The Tucker-Huckabee clash missed the real crisis



The aftermath of the viral Tucker Carlson-Mike Huckabee interview has, for me, included the privilege of private conversations with both men, as well as an on-air discussion with Huckabee on my show.

I want to give both men every benefit of the doubt, because I have genuine affection for each of them and respect the lifetime of contributions both have made to the cause. But whether their nearly two-and-a-half-hour clash clarified anything or merely deepened the confusion likely depends on the eye of the beholder.

God initiates covenants. We break them. Then we depend on God’s mercy to bail us out.

Still, let me offer a spiritual clarification as Christians think through the issues now in front of us. My fear is that in arguing over modern Israel, we will become so determined to win secondary battles that we lose sight of the primary truths that govern all of us.

The stakes are not small. If believers drift too far off course, the consequences are damning in the most literal sense.

So we should begin here: You cannot determine whether the current state of Israel is a reconstitution of covenant Israel merely by examining the nation’s behavior. If you have read the Old Testament and tried to compile a list of Israel’s greatest hits in covenant faithfulness, you will not end up with anything resembling a list of bangers like most of Led Zeppelin’s catalog.

From the beginning, the pattern ran the other way. Moses went up Mount Sinai to receive the first words God ever wrote by hand and came down to find the chosen people in the middle of a pagan orgy. After that came the familiar cycle: disobedience, judgment, repentance, deliverance, and then disobedience again — with slavery and captivity poured in for good measure.

Carlson and Huckabee can argue Israel’s borders all they want, but it should surprise no one that the nation never fully possessed the borders outlined in Genesis 15. As with so many things, human beings are terrible at obedience. We always have been.

That is the lesson. God initiates covenants. We break them. Then we depend on God’s mercy to bail us out.

The Jews did not attain a level of holiness that compelled God to bring forth the Messiah. Quite the opposite. Israel had hit bottom, spiritually and temporally. So God initiated yet again, through Christ Jesus, reminding humanity once more that we are utterly lost without Him.

That remains true whether you believe the modern state of Israel is a prophetic extension of Old Testament Israel or not. We must not lose that point, and its implications are not remote, theoretical, or merely historical.

Many Americans, after all, love to read our own national story in providential terms. Fine. Then how are we doing with the whole “endowed by their Creator” business in the Declaration of Independence?

RELATED: Trump’s Iran gamble: Peace Prize or Persian Gulf firestorm

Photo by Tajh Payne/US Navy via Getty Images

Do we know what a gender is? No.

Do we know what a border is? No.

Do we know what a baby is? No.

Do we know what a marriage is? No.

Do we know what a family is? No.

Do we know what a law is? No.

Do we even know our own heritage, customs, and traditions? No.

Sure, people will stand and sing “God Bless America” at the next sporting event, maybe even with tears in their eyes. Then many of them will settle back into their seats and applaud while the world burns around them, so long as someone keeps scratching their bellies.

That is idolatry.

For by grace you have been saved through the free gift of faith — and not by your own doing, lest anyone should boast.

So once again, it is revival or bust. That is why I keep saying it and why I keep praying it. There is no other road to the only promised land that finally matters.

The next fight over freedom will run through AI models



When it comes to artificial intelligence, the Trump administration has made its position clear: America will not choke innovation with red tape.

That instinct is understandable and, in many ways, correct. AI is moving fast, and heavy-handed regulation could do real damage. If the United States cripples its own companies, China will gladly take the advantage. And no one on the right wants blue-state politicians using AI rules to smuggle “woke” ideology into the next generation of powerful models.

The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.

As White House AI adviser David Sacks recently put it, “We don’t like seeing blue states trying to insert their woke ideology in AI models, and we really want to try and stop that.”

Fair enough.

But what happens when resistance to bad regulation hardens into resistance to any regulation at all?

That question is now surfacing in Utah, where the White House is reportedly opposing a Republican-sponsored AI transparency bill. The fight may sound parochial, but it raises a much larger question: Do conservatives have the discipline to protect constitutional liberty in the AI age?

Utah isn’t California

The Utah proposal is not a European-style crackdown. It would not impose speech codes, mandate ideological compliance, or try to centrally plan the AI economy.

At its core, the bill focuses on transparency and accountability. It would require frontier AI companies to disclose serious risks, plan for safety in advance, report major problems, and protect whistleblowers who raise alarms.

That’s far from radical.

If the administration’s AI strategy is to stop progressive states from embedding political orthodoxy into algorithms, Utah’s bill does not belong in that category. The measure is about making sure the companies building extraordinarily powerful systems acknowledge the risks up front and take responsibility when things go wrong.

Treating that effort as if it were blue-state social engineering confuses two very different problems. There is a real difference between using AI regulation to enforce ideology and asking powerful firms to level with the public about systems that could reshape society.

The myth of an ‘unregulated’ AI market

Another uncomfortable truth lurks beneath this debate: AI is not operating in anything like a free-market vacuum.

The European Union has already enacted its sweeping AI Act. That regulatory regime will not stop at Europe’s borders. American companies that operate globally will feel its force, and American users will feel the downstream effects.

If the United States adopts a posture of total federal non-engagement, it will not preserve a neutral market. It will hand the regulatory initiative to Brussels.

That would be a serious mistake. Europe does not regulate with American constitutional principles in mind. It regulates through a bureaucratic worldview that prizes centralized control over freedom. If Washington refuses to establish clear guardrails rooted in our own constitutional tradition, foreign regulators and multinational firms will fill the void.

Power without constitutional guardrails

AI is quickly becoming part of the infrastructure of modern life. These systems increasingly shape how information flows, how public opinion forms, and how daily choices get nudged.

That is power.

We have already watched major corporations use private power to shape public life. Social-media companies moderated, suppressed, and curated speech in ways that tilted public debate. Large firms adopted ESG frameworks that embedded political priorities into lending, hiring, and investment. In both cases, powerful institutions pushed ideological outcomes without a vote being cast or a law being passed.

Nothing suggests AI will escape those pressures.

RELATED: If AI isn’t built for freedom, it will be programmed for control

gorodenkoff / Getty Images

The companies building frontier systems carry their own assumptions, incentives, and cultural biases. If those assumptions get baked into foundational models — and those models then get integrated into education, finance, media, hiring, and governance — ideological influence will move from the margins to the infrastructure of society.

Yes, clumsy central planning would hurt innovation and weaken America’s position against China. But the answer cannot be blind faith that market incentives alone will protect liberty. That asks a great deal of institutions that have already shown a willingness to steer political and cultural outcomes in their preferred direction.

The real challenge is making sure extraordinary technological power develops inside a framework that respects constitutional rights, individual liberty, and personal autonomy.

A pro-liberty AI framework

The Trump administration is right to resist ideological manipulation in AI models and to oppose sweeping regimes that would handicap American innovation while China races ahead.

But someone will shape the boundaries of this technology. The only real question is whether those boundaries reflect American constitutional principles or the preferences of foreign regulators and corporate boards.

Red states such as Utah should be treated as allies in that effort, not obstacles. They can serve as proving ground for approaches that protect transparency, due process, free expression, and individual autonomy without strangling innovation.

Artificial intelligence will shape the next century more than any single statute. Total non-engagement may sound pro-growth, but in practice it leaves the foundational rules of the AI era to someone else.

The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.

Washington’s red tape machine finally met some sharp scissors



Affordability has become a problem for nearly every American. Inflation and the rising cost of living keep chewing through paychecks, and the old markers of the American dream — home ownership, small-business ownership, a secure retirement — feel farther out of reach than they have in years.

Some people respond by demanding more government involvement in daily life. President Trump has taken the opposite view: The government should step back.

Success will not come only from repealing rules. It will come when regulators stop seeing entrepreneurs as problems to manage and start seeing them as partners in growth.

Within days of returning to office, Trump signed two major executive orders aimed at saving money for business owners and taxpayers alike: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation and the much-discussed DOGE initiative. Their core principle was simple: For every new federal regulation, agencies should eliminate 10 old ones.

One year later, the results are real.

I have spent that year on the front lines of the fight against unnecessary regulation as a regional advocate in the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. Congress established the office in 1976, but it has taken on renewed life under the current administration.

My team and I have spent the past year meeting with small-business owners — many still trying to recover from the economic damage of the COVID lockdown era — to identify ways the federal government can serve as a partner instead of a roadblock.

Nationwide, our team has met with more than 12,000 businesses.

The full report is available publicly, but the top-line results from the past year are straightforward:

  • We flagged more than 300 regulatory issues for federal regulators.
  • We helped influence changes to 23 federal regulations affecting millions of businesses.
  • We saved small businesses nearly $110 billion in unnecessary regulatory costs.

That last number is significant, but it also shows the scale of the broader problem. Federal regulation costs the U.S. economy more than $3 trillion a year by some estimates — roughly 12% of GDP. Much of that burden falls hardest on smaller firms that cannot absorb legal and compliance costs the way large corporations can. Meanwhile, the Code of Federal Regulations has swollen from a few thousand pages decades ago to more than 180,000 pages today.

For small businesses, that kind of regulatory sprawl is not an abstraction. It is a threat.

Big companies can keep in-house counsel, compliance officers, and HR departments on payroll. A family business, a contractor, or a startup working out of a garage cannot. Excessive regulation tilts the playing field toward the largest players and against the very people most likely to create new jobs and local wealth.

For too long, federal rulemaking has treated small-business owners as an afterthought. We once heard that giant firms were “too big to fail.” Today, many small businesses face a different reality: they are becoming too small to succeed.

RELATED: Republicans and Democrats are in revolt — for very different reasons

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

One of the most effective tools we have built to push back is the SBA’s Red Tape Hotline — 1-800-827-5722 — which allows small-business owners to speak directly with federal staff about regulatory burdens and offer suggestions for reform. Through that hotline, we have heard from thousands of people we could not have reached in person.

Our broader goal is to improve the regulatory climate for every business owner in the country. But even saving a mom-and-pop shop a few billable hours with an attorney can make a real difference.

In one especially memorable case, SBA staff helped a toy company in Mississippi clear a shipment through Customs and Border Protection in time for December — literally saving Christmas for that business.

The philosophy behind this work is the same one that guided me as mayor of Riverton, Utah, where I recently completed two terms. Riverton has grown because we kept taxes, fees, and regulations low enough for businesses to thrive. Companies came, jobs followed, and the city’s sales-tax revenue doubled during my time in office. Watching that same pro-growth approach work at the national level has been deeply rewarding.

Still, this is only a first down, not a touchdown.

Success will not come only from repealing rules. It will come when regulators stop seeing entrepreneurs as problems to manage and start seeing them as partners in growth. If we can make that shift, we can do more than trim costs. We can make the American dream attainable again.

How the laptop revolution destroyed public education



A recent Fortune magazine article made waves with a grim admission: After more than $30 billion spent flooding classrooms with laptops and tablets, standardized scores keep sliding. Worse, neuroscientists now link more classroom screen time to lower performance. The device meant to modernize learning may be helping to unmake it.

Schools rushed into a technological revolution without asking the most basic question: What does this do to a child’s mind? Many teachers saw the answer firsthand and in real time. Administrators and “experts” ignored them because the fad sounded like “progress.”

A concerted push to remove screens from classrooms needs to begin now. Put the devices where they belong: limited tools, not the center of learning.

I taught history and civics in Florida public schools as the laptop trend took hold. Computers had sat in classrooms since my own childhood, but they played a supporting role. A few desktops in the back helped with research. A computer lab handled bigger projects. Most learning still happened on paper with books, notes, and conversation.

Then the Chromebook arrived: cheap, durable, limited, and perfect for one thing — living inside a web browser. Suddenly a district could put a machine not just in every room but in the hands of every student.

Buzzwords beat judgment

Public-school administrators love buzzwords. “Technological literacy” sounds noble, as if every ninth grader is training for Silicon Valley while working on their grammar assignment. Google did not just sell discounted laptops. It supplied a full ecosystem: Docs, Sheets, Slides, Classroom. The whole apparatus of schooling migrated into Alphabet’s software suite. Few people in the system asked why a private company wanted to become the operating system of childhood.

The laptop push also fit the religion of metrics. District offices love anything that produces dashboards, timestamps, and “engagement” graphs. A worksheet completed on paper frustrates the spreadsheet priesthood. A worksheet completed on a Chromebook generates data. The device did not just enter the classroom; it entered the managerial imagination, where metrics matter more than minds.

Once laptops became ubiquitous, the problems announced themselves. The deeper the integration, the harder it became to control.

Cheating became routine. Students searched answers in seconds. The larger problem went beyond quizzes. Googling replaced thinking. Kids refused to read because they assumed a quick search and a copy-paste counted as “learning.” Wikipedia became the default authority. Students stopped vetting anything because they treated the first search result as truth. Even writing shifted. Instead of building an argument, students stitched together paragraphs from the internet and hoped the teacher felt too tired to fight.

RELATED: The world changed, and now we homeschool

Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty Images

The distraction machine

Schools tried parental controls. Teenagers treated those controls as a challenge. When thousands of bored adolescents share a building, they collaborate. A new filter went up; within days, kids found a workaround. Soon the screens again showed games, movies, even pornography — during class, in plain view, behind a pretense of “work.”

Students used shared Google docs as a covert messaging system. They gossiped, bullied, and planned actual crimes while keeping a document open to look studious. My school eventually held assemblies to remind students that everything typed into a document leaves a record and that bragging about criminal activity or sexual escapades can end up as evidence.

All of that raised another issue: privacy and capture. Google did not subsidize devices and software out of corporate charity. By making Google search and Google apps the center of a child’s information life, the system trained dependency. Google finds the truth. Google organizes the truth. Google presents the truth. A student’s education happens inside a Google ghetto. Pretend the company is not collecting that data if you want, but the incentives cut the other way.

Screens also fed the attention crisis. Administrators told teachers to stop showing videos longer than three minutes without pausing to explain because students could not stay focused. The device that was supposed to expand horizons kept shrinking attention spans. Teachers began competing with the entire internet for a child’s attention, and no lesson plan can win that contest for long.

Locked into the system

The system made escape difficult. Florida went all-in on Chromebooks and tied them to everything. Standardized tests moved entirely onto laptops. “Test prep” software got woven into daily coursework. Students with accommodations or limited English got pushed toward the device as a universal crutch. Denying a Chromebook got treated as denying an education. Teachers who resisted risked discipline.

I reached a point where my students mattered more than compliance. I rebuilt my classroom around paper, books, and discussion. Students used Chromebooks only for mandated testing and accommodations we could not meet otherwise.

The shift showed results fast. Students engaged more. Distraction dropped. Discipline improved. More assignments got finished. Grades rose.

Then COVID-19 struck.

RELATED: America’s new lost generation is looking for home — and finding the wrong ones

Wavebreakmedia via iStock/Getty Images

Remote learning turned the screen into the classroom itself. Even Florida, which resisted lockdown hysteria, shifted much of schooling online. Learning fell off a cliff. The lockdowns devastated achievement, but the damage did not end when students returned in person. After COVID, it became nearly impossible to pry students, parents, and administrators away from screen-based schooling. Digital integration became mandatory. No exceptions.

Now the corporate press arrives to play cleanup. Reporters discover the failure well after the money has been spent, the infrastructure has hardened, and a generation has been trained to treat a browser as a brain.

A way back

Public education is stuffed with managerial drones who chase consensus and trends while ignoring what helps students. The bureaucracy will keep this program alive through sheer inertia even as evidence piles up. Parents and lawmakers need to force a reset: paper-based instruction as the default, screens as a tightly limited accommodation, and tests that reward reading and writing instead of clicking. Districts should stop outsourcing childhood to Big Tech, stop laundering ideology through “digital citizenship,” and start treating attention as a scarce resource worth defending.

A concerted push to remove screens from classrooms needs to begin now. Start with elementary grades. Bring back books. Bring back handwriting. Bring back sustained attention. Put the devices where they belong: limited tools, not the center of learning.

Kids learn slower, but they learn for real.

Trump’s Iran gamble: Peace Prize or Persian Gulf firestorm



Even after his theatrical State of the Union address, President Trump remains the only person who knows for certain whether the United States will strike Iran. That ambiguity does not signal confusion. It reflects a negotiator’s instinct: The threat of force often carries more value than force itself.

As a massive American armada gathers in the Persian Gulf — the region’s largest naval deployment since 2003, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford — the White House is also signaling that it still prefers a grand bargain to a regional war. For a president who has long said his legacy will rest on ending “endless wars” and who plainly covets a Nobel Peace Prize, a diplomatic breakthrough that dismantles Iran’s nuclear ambitions without a shot fired would be the ideal outcome.

The Geneva talks are more than another diplomatic set piece. They will test whether Trump’s 'art of the deal' can work against one of the most entrenched regimes in the Middle East.

The tension in Washington is palpable, and the president’s frustration is starting to show through his inner circle.

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, recently offered a revealing glimpse during a briefing on the Gulf buildup. Referring to the sweeping mobilization of ships, personnel, and equipment, Witkoff said Trump is "curious" that despite the gathering of this massive armada, Iran has not yet "capitulated.”

That remark gets to the heart of the standoff. The strategy is pure Trump: maximize leverage, restate the “zero enrichment” red line, and wait for the other side to conclude that its only path to survival runs through a signed deal. But the clerical regime in Tehran has proved more stubborn than even Trump appears to have expected.

As the third round of negotiations began in Geneva on Thursday, there were real reasons for cautious optimism, even as rumors of a “multi-stage interim deal” continued to circulate.

For all its revolutionary bluster and posturing over ballistic missiles, the Iranian regime is facing a deep internal crisis. The mass protests that erupted in late 2025 and continued into early this year — with a fresh wave of student-led strikes reported this week — have badly shaken the system. Even after a brutal crackdown and sweeping internet blackouts, the grievances have not disappeared. The economy is in ruins, the rial has hit record lows, and the public has no appetite for a full-scale war with a superpower.

Inside Tehran, the divisions are growing. Hard-liners within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps still posture about delivering a “regret-inducing” response to American pressure. More pragmatic figures, however — reportedly now led by veteran negotiator Ali Larijani — are speaking more openly. They understand that a war with the United States could mean the end of the Islamic Republic itself. Reports suggest that even figures close to the supreme leader are searching for an off-ramp that preserves the regime’s core interests while winning enough sanctions relief to calm a restive population.

RELATED: ‘Can’t let that happen’: Trump stresses red line for Iran but holds out hope for peaceful resolution

Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images

The regional picture also favors Washington. Across the Gulf, Arab capitals are watching with a mix of anxiety and quiet approval. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others do not want their cities caught in the blast radius of a regional war. But they are also weary of Iran’s regional meddling and nuclear progress. They want Tehran checked without turning the Gulf into a battlefield. That gives Trump useful diplomatic cover to keep the pressure campaign in place while leaving the Geneva door open.

The Geneva talks are more than another diplomatic set piece. They will test whether Trump’s “art of the deal” can work against one of the most entrenched regimes in the Middle East.

By combining military pressure, economic punishment, and the lure of a sweeping agreement, Trump has pushed Tehran into a corner. The regime is learning that this White House has little interest in the incremental half measures of the past. Washington wants a broader settlement — one that reaches beyond the nuclear file to the wider balance of power in the region.

If a deal comes this week, it will likely come because Tehran concludes that domestic collapse poses a greater danger than diplomatic humiliation. For Trump, that would amount to a crowning achievement: proof that his transactional style can deliver where decades of conventional diplomacy failed.

In the high-stakes contest between Washington and Tehran, the winner may not be the side with the biggest fleet. It may be the side that best understands the other’s breaking point.

America has immigration laws — just not in these courtrooms



If Donald Trump put on a black robe tomorrow and issued an opinion in an intellectual property dispute between two tech companies, no one would treat it as binding law. So why are we expected to treat judicial policymaking on immigration and national security as untouchable — especially when lower courts now openly defy higher courts?

One of the most damaging misconceptions in American government holds that the Supreme Court is “supreme” over the political branches in all things. At most, its supremacy runs within the judicial hierarchy: It can overrule lower federal courts. The same goes for the courts of appeals, which are supposed to bind district courts within their circuits.

If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

That system, however, increasingly operates as a one-way ratchet for left-wing political outcomes.

On February 6, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finally reaffirmed a basic legal principle: Illegal aliens seeking admission are not entitled to enter the country, demand release, and then litigate their way into residency while living freely inside the United States. The court upheld long-standing precedent and the plain text of U.S. immigration law, which requires detention of inadmissible aliens pending disposition of their cases.

Congress enacted that provision in 1996 for an obvious reason: to prevent people from entering illegally, receiving a notice to appear, and then disappearing into the interior.

Unlike American criminals who are entitled to bond hearings, illegal aliens are not being prosecuted for a crime. They can always voluntarily depart and live freely in their home countries. Being detained is a consequence of their initial invasion and their desire to litigate their way into our country.

Then came the district courts.

Just three days after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Judge Kathleen Cardone, an El Paso-based George W. Bush appointee, ordered the release of aliens in five cases on the theory that they had “established roots” in the United States. What, then, was the point of the Fifth Circuit ruling? Cardone claimed in one case that it “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”

Likewise, on February 9, Judge David Briones, an El Paso-based Clinton appointee, reached a similar conclusion. “The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones wrote — about an illegal alien who entered the country in 2024.

Pause there.

The Fifth Circuit had just ruled that detention is mandated by statute even in cases involving aliens who entered long ago (including plaintiffs from 2001 and 2009). Yet a district judge somehow concluded that ruling does not apply to someone who crossed illegally in 2024. Worse, how can a district judge claim the Fifth Circuit did not account for the “constitutional” question when the appeals court’s ruling necessarily presumes ICE’s conduct is constitutional?

RELATED: The Fifth Circuit cracks down on the asylum excuse factory

ozgurdonmaz via iStock/Getty Images

These judges are cherry-picking language from select Supreme Court opinions about aliens with “established ties” while ignoring the far stronger body of law recognizing that illegal entrants have no right to remain in the country against the national will. The idea that someone can break into the country, evade enforcement long enough to create “ties,” and then use that evasion as a legal shield makes a mockery of popular sovereignty and of the Declaration’s first principles.

This also demonstrates, again, why the Trump administration cannot comply its way out of judicial supremacism. Even when it wins in higher courts, lower-court judges can repackage the same result in a new case and keep obstructing enforcement. Why should Trump defer reflexively to congressionally created judges who refuse to defer even to their own superiors within the judiciary?

That point came into focus in Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissent from his court’s decision to halt the deportation of a Peruvian family while the appeal proceeds. Referring to the Ninth Circuit as a “wackadoo” court, VanDyke described what he said has become an automatic practice: granting stays of removal even when Supreme Court immigration precedent clearly points the other way.

In effect, he argued, the court uses procedural orders and an ever-expanding shadow docket to nullify precedent without formally issuing rulings that openly defy it.

Because of the circuit’s heavy caseload, VanDyke wrote, judges adopted a “convenient, but unwritten, practice” of granting preliminary relief in the form of administrative stays pending review. Those stays often remain in place until the merits are decided. The result, he said, is a system that “disregard[s] Supreme Court precedent and award[s] automatic, extended stays of removal in utterly meritless immigration appeals.”

Defenders of the Ninth Circuit might say the court is overloaded and must rely on lengthy interim stays. VanDyke’s point, however, is that this indulgence appears uniquely generous in deportation cases. As he put it, the Ninth Circuit’s internal dialogue sounds like “a judicial Oprah Winfrey, confused by her own popularity.”

His satirical version of the court’s approach was devastating:

We are… ("You get a stay!")… sincerely shocked… ("You get a stay!")… by the… ("You get a stay!")… number of… ("You get a stay!")… utterly… ("You get a stay!")… meritless… ("You get a stay!")… immigration petitions… ("You get a stay! And you get a stay! And you get a stay!")… that are filed… ("You get a stay!")… in our court. ("Everyone gets a stay!").

That is the point. When it comes to many liberal judges — who still dominate too many panels — law is often just a vehicle for politics. They will reach the result they want by whatever procedural route is available. You cannot simply “out-appeal” a judiciary willing to ignore controlling law while pretending not to.

RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge?

Valerii Evlakhov via iStock/Getty Images

A Politico review of thousands of ICE detention cases found that at least 360 judges rejected ICE’s broader detention policies in more than 3,000 cases, while just 27 judges backed those policies in about 130 cases. The overwhelming pattern is plain: Judges are sidelining the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Supreme Court’s plenary power doctrine, which affirms broad executive authority over the detention and removal of illegal aliens.

No Supreme Court ruling, by itself, will stop judges committed to creative procedural sabotage.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. It is grimly fitting that in an era when invaders are encouraged to dictate terms to citizens, inferior courts now side with them while dictating terms to superior courts.

If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

Democrats made Trump’s case for him Tuesday night



Republican and Democrat leaders alike entered Tuesday night anxiously. Each side feared its loudest members would turn the State of the Union into an ugly scene and poison the evening.

Democrats worried about the Squad and about 78-year-old Texas Rep. Al Green, who after 10 terms in Congress seems more comfortable waving signs than writing laws. Republicans worried about the president — specifically, whether he would get dragged into a nasty back-and-forth with congressional activists.

Trump does not pretend the country is more unified than it is. He ran as a builder and a wrecking ball: a candidate with a program and a man eager to force Democrats to defend their most radical positions.

President Donald Trump had another idea.

He had no reason to brawl from the podium, flanked by the vice president and the speaker of the House and standing at the most powerful pulpit in American politics. He set a trap instead. In front of more than 30 million ordinary Americans, Democrats walked into it.

Political junkies live inside the daily partisan trench war. They know the script. The fighting started not long after America’s founding and never really stopped.

Most Americans do not live that way.

They have jobs, kids, bills, errands, sports, church, aging parents, and whatever time remains at the end of the day. With the old monoculture mostly dead, they gather around only a handful of events: a few major sports broadcasts, presidential elections, and the State of the Union.

Viewership has fallen over the decades, but the speech still pulls a massive audience — usually somewhere between 30 million and 40 million people. In modern America, that is a huge number.

For perspective, the finale of “Game of Thrones” drew just under 20 million viewers. The USA-Canada hockey game pulled 18.6 million live viewers. The Super Bowl remains the true annual monocultural event, with around 60 million viewers, but even that scale only underscores the point: the State of the Union still reaches a country-sized audience.

More important than the raw number is who those viewers are.

Many of them do not follow politics closely. They caught the big campaign ads, such as “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you,” and responded. They saw headlines about riots, crime, and immigration. Maybe they saw footage of crackdowns. Then they went back to their lives.

On Tuesday night, they tuned in again — and watched Trump stage a live study in contrasts.

After spending the first hour of the speech reciting accomplishments and laying out goals, Trump turned toward the increasingly agitated Democrat side of the chamber and began forcing choices.

He challenged them to stand if they put American citizens ahead of illegal immigrants and foreign nationals. They sat.

He put a grieving mother before them — the mother of a young Ukrainian woman murdered on a train in North Carolina — and dared them to remain frozen. They did. Iryna Zarutska may be the only Ukrainian in the world Democrats won’t cheer for.

He highlighted a young woman torn from her family as a child by transgender ideology and the institutions that privilege bureaucrats over parents. Democrats reacted exactly as he wanted.

Even when he managed to draw applause from them — despite every congressional instinct telling members to show nothing — he flipped the moment and used it to needle the institution itself, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the chamber’s most famous suspected symbol of insider trading.

State of the Union speeches are usually built for broad appeal. Presidents of both parties use them to sound larger than their coalition. Barack Obama did this well. However radical his policies, he often sounded like Ronald Reagan in these addresses. He studied the Great Communicator, and it showed. Republicans could call him a liar and an ideologue — and did — but many Americans liked the version of Obama they saw on that stage each year.

Trump operates in a different register and in a different era.

He does not pretend the country is more unified than it is. In both 2016 and 2024, he ran as a builder and a wrecking ball: a candidate with a program and a man eager to force Democrats to defend their most radical positions.

That formula worked in both victories. He laid out a positive vision while tying Democrats to policies many voters reject — open borders, soft-on-crime governance, and transgender ideology aimed at children.

Tuesday night, he did not need a campaign ad buy to run the same play.

He had the pomp, the circumstance, and, most importantly, the audience.

And with the instincts of a once-in-a-generation political talent, he let Democrats supply the contrast for him.

How the Supreme Court’s tariff split gives Trump an opening



On the question of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the Supreme Court has spoken. In the court’s view, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs during a declared emergency, namely, the massive trade deficits that threaten our economic security.

But the court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trumpwas highly fractured. Only three justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — held that the law, under normal principles of statutory construction, does not give the president authority to impose tariffs.

A tariff wears two hats. It can function as a tax, but it can also operate as an instrument of foreign policy.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, quite persuasively demonstrates why that is not the case. As Justice Thomas noted in his separate dissent, the power to “regulate … importation” has throughout American history “been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.”

The other three justices who formed the majority — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — resorted to the major questions doctrine. This principle of statutory interpretation holds that Congress must speak with super clarity on issues of “economic and political significance” for the Court to approve a delegation to the executive.

The turn to the major questions doctrine implies that the statute, under normal principles of statutory construction, authorizes the president’s action, a point that Justice Gorsuch explicitly conceded in his concurring opinion.

But here’s the rub. The court has never previously applied the major questions doctrine in the foreign policy arena — and for good reason. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has the core responsibility for foreign policy. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged as much, stating in the part of his opinion that garnered only three votes that “as a general matter, the President of course enjoys some ‘independent constitutional power[s]’ over foreign affairs ‘even without congressional authorization.'”

That’s quite an understatement. The failure to recognize the full measure of that fundamentally important piece of constitutional law is the first fatal flaw in the chief justice’s opinion.

The key Supreme Court case on this point is United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), which Roberts does not mention. In that case, Justice George Sutherland, writing for a near-unanimous court, articulated the principled distinction between foreign and domestic powers: “In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.”

Then, quoting John Marshall’s “great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives,” Sutherland added, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”

The main issue in the case was whether Congress could delegate to the president the authority to prohibit the sale of arms to either side in a war between Bolivia and Paraguay. But Sutherland did not rely solely on the act of Congress. He wrote:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations — a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.

In other words, President Roosevelt had the power to ban the sale of arms even without the act of Congress at issue.

The same should be true in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Thomas’ dissenting opinion convincingly demonstrates why that is the case. While the chief justice claimed that Solicitor General D. John Sauer conceded that “the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime,” that’s not exactly what Sauer said. Rather, he argued that the statute delegated such authority to the president. Under Curtiss-Wright, a claim of inherent authority over foreign policy should still be viable.

In the part of the Curtiss-Wright opinion I elided above, Sutherland noted that the president’s power over foreign affairs, “like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.”

For Roberts, the fact that the taxing power is vested exclusively in Congress — and that any bill “for raising revenue” must originate in the House of Representatives — further confirmed that Congress had not delegated to the president any authority to impose tariffs. The point lands a bit oddly, given Roberts’ earlier willingness to treat Obamacare as a tax even though the bill originated in the Senate.

RELATED: ‘Even stronger’: President Trump optimistic even after SCOTUS strikes down tariffs

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

That move exposes the court’s second fatal flaw: a tariff wears two hats. It can function as a tax, but it can also operate as an instrument of foreign policy.

President Trump’s tariffs plainly fell into the latter category, even if they also happened to raise substantial revenue. This dual character is not unique to presidential tariffs; the Constitution itself recognizes it in a related provision. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws.”

That clause reflects the same two-hat reality. An impost or duty — akin to a tariff — can be a revenue measure, but it also can serve a regulatory end tied to a state’s police power. Congress’ exclusive authority to impose taxes under Article I, Section 8, does not erase the states’ limited ability to levy duties for a different purpose: enforcing inspection laws to protect health and safety.

So too with tariffs. The fact that duties and imposts fall within Congress’ taxing power does not negate the president’s authority to use tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy — a “plenary and exclusive” power that Curtiss-Wright describes as vested in the president as the nation’s “sole organ” in external affairs.

That distinction drives Thomas’ characteristically insightful dissent. He points, in effect, to a path by which the president may continue using tariffs while negotiating with and responding to foreign nations in his role as the sole organ of American foreign policy. Time will tell whether the court, if the president takes that route, will remain faithful to its landmark Curtiss-Wright precedent. It should.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Government can’t keep the lights on. Americans can.



Winter storms this year didn’t just freeze roads. They exposed a harder truth: Government can no longer reliably perform the most basic functions of a modern society.

Across the country, public systems failed under predictable stress. In New York, snowstorms everyone saw coming left streets impassable for weeks. In Nashville, an ice storm knocked out power and left more than 100,000 people in the dark for days. In Washington, D.C., officials are still scrambling to contain the largest wastewater spill in city history, with repairs expected to take months.

The resilience America needs will not come from another government task force. It will come from policies that empower Americans to secure their own energy future.

These are not isolated mishaps. They are recurring failures — signs of national decay.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Americans endured an average of 11 hours of power outages in 2024. Eleven hours in the dark in the wealthiest, most technologically advanced country on Earth. Reliability is slipping while electricity prices climb. Families pay more and get less, even as utility companies demand higher rates.

That path is unsustainable for families already stretched thin. It is dangerous for small businesses operating on razor-thin margins. And it is a strategic liability for a country competing with communist China in the AI race.

Artificial intelligence data centers consume electricity on a staggering scale. A single data center campus under construction in Texas is expected to use more power than the city of Chicago. If America intends to lead the world in AI — and defeat China in the defining competition of this century — it first must lead in energy production.

Yet Americans are asking an obvious question: If government can’t plow streets or keep a sewer system running, why should anyone trust it to keep the lights on?

The Trump administration is right to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy. We have no choice but to build nuclear, expand natural gas, and unleash domestic production across the board. But large power plants take years — sometimes decades — to come online.

America needs more energy now.

The fastest, cheapest way to add flexible capacity is battery storage.

Home batteries can be bought off the shelf and installed in days. They can be charged by rooftop solar, small-scale generators, or power from the local utility. They store energy when supply is strong and release it when demand spikes. They keep homes running when the grid fails. And when thousands of them are networked together, they can function like a virtual power plant — pushing electricity back onto the grid to stabilize it during emergencies.

RELATED: How Americans can prepare for the worst — before it’s too late

Photo by Brett Carlsen/Getty Images

Instead of relying entirely on aging transmission lines and centralized monopoly utilities that repeatedly fail, Americans can build resilience at home and in their neighborhoods. Power generated and stored closer to where it is used means fewer cascading failures, less strain on fragile infrastructure, and a more reliable grid for everyone.

In other words, instead of waiting on distant bureaucracies, Americans can take ownership of their own energy security.

If government can no longer guarantee basic services, it should at least stop blocking the people who can help provide them. Regulators should remove barriers to battery deployment. Market rules that sideline distributed energy should be updated. And Big Tech companies demanding enormous new power loads should help fund home battery programs instead of shifting those costs onto working families.

The resilience America needs will not come from another government task force. It will come from policies that empower the people to secure their own energy future.

This winter delivered the warning. We cannot assume someone else will keep the lights on. But with the right policies, the American people can.