How to power the AI race without losing control



The artificial intelligence revolution is here, and it arrives charged with the capacity to fundamentally change society for better or worse.

America is currently leading the world in AI development. U.S. companies are building the most advanced models, attracting the most capital, and designing the infrastructure that will shape the next century. But there is one increasingly obvious constraint standing in the way: electricity accessibility.

The political consequences of rapid automation could be just as transformative as the technology itself.

Energy scarcity is only half the story. Even if we succeed in generating the power required to fuel the AI revolution, we must confront a deeper challenge. The same technology that promises medical breakthroughs and economic growth also carries profound societal and even existential risk.

If America wants to win the AI race, we will need to consider a massive expansion of energy production and an equally massive expansion of vigilance.

The energy bottleneck

Modern AI models are trained and deployed in massive data centers packed with tens of thousands of high-performance graphics processing units running continuously. Training a single frontier model can require weeks or months of nonstop computation, while everyday AI tools used by millions of people must process queries around the clock.

These facilities consume electricity at industrial scale, rivaling entire cities in their power demands. In fact, the hyperscale Stargate data center in Saline Township is projected to consume the same amount of electricity as 1.17 million homes.

The understanding of just how much energy is needed to power the AI revolution is still unfolding across the industry. Just a few years ago, Silicon Valley leaders were still thinking in megawatts.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, speaking on a podcast less than two years ago, said his company would build larger AI clusters “if we could get the energy to do it,” describing 50-to-100-megawatt facilities and speculating that 1-gigawatt data centers were probably inevitable someday.

Today, 1-gigawatt facilities are on the smaller end of planned AI infrastructure, with projects up to 5 gigawatts already in motion throughout the United States, including but not limited to the following:

And this list barely scratches the surface. Dozens more large-scale facilities are planned or under construction across the country, and every single one of them will require enormous flows of reliable electricity to operate.

Elon Musk recently stated at Davos that “the limiting factor for AI deployment is, fundamentally, electrical power.” He warned that while AI chip production is increasing exponentially, electricity generation is not.

“Very soon, maybe even later this year,” Musk said, “we will be producing more chips than we can turn on.”

In Santa Clara, California, reports indicate newly built data centers may sit idle for years because the local grid cannot handle the load.

According to a report published by the global consulting group McKinsey & Company, U.S. demand for AI-ready data center capacity could grow from roughly 60 gigawatts today to 170 to 298 gigawatts by 2030.

The International Energy Agency reports that data centers consumed more than 4% of total U.S. electricity in 2024. This amounts to 183 terawatt-hours. IEA projections suggest this number could increase by 133% to 426 TWh by 2030.

To put that in perspective, 426 TWh is roughly equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of more than 40 million American homes.

The dilemma is obvious. If we do not have reliable energy, AI innovation will be compromised and could potentially migrate elsewhere. Worse, American households could find themselves competing with Big Tech for increasingly scarce power, driving up electricity costs for families and small businesses.

But energy is only the first layer of this story.

RELATED: States should work with AI, not against it

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The promise and the disruption

AI is not your typical technological advancement. It is a general-purpose intelligence system capable of transforming nearly every sector of society. In the coming years, AI could accelerate drug discovery, personalize medicine, supercharge logistics, automate research, and unlock new materials and engineering breakthroughs, just to name a few potential benefits. The economic upside is staggering.

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool and a dangerous weapon. While promising efficiency and innovation, AI also threatens disruption on a historic scale. Job displacement could occur faster than previous technological revolutions. Entire professions, from legal research to software development, could be reshaped or automated.

If widespread job displacement occurs, there will inevitably be calls for sweeping government intervention. The political consequences of rapid automation could be just as transformative as the technology itself.

Exponential technological developments have changed political operations throughout history. As a recent example, social media algorithms have dominated political discourse over the past decade. Political polarization has subsequently skyrocketed as people on all sides of the aisle are trapped in online echo chambers and subjected to a panopticon of surveillance.

Artificial intelligence has the frightening capabilities of supercharging mass surveillance while baselessly boosting preconceived biases without an objective basis in truth.

There is certainly reason for concern about the potential bias and coercive nature of AI. In recent years, we have already witnessed how tech companies can shape narratives and suppress viewpoints on popular media platforms. Embedding ideological bias into AI systems would mean embedding that bias into education, finance, health care, and governance.

If AI becomes the invisible infrastructure of society, who writes its rules? Who determines its boundaries? And who holds it accountable?

Playing with probabilities

Beyond economic and cultural disruption lies an even deeper uncertainty.

We are introducing a form of intelligence that even its creators admit they do not fully understand. There are already documented cases of advanced AI systems behaving in deceptive or strategically manipulative ways. In controlled environments, some models have been observed lying to human evaluators, scheming to achieve assigned goals, or resisting shutdown instructions.

OpenAI’s stated ambition is to create artificial superintelligence — systems that surpass human capability across virtually every domain. There is no telling where this path may lead. Humanity has never had to grapple with the prospect of a man-made intelligence that is superior to our own.

And remarkably, some of the leading figures in the field openly discuss the possibility of catastrophic outcomes.

Elon Musk has suggested there is “only a 20% chance of annihilation.” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has estimated roughly a 25% chance that AI development goes “really, really badly.” Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the “godfather of AI,” has placed the odds of extinction-level consequences somewhere between 10 and 20% over the coming decades.

Those numbers still imply that positive outcomes are more likely than not. But when the downside is losing human civilization itself, percentages matter.

We are advancing a technology with transformative power while relying largely on overzealous corporate discretion to steer its trajectory. Humanity finds itself fiddling with the key to Pandora’s box, and we have no rational means of gauging what will happen if the box is opened.

RELATED: AI’s PR is in the toilet — for good reason

Alina Naumova/Getty Images

Power and prudence

As stalwart advocates for smaller government, we hesitate to call for slamming the brakes on AI development, but it is important to have sober discernment moving forward. America is in a strategic competition with geopolitical rivals who would gladly dominate both this field and us if we retreat.

Reliable energy production is necessary to promote competition and American innovation. Yet it is arguably more important that society engages in serious dialogue surrounding this emerging technology. Government cannot, and should not, be the only voice in this conversation.

Independent institutions dedicated to transparency, accountability, and the defense of individual liberty need to rise and challenge the current trajectory.

Technological revolutions have always reshaped society. The difference this time is scale and speed. AI is a decision-making engine that may soon operate faster and more broadly than any human institution.

America can power the AI revolution. The real question is whether we can power it without surrendering control over our economy, institutions, and ultimately, our freedom.

The future may well belong to artificial intelligence. But whether that future advances prosperity or undermines humanity depends on the vigilance we exercise today.

Ad Campaign Lie or Lewandowski Rumors: What Really Got Kristi Noem Fired? | 3/6/26
play icon

Ad Campaign Lie or Lewandowski Rumors: What Really Got Kristi Noem Fired? | 3/6/26

Behind Japan’s pacifism hides a nuclear escape hatch



Japan transformed from an expansionist military power to a pacifist state within a decade after World War II, adopting a firmly non-nuclear posture after suffering atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet Japan possesses one of the most advanced civilian nuclear infrastructures in the world, technically capable of creating nuclear weapons.

As debates in the United States intensify over alliance commitments and burden-sharing, questions about the credibility of America’s extended deterrence are growing. If that credibility weakens, Japan may find itself increasingly alone in deterring China, North Korea, and Russia.

As Japan becomes more militarized, nuclear pacifism may begin to be replaced with nuclear realism.

Japan is already reinterpreting elements of its postwar restraint, evident in the modernization of the Japan Self-Defense Forces and the acquisition of long-range counterstrike capabilities for “deterrence by punishment.” Will Japan do the same with nuclear weapons?

The nuclear threshold is near

Japan lacks nuclear warhead expertise, dedicated delivery systems, and secure nuclear testing infrastructure, but it does have the industrial, material, and financial resources to begin a nuclear weapons program.

Japan possesses full-scale nuclear fuel cycle facilities, accumulating over 45 metric tons of separated plutonium, enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons. Japan is projected to increase reliance on fast breeder reactors; these reactors produce more plutonium than they consume.

Japan is also building facilities that eliminate the need to outsource its spent fuel for reprocessing, allowing Japan to domestically produce separated plutonium. Some analysts estimate that Japan could develop a small nuclear arsenal within a year.

Despite Japan’s nuclear latency, it has not crossed the nuclear threshold. Other than public consensus and constitutional restraints, Japan is held back by technical and financial costs. Japan needs to develop nuclear weapons design expertise, delivery systems, and secure infrastructure, all financially and politically costly endeavors.

Furthermore, Japan’s civilian nuclear facilities operate under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. That makes it difficult to run a clandestine nuclear weapons program. While the costs are substantial, they are not prohibitive for a country with Japan’s industrial and technological capacity. Given its advanced nuclear power program and infrastructure and increasingly sophisticated military, Japan can develop the technical requirements for a nuclear weapons program in short order.

Hedging nuclear bets

Japan is a nuclear latent power, so the central issue is intent. Japan adopted what strategists call “insurance hedging,” entailing a cost-benefit analysis of U.S. extended deterrence to determine whether relying on U.S. nuclear weapons is worth the risk of Japan not having its own. Should U.S. extended deterrence fail or be perceived as too weak, Japan will claim insurance by developing nuclear weapons for its own protection.

Japan became an insurance hedger for two reasons: It wants the option to develop nuclear weapons and does not want to forgo U.S. extended deterrence. Japan relies on U.S. extended deterrence for security, but pursuing nuclear weapons could remove Japan from America’s nuclear umbrella.

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

Photo by Tajh Payne/US Navy via Getty Images

Insurance hedging allows Japan to stay within U.S. extended deterrence while preparing for the possibility of abandonment or failure by the United States. Nuclear latency serves as leverage. If U.S. security guarantees weaken, Japan would retain the ability to respond independently.

Nuclear latency was always the plan

Japan’s nuclear latency is not an accident. As early as the 1950s, Japan deliberately preserved nuclear latency while relying on the United States for deterrence. Japan understood the deterrence value of nuclear weapons, especially in a security environment surrounded by nuclear powers and potential nuclear powers.

For Japan, the United States would serve as its nuclear deterrent, which allowed Japan to maintain its pacifist posture. Nuclear pacifism is still dominant in Japanese strategic culture, but as Japan becomes more militarized, nuclear pacifism may begin to be replaced with nuclear realism.

If U.S. extended deterrence no longer offers Japan the protection it needs, and domestic consensus against nuclear weapons is resolved, Japan could shift in favor of nuclear weapons. To create the JSDF, Japan reinterpreted Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution; Article 9 is an explicit “Renunciation of War” mandating that Japan never maintain “war potential.” Japan once reinterpreted Article 9 to build the Self-Defense Forces. Reinterpreting nuclear pacifism would be far more controversial, but not unprecedented.

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

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.

U.S. Defeats Authoritarian Communists On The Ice, Again

No other country in the world fights as fiercely for freedom as the United States.

This restaurant's surprise reply to unpatriotic HuffPost article takes the gold



After an incredibly eventful week of Olympic victories for Team USA, one leftist outlet got what it had coming when it said that feeling patriotic was "yucky."

While hundreds of accounts roasted the author and the article, one three-word reply from a restaurant stole the spotlight and left the HuffPost the clear loser in the exchange.

'This is the only acceptable response to HuffPost.'

HuffPost's original post on Saturday, captioned, "If waving the American flag or chanting 'USA' turns you off right now, you're not alone," received a simple comment from Jimmy's Famous Seafood.

"Go f**k yourself," the family-owned restaurant's account said Sunday.

RELATED: HuffPost gets absolutely scorched over article saying Olympics patriotism feels 'yucky'

Photo by Carolyn Van Houten/Washington Post/Getty Images

Many major accounts announced that Jimmy's Famous Seafood had earned a follow in the wake of the viral reply.

"This is the only acceptable response to HuffPost," Nick Sortor said.

"Okay do you have locations in Florida patriot?" BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre asked.

"Only one location — family owned and operated. We ship to all 50 states however!" the account replied.

Jimmy's Famous Seafood is based in Baltimore, Maryland, where it has been operating since 1974.

At the time of writing, Jimmy's Famous Seafood had just under 360,000 followers on X. Its reply received over 13 million views, compared to 10 million views of HuffPost's original article.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

State of the Union 2026 by Blaze Media
play icon

State of the Union 2026 by Blaze Media

What will replace the old world order?



The pivotal question of what will follow the crack-up of the liberal international order dominated the highest levels of European politics at the recent 2026 Munich Security Conference.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave his own forceful answer, following Vice President JD Vance’s provocative speech last year. Rubio delivered an equally spirited address that issued an ultimatum: Rationalizing collapse and weakness is no longer the policy of the United States — and it should no longer be Europe’s policy either. America has no “interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline,” he said.

Alliances should be made, renewed, or even disbanded depending on whether they help secure America’s interests in the present.

Instead, Rubio urged a reformation of the “global institutions of the old order” to defend and strengthen the key pillars of Western civilization.

The problem in Rubio’s mind was that the 20th-century web of international alliances, designed to counter the Soviets in the wake of two devastating world wars, took on a life of its own. Its keepers began putting the preservation of their supranational relations “above the vital interests of our people and our nations.”

Institutions such as the United Nations have utterly failed to protect national interests, and they simply have no answers to the most pressing problems in international affairs today. Instead, they actively encourage deindustrialization, mass migration, and shortsighted climate policies, causing a loss of confidence in the very sources that have supplied the West’s vitality for centuries.

To counter this, Rubio proposed that the U.S. partner with Europe to lead a “reinvigorated alliance … that boldly races into the future.” It will focus on “advancing our mutual interests and new frontiers, unshackling our ingenuity, our creativity, and the dynamic spirit to build a new Western century.” If the West wants to safeguard and promote its historic ways of life, then an international realignment is inescapably necessary.

The themes Rubio articulated were also the subject of this year’s “Budapest Global Dialogue,” an annual conference put on by the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs and the Observer Research Foundation. This year’s gathering focused on what HIIA President Gladden Pappin presented as the choices currently before the world: endless conflict that’s likely to spin out of control or the emergence of a foundation for long-term security, peace, and prosperity.

Keynote speakers and panelists agreed that continuing to prop up a decaying international order was not a viable option. Though necessary for its time, it is clearly inadequate in a world that looks far different from the one that featured creeping death in the form of the USSR. As Rubio recently told a gaggle of reporters before his address in Munich, “The old world is gone.” He noted that nations must re-examine their roles in our “new era in geopolitics.”

RELATED: What’s Greenland to us?

Photo by Alessandro Rampazzo/AFP via Getty Images

The urgency of this project has been amplified by the European Union’s various machinations against popular government. Its censorship machine is attempting to export the EU’s liberty-denying laws to America and other Western nations. Unsurprisingly, the problem of censorship, which has been a chief focus of Vice President Vance, took up much of the conversation of the opening-night panel.

Headlined by Sarah B. Rogers, the U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, and Balázs Orbán, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s political director, panelists discussed the countless issues stemming from the EU’s Digital Services Act. It uses “trusted flaggers” like HateAid — an organization funded by the German government — to censor online speech, including that of Americans.

Pappin and other participants also noted the myriad problems stemming from unchecked globalization. Nations happily traded away the most basic elements of sovereignty for a mess of pottage in the form of lower prices on select goods. This was justified using free-market language, in which attaining the highest GDP possible seemingly became the summum bonum of political life. Former Trump administration official Andrew Peek termed this problem “economics without politics.”

In the United States in particular, key supply chains were mostly shipped out of the country, the folly of which was fully exposed during the COVID debacle. The U.S. essentially followed a systematic deindustrialization plan as we helped build up other countries, especially China.

China’s rise didn’t happen solely due to its sheer geographic size or population. It occurred because the Clinton administration and Western leaders decided the best way to fend it off was by inviting the Chinese into the heart of the world’s economic system. This was a catastrophic choice that helped hasten the collapse of the old order.

Now, China is by far the world leader in many positive economic indicators. The country is also looking to become the world’s first electrostate, adding another gigawatt of capacity to its grid every year.

Meanwhile, the United States is facing mounting problems with our electric grid, which will be further exacerbated by the construction of data centers and older plants going offline. No nuclear power plants were built in the U.S. between 1996 and 2016. Additionally, as noted in a Department of Energy report last year, utopian green energy mandates have helped bring the U.S. closer to the brink of a full-blown energy crisis.

RELATED: America won’t beat China without Alaska

Photo by Simon Bruty/Anychance/Getty Images

Though the conference featured discussions on other pivotal topics — especially the promise and peril of artificial general intelligence — there wasn’t a dedicated panel on immigration. But that didn’t stop speakers from addressing the topic. Alexandre del Valle, a professor at France’s IPAG, called mass Islamic immigration to Europe a long-term bomb. And in a keynote address that served as a campaign speech of sorts, Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó celebrated the fact that illegal migration to Hungary is nonexistent.

Szijjártó also devoted time to underscoring the stakes of the upcoming Hungarian parliamentary elections. The April 12 contest will feature a rather personal battle between current Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Péter Magyar, who resigned from Fidesz in 2024 and then joined TISZA, the Respect and Freedom Party. The campaign billboards and posters I saw plastered around Budapest, which were nearly all pro-Orbán, showed Magyar gladly acquiescing to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s insistence to send Hungarian armaments to Ukraine.

Fidesz is asking voters if they want to keep Orbán’s government in power or elect those who would sacrifice the country’s blood and treasure in war. President Trump clearly wants the former. During Rubio’s trip to Budapest after his Munich speech, he said that the American president is “deeply committed” to Orbán’s victory in April.

As the Trump administration sees it, the path forward is clear: maintaining alliances when political goals and traditions are shared, as is the case between Hungary and the United States. And as Rubio was careful to point out in Munich, when alliances become strained, renewal through strategic thinking that connects means and ends is essential. One such example is Elbridge Colby’s recent discussion of the creation of NATO 3.0, in which U.S. allies bear more of the financial burden.

What won’t work, however, is elevating prudential considerations to the level of principle, as world leaders and bureaucrats have done far too often in recent decades. They have frozen in amber the specific circumstances of the second half of the 20th century, thinking that those paradigms must forever dictate how nations should act. But as Dhruva Jaishankar, the executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America, pointed out, the ballroom in which the 2026 Budapest Global Dialogue was held was built in 1896. Five international orders have come and gone in that time.

Contrary to the Anne Applebaums of our foreign policy elite class, who have helped drive the West into a ditch, the Nazis aren’t marching just over the horizon, and Vladimir Putin isn’t the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Alliances should be made, renewed, or even disbanded depending on whether they help secure America’s interests in the present. As Daniel J. Mahoney is fond of saying, it isn’t always Munich 1938. Serious leaders acknowledge current realities and marry their rhetoric to actions that will lead to peace, prosperity, and the good of the West — and the good of America above all.

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

'It's the greatest country in the world': USA hockey's Quinn Hughes praises America after epic win



American fans have been waiting for an athlete to come out in full support of the red, white, and blue during the Olympics.

After a string of athletes have denigrated U.S. law enforcement, criticized the current administration, and even switched teams to compete for China, viewers have been looking for a hero to celebrate at the 2026 Winter Olympics.

'Happy to represent it here with these guys.'

Enter Quinn Hughes, a 26-year-old Florida native who plays for the NHL's Minnesota Wild. Hughes scored an overtime goal to beat Sweden 2-1 on Wednesday, advancing Team USA to the semifinals.

After the game, NBC News sports editor Greg Rosenstein posted an interview with Hughes following his heroic performance. In the video, a reporter asks Hughes about the mass of American flags in the audience during the game and how it felt hearing the crowd chant "U-S-A!"

"What's that atmosphere like?" the journalist asked.

"It's special," Hughes replied. "I love the U.S., and it's the greatest country in the world. So [I'm] happy to represent it here with these guys."

The defenseman added, "It's really special."

RELATED: NBC apologizes for calling female skier 'she'

The Olympics has been, unfortunately, shrouded in vitriolic political statements, which have included American figure skater Amber Glenn saying her "human rights" were at risk because of President Trump.

Half-American, half-British athlete Gus Kenworthy brazenly posted a photo in early February in which it appeared he had urinated in snow to spell out "F**k ICE," referring to immigration enforcement officers.

Politics even hit Olympic venues when a boutique hotel in Milan, set to host American athletes, changed its name from Ice House to Winter House. The name was allegedly changed to ensure that it remained "a private space free of distractions."

RELATED: Skier Hunter Hess changes tune after saying he has 'mixed emotions' about representing USA: 'I love my country'

Photo by Stefano Guidi/Getty Images

Hughes' goal came on the eve of the USA women's hockey team winning an overtime game of their own. On Thursday, the ladies beat Canada 2-1 in what could end up being the first of two Canada vs. USA finals.

The American men play Slovakia on Friday at 3:10 p.m. ET. If they beat the Slovaks and Canada beats Finland (also on Friday), the USA and Canada would meet for a gold medal showdown, which airs Sunday, February 22, at 8:10 a.m. ET.

Canada's last gold in men's ice hockey was in 2014, the country's third in four Olympics. Two of those wins came over the United States.

The U.S. has not won gold since the notable 1980 "Miracle" team in Lake Placid.

The United States has the third-most gold medals in men's hockey, tied with Sweden with two. The Soviet Union/Russia and Canada both have nine.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!