The Claremont Institute Feed Items

The American Founding was an epic, earthshaking, history-making event that still reverberates through the ages. For close to half of our history, America has had a filmmaking industry—Hollywood—one that has often been the envy of the world, although its global prestige has faded in recent years.

Despite the historic weight of the American Revolution, it has been mostly a spectral presence in the cinema. Even if we expand our focus to include the period from the war’s conclusion to shortly before the Civil War, Hollywood’s filmed history of early America is rather thin.  

That is not to say that American history was not present on the silver screen from the medium’s earliest days. James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, based on events during the French and Indian War, was portrayed as early as 1909. In fact, there were three different films based on that book, and another film based on Cooper’s novel The Spy by 1920. Betsy Ross (1917), about the famous flag maker, still survives.

The Democratic Party has a problem: Americans are increasingly repelled by transgenderism.

Between 2022 and 2025, the average American’s favorability toward restrictions on transgender policies rose significantly. Support fell both for requiring insurance companies to cover gender reassignment procedures and for protecting trans individuals from job and housing discrimination. All of this happened as the share of Americans who consider it morally acceptable to change one’s gender has fallen from 46% to 40% since 2021.

This drop in support is seen in younger generations too. Eric Kaufmann found that between 2022 and 2025, the number of trans-identifying college students fell by half. The decline was even sharper at elite institutions: at Phillips Academy in Andover, the number of trans-identifying students fell from 9.2% in 2023 to a mere 3% in 2025. At Brown University, the number of nonbinary students was nearly halved between 2023 and 2025. The data highly suggests those rates will continue to fall.

Though the Trump Administration has faced a series of legal setbacks on tariffs, it seems to have found a solution. After the Supreme Court ruled that the administration’s reciprocal tariffs were wrongfully imposed, the president immediately leapt to plan B: Section 122 tariffs, which allow the temporary placement of global tariffs. But these tariffs—derived from the Trade Act of 1974, which Trump used to install a 10% levy on most imported goods—expire in just over two months, and a court has ruled them unlawful.

Although that case is still working through the system, the administration is already planning to replace Section 122 tariffs with Section 301 tariffs. These, too, stem from the Trade Act, but unlike the previous tariffs, they will be here to stay. They will also allow the Trump Administration to target countries that have relied on unfair trade practices such as lax environmental standards that let our trade “partners” produce at excess capacity—essentially to get one over on the United States.

In November 1839, Joseph Smith traveled to Washington, D.C. Styled the prophet and president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he sought an audience with then-president Martin Van Buren. The Saints, popularly called “Mormons” after the reputed author of their holy writ, had been hounded by vigilante mobs in Missouri. Van Buren expressed his sympathy for the Mormons but said regretfully that “if I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole State of Missouri.” A little over four years later, Smith, then running for president, would call Van Buren a “fop or a fool” and blame him for corrupting the principles of the American Founding.

Van Buren was one of many prominent politicians to whom Smith appealed during his meteoric rise to national attention in the 1830s and ’40s. He even once dined with a young Illinois state representative, Stephen A. Douglas, and predicted that Douglas would “aspire to the presidency of the United States.” In his exhaustively researched biography, Joseph Smith: The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet, George Mason University Religious Studies historian John G. Turner tracks the Mormon leader’s astonishing trajectory.

On my mantelpiece sits a silver teapot. It is boxy rather than delicate, in the 18th-century American Federal style, with a thick band of vines traced elegantly below the lid. The teapot was a wedding gift in 1797 for my great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, Frances Eleanor Clark.

For over two centuries, mother has gifted that teapot to daughter, keeping alive the gathered memories of our family. Crafted by a Virginian silversmith, it has traveled from Kentucky to Missouri, from the Montana Territory to California, before returning to the East Coast. One day, I will take my own place in the line of “teapot grandmas,” woven into the long memory of that teapot and its new familial guardian.

Though women who treasured that teapot did not make history—several of them spent their lives with men who left a lasting mark on the American West—they performed an important task: keeping it alive for future generations.

Revolutionary America, Hillsdale College’s new Ken Burns-style documentary on the founding, arrives at a fitting moment: the nation’s 250th anniversary. Though it resembles Burns’s work in its message, soundtrack (very much like the work of Hans Zimmer), maps, and pacing, it is far superior to anything Burns has done.

The documentary is a gorgeous, straightforward, non-ideological approach to a difficult and complex historical subject. While the film never shies away from explaining political philosophy, its main goal is to tell America’s history as a story, inviting the audience to encounter its drama, myth, and wonder.

Narrated by Tom Selleck and featuring an impressive lineup of Hillsdale professors and well-known political commentators, Revolutionary America is broken into two parts. Its first half explores the events leading up to the Battle of Lexington, the Revolution’s opening salvo, on April 19, 1775. The second half considers the move toward independence, George Washington’s masterful leadership of the Continental Army, and the Revolution’s fulfillment through the creation and passage of the Constitution. The documentary builds to a powerful close, with President Arnn observing that the American Revolution never really ended—that every generation must rededicate itself to the principles on which it was fought.

As we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, Americans will be doing a lot of celebrating. They will honor not only the fact of our independence and nationhood, but also the political thought that shaped America’s founding struggle for freedom. Special attention will be paid, of course, to our Declaration of Independence.

But some may be rather cool to celebrating the Declaration’s doctrine of universal truths, such as the equality of all human beings in their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration has become a source of controversy among some younger conservatives who came of age during the Trump era.

The New Right’s dissatisfaction with the Declaration’s universalism is an understandable—but mistaken—reaction to various political misuses of America’s founding creed in recent decades. The older generation of conservatives who grew up admiring Ronald Reagan loves to boast about America’s defense of universal truths. The New Right has rightly argued that this rhetorical approach has not served the conservative political movement or the country well.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

The Truth about Derek Chauvin | The Roundtable Ep. 320

The next time one hears of virtue, honor, and “the profession of arms” in the U.S. military, one should ask whether those words still mean anything. Consider a military in which the highest flag ranks sell influence for future employment, commanders conspire to steal optics before deployment, soldiers loot their own supply rooms, chiefs sell night-vision devices online, officers defraud grieving families, and bureaucrats steal money meant for military children. Petty theft below, influence peddling above, and a thick frosting of platitudes about honor everywhere.

Since the 1970s and for a variety of different reasons, the Declaration has been marginalized as a touchstone in national discourse. There are plenty of politicians and political movements in the last two generations that included a throwaway citation of the Declaration in a speech or manifesto. But this is far from the American people—even 10 or 15 or 20 percent— taking the Declaration seriously as a touchstone for deliberation. No 12-step ideological project for taking the Declaration seriously will elevate it to the prominent position it should hold today. Still, as America enters its next 250 years, it is worth considering what nonideological, nonpartisan steps will help in this effort. For Americans to get right with the Declaration, they must take it seriously for (1) its ideas, (2) the disposition it inspires, and (3) the skill set it requires.

Taking the Declaration’s Principles Seriously Today

The nonprofit Feeding Our Future claimed to have served 91 million meals to children across Minnesota. But as Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Kline described in a recent court hearing, they were not feeding kids—they were instead “feeding the bank accounts of fraudsters.” FOF founder Aimee Bock was sentenced to nearly 42 years in prison for stealing close to $250 million in taxpayer dollars, orchestrating what the DOJ called the largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the country.

Seventy-eight defendants and counting set up shell companies and phantom sites to feed nonexistent children. Former prosecutor Joe Thompson described the urgency of the FBI takedown: “I remember we took down the case on a Thursday because the following day, on a Friday, is when [the Minnesota Department of Education] paid out the money. Every Friday, they paid out about $20 million.” Twenty million dollars every Friday for meals the system never independently verified.

We know we live in serious times because the Declaration of Independence itself is controversial. Its meaning is contested or repudiated, and its authors are condemned. This very meeting is criticized as an attempt to turn America into a Christian nation. The Declaration says that under the laws of nature and nature’s God, no human being may rule another without his consent. In this respect, it is just like the New Testament, which makes each of us responsible for his own salvation.

Most people long for our divisions to be healed. How can that happen? The answer is found in the unsurpassed Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln. You should go tonight if you can, at night when it’s quiet, to the Lincoln Memorial. Stand facing Lincoln. Very beautiful. Look to your left: the Gettysburg Address, the full text. Look to your right: this Second Inaugural about which I’m speaking. It is a poem and a prayer. It says that the story of America is unique and beautiful. The beauty is offset by tragedy, and we see the beauty next to the tragedy—and see that the beauty is higher.

Writing in 1833, Justice Joseph Story, one of the greatest jurists of the early republic, warned against a dangerously exaggerated conception of the freedom of the press. “There is,” Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, “a good deal of loose reasoning on the subject of the liberty of the press, as if its inviolability were constitutionally such, that, like the king of England, it could do no wrong, and was free from every inquiry, and afforded a sanctuary for every abuse; that, in short, it implied a despotic sovereignty to do every sort of wrong, without the slightest accountability to private or public justice.” This idea, Story held, “is too extravagant to be held by any sound constitutional lawyer.”

A stablecoin rulemaking sprint is underway across five federal agencies. They are translating the GENIUS Act, which created a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins—a type of cryptocurrency tied to a stable asset—into operational rules that will shape American payment systems for a generation. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s comment period closed May 1; others are not far behind.

The political coalition behind stablecoin rules is striking. The Trump Administration views it as a tool for entrenching dollar dominance. Cryptocurrency advocates see it as long-overdue regulatory clarity. Free-market types are optimistic about unleashing chained-up capital and speeding up the payments process.

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.

Babel Bots | The Roundtable Ep. 319

An indictment has been brought. The prosecutor is Elizabeth Corey, professor of political science at Baylor. The defendant is Christopher Rufo, and through him a whole class of conservatives whom the prosecutor calls the “scrappy warriors” of the New Right. Corey makes three charges against them: they are uncivil, they divide the world into friends and enemies after the manner of Carl Schmitt, and they would rather crush their opponents than convert them, preferring to defile the seminar room than save it. They are, in short, mean and essentially unfit for leadership.

Corey is a serious person, and the charges she brings are serious. The court owes her a fair hearing.

Let us hear the case.

Stuck in the Middle

Conventional wisdom suggests that the 2028 Republican primary is shaping up to be a chaotic affair. Supposedly, it’s anyone’s game, as Vice President JD Vance is weaker than he appears, while potential adversaries including Marco Rubio are gaining an advantage.

But this view is untethered from reality. The fact is that the 2028 Republican nomination is JD Vance’s to lose. The faulty prevailing opinion has calcified for two reasons: a poor reading of history and a deficient understanding of the political landscape.

The “Vice Presidents Don’t Win” Canard

“George H.W. Bush is the only sitting vice president in the last 190 years (since 1836) to be elected president,” an MS Now analyst recently confidently wrote. He is not alone: the “190 years” number has been trotted out by those who contend that Vance stands little chance of winning the presidency in 2028.

As the Trump Administration and congressional Republicans work to lower Americans’ cost of living this year, they should be guided by a simple principle: all affordability is local.

Democrats and too many establishment Republicans still think they create jobs, economic growth, and opportunity. Whenever high prices pinch consumers, lawmakers huddle up with K Street lobbyists to see what Big Business, Big Tech, and Big Banks want…and give it to them. Yet they scratch their heads as corporate profits surge while working families’ monthly bills only climb higher.

We’ve seen this pattern again and again. Obamacare. Federal student loans. Subsidized mortgages. The Build Back Better inflation bomb. These policies doled out billions to insiders and middlemen but left everyday Americans holding the bag.

In a 2024 man-on-the-street-style video, two producers asked people from all over the country why they loved America. Most of the answers they received were laughable: interviewees claimed to love this country for reasons that had nothing to do with America itself, such as cultural diversity, the freedom to critique its past and present, or the ability to be whatever or whoever one chooses. In other words, Americans could find nothing positive to praise about their own country.

This grim video speaks not only to our confused cultural priorities but also to many Americans’ general ignorance, the latter in many ways being the source of the former. Life mimics art, or so the ancient philosophers of Western civilization believed: man imitates what he contemplates, often without willing it.

The solution to the problem of ignorance is not only to cut out bad teaching, but also to replace it with good. “Culture”—literally “to tend” in the agricultural sense—requires something to be cultivated: a positive tradition, typically of stories, poetry, and images. As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the American Founding, it is an excellent time to reflect on the character of an American culture that can sustain free government.

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.

America 250: Go Big Or Go Home | The Roundtable Ep. 318

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the American Founding, it’s important to point out that the Declaration of Independence does not begin with politics. Before it speaks of rights, consent, or government, it makes a claim about the structure of reality itself. The rights it asserts are not the product of historical circumstance or collective will. They are grounded in a prior truth: that human beings are created by God.

The Declaration’s appeal to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” is not ornamental or rhetorical—it is the foundation on which its entire argument rests. The founders believed they were obligated to explain to mankind the reasons for their separation, and those reasons started with God and his law.

With this foundation, we can then proceed to the Declaration’s most famous sentence—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Though it is often treated as a moral flourish or a proto-democratic slogan, it is in fact a tightly ordered philosophical claim that proceeds in three stages, each dependent on the one before it.

Though hype and doomerism tend to suck up a lot of oxygen in the AI discussion, it will probably be more productive for Americans to focus on the concrete goals desired by leaders in the industry. Then we may ask whether and how a majority of citizens might be convinced those goals are worthy of the effort required to attain them. I propose we focus first on the question of “compute”—how much computing power is required to operate cutting-edge AI at scale, and what kind of data centers are required to provide it.

There are some in the AI industry—developers, advocates, and the “hyperscalers” who want to build super-massive data centers—who do what they do out of an obsessively spiritual devotion to what they’re building. But a great deal of the business is run by successful Americans in the industry who mostly just really enjoy doing what they do best, which is building new things using state-of-the-art tools. This may not be obvious to the cross-partisan group of citizens who range from skeptical to hostile toward AI, who tend to think of all tech enthusiasts as wide-eyed, quasi-religious fanatics dreaming of a robot apocalypse or singularity. So for skeptics, an important reality check is realizing that many—probably the majority—of AI’s day-to-day builders have more practical and cosmically modest aims.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent speech at the University of Texas was vintage Thomas: deeply reflective, historically grounded, and unapologetically devoted to first principles. At a moment when many public officials seek safety in ambiguity, Thomas instead offered moral clarity. He spoke not merely as a jurist, but as a statesman concerned with the long-term health of the American republic. In doing so, he echoed themes long championed by scholars associated with the Claremont Institute: the primacy of natural rights, the centrality of the Declaration of Independence, and the necessity of civic courage in preserving constitutional government.

Thomas’s remarks were particularly striking because they resisted the fashionable reduction of constitutional interpretation to technocratic expertise or evolving social consensus. Instead, he returned repeatedly to the enduring truths that undergird the American experiment. The Constitution, in Thomas’s telling, is not simply a procedural document or a malleable framework for administrative governance. It is the institutional embodiment of a moral and political philosophy rooted in the self-evident truths proclaimed in 1776.

The Right won the 2024 election by successfully assembling a coalition capable of competing nationally. Whether it can consolidate that power into a lasting majority is far less certain.

The coalition that returned Trump to the White House is beginning to fracture. While support for the agenda the president ran on remains strong, confidence that it will be secured is fading. And that perception, whether justified or not, is lethal.

Voters in this coalition did not turn out for incremental change, executive orders, temporary regulatory reform, or procedural wins. They voted for a decisive shift in national direction—mass deportations, accountability for corruption, a more affordable daily life, an end to foreign entanglements, and political power given back to the American people.

A coalition built on expectations like these cannot sustain itself absent visible exercises of power. If it does not see power used to benefit the common good, it will break apart, first into frustrated factions, then into disengaged actors, and eventually into opposition.

Another week, another round of discourse on the idea that America is merely a “creedal” or propositional nation.

One of the thorny consequences of having a creed, of course, is the unavoidable conclusion that one must draw about those who refuse it: they are outside the body that holds the creed. If Justice Neil Gorsuch (following Vivek Ramaswamy and the Cato Institute a few months back) is correct that America is purely a creedal nation, doesn’t it necessarily follow that those in our midst who reject the creed are not Americans? Is Senator Tim Kaine not an American because he dissents from the doctrine of natural rights?

But merely professing a creed does not equate to being a member of a community. In Catholicism, adult converts (and godparents on behalf of baptized infants) recite the Nicene Creed as part of the sacramental liturgy of baptism. However, adult converts to the faith are also instructed in the Christian moral life—which concerns not just what one thinks about revealed truths, but also how one is to act as a member of Christ’s body.

The great Christian apologist and literary critic C.S. Lewis provides a surprising amount of moral and political wisdom despite not being a political thinker in any formal sense of the term. For example, the three lectures that form The Abolition of Man remain a must-read for understanding the crisis of our time, as well as the path to recovering the wisdom that will allow us to overcome it.

Without relying on divine revelation or biblical faith per se, Lewis takes aim at what he elsewhere calls “the poison of subjectivism,” and also makes a compelling defense of the existence of a moral consensus among mankind that transcends cultures, polities, and historical epochs. In the book’s final section, he provides a searing analysis of the profound tendency of the modern project “to conquer nature for the relief of man’s estate,” which leads to the temptation to conquer human nature in the name of illusory “progress”—that is, to abolish human beings once and for all.

The British political landscape has undergone a seismic shift following the May local elections. A map once dominated by the Labour Party’s familiar red has been dramatically redrawn, signaling widespread rejection of the political establishment across the U.K. This was not just a protest vote—it pointed to a complete collapse of the party in areas that were once considered its safest and most reliable strongholds.

Labour lost control of over 30 councils, watching its majorities disappear in traditional heartlands like Gateshead, Sunderland, and South Tyneside—areas where the party had held power for nearly half a century. Across the capital, Labour’s solid red blanket has been replaced by a multicolored patchwork of parties. The party lost 11 boroughs, including flagship councils like Westminster and Wandsworth, which were seen as key pillars of its 2022 resurgence. In East London, Havering saw a historic shift: once dominated by resident-led groups, Labour was swept out by an insurgent force: Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

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.

Pratt Boy Summer | The Roundtable Ep. 317

The New York Times columnists Ross Douthat and Ezra Klein disagree more often than they agree, which made it significant that just before the first anniversary of the 2024 election each arrived at, basically, the same explanation for Donald Trump’s victory. “It is completely obvious that the [Democratic] party lost in 2024 because it overcommitted to a range of unpopular left-wing positions,” Douthat wrote. Whatever else the 2024 election may have been, it “was also an ideological referendum, and progressivism lost.”

Klein’s explanation was even more detailed, making it a tougher read for his followers, who are more sympathetic to the Democratic cause than are Douthat’s. “From 2012 to 2024, Democrats moved sharply left on virtually every issue,” Klein observed, with electoral results that were precisely the opposite of those expected and intended.

The Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as “RICO,” was passed by Congress in 1970 as part of that year’s Organized Crime Control Act. It was designed to reach not just the foot soldiers of organized crime organizations, but the crime bosses themselves.

Although it did that directly by allowing charges to be brought against the leaders of “criminal enterprises,” it also did so indirectly by allowing prosecutors to go after low-level criminals and even drivers, doormen, etc. with threats of hefty, 20-year felony sentences and offers of reduced-sentence plea deals in exchange for turning state’s evidence against the mob bosses.

It is rare that mayoral campaigns receive national attention, but Spencer Pratt’s bid for mayor of Los Angeles has. Since his initial campaign announcement in January, Pratt has been gaining momentum and is now polling in second place behind incumbent L.A. Mayor Karen Bass. His campaign has primarily focused on restoring the city to its former glory, particularly in the wake of the damage from the horrific Palisades fires of 2025. Two weeks ago, he uploaded his now-viral campaign ad, featuring the hit song “Not Like Us,” as he showed off the untouched properties of Mayor Bass and city councilmember Nithya Raman. The video then showcases the charred ruins where Pratt’s home previously stood, along with the trailer he now resides in.

Whatever the fate of Pratt’s campaign, he has hit on a messaging strategy that right-wing candidates would do well to emulate going forward if they want to be successful in the digital age. Conservatives have had trouble breaking out of their image as out-of-touch intellectuals. Pratt’s message has more emotional impact. And his language is assertive. In the past, Republican leaders like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Mike Pence had a cultural reputation for being passive. Pratt’s ad makes him look like something out of the John Wick action series.

It’s time to dismantle one of the most degraded sectors in American higher education: schools of education. The colleges responsible for training and certifying the majority of our nation’s teachers have become factories for mediocrity and indoctrination—the embodiment of what Allan Bloom termed “the closing of the American mind.” States have both the authority and obligation to replace these monolithic institutions by promoting better teacher-prep pathways that are already proving their worth across the nation.

As recent graduates of Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education, we believe that teachers must be more than competent technicians—they must deliberately form American citizens.

As the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence approaches, Spencer Klavan invites us to reflect on the origins of that document and its fate. He asks us to consider an array of questions: Are the principles of the Declaration the final truth at the end of history? Is the end of history lamentable? Does the war in Iran refute the end of history? Is the Declaration informed by a rational view of the universe or by revealed religion?

I have access neither to the world-historical spirit nor to prophetic signs, so I’ll begin with what has become a necessary task: to establish that the Declaration marks the founding of the American nation, to explain what it means, and to defend it against popular criticisms.

Some have tried to define America by the year 1619, because that is when slavery was established. Others opine that 1607 is the beginning of the United States, because that is when the English first settled in Jamestown. However, these are not true national origins, in part, because they do not recognize the independence of the United States from Great Britain. More importantly, they are wrong because neither of these events recognizes the fundamental principles of right that define the United States.

White House lawn speeches greeting foreign heads of state are usually sleepy pro-forma affairs, filled out with the clichés of long-standing ties and mutual interests. But President Trump’s speech welcoming King Charles was no mere boilerplate. It was a masterpiece of ironic and subtle mischief on multiple levels—triggering the Left, offering a ground of unity for the Right as we draw near to the 250th anniversary of the American Founding, and, for those who listened closely, a rebuke both to Britain and the rest of Europe for their supine and rapidly declining civilizations. Making all the “No Kings” protestors look silly was just a bonus.

As everyone knows—especially Pope Leo XIV—Trump is not typically known for subtle rebukes, so kudos are deserved for his speechwriting staff for crafting a succinct and enthymematic message worthy of Aristotle, though it was fully in accord with Trump’s main instincts and central purposes.

In 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States revolutionized our country’s understanding of the First Amendment. More specifically, the Court’s ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan caused a fundamental change in how we think about the relationship of the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of the press, on the one hand, and the problem of libel, on the other.

According to the traditional view swept aside by the Sullivan Court, libel—or publication of defamatory falsehood—was simply outside the scope of the freedom of the press, a licentious abuse that the Founders never intended to enjoy constitutional or legal protection. During the lengthy period that this view prevailed, those who published false and defamatory matter were open to being sued successfully for damages, whether the victim of the libel was a private or a public person.

Most corporate mission statements are real snoozers. Especially in the case of large public defense companies, they’re designed to present boilerplate language to the public: “We develop science and technology to help people, and we produce some other things (weapons) that we won’t directly mention here, but which you can find on page five of our annual report.”

Palantir recently broke from this mode of anodyne corporate communication in a manifesto-style post titled “The Technological Republic, in brief,” which itself is a summary of a book of the same title by Palantir executives Alex Karp and Nicholas Zamiska.

Here are some paraphrased highlights from the 22-point declaration:

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.

Callooh, Callais | The Roundtable Ep. 316

At this very moment, humanity is venturing beyond the limits of Earth.

NASA’s Artemis II mission to the far side of the moon was a reminder that this is no longer science fiction. Commercial launches are becoming more frequent, private missions are expanding, and durable off-world habitats—once the stuff of far-flung imaginings—are well within reach. What was once a set of hypothetical word problems has become a collection of real-world challenges to solve.

Those of us who believe in America’s ideals, political structure, and folkways have to start thinking now about how to preserve them in outer space. Human nature is not going to change. But the parameters of human life will—and dramatically. The question is how, in this unprecedented scenario, we can make the American way of life one of the things we carry with us. We are taking our humanity to space. How can we take our freedom too?

To meet this challenge, the University of Austin has initiated the Torchlight Summit. Torchlight convenes astronauts, scientists, engineers, classicists, and political theorists to address a question that is too often ignored: What are the political and institutional consequences of life beyond Earth, and how can we shape them before they solidify?

The summit is structured around three core pillars:

Nowhere have the ramifications of “the long march through the institutions” been more apparent than in colleges of education.

New revelations seem to emerge every day of yet another program being stuck in the mud of critical theory. A University of Minnesota K-12 model curriculum includes lesson plans about “settler colonialism” and creating protest art. Harvard’s Graduate School of Education offers dozens of courses explicitly rooted in social justice themes, with one issuing a call to “liberate” youth. Many of Stanford’s general education courses have students respond to drag ballet troupes, ICE incidents, and the war in Gaza.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Louisiana v. Callais may dramatically alter congressional districts in Southern states. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito unraveled decades of confusing and misguided caselaw construing the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) to hold that states may not engage in racial gerrymandering—or be forced to do so by federal courts—when drawing congressional districts. The Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause forbids race-based discrimination, Alito pointedly declared, preventing Section 2 of the VRA from being interpreted to require the creation of “majority-black” districts to comply with the VRA.

On his way to the State House on the morning of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson would have walked along High (now Market) Street, Philadelphia’s main thoroughfare. Four blocks down, past the open markets, on the southeast corner of Second Street was the printing shop of John Dunlap, an Irish immigrant and publisher of the Pennsylvania Packet, a weekly newspaper reporting on the proceedings of the Continental Congress. In his shop at No. 48 High Street, Dunlap, then only twenty-nine, was about to play a key role in the first hours of American Independence.

Though Congress had adopted the Declaration in the name of the “good People” of the colonies, John Adams would later claim that only one-third of these good people had supported war with Great Britain, while another third had opposed it and a middle third remained undecided. Americans needed to know that the colonies were now a new nation fighting for its existence, and they needed to be inspired to choose the right side. As soon as the delegates voted on the statement, they ordered “That the declaration be authenticated and printed” and “That the committee appointed to prepare the declaration superintend & correct the press.” After that, the record goes silent, and the questions begin.

Democrats have an extremism problem, and it’s not clear how they can solve it. After yet another gunman tried to assassinate President Donald Trump at last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, liberals nobly renewed their commitment to moderation. “We need LESS violence in America, not MORE violence in America,” wrote CNN’s Van Jones. Quite right. But the American Left has not exactly put itself in a good position to calm down its radicals.

Consider: last Wednesday, the New York Times hosted superstar streamer Hasan Piker for a podcast with writer Jia Tolentino. Piker has fantasized on camera about murdering landlords and once told his viewers that “If you cared about Medicare fraud or Medicaid fraud, you would kill [Florida Senator] Rick Scott.” He joked with Tolentino about “microlooting”—that is, shoplifting—and equivocated about whether UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson deserved to die at the hands of his alleged murderer, Luigi Mangione.

Few ideas are more daunting to an artist than opening up their creative process on the merciless sewer that is social media. Yet this is precisely what my dear friend Josh Steinman suggested when I shared my plan to write a symphony for America’s 250th birthday on a hot SoCal day in December 2024. “You should post live-to-tape updates with all of the mistakes, insecurities, decisions, and improvisation,” he proposed.

Thus began a process that no longer involved cloistered introspection. In the digital age, millions of creators vie for attention with stunts, AI slop, and general vapidity—yet almost none have capitalized on audiences’ desire for authenticity. What better way to be authentic than an egoless public struggle against oneself in the construction of a large-scale symphonic work!

In that initial pursuit of authenticity, the conduit for inspiration revealed itself in the form of a fundamental question: “What is America?” It is from meditating on that question that the American essence gathers through the rightly crafted language of music.

Music is a language. It is the most poetic language because it is the most abstract language, as words never seem to elucidate its emotional or spiritual power. There are, however, clear stylistic markers or syntactic structures that may evoke truths of specific peoples. America is no exception.

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 Piker Pill | The Roundtable Ep. 315

If George Washington and John Quincy Adams were in the Oval Office advising President Trump on whether to go to war with Iran, what would they have said? They would likely have argued that any American war in the Middle East—whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Iran, or in partnership with any ally that commits American money, armaments, or troops—is pure folly.

Both in theory and practice, early American political leaders unequivocally rejected the claim that America was an empire or world hegemon like those established by Alexander the Great, Imperial Rome, the Mongols, or Napoleon. Instead, America was a new kind of regime unseen in world history: a republican empire of liberty, limited in constitutional scope and political geography but unlimited in the power of her political spirit and her example to the world.

Equal Nations

The Preamble of the Declaration of Independence includes a curious phrase often overlooked by commentators: “and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” What did the founders mean by a “separate and equal station,” and what does this phrase tell us about their conception of America’s political regime?

The footage was grainy and imprecise, the black-and-white nighttime combat visuals to which Americans have become accustomed over the past generation. Still there they were: American aircraft and American soldiers in action, another strike in defense of a nation at war. Yet this combat operation was not part of the American war with Iran, then only four days old: the announcement on March 3, followed by another on March 6, concerned American forces in Ecuador.

With the cooperation of Ecuadorian authorities, the United States attacked narco-terrorists who were reportedly a splinter faction of FARC, a guerrilla force that once sought leftist revolution in Colombia. Now having devolved into a cartel with socialist characteristics, its successors find themselves on the receiving end of American violence. The two military actions received relatively little attention in U.S. media: an air-assault infantry raid in the Andean region isn’t as telegenic as B-2s flying over Isfahan. But they just might be as portentous.

Earlier this month, The Atlantic published a hit piece on FBI Director Kash Patel, accusing him of frequently drinking to excess and often being absent from work and unreachable by colleagues in the administration. Reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick’s article claims that Patel’s deficiencies are a threat to national security given the essential role the FBI director has in protecting the country from grave threats.

Patel responded by suing The Atlantic and Fitzpatrick for defamation. His lawyers argued that the article’s claims are false and accused The Atlantic of behaving irresponsibly by publishing them. The lawsuit alleges that, among other things, the magazine did not give Patel sufficient time to respond to the allegations before publication, and that the article did not adequately convey the denials and counterevidence that Patel and his supporters had provided.

What are we to make of all this?

Patel certainly has something to complain about. The Atlantic presents the claims of his alleged drunkenness and absenteeism as facts, not as mere speculation. And, as his filing notes, such factual claims certainly amount to libel per se. That is, they are claims that are prima facie injurious to reputation without the need to consult their context.

Lionel Shriver’s 2003 novel-turned-movie We Need to Talk About Kevin was a major prize-winner, a bestseller, and a hit, especially among liberals. Perhaps this is unsurprising, as it dealt with two of their favorite subjects: school shootings and mental health. However, her latest work of fiction, A Better Life, is guaranteed to be received less warmly on the Left, if it’s acknowledged at all.

The central figure in A Better Life is Gloria Bonaventura, an archetypal liberal white woman whom conservatives and independents know all too well. While many New Yorkers at least bristled at their city’s 2022 “migrant crisis,” in which billions were spent on hotel housing alone, Gloria splashily ramps up her do-gooder bona fides. The Brooklyn resident and mother of three adult children sets up a clothing drive for “our newest New Yorkers,” then pushes supermarkets to install donation bins for “culturally appropriate” food, a new program called “Big Apple, Big Hearts” that lets her reach new heights in conspicuous charity. Gloria also brings a highly questionable asylum-seeker into her large home to live with her and her Gen Z son, Nico. For Gloria, young Martiné of Honduras becomes the perfect vehicle, in the words of Nico’s woke sister, to “assure her that she’s making the world a better place.”

If the United States is serious about giving citizenship to worthy immigrants, we also need to be serious about revoking it from the unworthy.

More than 800,000 immigrants became American citizens in FY 2024, and a comparable number are expected in FY 2025, though the final numbers aren’t out yet. There are more than 25 million naturalized American citizens, which is about half the foreign-born population. Having delivered remarks at many swearing-in ceremonies, I welcome those—undoubtedly the majority—who followed the rules and took the Oath of Allegiance in good faith.

But many didn’t. That’s where denaturalization comes in.

The question of revoking citizenship from immigrants who lied on their applications or were otherwise ineligible is part of a broader debate about what membership in our national community means—a debate made especially urgent by the waves of mass immigration the political class has allowed into our country over the past 50-plus years.

In the third book of the Discourses on Livy, Niccolo Machiavelli argues that republics “do not last if they do not renew themselves” by recourse to their origins, when they were at their most pure. “Because in the process of time that goodness is corrupted, unless something intervenes to lead it back to the mark, it of necessity kills the body.”

Historian J.G.A. Pocock elaborates on this idea, arguing for a “Machiavellian moment” (the title of his sprawling and majestic book on the subject) in which a republic must act to save itself by returning to first principles. Per Pocock, the Renaissance Florentines, the Commonwealthmen of 18th-century Britain, and the Revolutionary-era Americans all faced such a moment and were forced to act against the corruption of their regimes. These moments, however, are not always successful. The Florentines lost their republic, and the Commonwealthmen remained a minority in Britain, whose legacy was predominantly to influence the American patriots at the end of the century.