opinions. I was reading a constitutional philosophy.

• Different cases.

• Different facts.

Yet the same questions kept returning.

How much power should government possess? How much discretion should officials exercise?

When should courts defer to the political branches?

Where should constitutional limits be drawn?

• A concern for effective government.

• Broad discretion for the executive branch in many contexts.

• A willingness to leave significant policy choices to the elected branches.

• An emphasis on constitutional structure as Justice Kavanaugh understands it.

As I stepped back from the individual opinions, I found myself thinking about another document I had spent months studying: Project 2025. I was struck by how often its constitutional vision overlapped with themes I had already seen in Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions—a stronger presidency, greater presidential control over the executive branch, skepticism toward the administrative state, and broad authority to carry out executive responsibilities.

That does not mean the Court is implementing Project 2025. Many of these ideas long predate the document itself and have been developing within conservative legal thought for decades. But the overlap is difficult to ignore.

Do these principles strengthen constitutional government?

Or do they risk weakening the checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power?

References and Further Reading

Primary Sources

U.S. Constitution

• U.S. Constitution

• Fourteenth Amendment

• Federalist No. 70 (Alexander Hamilton)

Supreme Court opinions

• Trump v. United States (2024) — Presidential immunity

• The recent immigration stops decision (cite the official Supreme Court opinion by name and docket)

• The recent birthright citizenship decision

Confirmation materials

• Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings (2018)

• Letter signed by more than 2,400 law professors regarding Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation

Historical Cases Mentioned

• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Korematsu v. United States (1944)

• United States v. Nixon (1974)

Background Sources

• Project 2025 (The Heritage Foundation)

• Russell Vought writings or speeches

• Federalist Society background

Books

• The Brethren (classic study of Supreme Court decision-making)

• Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court, Sarah Isgur

• The Federalist Papers (especially read Nos. 47, 51, and 70)

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Read more

Leave a comment

There are questions that belong to one election. And there are questions that belong to every generation.

This is one of them.

What kind of person should have the power to reshape a government?

• Not simply administer it.

• Not merely lead it.

• But fundamentally reshape how it works.

That isn’t just a political question. It’s a constitutional question. And perhaps, at its heart, it’s a philosophical one.

Over the past several months I’ve learned and written about

• Presidential immunity.

• Executive power.

• Project 2025.

• The Office of Management and Budget.

• Changes to federal grant regulations.

At first, these seemed like separate stories. The deeper I looked, the more often I found myself arriving at the same person.

Russell Vought.

Many Americans have never heard of him. That isn’t surprising. He isn’t a showman. He doesn’t seek the spotlight.

His influence comes quietly, through ideas, institutions, and the machinery of government. To understand why, it helps to understand something about the man himself.

• His mother helped establish a Christian school after leaving public education.

• He has spoken about embracing Christianity as a young child after the death of a stepsister.

• He attended Wheaton College before building a career in conservative public policy.

• He has also spoken publicly about raising a daughter with cystic fibrosis, an experience that deepened his commitment to faith and public service.

None of these experiences explain every conclusion he has reached. But they remind us that ideas do not emerge in isolation.

They emerge from lives.

Russell Vought believes the President should exercise stronger authority over the executive branch than has become common in recent decades.

In Project 2025, he argues that federal agencies should faithfully implement the elected President’s agenda and that the Office of Management and Budget should become the central coordinating force of the executive branch.

He writes that success will require the President to have the “boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will.”

He also writes that the OMB Director should become “the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind” on policy.

That stopped me for a moment. I wondered:

What does it mean to be “the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind” when the President’s public positions shifts frequently ?

Should the executive branch be organized around the thinking of one individual? Or around laws enacted by Congress and institutions designed to outlast any one presidency?

Reasonable constitutional scholars disagree about the proper balance between presidential authority and congressional power.

• Some believe a democratically elected President must have broad authority to direct the executive branch.

• Others believe expanding presidential control risks upsetting the constitutional balance the Framers carefully designed.

That disagreement is not new. But it has become increasingly important.

One of the reasons I became interested in Russell Vought is that his Christian faith appears central to the way he understands government. That, by itself, is not unusual. Many public officials draw strength from their faith.

The more difficult question is this:

What vision of faith is reflected in public policy?

Throughout my own life I have known Clergy and Christians whose faith found expression through music. Through teaching. Through opening their homes to young women in crisis. Through helping families find nursing homes for aging parents. Through quiet acts of service that never appeared in the newspaper.

Russell Vought’s public writing reflects a different emphasis.

• Institutions.

• Authority.

• Order.

• Government.

When he speaks about returning authority to families and faith communities, I find myself wondering:

• Which families?

• Which faith communities?

• Who decides?

Those questions are important.

His vision seems to offer belonging, but on terms defined by one particular religious and political movement.

That is why, to me, it feels exclusionary.

Russell Vought is not really the subject

He is the doorway into a much older question.

• Congress decides whether money should be spent.

• OMB helps determine when and how it is released.

The constitutional question is whether OMB can also decide that money Congress approved should not be spent at all.

That question is not merely about budgets. It is about the balance of power between Congress and the President.

The question itself is not new. In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon refused to spend billions of dollars that Congress had appropriated.

Congress responded by passing the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, establishing procedures that limit a president’s ability to withhold funds without congressional involvement.

More than fifty years later, many of the same constitutional questions have returned.

Who ultimately controls federal spending?

• Congress?

• Or the executive branch?

Think about it in other important occupations:

• Scientists expect that today’s best explanations may be revised tomorrow.

• The best physicians do the same.

• So do engineers.

• Architects.

• Historians.

• Even artists.

Confidence matters. But certainty without correction is dangerous.

Intellectual Humility and Congress

Today psychologists call this intellectual humility—the willingness to recognize that our beliefs may be incomplete or mistaken and to remain open to evidence and reasoned disagreement.

The Framers never used that phrase. But they built a government around the idea.

They assumed that no person—not even one who is intelligent, sincere, patriotic, or deeply religious—should possess enough power that his certainty becomes the nation’s certainty.

Perhaps the Constitution is, at its heart, an act of institutional humility.

James Madison captured that insight in Federalist No. 51:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

He continued: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The Framers did not write the Constitution assuming they would always elect wise leaders.

They assumed something far more realistic.

They assumed that every human being—including presidents, members of Congress, judges, scholars, and citizens—is capable of error.

That is why they divided power.

Russell Vought caused me to think about these questions. Donald Trump raises many of the same questions. A future Democratic president will too.

Because this isn’t really about one administration. It is about a Constitution written by people who understood something timeless:

• Human beings are capable of wisdom.

• They are also capable of error.

The Constitution does not ask us to find perfect leaders. It asks us to build institutions that do not depend upon perfection.

Perhaps that is the Constitution’s greatest insight.

References

Primary Sources

• The Constitution of the United States, Articles I & II

• James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

• Russell Vought, “Executive Office of the President,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025)

• Impoundment Control Act of 1974

Government Sources

• Congressional Research Service: Presidential Impoundment and the Power of the Purse

• Government Accountability Office (GAO): Impoundment Decisions

• Office of Management and Budget: Organization and Functions

Background

• Russell Vought Senate confirmation materials

• Center for Renewing America

• Scholarly works on executive power, separation of powers, and the unitary executive theory

Leave a comment

Share