As we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, Americans will be doing a lot of celebrating. They will honor not only the fact of our independence and nationhood, but also the political thought that shaped America’s founding struggle for freedom. Special attention will be paid, of course, to our Declaration of Independence.
But some may be rather cool to celebrating the Declaration’s doctrine of universal truths, such as the equality of all human beings in their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration has become a source of controversy among some younger conservatives who came of age during the Trump era.
The New Right’s dissatisfaction with the Declaration’s universalism is an understandable—but mistaken—reaction to various political misuses of America’s founding creed in recent decades. The older generation of conservatives who grew up admiring Ronald Reagan loves to boast about America’s defense of universal truths. The New Right has rightly argued that this rhetorical approach has not served the conservative political movement or the country well.
On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the decision to lift minimum and award wages and what the latest GDP figures mean for Australian households.
This discussion was recorded on Thursday 4 June 2026.
Support the research powerful interests fear. Make a tax-deductible donation to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year Appeal before 30 June.
Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute // @grogsgamut
Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek
The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.
The Truth about Derek Chauvin | The Roundtable Ep. 320
It’s the third of June, another sleepy dusty Delta day. Of course I’m republishing this! — SK
* * *
It was the 30th of December, and I was driving the Natchez Trace Parkway, looking for Bobbie Gentry.
I didn’t want to find her. I only wanted to know she was out there, eluding everyone.
I wanted her to outwit every man who did her wrong. Many are dead: Bobbie Gentry is in her 80s. She hasn’t appeared on stage since 1981, when, after a series of music industry disputes, she left public life behind with a steadfastness unrivaled.
I was not the first to explore Chickasaw County, Mississippi and other Gentry haunts, hoping for a glimpse of the singer. For over forty years, no stranger has tracked her down. Gentry wanted to disappear and she got her way. She is rumored to be happy. I am likely angrier about the treatment of Bobbie Gentry than Bobbie Gentry is.
It’s only fair when a trailblazing woman gets burned that younger women pick up the torch.
Sarah Kendzior’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Recorded live as part of our Australia’s Biggest Book Club webinar series, Antoinette Lattouf joins Ebony Bennett to discuss her landmark legal battle with the ABC and her latest book, Women Who Win: Celebrating courage, conviction and change.
1800RESPECT is the national domestic, family and sexual violence counselling, information and support service. Call 1800 737 732, text 0458 737 732, chat online or video call via their website.
Support the research powerful interests fear. Make a tax-deductible donation to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year Appeal before 30 June.
Guest: Antoinette Lattouf, journalist and author of Women Who Win: Celebrating courage, conviction and change // @antoinettelattouf
Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett
Since the 1970s and for a variety of different reasons, the Declaration has been marginalized as a touchstone in national discourse. There are plenty of politicians and political movements in the last two generations that included a throwaway citation of the Declaration in a speech or manifesto. But this is far from the American people—even 10 or 15 or 20 percent— taking the Declaration seriously as a touchstone for deliberation. No 12-step ideological project for taking the Declaration seriously will elevate it to the prominent position it should hold today. Still, as America enters its next 250 years, it is worth considering what nonideological, nonpartisan steps will help in this effort. For Americans to get right with the Declaration, they must take it seriously for (1) its ideas, (2) the disposition it inspires, and (3) the skill set it requires.
Taking the Declaration’s Principles Seriously Today
Welcome to Part Two of my Q &A, in which I answer questions sent by readers! I usually do this in one article. But I’ve got pneumonia, so I’m breaking it into three parts and publishing them as I go, so that your questions don’t get dated. If you weren’t answered in the first one or in this one, wait for the final one. Thanks!
If you can afford to become a paying subscriber to this newsletter, please consider it. It keeps my articles open to all and feeds my family of four! You also get the perk of submitting a question for the next Q & A:
Sarah Kendzior’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis and Angus Blackman discuss op-shop submarines, the Democrats’ review of the 2024 election, and Trump’s Iran loop.
The nonprofit Feeding Our Future claimed to have served 91 million meals to children across Minnesota. But as Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Kline described in a recent court hearing, they were not feeding kids—they were instead “feeding the bank accounts of fraudsters.” FOF founder Aimee Bock was sentenced to nearly 42 years in prison for stealing close to $250 million in taxpayer dollars, orchestrating what the DOJ called the largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the country.
Seventy-eight defendants and counting set up shell companies and phantom sites to feed nonexistent children. Former prosecutor Joe Thompson described the urgency of the FBI takedown: “I remember we took down the case on a Thursday because the following day, on a Friday, is when [the Minnesota Department of Education] paid out the money. Every Friday, they paid out about $20 million.” Twenty million dollars every Friday for meals the system never independently verified.
I have written many book reviews before, but this is the first time I have ever reviewed a memoir, Rowan Cahill’s Cold War Kid: Resisting the Vietnam War. There is an added layer of responsibility that comes with the job – it is one thing to attack an academic text for theoretical or empirical shortcomings, but quite another to pass judgment on a person’s account of their own life. This is doubly so when that person is a friend and mentor. In the spirit of the radical history Rowan calls for in the book, this review makes no pretences about cold, dispassionate objectivity. There will no doubt be reviews aplenty in that vein down the road. No, I have approached the text as the colourful story of a devoted activist, a text which, in detailing the possibilities, limitations and costs of radical politics in the 1960s and 1970s, speaks powerfully to the contemporary scene.
In November 2023, more than 270 Australian journalists signed an open letter calling for fairer Gaza coverage. Consequently, senior editors at Nine's mastheads, all of whom had taken lobby-funded trips to Israel, banned signatories from covering the conflict. Two months later, an Israeli tank fired on an ambulance the army had cleared to reach six-year-old Hind Rajab, killing her and the paramedics. It made headlines worldwide — but across 2024, News Corp and Nine published no original reporting on it. This editorial blackout of verified atrocity crimes is a distinct mechanism of impunity, erasing the victims and enabling the perpetrators.
State-funded broadcasters carry special obligations under international law that commercial outlets don’t. When the World Court put states on notice of a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza, Australia’s public broadcaster should have reported it plainly. Instead, for over two years, it referred the word “genocide” upward; it humanised Israelis 1.58 times more than Palestinians; and it unlawfully sacked Antoinette Lattouf for sharing evidence of Israel’s crimes, then chose to spend over $2.6M in taxpayer money defending its surrender to the Israel lobby. Under cover of “impartiality”, this is how “our ABC” primed Australians to consent to complicity in genocide.
For over two years, Australian media counterweighted the largest sustained protest movement in Australia’s history, dissipating public pressure to prevent Israel’s genocide. This cornerstone submission traces a lobby–media–state nexus through lobby-funded travel cultivating compliant editors; co-ordinated complaints, smears, sackings and litigation enforcing silence; and the exploitation of Bondi grief to recast solidarity as bigotry and manufacture a mandate to criminalise it. The Royal Commission now interrogating public discourse has itself adopted the lobby’s definition of antisemitism. Australian media didn’t just fail the public’s right to know; it primed consent for complicity in genocide, and for punishing those who oppose it.
The Australian epitomises editorial complicity: it published a denial of deliberate starvation two weeks after leaked Israeli cabinet transcripts confirmed it was chosen as a strategy of war; it printed over 100 pro-Israel letters and none critical, as 300,000 Australians marched for humanity; and while it referenced Randa Abdel-Fattah in 412 articles, our research found 148 referencing Louise Adler, including 23 dedicated attack pieces, 17 alone in the fortnight of her Adelaide Writers’ Week resignation. John Lyons, its former Jerusalem correspondent, says only three people can tell its editors what to run: Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch, and AIJAC’s Colin Rubenstein.
We know we live in serious times because the Declaration of Independence itself is controversial. Its meaning is contested or repudiated, and its authors are condemned. This very meeting is criticized as an attempt to turn America into a Christian nation. The Declaration says that under the laws of nature and nature’s God, no human being may rule another without his consent. In this respect, it is just like the New Testament, which makes each of us responsible for his own salvation.
Most people long for our divisions to be healed. How can that happen? The answer is found in the unsurpassed Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln. You should go tonight if you can, at night when it’s quiet, to the Lincoln Memorial. Stand facing Lincoln. Very beautiful. Look to your left: the Gettysburg Address, the full text. Look to your right: this Second Inaugural about which I’m speaking. It is a poem and a prayer. It says that the story of America is unique and beautiful. The beauty is offset by tragedy, and we see the beauty next to the tragedy—and see that the beauty is higher.
Writing in 1833, Justice Joseph Story, one of the greatest jurists of the early republic, warned against a dangerously exaggerated conception of the freedom of the press. “There is,” Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, “a good deal of loose reasoning on the subject of the liberty of the press, as if its inviolability were constitutionally such, that, like the king of England, it could do no wrong, and was free from every inquiry, and afforded a sanctuary for every abuse; that, in short, it implied a despotic sovereignty to do every sort of wrong, without the slightest accountability to private or public justice.” This idea, Story held, “is too extravagant to be held by any sound constitutional lawyer.”
What we know at The Australia Institute is that change is difficult and hard fought. We have made real progress with Labor supporting these reforms to capital gains tax, negative gearing, and trusts.
But the change hasn’t passed the parliament yet, and vested interests are going to continue to push the Labor Government to water down or scrap these important reforms.
I have covered over a dozen Federal Budgets, and this is the first time I have felt optimistic that housing affordability will get better not worse. Young people deserve to be able to buy a home of their own and have the security that comes with that.
This month’s federal budget included three major tax changes – cutting back tax concessions for negative gearing, capital gains tax, and trust distributions. Some of this revenue will be returned with a $250 tax offset for working Australians, providing a much-needed boost to households on lower incomes. Disappointingly, however, income support payments such as JobSeeker and Commonwealth Rent Assistance were left untouched despite them being outpaced by inflation.
This insight piece focuses on whether the remainder of Labor’s term in government is the right time for even more ambitious tax reform.
How substantial were the budget changes?
The capital gains tax (CGT), negative gearing, and trust distribution tax changes are significant reforms.
Everybody’s Home has urged politicians and the public to see through the property lobby’s spin on investor tax breaks, accusing the sector of running a scare campaign that hands landlords an excuse to hike rents.
Media reports today feature property industry groups claiming that negative gearing and capital gains tax changes will increase rents by hundreds of dollars a year and result in thousands fewer new homes being built.
Everybody’s Home spokesperson Maiy Azize said their claims don’t stack up.
“The property lobby is showing that it can’t be trusted. They will use any opportunity to scuttle reform and look for reasons to justify higher rents,” Ms Azize said
“Claims that the changes will dampen new supply are designed to mislead the public. The changes are designed to encourage investors to buy new builds.
“The property lobby is using these changes as cover for opportunistic profiteering. By crying wolf, this sector is handing existing landlords – who actually get to keep their tax perks – an excuse to hike rents. These changes protect existing investors so these reforms shouldn’t be used as an excuse.
The report, published by The Australia Institute today, shows that mining companies use a quarter of the diesel in Australia, enough to fill every big ute in Australia 30 times, 3.4 times more than all agriculture, farming and forestry.
Key points:
Diesel use in mining has tripled in the last 20 years and is expected to increase into the future.
Recent reports on BHP shelving plans to electrify its Pilbara mining fleet highlight how slow the mining industry has been to reduce its diesel use.
Mining companies have little incentive to electrify because their diesel use is subsidised by the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme and they can use unlimited carbon offsets to comply with environmental requirements.
The Fuel Tax Credits Scheme costs taxpayers over $10 billion per year.
“Australians are being told to catch the bus in the name of fuel security, while the mining industry uses ever more diesel,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at The Australia Institute.
“Leaked documents from BHP show that the company is in no hurry to switch to electric equipment.
“Miners like BHP are happy to keep using subsidised diesel while the rest of Australia goes through a fuel security crisis.
“The Albanese Government is making this worse, not better.
“The government failed to reduce mining diesel subsidies in the budget, despite being urged to do so by the ACTU, social service agencies and even by a mining company, Fortescue.
A stablecoin rulemaking sprint is underway across five federal agencies. They are translating the GENIUS Act, which created a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins—a type of cryptocurrency tied to a stable asset—into operational rules that will shape American payment systems for a generation. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s comment period closed May 1; others are not far behind.
The political coalition behind stablecoin rules is striking. The Trump Administration views it as a tool for entrenching dollar dominance. Cryptocurrency advocates see it as long-overdue regulatory clarity. Free-market types are optimistic about unleashing chained-up capital and speeding up the payments process.
In the United States, but also around the world, fascism is on the rise again, similar to what occurred in Germany and Italy after World War I. Its foot soldiers in the US include right wing extremists who enter the military, where they are welcomed and encouraged, for empowerment and training. The current Trump administration, includes Christian Nationalists, such as Pete Hegseth who heads the Pentagon, and openly supports fascist and Zionist leaders — Javier Milei in Argentina, Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, to name a few.
On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss Pauline Hanson’s gas policy announcement, the failure at the heart of Australia’s employment services system, and what the latest inflation data could mean for interest rates.
This discussion was recorded on Thursday 28 May 2026.
Support the research powerful interests fear. Make a tax-deductible donation to the Australia Institute’s End of Financial Year Appeal before 30 June.
Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute // @grogsgamut
Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek
Two weeks since the last update, and the market did what we thought it would — no risk-off moment, just an overextended grind that's now losing steam. We're near the same levels we were at, momentum has exhausted itself, and flows are noticeably less supportive than they were. I'm not risk-off yet, but I'm about as weakly risk-on as you can get.
Oil has finally cooled below $100 a barrel, which helps real flows in the near term — though I don't think the longer-term oil story is over. And the deficit impulse in real terms continues its slow march toward the zero line, with inflation now the dominant headwind.
The most interesting piece this week: bank credit took a dive after the Iran conflict and is now re-accelerating — and this is playing out almost exactly as our DeepMinsky simulation predicted when we modeled the oil shock. I'll walk through the theory of why an oil shock hits credit the way it does, what it means for the late cycle, and a scenario I've been chewing on where the new Fed chair keeping rates flat could actually be the thing that tips us into recession. Full breakdown below.
The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.
On May Day 2026, the Green Economy Network’s Em Thompson brought together union health and safety experts for a public conversation on workers’ safety in the climate crisis. How is the labour union movement protecting workers from rising temperatures, increasing disasters, and weakening environmental regulations? Panelists include:
Hello readers! Thank you for your extraordinarily kind comments about my recent hardships in the Q & A call for submissions. And thank you for your thoughtful questions! I got so many that I’m putting the answers in two articles. This is the first. If your question isn’t answered here, please wait for the follow-up.
If you can afford to become a paying subscriber to this newsletter, please consider it. It keeps my articles open to all and feeds my family of four! You also get the perk of submitting a question for the next Q & A:
Sarah Kendzior’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
An indictment has been brought. The prosecutor is Elizabeth Corey, professor of political science at Baylor. The defendant is Christopher Rufo, and through him a whole class of conservatives whom the prosecutor calls the “scrappy warriors” of the New Right. Corey makes three charges against them: they are uncivil, they divide the world into friends and enemies after the manner of Carl Schmitt, and they would rather crush their opponents than convert them, preferring to defile the seminar room than save it. They are, in short, mean and essentially unfit for leadership.
Corey is a serious person, and the charges she brings are serious. The court owes her a fair hearing.
On this episode of Follow the Money, Martin Thomas from the Alliance for Gambling Reform and Morgan Harrington from the Australia Institute join Ebony Bennett to discuss how Australians came to have the biggest per capita gambling losses in the world, how online sports betting is turbocharging the damage caused by gambling, and the government’s straw man argument about “balance” when it comes to reform.
This episode was recorded on Tuesday 26 May.
If this episode raised issues for you, you can call the National Gambling Helpline on 1800 858 858 for free, professional and confidential support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Or visit Gambling Help Online at www.gamblinghelponline.org.au.
If you or anyone you know needs help, you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or online at www.lifeline.org.au.
Visit The Point for research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts at the Australia Institute and beyond.
Guest: Martin Thomas, Chief Executive Officer, Alliance for Gambling Reform
Guest: Morgan Harrington, Research Manager, the Australia Institute // @mhharrington
Conventional wisdom suggests that the 2028 Republican primary is shaping up to be a chaotic affair. Supposedly, it’s anyone’s game, as Vice President JD Vance is weaker than he appears, while potential adversaries including Marco Rubio are gaining an advantage.
But this view is untethered from reality. The fact is that the 2028 Republican nomination is JD Vance’s to lose. The faulty prevailing opinion has calcified for two reasons: a poor reading of history and a deficient understanding of the political landscape.
The “Vice Presidents Don’t Win” Canard
“George H.W. Bush is the only sitting vice president in the last 190 years (since 1836) to be elected president,” an MS Now analyst recently confidently wrote. He is not alone: the “190 years” number has been trotted out by those who contend that Vance stands little chance of winning the presidency in 2028.
