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.

Jon Stewart Just Realized The Insanity Of Biden’s $40,000,000,000 Broadband Boondoggle And His Reaction Is Priceless

'Far worse than I could have imagined'

China builds roads, USAID funds gender theory — who’s winning?



As the Department of Government Efficiency continues exposing waste and fraud in Washington, the revelations about the United States Agency for International Development have drawn the most attention. While USAID’s waste is staggering, many conservatives aren’t surprised. They long suspected that a massive portion of federal revenue was being spent unnecessarily on initiatives that serve no real purpose.

The real scandal isn’t just USAID’s graft — it’s the reaction to it, particularly from Democrats. While moderates and conservatives were outraged at the depth of corruption, establishment leftists didn’t dismiss the findings as a “nothingburger.” They didn’t even attempt to defend USAID by highlighting its legitimate contributions to national interests. Instead, they claimed that any attempt to reform or defund USAID was an “attack on democracy.”

With the right policies, a revitalized infrastructure strategy, and a radical rethinking of foreign aid, America can regain the upper hand.

In other words, the story isn’t just the waste itself — it’s that many on the left, and even some on the right, view waste and misappropriation as essential functions of American governance.

At first glance, this seems absurd. But a look at history helps explain how USAID came to exist and why its defenders refuse to let it go. U.S. foreign aid efforts expanded dramatically after World War II, initially falling under various government agencies. While some programs had altruistic goals, most were strategic — forms of “soft power” designed to advance American interests.

After the war, only two nations remained in the race for global dominance: the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War became a battle between free-market capitalism and Soviet communism, and foreign aid was one of many tools the U.S. used to secure influence. USAID, like many institutions born in that era, was designed to serve geopolitical objectives under the guise of humanitarian assistance. Today, however, it has become an unchecked slush fund — one that many in Washington see as untouchable.

A slush fund for ideological experiments

Most Americans agree that the Cold War was a battle the United States needed to win. Foreign aid programs played a key role in that fight, but they were not purely humanitarian. In many cases, they were designed to create economic dependency among developing nations, securing their loyalty and compliance with American geopolitical objectives. This approach wasn’t unique to the U.S. — power dynamics like these have always been central to global politics.

It’s no coincidence that USAID was created during a period of rapid expansion in the U.S. intelligence community. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 consolidated various foreign aid initiatives into a single agency, making them a formal part of American foreign policy. USAID’s early operations worked in tandem with the CIA, leveraging aid not just to stabilize allies but also to undermine adversaries. The Cold War-era mission of USAID was clear: solidify America’s role as a global superpower.

After the Cold War ended and the U.S. emerged as the undisputed leader of the liberal world order, USAID’s mission shifted from gaining global hegemony to maintaining it. This shift makes the agency’s recent spending priorities even more scandalous. When USAID directs $2 million toward sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala, is it trying to improve Guatemalan society — or destabilize it? What about the $1.5 million it sent to Serbia for DEI initiatives? Or the millions allegedly allocated to Gaza for condoms?

Regardless of USAID’s intent, these expenditures expose why Americans should be outraged — and why the agency needs to be dismantled. If USAID genuinely believes that increasing the number of sex changes in Guatemala is a marker of societal progress, it reveals just how ideologically compromised U.S. foreign policy has become.

The left often speaks about respecting “cultural diversity,” yet USAID seems determined to impose progressive American social norms on other nations. If gender ideology remains one of the most divisive issues in the United States, why should our government assume it benefits foreign nations? If USAID believes these policies are necessary abroad, its leaders undoubtedly believe they’re necessary at home — raising the disturbing possibility that the federal government is actively undermining one side of a live and fractious political debate.

So much for defending democracy.

Cultural revolution abroad and at home

USAID may claim that funding sex changes in Guatemala is about helping vulnerable people, but it is just as likely to create deep divisions in a society that remains largely traditional. Why would the U.S. government actively fund policies that disrupt social cohesion in another country?

And if this is the goal abroad, we must also consider whether similar efforts at home serve the same purpose. The federal push to expand access to “gender reassignment surgery” in the United States raises a troubling question: Is this about individual rights, or is it part of a broader attempt to destabilize traditionalist regions within America itself? By amplifying cultural divisions, the federal government exerts control over states and communities that resist its progressive agenda.

The real issue isn’t just USAID’s sex change initiative in Guatemala. Whether this program is meant to “help” or “harm” the country, it reveals the federal government’s priorities — and they are deeply at odds with the American political tradition.

If USAID genuinely believes increasing the number of sex changes improves a society, then its approach to “nation-building” has been corrupted by far-left ideology. If, on the other hand, these initiatives are meant to disrupt and weaken Guatemala’s social fabric, then it becomes clear that the same tactics are being deployed domestically to erode traditional values and institutions.

These contradictions are not unique to Guatemala. USAID’s budget is filled with similarly questionable expenditures, all of which reflect a larger scandal: A government agency originally designed to advance U.S. interests abroad is now subverting culture and politics both overseas and at home.

USAID was created to establish and maintain an American-led global order, but that order is now falling apart. Instead of adapting to these geopolitical shifts, USAID seems more focused on promoting ideological agendas than securing strategic alliances. Worse still, many of the nations receiving American tax dollars no longer feel any obligation to align with U.S. interests.

Rather than reinforcing America’s influence, USAID has fostered a dangerous sense of entitlement among foreign governments. These nations have come to expect U.S. aid as a permanent fixture, while contributing little in return. The left, unwilling to acknowledge the geopolitical reality, continues to push the fiction that foreign aid is purely humanitarian. Any attempt to scrutinize USAID’s operations is met with hysteria, as though reforming an outdated and dysfunctional agency is an attack on moral decency itself.

That is the real scandal.

Why China is winning the soft power battle

The global landscape of 2025 differs dramatically from the world of 1980, and America needs a new strategic plan to compete in the 21st century. China has clearly replaced Russia as our primary geopolitical rival, and its Belt and Road Initiative mirrors the foreign aid strategies the United States once used. But China’s motives are at least as self-serving as ours ever were — if not more.

The rapid rise of China as a global power is proof that the post-World War II order America built is crumbling. China’s foreign aid programs present both a challenge and an opportunity for the United States.

The bad news? China isn’t funding sex changes in Guatemala. China is building roads, bridges, and railways. While these projects undoubtedly serve China’s economic and strategic interests, they also provide tangible benefits to the nations receiving assistance. Many of these countries will see infrastructure development as a net gain — while America offers little more than ideological activism. If the best we can export is gender studies and cultural upheaval, China will win the loyalty of nations that could have been in our corner as a new Cold War takes shape.

The good news? China's focus on infrastructure shows that America can still compete and win using soft power. We built a transcontinental railroad over 150 years ago. For 75 years, we have maintained the world’s most comprehensive highway system. We know how to build roads and rails — at least, we used to. If we have forgotten, now is the time to remember.

With the right policies, a revitalized infrastructure strategy, and a radical rethinking of foreign aid — who we fund, what we fund, and what strings we attach — America can regain the upper hand. We need a plan that prioritizes economic development, strengthens strategic alliances, and reinforces America’s leadership in an increasingly unstable world.

Ending USAID would be a powerful acknowledgment that the geopolitical realities of 2025 are vastly different from those of the postwar era. Recognizing this shift is a necessary first step toward crafting a foreign policy that secures American interests in a world undergoing massive technological, economic, and cultural upheaval.

Biden wants to put a gloss on his foreign policy failures — these failures included



President Joe Biden, apparently keen to rewrite history before fading into it, will reportedly seize on the opportunity Monday to once again characterize his disastrous presidency and foreign policy blunders as successes.

According to the the Associated Press, the deeply unpopular 82-year-old Democrat is expected to claim in his capstone address regarding his foreign policy legacy that he and his administration restored American credibility on the world stage and strengthened critical alliances supposedly strained by his predecessor's prioritization of American citizens. Biden is reportedly also planning to suggest that he provided the world with a "steady hand" during his four scandal-plagued years in office.

Biden's Monday speech at the State Department's headquarters will bookend his first major foreign policy speech on-site where he suggested on Feb. 4, 2021, both that "the muscle of democratic alliances ... have atrophied over the past few years of neglect and, I would argue, abuse" and that the U.S. under President-elect Donald Trump had ceased to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies and key partners."

In addition to promising to advance the security of the American people ahead of letting well over 10 million foreign nationals steal into the homeland, Biden said that he would be effective in dealing with Russia and counter communist China's "aggressive, coercive action," as well as end the war in Yemen, which is covered in the Obama administration's fingerprints.

Biden, Democratic lawmakers, and their devotees in the liberal media emphasized at the outset of his presidency that the "adults [we]re back in charge," President-elect Donald Trump serving as the point of comparison.

Trump, embracing Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength" approach in his first term, previously

  • brokered the formal normalization of diplomatic relations between various Arab states and Israel;
  • made good on past administrations' promises to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem;
  • whacked Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi;
  • signed an executive order temporarily banning nationals from six Islamic terrorism hotbeds from traveling to the U.S.;
  • pressured NATO allies to meet their financial obligations in the way of defense spending;
  • put North Korea’s Kim Jong-un on notice with the threat of "fire and fury like the world has never seen";
  • negotiated a new trade agreement with South Korea and an updated version of NAFTA with Canada and Mexico;
  • withdrew from the 2015 Paris climate accord and United Nations Human Rights Council;
  • largely defeated ISIS in Syria;
  • pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement;
  • reoriented the U.S. national security apparatus from a Middle Eastern focus to instead a focus on competing with communist China;
  • levied tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods;
  • re-established the Quad partnership with Australia, India, and Japan; and
  • managed various other foreign policy successes, including breaking from his predecessor's longstanding custom of starting a new war.

With his alternatively "steady hands" on the reins, Biden steered Americans into danger and American foreign policy through embarrassment after embarrassment.

For instance, Biden botched the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Amid the confused exit during which the U.S.-backed Afghan government imploded, an Islamic terrorist — who reportedly had been released amid the chaos just days earlier from the Parwan prison at Bagram Air Base — detonated a suicide bomb on Aug. 26, 2021, at Abbey Gate, the last route open for Afghans into the Hamid Karzai International Airport, killing 11 U.S. Marines, a soldier, a sailor, and hundreds of Afghans, and leaving 45 other U.S. service members wounded.

Beside endangering service members and leaving multitudes of Americans behind, Biden also left the Taliban with over $7 billion worth of military equipment.

One intelligence assessment estimated that among the hardware left behind for the Islamic extremist regime were 2,000 armored vehicles and 40 aircraft, including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.

Biden proved unable or unwilling to extend a steady hand to the hundreds of thousands of Christian Armenians of the former Republic of Artsakh, also known as Nagorno-Karabakh, who were violently displaced in recent years by the Islamic Azerbaijani regime.

Azerbaijan, which the Biden administration has provided with military assistance despite its alleged war crimes and torture of Armenian prisoners, launched a blitzkrieg on the Armenian enclave in September 2023, killing hundreds of people, destroying churches, and forcing the Christian population to flee, in many cases on foot.

The apparent ethnic cleansing took place within days of a State Department official suggesting that the U.S. would not "countenance any action or effort, short-term or long-term, to ethnically cleanse or commit other atrocities against the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh."

'The United States is in a worse geopolitical position today than it was four years ago.'

Azerbaijan was not the first aggressor nation to realize that Biden was big on talk and light on action.

Despite Biden's "steady hand" and foreknowledge of an imminent "incursion," Russia invaded Ukraine under the Democratic president's watch, this time on a scale far exceeding its previous invasion of Crimea during the Obama-Biden years. Biden has slapped Russia with numerous sanctions, poured over $175 billion into the occupied nation, and risked a direct shooting war with Russia by authorizing Ukraine's use of long-range American missiles, yet an armistice in the region remains out of his reach.

During a press conference ahead of the invasion where Biden suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin "does not want any full-blown war," the Democratic president stressed that Putin "is trying to find his place in the world between China and the West." It appears that with the Biden administration's persistent nudging, Putin has found a close friend in communist China — constituting another major foreign policy blunder.

Brahma Chellaney, professor emeritus of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, noted last year that:

It is U.S. President Joe Biden's foreign policy that has helped turn two natural competitors into strategic collaborators. A forward-looking approach would have avoided confronting Russia and China simultaneously, lest it drive the two nuclear-armed powers into an unholy alliance. But Biden has managed to lock horns with both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously, though it should be noted that his China policy is comparatively softer and more conciliatory.

Like other critics, Chellaney noted that U.S. sanctions on Russia have effectively transformed Beijing into Moscow's banker and more than doubled trade between the two nations.

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said in October 2024 that Beijing's relationship with Moscow would be strengthened in the coming months, as Russian gas exports to China continue to surge and the BRICs organization continues to grow in strength relative to American-led economic organizations.

Just a year into Biden's presidency, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) noted that "the president's weakness on the world stage has only emboldened our adversaries to become more aggressive in their rhetoric and their actions."

Over the past four years, China, America's preeminent adversary, has ramped up its attacks on American cyber infrastructure and sovereignty, evidently thinking little of Biden and his occasional tough talk.

The Wall Street Journal revealed in September, for instance, that the Chinese state-sponsored hacking group Salt Typhoon compromised at least eight American telecommunications companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the FBI said in a joint statement, "We have identified that PRC-affiliated actors have compromised networks at multiple telecommunications companies to enable the theft of customer call records data, the compromise of private communications of a limited number of individuals who are primarily involved in government or political activity, and the copying of certain information that was subject to U.S. law enforcement requests pursuant to court orders."

Chinese hackers with ties to the communist government also stole at least 60,000 emails from State Department accounts during Biden's tenure; gained access to the computer networks of a major American transportation hub; and compromised Treasury Department computers.

Brushing Biden's "steady hand" aside, Beijing has also sent spy craft over the mainland U.S.; operated illegal police stations on American soil; threatened diplomats; and dispatched agents to execute espionage and political destabilization missions.

"The United States is in a worse geopolitical position today than it was four years ago," Stephen Wertheim, a historian and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, recently told CBS News. "The United States is immersed in a massive war on the European continent with serious escalation risks; it's back to bombing the Middle East with no end in sight; and it has entered into a full-spectrum strategic rivalry with China."

"The United States cannot expect to prioritize China while remaining the leading military power in Europe and the Middle East. If the United States truly wants to prioritize China, it needs to pull back elsewhere," added Wertheim.

Biden told USA Today in an interview last week, "I hope that history says that I came in and I had a plan how to restore the economy and reestablish America's leadership in the world."

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

US energy independence is under threat from a court ruling



Two new energy enterprises in the Port of Brownsville were on the cusp of ushering in a new era of business and industry for the region. Together, they would bring in billions of dollars in investment, provide major infrastructure improvements, and create thousands of jobs.

And they would lead to a domino effect of benefits for the community, such as the $30 million Texas A&M training facility that broke ground at the port this year.

This is not governmental cooperation through agency and legal means. It’s obstructionist.

Both projects received the green light in the federal permitting process, and one had even begun construction.

But then everything came to a screeching halt at the whim of a court in Washington, D.C.

For the sake of the people of South Texas, this unprecedented move — tossing out preapproved permits, including one for a facility that is already under construction — needs to be challenged.

The Rio Grande LNG terminal, projected to be one of the world's largest liquified natural gas export projects, would cost an estimated $18 billion. It is expected to generate 5,000 construction jobs, over 400 permanent positions, and potentially another 3,000 indirect jobs in the local community.

Meanwhile, Texas LNG was finalizing its investment plans to start construction. This project, too, was set to invest billions and create thousands of jobs throughout its construction phase.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had approved permits for both projects. The companies went above and beyond to comply with environmental regulations, even incorporating a carbon capture and storage facility to reduce emissions. Ironically, the court cited these environmental efforts as the reason to revoke their permits. In response, both projects have now abandoned their carbon capture efforts to comply with the court’s demands.

As Charles McConnell, a former official in the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration, wrote, “This is not governmental cooperation through agency and legal means. It’s obstructionist.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has urged FERC to appeal a court decision that halted the construction of two major liquefied natural gas terminals. Cruz’s letter to the FERC chairman stressed the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that legal disruptions do not discourage investors from backing future projects that could position America as the world’s leading energy producer.

“If project developers come to believe that federal permits can be overturned due to procedural missteps by the regulator, apart from any actions or fault by the developers, U.S. infrastructure projects will slow and stall,” Cruz wrote.

But for the people of South Texas, this outlandish reversal is a lot more personal. We need more industry and business to help our region flourish. The projects were expanding business access to South Texas significantly. Rio Grande LNG was already in the process of making the channel another 10 feet deeper to make the Port of Brownsville accessible to more ships. With the federal court ruling, all that progress will come to an end — and with it, a golden opportunity to turn South Texas into a hub of prosperity.

It’s easy to get lost in the legal jargon of the permitting process and lawsuits. But what FERC and the courts do has real-world implications for everyone in South Texas. More industry leads to more jobs, and more jobs lead to more opportunities, which in turn would create more opportunities for South Texans to escape poverty.

The new LNG developments could set the region up for success in decades to come — but not if bureaucratic obstructionists continue to stand in the way.