Ego has been the weather of Donald Trump’s character, but in his second term egomania is emerging as doctrine. Mr Trump not only wants praise, but seems to believe that praise is owed to him by history itself. His social media account, his vain self-described “truths,” circulate AI-generated images that depict him overlooking the globe, as Green Lantern using the power ring to build a wall, and of himself lounging in the Lincoln Memorial, or as a King in a cape. The performing-arts centre that Congress named in honour of a murdered president is now the centre of a litigious battle so that Mr Trump may bolt his name upon it.

A triumphal arch is planned for the capital. The East Wing of the White House was knocked aside to erect the ballroom, a vanity project Mr Trump has proved fixated on for a year. It is all growing quite tiresome.

Indeed Trump’s vanity is hardly a surprise after his forty years in the public eye and ten in the presidential, however the people and institutions around him have only grown more complicit. The first term had aides who were, in their best moments, able to convince the president to find virtue in temperance and restraint; think Hope Hicks.

This term runs on believers instead. The president’s inner circle includes his executive assistant, Natalie Harp, aptly described as “the human printer,” whose tasks include maximising his Truth Social output, and providing proximity rather than judgment. Cronyism and sycophants aren’t inherently scandalous in and of themselves, but they tend to be a symptom of the loyalty-for-office bargain that Mr Trump prioritizes. Consequently, the Republic is in the hands of a White House that produces decisions nobody in the room was willing or capable of questioning.

In his first term, Mr Trump’s antics were at best, and rarely, amusing, at worst, and frequently, embarrassing. However it is dangerous, particularly in this time of war. The world he’s created is not yielding to his whims; gas prices are over four dollars a gallon and climbing. The war he’s “won” repeatedly and claimed to end in weeks grinds towards its seventh month, his approval rating hovers in the twenties. A man who built his entire political identity around “winning so much you will get tired of winning” does not respond to this type of resistance by pulling back. Mr Trump has reached instead for whatever has worked for him; spectacle and retribution. A president who loses altitude is, by long experience, a dangerous kind. That is where we are.

In Dallas, in a desperate attempt to shore up enthusiasm for the midterms, Mr Trump opted to host a first-of-its-kind midterm convention to convince voters, more than once, to imagine he was on the ballot. But voters aren’t imagining, nor are they pretending otherwise.

Mr Trump is, by virtue of his talent and temperament, a master of pretending. He has spent a career persuading rooms to see him as what he wanted them to see. However, after ten years, it seems the real world and the American people have started setting limits on this gift. In Dallas, he pleaded that he was on the ballot, and offered a five-thousand-dollar “dividend” to all adults, so long as the Republicans held both chambers of Congress. One would question how this promise would be fulfilled. What is the funding mechanism? Where is the legal basis? The most endangered Republicans in the country, a label that describes more and more in Washington with each passing day, but specifically those in Alaska, Michigan, and Maine, opted to stay away from Dallas.

The Republican defensive wall, having been originally staked in reliably red Texas, now finds itself extending to Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Carolina. Texas is the clearest specimen of the detriment of Trump’s loyalty cult to the Republican Party at large. Ken Paxton, twice impeached by his own party, is the president’s chosen nominee for the Senate seat vacated by John Cornyn. Cornyn, a conservative who has won every one of his Senate elections since 2002 by double digits, was primaried purely on the basis of Mr Paxton’s perceived superior loyalty to Mr Trump. As a result an election that would’ve been an afterthought and called for the Republicans at the polls’ close has turned into the nation’s most watched Senate contest, with Democratic state representative James Talarico running even with Mr Paxton in recent polling.

The question put to the electorate is whether Congress will act as a check on this presidency or will rubber-stamp it. Voters, for all of their faults, are not blind and will not accept Mr Trump’s assertions that “prices are fine,” the war in Iran is won, and that corruption is “FAKE NEWS!” Indeed this president, facing irrelevance, a failure of a legacy, will grow more desperate to find whatever feeds the appetite that elected him twice. Mr Trump’s authoritarianism is the method of a man who feels the walls closing in.

It is no coincidence that Mr Trump’s attacks on the media have reached an unprecedented level, barring CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, because he judged their coverage to be false. Other networks, to their credit, refused to fill the resulting gap in pool coverage, rather than choosing to profit off a rival’s exclusion. A welcome and honourable holdout in these times, overshadowed by Mr Trump’s subsequent decision to stand up a taxpayer funded YouTube channel, colloquially called Trump TV, looping old inauguration footage to an audience that was, contrary to his insistence, in the low thousands. The new White House helipad was drowned out by the rotors. The incompetence of the Trump administration amuses, until one remembers the intentions and ambitions underneath it. Call this the most authoritarian presidency since Wilson’s. Both presidents punished the press for their coverage, both folded the machinery of the state into the imperial presidency, and both went to war without the Congress the Constitution requires to declare it.

In this term, Mr Trump has grown more grandiose, more certain of his own invincibility and indispensability, and has treated the presidency with carelessness and the country as a vessel to serve and ratify his greatness, not to check him. In 1974, Gerald Ford, ascending to the Presidency, proclaimed that “our long national nightmare is over” and whilst America, and the rest of the world, find itself under siege until 20 January 2029. A Congress willing to function as a check rather than a rubber stamp, and a Republican party, in opposition, that finds itself potentially willing to break free of his grip will propel America one step closer to that aim. Mr Trump asked the country to pretend he was on the ballot. Six weeks from now the country will answer him, and it should vote as if he is.

As comes Autumn so comes college football as millions of Americans tune in for what, in actuality, seems the nation’s favourite past time — sorry baseball! Living in England, I’m regrettably incapable of following American sports closely. But, courtesy of social media, the subsequent discourse it brewed, I saw the stands at Darrell K. Royal Stadium jubilant as the Longhorns managed an incredible triumph, scoring three touchdowns in the fourth quarter, down twenty, and taking the ball from Ohio State as the clock ran out. And then I saw something quite ugly.

Bo French, the Republican nominee for the Texas Railroad Commission, saw what I did, and didn’t. He did not see students celebrating football. He saw a “problem.” He posted the image and wrote that it was “far worse than anyone imagined.”

The problem? It is proof that Americans have been “displaced by foreigners.” What that entails exactly, is where his beliefs, and the direction of many in the Republican Party, become quite grim. There is an insidious undertone to this post that is, irrefutably, racist. The students in the foreground were, by every account, Texans. Ninety percent of a UT freshman class comes from inside the state. Mr French did not care about their origin. Mr French cared about their skin colour.

Dwelling on Mr French is tedious, and tiresome; there is little use in platforming or refuting the ramblings of a deranged bigot. What happened next, however, is of consequence and worth acknowledging. Senator John Cornyn called it “intolerance and racism” and warned that “this is how great political parties self-destruct.” Like so many of his Republican predecessors, once ejected by personal choice or at the ballot box, Mr Cornyn too joins a list of ‘concerned traditional conservatives’ who have suddenly found a voice that has otherwise been lacking in this past decade of Trump. Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows joined the condemnations, declaring that Mr French crossed a line by demeaning people over their ethnicity; other Republican legislators, untainted by national ambitions, called it racism, plain and simple.

Governor Greg Abbott distanced himself, but did not denounce it vehemently. Attorney General Ken Paxton, running for Senate on the same ballot as the worst MAGA has to offer, managed to condemn racism — in attacking Mr Cornyn for once having mentioned his own Whiteness. Mr French himself did not apologise. He accused Mr Cornyn of “cheering for” foreigners over citizens and dismissed critics inside the party as “America Last losers.” Most damning of all is the silence of Vice President JD Vance, who is married to Usha Vance, an American of Indian heritage, and has mixed-race children, yet has remained utterly quiet on this tirade.

And it is here that the story turns from one man’s ugly bigotry into a rot festering within the party. Many Republicans have defended him; one reposted a claim that any who encouraged abandoning French was an enemy of the cause; another called the Republicans critiquing him “contemptible.” The debate was not settled by the bigotry; it continues past it, with a faction of the party treating the acknowledgement of racism as the real offence, and of Mr French’s words as a lesser matter, to be relegated as if it was a mere rounding error, the price of loyalty.

It begs the question of how the party of Reagan, who declared “anybody from any corner of the world can become an American” found itself so inverted. This inversion is the thing to look at squarely, because it does not begin with French nor will it end with him. Seven years ago, Nick Fuentes and his online “groypers” ambushed Charlie Kirk and other conservative pundits at campus events in what they refer to as “groyper war”, demanding to know why a movement that called itself America First tolerated immigration; legal or illegal.

Charlie Kirk, once a conventional constitutional conservative, originally held the sensible view that green cards should be stapled to the diplomas of talented foreign graduates. It’s a position that, inherently, makes sense — how is it America first to educate the best talent on U.S. soil just to repatriate them four years later? But Mr Kirk did not hold this position for long, yet the pressure did not come from the left. It came from inside the coalition, from those who believe America’s character and exceptionalism do not derive from law, creed, and values but from blood and tenure.

It is not remarkable that Fuentes exists; his rhetoric derives from the seeds laid by Pat Buchanan in 1992. Every movement and party has its extremists — it’s intellectually dishonest and laughable to pretend the Democrats and the progressive left don’t. But the remarkable thing is how much of his programme the party has come to absorb. Restricting legal immigration of the talented is now the position of the party defended on economic grounds that simply contrast with reality. Arguments about assimilation have no bearing here; how can anyone argue the students, even if they weren’t of American origin, have not assimilated? If immigrants are behaving rowdily, chugging beers in a parking lot, and cheering for football does this not exemplify the success of American integration? The same politicians, had these students been White, would have cheered at this display of “American culture.”

There are legitimate arguments to be had about the consequences of mass immigration, and demographic transformation is by no means a concern only held by racists. Immigration restrictions and the idea of “America First” politics are a legitimate policy stance often unfairly smeared by those on the left who are pointing to its worst advocates. Immigration should be controlled; those who break the law should be punished; and the premise of immigration must always be — is this good not just for America, but for Americans.

But those being attacked by Mr French and his ilk are those who are Americans, born and raised, who know no other home. There is an important distinction, and attempts to erode that clear line should be condemned. Those of non-White origin now find themselves under attack from a Republican Party that, once dominated by the party’s evangelical universalism, now describes the nation and their values in frankly ethnic and religious terms. “Christian Nationalist” is a label of pride, not an accusation. It’s remarkable how, without winning an election, Mr Fuentes has managed to take over a party that has decided it could not afford to lose his voters, and so would not finish any argument he started.

There is a version of the Republican Party that remembers how this is supposed to go. In 1996, accepting his party’s nomination, Senator Bob Dole put it this way: “The 10th Mountain Division, in which I served in Italy, and the Black troops of the 92ndm Division who fought nearby were the proof for me once again of the truth I’m here trying to convey. The war was fought just a generation after America’s greatest and most intense period of immigration. And yet when the blood of the sons of immigrants and the grandsons of slaves fell on foreign fields, it was American blood.”

In 2008, at a town hall in Minnesota, a woman told John McCain that she was fearful of an Obama presidency because he was “an Arab.” Mr McCain took the microphone back from her. No, he said — Obama was a decent family man and a citizen with whom he disagreed, eliciting boos and jeers from the audience. It cost Mr McCain, a man of great integrity and honour, nothing to say and it cost him votes to have said it, and he said it anyway, because he knew that a Republican Party and an America that cannot tell its own voters where the line is have lost the right to call itself a party of principle. That Republican Party, the one of Dole and McCain, seventeen years later, is unrecognisable.

The distance traveled is not subtle, and it has been travelled before. In 1855, the Know-Nothing Party — a party our current president and vice president are not far removed from in description and behaviour — rose on a platform of hatred for Catholics and Immigrants — the Irish most of all, a people the nativists of 19th-century America counted as less than — my ancestors. Abraham Lincoln, in a letter written to his friend Joshua Speed, wrote that the nation had begun by declaring all men created equal, and lamented how the Declaration practically read “all men are created equal, except negroes”; and that, should the Know-Nothings triumph, it would read “except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” Mr Lincoln wrote it would be more virtuous and preferential to live under an honest dictatorship than a liberty that was selective and mendacious about who it covered. The Irish dead of that century’s wooden coffin ships, and the generations of their descendants, who sit in many positions of influence throughout America, are proof that hierarchy was never natural law. It was politics, and politics can be unwritten. It can also, evidently, be rewritten and I believe it is owed to those who bore such perils and strife to defy such temptations.

I would not absolve that Left and the Democratic Party, who have spent this past decade, courtesy of the Obama presidency, defining America and ranking people by racial, gender, and sexual identity; they have their own bad habits, indeed many of the nativist arguments emanating from the MAGAsphere tend to bear similarity with the intersectional lens of the left’s notorious grifters — Derrick Bell and Ibram X. Kendi — critical race theory has been adopted by the right to answer for their own inadequacies, as it was, and continues to be, utilised by the left for theirs. A conservative party used to answer that temptation on the basis of merit, not mirror it.

But that is a different column, and the fight against the Democrats’ discriminatory practices for the sake of equity, rather than equality, is a fight I have long been in the ring for. I find myself more concerned about how a party that had, until recently, kept a taboo against saying out loud that some citizens are not citizens and now finds itself with elected officials who put power above all else by defending the violation of that taboo more than they defend the taboo itself.

A Railroad Commissioner seems like a small office, but its regulatory power over Texas’ Oil & Gas influence makes it a highly influential position in American politics and is a natural catapult to higher statewide or federal office. The instincts expressed, and the cover he is receiving from the establishment for covering it, are not a small thing. It has ignited the question of whether the party of Lincoln believes in a republic of citizenry, or has conceded that it believes in a republic of stock.

Many of us in Generation Z voted, and will vote, for the first time this decade, in a country their families crossed oceans and generations to reach — no differently than Mr French’s own ancestors once did, the same as mine. And no matter their skin colour, the texture of their hair, their language, stature, they looked like that Saturday night at UT — the country working. Conservatives who cannot see that are not conserving anything. And if the Republican Party chooses this dark path, it and the American right will destroy itself. And it will be well deserved.

Half a year in, Donald Trump’s failing war in Iran has one uncontested finding: the United States Military is performing admirably, and the man running the Pentagon is not.

It’s hardly a partisan verdict; it is one affirmed empirically by wire services, by inspectors general, by four-star officers who put their objections in writing, and, until three weeks ago, by the reporters of Stars and Stripes. What began as a targeted military operation against Ayatollah Khamenei and senior elements of the Iranian regime — purportedly a planned regime-change war against a rogue, unaccountable theocracy that has been an ever-persistent adversary of the United States — a regime-change war that I, and many other hawks, have advocated in support of for years — has morphed into the most catastrophic blunder in the history of the United States. Nobody in this administration, in six months since combat operations were initiated, has bothered to explain what follows — politically, morally, strategically, or practically. This war has left the United States, its allies in Europe, the Middle East, and across the world less safe. It has threatened the entire global economy. Six months is quite a long time to fight a war without a casus belli that could be synopsised in a single sentence. In fact, this administration has not even provided one.

The buck stops with the President, as Harry Truman once proclaimed. President George W. Bush commented on how fitting the Oval Office was round, since “there are no corners you can hide in.” President Donald Trump, in 2017 in response to the anecdote by Mr Bush, merely opined that “there’s certainly no corners.” Mr Hegseth did not start this war; President Trump did. But Mr Trump did choose Mr Hegseth to run it, a decision that will prove monumental as a testament to the failure of this presidency. By readiness, by accountability, by the honour of the institution, by the simple willingness of a Cabinet officer of the United States of America to say I take accountability, it is I who am responsible rather than pointing elsewhere.

Mr Hegseth has not said it. He is determined to run the Department of Defence as a fanatical cult, one that will not tell the truth about the war it is losing. Mr Hegseth lies about the progress of the fighting. Mr Hegseth lies about the condition of the people and ships doing the fighting. Mr Hegseth punishes the reporters whose job is to tell sailors what their own government will not. He has spent the magazines America needs for the next war. He has spent six months blaming commanders, blaming the press, blaming predecessors, blaming the fog of war itself when cornered. A Defence Secretary who cannot attest to his own decisions in a war he is running has no business remaining in the office.

He must go.

His care for the military is comparable to a negligent landlord. Six months of incompetent warfare have diminished the capabilities of the United States Military in the extreme. Combat health, medical readiness, the capacity to treat and evacuate the wounded have been gutted as much as 90 per cent in some places. CENTCOM’s operational reserve has fallen from sixteen to one; whether this metric is entirely precise or not is less relevant than the direction of travel. What is the duty of a Secretary of Defence? Consensus, convention, and conviction dictate it is to ensure the next war can be fought after the current one. The shepherd of the flock that is the men and women who serve admirably in uniform. By all accounts, Mr Hegseth spends that margin as though it is a debt never to be called upon.

Formal non-concurrence is how the chain of command is supposed to work; it means officers write, in letter, that a plan endangers force and mission both. It is the only language the Pentagon takes seriously. Mr Hegseth received no fewer than five objections from EUCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM, and the Chief of Naval Operations. Both Army and Air Force signed on — since when do they get along? Instead of answering these, with the diligence his office demands, Mr Hegseth offers bizarre platitudes about “maximum lethality”, “the right testosterone levels”, and an aversion to “tepid legality.”

Who pays for these inadequacies? The United States Navy in particular. Reuters reports that munitions have dwindled to a point of nearly no return, with virtually all ATACMS and PrSM stocks, along with the majority of Tomahawk, Patriot, and THAAD inventories, having been committed. Reporting on the Lincoln’s logistics strain and crew fatigue amid the longest deployment without a port call bore fruit in stories of deck safety concerns, broken plumbing, mouldy showers, inoperable laundry facilities, a lack of fresh food — no milk or fruit — resulting in a service eating its own seed corn. Conditions grew so dire that sailors had to be physically restrained from committing suicide by jumping overboard.

But most damning of all against Mr Hegseth are the dead children.

How any President, Secretary, or officer of the United States responds to that tells you all you need to know. Mr Hegseth’s Defence Department fired a Tomahawk missile at a schoolhouse of children and then spent months refusing to say the sentence that honour requires: it was ours. Iranian authorities estimate the toll at the bombed school in Minab as high as 168. American accounts, while more conservative, still place the number at above 120. Even if the Iranian source is credible, nobody can dispute that the dead were overwhelmingly children. Any death is a tragedy. There is no situation in war in which excess or unjustified deaths can be completely avoided. Wars can survive a terrible mistake, but what they cannot survive is a Pentagon that refuses introspection and to take any accountability as to what happened. The American people, the world, and even the Iranian people — to whom we harbour no animosity — deserve to know how the mistake happened, who approved the target, and what, if any, change has been made to the targeting process since. A Secretary who meets dead children with evasion has abdicated his office and duty to the nation. His evasion likely stems from cowardice; Mr Hegseth cannot admit to gutting CENTCOM’s civilian protection staffers prior to the outbreak of the war. CENTCOM was adamant they needed nine of their sixteen staffers to operate efficiently; Mr Hegseth left them with one, in sync with his quoted contempt for “politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement.”

Two decades ago, horrific images and revelations of prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib nearly cost the United States its moral credibility as a power. The Bush administration understood that renegade soldiers, outside of the rule of law and acting unaccountable with impunity, would do more damage to the United States than any insurgent offensive could match. The power of America comes, as Bill Clinton described, via the “power of our example, not the example of our power” — America’s legal restraint, its adherence to constitutional norms, and the fact that an officer can refuse an unlawful order, no matter how powerful the man who commands it be, is a manifest testament to its exceptionalism.

Twenty years later, that credibility is all but shot. Mr Hegseth’s prescription for unidentified boats in the Caribbean was the now circulating “kill anybody”, which, if substantiated, is a law-of-armed-conflict question that a Secretary should be desperate to resolve rather than leave unanswered. In Mr Hegseth’s worldview accountability and institutions are obstacles — the things that made America a shining city on the hill to the rest of the world are “woke” and “restraining.” When all is said and done, America will surely have lost credibility it spent twenty years rebuilding.

One of the most beautiful things in a liberal democracy is the ability of a free press to hold leaders to account. It is why the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, sought fit to enshrine freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition in the first constitutional amendment. A free press makes accountability possible; it is why tyrants fear the media more than anything else.

Which, presumably, is why Mr Hegseth moved against Stars and Stripes on 21 August, personally dismissing the staff of the paper that has documented and covered the armed forces since victory in World War II. Does a Secretary confident in his own troops and his belief that their concerns are “exaggerated” truly need to move against reporters? Or are these the actions of a timid man who fears what they may say?

The House has already drawn the proper conclusion, though it will be for posturing rather than effectiveness. Representative Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, among others, filed articles of impeachment against Secretary Hegseth, on the basis of initiating an unauthorised war (recall that even Bush sought fit to petition Congress for conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq), law-of-armed-conflict violations, mishandling of classified documents (recall when Republicans used to pretend to care about this), obstruction of oversight, politicisation of the Department of Defence, and bringing discredit upon the office he holds. Whether the House or Senate will operate upon these articles is a straightforward question — a Republican-controlled Congress, effectively a puppet of Donald Trump’s wishes and whims, has absolutely no chance of doing so. This is a separate and unencouraging question. What any semblance of justice requires is that Mr Hegseth is removed from office, whether by remedy of impeachment or a leap of faith that presumes Mr Trump has any semblance of sanity left and would move to dismiss him.

The Iranian regime — the Islamic Republic, that makes a mockery of both labels — is a fascist theocracy, riddled with corruption, rotten to the core, fundamentally irredeemable, guilty of some of the most egregious human rights violations on this Earth. Toppling the mullahs, the IRGC, or whatever it be that runs counter to what is good, is a noble aim. The incompetence, negligence, and dereliction of duty by both President Trump and Secretary Hegseth does not negate the fact that action against this regime is good. Nobody doubts the character of the regime; if the universe has any sense of justice Khamenei will face a thousand judgements from below. The case against Pete Hegseth does not rest on any sympathy for those utterly worthy of contempt.

Where the case does rest is upon his contemptible conduct in his tenure — which has left us weaker, humiliated, condemned, authoritarian, and left with a Secretary who merely shrugs: not me.

Nor should any of this touch the soldiers; the men and women in uniform have performed above and beyond in a war whose objectives their commander-in-chief cannot articulate. The men and women of the United States Military embody everything that Mr Trump and Mr Hegseth have proved themselves not: principle over person, duty over self-interest, honour and courage. It is a testament to the force that soldiers like these can be produced in a war this badly led. They deserve a Pentagon and a Defence Secretary worthy of them.

Pete Hegseth must go, not as a slogan, but as the plain conclusion the record compels any person of conviction to arrive at.

I finally have decided to return to writing after months of hiatus being preoccupied with university. Given that I live in London, I believe I may end up covering more global affairs than I had previously, and likely will pivot to covering more domestic matters here in Britain. But do expect more to come!

Donald Trump’s actions in both Venezuela and the newest war with Iran have successfully reversed twenty years of foreign policy humiliations, inactions, and catastrophes. If one had told previous architects of U.S. interventionism in 2004—Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and David Frum—that it would be the host of The Apprentice and a man who plasters his face and name onto steaks and vodka who would topple the Ayatollah and potentially his Islamic Republic—the most powerful of the ‘Axis of Evil’—one would scarcely imagine they could comprehend it.

Throughout this term—and his previous one—critics of the left have relentlessly attacked Mr Trump’s foreign policy as lacking any moral foundation, coherent strategy, or basic stability (at times calling it downright erratic and reckless—talk of annexing Canada and Greenland springs to mind). This is all true. However it contrasts vis a vis endless inaction which has done nothing except grant malicious regimes licence to violate those very conventions with complete impunity. This is the same crowd that sneered at Ronald Reagan for daring to call the Soviet Union “an evil empire” and for any serious effort to confront communism or terrorism. They preferred endless concessions dressed up as “détente”—in spite of the irrefutable evidence that, had the U.S. pressed harder and earlier, the Iron Curtain might have fallen a decade sooner. They were wrong then. They’re wrong again now.

One need only look at Ben Rhodes and President Obama, who believed that elevating Iran to a regional power by allowing its nuclear ambitions at a later time and enabling the procurement and building of ballistic missiles would counter both Israel and Saudi Arabia and enable Tehran to compel Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. In the minds of Mr Obama and Mr Rhodes it never occurred that Tehran could be toppled by indirect or direct force, but that there was an inevitable legitimacy surrounding the Ayatollah’s fascistic regime and that only through peace could Iran’s nuclear ambitions be deterred. American foreign policy regarding the regime—from President Carter with the hostages in ‘79, President Reagan’s failure to respond to the Beirut bombings, the execution of torture of CIA chief William Buckley and SW2 Robert Stethem in 1985, and President Bush’s failure to retaliate for the torture of Colonel Higgins in 1989—could simply have been solved with an air strike. It is truly as straightforward as that.

The Venezuela operation, conducted meticulously, was prime evidence of the efficiency of the United States military and the success of regime change when deployed effectively. Rather than waste ten years battling insurgents, billions in rebuilding, and trying to convert foreign populations to Western liberalism (while air dropping corrupt leaders like Hamid Karzai who had lived outside the countries for decades to micromanage), the Trump approach is simply to remove elements of a government that are undesirable and elevate those, from within the previous government, who can be reasoned with. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez is from the same ideological bend as Maduro, his Vice President, and in spite of this similarity has freed political prisoners and opened up the country to U.S. investment and oil. Without losing a single American soldier, or expending resources in a complicated transition of governments, rewriting of constitutions, and quelling resistance forces—America simply removed the hostile actor and replaced him with a mild one.

Pearl clutching about international law should cease. If the United States can remove a hostile regime, one guilty of numerous humanitarian violations and acting to harm the United States, then why shouldn’t it? Why should those who flagrantly violate international law and commit unspeakable atrocities find themselves under its protection? The West should tackle these regimes the same way it tackled communism under Reagan—by halting them, not trying to change their behaviour. “We win, and they lose.”

It would be wise for the the administration, to be pragmatic, rather than rigid, with what comes in the wake of the Ayatollah’s demise. For whatever replaces him, no matter how different, is certainly for the best—and be it next week, months, or a year from now the Islamic Republic’s days are numbered and for the first time in a half century hope beckons for the Iranian people. So long as Trump follows through.

From my foreign perspective, I would characterize the state of Canada as dysfunctional and underperforming. Canada’s economy has languished for a decade, dragged down by Justin Trudeau’s policies that, at best, were misguided and, at worst, deliberately harmful. Consider the energy sector: Canada holds oil reserves 10 times larger than the United States’ but produces 40 pct less crude, hampered by emissions caps and drilling restrictions which deterred investment. Oil and gas investment has halved since the Liberals took power in 2015, while Mr Trudeau’s carbon tax raised energy costs, curtailing demand for Canadian oil. When Russia’s 2022 invasion cut Europe’s energy supply, Canada failed to capitalize, unable to ramp up exports and forgoing billions in potential revenue.

The broader economy tells a similar story of stagnation. Real GDP per capita grew by just 1.1pct from 2014 to 2024, trailing the United Kingdom which grew by 6 pct, France by 7 pct, and the United States by 19 pct. Aggregate real GDP rose 17 pct, but this was driven entirely by immigration-fueled population growth, masking per capita decline. The United States, by contrast, achieved 27 pct GDP growth, with parallel gains in per capita income and productivity—areas where Canada faltered. Labor productivity in Canada crept up by 4.9 pct over the decade, hobbled by underinvestment and a shift to low-skill sectors. Immigration, which surged 227 pct from 260,000 to 850,000 annually, overwhelmed housing and infrastructure, doubling costs and pushing unemployment from 5.7 pct in 2019 to 6.4 pct in 2024. Youth unemployment, at 13.5 pct, reflects the strain.

Immigration has become a flashpoint, its second-order effects—soaring housing costs, strained services, and stagnant wages—stemming from Liberal mismanagement. To counter an ageing workforce, the Liberals relied on low-skill migrants, shifting Canada’s economy toward low-productivity sectors like retail and services. This depressed wages, squeezed out young workers, and drove productivity to a standstill. Mr Trudeau hailed immigration as creating “the world’s first post-national state”, and his ministry credited it with averting a 2023 recession. Yet this ignores the plummeting living standards: the average Canadian is poorer, with no real wage growth despite GDP increases.

Today Canadians are voting across the country, and while the Westminster model is a multi-party system, there will be one party of two who commands a majority in the House of Commons—the incumbent Liberals, led by former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney or the Conservatives, led by former Shadow Finance minister and Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre. Only one deserves to lead. Mr Carney’s Liberals haven’t earned it; they’ve squandered a decade on spin and profligate spending, leaving Canada as a country that is not just failing to keep pace but worse off. Had I a vote to lend, I’d back the Conservatives—or any candidate best positioned to deny the Liberals a majority—to give Mr Poilievre the chance to repair a broken economy.

Mr Poilievre is the change Canada needs, a supply-side reformer focused on productivity and efficiency—the only path to prosperity. His 15 pct income tax cut, slimmed-down state, and deregulation push would spur capital investment. To tackle housing costs, exacerbated by immigration, he pledges to scrap sales tax on new homes under C$1.3 million and cut municipal construction taxes. He also champions inter-provincial free trade, absent in Canada unlike the United States, where the Dormant Commerce Clause ensures seamless commerce. Canada’s provinces trade more with the world (66 pct) than each other (34 pct), as a result of these barriers. Mr Poilievre’s plan to dismantle trade barriers would boost efficiency, with the Conservatives planning to utilize increased tax revenues towards education and healthcare.

Energy is Mr Poilievre’s boldest pitch. His “Canada First National Energy Corridor” would fast-track pipelines, rail, and infrastructure, slashing approval times to six months and engaging the indigenous First Nations tribes to share economic gains. Repealing Bill C-69, a Liberal law that stalled projects, and scrapping the industrial carbon tax would revive oil and gas, unlocking billions in exports to Asia and insulating Canada from U.S. tariff threats. A C$1 billion investment in Ontario’s Ring of Fire would tap critical minerals, bolstering energy transition industries. Mr Carney, by contrast, advocates phasing out oil and gas, offering no clear alternative for lost revenue or jobs.

Under the Liberals, productivity and wages have stalled, despite doubled national debt and unprecedented immigration. The average Canadian has little to show for it. Mr Carney, though new to the helm, carries the Liberal mantle, offering more of the same despite polished rhetoric and patriotic ads. His C$130 billion spending plan risks further deficits—with no growth to show for it. If rejecting the status quo is the goal, only the Conservatives, under Mr Poilievre, embody anti-establishment credentials.

Polls show a tight race, with Liberals at 41 pct and Conservatives at 38 pct, buoyed by a “rally ’round the flag” effect from U.S. tariff tensions, though the Tories have seen a surge in the 11th hour. Only Mr Poilievre’s political revolution can deliver powerful paychecks, energy sovereignty, and engineer an economic renaissance. It’s time for Mr Poilievre to fix what the Liberals broke.

Those who draw the ire of Nancy Pelosi usually find themselves out of a job. And one of the top stories of this week was the highest-level Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, finding himself in her crosshairs. "I…don't give away anything for nothing," said Ms Pelosi. "I think that's what happened the other day."

To say Mr Schumer has had a bad week would be an understatement—it's becoming abundantly clear that he, along with his party, are engaging in a fight over who shall hold the reins. The seeds of discontent were sown when, penning an opinion article for The New York Times, Mr Schumer explained his decision to support the Republican budget—declaring it to be better vis-à-vis an alternative hardline proposal. This is, in all essence, sensible politics. Mr Trump has been electrifying headlines and torching markets with his trade war, which could be a potential lifeline for the Democrats.

Expending political capital on a government shutdown, which Mr Trump would pounce on as a "far-left effort to wreck our big beautiful country", would be premature at this point. Mr Trump's approval rating, in spite of tariff mania, is holding strong. Opposition leaders should know when and how to pick their battles—it's clear that Mr Schumer is holding for the hook, likely closer to 2026 and the midterm elections.

But Democrats have not been persuaded. Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett seized [the opportunity]. Ms Ocasio-Cortez critiqued Mr Schumer directly: "It is almost unthinkable why Senate Democrats would vote to hand the few pieces of leverage that we have away for free," describing the sentiment of her party as feeling "a wide sense of betrayal." Ms Crockett said it more bluntly, "I definitely think younger, fresher leadership may be something many Americans may be looking for, especially in the state of New York." Social media throughout the week, and the past few months, has been full of rage at Mr Schumer and the Democrats, viewing them as never bothering to fight—in spite of all the rhetoric about the "threat" Trump poses.

Discontent is brewing. And those of us who have occupied the right side of the spectrum know what it is. An establishment leader in the Senate not adhering to the wishes of an impassioned grassroots against an opposition president they despise—history has repeated itself.

Off the heels of Donald Trump's trouncing of Kamala Harris in November, Democrats are left scattered and disarrayed; the so-called "resistance" to Trump has been virtually non-existent, and the viability of their party is precarious. Demographic trends, which saw Hispanic voters, the nation's second-largest and fastest-growing ethnic group, shift to the right, from supporting the Democrats with 65 pct in 2016 to a mere 50 pct in 2024, [contributed to this]. Democrats faced a collapse with men of all races and lower-income voters. A diverse working-class coalition of old and young had prevailed.

It's exactly the same as what happened in 2008—when Republicans were trounced, written off for dead politically, amid the ascent of Barack Obama to the presidency, who, like Mr Trump, was a larger-than-life cultural force. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira's The Emerging Democratic Majority predicted that Democrats' strength with young voters, Hispanics, and college-educated voters would bring about a period of Democratic domination—after 2008, the book seemed prophetic.

And when one remembers 2008, one sees a high number of parallels between the campaigns of John McCain and Kamala Harris—both good and bad. A convention bounce, an 11th-hour polling lead that never was, solid debate performances, a gaffe-prone vice-presidential nominee, and activist discontent within the party. An unpopular president, Bush then and Biden now, sank their respective parties to the point where they lost the White House and the Senate simultaneously, and with the opposition possessing the House, ceded a trifecta. Post-Obama, the Republicans were left rudderless. Picture a civil war, in which a fragile government (that being the Bush administration) had collapsed, and the country (the GOP) had splintered into three factions: grassroots voters angered at the government spending and the Obama agenda, that being the Tea Party; Reaganites who would toe the party line; and the establishment wing typically found reading and writing for The Weekly Standard.

The Tea Party movement spawned with anger that was directed at Mr Obama but more so at their own party—the more activist wings were infuriated at Congressional Republican capitulation on expensive stimulus packages and a perceived lack of fight directed at the president. This climaxed in the 2010 midterms, which were dominated by primary challenges against "RINOs" (Republicans-in-name-only). In Pennsylvania, arch-conservative Pat Toomey ousted the "Rockefeller Republican" liberal Arlen Specter in the Senate race; in New York's gubernatorial primary, businessman Carl Paladino beat out the establishment favorite Rick Lazio; and in Delaware, activist Christine O'Donnell beat the centrist and longtime congressional incumbent Mike Castle in the Senate primary.

There were numerous other primary challenges, and of the aforementioned, excluding Mr Toomey, all would end up losing—many of the Tea Party backed candidates had serious personal detriments and were, bluntly, unelectable. In spite of this, Republicans netted a gain of 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. Ultimately, the Tea Party movement had noble, sensible, and necessary policy intentions but ended up solely existing to obstruct Mr Obama—no one sensible will deny this—and failed to implement anything from a list of unachievable goals.

The Democrats are in a more precarious position. Republicans, shortcomings and all, still entered 2009 with a favorability of 40 pct; the Democrats today boast a 29 pct favorability rating, with 54 pct of Americans holding an unfavorable opinion of them—which is incredible given the smaller scale of Mr Trump's triumph when contrasted with Mr Obama's. The party boasts an identity problem; which way do they go? Mr Obama executed a left-leaning neoliberalism, President Joe Biden drew his inspiration from Keynes with a more progressive interventionist approach, and Bernie Sanders, whose 2016 campaign captivated many, preached pure socialism. All three adhered to the now unpopular intersectional identity politics.

The defeat of Ms Harris, in my view, is the defeat of Obamaism—the nation's repudiation of the socially progressive professional-managerial class, in the same way the electorate repudiated the social conservatism and neoconservative foreign policy of Bush in 2008. 2008 was, one could argue, even a rejection of Reaganism. The "shining city on a hill", smaller government, peace through strength, that preached "small-c conservatism" of personal responsibility, and free-trade agenda found its champion in Mitt Romney—whom Mr Obama would comfortably defeat in 2012, in spite of a dismal economy and low approval ratings.

And there lie the problems for the Democrats today. It is likely that, should they opt to nominate, say, Gavin Newsom, he would likely lose in 2028—be it to Vice President J.D. Vance or whomever. The Democratic establishment has yet to embrace the precariousness of the situation, much as the Republican establishment did not heed the warnings of the Tea Party movement's popularity when they opted for Mr Romney (Mr Romney was still a strong candidate, and it is likely that 2012 was unwinnable for the GOP regardless).

And it's likely that, given this dissatisfaction, the Democrats will face a grassroots left-wing reckoning that will manifest against their amicable and moderately inclined incumbents in the midterms. We've read this book before—only the jerseys have swapped. And it likely won’t end well. The Tea Party birthed obstruction, not solutions, and primaried its way to a cruder congressional GOP. While Mr Trump's MAGA movement clearly revitalized the party's national electoral prospects, Republicans have never equaled there pre-Tea Party seat total. Democrats elevating progressive firebrands and ousting their establishment will likely yield the same result. The party's misdirected wrath at Mr Schumer proves it is less ideological—it's style, a hunger for leaders who'll swing, not stutter.

Tea's brewing, and it's bitter.

Callous, riddled with falsehoods, and incredibly dangerous—those are the words that best summarize President Donald Trump's plan to bring an end to the Ukraine war and his latest comments to reporters from his "winter White House" residence, Mar-a-Lago. Mr. Trump laid the blame on Ukraine for the war with Russia, their refusal to hold elections during wartime, and reiterated his disappointment at Ukraine's protest of not being invited to the peace talks, which commenced at the onset of this week between the United States and Russia.

In their haste to resolve the conflict, the Trump administration seems to have conceded almost everything to Russia—cessation of the Donbass region and Crimea (which always seemed likely), a withdrawal of American troops from Eastern European bases, sanctions relief, and no NATO membership for Ukraine—all of this without Vladimir Putin forfeiting anything. These have been Russia's demands from the beginning. The Russians claim, as always, that "NATO expansionism" is the all-powerful threat and that the Western Alliance exists as some belligerent force dead set on inflicting its wrath on Mother Russia. Reality paints a different picture; Ukraine joining NATO, and the alliance itself, does not threaten Russia's peace but rather Russia's ability to wage war.

The amateur nature of the negotiations, if they can even be called that, are hardly characteristic of the great negotiator who is purportedly the master of the "Art of the Deal." Mr. Trump is pushing towards ending the war so that he may boast the grandiloquence of his success in doing so vis-à-vis Joe Biden. Such is his desire that he will give up everything to achieve that aim—something Mr. Putin knows all too well and has factored in. It is a reasonable assumption that a former agent of the feared KGB would know how to prey upon personalities ripe with deficiencies.

Most distressing is the weakness in the face of Mr. Putin himself; Mr. Trump can't bring himself to denounce the bellicose despot who has sanctioned the indiscriminate bombardment of hospitals, energy grids, torture, civilian massacres, rape, and the execution of prisoners of war. Rather, he chooses to blame Mr. Zelensky for the allegedly heinous crime of defending one's way of life, the right of an ethnic people to safety and self-determination in their homeland in the face of odious Russian subjugation.

Vladimir Putin has not won, and Russia has not held a free and fair election since 2000—yet recently, Mr. Trump and Russia, who seek to insert a candidate sympathetic to the Kremlin, have fixated repeatedly on how President Zelensky hasn't held an election, even though Ukraine's constitution prohibits elections during martial law. The double standard is ridiculous.

Writing for the New York Post, Noah Rothman lamented the sickening desire of Mr. Trump to "squeeze the war-crippled country for all we can, simply because we can"—not only does Mr. Trump intend for Ukraine to capitulate in all but name, but he intends to exert a mafia boss-style shakedown for half of Ukraine's national wealth in the form of their rare earth minerals, in exchange for no security guarantees, which is a damning proposal. Perhaps Zelensky could leverage these materials in exchange for ascension to NATO, but it seems the Trump administration has ruled out that possibility from the start.

It is encouraging that Mr. Zelensky has indicated that any agreement between the United States without Ukraine's input will not be viewed as legitimate. Mr. Trump can dangle the threat of American aid, and indeed, the Ukrainians do rely heavily on the support of the United States—but Europe has been pulling its weight equally. If anything, Mr. Trump suspending aid would simply remove whatever leverage he holds over Mr. Zelensky, thus allowing the Ukrainians to seek more favorable peace terms independently.

European nations, notably the British, French, and Germans, seem willing to assume the burden of aiding Ukraine, based on recent talks in Paris, should the Trump administration pull aid for Ukraine, and of enforcing a peace agreement—though these states face a crisis of military readiness they must solve before enforcing any deterrence.

No one can deny the imperative of bringing about a lasting peace and ending this destructive conflict, but it is outrageous to blame Ukraine for being invaded, attempt to trivialize the atrocities committed by Russia, and to force Ukraine into a surrender agreement it neither desires nor can afford to bear. Ensuring Ukraine has as much leverage as possible and in no way legitimizes Russia's criminal behavior is paramount, and under those conditions, the Trump administration's peace talks have been a laughable failure that will eradicate whatever goodwill the United States still holds around the world and shatter the Pax Americana world order, perhaps irreparably.

Mr. Putin is not Hitler, this is not Munich, but the proposed surrender of Ukrainian lands to Putin without the Ukrainians having any say bears a frightening degree of similarity to the French and British surrender of the Czech Sudetenland to Hitler and Germany—this Munich Agreement was also reached without the consent and presence of the Czechoslovakian government. Perhaps Mr. Trump will cement himself as a redux of Neville Chamberlain, rather than the start of something new; a man so consumed by a desire for peace, with anything else being unacceptable, he naively plunged Europe, and the World, into its most destructive war and its darkest hour. Hardly the “peace for our time” that was promised.

Less than a month into his second presidency, Donald Trump has ignited a trade war with China, and the United States’ neighbours to its north and south—Canada and Mexico. The free trade stability of the past century now faces collapse, as populist and nationalist sentiment drives economic self-sabotage worldwide.
Chrystia Freeland, the former Minister of Finance and a Liberal MP, denounced Mr Trump’s unprovoked bellicose behaviour towards Canada on CNN, describing it as a “betrayal of a friend,” inquiring, “What does Trump have against Canada?” and stating that “many Canadians are hurt” as a result of the actions.
Ms Freeland is correct—Mr Trump’s behaviour is erratic and unprovoked. His grievance with Canada does not pertain to matters of trade but rather to impose blame and extract concessions, that may not exist within the realm of possibility, from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a result of fentanyl and other drugs entering through the United States’ northern border over the last four years.
The egregious dereliction of duty at both ends of the United States border, however, is the fault of the malpractice of former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who was impeached by Congress for his failure to comply with and enforce federal immigration law, as well as his repeated lies under oath about the state of border security.
But Mr Trudeau and the Canadian people—nor even the government and people of Mexico—cannot be held liable for the incompetence of a previous cabinet secretary. In fact, both nations recently undertook measures to shore up their borders as a result of the new president’s ultimatum.
Mr Trump pressed forward regardless. Washington enacted the tariffs, set to take effect Tuesday, dealing a blow to markets, businesses, and consumers alike.
Free trade, though often demagogued against, has been the backbone of recent economic prosperity, and this forcible disruption will feed the cost-of-living crisis and reduce economic growth. Mr Trump calls tariffs “the most beautiful word in the English language,” claiming they will revive manufacturing, replace the income tax, and erase the national debt—an assertion as absurd as it is alarming.
Whatever benefit tariffs purport to gain in protecting sectors such as manufacturing is negated by increased costs on consumers and businesses, trade retaliation—which has already been announced by the governments of China, Canada, and Mexico—and reduced competition.
Artificially increasing costs, as a result of steel tariffs, will cause more damage to the economy at large—even if manufacturing production is protected. Per research from Brookings, the ratio is 600 to one—of jobs that were at risk as a result of Mr Trump’s previous tariffs in 2018 versus the number saved. In simpler terms, this means that while some firms benefit, a greater number suffer, leading to net job losses and economic inefficiency.
The forces of populist demagoguery like to attack economists and those who adhere strictly to free trade as academics without real-world experience or historical nuance. Yet, I previously explored real-world applications of tariffs in my article, “The Travesty of Tariffs.”

I wrote that the fixation on tariffs as a remedy for countering China’s economic aggression, and in countering other unfair trade practices (excluding the fact that Mr Trump is imposing these present tariffs as a punitive measure for non-trade-related issues), is a misdiagnosis of the problem.
Tariffs are the bluntest and most self-defeating tool. Instead of erecting artificial barriers that harm consumers and businesses, the US should lower corporate taxes, slash regulations, invest in infrastructure and skilled labour, and aggressively pursue trade agreements with key allies.
Most manufacturing job losses stem from automation. While innovation-driven disruptions can be painful in the short term, the same happened with unionized toll booth operators displaced by E-ZPass and other electronic means. Few protectionists would argue for reversing automation in other industries—no one is demanding a return to manual toll booths—yet they insist manufacturing should be an exception.

Competition with China’s labour-cost advantage has driven US innovation and reinforced specialisation under the law of comparative advantage—ultimately benefiting the economy.
For all intents and purposes, the United States remains a manufacturing powerhouse—an impressive feat for a nation comprising just 4.2 pct of the world’s population yet producing 15 pct of global manufactured goods, making it the second-largest manufacturer in the world.
One of the most famous tariffs ever enacted, and often the crème de la crème example of macroeconomic wrongdoing, is the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930.

Then, similar to now, protectionist Republicans sought to protect the American agriculture and manufacturing industries with broad-based tariffs of 20 pct on over 20,000 goods. The result? Retaliatory tariffs from every nation—the harshest and most consequential from Canada (the irony, I am sure, is lost on the president). US exports plummeted by over 60 pct, and unemployment spiked from 6 pct in 1930 to 15 pct in 1931, and then to 26 pct in 1932.
While the decline in trade will not be as dire as in the past—due to the resilience of the modern global economy—the tariffs will still disrupt international trade and exacerbate already perilous supply chain issues. This will certainly increase costs for consumers and businesses alike, which is hardly a welcome consequence when the cost-of-living crisis is cited as the greatest concern of American citizens.
Another humorous claim comes from Mr Trump’s belief that tariffs will replace income tax—$2.4 trillion of which was collected in 2024, whereas tariff revenue was roughly $233 billion.
The US imported $3.2 trillion worth of goods in 2023, meaning that even with a blanket 25 pct tariff, the maximum revenue collected would amount to $800 billion—far short of replacing the income tax, with all the economic downsides included.
From 2018-2019, when China imposed retaliatory tariffs on American soybeans, US farmers lost access to their largest market, forcing the federal government to introduce $28 billion in subsidies to offset the losses—more than was ever gained from Mr Trump’s steel tariffs in the first place.
The 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” was designed to raise revenue in a similar fashion. The economic consequences were so dire that South Carolina threatened secession over the damages done to its export-dependent agricultural economy.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board has dubbed the Great Trump Tariffs of 2025 “the dumbest trade war in history.” Indeed, this intentional self-sabotage cannot be rationalised under any serious economic thinking.
The political consequences of increased costs pushed onto Americans—with businesses forced to pass higher expenses onto consumers—could prove disastrous at the midterms. The Democrats, after their scathing electoral defeat in November, find themselves gifted a boon—a perfect opportunity for their new chair, Ken Martin, to capitalise on.
The Journal astutely pointed out how Mr Trump seems to flirt with autarky—a vision of America as a closed economy producing everything domestically with other nations forced to buy into its market. This is a fantasy detached from economic reality.
Modern supply chains are deeply integrated, so even a war between Ukraine and Russia leads to a higher cost of wheat in Latin America. Cross-border trade allows firms to source components efficiently and remain competitive—which is how firms, and the workers they employ, survive.
Forcing all production onshore through tariffs will lead to fewer jobs, not more. Free trade has reinforced industry, not decimated it, with auto production capacity expanding in tandem with imports.
It is, in fact, Mr Trump’s Tariff Tax that will hollow out America’s industry.

Yesterday, for only the second time in American history, Donald J Trump assumed the Presidency of the United States for a non-consecutive term—something that has not happened since Grover Cleveland in 1893.

Mr Trump first assumed the presidency in 2017—eight years ago, in what now feels like an entirely different era, politically and socially. Having bested Hillary Clinton in that election in a contest of who could get more votes against rather than for them, he narrowly eked out an electoral college win and fell short in the popular vote—amounting to only 46 percent.

A majority of the American people, and the political establishment of both parties, felt him to be an aberration who won by fluke. Mr Trump never managed to attain an approval rating above fifty percent. The cosmopolitan class of Washington D.C. insiders felt content to write him off as the president of the “rubes” and “deplorables.” Democrats felt energized and primed to recapture the presidency and usher in an FDR-style political transformation, while the Republican old guard viewed Mr Trump as an unwelcome vagabond who had captured their grand old party in a 1980s Gordon Gekko-style hostile takeover.

Amidst the backdrop of the “Make-America-Great-Again” right-wing populism that Mr Trump vehemently champions, economic leftism in the mold of Bernie Sanders made a resurgence that the United States hadn’t seen since the post-WWII Keynesian consensus, while the Obama-era and California coastal style of identity politics made a new emergence in many of America’s major cities—San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles. Educated and higher-income voters began breaking away from the Republican party in the 2018 midterms, setting the Democrats up for victory in the presidential election two years later.

And when Mr Trump found himself fighting for his political life in the backdrop of the pandemic, inflamed racial tensions and riots stemming from the death of George Floyd, and an economic slump—against a strong candidate in the form of Joe Biden—few in the establishment were willing to stake their fortunes on him. On the contrary, many “heavy hitter” CEOs in tech, finance, and other sectors found themselves drawn to Mr Biden. After all, Mr Trump was an aberration—Mr Biden was predicted, the entire campaign, to be on course for a victory, and the “MAGA” tenure would prove to be a footnote on the return to “normalcy.”

After the insurrection of January 6th, two impeachments, a disastrous midterm, legal battles, and even an assassin’s bullet, Donald Trump staged the greatest political comeback in U.S. history. With a commanding victory, he returned to the White House, his upset win leaving no doubt of its consequentiality. Republicans rode his impressive coattails to retain their majority in the House and to recapture the Senate. Mr Trump mended the fence with many business leaders who had seemed so vehemently opposed to him before, having had dinner with Bill Gates, and with Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk all in attendance at his inauguration—with Mr Musk emerging as the president’s most enthusiastic backer—something inconceivable eight years ago.

The Democrats seem to remain in denial about the scale of their defeat. The previous consolation in 2016 had been that Mr Trump had failed to win the popular vote. Having done so this time, the goalposts have shifted, with the newest soothing punditry emerging from MSNBC being that he “failed to attain a majority of the popular vote.” One doubts that piece of trivia was of much comfort to Kamala Harris, who was forced to watch the man who bested her assume the oath from the front row.

Not content to be a mere footnote, as if such relegation to the obscure was possible, Mr Trump emerged content to wield the power of the pen this time—enacting long-standing transformation was something he struggled with in his last term. A slew of executive orders were unleashed: securing the border, designating the Mexican drug cartels as a foreign terrorist entity, scrapping government-mandated diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, limiting new regulations, and repealing red tape regarding energy production.

His economic agenda bears similarity to the traditional “Reaganite” Republican orthodoxy of tax cuts, deregulation, and a revival of domestic energy production. And similarly to the 1980s, corporate America, once hostile and viewing Mr Trump as a braggadocious agitator, now finds itself in commonality with him. Lina Khan’s war on mergers during her tenure as Mr Biden’s head of the FTC likely burned what emerging reconciliation there was between the Democratic party and enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Mr Trump enters his second term at the height of his power. If he were Rome personified, it is presently the reign of Trajan, with the party reshaped in his image and much of the establishment grudgingly falling in line. The liberal resistance, once fierce, has largely faded into indifference, relegated to columnists and anchors for The Guardian and MSNBC—whose influence and reverence wane year-over-year. The biggest tell is the inaugural and post-election honeymoon; Mr Trump has emerged above fifty percent approval rating for the first time ever. But power is fleeting, and the real test begins now.

While executive orders can deliver swift action, history shows that true transformation requires lasting legislative victories. If Mr Trump only governs by executive order, Democrats merely will “wait him out” and undo his entire legacy with an equally powerful stroke of the pen. Thus, the onus is on Mr Trump to work with a fragile House majority and a stubborn Senate—that is aligned with him on taxes and deregulation, yet remains dominated by the “old guard” of the Republican party that proved so thwartful during his first term. His executive actions signal intent, yet legislation is the only means of manifesting one’s will; something he has oft had little patience for.

The United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea were considered to be among the victors of the Cold War after the excision of the final vestiges of communism in Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union—these nations are undisputed leaders in defending liberal values, the rule of law, and providing economic mobility and an unparalleled standard of living. Militarily, with the exceptions of Japan and South Korea, the others, three of which are nuclear powers, comprise the most powerful militaries in the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, an alliance that President Joe Biden declared “the single, greatest, most effective defensive alliance in the history of the world.” Alongside their NATO commitments, the U.S., the U.K., and France boast permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council—effectively serving as the “world police,” much to the chagrin of intervention skeptics found on both the right and left sides of the political spectrum.

In late 1990, when the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring Kuwait, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President George H.W. Bush moved the British and American armies to Saudi Arabia to join their forces and employ their nation as a means of a staging ground while utilizing their power within the United Nations to push for Iraq’s immediate withdrawal from Kuwait and providing the justification for the utilization of “all necessary means” to compel them toward such. Assembling the largest coalition since World War II—with participants from all over; Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Portugal, Niger, and Senegal—the million-man army initiated Operation Desert Storm, repelling Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait and pushing them back into Iraq—after inflicting devastating losses in what is considered among the most one-sided wars in the history of mankind.

Mr. Bush, in a speech to Congress after Desert Storm, declared a "New World Order" to defend liberal principles—peace, freedom, and the rule of law. 28 nations, from six continents, had formed a coalition of collective resistance against Saddam's violation of international law, and Mr. Bush stated that Americans had “a unique responsibility to do the hard work of freedom.” The twentieth century had opened with most Western powers entering a period of “splendid isolation” and undergoing internal political turmoil, yet it had ended on the precipice, and with the promise of, a new era in which the international community and the “leaders of the free world” would utilize their strength not toward the imperialist ambitions of yesteryear but to promote stability, protect international law, and politically steer the world in a more liberal direction. Liberalism seemed dominant, with Bush’s successor, President Bill Clinton, describing nations as being more interested in the “the power of our example rather than the example of our power.”

As we enter the new year marking a quarter of the way into the 21st century, the hopes for Mr. Bush’s 'New World Order' seem to have been, at best, dampened, if not entirely relegated to fantasy and fiction. The aforementioned countries appear shackled with their own problems; the size of their militaries has dwindled, many have found that their economies have been stifled—the EU’s share of global GDP has been steadily declining, the United States and United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Canada have faced social unrest and anti-establishment sentiment, which has culminated in an inability to govern—something that seems to be plaguing much of the liberal world.

One of the top headlines of this week came from South Korea, where President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, relenting after a series of protests, and was subsequently impeached, which culminated in yesterday’s six-hour standoff that saw his bodyguards and military troops prevent authorities from arresting him at his residence. South Korea has had the greatest struggle in transitioning to liberal democracy; many recall that martial law had been invoked in the past by its military junta, yet the turmoil was still unexpected and concerning to say the least.

In France, the situation has not been as dramatic, but the government has effectively fallen with their legislature controlled by far-left socialists and right-wing populists, much to the chagrin of the centrist President Emmanuel Macron. The French political crisis resulted in a “vote of no confidence” in December, the first to succeed in sixty years.

Liberalism, which had seemed so ascendant, has buckled in the wake of universally despised levels of immigration, rising deficits and a crisis over pensions with the “silver tsunami” of aging populations, dwindling workforces, unpopular foreign wars, and overall dissatisfaction with the status quo. Populism seems to be the language of the West now, and much of their population's frustrations are targeted at “globalists” and internationalists; the idea of a “New World Order” receiving praise today is laughable. This shift is making it quite hard for the Western countries to govern, and it’s having ramifications that ripple across the globe.

In Germany, with civil unrest hot after a terrorist attack perpetrated by a Saudi national at a Christmas market in Magdeburg, the “traffic-light coalition” of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his social democratic party has collapsed; Germany is headed for elections this year. Alternative for Democratic Germany (AFD), a nationalist populist party on the right, campaigning on popular anti-migrant, anti-Islamic, and anti-socialist economic policy, has surged in polling—much to the chagrin of the German political establishment. It is unlikely that AFD can win outright; Germany’s conventional political parties would likely form a coalition explicitly to counter them, but that’ll do nothing, if not aggravate, the grievances of their supporters.

Incumbent parties around the world have been tossed out; the United Kingdom saw a landslide victory for the Labour party, which ousted the Conservatives after fourteen years of rule, the Democrats were swept out of the White House, Japan’s Liberal Democratic party faced a humiliating result, and after economic stagnation, a housing crisis, authoritarian crackdowns against political demonstrators during COVID, and an unprecedented amount of mass-migration Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tenure in charge of Canada is coming to an undignified end, with his Liberal party projected to face an “extinction level” defeat—likely going from 160 seats to five, if they are so lucky. In fact, Mr. Trump has reveled in the precariousness of Mr. Trudeau’s situation and has taken to “trolling” him, calling the Canadian Prime Minister the “governor” of the “51st state” after his pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago, angering many Canadians who view the attacks as distasteful and disrespectful of their sovereignty.

And yet, even when a new party wins, their popularity and success are not guaranteed—Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party won 411 seats, the second highest result for Labour in their history, while the Tory party’s share of 23 percent of the vote and 124 seats is the worst performance for the world’s oldest political party. Flash forward to the end of 2024, and Sir Keir’s inaugural period has ended with him as one of the most unpopular prime ministers in history, with frustration over illegal migration, economic hurdles, the freebies controversy (with Sir Keir, his wife Victoria, and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner failing to declare gifts from Lord Alli) among other things.

The 2025 budget by Chancellor Rachel Reeves sent gilts rising, inflation forecasts ticking upward, and powered anger from the public as a series of austerity measures have been undertaken. Most notably, and politically costly, was the winter fuel payment for pensioners which has been removed. One would think that the collapse of Labour’s popularity would be a boon for the Tories, as it has been in the past, but Labour’s main threat comes from Nigel Farage, whose Reform party has surged, surpassing the Conservatives in membership in December. Mr Farage has promised to “change politics forever” and lead “a revolt against the political establishment.”

And no one can ignore the return of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States. Mr. Trump is possibly the most polarizing figure to have ever occupied the White House, and his return, this time on the precipice of a hard-won mandate from the American public, has shaken up not just power brokers in Washington but friends and foes alike. Mr. Trump recently had a call with Sir Keir where he blasted his “windfall tax” on energy firms, which resulted in American company Apache recently exiting the North Sea. Mr Trump additionally declared that the U.K. should “get rid of windmills!”

Sir Keir has stated his hope to have a good working relationship with the president-elect, but it may be complicated by his appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States, who has called Mr. Trump “little short of a white nationalist and racist,” mirroring comments by British Foreign Minister David Lammy, who referred to Mr. Trump as a “tyrant” and “xenophobe” during his tenure in the backbenches.

This is not to say that such harsh comments are solely coming from Britain or Labour; recent comments from Elon Musk, one of Mr. Trump’s closest advisors and financial backers, against Sir Keir and his government—most notably with Mr. Musk criticizing several members of the Labour ministry, including Sir Keir himself (during his tenure as head of the Crown Prosecution Service) for their failure to prosecute “Pakistani rape gangs”—and his support for Reform and Nigel Farage have drawn the scorn of Westminster. Mr. Trump himself has reportedly complained in private that his British counterpart is “very left-wing”; one should be thankful that he never dealt with Jeremy Corbyn.

So, amidst the largest European war since World War II between Russia and Ukraine, the violations of Iran in the Middle East, and the looming threat of China’s imperial ambitions toward Taiwan, 2025 will be the biggest trial of the “special relationship” between the United States and United Kingdom. Japan and South Korea are consumed by political and social crisis, and the European nations face a crisis of confidence in the viability of liberalism itself. The West will be challenged in the coming year and in this century by those geopolitical challenges and by those that have yet to manifest, but it is impossible to imagine that in the wake of this populist insurgency (many of these parties blame the foreign policy establishment of the West for instigating the Ukrainian war) that the Western alliance would be as united in commonality as it was during the Gulf War in 1991.

The “new world order,” once heralded as the triumphant force shaping a peaceful, stable, and prosperous world, now faces an era of unparalleled turbulence and self-doubt. With liberal democracy buckling under the weight of discontent, economic stagnation, and geopolitical fragmentation, the question is not merely whether the West can recover its unity and purpose but whether it has the will to redefine its place in an increasingly dangerous and divided world. For the West cannot lead the free world if they cannot lead themselves.

President Donald Trump’s press conference was a sight to behold—and indeed president is the only appropriate way to describe his present status. This is not only an acknowledgment of his previous term but also due to the fact that he has, in effect, assumed the mantle of de facto president ahead of his January inauguration. The most impactful example of this came in the immediate weeks following the election, which saw Mr Trump embark on an overseas visit to France, where he met with French President Emmanuel Macron and other foreign leaders, including the Prince of Wales, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—whom he later hosted at Mar-a-Lago.

At the beginning of this week, standing tall in that 58-bedroom estate, Mr Trump demonstrated a sharp grasp of policy and a calm demeanor that had often eluded him during his first term. His ability to engage off-the-cuff for over an hour, unaided by a teleprompter, signaled not only his exuberance but also a clear-cut contrast with the present-day commander-in-chief. Mr Trump's remarks opened with a $100 billion pledge from Japan's SoftBank, which he humorously tried to negotiate up to $200 billion with SoftBank’s CEO, much to the amusement of those present. Reiterating his positions on border security, trade policy, and his cabinet appointees, Mr Trump communicated an intent to deliver on his promises with an atypical gravitas.

Mr Trump came across as a leader more attuned to the responsibilities of high office. A marked contrast from the insouciant demeanor, vacuous policy, and erratic behavior with the media that defined his first term. Exile appears to have lent him wisdom, providing four years for reflection on his failings while also allowing him to rebuild the Republican Party. Typically, departing presidents—whether evicted by the will of the electorate or term limits—emerge as elder statesmen, pen a memoir, or retreat from center stage after defeat. Yet, Mr Trump made it abundantly clear, on the day he lost, that his exodus into the sunset was far from imminent.

Mr Trump had shown every intent of bearing the Republican standard one last time in the next presidential election. By doing so, he has broken precedent by establishing himself as something unprecedented in the American Republic—a leader of the opposition, as in the Westminster system. Although America’s non-parliamentary structure renders such a role non-existent, Mr Trump, through sheer willpower as a private citizen, effectively created it. From his role as a private citizen, he regularly held the Biden administration to account, posting criticisms and counter-policies on Truth Social—an effective digital substitute for the opposition bench.

Republican politicians sought Mr Trump's blessing in their respective campaigns, often emphasizing how they would work with him in a second term. Remarkably, he even whipped votes in Congress like a British party leader, most notably when he helped kill the Biden administration’s immigration bill. His tenure as kingmaker since 2021 has been comparable to losing an election yet staying on as party leader, a practice seen infrequently in the United Kingdom. An illustrative example is Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, who opted to remain in leadership after his party’s crushing defeat to Margaret Thatcher’s Tories in 1987.

Much like Mr Trump, Lord Kinnock faced a leadership challenge ahead of the next election in 1992, ultimately defeating Tony Benn by a margin of 80pct to 20pct—similar to how Mr Trump prevailed in the Republican primary, defeating Nikki Haley 76pct to 19pct. However, Lord Kinnock offers only a limited parallel; he was an uninspiring leader offering little more than the failed politics of envy, resulting in another defeat to the Tories in 1992. In contrast, Mr Trump persevered through negative press, assassination attempts, civil and criminal cases, and the like, rallying not just his party but also the electorate behind him. Casting himself as a decisive leader with “common sense” policies, he found resonance with the American public.

Ahead of his second term, Mr Trump appears amicable and eager to mend fences with past adversaries. He has reportedly held productive conversations with figures such as Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, the latter slated to meet the president today at Mar-a-Lago. Mr Trump joked, “In this term, everybody wants to be my friend. I don’t know. My personality changed or something.”

In all seriousness, Mr Trump understands why perceptions have shifted. Unlike his 2016 victory—a fluke of the Electoral College—this time, his track record and decisive electoral mandate have cemented his agenda as not merely his ambition but the nation’s expectation. Winning the popular vote, all the swing states, and securing a trifecta has legitimized his presidency in ways his chaotic first term never could. The relative quiet from his detractors attests to this transformation.

Democrats, who emerged from their 2016 defeat rallied and determined to resist Mr Trump, now appear resigned and fragmented, their opposition crushed. Infighting over the blame for their loss has ensued, and it seems many have realized that obstructing his now-popular agenda could prove more disastrous than it did previously. The Democrats risk being relegated to more than a decade in opposition unless circumstances dramatically change, as they often do in politics.

For now, voters have been afforded the opportunity to view Mr Trump’s policies without the cacophony of perpetual conflict. As a result, he enjoys a positive net favorability rating for the first time since announcing his campaign in 2015. While his trademark bravado remains intact, alongside the occasional foolish remark or frivolous lawsuit—such as the one against Ann Seltzer and The Des Moines Register over a poll he disliked—Mr Trump’s experience, combined with a public weary of his predecessors’ and the Democratic party’s mistakes, has lent him an aura of legitimacy and confidence.

The honeymoon will eventually end, as all do, and old battles will inevitably resume. But for now, Mr Trump's return has left voters feeling positive, hopeful, and committed. Only time will tell if the course will change.

Bashar al-Assad, the butcher who gassed his own people, purveyor of a 1.5 km human torture chamber, and the operator of a totalitarian narco-state for half a century, has finally been deposed. This tyrant did not get to cede power willingly; there was no dignified surrender of dictatorship in accordance with a referendum, no passing of the torch with the dignity of a state funeral à la Francisco Franco. Instead, like all of his ilk, he ran. Mr Assad, contrary to his self-stylised title of ‘lion’, fled in the middle of the night, his shisha coals still running red-hot in the presidential palace, on a flight to Moscow — where he no doubt will seek solitude under the umbrella of his equally contemptible patron and bankroller, Vladimir Putin. It is a fitting manner of irony that Mr Assad be forced to flee, like so many of the Syrian refugees he victimised, but one finds it regrettable that Syrians will not be able to enact much-deserved justice upon him, on behalf of a country he and his cronies bled dry.

Viral footage on X depicted jubilant Syrians atop the desecrated bust of Hafez al-Assad, literally breaking the personification of a dynasty built on nothing but fear. Rebel forces poured into “the Red” Sednaya prison — where the worst horrors of more than a half-century of Assadist rule manifested. Many of the prisoners had been removed from the world to the point where they found shock, not only at the demise of Hafez, who had perished in 2000, but at the nature of the rebels — who were mistaken for being soldiers of Saddam Hussein, who had been deposed in 2003. Videos revealed underground cells, many of which had been sealed with concrete, and fighters struggling to pull survivors out. Most odious and sinister of all was the presence of newborns and children within the prison, overwhelmingly the product of rape by prison guards against women held captive by the regime. Amnesty International once estimated up to 15,000 extrajudicial executions, with the Syrian Observatory’s number, since the civil war began in 2011, nearly double that. Regardless of the nature of many of Syria’s rebel groups, those poised to grandstand about ‘potential Islamist spillover’, ‘destabilisation of the region’, and ‘dire consequences’ should comb through videos of the atrocities within Sednaya. Think of the children. The liberation of Syria is an unquestionable good.

Now who actually took Damascus is a different affair entirely, and may prove bad. Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the leader of these rebels, is a designated and sanctioned terrorist with a $10 million bounty on his head from the State Department. It is his Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly Jabhat al-Nusra — the Syrian franchise of al-Qaeda — that launched the offensive last week that retook Aleppo in less than four days after years of impasse, which was a consequence of the March 2020 Idlib ceasefire. It would appear neither work-from-home nor COVID could hamper HTS’s productivity. Julani, stylising himself now by his birth name of ‘al-Sharaa’, insists to media interviewers that the man, now in his forties, is not the radical alumnus of Sednaya in his twenties who spent his adolescence fighting coalition forces in Iraq. Perhaps; though one would be forgiven for expressing scepticism at taking the word of a man so intimately linked to al-Qaeda, whose group, per the DNI, seeks “a government guided by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law.” Great. Anyone who makes any concrete predictions on Syria’s future, no matter how well informed, is telling you more about their presuppositions than anything empirical.

No doubt from Washington, to London, to all across mainland Europe, the isolationists find themselves sat smug, boasting how “this proves non-interventionism was the right course all along!” Let us be plain about it: this war — more this catastrophe — which began as a popular uprising by a people tired of cronyism, an authoritarian state, and starvation that then curdled into a deadly Sunni-Shia civil war that has killed over half a million people, brought about the rise of an Islamic caliphate, destabilised the entire Middle East, and instigated a migration crisis into Western Europe that has had both existential humanitarian and political implications. With the keys to Damascus falling onto the keychain of a jihadist not by virtue of right, or even might, but more so by happenstance of being the last man standing, that is the embodiment of American abdication, rather than the product of intervention.

In 2011, when Syrians saw the uprisings across the rest of the Arab world, they took, peacefully, to the streets with a simple demand — the world’s backing against a dictatorship more brutal than Mubarak ever was. Barack Obama, in all of his wisdom, elected to do nothing, but then equivocate, all while encouraging Syrians rhetorically about how “Bashar must go” whilst offering little with regard to how that would be implemented, save for moral platitudes. Mr Obama’s inaction likely stemmed from the fact that toppling such an ally of the Mullahs in Tehran, his long-standing unrequited crush, would likely draw their ire and derail his back-channel nuclear talks. Mitt Romney was scolded by the administration and their mouthpieces in the media for complaining about how Washington never seemed interested in backing liberal reformers and conjuring up a decisive alternative to Assad. While many rebels indeed were well-intentioned, they would always be felled by the jihadists who were supplied with guns equally — who took it upon themselves to utilise these weapons against their fellow rebels. Morals have limited sway in a region where guns matter more than honourable intentions.

Then in 2013 the greatest atrocity of this century took place. In August, forces of the Assad regime, under direct orders of the Syrian dictator, attacked the suburb, overwhelmingly a populated civilian region filled with families and children, with sarin gas — killing hundreds of civilians, and leaving survivors to watch those around them slowly convulse and die. It was a bluff on the West called by Mr Assad, a clear violation of a ‘red line’ against chemical weapons that Mr Obama had drawn, on the global stage, behind the seal of the presidency of the United States. The Obama administration staked its entire credibility on this. Foreign policy is a game in which the threat of what you could do often matters more than what you do.

But Mr Obama did nothing. No strike came. His red line evaporated as though it had been washed away by the sands. Despots across the world watched the President of the United States announce a limit and then watch it crossed without consequence. In Westminster, Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to whip the House of Commons in support of a strike against Assad but met a humiliating defeat for his government as it lost the vote. America’s weaknesses emboldened its adversaries and exacerbated fears among its allies: “is the United States reliable?” Every friendly and rival power watched the tape — Mr Obama’s lips repeating that “[if] we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized… that would change the equation” and doing nothing.

Vladimir Putin watched that tape, and annexed Crimea just half a year later. In 2015, he ordered a military intervention into Syria under the guise of stabilising a region at risk of falling to the Islamic State, a dividend of Mr Obama’s bungled withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, and of his refusal to implement any unified military strategy against insurgents, which was now threatening the entire world. In reality, however, instead of striking against the Islamic State, Russian forces merely existed to prop up Assad — bombing anything labelled a ‘terrorist’, which turned out, ninety-eight per cent of the time, to be civilians and the moderate opposition among them engaging in activities such as waiting in breadlines or operating hospitals. Mr Putin began deploying ground soldiers and embedding Russian advisors within the Syrian military, with Putin positioning Russia as a staunch ally to beleaguered regimes and a guarantor of regional stability, no matter the cost to human lives.

That is what an unenforced American red line purchases. When the West abdicates any responsibility, authoritarian actors are always delighted to fill the resulting vacuum. To the isolationists who have come to dominate the Republican Party since 2015, pushing out those much-scorned “warmongering neoconservatives” and “hawks” like myself and others, I say that we have run your experiment and can look at what came. Half a million dead, the rise of ISIS, an empowered Russia in the Middle East, and a migrant crisis that fuels your populist politics — while being caused by it.

Non-interventionists can heap no laurels upon themselves; Assad’s collapse was, if anything, accidental and a cascading event of other people’s exhaustion. This is not to take away anything from Syrians, who showed an unbelievable amount of tenacity, endurance, and zealotry in deposing the monster, but the true anchors of his demise fall in Eastern Europe and neighbouring Lebanon. Ukrainian resistance to Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion, courtesy of the support of a NATO alliance that chose resolve rather than weakness, has eradicated much of Russia’s military muscle, particularly in its aerial capabilities. In Beirut, Israel’s manoeuvre against Hezbollah’s command structure courtesy of the pager bombs operation destroyed the command structure that was able to orchestrate Hezbollah’s brutal intervention on behalf of Assad. Assad did not fall because non-interventionism was correct — morally or geopolitically. It fell because the murderous tyrants backing him had to focus on other murders elsewhere. Washington’s policy of tepidness did not yield any positive developments.

Borrowing from his old boss Obama, President Biden’s approach to any Middle East development has been to bomb from afar and wash one’s hands clean. Seventy-five ISIS targets were bombed in Syria as a result of the Assad regime’s collapse, so that the fledgling remains of the caliphate could not have an opportunity to utilise the fall of Assad to prop themselves up or seize control of chemical weapons stockpiles. Fine as far as it goes; ensuring the caliphate does not benefit is needed, but the cynical side of it is that it epitomises the past decade of American foreign policy — go in with bombs, blow things up, and hope the people on the ground sort it out for themselves (and remain grateful for the privilege!).

Who says it will be sorted out well? President-elect Trump went on a tirade about how we should “LET IT PLAY OUT” and “NOT GET INVOLVED!” in his characteristic all-caps style via Truth Social. The question is why he felt it prudent to comment at all, considering how “let it play out” was the modus operandi of the Obama administration when it oversaw the peak of the Syrian Civil War. Ghouta is what “not getting involved” produced.

And it could get darker yet. Unlike in Baghdad twenty years ago, there are no coalition forces to keep the peace, no institutionalists drafting up constitutions, and no Western oversight into the reconstruction process. The war began as a fight for freedom, but did not end as one, rather a Sunni-Shia blood feud with Iranian-backed militias and Islamists drawing upon foreign fighters on the other. In the absolute worst case, one need not imagine — we saw it under a black banner with a white circle ten years ago — we will see scores being settled, with the Alawites being massacred as infidels and enablers of the Assad regime, Christians being put to the sword after managing to avoid the worst of tit-for-tat violence by staying silent, and against the Shia as a whole. Even if Julani attempts to govern with the best of intentions, is it preposterous to be concerned that those under him who have grown so accustomed to war will find it difficult to restrain themselves?

More urgent is whatever supply of chemical weapons Bashar al-Assad may have hidden away. It needs to be the priority of governments within the region and hopefully a point of co-operation by the outgoing Biden and incoming Trump administrations to find or destroy whatever remains of this arsenal. The absolute worst-case scenario would be for these weapons of mass destruction to fall into the wrong hands via land, ship, or air.

Assad’s fall will prove to be a positive overall. Brutal dictators deserve to face justice and though the Syrian people avoided enacting justice against him, one could consider it fitting that Bashar will spend the rest of his years exemplified as a fleeing coward, a hilarious turn of events for the “lion of Damascus” who would decorate the country with grandiose portraits of himself in military regalia, full of undeserved medals, typically reserved for bravery. But the men who now walk the halls of his presidential palace did not spend the last decade fighting for liberty, equality, and fraternity — terrorists by the definition of the State Department. Both are true, and one need not rigidly pick one line of thinking. Anyone who demands such would compel the cessation of critical thinking, and they are not a friend of a free Syria.

Continuing in the stride of cautious optimism, one hopes that this is not the last of such days in the Middle East. Assad rots in Moscow, his face and ideology denigrated and desecrated. In Tehran, a much older yet equally as murderous dictator ought to be losing sleep. If providence has justice, he will be next.

I had been waiting patiently over the last few weeks to collect myself in the aftermath of the election results and wait for enough of President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominations to begin trickling in. (It is strange to use that title for a second time in a row; this hasn’t occurred in 132 years). Of course, in typical Trumpian fashion, some picks are good—a testament to his aytpical, though not infrequent, moments of sheer brilliance; some are bad, lacking the expected caliber required for the Federal government; and a few are outright ugly—in the political sense.

Beginning with the most important nomination the president presents to the United States Senate—Senator Marco Rubio for Secretary of State—I commend Mr. Trump for what is, without question, the greatest nomination to that post in the last 42 years. Mr. Rubio has been one of the most proactive advocates for a hawkish “peace through strength” foreign policy doctrine and one of the Senate’s greatest champions of American national interests.

Mr. Rubio's nomination comes as a welcome relief for our partners in the Middle East, particularly given his replacement of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who disgracefully blackmailed Israel on top of his cowardly conduct of appeasement that has enabled Iranian aggression in the region. Mr. Rubio has been a consistent hawk on Iran, warning back during the Obama administration’s nuclear deal appeasement how Iran is “led by a Supreme Leader who is a radical Shia cleric with an apocalyptic vision of the future. He is not a traditional geopolitical actor who makes decisions based on borders...he has a religious apocalyptic vision of the future.”

Such common sense, that being that one cannot negotiate with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is an unhinged lunatic seeking to bring about the end times and the destruction of the United States, the House of Saud, and the State of Israel, is lost on our present so-called foreign policy elite.

Mr. Rubio will goad Mr. Trump into the correct direction on Russia—a policy of strength and of the United States being proactive rather than merely reactive, like under Biden—with the implementation of sanctions and an increased amount of lethal aid to Ukraine. He will, ideally, help Mr. Trump remember to be wary of the charms and false promises of Vladimir Putin, whom Mr. Rubio has always described as a criminal adversary no better than a thuggish gangster during his inevitable negotiation of a peace settlement with Ukraine.

Israel will no longer face unjust and arbitrary pressures from the United States, and support will not be conditioned on adhering to the whims of Hamas. Instead, it will be met with unwavering support from a State Department that will restore U.S. dominance on the world stage and confront adversaries with uncompromising resolve. Mr. Rubio will also restore much-needed credibility in the United States' conduct towards Nicolás Maduro and unwind our failed policy, that I have previously critiqued, and reimplement sanctions to bring that brute to heel.

Mr. Rubio is a phenomenal choice for Secretary of State, and he and the rest of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy team will be equally well served by Mike Waltz's nomination as National Security advisor. Mr. Waltz is one of the House’s most hawkish voices, particularly on China; formerly a Green Beret and Pentagon official, Mr. Waltz has called for “a new Monroe Doctrine” to block Chinese economic and military influence in the Americas, warning of “a clear and present threat to our country given the sophistication of the CCP's espionage operations.”

Mr. Waltz has raised awareness of the dangers of our dependence on Chinese resources, particularly relating to our national defense, citing that “South America offers a wide array of critical minerals” vital to U.S. strategic interests—he and Mr. Rubio would do well to negotiate an agreement with several of these nations on behalf of the Trump White House. Mr.Waltz has been a strong proponent of arming Ukraine, confronting Iranian proxies in the Middle East, and countering the growing alliance between Russia and North Korea—another exceptional pick by the president-elect.

Mr. Trump has several additional strong picks. Doug Burgum, who I erroneously predicted would be Mr. Trump’s Vice President, at the Interior Department will excel. Lee Zeldin, a relatively moderate former representative from Long Island, will do a brilliant job heading the EPA, and John Ratcliffe will do the same at the CIA. Chris Wright brings much-needed private sector expertise to the Department of Energy. One looks on with near admiration at these choices—stellar choices, choices that cynics would have expected of a Republican administration, but ones that the public as a whole could look at with confidence. This assumption, however, is predicated on the condition that one ignores Mr. Trump’s more controversial picks.

Mr. Trump ran on a promise to shake up Washington, to “drain the swamp,” and to utterly disrupt the status quo. In doing so, he achieved the largest Republican victory since 1988—therefore departures from traditional orthodoxies are expected, in some cases were demanded by the public, but that does not necessarily excuse, nor should it encourage, the confirmation of some of his choices. The grumblings began when he announced his pick for Secretary of Defense, FOX News host and former director of Vets For Freedom, Pete Hegseth. He is an unorthodox pick with an atypical resume for a Secretary of Defense, though many attacks against his nomination and himself are unfounded and disgraceful.

The View host Whoopi Goldberg insinuated that Mr. Hegseth, a twenty-year Army veteran with two Bronze Star medals who saw combat in deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, “clearly does not know anything about the military” and mocked him for being a weekend host rather than the full-time host of FOX and Friends. Senator Elizabeth Warren bizarrely chimed in, “All three of my brothers served in uniform. I respect every one of our servicemembers,” adding that “Donald Trump’s pick will make us less safe and must be rejected,” without ever elaborating on how Mr. Hegseth poses a risk to national security.

Now, there are legitimate concerns about Mr. Hegseth’s nomination—namely, his lack of managerial experience. In 2024, the Department of Defense had $1.99 trillion distributed among its six sub-components—a budget equivalent to the entire GDP of Russia. Overseeing it is a huge responsibility, but these pressures can be alleviated by nominating competent deputies, perhaps returnees familiar with the department's bureaucracy, who can lend a hand in that regard. I maintain that the benefits of Mr. Hegseth’s nomination outweigh the cons of his inexperience.

Mr. Hegseth has a demonstrated reverence for the military and a manifest desire to work toward reforming an institution that has faced severe challenges to its reputation and credibility over the past few years—an erosion of confidence following its disgraceful and humiliating exit from Afghanistan in 2021, dismal recruiting numbers, and an atrocious leader in Lloyd Austin, who kept the President of the United States, Joe Biden, in the dark for three days that he was hospitalized. Someone should inform Mrs. Warren that the pick who “makes us less safe” is the present occupant of the office, who went A.W.O.L. while American servicemen were actively in harm’s way, fighting against drone and missile attacks in the Middle East.

Mr. Hegseth knows the military and is the type of candidate prime for reform and returning it to its apex as the undisputed number-one fighting force on the planet. Having a Secretary of Defense who has fought in modern combat and served in our most recent wars—not as a General in headquarters but as a boots-on-the-ground infantryman—will lend a unique insight and a severe amount of credibility to modern warfare. Mr. Hegseth is a strong hawk on Iran, containing the influence of China, and supporting Ukraine in their fight for preservation against Russia—stances he will no doubt elaborate on during his Senate confirmation hearing, where he is likely to excel. Charles Cooke’s excellent defence of Mr. Hegseth summarizes the hidden brilliances of the pick

Similar sentiments of confidence cannot be expressed about Tulsi Gabbard, the formerly staunch progressive Democrat who conveniently reappeared into the political scene as a “born-again” Republican, who has been selected as Mr. Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence. Mrs. Gabbard is an odd choice for a plethora of reasons, the kindest being that she is simply at odds with the worldview of the rest of Mr. Trump’s administration, and the harshest being that her nomination and potential confirmation could be damaging to our national security given her foreign policy views.

Before elaborating further, I would note that the following critiques of Mrs. Gabbard’s worldview and previous comments are not to call into question her patriotism nor accuse her of treason. This is a woman who has risked her life on behalf of the United States and continues to do so as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve. Such service is to be commended and appreciated but does not deter criticism.

Mrs. Gabbard has expressed a series of concerning foreign policy views over the years, beginning in her tenure in Congress, where she decided to journey to Syria unilaterally, meet with Syrian dictatorial President Bashar al-Assad, and, months later, voiced doubts that Mr. Assad authorized the use of chemical weapons against the people of Khan Shaykhun—a view shared by the Syrian and Russian governments and contradicted by those of the United States, European Union, and the United Kingdom, whose representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Sir Geoffrey Adams, noted that:

Evidence of the Syrian government’s involvement was so strong and damning that Mr. Trump launched a retaliatory strike against the Sharyat Airbase, where U.S. intelligence believed the attack was launched from. This strike destroyed 20 percent of the Syrian Air Force and negated their ability to launch further attacks—a decision justified by Mr. Trump as being in “the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” Mrs. Gabbard criticized this decision as “short-sighted” and potentially prompting “nuclear war between the United States and Russia.”

Mrs. Gabbard additionally criticized Mr. Trump for his assassination of IRGC terrorist Qassem Soleimani, saying that it had “no justification whatsoever” and posing the question, “Is our country’s national security better off because of Donald Trump’s actions and decision? And the answer to that is no.”

Most concerning are her views on Russia and its military actions in Ukraine—opinions that have led to some outright labeling her as a Russian asset. This charge was bolstered by an accusation from Hillary Clinton during the 2020 Democratic primaries, in which Mrs. Gabbard was a candidate, that the Russians were bankrolling one of the candidates. Upon Russia’s full-scale invasion of mainland Ukraine in February 2022, Mrs. Gabbard posted a bizarre message on X, stating that Presidents Zelensky and Biden needed to work with Mr. Putin to embrace “the spirit of aloha” by agreeing that Ukraine would remain a neutral nation—and never join NATO—before elaborating that Russia's “legitimate security concerns” stem from NATO expansion. I would allege that this is a Kremlin talking point—but even the Kremlin would disagree with such absurdity! Tucker Carlson did hawks everywhere a great service in his interview with Mr. Putin, for even Mr. Putin refused to cite NATO expansionism as his reason for invading Ukraine. Instead, he explained that he took it simply because he believes it belongs to Russia, per borders from 700 A.D., and that he does not recognize their right to self-determination.

Lastly, pertaining to the Pacific, Mrs. Gabbard voiced another outlandish view on the military buildup of Japan, an important national security partner and close ally of the United States. She warned that “We remember Japan's aggression in the Pacific; we need to ask ourselves this question: is the remilitarization of Japan, which is presently underway, truly a good idea? We need to be careful that shortsighted, self-serving leaders do not end up bringing us again face-to-face with a remilitarized Japan.” Bluntly speaking, as it pertains to the Pacific theater, I have never come across such a witless foreign policy viewpoint in my life. While her attitudes toward appeasing dictators echo the failures of the 1930s, they do not justify drawing parallels between modern Japan and its actions during that era.

If confirmed as head of DNI, Mrs. Gabbard’s attitudes toward the United States and her seeming ambivalence toward the threat of China, Russia, and Iran are dangerous and would weaken America’s security. Mrs. Gabbard’s confirmation would offer nothing but a plethora of bad ideas, delivered with a misplaced sense of self-righteousness, disgusting false equivalencies between the U.S. and Putin, and vapid “feel-good” opinions on foreign policy and war. Her track record and judgment—or lack thereof—on foreign policy is atrocious and would seriously damage the credibility of our intelligence community.

The DNI coordinates with foreign intelligence services to integrate and analyze data. Even if Mrs. Gabbard miraculously gets confirmed by the Senate, how many foreign allies are going to feel comfortable sharing intelligence with the U.S. if they even suspect it will end up in her hands? Furthermore, the DNI prepares the President's Daily Brief. It is irrefutable that Mrs. Gabbard would elevate or diminish particular threats in her communications to the president, likely raising nonsensical concerns about Japan, an ally, while diminishing the threats and motivations of Russia, China, and Iran.

But while Mrs. Gabbard’s nomination is offensive on the basis of her policy, Mr. Trump also felt it prudent, oddly enough, to nominate the man most worthy of bipartisan contempt and scorn to the office of Attorney General—that being Matt Gaetz. There is the conventional theory of “Trump playing 4-D chess,” the idea being that Mr. Gaetz’s nomination is designed for failure, to rid the House of his antics—while providing him immunity from a scathing ethics investigation—and to lay the groundwork for a more acceptable MAGA candidate later on. If it is not, then Mr. Gaetz will be shot down by the Senate upon arrival, as he should be.

His qualifications for the position are non-existent. The man practiced law for less than 1,000 days at a small firm in Northern Florida. He is an agent of chaos, legislatively incompetent, most notable for a coup against House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and being a man devoid of principle, integrity, honor, or wit.

The ethics investigation suggests that he is a statutory rapist—a source of pride for him, it seems, as Mr. Gaetz bragged to his colleagues about his sexual conquests, showing other Republican congressmen nude photos of them, much to their discomfort, and boasting about how he mixed energy drinks with ED medication so he could “go all night.” In testimony to the House Ethics Committee, two women—one of whom was 17 years old at the time—reported how Mr. Gaetz paid them for sex. Mr. McCarthy revealed that Mr. Gaetz’s true motive in ousting him as speaker was his refusal to cull the ethics investigation into him. Mr. McCarthy added, “A lot of people have concerns about him. And I’m not sure if he’s on something, but I do hope he gets the help that he needs. But more importantly, I hope the young women get the justice they deserve when it comes to him.” Hardly words of praise from a man who would know him best.

Matt Gaetz is so manifestly unqualified, so morally bankrupt, so glaringly absurd as a nominee for Attorney General, that even entertaining his credibility is an act of political malpractice and a denigration of the credibility of the United States. His confirmation, unlikely as it may be, would signify not just a loss of Republican resolve but a wholesale abdication of their constitutional responsibility to the nation. In no world should a legal amateur—and potential statutory rapist—be elevated to the highest law enforcement position in the land. Mr. Trump should err on the side of caution given his threats to gamble with constitutional norms by attempting to adjourn Congress to ram through this preposterous appointment. He will not only fracture his own party, but expending political capital on such an indefensible nominee would sully his administration unnecessarily.

Many have offered analyses of Donald Trump’s historic victory, and over the coming months, you’ll no doubt read countless perspectives. But after a sleepless night, I felt compelled to provide a straightforward audit of the election and examine where each party might go from here. Firstly, Mr. Trump, now President-elect Donald Trump, is the second man in history to be elected to two nonconsecutive terms besides fellow New Yorker Grover Cleveland (I’m sure many historians are devastated that this unique distinction has grown more common). And, unlike his fluke victory in 2016 or his narrow defeat in 2020, Mr. Trump is on track to win the popular vote, the first time for a Republican since 2004. He is set to win 312 electoral votes, the most for a Republican since 1988; he has achieved the best Republican performance with non-White voters since 1960. This is the story of the most remarkable comeback in American politics, surpassing Richard Nixon in 1968, and there are many takeaways.

The biggest surprise of the night was not Mr. Trump’s performance in the swing states but his inroads with moderates, Hispanic, African-American, Asian, and Jewish voters—who may not have made a difference in the more white, rural swing states of the rust belt, but allowed him to “ride the wave” nationally. Blue states like New York went from voting 23 points Democratic to just 10 points. New Jersey went from voting 16 points for Mr. Biden to being carried by Kamala Harris by a weak margin of 4.9 points. Connecticut shifted 8 points to the right, with Mr. Trump narrowly losing it by 12 points. Mr. Trump only lost Illinois with 45.2 percent to Ms. Harris's 53.4 percent, a margin of 8.2, a decrease from Mr. Biden's 17-point victory four years prior. I wrote that in 2016, with Mr. Trump narrowly winning through pluralities in states and razor-tight margins, his victory was a fluke—but 2024 has proven to be no fluke and a major realignment in American politics. Moderates and a multiracial coalition propelled Mr. Trump’s “MAGA” movement to victory and have given him a resounding mandate, manifesting a plea to enact change—irrespective of voter’s personal opinions on him, his conduct post-2020 election, his indictments, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Trump has been chosen, resoundingly, by the public to govern.

My most controversial claim I will allege is that Mr.Trump has been more consequential for the Republican party than Ronald Reagan ever was and, if anything, bears more similarity to Franklin D. Roosevelt—I have alleged, in the past, that Mr. Trump is not coherent and articulate enough on policy specifics to forge a “permanent revolution” that would result in his populist agenda supplanting traditional conservative orthodoxy, which may indeed prove true, but he, by the sheer force of his political genius and willpower, has transformed the Republican Party into a one-man vessel over a decade-long period and three presidential elections, in the mold of FDR in the 1930s-1940s.

It was FDR who brought African-Americans into the Democratic party in his 1932 victory and was the first Democratic candidate to flip significant cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, and Baltimore—and while Mr. Trump did not flip these, his strong performance with non-White voters, specifically Hispanics, suggests that, like FDR, he has expanded the party’s traditional coalition and forged “MAGA” into something of a modern “New Deal” coalition; I would not be surprised if Hispanics emerge by 2028 as a reliable Republican party constituency. And with such strong allies in Congress, a comfortable Senate majority, and likely retention of the House, I expect Mr. Trump’s first 100 days to look like Roosevelt’s 100 days—Mr. Roosevelt’s influence was so grand that for a significant amount of New Deal legislation, Democrats (who had supermajorities) would look at a bill, inquire whether it was “from the boss,” and pass it unanimously without even reading it.

The electoral destruction of the Democrats that, as I wrote above, incredibly manifested in the bluest of states shows that it was an advantageous macro environment for the Republican party that propelled Mr. Trump to victory. I considered elaborating on the failings of Kamala Harris's candidacy, but I feel that it is best served as a separate editorial and that she was not much of a candidate; she didn’t present herself as different from Mr. Biden. Ms. Harris offered very little to the average voter in terms of policy; what she did offer were left-wing Peronist politics such as price controls to tackle “price gouging,” an inflationary $25,000 credit for first-time homebuyers, and an “unrealized gains tax” on capital gains—left-wing policies when the country was crying for a divergence from the present administration. On that front, Ms. Harris could not list any decision she would have undertaken differently from the unpopular President Joe Biden. Thus, most voters felt they had no alternative but Mr. Trump.

If anything, this should come as a relief for her; the reality is that no Democratic nominee likely could have overcome this storm and that, if anything, the only thing preventing an electoral annihilation in the mold of Reagan's 1980 victory was Mr. Trump’s consistently weak performance with highly educated affluent White voters that prevented him from carrying Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The failings and off-putting policies of the Biden administration in the retreat from Afghanistan, a failure to deter Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a belligerent Iran that lays siege to Israel through its proxies, unconstitutional executive orders to buy votes with student-loan relief, ten million illegal migrants crossing the border, a stagnant economy where wages have not outpaced the increase in prices of four years, the de-facto legalization of crime in major blue cities as a result of a “woke” approach to criminal justice, unpopular DEI initiatives have relegated identity politics and leftist ideology to the backseat; or potentially the ash-heap of history.

For all of Ms. Harris's talk of upholding freedom, her slogan, “We’re Not Going Back,” was anything but accurate; the progressivism that came to define the Democratic party of the Obama and Biden years and much of the establishment culture and media has been crushed. Her party’s shift to being more “progressive” than liberal—more committed to socially engineering “progress”—has resulted in its electoral annihilation. It’s the culmination of the failings of the Democrats’ shift away from classical liberalism, where guaranteeing personal liberty is the prerogative of the state, in favor of a revisionist history-based left-wing ideology of progressivism, where all racial and economic disparities are the result of systemic racism, and uprooting all institutions, for being discriminatory has to be achieved, and all other considerations secondary.

The Democratic coalition has been shattered; aside from unmarried women and the uber-wealthy, the Democrats have no other base to draw upon, and their electoral prospects will collapse permanently if things continue as is. Their support has collapsed among men, married couples and parents, the middle class (that was the backbone of their party), and non-White voters—the last of which poses an existential threat to the Democratic party, for the non-White population is expected to compose the majority of the United States population by 2050. Time will tell if the Democrats learn the correct lesson from this election, which is a need to tack to the center à la Bill Clinton in 1992, after Michael Dukakis's resounding defeat in 1988, and run a candidate like Governors Josh Shapiro or Wes Moore, or if they will double down on progressivism and opt for candidates like Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom, who would likely lose to future Vice President J.D. Vance.

There isn’t much to be said about Donald Trump that I haven’t already. He brought unprecedented baggage to the race; his conduct after the 2020 election and repeated election denial seemed impossible to overcome. His erratic behavior and frequently questionable policy positions raised legitimate concerns that I and many others had about his suitability for a return to office, and the “lawfare,” as his supporters call it, that Democratic prosecutors saddled him with proved to be an electoral strength. Personal opinions aside, one has to credit the man's resilience against adversity in mounting a comeback that manifested in the largest Republican victory since George H.W. Bush 36 years ago.

While I remained ambivalent in predicting the outcome of the election, I wrote repeatedly over the last year and a half that Mr. Biden (and by extension Ms. Harris) was quite beatable due to lackluster polling numbers and an amidst revival in small-government conservatism, encouraged by the successful governorships of Ron DeSantis, Brian Kemp, Glenn Youngkin, Kim Reynolds, and Greg Abbott—particularly in response to the Biden administration’s COVID policies in 2021. While Mr. Trump deserves a unique amount of credit for his resilience and the raw display of courage in the face of two dastardly assassination attempts, and the strength of an unorthodox campaign that brought out a multi-racial coalition of low propensity groups and relied on alternative media such as podcasts, I do not necessarily believe that the public has fully embraced all aspects of Mr. Trump and Trumpism.

I, as do most Americans, remain a conservative—a classical liberal who believes in upholding the foundations that made America great—free speech, free markets, faith, individualism, and never giving into the tyranny of authoritarianism at home and abroad. And even though Mr. Trump's historic victory seems like a capitulation towards Vox Populi, the truth is that Americans will not tolerate him conducting himself as a loud-mouth and vulgar demagogue, and if that is the route he goes down, he can expect to be punished at the ballot box in 2026. I believe Americans have entrusted him to set forth on the business of governance and bring a sense of normalcy, the one they demanded of Mr. Biden in 2020, that being the pre-COVID Trump administration of 2019 and before, and to get a sluggish economy back on the treadmill.

The conspiratorial nature of many on the right becomes increasingly pathetic and laughable in the context of tonight, as we are somehow to believe Democrats supposedly stole the election from a sitting president with full control of the executive branch. Still, in 2024, with even more motivation and power, the shadowy and sinister deep state decided to let Trump win? Where was George Soros when they needed him? And in the bluest of cities, where allegedly the fraud is so grand, he overperformed his previous margins by double digits? It defies logic to suggest that Democrats would steal one election but not the other, raising questions about the consistency of the fraud narrative. Could it be that it was a lie meant to conceal a bruised ego? Worthy of pondering, indeed.

The biggest takeaway of the election is that Democrats misunderstood that the pitch wasn’t the problem; the product was. Democrats foolishly decided against having a competitive primary season. When Mr. Biden was forced out by his party, they naïvely believed Ms. Harris could laugh and clap her way through the so-called “brat summer” to the White House without diverging from Mr. Biden’s policy in any way. With all the emphasis on the “adults being back in charge” in the aftermath of Mr. Biden’s victory four years prior, it’s incredible how, as incumbents, Democrats still tried to position themselves as change agents, though Ms. Harris couldn’t point to a single action she would have handled differently than the Biden administration. The American people, ultimately, opted for actual change.

I have numerous reservations about Mr. Trump, my opinion, and previous criticisms, and I stand by my editorial criticism of him. I am astutely aware that many readers are split on their feelings about this outcome. Still, I wish President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance the best wishes and encourage us all to pray for their success and the country, for they embark on a mission to unite a country after a bitter campaign that has left us on edge, but not fractured. Thanks to a few strong shots of espresso, I remained awake long enough to watch Mr. Trump’s victory speech—and I was encouraged by what I heard, with Mr. Trump oddly enough humble in victory and preaching the importance of bringing the country together. I will praise his successes and criticize bad policy and conduct wherever I find it, but I believe that all of us, irrespective of who we voted for, have nothing to feel but optimism about our future.

Regarding that, I would point to 2004, wherein conceding the election, Senator John Kerry correctly observed that: “In an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. And that -- that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth.” These are important words to remember, now more than ever. Irrespective of who one may have voted for, I am proud to see Americans turning out, in record numbers in many places, to express their voices—the backbone of our Republic is an engaged and informed citizenry. Utilizing their right to vote is the most consequential action the average individual exercises in his or her life. I tip my hat to all of my fellow citizens for understanding the importance of this responsibility and expressing their voices.

Take a few minutes to read Jeff Bezos’s op-ed in the Washington Post. Mr. Bezos, who owns the paper, comes across as balanced and self-reflective. He addresses a critical issue that extends beyond the media to affect the very fabric of the Western world: the rapid erosion of public trust. As he writes, “Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.” This insight led to Mr. Bezos’s decision to end political endorsements at the Post, a small yet meaningful step toward restoring credibility.

Many, particularly on the right, celebrate the mainstream media’s loss of credibility—yet this response is ultimately self-destructive. It’s easy to criticize the media for its mistakes, but any serious critique must ask: compared to what? And what would become of an informed society if we abandoned the press for other, less reliable sources? Mr. Bezos draws an insightful analogy: just as voting machines must both “count the vote accurately” and be trusted to count accurately, “we must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate.”

Trust, he argues, is as fundamental as truth itself. This credibility—the public’s faith in journalism—underpins any institution’s authority to shape public debate. Yet, too many would rather reduce the media to a polarized echo chamber—MSNBC for liberals, Fox News for conservatives—than engage in genuine reform. Keep it as is. I believe that this apathy and our present status quo would inaugurate the death of our Republic, and we need not accept this reality; constructive criticism and dedicated engagement can restore the American media’s reputation—a reputation that, when balanced against its detractors, deserves preservation.

Now, the mainstream media did make a series of high-profile errors, and it’s easy to list these—Russiagate, the dangers of COVID, the merit of lockdowns, and the authenticity of Hunter Biden's laptop—without recognizing that, as an institution, the media has performed far better than its alternatives. Despite these errors, traditional media operates with a structured approach to accountability and factual integrity—qualities rare among its freewheeling competitors. Richard Hanania made this very case in a compelling defense published early last year. His argument remains one of the most convincing, well-articulated cases for the American media’s survival.

Social media platforms and influencer-driven news sources claim to reveal the “real” truth, often without corroboration or editorial standards. Unchecked misinformation can have stark consequences. We saw this in the 2020 election cycle when an alternative media ecosystem fueled conspiracies around election fraud, fracturing public trust in the democratic process. By 2023, an estimated 70% of right-leaning Americans believed in the illegitimacy of Joe Biden’s victory.1

To understand the path forward, we must acknowledge the dual responsibility that lies with both the media and the public it serves and the importance of separating reporting from opinion. For the press, this means re-evaluating the conventions that create bias, as Mr. Bezos argued candidate endorsements did. Ending them is a move he called “a principled decision, and… the right one.” He elaborates: “Presidential endorsements…create a perception of bias…a perception of non-independence.” Removing this practice from the capital’s most trusted paper of record reflects the Washington Post’s shift from opinionated partisanship to impartial, rigorous journalism that seeks to inform rather than persuade.

One idea that could build on this shift is for the Post editors to list the policy planks of the Republican and Democratic candidates, side by side, so that readers are given a case for both, thus arriving at their own conclusion. In covering presidential elections, it is far more important to offer objective information rather than opinion so that readers are empowered to make informed decisions. It’s a concept that may come to fruition as Mr. Bezos, per reporting by the New York Post, has given the paper a mandate to hire conservative opinion columnists—another welcome development and one that will enrich the quality of the paper ten-fold.

I won’t conflate the importance of this newsletter, whose audience, importance, and quality of reporting is, bluntly, pitiful in comparison to the Washington Post, but I’ve striven to maintain transparency regarding my conservative perspective. Rightwise has always prioritized accuracy, disclosed its bias, and encouraged contributions from opposing viewpoints to avoid a pure echo chamber. The fact that the majority of readers who engage with my content hail from the opposite end of the political spectrum reinforces my mission of constructive discourse.

Abandoning mainstream media in favor of alternatives would endanger the informed society on which our way of life depends. When we read a story in The New York Times or the Washington Post, we’re engaging with institutions that, despite flaws, possess the capacity for correction, accountability, and adaptation. The media’s future depends not on its critics but on a public willing to demand high standards while recognizing the vital role it plays. As Mr. Bezos put it, “The stakes are too high.” Now more than ever, we need a “credible, trusted, independent voice” that remains a cornerstone of democratic life, ensuring public trust and accurate information as a bedrock of an informed society.

Kamala Harris’ campaign is faltering with male voters—particularly young, Black, and Hispanic men. Recent polling reveals that only 49 percent of Black men under 50 support her and 25 percent of young Black men are backing her Republican opponent, Donald Trump. One finds a significant gender gap among Black voters, as two-thirds of Black women support Harris, but her appeal to men is far weaker. Hispanic men also show lower support; in Arizona, 51 percent of Hispanic men aged 18-34 support Mr. Trump, compared to just 39 percent for Ms. Harris. Among those aged 35-49, Mr. Trump holds an even larger lead, with 57 percent backing him and only 37 percent supporting Ms. Harris. A similarly dismal trend bodes for her in Nevada, where 53 percent of younger Hispanic men plan to vote for Mr. Trump, compared to 40 percent for Ms. Harris.

Men, as a whole, seem inclined against Ms. Harris’ candidacy, per the most recent AtlasIntel poll, which found Mr. Trump leading Ms. Harris nationally 50-48; roughly 49 percent of men said they reject Ms. Harris more. A recent article by the New York Times revealed that young men back Mr. Trump 58-37 over Ms. Harris. Democrats have moved quickly to dismiss the support of men, particularly young Black and Hispanic men, for Mr. Trump to sexist attitudes. Indeed, for many Democrats, the narrative of the sinister patriarchy strikes again!

Democratic strategist Christy Setzer would have us believe that Ms.Harris faces a familiar foe: the same “misogyny” and “outdated ideas on who should hold the presidency” that supposedly thwarted Hillary Clinton. Ms. Setzer claimed that Mr. Trump exploits a “strongman” image at his rallies that is tailor-made to resonate with male voters who, in her view, are too disillusioned with Ms. Harris’ leadership to recognize a good thing when they see it. With his talent for grandstanding and belittling those of differing political opinions, even Barack Obama could not resist weighing in. Mr. Obama criticized “the brothers” for their lukewarm response to Ms. Harris—daring to suggest that perhaps their reluctance isn’t about the policy shifts or any substantive grievances with the Democratic Party but is, of course, rooted in something far more nefarious: sexism and discomfort with the notion of a female president. Naturally, the possibility that young men might have valid concerns about Kamala Harris’ leadership doesn’t even cross the Democratic mind.

Mr. Trump has made a precise play for the male vote, recently appearing on podcasts like Theo Von's, Lex Fridman's, and Andrew Schulz’s, with an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, the most listened-to podcast on Spotify, planned. His strategy? To solidify his appeal among young men by speaking their language—authentic, unapologetic, and bold. I’ve written before about how this kind of no-prisoners rhetoric screams leadership to younger men, who are starved for anything that doesn’t sound like a focus group or human resources churned it out. Contrast that with Ms. Harris’ approach—carefully scripted and predictably uninspiring. Her campaign’s solution to this problem? Deploying her running mate and the left’s idea of a “guy’s guy,” Tim Walz, on a cringe-worthy “dudes-rock tour,” where he attempts to win over male voters by pandering with clichés: coaching football, cracking jokes about football, and throwing in a few references to—what else?—football. “Hey, fellas, did you catch the game?” The left’s notion of masculinity isn’t just out of touch; it’s a caricature of itself. Because when all you’ve got is a caricature, well, caricature is what you deliver.

]I find that the Democrats’ attempt to connect with men has been nothing short of patronizing. Wearing a camo hat and barn jacket or bragging about pheasant hunting doesn't address the real concerns men have today. It’s a shallow attempt to appeal to masculinity, and I think we are smart enough to see through it.

Adding insult to injury, other pro-Harris messaging has been downright crude. Democratic content creators have launched a get-out-the-vote campaign at basketball games and bars, leaving messages like “Your vote is private. You don’t need to tell your boys you’re voting for Harris/Walz.” The implication here? Voting for Harris is something to be embarrassed about—a brilliant tactic if your goal is to win any man with a shred of self-respect. The tone-deafness peaks with another slogan: “Trump gives girls the ick. Vote Harris, Get Laid.” Yes, you read that right. It’s patronizing, lowbrow drivel that assumes men are little more than barely sentient cavemen, casting their ballots solely for the promise of carnal gratification.

How exactly do Democrats think this patronizing and demeaning rhetoric will inspire young men to vote for them? Bluntly, how do Ms. Harris and her fellow Democrats believe that men are even willing to hear what the left in the United States has to sell? What father is enthused by watching biological males compete in women's sports, effectively sidelining the very notion of fairness and merit for his daughters? What man enjoys inflation that strains budgets and makes owning a home or building wealth through property—a cornerstone of the American dream—seem increasingly out of reach? Any man trying to provide for their family or secure their future is left watching as financial instability becomes the norm.

On top of that, the influx of millions of illegal immigrants willing to work for lower wages only undercuts job security for many men, particularly those with lower educational attainment. It’s not xenophobia; it’s about economic survival, and it’s a concern felt by men of every race or creed. And while Democrats offer platitudes, men see their jobs threatened, their wages stagnant, prices going up, and little in the way of serious solutions. Safety for themselves and their families is paramount, and yet violent offenders seem to cycle in and out of the justice system. Men want to protect their families and communities, yet Democrat district attorneys seem to favor leniency over justice, releasing dangerous criminals back into the streets. So it’s not hard to see why many men are tuning out Ms. Harris’ message. It’s not just that they feel left out—they’re being alienated.

Thus, in courting the votes of and appealing to men, young men in particular, both the Harris and Trump campaigns have their appropriate surrogates. For Mr. Trump, it is Elon Musk, who, with all his flaws and occasional lack of decorum, stands as a counterpoint to the apathy and disdain many men feel toward the Democrats. Mr. Musk resonates with men who feel disenfranchised by policies they believe undermine their identity or diminish their place in society. While the left busies itself with demonizing masculinity, Mr. Musk embraces his own version unapologetically.

Whether it’s taking on entrenched interests or dreaming up audacious goals like colonizing Mars, Mr. Musk presents an image of ambition, strength, and the kind of leadership that resonates with men who feel that today’s wokeness and yesterday’s political correctness is undermining their identity. As The Wall Street Journal recently noted, Mr. Musk has carefully curated a public persona that embraces “tough-guy masculinity,” speaking directly to those who feel hemmed in by a culture that stifles ambition and strength. Case in point: at a recent Trump rally in the Philadelphia suburbs, Mr. Musk drew a crowd of enthusiastic supporters—many of whom had shown up specifically for him. There, Mr. Musk made a case for Trump’s re-election, framing it not just as another political contest but as part of a grander mission: the preservation of Western civilization itself.

In interviewing two men who happened to be graduates of Ridley High School, where the event was held, Tim Higgins, for the Wall Street Journal, reported on how Mr. Musk symbolizes hope to them. “The American dream, I want to attain that goal,” Luke Bencrowsky explained. “Just to have a good life, brother.” These young men see him as someone who has made it through sheer willpower, taking risks, and pursuing big dreams. As Bencrowsky said, Mr. Musk is a hero—“just a guy, at the same time, doing what’s right.” His friend, Giovanni Harness, agreed, describing Musk as a “down-to-earth guy” who doesn’t sugarcoat their harsh realities.

In his efforts to combat climate change—a challenge often described as both an existential threat and a crisis multiplier—Mr. Musk has not just pioneered the electric car with Tesla but also redefined space exploration with SpaceX, perfecting reusable rockets that have drastically reduced the cost of space travel. As if that weren’t enough, Mr. Musk has set his sights on the frontiers of health with Neuralink, aiming to conquer physical disabilities. Without SpaceX, it’s fair to say civilization’s gaze wouldn’t be fixed so optimistically on the stars. I still remember, as a child, when the Space Shuttle Atlantis completed its final mission. Even at the age of six, I felt deeply disappointed, as though humanity’s ambition to explore space had stalled (what young boy didn’t want to be an astronaut, after all?). Fast forward to 2020, when Mr. Musk’s SpaceX and Crew Dragon became the first privately owned spacecraft operator to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, restoring America’s pride in space exploration and breaking our reliance on Russian rockets.

Now, contrast Musk’s visionary appeal to the young male vote with the Democrats’ offering: Kamala Harris’ surrogate, Tim Walz. Mr. Walz, by contrast, comes across as goofy, clownish, and not exceptionally bright—a self-described “knucklehead.” His forced persona is more like Homer Simpson than a serious leader: bumbling and perpetually out of his depth. And his attempts to court male voters? Superficial and, as mentioned earlier, downright demeaning.

It just seems like the left doesn’t understand men. At all. Mark Schipper, in a post on X, said, “If you’re wondering how the progressive left ends up picking Tim Walz to attract male voters with normative testosterone levels, this is the manner of media they take their cues from,” and shared a clip from a token member of the liberal “resistance,” Aaron Rupar, seemingly mocking Mr. Trump for his old age and being out of touch for “telling stories about Wally Pipp, who was born in 1893, and Lou Gehrig, who was born in 1903,” with Mr. Rupar commenting on what a failure it would be in “appealing to Barstool's young male audience.”

Mr. Schipper found it hysterical how Mr. Rupar “has convinced himself, preposterously, that men aren’t interested in sports history,” adding that “Being that out of touch with reality is how you lose.” It’s anecdotal, but I feel obligated to add that should one wonder whether men are, in fact, interested in sports history, I would point the said curious inquirer to my friend Sam’s Ultimate Team (a multiplayer game mode on FIFA, where players build and play matches with their created football clubs by collecting virtual cards of real-life players). Sam’s team is, as he says, a “Manchester United past and present” with former and current red devils such as David Beckham, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Marcus Rashford.

So, maybe “Coach Walz” and his fellows on the left could learn that from what should be an obvious playbook—sports history draws more interest to men than an over-the-top persona of a goofy, self-deprecating “knucklehead.” While Mr. Walz jokes and belittles Republicans as weird, allegedly “defining masculinity” according to our all-knowing press, Mr.Musk is out there building rockets, tackling massive engineering challenges, and making the impossible seem possible. Young men like Mr. Bencrowsky and Mr. Harness aren’t looking for the character Mr. Walz; they’re looking for someone like Mr. Musk—someone who can stand as a beacon of what’s possible when you refuse to settle for mediocrity.

In conclusion, the Harris campaign’s struggle with male voters highlights a broader disconnect between the Democratic Party, as an extension of the left, and men. Polling consistently shows that Mr. Trump is outperforming or overperforming Ms. Harris among men of all races and ages, and it is likely that, given his broader lead in the election as a whole, should he emerge victorious—it will be due to the Harris campaign’s pitiful performance with male voters. In viewing some of the prevailing discourse on social media, however, I conclude that the left will fail to understand this male disillusionment, with tweets that dismiss young men as being “lost to Tate, Rogan, Musk, and Peterson” or blast them as “wanting to be coddled”—which comes off as nothing but contemptuous toward them, with the same poster asserting the notion that men are driven by misogyny, and disinterested in democracy, rather than the acknowledgment that the left is failing to address their concerns. And with messaging like this, the problem will only exacerbate, all but ensuring that more young men will continue to tune out the Democratic Party's message altogether.

It looks like the election is Donald Trump’s to lose again. The last time many felt this way was in the aftermath of the presidential debate between Mr. Trump and Joe Biden, which led to the collapse of the former’s candidacy and marked the end of his political legacy. In hindsight, that debate resembled a climactic battle—perhaps even the Battle of Waterloo, with Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden standing in for Wellesley and Bonaparte. Following Mr. Biden’s decisive defeat, Mr. Trump surged in the polls, appearing as the favored contender to retake the presidency. Post-debate polling indicated a comfortable victory, foreshadowing Mr. Biden’s eventual “abdication” and Ms. Harris’s rise to the nomination.

Ms. Harris immediately experienced a surge in the polls, adoration, and excitement from the media; the novelty of the candidacy and the historical significance of the race (being incredibly atypical) helped animate some interest in what was a rather dull affair between two well-known candidates, and she entered August with “the big mo.” A well-delivered speech at the Democratic National Convention, a boost in favorability against an unpopular opponent—one could be forgiven for thinking that she would run away with it. Of course, Ms. Harris hid from the media during that summer, but did it matter? She was winning, or so we were led to believe.

Much like how the warmth of summer encapsulated these feelings, the coolness of autumn seems to reflect the present-day shift in her campaign. Gone are the energetic rallies delivered to jubilant crowds, substituted for lukewarm rehearsed speeches. Both Ms. Harris and her loyal deputy, Tim Walz, seem to be on the defensive rather than continuing an ascent. Momentum appears to have halted, and the campaign's appearances have become cautious. The more Ms. Harris appears, the more we learn why such appearances are rare.

Even with a friendly questioner like Bill Whitaker, Ms. Harris's performance was as uninspiring as it was revealing. She dodged critical questions with canned and repeated responses, leaving us to wonder what—if anything—she truly stands for. Ms. Harris has repeatedly refrained from delving into policy specifics, and Mr. Whitaker's questions were hardly challenging. Yet, Ms. Harris fumbled with empty answers, particularly on the issue of bringing down prices. Her response? More government spending and finger-pointing at the Trump tax cuts, which she implies are to blame for everything. There's not much for the American voter to latch onto there.

When pressed on the border crisis, Ms. Harris blamed Congress, overlooking her administration’s role in dismantling previous border policies, the administration that she is conveniently a part of when selling her qualifications and conveniently detached from when it comes to contrasting herself against an unpopular incumbent. On foreign policy, her responses to the war in the Middle East were similarly shallow; she made the usual platitudes about Israel's right to defend itself but declined to endorse any meaningful action against Iran or Hamas.

It's no secret why the campaign has been forced to appear on more shows and podcasts; internal polling data is raising alarm bells. But each time she steps in front of the camera, one is reminded why the campaign has sought to limit such exposure. It was easy for Americans to embrace her candidacy amid the campaign's early media fanfare and fresh tone. Though it may seem harsh to say, her current media blitz reminds us why she received 1 percent of the vote during the primaries. Ms. Harris's dilemma is that the more she reveals herself to the electorate, the worse her numbers get, yet if she hides—she is attacked for ducking the questions. Rather than galvanizing the electorate, her recent media rounds seem to yield little positive impact—if anything, they’re proving counterproductive.

Before this blitz, Ms. Harris led the RealClearPolitics average in almost all of the battleground states; she now trails Mr. Trump by 0.2 in Pennsylvania, 0.5 in Michigan, 1.4 in Arizona, and 1.0 in Georgia—a minor polling error in favor of Mr. Trump would result in him clinching the electoral college with him receiving 296 and Ms. Harris receiving 242; Mr. Trump would be 26 votes clear. Polymarkets' odds (of predicting the election's winner) have shifted to Mr. Trump; he can boast of having 53 percent odds of winning the election, up from his 49 percent at the beginning of the month.

There’s still a considerable stretch before Election Day, and the outcome remains uncertain. Whether Mr. Trump wins by a narrow or comfortable margin—or Ms. Harris does the same, neither result should be a surprise. This election brings to mind the race in 2004, the most similar comparison, when the polling margins in swing states hovered just under two percent, with some expecting John Kerry to prevail over George W. Bush and many others predicting a win for the president. Unsurprisingly, the polls missed, resulting in a fairly comfortable victory for Bush.

With some cynicism, one can’t help but wonder whether these polls are crafted to heighten the excitement and media spectacle of a ‘close race,’ or if they simply reflect it. In politics, a week is an eternity, and we still have three left; much can change before the final ballots are cast. Ms. Harris may yet regain her footing, or Mr. Trump could ultimately capitalize on the drift. But one thing is certain in this election full of unknowns: the unpredictability has never felt more acute.

Thirty-five days out from the presidential election, I find the cloudy weather of the Northeast perfectly encapsulates the country’s current mood. It’s frustrating to live through what is, in my opinion, among the worst presidential matchups we’ve been offered. The status quo may be so detestable that, once again, the nation chooses to elect the shaker-upper-in-chief, relegating us to four more years of divisiveness, borderline malignant narcissism, and pseudo-conservative governance. I don’t want any of my fellow conservatives to be surprised if Trump again tries to ram through amnesty for 2 million illegal immigrants, spends more than the preceding president, or necessitates more big government bailouts as a result of foolhardy tariffs.

In offering an alternative to this, Kamala Harris would like to remind us, first and foremost, that she grew up “in a middle-class family.” Having dual-employed Ph.D. parents—a father who was an economics professor at Stanford and a mother who was a biomedical scientist—hardly qualifies as “middle class.” After that, she’ll promise that, while the nation has had transformational leadership for the last four years, only the incumbent vice president is the “hope and change” candidate suited to solve all the problems that haven’t been solved in those four years. There’s nothing to indicate that Ms. Harris would be an effective president. At the risk of sounding cynical, she is, at best, an empty vessel, devoid of any rigid ideological moorings and unrelenting in the pursuit of power. This makes her very dangerous at the helm of a Democratic trifecta—and potentially moderate if tamed by a Republican Congress.

The modern progressivism Ms. Harris previously adhered to—when it suited her—rooted in baby boomer ideals and revitalized by Bernie Sanders-supporting millennials has run its course. Wokeness, for lack of a better word, is exhausted. As we look to the future, we are witnessing, among many of the electorate, support for a revival of classic liberalism: an emphasis on free markets, personal liberty, and intellectual openness. As Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith once said, “Liberalism is resurgent. One reason is that more and more people are so painfully aware of the alternative.” With the excesses of the progressive left having gone too far for the liking of most Americans, we will likely see a return to more traditional moorings in both parties.

The right faces similar challenges. The cadre of Trump-adjacent politicians—Kari Lake, Mark Robinson, and others—are not the ideological heirs. Mr. Trump has little interest in politics and policy and won’t drive any change like Barry Goldwater. They lack a guiding philosophy, a coherent vision for conservatism beyond the cult of personality they orbit. As I’ve written before, their fates are intertwined with Mr. Trump’s: should he lose, fade into obscurity, or leave office, they are likely to turn on one another in a cycle of betrayal, much like the permanent revolutionaries of Soviet Russia. We’ve seen this before. Edmund Burke once cautioned, “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.” Without a clear ideological compass, the right risks being led astray by those who seek power for its own sake.

However, let’s not deceive ourselves—this election matters—every election matters. But American history cannot, and will not, be defined by a single president's term. We have endured far worse. From the bloody Civil War that tore us apart to the economic crises that left us in despair to the triumphs of two World Wars, America has always emerged stronger. Our innovation, resilience, and unparalleled standard of living are a testament to the enduring spirit of the American people. As General Patton famously said in his typical brash style, “We're not holding a goddamned thing. We're advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding anything.” Crass though it may be, Patton perfectly encapsulates the indomitable American way of life: keep pushing forward, no matter the challenges.

So here we are, staring down a month of joyless politicking and four years of inevitable disappointment. But there is hope. We will march forward, learning, growing, and adapting as we've always done. One hopes we can finally close the chapter on this era of fear and loathing and begin anew. As Winston Churchill reminded us in the darkest hours of history, “If you're going through hell, keep going.”

And so we will.

By all measures, Kamala Harris’s performance in the debate was effective; her victory was triumphant. The analysis should focus less on her polished delivery and more on the visceral reaction she elicited from Donald Trump, the ever-unpredictable linchpin. Her strategy was as transparent as it was successful: bait the former president into fits of pique, and, predictably, he did not disappoint. From the moment she subtly questioned the size of his crowds, Mr. Trump spiraled into a frenzy of self-aggrandizing, irrational rants—once again proving himself woefully unable to resist even the most obvious provocations. His unraveling was so predictable that conspiracy theorists might be tempted to question whether he was in on the strategy, willfully playing the part of the agitated antagonist.

Mr. Trump’s inability to string together coherent thoughts and his near-obsessive focus on relitigating the 2020 election rendered his debate performance an unmistakable display of political self-destruction. He meandered through nonsensical assertions—from alleging electoral fraud to engaging in bizarre digressions about stolen pets—leaving the impression of a man utterly unmoored from reality. It is regrettable, though unsurprising, that the right, under Mr. Trump’s auspices, has mutated into a movement fueled by delusion and paranoia, led by a figure whose disdain for intellectual rigor and narcissism is palpable.

It’s no secret that politics thrives on rival visions and dynamic, if not combative, exchanges, which are welcomed as part of healthy discourse. Yet, it’s revealing that what sparked Mr. Trump’s ire during the debate was not a defense of the Biden-Harris administration’s domestic policies—policies that have undeniably caused significant distress for many Americans. Instead, what enraged him were Ms. Harris’s remarks about “world leaders laughing at him” and “people leaving his rallies early”—personal affronts that knocked him off course in a moment reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's iconic “There you go again,” exposing his vulnerability to even minor challenges to his image. This moment underscored the motivations of his campaign: the perceived injustice of losing the previous election, narcissistic indulgence, and his insatiable desire for media attention.

Mr. Trump stumbled over what should have been an unassailable point regarding abortion. Rather than seizing upon the clear legislative record—a bill signed by Governor Tim Walz, which expunged language that once protected the unborn even in the final stages of pregnancy—he chose instead to indulge in hyperbole about “executions of babies.” Mr. Trump’s political style possesses this baffling inability to articulate a serious and morally potent argument, which is not surprising given that he is neither serious nor particularly concerned with morality. Confronted with the predictable Democratic rejoinder that such late-term abortions are rare, Mr. Trump could have deftly pivoted, pointing out that, rare or not, the mere existence of such a law is an affront to reason and decency. Yet, once again, he retreated into the familiar refuge of bombast, failing to score points against Ms. Harris, her running-mate, or the administration’s policies.

As the campaign wears on, the question arises: how long will conservatives continue to defend the indefensible? Each time Mr. Trump takes the stage and loses himself in a quagmire of his own creation, he reinforces the image his opponents wish to cast upon him. He, the Republican party, and by extension, conservatism, are portrayed as devoid of intellect, inarticulate on policy, and grounded in baseless conspiracy. Surely, this cannot be the foundation upon which the future of conservatism is built.

This evening serves as a stark reminder of why much of the conservative intelligentsia and media apparatus were misguided in not condemning, and in some cases rationalizing, Mr. Trump's retreat from Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley earlier this year, as Mr. Trump avoided every GOP primary debate. Those who celebrated this decision—his loyalists—argued that he did not need to debate since he would 'win anyway'—perhaps valid for the primary, but certainly not for the general election. However, recall that these same loyalists likely believe he won the last election if not for the “fraud.”

The troubling undercurrent within conservative media is a reluctance to confront the weaknesses of its standard-bearer, preferring instead to shield him from scrutiny. By evading the debates, Mr. Trump deprived his base of the opportunity to see him defend his “ideas” (or whatever passes for ideas in his political universe) and exposed a more profound insecurity: he may falter when faced with a disciplined, competent adversary like Mr. DeSantis. Mr. DeSantis presents himself as a serious candidate, capable of articulating policy and engaging in erudite sparring—a task that Mr. Trump, whose intellectual grasp at times appears brilliant, and yet can appear so tenuous that it teeters precariously on the precipice of irrelevance, is wholly unequipped to handle.

The anti-intellectual strain of conservatism, one that places personality above principle and spectacle above substance, therefore erred in viewing debates as spectacles to be skipped at one's convenience, rather than crucibles where leaders are made—or unmade. In shielding Mr. Trump from this process, the conservative commentariat denied the Republican electorate the opportunity to witness whether their chosen champion could still withstand the pressures of a serious political contest. The truth of his inability now uncomfortably slips to the surface, exploited by Ms. Harris.

In the debate, Mr. Trump regrettably failed to convey any substantive transformation from his 2020 persona, and neglected to demonstrate the maturation or reflective growth that voters may have hoped for. He did little to persuade swing voters, who are likely to shift toward Ms. Harris. When one reflects upon the razor-thin margins of the 2020 contest, it is crucial to remember that, particularly with the nature of the Electoral College, even the slightest loss of voter confidence can have disproportionate political consequences. For the swing voter, all the histrionics and spectacle of the evening, the substance—or rather, the lack thereof—on display by Mr. Trump allowed Ms. Harris to ascend from the wings of obscurity into the frame of a viable alternative.

The Congress of the United States seems determined to approach another government shutdown; the repetitive nature of these crises would be comical if its pathetic frequency didn't lend it a semblance of tragedy. As often happens, the nation finds itself purportedly on the brink of disaster with the ominous specter of a “fiscal emergency” looming over Washington. Both the shutdown drama and the supposed bipartisan agreements presented at the 11th hour are nothing more than political theater—an elaborate distraction from the real, long-term fiscal irresponsibility that has plagued both parties for decades.

Politicians posture, throw accusations across the aisle, and pretend to champion fiscal discipline. Republicans oft sing a tune about how reckless amounts of spending by their Democratic opponents threaten the nation's finances, while Democrats similarly decry Republican “tax cuts for the rich” and allege that they focus on benefits for corporate donors and the wealthy at the expense of the deficit. In reality, both Democrats and Republicans are equally liable for this gross mismanagement.

No politician or party is willing to make the hard choices necessary to rein in spending as we hurtle toward fiscal collapse. Instead, our Soviet-style gerontocracy in Congress—aging politicians, most of whom were born before 1960—clings to power by prioritizing their interests—reelection. Cutting spending is rarely popular. As a result, they are content to kick the proverbial can down the road, leaving the next generation with an unprecedented mountain of debt.

Shutdowns are a charade. Politicians and Beltway pundits treat these moments as existential crises, but they allow both parties to avoid addressing the real drivers of our national debt. Shutdown discourse fixates on short-term battles over discretionary spending—which accounts for about a third of the federal budget—while ignoring the far more consequential issue of mandatory spending, which makes up the bulk of government expenditures.​

Congress has until September 30 to avoid the latest shutdown, but the course of action they will take is predictable. Lawmakers will scramble for last-minute stopgap measures and temporary funding patches, declare themselves heroes for keeping the lights on, and the cycle will likely repeat. Meanwhile, the deficit will continue to balloon unchecked, expanding upon itself like a black hole.

The first, and perhaps most glaring, culprit is entitlements. Entitlement spending—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid accounted for 63% of total federal outlays in 2021, with the untouchable sacred cow that is Social Security costing $1.4 trillion alone. Due to the aging of the American population, the shrinking labor force participation rate, and rising healthcare costs, entitlements are projected to account for $4 trillion of outlays by 2033—eclipsing the tax revenue generated by the U.S. government.

One must conclude that the only path toward solvency is means testing. Many American seniors are quite wealthy and benefit from government stimulus and rising asset values, such as 401(k)s, homes, and stocks, while their fixed incomes, like Social Security, increase with inflation. This contrasts the financial struggles of younger Americans, who face high living costs and difficulty accumulating assets. Those seeking to conserve this status quo, oddly enough, the liberals in this equation, criticize those seeking entitlement reforms as amoral robber barons, yet where is the morality in subsidizing the life of the old rich off the backs of the younger working populace?

The common retort against means testing is often from those who stand to benefit, insisting that “they paid into it” and, therefore, are entitled to it irrespective of their financial situation. This argument is not compelling as there are several programs that affluent taxpayers pay into but do not typically benefit from, such as Unemployment Insurance, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pell Grants, and Federal Student Aid. Social Security was established to provide a safety net to prevent poor seniors, ensuring those in this limited circumstance would have a safety net to fall into, not serve as a Universal Basic Income for the elderly.

A report from the Manhattan Institute points out that these programs disproportionately benefit high-income seniors, many of whom are the wealthiest generation in U.S. history, with millions holding more than $1 million in investable assets. At the end of 2023, Americans over 70 held 30% of the country's wealth despite comprising roughly 11% of the population. Lack of means testing creates a moral hazard, as high-income Americans become disincentivized from managing their finances responsibly or saving for retirement. There is an erroneous notion that Social Security benefits always match contributions, yet the Manhatten Institute's study concluded that a high-earning couple would receive $836,000 in benefits for $812,000 in contributions. As the benefits for wealthy retirees increase, the deficits of the program continue to grow at an unsustainable level.

Means testing presents the perfect compromise between both ideologies. It satisfies fiscal conservatives by providing a significant and beneficial cut to spending, while avoiding the need for tax increases and their adverse effects on investment, job creation, productivity, and economic growth. Liberals should also support this approach as it is fiscally prudent without harming those who genuinely depend on these programs—the poor.

Yet, both parties balk at the idea. Republicans fear alienating the older voters they presently depend on for political survival, and Democrats are too beholden to the notion that Social Security is sacrosanct. The political stalemate is exacerbated by polarization—rather than work together, whichever party moves first to touch benefits would immediately be pounced on by the other. The result is a bipartisan failure that continues to bankrupt the country.

The most significant failure on this front comes from the Republicans. Conservatism is rooted in limited government, lessened and more efficient spending, and the encouragement of personal responsibility. Once the party of fiscal restraint, with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his majority working with President Bill Clinton to balance the budget in 1998, the Republicans have since abandoned their commitment to cutting spending—let alone reforming entitlements.

Conservative think tanks, columnists in the National Review, and other hubs of right-wing intellectualism remain the last vestiges of entitlement reform as the political reality has become messier. The last serious attempt to address the program’s impending insolvency came in 2005 when President George W. Bush warned of the threat to Social Security’s solvency. Mr. Bush warned that for the program to remain alive for America's young, it needed to be dramatically reformed and suggested partially privatizing the program, allowing Americans to divert their Social Security tax into investments and creating individual accounts.

Democrats unanimously opposed these reforms, and Republican intra-party divisions and public discontent helped contribute to the 'blue wave' in the 2006 midterms. In these elections, Democrats regained control of both chambers of Congress, effectively killing the reform. The reality is that, despite its necessity, entitlement reform is incredibly unpopular—Social security is often described as a third rail of politics; one dares not touch it. The general public has difficulty visualizing the consequences of events decades away. It is more inclined to support politicians who flaunt a glistening smile and insist everything is fine and that no cuts are necessary.

This brings us to the modern Republican Party's capitulation on entitlements. In 2016, the populist insurgency led by Donald Trump remade American political coalitions, and the Republican party abandoned many of its conservative principles, particularly those regarding entitlements and spending. Unlike Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, or George W. Bush, Mr. Trump rejected touching Social Security or Medicare. Instead, Mr. Trump repeatedly campaigned to “protect” these programs in 2016, 2020, and 2024, criticizing Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and others for proposing reforms to the programs that would’ve done a far better job “protecting” them than inaction. Mr. Trump champions the status quo as it relates to entitlements because he knows these programs particularly resonate with his base, which is comprised of former Democrats (predisposed to be in favor of social welfare), older voters, and those in rural areas who are reliant on government assistance.

Mr. Trump and his populism offer vague optics-driven promises rather than robust policy, suggesting that it is possible to "have your cake and eat it too," where short-term and positive-sounding benefits are often championed and long-term or damaging consequences ignored. In this case, Mr. Trump, and almost every other politician, would rather keep the unsustainable trajectory of these programs in the long term than risk losing political capital.

Mr. Trump utterly failed when it came to government spending. Simply cutting taxes and proclaiming victory is inadequate. The 115th Congress, the last Republican Trifecta, was a prime example of the Republican party's fiscal policy failure. The Trump administration spent $3.8 trillion in its first two years, despite promises to reduce the size of government and a campaign pledge to cut the national debt—outpacing President Obama’s emergency spending during the Great Recession. This is not fiscal responsibility; it is fiscal insanity.

Beyond entitlements, the federal government is riddled with inefficiency and waste. Yet the problem isn't merely the size of the government—it's the sprawling inefficiency that infects its operations. The government should do fewer things but do them well. Today’s government does too much and, as a result, does it poorly.

Despite repeated calls for reduced government size, federal employment has surged in the last decade by 10%. The federal government now employs 2 million people, often in redundant tasks that could be consolidated or eliminated for efficiency and decreased costs. Beyond mere staffing, the federal government’s inefficiency is compounded by the overlapping missions of its various agencies, generating a bureaucratic labyrinth that hemorrhages taxpayer dollars.

Consider, for example, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, both responsible for administering renewable energy programs. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report discovered 82 wind-related initiatives spread across nine agencies, including DOE and EPA, often duplicating financial support for the same projects—this fragmentation results in unnecessary financial excess. According to the GAO, eliminating this overlap could save the federal government up to $500 billion.

Both parties have failed to make the tough decisions necessary to bring America back to fiscal sanity. The real tragedy of government shutdowns is that they distract from the more profound crisis: a government addicted to spending, a political system unwilling to confront entitlement reform, and a future generation left to clean up the mess. If we are serious about solving the debt crisis, it’s time to cut the bloat by reforming entitlements and demanding efficiency from government agencies. The time for thumb-twirling and theatrics is over. We need leadership willing to make the hard choices—before it’s too late. Otherwise, we’re rearranging the Titanic deck chairs while Washington fiddles away.