America should eliminate the H-1B and replace it with THIS



Every time immigration comes up, it’s painted as a choice of extremes. Compassion or common sense? No immigration or no rules?

That’s a false choice — and it’s one that benefits only the politicians who’d rather argue than govern.

Preferring immigration that strengthens our economy instead of undercutting it is just common sense.

The recent controversy over H-1B visas is a perfect example. Americans are waking up to the reality that this program, sold as a way to fill “critical skills gaps,” too often does the opposite. It replaces U.S. workers, suppresses wages, and gives leverage to corporations that have every incentive to choose cheaper foreign labor over American talent. That’s not America First. That’s America Last — with a diversity slogan slapped on top.

But here’s what the media and the political class won’t tell you: Not all immigration programs are created equal. And if we’re serious about prioritizing American workers, jobs, and communities, we should be talking a lot more about the policies that actually deliver.

Programs like the EB-5 investor visa system.

Unlike H-1B, EB-5 doesn’t take jobs from Americans. Instead, it creates them. It doesn’t offer handouts. It requires real skin in the game from applicants. And with a strict cap of 10,650 visas, it maintains a controlled influx of immigrants, keeping America stable and secure.

Here’s how it works: A foreign applicant invests at least $1.05 million — or $800,000 if the investment is in a targeted employment area, such as a rural community or a region with high unemployment. Returns are not guaranteed. If the investment fails, the investor loses his money.

In exchange, he gets a chance at a green card — only if he meets strict requirements and proves his investment generated American jobs.

That’s the key: EB-5 doesn’t promise success; it requires it.

RELATED: ‘A direct path to Citizenship’: Trump announces official launch of Trump Gold Card visa program

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

EB-5 aligns incentives the way immigration policy should. Investors succeed only if American communities succeed. Jobs must be created here, projects must be built here, and money must stay here. That’s a far cry from visa programs that reward outsourcing, encourage dependency, and leave taxpayers holding the bag. EB-5 treats U.S. residency as something to be earned.

The results speak for themselves. Between 2008 and 2021, the program generated $43.9 billion in foreign direct investment. That money translates to real American improvement through projects like hotels, infrastructure, commercial developments, and housing. From 2010 to 2013 alone, EB-5 investments were responsible for creating over 100,000 American jobs.

Contrast that with H-1B, where companies can import foreign workers, often at lower wages, to the detriment of American citizens.

Critics love to point to early reports of fraud in the EB-5 program. What they conveniently leave out is that those cases were tied to bad actors running projects — not the investors themselves. The perpetrators were prosecuted. Reforms followed.

In fact, the program has been significantly strengthened over time. Investment thresholds were raised in 2019 to ensure only serious investors qualify. Then came the 2022 reforms, which added even more transparency, oversight, and accountability.

That’s how a healthy immigration system is supposed to work. When abuse was identified, Congress stepped in. Oversight increased. Standards tightened. Transparency improved. Instead of scrapping a productive program, lawmakers fixed it — proving that enforcement, not abandonment, is the answer when a policy shows real promise.

The compliance data doesn’t lie. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reported a 94% decrease in I-829 petition denials by 2015 — meaning the overwhelming majority of participants were meeting the program’s requirements.

That’s what responsible immigration looks like: high standards, strict enforcement, and real benefits for America.

RELATED: Chip Roy’s immigration blitz hits the lawless left and the squish right

Photo by Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

And let’s address another elephant in the room. EB-5 doesn’t fast-track voters. It doesn’t hand out political favors or rely on emotional blackmail about being “anti-immigrant.” It’s transactional, transparent, and limited by design.

You invest. You create jobs. You follow the rules. Or you don’t qualify.

That’s it.

For years, Americans have been told that questioning immigration policy makes them heartless. But there’s nothing heartless about asking whether a program actually helps this country. Preferring immigration that strengthens our economy instead of undercutting it is just common sense.

If Washington insists on talking about immigration, let’s at least talk honestly. Programs like H-1B deserve scrutiny — and reform — because they too often put corporations ahead of citizens. Programs like EB-5, when properly enforced, do the opposite.

America doesn’t need more slogans. We need smarter policy. And that starts with rewarding systems that put Americans first.

Don’t Wait Until You Die To Give Your Kids Their Inheritance

A dollar at 25 can change a destiny. A dollar at 55 barely moves the needle.

Your laptop is about to become a casualty of the AI grift



Welcome to the techno-feudal state, where citizens are forced to underwrite unnecessary and harmful technology at the expense of the technology they actually need.

The economic story of 2025 is the government-driven build-out of hyperscale AI data centers — sold as innovation, justified as national strategy, and pursued in service of cloud-based chatbot slop and expanded surveillance. This build-out is consuming land, food, water, and energy at enormous scale. As Energy Secretary Chris Wright bluntly put it, “It takes massive amounts of electricity to generate intelligence. The more energy invested, the more intelligence produced.”

Shortages will hit consumers hard in the coming year.

That framing ignores what is being sacrificed — and distorted — in the process.

Beyond the destruction of rural communities and the strain placed on national energy capacity, government favoritism toward AI infrastructure is warping markets. Capital that once sustained the hardware and software ecosystem of the digital economy is being siphoned into subsidized “AI factories,” chasing artificial general intelligence instead of cheaper, more efficient investments in narrow AI.

Thanks to fiscal, monetary, tax, and regulatory favoritism, the result is free chatbot slop and an increasingly scarce, expensive supply of laptops, phones, and consumer hardware.

Subsidies break the market

For decades, consumer electronics stood as one of the greatest deflationary success stories in modern economics. Unlike health care or education — both heavily monopolized by government — the computer industry operated with relatively little distortion. From December 1997 to August 2015, the CPI for “personal computers and peripheral equipment” fell 96%. Over that same period, medical care, housing, and food costs rose between 80% and 200%.

That era is ending.

AI data centers are now crowding out consumer electronics. Major manufacturers such as Dell and Samsung are scaling back or discontinuing entire product lines because they can no longer secure components diverted to AI chip production.

Prices for phones and laptops are rising sharply. Jobs tied to consumer electronics — especially the remaining U.S.-based assembly operations — are being squeezed out in favor of data center hardware that benefits a narrow set of firms.

This is policy-driven distortion, not organic market evolution.

Through initiatives like Stargate and hundreds of billions in capital pushed toward data center expansion, the government has created incentives for companies to abandon consumer hardware in favor of AI infrastructure. The result is shortages that will hit consumers hard in the coming year.

Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron are retooling factories to prioritize AI-grade silicon for data centers instead of personal devices. DRAM production is being routed almost entirely toward servers because it is far more profitable to leverage $40,000 AI chips than $500-$800 laptops. In the fourth quarter of 2025, contract prices for certain 16GB DDR5 chips rose nearly 300% as supply was diverted. Dell and Lenovo have already imposed 15%-30% price hikes on PCs, citing insatiable AI-sector demand.

The chip crunch

The situation is deteriorating quickly. DRAM inventory levels are down 80% year over year, with just three weeks of supply on hand — down from 9.5 weeks in July. SK Hynix expects shortages to persist through late 2027. Samsung has announced it is effectively out of inventory and has more than doubled DDR5 contract prices to roughly $19-$20 per unit. DDR5 is now standard across new consumer and commercial desktops and laptops, including Apple MacBooks.

Samsung has also signaled it may exit the SSD market altogether, deeming it insufficiently glamorous compared with subsidized data center investments. Nvidia has warned it may cut RTX 50 series production by up to 40%, a move that would drive up the cost of entry-level gaming systems.

Shrinkflation is next. Before the data center bubble, the market was approaching a baseline of 16GB of RAM and 1TB SSDs for entry-level laptops. As memory is diverted to enterprise customers, manufacturers will revert to 8GB systems with slower storage to keep prices under $999 — ironically rendering those machines incapable of running the very AI applications they’re working on.

Real innovation sidelined

The damage extends beyond prices. Research and development in conventional computing are already suffering. Investment in efficient CPUs, affordable networking equipment, edge computing, and quantum-adjacent technologies has slowed as capital and talent are pulled into AI accelerators.

This is precisely backward. Narrow AI — focused on real-world tasks like logistics, agriculture, port management, and manufacturing — is where genuine productivity gains lie. China understands this and is investing accordingly. The United States is not. Instead, firms like Roomba, which experimented with practical autonomy, are collapsing — only to be acquired by the Chinese!

This is not a free market. Between tax incentives, regulatory favoritism, land-use carve-outs, capital subsidies, and artificially suppressed interest rates, the government has created an arms race for a data center bubble China itself is not pursuing. Each round of monetary easing inflates the same firms’ valuations, enabling further speculative investment divorced from consumer need.

RELATED: China’s AI strategy could turn Americans into data mines

Grafissimo via iStock/Getty Images

Hype over utility

As Charles Hugh Smith recently noted, expanding credit boosts asset prices, which then serve as collateral for still more leverage — allowing capital-rich firms to outbid everyone else while hollowing out the broader economy.

The pattern is familiar. Consider the Ford plant in Glendale, Kentucky, where 1,600 workers were laid off after the collapse of government-favored electric vehicle investments. That facility is now being retooled to produce batteries for data centers. When one subsidy collapses, another replaces it.

We are trading convention for speculation. Conventional technology — reliable hardware, the internet, mobile computing — delivers proven, measurable utility. The current investment surge into artificial general intelligence is based on hypothetical future returns propped up by state power.

The good old laptop is becoming collateral damage in what may prove to be the largest government-induced tech bubble yet.

If Intel gets government cash, taxpayers deserve equity



The Trump administration has negotiated a 10% federal stake in Intel in exchange for the disbursement of $8.9 billion of grants originally allocated by Biden’s CHIPS and Science Act.

First, let me offer a disclaimer: I disapprove.

If companies don’t want their equity diluted, then they should not have the option of taking taxpayer money.

Not of the Trump administration’s negotiation — but of the fact that this money was ever appropriated in the first place. The CHIPS Act was a redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to corporations. What Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are doing is simply making the best of a bad deal.

If Intel had raised this capital on Wall Street, it would’ve had to sell debt or dilute its shareholders. This is not popular among free-market conservatives because this is not how capitalism is supposed to work.

In free-market capitalism, Congress would never have appropriated $8.9 billion to Intel. Therefore, we are no longer talking about free-market capitalism. If Intel is accepting capital injections, its existing shareholders deserve to have their equity diluted.

Moreover, the government’s 10% share of Intel will be nonvoting stock. The federal government will not have management control. It will just hold a passive ownership share — something it can sell down the line to recoup what taxpayers were forced to spend.

The core issue of this deal is the redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to corporations. Yet much of the pearl-clutching among “free-market” conservatives is about the stock ownership, not about the massive taxpayer grants to corporations.

“Not long ago,” the Wall Street Journal groaned, “it would have been hard to imagine a Republican president demanding government ownership in a private company, but here we are.”

Oh, please. Before George W. Bush, I couldn’t imagine a Republican president bailing out Wall Street either. But the Journal didn’t seem to mind when its banking buddies got billions in bailouts with no strings attached, which was also footed by “we, the taxpayers.” That is much more offensive to me than the taxpayers taking a nonvoting equity share of a company that is appropriated by my tax dollars.

The Journal forgets how “principled” conservatives defended Bush’s $700 billion handout to the very institutions that caused the 2008 financial crisis. In return, those banks gave the government preferredstock, which didn’t have voting rights either — but did give the government first dibs on dividends and liquidation. That’s ownership.

Even better, Bush’s Treasury also demanded warrants — rights to convert into common stock down the line. If Trump had exercised those warrants in his first term, the federal government could have taken actual equity in Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and the rest.

RELATED: Corporate America is eating its seed corn — and our future

Photo by Kwangmoozaa via Getty Images

National Review is up in arms too. Its editorial board — which tried to get us Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris — scolded Trump’s plan like it was some socialist scheme:

Looking at that sad situation, the Trump administration wants a piece of the action. Rather, it wants to use your money to get a piece of the action.

The White House said it was entertaining the U.S. taking a 10 percent stake in Intel, a roughly $10 billion investment at the company’s current valuation. A government $37 trillion in debt and running a $2 trillion deficit has no business playing investment manager with even more borrowed money. And the idea that what Intel really needs to fix its long-running problems is the managerial genius of the federal government is laughable.

That is deeply dishonest. Trump and Bessent negotiated about money already allocated to Intel by Congress under Joe Biden. They did not propose new spending. What’s more, the 10% equity stake does not give the Trump administration governance rights over Intel.

We’ve seen this play before with EV handouts. In 2024, the Department of Energy approved an $80 million grant to Blue Bird to manufacture electric school buses. Trump froze those appropriated funds. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) threw a fit, demanding the money get released.

If Blue Bird gets that $80 million, then taxpayers should have an equity share in Blue Bird, and the ownership of its current stockholders should be diluted accordingly. This isn’t a free market. It’s crony capitalism — or worse, corporate communism with the redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to publicly traded companies. If they don’t want their equity diluted, then they should not be taking taxpayer money.

I’ll let Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have the final word. “We should get an equity stake for our money,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.” “So we’ll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration. We’ll get equity in return for it.”

America First is driving jobs and a welcome corporate return



“They’re coming home — they’re all coming home.”

That’s how President Donald Trump described Apple’s decision to invest $600 billion in the American economy, $100 billion more than initially expected.

For decades, corporate America packed up and left. Under President Trump, companies are coming back.

Standing alongside Apple CEO Tim Cook, President Trump declared: “These investments will directly create more than 20,000 brand-new American jobs and many thousands more at Apple suppliers like Corning, Broadcom, Texas Instruments, and Samsung.”

This is proof that the America First agenda is working.

Bringing industry back

America First isn’t just a campaign slogan. It’s a movement rooted in economic patriotism. For decades, global corporations were incentivized to offshore jobs and close American factories, leaving once-thriving towns in economic ruin.

President Trump is reversing that damage. His America First agenda creates the conditions for companies to thrive here at home — cutting taxes, slashing red tape, rebuilding infrastructure, and putting American workers first in trade deals and policy decisions.

Apple’s investment is just the latest example. From Silicon Valley to the Rust Belt, companies are responding favorably to the president’s policies, which are rewarding their investments on U.S. soil.

In the past six months alone, more than $17 trillion in new investment, factories, and infrastructure projects have been announced. From semiconductor plants in Arizona to advanced steel manufacturing in Pennsylvania, we are witnessing the rebirth of American manufacturing.

Challenging China

And America First doesn’t stop at building new factories. It also means building the capacity to win strategic fights — including the tech war with China.

One example is the Trump administration’s recent decision toheed U.S. intelligence experts and greenlight the merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks.

For years, national security experts have warned about Huawei, the Chinese tech giant with deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Huawei’s global dominance in 5G and enterprise networking poses a serious threat to cybersecurity, national defense, and communications freedom. The problem wasn’t identifying the threat. The problem was that no U.S. company could match Huawei — that is, until now. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi are helping the U.S. finally compete in this industry.

Another example is President Trump’s executive order jump-starting America’s rare-earth and critical mineral supply chains — an industry China has dominated for years. From electric vehicles to advanced weapons systems, the modern economy runs on rare-earths. Yet for too long, America depended on Chinese exports to power everything from smartphones to fighter jets.

That is changing under President Trump, who signed an executive order cutting red tape, fast-tracking permits, and directing federal agencies to prioritize American sourcing and refining of rare-earth and critical minerals. As a result, U.S. companies are now increasingly investing in domestic mining operations in America, laying the foundation for greater American economic independence.

In June, Trump even signed an agreement with China to resume exports of U.S. rare-earth minerals. The global tide on U.S. exports is now turning.

RELATED: The founder betting big on American manufacturing

Photo by BRANDONJ74 via Getty Images

America First is winning

America First means just that: America first. Whether it’s encouraging companies such as Apple to invest here at home or ensuring that U.S. tech companies can go toe to toe with China, President Trump is delivering real results.

For decades, corporate America packed up and left. Under President Trump, companies are coming back. They’re investing in our people, our cities, and our future. That’s not just good policy. That’s what winning looks like.

Corporate giant reshores jobs, invests nearly $500 million, thanks to Trump



President Donald Trump's trade policy appears to have helped set the stage for a corporate giant to invest nearly half a billion dollars in Kentucky. However, the state's tariff-averse Democratic governor appears happy to localize all the credit.

GE Appliances announced on Thursday a $490 million investment at its Louisville headquarters "to create its most advanced manufacturing plant for production of clothes washers."

'The tariffs — do they make the benefits better?'

The company, a subsidiary of the China-based Haier Group, plans to reshore production of clothes washers and dryers, create 800 new full-time jobs, and cement "Kentucky's position as a global hub for advanced appliance manufacturing."

"We are bringing laundry production to our global headquarters in Louisville because manufacturing in the U.S. is fundamental to our 'zero-distance' business strategy to make appliances as close as possible to our customers and consumers," said GE Appliances CEO Kevin Nolan.

The total area of clothes care production at Appliance Park in Louisville will reportedly end up being the equivalent of 33 football fields.

Business Wire indicated that the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority helped sweeten the deal with funds to help the company modernize its building as well as by preliminarily approving performance-based incentives under the state's business investment program and workforce training grants through the Kentucky Skills Network.

"This decision is our most recent product reshoring and aligns with the current economic and policy environment," added Nolan.

Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, a harsh critic of President Donald Trump's tariff strategy, proved unwilling during his press conference with Nolan on Thursday to credit the president with helping shape the "current economic and policy environment" that appears to have helped prompt action on the part of GE Appliances.

RELATED: ‘You built this country’: Trump, triumphant, celebrates historic US Steel-Nippon deal in Pittsburgh — it's home, for good

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D). Tasha Poullard/Lexington Herald-Leader/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

When asked whether the governor regards GE Appliances' announcement as a tariff win, Beshear's office simply directed Blaze News to the video of his press conference.

Whereas Beshear was silent on the matter, the liberal media rushed to insist that there was no major correlation between GE Appliances' big move and either Trump's tariffs on foreign-made goods — 10% on imports from most countries and a 30% levy on Chinese goods — or the president's demands on American companies to onshore production.

Louisville Courier Journal columnist Joseph Gerth, for instance, noted on Friday, "This investment and these jobs are not because of him. It's not because of his chaotic tariff scheme."

Nolan appeared to suggest otherwise.

The GE Appliances CEO noted that Trump's trade policy "makes the payback for these things much, much greater."

"The tariffs — do they make the benefits better? Do they make incentives better?" said the CEO, as quoted in Gerth's own article. "Of course they do."

Nolan did, however, suggest that this investment was also the result of "long-term" planning.

"You can't make a decision like this in a short-term-look environment because this is something that is going to be here ... who knows how long," said Nolan. "But a company that doesn’t have this long-term strategy right now is going to struggle to make decisions like this."

The White House did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

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

S&P 500 hits new record high following months of Trump tariff doom and gloom



Just weeks into President Donald Trump's second term, the S&P 500 — which had risen over 20% in the previous two years — rocketed to record highs, driven up in part by a substantive increase in corporate earnings as well as the "Trump bump."

After marking its all-time high of 6,144.15 on Feb. 19, the index soon began to slide, prompting anxiety among some investors and doom-saying from various analysts, especially over the potential impact of the president's tariff proposals.

For instance, Andrew Brenner, head of international fixed income at National Alliance Securities, told the New York Times a month ahead of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcements, "The tariff rhetoric has become daily and extreme, sentiment is awful and trading is on edge."

In the days immediately following Trump's April 2 announcements, the S&P 500 had its worst day since COVID-19 crashed the economy in 2020, then shed many trillions in market value, prompting more of the concerns and shirt-rending that would become customary over subsequent weeks.

After months of doom and gloom, the S&P 500 hit a new record on Friday, marking a stunning comeback from April. At market open, the S&P 500 went north of 6,154.79.

CNBC suggested that the comeback — what Bloomberg indicated is "shooting toward the second-biggest percentage-point recovery in history" — was driven in part by strong corporate earnings, a stable labor market, and new energy in the AI trade. It certainly doesn't hurt that trepidation over tariffs has largely given way to optimism over Trump's trade deals.

The possibility that Trump might not ultimately implement his Liberation Day tariffs may also have been factored into investors' optimism. After all, the rise came on the heels of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt noting that Trump's July tariff deal deadline "is not critical" and "could be extended."

There's also the matter of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's recent revelations to Bloomberg News that the U.S. and China finalized its trade deal this week and that the Trump administration has imminent plans to reach trade deals with 10 other major trading partners.

"We're going to do top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fit behind," said Lutnick.

RELATED: Trump’s tariffs take a flamethrower to the free trade lie

Photo by Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"The markets are looking forward, seeing lower interest rates, less regulation in the banking sector, a shift from austerity to stimulus in Europe, and a less biting inflation and tariff environment," Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, told CNBC. "This sure isn’t the stagflation story we've been told to brace for."

Paul Stanley, chief investment officer at Granite Bay Wealth Management, said to CNN regarding the S&P 500's $9.8 trillion roundtrip, "The market is betting on continued progress on trade and a de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East is giving investors confidence."

Entrepreneur and business expert Carol Roth told Blaze News that "it's important to remember that the market is not the economy, and that other factors, including the Federal Reserve and government policy, have impacted the market, particularly over the last couple of decades."

"The president's heavy-handed approach to tariffs was not expected by the market, but as there had been more certainty gained regarding tariff policy and a belief that further de-escalation is more likely than escalation, the market has moved past that hurdle," explained Roth. "In recent days, commentary from Fed members that suggests a Fed rate cut may be on the table for July has supported risk assets."

Roth noted, however, that "any long-tail effects from tariffs that show up later in the year, or challenges that arise from financing/refinancing our massive debt and deficit could shift the outlook and impact market returns."

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

Why I’m rooting for the lunatic over the creep in NYC



Although I would do so reluctantly — while holding a barf bag in one hand — if forced to vote in the next New York City mayoral election, I’d cast my ballot for Zohran Mamdani.

Yes, that Zohran Mamdani.

It isn’t just the Democratic Party destroying these cities — it’s the people who keep voting for them. Let them live with the consequences.

A dire warning about this unappetizing candidate, a “Muslim lefty from the other side of Queens,” just appeared in the New York Post, which reports that Mamdani consorts with pro-Hamas rioters, adores Black Lives Matter, and recently said Bill de Blasio was “the best mayor of his lifetime.”

In a sane political environment, such a figure would be consigned to the loony bin. But in the present urban climate, voters find themselves grasping for the least ghastly option — if they bother voting at all.

And Mamdani, God help me, appears marginally less disgusting than Andrew Cuomo, who is now the front-runner.

Cuomo, who presided over the slow death of New York as governor, seems poised to take the helm of a city already in decay. In any race to the bottom, he’d win in a landslide. This is a man who groped and manhandled female staffers while parading his feminist credentials; who packed nursing homes with COVID patients, causing the deaths of thousands; who then lied about it repeatedly and shamelessly. He worked tirelessly to eliminate cash bail, unleashing a wave of criminality across the state.

And yet, somehow, Mamdani is supposed to be worse?

That former Mayor Mike Bloomberg — now a prolific funder of leftist candidates — is backing Cuomo only sharpens the stench of this whole affair. The staleness of the New York political class, its complete moral exhaustion, has never been more evident.

Still, I’ll give you another reason I prefer Mamdani: Sometimes collapse is a better catalyst than stagnation.

Cuomo would likely run the city into the ground — but slowly. He’d reward the usual Democratic parasites with patronage, keep street crime just under the boiling point, and exercise marginally more restraint when it comes to unwanted touching. He’d reassure the woke plutocrats and Wall Street donors that he won’t rock the boat too much. He knows the game and plays it well.

But the rot would fester.

RELATED: New 12-foot-tall statue of woman in Times Square meant to represent ‘cultural diversity’

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

New York would remain unsafe. Schools and other public institutions would stay in the grip of culturally radicalized unions. The courts would remain ideological tools of the left. Nothing would improve. The decline would just ooze along — business as usual.

Mamdani, by contrast, might deliver a spectacular crash.

If he’s as doctrinaire and deranged as his critics suggest, his administration could bring about real catastrophe with impressive speed. That kind of shock might finally push productive citizens to flee en masse and accelerate the corporate exodus already under way. Sometimes it takes a maniac to wake the slumbering.

This wouldn’t be the first time a disastrous mayor paved the way for genuine reform. In 1994, New Yorkers elected Rudy Giuliani after enduring the catastrophic tenure of David Dinkins. Giuliani cracked down on crime, brought investment back, and helped restore a semblance of order. But it took years of misrule to make that turnaround politically possible.

Yes, I know what you’re thinking: That kind of change isn’t possible any more. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia are too far gone. Their voting blocs are locked into leftist fantasy. The idea of another Giuliani, a Richard Daley Sr., or even a Frank Rizzo showing up today seems laughable.

Maybe so. But if that’s true, then the voters are getting exactly what they asked for. It isn’t just the Democratic Party destroying these cities — it’s the people who keep voting for them.

Let them live with the consequences.

Given the state of our urban politics, the choice now is between ideological lunatics and cynical reprobates. Mamdani may fast-forward the train wreck. Cuomo might slow it down. But either way, the crash is coming.

At least with Mamdani, we might finally reach bottom — and from there, maybe, begin again.

Trump’s US Steel play exposes America’s industrial decline



President Trump has approved Nippon Steel’s $14.9 billion investment in U.S. Steel. The president travels to Western Pennsylvania on Friday to announce the “partnership” that promises billions in new infrastructure, up to 70,000 jobs, and a more competitive, profitable U.S. Steel.

Trump insists the deal keeps U.S. Steel under American control. The company will remain headquartered in Pittsburgh, and the United States will reportedly retain a “golden share,” allowing the government to protect national strategic interests.

President Trump is trying to make the best of a bad situation. But until Congress gets serious about reshoring, deals like this will keep happening.

The arrangement offers clear advantages to both sides. Nippon gains tariff-free access to American markets. The United States gets an influx of capital.

But this is no cause for celebration. The deal exposes the frailty of America’s heavy industry. It’s not a triumph — it’s a warning.

This should be a wake-up call for Washington: America needs a comprehensive industrial policy.

What’s the deal with the deal?

The fine print remains under wraps, but something about this deal doesn’t add up.

Seventeen months ago, Nippon Steel offered $14.1 billion to acquire 100% of U.S. Steel — a price both sides accepted. Shareholders agreed. The Biden administration blocked the sale.

Now, a year and a half later, Nippon has offered $14.9 billion — not for full ownership, but for a “partnership” that allegedly preserves American control. Why would Nippon pay more for less?

Because it’s not getting less.

Nippon will likely control U.S. Steel’s profits through royalties or dual-class shares. The U.S. government’s so-called “golden share” might resemble preferred stock — giving America a voice, not a dividend. Nippon, meanwhile, collects the returns.

That’s fair. Nippon takes the risk. Nippon makes the investment. Nippon should reap the rewards.

RELATED: Revving up America: Trump’s Nippon Steel deal puts the pedal to the metal

Phynart Studio via iStock/Getty Images

And the investment is real. Nippon has pledged $2.4 billion to modernize U.S. Steel’s aging plants, plus up to $4 billion to build a new electric arc furnace. By 2028, Nippon expects to pour $11 billion into the company.

This isn’t charity. It’s strategy.

Nippon Steel has done this before — and done it well.

In 1986, the company formed a 50-50 joint venture with Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, called Wheeling-Nisshin. Nippon brought capital, technology, and management know-how. By the early 1990s, Wheeling returned to profitability. By 2011, it posted record profits. Since 2012, Nippon has also partnered with U.S.-based Standard Steel without incident.

Nippon’s track record in American industry is solid. Its commitment to modernize outdated facilities with cutting-edge technology should be welcomed.

As I argue in “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream,” technological innovation is the only durable path to economic growth.

This deal may represent progress. But it stems from America’s industrial weakness — not from strength.

An epic policy failure

Nippon’s promises of capital investment are real — but the deal still reflects the deep dysfunction of America’s heavy industry.

In 1945, the United States produced 60% of the world’s steel. Even after Japan and Europe rebuilt, American steel dominated: In 1969, the U.S. accounted for 40% of global output.

Today, America produces just 4.2% of the world’s steel — roughly equal to Russia. India nearly doubles our output. China produces more than 20 times as much.

What happened?

American steel didn’t lose to cheaper or better alternatives. It lost to foreign governments that treated steel as a national priority. They subsidized it, protected it, and invested in it — not because it was easy, but because it was essential.

RELATED: The real American factory killer? It wasn’t automation

Peeter Viisimaa via iStock/Getty Images

Japan backed Nippon with subsidies, tariffs, and low-interest financing. Its keiretsu model gave companies the freedom to sell at a loss until they gained control of a market. Once they did, they could hike prices or keep dumping until the competition collapsed.

The decline of American steel wasn’t inevitable. It was policy failure.

This is exactly what happened with Nippon and U.S. Steel.

Foreign steelmakers — from Japan to South Korea to China — flooded the American market with cheap steel for decades. That practice, known as dumping, made steel production unprofitable in the United States. Government-backed producers overseas didn’t mind. But American steelmakers, operating in a for-profit system, couldn’t survive it.

To stay afloat, U.S. firms cut corners. They couldn’t afford the large-scale capital investments needed to modernize. Executives saw the crisis coming — Ross Perot warned about it during his 1992 presidential run — but they couldn’t secure the credit. Why would a private bank finance a company to make an unprofitable product?

America’s steel industry was starved — of both profits and capital.

Now it needs outside help to survive. That help has arrived in the form of Nippon.

Get serious about reshoring

Here’s a better idea: Instead of forcing American companies to sell shares or partner with foreign rivals just to stay alive, the United States should adopt the same industrial strategies that have been used — very effectively — against us.

U.S. Steel struggles not because Americans forgot how to make steel, but because the major capital investments it needs aren’t happening. Banks won’t fund them. The risk is too high. The return is too uncertain.

That’s where Uncle Sam should step in. Federal financing for capital projects — secured by the projects themselves — would protect taxpayers while fueling reindustrialization. Compared with what Washington already spends, the cost would barely register.

Nippon has pledged $2.4 billion to upgrade U.S. Steel’s plants and another $4 billion for a new furnace. That’s real money. But America spent $886 billion on national defense in 2024 — plus another $79 billion for Ukraine.

Protecting our ability to produce high-quality steel isn’t just good economics. It’s national security.

President Trump is trying to make the best of a bad situation. No one wants a Japanese company to own U.S. Steel. But until Congress gets serious about reshoring, deals like this will keep happening.

It’s time to stop outsourcing America’s future.

ROOKE: We Don’t Want Government Handouts — Just Stop Taxing Us To Death

'I want our citizens to be financially secure'