America can’t afford to lose Britain — again



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.

We should equip our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with the lessons of the new right’s ascendancy and of a nation-first government in America.

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 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.

American policymaking is curiously inert in the face of the dissolution of its closest historic ally. This is not because Britain’s decline is anything new: the slow-motion implosion of that nation’s military power has been known to the American defense establishment for most of the past 20 years. Ben Barry’s excellent new book, “The Rise and Fall of the British Army 1975–2025,” offers many examples to this end, including the 2008 fighting in Basra in which American leadership had to rescue a failing British effort.

The knowledge that Britain is facing a regime-level crisis has remained mostly confined to the establishment. Outside of it, the American right has mostly dwelled on an admixture of Anglophilia and special-relationship nostalgia, obscuring the truth of Britain’s precipitous decline.

The American left, of course, entirely endorses what the British regime has done to its citizenry — from the repression of entrepreneurialism and the suppression of free speech to the ethnic replacement of the native population — and regards the outcomes as entirely positive.

It is past time for that inertia to end. The last election will redefine the United Kingdom — and therefore America’s relationship with it. Even before it comes, the rudderless and discredited Labour government has placed Britain into a de facto ungoverned state that may persist for years to come.

The United States has an obligation to protect its own citizenry from the consequences of this reality. It also has what might be called a filial duty to assert conditions for Britain to reclaim itself.

That duty means taking a series of actions, including denying entry to the United States to British officials who engage in the suppression of civil liberties. American security and intelligence should focus on the threats posed by Britain’s burgeoning Islamist population. The U.S. should give preferential immigration treatment to ethnic English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish who are seeking to escape misgovernance or persecution in the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the United States should make it clear that the robust Chinese Communist Party penetration and influence operations in U.K. governance will result in a concurrent diminishment of American trust and cooperation.

Also necessary is the American government’s engagement with pro-liberty and pro-British elements within the U.K. This means working with Reform U.K., which presently looks to gain about 400 parliamentary seats in the next election. Its unique combination of a dynamic leader in Nigel Farage, intellectual heavyweights like James Orr and Danny Kruger, and operational energy in Zia Yusuf makes it a compelling and increasingly plausible scenario.

RELATED: Cry ‘God for England’

Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Although the Tories are polling poorly and have had their reputations battered by their substandard record in government over the past decade, they nonetheless merit American engagement.

America’s role here is not to endorse, and still less to select, new leadership for Britain, which would be both an impossibility and an impropriety. However, we should equip our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with the lessons of the new right’s ascendancy and of a nation-first government in America.

In the fraught summer of 1940, the American poet Alice Duer Miller wrote, “In a world where England is finished and dead, I do not wish to live.” The island nation has not feared its own end at foreign arms for a thousand years. But its crisis today is from within, carrying existential stakes.

The current British regime is nearing its end, and the last election is coming. So too is our decision on how to engage it in the years ahead.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

The thoroughly unimpressive Mr. Fuentes



Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes was supposed to be explosive. It wasn’t.

Far from normalizing Fuentes or advancing his strange brand of “right-wing” politics, the two-hour conversation exposed him as a shallow, aggrieved figure without the intellect or maturity to lead anything. Carlson didn’t destroy Fuentes with debate. He did something worse: He made him boring.

Fuentes built his notoriety as a young “influencer” who mixes nationalism with online provocation. He’s outspokenly racist, anti-Semitic, and obsessed with pushing the limits of shock. And he’s managed to attract a following among disaffected young men — the “Groypers.”

Fuentes’ interview marks his peak — and his decline. Once the outrage fades, he’ll return to obscurity.

In recent years, Fuentes has tried to rebrand himself as something somewhat more serious. He talks about immigration breaking working families, foreign wars enriching elites, and a culture that mocks masculinity. Those themes resonate because they tap real frustrations that many Americans share.

But Fuentes offers no coherent moral or political vision. Others — better read, more disciplined, and far less toxic — make similar arguments with insight and integrity. The late Charlie Kirk, for example, famously wanted nothing to do with Fuentes and his followers for precisely that reason.

The grudge-filled path

Carlson’s interview focused less on ideas than on Fuentes’ grievances. He recounted his early days as a libertarian campaigning for Ted Cruz in 2015, his shift to Trumpism, and his viral rise after a debate with a leftist opponent. Soon he was clashing with prominent conservatives, especially the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro.

According to Fuentes, Shapiro and his allies sabotaged his career and drove him into exile on the “dark web.” At no point does Fuentes wonder whether Shapiro recognized instability and immaturity in him — or simply concluded that he wasn’t worth the investment.

Like many in his Gen Z cohort, Fuentes mistakes online engagement for substance. Without outrage, he has nothing. He’s poorly educated, reads little, and shrugs off legitimate criticism. The result is a young man trapped in perpetual adolescence, angry that the world won’t take him seriously.

Carlson’s indulgence

Carlson tries to humanize Fuentes, appealing to Christian charity and the value of learning from failure. But Fuentes clings to his score-settling. His list of enemies includes not just Shapiro but Charlie Kirk, Joe Kent, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — and even Carlson himself, though he gets a temporary reprieve for offering the platform.

Carlson also attempts to rationalize Fuentes’ anti-Semitism, giving him space to “clarify.” Fuentes insists he doesn’t hate Jews personally — he just opposes Judaism as a “force against Western civilization.” He repeats conspiracy theories about Jewish control of institutions and denies the Holocaust.

Carlson pushes back, but only mildly. Both men protest that they “don’t hate Jews” and have Jewish friends, as if that were exculpatory. It isn’t. The exchange casts neither in a good light.

Empty provocateurs

The rest of the interview dissolves into incoherence. Fuentes casually praises Joseph Stalin, of all people, before the conversation fizzles. Carlson’s attempt to recast Fuentes as a misunderstood outsider backfires. The result is a portrait of a man whose only real claim to relevance is being disliked — and even that feels undeserved.

Carlson’s indulgence of fringe figures is becoming a pattern. Andrew Tate. Darryl Cooper. Now Fuentes. Each enjoys a sizeable online following built on provocation and grievance. And each, when pressed, collapses into self-pity and incoherence. These men are charlatans and grifters who don’t challenge the establishment; they merely rehearse falsehoods and conspiracy theories to raise their profiles among mostly lonely, disaffected young men.

RELATED:Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and the war for the conservative soul

Photo by NurPhoto via Getty Images

The decline of two brands

Fuentes’ interview marks his peak — and his decline. Once the outrage fades, he’ll return to obscurity, remembered mostly as a cautionary tale about what happens when empty charisma meets unearned confidence.

Carlson, meanwhile, risks following him down that path. His willingness to platform attention-seekers may boost short-term clicks, but it erodes long-term credibility. Each indulgence costs him a little more trust.

The tragedy isn’t just Fuentes’ wasted potential. It’s the spectacle of one of the right’s most talented communicators lending his megaphone to a man who long ago proved himself unworthy of it.

What it really means to be a conservative in America today



Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

RELATED: Evil never announces itself — it seduces the hearts of the blind

Lisa Haney via iStock/Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

Conservatives turn their fire on each other after Charlie Kirk’s assassination



The horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk in September should have united Americans. Instead, it split them even further. Conservatives watched too many of their countrymen on the left openly cheer the murder, and even weak denunciations often suggested Kirk got what he deserved.

For a time, the right rallied — praising Kirk and demanding justice. That unity didn’t last. A furious fight over Kirk’s legacy followed, and that’s worse than politics: It’s destroying the movement he built.

Charlie Kirk’s death was a monstrous crime. Let it not become the occasion for tearing the movement he led to pieces.

George Washington spent much of his Farewell Address warning the young republic about foreign entanglements. He praised American separation from Europe’s great power intrigues and warned that making any foreign state a favored nation would corrupt domestic politics. Washington foresaw factions forming around foreign loyalties and predicted patriots who raised concerns about foreign influence would be branded traitors.

His warning applies now, and the fracture cuts through conservatism itself. The United States has long allied with Israel — sharing intelligence, aid, and military cooperation. Many conservatives, especially evangelicals, treat support for Israel as near-religious obligation. Others point to practical security benefits in the Middle East. That religious devotion makes criticism of the relationship politically perilous. You can denounce Britain or Germany without being vilified. Question our alliance with Israel, and you risk immediate slurs — racist, anti-Semite, bigot.

As Washington warned, centering policy on a foreign nation invites domestic discord and foreign meddling. Qatar and other Gulf states now pour money into U.S. institutions. Diasporas like India attempt to consolidate as a power bloc. None of this would surprise Washington. It was predictable. Still, both sides chatter past his counsel — and refuse the restraint he urged.

Anger misdirected

Charlie Kirk excelled at coalition building and peacemaking. He united disparate conservatives behind Trump and MAGA. That’s why the civil war over his death is so corrosive. Conspiracy theories swirl. Former allies denounce one another in his name. Private texts between Kirk and fellow influencers have been leaked and used as weapons. The spectacle is inhuman.

The impulse to treat Kirk’s private words as scripture echoes how people now treat the Constitution — stripping context until the document becomes a cudgel for whatever program you prefer. Left and right both reduce texts to proof texts; neither seeks the actual meaning.

Kirk’s position on Israel was complicated. He loved and supported the state and saw biblical significance in its existence, yet he also held America First concerns about military commitments and complained about pressure from Zionist donors who pushed TPUSA to cancel conservatives. He sought to defuse right-wing animosity toward Israel through messaging at home and tempering excesses abroad. His views were nuanced — like most people tend to be when the shouting stops.

Instead of using the outrage over his assassination to crush the left-wing terror network behind it, too many conservatives turned inward and drew long knives. One faction hates Israel so fiercely it would harm America; another treats any deviation from absolute support as treason.

At the moment, conservatives should unify for survival, they trade blows over purity tests.

Opponents or enemies?

The reality is simple: Israel will remain. The conservative movement needs a coherent strategy. Religious devotion among evangelicals will persist, but it’s waning among younger Christians. Pro-Israel advocates must make a practical case to younger conservatives if they want broad support. Those who question the tie to Israel will keep growing in number.

If pro-Israel conservatives want to avoid the radicalization they fear, they must tolerate dissent within the coalition without staging public witch hunts. Those who seek to re-evaluate the relationship should keep arguments factual and pragmatic. Washington’s cautions about favored nations and about letting hatred sabotage the country remain relevant.

RELATED: Christians are refusing to compromise — and it’s terrifying all the right people

rudall30 via iStock/Getty Images

We saw, after Kirk’s killing, how large segments of the left revealed a murderous contempt for conservatives. That truth cannot be unseen. But within conservatism, the critical question is whether your rival on the right is an opponent to debate or an enemy to be excised. Zionist or skeptic, neither camp is calling for your child to be shot. That low bar — refusing to wish literal violence on fellow citizens — must hold if conservatives hope to form a durable coalition.

This is not an appeal to centrism. I have my views and have argued them plainly. But Kirk wanted a movement that could hold together. He worked to build a broad tent. The conservative civil war must end because the stakes are too high.

If conservatives continue sniping through Kirk’s memory, they will squander their political capital and invite worse divisions. Washington warned us what happens when foreign loyalties and religious fervor distort public life; he warned that factional hatred breaks nations. Conservatives ought to remember that now — not to moderate principle for its own sake, but to preserve the only structure that allows principle to matter: a functioning political majority.

Charlie Kirk’s death was a monstrous crime. Let it not become the occasion for tearing the movement he led to pieces. The left must be opposed forcefully and without mercy in politics, but infighting on the right hands them victory. Put down the knives. Honor Kirk by building the coalition he believed in — or watch the movement dissolve into impotence.

The ‘China class’ sold out America. Now Trump is calling out the sellouts.



“I’ve taught people a lot about China,” says President Donald Trump. “China and the threat it poses to America.”

The president is guiding me on a brief tour of his Palm Beach home, Mar-a-Lago.

“China has been ripping us off for many, many years, and nobody ever did anything about it,” says Trump. He went on:

Whether it was because they were intimidated, or whether it was for other reasons, China has taken advantage of us, and we, through corruption or incompetence, have allowed that to happen. We have been losing hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars to China over a period of many years. A steady stream of $500 billion a year and more in the trade deficit alone. Our wealth has been shattered.

Secret Service agents follow the president as he checks in with aides. I meet one woman who unfurls a 30-yard-long printout of all the emails sent to Trump in the last 24 hours. “They’re all Americans writing President Trump to thank him for what he’s done,” she says.

Americans chose him, among other reasons, to defend them from China and a predatory U.S. ruling class whose ties to the Chinese Communist Party had become the source of its wealth, power, and prestige. Trump had identified the problem decades before his 2016 run for president.

“Though we have the upper hand, we’re way too eager to please the Chinese,” he wrote in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve.” The book continues:

We see them as a potential market, and we tend to curry favor with them even at the expense of our own national interests. Our China policy under Presidents Clinton and [George H. W.] Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it’s clear to me that the Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride.

What it looked like on the ground for working Americans was ruin and misery. But according to the men and women Americans elected to protect their peace and advance their prosperity, there was nothing to be done about it. Even the president of hope and change said he was helpless when it came to China.

President Barack Obama was referring to Trump when he said, “When somebody says [...] that he’s going to bring all these jobs back, well, how exactly are you going to do that? What are you going to do? There’s no answer to it. He just says, well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal. Well, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?”

Returning the jobs to America that the ruling class had exported to China was the core promise of Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The truth was plain to see: Beijing hadn’t outplayed the top lawyers that White House after White House sent out to negotiate against the Chinese; the U.S. establishment had just sold out America. It was to the advantage of the movers and shakers from Capitol Hill and Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood, media and the fashion industry, and they didn’t care how it hurt their countrymen and elevated foreigners.

So middle-class Americans hired an outsider who promised to take on China. Trump moved quickly. He invited Xi Jinping, the president of the People’s Republic of China and the general secretary of the CCP, to meet him here at Mar-a-Lago in April 2017.

“Until the China virus came, I liked and greatly respected Xi,” Trump says. “I got along with him very well. But they had this slogan, ‘China 2025,’ and I said to him that it’s a very unfriendly term. I said, ‘I really don’t like that term because you’re basically saying that you’re going to dominate us by 2025, and I don’t believe that’s going to happen.’”

Half a year after their U.S. meeting, Trump visited Xi in Beijing and described it in a speech he gave a few days later in Vietnam:

I recently had an excellent trip to China, where I spoke openly and directly with President Xi about China’s unfair trade practices and the enormous trade deficits they have produced with the United States. I expressed our strong desire to work with China to achieve a trading relationship that is conducted on a truly fair and equal basis.

He continued:

The current trade imbalance is not acceptable. I do not blame China or any other country — of which there are many — for taking advantage of the United States on trade. If their representatives are able to get away with it, they are just doing their jobs. I wish previous administrations in my country saw what was happening and did something about it. They did not, but I will.

From this day forward, we will compete on a fair and equal basis. We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of any more. I am always going to put America first the same way that I expect all of you in this room to put your countries first.

“We had 164 million people working,” Trump tells me. He considers it one of his greatest achievements as president — to get Americans jobs.

“We had everybody from every segment doing well — poor, rich, middle class, it didn’t matter. African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, women, men, people with degrees from MIT and the Wharton School of Finance, people [who] didn’t have a high school diploma. There wasn’t one group that wasn’t doing great. Welfare was way down. Everything was going good. Food stamps were down because people had great jobs and they were happy; they were thrilled.”

It was evidence that Trump had kept his word. Returning the jobs to America that the ruling class had exported to China was the core promise of his 2016 campaign.

Kissinger and the globalist age

In office Trump and his aides came to understand that this meant taking on a vast network of American elites keen to protect their relations with China, a multigenerational matrix of public- and private-sector interests from the political, corporate, and cultural establishments that occupied the space carved out more than a half-century ago by Henry Kissinger when he served as President Richard Nixon’s national security adviser. With his secret trip in 1971 to prepare for Nixon’s historic visit, he opened China to the world again — Kissinger was the Marco Polo of the globalism era.

“Henry Kissinger was a smart man,” says Trump. In October 2017, he visited Trump in the Oval Office. “Mr. President, I didn’t expect this opportunity,” said Kissinger. “It’s always a great honor to be in this office, and I’m here at a moment when the opportunity to build a constructive, peaceful world order is very great.”

“He wasn’t helpful or unhelpful,” Trump says of Kissinger, who died in November 2023, revered as one of the “wise men” of Washington. “But he loved China. He loved China for a reason.”

Kissinger became the model for the new American establishment, a network of political, corporate, academic, cultural, and media elites that profited personally from the US-China relationship.

The opening to China was celebrated by the foreign policy elite as well as the cultural establishment, high and low, from sports to high art, including an opera called "Nixon in China" and a famous series of Andy Warhol paintings of Mao Zedong. Nixon later came to reconsider the wisdom of the opening to China. But for Kissinger, it became the cornerstone of his historical legacy as a statesman and then as a corporate leader.

His post-government career coincided with the rise of globalism, the new world order that saw national borders and even national sovereignty as hindrances to free trade. China, with an enormous pool of cheap labor, often slave labor, was seen as the centerpiece of the new system. And as the statesman who opened China to the West, Kissinger became the model for the new American establishment, a network of political, corporate, academic, cultural, and media elites that profited personally from the U.S.-China relationship.

RELATED: Chinese SIM farms are radicalizing Americans and destabilizing society, intel experts say

Photo by Bettmann/Getty Images

They made money by doing business with China, by opening doors for others to profit there, too, and by paving the way for China to enter what they euphemistically called the rules-based international system. The result, according to forecasts delivered by U.S. policymakers throughout the 1980s and 1990s, would be China’s eventual democratic evolution.

Instead, Beijing’s techno-autocracy rubbed off on American elites. Thus, what they meant by “international system” was just a series of political and economic arrangements through which communist elites became further entrenched, thanks to the money they and their U.S. partners accumulated on the back of Chinese labor and at the expense of the American workforce.

Kissinger became the role model for a networked U.S. elite regularly scrambling to hide China’s depredations from plain view and thereby protect their riches while avoiding blame themselves. Whether it was after the People’s Liberation Army air force brought down American planes in the South China Sea, or Trump declared a trade war with the PRC, or the PLA lied about its role in a pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, turned millions more into paupers, and left the U.S. economy in ruins, the former top diplomat stepped forward to make Beijing’s case.

He built communist China the biggest and costliest lobby in world history, consisting of the ruling establishment of the most powerful country in world history. Everyone on the inside was in on it. All they had to do was make sure China stayed open for business.

In the early 1980s, Kissinger started Kissinger Associates, a consultancy whose roster over the years included former secretaries of state, treasury, and energy, national security advisers, ambassadors, and CIA officers.

Kissinger managed to avoid having to register as a foreign agent because even though he lobbied openly on behalf of China for 40 years, he wasn’t paid directly by the Chinese. Rather, he drew his income from the major U.S. industries that he vouched for in Beijing, under the tacit agreement that in return for access to China, they would make the calls and demand the meetings with D.C. lawmakers and the White House to lobby for China. It’s a loophole that serving U.S. officials never dreamed of closing, since they saw it as a useful paradigm to pursue their own post-government ambitions.

The list of former officials from Democratic and Republican administrations who have run strategic advisory firms, managed think tanks, or otherwise emulated Kissinger to profit from promoting U.S. ties with China reads like a “Who’s Who” in Washington of the last half-century, comprising both Democrats and Republicans. The list includes President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State Alexander Haig, a former Kissinger aide; President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, also both former Kissinger aides and then employees; Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright, his Defense Sec. William Cohen, and his national security adviser Sandy Berger; George W. Bush’s Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick; and former President Barack Obama aide and President Joe Biden aide Kurt Campbell; as well as Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, and CIA Director William Burns.

RELATED: China rules the resources we need to build the future. Now what?

Photo by liu mingzhu via Getty Images

To support the industry he built to advance the U.S.-China relationship, Kissinger curated the intellectual apparatus to ensure that his heroic version of the opening and all that came after dominated the narrative as the mainstream account. Centers and institutes were named after him, like the Wilson Center’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States and the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University; chairs bear his name at the Library of Congress, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as well as fellowships given at Johns Hopkins and Yale.

Kissinger’s central role as éminence grise of the U.S.-China relationship made him something like a dark-mirror version of Gandalf, the sage wizard in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, who guides a band of searchers on their quest. Except, where Gandalf’s charges were tasked with destroying a ring of absolute power that corrupted all who touched it, Kissinger’s charges — corporate titans, Wall Street bankers, leading politicians, university presidents, sports stars, and Hollywood moguls — wanted the ring of power forged in the Middle Kingdom for themselves.

Naturally, they became corrupted by it and brought devastation and ruin to their own country. Because Trump’s mission was to break the spell Kissinger had cast, the forces from every sector of the political and corporate establishment that over two generations had coalesced around it fought back. They joined China’s long war against America.

China class fights Trump

It’s not surprising that China turned its weapons on Americans immediately after the revolution. Washington had supported Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces against Mao, and Mao won. To contain the spread of communism, the U.S. fought PRC allies in Asia, where the Chinese killed and aided in the killing of 37,000 Americans during the Korean War and more than 58,000 in the Vietnam War.

The long war against America continues, through subtler means. The Chinese are responsible for the manufacture and distribution of fentanyl, which is illegally pushed across our southern and northern borders and typically kills as many as 75,000 Americans yearly. More than 1 million Americans died during the COVID-19 pandemic, which originated with a leak from a Chinese government lab in Wuhan, where the PLA runs biowarfare programs.

Leaders from the political, corporate, cultural, academic, and media establishments have gotten rich by making China rich.

Though no evidence confirms that the pathogen was leaked intentionally, China’s lies about COVID’s origins, lethality, and transmission are evidence that Beijing opportunistically used it as an instrument in an information warfare campaign to weaken its Western rivals, primarily America.

China’s depredations are typically ignored thanks to the efforts of a well-funded propaganda machine. Beijing pours money into various American intellectual institutions, including universities, think tanks, and media. It also pays U.S. academics directly, as well as social media influencers on all the major platforms, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, to smear America and dismiss reports of China’s human rights abuses of its own population, particularly minority groups such as the Tibetans and Uyghurs. The CCP also cultivates ties with subnational actors, including American minorities, mostly but not exclusively African-American, as well as state and local governments, to undermine U.S. interests.

But far and away the most powerful asset deployed by the PRC is what I call the China class, leaders from the political, corporate, cultural, academic, and media establishments that have gotten rich by making China rich. Virtually all of what the PRC now makes, from state-of-the-art high tech to advanced military hardware, has either been stolen by them or transferred to them by American elites in exchange for future favors.

China’s leaders, from Mao to Xi Jinping, are typically credited with raising hundreds of millions of peasants out of poverty — an economic miracle like nothing before it, say admirers. But the reality is that it was the policies of the Chinese Communist Party that plunged the Chinese into misery and poverty in the first place.

RELATED: Trump’s tariffs are a tool, not a temper tantrum

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It wasn’t Beijing that built China’s prosperous new middle class. The Chinese are hardworking and intelligent people, but the type of people who have risen to the top of the communist regime have crawled over corpses to get there — over 70 million Chinese killed under Mao alone. It was America’s political and corporate elite, the China class, who, largely through trade and financial instruments, made this murderous regime what it is today — a peer adversary of the country they call home. And they did it to augment their own wealth, power, and prestige at the expense of impoverishing the American middle class.

The China class appeared at first to be a random assortment of personalities from various industries and institutions who seemed to have little in common, outside the fact that the newly elected president excoriated them. But Trump’s resolve to take on China, and his relentless attacks on them, gave the elites collective self-awareness, or what Marxists call class “consciousness.” Together, they saw that they represented a nexus of public- and private-sector interests that shared not only the same prejudices and hatreds, cultural tastes, and consumer habits, but also the same center of gravity, the U.S.-China relationship.

Connections that might have once seemed tenuous or nonexistent became lucid under the light of Trump’s scorn and the reciprocal scorn of the elite who loathed him and the Americans who elected him to fight on their behalf.

A decade ago, for example, no one would have put NBA superstar LeBron James and Apple CEO Tim Cook in the same family album. But there they are, linked by their fantastic wealth owing to cheap Chinese manufacturing. Miramax Films and Harvard’s Kennedy School? They both produced propaganda that assisted the PRC’s rise to global primacy. The Black Panthers and Goldman Sachs? Both hitched their fortunes to Beijing’s ascendancy.

Some did warn about the dangers of China. Labor unions were against admitting China to the World Trade Organization. In 2000, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called “the fevered rush to admit China to the WTO a grave mistake.” And four years later, the AFL-CIO submitted a petition, arguing that China’s labor practices, including the suppression of workers’ rights, were unfair trade practices that harmed American workers.

Human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, and pro-Tibet activists swam against the tide of pro-China sentiment. Sometimes they were joined by famous celebrities, like actor Richard Gere, and even U.S. policymakers, like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who, as a young California congresswoman, attended a rally at Tiananmen Square two years after the 1989 massacre there and waved a banner in support of the victims of the PLA’s depredations.

The type of people who have risen to the top of the communist regime have crawled over corpses to get there — over 70 million Chinese killed under Mao alone.

U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), who ran for president in 1988 and 2004, opposed granting China permanent normal trade relations status, also known as most favored nation status, because it would hurt American workers, while ignoring China’s human rights abuses. “Only when there is real progress that addresses our concerns,” he said, “PNTR should be granted.”

One of the most vocal critics of U.S. trade policy was Ronald Reagan’s onetime deputy U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer. “Giving China most-favored-nation treatment for trade,” Lighthizer said, “was a tragic mistake.” Lighthizer served as U.S. trade representative during Trump’s first term and provided perhaps the most critical piece in Trump’s China policy.

And there was Trump himself. “I think we need to take a much harder look at China,” he wrote in 2000. He was critical not only of China’s trade practices but also its human rights abuses — and he knew the corporate establishment was protecting China:

There are major problems that too many at the highest reaches of business want to overlook. There is, as I mentioned, the human-rights situation. Abuses included torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, and arbitrary and lengthy incommunicado detention. Prison conditions remain harsh. The government continues severe restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, and worker rights. All public dissent against the party and government was effectively silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison terms, administrative detention, or house arrest.

He had pinpointed the source of corruption in our elite, the reason for the impoverishment of the middle classes, and the threats to our peace. But even he was surprised to find how bad it was when he first came to office.

“They’re partners with China on virtually everything,” Trump tells me. “I mean, they just drop to their knees when China speaks. I’ve never seen anything like it. And they may be afraid of China. It’s not just business. It seems like they’re afraid of China.”

Among other things, they’re afraid of forfeiting the financial benefits. “I know one man who was very opposed to China,” Trump says. “All of a sudden, he comes in and he’s talking to me, and I said, ‘Whoa! What happened?’ He’s talking so positively about China. I said, ‘I’ve never seen anybody go from being so brilliantly against something to being so brilliantly in favor of it.’ I said, ‘They’re paying you, aren’t they?’ He said, ‘Yeah, they paid me a ton of money.’ They pay people a fortune.”

Even if it wanted to, the China class can’t cut itself off from its life source. “It’s like a fix,” says Trump. “And China knew that I was willing to get off the fix. It’s like drugs.”

So they fought Trump on China. They fought him on trade and the tariffs he imposed on Chinese goods during his first term and again when he tariffed China at the start of his second term. And they fought him on national security issues related to China. They fought him when he ordered restrictions on travel from China after a virus swept out of a city hosting a Chinese government lab funded by America’s biodefense czar, Anthony Fauci, in the fall of 2019.

America poisoned

COVID was the real-world manifestation of a decades-long truth; the metaphor employed to describe the relationship merging U.S. and Chinese elites had come to life: China’s communist party had poisoned America. The pandemic dramatized just how profoundly the relationship had transformed the country’s ruling class, now employing the same tactics as the CCP and mirroring its cruelty.

COVID became an instrument to demoralize Americans and imprison them in their homes; lay waste to small business; leave them vulnerable to rioters free to steal, burn, and kill; keep their children from school and the dying from the last embrace of their loved ones; desecrate American history, culture, and society; and defame the country as systemically racist in order to furnish the predicate for why ordinary Americans deserved the hell that the elite’s private-sector militias like Black Lives Matter and Antifa and the FBI and other intelligence services had prepared for them.

U.S. political and corporate elites used the pandemic to disintegrate American norms, including election laws that were unconstitutionally altered to favor a candidate whose financial ties to CCP elites were uncovered a month before the election. But like Communist Party censors, dozens of U.S. intelligence officers arranged with social media platforms and prestige press outfits to block reports of Joe and Hunter Biden’s corrupt relations with Chinese officials.

The election of Biden represented the hegemony of an American ruling class that sees its relationship with China as a shield and sword against its own countrymen. To those most dispirited and demoralized, it resembled the installation of an occupation government ruling on behalf of a hostile power. With Trump gone, there was nothing impeding the political and business establishment from restoring its cozy relations with Beijing and accelerating the betrayal of American sovereignty.

RELATED: China imposes COVID-like quarantine over new breakout of viral disease

Photo by Lang Bingbing/Xinhua via Getty Images

During a trip to Vietnam in September 2023, Biden explained: “I don’t want to contain China.” He continued: “I just want to make sure that we have a relationship with China that is on the up and up, squared away, everybody knows what it’s all about.”

It was a far cry from Trump’s Vietnam speech nearly six years earlier, when he asserted he would pursue the interests of the voters who made him president. Biden was most concerned to soothe Chinese anxieties — and U.S. donors with a portfolio staked to China’s success. “It’s not about isolating China. I want to see China succeed economically,” he said. “We’re not looking to hurt China. ... We’re all better off if China does well. ... We’re not looking to decouple from China.”

He immediately began rolling back Trump initiatives to keep China in check. For instance, he ended the Trump Justice Department’s China Initiative to root out CCP espionage. After the PRC’s foreign ministry complained that it was racist, Biden compliantly shut it down.

And he made Americans more vulnerable to China. When Biden reversed Trump’s border policy, among the millions who entered illegally were large numbers of PRC nationals who, according to a former U.S. intelligence official, are attached to a special PLA unit.

With America’s borders open, fatal overdoses of fentanyl peaked at over 112,000 deaths. Other drug problems got worse, too. Chinese gangs with ties to the PRC government are responsible for much of America’s illicit marijuana trade. Chinese organized crime, say Oklahoma law enforcement authorities, has “taken over marijuana in Oklahoma and the United States.” According to one report, Chinese mobsters “illegally [move] money overseas for the Communist Party elite and spy on and intimidate Chinese immigrant communities.”

And the Biden administration failed to secure the drugs that keep Americans alive. The pandemic showed how reliant America had become on Chinese-made pharmaceuticals, with the United States importing $2.1 billion in pharmaceutical products. After Biden had three years to reshore pharmaceuticals, by 2024 imports had more than tripled, with the U.S. spending more than $7.8 billion on drugs manufactured in China.

In the early winter of 2023, a PRC spy balloon entered U.S. territory over Alaska. After a week during which it traversed the continental United States, it was shot down off the South Carolina coast. The fact that it was carrying U.S.-made technology, including a satellite communication module, sensors, and other sophisticated surveillance equipment, only underscores how American corporations prioritize profits over national security. It also showed how China controlled an administration led by a president whose family had clear ties to Beijing.

America’s political and corporate elite, largely through trade and financial instruments, made this murderous regime what it is today — a peer adversary of the country they call home.

As president, Biden continued to make the Chinese richer and Americans poorer. He revoked tariffs worth $8.5 billion that Trump imposed on Chinese solar panel manufacturers. One study showed that Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act — legislation pushing the climate agenda — showed that Chinese manufacturers could earn up to $125 billion in tax credits. Further, by hiking energy prices to satisfy climate ideologues and lobbyists, Biden made the United States less competitive and China stronger by comparison.

On the national security front, Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan gave China Bagram Air Base, a listening post where the United States kept tabs on Beijing’s military activities. “We would have kept Bagram because of China, not because of Afghanistan,” says Trump. “This is one hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.” Biden, says Trump, damaged the U.S. alliance system to help China.

“Their stupidity with Saudi Arabia was unbelievable,” he says of his predecessor’s White House. Trump had defended the Saudis when he was pressured to relinquish the decades-long relationship with the world’s top oil producer. But he fought back: Saudi Arabia kept oil prices low, which is good for global markets, and invested in the United States, which is good for American workers.

“They treated Saudi terribly,” Trump says of the Biden team. “They pushed them right into the hands of China.”

While Riyadh flirted briefly with Beijing, Saudi Arabia did not realign with the Chinese — or else it would have risked not only the long-standing alliance but also one of the pillars of the post-World War II order that has made the United States the wealthiest, most powerful country in world history.

Undoing Kissinger’s spell

Because of the Biden administration’s recklessness, many began to wonder if the United States was on the verge of losing its dominant position. After all, the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is owing among other things to the arrangement Washington policymakers made with the Saudis at the end of World War II: The world buys American bonds and invests in U.S. real estate because the United States is the chief guarantor of security around the world, a large component of which is making sure that Persian Gulf oil gets safely to market.

Among other dangers in that strategically vital region is the anti-U.S. terror regime in Iran, which has joined forces with China and Russia. “Biden forced China and Russia together, and now they have Iran,” Trump tells me. In March 2024, the three conducted joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman. “How could Biden have let so many things get so bad?”

From Trump’s perspective, the long line of American presidents dating back over half a century are all responsible for the carnage.

When Trump first took office in 2017, he was hopeful that his administration could force some distance between Beijing and Moscow, but Trump’s domestic opponents made that impossible. The Hillary Clinton campaign’s dirty trick, smearing the 2016 GOP candidate as a Russian agent, was retooled by Obama’s spy chiefs and turned into a weapon to undermine Trump’s presidency.

With false allegations of Trump’s ties to Moscow, the “Russia collusion” narrative had effectively become an instrument to redirect the public’s attention away from China, Trump’s priority. Russiagate protected China and its U.S. partners from scrutiny and prevented Trump from shaping a more comprehensive foreign policy to deal with the threat from Beijing. Instead, says Trump, Russiagate “put us into a hostile environment with a powerful country.”

Who knows if the Trump team would have succeeded in isolating China with a U.S.-Russia partnership, but the Russia collusion narrative obstructed the policy of the man elected to conduct U.S. foreign relations.

“We might have had a good relationship with Russia,” he says. “Russia has very valuable land with minerals and things that we could have used, and we have things that they were desperate to have. And I said to Putin, ‘You probably know.’ And he said, ‘I do know without you even saying it.’ He said, ‘It’s virtually impossible for you to do anything with us.'”

From Trump’s perspective, Russiagate was a geopolitical disaster with the final bill yet to come. “One of the things that I learned very early on from a lot of very smart people is don’t let Russia and China get together,” Trump says. But the Americans fighting Trump helped force them together. “They pushed Russia to China.”

That formula is an inversion of how the U.S.-China relationship began more than 50 years ago, with Kissinger’s secret July 1971 trip to Beijing to prepare the ground for Nixon’s state visit. Nixon and Kissinger set about leveraging China against the Soviet Union. They called it “playing the China card,” but it was among the worst bets American leaders ever made, for their strategic gambit evolved into the devastation that Trump was elected to repair.

From Trump’s perspective, the long line of American presidents dating back over half a century are all responsible for the carnage.

“They were all really bad,” Trump says of his predecessors’ records on China. “But Richard Nixon is the one who opened up China. It was a terrible mistake. A lot of people praise him for opening up China. But I think they’re stupid people, too. It was a very bad day for the United States. He let them in, and other people let China take advantage of us.” There were other presidents who followed and other presidents who allowed the rape of the United States to go on and on. But it was Nixon and Kissinger who initiated it.

“The worst thing Nixon did wasn’t Watergate,” says Trump. “It was allowing China to take advantage of this country. He and Kissinger are the ones who opened up China. And it was a terrible mistake. It didn’t have to be this way.”

This is the story of the U.S. ruling class’ deadly pact with China. It shows how the career of one man, Henry Kissinger, shaped the world as well as the country we live in today. And it’s the story of the man twice elected to undo Kissinger’s spell. Trump and Kissinger, antagonist and protagonist, are the two poles around which this epic account of the last 50 years of American politics, culture, and society revolves.

Editor’s note: This essay has been adapted from Lee Smith’s new book, “The China Matrix: The Epic Story of How Donald Trump Shattered a Deadly Pact” (Center Street).

If You Care More About Policing The Right Than Fighting The Left, You’re Part Of The Problem

We have created a demoralized right, perpetually apologizing for existing while the left advances unimpeded.

The Gaza ceasefire is a death trap, not a deal



At a time when conservatives are calling to divest from the Middle East and confront crises at home, Gaza is the last place America should pour time, treasure, or troops. What national interest do we have in defending a territory run by the most violent Islamists on earth?

Thanks to a coordinated online propaganda campaign — part cyber-jihad, part influencer echo chamber — some on the right have begun parroting communist and Islamist talking points about a “Gaza genocide.” Voices like Tucker Carlson now argue that Israel’s defense partnerships no longer justify U.S. involvement. From an America First perspective, that sounds reasonable: fewer entangling alliances, less foreign aid. But if Israel supposedly offers us nothing, what on earth does Gaza offer?

If we’re serious about an America First foreign policy, we should begin disentangling from the Middle East altogether.

On October 13, the entire communist world — and its pseudo-right allies — got what it wanted. Israel withdrew from Gaza’s populated areas and exchanged 2,000 terrorists for 20 hostages, trusting Hamas to disarm.

Peace in our time, right? More like no Jews, no news.

Hamas immediately reneged, of course, refusing to return most hostage remains and launching a campaign of public executions. The largest slaughter of Muslims in the Arab world wasn’t committed by Jews, but by other Muslims. Remove the Jews, and Gaza doesn’t grow peaceful — it turns on itself. Yet without Jews in the headlines, global media suddenly loses interest in reporting on “genocide.”

Once the internal purges were done, Hamas returned to its favorite target: infidels. On Sunday, terrorists emerged from tunnels in Rafah and attacked Israeli forces, killing two IDF soldiers. Snipers fired on Israeli positions near Jabalia. At the same time, Hamas used Gaza’s hospitals — Al-Shifa, Al-Ahli, Al-Aqsa, and Nasser — as makeshift detention and interrogation centers, confirming what Israel long claimed: Those “civilian” sites serve as terror bases.

Israeli troops now sit exposed, ordered to hold positions but forbidden to act pre-emptively. They’re surrounded by tunnels and terrorists, trapped in another international “ceasefire” that only empowers killers.

Gaza’s terminal disease

The “Free Palestine” lie has collapsed under its own weight. Rebuilding Gaza under Arab control isn’t just naïve — it’s suicidal. No society so steeped in religious violence can sustain peace or self-government. Hamas is not an aberration; it’s a symptom of a deeper rot in Islamic political culture.

So why is President Trump involving America in this mess through the so-called 20-point plan? For a movement that claims to oppose endless wars and foreign aid, the right’s silence on this scheme is baffling. The Pentagon has already confirmed plans to send 200 U.S. soldiers to the Gaza border. If Israel defending itself against Iran supposedly meant “Americans dying for Israel,” what exactly do we call Americans dying to protect Hamas from Israel?

RELATED: Trump receives roaring applause for historic peace deal after all remaining hostages are freed

Photo by Evelyn Hockstein - Pool/Getty Images

The British blueprint

This entire plan was crafted by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair — the same man who recently declared Britain must become “a nation of global citizens.” No wonder it leads to deeper entanglement, not withdrawal. Once again, globalist bureaucrats are trying to pull America into Middle Eastern “peacekeeping,” which always means nation-building with American blood and money.

If we’re serious about an America First foreign policy, we should begin disentangling from the region altogether — starting by weaning Israel off U.S. weapons systems so it can act freely without American political interference. But under no circumstances should we send troops or tax dollars to Gaza. Peacekeeping there isn’t in our interest. In that part of the world, “peace” means paralysis, and paralysis means death.

The wolf and the lamb

President Trump’s desire to see the “wolf dwell with the lamb” is noble, even biblical. But Isaiah’s prophecy won’t be fulfilled through U.N. peacekeepers or Pentagon deployments. It won’t come through Islam, whose theology demands submission, not reconciliation.

Let Gaza be the Arab world’s problem. Let Israel defend itself without our restraint. And let America finally wake up to the rising threat of political Islam — in our own communities, not 6,000 miles away.

The visa that ate America’s tech jobs



Last month, Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) introduced the American Tech Workforce Act — legislation aimed at curbing abuses in the H-1B visa program and protecting American workers. One key provision would restrict remote work by foreign nationals employed in the United States under H-1B visas.

Yes, you read that right. Foreign workers can enter the country and “work remotely,” often from locations nowhere near the companies that hired them. A foreign national can take a tech job with a firm in San Francisco or Dallas, then live and work from Peoria or Plattsburgh. The arrangement makes little sense — unless your goal is to undercut American wages.

Congressshould demand that US companies use remote work to employ Americans — not to offshore jobs inside our own borders.

The H-1B program was sold to Americans as a way to fill gaps in “specialty occupations” that supposedly lacked qualified domestic talent. In practice, it became a pipeline for cheap, compliant foreign labor. Vague definitions of “specialty occupation” and toothless wage protections made it easy for corporations to game the system and drive down costs.

Workers from India, China, and the Philippines accept lower pay for two simple reasons. First, they see the H-1B as a path to permanent residence and eventual citizenship. Many arrive and immediately ask their employers to petition for green cards. They believe that if they keep quiet and work long hours for less money, they’ll earn the right to stay.

Second, even when underpaid by American standards, they make far more than they could at home. A senior computer engineer in India earns roughly $16,000 to $28,000 per year. In the United States, even a low-paid engineer makes about $58,000. The math works for them — but not for American graduates struggling to enter the same field.

Depressing wages, rewarding compliance

The results have been devastating for American STEM professionals. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that between 1994 and 2001, the flood of foreign tech workers suppressed wages for U.S. computer scientists by as much as 5% and reduced domestic employment in the field by up to 10%.

And because so many H-1B workers hope for green cards, they rarely complain about long hours, weekends, or holidays. Employers know it. The system rewards docility. Today, about 19% of the STEM workforce is foreign-born — higher than their share of the total U.S. workforce. Cheap, compliant labor is now baked into the model, while American graduates are being priced out.

The remote work loophole

If companies truly wanted to cut costs, they could use remote work to hire American workers from lower-cost regions. A Boston tech firm can employ skilled programmers in West Virginia or Alabama without having to build new offices. Everyone wins: The company saves money, the workers get good jobs, and local economies benefit.

So why import foreign workers for jobs that can be done anywhere with a Wi-Fi signal? The answer is simple — because they can. Without limits on remote work for H-1Bs, corporations will exploit the system further, hiring foreign workers who are cheaper still. An Indian programmer working remotely from South Carolina costs less than an American one, even after relocation.

RELATED: The H-1B brouhaha: Here's what you need to know

Photo Illustration by Manish Rajput/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

America First means Americans first

The H-1B program has always benefited foreign nationals and corporate bottom lines at the expense of American citizens. It’s long past time for Congress to reverse that and adopt an America First position to protect U.S. tech workers.

Lawmakers should pass the American Tech Workforce Act as a first step. But reform shouldn’t stop there. They should demand that U.S. companies use remote work to employ Americans — not to offshore jobs inside our own borders.

If tech firms want to save money, they can hire young American graduates eager to work. What they shouldn’t be allowed to do is import cheaper labor under a visa meant for skills we already have. Remote work should expand opportunities for citizens, not serve as another back door for replacing them.

Trump to military brass: 'America is under invasion from within'



President Donald Trump delivered a bold message to United States military leaders in a landmark address at Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday.

Trump emphasized the importance of military excellence to hundreds of American generals and admirals during his historic speech. Although Trump acknowledged the foreign adversaries America is actively up against, the president also pointed to the "invasion from within."

'Defending the homeland is the military’s first and most important priority.'

"As leaders, our commitment to every patriot who put on the uniform is to ensure that the American military remains the most lethal and dominant on the planet," Trump said during his address. "Not merely for a few years, but for the decades and generations to come. For centuries."

"We must be so strong that no nation will dare challenge us, so powerful that no enemy will dare threaten us, and so capable that no adversary can even think about beating us."

RELATED: Hegseth declares war on woke military policies: 'We are done with that s**t'

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Trump went on to discuss the importance of morale and culture in the military. Following former President Joe Biden's term in office, both Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth are course-correcting by weeding out bad actors, reversing woke military policies, and reinvigorating the rank and file.

"From Sparta, to Rome, to the British Empire, to the United States of America, history has shown that military supremacy has never been simply a matter of money or manpower," Trump said. "At the end of the day, it is the culture and spirit of our military that truly sets us apart from any other nation."

"Our ultimate strength will always come from the fierce people ... the unbending will, and the traditions of excellence that have made us the most unstoppable force ever to walk the face of the earth."

RELATED: Netanyahu signals support for Trump's latest peace proposal: 'It has to be done'

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Trump also pointed to the importance of defending the American homeland before entertaining other political projects or military ambitions abroad.

"We've brought back the fundamental principle that defending the homeland is the military’s first and most important priority," Trump said. "Only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia, while America is under invasion from within."

"Not only are we rebuilding our great strength, but for the first time in years, my administration is actually using that strength to defend the core and vital interests of America," Trump added. "Very simply, we are putting America first."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fact-check: Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin is not a Groyper



The left and the right have been at each other's throats in the past week attempting to pin accused assassin Tyler Robinson's motives on the other side. However, one obscure and patently false theory has gained more traction online than expected, frustrating many on the right.

Claims have abounded that Robinson is connected to the Groypers or the Groyper Army, a group of online supporters of Nick Fuentes, a provocateur and political gadfly who positions himself to the far right of Turning Point USA and promotes an America First agenda. The main argument of this theory, explained by Forbes, for example, is that the Groypers have famously been at "war" with Charlie Kirk and mainstream conservatism, often criticizing Turning Point USA's stances on several issues.

These claims are baseless, as even Fuentes has stated.

'Unfortunately for them, that claim doesn't fit any of the facts on the ground (not that they give a damn about that).'

On Saturday, Fuentes suggested his enemies were using the theory to "frame" him and his supporters: "My followers and I are currently being framed for the murder of Charlie Kirk by the mainstream media based on literally zero evidence. After the Left gunned him down, they celebrated and justified it. They said I was next. Now they are blaming me."

RELATED: Charlie Kirk's suspected assassin — now facing death penalty — makes his first court appearance

Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Reuters published a story on September 13 that included a statement allegedly from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Rachel Kleinfeld suggesting that the symbology on the bullet casings indicates that the shooter was a part of the Groyper movement.

According to an editor's note, the article has been corrected and no longer includes this statement, although it is unclear whether it was corrected because editors realized it was false or if it was improperly attributed to Kleinfeld. It does not appear that Reuters issued an official retraction, and those statements were subsequently repeated by other outlets. The speculation was also largely entertained on social media.

For those reading into the messages on the bullet casings, the engravings are ideologically scattered at best and politically incoherent at worst. The engravings reportedly read: "Notices bulge OwO, what’s this?"; "Hey fascist! Catch!" alongside an up arrow, a right arrow, and another three arrows pointing downward; the words of prominent Italian anti-fascist song "Bella Ciao"; and "If you read this you are gay LMAO."

RELATED: Explosive alleged text messages between suspected Kirk killer and his transgender roommate obliterate liberal narrative

Photo by Chet Strange/Getty Images

Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire effectively dispelled the claims that Robinson was a Groyper or even a right-winger, noting the "fascist" label on one of the bullet casings. In a post on X, Walsh said, "Unsurprisingly the Left is gearing up to pin this on Nick Fuentes by claiming the killer was a Groyper. Unfortunately for them, that claim doesn't fit any of the facts on the ground (not that they give a damn about that). The killer labeled Kirk a 'fascist.' That is a term only ever used by the Left as an insult to the Right. The idea that he killed Charlie for not being right wing enough, but also considered Charlie a 'fascist,' is totally incoherent. Absolute nonsense."

The Daily Caller called out CNN anchor Abby Phillip for spreading the theory that Tyler Robinson may be a Groyper because he dressed up in a tracksuit for Halloween. Theories abounded that the costume was a reference to the "Slavic squat" meme, which features a cartoon of a frog squatting and smoking a cigarette, dressed in a tracksuit.

On Friday, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) shared Robinson's own family's characterization of his politics. "During a recent dinner, Robinson allegedly said in conversation with another family member that Kirk was coming to UVU. 'The family member also stated Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate," Cox said."

The family also reportedly shared that Robinson had become "more political" in recent years, which further weakens the already spurious theories otherwise. “There clearly was a leftist ideology with this — with this assassin," he added Sunday.

The X account Anonymous, which has nearly 5.3 million followers, also disseminated claims that Robinson was a Groyper "based on his memes and rhetoric" as well as from anonymous posts.

While many outlets and social media users noted the potential connection to the Groyper movement, some cautioned that the Pepe the Frog meme is used in many other online contexts as well. As one Bluesky commenter noted of this meme, "Its the anon mask of its time, ended up so widely used by so many different types of edge lord that it has no meaning other than 'Ive been deep in the internet too long.'"

To the contrary, more evidence has since come out that likely places Robinson well away from the right wing. For instance, officials claim that Robinson was in a romantic relationship with a trans-identifying male roommate who wants to transition into a woman.

In a post shortly after Charlie Kirk was shot, Fuentes said, "This feels like a nightmare. One of the most horrific things I’ve ever seen. I feel absolutely gutted and devastated. Pray for Charlie Kirk’s soul, his young family and for our country. The violence and hatred has to stop. Our country needs Christ now more than ever."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!