The White House’s mixed messaging threatens to sabotage Trump’s trade war



Tariffs aren’t a one-dimensional tool. They can be used for all types of policy objectives, including punishing foreign states, renegotiating trade deals, raising tax revenues, and protecting domestic industries. They cannot, however, be all things to all people.

Is the goal to reshore American industry? Lower and erase trade barriers? Or simply break dependence on China? The problem for President Donald Trump’s administration is that disorganized and mixed messaging (with a heavy dose of wishful coping) threatens to undermine the whole thing.

A true restoration would take a long-term commitment to demanding — and protecting — domestic manufacturing.

On the one side of the White House’s messaging, you have Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who has said repeatedly that the administration’s goal is to bring industry back to the United States. We need to making things like the iPhone here, he argues, to “reset the power of the United States of America.”

Meantime, senior counselor for trade and manufacturing Peter Navarro says the goal is to reset international trade imbalances. He argues that the World Trade Organization has created a global system that disadvantages American exports while giving foreign countries easy access to U.S. markets.

“The U.S. will now match the substantially higher tariffs and crushing non-tariff barriers imposed on us by other nations,” Navarro wrote at the Financial Times. “This is about fairness, and no one can argue with that.” In addition, he says the new American tariffs will punish those countries that help China dodge our trade barriers.

Vice President JD Vance has added on to that last point on X, arguing that we cannot be dependent on “Chinese supply chains and inflated equities.”

And then you’ve got men like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who says it’s all about “hardball negotiations” over trade barriers in order to open up a “new golden era of American trade.”

Bessent is scheduled to meet Wednesday with the House Republican Study Committee to assuage members’ concerns over the impact of a global trade war on their constituents. Bessent also traveled to meet with the president in Mar-a-Lago to corral the broader team into working from the same page.

Not all the goals are at odds! But some of them are, and expectations certainly aren’t set for which goal the administration is pursuing.

We continuously hear the term “reciprocal tariffs” from all corners of the White House team, but the term suggests countries that lower their barriers will receive mercy from the United States in exchange. About 70 countries have reportedly reached out to the president to work along those lines.

Naturally, Bessent is worried about the economy and the massive disruption to the markets that the trade war has already caused. He and a lot of Republicans seem to want this thing over with as soon as possible (with a series of wins in the meantime).

Lowered trade barriers around the world would be all well and good for trade hawks, but not so much for those who believe the United States needs to rebuild its famed industrial power. What major manufacturers are going to bear the high costs of moving operations back home from abroad to pay significantly higher wages and subject themselves to U.S. regulations if this whole thing will blow over with reciprocal negotiations? A true restoration would take a long-term commitment to demanding — and protecting — domestic manufacturing.

And then there’s China. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle generally agree that China is not a responsible trading partner and poses a strategic threat to the United States.

However, the decision to impose tariffs on countries like Vietnam — a communist nation that hates China — and allies such as Australia marks a sharp departure from that focus.

China regularly, and disingenuously, claims it can be a better trade partner than the United States. Actions like these risk affirming Beijing’s narrative.

Eliminating unfair global trade barriers would be fantastic. It’s incredible how many of our friends and allies subsidize their own industries and punish our exports while expecting easy goings for their own imports.

Reshoring American industry would be the absolute golden goose of presidential achievements, helping us to rebuild our middle class and restoring huge swaths of the heartland.

Forcing American industry out of China would be a key (though shorter-term) strategic win.

The first of these options is easy enough. Trump has proven time and again that he can force countries to renegotiate bum deals. The second is crucial to our future, but will take serious long-term commitment and a tolerance for economic pain in the meantime. The third is achievable but might look much different from either of the first two.

Trump’s longest-held political view is that the United States is getting ripped off by the world. He’s beat this drum for decades, and by all accounts he’s completely committed to changing that at long last. Vance, Lutnick ,and Navarro all share Trump’s view. They want a change and aren’t likely to retreat from that position. But if they’re intending to take the long, hard road toward reshoring, they’d best let us know what we’re in for — including what it’s going to take and what it’s going to mean to win.

Compact: Happy Liberation Day, America

Unherd: Tariffs will awaken the American Dream

Compact: Liberation now?

Business Insider: Trump is digging in on tariffs, and GOP leaders have his back

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter
Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford's newsletter.

Debt spiral looms as Trump tests tariffs to tame rates



Following the market’s reaction to Donald Trump’s recent tariff hikes, many investors remain fixated on short-term stock declines. But I’m less concerned about the immediate drop in equities and more focused on the broader ripple effects — especially given the current state of U.S. fiscal policy.

The Trump administration inherited serious economic challenges from the last four years of Bidenomics, a mess made much worse by unsustainable levels of deficit spending.

A stock market downturn could cut tax revenue significantly. In that case, any interest savings might be wiped out — or worse.

U.S. debt has surpassed 120% of GDP. Deficits now resemble those of a wartime economy. The government’s interest payments exceed defense spending — a major warning sign for any nation. Meanwhile, inflation remains stubbornly high.

The new administration took office facing high interest rates — not historically high, but elevated relative to recent norms, especially given the nearly $37 trillion in national debt — and a strong U.S. dollar. That hinders Trump’s policy options.

Given that context, are tariffs a strategic move to lower interest rates, refinance the debt, and buy the administration some breathing room? If so, can that approach work — and at what cost?

Roughly $7 trillion in U.S. debt is scheduled for refinancing this year. Add a projected $2 trillion deficit, and the government faces an enormous financing challenge.

The administration may be betting that aggressive tariff policy triggers a “flight to safety,” prompting investors to move money out of equities and into long-term government bonds. Greater demand for bonds would push their prices higher and yields lower, since bond prices and yields move in opposite directions.

We saw some evidence of this last week when the 10-year Treasury yield dipped below 4%, though it rebounded above 4% by Monday.

A stock market sell-off could pressure the Federal Reserve to cut short-term interest rates. So far, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has shown no willingness to step in — but that could change.

The strategy carries significant risk. Federal tax revenue depends heavily on both economic growth and stock market performance. If markets continue to tumble, government revenue could shrink, adding further strain to an already fragile fiscal outlook.

Even if yields on the 10-year Treasury dropped by 100 basis points (or 1%), and the government managed to refinance all $9 trillion in scheduled debt, the interest savings would total only about $90 billion.

But that scenario is unlikely. Issuing more Treasury bonds increases supply, which typically pushes yields higher — unless some outside force steps in. And if such intervention is possible, it raises a larger question: why pursue this risky strategy in the first place?

There are also other risks to consider. A stock market downturn could cut tax revenue significantly. In that case, any interest savings might be wiped out — or worse, deficits as a percentage of GDP could grow even larger.

On top of that, a declining market can trigger the “reverse wealth effect.” When portfolios shrink, consumers tend to spend less. Since consumer spending makes up about 70% of the U.S. economy, that kind of pullback can slow growth. Businesses may also become more cautious, further weakening economic activity.

Luke Gromen of Forest for the Trees recently pointed out that in 2022, a 20% drop in the stock market led to a $400 billion decline in federal tax receipts. If the same happens in 2025, the financial impact would far outweigh any gains from refinancing debt.

In a recent report, Luke Gromen noted that the last three recessions pushed the U.S. deficit higher by 6%, 8%, and 12% of GDP, respectively. In today’s terms, that would mean increases of $1.6 trillion, $2.1 trillion, and $3.2 trillion during a recession.

Yet, Congress has offered no serious plan to cut spending. Any reductions that do happen would likely shrink GDP, which makes solving the problem even more challenging. That leaves the administration with very little room to maneuver.

While the White House denies any intent to trigger a market crash, some economists believe the administration’s aggressive tariff strategy may be designed to lower interest rates by creating financial stress.

If true, it’s a high-risk approach to managing the government’s rising interest burden. The longer it takes to deliver results, the greater the danger it backfires — potentially triggering a debt spiral instead of relief.

Let’s hope for a resolution before those risks materialize.

The ‘Ugly American’ Is Under Attack

This whole hassle could have been avoided if the Belgians had given the man a White Claw

Trump Is Allowed To Be President Again — Barely

But let those who have never cracked open a Modelo with a rapacious gang member cast the first stone

Return of the ‘American System’: Trump’s economic comeback



Few economic philosophies have shaped America’s prosperity as profoundly as Henry Clay’s American System — a blueprint for national strength and self-sufficiency. Developed in the early 19th century, Clay’s vision centered on protective tariffs, a strong national banking system, infrastructure development, and the responsible use of natural resources. These pillars propelled the United States into economic dominance.

In the latter half of the 20th century, however, Cold War geopolitics led to a significant departure from these principles. Today, President Trump’s economic policies signal a revival of the American System, aiming to restore national industry, energy independence, and economic resilience.

The debate over trade, industry, and economic nationalism is far from over. But one thing is clear: Those opposing Trump’s policies are rejecting the very system that built America’s prosperity.

One of the key components of Clay’s American System was the use of tariffs to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. Clay and his contemporaries understood that fledgling American manufacturers needed time to grow without being undermined by cheaper imports. This approach helped transform the United States from an agrarian economy into an industrial powerhouse.

President Trump’s embrace of tariffs is a modern adaptation of this strategy, aimed at protecting American businesses from unfair foreign trade practices. His policies seek to revitalize domestic manufacturing, reduce dependency on foreign goods, and address trade imbalances, particularly with China. Additionally, tariff revenue contributes to lowering the national debt, reinforcing economic sovereignty.

Clay’s American System also relied on a centralized banking institution to maintain financial stability. The Second Bank of the United States played a critical role in providing credit, regulating state banks, and preventing economic crises. Although Andrew Jackson dismantled the bank in the 1830s, its essential functions were later restored with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

While Trump has been vocal in his criticism of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions, he has consistently championed a strong dollar and a stable financial system. His economic policies aim to foster domestic growth while ensuring that U.S. monetary policy serves the nation’s best interests rather than the demands of global financial elites.

Another core tenet of the American System was the federal government’s role in developing infrastructure. Clay understood that investing in roads, canals, and railroads was essential for national growth, linking markets, and expanding economic opportunities. The Erie Canal, transcontinental railroad, and interstate highway system are all legacies of this philosophy.

Trump’s focus on rebuilding America’s infrastructure is a direct continuation of this principle. His administration has pushed for major investments in highways, bridges, airports, and broadband expansion, recognizing that modern infrastructure is key to long-term economic competitiveness. His “America First” vision prioritizes domestic industries and job creation through large-scale development projects.

Clay’s economic vision also emphasized utilizing America’s vast natural resources to fuel economic growth. Throughout U.S. history, industries have thrived due to the country’s access to coal, timber, oil, and minerals. Under President Trump, the United States became the world’s leading energy producer, reversing decades of reliance on foreign oil. His administration prioritizes domestic energy production — expanding oil drilling, natural gas extraction, and coal mining — which contributes to lower energy costs and economic growth. By ensuring energy independence, Trump reinforces a key pillar of the American System — harnessing natural resources for national prosperity.

For most of our history, the U.S. followed the American System to protect its industries and promote national wealth. However, after World War II, Cold War strategy took precedence over economic protectionism. To secure global alliances against communism, America lowered tariffs to encourage partnerships to contain the Soviet Union. While this strategy helped win the Cold War, it also led to the decline of American manufacturing.

Today, the Cold War is long over, yet the economic policies that sacrificed American industry remain unchanged. As a result, millions of jobs have been lost to overseas markets, and American businesses have suffered from unfair competition with countries that manipulate their currencies and exploit cheap labor. Trump’s economic agenda seeks to reverse these decades-old policies, prioritizing American workers and industries once again.

As the United States faces increasing competition from China and other global powers, the question remains: Will Trump’s economic philosophy be successful? While his policies were met with resistance from both parties, they resonate with millions of Americans who have witnessed firsthand the consequences of offshoring and deindustrialization.

The debate over trade, industry, and economic nationalism is far from over. But one thing is clear: Those opposing Trump’s policies are rejecting the very system that built America’s prosperity. The American System lifted the United States to economic dominance once before — can it do so again? If history is any guide, the answer may very well be yes.

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

Trump’s Bitcoin masterstroke puts America ahead in digital assets



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

Win No. 1: No cost to taxpayers

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

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

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

Win No. 2: Boosting domestic innovation

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

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

Win No. 3: A global statement

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

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

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

Bitcoin’s value will soar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is the New York Times carrying water for the CCP?



In a prior article, I exposed the tangled web of the New York Times’ obsessive propaganda series, which attempted to discredit Shen Yun Performing Arts.

As it turned out, the lead author of the series, Nicole Hong, is only a degree of separation away from the Chinese Communist Party, which has launched a global propaganda campaign against the group and Falun Gong, the spiritual movement that founded Shen Yun. The CCP has targeted Falun Gong for extermination since 1999. Hong’s father has worked at two CCP-backed universities and was an honorary overseas director for a group with ties to high-ranking CCP officials.

The New York Times began a spree of desperate articles attempting to defend communism.

Though this may explain why Hong was motivated to do the CCP’s bidding, why did the New York Times allow it?

A walk through the paper’s history with communism leaves no doubt that its recent attacks on Shen Yun are consistent with its past willingness to carry water for authoritarian regimes.

Whitewashing communism

Perhaps the most infamous example of the Times doing the bidding for a communist regime was its coverage of Josef Stalin, who was responsible for more deaths through mass killings than Nazi Germany.

Walter Duranty, the Times’ Moscow bureau chief, wrote 13 propaganda articles, winning him a Pulitzer Prize in 1932. The articles gave a favorable view of Soviet communist policies, downplayed Stalin’s brutality, and claimed that the wealthy weren’t being physically exterminated but instead “liquidated as a class.”

In short, Duranty was doing the 1930s equivalent of clicking “copy and paste” on the very same Soviet propaganda he was being presented — without performing the due diligence expected of a journalist.

In 1933, Duranty outright denied the famine that was visible before his very eyes. He called reports of starvation “exaggeration or malignant propaganda,” despite evidence to the contrary from other journalists.

Hollywood got it right — for once

The Times’ reporting was so misleading that even liberal Hollywood pushed back. The 2019 film “Mr. Jones” tells the true story of Gareth Jones, the journalist who first reported on the Soviet famine of 1930 to 1933. That famine killed as many as 8.7 million people, including up to 5 million during the Holodomor in Ukraine and 2.5 million during the Asharshylyk in Kazakhstan.

In 2017, the Times began a spree of desperate articles attempting to defend communism. Its “Red Century” series, launched to mark the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, included several opinion pieces accused of romanticizing or downplaying the horrors of communism.

In one example, the Times ran an article headlined “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism,” written by Kristen R. Ghodsee, who later published a book with the same title. The piece typified the paper’s vain effort to find redeeming qualities in socialist and communist systems.

From the headline alone, the piece became one of history’s most mercilessly mocked New York Times articles. But those who read past the headline found even more to laugh at.

Among the “evidence” Ghodsee presented was an interview she conducted with a 65-year-old Bulgarian woman who had lived under communism for 43 years. The woman claimed that the free market — rather than aging out of her 20s — hampered her “ability to develop healthy amorous relationships.”

The millions of women who starved under the communist regime could not be reached for comment.

Bias laid bare

That was just one of the absurd articles the Times published that year defending communism. Other doozies included an article portraying Vladimir Lenin as an environmentalist whose love for nature led to conservation efforts in Russia — while ignoring the environmental destruction under his successors.

Another piece argued that the American Communist Party in the mid-20th century gave people a sense of moral authority and purpose in fighting social injustice while downplaying its complicity in covering up or supporting Soviet atrocities. Yet another article argued that Bolsheviks raised their children with “world literature” and communal values, suggesting a sophisticated cultural upbringing under communism — an ideology that destroys culture.

A number of reasons could explain why the New York Times might amplify an anti-Shen Yun narrative beyond a supposed journalistic duty. For one, the paper has a well-documented anti-religious bias. It may also be waging a proxy battle due to Shen Yun’s ties to the Epoch Times — a competitor that heavily criticizes the Times.

The reality is that Shen Yun is growing, and a juicy exposé on a “mysterious” financially successful dance troupe will drive clicks and subscriptions, especially amid the Times’ desperate bid to maintain the relevance it deservedly lost.

Austin Metcalf’s death sparks outrage — and opportunism



The death of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a track meet in Frisco, Texas, is every parent’s nightmare. The circumstances make the loss even more devastating. Metcalf, a student at Memorial High School, was stabbed in the chest by another teen, Karmelo Anthony, after a brief argument.

Anthony, a student at Centennial High School, was reportedly sitting under the tent reserved for Memorial High. A witness told police that Metcalf asked Anthony to move. When Anthony refused, Metcalf reportedly grabbed him. At that point, according to the witness, Anthony pulled out a knife, stabbed Metcalf once in the chest, and fled the scene.

The people pushing identity politics are long on hubris and short on wisdom.

Police later arrested Anthony and charged him with first-degree murder. His bail was set at $1 million.

Austin’s twin brother, Hunter Metcalf, held him during his final moments, making the situation even more tragic.

As often happens — especially online — the story of Austin Metcalf’s death quickly shifted from a tragedy about a young life lost and a grieving family to a debate about race.

Metcalf was white. The accused, Karmelo Anthony, is black. Social media users, particularly on X, widely claimed that the case would have drawn national headlines and sparked protests if their races were reversed.

But the facts don’t support claims of media silence. NBC News, ABC News, and Fox News all covered the incident.

Still, accusations of selective coverage illustrate a broader frustration with “outrage inequity” — the notion that moral outrage and condemnation often hinge on the racial identities of both the victim and the accused. The primary indication of this phenomenon is the uneven application of moral indignation and condemnation based on particular victim-perpetrator color combinations.

Critics argue that progressives frequently engage in this pattern, particularly when racially motivated hate crimes make headlines.

In 2022, for example, Payton Gendron drove three hours to a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, where he fatally shot 10 black people. That attack allowed liberal commentators to reinforce a familiar narrative: White violence against black Americans stems from “whiteness” and “white supremacy.”

Progressives often cite slavery, Jim Crow-era lynchings, and even verbal altercations between people of different races as proof of a persistent hatred embedded in white identity.

Rise of the ‘woke right’

A growing number of conservatives use incidents like Austin Metcalf’s killing to support their preferred narratives. They see Karmelo Anthony’s actions as a reflection of a much broader pathology among blacks and cite violent crime statistics to prove their point.

Some attribute these outcomes to culture, specifically the breakdown of the nuclear family and fatherlessness. Others believe the dysfunction is a matter of blood and bone, citing lower IQ scores and genetics as the main culprit.

The increasing prevalence of this rhetoric among conservatives is a microcosm of a much bigger phenomenon: the rise of the race-conscious right. Some people use “woke right” to describe this ascendant ideology, but the specific terminology is less important than the reality it describes.

The political left is notorious for making everything about race. Any incident that involves a white person doing something negative to a black person is strained through a racial prism. Police shootings and incarceration statistics are the clearest examples. Disparities in education outcomes and household income are another.

The left’s overarching narrative is that black people in America face unique obstacles because our institutions are infected with anti-black racism. No amount of evidence to the contrary moves them from that position.

Conservatives historically responded to this narrative by promoting “colorblindness,” treating people as individuals, cautioning blacks to resist self-pity, and encouraging them to embrace personal responsibility. In fact, the right regularly chastises liberals for painting police with a broad brush based on the actions of a few “bad apples.” Their message was always clear and consistent: Don’t engage in hasty judgments or sweeping generalizations that tempt you into seeing entire groups as villains or yourself as a victim.

Animus without evidence

That is no longer the case, and the parallels between the race-obsessed left and right are becoming increasingly clear.

One is assuming racial animus is at play — often without sufficient evidence — when you feel attacked by public institutions. For instance, activists on the left saw George Floyd as the living embodiment of the historical oppression black men have faced in America at the hands of racist police. That idea persists to this day, even though prosecutors stated there was no evidence Derek Chauvin’s actions were racially motivated.

The right’s rhetoric during much of Daniel Penny’s criminal trial made it clear that for some, he was the embodiment of the current persecution of white males in American society. It wasn’t just that Penny was being punished for standing up to a mentally ill homeless man. They believed that Penny was being prosecuted because the black District Attorney Alvin Bragg was bent on weaponizing the justice system against a straight white male in New York City.

Another example of conservative race-consciousness is the tendency to individualize in-group misdeeds while collectivizing the sins of out-groups. This explains why conservative commentators would never think to insert a racial descriptor when discussing teachers who have sex with students, even though it feels like every week brings another incident involving white women engaging in inappropriate conduct with teens.

Likewise, for all their time spent fighting against trans ideology, influencers on the right don’t make a habit of describing its most vocal proponents in racial terms. White abusers and perverts only have to answer for their own behavior, while black people who misbehave in public are seen as representatives of a larger group.

Both sides also make a habit of turning isolated tragedies into existential crises. Progressive pundits stoking the flames of race explain why a black man living in Brooklyn comes to feel “white supremacists” are the real threat to his life even though every shooter in his neighborhood shares his complexion. Likewise, conservatives who live in all-white neighborhoods repost old videos of black criminals halfway across the country with captions claiming their children are under attack.

From Robin DiAngelo to David Duke

Even the quick expressions of forgiveness from Austin Metcalf’s father were ridiculed by some conservatives online. This mirrors the frustration black commentators expressed after family members of Dylann Roof’s victims forgave him two days after he shot nine black churchgoers at a church in South Carolina.

One of the worst parts about the rise in right-wing race consciousness is that it was completely predictable. Progressives spent years arguing that white people are the cause of all the country’s problems. Pundits who love to lecture conservatives about embracing Ibram X. Kendi-style “antiracism” regularly said the vilest things on TV about white people. Over the past few decades, the left went from fighting against racism to publicly waging war against “whiteness.”

The fact that most of the people running the institutions — from universities to Fortune 500 companies — are white doesn’t lessen the damage. Only a complete fool would think you can demonize the largest ethnic group in your country without some type of blowback.

Unfortunately, the people pushing identity politics are long on hubris and short on wisdom. Not only do they reduce Americans down to their immutable traits, but they also create the perfect breeding ground for extremist views. Simply put, when you “sow” Robin DiAngelo, you will “reap” David Duke. This is not unique to white people. Rejection of moderation almost always leads to radicalism.

It’s not entirely clear where we go from here as a nation, but I wish both liberals and conservatives alike would turn down the racial rhetoric. This is one reason Austin Metcalf’s father pleaded with people not to make his son’s death about race or politics. Through his grief, he intuitively understands that seeing victims of crime as pieces to be moved around a cultural chessboard is a sign of a sick society that places a higher value on political narratives than on preserving life. This applies equally to the left and right.

Murder is wrong because every person is made in the image of God. It shouldn’t be hard for pundits on either side of the aisle to say.

Trump state, Biden agenda: Wyoming gets played by green grifters



San Francisco and New York may be showcases for progressive, dystopian governance, but they lack one thing the left increasingly needs: land. That’s why green energy companies — backed by federal subsidies and environmental branding — are targeting rural America for industrial-scale wind and solar farms, along with carbon capture pipelines. Despite their eco-friendly image, these projects often scar the landscape and face strong local resistance.

Ironically, many of these initiatives move forward with the support of Republican officials who claimed to oppose Joe Biden but now embrace one of his signature policy goals. A recent example comes from Eastern Wyoming.

Salt-of-the-earth Wyoming landowners are expected to sacrifice their property so that global corporations can pay a premium to showcase their climate credentials to retail clients and investors.

Last Thursday, the State Board of Land Commissioners approved a 40-year lease of public lands in Converse and Niobrara Counties for two separate wind farm projects backed by foreign-owned companies. The board includes the governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, and superintendent of public instruction.

Secretary of State Chuck Gray, the lone conservative among the Republican officials, cast the only dissenting vote on both projects. Most local residents opposed the wind farms, but their concerns were overruled.

The issue isn’t just that wind turbines are visually intrusive in a state where coal and natural gas remain abundant. It’s that they fail to serve as reliable infrastructure. Instead of contributing stable power, wind farms often operate as economic parasites — consuming massive resources to generate relatively little electricity.

Local officials have raised concerns about the large volumes of water required to operate these wind farms, but those objections have gone largely ignored.

In most cases, a power source earns public support by producing more value than it costs. But these wind farms don’t even power the local communities. The energy is being funneled into a new industry with a dystopian twist: investors want to use Eastern Wyoming’s land and water to produce carbon-offset hydrogen jet fuel — so global airlines can claim they’re “green.”

In the end, rural residents are being sacrificed in the name of questionable science and corporate virtue-signaling. Wyoming’s landscape and resources are being drained, not to meet local needs but to satisfy the environmental claims of distant corporations.

The first project, led by Sidewinder H2 LLC, will occupy roughly 120,000 acres about 10 miles west of Lusk. The second, smaller project, run by Pronghorn H2 LLC, will take up 46,000 acres 20 miles east of Casper. Both companies are based in Delaware but operate as subsidiaries of Acciona and Nordex Green Hydrogen — a joint venture between Spain’s Acciona and German wind turbine manufacturer Nordex.

On its U.S. venture page, Acciona calls for the “decarbonization” of America. The company criticizes the Paris climate agreement as insufficient and urges a rapid shift toward renewables. Its stated goal is to achieve “net zero” emissions by transforming the energy sector “without delay” and “decoupling from fossil fuels.”

So why, in a state Trump won by a landslide and at a time when he’s pledging to dismantle the “green new scam,” are Republicans handing over land to foreign energy firms that aim to shut down U.S. fossil fuel use?

Why are Republican leaders enabling green energy companies — many backed by subsidies from Biden’s climate agenda — to displace Wyoming’s natural resources and burden local landowners in the name of global “carbon offsets”?

The truth is Gov. Mark Gordon and his allies are violating the fundamental trust between state leadership and the people of Wyoming.

At a recent board meeting, Chuck Gray asked Paul Martin, president of Focus Clean Energy, why these companies couldn’t produce fuel “the good ol’ fashioned way” instead of eating up vast tracts of land. Martin’s response was striking.

“Those guys might want to tell the Targets of the world and different clients that they’re reducing their carbon footprint,” Martin said. “That means they’re willing to pay extra for a product that’s gone through this complex process.”

In other words, multigenerational, salt-of-the-earth Wyoming landowners are expected to sacrifice their property so that global corporations can pay a premium to showcase their climate credentials to retail clients and investors.

Yeah, right.

Landowners in conservative states are beginning to push back against green energy land-grabs, though legislative progress remains slow. The Arizona House recently passed a bill to ban wind and solar projects near residential neighborhoods. Lawmakers in Arkansas are weighing several proposals to restrict or prohibit such projects outright. Similar tensions have emerged in the Oklahoma legislature.

Still, no state has enacted a new law this session, although some counties have begun taking action at the local level.

In Wyoming, residents must make it clear: If corporations want to virtue-signal, they should do it on their own land in places like San Francisco or Los Angeles. To defend the open, free land that defines Wyoming, voters need to elect Republicans who actually represent those values — not politicians like Mark Gordon, who seems more at home in California than the Cowboy State.

The stabbing in Frisco was a tragedy everyone saw coming



A high school student fatally stabbed another student last week during a track meet in Frisco, Texas, not far from where I teach. The story gained national attention when details emerged: the alleged killer is a black delinquent, and the victim, Austin Metcalf, was a white all-star athlete, top student, and professed Christian. Initial reports indicate the conflict began when the suspect sat in the wrong area, although new information suggests he may have been rummaging through other people’s belongings.

This tragedy has reignited tough conversations about racial violence among youth, school security, and the role of discipline. Yet raising these issues often prompts accusations of racism rather than honest discussion.

In this case, as in so many others before, district administrators will continue with the same disciplinary policies that failed to prevent the violence.

In response, proposed solutions once again focus on broad, institution-wide measures — calls for increased security and metal detectors at track meets — rather than targeted discipline. This mirrors the post-9/11 approach, when the newly formed TSA frisked elderly women for bombs rather than focus on military-age Middle Eastern or South Asian men.

None of this should be controversial. Schools have a basic duty to keep students safe. At a minimum, institutions should remove students with a history of rule-breaking, harassment, or lack of self-control — especially if they display a pattern. That’s not exclusion; it’s responsible stewardship of public safety.

This only becomes controversial because, as most people know, the great majority of students who fall into this category are black males. For whatever reason (lack of fathers, rap culture, the soft bigotry of low expectations, etc.), young black men are far more likely to exhibit aggressive, antisocial behavior that is incompatible with a safe environment. To be clear, this is no preliminary judgment against black people. It’s simply the outcome of enforcing one standard of conduct for everyone.

Prejudice ... or protection?

Enforcing consistent discipline should not be seen as targeting, but as a necessary step to ensure safety and fairness. If a student’s behavioral record indicates a higher risk of disruption or violence, schools should take appropriate precautions, especially during events with large crowds such as assemblies, athletic competitions, or pep rallies.

Unfortunately, common-sense safety measures are often mistaken for prejudice. But bias involves acting on assumptions without evidence. When schools act on documented behavioral patterns — not stereotypes — they’re not discriminating; they’re fulfilling their duty to protect students and staff.

By contrast, society often treats certain groups differently under far less justification. For example, young white males are sometimes portrayed in media and politics as inherently dangerous or extremist, even when statistical evidence does not support such claims. That kind of unfair generalization undermines trust and distracts from real issues in school discipline and public safety.

Unfortunately, such precautions are confused with prejudice. Yet to qualify as prejudice, a policy needs to be based on a biased assumption, not extensive data.

This kind of prejudice often targets young white men. Despite minimal evidence supporting the claim that they are more prone to radicalization or violence, popular shows like “Adolescence” promote this view. Many on the political left continue to promote the lie that white supremacy among young white males represents a widespread threat.

Schools must take student misconduct seriously and intervene early — especially when patterns of aggression or rule-breaking emerge.

Missed warning signs

Based on my experience working in education, I have seen many similar cases in which students with cases of misbehavior were not disciplined and know where it leads.

Despite warning signs, young men with behavior problems are allowed to remain in class, play football, and attend track meets. Administrators, coaches, and teachers may hesitate to discipline them out of fear of being accused of racism. That kind of reluctance enables escalation. In this case, it may have allowed the student to bring a knife to the track meet, rifle through bags, and start fights without fearing the consequences.

It’s hard not to wonder how different things might have been had someone intervened earlier. A timely response to the accused’s possible first offenses might have steered him toward accountability — or, if necessary, removed him from settings where he posed a risk.

At the very least, staff should have monitored him more closely on the day of the incident. Instead, he was left unsupervised, and a promising young student lost his life. The community is now left to mourn a tragedy that might possibly have been prevented.

To be clear, this is not about race. Many have argued that schools should take steps to intervene with students who fit the behavioral profile often associated with school shooters. If a student shows signs of suicidal ideation, acts suspiciously, and has a documented history of serious mental illness, he should receive intervention — and if necessary, be removed from the campus to ensure safety for others.

Instead, many mentally disturbed white school shooters and hyped-up black wannabe thugs are neglected and could go off at any moment. In this case, as in so many others before, the district will likely respond by spending millions on added security, legal counsel, and public relations efforts. But administrators will continue with the same disciplinary policies that may have failed to prevent the violence.

Emerging alternatives

That might frustrate families who understand this death could have been avoided — and who know that many underlying problems still haven’t been addressed. Yet most have no alternative but to send their children back to the same schools, hoping for change that never comes.

That may no longer be the case. With new alternatives emerging — such as charter schools and the potential expansion of Education Savings Accounts — families concerned about safety and discipline in the Frisco Independent School District may have more options. FISD has long been seen as one of the top public school districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but clearly the district has a problem with safety and discipline.

District leaders should feel urgency to address these problems directly. Failure to act will risk greater reputational damage and an accelerating decline in enrollment — which is already under way.

Something needs to change. Not only for the safety of students and staff who deserve better support and protection, but also for the memory of those who paid the price for a system too cowardly to act for fear of being tarred as biased and bigoted.