Democrats Turn To ‘Economic Democracy,’ And You Already Know What They Mean
'All models of economic democracy, as conceived here, appear incompatible with capitalism.''All models of economic democracy, as conceived here, appear incompatible with capitalism.'Scott Bessent is the secret weapon for Trump's economic plan
Scott Bessent may well be the most consequential secretary of the treasury since Alexander Hamilton — not simply because of the policies he advances, but because of the conditions he confronts and the clarity with which he is executing President Trump’s broader economic vision.
Like Hamilton before him, Bessent has stepped into an economy weakened by a long period of policies that, however well intentioned, failed to serve the enduring interests of the American domestic economy.
Before entering public life, Bessent operated at the highest levels of global finance. As a key figure alongside Stanley Druckenmiller, he helped execute one of the defining macro trades of the modern era — the successful challenge to the Bank of England’s currency peg in 1992. The lesson was enduring: Systems that ignore economic reality do not last. Markets force alignment.
What Bessent is executing is a re-centering, not only of economics, but of strategy.
It is precisely that market-grounded realism that now underpins the implementation of the administration’s economic strategy. But Bessent is not simply a market practitioner. His time teaching the history of economic thought at Yale reveals the deeper foundation of his approach.
He sees the economy not as a series of quarterly data points, but as a system shaped over time by production, energy, capital formation, and national power. That synthesis, of theory, history, and practice, places him firmly in the Hamiltonian tradition and makes him a natural architect for translating President Trump’s economic doctrine into operational policy.
After the Revolutionary War, the United States was financially strained under extreme levels of debt, industrially underdeveloped, and newly severed from its economic relationship with the British Empire. Hamilton’s achievement was to turn that fragility into a foundation for strength.
He tied fiscal credibility to growth, fostered domestic industry, and deployed tariffs with precision — high enough to generate revenue and support development, but not so high as to suffocate competition. He was not managing decline; he was reversing it.
Bessent faces a modern analogue, an American economy navigating the aftermath of its own rupture, not from a formal empire, but from the post-World War II Pax Americana and the rules-based system it sustained. The task, again, is not to preserve a fading order, but to build a new foundation, one that reflects the strategic reset articulated by President Trump and now being systematically implemented through the Treasury Department and beyond.
The parallel is difficult to ignore. Decades of globalization prioritized efficiency over resilience and consumption over production. The result is an economy that remains large but is increasingly imbalanced, dependent on external supply chains, tilted toward financial engineering, and less capable of sustaining broad-based growth. Bessent’s significance lies in recognizing this reality and acting on it, not in abstraction, but in execution of a defined national strategy.
Like Hamilton, he is not merely managing the economy he inherited; he is working to re-anchor it, aligning markets with the administration’s emphasis on domestic strength, industrial capacity, and economic sovereignty.
That begins with debt. The United States now carries historically elevated fiscal obligations layered on top of structural weakness. The answer, as in Hamilton’s time, is not austerity alone, but growth — stronger, more durable expansion rooted in production, investment, and rising capacity.
Debt is not ignored; it is made sustainable through expansion, a core pillar of the administration’s supply-side orientation.
RELATED: Grants are a secret weapon for American communities
This framework was articulated clearly in Bessent’s speech at the Reagan Library. At its core is a simple recognition: An economy hollowed out by flawed globalization cannot sustain either prosperity or fiscal stability.
The answer is not withdrawal, but reordering, a principle that sits at the heart of President Trump’s economic agenda. His formulation — de-risk, not decouple — captures that balance. It preserves the benefits of trade while restoring the primacy of national resilience.
This is not a rejection of globalization but its correction, a distinctly Hamiltonian instinct and one now being operationalized across trade, capital flows, and industrial policy.
Energy is central to this vision. Cheap, secure energy is not a talking point; it is the precondition for winning the next phase of economic competition, particularly in artificial intelligence.
Computing is power. Without abundant energy, neither technological leadership nor sustained growth is possible. This, too, reflects a deliberate alignment between Treasury policy and the administration’s broader push for energy dominance.
So too does the shift back toward productive capital. For years, policy favored financial engineering over real investment. Bessent’s emphasis is different, directing capital toward infrastructure, manufacturing, and technological capacity, translating strategic intent into capital allocation.
Markets have responded not in spite of this shift, but because of it.
His early attention to Federal Reserve mission creep reinforces the broader theme. By insisting that the Fed operate within, not above, the constitutional framework, Bessent is reasserting a principle that has eroded: Economic power must remain accountable. It is a subtle but critical component of restoring coherence between monetary authority and elected economic leadership.
To understand his significance, however, is to see the broader architecture now taking shape. This is not a collection of policies. It is a doctrine, one that reflects both intellectual lineage and political mandate.
At its core is a modernized American system, domestic production, strategic protection, and national development. Layered onto it is a Monroe Doctrine-style approach to economic security, treating the Western Hemisphere as a strategic sphere.
But what distinguishes this strategy is not its articulation but its execution — the translation of President Trump’s strategic instincts into coordinated economic statecraft.
In late 2025, largely under the radar, pressure on Iran’s financial system intensified and key elements of its banking sector began to fail. It generated few headlines, but the signal was unmistakable — a targeted disruption of financial plumbing rather than a blunt sanctions regime.
This is economic statecraft executed with precision — identifying pressure points, applying force selectively, and achieving strategic effect without spectacle. It reflects Bessent’s background in markets, where understanding fragility is everything, and his role in implementing a broader geopolitical-economic strategy set at the presidential level.
RELATED: No more free ride for federal grant hogs
Within this framework, Bessent is the intellectual anchor and operational executor, aligning fiscal policy, capital markets, and economic structure with national purpose as defined by the administration.
What this represents is a break from the postwar consensus. The Pax Americana was a historic achievement, but over time it evolved into a system that often detached American policy from American strength.
What Bessent is executing is a re-centering, not only of economics, but of strategy.
Just as Hamilton anchored the early United States away from dependence on the British Empire and toward internally generated strength, Bessent is anchoring the modern economy back toward its domestic foundations, while executing a presidential mandate to rebuild American economic sovereignty in a more fragmented world.
But the defining parallel is not philosophical. It is practical. Hamilton did not simply write or speak. He executed, building institutions, implementing policy, and translating theory into durable structure in real time. Bessent is doing the same, not in isolation, but as the principal architect and executor of a broader economic vision set from the top by President Trump.
That is what makes him consequential. Not the speeches, though they matter. Not the framework, though it is clear. But the execution, policy applied in real time, reshaping the trajectory of the American economy.
That is the Hamilton standard. And by that standard, Bessent is the first secretary of the treasury to meet it.
Editor's note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Mourning The Loss Of USAID, The New York Times Makes A Clear Case For Its Death
They're a non-governmental organization that lives on government, period. They're an almost purely governmental non-governmental organization.Oil could hit $200 per barrel if these conditions are met in Middle East: Citi
Brent crude, the primary global benchmark for oil prices, rose higher than $120 per barrel in early summer 2022, largely on account of the fallout from the war in Ukraine and increased demand in countries reopening after suffering through years of self-imposed COVID restrictions.
At the time, this generated a great deal of excitement and consternation, especially when U.S. gas prices soared to a record high of roughly $5 a gallon.
Americans may soon long for the days of $120 per barrel.
'Consumers continue to feel the sting of rising oil, gasoline, and diesel costs as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East remain elevated.'
Analysts at Citi said in a note on Wednesday that Brent crude — which recently saw an intraday high of nearly $120 a barrel and is presently trading over 65% above its level at the beginning of the year — could hit $200 a barrel if Tehran executes "broad energy infrastructure attacks" or keeps the Strait of Hormuz blocked until June, Investing.com reported.
Iran appears keen to satisfy both of these conditions.
Following the initial joint U.S. and Israel strikes on Feb. 28, Iran targeted energy facilities in its backyard, prompting various companies to wind down their production and shutter their facilities.
RELATED: Trump blasts allies over reluctance to join Iran conflict: 'WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!'
Qatar's state-run QatarEnergy, for instance, shut down its LNG production complex following Iranian drone strikes at two of its facilities. OilPrice.com recently noted that even if the hostilities in the region ended immediately, it could take several weeks to restart production.
On Wednesday, Tehran issued a warning via state media to several Middle Eastern oil facilities — the Samref Refinery and Jubail Petrochemical Complex in Saudi Arabia; the Al Hosn Gas Field in the United Arab Emirates; and the Mesaieed Petrochemical Complex, Mesaieed Holding Company, and Ras Laffan Refinery in Qatar — notifying them of imminent strikes "in the coming hours," Reuters reported.
"These centers have become direct and legitimate targets and will be targeted in the coming hours," the warning said. "Therefore, all citizens, residents, and employees are requested to immediately leave these areas and move to a safe distance without any delay."
The warning, which was followed by a jump in the per-barrel price of Brent crude, came in the wake of airstrikes against the South Pars gas field, the world's largest natural gas reserve which is shared by Iran and Qatar.
A source confirmed to the Jerusalem Post that several energy facilities in South Pars and the Iranian city of Asaluyeh were struck by the Israeli Air Force on Wednesday. Two senior Israeli officials told Axios that the attack was coordinated with and approved by the Trump administration.
Amid the attacks and threat of attacks on energy infrastructure, analysts at Citi wrote, "Brent prices will rally as the conflict continues over the coming days, to $110-120/bbl," adding that could be the "price or market event which drives the U.S. to end its military operation" or alternatively drives global powers to "forcefully reopen the Strait."
President Donald Trump has implored the international community to aid the U.S. in reopening the strait, emphasizing that China and other nations are far more reliant than America on the supply flowing down the strait.
According to Reuters, China received 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil over the past 14 months via the Strait of Hormuz; the rest of Asia collectively received 1.6 billion barrels; India received 1 billion barrels; Japan and South Korea each received 800 million barrels; the U.S. and Europe each received around 200 million barrels; and the rest of the world received a combined 300 million barrels.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reported that Vice President JD Vance and other administration officials plan to meet at the American Petroleum Institute on Thursday to meet with oil executives.
"We look forward to convening key officials — including Vice President Vance, Energy Secretary [Chris] Wright, bipartisan leaders in Congress, and governors — to discuss the role of American oil and natural gas in supporting reliable energy supply amid global volatility," Andrea Woods, a spokeswoman for the institute, told Bloomberg. "Our industry is focused on providing insight into market dynamics and strengthening American energy leadership and resilience for the long term."
The price-tracking service GasBuddy noted that as of Monday, the national average price of gasoline was up 80 cents per gallon from a month ago and 66.1 cents higher than a year ago.
"Consumers continue to feel the sting of rising oil, gasoline, and diesel costs as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East remain elevated, pushing gasoline prices to their highest levels in years while diesel could soon approach the $5-per-gallon mark nationally," said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.
"Until we see a meaningful resumption of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, upward pressure on fuel prices is likely to persist," De Haan continued. "At the same time, seasonal forces are beginning to intensify as several regions complete the transition to summer gasoline, creating a double headwind that could continue driving pump prices higher in the weeks ahead."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!' Trump slams worriers as oil prices soar
President Donald Trump and members of his administration are attempting to defuse concerns over skyrocketing energy costs. The problem may, however, get a whole lot worse before getting better.
Roughly one-fifth of the world's oil normally transits the Strait of Hormuz, a stretch of water between Iran and Oman that links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.
The latest Middle Eastern conflict, now in its second week, has not only prompted various regional energy giants to temporarily shutter their operations but effectively halted traffic through the strait, as illustrated by Marine Vessel Traffic's real-time map.
'The sky is the limit.'
These interruptions to the global energy supply have driven up oil prices to over $100 per barrel of crude.
Prior to the opening bell on Monday morning, the international benchmark Brent crude saw an intraday high of nearly $120 per barrel. After trading at over $104 per barrel after opening, Brent fell closer to $102.
Citing data from over 12 million individual price reports, Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at the price-tracking service GasBuddy, noted, "The nation's average price of gasoline has risen 51.1 cents over the last week and stands at $3.45 per gallon."
"The national average is up 54.1 cents from a month ago and is 41.6 cents per gallon higher than a year ago," continued De Haan. "The national average price of diesel rose 85.9 cents in the last week and stands at $4.599 per gallon."
RELATED: Iran promises to cease attacks on neighboring countries as Trump warns it will be ‘hit very hard’
De Haan projected the national average for gasoline prices might soon reach $3.65-$3.85 per gallon and suggested that the three remaining states with gas prices below $3 per gallon — Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arizona — won't be able to maintain that ceiling for long.
When asked on Saturday whether he might consider utilizing America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to alleviate some of the pressure at home, Trump told reporters, "We've got a lot of oil. Our country has a tremendous amount." The president then criticized former President Joe Biden's massive withdrawals from the reserve.
Facing market signals that oil prices would continue rising, the president and his administration attempted the following day to downplay the issue and emphasize the short-lived nature of the cost increase.
Trump noted on Sunday, "Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace."
"ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!" added the president.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright told "Fox News Sunday" that coalition forces are "massively attriting" Iran's ability to strike oil assets in the Middle East and "that rate of attrition will increase in the coming days" such that "energy will flow soon."
Wright claimed further that the surging cost of oil and gas "has nothing to do with any shortage of barrels of oil or natural gas. It's just fear and perception."
The energy secretary also pushed this notion on CBS News, claiming that the price spikes are resultant of "emotional reactions and fear that this is a long-term war," adding that "it's a temporary movement."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt similarly emphasized that the cost increases will be brief, telling Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that the price rises amount to a "short-term disruption for the long-term gain of taking out the rogue Iranian terrorist regime and finally ending their restriction of the free flow of energy in the Middle East."
Neil Atkinson, the former head of oil at the International Energy Agency, is among the analysts who believe this disruption has all the makings of a historic crisis.
"Though there are oil stocks around the world, the point is that if this closure of the Strait persists, those oil stocks, if they are deployed, will be depleted and we are going to be in a situation where, with the oil production actually shut in, in Iraq and possibly in Kuwait, and maybe even, in time, in Saudi Arabia, that we are going to be in a crisis the likes of which we have never seen before," Atkinson told CNBC.
When asked about oil prices, Atkinson said, "There is no precedent for this. The sky is the limit."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
That ‘tax loophole’ might be the reason America still builds things
As President Donald Trump delivers Tuesday’s State of the Union, lawmakers will applaud calls for economic strength, innovation, and American competitiveness. Many of those same politicians, however, attack the very policies that make those goals possible. Their favorite target: so-called “tax loopholes,” routinely described as corruption or favoritism.
That label distorts how tax policy works.
What critics dismiss as ‘loopholes’ often serve as the incentives that help ordinary Americans — not just the rich — build, grow, and prosper.
Politicians denounce “loopholes” as if businesses are exploiting accidental gaps in laws Congress never meant to create. The implication follows: close the loopholes, collect more revenue, spend more money, and the country improves.
That framing misses the point. Most so-called loopholes are not accidents. Congress created them on purpose to encourage behavior that strengthens the economy.
Tax credits and deductions are not tricks. They are policy tools. In many cases, they work better than direct spending programs because they rely on private-sector decision-making instead of bureaucratic discretion.
That distinction matters during a period of rapid technological change. Consider artificial intelligence.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last year built on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by making full and immediate capital expensing — commonly called bonus depreciation — a permanent feature of the tax code. That provision allows businesses to deduct the full cost of qualifying capital investments in the year they make them, rather than stretching deductions over many years.
Critics call that a “giveaway.” It is better understood as a growth policy.
In practical terms, full expensing matters whenever a company makes a large upfront investment — servers, advanced manufacturing equipment, or specialized hardware needed to build AI systems. Under traditional depreciation rules, a business recovers those costs slowly. That delays the tax benefit and discourages large productive investments.
Full expensing removes that penalty. It aligns the tax code with economic reality by letting businesses recover costs when they take the risk. It also works automatically, without bureaucrats deciding which firms or industries deserve support.
That design is intentional. If Congress wants more of a productive activity, it can tax it less.
The AI boom illustrates the point. The United States is competing to lead the world in private AI investment. Data centers are going up at record speed. Venture capital is funding startups that did not exist a few years ago. Large firms are racing to expand computing infrastructure for next-generation models. That kind of investment grows where policy rewards risk-taking.
By making bonus depreciation permanent, lawmakers reduced uncertainty and signaled that America intends to remain the best place to invest capital.
RELATED: At Trump’s State of the Union, remember the free-market miracle in your pocket
This provision does not benefit only trillion-dollar corporations with armies of accountants. Any business making qualifying investments can use it: a mid-sized manufacturer installing robotics, a regional logistics company upgrading its fleet, or a startup buying high-performance computing equipment. The tax treatment is the same.
In fact, the largest long-term effect may land far from Silicon Valley. Small and medium-sized businesses make up roughly half the U.S. economy. For those firms, cash flow often determines whether they can hire, expand, or modernize. Immediate expensing can make the difference.
This is not a “loophole.” It is deliberate economic policy.
Critics often argue that provisions like full expensing “cost” the government money. That view ignores the broader effect. When businesses invest more, they produce more. More production supports hiring, wages, and taxable income across the economy.
I work directly with small and medium-sized businesses navigating a tax code that is often caricatured in political debate. I have seen how these so-called loopholes function in real life. They are not exclusive perks for the wealthy or giant corporations. Their benefits extend to workers, customers, and communities through jobs, innovation, and competition.
What critics dismiss as “loopholes” often serve as the incentives that help ordinary Americans — not just the rich — build, grow, and prosper.
Uncle Sam does not always get tax policy right. But when Congress uses the tax code to encourage productive behavior instead of punishing it, the results can be transformative.
The next time a politician thunders about “tax loopholes,” ask a simple question: Is it really a mistake — or a policy designed to make the American economy stronger?
The debt bomb is ticking, and DC spent the blast shield
America is edging toward a major economic crisis. Not a routine downturn or a mild recession, but something far worse. The Big One. We haven’t hit it yet, and we still have time to change course. But if Washington stays on its current track, trouble is coming.
You don’t need insider access to see it. It isn’t hidden. You only need to look at the numbers.
If Americans insist on responsible budgeting and smaller government, elected leaders will follow. That is how representative government works.
Federal budget documents describe an unsustainable path. Economists across the spectrum say the same. Credit rating agencies have issued warnings. The basic point is simple: We spend far more than we take in, year after year, and the bill keeps compounding.
What makes this moment dangerous is that we have little room left to respond when the next shock hits. We have nearly exhausted our fiscal space, which limits how much more we can borrow without triggering serious consequences. When the next crisis arrives, Washington won’t have the flexibility it relied on in the past. That’s when a bad situation turns into a true break.
Markets are already sounding alarms. Gold and silver prices have climbed. The dollar has weakened. Long-term rates have risen even as short-term rates fall. Foreign governments and major funds have reduced their appetite for U.S. debt. Investors don’t do that out of ideology. They do it when they see risk.
The hard part is not explaining the fix. The hard part is getting the country to accept it.
Too many Americans assume we are immune to the limits that bind every other nation. We are the biggest economy, the world’s reserve currency issuer, the greatest military power. So the thinking goes: Nothing can really happen to us.
That belief is the trap.
If we wait until the crisis becomes obvious to everyone, we will pay a much higher price. The damage will land on ordinary households first, and it will not be easily reversed. It is also immoral to hand our children and grandchildren a country buried under obligations it cannot meet.
RELATED:Washington printed promises. Gold called the bluff.
The remedy starts with first principles.
America’s founders did not build a system designed for permanent deficits and permanent expansion. They assumed limited government, manageable levels of debt, fiscal balance over time, and rules that protect the public without choking growth.
The economy has two broad parts: the public sector and the private sector. The public sector enforces law, protects the country, and provides basic administration. The private sector produces the goods and services that create real prosperity. When government grows beyond what taxpayers can support, it crowds out growth, drives up costs, and invites the temptation to paper over deficits with money creation.
Fiscal balance means spending and revenue align over time. When spending consistently exceeds revenue, debt rises. When debt becomes too large, governments lean on the central bank, and inflation follows. Inflation pushes interest rates higher and erodes purchasing power.
A growing government paired with chronic deficits becomes a slow-motion squeeze on the middle class through higher prices, higher borrowing costs, and higher taxes.
Regulation has a legitimate role. But today’s regulatory state has expanded into a sprawling, unelected bureaucracy that writes rules with little accountability. Burdensome regulation raises costs, slows productivity, and makes the economy less resilient.
RELATED:Congress needs to go big or go home
We need to bring the size of the federal government back in line with what the tax base can support. That means controlling spending, reforming programs that drive long-term obligations, and reining in regulation that serves bureaucracy more than citizens.
None of this is easy politically. Elected officials won’t act if voters demand ever more benefits and services without acknowledging the costs. That’s why public understanding matters.
Reform will require hard choices. It will require changes to benefits. But we can protect those who truly need help while restoring sanity to federal finances. The alternative is allowing events to impose those choices on us in the worst possible way — through crisis.
If Americans insist on responsible budgeting and smaller government, elected leaders will follow. That is how representative government works. The window for orderly reform is still open. It won’t stay open forever.
Washington printed promises. Gold called the bluff.
The latest partial government shutdown has ended, and two facts stand out: Washington will keep spending like a drunken sailor, and Republicans squandered their cleanest leverage point to rein it in.
Start with the number that matters: The House approved $1.25 trillion in additional discretionary appropriations. That decision pushes the annual deficit toward $1.75 trillion. Republicans voted for it, complained about it, and then acted surprised that the spending binge continued.
If Republicans keep missing moments like this one, investors will keep moving into gold and silver, not out of ideology, but out of self-preservation.
The shutdown fight should have forced a trade. Democrats focused on cutting Department of Homeland Security funding. Republicans had options beyond folding. They could have demanded real cuts elsewhere, then used Democrats’ own political pain points to make the deal stick.
One obvious target sat in plain sight. The Trump administration proposed a 50% cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That should thrill the MAHA crowd. Democrats hate what they call ICE “overreach.” Republicans despise what they view as CDC mission creep and pandemic-era abuses.
Congress could have paired both cuts and sold it as a reset: trim enforcement and trim the public health bureaucracy, then avoid another shutdown. Democrats could claim restraint at the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans could claim restraint at the CDC. Taxpayers would finally get something besides another blank check.
Instead, Republicans let the moment pass, and voters got another spending package.
Don’t expect the next round to improve. Markets already read Washington’s behavior as a warning label. Gold and silver prices sit at record highs because investors smell what Congress refuses to admit: Deficits at this scale produce either inflation, higher taxes, or both.
Central banks have acted on that judgment for years. They have moved away from dollars and Treasuries and into gold. Poland’s central bank led global gold purchases in October and November last year. That shift isn’t a protest from adversaries alone. It reflects a broader conclusion, from allies and rivals alike, that Washington keeps making promises it cannot afford to keep.
RELATED: Congress needs to go big or go home
The trend looks set to continue. Goldman Sachs expects central banks to buy roughly 60 metric tons of gold per month in the year ahead. Retail demand is rising too. Gold-backed exchange-traded funds reportedly absorbed about 800 metric tons in 2025 as investors searched for an asset that doesn’t depend on congressional self-control.
Frederic Panizzutti of Numismatica Genevensis explains the appeal plainly: Gold’s simplicity attracts buyers “as geopolitics and geoeconomics have become more complicated.”
Americans across the political spectrum want to abolish wasteful agencies. Congress won’t do it. Fine. Then at least cut budgets hard enough to prove lawmakers can say no to constituencies, lobbyists, and the permanent bureaucracies that treat every crisis as a looting opportunity.
Washington’s real problem isn’t a lack of authority. It’s a lack of restraint. Entitlement growth, debt service, and a bipartisan appetite for militarized foreign policy push the country toward instability at home and abroad. Politicians focus on the next election and leave the bill to the next generation.
If Republicans keep missing moments like this one, the dollar’s erosion will accelerate. Investors will keep moving into gold and silver, not out of ideology, but out of self-preservation.
America’s addiction to Chinese money runs deeper than we care to admit
In a recent interview, President Trump defended his earlier claim that bringing 600,000 Chinese college students into the United States would be good for the country. When the interviewer questioned how that aligned with an America First agenda, Trump replied that without those students, “Half the colleges in America would go out of business.”
To most Trump supporters, that sounds like a win-win — fewer foreign students and fewer left-wing universities to subsidize. But Trump seemed to view the issue as a business transaction: Closing locations is bad, losing revenue is bad, and the substance of those “economic units” doesn’t really matter.
Why should we play Russian roulette with our national security to pad universities’ bottom lines?
His comments revealed a deeper confusion about what America First really means.
The China contradiction
America’s relationship with China has long been incoherent. Every Republican politician insists China is our chief geopolitical rival — a totalitarian power bent on unseating the United States as global hegemon. Yet few make any effort to restrict Chinese immigration, investment, or influence. At some point, it becomes difficult to take any of the rhetoric seriously.
The problem is obvious: China has too many people and too much money. The country’s strength lies in what America abandoned: manufacturing. While American corporations chased financial gimmicks and “service economies,” China focused on making tangible goods at scale. That discipline built a vast middle class and positioned Beijing at the center of global production. Now nearly every Western industry — film, retail, education — depends on access to China’s markets.
The result: American institutions bend over backward to please a government they claim to fear. Chinese nationals can buy land, start companies, and enroll by the hundreds of thousands in U.S. universities. It would be funny if it weren’t so corrupt.
The university addiction
Trump knows mass immigration hurts Americans, but he struggles to say no when big money is involved. Foreign students pour billions into universities, and administrators have built their entire business models around them. But counting up dollars isn’t the same as serving the national interest.
Universities are publicly subsidized and supposedly dedicated to educating Americans first and foremost. Instead, they’ve turned into pipelines credentialing foreign elites — and sometimes, spies. Every seat filled by a Chinese student is one less for an American, and every dollar that props up a hostile regime’s protégés deepens our dependence on that regime.
The Department of Justice has charged three Chinese nationals at the University of Michigan for smuggling research materials and stealing technology. Eric Weinstein has even suggested that theoretical physics is being throttled for fear of espionage. Yet the universities — and now, apparently, Trump — seem unfazed.
Why save the enemy’s seminary?
Propping up higher education with Chinese cash isn’t just shortsighted — it’s insane. Colleges and universities have become leftist seminaries, charging astronomical tuition for courses that teach Americans to despise their parents and their nation. They already receive lavish government subsidies and still demand more.
Trump’s claim that “half the colleges” would collapse without Chinese money is dubious, but if it were true, those institutions deserve to fail. Let them. Destroying the patronage networks that produce radical activists was once a Trumpian goal. Reviving them with foreign money would be an act of political masochism. Why should we play Russian roulette with our national security to pad their bottom line?
RELATED: The ‘China class’ sold out America. Now Trump is calling out the sellouts.
The broader threat
Chinese money poisons more than academia. Nationals and shell companies routinely buy American land — including, alarmingly, property near military bases. One recent purchase of an RV park in Missouri by a Chinese couple just happened to place them next to Whiteman Air Force Base, home of the B-2 stealth bomber fleet. Similar shadowy transactions dot the map.
The pandemic exposed the madness of this dependence. The same regime that unleashed a virus on the world also controlled the supply chains for the medicine and protective gear we needed to fight it. Yet America’s political class still refuses to sever the tie. They are too addicted to Chinese money — and too invested in pretending that dependency equals diplomacy.
If the GOP is serious about confronting China, it must start by cutting every cord of reliance. Banning Chinese students from U.S. universities would be a simple, symbolic first step — and it would strike directly at the heart of the progressive academic machine.
Big Government Locks Young People Out of the American Dream
Socialism, regulation, and other government policies are what have caused the affordability crisis that has arisen across the United States.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com