The Claremont Institute Feed Items

Opponents of surgically mutilating healthy adolescents are currently relishing a moment of vindication. This month, the Supreme Court delivered a blow to California laws that obligate schools to aid and abet minors’ “gender transitions,” keeping them secret from parents. Back east, a New York court awarded two million dollars in damages to a woman on whom doctors performed a double mastectomy at age 16. Given this turn in the cultural tide, it’s understandable why conservatives would be fighting the urge to spike the football and offer much-deserved “I told you sos.”

And there’s more good news. A few months ago, researcher Erik Kaufmann noted a precipitous decline in the number of young people who identify as “non-binary” after 2023. More recently, Jean Twenge, a scholar who charts generational divides and characteristics, confirmed that Kaufmann’s findings are likely true and can be extended to include transgender identity specifically and LGBTQ identity in general.

Feminism is sometimes presented by its proponents as something with which only an inveterate misogynist could disagree. “It’s just about fairness for women, allowing them the same freedoms to pursue their heart’s desire that we allow men,” it is claimed. “How can you be against that?!”

Some perhaps genuinely believe this. But it is nothing more than a rhetorical strategy to put critics on the defensive and to deflect attention from the radical core of virtually all contemporary feminist thought, at least of the kind one encounters among the cultural elite. The contemporary feminist worldview can be concisely summarized: men as a class oppose women as a class, and the only way to advance the cause of women in the face of collective patriarchal repression is to reduce or ignore the differences between the sexes altogether.

Where did such ideas come from? Some would have it that the basic ideas of feminism consist of the simple liberal principles articulated in the opening claim about freedom, and more radical divagations are of recent origin. Not true. You can find the extremism in the foundational sources of modern feminist thought. A consideration of Simone de Beauvoir’s 1949 book, The Second Sex, which is widely acknowledged as an essential early inspiration of what would become modern feminism, proves the point.

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.

Does the Right Have a Woman Problem? | The Roundtable Ep. 309

Frank Meyer’s fusionism combined free-market libertarianism and religion-friendly traditionalism to create the modern conservative movement. As a political alliance against the threat of Communism, the movement served its purpose. But the principles that undergirded Meyer’s synthesis were not an adequate basis for attaining and sustaining national power.

The difference between the defeated Goldwater faction and the victorious Reagan coalition was the vote of white Catholic Democrats alienated from their former party by its anti-anti-Communism and embrace of the three A’s: amnesty (for draft evaders), acid, and abortion. Those former Democrats did not want smaller government, so Reagan preserved, for them and the country, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with generating ever-larger deficits.

The Democrats are currently on track to take the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms. If this happens, they will empower resistance bureaucrats to slow down all Trump Administration initiatives. Of course, they’ll not only impeach Trump, but will also pursue impeachment proceedings against many Trump officials. This will substantially drain momentum from the administration and increase momentum for the Democrats heading into the crucial 2028 presidential election.

The Democrats are already putting together plans, formulating a narrative, and accumulating evidence, which they will use against Republicans should they retake power. We’ve seen this movie before.

The Marxist machine has had time to learn from its mistakes during 2020-2024. The Democrats will likely pursue criminal prosecution against key targets in the MAGA orbit, including big donors like Elon Musk, the DOGE bros, and even junior Trump staffers. We’ve already seen in Arctic Frost an effort to spy on sitting Republican United States senators—they’ll be on the target list, too.

This is power. Force is power. Politics is the management of force. For his tech-oriented publication Pirate Wires, Mike Solana recently published “Theory of Power,” which outlines how the Left will replicate California’s wealth tax to target billionaires on a nationwide scale. He believes that the Left is targeting billionaires because wealth is power. He’s half right.

While there are many political and policy victories Trump supporters can point to after his first year back in office, there are also questions about what might have been. A lingering one is often uttered in the form of a sigh: “What the hell happened to DOGE?”

Elon Musk first suggested the Department of Government Efficiency to Trump during the 2024 campaign. A government agency specifically tasked with downsizing bloated federal agencies and rooting out fraud was politically popular, and signing an executive order establishing the agency was one of Trump’s first actions upon being sworn in.

The much-vaunted Cuban revolutionary model is on the verge of unceremonious collapse: the economy is in shambles, the electric grid is only occasionally functional, and the supposed achievements of the Cuban Revolution have culminated in near-universal penury and misery. As of 2024, 89% of Cubans lived in poverty, sometimes of an abject kind—and things have only gotten worse over the last two years. Revolutionary Cuba is a model only of what is to be avoided.

In Cuba, growing crowds denounce Communism and the dictatorship that has enslaved the island nation since 1959. Anti-regime voices bang pots and pans in public demonstrations, demanding freedom for Cuba for the first time in 66 years. Yet, Western leftists continue to express solidarity with the Cuban people’s oppressors and blame Cuba’s problems on an American embargo that is often flouted. More absurdly, they insist that the oil embargo imposed by the Trump Administration after its defenestration of the Maduro dictatorship at the beginning of this year is the cause of Cuba’s present discontents. Somehow, the administration is responsible for the deep-seated structural problems that confront a Cuba immiserated by decades of unaccountable Communist rule.

Senator John Cornyn is in the fight of his life. In a throwback to the Tea Party primaries of the early 2010s, the senior senator from Texas (first elected in 2002) has been forced into a runoff for the first time in his career by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton, who was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives in 2023, managed to effectively tie Cornyn in the initial primary, with both receiving around 42% of the vote. While Cornyn is favored to win a runoff, particularly if President Donald Trump endorses him, it is by no means a sure thing.

Cornyn and his team may be wondering how they got to this point. They are not alone. Across the Western world, center-right individuals and parties are in deep trouble and seem unable to figure out why.

In Europe, the “respectable” center-right is a political dinosaur on its way to extinction. The German CDU is neck-and-neck (though more often than not, in second place) with the populist-right Alternative for Germany. Austria’s Freedom Party has been leading for the past three years, while Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy has led the country for over four. Poland’s right wing is dominated by two parties: a populist-right party and one that’s even further to the right. France and the United Kingdom have both seen their center-right parties decimated, replaced by the populist-right National Rally and Reform parties, respectively.

Donald Trump has saved the liberal international order—and with it the promise of American global leadership. The bombing of Iran’s regime is the latest sign that a revived order will reassert the fundamental principles of muscular liberalism that defined the post-World War II era. Critics have spent the last decade bewailing Trumpism as a threat to the post-war order. By now, however, it should be plain that they were wrong. The Trump Administration has rebuilt a system of effective deterrence against threats to international peace and security, and a grateful world will someday recognize his achievement.

Unlike Britain, our imperial tradition was born before, not after, our rise to national greatness. That means we never suffered the sclerosis of bureaucratic management in foreign affairs that eventually defeated the British Empire. George Washington helped himself to war-torn Indian lands after the Seven Years’ War. Andrew Jackson violated Spanish sovereignty to march on Florida during the War of 1812 because of Spain’s inability to control Indian and British abuses. John C. Frémont was a key actor when Mexican rule collapsed in California.

Our imperial tradition culminated in the construction of the liberal international order (LIO) after World War II, which was a substantive order, not a procedural one. The aim was to ensure peace and security, and to advance free and democratic societies. Whatever rules and procedures accrued from that order were subordinate to its substantive aims.

For almost half a century, American policymakers have been conditioned to look the other way when Iran has attacked America. The Iranian regime sees the United States as its main enemy—beneath contempt and worthy of death and destruction. President Trump views the threat of future Iranian attacks as existential, and believes that further delay is no longer acceptable. It is therefore a matter of life and death that he has taken military action in Iran.

President Trump has two objectives: to make sure Iran does not use nuclear ballistic missiles to attack the United States and to install a regime in Tehran favorable to U.S. interests. This will only happen when the current Iranian regime is defeated—and when they know they have been defeated.

Last summer’s Operation Desert Hammer did not change the Iranian regime’s mind that destroying America was their birthright. The Iranians must know that their policy of killing Americans has brought death and destruction, and that future killings will bring annihilation. Of this there can be no doubt.

The U.S. did not launch the airstrikes to liberate the Iranian people from the Islamic rule of the mullahs. Although President Trump is sympathetic to the Iranian people’s plight, the liberation of Iran is a job for the Iranian people. As it is, President Trump is trying to liberate the United States from the Deep State and its corrosive grip on our constitutional government.

It has been a little over a week since U.S. military forces, acting pursuant to direct authorization from President Donald Trump as commander-in-chief, began a large attack, coordinated with Israeli military forces, on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Islamic Republic’s top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have been killed, its navy entirely destroyed, its air defense systems decimated, and much of its ability to counterattack severely (though unfortunately not entirely) undermined. Freedom-loving Iranians the world over, both inside and outside the country, have been exuberant at the prospect of restoring their beloved country to the ranks of respected, peaceful, and prosperous nation-states.

One would think that such a potentially transformative action would draw praise from both sides of the political aisle in the United States. Iran, after all, has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism ever since its current ruling junta took control in 1979. That’s 47 years of terrorist attacks against the United States (which it describes as the “Great Satan”), our key ally in the Middle East Israel (“Little Satan”), and others. And the Islamic Republic has made clear, repeatedly, that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons and to use them. A decisive effort to put an end to this ongoing threat is therefore long overdue and should be applauded.

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.

Ayatollah 2: Electric Boogaloo | The Roundtable Ep. 308

The specter of regime change is haunting the Trump coalition.

Enthusiasts and critics of the U.S./Israeli-Iran War are arguing over its justification, desirability, and feasibility (or lack thereof) based in part on whether or not it is a war aimed at regime change. The Trump Administration has thus far phrased its public rationales for the war in terms of degrading Iran’s military capacities, eliminating its nuclear program, and ending its support for proxy terror groups—with a view to encouraging and enabling rather than directly effecting regime change. Trump concluded his February 28 announcement of Operation Epic Fury by addressing the Iranian people: “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been explicit for years, as well as in the opening days of Operation Roaring Lion, that regime change in Tehran is an Israeli goal. The Israeli Air Force seems to have taken the lead in the decapitation strikes against Iranian leadership, beginning with Ayatollah Khamenei, who was killed in the opening salvo of the war.

It is often believed that the common-law rule of birthright citizenship was that mere birth on the sovereign’s soil was sufficient to create such citizenship. That is incorrect. Although that statement is an approximation of the rule that usually gets the correct result, the precise common-law rule was birth on the sovereign’s soil to parents under the sovereign’s protection.

That is how Sir Edward Coke described the rule in Calvin’s Case, the leading common-law decision from 1608. Aliens from friendly countries with permission to be in the realm were under the sovereign’s temporary protection and owed in exchange a temporary allegiance to the sovereign. They were, while in the realm, natural subjects of the king. That is why their children born in the realm were natural-born subjects. In contrast, the children born of invading soldiers were not birthright subjects “although born upon [the king’s] soil,” because they were not born “under the ligeance of a subject” or “under the protection of the king.” That is, a natural-born subject is one born to another subject, a subject who was under the protection of the king. Invaders did not count, but aliens were subjects of the king if they were under his protection and, in exchange, explicitly or implicitly, swore allegiance to him.

What’s often lost amid discussions about America’s reliance on Chinese manufacturing is the vulnerability of our most basic chemical inputs. Pharmaceutical ingredients may not hold the same futuristic mystique as essential computing components, but they are no less vital to our society. In fact, just one vitamin is necessary to make effective supplements, fortified processed food, and nutritionally viable baby formula.

Vitamin B12 (or cobalamin) is one of the most complex compounds human beings have ever attempted to synthesize. Naturally produced by bacteria in a process involving more than 30 genes and many enzymatic steps, B12 required the combined efforts of more than 100 researchers and a Nobel laureate to reproduce in a lab.

Mass production of B12 relies on fermentation. Apart from being the global leader in manufacturing, China is also the leader in that process, holding 70% of the world’s capacity. It is no wonder, then, that the United States has relied on the Chinese to produce its vitamins.

A little more than a week into the U.S.’s campaign against the Iranian regime—which the Pentagon classifies as a below peer level—Central Command is pulling interceptors from the Indo-Pacific to keep the defensive umbrella intact over the Persian Gulf.

How is this possible when every major strategy document of the 21st century promised that the United States military could handle what lay ahead?

The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, which replaced the Cold War two-war framework, pledged to “swiftly defeat” aggression in two theaters while winning decisively in one. The 2018 National Defense Strategy shifted the frame to Great Power competition, assuring Congress that the joint force could mount sufficient deterrence in three regions, fight and win one major conflict, and maintain the ability to deter a second. The 2022 National Defense Strategy introduced “integrated deterrence,” which described a force that could simultaneously address the “pacing threat” of China, the “acute threat” of Russia, and persistent challenges in the Middle East.

The American university is broken. The people running the universities know it, which is why they have redoubled their efforts to make sure you can’t do anything about it.

The story has been told so many times in conservative circles that retelling it risks being a bore: William F. Buckley warned us in 1951 about the free fall that had already begun in higher education. Allan Bloom sounded the alarm in 1987. Ross Douthat offered his critique in 2005. A generation of conservatives has poured time, treasure, and talent into reforming higher ed. We’ve funded centers, endowed chairs, launched institutes, filed lawsuits, and written enough op-eds to fill the Library of Alexandria. Yet still—still—the average graduate of an American university is more likely to be able to explain the nuances of “systemic oppression” than to tell you who wrote The Federalist Papers.

That should be a sign that the old approach, whatever its merits, was fundamentally wrong—not because the diagnosis was wrong, but because the strategy was. As Aristotle says, we should deliberate about means, not ends. Conservatives have been trying to reform the university from within a system that is designed, at every level, to resist exactly the kind of reformation we seek. It is time to stop playing a rigged game and build our own system.

The Unassailable Fortress

Wilhelm Röpke once observed, in a sentence that ought to unsettle every free market romanticist in our time, that the market economy “presupposes and requires a moral and social framework which it cannot itself create.” This line is often quoted as a caveat to free enterprise, but it is more properly read as its foundation. Markets are not self-sustaining organisms, nor do they generate the conditions that make them legitimate. They depend upon a prior architecture of norms, institutions, and habits that provide coherence and legitimacy.

In our republic, one of the most concrete expressions of that framework is homeownership.

Röpke’s defense of markets was inseparable from his insistence on the diffusion of property. He did not associate capitalism with mass consumption or asset appreciation. He equated it with rooted ownership, with households that possess something tangible, something inherited and stewarded. Without that diffusion, he feared the slow advance of what he called “proletarianization”: the condition of citizens who participate in markets, yet own nothing substantial.

“The proletarian,” Röpke wrote in The Social Crisis of Our Time, “is the man who has no property…who is without roots.” His concern was the gradual transformation of citizens into rootless wage earners whose livelihoods depend upon systems too vast to influence and too distant to anchor them.

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.

No More No More War | The Roundtable Ep. 307

At first glance, it seems that the Western establishment should welcome Operation Epic Fury. As Joshua Lisec and I document in our upcoming book, Unelected, the entire post-World War II order has been built on the premise that global security depends on the spread of democracy (or the downfall of tyrants at the very least). As United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a 2001 speech, there is “a need for more democracy on the global level, which is what the United Nations has been about from the very beginning.”

While many of us are currently monitoring the situation in the Iranian fog of war, other pressing questions at home remain. What sort of victory against foreign enemies will we have if we end up losing our country to internal threats?

I am speaking, of course, of the migration crisis, which has thrown the very concept of American citizenship itself into doubt. After decades of treating citizenship like some ethereal idea, theoretically extendable to anyone who wants it, Americans have finally woken up to the fact that citizenship must be more than a piece of paper. New questions, as well as new battle lines, have emerged not only around illegal and legal immigration—but even the idea of birthright citizenship is now up for legal reexamination.

It’s against this larger background, then, that we should view Trump v. Barbara, a case the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing on April 1. At stake is whether our laws permit Americans to have a country or not. The Court will hear the government defend the proposition that birthright citizenship does not include children born to parents who are “unlawfully present,” or who have only “temporary” status. Such conditions on citizenship are very common among many nations, including numerous historically Christian nations.

This past weekend, the United States launched Operation Epic Fury, a coordinated campaign with Israel that sent a wave of airstrikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeting its military and infrastructure after decades of refusing to halt its nuclear program. In this effort to break the spine of a regime that has ruled through terror at home and violence abroad for nearly 50 years, a significant number of the regime’s top political and military leaders were killed, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

It matters that the ayatollah did not simply expire naturally but was taken out by the United States. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s evil project of repression is well known across the West, along with its killing of Americans and regular chants of “death to America.” For decades, it has brutally crushed its own citizens and wreaked havoc worldwide through its proxies while Western countermeasures were marginally effective at best and enabled these actions at worst.

The Mellon Foundation and its peers have recently come under sustained attack for their role in radicalizing higher education. Headlines like “Mellon Foundation Awards Morgan State University $500,000 Grant to Cultivate the Next Generation of Black, LGBTQ+ Scholar-Activists” are now a dime a dozen. Notable contributors to this wave of critiques include Tao Tan, who put together data-driven analysis for the American Enterprise Institute on the effect of grants from private foundations, and Tyler Austin Harper, who wrote a withering profile of the Mellon Foundation for The Atlantic. These and other writers provide chapter and verse on how the financial incentives provided by Mellon and its lesser brethren have transformed America’s humanities and social science professors into leftist activists.

To revive higher education, tradition-minded philanthropists must play an essential role in reforming what radical philanthropists have tried their best to wreck. They should not attempt to create counter-Mellons, but instead provide professors with financial incentives to move away from radical activism. Mellon’s task was to radicalize a liberal establishment willing to be radicalized. Because it worked with the philosophical grain of the academy, its task was easier than what tradition-minded education reformers currently face.

Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, which was published 63 years ago this month, marked the beginning of the modern wave of American feminism. It has contributed perhaps more than any other radical ideology to the dissolution of traditional American culture and social order. This is a good moment to remind ourselves precisely how far out of touch with reality Friedan’s book is, as part of the ongoing effort to reclaim the culture it set out to demolish.

Based on interviews with her former Smith College classmates 15 years after graduating, Friedan’s book describes what she calls “the problem that has no name.” By this she meant a purportedly widespread perception that college-educated women believed their lives were crushingly unfulfilling, a problem that would require a complete re-envisioning of the family and the sexual division of labor to address.

However, among the book’s readers who were eager to accept Friedan’s critical diagnosis, few bothered to look closely enough to see that by her own analysis “the problem that has no name” should have been called “the problem that does not really exist except in the minds of a few discontented radicals like Betty Friedan.” She did not discover a problem—she simply found a way to interpret reality in a way sympathetic to her desires.

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.

Overthrowing Nixon, ft. James Rosen | The Roundtable

On February 20, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s slate of tariffs that were enacted pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision cut across partisan lines, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett aligning with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson over their dissenting colleagues, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. The outcome was immediately met with apoplectic reactions from administration supporters and barely contained glee from its critics. Republicans might have appointed a supermajority of the Court’s justices, but those justices will not simply rubber-stamp the president’s agenda.

This ruling represents something of a legal watershed. It is hard to envision a sharper divergence between the priorities of the current administration—and the broader New Right—and the mainstream conservative legal movement, which has shaped American jurisprudence for decades and produced the overwhelming majority of top-flight conservative jurists. The New Right has made a case for using executive power for the common good, a means of instantiating a wide-ranging policy agenda. Tariffs are a key component of that. But meanwhile, the dominant culture of the conservative legal movement remains deeply skeptical of executive branch authority and celebrates decisions that cripple administrative power.

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 Trump Tariffs Go to Court | The Roundtable Ep. 306

Earlier this month, the Cato Institute—perhaps the most effective think tank advocating for open borders—published a study claiming that since 1994, immigration has generated a whopping $14.5 trillion surplus in tax revenues over expenditures.

However, it was quickly pointed out that Cato’s study relies on strange notions of what ought to count in making immigration policy. For example, while acknowledging that immigration raises housing prices by increasing demand, the study views the increased property taxes paid by all residential property owners—citizens and noncitizens alike—as a benefit of that increased demand.

But perhaps more fundamental is the study’s notion of what should count as an expenditure on immigrants. It treats the educational and medical expenses of immigrants’ American-born children—all of whom Cato claims are “birthright citizens”—as expenditures on citizens rather than on immigrants. This is the same kind of sleight of hand we saw during COVID, when the rise in illness experienced after the first of two shots was counted as cases among the unvaccinated rather than the half-vaccinated.

On the question of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the Supreme Court has spoken. In the Court’s view, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs during a declared emergency, namely, the massive trade deficits that threaten our economic security.

But the Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump was highly fractured. Only three justices—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—held that the law, under normal principles of statutory construction, does not give the president authority to impose tariffs. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, quite persuasively demonstrates why that is not the case. As Justice Thomas noted in his separate dissent, the power to “regulate…importation” has throughout American history “been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.”

The other three justices who formed the majority holding—Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett—resorted to the major questions doctrine. This principle of statutory interpretation holds that Congress must speak with super clarity on issues of “economic and political significance” for the Court to approve a delegation to the executive. The turn to the major questions doctrine implies that the statute, under normal principles of statutory construction, authorizes the president’s action, a point that Justice Gorsuch explicitly conceded in his concurring opinion.

Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference may have been enough for Munich 2026 to displace Munich 1938 in the annals of geopolitics. Far more than an effective rehearsal of European and American commonalities, it touched on the very soul of politics.

Running through Rubio’s speech was a metaphor of filiation: “For us Americans, our home may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe.” But sons and fathers do sometimes part ways, and skeptics in Europe have seen Rubio’s words as window dressing on hostility. Just a month ago, President Trump’s push to compel Denmark to cede Greenland climaxed in another, harsher speech from a glamorous podium. The American postures at Davos and at Munich, however, must be seen as reflecting an underlying commitment to forging a frank friendship with Europe.

Evidently, America’s bond with Britain and France is different in kind from her arrangements with Saudi Arabia or Mongolia. Sharing common enemies is not the same as participation in common goods, which the Trump Administration is working to articulate.

A common argument against the Trump Administration’s policy in South America is that it will inevitably drive the region toward China. But for the most part so far, the opposite appears to be true.

American presidents including John Quincy Adams, both Roosevelts, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan understood that the United States cannot successfully compete overseas if it neglects its own backyard. These presidents all invoked the Monroe Doctrine (and in Adams’s case, wrote it), indicating that Washington would view any new great-power incursions into the Western Hemisphere as a hostile act. 

Over a period of some 12 years, the Obama-Biden approach was the opposite: they explicitly dismissed the Monroe Doctrine and neglected U.S. security concerns in Latin America while Beijing’s influence advanced. They looked to appease left-wing dictatorships, including Cuba and Venezuela, and deferred to a liberal guilt complex regarding America’s supposedly awful Cold War policies in the region. Thankfully, that approach is now over. 

The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy and 2026 National Defense Strategy both make it very clear that hemispheric defense is among this administration’s highest priorities. That is as it should be. The first Trump Administration’s Latin America policy was a major improvement over Obama’s, and the second Trump Administration is a major improvement over Biden’s.

The corporate media recently obtained a leaked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum changing the agency’s policy on forcibly entering the home of an alien who has been ordered to be deported by an immigration judge. Discussions of the Minneapolis protests eclipsed coverage of the memo, but as one might expect, the chattering class has been experiencing a slow-motion meltdown over DHS taking immigration enforcement seriously.

According to the talking heads, civil rights in the United States will now evaporate. We can look forward to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents busting into our homes to arrest us for removing the tag on our mattresses that says, “Do Not Remove by Law.”

However, such claims are utter nonsense. They are premised on the media’s deceptive implication that ICE is deliberately depriving aliens of due process. But the fact is, 99% of the claims currently circulating in the media regarding aliens and judicial warrants are prime examples of what U.S. Army Lieutenant General Russel Honoré famously referred to as “stuck on stupid.”

The Senate’s failure to pass the SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections, is a testament to the power of the managerial regime. The bill does not attempt to remake the constitutional order, abolish federalism, or nationalize election administration in any comprehensive sense. It addresses a narrower, more elemental question: whether the American people, acting through their representatives, may insist that those who vote in American elections are in fact American citizens. The answer under the present regime appears to be no.

This is one more instance of a now-familiar pattern: the American people express a preference through elections, their representatives assemble a legislative response, and the legislature proves incapable of translating that preference into law. The constitutional machine, once praised for its capacity to refine and elevate popular judgment through its aristocratic elements, now increasingly appears to dissolve judgment altogether into a diffuse and unaccountable veto.

What is a republic (in the classical sense) if it cannot act on matters essential to its own political existence? And what becomes of constitutional forms when the ends for which they were designed can no longer be secured through them?

The Mixed Regime and Its Assumptions

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.

Rubio Looks to the West | The Roundtable Ep. 305

Following on from J.D. Vance’s bracing speech in 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called on European allies to resist the managed decline of the West at the 2026 Munich Security Conference this week. The welfare state is a slow moving trainwreck. Appeasement of climate cultists stunts economies. Mass migration threatens to disrupt our civilization. Playing good cop to the VP’s bad cop, Rubio outlined America’s vision to revive the spirit and strength of the shared Western project. Plus: The guys discuss the Left’s compassion fatigue, Hungary’s coming election, and the legacy of the late Dr. Mickey Gene Craig: teacher, mentor, and friend.

The pivotal question of what will follow the crack-up of the liberal international order dominated the highest levels of European politics last week.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave his own, forceful answer at the 2026 Munich Security Conference. Following Vice President JD Vance’s provocative speech last year, Rubio delivered an equally spirited address that issued an ultimatum: rationalizing collapse and weakness is no longer the policy of the United States—and it should no longer be Europe’s policy either. America has no “interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline,” he stated forthrightly.

Instead, Rubio urged a reformation of the “global institutions of the old order” to defend and strengthen the key pillars of Western civilization.

As America approaches its semiquincentennial, a surprising trend offers profound hope for the nation’s renewal: young Americans are returning to church. If you are like me and have noticed week by week more younger attendees and far fewer gray heads in your house of worship, this is anecdotal confirmation that change is afoot.

Recent data from the Barna Group reveals that Millennials and Gen Z are leading a resurgence in church attendance, with younger generations attending nearly two weekends per month on average in 2025—up significantly from just over one in 2020. Young men in particular are driving this shift, with higher weekly attendance rates than women for the first time in decades. This marks a historic generational reversal, as younger adults outpace older cohorts in frequency of worship.

The Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and his equally despotic wife are under lock and key in a New York prison, living embodiments of President Trump’s revivification of the Monroe Doctrine. Maduro, the chosen successor of the demagogic leftist tyrant Hugo Chávez, presided over a gangster regime that had reduced its people to hunger and penury, driving a third of Venezuela’s 24 million citizens into exile. Maduro’s regime maintained power through stolen elections, the machinations of the Cuban secret police, and active collaboration with the most unsavory drug cartels.

For a time, Chávez’s so-called Bolivarian socialism bought off the poor with bread and circuses—that is, massive subsidies and assorted free goodies made possible by high oil prices. This was bolstered by the ideological illusions of leftist political elites and Hollywood stars, ranging from Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingstone, and Bernie Sanders to Danny Glover and Sean Penn, who saw another exotic socialist paradise and an avatar of social justice in the making. But over time the Chavista regime revealed itself as yet another nightmare scenario, where political liberty was confiscated, arbitrary power went unchallenged, and food was remarkably scarce. The war on the rich and the entrepreneurial middle classes always turns out to be a war on everyone, including the urban and rural poor.

Though Presidents’ Day is here, the nation as a whole does not seem to take much notice. That’s too bad, because we can learn some valuable lessons—both for our country and for ourselves as individuals—by taking time to reflect seriously on the character and actions of America’s presidents.

At first sight, it may seem paradoxical for a democratic nation to celebrate Presidents’ Day. In a democracy, after all, the people call the shots, and their elected leaders, even those of the highest rank, are just servants of the public. What is there to celebrate if the president is no more than an instrument of the people’s will? Why honor him more than any other public official? Why not have a holiday in honor of the sovereign people instead?

If we turn to the constitutional thought of our nation’s Founders, however, we find that these initial impressions do not capture their views of the presidency—nor of America’s democratic republic. The Federalist teaches us that we have a unitary executive, which makes the presidency unique among the political offices created by the Constitution. In the other branches of the federal government, the houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, power and responsibility rest with a majority of the members.

The desire to bring new life into the world runs deep in human nature. We know instinctively that children are worthy of the greatest care, and that the mission of parents is among the noblest in life. If our natures did not tell us this so strongly, the pain of childbirth—with all the toil, trials, and heartbreak that follow—would never seem worth it.

The pain of unfulfilled desire for children runs equally and correspondingly deep. In Jewish and Christian Scripture, infertility is almost a byword for anguish, much as having children is a byword for joy, chief among the blessings of God (“Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine…” “The barren wife shall bear seven sons….”). From the beginning of our species to its present, the importance of raising and forming the next generation has been self-evident to all generations.

January 3, 2026. Caracas. 2:47 AM.

The helicopters had come in low over the Caribbean, running dark. The Delta Force operators on board were well-rehearsed. By 3:29 AM, it was over. Thirty-two Cuban bodyguards lay dead in the compound. Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were in flex cuffs, hustled onto a transport aircraft bound for New York. At Mar-a-Lago, President Trump watched the operation unfold in real time with his national security team. It was January 3—exactly 36 years to the day since American forces had extracted military dictator Manuel Noriega from Panama City.

To the general public, the operation in Caracas may have seemed to come out of the blue. But in fact it was only the latest episode—the most dramatic one yet—in a 60-year war that most Americans have never known about. Our adversary in that war has been the Castro regime, which has been pursuing a project far more ambitious than the survival of Cuban socialism. Its goal has always been the revolutionary transformation of the entire Western Hemisphere—including the United States itself.

“We Shall Be Victorious”

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.

Bad Bunny, Worse Politics | The Roundtable Ep. 304

Last month, Democrat Abigail Spanberger was sworn in as the 75th governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. With Democrats now in control of the General Assembly and the governor’s mansion, Virginia has become the parade ground for the Left’s most radical, destructive, and aggressive ambitions: constitutional amendments for abortion, landmark gun-grabbing legislation, and an outrageous gerrymandering scheme that would make Illinois blush.

Spanberger also wants to reshape Virginia’s institutions of higher education. Two more odious bills have slinked their way before the House and into committee: HB1374 and HB1377. The former dissolves the Virginia Military Institute’s Board of Visitors and transfers its governance to Virginia State University. The latter, and more pernicious, creates the VMI Advisory Task Force “to determine whether [VMI] should continue to be a state-sponsored institution of higher education.”

The Left’s assault on VMI is nothing new. Cries of racism, sexism, and Confederate sympathies brought reporters to the small campus in Lexington, Virginia, during the woke wave of 2020, where they conjured stories to fit the cultural narrative. The upheaval resulted in the renaming of VMI buildings and the removal of Stonewall Jackson’s statue that had dominated the campus for decades.

When the history of the Christian Classical Education movement is written, the central figure will surely be Pastor Douglas Wilson. The Association of Classical Christian Schools, which he founded, includes even more member schools than Pastor Wilson has written books—and that is saying something. Over the past half-century, through the institutions and associations he has created, the essays, articles, and polemics he has written, and the sheer force of his personality, Pastor Wilson has helped guide the educations of tens of thousands of Americans.

In 1991, Pastor Wilson published Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning: An Approach to Distinctively Christian Education. This book remains the blueprint for Christian Classical Education across America. Its title was inspired by “The Lost Tools of Learning,” a 1947 lecture by Dorothy L. Sayers (1893-1957). Outside Pastor Wilson’s movement, Sayers is mostly known, if at all, as the author of some moderately entertaining detective stories. Her translations of Dante for Penguin Classics are still in print, but so dated as to seem older than the medieval original.

Taylor Swift’s recent hit album The Life of a Showgirl was characteristically catchy yet ideologically confusing. It’s a picture of a woman being torn between the life of a girlboss and the life of a wife—and possibly mother.

Deeply in love with her fiancé, Travis Kelce, Swift’s album unsurprisingly features her most sexual song to date, while other tracks reflect on her time in show business, with a mix of triumph and tragedy. Recorded during the European leg of her wildly successful Eras Tour, the album is in many ways an ode to the career she loves. But it is also a love letter filled with lyrics that are equal parts profound and a little corny, pointing toward a life in which Swift could leave the showgirl era behind altogether.

Take this set of stanzas from Wi$h Li$t, a song that mocks the soulless hustle of Hollywood and the music industry, contrasting it with the quiet happiness of family life in the suburbs.

They want that yacht life, under chopper blades

They want those bright lights and Balenci’ shades

And a fat a*s with a baby face

They want it all

They want that complex female character

They want that critical smash Palme d’Or

And an Oscar on their bathroom floor

One year ago, President Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to develop policy recommendations to protect access to in vitro fertilization (IVF), expand its availability, and lower its cost to patients. Then in October, the administration announced additional measures to lower costs for IVF and common fertility drugs and explore pathways like expanded employer benefits or excepted benefit categories for assisted reproductive technologies. While this included joint efforts across federal agencies to make this costly intervention more affordable, the administration stopped short of imposing broad new federal mandates for insurance coverage or direct government funding of IVF.

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 Mini-Bus, the Short Bus, and the Clown Car | The Roundtable Ep. 303

Shortly before Christmas, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Undersecretary of State Sarah Rogers made a dramatic announcement: the U.S. was placing five individuals described as “agents of the global censorship-industrial complex” on a visa sanctions list in an effort to curb foreign suppression of Americans. The undoubted headliner of the group is Thierry Breton, the former E.U. Internal Market Commissioner who spearheaded efforts to enforce the E.U.’s Digital Services Act (DSA) during the last years of his tenure in the European Commission. The list also includes the two managing directors of the hitherto relatively obscure German organization HateAid, which serves as a so-called “trusted flagger” under the DSA.

Reading Hillary Clinton’s most recent article, “MAGA’s War on Empathy,” it’s hard not to have at least some sympathy, and perhaps even empathy, for her.

Yes, Clinton was one of the most ruthless political operators of the last century, a woman who would seemingly do almost anything in pursuit of power. She was extremely close to becoming president, the prize she had always wanted, before being thwarted by Donald Trump of all people, a figure she treated as little more than an absurdity during much of her 2015-16 campaign.

It would be easy to dismiss anything Clinton writes as simple, cynical political posturing. And to be sure, there is plenty of politicized misrepresentation of facts in her latest article. And yet her recent piece attacking the Trump GOP for its supposed lack of empathy, using Minneapolis as a backdrop, is revealing, for it lays bare the moral core of today’s Democratic Party.

If her piece were just political and not reflective to some degree of her sincere belief, she could have done it as an X post or a short op-ed—she certainly didn’t need 6,000 words in The Atlantic to make her case. In this respect I differ somewhat from Pastor Joe Rigney, one of the targets of Clinton’s ire, who wrote his own excellent response. Clinton wrote this essay because, to a certain extent, she means it.

If Hayek taught us to inquire about who ought to decide and Lincoln taught us to ask to what end, then the question of immigration compels us toward a third and inescapable question: Where is the line drawn?

The principles of subsidiarity and federalism demand that matters should be resolved at the lowest level of authority competent to manage them. Much of what the national government has usurped would be more wisely and justly managed by the states, local communities, families, and institutions of civil society. The Constitution itself was framed to embody this division of powers, preserving the vitality of local self-government against the dangers of centralized tyranny.

Many in Washington have begun to speak the language of war. Republicans tell us we are fighting for the Constitution, for the culture, and for the future of the country. That rhetoric alone marks a welcome change. For decades, American politics has been treated as a technocratic dispute among credentialed elites, where process matters more than outcomes and elections merely decide if the managerial state has to occasionally mount some resistance against GOP political appointees.

Yet, there exists a harmful disconnect between rhetoric and behavior. While Republican leaders increasingly talk like participants in an existential struggle, they continue to govern like caretakers of the status quo. They campaign like insurgents, but legislate like custodians.

This contradiction is heightened with talk of a “Golden Age,” a phrase often invoked as a form of reassurance or a fulfilled prophecy. Republicans, though, are mistaken: we are not in a Golden Age. Augustus did not declare the Pax Romana in the middle of a civil war, let alone a cold one like ours. It was named after power had been consolidated and institutions reshaped. Golden ages follow conquest; they don’t precede it.

The Pax Americana will come after victory is achieved, not before it.