Trump admin takes steps to prevent illegal aliens from leeching off Social Security, welfare programs



President Donald Trump signed a memo Tuesday directing his administration to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving taxpayer funds from Social Security Act programs, including Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The initiative appears to be aimed both at eliminating the monetary incentive for foreign nationals to steal into the homeland and at pressuring the noncitizen net-takers already here to either wean off the dole or hit the road.

The memo directs the Social Security Administration to: expand its fraud prosecutor programs to at least 50 U.S. attorney offices; establish a Medicare and Medicaid fraud prosecution program in 15 U.S. attorney offices; investigate earning reports of individuals supposedly 100 years or older with mismatched records; consider reinstating its civil monetary penalty program; and reinforce program integrity measures so only those foreign nationals who satisfy all eligibility requirements can receive benefits.

'This literally blew us away.'

In a fact sheet detailing the memo, the White House echoed Elon Musk's recent revelation that over two million illegal aliens were apparently assigned Social Security numbers in fiscal year 2024 alone.

Venture capitalist Antonio Gracias, who has been working with the Department of Government Efficiency in scrutinizing the SSA, noted at the Wisconsin town hall where Musk highlighted the provision of Social Security numbers to illegal aliens, "This literally blew us away," reported NewsNation.

"We went there to find fraud, and we found this by accident," said Gracias.

Migrants authorized to legally work in the U.S. are eligible to apply for a Social Security Card — but in order to receive Supplemental Security Income, the Department of Homeland Security must class them as a migrant legally admitted and conferred permanent residency, a migrant granted conditional entry or asylum, or a migrant paroled into the country or admitted as a refugee.

Gracias suggested that in recent years, migrants were given SSNs automatically through the mail without an interview or showing identification.

The White House fact sheet notes that the multitudes of illegal aliens who entered the U.S. under the Biden administration are "siphoning dollars and essential services from American citizens while state and local budgets grow increasingly strained."

The Center for Immigration Studies revealed in a December 2023 report that 54% of households headed by immigrants, including naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens, used one or more major welfare program.

'These taxpayer-funded benefits should be only for eligible taxpayers.'

The study indicated that 48% of "illegal-headed households" used food welfare programs; 39% relied on Medicaid; 18% relied on cash welfare; and 4% relied on housing programs.

The House Committee on Homeland Security noted in a November 2023 report that the cost in federal welfare for every one million parolees released into the U.S. under the Biden administration was likely in the neighborhood of $3 billion annually.

As of 2022, American taxpayers were shelling out at least $182 billion annually to provide services and benefits to illegal aliens and their dependents, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform report cited in the White House's fact sheet. FAIR indicated that net cost is $150.7 billion if the estimated $31 billion taxes illegal aliens cough up are factored.

The White House noted that the $182 billion figure includes $66.4 billion in federal expenses and $115.6 billion in state and local expenses. Again citing FAIR estimates, the White House noted that "a million illegal aliens hold stolen identifications or fraudulent SSNs" — abuse that has long been widespread.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday, "These taxpayer-funded benefits should be only for eligible taxpayers."

"President Biden should think about what he did in his last term, which is allow tens of millions of illegal people into our country, many of whom were fraudulently receiving these benefits."

The Social Security Administration indicated that Trump's memorandum "reinforces SSA's commitment to safeguarding taxpayer dollars and ensuring the integrity of the programs it administers."

"The Social Security Administration is dedicated to protecting the vital benefits that American workers have earned on behalf of themselves and their families," said acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek. "We are committed to working diligently to implement the President's memorandum and to ensure that benefits are paid only to those who should receive them."

Martin O'Malley, the SSA commissioner during Joe Biden's final year in office, told Government Executive, "This is all on brand for them, because they enjoy inflicting cruelty on people in the name of going after immigrants."

"If they go forward with this representative payee plan, they are talking about interrupting benefits that are legally owed to Americans and American-born children here in the U.S.," said O'Malley. "Just because someone might not have proof of their legal status on an SSA record doesn’t mean they aren’t the representative payee for a U.S. citizen, whether it be their husband with a disability, a mother-in-law, an American-born child."

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

Trump’s Bitcoin masterstroke puts America ahead in digital assets



With a single stroke of his Sharpie, President Donald Trump instantly made the United States into the world leader in digital assets, ensuring its dominance in the sector for the foreseeable future.The new Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile are a triple win for the American people.

Win No. 1: No cost to taxpayers

The reserve comes at no expense to taxpayers. Every asset within it was already owned by the federal government, including 200,000 Bitcoin — an amount that crypto czar David Sacks recently estimated to be worth about $17.5 billion. Moreover, the executive order establishing the reserve explicitly binds the government to “budget-neutral” strategies for acquiring additional Bitcoin and forbids the acquisition of other digital assets except through forfeiture proceedings.

The United States is poised to be the world leader in digital assets for many years to come.

In other words, the crypto reserve will be funded entirely by criminals and scammers like the ones who allegedly bilked several Massachusetts residents out of their savings through a fraudulent trading platform.

Win No. 2: Boosting domestic innovation

The crypto reserve will foster domestic innovation in an industry poised to be a major driver of economic growth well into the future. American digital assets companies, like Avalanche, already play a crucial role in this ecosystem, delivering high-paying jobs and contributing to the president’s broader economic agenda.

The crypto industry’s domestic investments will reinforce the principles of putting America first, creating American jobs, and driving economic growth that are at the heart of Trump’s plan to Make America Great Again.

Win No. 3: A global statement

By publicly staking America’s claim in digital assets, Trump and his crypto team led by crypto czar David Sacks and Bo Hines, executive director of the Presidential Council of Advisers for Digital Assets, are sending a strong signal to the global crypto community: America is open for business. For an industry that has faced widespread skepticism and even open hostility from establishment forces all over the world, this invitation will be enthusiastically embraced.

Instead of building data centers and other crypto infrastructure overseas, tech companies will invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. economy, creating new jobs and broadening our tax base.

The crypto industry has come a long way since a young programmer completed the first commercial Bitcoin transaction — exchanging 10,000 BTC for two Papa John’s pizzas. Today, those Bitcoins are worth just under $1 billion — an increase of roughly two billion percent in just 15 years.

Bitcoin’s value will soar

With Bitcoin’s circulation now capped, its value is projected to continue appreciating. Unlike the U.S. dollar, which inflationary policies can devalue, no entity can create additional BTC. Other digital assets have similar built-in safeguards, ensuring that they cannot be manipulated like fiat currencies.

In many ways, cryptocurrencies and other digital assets resemble gold, real estate, and other assets that serve as a stable, long-term store of value.

Sadly, this fact has not been appreciated by those in power until now.

“At one point in time, we had about 400,000 bitcoin on the federal balance sheet. We sold roughly half of that for something like $360 million total,” Sacks disclosed recently on an episode of the "All-In Podcast."

Although the premature sales cost American taxpayers around $17 billion at today’s prices, they serve to reinforce the benefits of creating a strategic reserve of these unique assets.

Throughout recorded history, governments worldwide have recognized the necessity of maintaining strategic gold reserves. These reserves can strengthen the domestic economy or provide strategic flexibility in international relations. The new crypto reserve will likely serve a similar function in the future.

As usual, Trump is several steps ahead of the political establishment. Thanks to his visionary leadership, the United States is poised to be the world leader in digital assets for many years to come.

White Lotus Finale Shows Why Counting The Cost Of Christianity Is So Important

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-07-at-5.40.48 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-07-at-5.40.48%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Religious faithfulness will cost you something — but both Piper and Belinda conclude the cost is too high.

Tech elites warn ‘reality itself’ may not survive the AI revolution



When Elon Musk warns that money may soon lose its meaning and Dario Amodei speaks of an AI-driven class war, you might think the media would take notice. These aren’t fringe voices. Musk ranks among the world’s most recognizable tech leaders, and Amodei is the CEO of Anthropic, a leading artificial intelligence company developing advanced models that compete with OpenAI.

Together, they are two of the most influential figures shaping the AI revolution. And they’re warning that artificial intelligence will redefine everything — from work and value to meaning and even our grasp of reality.

But the public isn’t listening. Worse, many hear the warnings and choose to ignore them.

Warnings from inside the machine

At the 2025 Davos conference, hosted by the World Economic Forum, Amodei made a prediction that should have dominated headlines. Within a few years, he said, AI systems will outperform nearly all humans at almost every task — and eventually surpass us in everything.

“When that happens,” Amodei said, “we will need to have a conversation about how we organize our economy. How do humans find meaning?”

Either we begin serious conversations about protecting liberty and individual autonomy in an AI-driven world, or we allow a small group of global elites to shape the future for us.

The pace of change is alarming, but the scale may be even more so. Amodei warns that if 30% of human labor becomes fully automated, it could ignite a class war between the displaced and the privileged. Entire segments of the population could become economically “useless” in a system no longer designed for them.

Elon Musk, never one to shy away from bold predictions, recently said that AI-powered humanoid robots will eliminate all labor scarcity. “You can produce any product, provide any service. There’s really no limit to the economy at that point,” Musk said.

“Will money even be meaningful?” Musk mused. “I don’t know. It might not be.”

Old assumptions collapse

These tech leaders are not warning about some minor disruption. They’re predicting the collapse of the core systems that shape human life: labor, value, currency, and purpose. And they’re not alone.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has warned that AI could reshape personal identity, especially if children begin forming bonds with AI companions. Filmmaker James Cameron says reality already feels more frightening than “The Terminator” because AI now powers corporate systems that track our data, beliefs, and movements. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has raised alarms about large language models manipulating public opinion, setting trends, and shaping discourse without our awareness.

Geoffrey Hinton — one of the “Godfathers of AI” and a former Google executive — resigned in 2023 to speak more freely about the dangers of the technology he helped create. He warned that AI may soon outsmart humans, spread misinformation on a massive scale, and even threaten humanity’s survival. “It’s hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using [AI] for bad things,” he said.

These aren’t fringe voices. These are the people building the systems that will define the next century. And they’re warning us — loudly.

We must start the conversation

Despite repeated warnings, most politicians, media outlets, and the public remain disturbingly indifferent. As machines advance to outperform humans intellectually and physically, much of the attention remains fixed on AI-generated art and customer service chatbots — not the profound societal upheaval industry leaders say is coming.

The recklessness lies not only in developing this technology, but in ignoring the very people building it when they warn that it could upend society and redefine the human experience.

This moment calls for more than fascination or fear. It requires a collective awakening and urgent debate. How should society prepare for a future in which AI systems replace vast segments of the workforce? What happens when the economy deems millions of people economically “useless”? And how do we prevent unelected technocrats from seizing the power to decide those outcomes?

The path forward provides no room for neutrality. Either we begin serious conversations about protecting liberty and individual autonomy in an AI-driven world, or we allow a small group of global elites to shape the future for us.

The creators of AI are sounding the alarm. We’d better start listening.

Mississippi phasing out income tax, reducing tax on grocery sales



Republican Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves ratified legislation Thursday eliminating the individual income tax in his state by 2037 through annual decreases. The bill also decreases the tax on grocery sales from 7% to 5% and raises the gas tax by 9 cents over three years.

"Mississippi will no longer tax the work, the earnings, or the ambition of its people," the governor said in a statement. "The legislation I'm signing today puts us in a rare class of elite, competitive states. There are only a handful of states in the country that do not tax income. Today, Mississippi joins their ranks — and in doing so, we plant our flag."

Up until now, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming were the standout states that refused to confiscate wealth from Americans in the form of income taxes. While New Hampshire still taxes investment and interest income, it is presently in the process of phasing those out.

Mississippi House Bill 1, the "Build Up Mississippi Act," will reduce the income tax from 4% to 3.75% in 2027 then down to 3.5% in 2028, 3.25% in 2029, and 3% in 2030. There will be annual decreases in the following years until the income tax falls to 0%.

'This is a transformation.'

House Minority Leader Robert Johnson III (D) suggested that a typo in the trigger language of the act may, however, actually move up the time schedule for abolishing the income tax, reported WJTV-TV.

"The trigger is actually no longer a trigger because at the 80/500 of a percent, we essentially are in tax cut mode right now," said Johnson, who voted against the bill.

The Mississippi Free Press reported that lawmakers were under the impression that the tax would be further reduced in 2031 if the state's surplus in revenue from the previous fiscal year was greater than 85% of $407 million. The legislation as enacted instead states that the reduction will be triggered if the state's surplus that year is greater than 0.85% of $407 million.

Mississippi House Speaker Jason White (R) noted that one way or another, the legislation "eliminates the income tax in as soon as 14 years. While that's not fast enough for some, the House plan was a little faster than that — 11 years."

When the Mississippi legislature passed HB1 by a vote of 92-27 on March 20 — where all opposed were Democratic lawmakers — National Federation of Independent Business director Leah Long stated, "This is great news for Main Street businesses."

'Government should take less so that you can keep more.'

"Most small businesses in the state are structured as pass-through entities, meaning the revenue passes through the business to the owners, who pay taxes at the individual rate," said Long. "Eliminating the state income tax will allow small business owners to reinvest more revenue into their businesses, create jobs, and support their communities."

The Republican Governors Association called the ratification of HB1 a "historic achievement."

"This is more than a policy victory," said Reeves. "This is a transformation. And it's a transformation that I have believed in, fought for, and worked toward for many years."

"I believe in a simple idea: that government should take less so that you can keep more. That our people should be rewarded for hard work, not punished. And that Mississippi has the potential to be a magnet for opportunity, for investment, for talent — and for families looking to build a better life," added the governor.

While Reeves and other Republicans suspect that the elimination of the tax will lure talent and investment to the state, some critics claim Mississippi's prosperity might be at stake.

Kyra Roby, the policy director of the leftist activist outfit One Voice, noted in a recent op-ed that the loss of the $2.1 billion that Mississippi's income tax nets the state annually "would severely impact funding for education, healthcare, roads, and other vital services."

Roby also complained that the tax cut would save wealthier people more money, claiming that "disparities could worsen."

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

Trump admin reveals extent of planned USAID cuts — which will save America a fortune



The U.S. State Department confirmed Wednesday that the Trump administration is eliminating thousands of foreign assistance awards and grants at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Peter Marocco, brought in by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to help run USAID, said in a statement to the federal district court presiding over two consolidated lawsuits brought against the administration by aid organizations that following a review, Secretary of State Marco Rubio decided to cut roughly 92% of the agency's grants, reported NPR.

According to a State Department memo reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon, the 92% figure reflects 5,800 grants valued at $54 billion at USAID that Trump administration officials are set to terminate. Auditors scrutinized over 9,100 more grants at the State Department, 4,100 of which — valued at $4.4 billion — are slated for elimination.

'Continuing this program is not in the national interest.'

"USAID evaluated 6,200 multi-year awards with $58.2 billion in value remaining," a State Department spokesman said in a statement to Axios. "Nearly 5,800 awards with $54 billion in value remaining were identified for elimination as part of the America First agenda."

In terms of awards that survived the cuts, roughly 500 at USAID and 2,700 at the State Department will remain.

Contractors learned of the award and grant terminations in a memo from USAID's office of acquisition and assistance. A copy of the memo obtained by NPR stated that Rubio and Marocco "have determined your award is not aligned with Agency priorities and made a determination that continuing this program is not in the national interest."

President Donald Trump noted in an aid-freezing executive order on his first day in office that the "foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values."

He further indicated that it would be the "policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States."

In turn, the State Department ordered a freeze on new funding for virtually all U.S. foreign assistance on Jan. 24.

Following a pair of lawsuits by aid organizations, a Biden judge issued a restraining order, requiring that the funding be released.

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali's restraining order Wednesday evening.

In addition to eliminating awards and grants to wasteful programs — for instance, USAID previously blew $45 million on DEI scholarships in Burma, $2 million on sex-change activism in Guatemala, and $20 million for a "Sesame Street" show in Iraq — the Trump administration has placed all personnel at USAID "with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership and/or specially designated programs" on administrative leave and is firing 1,600 positions at the agency that are presently occupied.

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

Trump won, but Dems still control the bureaucracy — for now



Have the Democrats dug a hole for themselves? The answer is an unequivocal yes.

Although Donald Trump won the presidential race by about two million votes and the GOP retook the Senate by a majority of three, the Democrats were hardly crushed in the November election. Three of their outspoken feminist candidates won senatorial races in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada, partly by outspending very solid Republican opponents. Thanks to coastal elites, the Democrats enjoyed a sizable ad advantage over Republicans by Election Day last year; and a less-than-impressive Democratic presidential candidate spent her way through more than $1 billion that Democratic donors showered on her.

Today’s woke Democrats belong to a party that directly serves their interests. The question is whether that party can build a broad enough coalition to reclaim a national majority.

The legacy media, most educational institutions, and a majority of government bureaucrats stand solidly behind the Democratic Party. Trump’s decision to slim down the size of our managerial state has caused panic among Democrats, precisely because public administration has been an inexhaustible source of employment and financial benefit for their loyalists. But the Democrats continue to occupy almost all of this empire.

Unfortunately, Democratic politicians have not been able to accept the loss of the presidency with equanimity. They’ve gone berserk and for understandable reasons. They’ve waged war on the current president for the last eight years and have thrown so much ammunition at him that it must have dawned on them that Trump would not leave his enemies in charge if he won.

Democrats have used every tool at their disposal to undermine the current president. They have engaged in lawfare, weaponized the FBI and the Department of Justice against him, tried to remove his name from ballots, attempted to imprison him, and even incited would-be assassins. After such relentless attacks, expecting Trump not to retaliate in some way would require near-saintly restraint.

To their detriment, Democrats continue waging old battles in ways that have damaged their own standing. They have obstructed efforts to deport criminal illegal immigrants, defended sex-change surgeries for minors, fought to preserve costly government bureaucracies that align with their ideological interests, and tacitly encouraged anti-Trump riots. None of these actions have won them new supporters. At this point, their public approval has shrunk to 31%.

Democrats have also resorted to clumsy, staged demonstrations, with their most prominent figures decrying Elon Musk’s influence over the Republican administration. They claim Trump is acting “unconstitutionally” by laying off overwhelmingly Democratic government workers while supposedly taking orders from Musk. Yet, it remains unclear why Trump must seek approval from Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters before following the advice of his own people. And why is it acceptable for Democratic presidents — but not Republican ones — to rely on unelected advisers?

Let’s try to make sense of what the Democrats are doing. In blue states, voters consistently elect leftist governments. Governors such as J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, Gavin Newsom in California, Kathy Hochul in New York, Phil Murphy in New Jersey, Maura Healey in Massachusetts, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, and Tim Walz in Minnesota win with little difficulty, often while relying on anti-Trump rhetoric.

The Democrats’ base also includes wealthy donors who align with the party’s radical core. Meanwhile, legacy media eagerly amplifies the party’s anti-Trump messaging, adding its own attacks. Since 2016, mainstream outlets have built an audience around cultivating anti-Trump sentiment.

But this strategy does not seem to resonate with most Americans. Many are increasingly alarmed by the millions of illegal aliens the Democrats have welcomed into the country, now widely seen as both a safety risk and a financial burden. Pritzker, Healey, and other left-wing governors have further weakened their party’s standing by openly supporting illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes.

Democrats and their media allies have also doubled down on unpopular policies like DEI mandates, “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors, and the costly Green New Deal. These stances have driven down the party’s appeal nationally, and even in deep-blue regions, support for these policies appears to be waning — though not yet enough to break the Democrats’ grip on those areas.

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats have reshaped themselves over the past generation into a culturally leftist party. Their core constituency now consists of racial minorities, college-educated women, government employees, and nonprofit organizations. Calls for the party to return to its working-class roots are unlikely to succeed.

Across the Western world, non-public-sector workers have aligned with the populist right, while the cultural left has gained support from global financial elites, government bureaucrats, Third World migrants, and activists opposed to traditional gender roles and the nuclear family.

Today’s woke Democrats belong to a party that directly serves their interests. The real question is whether that party can build a broad enough coalition to reclaim a national majority.

Celebrities Can Afford Divorce Lawyers, But The Emotional And Social Costs Hit Everyone

Even when couples can easily afford lawyers, divorce's emotional and psychological costs are incalculable.

Donald Trump Approaches Inauguration With Record-Setting Fundraising, Détente With Corporate Donors

Trump Cruising To Inauguration With Record-Setting Fundraising, Détente With Corporate Donors

Dems cling to power with swamp cash, woke votes, and media muscle



Donald Trump has reached his highest favorability rating in seven years. His approval now sits at 50%, the highest since March 2017. This marks a significant rebound from earlier points in his political career when his numbers hovered in the low 40s.

Republican commentators have celebrated these numbers as a major comeback, but I’m not as impressed as others may be. Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both entered and left office with far higher approval ratings. Comparing Trump’s numbers to Joe Biden’s offers little insight. Biden, who often appears inept and disengaged, maintains approval ratings in the low 40s. What’s surprising is not that Biden’s numbers are bad but that they’re not far worse.

With Republicans frequently retreating on social issues, Democrats largely benefit from catering to their substantial woke constituency.

The broader point is one I’ve made before: Democrats don’t seem to be hurting themselves with their divisive focus on intersectional politics. While this despicable strategy sows hate between races and genders, it successfully appeals to a base of angry, culturally radicalized voters.

Democrats have easily retained control of blue states. Even in the last presidential election, when they were supposedly blown out of the water, Kamala Harris lost to Trump by only two percentage points. This suggests that Democrats don’t need to abandon their current approach to remain competitive in future elections.

The Democrats achieved their results despite running a verbally challenged, tactically inept candidate who had to defend Joe Biden’s largely indefensible record. Harris, the giggling wonder who never won a single primary vote, was pushed onto voters once party leaders abandoned their hopelessly senile incumbent.

This isn’t even to mention her opponent: a vigorous populist candidate who campaigned tirelessly, holding multiple rallies each day with roaring energy. What stood out about the election is how well the Democrats performed despite holding what seemed like a disastrous hand — a failed presidency, a weak candidate, and a driven, dynamic opponent. Still, they managed to win close Senate races in Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

To their credit, the Democrats held certain advantages that should not be underestimated. They had the backing of corporate and Hollywood money, the unwavering support of the servile legacy media, and a partisan educational establishment and government employees. Meanwhile, Republicans, led by Trump, had to work tirelessly with fewer funds against these forces. Yet they still emerged with hard-won victories in the presidential and congressional races.

On social issues, the Democrats hold a significant advantage, as shown by their success on abortion despite taking the most extreme stance possible. Kamala Harris advocated unrestricted abortion rights nationwide for all nine months of pregnancy. She also supported punishing physicians who refused to perform abortions for moral reasons. Remarkably, Kamala led Trump by double digits on the abortion question even though Trump took the weakest stance on abortion of any Republican presidential candidate since the 1970s.

Clearly, a woke, feminist vote exists, and the Democrats control it entirely. They can escalate social issues and often expect Republicans to anxiously follow suit. Since the 1990s, over 60% of American women have identified as Democratic, and these voters, often defined by grievance politics, align with the left on most social issues.

Occasionally, the Democrats overreach, such as they did in allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports or access women’s locker rooms and showers. However, this rarely costs them elections, particularly in blue states, where being “too progressive” is rarely a political liability. Instead, with Republicans frequently retreating on social issues, Democrats largely benefit from catering to their substantial woke constituency.

The more culturally left-leaning of America’s two major political parties may be exactly where it needs to be for electoral success. While Democrats have abandoned their roots as a working-class party, that shift no longer seems to matter. They have consolidated support among key voter blocs, including government workers, most black adults, teachers’ unions, and a majority of women voters.

The right can counter this advantage and strike back. The new administration should abolish the Department of Education, disperse federal swamp creatures, and eliminate subsidies to educational institutions, except for scientifically beneficial programs. This strategy would weaken the Democrats' reliance on a bloated public sector.

Defunding and depopulating the deep state would further erode the left’s influence. For decades, the Democrats have acted as the “state party,” with much of their power tied to a growing public sector. Reducing that advantage would critically weaken their financial resources and disrupt their infrastructure.

Above all, the new administration must ignore the inevitable media outrage and accusations of “fascism” while pursuing this necessary counteroffensive. Let the left fund its own operations and personnel without the support of taxpayer dollars.