Why tariffs beat treaties in a world that cheats



President Trump’s tariffs are set to snap back to the “reciprocal” rates on Wednesday — unless foreign countries can cut deals. So far, the only major players to reach agreements in principle are the United Kingdom and, ironically, China.

Others aren’t so lucky. The European Union, Japan, and India all risk facing a sharp increase in tariffs. Each claims to support free trade. India has even offered a so-called zero-for-zero deal. Vietnam offered similar terms.

Free trade is a myth. Tariffs are reality. The Trump administration should raise them proudly and without apology.

The Trump administration should be skeptical. These deals sound good in theory, but so does communism. In practice, “true” free trade — like true communism — has never existed. It’s impossible. The world’s legal systems, business norms, and levels of development differ too much.

Economists may still chase unicorns. But the Trump administration should focus on tilting the board in our favor — because someone else always will.

Free trade is a mirage

Start with the basics: Different countries are different. Their economies aren’t equal, their wages aren’t comparable, and their regulations certainly aren’t aligned.

Wages may be the most obvious example. In 2024, the median annual income for Americans was around $44,000. In India, the median annual income was just $2,400. That means American labor costs nearly 20 times more. And since labor accounts for roughly a third of all production costs, the math practically begs U.S. companies to offshore work to India.

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

  Photo by JOHANNES EISELE/AFP via Getty Images

It’s China in 2001 all over again.

Back then, the average U.S. wage was about $30,000. China’s? Just $1,100. When China joined the World Trade Organization, American manufacturers fled en masse. Since 2001, more than 60,000 factories have disappeared — and with them, 5 million jobs.

The result: decimated towns, stagnant wages, and hollowed-out industrial capacity. And don’t blame robots or automation. This was policy-driven — an elite obsession with free trade that delivered real pain to working Americans.

 

We’ve run trade deficits every single year since 1974. The inflation-adjusted total? Roughly $25 trillion. And while U.S. workers produce more value than ever, their wages haven’t kept up. They’ve been undercut by cheap foreign labor for decades.

Equal partners? Think again

What if the other country is rich? Can free trade work between economic peers?

Not necessarily. Even when GDP levels match, hidden differences remain. Take regulation. America enforces labor standards, environmental protections, and workplace safety rules. All of those raise production costs — but for good reason. American-made goods reflect those costs in their price tags.

Meanwhile, competitors like China or Mexico cut corners. They dump waste, abuse workers, and sidestep accountability. The result? Cheaper products — on paper. But those costs don’t vanish. They just get pushed onto others: polluted oceans, exploited laborers, sicker consumers.

This is why the sticker price on a foreign good doesn’t reflect its true cost. The price is a lie. Cheapness is often just corner-cutting with a smile.

National strength means self-reliance

Rather than debating whether free trade is possible, we should ask whether it’s good for America.

Should we outsource core industries to foreign nations with no loyalty to us? Should we depend on countries like China for our pharmaceuticals, our electronics, or even our food?

The founders didn’t think so. The Tariff Act of 1789 wasn’t about boosting exports — it was about building an independent industrial base. A sovereign nation doesn’t beg for favors. It builds.

We aren’t just an economy. We are a people — a nation united by heritage, language, faith, and trust. That matters more than quarterly profits.

Free trade is a myth. Tariffs are reality. The Trump administration should raise them proudly — and make no apologies for putting America first.

Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way



After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

  Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

Conservatives can lead the charge on clean crypto rules



Many assume conservative principles belong to the past. They don’t. The debate over cryptocurrency regulation — including the House GOP’s Clarity Act — offers a chance to apply those principles to a 21st-century frontier.

Cryptocurrency and decentralized finance reflect core American values: free speech, free markets, and innovation from the ground up. Across the country, developers are building protocols that move money in microseconds, create new investment tools, and expand access to capital like never before.

With a Republican-led Congress considering landmark cryptocurrency legislation, we have a historic opportunity to apply time-tested conservative values to the cutting edge of financial innovation.

Blockchain technology provides a means to secure property rights in the digital era. The most transformative products likely haven’t even launched yet.

The potential benefits are massive. In 2024 alone, decentralized finance grew to more than $114 billion. Even more capital — billions of dollars — stands ready to enter the space through pension funds and institutional investors.

But that money won’t move without guardrails.

Institutional investors need transparency. That means audit requirements they can trust, legally accountable custodians, clear reporting on asset health, and safeguards against manipulation.

They also need legal certainty. Defined rules give investors confidence. Without them, they’ll stay away — or invest elsewhere.

That’s where Washington plays a role.

The Trump administration shifted U.S. regulatory policy toward digital assets, elevating crypto to a national priority through executive order. Now, with a Republican-led Congress weighing landmark crypto legislation, conservatives have a real opportunity.

This moment demands more than slogans. It calls for applying time-tested conservative principles — rule of law, market discipline, and individual liberty — to the future of finance.

Don’t be afraid

Some treat cryptocurrency as a threat. Fair enough — the collapse of FTX still casts a long shadow over the current debate in Congress.

Sam Bankman-Fried, a Democratic megadonor, didn’t just run a failed company. He ran a cautionary tale — a playbook for what lawmakers must never allow again.

The FTX scandal highlights two enduring conservative truths:

  1. Human nature is flawed. Left unchecked, individuals will act out of greed and self-interest. Conservatives have never pretended otherwise — and that’s why we build systems of accountability.
  2. The rule of law matters. Pre-established standards prevent chaos. Waiting for disaster or making policy on the fly only magnifies the damage.

FTX didn’t collapse because of cryptocurrency. It failed because no one held Bankman-Fried accountable. He amassed influence through backroom politics and ran a tangled network of private firms without meaningful oversight. The result: billions vaporized and public trust shattered.

Thoughtful legislation can prevent the next meltdown — not by stifling innovation, but by setting clear, enforceable rules rooted in transparency, responsibility, and the rule of law.

A remedy with room to improve

The bill now before Congress offers a rare chance to get crypto regulation right.

It tackles the custodial vulnerabilities exposed by the FTX collapse and establishes a framework that allows digital asset projects to integrate into the broader financial system. Just as important, it does so under a unified set of rules.

The bill follows conservative logic. It exempts infrastructure providers — such as blockchain validators and payment processors — from regulatory burdens that don’t apply. These actors don’t make governance decisions, and the law should reflect that.

It also classifies participants based on their actions, rather than the extent of their political influence.

But the bill still needs one critical fix.

Lawmakers need to include decentralized autonomous organizations as eligible cryptocurrency issuers. These DAOs, the opposite of central banks, operate through user-led governance. Crypto users vote on the rules of the system they help create.

DAOs have become common in decentralized finance. Yet the current bill overlooks them. That omission could block the very groups driving innovation from entering the regulated space.

RELATED: Trump’s Bitcoin masterstroke puts America ahead in digital assets

  Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

If a project follows the rules, discloses information, and acts responsibly, it should qualify, regardless of how it governs itself. Whether the issuer is a DAO, a startup, or a traditional bank, one standard should apply.

That’s the conservative way: equal rules, fair enforcement, and space for innovation to thrive.

What if we get it wrong?

Leaving the bill unamended carries real risks:

  • Overreaching compliance rules could smother the best of American innovation — now and in the future.
  • Narrow legal definitions might force decentralized finance into the hands of a few massive exchanges, recreating the same “too big to fail” system that burned taxpayers in 2008.
  • Ongoing regulatory ambiguity could drive developers and infrastructure providers offshore, into the arms of authoritarian regimes eager to benefit from America’s hesitation.

The biggest danger? Watching capital and talent flee to countries that welcome decentralized commerce while the United States — its origin point — falls behind.

Decentralized finance leaders aren’t calling for lawlessness. They want smart policy.

Joe Sticco, co-founder of Cryptex and a White House Crypto Summit participant, put it this way: “In DeFi, it’s not about evading rules — it’s about building better ones.”

Sticco believes today’s innovators want a seat at the table. “We believe open financial systems can coexist with responsible oversight,” he told me. “We have to show up, we have to explain the tech, and we have to help shape the rules.”

Congress still has time to get this right. But the window is closing.

The path forward

Republicans now hold both chambers of Congress. That means the window to act is wide open.

This isn’t about growing government. It’s about setting the rules so innovation can thrive, fraud gets stopped, and people are held accountable. Here's what that looks like:

  • Clear rules that apply fairly to both traditional companies and decentralized projects;
  • Basic protections like audits, secure custody of funds, and anti-fraud measures;
  • Freedom for developers to build new tools without unfair roadblocks;
  • And clear standards for when crypto projects are considered stable enough to ease up on oversight.

With these fixes, the Clarity Act can do what no other crypto bill has: protect investors, promote innovation, and keep America in the lead.

We can build the future of finance right here — on American terms, with American values. But we have to act now.

Trump’s tariffs are working — now comes the ‘marshmallow test’



The Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday detailing the budgetary and economic impact of President Trump’s tariffs. The top-line result: Even the Democrat-controlled CBO concedes that tariffs will reduce the deficit over the next decade.

  

Trump has every reason to celebrate. Tariffs shrink the deficit in one of two ways. They either raise revenue directly — as tariffs are a form of tax — or they do so indirectly, by reshoring industry and expanding GDP.

History suggests both outcomes are likely. But if Trump stays the course and keeps tariffs high and stable, the United States could seize the opportunity of a generation: reindustrialize the economy, grow GDP, and restore prosperity for our grandkids.

The marshmallow test goes national

In the 1960s, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel ran an experiment on self-control. Children were given a choice: Eat one marshmallow now or wait and receive two later. Those who delayed gratification generally fared better in life. Intelligence and future success correlated with restraint.

The implications extended beyond childhood. Researchers found similar behavior in animals, with more intelligent species — like crows — choosing delayed rewards.

Delayed gratification builds successful investors, entrepreneurs, and nations.

No one pretends tariffs deliver instant gratification. They don’t. They aren’t supposed to.

Tariffs function much the same way. They impose short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. Like the marshmallow test, this moment asks whether Americans will accept some present discomfort to secure a far more prosperous future.

Fortunately, patience pays. Economic logic and historical evidence both show that tariffs expand the gross domestic product and create jobs over time.

What the trade deficit reveals

In 2024, America posted a net trade deficit of $918 billion. That figure represents more than a statistic. It reflects real, physical production now taking place elsewhere — mostly in China.

  

The math is simple: If Americans didn’t buy those goods from abroad, they would need to produce them at home.

Reshoring that production would raise GDP accordingly. When demand remains steady and supply shifts from overseas to domestic producers, GDP rises.

Demand drives supply. That’s basic economics.

This principle played out throughout American history. For over a century, high tariffs protected domestic industry. America’s economy grew faster than the global average. Consumption increased. Industrial output soared. Not until the 1970s, when the country embraced so-called “free trade” and abandoned the gold standard, did growth begin to stagnate.

  

Industrial production also benefits from increasing returns to scale. The more you produce, the cheaper each unit becomes. Part of the reason Chinese goods seem inexpensive lies in our own underproduction. As American firms ramp up supply, the cost gap narrows.

Financing habits support this trend. Americans fund trade deficits by selling assets or issuing debt. Those mechanisms would remain available in a closed trade system. True, consumers might get less “bang for their buck” in the short term, but the willingness to spend wouldn’t change.

Most Americans will continue to consume, no matter where production occurs. That behavior ensures demand will remain steady — providing the economic incentive for supply to shift back home.

Unused capacity, untapped opportunity

America’s industrial potential remains far from exhausted. Millions of citizens remain unemployed or underemployed. Hundreds of billions of dollars in productive capital sit idle.

The infrastructure exists. The labor pool exists. The only thing missing has been the incentive to build again. Or more accurately, the disincentive to rely on foreign labor.

The United States thrived for generations as a self-sufficient manufacturing power. It can do so again.

RELATED: Without tariffs, the US is defenseless in an economic war

  Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Production follows consumption. That truism holds in both individual and national economies. No one works because they love harvesting wheat or running a forge. People work because they want to eat, live, and flourish.

In a globalized economy, countries can consume without producing. But once that system breaks — or gets reshaped by political will — production must rise to meet domestic demand. It cannot work the other way around.

This logic exposes a hard truth: America’s trade deficit reflects lost potential. We haven’t stopped consuming. We’ve just stopped building.

Trump’s tariffs aim to reverse that trend. By shrinking the trade deficit, the policy raises GDP. With production comes employment. With employment comes prosperity.

The patience to win

No one pretends tariffs deliver instant gratification. They don’t. They aren’t supposed to.

Tariffs offer a national test of will. Do Americans want long-term sovereignty, security, and wealth badly enough to endure a temporary adjustment? Or will they flinch the moment cheap consumer goods rise in price?

This question lies at the heart of the national debate. And the outcome will shape whether America reclaims its manufacturing base — or continues hemorrhaging power to rival nations.

The evidence favors success. But only if we stay the course.

Conservatives and nationalists should recognize what’s at stake. Tariffs don’t just serve economic goals. They advance a moral imperative — to rebuild the country we inherited and preserve it for those who follow.

The marshmallow test may sound childish. But its lessons hold: The future belongs to those who can delay gratification today to build something greater tomorrow.

America stands at that threshold now. As I show in “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream,” reindustrialization isn’t a fantasy. It’s within reach. But it requires courage, consistency, and sacrifice.

Trump’s tariffs have set the stage. The numbers now support the policy. The question remains: Will the American people pass the test?

Let’s hope so. Because this country doesn’t belong only to us. It belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and every generation still to come.

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



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

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

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

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

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

Reshaping public opinion

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

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

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

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

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

Attacking global institutions

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

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

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

  wildpixel via iStock/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

Trade should work for America, not rule it



This week, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, announced his organization’s support for President Trump’s trade policy. That includes backing Trump’s use of tariff threats to secure better trade deals with foreign nations.

The announcement reflects a broader shift underway at Heritage. Once a pillar of the conservative establishment, the think tank has moved toward a more populist, "America First" approach that challenges the traditional Republican consensus on trade.

We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.

Predictably, critics from the old guard — such as Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz — emerged from their irrelevant holes to denounce Heritage for its betrayal of “conservative principles.” But these men, who haven’t conserved a blessed thing, have lost sight of a foundational truth: Economies should serve nations — not the other way around.

In theory, free trade eliminates barriers to the flow of goods and services across borders. The promise is that open markets lead to greater competition, more efficiency, and lower prices for all. British economist David Ricardo developed the idea of comparative advantage to support this model, arguing that trade benefits both countries when each focuses on what it produces most efficiently.

As scholar Neema Parvini has noted, however, Ricardo’s theory rested on key assumptions — most notably that labor and capital would remain largely fixed. That assumption no longer holds.

Ricardo never imagined a world where illegal immigration surged across borders or where corporations moved profits overseas to build factories in lower-cost countries. In fact, he warned against detaching economic decisions from national loyalty.

Ricardo believed a man’s attachment to his country would lead him to accept smaller profits at home rather than seek higher returns abroad. He viewed that sense of national loyalty as a natural barrier against global capital flight — and a necessary one. It would be a tragedy, he warned, if that bond ever broke.

The economist most often cited by free trade absolutists understood that theoretical models only work when grounded in reality. In Ricardo’s view, trade made sense only if individuals valued their nations more than the pursuit of maximum profit.

In an ideal world, workers and corporations would prioritize national loyalty over global opportunity, and all countries would reduce trade barriers. But we do not live in that world.

Many nations — even U.S. allies — routinely use tariffs and subsidies to give their domestic industries an edge. They do this while benefiting from a global trading system that operates securely and reliably, largely at America’s expense.

These countries act unapologetically in their national interest. The United States should do the same.

Free trade is not a moral imperative or an inherent good. It is an economic policy rooted in a theory about how trade functions. Those who promote it without question often ignore both the historical context in which Ricardo developed the theory and the realities of today’s global economy.

If free trade benefits the American people, we should pursue it. If it does not, we should adopt a policy that does.

Political theorist Russell Kirk argued that conservatism should never become ideological. Its first obligation is to the well-being of a particular people. Conservatism isn't about abstract ideals or academic formulas — it’s about preserving a way of life, grounded in real communities and traditions.

Those who champion theory over lived experience are not conservatives. They are ideologues cloaked in the language of the right, often more interested in intellectual posturing than in preserving American life.

This is why rigid, neoconservative approaches to trade have so often failed. They claim to “conserve,” but in practice, they have eroded the very institutions and livelihoods they were meant to protect.

These ideas have been tested — and failed. For decades, the United States has acted as the only major economy fully committed to ideological free trade. The results have been disastrous.

Other nations talk about free trade but act in their own interest. They impose tariffs, protect key industries, and prioritize their citizens. They live in the real world — not in an academic simulation. It’s long past time for the United States to do the same.

Economists and other academics play an important role in society, but — as the COVID-19 catastrophe made clear — they should not have the final say in public policy. Experts offer valuable insights, but their knowledge often applies narrowly to specific fields. They tend to struggle when asked to apply that knowledge in broader, real-world contexts.

That’s why nations are governed by statesmen, not scientists or economists.

An economist may point out that producing antibiotics in China reduces costs. But that same economist cannot weigh the national risk if China, the sole supplier, becomes the source of a disease that only those now-imported antibiotics can treat. In that scenario, no amount of economic efficiency will save American lives.

Shifting U.S. trade policy to protect American interests does not betray conservative principles — it affirms them. The first duty of conservatism is to preserve the American people and their way of life.

Conservatives should adopt economic policies that serve that goal, but we must never treat those policies as ends in themselves. The economy is a tool, not a purpose.

Neoconservatives may mourn the loss of ideological purity, but their abstractions should not define national policy. We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.

How Zelenskyy’s corruption robbed US taxpayers blind



Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a thief. Ukraine’s little dictator has overseen the misuse of billions in American taxpayer dollars — amassing a vast personal fortune while running arguably the most corrupt nation in Europe. Ukraine has become little more than an organized crime state.

Donald Trump and his America First team have long been aware of the depth of Zelenskyy’s venality, but his insulting, disrespectful, and churlish spectacle in the Oval Office revealed the truth of his intentions and behavior. Now, Trump “will lean into a Ukraine fraud probe,” shining the light on Zelenskyy’s serious crimes.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an anti-American globalist puppet and thief who belongs in prison.

The DOGE is on the case, and Elon Musk has Zelenskyy’s number. Musk describes the dictator’s regime as a “massive graft machine feeding off the dead bodies of Ukrainian soldiers.”

The magnitude of the thievery is staggering. But the malfeasance by the warmongers in Congress and the mainstream media’s continual cover-ups have hidden the full extent of Ukraine’s corruption.

When the initial $60 billion for the globalist proxy war against Russia in Ukraine was being allocated, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) stood up for American taxpayers, proposing an inspector general and audit to track how military aid was being spent. But the warmongers shot them down. There would be no oversight, no accountability, and little reporting of the epic plunder that followed. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Cannon fodder and Reznikov eggs

Last month, Zelenskyy, while claiming that Ukraine had received just $75 billion of the $177 billion in U.S. aid, stated nonchalantly, "I don't know where all this money is." Here are a few places to look.

Early in the war, a now-censored CBS report revealed that due to theft and diversion to the black market, ”only 30%” of American equipment was reaching the front lines. Some of the weapons ended up in the hands of criminal gangs in Sweden and terrorists in Nigeria. Last year, the Pentagon admitted that it had failed to track $1 billion in weapons deliveries, mainly small arms — including Javelin and Stinger missiles — ideal for arms traffickers.

Ukrainian soldiers are cannon fodder. The Zelenskyy regime’s contempt for its troops is made apparent by how it spends — and steals — money.

In January 2024, executives from a Ukrainian arms company and officials from Zelenskyy’s defense ministry embezzled $40 million meant to buy 100,000 mortar shells. A retired Ukrainian general revealed that $207 million was grifted in purchasing hundreds of thousands of useless anti-tank mines produced during World War II — decades past their expiration date.

In January, American money bought hand grenades filled with cornmeal instead of explosives. In November, U.S. taxpayers paid for 100,000 Ukrainian-produced mortar shells that wouldn’t fire because they got stuck in the mortar barrels. In October, Kyiv’s defense minister acknowledged that 20% of all artillery ammunition fired by the Ukrainians failed to detonate.

Have you ever wondered why Ukrainian soldiers are freezing on the front lines? Zelenskyy’s cronies paid $86 million to the Ukrainian owner of a sham company in Turkey for 200,000 winter uniforms. The problem? They were actually summer uniforms, “unfit for their intended purpose as winter clothing” — and valued at only $29 million.

Ukraine’s corruption even touches the food distributed on the front lines. Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov supplied the military with eggs purchased at three times the market price. "Reznikov eggs" has become the Ukrainian soldiers’ euphemism for corruption within their military.

Ukrainians are fed up

The vast majority of Ukrainians — 89% according to one survey — say that corruption is the country’s most serious problem after the war with Russia, and 94% believe corruption is pervasive across Ukraine. As many as 42% of Ukrainian households pay bribes to access public services, and 78% believe Zelenskyy is “directly responsible” for the corruption.

Recruitment officials pocket millions of dollars in bribes, allowing those with money to dodge military conscription. Meanwhile, men who can’t afford to pay are snatched off the street, thrown into frontline trenches, and shoved into the meat grinder. To evade service, 860,000 men have fled to the European Union, and 800,000 more are hiding in Ukraine.

Zelenskyy officials have stolen entire trainloads of civilian aid. According to a senior Zelenskyy adviser, people at the top are “stealing like there is no tomorrow.” To add insult to injury, American taxpayers pay the salaries and pensions of these crooks.

Leading by example

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that Zelenskyy and his closest allies embezzled at least $400 million in a single year by skimming U.S. funds earmarked for procuring diesel fuel. An intelligence officer told Hersh, “Zelenskyy had been buying the [discount diesel] fuel from Russia … skimming untold millions from the American dollars earmarked for diesel fuel payments.”

The CIA grew concerned about the rampant corruption, so in January 2023, CIA Director William Burns met with Zelenskyy and his band of thieves in Kyiv to address the problem. Hersh described the meeting as a scene from “a 1950s mob movie.” He relates, “The senior generals and government officials in Kyiv were angry at what they saw as Zelenskyy’s greed … because he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals.” Moreover, Hersh says the level of corruption in Ukraine is “approaching that of the Afghan war.”

Dead man walking

Even in the Ukrainian parliament — where Zelenskyy has banned 11 opposition parties — voices of dissent are finally being heard. Zelenskyy is finished.

Verkhovna Rada Deputy Alexander Dubinsky has called for Zelenskyy’s impeachment, blasting him for his authoritarian suppression of democracy, disastrous war policies, and public buffoonery.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an anti-American globalist puppet and thief who belongs in prison. Trump should cut him loose, expose the fraud, and bring peace and democracy to Ukraine.

Zelenskyy miscalculated — and Trump won’t budge



During last week’s Oval Office confrontation with President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received a stark reality check — and Europe is now scrambling to preserve its influence over Ukraine’s future.

First, we must establish a crucial fact: Those who wish to continue the endless war want you to believe that Ukraine must join NATO to ensure its ongoing security in a ceasefire deal. The opposite is true. Russia lost, and it did so without NATO involvement. Russia failed to achieve its primary objective — taking full control of Ukraine. The notion that Russia is poised to invade Poland or other NATO countries is unfounded. Without NATO involvement, Moscow has already demonstrated its limitations.

Will Zelenskyy take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

This is critical when examining the exchange at the White House between Trump and Zelenskyy. This was not a routine diplomatic meeting — it was an unvarnished display of power dynamics.

Contrary to prevailing narratives, Trump did not instigate the tension. The viral clips circulating on social media omit the preceding 20 minutes, during which Trump consistently offered Zelenskyy an off-ramp.

Trump repeatedly cautioned him, signaling that he should reconsider his stance. Yet Zelenskyy persisted, prompting Trump’s firm response: “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem!”

Zelenskyy had just been publicly put in his place. He came to Washington thinking he could dictate terms. He thought he could guilt America into another blank check. Trump made it clear: Those days are over. At that moment, Zelenskyy grasped reality. He was no longer dealing with an American leader willing to be pressured into indefinite financial and military commitments. He hastily returned to Europe seeking reinforcement.

Zelenskyy returns, tail between his legs

Within hours, European leaders — including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other heads of state — gathered in London. Their objective was to craft an alternative peace framework that would circumvent Trump’s influence. Their true concern is not Russia’s next move but the prospect of an American president who prioritizes U.S. interests over European demands.

In response, the U.K. pledged an additional aid package to Ukraine worth over $4 billion, including a $2 billion loan and another $2 billion for air defense systems. Macron floated the idea of a “coalition of the willing,” which is a euphemism for “If America won’t send troops, maybe we will.”

This approach raises fundamental questions. Are European nations prepared to deploy their own troops? More importantly, are Americans willing to send their sons and daughters to fight in Ukraine? The answer, for many, is a resounding no.

Europe’s power play

The ongoing crisis is less about defending democracy and more about geopolitical maneuvering. European elites are striving to maintain their strategic leverage, and Trump’s economic-based approach threatens to upend their plans.

Trump’s proposal to Ukraine is straightforward: Accept economic investment in rare-earth minerals, or receive no further assistance.It prioritizes economic cooperation over endless war. Ukraine holds vast mineral resources essential to modern technology, and American investors are prepared to help rebuild the nation. The plan represents a mutually beneficial alternative to prolonged warfare. However, Zelenskyy initially rejected it. After reconsidering, he returned to the United States, only to attempt a renegotiation in front of the media. Trump, unwilling to entertain such posturing, dismissed him outright.

This response sent shock waves through European leadership. If Trump’s strategy prevails, the war will conclude, military aid will cease, and Ukraine will transition to an economic recovery model. Such a resolution would strip Europe of its ability to dictate terms while simultaneously disrupting China’s control over global supply chains — an outcome Beijing strongly opposes.

The bigger picture

Connecting these dots reveals a broader reality: European leaders are not advocating for peace — they are maneuvering to retain influence. Their fear is not that Ukraine will fall to Russia but rather that Trump will broker a settlement that excludes them from the decision-making process.

Zelenskyy’s tantrum in the Oval Office was not merely a diplomatic miscalculation — it was the reaction of a leader recognizing that U.S. policy is shifting away from blank-check commitments. The crucial question now is whether Ukraine will seize the opportunity to rebuild through economic engagement or persist in a conflict that serves the interests of European power brokers more than its own people. Will he take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

“America First” isn’t about abandoning allies but about ensuring we’re not being played. Last week, Trump made it clear: The game is over.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

NATO’s cracks show: Time for a controlled demolition?



When they’re first built, skyscrapers and other towering buildings are impressive. But there comes a time when structural weaknesses raise the danger that one will collapse, injuring or killing many people going about their daily business. Shoring up the building works for a while, sometimes, but often things reach the stage where the most prudent action is to demolish it in a controlled way.

The United States faces similar structural threats today. The two most urgent and fundamental dangers are the unchecked administrative state at home — and, by extension, among globalist NGOs — and the declining condition of many NATO partner countries. Both the administrative state and the U.S. role in NATO were products of postwar efforts to create stability and order after World War II. However, these institutions have grown far beyond their original purposes and now pose significant risks to our national security, economic stability, and core constitutional freedoms.

Both the entrenched administrative state and our current alliances with Western Europe now show serious structural weaknesses.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project is exposing the depth of corruption and waste within the administrative bureaucracy and its NGO partners. As a result, Americans are starting to see how these networks leave ordinary people struggling to afford basic needs like food and rent. The findings also reveal the extent of the country’s precarious financial situation.

However, fewer Americans realize how European countries have drained U.S. resources — and arguably poisoned the relationship — through their actions. While the United States has shouldered most of NATO’s expenses and defense efforts, European nations have neglected their own militaries and failed to meet their defense commitments.

European nations have made things worse by burdening their own economies with unsustainable welfare programs and excessive regulations that stifle innovation. At the same time, they have imposed unfair tariffs on U.S. goods, increasing the economic strain.

Even more troubling, they are trying to impose regulations on U.S. energy use, free speech, information flow, and even the participation of popular parties in national governments. Recent examples are easy to find, and Vice President Vance recently highlighted some of these issues at the Munich conference.

Meanwhile, they expect the United States to continue draining its resources, admit Ukraine into NATO — which would commit U.S. forces to respond to Russia — and silence any criticism of their actions on social media.

The hypocrisy is both staggering and offensive. For proof, just look at how much Russian oil and gas Germany is buying today, even as it refuses to allow imports of Israeli natural gas.

Is it time to consider a controlled demolition of NATO? Possibly. The alliance should have been restructured or dissolved after the Soviet Union fell 34 years ago. Instead, President Clinton and his successors expanded NATO incrementally by adding former Soviet and communist countries on Russia’s border. That this strategy would provoke a response was entirely predictable.

We must not be drawn farther into this folly. Alliances based on mutual interests and fair contributions are valuable. But having U.S. troops deployed in combat at the whims of Great Britain, France, and Germany — rather than based on American assessments of threats and costs — is not.

The bottom line: Both the entrenched administrative state and our current alliances with Western Europe now show serious structural weaknesses. It’s time to consider dismantling or reforming them before they collapse on American citizens and the nation as a whole.

Foreign aid or foreign influence? USAID’s true purpose unveiled



The U.S. Agency for International Development is making headlines for waste, fraud, and abuse. While those issues are real, they are not accidental. The agency has been functioning exactly as intended.

USAID was deliberately designed as a tool of statecraft, funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to nongovernmental organizations both domestically and internationally. Some of these funds ended up benefiting Hamas in Gaza through intermediaries, while other grants supported media organizations that promoted narratives favorable to those in power.

If Americans are serious about reclaiming their government, they must also be serious about defining what, if anything, should replace these failed institutions.

This created a closed propaganda loop. USAID not only facilitated regime change abroad but also fueled misinformation at home, feeding misleading reports to American citizens and members of Congress. The agency served a dual purpose: reinforcing U.S. influence while strategically undermining adversaries. It became a relic of an America that prioritized economic interests over democratic ideals.

The real issue isn’t just that USAID was riddled with corruption. The deeper problem is that, for decades, the post-World War II global order relied on USAID as a tool of American hegemony — projecting power and maintaining influence.

As we rightly rip out the once-vital organs of that system, our focus should be on what our government and our place in the world look like on the other side.

USAID is just one example. Many U.S. agencies are not only inefficient bureaucracies but also obsolete institutions that likely never should have existed. A forensic audit is long overdue. We must examine what was done, learn from it, and then discard many of these agencies as historical relics. This is not just reform — it is the active dismantling of the post-World War II global order.

If Americans are serious about reclaiming their government, they must also be serious about defining what, if anything, should replace these failed institutions. Any debate that does not focus on maintaining economic strength and strategic stability in a world where we no longer pull the strings is missing the real opportunity — and the real point.

This debate must be grounded in truth and first principles. But how many Americans can articulate the fundamental truths on which this nation was founded? Do we even have time for the civics lesson we so desperately need?

Serious questions demand serious answers, yet they are being ignored in favor of easier discussions about “fraud” and “inefficiency.” It is easy to get angry about wasted tax dollars, and that anger can serve as a catalyst for greater awareness. But if the people truly want a say, they must move faster. Time stops for no one, and nature abhors a vacuum.

Donald Trump was elected with a mandate to return power to the people. He is doing his part. Are we ready to do ours?

Instead of clinging to outdated statecraft, America should seize this moment for renewal. Propping up a broken system only delays the inevitable. The real task is to build a future rooted in liberty, decentralization, and a recognition that power belongs to the people as sovereign individuals.

The first step is understanding how the world has operated and acknowledging that dominance through covert manipulation and economic coercion is unsustainable. We have reached the end of that path. If America is to remain a leader, it must redefine strength — not as global micromanagement, but as self-sufficiency, resilience, and an unwavering commitment to the liberty of its people.

Yes, our people. America must rebuild at home first. That means investing in domestic industries instead of outsourcing them, fostering innovation rather than relying on financial engineering, and decentralizing power instead of concentrating it in bureaucratic agencies that function as little more than tools of control.

We must embrace a future where influence is earned through excellence — not imposed through foreign aid and intervention.

USAID is just the tip of the iceberg. President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency are on a direct collision course with the entrenched power structures of the uniparty. They are ready for the fight. Are we? The dissolution of American hegemony must come with a renewed commitment to civic engagement, grounded in truth and first principles.