Why tariffs are the key to America’s industrial comeback



On April 2, President Trump announced a sweeping policy of reciprocal tariffs aimed at severing America’s economic dependence on China. His goal: to reshore American industry and restore national self-sufficiency.

How can the United States defend its independence while relying on Chinese ships, machinery, and computers? It can’t.

Tariffs aren’t just about economics. They are a matter of national survival.

But time is short. Trump has just four years to prove that tariffs can bring back American manufacturing. The challenge is steep — but not unprecedented. Nations like South Korea and Japan have done it. So has the United States in earlier eras.

We can do it again. Here’s how.

Escaping the altar of globalism

Tariffs were never just about economics. They’re about self-suffiency.

A self-sufficient America doesn’t depend on foreign powers for its prosperity — or its defense. Political independence means nothing without economic independence. America’s founders learned that lesson the hard way: No industry, no nation.

The entire supply chain lives offshore. America doesn’t just import chips — it imports the ability to make them. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability.

During the Revolutionary War, British soldiers weren’t the only threat. British factories were just as dangerous. The colonies relied on British imports for everything from textiles to muskets. Without manufacturing, they had no means to wage war.

Victory only became possible when France began supplying the revolution, sending over 80,000 firearms. That lifeline turned the tide.

After the Revolution, George Washington wrote:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but ... their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

Washington’s first major legislative achievement was the Tariff Act of 1789. Two years later, Alexander Hamilton released his “Report on Manufactures,” a foundational blueprint for American industrial strategy. Hamilton didn’t view tariffs as mere taxes — he saw them as the engine for national development.

For nearly two centuries, America followed Hamilton’s lead. Under high tariffs, the nation prospered and industrialized. In fact, the U.S. maintained the highest average tariff rates in the 19th century. By 1870, America produced one-quarter of the world’s manufactured goods. By 1945, it produced half. The United States wasn’t just an economic powerhouse — it was the world’s factory.

That changed in the 1970s. Washington elites embraced globalism. The result?

America has run trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative total now exceeds $25 trillion in today’s dollars.

Meanwhile, American companies have poured $6.7 trillion into building factories, labs, and infrastructure overseas. And as if outsourcing weren’t bad enough, foreign governments and corporations have stolen nearly $10 trillion worth of American intellectual property and technology.

The consequences have been devastating.

Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 factories have moved overseas — to China, Mexico, and Europe. The result? The United States has lost over 5 million well-paying manufacturing jobs.

This industrial exodus didn’t just hollow out factories — it gutted middle-class bargaining power. Once employers gained the ability to offshore production, they no longer had to reward rising productivity with higher wages. That historic link — more output, more pay — was severed.

Today, American workers face a brutal equation: Take the deal on the table, or the job goes to China. The “race to the bottom” isn’t a slogan. It’s an economic policy — and it’s killing the American middle class.

Offshoring has crippled American industry, turning the United States into a nation dependent on foreign suppliers.

Technology offers the clearest example. In 2024, the U.S. imported $763 billion in advanced technology products. That includes a massive trade deficit in semiconductors, which power the brains of everything from fighter jets to toasters. If imports stopped, America would grind to a halt.

Worse, America doesn’t even make the machines needed to produce chips. Photolithography systems — critical to chip fabrication — come from the Netherlands. They’re shipped to Taiwan, where the chips are made and then sold back to the U.S.

The entire supply chain lives offshore. America doesn’t just import chips — it imports the ability to make them. That’s not just dependency. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability.

And the problem extends far beyond tech. The U.S. imports its steel, ball bearings, cars, and oceangoing ships. China now builds far more commercial vessels than the United States — by orders of magnitude.

How can America call itself a global power when it can no longer command the seas?

What happens if China stops shipping silicon chips to the U.S.? Or if it cuts off something as basic as shoes or light bulbs? No foreign power should hold that kind of leverage over the American people. And while China does, America isn’t truly free. No freer than a newborn clinging to a bottle. Dependence breeds servitude.

Make America self-sufficient again

Trump has precious little time to prove that reindustrializing America isn’t just a slogan — it’s possible. But he won’t get there with half-measures. “Reciprocal” tariffs? That’s a distraction. Pausing tariffs for 90 days to sweet-talk foreign leaders? That delays progress. Spooking the stock market with mixed signals? That sabotages momentum.

To succeed, Trump must start with one urgent move: establish high, stable tariffs — now, not later.

Tariffs must be high enough to make reshoring profitable. If it’s still cheaper to build factories in China or Vietnam and just pay a tariff, then the tariff becomes little more than a tax — raising revenue but doing nothing to bring industry home.

What’s the right rate? Time will tell, but Trump doesn’t have time. He should impose immediate overkill tariffs of 100% on day one to force the issue. Better to overshoot than fall short.

That figure may sound extreme, but consider this: Under the American System, the U.S. maintained average tariffs above 30% — without forklifts, without container ships, and without globalized supply chains. In modern terms, we’d need to go higher just to match that level of protection.

South Korea industrialized with average tariffs near 40%. And the Koreans had key advantages — cheap labor and a weak currency. America has neither. Tariffs must bridge the gap.

Just as important: Tariffs must remain stable. No company will invest trillions to reindustrialize the U.S. if rates shift every two weeks. They’ll ride out the storm, often with help from foreign governments eager to keep their access to American consumers.

President Trump must pick a strong, flat tariff — and stick to it.

This is our last chance

Tariffs must also serve their purpose: reindustrialization. If they don’t advance that goal, they’re useless.

Start with raw materials. Industry needs them cheap. That means zero tariffs on inputs like rare earth minerals, iron, and oil. Energy independence doesn’t come from taxing fuel — it comes from unleashing it.

Next, skip tariffs on goods America can’t produce. We don’t grow coffee or bananas. So taxing them does nothing for American workers or factories. It’s a scam — a cash grab disguised as policy.

Tariff revenue should fund America’s comeback. Imports won’t vanish overnight, which means revenue will flow. Use it wisely.

Cut taxes for domestic manufacturers. Offer low-interest loans for large-scale industrial projects. American industry runs on capital — Washington should help supply it.

A more innovative use of tariff revenue? Help cover the down payments for large-scale industrial projects. American businesses often struggle to raise capital for major builds. This plan fixes that.

Secure the loans against the land, then recoup them with interest when the land sells. It’s a smart way to jump-start American reindustrialization and build capital fast.

But let’s be clear: Tariffs alone won’t save us.

Trump must work with Congress to slash taxes and regulations. America needs a business environment that rewards risk and investment, not one that punishes it.

That means rebuilding crumbling infrastructure — railways, ports, power grids, and fiber networks. It means unlocking cheap energy from coal, hydro, and next-gen nuclear.

This is the final chance to reindustrialize. Another decade of globalism will leave American industry too hollowed out to recover. Great Britain was once the workshop of the world. Now it’s a cautionary tale.

Trump must hold the line. Impose high, stable tariffs. Reshore the factories. And bring the American dream roaring back to life.

DOGE isn’t dead — it’s growing beyond Elon Musk



Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk’s decision to scale back his role at the Department of Government Efficiency sparked the media frenzy we all expected.

Corporate media outlets wasted no time celebrating. They’ve declared the project dead, mocking the effort that has — by every metric — cut bureaucratic waste, exposed entrenched fraud, and disrupted the comfortable routine of Washington’s permanent class.

We didn’t come this far just to hand victory back to the bureaucrats.

In just 100 days, Musk brought more transparency and urgency to federal operations than most “public servants” manage in a career. Under his leadership, the DOGE slashed bloated budgets, shut down globalist slush funds like USAID, and launched investigations into waste across the Departments of Education, Social Security, and more.

DOGE isn’t just a project. It’s a movement. And it didn’t start with Elon Musk — it started when the American people sent Donald J. Trump back to the White House with a mandate to finish the job.

Voters didn’t re-elect Trump just for tough talk. They sent him to dismantle the unaccountable, tax-dollar-burning administrative state that’s grown fat off politics as usual. And the DOGE delivered.

Now, Musk reducing his hours doesn’t mean the mission is over. Far from it. The next phase requires every agency leader who believes in reform, every state and local official who sees the model working, and every grassroots patriot who wants real accountability to step up.

Ignore the media narrative. CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the usual suspects are already spinning this as a defeat. They won’t say it out loud, but what they really hate is simple: Musk asked federal employees to justify their jobs.

He demanded answers. He forced Cabinet secretaries to make hard choices. That’s not chaos. That’s reform. And it scared the right people.

So now it’s up to us. Trump provided the mandate. Musk brought the firepower. The American people must now carry this momentum forward— to local government, to state agencies, and to every inch of federal bureaucracy still resisting change.

We didn’t come this far just to hand victory back to the bureaucrats. The real work is just beginning.

SANDOVAL: Left Wing Media Seethes At Young, Fertile, Republican Women

The Democrats prefer women fat, single, and unhappy

IRS flops on tech, bloats staff, fumbles mission — again



The Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk have kicked up a storm of commentary and speculation. Pair that uproar with the Trump administration’s plan to slash IRS staffing, and you get some of the most hysterical responses yet to the Trump/DOGE reforms.

Only in government does talk of doing more with less — of improving efficiency and productivity — trigger panic and outrage. In Washington, D.C., progress becomes a threat, not a goal.

Instead of whining about the DOGE’s proposed staffing cuts, politicians and pundits should demand the IRS do its actual job more efficiently. That requires systemic reform, not partisan noise.

According to multiple reports, the Trump administration plans to cut around 18,000 IRS jobs by mid-May — a 20% reduction in force expected to save taxpayers $1.4 billion in payroll and benefits next year. Of those cuts, 6,800 already came from terminated probationary employees. Another 4,700 took early retirement.

Critics didn’t wait for results. They declared it “historic,” “unprecedented,” and a sign of doom. The sun, they warned, might never rise again.

But we’ve seen this before. The world didn’t end. In fact, almost nothing changed at all.

In 2011, the IRS reported 94,709 full-time equivalent employees. By 2017 — after five years under the Obama administration — that number had dropped by more than 23%, to 72,803. The sun still rose. The sky didn’t fall.

Despite the staffing cuts, the IRS’ key performance metric — the voluntary compliance rate — barely budged. For decades, the VCR has served as the agency’s primary benchmark. It measures the percentage of taxes paid voluntarily and on time, compared to the total amount owed.

Commonly known as the “tax gap,” the VCR draws bipartisan attention. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle treat closing the gap as a fiscal priority — more compliance means more cash to spend.

Yet, through two decades of staffing shifts and budget battles, the VCR has remained remarkably stable — hovering around 84%, give or take a fraction.

Yes, adding more IRS agents might improve compliance on the margins. But staffing alone doesn’t guarantee better outcomes. What matters is how the agency sets its priorities and manages its workforce to deliver results that actually benefit taxpayers.

In 2012, the Government Accountability Office reviewed how the IRS could improve enforcement and shrink the tax gap. The GAO’s conclusion: The problem wasn’t a lack of staff. The IRS could significantly boost revenue simply by better targeting its enforcement resources.

That’s exactly what the DOGE is about: smarter management, better systems, and measurable results. The private sector achieves this through the pressure of competition. In government, such efficiency is about as rare as a unicorn.

Like every other agency the DOGE has examined, the IRS drifted from its core mission: collecting revenue and enforcing tax law. Instead of focusing on enforcement, the agency expanded into mission creep.

Trump plans to shut down the IRS Office of Civil Rights and Compliance — and for good reason. These bloated bureaucracies have become one of the most redundant features of Washington. The only thing more common than a civil rights office is a federally funded jobs training program.

And like rabbits, they just keep multiplying.

Then there is the Biden administration’s favorite: diversity, equity, and inclusion. Trump has rightly proposed shutting down DEI offices across the federal government. Hiring $200,000-a-year “senior diversity and inclusion specialists” at the IRS won’t close the tax gap — not by a long shot.

In the high-tech 21st century, the IRS still struggles with basic technology.

Just weeks ago, the Treasury Department’s inspector general released a report on the IRS’ Direct File pilot program. The IRS launched the program to help taxpayers file returns from February to April 2024 — and it flopped.

Despite existing free filing options from both the private sector and the IRS, Direct File was pushed forward as one of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) latest policy “experiments.” According to the inspector general, the project cost taxpayers at least $33.4 million — far more than initially disclosed.

The results were underwhelming. Only 140,803 of the 423,450 people who created Direct File accounts — just 33% — successfully submitted returns. Many of those who did lost out. The report noted that Direct File didn’t even allow eligible filers to claim their education tax credits. That’s not a minor oversight — it’s a costly failure and needs to go. Trump last week indicated he will end the program.

In just four years, Joe Biden added more than 20,000 full-time employees to the IRS. Did anyone notice the agency working better? Didn’t think so.

Instead of whining about the DOGE’s proposed staffing cuts, politicians and pundits should demand the IRS do its actual job — collect revenue and enforce the law — more efficiently. That requires systemic reform, not partisan noise.

The Trump administration gets it. It’s time the rest of Washington caught up.

How DEI took a sledgehammer to the US military’s war ethos



U.S. civil-military relations rest on a fundamental contradiction. The United States operates as a liberal society — one designed to protect individual rights and liberty. Yet the military, which defends that society, cannot function under the same liberal principles.

To succeed, the military must maintain effectiveness, which demands a distinct and separate ethos. Liberal norms do not translate to battlefield realities.

Trust and cohesion — core elements of military success — cannot survive a system that prioritizes categories over character.

Civil society may tolerate — or even celebrate — behaviors the military must prohibit. The armed forces uphold virtues many civilians regard as harsh or barbaric, but those values serve a purpose. The military remains one of the few professions where issuing a direct order to “go die” is not only possible but sometimes necessary.

Transmutation ‘on steroids’

In his classic 1957 study, “The Soldier and the State,” Samuel Huntington defined a central tension in American civil-military relations: the clash between the military’s functional imperative — to fight and win wars — and the social imperative, the prevailing ideologies and institutions of civilian society.

Huntington broke down the societal imperative into two main components. First, the U.S. constitutional framework that governs politics and military oversight. Second, the dominant political ideology, which he called liberalism — “the gravest domestic threat to American military security” because of its deep anti-military bias.

Huntington warned that over time, the societal imperative would eclipse the functional one. Civilian ideology, not military necessity, would shape the armed forces, weakening the virtues essential for combat effectiveness.

He also identified two outcomes of this liberal pressure. In peacetime, liberalism pushed for “extirpation” — shrinking or abolishing military power altogether. In times of danger, it favored “transmutation” — reshaping the military in its own image by erasing the traits that make it distinctly martial.

Today, the ideology of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has taken that process to an extreme. This isn’t just transmutation. It’s transmutation on steroids.

Identity politics destroys unity

The military began its embrace of DEI during Barack Obama’s administration, following the 2011 report “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century” by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. That report shifted military priorities away from the functional imperative — effectiveness rooted in merit, performance, and mission — toward the societal imperative, with “diversity, equity, and inclusion” elevated as the new ideal.

In practice, the Department of Defense replaced equal opportunity with “equity,” enforcing outcome-based preferences that favor certain demographic groups over others. Military leaders declared “diversity a strategic goal,” sidelining effectiveness as the primary objective.

This shift has fractured the ranks. By treating race and sex as markers of justice instead of emphasizing individual excellence, DEI pushes identity politics into the chain of command. That approach divides more than it unites. Trust and cohesion — core elements of military success — cannot survive a system that prioritizes categories over character.

The military depends on unity to function. DEI erodes that unity. As a governing ethos, it has proven deeply destructive — undermining the very effectiveness the armed forces exist to deliver.

The rise of DEI has created a generation of senior officers who place ideological conformity above military effectiveness. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley spoke openly about “white rage” and promoted critical race theory. His successor, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown, and former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti followed the same script — championing diversity for its own sake while sidelining readiness and merit.

Restoring the mission

The Trump administration aims to reverse course and re-establish the military’s functional imperative as its central mission. It has issued executive orders with three clear goals: restore meritocracy and nondiscrimination in place of equity quotas; define sex in commonsense terms and respect biological differences; and eliminate divisive programs rooted in critical race theory.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth now carries the mandate to restore the military’s traditional ethos — and put war fighting, not social engineering, back at the heart of military policy.

Standing in opposition to a president elected to root out DEI from the military is a generation of flag and general officers molded by an era of “woke” liberalism. These leaders embraced the demand that the military mirror the politics and ideologies of civil society. Many now cling to the dangerous fiction that the military can remain professional and effective while operating under the dictates of identity politics.

Officers once defended the military’s traditional ethos against efforts to civilianize the chain of command. Today, many senior leaders treat DEI as essential to military identity — and believe they can ignore the lawful orders of the commander in chief. That isn’t leadership. It’s insubordination, plain and simple.

The Trump administration has made clear its intent: restore a professional, apolitical military ethos and rebuild public trust in an institution weakened by a decade of ideological drift. This return to principle marks the path toward healthier civil-military relations — where the armed forces serve their proper purpose: protecting and defending the United States.

Tennessee Valley Authority gets a Trump-style reckoning



President Donald Trump has made the Tennessee Valley Authority a key front in his America First energy agenda. With the authority to appoint and remove TVA directors, Trump hasn’t hesitated to fire those who promote globalist “green” schemes that ignore the needs of the region’s residents.

This month, Trump ousted two Biden-appointed directors, including the board’s chairman. Their offense: trying to turn the TVA into a vehicle for the radical left’s anti-carbon agenda.

The future of reliable energy across the Tennessee Valley — and much of the South — still hangs in the balance.

Trump took similar action during his first term, firing several directors, including a previous chairman, after they approved outsourcing 146 American tech jobs to foreign workers on H-1B visas.

These firings are critical to ensuring that the Tennessee Valley Authority continues to produce abundant and reliable energy for the seven states it serves.

A call for reform

Last month, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) published a joint letter voicing their concerns about the agency’s distracted leadership. They stressed the need for the energy provider to expand nuclear projects, especially small modular reactors, which utilize existing fission technology on a smaller, more deployable scale than the massive projects of decades past.

As to the incapable leadership of the existing Tennessee Valley Authority board, the senators wrote:

As it stands now, TVA and its leadership can’t carry the weight of this moment. The presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed TVA Board of Directors lacks the talent, experience, and gravitas to meet a challenge that clearly requires visionary industrial leaders. The group looks more like a collection of political operatives than visionary industrial leaders. The current TVA board focused on the diversity of its executives ahead of job creation for hungry workers in the region it is supposed to serve.

Shortly thereafter, Trump fired two of the agency’s six current directors.

A critical purge

Trump fired Michelle Moore on March 27, followed by TVA board Chairman Joe Ritch on April 1. Both were Biden-appointed green energy enthusiasts bent on turning the Tennessee Valley Authority into a utopian solar-and-battery experiment.

Had they succeeded, the consequences for the region’s energy reliability would have been disastrous.

Moore founded and runs Groundswell, a “sustainable energy” company whose mission statement boasts a “people-centric approach to developing community solar projects.” I’m not sure what that means — but I know I’d rather depend on coal, natural gas, or nuclear power than on some feel-good solar scheme when temperatures plunge below freezing.

Ritch, originally appointed to the TVA board by President Obama, returned under Biden’s nomination to serve as chairman. In his Senate confirmation statement, Ritch promoted transitioning the agency away from its current mix of coal, nuclear, hydro, and gas toward unreliable green alternatives — convinced, somehow, that it would help the environment and boost the economy.

A historic blunder

This utopian obsession with “sustainable energy” isn’t just naïve — it’s deadly. In December 2023, a hard freeze struck the Tennessee Valley Authority’s service area. The cold snap wasn’t historically extreme, but the consequences were.

For the first time in TVA history, the agency failed to produce enough electricity to meet demand. Rolling blackouts swept the region. Why? Because the TVA lacked enough baseline reliable energy. On those near-zero nights, solar energy produced exactly zero kilowatts.

That’s the future TVA customers would face under the fantasy energy plans pushed by climate zealots like Michelle Moore and Joe Ritch: blackouts in the dead of winter and no backup.

TVA leadership has failed in other ways too — most notably by outsourcing American jobs. In 2020, CEO Jeff Lyash tried to replace over 100 U.S. tech workers with foreign nationals on H-1B visas. While gutting working-class jobs, Lyash collected nearly $8 million a year, making him the highest-paid federal employee. One longtime worker said employees were expected to train their foreign replacements before being shown the door.

Trump responded immediately. While he couldn’t fire Lyash, he could — and did — remove board members who refused to act. When the board wouldn’t fire Lyash or cut his pay, Trump fired them instead.

Soon after, Lyash ended the outsourcing plan. Following Trump’s 2024 election win, Lyash saw the writing on the wall and resigned.

Protections are still needed

The Tennessee Valley Authority remains vital to the economic strength of the upper South. Trump’s removal of Obama-Biden-era appointees has played a key role in preserving the agency’s reliability and focus. But the threat isn’t gone.

The TVA’s service states — especially Tennessee — face a serious vulnerability: Any future Democrat president could again install green energy ideologues, fire current directors, and impose Green New Deal policies. The result? An energy-starved Tennessee Valley plagued by blackouts and foolish political experiments.

Trump’s stand against the radicalization of TVA energy policy deserves recognition. His pushback has protected millions of residents from rolling blackouts and economic self-sabotage. But the fight isn’t finished.

The future of reliable energy across the Tennessee Valley — and much of the South — still hangs in the balance. The region cannot afford to treat Trump’s changes as a lasting victory.

Trump’s budget battle plan can’t be all bark, no bite



If Republicans keep squandering opportunities like budget reconciliation and other must-pass bills, they still have one more tool to cut spending without facing a Senate filibuster: the rescissions process.

To make it work, though, Trump must wield his influence more effectively. He needs to pressure establishment Republicans to support spending cuts with the same intensity he uses to push Freedom Caucus members into backing bloated budgets and debt-ceiling hikes.

If the rescissions process is going to matter, Trump must treat it like a weapon — not a bargaining chip.

Under sections 1012 and 1017 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the president may submit a request to Congress to rescind budget authority from specific accounts he deems unnecessary. That request triggers expedited consideration in Congress, with debate protected from filibuster once the proposal hits the calendar.

In the meantime, the president can freeze spending in the targeted account for up to 45 days while Congress considers the request.

Administration officials have begun dangling the rescissions process in front of conservatives as a consolation prize — hoping to win support for bloated budget bills, a record debt-ceiling hike, and a likely toothless reconciliation package. Their pitch: Whatever passes now can be clawed back later through presidential rescission requests, coordinated with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), and without Democratic input.

On paper, the strategy has logic. Trump wants to avoid shutdowns and default drama but believes he can trim spending quietly on the back end. The problem? The same GOP establishment that resists spending cuts during appropriations will still stand in the way after the fact — unless Trump finally targets the left flank of his own party instead of the right.

In early May, the House plans to vote on the Trump administration’s first rescissions package — $9.3 billion in cuts, mostly from foreign aid and defunding NPR and PBS. That’s a good start. It should be applauded.

But let’s be honest: $9.3 billion is pocket change compared to what Congress plans to spend. The upcoming budget reconciliation bill could add $5 trillion in new debt. Even defense spending alone is set to grow by more than $150 billion.

If the rescissions process is going to matter, Trump must treat it like a weapon — not a bargaining chip. And he must finally pressure the real problem in Washington: Republicans who talk like conservatives but vote like Democrats.

Unless Trump applies real pressure on Republican holdouts — especially in the Senate — most of the rescissions package will stall. Cutting NPR and PBS may be a layup, but $8 billion of the proposed cuts target USAID and other foreign aid programs. Those enjoy bipartisan backing, including from Republicans like Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

We’ve seen this dumb movie before. In 2018, Trump sent Congress a $15 billion rescissions package. Nineteen House Republicans defected, but the bill passed 210-206 thanks to a larger GOP majority. The Senate, however, killed it — 48-50 — after just two GOP defections.

Trump tweeted about the bill two days before the House vote. But nowhere in the public record did he threaten consequences for Republican dissenters. He never punished the defectors, and he quickly abandoned the rescissions strategy. Debt piled up for the rest of his term. The moment passed. History rolled on.

This time must be different.

Trump must match the pressure he puts on conservatives — urging them to swallow bad front-end budget deals — with equal, if not greater, pressure on Republican incumbents who oppose back-end spending cuts. No more free passes.

He should submit a rescissions package targeting climate slush funds and dare any Republican to oppose it. Then name names. If they side with green energy programs over fiscal responsibility, they should face the threat of a primary challenger. No exceptions.

If Trump refuses to campaign forcefully for his own priorities, the rescissions process will yield nothing more than symbolic cuts — token reductions that don’t even come close to offsetting the deficit spending he’s already signed off on.

Take the current request. It proposes clawbacks like $6 million for energy-efficiency programs in Mexico, $4 million for migrants in Colombia, $4 million for legume systems research, $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, nearly $1.2 million for LGBTQ initiatives, and $1 million for a voter ID program in Haiti.

Sure, Republicans will hold press conferences, wave these absurd line items in front of cameras, and vote to rescind them. But let’s not kid ourselves: Shaving a few million dollars from programs no one knew existed doesn’t even approach the scale of the problem.

When Congress passes trillion-dollar deficits and then touts million-dollar cuts, it’s not leadership. It’s performance.

And the country can’t afford another act.

Out of touch and out of orbit: Hollywood’s hypocrisy hits new heights



It’s a familiar pattern. Wealthy, self-righteous elites who crisscross the globe by private jet turn around and shame others for doing the same — so long as it’s done with less glamor and more purpose. The latest target of their selective outrage? Six women who took a private spaceflight last week aboard Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin rocket.

You’d think such a moment — an aerospace engineer, an entrepreneur, and other accomplished women making history on a suborbital mission — might warrant celebration. Instead, it drew scorn. According to Hollywood’s self-appointed moral authorities and their Instagram followers, this was a grave offense against the planet and the poor.

These flights are more than joyrides. They’re test beds for innovation, job creation, and future scientific breakthroughs.

What the climate elites ignore — again — is that progress for women, on Earth or in space, depends on one thing they take for granted: energy.

Access to reliable, affordable energy is the cornerstone of women’s liberation in the developing world. It means light to study at night, clean water, safer childbirth, personal security, and a future that doesn’t begin and end with gathering firewood. The freedom to dream big, like flying to space, starts with the freedom to flip a switch.

Classic virtue-signaling

Gayle King, one of the passengers and a trailblazer in journalism, rightly called the backlash “elitist and sexist.” But she left something out: it’s not just sexist. It’s sanctimonious, selective, and suffocating. These are the trademarks of climate virtue-signaling.

Here’s how the game works in today’s inverted moral order: Jet to Davos or Cannes to lecture the public on climate change and you’re hailed as enlightened. Board a rocket as a civilian scientist or entrepreneur, and suddenly you’re a villain — a carbon criminal with the wrong pedigree.

Leonardo DiCaprio can bounce between islands on a yacht to “save the seas,” and no one complains. John Kerry can cross the Atlantic alone in a jet to accept a climate award, and the hypocrisy goes unmentioned. But let six women go to space without the blessing of the green aristocracy, and the mob lights its torches.

Companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX aren’t just about space tourism. They’re pushing technological boundaries that benefit everyone — from global internet access to environmental monitoring. These flights are more than joyrides. They’re test beds for innovation, job creation, and future scientific breakthroughs.

And here’s the larger truth: Abundant, affordable energy is the single most powerful engine of human progress. Societies with the highest energy access are the ones where women thrive. Education, health care, and economic opportunity all expand when energy is plentiful. When the climate movement demonizes innovation and blocks energy development, it’s not saving the planet — it’s stunting the dreams of billions, especially women and girls.

But the climate elites aren’t interested in nuance. Their worldview leaves no room for liberty or aspiration — only guilt, rules, and control.

No apologies

What makes this worse is their arrogance. As if launching six women into space is somehow a threat to “equity.” These women didn’t beg permission from the climate commissars. They didn’t issue carbon apologies. They didn’t buy indulgences from Greenpeace. They flew — because they could. That’s what really infuriates their critics.

The same people who shame Americans for driving pickups or heating their homes sip imported oat milk and scold others from first-class lounges. They claim to speak for justice, but their double standards always circle back to their own comfort.

Instead of condemning these women, we should be applauding them. In an age where pessimism is the norm and grievance is currency, their boldness reminds us of what ambition without apology looks like.

We should be asking: How can we empower more women — not just to fly to space, but to lead in science, business, and technology? The answer is energy. The free market — not fearmongering — will launch the next generation of pioneers.

This was a win for human achievement. No amount of Hollywood hand-wringing can diminish it.

To the ladies of Blue Origin: Don’t let the sanctimonious elites pull you down. While they stare at the sky, you’ve already touched it.

SANDOVAL: Amish Easily Do What Federal Government Wouldn’t Do For Months

'We wanted to help the people that had the disaster…our heart just felt drawn to come help,' says one interviewee

SANDOVAL: Trump Just Fired A Deadly Shot At DEI — And The Legacy Media Is Totally Ignoring It

Disparate-impact liability must die