Exclusive: Jim Jordan backs 'America First' veteran in key swing state primary



Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio is weighing in on a high-stakes primary in a key swing state, Blaze News has learned.

Jordan has endorsed Captain Michael Bouchard, an Iraq war veteran, for Michigan's 10th congressional district, Blaze News can exclusively report. This high-profile endorsement comes as Republican Rep. John James of Michigan wraps up his term in the 10th district and is now running for governor of the state.

'A strong conservative leader.'

"Captain Michael Bouchard is the America First conservative we need in Congress," Jordan told Blaze News. "Mike served his country in Iraq, and now he is ready to serve the people of Michigan's 10th district in Washington."

"Now, more than ever, we need leaders like Captain Bouchard in Congress."

RELATED: 'Warfighter' son of a popular Michigan sheriff is now gunning for Congress

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

The third-generation Michigander embraced the endorsement from Jordan, who made a name for himself chairing the prestigious House Judiciary Committee.

"I'm proud to earn the endorsement of Congressman Jim Jordan," Bouchard told Blaze News. "Congressman Jordan is a strong conservative leader that has fought to defend our Constitution and the conservative principles important to Michigan families."

"I will bring that same standard to Washington and stand alongside those putting our people first."

The crowded Republican primary is currently scheduled for August 4, just a few months before the general election on November 3.

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

America has a spending problem Congress refuses to fix



Washington Democrats just voted against the one rule every American family already lives by: balancing the budget. Last week, I brought my Balanced Budget Amendment to the House floor. It failed. Meanwhile the national debt has reached $39 trillion and counting.

My amendment would have required Washington to phase in a simple rule: Congress cannot spend more than it takes in.

Democrats would rather keep the autopilot running and the national credit card maxed out than make the tough decisions to bring spending in line with what Americans want and need.

Democrats once claimed to support that principle. Last week, only one voted yes. Let that sink in.

Opposing a balanced budget is not some noble policy disagreement. It is a refusal to confront a crisis. Interest on the national debt already costs more than national defense. By midcentury, interest payments are projected to double our defense spending.

This debate is not about making a spreadsheet look tidy. Revenues are not the problem. Overspending is. American families already understand the difference. They pay the mortgage and buy groceries first. They skip the extras. They live on what they earn.

That is far from radical. It’s common sense.

The debt passed $39 trillion on March 17, up $4.5 trillion in just two years. That works out to $289,000 per household. Interest payments alone are projected to hit $1.04 trillion this year, or about $7,700 per household, just to service Washington’s tab. By the time you finish reading this, the number will be higher.

And that is before you factor in the waste, fraud, and outright abuse.

Since 2003, the federal government has made nearly $3 trillion in improper payments. The states are hardly better. In Minnesota, a federal prosecutor said half or more of the roughly $18 billion in federal funds sent to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been stolen. Half or more. Billions of taxpayer dollars disappeared through fake autism centers, phony housing providers, and shell companies.

The federal government and the states are ripping you off.

We have known for years that government spending was out of control. But at this scale, waste no longer looks like a bug in the system. It looks like a feature.

RELATED: Running out the clock won’t save the majority

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

Democrats’ refusal even to vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment shows they have no interest in fixing it. They would rather keep the autopilot running and the national credit card maxed out than make the tough decisions to bring spending in line with what American families want and need.

That refusal was on full display last week. Democrats chose more debt, more inflationary pressure, and more fiscal chaos. They are not worried about bankrupting the country.

But their "no" votes were not the only warning sign. Congress has already seen the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility and still refuses to change course.

The Biden-Harris years added trillions in new debt and helped deliver the worst inflation in 40 years. Prices surged while paychecks lagged. Working mothers stretching every grocery dollar felt it. Seniors on fixed incomes felt it. Families living paycheck to paycheck felt it.

That is the real-world price of refusing to balance the books.

I offered a real fix. My Balanced Budget Amendment would force Washington to do what every family already does: live on what comes in, pay the important bills first, cut the extras, and stop borrowing from the next generation to finance today’s spending.

This is not complicated. It is basic math. It is common sense. It is America First.

As we approach America’s 250th birthday, the best gift we can give the next generation is a government that finally lives by the same rule every family does and stops pretending this mountain of debt does not matter.

America’s elites trusted global trade. Japan trusted reality.



“Moshitora,” Japanese shorthand for “what if Trump?,” first emerged in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. election, as policymakers and business leaders in Tokyo tried to make sense of an unpredictable candidate.

The phrase resurfaced in early 2024 as Donald Trump’s campaign regained momentum. This time, it carried more than curiosity. It reflected strategic caution and genuine unease. What would a second Trump presidency mean for Japan’s security, its economic ties, and its role in the Indo-Pacific?

The US-Japan alliance has entered a new phase that looks beyond defense alone.

The question mattered bigly. Since former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s assassination in 2022, Japan has had to manage its alliance with Washington without the personal rapport Abe cultivated over decades. Trump’s first term had already shown how quickly supply chains could become instruments of strategic power and how fast economic policy could merge with national security.

For decades after the Cold War, Western policymakers assumed deep trade ties would soften geopolitical tensions. If nations became economically intertwined, conflict would grow too costly to sustain. That assumption collapsed. Supply chains did not reduce rivalry. They became tools of leverage instead.

Technology, once treated mainly as an engine of economic growth, became a strategic asset. Materials long confined to commodity markets — lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earths — moved to the center of national security planning.

The consequences reached far beyond trade policy. Industries once taken for granted became strategic pressure points. Governments began to see commercial flows not as neutral exchanges, but as levers of power. Control over production, processing, and access could shape the balance of global influence.

Trump’s first administration accelerated that reckoning. Washington had to confront dependencies it had ignored for too long. Over the next several years, policymakers turned instinct into structure. Alliances no longer looked like military arrangements alone. They began to function as economic security networks built around trusted supply chains, resilient manufacturing, and reliable access to critical materials.

The results are now visible. In October 2025, the U.S. and Japan signed a framework to secure supply chains for rare earths and critical minerals, with the stated goal of reducing dependence on China’s dominant processing capacity.

Africa shows the stakes even more clearly. In early 2026, Glencore entered a nonbinding agreement with the U.S.-backed Orion Critical Mineral Consortium to sell 40% of its Mutanda and Kamoto copper and cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

RELATED: China is arming itself with minerals America refuses to mine

Bert van Dijk / Getty Images

These mines rank among the world’s largest producers of metals essential to next-generation technologies. The deal aims to diversify supply beyond China’s orbit.

Across Africa, Washington has deepened partnerships to strengthen supply chains for essential commodities, while Japan has pursued its own ties with resource-rich nations.

These efforts go beyond securing raw materials. They concern industrial resilience, strategic autonomy, and influence over the technologies that will define the next era of power. Countries now face a hard question: Who offers long-term commitment, and who merely shows up to extract what it needs?

Japan’s approach reflects foresight. Its economic security policies — diversifying supply chains, investing in semiconductors, and deepening ties with African and Southeast Asian resource producers — show a clear understanding that industrial capacity underwrites national power. In some respects, Tokyo saw this shift coming before Washington did.

The U.S.-Japan alliance has entered a new phase that looks beyond defense alone. Who will build together, mine together, and secure the industrial base behind technological competition? The choices nations make now will help determine which economies and militaries remain resilient enough to compete in the years ahead.

“Moshitora” began as a phrase about a single American election. Its return in 2024 looks, in hindsight, like a warning Japan had already begun to heed. The question now is whether Washington will answer with the same clarity, persistence, and long-term vision.

Most Voters Say Trump Admin Isn’t Actually Putting America First, Poll Finds

'Independent and Hispanic voters drive the shift'

America First — or American Empire? Trump’s aggressive global moves signal a new doctrine



President Donald Trump spent years campaigning against the failures of American foreign policy — but not necessarily against American power itself.

Which is why Trump’s bold global moves suggest a doctrine that rejects nation-building and ideological crusades in favor of something far simpler: an America First approach to global dominance.

“It’s only March, but already it’s proven to be a pretty remarkably action-packed year. You know, just three days in, Trump successfully plucks up Nicolas Maduro from his bed in Venezuela, extradites him back to the United States, where he’s facing numerous felony charges stemming from involvement in narco-terrorism,” John Doyle explains.

“Then, the end of February, Trump launches Operation Epic Fury, of course, a military campaign to destroy Iran’s offensive capabilities,” he continues.


“On Tuesday, though, the U.S. and Ecuador launched a joint military operation against narcoterrorists in the South American country,” he adds.

But it appears that Trump is only getting started.

“A lot of analysts, I’ve been seeing this, are saying that Trump is perhaps planning an intervention in Cuba. ... In his second term, he’s floated the idea of, you know, a friendly takeover. We can guess how friendly such a takeover would actually be. But Trump’s clearly trying to frame Cuba as a failing state, which it is,” Doyle says.

And while many Americans are skeptical of Trump’s recent actions, particularly Operation Epic Fury, Doyle points out that Trump is “doing what he thinks is best for America, not what’s best for abstractions like liberal democracy, not what’s best for transgender people in Timbuktu, what is best for America.”

“He does think in terms of empire. All of his criticism about American Empire has not been so much on the empire itself, but more on the people managing it. What does he say? ‘Our leaders are stupid,’” Doyle explains.

“His problem with us going into Iraq was not that we went into Iraq necessarily, but that we went in to pursue a nation-building project, and we didn’t even take the oil. He said this as it was going on. He said this on the debate stage in 2016. This is pretty consistent for Donald Trump,” he says.

“And, of course, it’s true that Trump won the election in 2016 by denouncing, again, certain aspects of the American Empire — you know, our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan. But it is incorrect ultimately to characterize Trump as opposed to empire itself,” he continues.

“In fact, if anything, the American Empire is actually doing a lot better with Trump at the helm,” he adds.

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Is the Iran War REALLY America First? Pete Hegseth's Informative '60 Minutes' Interview | 3/9/26
play icon

Is the Iran War REALLY America First? Pete Hegseth's Informative '60 Minutes' Interview | 3/9/26

America First can’t survive an Iran quagmire



The Iran war risks becoming the classic Washington trap: Trade concrete domestic wins for an open-ended foreign project, then discover the home front slipped away while everyone watched the fireworks.

Over the weekend, the United States joined Israel in the opening salvo of what looked like an increasingly inevitable fight with Iran. Plenty of ink has already spilled over whether Donald Trump should pursue regime change abroad. The larger stakes sit at home. Trump began his second term with an all-out assault on the left and the permanent bureaucracy. Agencies were closed, and budgets were slashed. The border was secured, and deportations began. The early blitz of executive orders stunned progressives, but activist judges soon started tying the administration down. That reality demanded legislative victories

A successful Iran campaign could reshape the region. A failed or prolonged one could reshape American politics by handing Democrats a narrative of chaos and betrayal.

Congress has not delivered. Rather than spend months trying to whip spineless Republicans into motion, the White House shifted toward what it could do without them. Foreign policy offers that outlet. The result includes some impressive operations, including the capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. Iran, however, threatens to consume time, attention, and political capital that the domestic fight cannot spare.

Curtis Yarvin argues that the most valuable political win makes the next win easier. Power has momentum. Winning in the right order matters more than checking items off an ideological list. Trump’s best early moves fit that logic. They did not merely satisfy the base. They changed the battlefield.

The point is not isolation. America has enemies, and presidents sometimes must use force. The point is sequencing. Domestic consolidation makes foreign action cheaper and safer. A secure border, a disciplined bureaucracy, and election rules that prevent the left from gaming turnout strengthen deterrence.

They also insulate a president from war-party sabotage: leaks, lawsuits, and hearings meant to break public support. The same activists who file injunctions against deportations will file injunctions again against anything that smells like emergency authority. The same media class that demanded escalation yesterday will demand trials and timelines tomorrow. A president who has not locked down the home front fights with one hand tied, then gets blamed when the knot tightens.

Cutting the staff and budget of outfits like USAID and the Department of Education did more than signal hostility to the progressive project. It reduced the flow of money to Democratic patronage networks and throttled the institutions that launder liberal ideology into “expertise.” Closing the border and restarting deportations did more than satisfy a campaign promise. It slowed the importation of new dependents and future Democratic Party supporters. Even the executive order on birthright citizenship, whatever the courts decide, aims at the same long-term terrain: electoral math.

RELATED: The West’s forbidden truth: Ethnic cleansing is now official policy

Blaze Media Illustration

Those moves carried moral clarity and tactical advantage. Each win reduced the opposition’s resources and increased the odds of winning the next fight.

That strategy always faced a limit. Flooding the zone with executive action could only last until the legal system and the administrative state regrouped. Trump is not a dictator, no matter what progressive media claims. He needs laws. Without legislation, judges can block him, bureaucrats can slow-walk him, and the next president can reverse him with a pen.

Once the domestic agenda hit those constraints, the administration pivoted abroad to keep momentum. The question becomes whether momentum abroad strengthens the home front or drains it.

War burns political capital. Trump already took hits from the Epstein files mess and sloppy messaging around deportations. Governing by polls is foolish, but political victories still require public attention and pressure. A president can spend capital only if he has it. People love a winner. They also sour on leaders who appear distracted, trapped, or inconsistent.

Iran poses a special risk because it collides with Trump’s signature advantage: his break with Republican foreign adventurism. He rose by mocking George W. Bush’s regime-change fantasies as disaster. That stance enraged conservative orthodoxies, then remade them. Many pundits who cheered the Iraq War now treat regime change as a punchline largely because Trump made it respectable to say so.

Now Trump bets that the problem was not regime change itself, only its execution. Maybe he wins that bet. He deserves credit for successful strikes and bold operations. Yet the odds do not favor quick, clean wars, and Iran has a long history of swallowing neat plans.

Meanwhile, the domestic agenda needs hard wins that only Congress can supply. The SAVE Act offers the perfect example of a victory that makes the next victory easier. Voter ID is moral and common sense. It enjoys broad support. It constrains the fraud Democrats exploit. It makes every future election easier for Republicans to win. Yet GOP legislators cannot push it across the finish line. The Senate wastes time on performative votes and pageant nonsense. Caligula’s horse starts to look like a personnel upgrade.

RELATED: The commonsense case for nationalizing US elections

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

This imbalance matters because foreign policy creates durable facts, while executive-only domestic wins remain reversible. A successful Iran campaign could reshape the region. A failed or prolonged one could reshape American politics by handing Democrats a narrative of chaos and betrayal. Either way, the clock keeps ticking at home.

If Democrats win the midterms, impeachment and investigations begin immediately. If progressives win the next presidential election, the border reopens, amnesty returns, and the Department of Education fills up again with ideological enforcers. Iran is a brutal regime, but its nuclear program took a major blow last summer. Breathing room existed. The administration should have used it to lock in domestic gains.

Now Trump is committed. That makes speed decisive. A timely victory abroad could preserve the president’s image as a winner while he pressures Congress to codify the domestic agenda. A drawn-out war will do the opposite: sap attention, fracture the coalition, and leave the home front legally vulnerable.

America First cannot survive as a permanent posture if domestic reforms remain temporary. The administration must stop letting foreign battles substitute for unfinished work at home. Win fast abroad if you must. Then come back, and finish the job in Washington.

‘Not What We Thought MAGA Was Supposed To Be’: America First Skeptics Blast Iran Strikes

'always a lie and it’s always America Last'

Trump’s Iran gamble: Peace Prize or Persian Gulf firestorm



Even after his theatrical State of the Union address, President Trump remains the only person who knows for certain whether the United States will strike Iran. That ambiguity does not signal confusion. It reflects a negotiator’s instinct: The threat of force often carries more value than force itself.

As a massive American armada gathers in the Persian Gulf — the region’s largest naval deployment since 2003, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford — the White House is also signaling that it still prefers a grand bargain to a regional war. For a president who has long said his legacy will rest on ending “endless wars” and who plainly covets a Nobel Peace Prize, a diplomatic breakthrough that dismantles Iran’s nuclear ambitions without a shot fired would be the ideal outcome.

The Geneva talks are more than another diplomatic set piece. They will test whether Trump’s 'art of the deal' can work against one of the most entrenched regimes in the Middle East.

The tension in Washington is palpable, and the president’s frustration is starting to show through his inner circle.

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, recently offered a revealing glimpse during a briefing on the Gulf buildup. Referring to the sweeping mobilization of ships, personnel, and equipment, Witkoff said Trump is "curious" that despite the gathering of this massive armada, Iran has not yet "capitulated.”

That remark gets to the heart of the standoff. The strategy is pure Trump: maximize leverage, restate the “zero enrichment” red line, and wait for the other side to conclude that its only path to survival runs through a signed deal. But the clerical regime in Tehran has proved more stubborn than even Trump appears to have expected.

As the third round of negotiations began in Geneva on Thursday, there were real reasons for cautious optimism, even as rumors of a “multi-stage interim deal” continued to circulate.

For all its revolutionary bluster and posturing over ballistic missiles, the Iranian regime is facing a deep internal crisis. The mass protests that erupted in late 2025 and continued into early this year — with a fresh wave of student-led strikes reported this week — have badly shaken the system. Even after a brutal crackdown and sweeping internet blackouts, the grievances have not disappeared. The economy is in ruins, the rial has hit record lows, and the public has no appetite for a full-scale war with a superpower.

Inside Tehran, the divisions are growing. Hard-liners within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps still posture about delivering a “regret-inducing” response to American pressure. More pragmatic figures, however — reportedly now led by veteran negotiator Ali Larijani — are speaking more openly. They understand that a war with the United States could mean the end of the Islamic Republic itself. Reports suggest that even figures close to the supreme leader are searching for an off-ramp that preserves the regime’s core interests while winning enough sanctions relief to calm a restive population.

RELATED: ‘Can’t let that happen’: Trump stresses red line for Iran but holds out hope for peaceful resolution

Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images

The regional picture also favors Washington. Across the Gulf, Arab capitals are watching with a mix of anxiety and quiet approval. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others do not want their cities caught in the blast radius of a regional war. But they are also weary of Iran’s regional meddling and nuclear progress. They want Tehran checked without turning the Gulf into a battlefield. That gives Trump useful diplomatic cover to keep the pressure campaign in place while leaving the Geneva door open.

The Geneva talks are more than another diplomatic set piece. They will test whether Trump’s “art of the deal” can work against one of the most entrenched regimes in the Middle East.

By combining military pressure, economic punishment, and the lure of a sweeping agreement, Trump has pushed Tehran into a corner. The regime is learning that this White House has little interest in the incremental half measures of the past. Washington wants a broader settlement — one that reaches beyond the nuclear file to the wider balance of power in the region.

If a deal comes this week, it will likely come because Tehran concludes that domestic collapse poses a greater danger than diplomatic humiliation. For Trump, that would amount to a crowning achievement: proof that his transactional style can deliver where decades of conventional diplomacy failed.

In the high-stakes contest between Washington and Tehran, the winner may not be the side with the biggest fleet. It may be the side that best understands the other’s breaking point.

The Right’s Brand Is ‘America First.’ The Left’s Brand Is Getting Mad About That

At Tuesday's State of the Union, Democrats set themselves up as angry foils to basic civics and feel-good American patriotism.