International law spells the end of sovereignty



Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recent meeting at the White House was a disaster. Afterward, every progressive pundit rushed to declare that the rules-based international order was on the verge of collapse. Delusional commentators argued that any peace talks with Ukraine acknowledging Zelenskyy’s stubbornness would spell the end of international law and national sovereignty.

Their assumption is flawed. They seem to believe that international law is a higher power that countries can appeal to and that the United States is obligated to uphold. In reality, international law and the supranational bodies that supposedly enforce it are more likely to threaten national sovereignty than protect it.

Civilizations will continue to clash in a contest of great power politics, leaving smaller nations to go along for the ride — whether they want to or not.

Sovereignty means holding supreme power — the ability to make final decisions without outside approval. Sovereign entities may consider the interests of other nations and the limits of their power beyond their borders. But a truly sovereign nation does not need permission from international bodies to make decisions.

When leaders appeal to outside authorities to validate their nation’s sovereignty, they misunderstand what sovereignty means.

Sovereignty rightly understood

The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that a state’s sovereignty depends on its ability to protect its citizens. By his definition, a state that cannot defend its own people or borders is not sovereign. No nation can survive long without protection from hostile forces. If a nation cannot provide for its own defense, another political entity will assume that role and, by extension, its sovereignty.

Carl Schmitt echoed Hobbes’ view when he wrote:

If a people is afraid of the trials and risks implied by existing in the sphere of politics, then another people will appear which will assume these trials by protecting it against foreign enemies and thereby taking over political rule. The protector then decides who the enemy is by virtue of the eternal relation of protection and obedience.

Despite the valiant efforts of many Ukrainian soldiers, Ukraine cannot defend itself without outside help. Western nations have sent hundreds of billions of dollars, along with ammunition and advisers, to support Ukraine’s military. Even so, the Ukrainian forces have struggled to hold their ground.

Russia has not achieved the level of dominance it wants, but the reality is clear: Without backing from the United States and other NATO allies, Ukraine would likely lose the war immediately.

In theory, international law and organizations like NATO exist to protect the sovereignty of nations that cannot stand up to great powers like Russia. NATO was founded to defend Western nations against the Soviet Union’s expansion. Although that threat has vanished, the military alliance endures, claiming to protect the sovereignty of its members. However, despite losing its primary adversary, NATO has continued to expand, moving its borders ever closer to Russia.

In reality, NATO is the United States and the United States is NATO. In 2023, the U.S. contributed $830 billion of NATO’s $1.3 trillion budget. Germany, the second-largest contributor, provided just $61 billion. This funding disparity explains why Donald Trump repeatedly urged European nations to increase their contributions to NATO and to boost their own national defense budgets.

Previous U.S. administrations have encouraged Europe’s demilitarization while pledging to defend the continent with American resources. This arrangement may have played a crucial role in stopping the spread of communism when Europe was recovering from two world wars. But with its original purpose fulfilled, NATO now serves only to distort the true nature of sovereignty.

Ukraine is not sovereign

Officially, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the president of an independent nation fighting a territorial war against a world power. In reality, the United States and its NATO allies are funding a proxy war with Russia. While Zelenskyy should hold significant authority, it’s clear that the real peace negotiations are happening between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. If the United States continues to provide financial and military aid, the war could drag on for years. If that support ends, the conflict would likely conclude swiftly.

Ukraine’s inability to defend itself independently means it cannot control its own fate. Ukraine is not sovereign, and Zelenskyy does not make the final decision. During his meeting at the White House, Zelenskyy seemed to forget this reality, but Trump did not hesitate to remind him before showing him the door.

The idea that a collection of “international laws” recorded in the charter of a supranational institution can uphold the sovereignty of smaller nations is comforting but false. When a lesser nation appeals to an international body, it is ultimately appealing to the will of the sovereign nations that control that body. The moment a country must rely on another for protection, it surrenders its sovereignty.

This geopolitical reality is unsettling to many because it suggests that very few nations are truly sovereign. While some countries may exercise a degree of internal political autonomy, even that can be quickly undermined. U.S. intelligence agencies wield significant influence over foreign affairs, largely because many nations rely on America for their defense.

Samuel Huntington’s theory that geopolitics is a clash between civilizational blocks led by great powers has proven accurate. Supranational organizations like NATO and the “international law” they enforce are little more than façades for the will of powerful nations shaping global events. Civilizations will continue to clash in a contest of great power politics, leaving smaller nations to go along for the ride — whether they want to or not.

Justice Dept. lawsuit puts US tech at China’s mercy



As shock and awe sweep the Department of Justice, undead Joe Biden policies shamble ahead with purposeful mindlessness.

A swarm of zombie lawyers within the department has launched a legal attack on two American tech companies whose merger would threaten Huawei, communist China’s global communications and technology giant.

The slow-moving American legal process only helps the Chinese surpass American companies.

The antitrust action centers around a 1914 law that is blind to Chinese hegemony. That law, the Clayton Antitrust Act, prohibits mergers that might create monopolies and stifle competition.

While antitrust action sometimes can be necessary, the federal government’s lawsuit stifles American competition — our most formidable weapon against foreign adversaries. And it directly contradicts President Trump’s national security-driven tech crackdown on Chinese companies, notably Huawei.

A counter to Huawei

The Department of Justice hatched the lawsuit more than a year ago under the Biden administration, though it is now predictably being blamed on Trump. In question is a $14 billion merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, which the companies say would accelerate the development of critical technologies like 6G and AI-driven networking.

HPE argues that combining its storage and computing strengths with Juniper’s expertise in data center routing and switching would create a formidable alternative to Cisco, which dominates more than half of America’s wireless communications market.

The company said in January that the merger would enhance “secure, unified, cloud and AI-native networking to drive innovation from edge to cloud to exascale.”

It would also counter Huawei, which controls 30% of the global telecommunications and 5G marketplace. Cisco controls just 7%.

In January, the Department of Defense labeled Huawei a Chinese military company. Many national security experts fear the company’s equipment contains back doors that aid and abet China’s People’s Liberation Army. Chinese law requires all companies to cooperate with and serve the regime’s intelligence services.

Increasing American competition can assist tremendously in mitigating Huawei’s global influence.

Playing into China’s hands

The lawsuit, which outlasted Biden’s tenure, was filed in federal court on Jan. 30, 10 days after Trump’s inauguration. The Federal Trade Commission joined in.

None of the Department of Justice’s statements indicate any concern that tying up the HPE-Juniper merger in litigation would aid the Chinese Communist Party’s goal of global information dominance, censorship, and espionage. Instead, the focus remains on the 1914 law.

The assault on the merger began under Attorney General Merrick Garland and was executed by Biden-appointed Jonathan Kanter, then-assistant attorney general for the antitrust division. Kanter had been in the position since 2021, implementing an aggressive antitrust agenda, which claimed to prevent further Big Tech consolidation that would allegedly harm competition and innovation. The agenda was part of a broader Biden economic policy to curb corporate monopolies and “protect” consumers.

Kanter built the case into the last days of the Biden administration.

Trump-appointed acting Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Omeed A. Assefi signed off on Kanter’s action against HPE-Juniper.

Assefi represents a strange mix in Washington. He served with the White House Counsel during Trump’s first term but was later appointed by Biden as a federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia. Trump then named him the acting head of the antitrust division pending the Senate confirmation of Trump’s nominee, Gail Slater.

Slater is also an antitrust hawk regarding Big Tech, but she is no ideologue like the zombie lawyers driving the lawsuit. Her work on 5G and Chinese telecom suggests she views antitrust enforcement through a geopolitical lens — ensuring U.S. firms remain competitive against rivals like Huawei. She has not commented publicly on the HPE-Juniper merger.

The Justice Department’s narrowly focused action risks weakening HPE-Juniper’s ability to challenge Huawei’s pricing and technological advancements, particularly in AI-driven networking, which will be critical for future infrastructure. Huawei would likely exploit years of litigation against HPE-Juniper to the Chinese Communist Party’s advantage in vital international markets.

US vs. China in the tech race

The merger’s focus isn’t primarily on wireless local area networks where the Department of Justice is fixated but rather on enhancing data center capabilities — a sector vital for AI and cloud computing. A stronger HPE-Juniper could accelerate innovation and drive competition with the ever-innovative rival Cisco, but more importantly against Huawei.

Here, the Department of Justice’s narrow antitrust focus clashes with President Trump’s consistent, powerful stance since 2018 against Chinese dominance over American technology, particularly against Huawei.

The slow-moving American legal process only helps Chinese companies like Huawei surpass American companies at the breathtaking pace of technological advancement.

The FBI’s valuable but miniscule counterintelligence capabilities are no match for China’s economic and industrial espionage, which strips American companies of their innovations and beats them to market with cheaper, advanced technologies.

Antitrust enforcement is essential, but not at the expense of empowering the Chinese Communist Party to overtake us in artificial intelligence and global communications.

Why Democrats sat stone-faced during Trump’s address



Love him or hate him, Donald Trump came out swinging Tuesday night. He was sharp. He was funny. He was in command. It was the Trump of old — brushing off attacks like crumbs on his tie. And yet this was not just the 45th president back in action; this was a man who has evolved, a leader who has taken his first six weeks as the 47th president and turned them into a political whirlwind.

And what a whirlwind it’s been — slashing bureaucracy, imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico, cracking down on illegal immigration, announcing mass deportations, rebuilding America’s industrial base, securing hostages from Gaza and Russia, resurrecting the Abraham Accords, and, in perhaps the biggest bombshell of the night, apprehending the mastermind behind the 2021 Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan. It was a relentless showcase of action.

We are deeply divided, but at some point, there must be something bigger than party.

And yet the Democrats sat frozen, unmoved. They wouldn’t clap. They wouldn’t stand. They barely blinked when Trump honored a 12-year-old girl murdered by an illegal immigrant by renaming a Texas wildlife refuge in her memory. They stared blankly when he recognized the courage of a young boy, DJ Daniel, fighting brain cancer and made him an honorary Secret Service agent.

The Supreme Court justices rose to their feet. The joint chiefs stood. Even those who traditionally remain seated out of protocol broke decorum to honor the child’s fight. But the Democrats? They sat stone-faced, unmoved.

Unfortunately, the left’s rebellion against Trump didn’t stop with the congressional Democrats’ chilly posture. Trump was late to his address because leftist activists blocked his motorcade. Secret Service had planned ahead — deploying a decoy and rerouting the president another way. But the event speaks to the left’s playbook: Disrupt and destroy at all costs.

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) brought chaos into the halls of Congress with a full-blown spectacle — shouting over the president, waving his cane in the air, and ignoring calls for decorum. The sergeant at arms had to escort him out, a first in modern history. Compare that to Joe Wilson’s famous “You lie!” moment during Obama’s presidency. Wilson was immediately condemned, even by his own party. But the Democrats have been silent on Green’s outburst — no consequences, no apologies, just condoned chaos.

We are deeply divided, but at some point, there must be something bigger than party. There has to be something that unites us, whether it be a child’s fight against cancer, the return of American hostages, or a commitment to peace. If we can’t find common ground on that — on courage, on decency, on hope — then what’s left?

I actually pity the Democrats who sat in that chamber on Tuesday night, unable to celebrate even the most unifying moments. How dark must your world be to sit through that and feel nothing? How cynical must you be to dismiss everything as just another Trump stunt?

Yet despite it all, I remain hopeful. Six weeks in, Trump has done more than many presidents accomplish in four years. He’s pushing for peace in Ukraine. He’s bringing hostages home. He’s reminding us, through kids like DJ, what true grit looks like.

To my friends across the aisle, let this be a wake-up call. If we can’t find even the smallest moments of unity, we’re never coming back together. And if that’s the case, God help us all.

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.

HART: Zelenskyy, Be Grateful, Read a Room or FA&FO

'In short, Zelenskyy’s visit was an epic fail.'

Stacey Abrams Claims America Is ‘Premised’ On DEI

'Our entire country is premised on DEI,' Abrams wrote.

America’s orator in chief



Most things have been said about President Donald J. Trump in his life. After Tuesday’s comeback speech and his first six weeks in office, it’s time to add “historic orator.”

It wasn’t always like this, though the seeds were always there. The first time I met the future president was at the Hanover Street Chophouse on a cold New Hampshire night in 2016. I’d heard a lot about the man and seen plenty too. He’d been an authentic American celebrity for decades — a businessman and a developer, an author, and a game-show host.

You’ll see some great politicians again in your life, but you’ll never, ever see a man like Trump.

What he had not quite achieved was “politician,” and the D.C. press corps was convinced he couldn’t do it.

“He’s a germaphobe!” they cried. “Do you think Donald J. Trump is going to kiss babies and connect with the common man?” they asked. I wasn’t so sure their skepticism would hold up. I’d seen him speak earlier in a small town north of Des Moines, Iowa, and had been struck that he strolled into a high school gymnasium in a Brioni suit and a red trucker cap and been embraced by a crowd of men in Vietnam War T-shirts and leather jackets, there with their families and friends to hear the New Yorker out.

I’d seen politicians play dress-up before: a suit in front of the middle class; lose the tie and roll up the sleeves with the workers; replace the jacket with a preppy campaign vest at the golf course. Trump didn’t do any of that — ever. He was his authentic self, and even that day, when he was tired, he was his authentic self.

In Manchester, in 2016, we met up close. He took pictures with little kids and told one punch-happy boy to stop whacking his brother and smile for mom’s camera. By the time he walked over to our table, he was brimming with stories from the debate the night before. “I was worried for him!” he laughed about one politician who had done himself no favors. “I asked, ‘Is he OK?’”

The next morning, we saw him again at a small diner where Republican candidates swing in for interviews with “Fox & Friends,” hand out a few obligatory handshakes, and are whisked off to the next event.

Gov. Jeb Bush was slumped over at the counter when we walked in, like a painting of depression. Gov. Chris Christie was in and out, all business. Not Trump. By the time he sat down for the show, he knew the kitchen staff by name. He ordered pancakes while on the air and asked the cook who she was voting for (“America!” she shouted back, and he snickered that he wouldn’t have asked had he not known her answer already). An hour later, he was still at the diner, eating pancakes and holding court.

Here, I thought, was a politician our media did not understand.

Before he took the oath of office, Trump was a proven master of the stump speech. In fact, he never gave one. Remember: Politicians have to give a speech on the campaign trail multiple times a day, every day, and so they give the same one over and over again. Not Trump. He was full of surprises, and that is why reporters covered every one of them, much to the chagrin of his opponents.

Before he took the oath, Trump was a proven master of comedy. From late-night shows to variety shows, he could read a room, make fun of himself (another D.C. myth proven wrong), and even draw laughter from his enemies from time to time.

The day he took the oath of office in 2017, I was sitting a few rows back from the balcony. This would be President Donald Trump now. How would he perform? The speech, “American Carnage,” is famous — and for good reason. It painted a bleak picture of where we were as a country. Our elites had sold us out, and now they were lining up against him. The dark foreshadowing was prophetic: We had no idea yet just how far they’d go.

Over the next four years, he’d take slings and arrows from every corner of the globe; from world leaders and his own party here in Washington; from professional sports and from Hollywood; from our corporate media and even the American intelligence apparatus.

Through it all, he matured. His 2019 speech at Normandy was historic, in that he laid out a vision not just for the United States, but for the Western world. His speech reminded us of the presidents we’d seen in the past, from Ronald Reagan to John F. Kennedy, and even of the presidents we’d read about, like Abraham Lincoln. He understood where we were struggling and where we needed to go.

Throughout his first term, he struggled as well. Even his tattooed, biker-vest fans would whisper on the campaign trail, “Do you think he could tone down the tweets?” (hysterical as they were). They wanted someone who didn’t just speak to their hopes and fears but acted in the manner they’d come to expect a president to act. Trump did not always conform.

But that’s not the Trump we’ve seen this second term. It’s been five years since his last address to a joint session of Congress, when he brought grown men to tears with his moving tribute to a dying Rush Limbaugh, legend of the airwaves. The whole world has changed since that night. COVID hadn’t happened yet. A major land war in Europe was still a distant memory. Things felt good here, the economy was humming, and Trump was an embattled politician fighting an impeachment. Five years later, at that same podium, we see an authentic statesman.

It’s difficult to describe the journey of a man global elites dismissed as an embarrassing aberration to one the founding editor of Politico called “the greatest American figure of his era.” When he resumed office, he returned not simply a deeply credible and respected leader, but an iconic one whose near-assassination on the air had turned him into both a humbled and generational figure. In his second inaugural, he seemed to understand the weight of his mission (and the nature of his opposition) more deeply than ever before.

His second inaugural was bold and expansive. Far from the darkness of his first, he painted a bright picture of a golden age. Men and women who had stood against him now stood beside him. Others sat quietly while he listed their failings just feet away.

Tuesday night, he didn’t shy from the same critiques, nor did his Democratic opponents. For the first time in modern history, the sergeant at arms was forced to restore order by removing a septuagenarian member who disrupted the address like a teenage protester.

Trump still showed a fire in his belly, but he was less caustic, less abrasive. He listed his accomplishments, but also stood in bright contrast to his opposition, who waved little signs and pouted. Who looks presidential now?

He mixed in his humor as well. He went off script. He teased his childish and fuming opponents and lifted up his cheering allies. He drifted from grandiosity to stand-up seamlessly. He added an entirely new move to the bag of presidential addresses, signing an executive order at the podium. He made a little boy fighting brain cancer named DJ Daniel, who dreamed of being a police officer, an honorary agent of the Secret Service. He freed an American man from a Russian prison camp.

Beyond politics, he was both the man I met nine years ago on a snowy night in New Hampshire and a man deeply changed. He was a man who shows a real understanding of the principles of America, life, and liberty, but also one grounded in the fragility of mortality and the momentousness of the movement that has built up around him.

He is our orator in chief. Enjoy it. You’ll see some great politicians again in your life, but you’ll never, ever see a man like Trump.

Blaze News: Does anybody remember how to behave in public?

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.