The Claremont Institute Feed Items

Jesse Merriam has inaugurated this symposium on the future of the conservative legal movement with a provocative essay arguing that the movement needs to reassess itself in light of our current political and cultural moment. He argues that it should shed its technocratic “focus on how precedents are interpreted and distinguished” in favor of a broader project “that conceives of law as a way to sustain the American way of life.” Legal conservatism, Merriam continues, should “develop a constitutional morality that reflects the larger project…of constitutional and…civilizational restoration.” He does not want to abandon originalism but says that the conservative legal movement needs to mount a positive project to meet today’s considerable challenges.

I agree.

In order to clarify Merriam’s argument, it is important to point out that the movement has always needed, if it has not quite always had, at least three separate but overlapping projects.

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.

I Will Be Your Tootsie-Nuzzi | The Roundtable Ep. 294

Today’s conservative legal movement is the proverbial dog that caught the car. After years of effort (and more than a little fortuity), a solidly conservative majority now sits on the Supreme Court. The movement has racked up a string of wins on longstanding priorities, ranging from affirmative action to abortion to administrative agency deference, with perhaps the most seismic changes still to come. The Court’s blessing of the long-theorized “major questions doctrine,” which grants courts broad power to deem a particular action outside the purview of administrative agencies and properly committed to Congress, is a blade perfectly forged for dismantling that perennial movement bogeyman, the administrative state.

So where do things go from here?

President Donald Trump’s latest comments on semiconductor exports sounded almost conciliatory—until they weren’t. Speaking recently on 60 Minutes, the president said he would let NVIDIA “deal with China,” but drew a bright red line: Beijing could buy chips, just not the “most advanced” ones. The message was calibrated for maximum effect: permissive enough to please markets, hawkish enough to claim toughness. NVIDIA’s stock jumped immediately—but China did not get what it wanted.

Days later, in a Financial Times interview, NVIDIA’s CEO Jensen Huang warned that if the U.S. blocked his company from selling more of its advanced chips to China, it would “lose” the AI race. The argument was astonishing in its candor: cut us off, Beijing wins.

The comparison between a president sounding measured and a CEO trying to sound indispensable captures a dangerous inversion of power. NVIDIA has become more than America’s most valuable company. It’s attempting to become its policymaker, shaping the boundaries of what Washington thinks possible in its competition with China. 

To understand how one company reached that position, it helps to revisit what happened in Washington just days before Trump met Xi Jinping in South Korea.

For decades, U.S. education has been dominated by the American Left. Their stranglehold was highly visible during the Biden Administration, with countless stories about wildly inappropriate books in school libraries, Critical Race Theory being taught in classrooms, and national associations calling for parents to be designated as domestic terrorists.

How did our public school systems—including those in red states, from Iowa to Alaska—become infected with radical leftist ideology? The answer is education consulting groups.

Most Americans don’t realize that every aspect of governance, from parks and wildlife departments to the curriculum in kids’ schools, has been outsourced to a coalition of nameless, faceless NGO consulting groups that are funded by millions of taxpayer dollars funneled through the government. One of the worst offenders is the American Institutes for Research (AIR).

The great civilizations of antiquity have never needed a majority to survive. They have always required just a quorum of men who knew what they believed and acted on the courage of their convictions. A few hundred trierarchs at Salamis, a few thousand hoplites at Thermopylae, a Roman handful who backed Scipio when everyone else wanted to sue for peace—a hearty few have helped preserve their respective ways of life in times of turmoil.

The American Founders understood this. Fifty-six merchants, farmers, and lawyers in Philadelphia signed their own death warrant, and 12,000 half-frozen men at Valley Forge kept that signature from being erased. Formation of character is about learning how to stand when everyone else sits down. We don’t study great men to cosplay greatness—we study them to see how a group of determined souls can change the world.

Today’s America, however, no longer forms leaders. It manufactures influencers and administrators. Its schools churn out credentialed mediocrities fluent in therapy and management but strangers to duty, tragedy, or honor. The republic’s elite, once shaped by Scripture and Cicero, is now shaped by LinkedIn. The result is a leadership class without leadership, a caste of clever children managing the ruins of their inheritance.

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.

Kondo for Congress | The Roundtable Ep. 293

Fall is not just a time for campfires and s’mores—it’s also when the Supreme Court starts its new term. This session comes at an especially significant time for conservatives, given that in just the last few years almost all of the most infamous cases that have been driving legal conservatism for roughly two generations have been overruled or substantially narrowed. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repudiated and formally overruled Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Roe v. Wade (1973), and Chevron v. NRDC (1984)—cases that, respectively, represent church-state separationism, abortion rights, and the administrative state. Likewise in SFFA v. Harvard (2023), the Supreme Court sharply criticized and substantially narrowed Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the two doctrinal pillars of affirmative action.

Such success, however, raises an unnerving question: What’s next? That is, what should drive the conservative legal movement now that its biggest enemies have seemingly been vanquished?

Before we can supply an answer to that question, however, we must first give some background on the conservative legal movement, beginning with an important distinction between legal and political conservatism, which will show that legal conservatives must create new strategies that are tailored to our current political and social moment.

A Way Forward

The FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation is confirmation that the Left sees conservatives as enemies of the state. If you are a conservative when the Left holds the reins of power, you will be treated as such.

Arctic Frost began in April 2022, with the approval of then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Christopher Wray. In November 2022, the newly appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith took it over. Smith declared he was focused on the allegations of mishandling classified documents, but Arctic Frost shows he was much more ambitious. He helped turn the investigation into an effort to convict Donald Trump and cripple the Republican Party.

Yesterday, a young woman named Laura filed the first medical malpractice lawsuit against doctors in Latin America for perpetrating the lie that she was born in the wrong body. Doctors from the Clínica Valle del Lili in Colombia diagnosed Laura with gender dysphoria on her very first visit. Though only 15 at the time, they told her that testosterone and puberty blockers would solve her distress. Despite Laura’s desire to breastfeed one day, they performed a double mastectomy after she turned 18. Now, with the help of lawyers, she is going to court and to the public because “kids and teenagers shouldn’t be able to transition.”

Like youth in other countries, Laura first encountered gender ideology online. After seeing a Swedish girl use a breast binder, she became seized with the idea that she could “become a boy.” This offered her escape from impending womanhood—something she dreaded. Additionally, at only six years old, Laura was sexually assaulted by a person who worked in her household. As she began to go through puberty, that trauma resurfaced, and crippling fear made it hard just to leave the house.

In 1991, the Tailhook scandal rocked the U.S. Navy. Hundreds of aviators at a Las Vegas convention engaged in misconduct that shocked the public. The fallout was swift. Policies that had long rewarded tactical excellence and operational rigor gave way to gender sensitivity training, compliance mandates, and a culture of political correctness. Officers who once climbed the ranks based on battlefield skill suddenly found themselves judged on how well they adopted progressive talking points. Conservatives conceded too much to progressives, even if only rhetorically, and responded with caution, attempting to preserve what little influence remained. Once a warfighting meritocracy, the military had begun a subtle shift. The pivot favored optics over lethality.

Over the next three decades, this dynamic deepened. The Peter principle—the idea that competent individuals rise only to the level of their incompetence—was weaponized. Political loyalty and agenda signaling replaced combat effectiveness as the dominant criterion for promotion. Diamonds, the true experts in warfighting, began to sink under the weight of bureaucratic mandates, while incompetents and social climbers got to the top rungs of the Pentagon.

However, in 2025, reformers like Pete Hegseth have emerged, leading a merit-first reclamation project that aims to restore skill, innovation, and operational readiness.

In 1992, a young Democratic strategist on the Clinton campaign named James Carville coined the now-famous phrase “It’s the economy, stupid.” He directed it to the campaign workers to ensure they remained laser-focused on kitchen table issues. In Tuesday’s elections, voters delivered that same message, loud and clear, in races in New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey. The results were not surprising—even the margins were roughly in line with 2017, the last off-year elections in those localities when Trump was president.

But the message was clear: while many give the economy solid overall marks, many young voters in particular are hurting economically. Of course, the Trump Administration is well aware of this. They’ve been digging out of the economic disaster Joe Biden left them. Compared to Europe and much of Asia, the U.S. is doing better, with unemployment still low and Trump having largely tamed inflation. But the global macro environment is still challenging—especially for young people.

This is why almost immediately after the election, the administration focused on ramping up its communication efforts on the economy. President Trump indicated an urgent need to blow up the filibuster and enact a legislative agenda commensurate with the issues young voters are facing. Trump’s approach was echoed by Vice President JD Vance, who noted, “We’re going to keep working to make a decent life affordable in this country, and that’s the metric by which we’ll ultimately be judged in 2026 and beyond.”

Today, nearly all Americans agree that drug prices are too high. The average annual per capita spending on medications is over $1,000 and climbing. These sky-high costs burden working-class families with yet another expense, reducing their ability to save, invest, or buy other needed items. 

In response to this urgent matter, politicians are singling out pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the financial negotiators between pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report in 2024 accusing PBMs of price-gouging and is currently suing one of these managers over insulin prices. The House Oversight Committee has made PBMs the primary target of its drug price-fighting efforts, rehashing the FTC’s accusations of profiteering. 

The Supreme Court began its November sitting this week in what is already shaping up to be a blockbuster term, both on the regular oral argument docket and the emergency docket. The latter has taken on huge significance as lower federal court trial judges in forum-shopped district courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s executive actions.

I say “forum-shopped” because a large number of the roughly 400 cases that have been filed against the administration since January 20 have been brought in jurisdictions in which all (or nearly all) of the judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. All 11 of the sitting active judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, for example, were hand-picked by Democrats—one by Bill Clinton, five by Barack Obama, and another five by Joe Biden. The five judges serving on the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees that court, are likewise entirely stacked with Democratic appointees—three by Obama and two by Biden.

Even before the term began on the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court was already checking what increasingly appears to be rogue rulings by anti-Trump lower court judges who are essentially second-guessing the president’s executive decisions dealing with foreign aid and other spending cuts, deportations, federal law enforcement, and administrative agency personnel firings—all core areas of executive authority.

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.

Groy Polloi | The Roundtable Ep. 292

Tucker Carlson hosted Nick Fuentes, an antisemitic broadcaster, for a friendly interview, causing divisions to erupt on the Right. This week, as socialist Zohran Mamdani is forecast to take New York City’s mayorship, the guys appraise the influence of Fuentes on the mainstream and discuss the Right’s alternatives to curry favor with the middle. Plus: details have emerged about an FBI operation, “Arctic Frost,” aimed at targeting GOP officials’ comms to delegitimize Trump and his supporters post-2020 election. And more cultural recommendations!

Counterintuitively, the best way to come to grips with the here and now is not to immerse oneself in the constant froth and daily firestorms of up-to-the-minute journalism and media. Real understanding requires a perspective informed by serious engagement with political history, a study of human nature, and a careful engagement with the noble if imperfect intellectual heritage left to us by our Western and American forebears. So the latest sensation from the world of podcasting—Tucker Carlson’s two-and-a-half-hour interview with the young streamer Nick Fuentes—will not be best addressed by those caught up in the breathless excitement of the moment, nor by those fixated on the cults of personality surrounding these two broadcasters. The issues raised by Fuentes and Carlson need sober evaluation from a critical distance.

“I, Wisdom, dwell with prudence (phronēsis), and I find knowledge and discretion. By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just.” – Proverbs 8:12–14 (ESV)

“Practical wisdom (phronēsis) is a true and reasoned state of capacity to act with regard to the things that are good or bad for man.” – Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VI.5–13

As Thucydides observed, the causes that drive nations to war—fear, honor, and interest—remain constant. A prudent foreign policy recognizes the powerful pull of these passions without surrendering to them.

Leo Strauss is often accused of inspiring not only neoconservatism, a movement bereft of such wisdom, but specifically the vigorous interventionism championed by the most vociferous voices within its ranks. On the surface, the Platonic rationalism that searches for the discoverable “just city” seems to infer the duty to impose such a schema onto others, willing or not. In direct contrast, the “Realism and Restraint” school is often linked with ideologies of amorality or isolationism. “Just leave me alone and let me grill.”

Both of these caricatures are foolish simplifications. In reality, both approaches share a moral foundation rooted in prudence (phronēsis), the classical virtue of doing the right thing in the right way for the right reasons.

Great power competition now hinges on technological dominance. While the U.S. may master the machines of progress, we are faltering in securing the power that makes them run, a deficiency that our greatest competitor is beginning to weaponize against us.

Lithium exemplifies this dynamic. Beyond its well-known use in electric vehicles, lithium’s strategic value lies in securing the energy-intensive infrastructure that powers broader technological competition. Data centers—the backbone of artificial intelligence and cloud computing—increasingly rely on lithium-ion batteries, which China subjected to export controls last month. This is not an abstraction: lithium is more than a commodity—it has become a foundational national security asset.

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.

ICE Gets Shaken Up | The Roundtable Ep. 291

The expectation among seasoned D.C. professionals was that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would quickly fade in his tenure as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). He was too idealistic, his ideas were too fringe, and the gulf between his base and Trump’s was too vast to bridge. And anyway, the vast sprawling bureaucracy of HHS—which housed 82,500 career bureaucrats when Kennedy assumed the role—would swallow him up.

But Kennedy had something that the Washington consensus failed to take into account, something that the bureaucracy didn’t have: a popular movement and a level of backing from the president that has surprised political observers.

It’s easy to forget that Kennedy pulled in millions of votes as an independent presidential candidate before throwing his support behind Trump in August 2024, a move that likely shifted the outcome of the election in key swing states. His messaging about chronic disease and corporate capture resonated across traditional political lines. But Kennedy did not just bring votes: he brought an energetic grassroots network that spanned the whole country. His rallies drew crowds that dwarfed those of other third-party candidates, feeling less like political gatherings and more like a great social movement.

Late one night in May 1973, New Jersey trooper James Harper stopped a speeding white Pontiac LeMans for a broken taillight. Sundiata Acoli was driving the car. In the back was Zayd Malik Shakur, the minister of information for the Harlem Black Panther Party. In the passenger seat was 26-year-old Joanne Chesimard, wanted by the FBI for armed bank robbery and by the New York police in connection with the slayings of two policemen and a hand‐grenade attack on a police car. Six months before, she and two men stole $1,800 in bingo money from a church safe. When Monsignor John Powis let them in, Chesimard put a gun to his head until he opened the safe, and they told him, “We usually just blow the heads off White men.”

Noticing a “discrepancy” in the driver’s identification, Trooper Harper asked Acoli to exit the vehicle. Meanwhile, State Trooper Werner Foerster, who had arrived as backup, reached into the car and pulled out a semi-automatic pistol magazine. Harper ordered the car’s nervous occupants to keep their hands on their laps. Chesimard suddenly raised a pistol and shot Harper in the shoulder; he fired back into the car, hitting Zayd Shakur. Acoli attacked Foerster, seized his pistol, shot him in the head, and jumped back into the car. He sped off down the turnpike with the injured Chesimard and dead Zayd. They were soon apprehended.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk puts to rest the dreamy hope that President Trump’s 2024 election was the final word on identity politics in America. The revolutionary faction he defeated at the ballot box walks not by argument, but by faith. It is a faith that the innocent victims of the world cannot rest until the racists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, Islamophobes, extremists, fascists, authoritarians, Nazis—and now the (Israeli) colonizers—are purged.

For more than a decade, we called this faith “cancel culture.” But cancellation was never going to be enough. In the end, the dark inner logic of identity politics requires a literal purging of those identified as “toxins” from the body social. Identity politics is, as I have written, “the spiritual eugenics of our age.” To achieve this always-receding goal of purity, a scapegoat must be found upon whom to lay the sins of the world. Charlie Kirk became that scapegoat.

The Republican political victory of 2024 notwithstanding, identity politics remains the reigning theodicy in all of our public American institutions; it is the established church of the American elite, whose parishioners rage and mock the majority of impure American citizens, who themselves are awakening to its bloody logic. One America mourns a martyr for Christ. Another America celebrates the purging of a scapegoat.

Half of Americans are lonely and isolated—and artificial intelligence is stepping into the void.

Sam Altman just announced that OpenAI will soon provide erotica for sexually lonely adults. Mark Zuckerberg envisions a future where solitary people enjoy AI friends. According to the Harvard Business Review, the top uses for large language models are therapy and companionship.

It’s easy to see why this is happening. AI is always available, endlessly patient, and unfailingly agreeable. Millions now pour their secrets into silicon confidants, comforted by algorithms that respond with affirmation and tact. But what masquerades as friendship is, in fact, a dangerous substitute. AI therapy and friendship burrow us deeper into ourselves when what we most need is to reach out to others.

As Jordan Peterson once observed, “[O]bsessive concern with the self is indistinguishable from misery.” That is the trap of AI companionship.

Space is the defining strategic frontier of the 21st century. America’s space leadership depends on harnessing the private sector to create wealth and focusing the public sector on limited yet critical security and scientific objectives. While achieving supremacy in cislunar space (the region between the Earth and Moon, including the Moon’s surface) must be our immediate aim, it lacks the strategic coherence to sustain American leadership across decades. We need long-term goals to define success and clarify tradeoffs. A manned mission to Mars can do both.

China and Russia, our near-peer competitors in space, pose serious challenges. Beijing openly pursues dominance in the Earth-Moon system while accelerating toward Mars, with an ambitious sample return mission scheduled for 2028. Russia maintains formidable military capabilities in space, alongside proven Mars science achievements.

If our authoritarian rivals prevail, the world’s free nations may find their ability to access and use space significantly curtailed.

This is why the United States needs a unifying long-term vision that focuses and directs near-term commercial, military, and scientific objectives. We must also research and develop technologies for sustained living in space. A smart Mars strategy provides the needed framework, creating the technological roadmap and institutional durability to win the cislunar competition and position America for permanent space premiership.

The shocking murder of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University puts an exclamation point on the degraded state of reasoned debate in America.

Like many in the last month, I’ve found myself doing a deep dive into Kirk’s YouTube channel, watching debate after debate. You learn something from watching them in full: Kirk was willing to talk to anybody, and he always brought liberals to the front of the line. He was pugnacious at times, but always civil. It was his interlocutors who would sometimes resort to ad hominem attacks, and their arguments often collapsed as they met a steady stream of his questions and retorts. Time after time, these students lost the debate with Kirk because they simply didn’t know enough.

What causes a person to stake out a position with such confidence before mastering the evidence to support it? For many of the students who challenged Kirk, the answer is action civics. This is a pedagogical theory that teaches that the highest form of civic participation is protest rather than discussion. Its result is thoughtless grandstanding or worse. The antidote to this state of affairs is classical education rightly understood.

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.

Troll King | The Roundtable Ep. 290

The latest round of “No Kings!” rallies, reportedly attended by 7 million—average attendee, per Axios, mid-40s and female—took to the streets this weekend in protest of…what monarchy, exactly? This week, three kings—Ryan, Matt, and Spencer—discuss progressive populism, John Bolton’s indictment for alleged mishandling of classified intelligence, and Zohran Mamdani’s likely victory despite a weak performance in New York’s mayoral debate. Plus: more cultural recommendations!

The Manosphere. This online, man-made safe space serves as a kind of glasshouse of masculine performance, there for observers to imitate or revile. However one might measure the relative percentages of truth and lies on offer in the Manosphere, however one might separate the true masculinity on offer there from the Manosphere’s many vain effeminacies masquerading as virile strength, one thing is clear: men are in the middle of an identity crisis.

We could leave aside the various instances of that crisis that emanate from the sexual Left, by which I mean the LGBTQ emporium of options for how one might live out one’s manhood. But why should we? Left, Right, and Center—we can’t agree on what it means to be truly manly. A central cause of the present crisis is that America’s men have almost a complete lack of experience with single-sex education before college.

The Labour government that rules the United Kingdom is hardly a year old, but its time is already coming to an end. Its popular legitimacy has collapsed, and it is visibly losing control of both the British state and its territories. Every conversation not about proximate policy is about the successor government: which party will take over, who will be leading it, and what’s needed to reverse what looks to be an unalterable course. What is known, however, is that the next government will assume the reins of a fading state after what will likely be the final election under the present, failed dispensation.

The Britain birthed by New Labour three decades ago, deracinated and unmoored from its historic roots, is unquestionably at its end. Its elements—most especially the importation of malign Americanisms like propositional nationhood—have led directly to a country that is, according to academics like Dr. David Betz of King’s College London, on the precipice of something like a civil war. That’s the worst-case scenario. The best case is that a once-great nation made itself poor and has become wracked with civil strife, including the jihadi variety. It is a prospect that will make yesteryear’s worst of Ulster seem positively bucolic.

No drug is as sacrosanct in today’s sexually “liberated” culture as oral contraceptives. But the proliferation of the birth control pill since the 1960s has fostered a number of grave consequences for our society: hook-up culture, delayed marriage, and the destruction of the nuclear family.

None of this would surprise Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. In the early 20th century, she promoted contraception as the mechanism for female emancipation. “Birth control is the first important step a woman must take toward the goal of her freedom,” she wrote. “It is the first step she must take to be man’s equal. It is the first step they must both take toward human emancipation.”

Feminist author Betty Friedan agreed, asserting that the pill gave women “the legal and constitutional right to decide whether or not or when to bear children,” and established the basis for true equality with men.

Because oral contraception has been touted as a cornerstone of women’s equality and freedom, its health repercussions are rarely called into question. Even HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who regularly wades into controversy by calling for investigations into seed oils and food dyes, remains relatively silent on oral contraceptives.

On October 7, President Donald Trump proclaimed a “National Manufacturing Day,” recognizing that “the strength of our Republic rests on the strength of our industries and the determination of our workers.” It is his administration’s latest move to support the reindustrialization of the American heartland.

The proclamation caps off numerous successes of the past nine months, which have seen around $5 trillion in new private and foreign investments in America, along with reciprocal tariffs, that are reawakening our manufacturing base. Better still, it highlights the all-too-often unsung hero of President Trump’s Golden Age industrial policy: deregulation.

For decades, smug economists and academics have insisted that America’s transition from an industrial economy to a financialized service-based one was natural, that the hollowing out of the American heartland and the offshoring of jobs were inevitable byproducts of capitalism. I beg to differ.

There is much to gain from reading the short stories of Raymond Carver, especially for today’s conservatives. When he published in the ’70s and ’80s, Carver was unsurpassed in his popularity. Today his settings, for instance, would be immediately recognizable to the average Trump supporter: fishing trips, small farms, barber shops, motel rooms, bingo halls, and bars (plenty of bars).

His scenes are small or midsized towns in the Columbia Plateau, the Great Basin, or the Pacific Northwest (mostly coastless parts like Clatskanie, Oregon, or Yakima, Washington, where Carver was born and grew up, respectively). These regions were industrial, sleepy, homogenous, and poor during Carver’s time (he died an alcoholic’s death in 1988 at the age of 50).

Pretty much all his characters are white and working-class, a group largely sandwiched between privileged, coastal elites and handout recipients. These are people who cannot live in a world of make-believe and have to confront head-on the realities of belt-tightening, scouring for money for rent or hospital bills, cars on the verge of breakdown, etc.

Still, Carver’s plots do vary: an elderly man losing his farm to a slug infestation; a father who abandons the family dog because they can’t afford it; a postal worker who can’t stand a hippie couple who have moved onto his route; an apparently evicted man who moves the interior of his home outside for a “house party”; a depressed divorcee who finds inspiration from a double amputee, a door-to-door salesman, etc.

In July, the Trump Administration published “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” a blueprint for American leadership in the defining technological endeavor of the 21st century. President Trump and key advisors like David Sacks and Michael Kratsios are setting the regulatory stage to ensure America dominates in AI, and that the government supports innovation and channels use cases to ends that serve the American people.

The Plan acknowledges that the administration’s aggressive embrace of AI leadership is not without risk. From labor to culture to national security, AI will fundamentally alter the landscape, introducing vast potential for good but also pitfalls that must be avoided. Above all, America’s adoption of AI must preserve the character of our people and the integrity of our economy, giving Americans confidence in the prospects of a future where AI propels us to untold levels of national greatness.

Here’s the thing you need to understand about the artificial intelligence race: it’s exponential, not linear. In a traditional race, the track underneath you doesn’t change in real time. But when it comes to AI, a single innovation can radically transform the field. Think of a poker table, where the deck reshuffles mid-hand. 

In January, a little-known Chinese startup called DeepSeek jolted the stock market with a cheaper reasoning model than anyone thought possible. Immediately, AI chip and Big Tech stocks plummeted, the Nasdaq slid about 3%, and Nvidia shed roughly $590 billion in market value—the largest one-day wipeout on record.

Last month, Nvidia published a Nature paper, claiming it trained its flagship “R1” for about $294,000 on export-restricted H800 chips. That’s a suspiciously low number, to say the least. For context, the H800 is a purposely less capable chip in order to get around export controls. Most in the field are quick to dismiss this problem, claiming the U.S. is still well ahead of China. But it’s still prudent to take into account the existence of a competitive, cheap, Chinese model.

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.

Art of the Hostage Deal | The Roundtable Ep. 289

In his recent Provocation, Claremont Institute Washington Fellow Scott Yenor savagely criticizes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 1996 opinion in US v Virginia, writing that her opinion “banned single-sex education at Virginia Military Institute (VMI).” Yenor asserts that Ginsburg portrayed “single-sex institutions [as] artifacts of prejudice” and calls for a reversal of US v Virginia and the establishment of all-male military schools in the model of VMI pre-1996. The problem is that Yenor misrepresents what Justice Ginsburg actually said. Additionally, he does not even mention Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence, which needed to be addressed for his argument to carry any weight.

Justice Ginsburg’s opinion begins by acknowledging that “Single-sex education affords pedagogical benefits to at least some students, Virginia emphasizes, and that reality is uncontested in this litigation.” Instead of admitting women to VMI, the Commonwealth offered women admission to the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL), a women’s program based at Mary Baldwin College.

For those of us who hold out hope that the pontificate of Pope Leo XIV, the Chicago-born bishop and missionary to Peru, Robert Prevost, will lead to more Christ-centered and less ideological leadership from Rome, the last few weeks have been disappointing. 

First, a 2023 video of the new pope resurfaced, where he spoke about the need to welcome people of diverse “lifestyles” to the Church (this follows the lead of his immediate predecessor Pope Francis), although he assured us that there had been no change of doctrine, at least “not yet.” Can one imagine Christ telling the adulterous woman whom he saved from stoning in the Gospel of John (John 7:53-8:11) not “to sin no more” but to continue in her “lifestyle” while being welcomed to his Kingdom? Or St. Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians, where he declines to chide these new Christians for their gross resort to sin and moral corruption, but encourages them to remain steadfast in their less-than-admirable “lifestyles”?

Pope Leo was also near silent about the killing of the Catholic schoolchildren by a trans fanatic in Minneapolis, initially treating it as an unfortunate example of gun violence. As Rod Dreher has pointed out, on the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated, the pope tweeted about migrants on the island of Lampedusa. While anti-Christian violence spiked, Rome seemed to fiddle.

From “Black Jack” Pershing’s pursuit of Pancho Villa deep into Chihuahua to fentanyl streaming into the United States, Washington forgets that the southern border has always been a battlefield.

In August, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum declared, “We will never allow the US army or any other institution of the US to set foot in Mexican territory.” Her words came after reports that President Trump had signed a directive authorizing the Department of War to conduct military operations against Latin American cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Sinaloa foremost among them.

In Washington the rubric was “hemispheric defense.” In Mexico City it was heard as the prelude to invasion. Both capitals spoke as if the prospect was novel. But it is not.

American forces have crossed the Rio Grande in uniform far more often than most Americans realize. The Mexican-American War of 1846 amputated half of Mexico’s territory. Then, there were the Las Cuevas War of 1875 and the “Bandit Wars,” a series of raids by Mexican outlaws into Texas from 1915–1919. Even the obscure Garza Revolution of the 1890s followed the same logic. When cross-border violence spilled north, the United States answered not with demarches but with dragoons. Mexico remembers. But Americans forget and then declare the next repetition “unprecedented.”

Today, we commemorate Christopher Columbus, the man whose daring voyage across the Atlantic in 1492 initiated the Age of Discovery that reshaped the world. Columbus’s prediction that a western route to Asia was possible was not correct in its specifics, but he did not have to be correct to change the world. His legacy is about the spirit that drove him: a spirit of exploration, courage, and leadership.

Columbus’s journey across the Atlantic was no small feat. In an era when ships were fragile and navigation rudimentary, Columbus and his crew faced uncharted waters and unpredictable storms. The dangers were not merely physical; the psychological toll of sailing in the open sea, with no guarantee of land appearing on the horizon, tested the limits of human endurance. Columbus’s men urged him to turn back, but he pressed on, navigating not only the seas but also the fragile morale of his crew.

What does it mean to celebrate such a man? As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, we raise monuments to men as well as the spirit that moved them:

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

This spirit continues to inspire. We honor Columbus not just for what he achieved, but for the qualities that made his achievements possible.

Columbus Day ought to provoke reflection as much as celebration—and not just because the White House is emphatically committed to the latter. It was the right move, of course, for the administration to confidently reject acts of erasure like “Indigenous Peoples Day,” and the whole apparatus of academia, media, and elite-left cultural bludgeoning behind it. We should understand what exactly was meant to be erased.

Although Columbus Day in its historical roots is a de facto holiday for Italian Americans, that group was never really the target of those attacking Christopher Columbus or the holiday in his name. Rather, the opposition to Columbus and his day came due to enmity toward the values and roots of those Italian Americans—and every other American worth the name.

Columbus’s Journal of the First Voyage opens with “In nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi (In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ),” revealing that his journey was an act of faith. He navigated the dangerous waters of the Atlantic to bring about the evangelization of the world foretold in sacred Scripture.

A young person wanting to learn something of American history could do worse than to watch the works of director John Ford (1894-1973).

One of the great American filmmakers—in my view, the greatest—Ford delved deeply and repeatedly into American history, and not just that of the American West for which he is most famed. You also have Ford’s films on the Second World War (including the award-winning war documentaries he made while on active duty for the U.S. Navy), Abraham Lincoln, and the Great Depression. There are Ford films that take place during the American Revolutionary War, the American Civil War, and the First World War. Themes addressed in his films include American race relations, immigration, religion, and urban politics.

One of Ford’s crowning achievements is the so-called Cavalry Trilogy, three films starring John Wayne about the U.S. Cavalry in the West, made between 1948 and 1952. They are all about the same subject and in roughly the same setting, but the story and characters are different in each.

I’d like to propose that John Ford had a second trilogy—perhaps more loosely connected than the Cavalry films, certainly less known and less celebrated, but still a triumph of All-American filmmaking and worthy of rediscovery.

With 2025’s V-E Day and V-J Day anniversaries behind us, the Second World War will soon be 80 years in history’s rearview mirror. Very few veterans of the conflict remain alive. According to records in the National World War II Museum, as of the last survey in 2024, only 66,143 soldiers were still with us—less than 1% of the Americans who served.

True, many institutions that emerged out of the war to form the architecture of postwar international relations endure, from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank created at Bretton Woods in July 1944, to the United Nations born at Yalta in February 1945. But their relevance recedes further every year. When was the last time anyone paid attention to a U.N. Security Council resolution, much less one from its General Assembly? Even the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which inspired screaming headlines and protests in the 1990s over their interference in the affairs of developing nations, seem today like forgotten relics of a bygone age. Why, then, does this “Good War,” known to most Americans only from Hollywood films, invoke such passion?

The assassination of Charlie Kirk was not just evil, it was cowardly—and above all, dishonorable.

That an action might be dishonorable used to bother men, dissuading them from perpetrating such an act. When Themistocles was on the run from both the Spartan authorities and his own Athenian countrymen, he fled to the royal court of Molossia. Though Themistocles and King Admetus were mortal enemies, he supplicated his host. Themistocles said that if the king wished to take vengeance on him, honor demanded he should pick another time, when the two were on equal footing. With thoughts of honor swirling in his mind, the Molossian king protected his guest from his pursuers.

Honor codes are the most powerful restraint—much more powerful than state law—on those who are able and willing to use violent force. No wonder we see honor so highly prized among warrior castes and the political classes of healthy nations—knights, Spartiates, the admiralty, military aristocracies, and so on. A sense of honor not only curbs chaotic violence among the energetic, but it also channels that aggression toward productive ends, even toward excellence.

However, left-wing activists have spent at least the last generation demolishing the edifice of honor in the hearts of young men. We are now reaping the whirlwind.

Losing the Telos

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.

Nobelesse Oblige | The Roundtable Ep. 288

The Trump Administration’s approach to the government shutdown is aimed above all at recovering the unitary executive as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Article II’s vesting clause, the epitome of “short and sweet,” empowers the president to control the executive branch, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 70. Though the administrative state steadily seized the chief executive’s power throughout the 20th century, President Trump seems determined to wrest it back by reasserting his authority over the executive agencies under his purview.

In preparing for the shutdown, each agency created contingency plans for operating during a lapse in appropriations. These are required by law and managed under guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure that essential government functions continue even when Congress fails to pass funding.

Each shutdown plan outlines an agency’s core mission, identifies which functions are critical, and lists how many employees will keep working and how many will be furloughed. It also explains how the agency will communicate with staff, why certain programs are allowed to continue, and how operations will restart once funding is restored.

Loyalty can elevate or enslave. Placed in truth, it anchors. Placed in tribe, it distorts. Though I have known both, I abandoned the latter and embraced the former. That is why when I look at Ilhan Omar and Charlie Kirk, I see two distinct moral universes.

Charlie’s foundation was faith in Christ and country, in family and the free market. His faith was that America embodies true freedom and dignity because our country was founded on biblical principles—principles that demand that power be checked and the weak be protected.

Ilhan Omar’s foundation rests on three pillars: clan, Islamism, and leftism. Each demands loyalty not to principle but to faction. Each reduces life to a struggle for dominance.

I know Omar’s world. It is a place without law, where men with swords and guns decide the fate of neighbors, where girls are cut to mark them as pure, where bribes stand in for justice. These are not random misfortunes, but the dynamics of the system Omar embodies. It incentivizes and rewards absolute and unchecked power—even at the expense of life, limb, and property.

Some years back during a conversation with Charles Murray about his justly praised book Coming Apart, Bill Kristol made perhaps the single most outrageous statement he has ever uttered in public. Murray’s book chronicled the decline in the traditional work ethic and other foundational values in the American lower classes, and Kristol suggested a solution. If the indigenous American lower classes are increasingly “decadent, lazy [and] spoiled,” Kristol said, “don’t you want to get new Americans in?”

The idea of replacing legacy Americans with immigrants is as distant from conservatism as one can get. The Americans described in Murray’s book are far more connected to American culture than any “new Americans” Kristol would like to see take their places. Given that, however, it is undeniable that there are significant problems with the white lower classes that need to be resolved.

Last week, the federal government “shut down” because the Senate could not get the required 60 votes to invoke cloture and pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. The CR had passed the House, was supported by a majority of the Senate, and would have been signed into law by President Trump. It was defeated, however, by a minority of senators (mostly Democrats) who refused to fund the government unless the Republicans would make concessions on some other matters.

This raises an oft-debated question: Should the Senate further limit the use of the filibuster, which per Senate rules requires a supermajority of 60 votes to proceed to a vote on most legislative items? The Senate has already disallowed filibusters in the case of presidential nominations to executive or judicial office. However, some have suggested going even further and eliminating the filibuster altogether.

These calls to remove the filibuster have typically come from Democrats. They have made this argument when they’ve controlled the Senate and have been frustrated by Republicans using the filibuster to impede their agenda. They’ve noted how some Southern senators sought to thwart the enactment of federal civil rights legislation through the use of the filibuster. More generally, they have emphasized the non-democratic character of the filibuster, which empowers a minority in the Senate to defeat legislation supported by the chamber’s majority.

At Wired, Laura Bullard writes that “Among the relatively few people associated with National Conservatism who do cite Schmitt openly in their own work are Thiel and Michael Anton, the essayist and sometime Trump administration official.”

We may leave to one side the extent to which I am “associated” with National Conservatism. I did not attend its last two conferences, having been invited and then disinvited in 2024 and not invited at all in 2025. I did sign its manifesto, an act I have come to regret for reasons Charles Kesler explains here.

But that is a quibble compared to the real whopper in the sentence quoted above. I have never, to the best of my knowledge—and I assume that I know my own oeuvre better than Bullard does—“cited” Carl Schmitt. A citation is a very specific thing: a quote or an idea attributed to an author that is typically accompanied by a footnote pointing to an exact source. Moreover, one may cite to signify approval or disapproval, or just to show that one is aware of the thing being cited. Bullard implies that my nonexistent citations of Schmitt signify approval. If she can show one instance of that in any of my writings, I promise to send her a set of steak knives. But I’m certain she can’t.

In his opening salvo, the esteemed Scott Yenor righteously scrutinizes the travesty of single-sex education at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). Yenor lays bare the deleterious effects that forced sex integration has had on honor, cohesion, and the society into which graduates of the school march. What he emphasizes less, however, is how the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Virginia fundamentally changed the nature of VMI’s military character, and the essential path to reclaiming same-sex spaces for military officer formation.

The most important part of Yenor’s essay is his proposal to create more VMIs that can force a legal and cultural reconsideration of issues involving sex in education and the military. This is a compelling recommendation, because responsibility lies with committed red state governors who have the authority to make bold moves to challenge existing institutions and create alternative ones.

The governor of West Virginia could establish a military academy with higher education credentials and, like VMI does today, endow a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program at the school to serve as a pipeline into the military’s officer ranks. The character of this new service academy must be ironclad, inculcate a warrior ethos, and be set apart from the civil society that its graduates will pledge their lives to defend.

Freedom of speech on university campuses has collapsed. Left-leaning college administrators, faculty, and students have been silencing conservative voices, and conservative students are increasingly adopting the Left’s errant ways. The Trump Administration has launched a strong counterattack that also seems poised to suppress speech.

The First Amendment’s free speech guarantees are at the core of our liberties. As Justice Louis Brandeis explained in Whitney v. California (1927), “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Though set out in a concurring opinion, Justice Brandeis’s counter-speech doctrine has become the bedrock of free speech jurisprudence. In the milestone First Amendment case of United States v. Alvarez (2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Justice Brandeis, opining, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.”