Have you ever watched old videos of Democratic leaders and felt confused? Clips of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi often show them talking about closing the borders, deporting people who entered the country illegally, and they push tough policies against crime and fraud.

Those same ideas get called right-wing today.

The evidence comes from real speeches and party documents.

Looking at the 1995 and 1996 Democratic Party Platform (link in the sources below) makes the difference even clearer. Positions that were normal for Democrats back then sound like Republican talking points in 2026.

One of the most head-scratching flips is with Tom Homan, the “border czar,” who is responsible for handling deportations. Under Obama, he was awarded the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Service for coordinating massive deportation of illegals. Mainstream media even did a ride-along with him to profile what wonders he was doing to keep illegals out of America. Homan, that same man doing the exact same job under Trump, has been vilified by Democrats. Huh? Make it make sense.

The old record is not hard to find.

In his 1995 State of the Union speech, Bill Clinton said Americans felt disturbed by large numbers of illegal immigrants. He noted that those workers sometimes took jobs from citizens and legal immigrants. He pointed to the costs for taxpayers. His administration had already hired more border guards. It had increased deportations of people with criminal records. It had cracked down on illegal hiring and blocked welfare benefits for people in the country without permission.

The 1996 Democratic Party platform stated the party could not tolerate illegal immigration and needed to stop it.

The platform criticized weak border patrols and the problem of criminal immigrants returning after deportation. Clinton signed a major 1996 law that made deportation easier in more cases and limited benefits for illegals.

Obama’s early years followed a similar path.

Officials talked about secure borders and penalties for employers who hired people without legal status. They focused deportation efforts on people with criminal records.

Numbers from that time show higher formal removals than during Trump’s first term.

Peak years under Obama saw more than 400,000 removals. The administration also created protections for certain young people brought here as children. Still, the enforcement side was real and public.

Other leaders from that era made matching statements.

They supported stronger border measures and employer checks. These views sat in the middle of the political spectrum for a long time. Both parties talked about enforcing the law while also discussing paths for legal immigration. The language focused on rules, jobs, and public safety more than on identity or pure humanitarian framing.

The shift did not happen overnight.

Democratic voters and platforms moved left on immigration over about two decades. Polls show fewer Democrats saw illegal immigration as a major threat. More of them viewed immigrants overall as a clear strength for the country.

Labor groups that once worried about wage pressure from illegal workers changed direction around the year 2000. The issue became framed mainly as a civil rights or humanitarian matter inside many institutions. Rhetoric about “abolish ICE” and sanctuary policies gained space.

Parallel changes appeared on crime.

The 1994 crime bill that Biden helped write, stressed longer sentences and more policing. Later years brought reform efforts, reduced cash bail in some places, and less support for aggressive policing in certain cities. Crime spikes later forced some pullbacks.

Several forces drove the change.

• The party’s voter base shifted.

It relied more on urban professionals, college graduates, and growing minority communities. Older concerns from working-class voters about job competition and neighborhood safety carried less weight inside the coalition.

• Cultural institutions moved at the same time.

Universities, major media outlets, and advocacy groups increasingly treated strong enforcement language as suspicious or harmful. That raised the social cost of older positions among people who worked in those spaces.

• Polarization made the move faster.

Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign turned immigration into a sharp dividing line. Opposing Trump often meant opposing the enforcement tools he used.

Primary challenges from the progressive side rewarded candidates who moved further left.

“If Trump said that air was the best thing in the world, Democrats would hold their breath.” —Me

Opposing Trump became a virtue for Democrats.

• Social media amplified purity tests.

Positions that once counted as common sense started to look extreme inside activist circles. The result is the pattern many notice today. Views that stay near the old Democratic center get labeled far right by some voices.

That labeling stretches the meaning of the term. Public opinion surveys still show broad support for border control and removing people with criminal records. Those numbers cut across party lines more than elite conversation suggests.

Most normal Americans, both Democrat and Republican, support deportations, low crime, eliminating fraud, and voter ID, yet (most) social media and Democrat politicians make us think the opposite.

Some Democrats still hold quieter moderate views, but they are being voted out to make way for more radically extreme officials who are more closely aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Look up the DSA’s policies, and you’ll find a terrifying glimpse into a very dark vision for America.

The videos people share that show Democrats espousing “far right” policies and talking points are not fabrications. Party platforms and official numbers match the clips. The change reflects coalition incentives, cultural pressure, and reactive politics more than any single secret plan. It also shows how the range of acceptable ideas can move.

When one side travels far in one direction, the previous center can look like the opposite extreme.

That dynamic explains much of the party flip. Understanding the record helps cut through the noise. The facts from the 1990s and early 2000s sit in plain sight for anyone willing to read the speeches and platforms.

Why do you think the flip happened? Let me know in the comments.

Sources

“1996 Democratic Party Platform.” *The American Presidency Project*. August 26, 1996. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1996-democratic-party-platform.

Clinton, William J. “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union.” *The American Presidency Project*. January 24, 1995. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-before-joint-session-the-congress-the-state-the-union-11.

“ERO EAD Thomas Homan receives 2015 Presidential Rank Award.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. January 13, 2016. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ero-ead-thomas-homan-receives-2015-presidential-rank-award.

“Obama’s Legacy on Immigration.” American Immigration Council. January 20, 2017. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/president-obamas-legacy-immigration/.

“Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. January 29, 2013. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/29/remarks-president-comprehensive-immigration-reform.

“The Democratic Party’s Long Shift to the Left on Immigration.” NPR. February 19, 2019. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/694804917/democrats-used-to-talk-about-criminal-immigrants-so-what-changed-the-party.

“Under Biden, Democrats Shifted on Immigration.” Center for Immigration Studies. April 16, 2025. https://cis.org/Report/Under-Biden-Democrats-Shifted-Immigration.

“When the Entire Democratic Party Was Like Donald Trump.” *Reason*. August 26, 2015. https://reason.com/2015/08/26/when-the-entire-democratic-party-was-lik/.

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Data on ICE deportations and removals under the Obama and Trump administrations. Syracuse University. Various reports, including summaries of fiscal-year totals. https://tracreports.org/.

Wikipedia. “Tom Homan.” Last modified 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Homan.

Imagine a small American town built by generations of families working together. Neighbors helped raise houses and open shops. They gathered for picnics and holiday parades. In the middle of town stood a baseball field. For one man this field held special memories. His father had brought him there as a boy to learn the game. His grandfather had done the same for his father. The crack of the bat and the smell of fresh grass connected them across time. The field was more than grass and bases.

It was a living piece of family history and town pride.

Over ten years things changed fast. New people arrived through immigration at a rapid pace. Soon the town population shifted. Many newcomers came from places with different traditions and values. They worked hard in their own ways but did not share the same attachment to the old town ways. The baseball field began to show its age. The fences needed mending. The infield grass grew patchy. The bleachers creaked. The town put the repair to a vote. The majority voted no. The new residents did not play baseball.

It was not part of their heritage or memories.

Funds went elsewhere. The field stayed broken. The old culture and its memories faded quietly. The town moved on without the things that once united it.

This story is not just fiction. It describes what many Americans feel is happening in their communities today. Rapid demographic change can reshape places in ways that leave longtime residents feeling like strangers in their own home. It raises real questions about culture assimilation and what holds a nation together.

First consider how majority rule works in a democracy. When enough new residents settle in an area they gain voting power. They naturally support projects that match their interests and backgrounds. This is normal politics.

Yet when change happens quickly, the original character of a place can disappear.

The baseball field example shows how shared public spaces suffer. Old traditions lose funding because they no longer connect with the new majority. Parks schools and community centers can follow the same path. People stop investing in what feels like someone else’s history.

American history has seen immigration waves before. The Irish arrived in large numbers in the 1800s. Many Protestants viewed their Catholic faith and customs with suspicion. Italians, Poles, and Eastern Europeans faced similar doubts in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They were called clannish or un-American. Nativist groups warned of crime, disease, and divided loyalties. Chinese immigrants met outright exclusion laws. Each group brought different foods, languages, and religions. Tension was real. Riots and discrimination occurred. Still most earlier immigrants came from European backgrounds with Christian roots and Western legal ideas.

They shared broad values with the founding American culture even if details differed.

Over one to three generations they learned English, intermarried, and adopted core American ways. Public schools, the military, and economic opportunity sped this up. The melting pot ideal expected newcomers to blend into the larger society while adding their flavor. It worked unevenly, but America grew stronger.

Todays patterns differ in important ways.

Muslim immigration stands out because Islam is both a religion and a political system for many believers.

Nationwide Muslims make up only about one to two percent of the population. In certain towns and neighborhoods the share is much higher. Places like Dearborn Michigan have large Arab American communities with Muslim majorities. Hamtramck Michigan became the first city with an all Muslim city council. These enclaves feature Arabic signs, halal shops, and mosques that serve as community centers.

Some have parallel practices such as informal sharia guidance on family matters.

Surveys show mixed integration. Many American Muslims succeed in school and work. They contribute as doctors, engineers, and small business owners.

At the same time polls reveal gaps on key issues.

Significant numbers in some communities hold conservative views on gender roles, homosexuality, and criticism of religion. Support for strict sharia elements appears in subsets of the population. Attitudes toward groups like Hamas have raised alarms after recent conflicts. Muslim populations show slower assimilation, higher welfare use, pockets of parallel societies, “no-go zones,” grooming scandals, and terror incidents.

These highlight the risks when cultural distance is great.

Socialism presents another challenge.

The Democratic Socialists of America have won local and congressional primaries especially in deep blue cities. They push for heavy government control, wealth redistribution, and identity focused policies. Socialism appeals where people feel left behind by rapid change or inequality. Yet its core ideas clash with American traditions of limited government, individual responsibility, and free enterprise. Historical attempts at socialism from the Soviet Union to Venezuela delivered poverty and authoritarianism. Even milder versions strain budgets and reduce innovation.

When combined with identity politics, it can deepen divisions rather than heal them.

The baseball field story captures the deeper issue. When newcomers do not share the same stories or values they see less reason to preserve old symbols. Baseball represents more than sport. It stands for teamwork, fair play, and generational continuity. Many immigrant groups embrace it enthusiastically. Others prioritize different sports or none at all. Without broad buy in, public treasures decay. This process repeats across the country in changing neighborhoods. Christmas displays face challenges. History lessons shift focus. Community events lose their old flavor.

None of this means every immigrant rejects American ways. Countless families from all backgrounds wave the flag, celebrate Independence Day, and coach Little League. Success stories prove assimilation is possible.

The problem arises with volume, speed, and policy.

Chain migration concentrates groups in enclaves reducing pressure to learn English or adopt mainstream norms. Multicultural policies sometimes celebrate separation instead of unity. Birth rates among natives have fallen while immigration continues. These trends accelerate cultural replacement in specific areas.

What can be done? First recognize the pattern honestly. America has always been a nation of immigrants, yet it thrived by insisting on a common culture.

English language, civics education, and respect for constitutional values should be non negotiable.

Immigration policy can prioritize skills, English proficiency, and cultural fit. Enforcement of laws against parallel legal systems protects equality. Communities can fund private efforts to maintain heritage sites when public support fades.

Stronger national identity education reminds everyone what unites us.

The loss of the baseball field feels personal because it is. That baseball field linked a man to his father, grandfather, and town history. When such links break, people experience grief for a way of life that is slipping away.

This is not hatred of newcomers. It is love of home. Nations are not hotels with revolving doors. They are inheritance passed across generations.

Preserving that inheritance requires wise choices about who joins the community and how fully they embrace its story.

Rapid unassimilated change tests the American experiment. Past waves succeeded because the core culture held firm. Today’s challenges with political Islam and socialism test it again.

The baseball field may stay silent but the lesson should not. Americans of all backgrounds who value freedom opportunity and shared heritage must speak up for measured policies that keep the town whole. Only then can new generations create their own memories on fields that still feel like home.

Imagine a world where slavery never ended. Where millions of people are still trapped, forced to work without pay, unable to leave, and living in fear every single day. You might think slavery is a thing of the past. That it is something from history books about the transatlantic slave trade or ancient Rome. Nope. The reality will shock you.

There are more people living in slavery today than at any other time in human history and Globalization is a major factor that has helped it grow to astounding numbers.

According to the latest Global Slavery Index from Walk Free, about 50 million people around the world are trapped in modern slavery right now.

That’s on any given day in 2021, the most recent year with full estimates. This number includes 28 million in forced labor and 22 million in forced marriages. It has grown by about 10 million since 2016.

That’s like the entire population of a big country like South Korea suddenly disappearing into bondage.

What Is Modern Slavery?

Modern slavery isn’t exactly like the chattel slavery of the 1800s, where people were legally owned as property and passed down through families. Today, it’s often hidden. The United Nations and groups like the International Labour Organization (ILO) define modern slavery as situations where people cannot refuse work or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, or abuse of power. It includes:

• Forced labor: People made to work in factories, farms, construction, or homes without fair pay or freedom.

• Human trafficking: Being moved and exploited for sex, labor, or other purposes.

• Debt bondage: Trapped by loans they can never repay.

• Forced marriage: Especially affecting girls and women who have no say.

• Other forms: Like child soldiers or organ trafficking in extreme cases.

Women and girls make up over half of those affected, and more than 12 million are children. Migrants, poor families, and people in conflict zones are hit hardest.

Globalization’s promise of equality, equity, and inclusion for all is a lie.

This isn’t rare or far away. It happens in supply chains for clothes, electronics, food, and even solar panels. In wealthy countries too, including the United States, where estimates put the number at over 1 million.

Why Are There So Many More Slaves Today?

The main reason is simple: the world’s population has exploded.

In 1800, there were about 1 billion people on Earth. Today, there are more than 8 billion. Even if the percentage of enslaved people is lower than in some ancient societies, the raw numbers are higher because there are so many more humans.

But it’s not just population growth. Several modern problems make slavery worse:

1. Poverty and inequality: Poor families in developing countries are easy targets for traffickers who promise jobs but deliver exploitation.

2. Conflict and migration: Wars in places like parts of Africa or the Middle East displace people. Desperate refugees become victims of smugglers.

3. Weak laws and corruption: Many governments don’t enforce anti-slavery rules, or officials look the other way.

4. Technology and hiding in plain sight: Slavery used to be open and legal. Now it’s underground, but the internet and global travel make trafficking easier.

Also, the COVID-19 (global) pandemic made things worse by increasing poverty and disrupting protections.

The number rose noticeably after 2016. Make of that what you will.

I suggest you Google the World Economic Forum. They hide in plain sight.

Here’s the nasty part.

Globalization has contributed to and accelerated worldwide slavery.

Globalization is the way countries, companies, and economies have become deeply connected through trade, technology, and movement of people and money. While globalization has brought benefits like cheaper goods and new jobs, it has also created a “dark underbelly” that fuels exploitation.

Global companies build long, complex supply chains that stretch across many countries to keep costs low. They often source raw materials and manufacturing from places with weak labor laws. This creates pressure for a “race to the bottom,” where factories and farms compete by offering the cheapest labor possible. Sometimes that means forcing workers into debt bondage or trapping migrants who fear deportation if they complain.

For example, your clothes might contain cotton linked to forced labor. Electronics could include minerals mined by children or adults under duress. Seafood, coffee, cocoa, and even solar panel parts have all been tied to modern slavery in global supply chains. Traffickers take advantage of open borders and easy international movement to move victims far from home, making rescue harder. The internet helps criminals advertise and hide their profits across countries.

Business models focused on fast fashion, low prices, and high profits often overlook worker conditions. Complex supply chains with thousands of subcontractors make it easy for companies to say “we didn’t know” when abuses are found. Voluntary promises by businesses haven’t been enough to fix the problem. As a result, millions of people, especially in Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America, end up producing goods for the global market while trapped in exploitation.

Globalization also increases migration.

You know…that thing Western countries are having a hard time with.

People seeking better lives cross borders but can fall into the hands of smugglers who turn into traffickers. Economic ups and downs, like those during the pandemic, push more vulnerable people into risky situations.

In short, the same forces that make our world smaller and more connected also make it easier for slavery to hide and spread.

“How can that be possible?” you might say. “We are ‘modern.’ You’re lying!”

Let’s look back in history to see the difference.

The Transatlantic Slave Trade (1500s–1800s): About 12 to 13 million Africans were captured and shipped across the ocean over 350+ years. Not all survived the brutal journey. At its peak, the number of enslaved people living in the Americas was in the millions. There were around 4 million in the U.S. by 1860, plus millions more in Brazil and the Caribbean. But this was spread over centuries, not all at once.

Ancient Rome: At the height of the empire (1st–2nd centuries AD), estimates suggest 5 to 10 million slaves in a population of 50–60 million. Slavery was common. It was maybe 10-20% in some areas. But the Roman Empire was much smaller than today’s world.

Other historical slavery: The Arab slave trade, slavery in Africa, Asia, and forms of serfdom involved huge numbers over time. But no single snapshot in history shows 50 million people enslaved at the same moment. World population was simply too small.

Today’s 50 million beats those peaks in absolute terms.

It’s a sad record.

Why Does This Matter?

Slavery isn’t just a statistic. Every number is a human being robbed of freedom, dignity, and a future. Families are torn apart. Children miss school and grow up traumatized. Economies suffer because forced labor distorts fair markets.

The good news?

Slavery is illegal everywhere. The world has more tools than ever. There are international laws, hotlines, companies checking supply chains, and activists using social media to expose it. Groups like Walk Free, the ILO, and governments are pushing for change. Some countries have strong laws requiring businesses to report on slavery risks.

With globalization as a key factor, fixing modern slavery will require global cooperation: stronger rules for supply chains, better enforcement, and fairer trade that protects workers.

Awareness is the first step. As consumers and citizens, understanding that we have more slavery in recorded human history and that modern Globalization is making it worse helps us support solutions that tackle the problem at its roots.

Slavery didn’t end with the 19th century. It evolved and increased.

With 50 million people still trapped, I’d say it’s time to stop bitching about the evils of slavery in our past and do something about the current evils of slavery across the globe.

Sources:

Global Slavery Index. “Global Findings on Modern Slavery.” Walk Free. Accessed June 4, 2026. https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/findings/global-findings/.

cogitatiopress.com

“Slavery in the 21st Century.” Wikipedia. Last modified 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century.Walk Free. “Modern Slavery in the United States.” Global Slavery Index. May 1, 2023. https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/united-states/.

ejournals.bc.edu

Anti-Slavery International. “Slavery in Global Supply Chains.” Accessed June 4, 2026. https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-in-global-supply-chains/.

antislavery.org

“Modern Slavery: The ‘Dark Underbelly’ of Globalization.” UN News. October 15, 2017. https://news.un.org/en/audio/2017/10/634532.

news.un.org

Brewer, Devon. “Globalization and Human Trafficking.” Human Rights & Human Welfare. 2009. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1422&context=hrhw.

digitalcommons.du.edu

“Atlantic Slave Trade.” Wikipedia. Last modified 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade.

youtube.com

Webster, Jane. “Thinking Comparatively about Roman Slavery.” Diaspora. http://www.diaspora.illinois.edu/news0310/news0310-3.pdf.

walkfree.org

World Economic Forum. “How to End Modern-Day Slavery in the Age of Deglobalization.” August 31, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/08/modern-day-slavery-in-the-age-of-deglobalization-how-we-end-it/.

weforum.org

Stanford University. “Reimagining More Just, Equitable Global Supply Chains.” December 20, 2021. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2021/12/reimagining-just-equitable-global-supply-chains.

news.stanford.edu

This past Memorial Day, Americans across the country paused to remember the brave men and women who gave their lives defending our freedoms. We visited cemeteries, attended parades, and reflected on the high cost of liberty. As we do this, our nation is preparing for an exciting milestone: our 250th anniversary in 2026.

The United States will turn 250 years old, a moment to celebrate the enduring spirit of freedom, resilience, and patriotism that has carried us through every challenge. On this special time of remembrance and reflection, it is fitting to honor five American soldiers whose combat stories are so extraordinary they almost seem like fiction. These heroes remind us what it truly means to serve with unwavering courage for God and country.

Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez

Sergeant Benavidez was a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier whose actions in Vietnam on May 2, 1968, still inspire awe.

Benavidez was at a base camp when he heard a desperate radio call from a 12-man team trapped by nearly 1,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. Without hesitation, he grabbed his medical bag, a knife, and jumped aboard a helicopter heading into the fight. He had no rifle, only his will to save his brothers in arms.

For six long hours, Benavidez fought like a lion. He was shot, stabbed with a bayonet, and hit by shrapnel more than 37 times. Despite a broken jaw and terrible wounds, he organized defenses, recovered secret documents, and carried wounded men to safety.

At one point, he pulled an enemy bayonet from his own body and used it to kill his attacker.

When the battle ended and medics thought he was dead, they placed him in a body bag. Yes, you heard that right. They put him in a body bag! A friend noticed him moving and cried out, “He’s alive!”

Benavidez saved at least eight American lives that day. His Medal of Honor citation describes his actions as some of the most daring in military history. Roy Benavidez showed the world that one determined American can turn the tide against impossible odds.

His story is a powerful reminder of the selflessness that beats in the heart of our warriors.

Audie Murphy

Murphy is the most decorated American soldier of World War II.

This small-town Texas boy stood only 5 feet 5 inches tall and was turned down by the Marines and Navy before the Army accepted him. But Audie proved size means nothing when courage fills the soul. He fought across nine major campaigns in Europe, becoming a legend for his bravery.

The pinnacle of his heroism came on January 26, 1945, near the Colmar Pocket in France. Murphy’s company was pinned down by 250 German soldiers and six tanks. With his men in danger, he climbed onto a burning tank destroyer and manned its .50-caliber machine gun.

For nearly an hour, under heavy fire, he blasted away at the enemy, killing or wounding about 50 Germans while calling in artillery strikes.

Even after being wounded, he refused to quit until his comrades were safe.

Audie received every major American award for valor, including the Medal of Honor.

He later starred in the movie “To Hell and Back,” playing himself and sharing his story with the nation.

Audie Murphy embodied the American fighting spirit—humble, tough, and unstoppable in defense of freedom.

Sergeant Alvin C. York

A former pacifist from the hills of Tennessee, Sergeant York, who initially applied for conscientious objector status during World War I, ultimately answered the call when his country needed him.

On October 8, 1918, during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, his small patrol of 17 men found itself behind German lines and under deadly machine-gun fire. Most of his unit was killed or wounded.

York took command and used his backwoods turkey-hunting skills to pick off enemy gunners one by one, starting with the leaders. When dozens of Germans charged with bayonets, he calmly drew his pistol and fired with deadly accuracy.

In the end, York single-handedly killed more than 20 enemies, knocked out 35 machine guns, and captured 132 German soldiers.

He marched them back through enemy territory as prisoners.

For his incredible actions, York received the Medal of Honor and was promoted. His story proves that everyday Americans can rise to become giants on the battlefield when liberty is on the line.

Corporal Desmond T. Doss

The brave medic from World War II who refused to carry a weapon because of his deep religious faith. A Seventh-day Adventist, Doss believed in honoring the Sabbath and saving lives instead of taking them. Yet he volunteered for combat duty as a medic, serving with the 77th Infantry Division.

In May 1945 in Okinawa’s Maeda Escarpment known as Hacksaw Ridge, Doss performed miracles.

While Japanese forces poured deadly fire on American troops, Doss stayed behind as others retreated.

Over several hours, he single-handedly treated and lowered roughly 75 wounded men down a 400-foot cliff using ropes.

He did this while wounded himself, once kicking away a grenade that exploded and sprayed him with shrapnel. A sniper later shot him in the arm, but Doss continued helping until the job was done.

He became the first conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor.

The film “Hacksaw Ridge” brought his story to new generations, showing that true heroism sometimes means protecting life with nothing but faith and determination.

Desmond Doss proved that American values like religious freedom and moral courage make our nation strong.

Sergeant Dakota Meyer

Sergeant Meyer was United States Marine whose actions in Afghanistan in 2009 earned him the Medal of Honor.

On September 8, during the Battle of Ganjgal, Meyer’s four-man team and their Afghan partners walked into a deadly Taliban ambush involving dozens of fighters with heavy weapons.

When he learned his friends were trapped, Meyer defied orders and drove a gun truck straight into the kill zone—five times!

Under intense fire from machine guns, RPGs, and mortars, he killed enemies at close range, even fighting hand-to-hand. He rescued wounded Americans and Afghans, provided covering fire, and personally recovered the bodies of his fallen teammates.

Meyer was wounded but kept fighting for six hours, saving the lives of 13 Americans and many Afghan partners.

At just 21 years old, he became the first living Marine to receive the Medal of Honor since Vietnam.

Dakota Meyer represents the modern American warrior: loyal, fearless, and committed to never leaving a brother behind.

The American Soldier

These five soldiers come from different wars and different backgrounds, but they share one unbreakable quality: love for America. They fought not for glory, but for the ideals in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Their stories teach us that freedom is never free. It demands sacrifice, bravery, and the willingness to stand when others fall back.

As we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, let us draw strength from heroes like Benavidez, Murphy, York, Doss, and Meyer. Their examples call us to live with purpose, to defend what is right, and to pass on the torch of liberty to the next generation.

America has faced storms before and always emerged stronger because of patriots like these. Our best days are still ahead if we remember who we are: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

May God continue to bless the United States of America, and may we always honor those who kept her free. Happy 250th, America!

There was a time when the sharpest wits in the room leaned left: Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, even early Jon Stewart. They skewered power, made fun of hypocrisy, and made you choke on your drink while confronting uncomfortable truths. Comedy was the great equalizer. It was the weapon of the outsider.

It worked because it revealed.

It jabbed at reality until the mask slipped.

Then something snapped. The laughs dried up. The strongest red flag of our cultural moment wasn’t a policy failure or a campus riot. It was when a significant chunk of the cultural left lost the ability to be funny. Not “edgy” in the safe, corporate way. Genuinely, spontaneously, dangerously funny.

The kind that lands because it’s true.

Comedy, at its best, is truth delivered at an unexpected angle. It subverts expectations to expose something real. A setup builds a familiar world; the punchline yanks the rug and shows the floorboards underneath.

Think of Richard Pryor’s raw honesty about race, or Norm Macdonald’s fearless observations that made both sides squirm. The humor lands because it aligns with observable reality, even when it stings.

Leftism, in its dominant modern form, does the opposite. It subverts truth to sustain the narrative.

Biology bends to gender ideology. Crime statistics yield to “systemic” explanations that ignore inconvenient data. Economic outcomes get reframed as oppression rather than incentives and behavior. Merit becomes “privilege.” Open borders pair with “no human is illegal” slogans while ignoring finite resources and cultural cohesion. When your entire framework requires constant concealment, (redefining words, canceling dissenters, enforcing speech codes) comedy becomes impossible.

You can’t punch down at sacred cows when your cows are the sacred ones.

Watch old clips of The Daily Show under Craig Kilborn or early Stewart. They mocked politicians across the board, often savaging Clinton-era Democrats with glee. Contrast that with the post-2016 era of late-night monologues that have devolved into ritualistic Trump-bashing that feels less like satire and more like group therapy for coastal creatives.

Ratings followed. Saturday Night Live’s political sketches became predictable sermons. Even sympathetic observers admitted the material was flatter than a bad dad joke.

Why?

Because the new rules forbade certain observations.

You could mock a bumbling Republican, but suggesting that biological males dominating women’s sports is absurd? Career suicide.

Point out that endless DEI trainings correlate with declining productivity and morale? Racist.

Note that many urban crime spikes tracked perfectly with specific policy changes post-2020, not phantom “root causes”? Bigot.

Comedy dies when the punchline is pre-vetted by an HR department or Twitter mob.

This isn’t new.

Authoritarian regimes have always strangled humor. Soviet jokes existed despite the system: samizdat whispers about bread lines and gulags. The official state comedy was propaganda.

Today’s version is softer: corporate capture meets ideological enforcement.

Netflix specials from certain comedians tank not because audiences are prudish, but because the material lectures instead of illuminates. When every joke circles back to “punch up” at the approved targets, it stops being funny. It becomes propaganda with a rimshot.

Great comedy requires courage.

It’s the willingness to say what everyone senses but few voice.

It thrives on pattern recognition.

Humans laugh at incongruity: the priest who sins, the environmentalist with a private jet, the equity advocate who sends her kids to $60k private school. These land because they expose hypocrisy, a universal human failing.

Modern left-wing orthodoxy struggles here because it treats certain groups as immune to scrutiny.

If your ideology frames one demographic as perpetual victims and another as perpetual oppressors, you’ve lost the symmetry reality provides. Crime data, academic achievement gaps, family structure outcomes—these are observable patterns, not bigotry. Ignoring them to protect the narrative means your “jokes” must tiptoe around the elephant.

The result?

Safe, toothless material that elicits polite chuckles from the converted and eye-rolls from everyone else.

Comedians like Ben Bankas, Shane Gillis, or Bill Maher (yes, I said it—he’s come around lately) prove the counterpoint. They don’t hew to any party line. They observe human folly wherever it appears: trans activism’s excesses, racial grifters, elite hypocrisy, working-class realities. Their specials dominate because they deliver what audiences crave: unfiltered recognition.

Data from streaming and ticket sales backs this. Edgy, independent voices are thriving while legacy gatekeepers falter.

Leftism excels at subverting institutions: family, merit, borders, language itself (“Latinx,” anyone?).

But subversion without truth is just destruction. Comedy subverts expectations to affirm deeper reality.

When ideology demands you deny the reality that men aren’t women, incentives matter, and culture influences outcomes, for example, your comic instincts aren’t funny.

You can’t riff on what you’re forbidden to notice as reality.

This extends beyond stand-up.

Meme culture exploded precisely because the right (and dissident corners) embraced raw, visual truth-telling. Wojaks, Chad memes, “It’s okay to be white,” they land because they distill observable absurdities.

Meanwhile, institutional left comedy often feels like scolding with clip art.

The “resistance” humor of 2016-2020 aged like milk: endless orange man bad gags that ignored policy substance or governance failures on their own side.

Universities, once comedy incubators, became humor wastelands. Safe spaces and trigger warnings signal the death of playful inquiry. When every joke risks a bias response team report, students learn self-censorship early. The result is a generation of aspiring creatives who can’t land a punchline without checking the current pronoun hierarchy.

Can it be fixed?

Humor’s revival requires reclaiming truth as non-negotiable. Comedy isn’t conservative or liberal.

It’s anti-fragile.

It punishes hypocrisy and rewards clarity.

The left’s best historical comedians succeeded by rebelling against their era’s power structures, not enforcing them.

Today’s version mistakes institutional power for moral authority.

The cultural shift is underway. Podcasts, YouTube, and club circuits reward what legacy media punishes. Audiences vote with their wallets and attention.

When a comedian risks the “wrong” observation and the room erupts, it reminds us why laughter matters: it’s a truth serum.

When a political tendency can no longer produce comedy that resonates beyond its bubble, it reveals a deeper rot.

Politics built on concealment can’t withstand the light of honest laughter. Reality always gets the last—and loudest—laugh.

The fix isn’t partisan takeover of comedy.

It’s refusing to let ideology dictate what we’re allowed to see.

Subvert the lies.

Punch the sacred cow.

Tell the truth, slant it sideways, and watch the room explode.

That’s how comedy and culture revive.

Left-wing violence has moved beyond a small group of blue-haired, septum pierced psychopaths and has become mainstream. We are now at a point where ordinary Americans are not just afraid of being called mean names or being shouted at for offering dissenting points of view, but now there is a real threat that stating an alternative opinion will be met with violence—including murder!

This is even true on college campuses where ideas are supposed to be debated and developed. Nope. College kids will physically attack you and wish murder on you if you disagree with them. They psychopaths are now our kids. Those kids will be our future leaders.

This is even true in politics where healthy debates are needed to figure out which ideas will benefit Americans the most. Nope. We have people like Democrat AG of Virginia, Jay Jones, who wished death upon his opponent’s kids so his opponent could “feel pain” and Democrat House Minority Leader out of New York, Hakeem Jeffries, say that “we are in the era of maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time” (against Republicans). These psychopaths ARE our present leaders.

WTF world do we live in?

The data shows something deeply troubling on the American left: a growing tolerance for political violence as a legitimate tool to achieve political ends.

This is not “mostly peaceful protests” rhetoric from Democrats. Not abstract hypotheticals. Actual acceptance that killing or harming people who disagree with you can sometimes be justified.

This isn’t about every liberal or progressive person. Most Americans across the board still reject violence. But the increasing numbers reveal a disturbing shift among a significant chunk of Left-leaning folks, especially younger ones and those who are mostly online.

If we care about preventing more tragedy and saving our Republic, we need to sound the alarm.

Because when violence stops being unthinkable, democracy dies.

Numbers don’t lie and they don’t have an agenda. In April 2025, the Network Contagion Research Institute (working with Rutgers) surveyed over 1,200 U.S. adults. The results were jaw-dropping. Overall, 38% of respondents said assassinating President Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.” But among self-identified left-leaning people (far left, liberal, or slightly liberal), that number jumped to 55%. For Elon Musk, it was 48% on the left. Even property destruction got a pass: 58% of left-leaning respondents thought torching a Tesla dealership was somewhat justified.

These aren’t fringe X (Twitter) accounts. These are real people answering anonymously.

Fast-forward to September 2025, right after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. YouGov polled 2,646 Americans for The Hill. While 72% of all Americans said political violence is never justified, the partisan gap was unmistakable.

Among “very liberal” respondents, 25% said violence can sometimes be justified. Liberals overall were at 17%. Compare that to conservatives (6%) and very conservatives (3%).

Younger people under 45 were even more open to it, regardless of ideology—but the left-side numbers stood out sharply.

A follow-up poll showed 16% of liberals (24% of very liberals) thought celebrating a public figure’s death was usually or always acceptable.

Then there’s the hard data on actual incidents. In September 2025, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released a detailed analysis tracking 750 terrorism-related attacks and plots in the U.S. from 1994 through mid-2025.

For the first time in over thirty years, left-wing incidents outpaced right-wing ones in 2025.

There’s something very important to note with this last shocking stat, “jihadist violence” is included with “Right-wing violence.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider “jihadists” Right-wing. In addition, say for example, a white supremacist gang commits violence in a drug deal gone wrong with another white supremacist gang. That is also considered Right-wing violence. It goes on an on. The attacks on Trump’s life are not considered into either side’s camp, even though the killers’ motives were overtly Left-leaning. Those are just some examples of the skewed data.

So, even with the numbers being massively skewed against the Right, the Left is STILL more violent.

Imagine the amount of violence the Left has to commit when the data collection and classification is on their side and they still come out as more violent.

Motives? Many, but mainly anti-government extremism and straight-up partisan hatred aimed at Republican officials, law enforcement, or symbols of the right.

These aren’t isolated data points.

They line up with what we’ve seen in the culture: the explosion of “assassination-adjacent” memes online.

Phrases like “Somebody should do it” or “If somebody knew what needed to be done, that person should probably just do it.”

A Washington Post piece in May 2026 highlighted how these coded jokes have gone mainstream on the left, especially after high-profile events. Influencers rant about Trump and slip right up to the line without quite crossing it into direct threats. It’s dark humor, they say. But experts warn it creates “permission structures.” It’s psychological cover that desensitizes people and makes the unthinkable feel thinkable.

So why is this happening on the left right now?

A few things seem to be colliding. First, the 2024 election loss felt existential to many on the progressive side. Powerlessness breeds frustration, and frustration can curdle into rage when social media algorithms feed you a constant diet of “the other side is literal fascism.”

Second, there’s been a cultural shift in how some left-leaning voices talk about violence. Remember when “punch a Nazi” was framed as edgy but harmless? It didn’t stay contained. It evolved into broader justifications: if your opponents are threats to democracy, then maybe breaking a few rules (or heads) is morally okay. The ends justify the means.

If you are constantly being told that one side are literal Nazis for their beliefs, it makes total sense to stop them by any means—including murder!

This is where the alarm bells really start ringing for me.

Classical liberalism is the tradition that gave us free speech, due process, and peaceful protest. It has always rejected violence as a political shortcut. The left used to own the moral high ground on non-violence: think Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights movement, even early anti-war activism. They understood that once you normalize violence against your enemies, you invite it against yourself. You erode the very norms that protect minorities and dissenters.

Yet today, a measurable portion of the Left appears to have quietly abandoned that principle.

They may be loving and caring to their friends and family, but they cheer for assassinations in the streets when it’s aimed at the right person. Bonkers!

That’s not a small philosophical tweak. That’s a foundational crack.

When 55% of one side’s supporters say killing a twice-elected president is “somewhat justified,” we’re not talking about healthy debate anymore. We’re talking about a worldview that treats political opponents as existential threats who can be eliminated rather than defeated at the ballot box.

And here’s the friendly but urgent part: this should worry everyone, including people on the left who still reject violence.

Because tolerance for political violence doesn’t stay one-sided for long. It creates a cycle.

Right-wing radicals see the rhetoric, feel justified in their own extremism, and the body count climbs. We’ve already seen it with real deaths: Charlie Kirk, the UnitedHealthcare CEO killing, plots against officials.

Each incident normalizes the next. Social trust erodes. Institutions weaken.

Ordinary people start arming up not because they’re bloodthirsty, but because they no longer trust the other side to play by the rules.

Look, I get it. Politics feels high-stakes. Trump’s style, his policies, his very existence trigger genuine fear and anger for millions of good people who want a kinder, fairer country.

But fear is not an excuse to rewrite the moral rulebook.

If the left wants to win hearts and minds and actually deliver the changes they believe in, they have to reject this path entirely.

No more winking at “mostly peaceful” riots. No more celebrating deaths with memes. No more polls showing half of your cohort thinking assassination is on the table.

Call it out loudly, consistently, and without qualifiers.

Demand your leaders, influencers, and institutions do the same. Because something is seriously wrong when a major ideological faction in American life starts viewing violence as a legitimate political option.

It’s not “punching up.” It’s not edgy resistance. It’s the slow-motion abandonment of the democratic bargain that has kept this messy republic together for 250 years.

We can disagree fiercely on taxes, borders, climate, gender, you name it. That’s healthy.

But the moment we decide some disagreements justify bloodshed, we all lose.

The left has the numbers and cultural influence to course-correct right now. History will judge whether they do.

The data is flashing red. The memes are getting darker. The incidents are piling up. It’s time for honest self-reflection on the Left before the alarm stops being a warning and becomes a eulogy for the American experiment.

What do you think? Drop a comment below.

Sources

Byman, Daniel, and Riley McCabe. “Left-Wing Terrorism and Political Violence in the United States: What the Data Tells Us.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 25, 2025. https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us.

Paquette, Danielle. “They’re Not Saying Someone Should Kill Trump. But They’re Coming Close.” The Washington Post, May 9, 2026. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/05/09/trump-assassination-jokes-internet/.

Stevenson, Thomas. “55% of Left-Leaning Americans Say It’s ‘Somewhat Justified’ to Kill Trump: Poll.” The Post Millennial, April 8, 2025. https://thepostmillennial.com/55-of-left-leaning-americans-say-its-somewhat-justified-to-kill-trump-poll.

“The Hill Staff.” “Liberals More Likely to Say Political Violence Sometimes Justified: Poll.” The Hill, September 15, 2025. https://thehill.com/national-security/5504569-americans-political-violence-poll/.

I lie is a form of theft, stealing your right to know the truth.

If you’ve ever watched the evening news and thought, “Wait… that doesn’t quite match what I’m seeing with my own eyes,” you’re not imagining things. “News” outlets like CNN, The New York Times, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS often deceive everyday Americans to push a left-wing narrative.

These big legacy outlets don’t just lean left; they actively shape, omit, and sometimes flat-out twist stories to protect Democratic figures, downplay left-wing problems, and paint conservatives as the constant villains.

Let’s look at the receipts, shall we?

First, remember the long-running saga of Joe Biden’s fitness for office? For most of 2023 and the first half of 2024, mainstream outlets treated any mention of Biden’s obvious cognitive slips as a “right-wing conspiracy” or “cheap fake” video.

When the Wall Street Journal reported in June 2024 that insiders saw clear decline behind closed doors, MSNBC and others rushed to call it outrageous and partisan. Even after Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report described Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory,” the spin was that the report itself was the real scandal.

Then came the June 2024 debate. Biden’s performance was so rough that even friendly anchors had to admit what millions of us had seen for years.

Books that dropped in 2025 from insiders like CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’s Alex Thompson confirmed a coordinated effort by aides to shield the president from tough situations.

The media didn’t just miss the story; they helped bury it until it became impossible to ignore.

That deception kept Democratic primary challenges at bay and let the “Biden is sharp as a tack” narrative roll on far longer than it should have. Friendly media protecting a friendly president? Classic.

Fast-forward to 2025 and the tragic assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

When the news broke, CBS and ABC anchors, along with Jimmy Kimmel on his show, suggested the shooter’s motives were “unknown” or even floated vague MAGA connections. Polls and coverage implied this was just more right-wing extremism.

Here’s the part they conveniently left out: the bullet casings were etched with “Hey Fascist! Catch!” plus an Antifa symbol and lyrics from the anti-fascist anthem “Bella Ciao.” The shooter’s own texts made his hatred of Kirk’s views crystal clear. It wasn’t ambiguous. It was left-wing political violence. Yet the framing was so careful to avoid that label that it felt like gaslighting.

Why? Because admitting left-wing extremism throws cold water on the comfortable “right-wing threat to democracy” story that mainstream outlets have pushed since 2016.

Omitting key facts isn’t neutral reporting; it’s deception by selective silence.

Economic coverage gave us another textbook case.

In April 2025, when President Trump rolled out reciprocal tariffs, CNN, The New York Times, and pretty much every legacy desk warned of instant recession, skyrocketing inflation, and economic doom. Talking heads dusted off their “Trump will crash the economy” scripts and went to town.

By late 2025 the numbers told a different tale.

Those tariffs brought in $236 billion (double the previous Biden-era haul), helped shrink the deficit by 20 percent, dropped inflation to 2.7 percent, and contributed to solid 4.3 percent GDP growth in Q3. No recession. No apocalypse. Yet the initial panic coverage had already done its job by planting doubt in voters’ minds and reinforcing the left-wing economic orthodoxy that free trade is always good and any protectionist move is reckless.

When reality didn’t match the prediction, the quiet corrections buried on page A17 didn’t get nearly the airtime the scary headlines did.

Then there was the bizarre January 2025 moment at Trump’s inauguration events.

Elon Musk put his hand on his heart, then extended it toward the crowd in a simple “my heart goes out to you” gesture while thanking supporters. CNN’s Erin Burnett and Kasie Hunt immediately framed it as a “Nazi salute” with ominous undertones. Social media clips and headlines ran with the outrage.

The Anti-Defamation League itself later said the video showed nothing of the sort. Instead, they said it was a standard gesture of gratitude. Full context made that obvious. But the damage was done: another major Trump ally painted as extremist.

This wasn’t sloppy journalism; it was a deliberate attempt to keep the “MAGA = dangerous” narrative alive and well.

Political violence coverage in general has followed the same lopsided pattern.

After multiple assassination attempts on Trump and other conservative figures, you’d hear the “both sides” disclaimer in the same breath that somehow still emphasized right-wing threats. Meanwhile, specific left-motivated incidents—like the Kirk assassination or Antifa-linked attacks on Tesla properties—got the “motive unclear” treatment or were quickly dropped from the cycle.

When a White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooter story broke, the same outlets worked overtime to avoid connecting dots that pointed left. The result?

Americans are left with the impression that extremism is a one-way street, even when the data and evidence say otherwise.

So why does this keep happening?

It’s not usually a smoky room of editors plotting in secret. It’s a mix of groupthink, career incentives, and ideological capture. Most journalists at these outlets lean left (studies have shown this for years). Stories that fit the “progress equals good, conservatives equal threat” template get promoted; ones that complicate it get buried. Click-driven revenue rewards outrage, and outrage flows easier when the bad guys are always on the right.

Add in access journalism (staying cozy with Democratic sources) and you get a perfect storm of deception.

The human cost is real.

When media deceives us this way, trust collapses.

Polls show trust in mainstream news is near historic lows, and it’s no mystery why. Families argue at Thanksgiving because one side watched CNN and the other watched the actual footage. Policy debates get distorted: border security gets framed as “cruel” while crime stats involving illegal immigrants are soft-pedaled. Economic anxiety gets stoked unnecessarily. And young people especially absorb these narratives in echo chambers, growing up thinking half the country is irredeemable.

Look, I’m not asking you to swear off every legacy outlet forever. Some reporters still do good work. But we all need to get savvier. Cross-check with primary sources, read the full study instead of the headline, watch the unedited video, and follow independent voices on both sides. Support outlets that prioritize facts over narrative, even when those facts are uncomfortable for your own team.

At the end of the day, a healthy democracy needs a press that holds power accountable no matter who’s in office.

When mainstream media chooses sides and deceives to protect one side, they’re not guardians of truth; they’re players in the game.

The past two years have given us example after example.

Question everything, demand context, and remember that the truth doesn’t have a political team. It just is. And we deserve to hear it.

What do you think? Have you spotted any of these patterns yourself? Drop your thoughts in the comments.

Sources

Tapper, Jake, and Alex Thompson. 2025. Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. New York: Penguin Random House.

News Articles and Reports Linskey, Annie, and Siobhan Hughes. 2024. “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.” Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/joe-biden-age-election-2024-8ee15246.

Fajgelbaum, Pablo, and Amit Khandelwal. 2026. “Tariffs in 2025: Short-Run Impacts on the US Economy.” Brookings Institution, March 25, 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tariffs-in-2025-short-run-impacts-on-the-us-economy/.

Additional Supporting Coverage Fox News Staff. 2025. “Engravings on Shooter’s Ammo Exposes Charlie Kirk Assassination Motive.” Fox News, September 12, 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/engravings-shooters-ammo-exposes-charlie-kirk-assassination-motive.

Washington Times Staff. 2025. “Messages on Kirk Assassin Suspect’s Bullets Linked to Antifa, LGBTQ, ‘Furries,’ Gaming Subcultures.” Washington Times, September 12, 2025. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/sep/12/messages-kirk-assassin-suspects-bullets-linked-antifa-lgbtq-furries/.

CNN Staff. 2025. “Elon Musk Is Causing Trouble in Europe. What’s in It for Him?” CNN, January 23, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/europe/elon-musk-europe-politics-x-disinformation-gbr-cmd-intl.

This past weekend, on the evening of April 25, 2026, a 31-year-old guy from Torrance, California, named Cole Tomas Allen tried to crash the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton. Armed with a shotgun, handgun, and knives, he rushed a security checkpoint, exchanged gunfire with Secret Service, and left behind writings calling himself the “Friendly Federal Assassin” while targeting Trump administration officials. President Trump, the First Lady, Vice President Vance, and everyone else got rushed out safely (thank goodness), but one agent took a hit to the vest. It was the latest in a string of attempts on Trump’s life.

What really got me thinking was the immediate online debate that exploded afterward. One side kept hammering the old line: “Right-wing extremism is the biggest domestic terror threat we face.” It’s a narrative we’ve heard for years from media outlets, think tanks, and even some government reports. But after digging into the data (especially the kind that doesn’t always make the headlines), I started seeing cracks. Big ones.

If we’re serious about stopping political violence, we need the full picture, not a skewed one.

Let’s start with the narrative everyone knows. For a long time, studies from places like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and academic trackers have painted right-wing actors as responsible for the lion’s share of extremist murders and plots: often 75% or more of fatalities since the ’90s, Jan. 6 gets replayed endlessly, and white-supremacist attacks are spotlighted.

Yes, those are real and awful. No one sane is defending them.

But here’s where it gets tricky: When you look closer at how the data gets collected and coded, a different story emerges. It’s not that right-wing violence doesn’t exist.

It’s that left-wing violence gets minimized, omitted, or straight-up mislabeled in ways that prop up the “right-wing dominance” story.

Take a popular database called The Prosecution Project (TPP), which tracks felony cases tied to political violence. It’s been cited in big outlets like The Economist. Sounds solid, right? Except its lead author, Michael Loadenthal, has publicly identified as ANTIFA and was arrested protesting Trump. It’s right there in his own writing and arrest records. When someone with that background is deciding what counts as “political,” it’s fair to ask if bias sneaks in.

Now let’s get specific with the omissions that make the narrative feel false.

Remember Aaron Danielson in 2020? Self-identified ANTIFA member Michael Reinoehl shot him point-blank in Portland because Danielson was a Trump supporter. Reinoehl even admitted it on camera. Yet that killing doesn’t show up in TPP or major CATO Institute analyses as leftist political violence.

Same with Darrell Brooks in Waukesha, Wisconsin, 2021, a Black supremacist who plowed through a Christmas parade killing six (all White victims) and injuring dozens after posting anti-White rhetoric online. Omitted.

Or the Dayton shooter, Connor Betts, in 2019. He’s nowhere to be found in those databases.

Then there’s the 2020 “Summer of Love” after George Floyd. We’re talking 13,600 arrests, 60,000 officers assaulted, $2 billion in damages, and at least 19 deaths. TPP only logs 232 entries for the whole thing and doesn’t fully classify it as left-wing political violence. That’s like calling a hurricane “a light drizzle” because it didn’t fit the narrative.

Even crazier is the double standard on race and ideology. White-perpetrator crimes against minorities? Almost always tagged as right-wing hate or political violence. But flip it? Crickets.

Example: Billie Davis, a White woman who stabbed an Asian student on a bus in 2024 who was listed in TPP as right-wing. Brandon Elliott, a Black man who brutally assaulted an Asian woman in New York in 2021? Not in the database at all.

Same lie by omission pattern shows up again and again.

The CATO Institute gets a lot of play for claiming political violence is “rare” and mostly right-wing. But their own methodology has holes you could drive a truck through.

They include the Atlanta spa shooter as right-wing because of loose religious ties, yet they leave out the Sutherland Springs church shooter (an atheist with a family beef).

They list the Nashville shooter under a male name despite clear evidence otherwise.

And cases like Vance Boelter or Mauricio Garcia get downplayed even when motives are disputed.

Meanwhile, post-2016 data from CATO’s own numbers shows the left has killed twice as many people as the right in that period.

Here’s the part that really flips the script on recent trends. CSIS’s 2025 analysis that was published just last September found something remarkable: For the first time in over 30 years, left-wing terrorist incidents outnumbered right-wing ones in the first half of the year.

Left-wing violence hit levels not seen in decades, while right-wing attacks dropped sharply.

That’s not cherry-picking; it’s their data. And yet the old narrative still dominates the airwaves.

Polls back this up too.

YouGov surveys show Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say it’s sometimes okay to feel happy about an opponent’s death. And this one truly blows my mind:

• A Rutgers study found 66% of respondents thought murdering Trump was at least somewhat justified!

You read that right. Let me put that into perspective for you. There are 44-49 million registered Democrats in America. 66% of Democrats is 29-32 million.

• 29-32 million Democrats think that murdering Trump is somewhat justified!

That’s horrifying. These aren’t fringe numbers. That’s the majority of Democrats! I bet you’ve never heard of this poll or knew about those numbers. I didn’t. They reflect a cultural shift where inflammatory rhetoric gets a pass on only one side. Look these polls up. There are more that are just as chilling. This is just one of many that show the Left is ok with political violence.

Look, I’m not here to say “only the left is violent” or to give anyone a free pass. Violence is wrong, full stop. Whether it’s Jan. 6, 2020 riots or this weekend’s attempt, it’s wrong.

What I am saying is the data shows a false narrative.

Databases with biased authors, selective omissions, and inconsistent rules create the illusion that one side has a monopoly on extremism. In reality, both fringes have problems, and right now the volume of incidents (and willingness to justify them) has tilted in ways the headlines ignore.

Why does this matter? Because pretending one side is uniquely dangerous lets the other off the hook. It erodes trust in institutions, fuels more polarization, and worst of all makes it harder to call out real threats no matter where they come from.

After Cole Tomas Allen’s manifesto and the chaos at that dinner, maybe it’s time we all agree: Let’s look at the raw numbers, drop the partisan filters, and treat political violence like the cancer it is:

something we fight together, not a political football.

What do you think? Have you noticed these discrepancies in the coverage? Drop a comment below. I’d love to hear your take. And if you found this helpful, share it with a friend who’s tired of one-sided stories. Let’s keep the conversation honest and friendly. We’re all in this together.

Sources

1. The Economist. “Is ‘radical-left’ violence really on the rise in America?” September 12, 2025. Archived at https://archive.ph/p7dF8 (original: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/09/12/is-radical-left-violence-really-on-the-rise-in-america).

2. Lenihan, Eoin (@EoinLenihan). “Adding some more clips from Loadenthal’s two University of Dayton’s conference appearances. At the White Nationalism talk he introduced himself as openly militant Antifa.” X, May 27, 2023.

3. [Journal article from The Prosecution Project research team; exact author/title pulled from DOI abstract]. “The Prosecution Project: Data, Methods, and Findings.” Terrorism and Political Violence, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2019.1670142 (abstract available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600826.2019.1670142).

4. Nowrasteh, Alex. “Politically Motivated Violence Is Rare in the United States.” Cato at Liberty (blog), September 11, 2025 (updated September 18, 2025). https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states.

5. Nowrasteh, Alex. “Politically Motivated Terrorist Killers: Data, Sources, and Methodology.” Cato at Liberty (blog), September 16, 2025. https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-terrorist-killers-data-sources-methodology.

6. TowelieTrades (@TowelieTrades). “WARNING GRAPHIC.” X, August 30, 2020.

7. “Darrell Brooks Called for Violence against White People.” New York Post, November 24, 2021. https://nypost.com/2021/11/24/darrell-brooks-called-for-violence-against-white-people/.

8. The Prosecution Project. “Summer 2020 Protests.” The Prosecution Project. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://theprosecutionproject.org/summer-2020-protests/.

9. The Prosecution Project. “Data Search: Summer-Fall 2020 Protests.” The Prosecution Project Data. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://data.theprosecutionproject.org/?tab=Summer-Fall+2020+Protests&currentPage=1&numShown=10&showAll=true&Ideological+grouping=Leftist%2C+Rightist&Verdict=Guilty

10. “Family of Dayton Shooter Connor Betts Releases Statement.” CNN, August 7, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/us/betts-family-statement.

11. The Economist. “Is ‘radical-left’ violence really on the rise in America?” (see entry 1 above).

12. Nowrasteh, Alex. “Terrorism and Immigration: 50 Years of Data on Foreign-Born Terrorism in the U.S. (1975–2024).” Cato Institute Policy Analysis, 2025. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-50-years-foreign-born-terrorism-us-soil-1975-2024.

13. “Woman Who Stabbed Asian University of Bloomington Student Sentenced in Hate Crime.” People, 2024. https://people.com/woman-who-stabbed-asian-university-of-bloomington-student-sentenced-in-hate-crime-8760896.

14. The Prosecution Project. “Data Search: Billie Davis.” The Prosecution Project Data. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://data.theprosecutionproject.org/?tab=General&currentPage=1&numShown=10&search=BILLIE+DAVIS&showAll=true&Ideological+grouping=Leftist%2C+Rightist

15. “Vilma Kari Times Square Attack.” NBC News, 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/vilma-kari-times-square-attack-rcna139260.

16. “Homicide Rates Highest in Blue Cities, Red States.” Axios, August 15, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/homicide-rates-highest-blue-cities-red-states.

17. “Rank of Black or African American Population by State.” CensusScope. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://censusscope.org/us/rank_race_blackafricanamerican.html.

18. [SSRN paper; exact title from abstract ID]. SSRN, 2023. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4325838.

19. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “Study Finds Gun Deaths More Likely in Small Towns than Big Cities.” CHOP News. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.chop.edu/news/study-finds-gun-deaths-more-likely-small-towns-big-cities.

20. “Spa Shooter Robert Aaron Long Fulton County Courtroom Hearing.” FOX5 Atlanta. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/spa-shooter-robert-aaron-long-fulton-county-courtroom-hearing.

21. “Motive Still Disputed in Some Point Shooting; Suspect’s Religion, Shame Cited.” NBC News. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/motive-still-disputed-some-point-shooting-suspect-s-religion-shame-n1261399.

22. Nowrasteh, Alex. “Alex Responds to the Critics: Politically Motivated Terrorist Killers.” Alex Nowrasteh (blog). Accessed April 27, 2026.

Laissez-Faire, Laissez-Passer w/ Alex Nowrasteh & David Bier

Alex Responds to the Critics: Politically Motivated Terrorist Killings in the United States

My recent posts about politically motivated terrorist killings in the United States revealed surprising findings. There are a few politically motivated killings; Islamist terrorists are still the deadliest, and, most relevant for the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, the left-right political distribution of murders skews right, even in recent years…

Read more

a year ago · 39 likes · 13 comments · Alex Nowrasteh

23. Anti-Defamation League. “Allen Gunman’s Writings Reveal Disturbed, Hateful Man with No Clear Motive.” ADL Resources. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.adl.org/resources/article/allen-gunmans-writings-reveal-disturbed-hateful-man-no-clear-motive.

24. “Accused Killer Vance Boelter Hints at Motive in Post-Jailhouse Interview.” New York Post, July 12, 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/07/12/world-news/accused-killer-vance-boelter-hints-at-motive-in-post-jailhouse-interview/.

25. Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Left-Wing Terrorism and Political Violence in the United States: What the Data Tells Us.” CSIS Analysis. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us.

26. YouGov. “Daily Results: [Poll on Political Attitudes].” September 11, 2025. https://yougov.com/en-us/daily-results/20250911-d157f-2.

27. White People Twt (@rWhitePeople). “Senator Mike Lee, of SLC Utah, mocking the assassination of Democratic state legislator, Melissa Hortman, her husband, Mark, and their dog, Gilbert, in Minnesota on June 14th, 2025. He has never publicly apologized.” X, September 16, 2025.

28. “Sen. Mike Lee Deletes Social Media Posts on Minnesota Shooting Facing Criticism.” NBC News. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-mike-lee-deletes-social-media-posts-minnesota-shooting-facing-crit-rcna213565.

29. “J20 Trump Protests: Trials, Jail Threat, Inauguration Demonstrations Explained.” The Independent. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/j20-trump-protests-trials-jail-threat-inauguration-demonstrations-explained-a8057521.html.

30. “60,000 Officers Assaulted in 2020, 31 Sustaining Injuries: FBI.” ABC News. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://abcnews.com/US/60000-officers-assaulted-2020-31-sustaining-injuries-fbi/story?id=80661264.

31. “Riots Cost $2 Billion in Property Damage.” Axios, September 16, 2020. https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage.

32. McEvoy, Jemima. “14 Days of Protests, 19 Dead.” Forbes, June 8, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/06/08/14-days-of-protests-19-dead/.

33. “Trump Moved to Underground Bunker during White House Protests.” CNN, May 31, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests.

34. “St. John’s Episcopal Church, Historic Church Next to White House, Set on Fire during Protests.” Washington Post, June 5, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/06/05/st-johns-episcopal-church-historic-church-next-white-house-set-fire-during-protests/.

35. “FBI Had 275 Plainclothes Agents Embedded in Jan. 6 Crowds, Congressional Source Says.” TheBlaze. Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.theblaze.com/news/fbi-had-275-plainclothes-agents-embedded-in-jan-6-crowds-congressional-source-says.

Something has really been bothering me lately. Why do so many Democrats keep pushing for socialism when history shows it’s led to the deaths of millions? It’s not a gotcha. It’s a genuine head-scratcher.

On paper, socialism sounds warm and fuzzy. Everyone gets their fair share, no more greedy billionaires, and safety net that catches us all. Who wouldn’t want that?

But when you zoom out and look at the body count from places that actually tried full-on state-controlled economies… it’s horrifying! We’re talking 90 to 100 million people in the 20th century alone, from Mao’s China famines to Stalin’s gulags to Pol Pot’s killing fields. Those are not abstract numbers. Those were real moms, dads, and kids who starved or were executed because Socialists decided they knew better than markets or human incentives.

So why the push?

Why do polls show a majority of Democrats now viewing “socialism” or “democratic socialism” more favorably than capitalism? Why do rock-star figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) fill arenas talking about it like it’s the next big moral crusade?

The more I dig into it, the more it feels like a fascinating case study in human nature:

the madness of repeating a proven disaster and expecting a different ending.

First, let’s be precise about what we’re talking about. The Democratic Party’s official 2024 platform isn’t calling for Soviet-style communism. It talks about “rewarding work, not wealth,” raising taxes on the ultra-rich, expanding Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, and making big corporations “pay their fair share.” That’s social democracy. It’s capitalism with a heavy welfare blanket.

But a growing chunk of the party, especially younger voters and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) crowd that influences folks like AOC, goes further. They openly say capitalism is broken and needs replacing with “democratic socialism”: social ownership of key industries, worker control of workplaces, and an economy run for human needs instead of profit.

Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist. AOC is a DSA member. And surveys (Gallup, Data for Progress) show Democrats now prefer these labels over plain-old capitalism.

Why does this idea keep winning hearts?

From what I hear in their own words, it boils down to a few very relatable frustrations. The economy feels rigged. Wages haven’t kept up with productivity for decades while CEO pay skyrockets. Health care and college crush families with debt. Climate anxiety and inequality make young people wonder if the system is sustainable.

Democratic socialists frame their pitch as compassionate common sense: “Let’s give ordinary people a real voice in our workplaces and society.” It sounds empowering, not authoritarian. They point to Nordic countries as proof it can work that have strong safety nets, happy citizens, mostly free markets. And they insist past horrors weren’t “real socialism.” Those were dictatorships that betrayed the ideals. This time, with democracy and good intentions, it’ll be different.

I get the emotional pull. Inequality is real. Corporate cronyism does stink. The dream of a kinder economy where nobody falls through the cracks is beautiful. But here’s where the critical lens gets uncomfortable and why it starts to look like madness.

History isn’t a suggestion box.

Every large-scale attempt at heavy central planning and wealth redistribution by the state has ended in the same tragic pattern: shortages, corruption, loss of freedom, and mass death. Not because the leaders were cartoon villains from day one, but because the system itself warps incentives. When the state owns the “means of production” (factories, land, big businesses), politicians become the new bosses. You are just replacing one problem leader with a different one. Dissent becomes “counter-revolutionary.” Innovation slows because there’s no profit motive to reward risk. Food lines form because planners can’t possibly calculate what millions of people actually want or need.

And when it fails? Scapegoats, purges, famines. The “not real socialism” defense is the biggest tell.

It’s like saying “that wasn’t real milk” every time the milk inevitably spoils.

Democratic socialists swear they’ll keep elections and free speech. But look closer: DSA platforms talk about public ownership of major corporations and “beating the ruling class.” That’s not tweaking capitalism; it’s transforming it. And history shows that once government controls the economy, it controls the people.

Power corrupts, and absolute economic power corrupts absolutely.

Venezuela under Chávez and Maduro started as “democratic socialism” with huge popular support. Oil wealth was redistributed and free health care promised was received. The result? Hyperinflation, mass exodus, starvation. They called it “21st-century socialism.” Same playbook, different decade.

This is the madness: cognitive dissonance on a societal scale.

We have mountains of evidence from The Black Book of Communism to survivor testimonies to economists like Milton Friedman that socialism’s core flaw isn’t just bad leaders. It’s the rejection of private property and market signals.

Human beings respond to incentives.

Take away the upside of innovation and hard work, and you get stagnation. Concentrate power in the state to “fix” inequality, and you get new elites who guard that power fiercely. Yet the push continues. Why? A few uncomfortable reasons:

1. We have historical amnesia and schools and the media cleverly rebrand it. Schools and media often soft-pedal the 100 million deaths or frame them as “authoritarian excesses” unrelated to the ideology. “Democratic socialism” sounds cuddly and Swedish. It lets supporters distance themselves from the gulags while chasing the same endgame.

2. We also have a utopian blindspot. It’s emotionally satisfying to believe we can engineer perfect equality if we just try harder. Human nature like greed, laziness, and tribalism are ignored. Every socialist experiment assumes people will work hard for the collective without personal reward. Spoiler: they might in the short-term, but don’t in the long-term.

3. Ambitious political power is also at play. Expanding government control feels good when your side is in charge. More programs mean more votes from people who benefit. But it’s a one-way ratchet. Once the state runs health care, energy, or housing, reversing it is nearly impossible. When the government implements a law or policy, it rarely is taken back. Look into income tax, for example. You’ll be blown away at what you find.

4. The most devious and predatory reason is because of mindless clout-chasers. In left-leaning circles, supporting socialism signals you care about the poor more than “heartless capitalists.” Questioning it gets you cancelled. You bigot! Racist! Nazi! That social pressure keeps the idea alive despite the evidence.

Don’t get me wrong. Pure laissez-faire capitalism has flaws too. Monopolies, boom-bust cycles, and real hardship for the unlucky. Smart safety nets, education access, and opportunity-focused policies make sense in a free society.

Countries like Denmark or Sweden succeed because they have private enterprise, property rights, and flexible labor markets—not despite them. They’re not socialist; they’re capitalist with generous welfare they can afford thanks to… capitalism!

The real tragedy is how chasing the Socialist Utopia distracts from practical fixes.

Instead of obsessing over “seizing the means,” why not focus on school choice, vocational training, deregulation for small businesses, and fixing crony capitalism?Those lift people without risking the freedoms that made the West prosperous.

Look, I’m not here to demonize Democrats or anyone who votes that way. Plenty are decent people who just want a fairer shot for their kids. But chasing Socialism after its track record is like repeatedly betting on the same broken roulette wheel and calling critics “negative.”

It’s not compassion. It’s denial dressed up as hope.

History screams at us that central planning kills. Markets, imperfect as they are, have lifted billions out of poverty.

The madness ends when we learn from the dead instead of romanticizing the dream.

What do you think? Have you seen this play out in conversations with friends? Drop a comment. I’d love to hear your take. Let’s keep talking honestly. Because the stakes—freedom, prosperity, human lives—couldn’t be higher.

Sources

Courtois, Stéphane, et al., eds. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Translated by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. (Primary compilation estimating approximately 94–100 million deaths across communist regimes from executions, famines, gulags, and related policies.)

Rummel, R. J. “Murder by Communism.” University of Hawaii. Accessed via historical archives. (Estimates around 110 million deaths from communist democide.)

“Mass Killings under Communist Regimes.” Wikipedia. Last modified 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes. (Overview of scholarly estimates ranging from 10–20 million to over 100 million, including references to Brzezinski, Rummel, and others.)

Dikötter, Frank. Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–1962. New York: Walker & Co., 2010. (Detailed account of the Great Leap Forward famine, contributing to high-end estimates for China.)

Sanders, Bernie. “Democratic Socialism in the United States.” Speech at Georgetown University, November 19, 2015. https://berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/. (Sanders’s own definition emphasizing social programs, fairness, and distinction from state ownership of all production.)

Democratic Socialists of America. “Program.” DSA Platform. https://platform.dsausa.org/program/. (Outlines goals including public ownership of major corporations, worker control, and transforming the economy beyond capitalism.)

“Democratic Socialists of America.” Wikipedia. Last modified 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America. (Background on DSA’s advocacy for social ownership of key economic sectors.)

Vox. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is a Democratic Socialists of America Member. Here’s What That Means.” June 27, 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/27/17509604/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america. (Context on AOC’s affiliation and policy priorities.)

Fraser Institute. “Three Lessons from Venezuela’s Economic Collapse.” January 30, 2026. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/three-lessons-venezuelas-economic-collapse. (Analysis of nationalizations, price controls, and policy failures under “21st-century socialism.”)

Nordic Model ContextHeritage Foundation. “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism.” April 20, 2022. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-myth-scandinavian-socialism. (Argues Nordic countries are market economies with welfare states, not socialist planned economies.)

Washington Post. “Democrats Point to Nordic Nations as Models of Socialism. Here’s How They Actually Work.” June 24, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/democrats-use-nordic-nations-as-models-of-socialism-they-actually-involve-a-lot-of-capitalism/2019/06/24/b6d9bbdc-945c-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html. (Highlights capitalist foundations and pro-business elements.)

In the spring of 2026, a surprising faction has emerged within conservative circles, one that’s been dubbed the “New Resistance” by observers.

Far from the left-wing protests that defined Trump’s first term, this pushback is coming from longtime allies on the right: media personalities like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones, alongside lawmakers such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Their common thread? Vocal opposition to President Trump’s escalating military involvement in the Iran conflict, which they argue betrays core “America First” principles of avoiding endless foreign wars, prioritizing domestic needs, and respecting constitutional limits on executive power.

What began as policy disagreements over U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran has ballooned into a very public fracture. These figures, once instrumental in building Trump’s brand and rallying his base, are now questioning whether his administration’s actions align with the non-interventionist rhetoric that helped him win landslides in 2016 and 2024.

Supporters of the New Resistance see it as a principled stand against neoconservative foreign entanglements.

Critics, however, view it as something far less noble: opportunistic grandstanding from influencers chasing clicks and politicians protecting their brands.

Authenticity?

Critics of the New Resistance are quick to highlight what they see as a glaring lack of authenticity in these sudden criticisms. Many of these voices spent years as Trump’s most ardent defenders. Tucker Carlson built a media empire partly on championing Trump’s outsider appeal. Candace Owens rose through Turning Point USA as a fiery pro-Trump voice. Alex Jones amplified conspiracy-laden support for the former president. Even politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene were synonymous with unyielding MAGA loyalty in Congress. Thomas Massie and Rand Paul have longer records of libertarian skepticism toward endless wars, but their current intensity feels amplified to detractors amid a broader MAGA split.

To skeptics, the timing feels too convenient. These figures’ critiques ramped up precisely as Trump’s administration pursued aggressive action against Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence. These actions were framed by the White House as necessary to prevent a terrorist state from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Trump himself has lashed out on Truth Social, labeling the group “low IQ” losers, “nut jobs,” and grifters desperate for podcast views after being sidelined from mainstream TV.

He argues that their views are “the opposite of MAGA,” pointing out that his base delivered him a landslide victory precisely because they reject weakness toward adversaries like Iran. Loyalists echo this, accusing the New Resistance of performative outrage designed to monetize controversy rather than advance conservative goals. As one conservative commentator noted, some appear to be “latching on to MAGA” for relevance while others have always harbored grudges.

Betrayal?

The skepticism runs deeper than policy. In a movement built on personal loyalty to Trump as its standard-bearer, any deviation can look like betrayal. Critics point to past statements: Carlson once praised Trump’s restraint; Owens defended him against “deep state” attacks; Greene introduced articles of impeachment against Democrats while wearing MAGA gear. Why the abrupt reversal now?

Detractors suggest audience capture. Podcasts and social media thrive on contrarianism and personal slights. Trump’s own broadsides, calling Owens “crazy” or suggesting Carlson needs a psychiatrist, only fuel the narrative that this is more about bruised egos than bedrock principles. To many core MAGA supporters, the New Resistance risks dividing the movement at a critical moment, handing ammunition to Democrats and the “fake news” media they once decried.

Substantive?

Yet the New Resistance maintains its criticisms are substantive, not sudden or insincere. At their core is a defense of the “America First” foreign policy Trump himself popularized. Tucker Carlson has argued that the U.S. risks becoming “complicit” in unnecessary escalation, urging military leaders to reject plans that could harm Iranian civilians and warning of broader regional chaos. He frames the conflict as a departure from Trump’s 2016 promise of no new wars, one that drains American resources while enriching defense contractors.

Satanic?

Candace Owens has gone further, labeling the administration’s approach “satanic” and calling on Congress to invoke the 25th Amendment or remove the “Mad King Trump.” Her rhetoric, while hyperbolic to critics, stems from concerns that the war betrays isolationist roots and exposes ordinary Americans to higher gas prices and potential drafts. Alex Jones, long a voice for anti-globalist skepticism, has echoed these themes, portraying the conflict as elite-driven rather than truly America First.

Madness?

On Capitol Hill, the politicians add institutional weight. Marjorie Taylor Greene has called Trump’s threats against Iran “absolute madness” and escalated to questioning his mental stability, even floating the 25th Amendment. Thomas Massie has been blunt: “This is not ‘America First.’” He has co-sponsored war powers resolutions demanding Congress vote on military action, arguing pre-emptive strikes bypass constitutional authority and contradict Trump’s campaign pledges. Rand Paul, a consistent libertarian critic, has voted against funding extensions and warned that the war makes the U.S. “less secure,” risks eroding public support for Republicans, and ignores the need for congressional approval under Article I. He insists Trump’s instincts were once anti-war but were misled by hawks.

Pro-MAGA?

Defenders of these positions argue they’re not anti-Trump but pro-MAGA consistency. They point to rising domestic costs: higher energy prices, strained budgets amid $200 billion supplemental requests, and historical precedents like Iraq, where right-wing isolationists warned against quagmires. To them, loyalty to principles trumps personal fealty, especially when Trump’s actions appear to mirror the neoconservatism he once ridiculed. Polling within conservative circles shows pockets of unease over foreign entanglements, suggesting the New Resistance taps into genuine voter fatigue rather than pure grift.

Selective?

Critics counter that this principled stand is selective. Why weren’t these voices as loud during Trump’s first-term drone strikes or Abraham Accords? Massie and Paul have longer anti-war pedigrees, but Carlson, Owens, and Greene’s evolution feels reactive. Trump’s supporters note that his Iran policy targets a “Number One State Sponsor of Terror” to prevent nuclear blackmail, precisely the strongman posture that won him elections. Accusations of grifting persist: third-rate podcasts need drama, and opposing the president generates it. Some insiders worry Trump’s fiery responses, while cathartic, risk alienating moderates within the base.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the New Resistance reveals a tension at conservatism’s heart: Is MAGA about unwavering loyalty to one man or fidelity to ideas like restraint abroad and prosperity at home? Both sides claim the mantle of “America First.” The former Trump allies see a president drifting toward empire-building; his defenders see pragmatism against existential threats. As the Iran conflict evolves and midterm elections loom, this intra-right debate will test whether the movement fractures permanently or emerges stronger. For now, it’s a reminder that even in politics built on disruption, dissent from unexpected quarters can feel profoundly disruptive.

Sources

BBC News. “Trump’s Attack on Former Allies Exposes Splintered MAGA Base.” April 10, 2026. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0ep709pr2o.NBC News. “Trump Bashes MAGA Media Figures over Their Iran War Criticism.” April 9, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/president-bashes-maga-media-figures-iran-war-criticism-tucker-carlson-rcna267716.

The Hill. “Greene on Trump Iran ‘Civilization’ Post: ‘Absolute Madness.’” April 9, 2026. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/5823818-greene-slams-trump-iran-threat/.

Fortune. “Thomas Massie among Few Republicans to Criticize Trump over War Powers: ‘This Is Not America First.’” February 28, 2026. https://fortune.com/2026/02/28/thomas-massie-among-few-republicans-to-criticize-trump-over-war-powers-this-is-not-america-first/.

CBS News. “Sen. Rand Paul on His Confrontation of Trump and Senate GOP over Iran Strikes.” March 29, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-rand-paul-confrontation-trump-senate-gop-iran-strikes/.

The Hill. “Alex Jones, Candace Owens Push Back on Trump Criticism.” April 10, 2026. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5825328-trump-candace-owens-alex-jones-middle-east/.

Washington Examiner. “MAGA Insiders Divided over Trump’s War on Conservative Critics.” April 11, 2026. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/4525003/maga-insiders-divided-trump-war-conservative-critics/.

The New York Times. “In Kentucky, Trump Allies Clash with Massie over Iran War.” March 8, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/08/us/politics/massie-republicans-trump-iran-war-midterms.html.

If you’re like me, all you’ve heard about in the media for the past decade is about Elon Musk’s space escapades, and NASA’s launch to the Moon took you by surprise. I thought NASA was irrelevant in 2026. I guess I was wrong. Not only does NASA want to go to the Moon again, but they (we?) also want to establish a Moon base there by 2028. As the conversations around NASA’s Moon flight increased online, I heard more and more about China’s plan to establish a Moon base by 2030. So, I thought to myself, “Self, why all of the urgency around establishing a Moon base? Why now?”

The New Space Race

You might think that the U.S. and China’s desire to colonize the Moon is simply about territorial ownership. It makes sense to think that. That’s pretty much how humans have operated in all of human history. However, our Moonstruck desires are more about strategic advantages than conquest.

The country that colonizes the Moon first, specifically at its south pole, will have a strategic advantage by establishing an outpost there over any other place on the Moon. You see, the south pole has many important benefits: access to water (ice), a steadier power environment, better logistics for future space missions (especially Mars), and the ability to have greater influence on setting rules for lunar activity.

• We have a new space race, folks! “To the Moon, Alice!”

Our efforts are not just about planting a flag and claiming, “I hereby establish this territory for us!”, like we have done in our history. Nope. It’s about securing the most useful location on the Moon for long-term operations and control.

Why the Moon’s South Pole is Important

There are permanently shadowed craters on the Moon that contain ice, which means it can directly support astronauts and can be split into oxygen and hydrogen for breathing and fuel.

Also, what is the most valuable commodity on Earth that will also be important on the Moon? Energy. Nearby high points receive more continuous sunlight than other parts of the Moon, which mean solar energy can keep the place hopping

In other words, the south pole offers a rare combination of resources and operating conditions that could make a lunar base much easier to sustain than elsewhere on the Moon. If a country wants to stay there for a long time, that region is the best place to start.

Infrastructure

For America, being first matters because infrastructure creates momentum. A nation that lands first and then builds a base first can begin placing equipment, setting up communications systems, refining landing and resupply methods, and developing a habit of routine access.

Once that happens, later arrivals face a disadvantage, even if they are not legally blocked (the world actually already has space laws, believe it or not). The first to colonize will have better better physical positioning and better influence over the practical standards that evolve around the base. In modern space competition, the first country does not “own” the Moon, but it can still shape how the Moon gets used.

China

This is also why the this issue is tied to China. China is pursuing its own lunar program and has made clear that it wants a long-term presence on the Moon.

This brings up obvious concerns for Washington. If China gets a foothold at the south pole first, it may gain a major strategic and logistical edge. That edge could matter for science, for exploration, for communications, for future mining or resource use, and for broader influence in the space environment between Earth and the Moon. In that sense, the Moon becomes part of a larger geopolitical competition.

That last part bears repeating. Establishing a Moon base is more than just about the Moon; it’s a larger geopolitical issue. Whoever controls the south pole first controls the future of space exploration. As a result, this will affect more than just space exploration. It will affect America’s future.

A Moon base at the south pole would also help the United States define the operating environment before another major power does. In space, the country that establishes the most useful infrastructure early often gains the most influence later, because other countries and companies end up operating around that existing system. America wants to lead the way.

It’s All About the Mission

It might be premature to say since we are not on the Moon yet, but if we’re being forward thinking, another reason this matters is future mission planning. A south pole base could become a staging point for deeper exploration, including missions farther into space and eventually to Mars, which would make Elon ecstatic.

If the United States develops reliable lunar operations first, it gains experience in life support, surface mobility, energy management, and off-Earth construction. That makes the entire space program stronger. So the value of the Moon base is not only symbolic or political. It is also technological. The country that learns how to live and work there first gains capabilities that are difficult to build any other way.

Oh, Wait. It’s All About Security

There is also a security dimension. A Moon base is a platform for controlling Earth directly. Although, the legal rules for space do not allow sovereign claims over the Moon, the real concern is subtler: long-term presence in space can create advantages in surveillance, communications, logistics, military awareness, and potential to carry out military missions from an advantaged point. Although those advantages are hypothetical for now, they are a real concern.

Conclusion

The U.S. interest in getting there first is best understood as a combination of science, logistics, and strategy. The point is not to militarize the Moon openly. The point is to avoid being locked out of the most valuable location by a rival power.

China’s presence in the same race makes the issue sharper. Even though China is part of the Outer Space Treaty and publicly says it supports peaceful use of space, it also pursues space capabilities that concern U.S. planners and they have shown themselves on Earth to ignore international treaties and laws either overtly or covertly. There is no evidence to say that they won’t circumvent laws in space. In fact, their actions on Earth prove the opposite.

That is why American officials and analysts speak in terms of competition. They do not simply mean prestige. They mean the ability to shape the next phase of human activity beyond Earth. If China gets there first, the United States could still go later, but it might have less influence over how the region is developed.

In short, the Artemis mission is more important than American realize. The issue is about ensuring that America remains a leading power in the next stage of space exploration rather than becoming a latecomer in a region that may become central to future space activity. If this happens, this will not only change what happens in space, but also the trajectory of the future of life in America down here on Earth.

Sources

NASA. “Why Artemis Will Focus on the Lunar South Polar Region.” PDF. Washington, DC: NASA, 2023. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/south-pole.pdf.

NASA. “Why Artemis Will Focus on the Lunar South Polar Region.” PDF. Washington, DC: NASA, 2023. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/acr22-wp-why-lunar-south-polar-region.pdf.

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. “The Outer Space Treaty.” Accessed April 10, 2026. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html.

U.S. Department of State. “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” Accessed April 10, 2026. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/website-1-Outer-Space-Treaty-Turkiye-Update.pdf.

China Mission to the United Nations. “Document of the People’s Republic of China Pursuant to UNGA Resolution 75/36.” April 29, 2021. https://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/chinaandun/disarmament_armscontrol/unga/202105/t20210501_9126875.htm.

United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “China’s Position on a Code of Conduct in Space.” November 8, 2017. https://www.uscc.gov/research/chinas-position-code-conduct-space.

Image Copyright Free by Hondo Free to Use (C0)

With gas prices soaring due to what is happening in Iran, it is helpful to know what America’s relationship with oil is. U.S. oil production started in the 1800s, surged for decades, then declined in the late 20th century before rebounding sharply with shale drilling.

Today, the U.S. produces and exports a tremendous amount of “sweet” oil and imports “sour” crude from other countries.

Different refineries are built for different kinds of oil. Since U.S. refineries are not entirely equipped to refine sweet oil, we export it to countries who want it and will pay well for it, and then we import sour oil for a discount.

So, there is a trade off. Although we are not entirely energy independent due to our refining capabilities, there is a large economic benefit. Trump is attempting to change that, so we are more energy independent.

History of U.S. Oil Production

U.S. oil output grew into a global force over the 20th century, with Texas and other major producing states leading the way. Production then fell for years after the mid-1980s, but horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) reversed that trend and pushed U.S. crude output to record highs in the 2010s and early 2020s.

Sweet and Sour Oil

Not all oil is the same.

“Sweet” oil, which America produces, means crude oil with low sulfur content. It is usually easier and cheaper to refine into gasoline, diesel, and other products, so U.S. shale production is often described as relatively sweet and light.

“Sour” oil, which other countries produce, has higher sulfur content. It is typically heavier, more difficult to refine, and often cheaper on the world market because it needs more processing.

Why We Export Some Oil

The U.S. exports a lot of its own sweet crude and refined products because global buyers want it, and American producers and refiners can often sell it at a better price abroad. In particular, U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast can process large volumes and then ship products to nearby foreign markets that are easier or cheaper to serve than some domestic regions.

Why We Still Import Oil

We still import sourer or heavier crude because many U.S. refineries are configured to run best with those grades. Refineries can get more value by blending imported heavy or sour crude with domestic light sweet crude, which helps them maximize output and profits.

So even though the U.S. produces a lot of sweet oil, it does not always make sense to use only that oil in every refinery. The oil system works best as a mix: domestic sweet crude, imported sour crude, and a large export trade in both crude and refined products.

Current state

The current U.S. oil system is highly integrated with world markets. The U.S. is a major producer and exporter, but it still depends on imports to match refinery design, crude quality, and regional supply needs.

Conclusion

The U.S. exports our sweet oil because we don’t have the refining capabilities for it, and then we import sour oil at a discount because, although it is harder to refine, we have the capability for it. So, although we currently are not independent in our refining capabilities, which admittedly could potentially put us at risk in times of global unrest, we benefit by saving money on sour oil imports. This presents America with a dilemma. Do we continue with this system, which saves us money, or do we build sweet oil refineries to become more energy independent? President Trump has recognized this dilemma, and already has made a push to build more sweet oil refineries in the U.S..

Sources

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Oil Imports and Exports.” Accessed March 30, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Where Our Oil Comes From.” Accessed March 30, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/where-our-oil-comes-from.php.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “The United States Produces Lighter Crude Oil, Imports Heavier Crude Oil.” Accessed March 30, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54199.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Does EIA Have Data on the Type or Quality of Crude Oil?” Accessed March 30, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=547&t=6.

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. “What’s the Difference Between Heavy and Light Crude Oils? And Why Do American Refineries Process Them?” Accessed March 30, 2026. https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/blog/whats-difference-between-heavy-and-light-crude-oils-and-why-do-american-refineries.

Original Art by Hondo Free to Use (CC0)

America’s recent moves in Venezuela and Iran can be read as part of a broader effort to weaken China’s geopolitical leverage. In other words, Venezuela and Iran are not the target.

Core idea

China’s rise depends heavily on secure energy supplies. Venezuela and Iran are both politically aligned with Beijing and have offered China discounted oil, debt-repayment arrangements, and long-term strategic access. By pressuring those countries, the U.S. makes China’s energy imports more expensive, less reliable, and more politically risky, which hinders China’s rise to potentially become the dominant global power.

Venezuela

China has invested heavily in Venezuela through state-linked oil partnerships and loans. A lot of that relationship is built on oil-for-debt repayment and future access to a major crude reserve.

Chess Move #1: U.S. removal of Nicolas Maduro and the subsequent cooperation of his replacement is an effort to reshape Venezuela’s political and energy system, which can be seen as a way to crowd out Chinese influence. If Washington can help determine who controls Venezuela’s oil sector, it limits Beijing’s ability to use the country as a long-term energy and investment base.

Iran

China and Iran have built a long-term partnership around discounted oil and broader strategic cooperation. Iran has become an important supplier of cheap crude for China, especially under sanctions.

Chess Move #2: If the U.S. were to take out Iran without Venezuela, then China would simply get their oil from Venezuela while the situation in Iran sorts itself out. However, since the U.S. took Venezuela off the board, it limits who China can fall back on for energy. U.S. sanctions on Iranian exports, tankers, and intermediaries do more than squeeze Tehran. They also disrupt the flow of discounted oil to China and force Beijing to pay more on the global market or take on greater risk to keep buying.

The China angle

Taken together, Venezuela and Iran look like pieces of a larger containment strategy. They are two sanctioned states that help China reduce dependence on U.S.-friendly suppliers. If the U.S. can constrain both, it narrows China’s room to maneuver.

That means higher energy costs, fewer reliable partners, and more pressure on Beijing’s global strategy. In that sense, the U.S. is not just trying to punish Venezuela or Iran on their own terms. It is also trying to weaken the network of countries that give China cheaper energy and more geopolitical leverage.

Bottom line

U.S. actions in Venezuela and Iran are not only about those countries themselves. They also serve a wider goal: making China less powerful and limiting Beijing’s ability to build an anti-U.S. network.

Sources

1. Columbia University, Center on Global Energy Policy. “US Action Threatens Venezuela-China Oil Flows, Debt Repayment …” (Jan. 15, 2026).
   This piece directly argues that U.S. action in Venezuela jeopardizes discounted oil flows to China, Chinese investment, and debt-repayment arrangements, while also signaling limits on Chinese influence in Latin America.[energypolicy.columbia]​

2. Socialist China. “China chokehold: Long-term goal of the US war on Iran” (Mar. 19, 2026).
   This article explicitly claims that pressure on Iran is part of a broader strategy to damage China’s economy by constraining its access to cheap energy and strategic shipping routes.[socialistchina]​

3. Wikipedia. “Iran–China 25-year Cooperation Program.”
   This source summarizes the long-term Iran-China deal, including major Chinese investment in exchange for discounted Iranian oil, which is central to the claim that U.S. pressure on Iran affects China’s energy security.[en.wikipedia]​

4. The Wall Street Journal. “U.S. Blows Up China’s Latin America Ambitions With Maduro Ouster” (Jan. 13, 2026).
   The article says Maduro’s removal forces Beijing to reassess its ambitions in a region that is increasingly behaving like an American sphere of influence.[wsj]​

5. Chatham House. “China is playing the long game over Iran” (Feb. 26, 2026).
   This analysis explains that China wants a weakened Iran dependent on Beijing, showing why U.S. action against Iran can disrupt China’s preferred regional balance and leverage.[chathamhouse]​

6. Cleary Trade Watch. “Navigating Venezuela Sanctions: Legal Considerations and Anticipated Developments” (Jan. 15, 2026).
   This legal overview details how sweeping U.S. sanctions constrain Venezuelan oil dealings and make it harder for outside actors, including Chinese firms, to operate freely.[clearytradewatch]​

7. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “China-Venezuela Fact Sheet: A Short Primer on the Relationship” (Jan. 12, 2026).
   The fact sheet provides context on the China-Venezuela relationship and helps show why U.S. pressure in Venezuela matters strategically to Beijing.[uscc]​

8. The Soufan Center. “The Iran War: A Crisis for the Defense Industrial Base Now Too” (Mar. 24, 2026).
   This brief frames the Iran conflict as having broader technological and strategic implications for U.S.-China competition, not just Middle East security.[thesoufancenter]​

9. Reuters. “Iran and China sign 25-year cooperation agreement” (Mar. 26, 2021).
   Reuters reports that the agreement brings Iran into China’s Belt and Road framework, reinforcing the idea that Iran is a strategic economic partner for China.[reuters]​

10. LinkedIn repost of Wall Street Journal headline, “U.S. Blows Up China’s Latin America Ambitions With Maduro Ouster” (Jan. 13, 2026).
    This repost mirrors the WSJ framing that the Venezuela move is making China reconsider how far it can project influence in the Americas.[linkedin]​

Highlights

• Democrats influence social media platforms to suppress conservative voices, effectively censoring opposing viewpoints. This creates an echo chamber that amplifies their narratives while silencing dissent, which helps them manufacture reality. When Democrats control reality, they control the people. For example, many “conspiracies” surrounding the Covid-19 narrative, the Hunter Biden laptop, and Joe Biden’s cognitive decline are now found to have been true, but were suppressed via government pressure on social media to censor unapproved narratives.

• By pushing woke ideologies, Democrats are reshaping societal norms, especially in education and the workplace. This includes Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, and DEI policies, which often divide people based on race, gender, and political beliefs rather than merit. A divided people are easier to manipulate. This is a classic Communist tactic, to divide people into the “have” and “have nots.” The ultimate goal is not to gain equality, but to gain power.

• Democrats have significant influence over traditional media outlets, ensuring that news coverage aligns with their political agenda. According to opensecrets.org, the majority of employees at mainstream media outlets donate to Democrats, which suggests a natural Left-bias in coverage. This helps them control public perception and narrative around key issues. Media outlets are “useful idiots” who unquestioningly shill for the Democratic Party.

• Democrats leverage government agencies like the FBI and DOJ to investigate and prosecute political opponents. This misuse of power undermines the integrity of these institutions and intimidates opposition. Even now that Trump is in office, holdovers from previous administrations are doing everything they can to block and subvert the President’s agenda, which is, arguably, a seditious act. The “law” is selectively enforced and ignored based on Party affiliation. The government has no power over the people if they have no way to enforce it.

• Under the guise of climate change, Democrats are pushing policies that increase government control over energy production and usage. This includes regulations that limit individual freedoms and economic activities. Climate change activists have told us that the world will end in ten years every ten years since the 1970. None of those predictions have come true, but the Democrats learned that the alarm it causes gives them the opportunity (and power) to enact legislation that limits what Americans can and cannot do. Google “fifteen minute cities,” for example.

• Democrats support open border policies that facilitate mass migration, which changes the demographic landscape of the country. This influx of new voters, who are often more likely to support Democratic policies, helps secure long-term political power. In addition, Democrats do not need illegal immigrants to vote to gain power. The Census count goes merely by the number of people in a state whether they are legal or not, which increases the number of seats Democrats can occupy in the Senate and House, thereby increasing their power.

• Democrats expand welfare programs that create dependence on government assistance. This makes it difficult for people to break free from government support, ensuring a steady voting base. When Democrats campaign, they often promise freebies in exchange for votes, like free tuition, free healthcare, etc. Once elected, those promises, and those who voted for them, are nearly always forgotten. By then, it’s too late.

• By fostering division through identity politics, Democrats are fragmenting society into smaller, more manageable groups. This makes it easier to cater to specific interests and maintain control over various segments of the population. Imagine a cunning fox in a forest who wants to feast on the apples guarded by two squirrels. The fox whispers to one squirrel that the other is hoarding more apples, then tells the second squirrel the first is planning to steal their share. Soon, the squirrels are so busy squabbling and chasing each other around the tree that they don’t notice the fox sneaking in to gobble up the apples. The fox walks away with a full belly, while the squirrels are left blaming each other for the missing fruit.

How Democrats Use Social Media to Influence Public Opinion

Democrats often censor opposing views through several mechanisms, particularly involving social media, government agencies, and collaboration with private sector platforms.

Democrats work closely with social media companies to monitor and restrict content that challenges their narratives. For example, congressional hearings have highlighted communications between the Biden campaign and Twitter, where Democratic operatives flagged tweets for review or removal-often targeting conservative voices or stories unfavorable to Democrats, such as the Hunter Biden laptop story. Critics argue this amounts to partisan censorship under the guise of combating misinformation.

Democratic officials and federal agencies have used their influence to pressure social media companies into suppressing dissenting viewpoints. For instance, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and other government bodies have been accused of coercing platforms to take down or demote content related to elections and public health that contradicts official positions, disproportionately affecting conservative perspectives.

Democrats often label opposing or conservative views as "misinformation" or "disinformation," leading to content moderation or removal. This is seen in efforts by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to identify, monitor, and disrupt online content they consider misleading, sometimes resulting in the takedown or demotion of thousands of posts across major platforms.

Democrats block efforts to increase transparency about potential political influence over regulatory bodies like the FCC, which could shed light on whether and how political actors are involved in content moderation decisions.

How Democrats Use Woke Ideologies to Gain More Power

The Democratic Party leverages woke ideologies-identity-based social justice issues, political correctness, and progressive cultural norms-to gain and maintain political power.

By championing issues of race, gender, and social justice, Democrats unite a diverse coalition of minority groups, young voters, and educated urbanites. This identity-based approach energizes activists and voters who feel represented by these causes, strengthening the party’s electoral base.

The use of deceptive language (like “Latinx” and “BIPOC”) and support for DEI initiatives signal to these groups that the party is attentive to their concerns, reinforcing loyalty and turnout.

Making woke issues central to the national conversation-through media, education, and public policy-Democrats can shift public discourse away from topics that might be less favorable to them, such as economic struggles or crime.

When Republicans attack Democrats on culture war issues (e.g., trans athletes in sports), Democrats can reframe these debates to focus on Republican threats to broader social programs, thus controlling the narrative.

The promotion of political correctness and “cancel culture” is a way to marginalize dissent and silence opposition, both within and outside the party. This can discourage public criticism and consolidate ideological conformity, making it easier for party leaders to manage internal disputes and maintain a unified front.

Viral moments and social media campaigns (sometimes described as “dark woke”) can be used to shame or ridicule opponents, further deterring dissent and rallying supporters.

By embedding woke ideology into educational curricula, workplace policies, and public institutions, Democrats can shape the values and beliefs of future generations. This long-term influence is seen as a way to secure cultural and political dominance beyond individual election cycles.

Many critics argue that this focus on woke ideology alienates working-class and moderate voters, potentially costing the party elections and undermining its broader appeal.

There is also skepticism about the sincerity and effectiveness of woke messaging, with some calling it “style over substance” and warning that clever comebacks or viral moments do not substitute for tangible policy results.

Woke ideologies help Democrats consolidate power among certain groups and deepens polarization.

How the Democrats’ Dominance of Mainstream Media Gives Them Power

The Democratic Party’s dominance of mainstream media-including popular news shows, TV programs, and movies-confers significant political advantages.

When most mainstream news outlets and entertainment media lean left or feature Democratic-friendly perspectives, they can frame political events and issues in ways that favor Democratic policies and candidates. This includes more positive coverage of Democratic figures and more negative or critical coverage of Republicans, as evidenced by studies showing major networks casting a negative light on Republican candidates at a significantly higher rate than Democrats.

By controlling the framing of news and cultural stories, Democrats are able to set the agenda for what topics are discussed and how the public perceives them, influencing voters’ attitudes and beliefs.

This media dominance allows for the marginalization or trivialization of conservative viewpoints, both in news coverage and in popular culture. Dissenting voices are underrepresented or portrayed in a negative light, which discourages open debate and reinforces partisan divides.

The entertainment industry’s focus on progressive or “woke” themes is also a way to normalize Democratic-aligned values while portraying opposition as outdated or intolerant.

Media coverage that highlights threats to Democratic priorities or amplifies progressive causes can energize the Democratic base, increasing political engagement and turnout. The ability to reach large audiences through both news and entertainment media is a powerful tool for rallying supporters and shaping the political climate.

By embedding political messages in TV shows, movies, and other forms of entertainment, Democrats can reach audiences who might not follow traditional news, subtly shaping cultural attitudes in ways that support their long-term political goals.

When media is perceived as partisan, public trust in journalism erodes and political polarization deepens. The media’s watchdog role is undermined if it is seen as protecting one party while attacking the other, leading to skepticism and the growth of alternative, partisan outlets.

There is concern that profit-driven media prioritizes sensationalism and partisan spectacle over substantive discussion of policy, reducing the quality of public debate and leaving voters less informed about real issues.

Dominance of mainstream media by one political perspective can provoke backlash, driving conservatives to build their own media ecosystems and deepening societal divides.

How Democrats Abuse the Power of the Justice Department

The Democratic Party use the Justice Department (DOJ) inappropriately to silence their political opponents.

Democratic administrations use the DOJ to pursue investigations and prosecutions disproportionately against Republican politicians, conservative activists, and other political adversaries. Legal actions against high-profile Republicans-such as Donald Trump and his associates-are motivated more by politics than by impartial justice.

This argument often includes claims of "selective prosecution," where critics say Democratic leaders or their allies are protected from scrutiny, while the DOJ aggressively pursues those on the right.

The phrase "weaponization of the DOJ" is frequently used to describe a pattern of using federal law enforcement as a tool to intimidate, investigate, or silence dissent. These authoritarian tactics, suggesting that the DOJ is being used to punish political enemies and shield political allies.

The prosecution of Donald Trump is evidence of this weaponization. These cases are less about upholding the law and more about damaging political rivals.

Using the DOJ for partisan ends undermines public confidence in the justice system. Such politicization erodes the foundational principle of equal justice under the law and threatens the integrity of democratic institutions.

The threat of DOJ investigation or prosecution can have a chilling effect on political opposition, discouraging critics of Democratic policies from speaking out or participating in activism for fear of legal retaliation. This is seen as a form of indirect censorship and intimidation.

While Democrats often deny these allegations and insist that prosecutions are based on evidence and due process, the frequency with which political opponents are targeted as evidence that the system is being abused for partisan purposes.

How Democrats Use Climate Change Alarmism to Control Americans

The Democratic Party’s push for climate change agendas increases their political power while undermining the American people.

Democrats use climate change as a justification to expand government regulation over individuals and businesses. This includes more rules, mandates, and restrictions on energy use, transportation, and industry, which critics say gives politicians greater authority and influence over daily life and the economy.

Many Democratic climate policies are less about reducing carbon emissions and more about enacting long standing liberal priorities, such as increasing government intervention, providing subsidies to favored industries, and promoting corporatism. Climate change is used as an “excuse” to implement policies that Democrats already wanted, intertwining government and industry and consolidating political power.

Democratic politicians often use climate initiatives as a way to direct large sums of government spending to local projects, which can be leveraged for political advantage-such as securing votes or rewarding allies. This “pork barrel” spending is seen as a tool for reelection and political patronage, rather than genuine climate action.

Democratic climate policies can increase costs for ordinary Americans-such as higher energy prices due to restrictions on fossil fuels or tariffs on imported solar panels. This undermines economic freedom and the standard of living, especially for working families, while Democrats prioritize climate goals over affordability and energy independence.

Some left-wing thinkers are explicit in viewing climate change as an opportunity to “transform our failed economic system and build something radically better,” suggesting that climate action is a vehicle for challenging or dismantling capitalism itself. Critics warn that this approach threatens the foundations of the American economic system.

Democrats have abandoned or altered climate policies when they conflict with political interests, such as protecting vulnerable incumbents or domestic industries. This reveals that climate rhetoric is often secondary to maintaining political power.

How Democrats Use Open Borders and Illegal Immigration to Gain More Power

The Democratic Party’s “open border” policies and tolerance of illegal immigration give Democrats massive political power.

By allowing large numbers of undocumented immigrants to reside in the U.S., Democratic-controlled states gain more seats in the House of Representatives and more electoral votes. This is because the U.S. Census, which determines congressional apportionment and electoral college allocation, counts all residents-including noncitizens and undocumented immigrants-not just eligible voters. As a result, states with larger undocumented populations can gain disproportionate political representation, which benefits Democrats who dominate in those states.

Although undocumented immigrants cannot legally vote in federal elections, the long-term effect of more permissive immigration policies is to change the demographic makeup of the country. New immigrants and their U.S.-born children are more likely to support Democratic candidates and policies, thus securing a future electoral advantage for the party.

By welcoming undocumented immigrants, Democrats can increase their political influence at the local level. Noncitizens often count toward population totals used to draw state and local legislative districts, which can shift political power within states and cities, further consolidating Democratic control.

Including non citizens in apportionment dilutes the representation of U.S. citizens, especially in states with lower immigrant populations. This undermines the principle of representative government, as citizens in some states end up with less influence in Congress and presidential elections.

Democratic rhetoric and policies-such as calls for legalizing undocumented immigrants, providing access to social services, and deprioritizing deportations-act as incentives for more illegal immigration. This creates a cycle that further boosts Democratic political power over time.

How Democrats Use Welfare Programs and Freebies in Exchange for Votes

The Democratic Party’s push to expand welfare programs and offering government-funded benefits-such as free college tuition, free healthcare, and other “freebies,” serves as a strategic tool to increase the party’s political power by creating voter dependency and loyalty.

Democrats intentionally expand welfare and entitlement programs to make more Americans reliant on government assistance. People who depend on government benefits are more likely to vote for the party that promises to maintain or increase those benefits, thus creating a reliable voting bloc.

By offering or promising new benefits (like free college or healthcare), Democrats effectively “buy” votes, as recipients may feel obligated or incentivized to support the party that provides these programs.

As more people become dependent on government assistance, it becomes politically difficult to reduce or reform these programs. This entrenches Democratic power, as any attempt to cut benefits can be portrayed as an attack on vulnerable populations, mobilizing opposition to Republican candidates who advocate for smaller government.

Expanding welfare and “freebie” programs strains government budgets and may lead to higher taxes or unsustainable debt, but that these long-term risks are downplayed in favor of short-term political gain.

A culture of dependency erodes personal responsibility and the work ethic, further shifting public expectations toward government solutions and away from private initiative or self-reliance.

How Democrats Use Division to Gain Power

The Democratic Party gains more power by dividing America through strategies that intensify political, social, and cultural polarization.

By portraying Republicans and conservatives as existential threats or as morally corrupt, Democrats can increase affective polarization-making their own supporters feel threatened and more loyal to the party. This “us versus them” mentality strengthens group identity and motivates higher turnout and activism among Democratic voters.

By focusing public attention on the dangers posed by the opposing party, Democrats can deflect scrutiny from their own internal disagreements, policy failures, or unpopular decisions. Heightened polarization makes it easier to unite disparate factions within the party around a common enemy.

Historically, as one scholar notes, Democratic politicians have used divisive rhetoric-especially around race-to prevent poor whites and poor blacks from uniting into a single voting bloc that could challenge the party’s dominance. Modern identity politics and emphasis on cultural issues continue this tradition by fragmenting the electorate into smaller, more manageable groups.

By amplifying fear and division, Democrats can justify the use of aggressive political tactics or changes to rules and norms, claiming such steps are necessary to “save democracy” from the other side. This can include support for undemocratic actions or the erosion of institutional checks and balances.

Dividing the country along cultural, racial, or ideological lines can weaken the opposition by making it harder for Republicans or third parties to build broad, cross-cutting coalitions. This is a deliberate strategy to maintain Democratic power.

Experts warn that deepening polarization-fueled by divisive rhetoric from both parties-raises the risk of political violence and undermines democratic norms.

Some critics, including those within the Democratic Party, argue that divisive tactics can alienate young voters and those who feel their concerns are ignored, potentially leading to disengagement or even defections to the opposition.

The more parties demonize each other, the less trust there is in institutions and the democratic process as a whole.

Sources for Dividing America:

1. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/political-polarization-united-states

2. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says

3. https://gohoover.com/perspectives/the-danger-of-denial

4. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/

5. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-clashed-over-shutdown-strategy-but-partys-crisis-runs-far-deeper

6. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190

7. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjnw42p8lro

8. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/factions-moderation-and-democratic-responsibility/

Sources for Welfare Programs and Freebies:

1. https://www.aei.org/opportunity-social-mobility/in-opposing-last-months-continuing-resolution-nearly-all-democrats-voted-to-shut-down-welfare-checks-too/

2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/QE2315

3. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/dont-fall-democrats-voter-suppression-myths

4. https://www.socialworkers.org/Advocacy/Social-Justice/Social-Justice-Briefs/Voter-Intimidation-A-Tool-in-the-Far-Rights-2024-Strategic-Plan

5. https://www.voanews.com/a/explainer-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand-on-social-welfare-/7842089.html

6. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/democratic-decline-in-the-united-states-strategic-manipulation-of-elections/

7. https://amac.us/newsline/society/fraud-by-design-how-democrats-hope-to-make-everyone-reliant-on-welfare/

8. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/04/us/politics/democrats-working-class.html

Sources for Open Borders:

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/how-americans-view-the-situation-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-its-causes-and-consequences/

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1gtql2b/how_would_you_describe_the_democrats_views_on/

3. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-border-bill-wrong/

4. https://www.vox.com/politics/395339/biden-border-immigration-record-legacy

5. https://www.heritage.org/border-security/commentary/stop-allowing-noncitizens-determine-congressional-and-presidential

6. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65574725

7. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/liberal-and-moderate-democrats-differ-some-immigration-policies

8. https://www.nyclu.org/podcast/the-case-for-open-borders

9. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/open-borders-immigration/

10. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2024/08/22/what-democrats-said-about-immigrants-and-immigration-policy-at-the-dnc/

Sources for Climate Change Alarmism:

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/02/28/more-americans-see-climate-change-as-a-priority-but-democrats-are-much-more-concerned-than-republicans/

2. https://san.com/opinions/democrats-use-climate-change-issues-to-help-sell-liberal-agenda/

3. https://www.vox.com/politics/412073/democrats-trump-climate-young-voters

4. https://sustainability.yale.edu/explainers/yale-experts-explain-politics-climate-change

5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7347262/

6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/20/democrats-kamala-harris-climate-policy/

7. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/2-how-americans-see-bidens-climate-policies/

8. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/12/09/how-americans-view-climate-change-and-policies-to-address-the-issue/

9. https://www.vox.com/politics/368706/kamala-harris-dnc-climate-change-policy-poll

10. https://www.eenews.net/articles/democrats-think-theyve-found-a-winning-climate-message-2/

Sources for Abuse of the Justice Department:

1. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2025/02/11/the-democrats-enabling-trumps-doj-demolition-00203719

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_targeting_of_political_opponents_and_civil_society_under_the_second_Trump_administration

3. https://reason.com/2025/03/07/trump-is-weaponizing-the-doj-just-like-he-accused-democrats-of-doing/

4. https://americanoversight.org/investigation/trump-administrations-politicization-justice-department/

5. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5380131/critics-warn-of-weaponization-of-the-doj-despite-administration-calls-to-end-it

6. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/federal-judge-calls-trumps-order-targeting-prominent-law-firm-shocking-rcna200961

7. https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-confronted-sec-noem-because-100000321.html

8. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/29/nx-s1-5327518/donald-trump-100-days-retribution-threats

9. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/how-trumps-proposed-radical-expansion-of-executive-power-will-impact-our-freedoms

10. https://www.democracynow.org/2025/3/17/jamie_raskin_trump_constitutional_crisis

Sources for Mainstream Media Stranglehold:

1. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/democrats_new_media_ken_martin_trump.php

2. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/14/americans-differ-by-party-ideology-over-the-impact-of-social-media-on-u-s-democracy/

3. https://www.humanetech.com/democratic-functioning

4. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2017/05/10/democrats-republicans-now-split-on-support-for-watchdog-role/

5. https://jacobin.com/2025/05/public-media-journalism-npr-pbs

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

7. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/bases-anger-puts-democratic-party-leaders-on-shaky-ground

8. https://oversight.house.gov/release/the-cover-up-big-tech-the-swamp-and-mainstream-media-coordinated-to-censor-americans-free-speech-%EF%BF%BC/

9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7343248/

10. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/2024-election-lessons-analysis-democrats/

Sources for Woke Power:

1. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/woke-conservatives/story?id=93051138

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/style/dark-woke-democrats-jasmine-crockett-trump.html

3. https://newrepublic.com/article/178453/democrats-woke-politics-phantom-menace

4. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/wokeness-and-the-american-working-class/

5. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/democrats-2024-election-woke.html

6. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1iy1m6i/cmv_the_american_left_and_democratic_party_are/

7. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4981585-america-rejects-woke-democrats/

Sources for Social Media Censorship and Manipulation:

1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/

2. https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5510

3. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/06/politics/al-green-censure-trump-protest-house

4. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-warnings-from-democrats-about-project-2025-and-donald-trump

5. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/project-2025-aims-derail-efforts-stop-election-disinformation

6. https://oversight.house.gov/release/the-cover-up-big-tech-the-swamp-and-mainstream-media-coordinated-to-censor-americans-free-speech-%EF%BF%BC/

7. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/project-2025-what-a-second-trump-term-could-mean-for-media-and-technology-policies/

8. https://democrats.org/combating-online-misinformation/

9. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addressing-risks-from-chris-krebs-and-government-censorship/

10. https://buddycarter.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=Z5XYJLJCVZMH3SKW22OSRDQE7Y+

Monetary Benefits for the Democratic Party

Donor Support

• The Democratic Party receives significant financial backing from sectors that have benefited most from globalization, particularly high-tech industries (like Silicon Valley), the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, and real estate), and mainstream media outlets (MSM). These industries profit from global trade, capital mobility, access to international labor markets, and, in the case of MSM, access to financial and political support, all to the detriment to the American people. Their executives and employees are major sources of political donations to the party. Look up opensecrets.org, and you will find that the majority of Silicon Valley, FIRE industries, and MSM donate the the Democratic Party.

Business Interests and Campaign Contributions

• Democrats have transformed from the party of the middle class into the party of the wealthy elite and big business. What was once the Party of “fight the power” on behalf of the middle and lower classes, has now become “the power.” They occupy and control nearly every aspect of American society from the government to media. Globalization expands markets and labor pools, which is advantageous for large businesses. These businesses, in turn, often support politicians who advocate for policies that facilitate global trade and immigration no matter the cost to the American people. Businesses benefit from cheap labor both here and abroad which lines their pockets and simultaneously destroys the middle and lower classes. The Democratic Party, by supporting or accommodating globalization-friendly policies, can attract campaign contributions from these corporate interests. For example, businesses seeking expanded, cheap labor forces through immigration (including H1B and other visa programs) may see the Democratic Party as an ally and contribute accordingly.

Policy Influence and Lobbying

• As globalization and the power of the Democratic Party has increased, so has the influence of multinational corporations and international financial institutions, which not only weakens America’s standing as “the” global power, but also threatens the USD and national security. These entities often lobby for policies that align with their interests not the interests of Americans, such as trade liberalization and open markets. The Democratic Party, when in power or in a position to shape policy, benefit monetarily through lobbying efforts and associated political donations from these globalized interests.

Benefitting from Urban Decay

• Although most major Democratic-run urban areas are in decay in America, the constant influx of money into social programs and NGOs (Non Government Organizations) keeps the money flowing. For example, CA spends record amounts of money on the homeless problem, yet homelessness is the worst it has ever been. It is not profitable to end homelessness. They think that throwing money at a problem will make the problem better. Democrats can appear virtuous in public to their constituents by increasing spending, while lubricating the money machine behind their backs.

The Role of Big Businesses in Shaping Democratic Party Policies on Globalization

Direct Influence Through Campaign Contributions and Lobbying

Big businesses play a significant role in shaping Democratic Party policies on globalization primarily through campaign and party contributions, as well as lobbying efforts. Corporations use their financial resources to gain access to policymakers and influence legislative agendas. This dynamic, often referred to as "corporate political activity," allows businesses to advocate for policies that promote favorable operating environments, such as trade liberalization, deregulation, and open markets. The reliance of politicians on fundraising-sometimes spending between 30% and 70% of their time on such activities-creates a dependency on corporate money, which in turn shapes policy priorities. This contradicts the mantra, “by the people, for the people,” since regular Americans do not wield the money or power to affect such change. Big business and the government are like mom and dad sitting in the front seat on a long car ride, while the American people sit in the back seat clueless and without a seatbelt asking them, “Are we there yet?” while mom and dad get annoyed with us for asking.

Indirect Influence Through Public Opinion and Constituency Building

Beyond direct financial contributions, corporations also engage in indirect strategies to shape public policy. These include public marketing campaigns, lobbying through industry groups, and even "astroturfing" (creating the appearance of grassroots support for business-friendly policies). By influencing public opinion in indirect ways in tandem with direct ways (MSM), businesses can create an environment in which globalization-friendly policies are more politically viable for the Democratic Party to pursue, which lead to big and sustained payouts.

Policy Convergence and Constraints

Economic globalization can constrain party policy choices, pushing both major parties toward neoliberal or market-friendly positions to remain competitive in a globalized economy. This has spawned a “Uni-Party,” a behind the scenes collaboration between Democrats and RHINOs (Republican in Name Only). This often results in policy convergence, where both parties support similar approaches to trade, investment, and regulation, reflecting the interests of large multinational corporations. In this case, Democrats, RHINOs, and big business economically benefit from their indirect alliance.

Corporate Citizenship and Broader Social Influence

In recent years, big businesses have also sought to shape Democratic Party policies by positioning themselves as leaders on issues like diversity, equity, inclusion, and environmental sustainability (DEI). By aligning with progressive social causes, corporations aim to influence the party’s approach to globalization in ways that balance economic growth with social responsibility. This partnership is seen as mutually beneficial: businesses gain legitimacy and stability, while the party garners support from influential economic actors. DEI becomes another piece of the engine that drives the high octane (or fully charged EV) money machine.

How Big Businesses Collaborate with Democratic Party Leaders to Advance Globalization Policies

Direct and Indirect Political Contributions

Big businesses primarily collaborate with Democratic Party leaders through a combination of direct campaign contributions, donations to leadership PACs, and support for party committees. These contributions are strategically directed toward influential lawmakers-such as Congressional leaders and committee chairs-who have the ability to shape policy decisions relevant to business interests. While most companies maintain a politically neutral giving pattern, they target their contributions toward Democrats to maximize access and influence over policy priorities. These policy priorities are economically driven.

Lobbying and Trade Associations

Corporations exert significant influence via lobbying, both directly and through trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. These organizations advocate for business-friendly globalization policies, such as trade liberalization, open markets, and integrated supply chains. Trade associations often serve as intermediaries, amplifying the collective voice of their corporate members and lobbying Democratic leaders on issues that affect global commerce. As you may have read from one of my previous articles, free trade has destroyed the American Dream, and it has made the Democratic elite and big businesses wealthy.

Policy Advocacy and Public Campaigns

Big businesses also engage in public advocacy campaigns and work through industry groups to shape public opinion and legislative agendas. They sometimes participate in drafting model legislation (no joke—businesses draft legislation) or provide policy recommendations that align with their interests in global trade and investment. By influencing both policymakers and the broader public discourse, businesses help cultivate an environment supportive of globalization policies that are economically beneficial to them.

Support for Multilateralism and Trade Agreements

Certain Democratic caucuses, such as the New Democrat Coalition, collaborate with business interests to promote policies that support open procurement, integrated global supply chains, and multilateral trade agreements.

Conclusion

This just touches the surface. Big businesses collaborate with the Democratic Party to drive economic prosperity for their benefit as they put their heels to the face of the American people. The saying is true. When you want to find out the “Why?”, just follow the money. Nowadays, it is more profitable to be a Democrat than ever.

Citations Part 1:

1. https://pac.org/impact/are-companies-realigning-toward-the-democratic-party

2. https://www.iccr.org/corporate-influence-over-legislation-regulation-on-key-themes-affecting-the-public-interest-prompts-investors-to-file-numerous-proposals-scrutinizing-corporate-political-activity/

3. https://thehill.com/business/4002290-democrats-signal-growing-frustration-with-globalization/

4. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-democratic-party-platform

5. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/democrats-trade-2021-pro-trade-policy-democratic-party

6. https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/imo/media/doc/New%20Dem%20Trade%20Policy%20White%20Paper.pdf

7. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/business/dealbook/mcconnell-mlb-democrats-republicans.html

8. https://www.telos-eu.com/en/international-trade/democracy-and-globalization.html

9. https://globalaffairs.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/FINAL%20Trade%20Brief.pdf

10. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/corporate-capture-threatens-democratic-government/

11. https://www.hbs.edu/bigs/has-the-battle-over-government-ended

12. https://hir.harvard.edu/unmaking-democracy-how-corporate-influence-is-eroding-democratic-governance/

13. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp

14. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/corporate-responsilibity-multiracial-democracy

15. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policycast/oligarchy-open-what-happens-now-us-forced-confront-its-plutocracy

16. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/02/globalization-tariffs-democracy-isolationism-dani-rodrik/

17. https://jacobin.com/2022/07/democratic-party-neoliberalism-dlc-clinton

18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2631787720982618

19. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/american-hubris-or-how-globalization-brought-us-donald-trump/

20. https://www.commentary.org/articles/david-bazelon-2/big-business-the-democrats/

Citations Part 2:

1. https://www.cipe.org/newsroom/the-role-of-business-in-building-a-stronger-american-democracy/

2. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/corporate-capture-threatens-democratic-government/

3. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1755?p=emailA6tIJIYr03Q9I&d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780190228637.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780190228637-e-1755

4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2631787720982618

5. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-democratic-party-platform

6. https://thunderbird.asu.edu/thought-leadership/insights/how-politics-affects-global-business

7. https://www.imd.org/ibyimd/geopolitics/navigating-a-fragmented-future-implications-of-the-2024-us-election-on-global-business/

8. https://www.kroll.com/en/insights/publications/elections-impacting-business-strategies

Citations Part 3:

1. https://asiatimes.com/2018/10/the-democrats-globalization-dilemma/

2. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1755?p=emailA6tIJIYr03Q9I&d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780190228637.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780190228637-e-1755

3. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/11/do-democrats-need-to-get-less-globalist.html

4. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/democrats-trade-2021-pro-trade-policy-democratic-party

5. https://thehill.com/business/4002290-democrats-signal-growing-frustration-with-globalization/

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_globalization

7. https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/why_does_globalization_fuel_populism.pdf

8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40470784

9. https://www.cato.org/publications/the-progressive-case-for-globalization

Part 1: Globalization

“Perhaps we are in the downfall of the broken way. This [America] was not built to last…but, ultimately, it crumbles into this…and from that, something new can spring…and, so, maybe something is declining right now, but maybe it deserves to decline.”

—Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

The most popular figure of the Democratic Party and 2028 Presidential hopeful AOC, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, and the modern Democratic hold anti-American sentiments like this. They do not hide it, and yet half of America does not care. It begs the question, “Why does the Democratic Party want to destroy America?” Let’s take a look at one of the reasons why: Globalization.

Economic Inequality and Job Losses

Globalists argue that open markets and free trade will boost economic growth, create jobs, and lift people out of poverty worldwide. In reality, globalization has often increased income inequality both within and between countries, with the benefits going disproportionately to wealthier individuals and regions. Many developed countries have experienced job losses and deindustrialization as companies move production to lower-cost countries, hollowing out middle-class communities.

Labor Conditions

Globalists hope that integrating developing economies into global markets will raise labor standards and improve working conditions as countries compete for international investment. Multinational corporations are often accused of exploiting cheap labor, subjecting workers to poor conditions, low wages, and limited rights. In some cases, globalization has led to child labor and inhumane working environments in the pursuit of lower production costs.

Environmental Impact

Globalists contend that international cooperation and shared technology can help address environmental challenges more effectively than isolated national efforts. However, increased global production and consumption have led to significant environmental harm, including pollution, deforestation, and climate change. Companies sometimes relocate to countries with weaker environmental regulations, exacerbating ecological damage.

Cultural Exchange and Diversity

Globalists envision a world where greater cultural exchange fosters understanding, tolerance, and appreciation of diversity, yet the dominance of Western culture and values can erode traditional cultures, languages, and identities, leading to cultural homogenization. Minority cultures and local traditions may be marginalized or lost entirely.

National Sovereignty and Local Policies

Globalists believe that international agreements and cooperation can help solve problems that transcend borders, such as climate change and terrorism. Unfortunately, Globalization is seen as undermining national sovereignty, as multinational corporations and international bodies gain influence over domestic policies. This can limit a nation’s ability to control its own economic and social policies, especially during crises.

Market Stability

Globalists claim that interconnected markets can create more stable, resilient economies by diversifying risk and increasing access to resources. In practice, tightly linked global markets can spread financial crises rapidly, as seen in the 2008 global recession. Furthermore, economic dependence on global supply chains has made countries vulnerable to disruptions from pandemics, wars, or natural disasters.

Corporate Power and Social Justice

Globalists argue that multinational corporations drive innovation, create jobs, and improve living standards worldwide, but critics say globalization has disproportionately empowered large corporations, allowing them to influence political decisions and undermine democratic processes. The benefits often accrue to corporate elites, while workers and the environment bear the costs.

Health and Disease

Globalists hope that international collaboration can improve health outcomes by sharing knowledge, resources, and technology, yet increased global movement of people and goods has facilitated the rapid spread of infectious diseases, as seen with pandemics like COVID-19.

Conclusion

We are left with two unfortunate motives. Either the Democratic Party means well and they are stupid or they know exactly what they are doing (as the quote earlier from AOC suggests) and they want to destroy America.

Sources

1. Critiques of globalization's economic and cultural impacts

   • Labor market effects: Wage inequality and job displacement linked to offshoring, outsourcing, and automation 6 8.

   • Cultural homogenization: Western cultural dominance and threats to local traditions 5 7.

   • Corporate power: Concentration of wealth among global elites and multinational corporations 5 6 9.

2. Political sovereignty and backlash

   • Undermining national policies: Globalization’s erosion of local decision-making and sovereignty 1 5 9.

   • Backlash dynamics: Politicization of globalization and rise of protectionist/nationalist policies 1 3 5.

3. Environmental and social critiques

   • Environmental degradation: Exploitation of natural resources and weak regulations in global supply chains 2 5.

   • Social inequality: Widening income gaps and disproportionate benefits for wealthy elites 4 6 8.

4. Health and labor exploitation

   • Disease spread: Accelerated transmission of pandemics due to global travel/trade 5.

   • Labor abuses: Poor working conditions and child labor in developing economies 5 6.

Key Sources

• Annual Reviews on globalization backlash and politicization 1.

• Oxford Academic critiques of environmental harm and unregulated growth 2.

• NBER analysis of globalization’s disputed impacts on poverty and inequality 4.

• Wikipedia overview of cultural, political, and economic criticisms 5.

• Labour market studies on wage inequality and job displacement 6 8.

• Trans-disciplinary debates on Western cultural hegemony 7.

• Conflict analyses of globalization’s destabilizing effects 9.

Citations:

1. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102405

2. https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/11/1/3/4877030

3. https://online.ucpress.edu/gp/article/5/1/125070/203669/The-Globalization-Backlash-Revisited-Evidence-from

4. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0113/c0113.pdf

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_globalization

6. https://store.ectap.ro/articole/1695.pdf

7. https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/1926861/

8. https://www.epi.org/publication/botched-policy-responses-to-globalization/

9. https://www3.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol3_1/learch.htm

10. https://x.com/SilverlochMedia/status/1911843646493933749

In recent decades, Western countries have witnessed a notable resurgence in the popularity of socialist ideas, particularly among younger generations. This trend marks a significant shift in political and economic discourse, especially in the United States and parts of Europe. According to polling data, as many as 43% of Americans now believe some form of socialism would be beneficial, while 40% prefer socialism to capitalism2. This analysis explores the complex factors driving this ideological shift and examines how economic realities, generational perspectives, and changing political landscapes have contributed to socialism's renewed appeal.

Contents

• Key Points of the Analysis

• Criticisms of the Key Points

• Detailed Explanation of the Key Points

• Sources

Key Points

1. Economic Inequality: Wealth has become highly concentrated among a small elite, leading many to question the fairness and sustainability of the current capitalist system.

2. Financial Crises: The 2008 financial crash and COVID-19 pandemic exposed capitalism’s vulnerabilities and reliance on massive government bailouts, shaking confidence in free markets.

3. Declining Living Standards: Despite overall economic growth, many people face stagnant wages, rising costs, and economic insecurity, fueling discontent with capitalism.

4. Millennial Support: Younger generations, especially millennials, show significantly more favorable views of socialism, influenced by their unique economic challenges and historical context.

5. Post-Cold War Perspective: Millennials lack direct experience with Cold War-era socialism, allowing them to view socialism more positively and associate it with successful social democracies.

6. Economic Challenges for Youth: Millennials and Gen Z face stagnant incomes, high student debt, and housing affordability issues, making socialist ideas more appealing.

7. Changing Views of Capitalism: Capitalism is increasingly seen as a system that fosters inequality, corporate greed, and environmental harm rather than broad prosperity.

8. Corporate Influence and Democracy: The growing power of corporations in politics raises concerns about the health of democracy, prompting interest in socialism’s emphasis on economic democracy.

9. Environmental Concerns: Capitalism’s role in environmental degradation has led many, especially young people, to support socialist policies aimed at sustainability.

10. Rise of Democratic Socialists: Politicians like Bernie Sanders have popularized democratic socialism, making socialist ideas more mainstream and acceptable.

11. Policy Support Beyond Labels: Many people support socialist-inspired policies such as universal healthcare and free education, even if they don’t identify as socialists.

12. Focus on Economic Democracy: Modern socialism often emphasizes worker control and democratic workplaces rather than state ownership, distinguishing it from past authoritarian models.

13. Historical Evolution: Socialism today draws from democratic traditions and lessons learned from past failures, aiming to combine democracy with social justice.

14. 21st Century Socialism: New socialist ideas seek to address global problems like poverty and environmental destruction that neither capitalism nor 20th-century socialism solved.

15. Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Much of the current support labeled as “socialism” aligns more closely with social democracy, emphasizing welfare and regulation rather than planned economies.

16. Ongoing Debate: The future popularity of socialism depends on capitalism’s ability to reform, generational political shifts, and electoral successes of socialist-leaning politicians.

Criticisms of the Key Points

1. Economic Inequality:
   Pro: Many see socialism as a way to address extreme wealth concentration and create a fairer society.
   Con: Critics argue that redistributive policies can discourage hard work and innovation, potentially reducing overall economic growth.

2. Financial Crises:
   Pro: Socialists highlight that capitalism’s recurring crises show the need for more government intervention and regulation.
   Con: Opponents contend that government intervention can distort markets and that crises are often worsened by poor regulatory decisions, not free markets themselves.

3. Declining Living Standards:
   Pro: Supporters believe socialism can provide better social safety nets and protect people from economic insecurity.
   Con: Critics warn that generous welfare states can become unsustainable, leading to high taxes, debt, and reduced incentives to work.

4. Millennial Support:
   Pro: Younger generations favor socialism, seeing it as a solution to their unique economic challenges.
   Con: Skeptics argue that this support is based on idealism or lack of historical perspective, and that younger people may not fully understand socialism’s risks.

5. Post-Cold War Perspective:
   Pro: Millennials associate socialism with successful Scandinavian models, not failed communist states.
   Con: Critics point out that Scandinavian countries are actually market economies with strong welfare states, not socialist economies, and warn against conflating the two.

6. Economic Challenges for Youth:
   Pro: Socialism is seen as a way to address student debt, housing costs, and job insecurity.
   Con: Opponents argue that these problems are better solved by targeted reforms within capitalism, rather than overhauling the entire economic system.

7. Changing Views of Capitalism:
   Pro: Many now see capitalism as fostering inequality and environmental harm.
   Con: Defenders of capitalism argue it has lifted billions out of poverty and that its problems can be fixed through regulation, not by abandoning the system.

8. Corporate Influence and Democracy:
   Pro: Socialists claim that reducing corporate power is essential for a healthy democracy.
   Con: Critics warn that shifting power to the state can be just as dangerous, risking bureaucratic overreach and loss of individual freedoms.

9. Environmental Concerns:
   Pro: Socialism is viewed as better equipped to address climate change and promote sustainability.
   Con: Opponents argue that state-run economies have often been worse for the environment, and that innovation in green technology thrives best in competitive markets.

10. Rise of Democratic Socialists:
    Pro: Politicians like Bernie Sanders have made socialist ideas more mainstream and acceptable.
    Con: Critics caution that popular policies may be unaffordable or have unintended negative consequences, such as reduced economic dynamism.

11. Policy Support Beyond Labels:
    Pro: Many support socialist-inspired policies like universal healthcare, even if they don’t identify as socialists.
    Con: Opponents argue that these policies can be implemented within capitalist frameworks and that labeling them “socialist” is misleading.

12. Focus on Economic Democracy:
    Pro: Modern socialism emphasizes worker control and democratic workplaces.
    Con: Critics say that worker-run enterprises can be less efficient and that markets are better at allocating resources and rewarding merit.

13. Historical Evolution:
    Pro: Today’s socialism draws on democratic traditions and lessons from past failures.
    Con: Skeptics argue that even reformed socialism risks repeating old mistakes, as central planning and state intervention can still lead to inefficiency and corruption.

14. 21st Century Socialism:
    Pro: New socialist ideas aim to solve global problems like poverty and environmental destruction.
    Con: Critics claim that ambitious socialist programs often overpromise and underdeliver, and that complex global issues require flexible, market-based solutions.

15. Socialism vs. Social Democracy:
    Pro: Much of the current support is for social democracy—strong welfare and regulation, not full socialism.
    Con: Critics warn that expanding the welfare state too far can still create economic inefficiencies and dependency, even without abolishing markets.

16. Ongoing Debate:
    Pro: The future of socialism depends on whether capitalism can reform and whether socialist-leaning politicians succeed.
    Con: Opponents argue that constant calls for socialism distract from practical reforms and risk undermining the strengths of liberal democracy and market economies.

Detailed Explanation of the Key Points

Economic Inequality and System Failures

One of the primary drivers behind the increasing interest in socialist alternatives has been the dramatic rise in economic inequality. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a small minority has reached unprecedented levels, with the top 1% now owning more wealth than the bottom 99% combined7. This extreme inequality represents a fundamental shift from the more balanced economic distribution of the post-World War II era and has led many to question the ethical foundations of the current economic system.

Financial Crises and Systemic Vulnerabilities

The 2008 global financial crisis and the 2020 coronavirus pandemic exposed significant weaknesses in capitalist economies, requiring massive government interventions to prevent total system collapse. Governments worldwide were forced to pump trillions of dollars into their economies, with measures including $2.2 trillion in central bank actions and $4.3 trillion in state spending following the pandemic alone6. These interventions contradicted decades of neoliberal rhetoric about free markets and minimal government involvement, leading many to question whether capitalism can function without substantial state support during crises.

Deteriorating Economic Conditions for Average Citizens

Despite overall economic growth in Western countries, many citizens have experienced declining living standards and economic security. Rising inflation, soaring costs of living, and stagnant wages have created a disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and lived economic realities7. These conditions have pushed more people to question the current economic system, particularly as they watch corporate profits and executive compensation continue to rise while their own economic situations deteriorate.

Generational Perspectives and Changing Attitudes

The Millennial Socialist Phenomenon

Polling data consistently shows that Americans born between 1981 and 1996—the millennial generation—hold significantly more positive views of socialism than their predecessors. A 2021 poll indicated that support for capitalism among Americans aged 18-34 dropped from 58% in 2019 to just 49%5. This generational shift reflects both different historical experiences and distinct economic challenges facing younger citizens.

Post-Cold War Context

Unlike their parents and grandparents, millennials did not experience the Cold War's ideological battles firsthand. As search result2 notes, "having grown up at a time after the end of the Cold War, the collapse of Europe's Eastern Bloc and China's transition to authoritarian capitalism, 'these kids today'... don't know what socialism is all about. When they think socialism, they don't think Stalin; they think Scandinavia"2. This generational disconnect from historical socialist regimes has allowed for a reimagining of socialist possibilities without the baggage of Soviet-style communism.

Economic Challenges Facing Younger Generations

Millennials and Generation Z face significantly worse economic prospects than previous generations. A 2019 SuperMoney report revealed that average millennial income growth is flat after inflation5. Additionally, they carry unprecedented student debt burdens, confront higher housing costs, and experience greater employment insecurity. Having come of age during the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession, many younger people witnessed firsthand how the existing economic system failed to provide stability and opportunity.

The Evolving Critique of Capitalism

During the Cold War, capitalism was strongly associated with American prosperity and freedom. This positive association has weakened significantly, with capitalism increasingly linked to corporate greed, environmental degradation, and inherited privilege rather than merit-based success5. This shift in perception has created space for alternative economic visions, including various forms of democratic socialism.

Corporate Power and Democratic Concerns

The growing influence of corporations in political processes has raised concerns about the compatibility of unchecked capitalism with democratic governance. As wealth has concentrated among a small elite, so too has political power, leading many to question whether meaningful democracy can coexist with extreme economic inequality7. Socialism, with its emphasis on economic democracy and collective decision-making, offers a potential response to these democratic deficits.

Environmental Critiques

Capitalism's profit-driven imperative has increasingly been criticized for accelerating climate change and environmental degradation. Young people in particular associate capitalism with environmental exploitation, seeing socialist planning as potentially offering more sustainable alternatives5. This ecological critique has become an important component of contemporary socialist thinking in Western countries.

The Rise of Democratic Socialist Politicians

The increased interest in socialism has translated into electoral support for politicians who embrace democratic socialist or social democratic positions. In the United States, figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have enjoyed substantial support among younger voters, with polls showing that 70% of millennials would be supportive of a candidate with a socialist background5. These politicians have helped legitimize socialist ideas within mainstream political discourse.

Policy Popularity Beyond Labels

Research suggests that even Americans who reject the "socialist" label often support policies associated with democratic socialism or social democracy. Polling consistently shows majority support for expanded healthcare access, higher taxes on the wealthy, free public education, and stronger labor protections3. This indicates that the appeal of socialist policies may be even broader than explicit identification with socialism would suggest.

Socialism as Economic Democracy

Contemporary socialism in Western countries frequently emphasizes workplace democracy rather than state ownership. As explained in "Understanding Socialism," many modern socialists "demand the end of exploitation and an alternative in which employees function as their own employer. Socialists want to be able to explore and develop their full potentials as individuals and members of society while contributing to its welfare"3. This vision of economic democracy rather than centralized control distinguishes modern Western socialist movements from 20th-century communist states.

Comparing Historical and Contemporary Socialism

Historical Context of Socialist Movements

Socialism has evolved considerably since its origins over 200 years ago. The search results note that "in every country, it carries the lessons and scars of its particular history there"3. Modern Western socialism largely draws from democratic socialist traditions rather than authoritarian communist models, emphasizing the combination of political democracy with economic democracy.

21st Century Socialism

The concept of "Socialism of the 21st century" articulated by German sociologist Heinz Dieterich and embraced by various left-wing leaders argues that both free-market industrial capitalism and 20th-century socialism failed to solve urgent problems of humanity such as poverty, hunger, labor exploitation, economic oppression, discrimination, environmental destruction, and democratic deficits1. This updated vision attempts to address the shortcomings of both systems while preserving democratic principles.

Socialism vs. Social Democracy Debate

Some analysts argue that what many young Americans describe as "socialism" more closely resembles the social democratic systems of Scandinavian countries rather than traditional socialism. Researchers from organizations like the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute suggest that millennial "support for socialism can be more accurately described as support for social democracy, as opposed to socialism as traditionally conceived (e.g., a planned economy)"5. This distinction highlights the evolving nature of socialist thought in contemporary Western contexts.

Conclusion

The rising appeal of socialism in Western countries reflects a complex interplay of economic grievances, generational shifts, and evolving political ideologies. As inequality has grown, economic mobility has declined, and the negative externalities of capitalism have become more apparent, increasing numbers of citizens—especially younger ones—have looked to socialist alternatives for solutions. This trend doesn't necessarily indicate support for Soviet-style state socialism but rather reflects a desire for economic systems that prioritize human well-being, environmental sustainability, and democratic participation.

The continued popularity of socialist ideas will likely depend on several factors: whether capitalism can address its current crises, how younger generations' political influence evolves as they age, and the electoral success of politicians advocating socialist policies. What seems clear is that the conversation about alternatives to unrestricted capitalism has firmly reentered mainstream political discourse in Western democracies, representing a significant shift from the market triumphalism that characterized the immediate post-Cold War period.

Citations

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_of_the_21st_century

2. https://mises.org/mises-wire/4-reasons-why-socialism-becoming-more-popular

3. https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2020/01/30/socialism-understanding

4. https://matthewcm.ucr.edu/Bandelj%20and%20Mahutga%20SF_Accepted%20but%20unformatted.pdf

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennial_socialism

6. https://communistusa.org/marxism-keynesianism-and-the-crisis-of-capitalism/

7. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/western-capitalism-facing-existential-crisis-awakening-wigley-sbpsf

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

9. https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1inv93w/given_the_new_rise_of_fascism_will_socialism/

10. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/young-americans-support-abstract-and-unworkable-socialism

11. https://isreview.org/issues/32/crisis_theory/

12. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-14972015

13. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/what-americans-must-know-about-socialism

14. https://thetricontinental.org/wenhua-zongheng-2023-4-new-forms-socialism-twenty-first-century/

15. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/millennials-socialism/

16. https://www.cadtm.org/Deeper-than-ever-the-crisis-leaves-capitalism-out-of-breath

17. https://www.hcn.org/issues/41-18/socialism-and-the-west/

18. https://www.axios.com/2019/10/28/millennials-vote-socialism-capitalism-decline

19. https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/capitalism/doherty-pew-millennials-want-economy-that-works-better-and-more-fairly

20. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/

21. https://hoover.org/research/false-appeal-socialism

22. https://infinitebanking.org/banknotes/4-reasons-why-socialism-is-becoming-more-popular/

23. https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/why-americans-want-socialism

24. https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1hrr9w9/hows_the_socialistcommunist_movement_in_your/

25. https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_3_5_henderson.pdf

26. https://www.britannica.com/procon/American-socialism-debate

27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

28. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/young-americans-increasingly-prefer-socialism-heres-how-change-their-minds

29. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States

30. https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/1c00j42/is_there_any_place_for_income_inequality_under/

31. https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/o2vsz1/socialism_on_the_rise_in_america/

32. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/14/millennial-socialism

33. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/millennials-support-socialism-because-they-want-make-america-great-everyone-ncna1109191

34. https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx

35. https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/1hslchz/what_are_some_of_the_appeals_of_capitalism_and/

36. https://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=f0229e99-83ad-4baf-8dba-5ad57b9301a0

37. https://www.hoover.org/research/false-appeal-socialism

38. https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/milh1u/why_are_so_many_young_people_becoming_socialists/

39. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistappeal/pdf/v3n02-feb-1937-soc-ap-chi.pdf

40. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

41. https://thelowell.org/15043/opinions/bringing-political-disillusionment-into-focus/

42. https://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/E-0011-1/excerpts/excerpt_5152.html

43. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1glv7ck/the_western_worlds_current_version_of_capitalism/

44. https://blogs.messiah.edu/politicsinternationalrelations/2024/11/13/the-promise-but-inevitable-difficulty-within-the-socialist-party-of-america/

45. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_theory

46. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article8917

47. https://www.bruegel.org/comment/ten-years-after-crisis-wests-failure-pushing-china-towards-state-capitalism

48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/crisis-of-capitalism

1. https://www.aei.org/research-products/speech/the-collapse-of-socialism/

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1grcvrg/disillusioned_and_loosing_my_mind/

3. https://www.africanliberty.org/2020/01/02/the-stubborn-allure-of-socialism-despite-its-abject-failures/

Key Points

Job Losses and Wage Stagnation

• Job losses in manufacturing due to trade agreements like NAFTA have led to long-term unemployment or underemployment for many workers, especially in regions dependent on industrial jobs. Displaced workers often transition to lower-paying service jobs, perpetuating economic insecurity[1][3].

• The loss of high-wage manufacturing jobs has suppressed wage growth across the economy, particularly for workers without college degrees. This has contributed to a broader trend of income stagnation and reduced purchasing power over decades[1].

Trade Deficits

• Chronic trade deficits have weakened U.S. industries, making it difficult for them to compete globally. Once manufacturing plants close, they rarely reopen, leading to permanent declines in industrial capacity and innovation[2].

• The reliance on foreign capital to finance trade deficits has made the U.S. the largest debtor nation, increasing risks of economic instability. A potential loss of confidence by foreign investors could trigger a financial crisis[2].

Deindustrialization and Economic Decline

• Deindustrialization has devastated local economies, reducing tax bases and funding for public services like schools and infrastructure. This decline often leads to increased crime, substance abuse, and social instability[3].

• The economic struggles caused by deindustrialization persist across generations, as affected communities struggle to attract new industries or create sustainable employment opportunities[3].

Income Inequality

• Globalization and free trade have disproportionately benefited high-income earners while suppressing wages for low- and middle-income workers. This has deepened economic inequality, undermining social cohesion and democracy[4].

• Minority groups, particularly Black and Latino workers, have been disproportionately affected by wage stagnation and job displacement due to their higher representation in unionized manufacturing jobs[4].

National Security Concerns

• Trade deficits and deindustrialization have undermined the economic foundation necessary for a strong national defense. High levels of debt crowd out funding for military investments and diplomacy, weakening America's global standing[5].

• Dependence on foreign production for critical goods (e.g., semiconductors) poses risks during geopolitical conflicts or supply chain disruptions[5].

Exploitation of Foreign Workers and U.S. Labor

• Free trade agreements incentivize companies to move production to countries with lower labor standards. This has perpetuated exploitative practices, such as low wages and unsafe working conditions for foreign workers[6].

• The availability of cheaper labor abroad reduces bargaining power for American workers, contributing to wage suppression and weaker labor protections domestically[6].

• Weakening global labor rights: Free trade agreements often fail to enforce labor protections effectively, allowing exploitation in supply chains while eroding standards in developed nations like the U.S.[6].

Environmental Standards

• Environmental degradation: Corporations relocating production to countries with lax environmental regulations have contributed to pollution and ecological harm globally. This undermines efforts to combat climate change[3][6].

While free trade has provided some economic benefits (e.g., lower consumer prices), its long-term consequences have devastated America. Americans no longer have access to the American Dream. Donald Trump’s tariff war with the world is an attempt to bring the American Dream back.

Job Losses and Wage Stagnation

Job Losses

Since NAFTA's implementation in 1994, the U.S. has experienced significant job losses, particularly in manufacturing. By 2010, an estimated 682,900 net jobs were displaced due to the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico alone, with most of these being high-paying manufacturing positions. Industries such as textiles, apparel, and automotive were hit hardest, as production shifted to Mexico to take advantage of lower wages and weaker labor protections. These job losses disproportionately affected states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which had high concentrations of manufacturing employment[1][3][7]. Additionally, NAFTA's investor protections facilitated the relocation of factories overseas, further eroding U.S. employment in key sectors[7].

Wage Stagnation

Free trade agreements like NAFTA have contributed to wage stagnation for American workers by exposing them to competition with low-wage labor abroad. As manufacturing jobs moved overseas, displaced workers often transitioned into lower-paying service jobs, where wages averaged only two-thirds of their previous earnings. This dynamic weakened the bargaining power of low- and middle-wage workers and suppressed wage growth across the economy. Between 1979 and 2014, for instance, the median weekly wage for U.S. workers increased by just $4 (adjusted for inflation), despite a doubling of worker productivity during that period[2][4][6]. The downward pressure on wages has been particularly severe for non-college-educated workers, who make up a large share of the workforce[5].

Trade Deficits Since 1994

Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994 and subsequent free trade agreements, the U.S. has experienced a dramatic increase in its trade deficits. The overall goods trade deficit rose from $70 billion in 1993 to a record $918.4 billion in 2024. This persistent deficit has been driven by the offshoring of manufacturing and the liberalization of trade, which allowed foreign producers to access U.S. markets with fewer restrictions while U.S. exports often faced barriers abroad. Key sectors like manufacturing and agriculture have been particularly affected, with industries such as advanced technology manufacturing shifting from a surplus of $38 billion in 1991 to a deficit of $299 billion by 2024. These deficits have eroded domestic production capacity, hollowed out industrial regions, and increased reliance on foreign imports, weakening the U.S.'s economic resilience.

Focus on China

China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 marked a significant turning point for U.S.-China trade relations and contributed heavily to the U.S. trade deficit. Between 2001 and 2024, the bilateral goods trade deficit with China surged from $83 billion to $295.4 billion annually. This increase was fueled by China's export-driven growth strategy, supported by currency manipulation, state subsidies, and lower labor costs, which made Chinese products highly competitive in global markets. Additionally, China's integration into global supply chains allowed Chinese content to enter the U.S. through third countries, further inflating the deficit. The "China Shock" also displaced approximately 2.4 million U.S. jobs between 1999 and 2011, primarily in manufacturing, exacerbating economic inequality and regional economic decline in the United States.

Deindustrialization and Economic Decline of America

Deindustrialization

NAFTA's enactment in 1994 eliminated tariffs and trade barriers, incentivizing companies to relocate manufacturing operations to countries like Mexico, where labor costs are substantially lower. This shift led to the closure of approximately 70,500 U.S. manufacturing establishments between 1997 and 2022, many of which were small factories employing fewer than five workers. Entire industries, such as garment production, saw employment decline by nearly 90%, while cities in the Rust Belt, such as Milwaukee, experienced widespread factory closures that devastated local economies. The loss of industrial jobs weakened unions, reduced tax bases for public services, and left communities struggling to recover economically[1][2][5].

Economic Decline

The economic decline resulting from free trade agreements like NAFTA stems from the erosion of America's manufacturing base and the displacement of high-wage jobs. Between 1994 and 2016, U.S. manufacturing employment dropped by 26%, falling from 16.8 million jobs to 12.4 million. This decline disproportionately affected middle-class workers and regions dependent on industrial production, leading to reduced economic activity and stagnation in these areas. The integration of global supply chains also shifted wealth toward corporations and investors while suppressing wages for American workers. Additionally, persistent trade deficits fueled by offshoring have undermined domestic production capacity and increased reliance on foreign imports, further weakening long-term economic resilience[1][2][3].

Income Inequality

Widening Wealth Gaps

Free trade agreements since 1994, starting with NAFTA, have exacerbated wealth inequality by disproportionately benefiting high-income earners while suppressing wages for middle- and working-class Americans. Between 1994 and 2000, the income share of the richest 10% grew at double the rate seen in the pre-NAFTA era (2.6% annually vs. 1.3%)[1]. Median weekly wages for U.S. workers stagnated, rising only $23 (inflation-adjusted) from 1979 to 2015, despite worker productivity doubling[1]. Trade policies intensified competition with low-wage labor abroad, depressing wages in manufacturing and enabling corporations to redirect profits to shareholders and executives. By 2015, the top 1% captured over 20% of national income, while the bottom 20% lost 4% of their income share[2]. This divergence was fueled by the offshoring of high-wage jobs and the growth of low-wage service sector employment.

Racial Disparities

Free trade policies disproportionately harmed Black and Latino workers, who were overrepresented in manufacturing industries devastated by offshoring. Fifteen states home to 58% of the Black population accounted for 2.9 million of the 4 million manufacturing jobs lost during the NAFTA-WTO era[3]. Latino workers, comprising 8.9% of the workforce, made up 12.3% of workers in the hardest-hit industries[5]. Wage gaps persisted: Black men earned 75 cents per dollar earned by white men in 1994, improving only to 79 cents by 2020, while Latinas saw their relative earnings drop from 78 cents to 73 cents[3][5]. Structural inequities, including limited access to education and high-quality jobs, compounded these disparities, leaving Black and Latino workers more vulnerable to trade-related job losses and wage stagnation[5].

National Security Concerns

Free trade agreements since 1994, beginning with NAFTA, have reshaped national security concerns by deepening economic interdependence while exposing vulnerabilities in critical supply chains and strategic industries. Initially framed as tools for mutual prosperity, agreements like NAFTA prioritized economic integration without fully anticipating geopolitical shifts, particularly China’s rise as a manufacturing and technological powerhouse[1][3]. By outsourcing production to low-cost regions, the U.S. became reliant on foreign suppliers for essential goods—from semiconductors to pharmaceuticals—creating risks during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic or geopolitical tensions[1][3]. This interdependence has allowed strategic competitors like China to leverage their dominance in supply chains (e.g., rare earth minerals, batteries) as potential tools of coercion, raising alarms about America’s ability to maintain military readiness or respond to disruptions[1][4].

The shift from viewing trade as purely economic to a national security imperative has intensified since 2016. While free trade boosted growth, it also transferred dual-use technologies to rivals and enabled foreign entities to acquire U.S. infrastructure assets, prompting scrutiny under frameworks like the Committee on Foreign Investment[4]. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) reflects this recalibration, aiming to relocalize critical supply chains within North America and reduce reliance on adversarial states[1]. However, debates persist: economic nationalists argue that decades of offshoring eroded industrial resilience, while free-trade advocates counter that protectionism stifles innovation and alienates allies[4][5]. These tensions underscore the ongoing challenge of balancing open markets with strategic autonomy in an era of great-power competition[3][4].

Exploitation of Foreign Workers and U.S. Labor

Labor Abuses Abroad

Since 1994, free trade agreements like NAFTA have incentivized companies to relocate production to countries with weaker labor protections, leading to widespread labor abuses abroad. In nations like Mexico and China, workers in export-oriented industries often face substandard wages, unsafe working conditions, and suppression of union rights. For example, Mexican manufacturing wages remain among the lowest in the world, often below $2 per hour. Many free trade agreements include labor provisions aimed at improving conditions, but enforcement has been inconsistent or ineffective. Reports indicate that between 2006 and 2023, no U.S. free trade agreement partners saw significant improvements in labor rights, with some even experiencing declines. This failure to enforce labor standards has allowed exploitative practices such as forced labor and child labor to persist in global supply chains[1][3][6].

Undermining U.S. Labor Standards

Free trade has also undermined U.S. labor standards by exposing American workers to competition with low-wage foreign labor, pressuring domestic employers to cut costs by reducing wages and benefits. The offshoring of jobs has weakened unions and eroded collective bargaining power, making it harder for workers to advocate for better conditions. Additionally, the influx of cheaper goods produced under exploitative conditions abroad creates an uneven playing field for American producers who adhere to stricter labor laws. This dynamic not only suppresses wages but also discourages the adoption of higher labor standards globally. While recent trade agreements like the USMCA have introduced stronger labor provisions, enforcement remains limited, leaving U.S. workers vulnerable to "unfair" competition from countries that fail to meet basic labor obligations[1][4][9].

Environmental Standards

Free trade agreements since 1994 have contributed to environmental degradation through increased pollution and weakened regulatory enforcement. The expansion of cross-border freight transportation under NAFTA led to heightened air pollution in border regions, with studies showing a 2% rise in U.S. carbon monoxide emissions and localized spikes in pollutants like sulfur dioxide near trade corridors[1][3]. Hazardous waste trade between NAFTA partners surged, exemplified by a 400% increase in U.S. waste exports to Canada post-1994, driven by disparities in environmental regulations[1]. Additionally, the agreement’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism allowed corporations to challenge environmental protections, resulting in over $400 million in taxpayer-funded payouts to companies contesting regulations[1][5]. These provisions created de facto "pollution havens," as industries relocated to Mexico and China, where environmental standards were less stringent[2][4].

Structurally, free trade prioritized economic integration over ecological safeguards, accelerating resource extraction and fossil fuel dependence. The USMCA (2020) failed to address climate change, instead reinforcing policies that enable energy corporations to bypass environmental regulations[5]. Cross-border production chains expanded carbon footprints through increased transportation emissions and offshored manufacturing, with 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions now linked to traded goods[5]. While NAFTA included environmental side agreements, enforcement remained inconsistent, and subsequent trade deals perpetuated a model that treats environmental protections as secondary to market access[2][3]. This legacy has left North America’s ecosystems vulnerable to industrial degradation while undermining collective efforts to meet climate targets[4][5].

Citations for the Key Points

[1] https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wage-stagnation-and-productivity-a-fresh-analysis

[2] https://www.epi.org/publication/trade-deficits-consequences-policy-implications/

[3] https://ysu.edu/center-working-class-studies/social-costs-deindustrialization

[4] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-inequality-debate

[5] https://www.cato.org/blog/national-security-implications-unsustainable-spending-debt

[6] https://crownschool.uchicago.edu/student-life/advocates-forum/workplace-discrimination-and-undocumented-first-generation-latinx

[7] https://wol.iza.org/articles/environmental-regulations-and-labor-markets/long

[8] https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/working-paper-impacts-environmental-regulation-us-economy

[9] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/10/climate-crisis-impacting-jobs-workforce/

[10] https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-396?p=emailAMCiMqAgwHcPs&d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780199389414.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780199389414-e-396

[11] https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2021/140/article-A001-en.xml

[12] https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-12/documents/ee-0422.pdf

[13] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1093/reep/rex013

[14] https://www.hcn.org/articles/economy-do-climate-policies-have-a-negative-effect-on-jobs/

[15] https://www.epi.org/blog/wage-growth-since-1979-has-not-been-stagnant-but-it-has-definitely-been-suppressed/

[16] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-affects-wage-growth-in-america.html

[17] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americans-wages-are-higher-than-they-have-ever-been-and-employment-is-near-its-all-time-high/

[18] http://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/americas-vast-pay-inequality-story-unequal-power/

[19] https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage

[20] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

[21] https://danicaratelli.github.io/research/papers/The_Long_term_Decline_of_the_US_Job_Ladder.pdf

[22] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

[23] https://www.cato.org/commentary/annoying-persistence-income-stagnation-myth

[24] https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

[25] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5959048/

[26] https://www.umassglobal.edu/news-and-events/blog/low-unemployment-rates

[27] https://theconversation.com/the-trade-deficit-isnt-an-emergency-its-a-sign-of-americas-strength-252466

[28] https://www.cato.org/publications/trade-balance-winning-trade

[29] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2014/october/is-the-large-and-persistent-us-trade-deficit-a-concern

[30] https://time.com/7275957/trump-tariffs-usa-trade-deficits-economic-growth-strength-world-order/

[31] https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/er/1996/er9604b.pdf

[32] https://www.wita.org/ustrade/us-trade-trends/the-us-trade-deficit/

[33] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3_Obstfeld.pdf

[34] https://www.fisherinvestments.com/en-us/insights/market-commentary/false-fear-review-americas-trade-deficit

[35] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trade-deficit-what-does-it-mean-for-economy-trump-tariffs-rcna199999

[36]

[37] https://recruitonomics.com/the-long-shadow-of-deindustrialization/

[38] https://mellonurbanism.harvard.edu/deindustrialization-and-its-impact-us-uk-and-france-0

[39] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindustrialization

[40] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr21jjwg4wo

[41] https://artsci.case.edu/fridaylunch/2010/03/19/is-deindustrialization-bad-for-america/

[42] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3855327/

[43] https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/manufactured-crisis-deindustrialization-free-markets-national-security

[44] https://www.marshmclennan.com/insights/publications/2023/january/recessions-health-repercussions.html

[45] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26883597.2020.1801331

[46] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/past-recessions.asp

[47] https://www.niskanencenter.org/op-ed-deindustrialization-isnt-just-a-white-working-class-problem-2/

[48] https://www.usbank.com/investing/financial-perspectives/market-news/economic-recovery-status.html

[49] https://sph.washington.edu/news-events/sph-blog/how-social-and-economic-inequalities-are-impacting-life-expectancy-in-america

[50] https://equitablegrowth.org/u-s-income-and-wealth-inequality-are-no-longer-increasing-but-a-return-to-the-equitable-levels-of-the-mid-20th-century-isnt-likely-anytime-soon/

[51] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8489635/

[52] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/spp-2021-0017/html?lang=en

[53] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

[54] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rising-inequality-a-major-issue-of-our-time/

[55] https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/Inequality

[56] https://warontherocks.com/2021/06/economics-and-u-s-national-security/

[57] https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/national-security

[58] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/

[59] https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/docs/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

[60] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-national-security-implications-of-global-poverty/

[61] https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/implications-of-the-trump-administrations-tariff-announcement-on-us-economic-statecraft/

[62] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2024-Unclassified-Report.pdf

[63] https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/national-security-risks-and-american-weak-link

[64] https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/Books/economic-security.pdf

[65] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ISAB-Report-on-New-Security-Challenges_Final.pdf

[66] https://www.csis.org/analysis/beyond-economics-how-us-policies-can-undermine-national-security-goals

[67] https://2017-2021.commerce.gov/about/strategic-plan/strengthen-us-economic-and-national-security.html

[68] https://www.epi.org/publication/second-class-workers-assessing-h2-visa-programs-impact-on-workers/

[69] https://www.iom.int/news/migrant-workers-face-exploitation-serious-health-consequences-report

[70] https://www.nber.org/digest/202212/low-skill-foreign-employees-impacts-us-firms-and-workers

[71] https://refugees.org/stolen-in-plain-sight-losing-track-of-forced-labor-in-the-united-states/

[72] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10860016/

[73] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/h1b-visa-program-fact-sheet

[74] https://polarisproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Labor-Trafficking-on-Specific-Temporary-Work-Visas-by-Polaris.pdf

[75] https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/hsi/investigate/worksite-enforcement-investigations

[76] https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/talent-acquisition/foreign-workers-are-vital-part-of-us-labor-force

[77] https://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?forum-post=without-undocumented-workers-u-s-economy-disaster

[78] https://www.fwd.us/news/immigrant-farmworkers-and-americas-food-production-5-things-to-know/

[79] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9527784/

[80] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47063

[81] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/raising-labor-standards-a-means-towards-a-more-competitive-north-america/

[82] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988323002323

[83] https://www.wita.org/atp-research/impacts-of-ftas-with-usa/

[84] https://wol.iza.org/key-topics/environmental-regulation-and-the-labor-market

[85] https://www.nber.org/papers/w25910

[86] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/706799

[87] https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2021/11/costs-benefits-and-unintended-consequences-environmental-law-and-deindustrialization/

[88] https://sbnsoftware.com/blog/what-are-the-consequences-of-failing-to-comply-with-environmental-laws/

[89] https://www.resources.org/common-resources/do-environmental-regulations-kill-jobs/

[90] https://www.nber.org/reporter/2022number2/us-environmental-policies-environment-and-economy

[91] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5751015/

[92] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240306-slowing-us-wage-growth-lower-salaries

[93] https://www.nber.org/digest/may18/employer-concentration-and-stagnant-wages

[94] https://www.nber.org/digest/20239/effects-job-loss-low-wage-workers

[95] https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/23921/412887-Consequences-of-Long-Term-Unemployment.PDF

[96] https://www.generation.org/news/understanding-unemployment-causes-consequences-and-solutions/

[97] https://www.jff.org/costs-and-causes-wage-stagnation/

[98] https://manhattan.institute/article/wage-stagnation-and-its-discontents-rethinking-the-safety-net-to-encourage-a-more-dynamic-economy

[99] https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=129541

[100] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regulating-imports-with-a-reciprocal-tariff-to-rectify-trade-practices-that-contribute-to-large-and-persistent-annual-united-states-goods-trade-deficits/

[101] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter

[102] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/051515/pros-cons-trade-deficit.asp

[103] https://www.cgdev.org/publication/financial-realities-us-trade-deficit-tariffs-cant-change

[104] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1986/06/art1full.pdf

[105] https://www.epi.org/publication/bp243/

[106] https://consilienceproject.org/deindustrialization-and-the-american-city/

[107] https://www.nber.org/reporter/2023number1/life-cycle-impacts-graduating-recession

[108] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues10/

[109] https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-recession-and-its-aftermath

[110] https://www.cato.org/publications/reality-american-deindustrialization

[111] https://www.epi.org/publication/inequalitys-drag-on-aggregate-demand/

[112] https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/

[113] https://www.aarpinternational.org/initiatives/future-of-work/megatrends/income-inequality

[114] https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/

[115] https://news.osu.edu/rising-income-inequality-linked-to-americans-declining-health/

[116] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/krueger_cap_speech_final_remarks.pdf

[117] https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/consequences-economic-inequality/

[118] https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/09/economy/trump-tariffs-whats-next-economy/index.html

[119] https://www.dhs.gov/archive/science-and-technology/why-earth-systems-science-essential-national-security

[120] https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2023/truth-decay-is-putting-us-national-security-at-risk.html

[121] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-real-national-security-threat-americas-debt/

[122] https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/The-Decisive-Decade-Advancing-National-Security-at-the-Department-of-Commerce.pdf

[123] https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2021/01/national-security-in-an-age-of-insurrection?lang=en

[124] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/National_Security_Implications_of_Changing_Climate_Final_051915.pdf

[125] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

[126] https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/human-rights-abuse-plain-sight-migrant-workers-us

[127] https://labourexploitation.org/app/uploads/2019/05/Report_Risks-of-Exploitation-in-TMPs_May-2019_Final.pdf

[128] https://www.epi.org/publication/u-s-benefits-from-immigration/

[129] https://www.lls.edu/media/loyolalawschool/academics/clinicsexperientiallearning/sji/publicationsandreports/SUMMARY%20OF%20REPORTS%20-%20Widespread%20Abuses%20of%20Temporary%20Immigrant%20Workers%20and%20Growth%20of%20Temporary%20Visa%20Programs%20%20(1).pdf

[130] https://bhr-navigator.unglobalcompact.org/issues/migrant-workers/

[131] https://www.epi.org/blog/immigrant-workers-help-grow-the-u-s-economy-new-state-fact-sheets-illustrate-the-economic-benefits-of-immigration/

Citations for Job Losses and Wage Stagnation

[1] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

[2] https://www.citizen.org/article/studies-reveal-consensus-trade-flows-during-free-trade-era-have-exacerbated-u-s-income-inequality-2/

[3] https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

[4] https://www.epi.org/publication/unfair-trade-deals-lower-the-wages-of-u-s-workers/

[5] https://usw.org/nafta-at-20-one-million-u-s-jobs-lost-higher-income-inequality/

[6] https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA's_effect_on_United_States_employment

[8] https://www.cato.org/commentary/nafta-30-years-driving-free-trade-critics-crazy

[9] https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/nafta-working-class/

[10] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp

Citations for Trade Deficit

[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/trade-deficits-consequences-policy-implications/

[2] https://prosperousamerica.org/free-trade-agreements-have-damaged-u-s-agricultural-trade-performance/

[3] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/3_Obstfeld.pdf

[4] https://americancompass.org/a-new-trade-paradigm/

[5] https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/free-trade-overview

[6] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regulating-imports-with-a-reciprocal-tariff-to-rectify-trade-practices-that-contribute-to-large-and-persistent-annual-united-states-goods-trade-deficits/

[7] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp

[8] https://www.pwc.com/m1/en/services/tax/me-tax-legal-news/2025/impact-us-tariff-decisions-on-middle-east-businesses-what-to-do-now.html

Citations for Deindustrialization and Economic Decline

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-us-factories-lost-nafta-tariffs-fact-check/

[2] https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

[3] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp

[4] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/magazine/nafta-tarriffs-economy-trump-kamala-harris.html

[6] https://www.cato.org/commentary/nafta-30-years-driving-free-trade-critics-crazy

[7] https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/manufactured-crisis-deindustrialization-free-markets-national-security

[8] https://www.cato.org/publications/how-trade-agreements-have-enhanced-freedom-prosperity-americans

Citations for Income Inequality

[1] https://www.citizen.org/article/studies-reveal-consensus-trade-flows-during-free-trade-era-have-exacerbated-u-s-income-inequality/

[2] https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/lessons_from_nafta.pdf

[3] https://www.wita.org/atp-research/trade-discrimination-latino-workers/

[4] https://www.epi.org/publication/issuebriefs_ib120/

[5] https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/PC_Trade-Discrimination-Report_1124.pdf

[6] https://mfgren.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/The-Impact-of-Trade-on-Black-Workers.pdf

[7] https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/Public-Citizen-LCLAA_Latinos-and-NAFTA-Report.pdf

[8] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23878/w23878.pdf

[9] https://www.cato.org/publications/how-trade-agreements-have-enhanced-freedom-prosperity-americans

[10] https://home.uchicago.edu/~kanit/kanitk/Research_files/kanitk_jobmarketpaper.pdf

[11] https://www.aeaweb.org/research/trade-deals-economic-political

[12] https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=econ_fac

[13] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/naftas-impact-u-s-economy-facts/

[14] https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/trade_and_inequality_rev_aug2011.pdf

[15] https://scholarspace.library.gwu.edu/downloads/vx021f791?disposition=inline&locale=en

[16] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp

[17] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

[18] https://www.cato.org/trade-policy-analysis/americas-maligned-misunderstood-trade-deficit

[19] https://www.epi.org/publication/trade-deficits-consequences-policy-implications/

[20] https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/wealth-inequality-and-the-racial-wealth-gap-20211022.html

[21] https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/do-black-and-hispanic-workers-benefit-from-trade

[22] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4300995/

[23] https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

[24] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trade-and-race/

[25] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systematic-inequality-economic-opportunity/

[26] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-progress-how-far-weve-come-and-how-far-we-have-to-go/

[27] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/2021-03/Effects%20of%20Race%20on%20Attitudes%20toward%20International%20Trade_final_dcmFriday.pdf

[28] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/08/trump-trade-black-latino-workers/

[29] https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/understanding-black-white-disparities-in-labor-market-outcomes/

[30] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systematic-inequality/

[31] https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/racial-inequality-in-the-united-states

[32] https://www.citizen.org/article/studies-reveal-consensus-trade-flows-during-free-trade-era-have-exacerbated-u-s-income-inequality-2/

[33] https://robertwraypllc.com/nafta-and-its-impact-on-income-inequality-an-analytical-approach-for-evaluating-the-agreement/

[34] https://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2014/01/studies-reveal-consensus-trade-flows-during-free-trade-era-have-exacerbated-us-income-inequality.html

[35] https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/nafta-working-class/

Citations for National Security Concerns

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/usmca-forward-2023-chapter-1-national-security/

[2] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA276615.pdf

[3] https://www.alephas.org/post/free-trade-a-national-security-threat

[4] https://aier.org/article/a-free-prosperous-and-secure-america/

[5] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1984/1/cj3n3-6.pdf

[6] https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/the-new-rules-of-trade-with-china-navigating-tariffs-turmoil-and-opportunities

[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/

[8] https://warontherocks.com/2024/10/china-clean-technologies-and-national-security/

[9] https://cei.org/blog/trade-is-a-tool-for-american-national-security/

[10] https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss1994.pdf

[11] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regulating-imports-with-a-reciprocal-tariff-to-rectify-trade-practices-that-contribute-to-large-and-persistent-annual-united-states-goods-trade-deficits/

[12] https://www.cbp.gov/trade/north-american-free-trade-agreement

[13] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42965

[14] https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/black-hole-national-security

[15] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA263863

[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

[17] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

[18] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42965/15

[19] https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2017-12-11/nafta-collapse-a-threat-to-national-security-future-trade-deals

[20] http://kaptur.house.gov/issues/trade

[21] https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2024/12/the-us-proposal-on-how-to-handle-disputes-on-essential-security-measures.html

[22] https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep06003

[23] https://thecommonwealth.org/publications/commonwealth-cyber-journal-volume-2/national-security-exception-international-trade-and-cybersecurity

[24] https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/07/business/china-trump-tariffs-opportunity-analysis-intl-hnk/index.html

[25] https://www.americansecurityproject.org/free-trade-and-national-security-5-key-issues/

[26] https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/national-security-trade-and-china-risks-and-responses-in-the-internet-age

[27] https://www.hoover.org/research/does-national-security-justify-trade-restrictions

[28] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/contentious-us-china-trade-relationship

[29] https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-china-threat

[30] https://lawliberty.org/how-trade-openness-advances-americas-national-security/

[31] https://tnsr.org/2024/06/just-do-it-explaining-the-characteristics-and-rationale-of-chinese-economic-sanctions/

[32] https://thesimonscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IAJ-10-4-2019-pg5-13.pdf

[33] https://www.csis.org/analysis/effects-trump-administrations-tariff-threats-against-canada-and-mexico

[34] https://www.csis.org/analysis/fishing-success-using-trade-agreements-enhance-national-security

[35] https://www.epi.org/publication/u-s-trade-policy-time-to-start-over/

[36] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/report-to-the-president-on-the-america-first-trade-policy-executive-summary/

[37] https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/1jvz1r3/why_trump_is_hitting_china_on_trade_and_what/

Citations for Environmental Standards

Citations:

[1] https://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/1871-free-trade-and-environment-picture-becomes-clearer-en.pdf

[2] https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/nafta-environmental-record-commentary.pdf

[3] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/chapter-7-uneasy-neighbors-trade-and-the-environment

[4] https://www.bu.edu/eci/files/2019/06/Trade_and_the_Environment.pdf

[5] https://www.iatp.org/documents/new-nafta-continues-damaging-climate-legacy

[6] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/sampj-02-2024-0122/full/html

[7] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10166

[8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264999324003183

[9] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/597

[10] https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/historical-background-environment-trade-and-investment-epa

[11] https://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/1697-assessing-environmental-effects-north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta-en.pdf

[12] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800999000944

[13] https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/free-trade-overview

[14] https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1784&context=lbra

[15] https://www.ciel.org/reports/enforcement-of-environmental-laws-under-a-supplemental-agreement-to-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-5-georgetown-international-environmental-law-review-593-1993-housman-orbuch-te93-4-2/

[16] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901120313666

[17] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/usmca-forward-building-a-more-competitive-inclusive-and-sustainable-north-american-economy-climate/

[18] https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/company-guide/how-can-free-trade-agreements-and-ecology-be-aligned

[19] http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/1794-environmental-effects-free-trade-papers-presented-north-american-symposium-en.pdf

[20] https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1417&context=cuslj

[21] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28004-5

[22] https://usfblogs.usfca.edu/sustainability/2020/05/13/environmental-effects-of-nafta/

[23] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3914/w3914.pdf

[24] https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/climate_impact_e.htm

[25] https://www.iisd.org/articles/trade-and-environment

[26] https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=bjil

[27] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/chapter-7-uneasy-neighbors-trade-and-the-environment

[28] https://www.bu.edu/eci/files/2019/06/Trade_and_the_Environment.pdf

[29] https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/practice/law-reviews/iiclr/pdf/vol3p361.pdf

[30] https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/e231d302-3e87-5410-a7d2-a1b24a7b5215

[31] https://www.e-ir.info/2011/03/15/trade-liberalization-and-environmental-protection/

[32] https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cusma-aceum/initial_ea-ee_initiale.aspx?lang=eng

Key Points

• Research suggests the influx of illegal immigration under Biden was a choice, as presidents have discretion in enforcement within existing laws: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, specifically Section 212(f). This law, gives the president broad authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens.”

• Border encounters were high early in Biden’s term (2021-2023), but dropped significantly by 2024 after policy changes, which suggests that he knew he had the power to curb immigration, but only chose to when it was close to reelection time so he could say he was tough on the border issue.

• Once Trump took office in 2025, border crossings hit record lows although no laws were created or changed, which further suggests that Biden’s lack of action was a choice.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, is a landmark piece of U.S. immigration law that was signed into law on June 27, 1952. It’s the foundation of modern U.S. immigration policy, codified in Title 8 of the U.S. Code, and while it’s been amended many times, its core structure still governs how immigration works today. Here’s a breakdown of what it is, why it matters, and some key details.

Origins and Context

The INA was passed during the Cold War, reflecting both security concerns and post-WWII shifts. Sponsored by Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada) and Representative Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania), it aimed to consolidate earlier immigration laws—like the 1924 quota system—into a single framework. President Truman actually vetoed it, arguing it was too restrictive and discriminatory, but Congress overrode him with strong bipartisan support (Senate: 57-26; House: 278-113).

Key Provisions

1. National Quota System: It kept the controversial quotas from 1924, limiting immigration based on national origin—favoring Western Europe (85% of slots) over Asia, Africa, and elsewhere. Each country got a cap tied to 1/6th of 1% of its U.S. population from the 1920 census. Total annual immigration was capped at about 154,000, plus some exceptions.

2. Section 212(f) - Presidential Power: It says: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” It’s a sweeping authority, used by presidents like Carter (Iranians, 1979), Reagan (Cubans, 1986), Trump (travel ban, 2017), and Biden (asylum ban, 2024).

3. Deportation and Exclusion: It expanded grounds for keeping people out or deporting them—think criminal history, health issues, or “subversive” activities (a big deal in the Red Scare era). It listed 31 reasons for exclusion, up from prior laws.

4. Preference System: Within quotas, it prioritized family ties, skills, and refugees. This set a precedent for later family-based immigration policies.

5. Anti-Communist Bent: It targeted communists or anarchists for exclusion, reflecting the 1950s paranoia. You could be barred for past membership in a communist group, even if you’d left it.

Section 212(f) has been used by every president since Carter at least once.

Fun Fact

It almost didn’t pass—Truman’s veto was a close call, and McCarran famously defended it as a shield against “foreign ideologies.” Today, it’s less about communism and more about border security debates.

Overview of Illegal Immigration Across Biden’s Term

Let’s look at the illegal immigration numbers across Biden’s term—January 2021 to January 2025—focusing on the start, middle, and end, using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encounter data at the southwest border. These numbers track apprehensions and inadmisibles, reflecting illegal crossings or attempts, though they count events, not unique individuals (some try multiple times). Here’s the breakdown.

Start of Biden’s Term (January 2021 - Early 2021)

Biden took office on January 20, 2021. In January 2021, southwest border encounters were 78,414—relatively low, but this was pre-inauguration data, inherited from Trump’s final month. February 2021, Biden’s first full month, saw 101,099 encounters, a 29% jump. March spiked to 173,277, more than doubling January’s total. This early surge tied to Biden’s reversal of Trump policies—like ending Remain in Mexico and pausing wall construction—plus post-COVID travel resuming and push factors like Central American instability. Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 (October 2020 - September 2021) ended with 1.73 million encounters, but only eight months were under Biden, with about 1.5 million in his first eight months. The trend was upward from the get-go.

During Biden’s Term (Mid-2021 - Mid-2024)

The middle years were the peak. FY 2022 (October 2021 - September 2022) hit 2.38 million encounters, a 37% increase over FY 2021. FY 2023 (October 2022 - September 2023) reached 2.48 million, the highest annual total ever, with December 2023 alone at 249,741—driven by Title 42’s end in May 2023, which had allowed rapid expulsions (2.9 million total, 86% under Biden). Mid-term, Biden faced record flows from diverse countries—Venezuela, Haiti, even China—stretching capacity. By mid-2024, though, numbers started dropping. June 2024 saw 84,958 encounters after Biden’s asylum ban kicked in, restricting eligibility for illegal crossers. FY 2024 (October 2023 - September 2024) fell to 1.54 million, a 38% drop from FY 2023, showing a late-term shift.

End of Biden’s Term (Late 2024 - January 2025)

Biden’s final months saw a steep decline. October 2024 had 67,806 encounters, November 56,579, and December 47,330—the lowest since July 2020 (pre-Biden). This continued into January 2025 (Trump’s first month), with 61,465, though Biden’s policies were still in play early on. The drop tied to his June 2024 asylum restrictions (using Section 212(f) of the INA) and Mexico’s ramped-up enforcement. Total southwest encounters from February 2021 to December 2024 hit roughly 8.6 million, per Migration Policy Institute estimates. Net illegal population growth is harder to pin—many were expelled (3.7 million total repatriations), others paroled (over 1 million), and “gotaways” (estimated 2 million) slipped through.

The Arc

• Start: 78,414 (Jan 2021) to 173,277 (Mar 2021)—a quick ramp-up.

• Peak: 249,741 (Dec 2023)—unprecedented highs.

• End: 47,330 (Dec 2024)—a sharp fall, lowest in over four years.

Biden’s term began with a surge, peaked mid-way as policies and global factors collided, then tapered off with stricter measures. The data shows a wild ride from 1.5 million in eight months to 8.6 million over four years, with a late pivot to control it.

Illegal Immigration Under Trump

Since Donald Trump was sworn into office in 2025, data on illegal immigration—specifically southwest border encounters tracked by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—shows a dramatic decline compared to prior years. Here’s what we know based on available figures up to April 1, 2025.

Early 2025 Numbers

• January 2025: CBP recorded 61,465 southwest border encounters, a 66% drop from January 2024 (242,530) and a 34% decrease from December 2024 (124,734), Biden’s last full month. This suggests an immediate shift as Trump took office.

• February 2025: Encounters fell to 8,326—the lowest monthly total since at least FY 2000 (when annual data bottoms out at 71,000). That’s a 93% plunge from January 2025’s daily average and a stark contrast to February 2024’s 189,913.

Trends and Context

From January 20 to February 28, 2025—Trump’s first 40 days—encounters averaged around 1,041 per day (roughly 41,640 total), per White House claims, though CBP’s monthly data suggests a higher daily rate in January (around 2,000) before crashing in February (around 277). This aligns with a broader downward trend that began in mid-2024 under Biden, accelerated by Trump’s policies. By March 31, 2025, an estimated 92,773 apprehensions year-to-date, implying March added about 23,000—still low, averaging under 750 daily, but firm CBP numbers for March aren’t out yet.

Policy Impact

Trump’s administration moved fast. On January 22, 2025, he signed an executive order invoking Section 212(f) of the INA, suspending entry for undocumented migrants and ending Biden-era programs like CBP One and humanitarian parole. Other actions—reinstating Remain in Mexico, deploying troops, and using Guantanamo for detainees—kicked in by late January. DHS reported over 20,000 arrests in February alone, a 627% jump from Biden’s last month (if baseline is 2,700 arrests), though this mixes border and interior enforcement. Deportations hit 37,660 in the first month, lagging Biden’s FY 2024 monthly average (57,000), but experts say they’re poised to rise with new detention capacity.

Why the Drop?

The decline started before Trump—Biden’s June 2024 asylum ban cut encounters from 249,741 (December 2023) to 47,330 (December 2024)—but Trump’s hardline stance (troops, barriers, and deterrence rhetoric) turbocharged it. Mexico’s ongoing enforcement and seasonal dips (winter typically slows crossings) also play a role. Still, February’s 8,326 is unprecedented—compare it to Trump’s first term (16,182 in April 2020, pandemic-driven) or Biden’s early low (75,316 in January 2021).

Since Trump took over in 2025, illegal immigration at the southwest border has cratered—down to 8,326 in February from 189,913 a year prior, with a year-to-date pace suggesting under 100,000 by April’s end if trends hold. It’s a mix of inherited momentum and Trump’s aggressive pivot, though full-year data will clarify the scale. For now, it’s the sharpest drop in decades.

Conclusion

No laws have changed. No new laws were created. The only thing that has changed is the President of the United States. So, it is safe to say that yes, the influx of illegal immigration crossings under Biden was a choice.

“Sanctuary City No More” AI-Generated Image

A significant number of residents and Democratic lawmakers in sanctuary cities are increasingly unhappy with the policies that protect illegal immigrants from deportation.

The influx of migrants has led to increased strain on public resources, higher crime rates, and economic challenges for many communities. There are growing concerns about safety, quality of life, and the financial burden placed on local governments and taxpayers. Residents often express frustration with the lack of enforcement of immigration laws and the impact on their daily lives.

These issues have led to a rise in demands for changes in policy.

Some Democratic leaders in sanctuary cities are showing signs of reconsidering their sanctuary city policies or expressing uncertainty about their future status:

• Mayor Eric Adams openly acknowledged that New York City is a sanctuary city during a congressional hearing. However, his administration has been grappling with the challenges posed by the influx of migrants, which has led to discussions about modifying sanctuary policies. This reflects broader shifts in Democratic attitudes toward immigration policies amid rising apprehensions at the southern border.

• Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker recently expressed doubts about the future of her city's sanctuary policies, despite official statements affirming their current status. This lukewarm stance suggests potential changes may be forthcoming.

• In Chicago, some local Democrats, like Alderman Raymond Lopez, have criticized the sanctuary framework as unsustainable amid resident complaints about resource allocation, with posts on X in early 2024 highlighting discontent over migrants being housed in police stations and airports.

• Mayors from Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York defended their sanctuary city policies during a House Oversight Committee hearing. While they maintained their support for these laws, they faced intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers and appeared to struggle with providing clear answers on reconciling local policies with federal immigration enforcement demands.

Conversely, many sanctuary city leaders are doubling down even though public sentiment about their city status is changing.

• In Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu has emphasized that sanctuary policies make the city safer by fostering trust with immigrant communities, pointing to a record-low homicide rate in 2025 as evidence.

• During a March 2025 House Oversight Committee hearing, mayors from New York, Chicago, Denver, and Boston—all Democrats—pushed back against Republican criticism, arguing their cities comply with federal law while prioritizing local safety and resources.

• California Democrats, like Governor Gavin Newsom, have also maintained support for sanctuary laws, though their rhetoric has softened since 2017, balancing political pressures with a commitment to protecting immigrants, especially after Trump’s 2025 threats to cut federal funding.

While many Democratic mayors continue to defend sanctuary city policies, evolving political and logistical pressures—such as migrant influxes and federal funding threats—are leading some to reconsider or re-evaluate their positions.

The dissatisfaction isn’t universal but surfaces most where practical challenges—like housing, funding, or crime concerns—clash with the policy’s ideals. Still, no major Democratic-led sanctuary city has fully reversed its stance as of March 27, 2025.

Some Democrats in these cities have expressed frustration, particularly when faced with resource strains from migrant influxes, while others remain committed to the policies as a matter of principle or practical governance, but the shift is visible. Support for sanctuary cities is changing among Democrats.

Sources:

1. https://apnews.com/article/sanctuary-cities-congress-mayors-trump-immigration-80d73ae19a4798f8548010dd472a2b49

2. https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/democratic-cities-quietly-cooperating-ice-director-says-rcna162710

3. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/sanctuary-cities-democrats-migrants-crime-michelle-wu-boston-denver-chicago-d9a877e8

4. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/05/democrat-mayors-sanctuary-cities-attacks-00214804

5. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/05/congress/sanctuary-cities-hearing-gets-underway-00213105

6. https://www.voanews.com/a/us-mayors-defend-sanctuary-city-laws-protecting-migrants-in-congressional-hearing/7999114.html

7. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-sanctuary-city-policies-only-create-sanctuaries-for-criminals/