Clock Ticking On Trump’s War Against Liberal Education Behemoths
Major card to play
The Venezuela crisis was never just about drugs
For decades, the United States focused its counterterrorism efforts on the Middle East and Asia. Meanwhile, a dangerous convergence of international terrorism and transnational crime took root much closer to home. Across Latin America — centered in Venezuela — hostile networks quietly expanded. The Trump administration has finally acted. How the United States manages Venezuela’s transition to legitimate leadership now carries direct national security consequences.
The media frames U.S. action against Venezuela as a narco-trafficking problem. The threat runs far deeper.
Allowing hostile powers to entrench themselves in the Western Hemisphere threatens not just economic interests but national survival.
Hezbollah, backed by Iran, began building a Latin American presence as early as the mid-1980s. What started as fundraising and money laundering in the tri-border area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay grew into a sprawling criminal-terrorist network. That network carried out devastating attacks in Argentina during the 1990s. Over time, Hezbollah expanded into recruitment, training, and operational planning, embedding itself across the region.
The threat escalated sharply in 2012, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forged a strategic alliance with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez. That partnership gave Iran a state sponsor in the Western Hemisphere and dramatically expanded its reach. Iran gained the ability to move money, oil, and personnel throughout the region and even established drone-production capabilities inside Venezuela.
U.S. law enforcement recognized the danger. The Drug Enforcement Administration launched Project Cassandra to investigate Hezbollah’s evolution into a global crime syndicate. The DEA tracked cocaine shipments from Latin America through West Africa into Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. Investigators uncovered a network believed to generate roughly $1 billion annually through drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, and money laundering.
The Obama administration later curtailed Project Cassandra in pursuit of a nuclear agreement with Iran. That decision left much of the criminal-terrorist infrastructure intact. Its consequences persist. Hezbollah-linked networks still operate across the region with minimal interference.
Under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela functioned as both a failed state and a logistical lifeline for Iran. The regime facilitated the movement of operatives and equipment throughout Latin America and beyond. In return, Iran supplied Venezuela’s oil sector with blending materials and refining equipment, helping Maduro evade sanctions and cling to power.
Venezuela also issued hundreds of passports and national IDs to individuals from the Middle East, including figures linked to Hezbollah. Those documents allowed operatives to travel freely under new identities, posing a direct threat to U.S. and regional security. The ability to move undetected across borders remains one of the most valuable tools available to terrorist organizations, and Venezuela provided it willingly.
Recognizing the gravity of the threat, the Trump administration took unprecedented steps. After imposing an oil blockade and designating the Maduro regime a foreign terrorist organization, U.S. authorities captured Maduro to face justice in the United States.
For the first time in a century, the Western Hemisphere now anchors the U.S. National Security Strategy. The Trump administration’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine commits the United States to denying non-hemispheric powers — including Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey — the ability to position forces or control strategic assets in the Americas.
RELATED: The pernicious myth that America doesn’t win wars
Evidence of coordination with America’s adversaries is not speculative. Russia’s Foreign Ministry openly acknowledged Venezuela as a strategic partner, citing what it called the “deliberate escalation of tensions” around a friendly nation. Russia arms Venezuela’s military, built a Kalashnikov rifle factory inside the country, and protects key installations with S-300 surface-to-air missile systems.
China played a parallel role. Beijing became Venezuela’s largest oil customer and financed more than $60 billion in projects. Roughly 7% of China’s oil imports came from Venezuela, propping up the Maduro regime while fueling China’s economy.
As left-wing governments across Latin America gave way to more pro-American leadership, Venezuela’s isolation only increased its value to hostile powers. It became a forward operating base against the United States.
Consider the implications. Iranian ballistic missiles — capable of inflicting serious damage even without nuclear warheads — stationed in Venezuela would sit on America’s doorstep. Add Russian or Chinese nuclear capabilities, and the risk escalates from strategic challenge to strategic catastrophe.
Allowing hostile powers to entrench themselves in the Western Hemisphere threatens not just economic interests but national survival. The fusion of terrorist and criminal networks inside Venezuela posed a clear and present danger that demanded decisive action.
The United States must remain firm in its commitment to a secure, sovereign hemisphere. Ignoring threats in our own back yard invites disaster. And the regime in Tehran understands that reality better than most — nervously, right now more than ever.
Six questions Trump and conservatives can no longer dodge in ’26
For conservatives, January 2025 felt like an auspicious moment to be alive. Donald Trump sat atop the world with a bully pulpit larger than any media outlet and the power to drive virtually any narrative he chose. Yet instead of using that power, we spent the year arguing over the power the GOP supposedly lacked.
Almost no legislation was passed. Many of the most transformational policies Trump enacted through executive action now sit mired in the courts.
Where is our Mamdani?
Fast-forward to January 2026. The economy looks grim. Democrats are crushing Republicans in special elections. It feels like a different universe.
Republicans tend to operate on a familiar two-year cycle. After a victory, the first year involves explaining why campaign promises cannot be fulfilled. The second year, ending in November elections, turns into defensive posturing: As disappointed as voters may be, they must remember that Democrats represent instant political death.
The implication stays constant. Voters must dutifully back the GOP, ignore the fact that Republicans currently hold power, and politely bypass the primary process out of fear of weakening resistance to Democrats.
As we enter the new year, we have reached the “rally around the GOP to stop the Democrats” phase of the cycle once again.
But reality intrudes. No matter how faithfully the base rallies, Republicans will likely lose in November because of the economy. Absent a dramatic national reset, Democrats will retake the House, probably with a substantial majority.
That makes the present moment decisive. With trifecta control still intact for now, Republicans must use what power they have to improve daily life, enact changes harder to undo, and reinforce red-state America so the coming blue wave does not obliterate the remaining red firewall.
Whether Republicans break free from their familiar cycle of election-failure theater comes down to the answers to these six questions.
1. Will the red firewall hold?
Republicans will likely lose the House and surrender residual power in battleground states such as Georgia and Arizona. Independents have abandoned the GOP, and that trend will accelerate as economic conditions worsen.
The question is whether Republicans will give their voters something worth turning out for. Base turnout alone will not flip purple territory, but it could stop the bleeding deep into red states and keep races such as the Iowa and Ohio governorships out of reach.
This past year made clear that Republicans are losing races they never should have had to defend. A deeper economic downturn would push that line even farther.
2. How toxic do AI data centers become — and will Republicans notice?
By the end of 2025, opposition to data centers surged across ideological lines. Communities worry about water use, power strain, housing values, and secondary effects.
Democrats have begun embracing that resistance as Trump elevates data centers and tech interests as pillars of his economic agenda. Will this issue fracture Republicans’ coalition or even force a break with Trump?
3. What will Republicans do with health care?
Democrats engineered a trap that forces Republicans to address health care, the single largest driver of deficits, inflation, and household pain.
Obamacare made unsubsidized insurance unaffordable for most Americans. Democrats then timed the expiration of expanded subsidies to land on Trump’s watch, ensuring that voters blame him rather than the law’s architects.
Anything Trump does — or refuses to do — will be pinned on him. That reality argues for pushing a genuinely free-market repeal-and-replace that lowers costs. History suggests that outcome remains unlikely. I’m not holding my breath, anyway.
4. Will Trump finally ignore a lawless court?
Could a powerless judge issue a ruling so egregious that it would prompt Trump to defy it at long last?
I am not holding my breath on that one, either.
RELATED: The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen
5. Will Trump clear the decks on his promises dating back to 2015?
Democrats will likely control one or both chambers for the remainder of Trump’s term. Regardless of strategy, they probably win the midterms.
That means Trump has nothing to lose by executing fully on his original agenda now. Immigration moratoria, judicial reform, welfare devolution, bans on the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Antifa — these changes should be forced through every “must-pass” bill available.
An all-out approach carries policy upside and political clarity.
6. Will Trump stop making bad primary endorsements?
This year’s primaries matter far more than the general election. They will determine whether red states have leaders willing to defend their prerogatives when Democrats reclaim federal power.
If Trump continues endorsing lackluster governors and candidates such as Byron Donalds in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas, and Brad Little in Idaho, conservatives will have nowhere to retreat when figures like Zohran Mamdani dominate national politics.
RELATED: Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026
Mamdani’s takeover of New York and his appointment of Ramzi Kassem — a 9/11 al-Qaeda defense lawyer — as chief counsel drew outrage on the right. At his inauguration, Mamdani declared, “We’ll replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”
Rather than merely lamenting how Marxists consolidate power in deep-blue America, conservatives should let that example ignite action where they actually govern. If the left can floor the gas pedal in its strongholds, why can’t we?
Where is our Mamdani?
This moment demands urgency. GOP power has become a “use it or lose it” proposition. Trump must finally become the right-wing disruptor his supporters were promised.
If he cannot — or will not — then Republicans deserve to go the way of the Whigs.
10 predictions that could define 2026 — and upend expectations
Each January, I dust off the crystal ball and offer my top 10 predictions for the year ahead. If you want to see how last year’s fared, you can find them here.
Now, on to what I expect to see in 2026.
Trump rallies a demoralized base, but, barring a massive economic boom, history and opposition energy prevail.
1. China and the U.S. effectively swap Venezuela for Taiwan.
I predicted this weeks ago on Glenn Beck’s final Wednesday Night Special on Blaze TV, and the early contours are already visible following President Trump’s arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
One of last year’s quieter stories involved China’s mounting unrest and economic instability. As Beijing grows more desperate, its pressure to resolve Taiwan increases. One way to avoid a world war over Taiwan involves a tacit bargain: The United States consolidates influence in its own hemisphere while China moves on Taiwan.
Venezuela holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves and has been sending nearly 80% of its exports to China. What America would lose in technology via Taiwan, it could gain in energy via Venezuela. Each superpower gains leverage, ideally enough to trade rather than fight. Regional hegemony comes first for both.
2. At least one sitting elected official claims communication with non-human intelligence.
The UFO/UAP psychological operation escalates in 2026. Steven Spielberg’s return with “Disclosure Day” only adds cultural fuel. The stage is set for someone “respectable” to come forward and give the narrative new legitimacy.
3. The Buffalo Bills defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl LX.
This season has defied prediction. With young and inexperienced teams dominating the standings, the door is open for a veteran squad to rev up. Josh Allen remains arguably the best football player on the planet. Why not Buffalo?
4. Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” tops the box office.
An A-list director, an all-star cast, and a July release give Nolan’s adaptation a decisive edge over “Avengers: Doomsday,” which won’t arrive until Christmas. Add superhero fatigue and Marvel’s audience-alienating woke escapades, and the path clears.
5. Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito retires.
Ideally both do.
This prediction will anger people I love and respect, but the future of the republic outweighs hurt feelings. Conservatives cannot afford a Ruth Bader Ginsburg-style miscalculation with hostile midterms looming.
6. Pam Bondi does not survive the year as attorney general.
Frankly, she should not have survived last year.
7. Trump’s foreign policy marginalizes the dissident right.
In 2025, figures such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes capitalized on anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic tropes, conspiracism, and the grievances of young men in desperate need of a dad and a direction.
That window narrows fast as Trump reasserts American power abroad. An “America Only (except Islam)” MAGA faction collapses once Trump himself acts aggressively on the world stage. It turns out that building a brand on hating Israel gets harder when Trump is the one moving the chess pieces.
Try growing an audience by calling Trump a schmuck anywhere outside BlueSky. Good luck.
RELATED: Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026
8. The Trump administration blocks the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger.
Trump will not allow Netflix — the most ideologically aggressive streamer in the industry — to consolidate Apple-scale control over pop-culture IP.
9. Trump engineers a split midterm decision.
Trump will nationalize the midterms around his presidency and agenda, not congressional Republicans. He rallies a demoralized base, but, barring a massive economic boom, history and opposition energy prevail.
Republicans narrowly hold the Senate. Democrats narrowly flip the House.
10. We make this happen.
Minnesota’s fraud scandal exposes a dangerously loose election system
Fraud investigations are closing in on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), but the scandal reaches beyond any single official.
Minnesota’s election system itself now stands exposed, revealing vulnerabilities that undermine transparency and public confidence.
Election officials cannot plainly explain how the system blocks ineligible voting, and voters have every reason to doubt it.
Recent reporting has drawn renewed attention to just how permissive Minnesota’s election framework has become. The state allows voters to “vouch” for up to eight other individuals at the polls. That practice requires no voter identification and relies entirely on personal attestation. Even on its own, that policy raises serious concerns. Combined with broader governance failures and ongoing fraud investigations, it becomes a glaring liability.
Minnesota’s approach to immigration and identification compounds the problem. In 2023, Walz signed legislation allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.
In most states, such a policy would trigger heightened election safeguards to prevent misuse. Minnesota has no voter ID requirement at all, leaving a dangerous gap between immigration policy and election administration.
Supporters frame these policies as efforts to expand access and remove barriers to voting. But access without accountability produces disorder. Confidence in elections depends on clear rules governing eligibility, verification, and identification. Remove those guardrails, and public trust erodes.
Those vulnerabilities came into sharp focus during an October hearing of the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committee. On a recent episode of my "Election Protection Project Podcast," I spoke with state Rep. Patti Anderson (R), the committee’s vice chairman, about her exchange with state Elections Director Paul Linnell.
Anderson repeatedly asked a basic question: Could illegal aliens use driver’s licenses issued under the Walz-signed law to vote?
Linnell refused to give a clear answer.
That exchange exposed Minnesota’s core problem. Election officials cannot plainly explain how the system blocks ineligible voting, and voters have every reason to doubt it. A system without basic safeguards can’t be trusted.
Moments like this expose the weakness of claims that voter ID is “unnecessary.” In 2023, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) opposed a bill requiring photo identification at the polls, arguing that identity is already verified during registration and that ID requirements could suppress turnout. Minnesota’s experience shows why that argument fails. Loose rules invite confusion, abuse, and doubt. Safeguards such as voter ID protect confidence rather than diminish it.
Americans understand this instinctively. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 81% of U.S. adults support requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, reflecting broad bipartisan support for common-sense safeguards. These measures help ensure that election outcomes remain credible.
Minnesota’s lack of safeguards is especially troubling as the state heads into a critical election year. Voters deserve assurance that their elections will be administered competently and that only eligible citizens can cast ballots.
Election integrity should never be treated as a partisan issue. It forms the foundation of self-government. Without clear rules, accountability, and transparency, the democratic process itself suffers. Minnesota still has the opportunity to restore trust by implementing voter ID and reinforcing citizenship requirements before voters return to the polls.
Why weight-loss drug prices finally fell — and who deserves credit
For decades, Americans heard the same justification for high drug prices. Pharmaceutical executives insisted those prices were unavoidable. Research costs required them. Innovation depended on them. The United States, as the world’s most open market, had to pay more than everyone else.
Then Eli Lilly cut the monthly price of one of its flagship weight-loss drugs, Zepbound.
If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change.
Nothing about the drug changed. No new scientific breakthrough appeared. The only thing that changed was competition. Once real pressure entered the market, Lilly found room in its pricing model that executives had long claimed did not exist.
The market responded quickly. Novo Nordisk, Lilly’s primary rival, lowered its prices soon after. This did not reflect a sudden gain in efficiency. It reflected fear of losing ground to a competitor.
That is how functioning markets work. When one major player moves, others adjust. The correction happens faster than any federal agency could hope to manage.
The irony is hard to miss. For years, the industry claimed margins were fixed and untouchable. Executives warned that any shift would damage shareholders and undermine global health. Yet the moment one company blinked, others followed. Consumers saw relief not because regulators intervened, but because competition exposed the old narrative as hollow.
Another force reinforced that shift. On Nov. 6, the White House announced a pricing agreement with major drug manufacturers scheduled to take effect in 2026. The agreement aims to narrow the gap between U.S. prices and those in other advanced economies and establishes a purchasing framework that makes reductions easier to implement.
That move marked a break from Washington’s habit of passively accepting industry talking points. The administration did not override the market. It amplified momentum competition had already created. Companies that once refused to consider cuts began to bend once the political cost of rigidity became clear. The announcement accelerated the trend, but competition started it.
A larger reality deserves attention. Major pharmaceutical companies have posted enormous profits for years. They have spent billions on stock buybacks and shareholder payouts while executive compensation soared. Market valuations across the sector reached historic highs. Lilly even became the first pharmaceutical company to surpass a trillion-dollar valuation.
Profit itself is not the problem. But competition forcing these firms to behave more like the quasi-utilities they resemble marks a welcome change from a system long treated as untouchable.
RELATED: The party that made life more expensive wants credit for noticing
That system rests on a global arrangement in which Americans shoulder a disproportionate share of drug development costs. Wealthy nations negotiate prices or impose caps. The United States does not. The gap between what Americans pay and what others pay funds buybacks, dividends, and executive packages. Shareholders collect the upside.
The disparity speaks for itself. Drugs that cost hundreds of dollars overseas cost thousands here. The industry defended that gap by warning that research would collapse if prices fell. The current price cuts prove otherwise. Pipelines remain intact. Investment continues. Profitability holds. The model did not break when prices moved downward. It adjusted.
These developments expose a simple truth. Prices never reflected necessity. Incentives shaped them, reinforced by limited competition and political deference. Competition cracked open an inflexible model. The White House helped widen the opening.
Policymakers should learn from that sequence. If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change. The bloated regulatory machinery Washington favors often delays it. The market moved before Congress could even respond.
For Americans struggling to afford essential medication, that lesson matters most. Competition remains the strongest and most reliable force for bringing prices down.
It worked here. It can work again — if policymakers allow markets to function and pharmaceutical companies choose access over insulation.
Christian, what do you believe when faith stops being theoretical?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote from a prison cell, “It is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith.” He wrote those words after the world had closed in, when faith could no longer remain theoretical.
I live with someone who understands exactly what he meant.
In those moments, belief stops being a feeling and becomes a claim. Not something you summon, but something you test.
My wife, Gracie, has lived with disabilities for virtually her entire life. Hospital rooms and operating schedules do not interrupt our life — they form its familiar terrain. Over time, suffering has stopped being a concept and become a place we recognize.
I also have a friend who understands what Bonhoeffer was describing.
Her name is Joni Eareckson Tada. A diving accident in her teens left her a quadriplegic. Her life has unfolded under paralysis, chronic pain, and illness. She does not approach suffering from a distance.
Last year, during one of Gracie’s long hospital stays, Joni called.
Most people asked about Gracie. Joni did too. But then she asked about me.
That question deserved more than a stock reply.
I paused.
Moments like that strip away emotional self-examination and force you to examine your claims instead.
As I spoke with Joni, I shared something that has steadied me for decades.
In our church, there came a moment when the pastor would stop, look out over the congregation, and ask a single question: “Christian, what do you believe?”
We did not improvise. We did not search for language that felt expressive or current. We stood and recited the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. No personal spin. No tailoring belief to the moment. Just a clear declaration of what had been received.
That question stayed with me.
It returned again and again over the years, especially in places where explanations had lost their usefulness. I learned the limits of “why.” Even good answers rarely hold steady there.
In those moments, belief stops being a feeling and becomes a claim. Not something you summon, but something you test.
If Christ is who I say He is, then what does that require of me here?
I was not trying to manufacture courage or resolve. I was asking whether the faith I professed in calm settings could bear weight when standing itself cost something.
“Christian, what do you believe?”
Over time, many of the questions I once carried narrowed to that one. Not because the pain diminished or the losses stopped coming, but because belief, when real, clarifies responsibility.
The apostle Peter tells believers to be ready to give an answer for the hope within them. That readiness has nothing to do with eloquence. It comes from knowing where you stand.
As a new year begins, many caregivers feel little sense of reset, except for the deductible and the co-pay.
Some stand outside an ICU, looking through glass at someone they love. Others stand in different hallways, facing different kinds of loss. Different rooms. The same ache.
RELATED: Do not pass the plow: The danger of declaring a golden age without repentance
Bonhoeffer did not write from a place of safety or control. He wrote from confinement, where faith could no longer remain theoretical. Many recognize that narrowing, the sense that life has closed in and the ground beneath you has given way.
Faith is learned there, not discussed.
Exhaustion thins memory. Words scatter. Not everyone can recall creeds when sleep runs short and decisions carry real weight. But belief does not measure itself by recall. It reveals itself by posture.
When the floor gives way, you still need to know where to stand.
If He is Lord at all, then He is Lord of all.
Not only of sanctuaries, but of hospital corridors.
Not only of strength, but of weakness.
Not only of moments we would choose, but of moments we would never script.
That confession does not remove pain. It does not explain every loss. But it does tell us where to stand when the world presses in.
And when glass separates you from the one you love, whatever room that glass happens to be in, the question does not stay abstract.
It turns personal.
Christian, what do you believe?
Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026
Ten months ahead of November’s midterms, political and economic crosscurrents are colliding. Which of these conflicting trends prevail will greatly shape the next two years. And possibly even longer.
Midterm elections are always important. Besides gauging the country’s political mood, they have proven integral to maintaining America’s political equilibrium.
For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?
They are the “ebb” to the “flow” of America’s political tide. Historically, every four years a large tide of voters go to the polls and elect a president. Then every two years, the large voter flow ebbs back, and the president’s party suffers accordingly.
This midterm is particularly important to Trump because he has proven susceptible to being baited by his opponents. After 2018, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) returned to the House speakership and unrelentingly harassed Trump over the last two years of his first term. These distractions and obstructions — especially during COVID — were undoubtedly a factor in Trump’s narrow 2020 Electoral College defeat.
Today’s political crosscurrents are pronounced. We know the president’s party historically loses seats. The last two two-term presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, suffered congressional losses averaging 22 House seats and 7.5 Senate seats.
Such losses would hand Democrats control of Congress, giving them a House majority larger than Republicans’ narrow edge and a Senate majority bigger than the GOP’s current six-seat margin. Such outcomes would end Trump’s legislative agenda, and Democrats could set their own. To understand the potential impact, play back the recent funding impasse when Democrats shut the government down for the longest period ever — despite lacking control of either chamber.
While Trump would be able to veto Democratic legislation and Republican numbers would be ample to uphold his vetoes, Democrats would have a formal hand in shaping the political agenda. This could greatly help their 2028 presidential prospects.
RELATED: Republicans are letting Democrats lie about affordability
Current politics are blunting the historical midterm flow, however. Trump is divisive, with just a 43.4% favorable rating; however, his job approval rating of 43.1% is higher than Obama’s (42.4%) at the same point in his second term. Further, Democrats are in abysmal shape with just a 32.5% favorability rating.
The current 2026 political map is also favorable to Republicans. While they have more seats (22 to 13) to protect in the Senate, the toss-up seats are evenly split: Republicans with Maine and North Carolina; Democrats with Georgia and Michigan. Mid-decade House redistricting efforts are also likely to favor Republicans somewhat; if the Supreme Court should allow race to be disregarded in drawing House districts when it rules on the Louisiana case currently before it, then even more redistricting could occur and amount to an even greater Republican advantage.
Today’s economic crosscurrents are equally pronounced. For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?
At the micro level, the growing issue is “affordability.” Nationally, this is an overhang of inflation that surged during Biden’s administration and peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 — a 40-year high.
Locally, affordability played well in New York City (which has been plagued by Democratic policies of rent control and excessive taxation, regulation, and litigation) in 2025’s mayoral race. It also played well in Virginia, where it linked powerfully into the record-long government shutdown. Democrats are therefore seizing on the issue with some success — particularly in the establishment media — and are trying to nationalize it.
At the macro level, the economy is a different story. Despite “expert” predictions that Trump’s tariffs, green agenda rollback, attack on illegal immigration, and reduction in government would combine to wreck the economy, the reverse has occurred. In Trump’s first two full quarters in office, GDP is averaging over 4% growth: up 3.8% in the second quarter and 4.3% in the third. Inflation has also been moderate — 2.7% in November — certainly not the spike experts predicted and a far cry from the previous four years.
RELATED: Conservatives face a choice in ’26: realignment or extinction
So politically, depending on your perspective, Republicans look to outperform historically. Their Senate majority looks safe for now, with the chance that Republicans could even gain a seat or two. By contrast, Republicans’ House majority looks vulnerable; this could be offset slightly by current mid-decade redistricting efforts. Yet even just half the average loss of the last two administrations in their second midterms would mean an 11-seat swing and a 226-209 Democratic majority.
Economically, the question is whether the micro or the macro prevails. Can the micro become a national mood outside Democratic areas, or will the macro of strong GDP growth and moderate inflation have time to prevail? Expect political midterm fortunes to respond accordingly.
What is certain is that the midterms will shape the last two years of Trump’s second term. And possibly determine who will run and who will win the presidency in 2028.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Universities treated free speech as expendable in 2025
The fight over free expression in American higher education reached a troubling milestone in 2025. According to data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, efforts to censor speech on college campuses hit record highs across multiple fronts — and most succeeded.
Let’s start with the raw numbers. In 2025, FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire, Students Under Fire, and Campus Deplatforming databases collectively tracked:
- 525 attempts to sanction scholars for their speech, more than one a day, with 460 of them resulting in punishment.
- 273 attempts to punish students for expression, more than five a week, with 176 of these attempts succeeding.
- 160 attempts to deplatform speakers, about three each week, with 99 of them succeeding.
That’s 958 censorship attempts in total, nearly three per day on campuses across the country. For comparison, FIRE’s next-highest total was 477 two years ago.
The 525 scholar sanction attempts are the highest ever recorded in FIRE’s database, which spans 2000 to the present. Even when a large-scale incident at the U.S. Naval Academy is treated as just a single entry, the 2025 total still breaks records.
The common denominator across these censorship campaigns is not ideology — it’s intolerance.
Twenty-nine scholars were fired, including 18 who were terminated since September for social media comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
Student sanction attempts also hit a new high, and deplatforming efforts — our records date back to 1998 — rank third all-time, behind 2023 and 2024.
The problem is actually worse because FIRE’s data undercounts the true scale of campus censorship. Why? The data relies on publicly available information, and an unknown number of incidents, especially those that may involve quiet administrative pressure, never make the public record.
Then there’s the chilling effect.
Scholars are self-censoring. Students are staying silent. Speakers are being disinvited or shouted down. And administrators, eager to appease the loudest voices, are launching investigations and handing out suspensions and dismissals with questionable regard for academic freedom, due process, or free speech.
RELATED: Liberals’ twisted views on Charlie Kirk assassination, censorship captured by a damning poll
Some critics argue that the total number of incidents is small compared to the roughly 4,000 colleges in the country. But this argument collapses under scrutiny.
While there are technically thousands of institutions labeled as “colleges” or “universities,” roughly 600 of them educate about 80% of undergraduates enrolled at not-for-profit four-year schools. Many of the rest of these “colleges” and “universities” are highly specialized or vocational programs. This includes a number of beauty academies, truck-driving schools, and similar institutions — in other words, campuses that aren’t at the heart of the free-speech debate.
These censorship campaigns aren’t coming from only one side of the political spectrum. FIRE’s data shows, for instance, that liberal students are punished for pro-Palestinian activism, conservative faculty are targeted for controversial opinions on gender or race, and speaking events featuring all points of view are targeted for cancellation.
The two most targeted student groups on campus? Students for Justice in Palestine and Turning Point USA. If that doesn’t make this point clear, nothing will.
The common denominator across these censorship campaigns is not ideology — it’s intolerance.
RELATED: Teenager sues high school after tribute to Charlie Kirk was called vandalism
So where do we go from here?
We need courage: from faculty, from students, and especially from administrators. It’s easy to defend speech when it’s popular. It’s harder when the ideas are offensive or inconvenient. But that’s when it matters most.
Even more urgently, higher education needs a cultural reset. Universities must recommit to the idea that exposure to ideas and speech that one dislikes or finds offensive is not “violence.” That principle is essential for democracy, not just for universities.
This year’s record number of campus censorship attempts should be a wake-up call for campus administrators. For decades, many allowed a culture of censorship to fester, dismissing concerns as overblown, isolated, or a politically motivated myth. Now, with governors, state legislatures, members of Congress, and even the White House moving aggressively to police campus expression, some administrators are finally pushing back. But this pushback from administrators doesn’t seem principled. Instead, it seems more like an attempt to shield their institutions from outside political interference.
That’s not leadership. It’s damage control. And it’s what got higher education into this mess in the first place.
If university leaders want to reclaim their role as stewards of free inquiry, they cannot act just when governmental pressure threatens their autonomy. They also need to be steadfast when internal intolerance threatens their mission. A true commitment to academic freedom means defending expression even when it is unpopular or offensive. That is the price of intellectual integrity in a free society.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com