MAGA meets the machine: Trump goes all in on AI



The technology once confined to science fiction has now become reality, and its impact will be revolutionary. When artificial intelligence first broke through, many MAGA supporters reacted with suspicion. They saw it as another weapon for woke elites — a way to erase inconvenient facts and reshape public opinion, potentially with government support.

President Donald Trump acted to block that threat. His recent executive order directs the federal government to contract only with AI companies that “prioritize truthfulness and ideological neutrality.”

A MAGA-aligned council of AI policy experts will make the next golden age of American exceptionalism possible.

That’s a strong start, but MAGA weakens itself if it treats AI solely as a threat. I learned that firsthand, working in the field before most people even knew what AI was. It’s coming whether we like it or not.

Meanwhile, other nations — including enemies such as China — have committed to developing AI. If they reach artificial superintelligence first, the consequences could be catastrophic. Our technologists understand the stakes. America must lead in this arena, not trail behind.

Winning over MAGA

Despite what’s at stake, MAGA has a dearth of people who support or even understand AI — at least, until recently, when President Trump delivered remarks at the “Winning the AI Race” summit hosted by the "All-In" podcast at the Hill and Valley Forum.

That change is monumental. Imagine a few years ago, when an AI bot put you in TikTok prison for violating the site’s “terms of service” — as I was — and someone told you that a re-elected Donald Trump would participate in an AI summit with the big Silicon Valley companies and MAGA-aligned leaders.

That’s why people like James Burnham are key to bridging the gap between the Silicon Valley and the MAGA base.

Burnham bridging the gap

At the summit, I met with Burnham, a former senior lawyer at the Department of Government Efficiency and now head of the AI Innovation Council, to talk about MAGA’s role in shaping the future of artificial intelligence.

He may share the name of the author of “Suicide of the West” — a man often called the intellectual godfather of neoreaction and one of the first practitioners of psychological warfare — but the resemblance ends there. This Burnham is an unapologetic optimist, a happy warrior, and an original MAGA activist determined to unite the movement’s best minds with the tech right.

His goal: Mend fences and help define AI policy for the years ahead.

“I was there when Trump went down the golden escalator,” Burnham told me. “My hope is that I can help bridge the gap between true MAGA and the tech right.”

Some might see him as an unlikely figure for the role, given that his enthusiasm for AI matches that of Silicon Valley’s most bullish innovators. But for Burnham, advancing American AI is more than a defensive measure against hostile nations. It’s an opportunity to create America’s next golden age.

As he told the New York Post: “Artificial intelligence is a revolutionary technology with the potential to make the United States wealthier and greater than it has ever been.”

The AI we deserve

Burnham’s perspective is not exactly shared by much of MAGA — and understandably so. After all, as recently as last year, we were terrified that woke tech companies would use AI to clamp down on our speech. Having had that experience, our instinct might be to try to kill the technology in its crib.

RELATED: The AI takeover isn’t coming — it’s already here

sankai via iStock/Getty Images

But that’s simply not realistic — and not just because China will develop AI without us. The Silicon Valley’s left will then seize the mantle of the future. We can’t allow that to happen, not least of all because the left doesn’t deserve that kind of credit. All leftists want out of AI is the world’s smartest and most vigilant woke hall monitor.

America can — and must — do better than that.

But if we’re going to do better, we need the tech world to be willing to talk to us. That’s why people like Burnham are so critical. You win more flies with honey than with vinegar — just ask AIs themselves.

Unlike AI, however, a MAGA-aligned council of AI policy experts won’t just flatter the people it engages with. It will make the next golden age of American exceptionalism possible.

The anti-reality crowd’s new anthem: ‘You can’t make me!’



Our digital age has brought many benefits. Lately, though, I’ve noticed how it’s enabled the spread of a persistent malady.

Call it the digital-era version of “spaniel selective hearing.”

Sometimes it’s willful ignorance. Other times it’s just denial. Either way, it’s intellectual evasion wrapped in self-satisfaction.

In her book ”The Invaders,” paleoanthropologist Pat Shipman explains that modern humans and dogs have been partners for 40,000 years. Over time, we developed specific dog breeds optimized for various jobs like herding, protection, and hunting. Once firearms became common, even ordinary people could hunt waterfowl. So we developed spaniels with excellent noses, all-day energy, non-territorial instincts, and a gentle, cooperative temperament.

The latter qualities were especially important: You and I might bring our personal gundogs to the field to hunt together, so each one needed to be attuned to its human and not challenge the other for turf control. Today we see their sweet spaniel faces with big eyes and their love of people in homes and as therapy dogs.

But something changed.

Back then, spaniels were often kennel-raised and fed once a day. They depended on their humans, so they stayed alert and focused. Today’s dogs? They’re beloved pets — well-fed, spoiled, and sometimes a little too independent.

This phenomenon was dubbed “spaniel selective hearing”: the condition in which your dog “can’t hear you” because it would rather be doing something else. It’s real. And it’s made worse by how cute and cuddly these dogs are otherwise.

In today’s world of digital abundance, I’m seeing the human version of this problem — and you probably are too.

You share an article that lays out certain information and reaches a conclusion. Immediately, someone in your circle dismisses it outright, saying, “The author is a partisan,” simply because she disagrees with him.

RELATED: When the mainstream media’s left-wing bias costs them credibility

SvetaZi via iStock/Getty Images

Press further, and she will respond with three “neutral” links — maybe NPR, the New York Times, or one of those permanently anti-Trump conservatives who call themselves principled.

Then, if the facts from your original article prove difficult to refute, she might pivot. She might offer her own “analysis,” which, oddly enough, ends up reinforcing the exact same claims made by the author she just dismissed.

But don’t expect your interlocutors to admit that. Why?

Because they’re neutral. Because context doesn’t count. Because you can’t make them go there.

Sometimes it’s willful ignorance. Other times it’s just denial. Either way, it’s intellectual evasion wrapped in self-satisfaction.

Like spaniel selective hearing, this rapidly spreading malady is the product of abundance — in this case, the overabundance of digital information and opinion pieces by a plethora of people with a wide range of actual expertise and insight.

Maybe we should call it “deflective data deployment” or “convenient data fencing.” Or, better yet, “I won’t go there, and you can’t make me!” syndrome.

Whatever we call it, we need to call it out.

We need a label that diagnoses this behavior. Confronting it is the first step toward reviving healthy public discourse and breaking us out of our echo chambers.

The lie that launched a thousand riots



For decades, academic leaders insisted on "neutrality" when it came to life’s most important questions — whether God exists, what defines the highest good, and how to live a virtuous life. But that neutrality was always a ruse. Now the roof is caving in.

In Los Angeles, rioters burn police cars, wave foreign flags, and earn praise from elected officials who call them “peaceful demonstrators.” These aren’t isolated incidents. They reflect the long-term effects of a philosophy cultivated on campus and subsidized by taxpayers.

The neutrality myth has run its course. The wolves are no longer pretending to be sheep.

The recent unrest didn’t appear out of nowhere. It’s the predictable bloom of a poisonous seed — one we let grow under the false belief that the First Amendment demands silence in the face of subversion. It doesn’t. And this strategy from America’s enemies didn’t begin last week. It’s been unfolding for decades.

Attacking the American order

Arizona State University, the nation’s largest public university, offers a snapshot of the broader national crisis. It imports professors from elite graduate programs and churns out activist graduates steeped in a worldview that condemns the United States as irredeemably evil.

Look at the student organizations ASU endorses — like MEChA, whose stated mission reads like a political ultimatum:

“[We] devote ourselves to ending settler colonialism, anti-Black racism, heteronormativity, borders and prisons because our liberation does not exist until these legacies of colonization are abolished.”

In 2024, ASU suspended the campus chapter of the far-left Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán — and only suspended them — after the group declared, “Death to the ‘Israeli’ entity! Death to the ‘American’ entity! Long live Palestine! Long live Turtle Island!”

("Turtle Island" refers to a Native American creation myth that North and Central America rest on the back of a giant turtle.)

Despite the suspension, MEChA remains listed as an active club on campus. The group still enjoys faculty support.

This isn’t about revising reading lists or replacing Shakespeare with indigenous poetry. “Decolonizing the curriculum” masks a much larger goal: revolution. This is a coalition of radicals — communists, LGBTQ+ activists, pro-Mexico nationalists, anti-Semitic “Free Palestine” organizers, land acknowledgment militants, and Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations — who align not because they share values, but because they share a target: the American constitutional order and its Christian foundations.

And yet naïve liberals and sentimental Christians often fall for the rhetoric. These groups invoke empathy, community, and sacrificial love — virtues rooted in the Christian tradition. But they weaponize those virtues. They wear sheep’s clothing to cloak their wolfish designs.

Rather than reform through representation, they aim to abolish representative government entirely. They don’t seek equality before God; they demand a transfer of power — to a Native tribe, to Mexico, or to some vague utopia where oppression has been deconstructed out of existence and LGBTQ sex litters every street corner.

That may sound absurd. It is. Mexico, after all, functions under cartel rule and bleeds citizens who risk everything to escape. But revolutions don’t require coherence. Absurdity often accelerates them. These movements aren’t governed by logic or principle. They run on resentment — the fury of those who believe life cheated them.

What the moment demands is moral clarity. That begins with rejecting the lie of neutrality.

Neutral education is a lie

A “neutral” education doesn’t exist. Every curriculum is built on a view of the “good life.” Every professor teaches from a vision of what humans are and what we are meant for. When we allowed universities to abandon the pursuit of wisdom and virtue — to stop teaching that God created us and that our rights come from him — we didn’t establish neutrality. We created a vacuum — and radicals rushed in to fill it.

As a professor, I’ve seen firsthand how godless academics wield the First Amendment as both shield and sword. They argue that “free speech” protects those who seek to dismantle the very system that guarantees that right, while insisting those same protections exclude Christian ideas from the classroom.

But the Constitution doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize sedition. Nothing compels a university to hire professors who publicly call for the abolition of the American republic.

RELATED: Academia fuels the fire that torched Jewish grandmothers in Boulder

Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images

This isn’t about banning ideas. People can believe whatever they want. But taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to underwrite the education of young Americans in philosophies that teach them their country is an imperial cancer.

If a professor wants to advocate abolishing the United States, let him do it honestly. Declare it on the syllabus. Reject public funding. And stop pretending any of this qualifies as neutral education.

A little truth in advertising would go a long way. Imagine just a few basic reforms.

Preparation: Professors should demonstrate a grasp of foundational truths — about God, goodness, virtue, wisdom, and the greatness of the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who denies these basics has no business teaching at a taxpayer-funded institution. Private universities exist for that. Once upon a time, American universities valued this knowledge, often requiring courses in natural theology for all students.

Transparency: Require state-employed professors to disclose if their courses promote a political or ideological agenda — especially one hostile to the principles on which this country was founded.

Accountability: Tie public funding to standards that reflect the values of the citizens footing the bill. That includes respect for the rule of law, representative government, and the God-given rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Reform: Restore universities that teach what used to be obvious — that God is our Creator and knowing Him is the highest good of human life. State dollars come with strings. Those strings should include love of God and country.

That last point may sound idealistic, but it’s far more grounded than the utopian fantasies now taught with your tax dollars. It takes human nature seriously. It acknowledges the need for redemption, the pursuit of virtue and wisdom, and the moral order built into creation.

It’s time for students, parents, donors, governors, pastors — and yes, President Donald Trump — to recognize what the Los Angeles riots truly represent: not just political unrest, but philosophical collapse. The neutrality myth has run its course. The wolves are no longer pretending to be sheep. They’re outside your child’s classroom, dressed in regalia, holding a metaphorical Molotov cocktail.

Enough pretending. The time for reform has come.

'No brainer': Utah becomes first state to ban rainbow flags in both schools and government buildings



LGBT activists' cultural imperialism may have reached its zenith during the Biden years when their "Progress Pride" flag was prominently displayed on the White House with American flags relegated to a secondary status on either side.

Now, with the country under different leadership, conservatives flexing more muscle legislatively, and key narratives crumbling, non-straight activists appear to be losing ground as signaled by legislation advanced in Utah and Idaho last week.

Months after the Trump administration announced that "only the United States of America flag is authorized to be flown or displayed at U.S. facilities, both domestic and abroad," Utah Republicans successfully passed legislation on Thursday banning the rainbow flag as well as other activist flags from all government buildings and schools.

Utah state Rep. Trevor Lee's (R) House Bill 77 prohibits state entities and employees from displaying a flag in or on the grounds of government property with a number of exceptions including Old Glory; an official Utah state flag; a historic version of the American or state flag; a municipal flag; a U.S. military flag; the National League of Families POW/MIA flag; a country flag; a tribal flag; an official university or public school flag; and an Olympic flag.

It appears that the only ways to lawfully get a rainbow flag into the classroom is to have it grafted onto an exempted flag, to accept the $500 fine for each day of noncompliance, to overturn the law, or to depict the flag by means other than an actual flag, such as on a lapel pin or a sticker, which activist groups routinely distribute to students.

The bill became law on Thursday without Republican Gov. Spencer Cox's signature.

"This was a no brainer bill to run," wrote Lee. "Tax payer funded entities shouldn't be promoting political agendas. This is a massive win for Utah."

'All this bill does is add more fuel to the fire.'

Cox, who vetoed six bills this year, indicated that he did not similarly veto HB 77 because Republicans would override him in the Utah House of Representatives, where they outnumber Democrats 61-14.

While acknowledging that the law "is neutral on the types of flags in question" — highlighting that MAGA flags are now similarly prohibited in schools and government buildings — Cox suggested that the ban was insufficient to eliminate "culture-war symbols in a place that should be apolitical," namely public schools.

"By simply requiring the removal of flags only, there is little preventing countless other displays — posters, signs, drawings, furniture — from entering the classroom," Cox wrote in a letter to state lawmakers, where he emphasized his love for the so-called LGBTQ community. "Furthermore, the bill is overly prescriptive on flags themselves. To those legislators who supported this bill, I'm sure it will not fix what you are trying to fix."

After suggesting that a better regulatory route for Republicans to depoliticize the classroom is the Utah State Board of Education, Cox claimed that "the bill goes too far when applied to local governments."

"All this bill does is add more fuel to the fire, and I suspect it will only ratchet up the creative use of political symbolism (for example: lighting used in place of flags)," added the governor.

'Fly flags that unite and don't divide.'

LGBT activists outside the state government similarly bemoaned the enactment of the flag law.

The Salt Lake City-based Utah Pride Center thanked Cox in a statement Friday, noting, "While we understand the complex political reality that this bill would likely have been passed regardless of the governor's decision, we are deeply saddened to see it move forward into law."

Troy Williams and Marina Lowe, the executive and policy directors of Equality Utah, said in a release that HB77 "sets a dangerous precedent."

Enraging a similar variety of activist, Idaho legislators passed legislation last week prohibiting government entities from flying flags besides the American flag and a handful of official flags, including those representing American military branches and government entities.

House Bill 96 passed the state House in landslide votes and now requires the signature of Republican Gov. Brad Little. Little signed a similar bill into law on March 19, which prohibits the display of unauthorized flags and banners that "promote political, religious, or ideological viewpoints" on public school property.

"The ultimate goal is for us to fly flags that unite and don't divide," said Idaho state Sen. Ben Toews (R), reported the Idaho Statesman.

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

If American Institutions Were Morally Neutral, Harrison Butker Wouldn’t Have Struck A Nerve

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Screenshot-2024-05-20-at-9.16.25 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Screenshot-2024-05-20-at-9.16.25%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]The backlash to Harrison Butker's commencement speech makes it abundantly clear that neutrality within a given political order is a myth.

SNL’s Pete Davidson gave a COWARDLY response to Hamas attacks, despite his father’s tragic death on 9/11



"Saturday Night Live" has long been a source of comedy for Americans, but it’s also been what Dave Rubin calls “a mirror to look back on us.”

“We needed satire to look back on the [ridiculousness] and make fun of our politicians,” says Dave, “but you know that most of our comedy and our drama … went crazy woke.”

A couple of days ago, Pete Davidson opened an SNL episode with the following statement: “This week we saw the horrible images and stories from Israel and Gaza, and I know what you’re thinking: Who better to comment on it than Pete Davidson? Well, in a lot of ways, I am a good person to talk about it, because when I was seven years old, my dad was killed in a terrorist attack, so I know something about what that’s like.”

You might be thinking: Wow – someone who can empathize with the brutality of terrorism; surely a denouncement of Hamas will follow.

But, unfortunately, you’d be wrong.

“I saw so many terrible pictures this week of children suffering – Israeli children and Palestinian children – and it took me back to a really horrible, horrible place,” he continued. “Sometimes comedy is really the only way forward through tragedy. My heart is with everyone whose lives have been destroyed this week, but tonight I’m gonna do what I’ve always done in the face of tragedy, and that’s try to be funny,” Davidson said, concluding the opening.

“There’s a bunch of things I want to address here,” says Dave.

“First off, it’s odd that he said his dad was killed in a terror attack. His dad was killed on 9/11; he was a firefighter on 9/11 in New York City. I don’t know why he just said a terror attack and didn’t address that. There probably is some reason why … it might make people think, who did 9/11, right? And that they have a little something in common with the people that just burned babies alive,” says Dave.

“His dad was killed by jihadists waging a holy war. It’s the same thing that is happening right now,” he continues.

Further, Davidson “immediately opens by saying he feels bad for Israeli children and Palestinian children,” Dave explains, but “the Israeli children who were burned to death and are now kidnapped … the absolute intention was the horror and the savagery … [but] the Palestinian children who are dying are dying because of Hamas.”

While Israel has been dropping leaflets warning civilians to evacuate, Hamas has positioned its headquarters under a hospital to use the most vulnerable people as human shields.

Hamas is evil and should be openly denounced.

But SNL, of course, refuses to speak the truth and instead takes the cowardly path of neutrality.

Davidson “can’t say which one is worse and which one is better,” says Dave. “No people are more moral and less moral – it’s complete nonsense.”

“I’m not making this personally about [Pete Davidson],” clarifies Dave. “They write this for him, and this is the message they want to get out.”


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.