America tried to save the planet and forgot to save itself



Let’s face it: $20 trillion is a lot of money.

One would expect a big bang to follow the spending of 20,000 billion dollars. It’s a lot of money! In fact, it’s pretty much the total present value of America’s GDP.

The American economy sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutralizing the American dream.

This is the total amount spent globally — largely by Europe and the United States — in a coordinated effort by the developed world to decarbonize the global economy. China, in contrast, sold windmills and solar panels worldwide while opening a new coal-fired power plant every month.

What was the net effect of this “Green" Marshall Plan? Hydrocarbon consumption continued to increase anyway. All that was achieved was a tiny reduction, just 2%, in the share of overall energy supplied by hydrocarbons. Put simply, as the energy pie got bigger and all forms of energy supply increased, hydrocarbons ended up with a slightly smaller share of a larger pie.

We also saw the deindustrialization of the European and American economies — not just with higher prices at the gas pump and on electric bills, but a stealth green tax that was passed on to consumers on everything. This is the culprit of our American and global affordability crisis. So much treasure and pain for a 2% reduction in the share of hydrocarbons.

Ironically, a byproduct of this Green Hunger Games was political populism.

What a waste. The worst bang for the public and private buck ever. Yet the Chicken Little believers of the Church of Settled Science and the grifters who profited from it will still sing in unison that it failed because they did not go far enough. If only the global community spent and regulated more!

In contrast, the Marshall Plan (1948-1951) rebuilt a decimated Europe into an industrial, interconnected, and peaceful powerhouse. It was a great success by any measure. At the time, its price tag was huge: $13.3 billion in nominal 1948-1951 dollars, equivalent to approximately $150 billion in today’s dollars.

Since a trillion is such a large number, let’s divide $20 trillion by an inflation-adjusted Marshall Plan of $150 billion, and we have 133 Marshall opportunities. Money was not the problem. To give a sense of the comparative bang for buck, by the Marshall program’s end, the aggregated gross national product of the participating nations rose by more than 32% and industrial output increased by a remarkable 40%.

President Trump has been on the global funding rounds and has secured more than $18 trillion in foreign investment. That’s roughly the equivalent of 120 Marshall Plans — just 13 shy of $20 trillion — to be invested here and nowhere else.

Unlike NAFTA, through which the rich got richer under the banner of free markets in exchange for cheaper consumer goods, Trump’s policy is a recipe for prosperity for all Americans.

RELATED: Trump administration saves billions in simple move globalists and climate activists alike will hate

Photo by David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Making these investments a reality in America will require a growing army of blue- and white-collar workers. With the wealth that it creates, our debt could be paid down and, finally, retired. Social Security and Medicare would be placed on a solid footing for time immemorial. All our public obligations to one another would be met by ever-growing prosperity, not by borrowed money and suffocating debt service.

Nothing approaching this level of intentional investment in a single country has ever been done. Yes, a similar tranche of greenbacks was burned with no discernible environmental benefit and great economic hardship for all. And yes, the American economy, under the guise of comparative advantage, sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutralizing the American dream.

Trump’s plan is the opposite of both failed experiments. Like the original Marshall Plan, Trump’s is a recipe for the reindustrialization of the American economy and military, and it is not going to be fueled by windmills and solar farms but with hydrocarbons and uranium. That’s the Trump plan. It has merit.

Yet if we look at the polls, Trump is under water, and his base is showing signs of stress fractures. You bring peace to the Middle East, stop six other wars, and bring in some $20 trillion in America First investments within your first year, and you come home to find yourself under water and called a “lame duck.” Democracies are known to be fickle and hard to please, but this is still rich — and it will result in poverty if it continues.

Without the use of Trump’s tariffs and dealmaking, there would not be $20 trillion looking to onshore in the United States. You can blame Trump for higher costs on bananas and coffee, but it is the cost of electricity and health care — not the cost of coffee and bananas — that is roiling kitchen-table economics.

Vice President JD Vance recently made the right call for popular and populist patience. Those who are impatient should look at the offsets already passed, such as no taxes on Social Security, tips, and overtime. That helps pay for bananas and coffee and then some.

The sovereign wealth funds that are presently lining up on our shores are coming here based on promises made by a can-do president speaking for a can-do nation. While Trump is a can-do guy, are “We the People” still a can-do people? Or do we at least want to return to becoming a can-do people again?

The “can’t-do” forces are legion, and they are the ones now championing the affordability crisis they caused. When America was a can-do nation, we built the Empire State Building in a year. Today, it would take years to get a permit.

RELATED: From Monroe to ‘Donroe’: America enforces its back yard again

Photo by Jim WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Those willing to invest such money will require some certitude that the power they will need will be there to “build, baby, build.” If not, the money and the opportunity will pass before they have the possibility to take needed root.

And what about us, the American family, worker, and business continuing to struggle under the legacy of throttling energy privation? In short, we all have a common good — a shared interest — in righting the wrongs that control our grid and our nation’s future.

The good news is that a bill was introduced in the House during the government shutdown. It’s called the “Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act.” Unlike Obamacare, which clocked in at 903 pages, this bill is a lean 763 words. If it becomes law — and it should — it would change everything for the better, unlike Obamacare, which is a recipe for unaffordability.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act was missing this one thing. His short- and long-term America First ambitions would be significantly strengthened by making this energy bill law before the midterms. Executive orders don’t provide the energy security these investors require or the American people deserve.

$20 trillion is a lot of money. Coming to our shores is a new lease on the American experiment as we enter our 250th birthday, hopelessly divided and broke. Let us come together to solve not just the affordability crisis but also set the conditions for greatness for the next 250 years.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026



Ten months ahead of November’s midterms, political and economic crosscurrents are colliding. Which of these conflicting trends prevail will greatly shape the next two years. And possibly even longer.

Midterm elections are always important. Besides gauging the country’s political mood, they have proven integral to maintaining America’s political equilibrium.

For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?

They are the “ebb” to the “flow” of America’s political tide. Historically, every four years a large tide of voters go to the polls and elect a president. Then every two years, the large voter flow ebbs back, and the president’s party suffers accordingly.

This midterm is particularly important to Trump because he has proven susceptible to being baited by his opponents. After 2018, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) returned to the House speakership and unrelentingly harassed Trump over the last two years of his first term. These distractions and obstructions­ — especially during COVID — were undoubtedly a factor in Trump’s narrow 2020 Electoral College defeat.

Today’s political crosscurrents are pronounced. We know the president’s party historically loses seats. The last two two-term presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, suffered congressional losses averaging 22 House seats and 7.5 Senate seats.

Such losses would hand Democrats control of Congress, giving them a House majority larger than Republicans’ narrow edge and a Senate majority bigger than the GOP’s current six-seat margin. Such outcomes would end Trump’s legislative agenda, and Democrats could set their own. To understand the potential impact, play back the recent funding impasse when Democrats shut the government down for the longest period ever — despite lacking control of either chamber.

While Trump would be able to veto Democratic legislation and Republican numbers would be ample to uphold his vetoes, Democrats would have a formal hand in shaping the political agenda. This could greatly help their 2028 presidential prospects.

RELATED: Republicans are letting Democrats lie about affordability

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Current politics are blunting the historical midterm flow, however. Trump is divisive, with just a 43.4% favorable rating; however, his job approval rating of 43.1% is higher than Obama’s (42.4%) at the same point in his second term. Further, Democrats are in abysmal shape with just a 32.5% favorability rating.

The current 2026 political map is also favorable to Republicans. While they have more seats (22 to 13) to protect in the Senate, the toss-up seats are evenly split: Republicans with Maine and North Carolina; Democrats with Georgia and Michigan. Mid-decade House redistricting efforts are also likely to favor Republicans somewhat; if the Supreme Court should allow race to be disregarded in drawing House districts when it rules on the Louisiana case currently before it, then even more redistricting could occur and amount to an even greater Republican advantage.

Today’s economic crosscurrents are equally pronounced. For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?

At the micro level, the growing issue is “affordability.” Nationally, this is an overhang of inflation that surged during Biden’s administration and peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 — a 40-year high.

Locally, affordability played well in New York City (which has been plagued by Democratic policies of rent control and excessive taxation, regulation, and litigation) in 2025’s mayoral race. It also played well in Virginia, where it linked powerfully into the record-long government shutdown. Democrats are therefore seizing on the issue with some success — particularly in the establishment media — and are trying to nationalize it.

At the macro level, the economy is a different story. Despite “expert” predictions that Trump’s tariffs, green agenda rollback, attack on illegal immigration, and reduction in government would combine to wreck the economy, the reverse has occurred. In Trump’s first two full quarters in office, GDP is averaging over 4% growth: up 3.8% in the second quarter and 4.3% in the third. Inflation has also been moderate — 2.7% in November — certainly not the spike experts predicted and a far cry from the previous four years.

RELATED: Conservatives face a choice in ’26: realignment or extinction

MediaProduction via iStock/Getty Images

So politically, depending on your perspective, Republicans look to outperform historically. Their Senate majority looks safe for now, with the chance that Republicans could even gain a seat or two. By contrast, Republicans’ House majority looks vulnerable; this could be offset slightly by current mid-decade redistricting efforts. Yet even just half the average loss of the last two administrations in their second midterms would mean an 11-seat swing and a 226-209 Democratic majority.

Economically, the question is whether the micro or the macro prevails. Can the micro become a national mood outside Democratic areas, or will the macro of strong GDP growth and moderate inflation have time to prevail? Expect political midterm fortunes to respond accordingly.

What is certain is that the midterms will shape the last two years of Trump’s second term. And possibly determine who will run and who will win the presidency in 2028.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

‘Taking The Advice Of A Nun About Sex’: John Kennedy Dismisses Washington Insiders’ Takes On Economy

'You’ve really got to be careful who you listen to'

The fiscal iceberg is dead ahead — and Washington is asleep at the helm



The USS Titanic — our ship of state — is headed straight for a fiscal iceberg. And Americans are still rearranging the deck chairs.

Complacency has become our gravest threat. We cling to a false sense of invincibility, comforted by the size and legacy of the U.S. economy. After all, we’re the United States of America. What could possibly go wrong?

Pundits love to say we’ve carried debt for decades without a crisis. That logic belongs in a casino, not a government.

Everything — if history’s any guide. Ask the Romans. Ask the British. Every great power that believed it was immune to long-term mismanagement eventually ran aground.

Let’s stop pretending. The federal government sits on a collision course with economic disaster. And unless we act, we’ll suffer the same fate as the Titanic — not too big to fail, but too big to save when the water starts pouring in.

In November 2023, Fitch Ratings downgraded America’s credit rating — joining Standard & Poor’s, which did the same in 2011. Moody’s followed suit. These weren’t partisan potshots. They were alarms backed by math.

The national debt has passed $37 trillion — 125% of gross domestic product. That ratio continues climbing and could exceed 200% within a few decades, if not sooner. At current trajectory, the federal government will owe more than $70 trillion by 2035.

This isn’t theory. It’s arithmetic.

Yes, the United States carried significant debt after World War II. But back then, we had a plan. The federal government remained lean. Policymakers promoted growth through low taxes, fewer regulations, and real fiscal restraint. Debt-to-GDP dropped below 40% within a generation.

Today, Washington does the opposite. More spending. Higher taxes. Heavier regulation. All while the clock ticks louder.

RELATED: Debt spiral looms as Trump tests tariffs to tame rates

Ekaterina Chizhevskaya via iStock/Getty Images

And that’s just the official debt. Add unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare, and the real figure shoots above $130 trillion. That’s not a typo — it’s a debt bomb that dwarfs anything in our history.

Pundits love to say we’ve carried debt for decades without a crisis. That logic belongs in a casino, not a government. As Hemingway put it: Bankruptcy happens “gradually, then suddenly.”

The economy may look calm on the surface. But underneath, the pressure builds. Interest payments on the debt already surpass defense spending. Every dollar wasted on interest is a dollar unavailable for education, infrastructure, emergency relief — or even national security.

While the debt swells, politicians on both sides make it worse. Congress lurches from one bloated proposal to another, piling on $3-$5 trillion more in new borrowing under the guise of stimulus, "investments," or political horse-trading.

Printing money doesn’t create prosperity. Borrowing to fund political promises is economic malpractice.

Washington’s not just borrowing dollars. It’s borrowing time, trust, and prosperity from future Americans.

What kind of legacy will we leave our children?

A nation once defined by opportunity, self-reliance, and innovation now leads the world in debt and dysfunction. That’s not just policy failure — it’s moral failure. It’s a betrayal of the American promise.

Why does this keep happening? Because politicians chase the next election, not the next generation. And voters let them.

We reward short-term handouts over long-term discipline. We elect people who promise benefits without explaining the bill. And we pretend this can go on forever.

It can’t.

Americans must reclaim their role as stewards of the republic. That means asking tough questions, demanding truth from politicians, and supporting leaders who offer hard choices over easy lies.

We still have time. But not much.

Fiscal reform doesn’t require slashing everything or dismantling safety nets. It requires honesty, cooperation, and courage. We need to restructure entitlements, simplify the tax code, and eliminate programs that waste billions.

A leaner government, closer to what the Founders envisioned, would grow the economy and lift all incomes. That path still exists — if we’re brave enough to take it.

The alternative? A debt crisis that makes the Great Depression look tame. And no one will be able to say they weren’t warned.

The iceberg looms. The hull leaks. The music still plays — for now.

But the moment for change won’t last. The wheel is still in our hands.

Turn it.

The underlying wins in Trump's first GDP report



The Department of Commerce released the first GDP report of President Donald Trump's second term on Wednesday, sending critics into a frenzy.

The legacy media's coverage of the report reiterates the same claim: The economy "shrank." But between the lines, the report paints a different, more promising picture.

On its face, the report shows that the economy contracted at a 0.3% rate in the first quarter as a result of the ongoing trade war and tariff uncertainty. Despite this, former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Richard Clarida argued that this figure was "distorted" and predicted it would be revised upward.

'It's no surprise the leftovers of Biden's economic disaster have been a drag on economic growth, but the underlying numbers tell the real story of the strong momentum President Trump is delivering.'

"Not really much of a surprise," Clarida said. "I do think the Q1 numbers were probably distorted by that huge surge in imports to front-run the tariffs, and I think could be revised up slightly. So the final number may be closer to zero."

"I do think probably that the Fed will probably try to look through this number because of those distortions. ... Maybe the headline number is a bit misleading this time," Clarida added.

As Clarida pointed out, these distortions are overshadowing key indicators that would suggest the economy is actually building momentum.

For example, consumer spending outpaced government spending by 3.2 percentage points, which has been the strongest figure since the Q2 report back in 2022. Consumer spending is a strong indicator of economic health that can lead to several positive outcomes like GDP growth, increasing demand, and job creation.

The report found that inflation has also halted, with the PCE price index showing zero increase in costs from February to March. This is a promising figure compared to the 0.3% increase in costs in January.

"It's no surprise the leftovers of Biden's economic disaster have been a drag on economic growth, but the underlying numbers tell the real story of the strong momentum President Trump is delivering," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Wednesday.

While the GDP has contracted overall, the core GDP grew a robust 3%, which the administration said "signals strong underlying economic momentum." Gross domestic investment also soared 22% in the first quarter, which was the highest in four years.

"Robust core GDP, the highest gross domestic investment in four years, job growth, and trillions of dollars in new investments secured by President Trump are fueling an economic boom and setting the stage for unprecedented growth as President Trump ushers in the new golden age," Leavitt said.

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

Debt spiral looms as Trump tests tariffs to tame rates



Following the market’s reaction to Donald Trump’s recent tariff hikes, many investors remain fixated on short-term stock declines. But I’m less concerned about the immediate drop in equities and more focused on the broader ripple effects — especially given the current state of U.S. fiscal policy.

The Trump administration inherited serious economic challenges from the last four years of Bidenomics, a mess made much worse by unsustainable levels of deficit spending.

A stock market downturn could cut tax revenue significantly. In that case, any interest savings might be wiped out — or worse.

U.S. debt has surpassed 120% of GDP. Deficits now resemble those of a wartime economy. The government’s interest payments exceed defense spending — a major warning sign for any nation. Meanwhile, inflation remains stubbornly high.

The new administration took office facing high interest rates — not historically high, but elevated relative to recent norms, especially given the nearly $37 trillion in national debt — and a strong U.S. dollar. That hinders Trump’s policy options.

Given that context, are tariffs a strategic move to lower interest rates, refinance the debt, and buy the administration some breathing room? If so, can that approach work — and at what cost?

Roughly $7 trillion in U.S. debt is scheduled for refinancing this year. Add a projected $2 trillion deficit, and the government faces an enormous financing challenge.

The administration may be betting that aggressive tariff policy triggers a “flight to safety,” prompting investors to move money out of equities and into long-term government bonds. Greater demand for bonds would push their prices higher and yields lower, since bond prices and yields move in opposite directions.

We saw some evidence of this last week when the 10-year Treasury yield dipped below 4%, though it rebounded above 4% by Monday.

A stock market sell-off could pressure the Federal Reserve to cut short-term interest rates. So far, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has shown no willingness to step in — but that could change.

The strategy carries significant risk. Federal tax revenue depends heavily on both economic growth and stock market performance. If markets continue to tumble, government revenue could shrink, adding further strain to an already fragile fiscal outlook.

Even if yields on the 10-year Treasury dropped by 100 basis points (or 1%), and the government managed to refinance all $9 trillion in scheduled debt, the interest savings would total only about $90 billion.

But that scenario is unlikely. Issuing more Treasury bonds increases supply, which typically pushes yields higher — unless some outside force steps in. And if such intervention is possible, it raises a larger question: why pursue this risky strategy in the first place?

There are also other risks to consider. A stock market downturn could cut tax revenue significantly. In that case, any interest savings might be wiped out — or worse, deficits as a percentage of GDP could grow even larger.

On top of that, a declining market can trigger the “reverse wealth effect.” When portfolios shrink, consumers tend to spend less. Since consumer spending makes up about 70% of the U.S. economy, that kind of pullback can slow growth. Businesses may also become more cautious, further weakening economic activity.

Luke Gromen of Forest for the Trees recently pointed out that in 2022, a 20% drop in the stock market led to a $400 billion decline in federal tax receipts. If the same happens in 2025, the financial impact would far outweigh any gains from refinancing debt.

In a recent report, Luke Gromen noted that the last three recessions pushed the U.S. deficit higher by 6%, 8%, and 12% of GDP, respectively. In today’s terms, that would mean increases of $1.6 trillion, $2.1 trillion, and $3.2 trillion during a recession.

Yet, Congress has offered no serious plan to cut spending. Any reductions that do happen would likely shrink GDP, which makes solving the problem even more challenging. That leaves the administration with very little room to maneuver.

While the White House denies any intent to trigger a market crash, some economists believe the administration’s aggressive tariff strategy may be designed to lower interest rates by creating financial stress.

If true, it’s a high-risk approach to managing the government’s rising interest burden. The longer it takes to deliver results, the greater the danger it backfires — potentially triggering a debt spiral instead of relief.

Let’s hope for a resolution before those risks materialize.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Addresses Concerns DOGE Cuts Will Harm Economic Numbers

'They count government spending as part of GDP. So I'm going to separate those two and make it transparent'

Not Only Is Inflation Here To Stay, Joe Biden’s Going To Make It Worse

The sustained inflationary surge doesn’t just risk cutting the value of our dollar savings by almost a third, it also risks seeing the United States plunged into serious international conflict.

Our $28 Trillion National Debt Is Coming Due

All this means a lot of pain. Given how quickly our debt is increasing, that pain isn’t just in store for distant future generations.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

New Data Shows A V-Shaped Pandemic Recovery Underway

The third-quarter GDP increase clawed back two-thirds of the first- and second-quarter contractions. Joe Biden’s policies would reverse this recovery.