Most Americans assume that if their deposits are insured, their banking relationship is stable.

For decades, that assumption has been reasonable. Large national banks offer scale, convenience, and integration across checking, credit cards, mortgages, investments, and digital tools. For many households and businesses, they remain the default choice — for many good reasons.

Regional and community banks typically face fewer reputational signaling incentives and fewer reasons to police customers’ lawful beliefs.

But in recent years, some lawful customers have found accounts restricted or closed not for fraud or criminal conduct, but because the financial institution decided internally that the customer is a risk to the institution's reputation or political standing. In other words: They have been canceled.

These cases are often hard to prove — and that difficulty is itself the problem. First lady Melania Trump revealed in her memoir that a bank decided to "terminate" her account. The reasoning was frustrating to pin down, since decisions on account restrictions are shielded from public verification by opaque risk explanations and confidentiality rules.

Other cases were clearer. In 2023, internal documents revealed that U.K. private bank Coutts closed the account of British politician Nigel Farage after deciding his political views posed “reputational risk” — a disclosure that ultimately led to the resignation of National Westminster Bank's chief executive.

“If they can do it to me, they can do it to you, too,” Farage proclaimed after the dispute.

The risk

Your money may be insured, but access to it is governed by institutional judgment. For some consumers, understanding where that judgment lies is now part of responsible financial planning.

That’s where this guide comes in. It’s not a broadside against megabanks. It is a road map for readers who want to understand the trade-offs that come with scale — particularly when account access is governed by broad, centralized risk frameworks rather than personal relationships or clearly defined misconduct.

Regulators have since moved to clarify standards governing account closures and risk assessments. But for consumers who watched large institutions end financial relationships under ambiguous or shifting rules, the question remains straightforward: Why assume that risk if alternatives exist?

There are no guarantees. But there are differences — rooted in structure, incentives, and how close a branch is to customers — that can meaningfully affect how ideological risk is handled.

Ideological risk is not evenly distributed. It tends to correlate with scale, distance, and discretion, rather than with partisan labels.

This guide organizes banks into categories based on structure and incentives, not ideology.

How this list was compiled

All banks listed below meet the following baseline criteria:

FDIC-insured (or equivalent federal backing).
No public record of ideologically motivated account closures.
Standard modern banking services, including online and mobile access.
Responses to Align's inquiries, where available.
Institutional cultures or policies emphasizing lawful, viewpoint-neutral customer treatment.

Banks to consider

1. Regional and community banks

They are often safer. Regional and community banks typically operate on relationship-based models, with decision-making closer to customers and local markets. They face less national activist pressure, fewer reputational signaling incentives, and fewer reasons to police customers’ lawful beliefs.

Here’s what to look for:

FDIC insurance.
Rigorous underwriting standards.
Focus on local business, agriculture, manufacturing, or regional commerce.
Long operating histories.
Knowing exactly who to talk to next if your problem isn't fixed.

Warning: Not all community banks are equal. Some rely heavily on third-party compliance vendors or adopt national risk frameworks wholesale. Size alone is not a guarantee.

Here are some strong options.

Woodforest National Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.8 (32.2K reviews); Apple 4.8 (47K reviews)
Region/States: 730+ branches in 17 states
ATM: MoneyPass network

Woodforest National Bank is a privately owned, community-focused financial institution headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, that has provided banking services since 1980, operating hundreds of branches across multiple states and offering products for both personal and business customers. It offers a full range of financial services including checking and savings accounts, loans, debit cards, online and mobile banking, and other products designed for everyday banking needs. The bank emphasizes customer relationships, convenient access — including retail locations and digital tools — and a commitment to serving the communities where its customers live and work.

First Premier Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes (via Premier Bankcard)
App: Yes — Google 4.5 (1.48K reviews); Apple 4.4 (1.4K reviews)
Region/States: 13 branch locations in South Dakota
ATM: Fee-free access to 37,000+ MoneyPass ATMs nationwide

First Premier Bank is an independently owned, FDIC-insured community bank headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It offers a full range of financial products and services, including personal, business, and agricultural checking and savings accounts, loans and mortgages, wealth management, and digital banking. The bank also operates Premier Bankcard, a nationally recognized issuer of Mastercard credit products. First Premier emphasizes strong capitalization, customer support, community investment, and accessible online and mobile banking tools for managing finances nationwide.

American National Bank of Texas

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.7 (987 reviews); Apple 4.8 (9.7K reviews)
Region/States: 24 locations in Dallas-Fort Worth
ATM: ATMs at nearly all branches

American National Bank of Texas is a long-established, independently owned, FDIC-insured community bank headquartered in Terrell, Texas, with more than 30 branches serving North Texas. It offers a full suite of financial products and services including personal and business checking and savings, loans and mortgages, digital banking, and wealth management. The bank emphasizes local relationship-driven service, community involvement, and comprehensive financial solutions tailored to individuals and businesses alike.

Liberty National Bank (Midwest)

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.9 (15 reviews); Apple 4.6 (192 reviews)
Region/States: 18 locations in Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska

Liberty National Bank (Midwest) is an independently owned, FDIC-insured community bank headquartered in Sioux City, Iowa, founded in 2003. With approximately $600 million in assets, it serves customers across Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska, including Sioux City, Sioux Falls, and surrounding communities. The bank emphasizes local decision-making, relationship-based service, and support for families, businesses, and agricultural clients in the markets it serves.

Liberty National Bank (Texas/Oklahoma)

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.5; Apple 4.9
Region/States: ~10 locations in Oklahoma and North Texas
ATM: 20 local ATMs

Liberty National Bank (Texas/Oklahoma) is an independently chartered, FDIC-insured community bank headquartered in Lawton, Oklahoma. Originally established in 1902 as the Bank of Elgin, it adopted the Liberty National name in 2002 and has since expanded across Oklahoma and into North Texas, with assets exceeding $1 billion. The bank remains under Green family ownership and emphasizes long-standing ties to local communities, regional growth, and personalized banking relationships.

F&M Bank (Farmers & Merchants Bank of Central California)

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.6 (322 reviews); Apple 4.8 (1.1K reviews)
Region/States: 33 locations in California
ATM: Pulse & Cirrus (400,000 ATMs)

Farmers & Merchants Bank of Central California offers personal and business banking services, including a variety of checking and savings accounts, loans, and agricultural financing tailored to individuals and companies across numerous California communities. The website emphasizes secure 24/7 online and mobile banking so that customers can manage accounts, transfer funds, pay bills, and access eStatements from anywhere. It also highlights local branch access, community roots dating back over a century, and a commitment to serving customers’ financial needs.

New Peoples Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 2.8 (82 reviews); Apple 4.6 (790 reviews)
Region/States: 18 locations in Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina
ATM: Allpoint (55,000 locations)

New Peoples Bank is a community-focused financial institution with multiple branches serving individuals and small to medium-size businesses across Southwestern Virginia, Southern West Virginia, Northeastern Tennessee, and Western North Carolina, offering a full suite of personal and business banking products including checking, savings, loans, and online services. Through its website, customers can open accounts, apply for mortgage or personal loans, manage finances with online and mobile banking tools, and access additional services like identity protection and ATM networks. The bank emphasizes local decision-making, Golden Rule customer service, and technology that supports secure, convenient banking experiences.

First United Bank & Trust

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 3.8 (51 reviews); Apple 4.8 (431 reviews)
Region/States: 7 locations in Kentucky
ATM: MoneyPass

First United Bank and Trust Company is a community-oriented, FDIC-insured bank offering a full range of personal and business financial services, including checking and savings accounts, loans, digital banking, and trust solutions accessible online or at local branches. The bank emphasizes convenient 24/7 access to accounts, tools for managing finances, and solutions like credit cards and business services tailored to local needs. Its website highlights personal service, community engagement, and products designed to support customers’ financial goals with trusted relationships and modern banking technology.

Arbor Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.4 (132 reviews); Apple 4.8 (399 reviews)
Region/States: 6 locations in Iowa and Nebraska
ATM: MoneyPass

Arbor Bank is a community FDIC-insured bank offering a wide range of personal and business financial products, including checking and savings accounts, online/mobile banking, lending solutions, and mortgage services. It also provides business banking tools like treasury management, SBA loans, and positive pay fraud protection, along with card solutions and insurance options. The website emphasizes secure digital access, personalized service, and support for customers’ financial growth.

First Command Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google: 3.6 (82 reviews); Apple: 4.6 (1.5K reviews)
Region/States: Over 750 First Command Bank advisers in over 175 offices in 45 states and Guam
ATM: MoneyPass ATM network and NYCE network; reimburses non-FCB ATM surcharges up to $10 per statement cycle

First Command’s banking section highlights personal banking products tailored for military personnel, veterans, and their families, including competitive checking and savings accounts, CDs, car loans, and debt consolidation options. These services come with convenient online and mobile access so that customers can manage funds, pay bills, and transfer money securely from anywhere, backed by the FDIC-insured protection First Command Bank offers. The emphasis throughout is on helping service members and their families manage everyday finances and build solid financial habits.

Citizens First Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: No (mobile app offers free credit report updates weekly)
App: Yes — Google: 4.7 (1.24K reviews); Apple: 4.8 (3.1K reviews)
Region/States: 19 locations in Florida (The Villages and surrounding counties)
ATM: On-site ATMs at most branch locations; part of the Publix Presto! ATM Network (1,300+ surcharge-free ATMs across the Southeast); additional access through regional shared ATM arrangements (fees may vary depending on network)

Citizens First Bank is an FDIC-insured community bank serving The Villages and surrounding counties in Florida. It offers personal and business checking and savings products, robust online and mobile tools including bill pay and eStatements, and an ATM network focused on surcharge-free access. The bank merged with Seacoast Bank in October 2025 following the acquisition of its parent company, with conversion of accounts tentatively scheduled for July 2026.

Emigrant Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: No
App: No dedicated mobile app; online account management via EmigrantOnline®
Region/States: 2 locations in New York; 1 location in Miami, Florida
ATM: On-site ATMs at branch locations; The bank refers to participation in ATM networks, though specific network details and surcharge policies are not prominently disclosed on its website. Prospective customers should confirm ATM access and fee policies directly with the bank.

Emigrant Bank is a privately owned U.S. financial institution offering high-yield savings, checking accounts, CDs, and mortgage lending. It emphasizes competitive deposit products and online/telephone banking access rather than a large retail branch footprint. Emigrant also provides mortgage lending through its direct lending division and support for account holders with tools to handle funds and financial needs securely.

2. Credit unions

Credit unions are member-owned, less PR-sensitive, and historically focused on service rather than signaling. Because there are thousands of local credit unions with varying eligibility rules, this guide does not list specific institutions.

How to find a good one:

Confirm NCUA insurance.
Look for long operating histories.
Favor credit unions with business or agricultural lending.
Ask directly about account-closure policies and escalation.

3. Explicitly viewpoint-neutral banks

This is the smallest and most visible category — and the one that requires the most due diligence before joining.

The claim here is not that these banks are “conservative,” but that they have made explicit commitments to viewpoint neutrality and have no public record of ideological account closures.

What qualifies:

Public neutrality policies.
Leadership statements emphasizing lawful activity over belief.
Clear articulation of when accounts would be restricted.
No documented ideological de-banking cases.

Old Glory Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.6 (940 reviews); Apple 4.8 (1.5K reviews)
Region/States: Nationwide digital access; one physical branch
ATM: MoneyPass (40,000+ ATMs)

Old Glory Bank is a full-service, FDIC-insured American bank headquartered in Elmore City, Oklahoma, offering personal and business checking and savings accounts, loans, certificates of deposit, and modern digital tools like mobile and online banking with nationwide access. It positions itself as a nationwide online bank built around traditional American values and strong commitments to privacy, security, and customer autonomy. Customers can bank digitally from all 50 states while also accessing features such as ATM networks, cash deposit options, and advanced debit card controls.

Co-founded by John Rich, Dr. Ben Carson, Larry Elder, and former Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), Old Glory is guided by what it calls the Banking Bill of Rights. A statement to Align from the founders makes the bank’s stand against de-banking central to its mission: “Not only does Old Glory Bank have a policy on de-banking, it is the very reason we exist! We were founded in direct response to the growing and troubling practice of de-banking Americans for their lawful, constitutionally protected beliefs. We saw the alarming trend in January 2021 and got to work years before it became newsworthy. We stand firm on the belief that this practice is morally, legally, and fundamentally incompatible with the freedom upon which our nation was built.”

Regent Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.8 (21 reviews); Apple 4.9 (523 reviews)
Region/States: 7 locations in Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri
ATM: 10 free out-of-network transactions monthly

Regent Bank is a regional, FDIC-insured, full-service bank headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with multiple branches in Oklahoma, Texas, and Missouri, offering personal and business banking products including checking, savings, loans, digital banking, and treasury services. It emphasizes personalized, concierge-style service tailored to entrepreneurs, small and mid-market businesses, and specialized niches like health care, agriculture, and nonprofits. The bank combines traditional community banking values with modern tools and solutions, supporting clients’ financial needs through dedicated local relationships and digital access.

A Regent Bank spokesperson told Align that the institution identifies as a “Christian, faith-based organization in terms of [its] mission and values” and that its “approach is grounded in relationship-driven banking and serving clients based on lawful activity — not political or religious beliefs.” Regent’s spokesperson added that de-banking is a frequently discussed issue at the executive level of the organization.

4. Large regional and super-regional banks

Regions Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google: 4.5 (128K reviews); Apple: 4.9 (521K reviews)
Region/States: 1,445 locations across 15 states spanning the South, Midwest, and Texas
ATM: No-fee access at Regions ATMs

Regions Bank is a large, FDIC-insured, full-service financial institution and subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation, offering a broad range of personal banking products including checking and savings accounts, loans and mortgages, digital banking, and wealth management solutions. It serves millions of customers through an extensive branch and ATM network across the South, Midwest, and Texas, while also providing online and mobile tools for everyday account management The bank combines traditional community-oriented service with modern digital convenience to support a wide spectrum of consumer financial needs.

Zions Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google: 4.6 (6.8K reviews); Apple: 4.7 (29K reviews)
Region/States: ~20 branches in Utah and other Western markets
ATM: No-fee ATM network serving Western U.S.

Zions Bank is a full-service, FDIC-insured regional bank operating as part of Zions Bancorporation, offering personal banking products such as checking and savings accounts, loans and mortgages, credit cards, and robust digital banking tools including online and mobile access. It serves individuals and small businesses through an extensive network of full-service branches across multiple Western states and emphasizes community-focused service with modern financial solutions. Founded in the 19th century and rooted in local market relationships, Zions Bank combines traditional banking values with convenient digital access for everyday financial management.

Synovus Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google: 4.7 (10.6K reviews); Apple: 4.8 (50K reviews)
Region/States: 40+ locations in Alabama and Georgia
ATM: Unlimited fee-free Pinnacle Financial Partners ATMs

Synovus is a large, FDIC-insured financial services company and bank holding company headquartered in Columbus, Georgia, offering a full range of commercial and personal banking products including checking and savings, loans, mortgages, credit cards, and digital banking. It also provides specialized services such as wealth management, trust and investment solutions, treasury management, and mortgage and capital markets services through its subsidiaries. Synovus operates an extensive branch and ATM network across the Southeast and emphasizes personalized client relationships alongside modern digital tools.

Arvest Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google: 3.6 (12.5K reviews); Apple: 4.9 (252K reviews)
Region/States: 310 locations in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma
ATM: Offers ATMs with live teller drive-thru services

Arvest Bank is a regional full-service bank offering personal and business financial products including checking and savings accounts, loans and mortgages, credit cards, wealth and treasury management, and secure online and mobile banking tools. Through its extensive network of branches across Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas, the bank emphasizes local community commitment while providing modern digital conveniences like 24/7 account access and mobile deposits. Its mission centers on partnering with customers to deliver tailored financial solutions that support everyday banking needs and long-term financial goals.

PlainsCapital Bank

FDIC-insured: Yes
Credit card: Yes
App: Yes — Google 4.5 (1.3K reviews); Apple 4.9 (8.7K reviews)
Region/States: 55 branches across Texas, including Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio, and the Rio Grande Valley
ATM: Branch and regional network ATM access (confirm surcharge policies directly with bank)

Founded in 1988 in Lubbock, Texas, PlainsCapital Bank has grown into one of the largest independent banks in the state, with approximately $12.4 billion in assets and more than 1,000 employees. A subsidiary of Hilltop Holdings Inc., it operates a statewide branch network and offers commercial banking, treasury management, private banking, wealth management, and consumer banking services. While emphasizing relationship-based banking, PlainsCapital functions at the scale of a large regional institution with centralized infrastructure and enterprise-level risk management.

What to approach with caution

Not every “alternative” bank actually reduces ideological risk.

Fintech apps without their own bank charter: Many rely on sponsor banks and payment processors, meaning account access can be restricted upstream with little notice.
Institutions with expansive “reputational risk” clauses: Banks that reserve broad discretion to sever relationships for social or political reasons introduce uncertainty.
Ideological startups without federal backing: Branding is not a substitute for FDIC insurance, balance-sheet transparency, or regulatory oversight.

Questions to ask your bank

If ideological or reputational risk is a concern, you don’t need to announce your politics or interrogate your bank. You’re simply trying to understand process, discretion, and escalation — the same way you would with fees, fraud protection, or data security.

These are reasonable, neutral questions.

1. Under what circumstances can my account be restricted or closed?

Listen for clear references to fraud, illegality, or operational risk. Be cautious if you hear broad or undefined references to “reputational,” “social,” or “values-based” concerns.

2. Will I receive notice before an account is restricted or closed?

Ask:

How much notice is typical?
Are there circumstances under which notice is not provided?

Advance notice reduces risk regardless of ideology.

3. Is there an appeal or escalation process if a decision is made?

Important follow-ups:

Can decisions be reviewed by a human committee?
Is there a relationship manager or ombudsman involved?

The ability to appeal matters as much as the rule itself.

4. Who ultimately makes account-closure decisions?

You’re listening for local or relationship-based decision-making versus centralized compliance teams or third-party vendors. Distance often correlates with opacity.

5. Do you rely on third-party compliance or risk vendors?

This matters because:

Upstream vendors can impose restrictions that the bank itself did not initiate.
Vendor changes can alter outcomes without warning.

6. How do you define “reputational risk”?

A strong answer ties reputational risk to concrete financial, legal, or operational exposure.

A weak answer uses vague or moralized language without boundaries.

7. Are account decisions based on lawful activity, regardless of belief or affiliation?

Banks that can say this plainly usually mean it.

8. Is my account subject to special monitoring or enhanced review?

This is especially relevant for nonprofits, small businesses, and public-facing individuals.

How to use this checklist

You don’t need perfect answers. You’re looking for a bank that can explain its rules clearly — and show how decisions are reviewed.

'Infinite diversity': Actress in canned 'Star Trek' series warns against 'whitewashed' sci-fi

The most notably progressive "Star Trek" series will be canceled by CBS Studios and Paramount+, prompting one of its actors to demand the show's lore nevertheless become more "woke."

Studios were so supportive of "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy" that Paramount+ picked it up for a second season before the show even aired; but that will be all.

'The world is still not ready to hear the message of love, peace, [and] infinite diversity.'

The show's demise began when it launched for free on YouTube — an already bad sign — garnering just over 85,000 views in the first 24 hours; not good for a show with an estimated budget of $10 to $20 million per episode.

Nothing could prepare audiences for the show's trajectory though. The new series boasted polyamorous refugee Klingons, Stephen Colbert, and gender activist Tig Notaro playing a teacher pushing DEI ideology on cadets.

Progressivism certainly flowed through the series' actors. Case in point, Gina Yashere, who played Lura Thok.

Yashere took to Instagram after the show's cancelation to declare that audiences aren't ready to hear about love and tolerance and that future iterations must avoid becoming too white.

"Obviously, the world is still not ready to hear the message of love, peace, infinite diversity, acceptance, the eschewing of violence and senseless wars," she said in a video, first reported by Fandom Pulse.

She added, "And 'Star Trek' will be back stronger than ever. And preferably with the same message and not completely whitewashed."

In her written caption, Yashere made it abundantly clear she was proud of the show's woke ideology as well.

"Be safe out there peeps. Stay woke. Wokeywoke. Wokest of the woke. Wokeyliscious. A cacophony of woke."

The show's messaging was never left for interpretation either. Its actors and showrunners will have to come to terms with the fact that they fully presented their intent, and it was not viewed favorably.

Photo by Michael Tullberg/Getty Images

When the show first aired, series creator Alex Kurtzman said he was "not slowing down on representation in any way," while characterizing "representation" as being the "beating heart" of the show.

Karim Diane, who played the aforementioned Klingon who wore a skirt and dress, said back in January that his character would have his sexuality "explored."

This manifested in a Klingon/human love story the character had with an allegedly "nonbinary" person.

Diane has since promised the second season is "basically just Season 1 turned all the way up."

In a statement to Variety, both CBS and Paramount said that while they were "incredibly proud of the ambition, passion, and creativity" the series showcased, it will not receive a third season.

Variety also reported that "Starfleet Academy" failed to secure a significant audience and did not rank among Nielsen's Top 10 charts for streaming viewership.

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

My court fight over DEI at Arizona State isn’t culture-war noise

“Who will rid us of this meddlesome philosopher?”

Arizona State University hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will. I’m confident that my case against required diversity, equity, and inclusion training raises issues far larger than one professor or one ideological program. Fundamental questions about employee rights, public accountability, and the rule of law hang in the balance.

If I succeed in showing that ASU bears legal responsibility — and that employees can hold it accountable — the implications reach far beyond one HR program.

Why would the largest state university in the country defend mandatory DEI training in court? Why would it spend thousands — likely tens of thousands — defending its “inclusive communities” training, a program that teaches employees about the alleged moral and social failures of “whiteness” and “heteronormativity”?

The answer defies common sense. Yet ASU presses forward. In doing so, it has turned what many dismiss as a culture-war skirmish into an employment-rights case with statewide consequences.

Most people hear “DEI” and instantly map the political lines. This case deserves a different reaction. Required ideological training should make any employee — left, right, or indifferent — pay attention.

First, the training relies on racial essentialism. It instructs ASU employees to view themselves and others primarily through skin color, then assigns moral weight and collective guilt on that basis.

Second, it attacks traditional Christian moral teaching, especially marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Either flaw should have pushed administrators to retire the program long before I raised formal objections.

A third issue should unite every employee, regardless of where they stand on DEI: ASU treated this as an employment matter. The university did not admit error, revise the program, and move on. It hired Perkins Coie to defend racial essentialism. Yes, Perkins Coie — the firm widely associated with the Hillary Clinton-era Steele dossier controversy. ASU employs a full team of in-house attorneys. Why pay a nationally prominent and politically charged firm to defend a training program many already viewed as controversial — and, I argue, unlawful?

ASU’s posture gets stranger. The university has since taken down the required training, yet it continues paying lawyers to defend it in court. When this ends, Arizona lawmakers and taxpayers will want a number: How much did ASU spend on legal fees, and which administrators approved the contracts?

Just_Super via iStock/Getty Images

ASU’s legal strategy aims at dismissal. The university claims I lack standing. Put plainly, ASU argues that an employee cannot hold his public employer accountable for violating state law. At that point, the dispute stops being about DEI and becomes about every employee in Arizona. If ASU wins at the Arizona Supreme Court, employees across the state lose a crucial tool for legal accountability.

Professors to my political left may sneer at my critique of DEI. They should still worry about the precedent.

Imagine a scenario pulled from their nightmares: A future administration takes over ASU and imposes mandatory ideological training from the opposite end of the political spectrum — required ICE-themed training, or MAGA-themed training. If that training violated Arizona law, those same professors would demand the right to sue. ASU’s argument would bar them. This case concerns enforceable employee rights, not just contemporary politics.

ASU’s first bid to dismiss the case failed. A lower court rejected the university’s argument. ASU appealed, and the appellate court sided with the university. That posture put the case on a path to the Arizona Supreme Court.

AndreyPopov via iStock/Getty Images

Two facts matter here. The Arizona Senate and the state representative who authored the law I claim ASU violated have filed an amicus brief supporting my position. Their message is simple: A public employee has standing to hold a public employer accountable for breaking the law. The statute prohibits the kind of racial blame and collective guilt that ASU’s training promoted. The principle should not require explanation: Don’t assign moral fault to entire groups based on skin color.

So why does ASU defend this?

Because ASU does not view this fight as one training module that can be swapped out and forgotten. Race-based blame sits near the center of the contemporary left’s approach to education. If I succeed in showing that ASU bears legal responsibility — and that employees can hold it accountable — the implications reach far beyond one HR program. ASU’s initiatives aimed at combatting “whiteness” would come under scrutiny. Its embedded social justice goals face legal challenge and public examination. Students could follow with suits over race blame in a “decolonized curriculum.”

“Who will rid us of this meddlesome philosopher?” ASU really hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will.

Every employee in Arizona should watch what happens next. The outcome will determine whether public institutions answer to the law — or whether employees must comply silently, no matter what ideology administrators impose from above.

The socialist spell: Why modern minds keep falling for an old lie

What draws people to socialism?

Even after nearly two centuries of ruin brought to those societies that have adopted this governing system, the appeal still remains. Most Western countries have a thriving socialist party occupying portions of the government, including the United States with the Democratic Socialists of America.

The promises of socialists made in today’s media landscape are closely analogous to the serpent’s promises in the Garden of Eden.

Worse still, the DSA experienced a huge win in New York City with the election of outspoken socialist Zohran Mamdani and came close to beating the Republican candidate with another socialist in a special election in Tennessee in December.

Then, of course, there are the legions of leftist online content creators indoctrinating millions of users with socialist messaging.

Is it historical ignorance with the Cold War increasingly far behind us? Is it the leftist teachers simply passing over the horrific genocides of communist leaders like Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot and ignoring the ongoing calamities of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and other socialist backwaters? Is it simply the promise of free stuff? Is it the envy of billionaire elites who seem to wield omnipotent power?

The socialist paradox

No doubt, ignorance, greed, envy, and boredom all play a significant role in the elevation of socialists.

This is why most opponents of socialism generally push back by attempting to teach people about the endless failures of socialism, the basic laws of economics, and the immorality and destructiveness of confiscating property and denying citizens their constitutional freedoms.

Clearly, this approach has not been successful with this latest crop of socialists who now make up a large portion of the Millennial and Gen Z cohorts.

It could just be that human nature is such that it is always vulnerable to toxic ideas like socialism, and digital technology has made this problem even more challenging. After all, the promises of socialists made in today’s media landscape are closely analogous to the serpent’s promises in the Garden of Eden: Do this one thing — i.e., eat this fruit, vote and campaign for this socialist — and you will have everything you want.

Or, more likely, it could be that conservatives are misunderstanding the issue altogether.

Rather than view socialism as an ideology, a movement, or a moral failing inherent in human nature, it would be better to see socialism as a reaction to all these things.

At its core, socialism is what happens when a person consciously rejects political reasoning, morality, and complex abstractions, all in favor of a strictly materialist and existentialist approach to life.

Orwell and the socialist mind

An illustration of this phenomenon comes from the great 20th century writer George Orwell, who unintentionally captures the socialist mind in his personal account of the Spanish Civil War, “Homage to Catalonia.”

Despite being known as a fierce critic of totalitarian surveillance states like the Soviet Union, Orwell himself was an ardent socialist throughout his life. In fact, he was so committed to socialism that he went to Catalonia to fight a war on behalf of the Trotskyist Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification.

His stated goal was not necessarily to write a full account of the Spanish Civil War (though he did), but first and foremost to kill fascists.

natasaadzic/iStock/Getty Images Plus

What is most surprising about “Homage to Catalonia” is just how little Orwell actually writes about socialism itself. He spends many pages describing the size of rats, the scarcity of tobacco, and the convoluted squabbling between various anarchist, communist, and socialist factions, yet almost nothing about why he is actually fighting in a foreign civil war.

In one of the middle chapters, almost in passing, he devotes a precious few paragraphs on the matter, citing his sympathy with the laborers in their hope of realizing true equality: “The thing that attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the ‘mystique’ of Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all.”

Sadly, Orwell quickly follows this reflection with the immediate reality of his situation, “I was hardly conscious of the changes that were occurring in my own mind. Like everyone about me I was chiefly conscious of boredom, heat, cold, dirt, lice, privation, and occasional danger.”

Naturally, these concerns are what make up the bulk of his book.

At no point in Orwell’s narrative does his joy rise above the creature comforts of cigarettes, wine, food, sleep, and personal cleanliness, nor does his sorrow go much beyond beyond the deprivation thereof. Any hope he might have that transcends this narrow worldview — i.e., virtue, ethics, greater truth, life after death (Orwell survives a shot through the neck), or even winning the war — is completely absent.

Orwell is just there, living his life and fighting an enemy. Even though he is aware of the atrocities of the socialist militias — like destroying churches and killing innocent priests and nuns — he hardly thinks about it. Even though he throws a bomb into enemy lines and inflicts a slow and painful death on a fascist soldier, he is more annoyed at the man’s screaming than he is perturbed at the fact that he just killed a man in cold blood for a dubious cause.

Obviously, Orwell was not too dim-witted to think of these matters, nor is it because he was some kind of true believer blinded by misleading propaganda, nor was he a sociopath.

Instead, he has committed to a mode of behavior and thought that negates all moral rationality. His socialism simply does not touch on anything beyond the next meal, the next bus to work, the next cup of coffee, the next nice-sounding idea.

Acting as a socialist only means doing what the other socialists seem to be doing, whether that means joining a protest, fighting in a civil war, or voting for a DSA candidate.

Although some of this mode of behavior betrays a deep streak of nihilism, the socialists themselves never reflect on anything long enough to realize it. For all the observations Orwell makes, with his characteristic wryness, none of it ever leads to a deeper conclusion about his situation.

Much of his general attitude could be summed up with the empty platitude, “It is what it is.” Readers can also find this kind of hopeless shrug in the endings of Orwell’s novels “Animal Farm” and “1984,” where the antagonists triumph and all the efforts of the protagonists prove to be futile as well as pointless.

Mininyx Doodle/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Based on the account given in “Homage to Catalonia,” the biggest precondition that leads to this mindlessness is modernity’s systemic atomization and subsequent loneliness.

Throughout his narrative, Orwell has no real friends about which to speak — yet he does somehow drag his wife to Barcelona while he fights with the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification. True, he notes with fondness how everyone addresses each other as “comrade,” as well as substituting the formal “usted” (Spanish for “you”) for the informal “tu.”

Yet, this belies the indifference he ultimately has for these men suffering and dying senselessly. This community of soldiers in the trenches — the one example that Orwell can point to as true socialism in practice — is almost entirely superficial. Years later, he still cannot see this and even feels glad for the experience of stinking and starving in trenches with his socialist “comrades” for so many months.

Humanize before you catechize

In light of all this, it should be clear that mere apologetics for free-market capitalism, liberal democratic republicanism, and Christian communitarianism will fall on deaf ears, for the socialists both then and now.

A catchy slogan, a photogenic demagogue, an attractive vibe will win over otherwise intelligent people and lead them down a dark path that allows no light to come in.

In order to bring them back from this path, conservatives and other anti-socialists need to appreciate the content of their worldview (or lack thereof) along with the modern context of today’s postmodern consumerist culture that have made friendship, depth, and moments of quiet reflection next to impossible.

Once they recognize this, they will finally understand that more education and fewer affordability crises will not fix the problem of socialism’s growing popularity. Instead, they will have to meaningfully connect with these people, pull them away from the sources of malaise, and patiently fill up what has been hollowed out.

People must be humanized before they are catechized.

Even though this is a much bigger project, it is a more effective and fulfilling one. One can speculate what would have happened if Orwell found religion and joined a church instead of finding socialism and joining the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification. Perhaps his eventual novels criticizing Russian communism would have lacked the same insights.

Or, perhaps his cynicism and recklessness would have turned to hope and wisdom, and he could have offered a better way forward to those who fall under the spell of socialism instead of dreaming up horrific depictions of socialism’s excesses.

How Feminism Became The Biggest Pagan Megachurch In The World

It has an object of worship, which is female autonomy, its own commandments, theological virtues, a sacrament, and even its own form of evangelization.

Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending

More than 50 years ago, I witnessed firsthand how Mao Zedong’s socialist experiment dismantled market competition, suppressed innovation, and plunged China into economic ruin. As a survivor of that experiment, I watched in horror last week as Zohran Mamdani won over 50% of the vote in New York City, promising a socialist illusion of city-owned grocery stores, free public transit, universal rent control, and a defunded police department.

Such proposals might sound compassionate, but they threaten to repeat the class warfare and state control that devastated China from the 1950s to the late 1970s, only this time they are taking place in the financial capital of the world.

The unpleasant truth is that America may have won the Cold War, but we are losing the ideological war at home.

Consider Mamdani’s push for “good cause eviction” laws and expanded rent control. He claims these measures protect tenants from exploitation, but they discourage property ownership and investment — just as Mao’s housing policies did.

In communist China, the state assigned apartments to urban families, but most people lived in poverty. My family of five was crammed into a 200-square-foot unit with no running water or a toilet. Today, rent control has already reduced housing supply by 20% in parts of New York City, driving up costs for everyone else. What Mamdani offers isn’t progress — it’s stagnation disguised as equity.

Mamdani’s support for “Medicare for All” and fare-free buses also ignores fiscal realities. Mao’s “barefoot doctors” promised class equity but delivered substandard care, contributing to millions of preventable deaths. America’s health care system leads the world in breakthroughs because of merit-driven research and competition, not government mandates. Meanwhile, New York City’s transit authority estimates free transit would cost taxpayers $1 billion annually without improving service. When socialism promises “free” services, it often delivers shortages, rationing, and inefficiency.

The proposal for city-owned grocery stores is another red flag. Under Mao, government-run stores led to chronic food shortages. Rice, cooking oil, and meat were rationed. Each urban citizen received only two pounds of meat per month. Even with ration coupons, I had to wake at 3 or 4 a.m. and wait in line for hours to buy a few ounces. Mamdani’s plan threatening private grocery competition risks repeating this nightmare.

Then there’s his support for defunding the police and replacing them with vague “community safety” alternatives. In 2020, he co-sponsored bills to slash NYPD funding by $1 billion, claiming it would combat systemic racism. This mirrors Mao’s Red Guards, who dismantled law enforcement and replaced it with ideological enforcers — leading to chaos, violence, and mass suffering.

Since 2020, crime in New York has risen by 15%, according to NYPD data. Weakening law enforcement doesn’t protect vulnerable communities — it leaves them exposed. As a father of a New Yorker, Mamdani’s reckless approach to policing is not just a political concern; it’s a personal one.

Mamdani also seeks to eliminate gifted and talented programs in public schools, calling them “inequitable.” But these programs offer high-achieving students — often from diverse backgrounds — a path to excellence.

Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

During the Cultural Revolution, China crushed its intellectual class and smothered innovation. New York is making a similar mistake. Gifted programs lifted math proficiency by 25%, according to a 2022 Department of Education report, yet Mamdani wants them eliminated in the name of “equity.” As an Asian-American parent who raised a child in STEM, I’ve seen how excellence takes root: You cultivate talent; you don’t level it.

Mamdani’s agenda mirrors the same destructive ideology I fled from. Socialism thrives on utopian promises pitched to voters who have never lived through the consequences. I have. And I recognize the warning signs.

Yet according to CNNexit polls, 70% of voters ages 18-44 supported Mamdani, compared to just 40% of older voters. Even more alarming: 57% of New Yorkers with college degrees voted for him, versus only 42% without. This reflects the growing influence of pro-socialist indoctrination in American universities.

The unpleasant truth is that America may have won the Cold War, but we are losing the ideological war at home. To prevent a socialist takeover, we must fight back by reforming higher education and teaching our children the truth about socialism in K-12 classrooms.

America’s addiction to Chinese money runs deeper than we care to admit

In a recent interview, President Trump defended his earlier claim that bringing 600,000 Chinese college students into the United States would be good for the country. When the interviewer questioned how that aligned with an America First agenda, Trump replied that without those students, “Half the colleges in America would go out of business.”

To most Trump supporters, that sounds like a win-win — fewer foreign students and fewer left-wing universities to subsidize. But Trump seemed to view the issue as a business transaction: Closing locations is bad, losing revenue is bad, and the substance of those “economic units” doesn’t really matter.

Why should we play Russian roulette with our national security to pad universities’ bottom lines?

His comments revealed a deeper confusion about what America First really means.

The China contradiction

America’s relationship with China has long been incoherent. Every Republican politician insists China is our chief geopolitical rival — a totalitarian power bent on unseating the United States as global hegemon. Yet few make any effort to restrict Chinese immigration, investment, or influence. At some point, it becomes difficult to take any of the rhetoric seriously.

The problem is obvious: China has too many people and too much money. The country’s strength lies in what America abandoned: manufacturing. While American corporations chased financial gimmicks and “service economies,” China focused on making tangible goods at scale. That discipline built a vast middle class and positioned Beijing at the center of global production. Now nearly every Western industry — film, retail, education — depends on access to China’s markets.

The result: American institutions bend over backward to please a government they claim to fear. Chinese nationals can buy land, start companies, and enroll by the hundreds of thousands in U.S. universities. It would be funny if it weren’t so corrupt.

The university addiction

Trump knows mass immigration hurts Americans, but he struggles to say no when big money is involved. Foreign students pour billions into universities, and administrators have built their entire business models around them. But counting up dollars isn’t the same as serving the national interest.

Universities are publicly subsidized and supposedly dedicated to educating Americans first and foremost. Instead, they’ve turned into pipelines credentialing foreign elites — and sometimes, spies. Every seat filled by a Chinese student is one less for an American, and every dollar that props up a hostile regime’s protégés deepens our dependence on that regime.

The Department of Justice has charged three Chinese nationals at the University of Michigan for smuggling research materials and stealing technology. Eric Weinstein has even suggested that theoretical physics is being throttled for fear of espionage. Yet the universities — and now, apparently, Trump — seem unfazed.

Why save the enemy’s seminary?

Propping up higher education with Chinese cash isn’t just shortsighted — it’s insane. Colleges and universities have become leftist seminaries, charging astronomical tuition for courses that teach Americans to despise their parents and their nation. They already receive lavish government subsidies and still demand more.

Trump’s claim that “half the colleges” would collapse without Chinese money is dubious, but if it were true, those institutions deserve to fail. Let them. Destroying the patronage networks that produce radical activists was once a Trumpian goal. Reviving them with foreign money would be an act of political masochism. Why should we play Russian roulette with our national security to pad their bottom line?

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The broader threat

Chinese money poisons more than academia. Nationals and shell companies routinely buy American land — including, alarmingly, property near military bases. One recent purchase of an RV park in Missouri by a Chinese couple just happened to place them next to Whiteman Air Force Base, home of the B-2 stealth bomber fleet. Similar shadowy transactions dot the map.

The pandemic exposed the madness of this dependence. The same regime that unleashed a virus on the world also controlled the supply chains for the medicine and protective gear we needed to fight it. Yet America’s political class still refuses to sever the tie. They are too addicted to Chinese money — and too invested in pretending that dependency equals diplomacy.

If the GOP is serious about confronting China, it must start by cutting every cord of reliance. Banning Chinese students from U.S. universities would be a simple, symbolic first step — and it would strike directly at the heart of the progressive academic machine.

American universities should be for Americans

During a press gaggle this week, President Trump casually announced that the United States would allow 600,000 Chinese nationals to enter the country as college students. He has long focused on improving relations with China, but the idea of importing and educating such numbers runs against the America First instincts of his voters.

When Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was asked why these students were so important, he admitted that many U.S. universities would go out of business without foreign enrollment. For the right, that sounds less like a warning and more like a promise.

Republicans once opposed bailouts for failing businesses. Why make an exception for universities that train activists and foreigners to despise America?

Ending large-scale immigration from a rival power while letting bankrupt institutions fail should be an easy win. Instead, the Trump administration seems poised to prop up anti-American universities by training the children of our most dangerous adversary.

Why import students from our greatest rival?

Every conservative politician and pundit insists that China is America’s foremost threat. It has a massive population, vast economic leverage, deep investments in resources, and ambitions to expand its sphere of influence. Its military is large, its weapons advanced, and its spies operate regularly on U.S. soil. A hot war may be unlikely, but it is fair to call China our greatest economic and geopolitical rival. So why are we welcoming Chinese nationals into the country, much less into our most prestigious schools?

America’s broader immigration crisis has already ravaged our job market, housing market, health system, and education system. Illegal immigration rightly comes first: Illegal aliens are unvetted, often smuggled in by cartels and gangs, and begin their stay by breaking the law.

But the public is waking up to the damage caused by legal immigration as well. The administration recently admitted there are 55 million active visa holders eligible to enter the United States — a number equal to the combined populations of Florida and Texas. Voters want both illegal immigration ended and legal immigration slashed.

Chinese nationals should be first on the block. If China is truly our enemy, why would we let any of its citizens inside? The Chinese state is infamous for espionage. Its spy network has penetrated American government, military, corporations, and universities. These spies don’t just chase classified secrets; they steal research and technology from labs and departments. Commentators like Eric Weinstein have suggested that universities slow their own programs for fear that breakthroughs will be stolen by foreign students. America is holding back its own scientific progress to import spies. That’s insane.

Educating tomorrow’s rivals

The danger goes beyond espionage. Universities don’t just teach skills; they confer the credentials that grant access to elite institutions in business, science, and government. A Chinese student who returns home brings knowledge and prestige that strengthen a rival nation. One who stays uses that same credential to climb into elite corporations or agencies that shape American culture, policy, and economy. Why would we seed our leadership class with foreign nationals from our chief adversary?

This also raises the question of whom our universities exist to serve. In a Fox News interview, Howard Lutnick admitted outright that these Chinese students would displace Americans from top universities. That isn’t speculation; it’s an open admission. Under an America First agenda, displacing native students for the children of foreign rivals is indefensible. Taxpayer-backed institutions must put American children first.

The bailout excuse

Lutnick argues that Chinese students keep universities solvent. Foreign students pay higher tuition and receive less aid. So what? The idea that universities are too big to fail and must be bailed out with foreign visas is laughable. Many schools already hoard enormous endowments. If others collapse, that’s the market working. Republicans once opposed bailouts for failing businesses. Why make an exception for universities that train activists and foreigners to despise America?

Blaze Media Illustration

The truth is that universities are ideology factories. They churn out left-wing radicals who hate America and despise Christianity. Yes, we still need doctors and engineers, but there is no reason to subsidize this industry with mass immigration. Republicans should be forcing universities to purge their bias or lose government funding. Instead, they are keeping them afloat with students from a hostile foreign power.

America First means Americans first

Trump often makes sweeping statements he never intends to enact. This may be a bargaining ploy in negotiations with Xi Jinping. But sovereignty should never be a chip in trade talks. Chinese enrollment peaked at 372,000 in 2020 and fell to 277,000 in 2024. Now the administration is talking about more than doubling it. The correct number isn’t 600,000. It isn’t 277,000. It’s zero.

The United States should stop importing enemies to enrich its ruling class. American universities should exist for Americans. That is what America First must mean.

The real fraud in higher ed: Universities need that Chinese money

The universities preaching that America is structurally racist now say they need international students to survive. Sad but true.

President Trump on Monday floated a proposal that has conservatives buzzing. Just before meeting with the president of South Korea, while discussing trade negotiations with China, Trump suggested that the deal might include allowing 600,000 Chinese students to attend American universities.

Instead of winning hearts and minds, universities would be exporting American self-loathing. Why should taxpayers fund that?

I’ve learned not to sprint ahead of Trump’s negotiations. He often uses public remarks as part of the bargaining table — dangling outrageous possibilities to shove the other side into error. And inconveniently for his critics, it usually works. Still, this one deserves a closer look.

Universities built on sand

As a professor at Arizona State University, the nation’s largest state school, I see firsthand how fragile higher education has become. Universities increasingly depend on international students to prop up their budgets. They reorient themselves not around local students but around foreign ones, reshaping programs and communications to make sure outsiders feel at home.

ASU boasts 195,000 students. Yet when the semester began, the university’s homepage highlighted international arrivals, not Arizona students. The welcome-back email did the same. Arizona families — the taxpayers who actually fund the place — were treated as an afterthought.

Administrators justify this by pointing to economic contributions, diversity, and talent. But native students notice the slight. Parents notice it too. The message is clear: Tuition dollars matter more than the citizens who built these schools. ASU may call itself the “New American University,” but more often it presents itself as the “No Longer American University.”

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

A house of cards

Here’s the truth: Many American universities cannot survive without international tuition checks.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admitted as much on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, saying the bottom 15% of U.S. colleges would simply shut down without that revenue. Universities have operated like Ponzi schemes, built on the illusion that enrollment growth never ends. But as American students tire of being hectored with radical political agendas, growth slows and the budgets collapse.

The U.S. already hosts about 270,000 Chinese students, not counting tens of thousands more from India, South Korea, and elsewhere. ASU alone has 16,000 international students, down from 18,000 last year. Trump’s proposed deal would more than double the number of Chinese students nationwide overnight.

What are they learning?

Even if you grant the economic benefits, the bigger question — maybe the biggest — is: What sort of education would these 600,000 students receive?

We could introduce them to the greatness of the American experiment, the sweep of Western civilization, and the biblical truths that shaped both. We could even present the gospel to hundreds of thousands of students who may never have heard it before. That would be a noble exchange.

But that isn’t what happens on most campuses.

Drop them into a humanities classroom and they’ll be steeped in anti-racism, DEI dogma, LGBTQ activism, “decolonizing the curriculum,” and the thesis that America and the West are irredeemably wicked. Instead of winning hearts and minds, universities would be exporting American self-loathing — either by turning foreign students into residents who despise their host country or sending them home as ambassadors of contempt.

Why should American taxpayers fund that?

A higher-ed reckoning

Universities like ASU showcase international students while sidelining their own. They rely on foreign tuition to mask fiscal rot. And in exchange, they sell a curriculum that treats America as racist, the West as evil, and Christianity as oppressive.

No “economic benefit” offsets that catastrophic formula.

If American universities want to survive, they must first clean their own house.

Admit the harm caused by their reckless anti-America, anti-West, anti-Christian curriculum.
Abandon DEI dogma, corrosive identity politics, and “decolonized” philosophy.
Value American students — the citizens and taxpayers who fund these schools.
Reorient higher education toward the people of the states and communities that built it.
Teach again that we are created by God, equal in worth, and capable of knowing truth, goodness, and beauty.

Only then can we discuss whether more international students make sense. Until then, it is rich with irony: The same universities that teach contempt for America now admit they need foreign students to survive.