Washington now spends a staggering 3.3% of our GDP just to pay interest on our national debt. When the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield broke past 4.7% and the 30-year yield touched a multi-decade high of 5.3%, global investors were sending an unambiguous warning about our deficit spending and inability to extinguish inflation.

Subscribe now

But instead of offering a clear, principled contrast of fiscal discipline, the Treasury announced it would double its long-dated bond buybacks, scaling them from $2 billion to $4 billion per operation. While the administration claims this is merely to improve “market liquidity,” the financial community sees right through the spin. This is an attempt to artificially suppress long-term yields because Washington is terrified of what those yields portend for borrowing costs.

By buying back long-term debt and financing it with short-term bills, the Treasury is attempting to warp the yield curve without the Federal Reserve’s backing. This shifts long-term interest rate risk directly onto the taxpayers. Every fraction of a percentage point that the Treasury artificially suppresses gives politicians a green light to ignore fiscal discipline and entitlement reform.

Rather than proposing true fiscal reforms, the administration’s priority seems to be shielding markets from the rising cost of capital. Instead of letting the market determine the true price of money, they want to intervene to protect politically favored businesses.

Whether this economic populism comes from the progressive left or the populist right, it relies on the same flawed logic: that Washington can referee economic outcomes and use the power of the state to bail out corporate players.

When the market refused to play along—with yields quickly returning to their multi-decade highs—Treasury officials floated an even more reckless idea: tapping the nearly $1 trillion in the Treasury General Account (TGA). The TGA is the nation’s checking account, reserved for funding the actual operations of the United States government and serving as a backup during a systemic emergency. It is not a speculative slush fund to use as ammunition in a private bond-trading war.

The only path to protecting the credibility of the U.S. dollar and the Treasury market is to embrace the hard work of fiscal restraint, deregulation, and entitlement reform. It is long overdue.

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

Winning the AI race will have enormous consequences for our economy, military, intelligence capabilities, and national security for generations. China understands the stakes and is accelerating its investment. Yet American politicians in both parties are beginning to turn against the data centers that will help determine whether we can keep pace.

In the last 10 days, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Wisconsin Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany, and Ohio Republican gubernatorial nominee Vivek Ramaswamy have all succumbed to growing opposition to data center development. Abbott, who once welcomed billions in technology investment to Texas, has paused new projects seeking connections to the state’s electric grid. Shapiro, who celebrated Amazon’s $20 billion investment in Pennsylvania last year, recently removed data centers from the state’s expedited permitting process. Tiffany has called for eliminating Wisconsin’s tax incentives for the industry and Ramaswamy vowed to temporarily halt data center construction via executive order if he was elected Governor.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher: this is no time to go wobbly.

Artificial intelligence requires enormous computing capacity, and that capacity requires physical infrastructure. American technology companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to build it. The scale will only increase as AI becomes more deeply integrated into our economy and national defense.

The national security implications are significant. Artificial intelligence will increasingly shape intelligence analysis, cyber capabilities, autonomous weapons, logistics, advanced manufacturing, medicine, energy, and nearly every other strategically important industry. China understands this reality and is investing accordingly.

America should be doing the same.

Subscribe now

Instead, the technology sector is losing the debate. For years, companies raced to build facilities without adequately explaining their purpose or defending their economic benefits. The industry allowed opponents to define data centers before most Americans had any idea what happened inside one.

Rising electricity bills get blamed on data centers. Water concerns get blamed on data centers. The arrival of artificial intelligence makes them an easy symbol for broader anxieties about technology and economic change – even promoting conspiracies about physical harm of proximity to data centers. Much of this misinformation has even been fueled by Chinese owned TikTok.

The data centers have failed to share the benefits.

Consider Loudoun County, Virginia, home to the largest concentration of data centers in the country. Data centers occupy approximately 4% of the county’s commercial parcels while generating 38% of its general fund revenue. That revenue has helped Loudoun fund schools, roads, public safety, and other government services while reducing its real property tax rate to the lowest of any county in Northern Virginia.

Over the past decade, Loudoun’s real property tax rate has fallen nearly 30%, from $1.145 per $100 of assessed value to $0.805. One recent analysis estimated that without data center revenue, the residential tax rate would need to increase roughly 91% to maintain current services, costing a typical homeowner approximately $5,800 more each year.

America leads the world in artificial intelligence because of our entrepreneurs, capital markets, research universities, technology companies, and culture of innovation. Maintaining that advantage will require abundant energy, advanced semiconductors, computing power, and the physical infrastructure that connects them.

China is not waiting for America’s red tape and midterm elections to determine where they are investing next. The United States has spent years warning about the threat posed by China’s technological ambitions. Those warnings ring hollow when political leaders retreat as soon as building the infrastructure necessary to compete becomes politically inconvenient.

The AI race will require America to have the capital, technology, talent, and energy resources to win. What we cannot afford is a political class that bows to populist pressure to sacrifice a long-term strategic advantage.

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The cornerstone of this record is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025. At the end of 2025, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was set to expire, which meant a $4.3 trillion tax hike bearing down on American families and small businesses: A 20% tax increase on the men and women who make payroll every two weeks. Republicans made tax relief permanent, and every elected Democrat voted for massive tax increases.

Yet, despite this landmark achievement, Republicans are divided on the direction forward. The populist right embraces government intervention in the economy leaving voters without a clear contrast to the Bernie Bros or DSA candidates. Vice President JD Vance offered a glimpse of this tension in his recent interview with Joe Rogan. While rightly criticizing the rise of socialism, Vance also questioned the free-market consensus of recent decades, spoke favorably about strengthening organized labor, and argued for government action to rein in the power of corporations. Conservatives should be careful not to adopt the left’s premise that economic outcomes improve when Washington assumes greater authority over private enterprise. The answer to the failures of Democratic Socialism cannot be a Republican version of government-managed capitalism, or the cronyism we witness today.

A bipartisan delusion is creeping through Washington, the idea that the government should referee corporate profit margins or dictate outcomes in the private sector. When you hear calls to bully companies into slashing prices, the government taking ownership in private companies, or threats of DOJ “price gouging” investigations, that is Democratic Socialism with an R next to its name. If families are hurting at the pump, the answer is more energy supply and less regulation to lower prices, not threatening DOJ price gouging investigations. If interest rates are climbing, the answer is fiscal restraint and monetary tightening, not government mandates capping credit card fees thus reducing credit options for those who need it most.

While the post-liberal right erects strawmen to attack free markets, the Democrats have retreated into the fringe, and it’s worse than most pundits want to admit. Democrat Socialists are winning primaries, not just in Manhattan but also in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and some of them harbor serious antisemitism beliefs that party leadership refuses to confront.

A slim margin means nothing comes easy. But Republicans have an actual record of results, they should be defending and contrasting to DSA candidates rather than trying to bridge the ideological divide and embracing big government economics. Fifty years ago, President Ronald Reagan warned Republicans against offering voters “pale pastels” when they should be raising a banner of “bold colors.” That choice is before the party again today. Republicans should give voters a clear alternative, not a different version of the same government intervention.

Share

Subscribe now

Voters elected Donald Trump to help conquer record inflation inflicted by the Biden Administration. Trump 2.0 however, has proven ineffective at slowing runaway spending and lowering the cost of living. In fact, many of the economic policies currently pushed by this Administration look strikingly similar to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Subscribe now

Government taking large stakes in dozens of private sector companies, price controls, farm bailouts, tariffs, and accusations of price gouging all stem from the same mistaken belief that central planners can create prosperity better than free markets. Republicans should reject that temptation.

When we begin to moralize about how much profit is “too much” and demand price outcomes that ignore supply and demand, we blur the distinction between the two parties. If we allow the government to dictate prices for energy or credit today, there is nothing to stop a future administration from doing the same for tech, agriculture, or pharmaceuticals.

Despite these policy missteps and a President whose approval rating is currently hovering in the mid-30’s, Republicans have a massive opening because the Democratic Party is currently undergoing a radical transformation. The “battle” between moderates and progressives is over, and the radicals have won. We are no longer seeing progressives replaced by moderates; we are seeing progressives replaced by socialists even further to the left.

The Democratic Socialist (DSA) bench is growing with candidates who hold views far outside the American mainstream. In New York, Darializa Avila Chevalier upset a five-term incumbent after calling for the “seizing of private property” and “nationalizing major industries”. In Pennsylvania, nominee Chris Rabb has proposed government-run “national grocery stores” to replace private retail. We see Claire Valdez in New York calling to nationalize the airline industry and Melat Kiros in Colorado, a DSA-endorsed candidate who defeated a 15-term incumbent, pledging to “abolish ICE”.

While some in our own party are seduced by the power to interfere in markets, the Democratic base is nominating candidates who treat support for our allies like Israel as a liability and view capitalism itself as an “irredeemable” system.

Republicans should not assume that history or the Democratic Party’s leftward shift alone will carry them to victory. The opportunity belongs to the party that offers a clear alternative rooted in limited government, strong national security, and economic growth. As Democrats continue nominating candidates who embrace socialism, Republicans still have a chance to defy the historical odds.

Share

In a functioning economy, prices should be set by supply and demand, not by the populist politicians.

Subscribe now

Admittedly, the profits are substantial and Americans are frustrated by pain at the pump. Chevron posted $12 billion in quarterly profits, a 400% increase, while Exxon reported $14.5 billion. When the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway responsible for one-fifth of the world’s oil, was effectively closed and the supply was disrupted, the market responded with higher prices. If demand stays constant and supply is diminished, prices naturally rise. At one point, Brent crude hit $119 a barrel.

When the government begins to moralize “how much” profit is “too much,” and demands price outcomes not sensitive to supply and demand, it blurs the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. Gas prices currently average $4.08, a 37% jump since the war began. That is a heavy burden for American families, but the solution is more energy supply, not bullying CEOs in the Oval Office into abandoning their fiduciary duties. Otherwise, energy companies will stop taking the risk of investing capital to produce more supply. If the global economy continues to grow without more supply, price increases will accelerate.

If we allow the government to dictate price levels for the energy sector today, what is to stop future administrations from doing the same for the tech sector, the agricultural sector, or the pharmaceutical industry tomorrow? If Republican administrations force energy companies to lower prices and threaten DOJ investigations into price gouging rather than allowing more competition to create greater supply, how can we criticize Democratic Socialists for wanting to dictate grocery prices in New York City?

Subscribe now

Share

Many now want to rewrite their roles, but the record is straightforward.

Subscribe now

The first Trump administration never advocated for federal shutdowns. That ruinous legacy belongs to Joe Biden and the “restrainers” who followed him. But while we fought to keep the country open, some of the loudest voices in the conservative movement today were the ones demanding we lose our nerve.

In March 2020, Steve Bannon was using his “War Room” to project uncertainty and praise the heavy-handedness of the left. On March 16, 2020, Bannon proclaimed that Governor Andrew Cuomo had done “an extraordinary job” and was “really ahead on leadership,” while criticizing the White House for failing to “be bold”. By April, Bannon was actively defending social separation, telling his listeners, “We don’t think they’re draconian when you look at what the alternatives are”.

He wasn’t alone. Tucker Carlson, who now brands himself a champion of liberty, was the primary catalyst for the early panic that gripped the West Wing. Carlson felt a “moral obligation” to drive to Mar-a-Lago and personally warn the President that the situation was dire. He took to the airwaves on March 9 to tell Americans: “People you know will get sick, some may die. This is real”. He explicitly attacked those who compared the virus to the flu, insisting it was a “very serious problem” and a “major event” that would inevitably disrupt every life in the country.

The surrender wasn’t confined to the podcasters; it also reached some of the leading voices of the “new” populist movement. J.D. Vance, who now styles himself as a fighter against the administrative state, was among the first to argue that extraordinary government intervention was necessary. In the early weeks of March 2020, Vance took to social media to tell Americans that “the only way to avoid a complete meltdown of our healthcare system is to drastically reduce social contact for a period of weeks.” He later questioned whether “the most important question in our public life is whether we should be allowed to eat at restaurants that many would avoid anyways” and argued that “while we debate lockdowns, we spend precious time and political capital focused on something limited in both damage and duration.” Rather than defending the economic liberty of his own constituents, he spent the most critical window of the pandemic validating the heavy-handedness of the very bureaucrats he now claims to oppose.

Under President Joe Biden, Dr. Fauci was given greater authority to make not only healthcare recommendations but also policy decisions that should belong to the state and local leaders. He has become a political target for many elected republicans, but it’s important to remember that some of the most vocal proponents of draconian lockdowns, mask mandates, and even school closings were on the right.

Share

President Trump stated earlier last week, “But look, they do things. And we do things to them. I’ll be honest. We do things to them, too.” In terms of election interference, it’s difficult to image how the U.S. interferes in CCP elections when they don’t have elections!

Subscribe now

The first Trump administration broke the Washington consensus on China forever. For decades, China was treated with kid gloves, as if welcoming them into the global community would liberalize the Chinese Communist Party or enough trade would free the Chinese people from the totalitarian regime.

Today, an ever-widening gulf exists between the theory of the Trump Administration’s China policy and its practice.

Trump 1.0 launched the first effort to ban TikTok. It represented a serious attempt at curtailing China’s digital espionage. Fast forward to today: Trump 2.0 inherited a law to force TikTok divesture but has chosen to side-step the law and to date refuses to enforce it.

Trump 1.0 levied strategic tariffs to bring China to the negotiating table. Trump 2.0 levies heavier tariffs on our friends than our foe -- China -- all while American farmers pay the price and lose access to the world’s markets. China seems to be doing just fine trading with our former partners who retaliate against our tariffs while American farmers begrudgingly look to Washington for a bailout.

Trump 1.0 rightly focused on China’s role in unleashing COVID-19 on the world. Trump 2 has been silent while authorizing American companies to sell advanced chips to China so long as Uncle Sam gets a cut. It’s not a stretch to suggest that some of these chips will support gain-of-function research in China.

Subscribe now

Ultimately, the second Trump Administration’s record on China pales in comparison to the first.

The reality is that China has a vested interest in weakening the U.S., but we aren’t taking it seriously.

A weakened U.S. will watch on as the People’s Liberation Army sweeps Taiwan under its cloak of authoritarianism and tyranny. An American people, propagandized by TikTok that America is no longer good, will be ripe for persuasion as China looks to muscle its way into becoming the world’s sole superpower in the 21st century.

Whether by supporting the election of soft-on-China candidates or simply stirring civil unrest through social media, Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party clearly take the United States more seriously than the Trump Administration takes China.

It does not have to be this way. The blueprint already exists.

President Trump literally did it in his first administration.

Enforce the TikTok law.

Aim the tariffs at the adversary. Blanket tariffs on Japan, South Korea, and Europe drive our friends toward Beijing and shutter the very markets American farmers need.

Stop letting China buy up American land. Proposals to bar the Chinese Communist Party from buying our farmland and property near military bases enjoy overwhelming public support and in Congress.

Reduce Chinese student visas. Inviting 600,000 Chinese students to study and conduct research at American universities is a national security risk and an espionage nightmare.

President Ronald Reagan never would have licensed advanced technology to the Soviet Union in exchange for a commission. Advanced chips are the lifeblood of the 21st century, and every chip shipped to China feeds the People’s Liberation Army and the CCP’s surveillance state.

President Trump should return to standing with Taiwan without flinching but the administration’s rhetoric – particularly from so-called “restrainers” or “realists” seems to beckon Xi on. As does rejecting requests from Taiwan’s president to land in New York City on his way to Latin America.

None of this is new. It requires only a return to the clarity and conviction of Trump 1.0 Trump 1.0 proved America could stand up to China. Trump 2.0 is letting Beijing’s provocations pass unchecked.

China takes America seriously -- deadly seriously. The only question left is when this 2^nd Trump Administration will wake up.

Share

Support for Israel inside the Democratic Party is increasingly a political liability rather than a moral imperative. Mamdani’s rhetoric is the heartbeat of a growing antisemitic fervor that has taken over. Who in the Democratic party speaks for the innocent women raped and 1,200 Israelis killed on October 7?

Subscribe now

The radicals are no longer knocking on the doors, they are knocking down the doors winning primaries and systematically purging anyone—even reliable progressives—who dares to stand with the Jewish state. When these leaders choose accommodation over moral clarity, their silence effectively becomes a weapon for those who treat our democratic partners like international criminals. This is the New Democratic Party.

The Politics of Extremism

No doubt the online right also presents a growing challenge to our alliance with the only democratically elected government in the Middle East. Fringe voices peddling conspiracies and open Jew-hatred have found a foothold in corners of conservative media and online spaces that once would have shunned them outright. That rot has no place in Republican politics. Far more consequential is what’s happening on the left though, where progressive records no longer satisfy this base. In New York, we’ve already seen progressive voices like Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman defeated because they refuse to abandon the Jewish state. A once marginal position has now turned into a litmus test for the Democrats.

A Nightmare for Democratic Leadership

The Democratic leadership spent decades priding themselves on defending minority communities, yet they now find themselves paralyzed—unable or unwilling—to confront the “pro-genocide” slurs directed at Jewish students by members of their own party. Their silence has consequences. It allows these extreme voices to define the boundaries of acceptable debate.

By treating support for Israel as a political liability rather than a moral imperative, the Democratic Party is creating a massive wedge between its traditional supporters and its new activist base. Jewish Americans and moderate voters are increasingly forced to ask: Is there still room for them in this party?

Subscribe now

Share

Republicans have been right to highlight the political bias that has increasingly characterized much of the legacy media and, in many cases, influenced the broader administrative state. But correcting that imbalance should not mean expanding the FCC’s authority or transforming it into a conservative enforcement mechanism. The moment we normalize that precedent, we strengthen the very tool future progressive administrations will use against us.

Yet that is what we are now at risk of doing. We are watching a supposed conservative administration transform the FCC into a tool for political retribution. This isn’t just a policy shift; it’s anathema to the very principles that define us. If we are serious about the mission of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the FCC—an agency designed for an era of three television networks and rotary phones—shouldn’t just be reformed. It should be at the top of the list for abolition.

Subscribe now

This weaponization is already yielding results that should chill any conservative. We’ve seen Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, agree to a “bias monitor” as part of a merger deal—a move that essentially places an ombudsman reporting to the corporate suite under the watchful eye of federal regulators. We’ve seen media companies like ABC and Paramount pay out millions in settlements to the President’s personal attorneys. While some cheer these as “wins” against the “liberal media,” they are, in reality, sops to power intended to avoid the ire of a regulatory agency that has lost its way.

Furthermore, the FCC is now looking to expand its reach beyond the electromagnetic spectrum. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has proposed “interpreting” Section 230 of the Communications Act to allow the government to discourage speech it dislikes on social media. This is an attempt to turn a legacy broadcast regulator into a national czar of digital discourse—the exact opposite of the limited-government approach conservatives have championed for generations.

The warning from Fox News correspondent Alicia Acuna is one every Republican needs to hear: “A tool that can be used by this administration can very well be used by the next”. If we establish the precedent that the FCC can be used to punish NBC News or The View today, we have no right to complain when a future progressive administration uses that same power to intimidate or shutter Fox News or Newsmax tomorrow.

Today, many Republicans are sacrificing our principles for the fleeting satisfaction of political expediency. The FCC is an outdated, bloated relic that is being fashioned into a weapon for the culture wars. As conservatives, our goal should be to limit the size of government, not to see how effectively we can wield its most coercive tools. It is time to stop playing with the administrative state and start dismantling it. The FCC has lived past its expiration date; it’s time to let it go.

Share

Subscribe now

The latest round of Democratic primaries tells a different story. Incumbent Democrats that are being targeted are not moderates, in fact, many have long records supporting progressive policies on taxes, spending, climate, labor, and social issues. Their voting records place them further left than the mainstream.

Dan Goldman became nationally known for leading the legal effort behind President Trump’s first impeachment. Throughout his time in Congress, Goldman has consistently supported the Democratic Party’s progressive agenda. By any reasonable measure, he is not a moderate. Nor is Goldman alone. In neighboring New York’s 13th Congressional District, Democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the sitting chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in the June 2026 Democratic primary. Like Goldman, Espaillat was no moderate. He had long been a reliable progressive voice within the Democratic Party leading an important constituency. Yet even that was no longer enough, reinforcing the point that today’s Democratic primaries are increasingly replacing progressives with candidates who are even further to the left.

Goldman and Espaillat were defeated in primaries not because they had suddenly abandoned progressive orthodoxy, but because this debate is no longer simply about ideology. It is increasingly about Israel, the place of Jewish Americans within the Democratic coalition, and a political climate that has become increasingly hostile toward both. New York’s mayor, has helped recruit candidates like Darializa Avila Chevalier and others, who masquerade as merely garden-variety socialists, when, in reality they harbor anti-semite sentiments.

Subscribe now

For a growing segment of the Democratic coalition, support for Israel has become a political liability. Lawmakers who defend Israel’s right to exist, unequivocally condemn Hamas, or resist efforts to isolate the Jewish state increasingly find themselves at odds with the party’s activist base. Perhaps we should have paid more attention when former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman defected to become independent.

When elected officials are challenged not because they have abandoned progressive orthodoxy, but because they refuse to abandon Israel, it suggests the party’s internal divide runs much deeper than the conventional moderate-versus-progressive narrative. It raises a more fundamental question about whether there remains room in today’s Democratic Party for leaders willing to stand with the Jewish state.

The Democratic Party has long prided itself on defending minority communities against prejudice and intolerance, yet that commitment does not extend equally to Jewish Americans. Too many party leaders have hesitated to confront rhetoric. Ilhan Omar, a Congresswoman from Minnesota, referred to Jewish students she disagrees with as “Pro-Genocide” at a rally on Columbia University’s campus in 2024. Comments like that would be unacceptable if directed toward almost any other religious or ethnic community. Silence has consequences, particularly when it allows increasingly extreme voices to define the boundaries of acceptable political debate.

The media can continue describing these primaries as a fight between moderates and progressives, but that explanation ignores the larger point. The Democratic Party is not simply moving left; it is rewarding candidates who increasingly treat any support for Israel—and, at times, the concerns of the Jewish community itself—as political liabilities rather than moral imperatives. The real story is not that moderate Democrats are disappearing. It is that many progressive Democrats are being replaced by socialist candidates who embrace rhetoric hostile to Jewish Americans.

Share

Subscribe now

Share

I attended countless rallies on the campaign trail in 2016, and few lines generated wilder applause than promises to “drain the swamp.”

Subscribe now

The latest financial disclosures raise uncomfortable questions—not because the President has been successful in business, but because members of the First Family continue to benefit from ventures whose value is inseparable from the prestige, access, and influence of the presidency. Whether through cryptocurrency startups financed by Middle Eastern nations who have harbored terrorists, licensing arrangements, or other commercial enterprises, the issue is not private wealth. It is the reality that taxpayer-funded public office has become part of the business model and his voters who thought he would drain the swamp are suckers.

Republicans rightly spent years criticizing the Biden family over the unseemly international deals that benefited the family. Public service to the American people is a noble calling, but voters are tired of new commercial opportunities exclusively for those closest to power.

That principle should not change depending on which party occupies the White House.

President Trump and his family built successful businesses before entering public life. But taxpayers should never be left wondering whether the presidency itself has become an asset for generating private returns.

At a time when millions of Americans remain concerned about inflation, housing costs, and the affordability of everyday life, elected Republicans will be in an impossible position defending this graft. Every day spent explaining financial ventures connected to the First Family is a day not spent talking about lowering prices, strengthening the economy, securing the border, or rebuilding American manufacturing.

The American people voted to drain the swamp, not for President Trump to bathe in it.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Planned Parenthood supporters claim that the world’s largest abortion provider doesn’t use taxpayer dollars for abortion. Rather they use the money for non-abortion services such as contraception, cancer screenings and STD testing. But the cold reality is that when Planned Parenthood performs more than 350,000 abortions every year, abortion is central to its identity. Even if taxpayer dollars are formally restricted to non-abortion services, circa the Hyde Amendment, they nonetheless support the broader mission - abortion. A dollar that keeps the lights on for contraception distribution also keeps the lights on for abortion. Money, after all, is fungible.

It is no coincidence that when States pass pro-life laws, Planned Parenthood clinics shut down and vacate rather than providing non-abortion services.

On this 250th birthday of the world’s greatest experiment in representative democracy, Republicans preside over both chambers of the legislative branch, the White House , and have nominated a majority of the Supreme Court. Yet they failed to act, prior to July 4th. A year after triumphantly defunding Planned Parenthood through reconciliation, neither the Republican controlled House nor Republican controlled Senate has made any measurable progress toward extending the ban.

On their watch, the pro-life movement has witnessed this Trump administration nominate and confirm the most pro-abortion HHS secretary in American history while the Department of Justice sides in court with pro-abortion states like California and New York, who want to flood pro-life states with illegal mail-order chemical abortions.

They’ve watched as some of the strongest pro-life voices have evolved on the issue and now believe that abortion is simply the states’ problem to deal with or even worse -- support access to chemical abortions.

All while pro-life voters are told that life is an electoral millstone and to be quiet or they will cost the Republican Party seats in November.

It’s no wonder many pro-life advocates no longer feel they have a home in the GOP. In November, Republicans may wish they hadn’t turned their backs on a powerful coalition committed to protecting the most vulnerable among us.

Subscribe now

President Nixon was the architect of some of the most significant federal interventions in modern history. He assembled a team of economic advisers who rejected Milton Friedman, and his administration ultimately embraced wage, energy, and rent price controls across large sectors of the economy. What the current Vice President intended as an offhand remark elicits a deeper comparison between the Nixon administration and Trump’s second administrations.

Some of both administrations have been good. However, the economic personnel for “Trump 2.0” should give every principled conservative pause. We see a coalition that includes lifelong Democrats Peter Navarro and Howard Lutnick. When a movement begins to look toward those who have spent their careers advocating for federal management of the economy and society, we have to ask what is left of the structural reforms that would actually lower costs and make life better for the American people.

Many in the Republican Party, along with those voices that represent conservative audiences, have increasingly fallen in line behind policies that expand government power. Just as the Nixon administration benefited from a political realignment as they were abandoning free markets and targeting their political opponents.

Bringing RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard into the fold might be touted as “expanding the tent,” but the entrusting such radical left figures with our nation’s wealth and intelligence apparatus is symptomatic of a Washington culture that values headlines over principles. Just as Nixon sought to build a “New Majority” by co-opting the Left’s preference for state power, this new coalition risks distorting the conservative movement into a vehicle for big-government interventionism and front page news.

The actual policy proposals are even more concerning. We are seeing a resurgence of price controls and direct federal interference in private markets. We see proposals to nationalize private-sector companies, cap credit card interest rates, and even embrace Senator Elizabeth Warren’s housing bills. Whether it’s through aggressive trade mandates or attempts to dictate market outcomes, these actions are a direct federal intervention that should be chilling to anyone who believes in a free economy. Like the Nixon-era price controls of 1971, these are “solutions” to problems the government helped create through reckless spending and devaluing our currency. But most importantly - they won’t work.

The rhetoric surrounding a Trump approved version of lawfare to go after political opponents and the creation of new government agencies to “manage” the economy is more of the same: more control and more big-government oversight. For both the socialist Left and the populist Right, the state is increasingly viewed as a utility to be managed by whomever is in power. At their worst, big-government statists from both parties wield the government as a lever to reward one’s friends and punish one’s enemies, abandoning the limited government approach of using the rule of law to protect free markets, where the American people -- not government -- reach their own agreements.

The American people don’t need more federal handouts, new bureaucracies, or an executive branch that views the DOJ as a personal tool. That’s not why voters elected President Trump over Kamala Harris. These are not conservative solutions; they are a retreat from the basics of economic freedom and constitutional restraint that the American people hold dear.

The American Dream is made possible by liberty and the greatness of the American people, not by Washington. We need a reminder that a bipartisan embrace of state power doesn’t make it right. It makes it a warning. Conservatives must return to the hard work of defending the principles that actually make our nation prosperous, rather than settling for a 21st-century version of the Nixon state.

If conservative offer a compelling alternative, rather than an echo to the radical Socialists that have seized the Democratic Party, perhaps another limited-government champion of freedom will find a following among American voters, just as the Goldwater-Reagan coalition once did.

But behind the marketing is a familiar reality: more federal intervention, more taxpayer-funded subsidies, and a larger role for Washington in a housing market that desperately needs less government, not more. When Americans are nostalgic for fiscal restraint and economic freedom, Congress is once again choosing the path of government expansion while avoiding the structural reforms that would actually increase housing supply and lower costs.

Conservatives believe that markets are the best way to lower costs. The solution to a housing shortage is to remove the barriers, not to have the federal government decide who can buy a house. Yet, this legislative package—which is being touted as the “largest legislative housing package in decades”—does exactly that.

The bill is a massive consolidation of several pieces of housing legislation. While Senator Tim Scott, the Chairman of the Banking Committee, claims this bill is about “expanding housing supply” and “cutting regulatory red tape,” the endorsement of Senator Elizabeth Warren as a primary co-sponsor should give every conservative pause. In typical legislative sausage-making, the bill bandages together enough legislation to buy enough votes for passage – besides, what politicians would vote against their own bill?

When Sen. Warren describes a bill as a “good first step to rein in corporate landlords,” we know exactly what the endgame is. The centerpiece of this legislation includes a provision that would “ban large institutional investors from buying up single-family homes.”

This is a direct federal intervention into the private property market that should be chilling to anyone who believes in the right to buy and sell property freely.

It also won’t have much of an impact. Of the 3.9 million homes sold in 2025, just 39,000 were sold to institutional investors.

The federal government is now attempting to dictate who is and isn’t “allowed” to participate in the housing market. By banning specific types of buyers, the government is not just “reining in landlords”; it is fundamentally distorting the market and eroding the property rights of every homeowner who might want to sell their house. If the government can tell a corporation, it can’t buy a house today, what stops them from telling a small business or an individual investor they can’t buy one tomorrow?

While claiming “no new spending,” federal mandates and market controls carry massive hidden costs. When you restrict the pool of buyers, you interfere with price signals. When you introduce new regulations to “rein in” landlords, you create a new layer of bureaucracy that will inevitably lead to more “big government” oversight.

Sen. Warren is already looking toward “further legislation to combat our nation’s housing crisis”. For the Left, this bill continues swinging open the door to more federal management of the economy. They see housing as a utility to be managed by the state rather than in a market where buyers and sellers reach their own agreements.

We don’t need more federal handouts or market-clearing bans. We need to return to the basics of supply and demand. If the government wants to help the “single mom” Senator Scott talks about, it should stop devaluing her currency with reckless spending and stop making it harder for the private sector to build and invest.

This bill might pass with “overwhelming bipartisan support,” but that doesn’t make it right. It makes it a symptom of a Washington culture that would rather regulate its way to a headline than do the hard work of defending free-market principles. This is more of the same: more control, more subsidies, and another step away from the liberty that actually makes the American Dream possible.

This trip was a prime opportunity to speak directly to the farmers who form the backbone of our economy. These are the people currently being crushed by two major pressures:

• Rising Input Costs: There is an urgent need to discuss lowering fertilizer costs to keep our agricultural sector viable.

• Trade Barriers: Many in Middle America have been hurt by the current trade agenda and a global trade war that has made it difficult, if not impossible, to export their products as they once did.

The statistics are grim: 15,000 farms closed in 2025 alone, and bankruptcies have surged by 70% in some areas. With fertilizer prices up 47% and fuel costs rising due to the unresolved conflict with Iran, our producers are caught between a trade war and a burning kinetic conflict. We must be honest with them that while the President’s actions against a nefarious regime are necessary, the transition period will be difficult, and energy prices will not necessarily come down immediately.

These voters aren’t looking for more grievances; they are looking for a proactive economic agenda that addresses their pain and restores their ability to compete on a global stage.

Yet, instead of focusing on these critical economic hurdles, the media—and specifically the recent dialogue on Meet the Press—inevitably turns the page back to revisiting the 2020 election. While some may still be focused on the grievances of the past, that conversation does absolutely nothing for the family in Wisconsin trying to make ends meet in 2026. It is a staggering level of hypocrisy when the media focuses on the rearview mirror while ignoring that Democrats are currently nominating “crazy people,” from a candidate with a Nazi tattoo in Maine to a “terrorist sympathizer” in New Jersey’s 12th District. This provides a “stark contrast” for voters, but we lose that advantage when we let the media define the narrative based on personal grievances rather than the radicalism of our opposition.

If we are going to navigate what is already a daunting election cycle for Republicans, we must stop looking in the rearview mirror. We need to be the party that offers solutions for the Heartland—focusing on winning the war against inflation and providing a clear path for our farmers—rather than allowing the media to keep us anchored in the debates of six years ago. Ultimately, we need to rediscover the “conservative conscience” and move away from big government policies—like nationalizing private sector companies—that mirror the radicalism of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. If we provide a clear, principled alternative focused on the future, we can win this “daunting cycle” and truly deliver for the American people.

A Missed Opportunity

The recent reconciliation package was, quite frankly, a fumble on our side. This bill contained over $70 billion for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, which should have been a massive political victory for us. At a time when the American people are rightfully concerned about national security and the rule of law, we had the perfect opportunity to highlight how poorly the opposition has managed our southern border.

Instead, we lost the plot. By allowing the inclusion of “ballroom funding” and the nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund”—or what some are calling a slush fund—we handed the media and the Democrats a different narrative. Rather than the headlines being about a historic investment in border security, the conversation shifted entirely to these internal grievances and controversial payouts. This was a political gift that we effectively handed back to the opposition. By focusing on these fringe items, we allowed the media to focus on “ballrooms” and “slush funds” rather than the fact that we were finally putting real resources toward securing the nation. We have effectively alienated a coalition of senators and forced our own members to distance themselves from the administration at the very moment they should be leaning into our policy triumphs.

Miserable Messaging

The messaging has been miserable, and it’s a self-inflicted wound. When we include an “anti-weaponization fund” for $1.776 billion—a clear homage to our nation’s founders that, frankly, doesn’t sit well when compared to those who assaulted police—we aren’t helping our candidates in tough districts. We are distracting from the very issues, like securing the border and beating back inflation, that voters actually care about. This “slush fund” has become the sole focus of the conversation, drowning out our ability to contrast our record with a Democratic party that is currently nominating “crazy people,” including “terrorist sympathizers” and individuals with criminal ties. We are essentially sabotaging our own candidates by making the election about the administration’s grievances rather than the radicalism of the opposition.

Back to Basics

If we want to maintain the trust of the American people, we need to stop the mixed messaging. We need to make a clear, proactive case for why our policies will make the country safer. The goal of any legislative package should be to provide a clear path forward, not to provide a “good messaging vehicle” that ultimately fails to pass because we’ve alienated our own coalition.

We need to return to the “conservative conscience” and focus on the future of the movement. That means being honest with the American people about the costs of transformation, whether we are talking about reforming the intelligence community or stabilizing the Middle East. Voters in middle America, like the farmers supporting American heroes like Derek Van Orden, need to hear a proactive economic agenda that addresses the cost of fertilizer and the harm caused by global trade wars. They need solutions, not more “big government” policies that nationalize private sector companies and mirror the ideas of Bernie Sanders.

The Republican Party has the advantage on the issues that matter most—the economy, crime, and the border. But to win, we must stay focused on those priorities. We cannot afford to let side issues and personal grievances distract us from the fundamental task of securing our nation and delivering for the American people.

The Maine Primary: A Stark Contrast

The situation unfolding in the Maine Senate Primary is a perfect example of this double standard. While the Left frequently attempts to claim the moral high ground, they are currently in the process of nominating a candidate, Graham Platner, who has a Nazi tattoo. It is truly remarkable that a party that builds its entire platform on “inclusivity” and “equity” would put forward an individual with such a disturbing symbol. Platnet represents what happens when a party focuses on grievances over genuine vetting, and it provides a “stark contrast” for voters who are tired of being lectured by a party that refuses to clean its own house. The “best thing we have going” in this cycle is that the opposition is effectively choosing to self-destruct by elevating these types of individuals

Furthermore, the allegations surrounding this candidate go far beyond a tattoo; there are serious reports regarding involvement in child sex trafficking. This isn’t just a “controversial” pick; it is a candidate that represents a complete collapse of vetting and a total disregard for the standards of public office. When the Democratic establishment asks the American people to trust them with the future of the Republic, they must be forced to answer for how an individual tied to such heinous criminal allegations could ever be their standard-bearer. We cannot allow the media to look the other way while they focus on our internal policy debates regarding the “conservative conscience”

A Pattern of “Crazy” Nominees

This isn’t an isolated incident in Maine. We are seeing a pattern across the country where the Democrats are nominating a lot of crazy people. From New Jersey, where we see candidates being tied to terrorist sympathizers, to the open-border radicals in other districts, the Democratic ticket is becoming increasingly defined by its extremes. In New Jersey’s 12th District specifically, the nomination of a “terrorist sympathizer” should be a disqualifying moment in any sane political environment. Beyond just the fringe social issues, their candidates support big tax increases and policies that seek to nationalize private sector companies—ideologies that have been championed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for years. This is no longer the party of the moderate; it is a party moving toward a radicalism that the Heartland does not recognize

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The same people who scream about the “future of the Republic” are the ones asking voters to support candidates with Nazi imagery and criminal ties. This provides a stark contrast for our party. While we may have our own internal disagreements, the Republican Party remains focused on the issues that actually impact American families:

• The Economy: Addressing the crushing cost of living.

• Crime: Restoring safety to our streets.

• Border Security: Funding CBP and ICE to secure our nation.

The Path Forward

This is a daunting cycle for Republicans, and we cannot afford to lose the plot. The “best thing we have going” is the caliber of individuals the Democrats are choosing to put on the ballot. If we stay focused on a proactive economic agenda and highlight the radical, often criminal, nature of the opposition’s choices, we can overcome the current political friction.

Voters in the Heartland and across the country are looking for stability and common sense. They don’t want a party that lectures them while nominating individuals who belong nowhere near the halls of power. The American people are incredibly patient, but they deserve an honest explanation of what the cost of transformation will be and a clear path to get there. It’s time to call out this hypocrisy for what it is and offer a clear, principled alternative for the American people.