Trump bets big on AI to make America dominant again



The Trump administration is preparing to launch a sweeping series of executive orders aimed at securing America’s position as the world’s leader in artificial intelligence. If carried out properly, these efforts could help spark a new era of economic prosperity and technological dominance.

The forthcoming executive actions would radically streamline federal approvals for AI-related infrastructure, vastly expand energy resources devoted to artificial intelligence development, and prioritize the construction of new transmission and data projects critical to powering America’s AI future.

Artificial intelligence could be the single most important economic engine of the 21st century.

It is a remarkable development — and one desperately needed.

Trump’s AI infrastructure revolution

The expected executive orders outline sweeping changes. One key measure would create a national Clean Water Act permit tailored to speed up environmental approvals for AI-related infrastructure — especially energy and data facilities.

Another directive would push the federal government to prioritize “shovel-ready” transmission projects, helping the electric grid expand quickly enough to meet the demands of AI growth.

The orders would also unlock federally managed land for rapid development of the infrastructure needed to power and support artificial intelligence operations.

Finally, the administration plans to increase dramatically the energy resources dedicated to AI development, treating the technology as a national priority.

These changes aim to eliminate major regulatory and logistical obstacles slowing AI advancement. By streamlining permitting, securing energy access, and opening federal land, the orders would lay the groundwork for building and deploying large-scale AI systems nationwide.

A critical change

Each of these reforms matters. The numbers make that clear.

An article published earlier this year in MIT Technology Review summarized estimates from multiple researchers analyzing AI’s future impact. One study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory projected that by 2028, powering AI in the U.S. could require between 165 and 326 terawatt-hours of electricity annually.

RELATED: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal

  Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

That would exceed the total power consumption of all U.S. data centers today. It’s enough to supply more than 20% of American households.

Put another way, the article noted that AI’s energy demand could create emissions equivalent to driving 300 billion miles — roughly 1,600 round trips between Earth and the sun.

This isn’t a modest technological shift. It’s an industrial revolution, and it’s already under way.

The global AI race

China’s leaders understand the potential benefits and costs of artificial intelligence, too, which is why they have approved dramatic increases in energy development in recent years.

In May, the Chinese government approved a plan to build 10 new nuclear reactors at a cost of $27.7 billion. If implemented, it would make China the planet’s largest generator of nuclear power by 2030.

China also invested more than $900 billion in renewable energy sources in 2024, nearly matching global investment in fossil fuels.

China is taking its energy needs seriously, and the Trump administration appears committed to ensuring that the United States doesn’t fall behind.

AI’s $13 trillion opportunity

Artificial intelligence is not just a futuristic novelty. It is the key to unlocking one of the greatest economic booms in modern history.

The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that AI could generate as much as $13 trillion in additional global economic productivity by 2030. That is the equivalent of adding three new economies the size of India’s. Nations that lead in AI development will enjoy a productivity surge, revolutionizing manufacturing, logistics, transportation, health care, finance, and nearly every other sector.

For the United States, this means the potential to revitalize American industry, re-shore critical supply chains, and create millions of high-wage jobs. AI could supercharge small business growth, empower entrepreneurs, and streamline government services. It could give America the edge in military technology, scientific research, and global competitiveness.

In short, it could be the single most important economic engine of the 21st century.

But to get there, America needs to act quickly. Building the infrastructure necessary to power AI’s massive growth, both physically and digitally, will require bold and aggressive leadership. That is exactly what Trump’s new executive orders represent.

Protecting liberty

Artificial intelligence will transform nearly every part of American life — our economy, schools, military, and medical system.

The upside is immense. With the right leadership, AI could spark a new American golden age, driving productivity and innovation beyond anything in living memory. That’s the future President Trump aims to deliver. If his initiative succeeds, it could define America’s 21st-century revival.

But the risks are real.

So far, Congress and most state legislatures have done practically nothing to safeguard Americans’ basic freedoms in the age of AI. No national guardrails exist to stop this technology from being used to suppress free speech, erode religious liberty, or undermine economic independence.

Without decisive action, the very tools that promise prosperity could become the greatest threat to liberty in American history.

That’s why the Trump administration and Congress should tie any pro-AI legislation to strong protections for individual rights. If America plans to lead the world into the AI future, it must lead with freedom front and center.

America First means knowing when to drop a lawsuit



President Trump’s second-term antitrust message couldn’t be clearer: Corporate monopolists who rig markets against working families, small businesses, and American interests have no place in a free economy.

That message found an early test last week — not through a bold new initiative, but by killing off a weak, leftover lawsuit from the Biden administration that threatened to derail Trump’s strategic antitrust agenda before it gained traction.

The Trump administration sent a clear message: America’s antitrust vision defends free markets and strong competition — not bureaucratic box-checking.

On Friday, the Trump Justice Department moved to dismiss the government’s misguided attempt to block the merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks. The lawsuit, filed in the final hours of the Biden administration, posed risks far beyond its narrow legal merits.

Had it gone to trial, it likely would have been dismissed — not because antitrust enforcement is unimportant, but because the case itself rested on flimsy legal grounds. That kind of early defeat would have undercut the Justice Department’s credibility just as Trump’s new antitrust team gets to work.

As a former state attorney general and an America First-minded lawyer, I know the value of strong antitrust enforcement. But strength requires discernment. Pursuing a weak case does more harm than good. It invites judicial setbacks, undermines future enforcement, and wastes political capital needed for tougher fights ahead.

The lawsuit was also strategically reckless. I dealt with the threat posed by Chinese state-controlled telecom giant Huawei during my time at the Department of Homeland Security. Huawei, closely tied to the Chinese military, aims to displace U.S. firms and infiltrate global infrastructure. That’s why the U.S. banned the company, and our allies followed suit.

The HPE-Juniper merger would strengthen America’s ability to counter Huawei’s dominance. Blocking it would have weakened two U.S. companies trying to compete globally — and handed a gift to both Huawei and entrenched domestic players like Cisco.

Even viewed narrowly under U.S. antitrust law, the case faltered. The merged company wouldn’t control even 25% of the relevant domestic market and would still trail Cisco in key sectors like wireless local area networks. Analysts found no credible evidence of future price hikes or innovation slowdowns. On the contrary, the merger could spur real competition — especially against Cisco, whose dominance persists despite lackluster performance.

The European Union, no friend to large corporate combinations, approved the deal. EU regulators found widespread agreement among competitors, distributors, and customers that the merger posed no anticompetitive threat. Cisco would remain twice the size of the new entity in WLAN, with at least seven other players still in the market — and recent entries showing the sector’s low barriers to entry.

RELATED: America First antitrust isn’t ‘socialism’ — it’s self-defense

  Photo by Ying Tang/NurPhoto via Getty Images

That context matters. Cisco’s market power, despite inferior performance, reflects broader integration advantages — not consumer preference alone. Importantly, WLAN sales represent just one-sixth of the merged company’s total revenue.

Antitrust should focus on competitive strength across the industry, not just the size of the firms involved. As FTC Commissioner Mark Meador argued in his recent paper, “Antitrust Policy for the Conservative,” the key question is whether other firms can still compete — and they can. Market analysts agree this merger would promote, not stifle, competition and innovation.

The Justice Department should never have filed this case. That it came from the Biden team, just before Trump’s leadership arrived, makes its dismissal all the more welcome.

Had it gone forward, the lawsuit could have weakened America’s antitrust credibility, emboldened foreign adversaries like China, and limited future enforcement under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Judges don’t forget weak cases.

The consumer welfare standard still matters — and by that measure, the merger passes easily. Consumers surveyed by European regulators expressed no concerns about pricing or choice. The Biden Justice Department’s complaint contradicted the very principles now guiding Trump’s antitrust revival.

Dropping the case is both sound policy and smart politics. The Trump administration avoided a legal embarrassment, protected national security interests, and sent a clear message: America’s antitrust vision defends free markets and strong competition — not bureaucratic box-checking.

Kudos to the Trump Justice Department for making the right call.

After the bombs, Iran sharpens its digital daggers



The footage was unmistakable: plumes of smoke rising over Iran’s nuclear sites, a fiery punctuation mark on years of brinkmanship and intelligence coups. With one sweeping air campaign, the United States delivered a message: The Islamic Republic won’t cross the nuclear threshold.

But anyone assuming the threat has been neutralized is mistaken. Iran’s nuclear humiliation may hasten a shift already under way — from building bombs to waging war through digital disruption.

Cyber warfare offers something the mullahs crave: the ability to humiliate, disrupt, and retaliate without risking direct military confrontation.

Even as diplomats celebrate a ceasefire, cybersecurity experts remain on alert. In 2025, a regime doesn’t need enriched uranium to paralyze an enemy. It needs a cadre of skilled hackers, access to stolen exploits, and no scruples about targeting civilian infrastructure.

Iran’s cyber playbook didn’t appear overnight. In 2012, the Shamoon virus devastated Saudi Aramco’s systems, wiping tens of thousands of computers. Since then, Tehran has steadily advanced its cyber operations.

Today, Iran commands a capable and motivated digital force. With its nuclear facilities in ruins, the regime has every reason to flex other muscles. Cyber warfare offers something the mullahs crave: the ability to humiliate, disrupt, and retaliate without risking direct military confrontation.

They’re not the first to embrace this model.

Russia, long dominant in the cyber realm, has hammered Ukraine with digital attacks targeting power grids, satellites, and financial systems. Criminal groups like Conti and Black Basta operate under Moscow’s protection, extorting ransoms and leaking stolen data to sow chaos.

This blending of espionage, sabotage, and state-backed crime has become a blueprint for autocracies under pressure. Iran, hemmed in by sanctions and unrest, doesn’t need to invent the model. It just needs to adopt it.

Most Americans still think of cyberwar as an abstract threat — something IT departments handle behind the scenes. That complacency works to our enemies’ advantage.

Take zero-day vulnerabilities: flaws in software even the developers don’t yet know exist. They’re sold on dark markets for eye-watering sums and let hostile actors bypass traditional defenses undetected.

Then there’s Chaos RAT, a remote access trojan capable of burrowing into a network and sitting dormant for months. Once triggered, it can steal sensitive data, erase backups, or crash entire systems on command.

Iran possesses both the motive and the skill to deploy these weapons — and the timing couldn’t be better for the regime. With its nuclear program crippled, it needs a new front to demonstrate relevance.

RELATED: Google confirms Iranian hacking group targeted Trump, Harris presidential campaigns

  daoleduc via iStock/Getty Images

China’s cyber militias show what’s possible. Groups like APT Silver Fox specialize in patient infiltration, building access over years. Iran lacks Beijing’s global reach, but the methods are accessible. Tehran’s hackers borrow code from Russia, shop the same black markets, and lease infrastructure from the same digital underworld.

The global cyber arena now functions like a black-market bazaar: fluid alliances, shared tradecraft, and few rules. Almost everything’s for sale.

So while headlines tout the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, they miss the next act. No truce binds a nation’s hackers. Cyber operations offer deniability by design. When a hospital network locks up or a power grid fails, Tehran’s response will be predictable: denial, distraction, and a smirk about the West’s poor “cyber hygiene.”

Expect Iran to probe how far it can push in cyberspace without drawing more missiles in return. And unless the West prepares accordingly, those probes may succeed.

America still leads the world in conventional firepower. But cyber defense remains its soft underbelly. Agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have made strides, but critical infrastructure — power plants, water systems, hospitals — still run on aging software and patchwork security.

Iran doesn’t need to destroy a city to spread fear. A flip of a switch in a power station or the theft of sensitive government files can inflict lasting damage — and create leverage.

This imbalance between battlefield dominance and digital vulnerability demands urgent correction.

Cybersecurity must move from an IT line item to a strategic national priority. That means building AI-driven detection systems, developing real deterrence for cyberattacks, and forging public-private partnerships to defend vital infrastructure.

Iran’s nuclear setback matters. But no bomb erases a hacker’s know-how. No missile strike disables an ideology that thrives on asymmetrical warfare.

The coming months will test whether the West has learned anything. Tehran’s leaders need to prove they still have teeth. While their nuclear ambitions smolder, their cyber arsenal remains sharp — and likely emboldened.

The next war may not begin with jets roaring over deserts. It may start silently in the fluorescent-lit halls of a data center, where intruders already hide behind blinking servers, waiting.

In that theater, the rules are different — and the consequences no less severe.

Trump Overhauls Eco Permitting to Fast Track New Roads, Bridges

The Department of Transportation is taking action to expedite permitting for infrastructure projects nationwide, minimize delays, and clear the backlog of projects awaiting federal approval, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

The post Trump Overhauls Eco Permitting to Fast Track New Roads, Bridges appeared first on .

Commuter beware: 68 bridges across US at risk of collapse!



March 26, 2024. It's a pitch black, wintry night in Baltimore. Frigid winds batter the maintenance workers patching potholes on the Francis Scott Key Bridge, a 1.6-mile lifeline high above the icy Patapsco River.

Then: disaster.

Since the Panama Canal expansion in 2016, vessels like the Dali haul up to 24,000 TEUs — making them massive floating cities older bridges weren’t built to endure.

The Dali, a 984-foot ship out of Singapore loaded with 4,700 containers, loses power leaving the Port of Baltimore.

No propulsion, no steering — just a 95,000-ton steel giant drifting. Minutes after a desperate mayday call at 1:27 a.m., it crashes into a pier at 6.5 knots.

The bridge collapses instantly. Built in 1977, it simply wasn’t designed to withstand impact from a ship that size.

Eight workers fall into the icy river; only two survive. Fifty thousand tons of debris now block Baltimore's port, eventually causing the regional economy a $1 billion loss.

RELATED: Wife of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse victim remembers father of three as always 'fighting for us'

  Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

One year later, reconstruction of the bridge is still underway and not expected to be completed until 2028 — at a price of $2 billion.

Is the Golden Gate next?

Now imagine the same thing happening to any one of dozens of other bridges across the country. According to a recent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board, the danger is all too real.

The NTSB report calls for 68 bridges across 19 states to undergo urgent “vulnerability assessments” to determine if they can withstand a ship strike.

These bridges — including California’s Golden Gate Bridge, New York’s Brooklyn Bridge, and Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Bridge — have two things in common: They all span major shipping lanes and were all built before 1991, predating the modern safety standards meant to address growing ship sizes.

The NTSB has given the bridge owners — an assortment of 30 different state departments of transportation, port authorities, and other entities — 30 days to provide updated evaluations of these structures.

Big ships, big problems

A bridge’s vulnerability stems from its age, design, and exposure to ship traffic. The Key Bridge, completed in 1977, handled smaller vessels in the 1980s — like one that grazed it in 1980 with minimal damage.

Today’s ships, however, are far larger. In the 1970s, they carried 800 containers. Since the Panama Canal expansion in 2016, vessels like the Dali haul up to 24,000 TEUs — making them massive floating cities older bridges weren’t built to endure. The NTSB found the Maryland Transportation Authority never adjusted its risk calculations for these modern giants.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has required updated assessments since 1991, following the NTSB's investigation of the 1980 collapse of Florida’s Sunshine Skyway, which killed 35. Maryland helped craft those rules but didn’t apply them to Key Bridge.

A vulnerability assessment uses a mathematical model, factoring in ship size, speed, traffic patterns, and bridge strength to produce a risk score. If it exceeds AASHTO’s limit, solutions like pier reinforcements or tugboat escorts can lower the danger.

New bridges have followed this federal mandate since 1994, but many older ones remain untested — until now.

Not urgent ... until it is

The NTSB doesn’t claim these 68 will fail tomorrow. The Golden Gate’s owners hired consultants in 2025, and New York’s Department of Transportation notes the East River rarely sees Dali-sized ships.

Still, the risk persists. Since 2021, over 300 ships lost propulsion in U.S. waters, often near bridges. The Key Bridge collapse serves as a stark warning, with six lives lost and massive economic and societal disruption that persists to this day.

Retrofitting bridges with pier reinforcements or tugboat escorts could cost millions per structure. The new Key Bridge carries a price tag of $1.7 to $1.9 billion, largely federally funded, with completion set for 2028. If several of the 68 bridges fail, losses could climb into the billions, disrupting ports like Long Beach or Miami and hammering national trade.

RELATED: Why Johnny can't build

  nojustice/Getty Images

Maryland’s MDTA argues the Dali’s owners bear responsibility, citing negligence. It settled with the Justice Department for $102 million in October 2024 after evidence of poor maintenance — faulty transformers and disabled backups.

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy countered Maryland’s stance, noting that the state had decades to realize how vulnerable the bridge was to a ship strike.

"Not only did MDTA fail to conduct the vulnerability assessment on the Key Bridge, they did not provide, nor were they able to provide, NTSB the data needed to conduct the assessment," Homendy said. "We asked for that data, they didn't have it. We had to develop that data ourselves."

For commuters, crossing one of these 68 — like the Verrazzano-Narrows or Sunshine Skyway — means staying alert. Near-term changes might include stricter tugboat requirements or adjusted shipping lanes.

No more 'Green New Scam'

One promising sign is U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's recent announcement of nearly $4.9 billion in available funding from the Federal Highway Administration for major bridge projects (the Bridge Investment Program) and up to $500 million for repairing or replacing bridges in rural areas (the Competitive Highway Bridge Program).

According to Duffy, the removal of Biden-era environmental restrictions will make such spending far more effective than in the past:

The previous administration handcuffed critical infrastructure funding requirements to woke DEI and Green New Scam initiatives that diverted resources from the Department’s core mission. Under the Trump administration, America is building again.

Like all man-made structures, bridges testify both to our ingenuity — and to our all-too-human frailty. The NTSB's findings are a sobering reminder that we must never ignore the latter.

China is winning the Cold War 2.0 ... and we’re letting it happen



The threat to the United States from the People’s Republic of China is multifaceted, long-term, and aggressive. Whether it’s from military modernization to economic coercion, cyber warfare to space competition, China’s national security challenge is global, and it targets U.S. interests, values, security, and standing in the world.

While much of the focus of U.S. policymakers has been on the military threat from China, the communist country has also implemented a multipronged approach to weaken the United States economically, politically, culturally, and diplomatically. It is enlisting a whole-of-government strategy, blending civil and military approaches with tactics short of war to expand its influence and improve its geopolitical position.

The US is involved in a cold war with China and urgently needs to do more to stop its aggressive actions.

China's determined plan uses economics, media, education, politics, culture, diplomacy, and information — among many other approaches — in a highly integrated and orchestrated fashion. Its actions take place within the U.S. domestically. It seeks to undermine the U.S. regionally and globally, while sowing doubt in the minds of U.S. allies.

In short, in many respects, the U.S. is involved in a cold war with China and urgently needs to do more to stop its aggressive actions.

Reshaping public opinion

A central component of the cold war with China is the effort of its government to influence American public opinion and culture. The Chinese government has a veritable army of anonymous social media accounts, which it uses to not only present its views but to foment division among our people while silencing critics of its regime. It also distributes government-funded newspapers within the U.S., little more than propaganda broadsheets, and invests in key media infrastructure — not only to support its views but also to mute criticisms of its policies.

Additionally, through massive state support, it also seeks to shape American culture through supporting select movies, such as the 2019 movie "Midway," to create division between the alliance of the United States and Japan as well as prompting the temporary removal of the flag of Taiwan from the jacket of the actor Tom Cruise in the 2022 movie “Top Gun: Maverick.”

Much like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China uses all of its resources to challenge, coerce, silence, and divide opinions about its policies and actions. It uses cultural influence as much as any other capability at its disposal.

No better example of China’s cold war tactics is what the regime has done to expand its capabilities in space. Through robust state-funded support, economic espionage, theft, and coercion, China has aggressively grown its constellation of satellites and other capabilities, giving its military and intelligence services, as well as its state-run industries, significant advantages. To this end, it has even tried to replicate Elon Musk’s reusable rocket concept, the Starship, as well as its Mechazilla Catching Tower.

These are just the latest examples of Chinese economic espionage, which has been going on for decades and done great harm to our commercial space companies. Even as it has advocated for peaceful uses of space, China has also aggressively militarized space, creating advantages that could be used in a future conflict. The U.S. needs to do a better job at confronting this sustained threat.

Attacking global institutions

The Chinese government has also sought to systematically expand its power and take over international institutions affiliated with the United Nations and other global and regional organizations. These efforts are made not only to expand its control but also to mute international criticism of China’s actions and to create diplomatic and other complications for the U.S. and its allies.

Consider China’s involvement with United Nations environmental organizations — how it has been able to silence criticism and prevent investigations of the activities of its maritime militia.

RELATED: America’s faith in ‘free trade’ empowered China’s apartheid machine

  wildpixel via iStock/Getty Images

China pillages fish stocks around the globe and often destroys reefs and harasses other national fishing fleets. It has also done much to downplay the country’s significant contributions to air pollution and how its development projects worldwide, as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, destroy the environment. Finally, it consistently seeks to reduce Taiwan’s role on the world’s stage and delegitimize its political system and exclude it from international forums.

While China’s leaders publicly call for peaceful relations with the United States, they are relentlessly pursuing a campaign to challenge the United States in virtually every economic, political, diplomatic, and military sphere of activity. China consistently seeks advantages using a sustained, long-term campaign of relentlessly expanding its influence using all of the resources of its government.

In many respects, our country is involved in a new cold war with China, requiring a similarly enduring approach that enlists not just the resources of the United States government but also of our own civil society, allies and partners, and freedom-loving people across the world. We must do a better job of making America first and China last.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Admin Purges Thousands Of Woke Grants Left Behind By Biden

Build back better

Why tariffs are the key to America’s industrial comeback



On April 2, President Trump announced a sweeping policy of reciprocal tariffs aimed at severing America’s economic dependence on China. His goal: to reshore American industry and restore national self-sufficiency.

How can the United States defend its independence while relying on Chinese ships, machinery, and computers? It can’t.

Tariffs aren’t just about economics. They are a matter of national survival.

But time is short. Trump has just four years to prove that tariffs can bring back American manufacturing. The challenge is steep — but not unprecedented. Nations like South Korea and Japan have done it. So has the United States in earlier eras.

We can do it again. Here’s how.

Escaping the altar of globalism

Tariffs were never just about economics. They’re about self-suffiency.

A self-sufficient America doesn’t depend on foreign powers for its prosperity — or its defense. Political independence means nothing without economic independence. America’s founders learned that lesson the hard way: No industry, no nation.

The entire supply chain lives offshore. America doesn’t just import chips — it imports the ability to make them. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability.

During the Revolutionary War, British soldiers weren’t the only threat. British factories were just as dangerous. The colonies relied on British imports for everything from textiles to muskets. Without manufacturing, they had no means to wage war.

Victory only became possible when France began supplying the revolution, sending over 80,000 firearms. That lifeline turned the tide.

After the Revolution, George Washington wrote:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but ... their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

Washington’s first major legislative achievement was the Tariff Act of 1789. Two years later, Alexander Hamilton released his “Report on Manufactures,” a foundational blueprint for American industrial strategy. Hamilton didn’t view tariffs as mere taxes — he saw them as the engine for national development.

For nearly two centuries, America followed Hamilton’s lead. Under high tariffs, the nation prospered and industrialized. In fact, the U.S. maintained the highest average tariff rates in the 19th century. By 1870, America produced one-quarter of the world’s manufactured goods. By 1945, it produced half. The United States wasn’t just an economic powerhouse — it was the world’s factory.

That changed in the 1970s. Washington elites embraced globalism. The result?

  

America has run trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative total now exceeds $25 trillion in today’s dollars.

Meanwhile, American companies have poured $6.7 trillion into building factories, labs, and infrastructure overseas. And as if outsourcing weren’t bad enough, foreign governments and corporations have stolen nearly $10 trillion worth of American intellectual property and technology.

The consequences have been devastating.

Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 factories have moved overseas — to China, Mexico, and Europe. The result? The United States has lost over 5 million well-paying manufacturing jobs.

  

This industrial exodus didn’t just hollow out factories — it gutted middle-class bargaining power. Once employers gained the ability to offshore production, they no longer had to reward rising productivity with higher wages. That historic link — more output, more pay — was severed.

Today, American workers face a brutal equation: Take the deal on the table, or the job goes to China. The “race to the bottom” isn’t a slogan. It’s an economic policy — and it’s killing the American middle class.

  

Offshoring has crippled American industry, turning the United States into a nation dependent on foreign suppliers.

Technology offers the clearest example. In 2024, the U.S. imported $763 billion in advanced technology products. That includes a massive trade deficit in semiconductors, which power the brains of everything from fighter jets to toasters. If imports stopped, America would grind to a halt.

Worse, America doesn’t even make the machines needed to produce chips. Photolithography systems — critical to chip fabrication — come from the Netherlands. They’re shipped to Taiwan, where the chips are made and then sold back to the U.S.

The entire supply chain lives offshore. America doesn’t just import chips — it imports the ability to make them. That’s not just dependency. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability.

And the problem extends far beyond tech. The U.S. imports its steel, ball bearings, cars, and oceangoing ships. China now builds far more commercial vessels than the United States — by orders of magnitude.

How can America call itself a global power when it can no longer command the seas?

  

What happens if China stops shipping silicon chips to the U.S.? Or if it cuts off something as basic as shoes or light bulbs? No foreign power should hold that kind of leverage over the American people. And while China does, America isn’t truly free. No freer than a newborn clinging to a bottle. Dependence breeds servitude.

Make America self-sufficient again

Trump has precious little time to prove that reindustrializing America isn’t just a slogan — it’s possible. But he won’t get there with half-measures. “Reciprocal” tariffs? That’s a distraction. Pausing tariffs for 90 days to sweet-talk foreign leaders? That delays progress. Spooking the stock market with mixed signals? That sabotages momentum.

To succeed, Trump must start with one urgent move: establish high, stable tariffs — now, not later.

Tariffs must be high enough to make reshoring profitable. If it’s still cheaper to build factories in China or Vietnam and just pay a tariff, then the tariff becomes little more than a tax — raising revenue but doing nothing to bring industry home.

What’s the right rate? Time will tell, but Trump doesn’t have time. He should impose immediate overkill tariffs of 100% on day one to force the issue. Better to overshoot than fall short.

That figure may sound extreme, but consider this: Under the American System, the U.S. maintained average tariffs above 30% — without forklifts, without container ships, and without globalized supply chains. In modern terms, we’d need to go higher just to match that level of protection.

South Korea industrialized with average tariffs near 40%. And the Koreans had key advantages — cheap labor and a weak currency. America has neither. Tariffs must bridge the gap.

Just as important: Tariffs must remain stable. No company will invest trillions to reindustrialize the U.S. if rates shift every two weeks. They’ll ride out the storm, often with help from foreign governments eager to keep their access to American consumers.

President Trump must pick a strong, flat tariff — and stick to it.

This is our last chance

Tariffs must also serve their purpose: reindustrialization. If they don’t advance that goal, they’re useless.

Start with raw materials. Industry needs them cheap. That means zero tariffs on inputs like rare earth minerals, iron, and oil. Energy independence doesn’t come from taxing fuel — it comes from unleashing it.

Next, skip tariffs on goods America can’t produce. We don’t grow coffee or bananas. So taxing them does nothing for American workers or factories. It’s a scam — a cash grab disguised as policy.

Tariff revenue should fund America’s comeback. Imports won’t vanish overnight, which means revenue will flow. Use it wisely.

Cut taxes for domestic manufacturers. Offer low-interest loans for large-scale industrial projects. American industry runs on capital — Washington should help supply it.

A more innovative use of tariff revenue? Help cover the down payments for large-scale industrial projects. American businesses often struggle to raise capital for major builds. This plan fixes that.

Secure the loans against the land, then recoup them with interest when the land sells. It’s a smart way to jump-start American reindustrialization and build capital fast.

But let’s be clear: Tariffs alone won’t save us.

Trump must work with Congress to slash taxes and regulations. America needs a business environment that rewards risk and investment, not one that punishes it.

That means rebuilding crumbling infrastructure — railways, ports, power grids, and fiber networks. It means unlocking cheap energy from coal, hydro, and next-gen nuclear.

This is the final chance to reindustrialize. Another decade of globalism will leave American industry too hollowed out to recover. Great Britain was once the workshop of the world. Now it’s a cautionary tale.

Trump must hold the line. Impose high, stable tariffs. Reshore the factories. And bring the American dream roaring back to life.

Trump’s DOT left to clean up Biden admin's $43 billion grant fiasco



The Trump administration’s Department of Transportation revealed that it inherited an “unprecedented backlog of grants” left by the Biden administration.

In late March, the DOT’s Federal Highway Administration reported that Secretary Sean Duffy had finalized a $221 million federal grant to rebuild Rhode Island’s Washington Bridge — its westbound side has been closed since December 2023 following a “critical failure.” The funding for the project was initially announced in the fall of 2024, but the Biden administration “failed to sign the agreement.”

‘Under the Trump administration, we’ve ripped out this red tape and are getting back to what matters.’

The DOT’s announcement noted that "the Trump administration inherited roughly 3,200 unobligated grants that had been promoted by the previous administration but never fulfilled.”

Duffy stated, “Since coming into office, my team has discovered an unprecedented backlog of grants leftover from the previous administration.”

He slammed “ridiculous DEI and Green New Deal requirements” for preventing “real infrastructure from being built and funded.”

“Under the Trump administration, we’ve ripped out this red tape and are getting back to what matters. As part of our work to deliver real results, we are pleased to announce $221 million in grants for Rhode Island’s Washington Bridge — a critical link that carries thousands of vehicles a day,” Duffy declared.

A DOT spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the backlogs totaled $43 billion. After Trump won the election but before he took office, the Biden administration reportedly announced $9 billion worth of grants to 1,000 recipients that were not made official before Biden departed.

“Nothing was done to actually get these grant agreements signed and sent to projects,” the DOT spokesperson stated.

During the April 10 Cabinet meeting, Duffy told President Donald Trump about the previous administration’s massive grant backlog.

“The last administration announced 3,200 projects, big, beautiful roads and bridges — most of them are good. But they announced them — they didn’t sign a grant agreement,” he explained. “So the money doesn’t go out the door to build the infrastructure in the country. And it’s fun to do an announcement. It’s actually the harder work to put together these grant agreements.”

Duffy noted how the Biden administration included “green and social justice requirements.”

“We’re pulling all that out and putting the money toward the infrastructure, not the social movement from the last administration,” he said.

Trump responded, “Good steel, right? As opposed to green papier-mache.”

On Monday, Duffy announced that the DOT had saved taxpayers $63.9 million by terminating a grant between the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak to build a high-speed rail project in Texas.

Duffy called the project “a waste of taxpayer funds and a distraction from Amtrak’s core mission of improving its existing subpar services.”

“If the private sector believes this project is feasible, they should carry the pre-construction work forward, rather than relying on Amtrak and the American taxpayer to bail them out. My department will continue to look for every opportunity to save federal dollars and prioritize efficiencies,” Duffy said.

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

Plugged in, checked out: The Dept. of Energy needs a reality surge



The Department of Energy needs a complete overhaul.

Congress established the DOE in 1977 in response to the 1973 oil crisis, consolidating a patchwork of energy-related programs under one roof. The department took over the management of nuclear programs, national research labs, and a variety of alternative energy efforts. Its 2025 budget tops $50 billion. It supports 14,000 employees and a staggering 95,000 contractors across 83 field locations.

The Department of Government Efficiency should scrutinize the DOE’s effectiveness like any other federal agency. But this department demands a different kind of review. The issue isn’t just waste or mismanagement. It’s mission.

Energy is the lifeblood of any advanced society. The DOE should pursue one overriding goal: making America energy-independent with a long-term strategy for cheap, abundant power. That’s not what it’s doing.

Yes, the energy sector should remain a free-market enterprise. But it’s also a national asset. Energy production and distribution are essential to American sovereignty, economic security, and global influence. That makes the DOE more than just another bloated bureaucracy — it’s a strategic liability unless restructured with purpose.

If the DOE can’t define that purpose, the DOGE must.

Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity.

One of the department’s core missions should be to secure American energy independence. This is not just good policy — it’s a national security imperative.

Wars are won or lost based on the ability to fuel military and industrial operations. If America can’t meet its own energy needs, it risks becoming dependent on hostile regimes that can — and will — weaponize energy supplies against us.

Previous administrations have sabotaged this mission. The DOE should not focus on environmental goals like reducing carbon emissions. Those objectives often conflict with the department’s strategic purpose. “Climate change” is not a scientific certainty — it’s an ideological construct. Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the past 20,000 years, submerging the ruins of countless ancient civilizations, and none of that was caused by human industry.

Yet the Energy Department continues to throw billions at preventing a hypothetical sea rise of just a few feet — this time supposedly caused by human activity. That’s not just wasteful; it’s dangerously off mission. Nearly 40% of recent DOE budgets have gone to renewables and carbon capture. That funding should be powering the country — not chasing climate fantasies.

It’s absurd. America holds vast fossil fuel reserves — thanks to innovations like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling — that can provide cheap, reliable energy. These resources can make us energy-independent and globally competitive. The DOE should clear the way for fossil fuel extraction and pipeline construction, starting with permitting on federal lands and aggressive deregulation.

At the same time, the department should end all spending on alternative energy development — except nuclear.

The free market, not the federal government, should drive innovation. The DOE needs to stop subsidizing every corner of the energy industry, fossil fuels included. Government handouts distort markets, discourage competition, and reward political connections instead of performance. Cronyism, fraud, and corporate capture follow wherever subsidies go. A healthy, well-capitalized U.S. energy sector doesn’t need government favors — it needs government to get out of the way. Let consumers, not bureaucrats, decide the winners.

To sharpen its focus, the Department of Energy must shed every responsibility not central to its mission. Environmental policy belongs with the Environmental Protection Agency. Government-run electricity operations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, should be sold to private firms.

The DOE has no business in genomics. It should transfer its Human Genome Project work elsewhere. The Pentagon — not the DOE — should manage the nuclear weapons stockpile. The department should also end its subsidies for synthetic fuels like ethanol, which distort agricultural markets and drive up food prices. Many of its remaining research functions should be reassigned to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the National Science Foundation.

The department should also abandon appliance efficiency mandates that degrade performance, frustrate consumers, and increase costs.

It must reject the Biden administration’s bloated Green New Deal agenda, which has dragged the DOE into a fantasyland of bureaucratic overreach. The department should withdraw from the energy-related provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and related executive orders. These distractions must be repealed and the associated spending eliminated immediately.

The DOE needs to recognize the direction the world is headed: toward an electricity-dominated future. Electric vehicles are only the beginning. Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity. We’ll need fossil fuels to supply the grid for now — but that supply will become harder to access just as demand surges. The DOE must plan accordingly, not wander off chasing green illusions.

The coming surge in electricity demand cries out for a modern-day Manhattan Project — this time led by the Department of Energy. The DOE should lead a national effort to radically expand, modernize, and harden the electric grid. It must accelerate the development of small-scale nuclear fission reactors and push to make nuclear fusion commercially viable.

Nuclear energy — especially fusion — is clean, powerful, and virtually limitless. While the private sector should continue optimizing fossil fuel and alternative energy technologies, the DOE must draw up the blueprint for America’s energy future. It should clear regulatory obstacles that block meaningful progress.

So what should the DOGE do with the DOE? Strip away every distraction and narrow its mission to one goal: ensuring America has cheap, abundant, reliable energy. Everything else belongs on the chopping block.