Europe pushes for digital ID to help 'crack down' on completely unrelated problems



European leaders are pushing for the implementation of digital identification.

Specifically, both French President Emmanuel Macron and former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair have urged sitting U.K. PM Keir Starmer to consider making digital IDs mandatory.

'The same playbook is being used as a justification for broader powers to the establishment.'

Starmer is under pressure from English activists to stem illegal immigration, with illegal transport by sea from France being the primary focus. For this reason, Macron said he wants Starmer to address the "pull factors" that are allegedly attracting illegal immigrants to the U.K.

Apparently, digital ID would be the best way to do that, according to the French president.

As reported by the Independent, a compulsory national ID card is being considered by the U.K.'s highest office.

"We're willing to look at what works when it comes to tackling illegal migration, ... in terms of applications of digital ID to the immigration system," the prime minister's spokesman said.

"The point here is looking at what works, ensuring that we're doing what we can to address some of the drivers of illegal migration, tackle those pull factors, ensure that we're doing everything we can to crack down on illegal working," the spokesman added, echoing Macron's reasoning.

Simultaneously, a push factor is coming internally from former U.K. leader Blair, who actually tried the scheme before during his third term as prime minister.

RELATED: UK police face wave of backlash over live facial recognition tech at carnival

Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The Daily Mail reported that Blair was pushing the idea behind the scenes, continuing his attempt from the early 2000s to enforce the mandatory digital ID.

"In 2005, there was a huge vote which unfortunately was narrowly passed for ID cards in order to crack down on crime," Lewis Brackpool, director of investigations at Restore Britain, told Blaze News. "Many ministers were incredibly skeptical on this move due to its ever increasing powers to the state."

Brackpool cited a 2004 BBC report that criticized the IDs as a "badly thought out" excuse to fight organized crime and terrorism. It noted then that plans for the cards included biometric data that carried fingerprints and iris scans, and would have become compulsory in 2013. The plan was abandoned in 2010.

The Englishman continued, "Now, 20 years on, the same playbook is being used as a justification for broader powers to the establishment. Tony Blair is somewhere in his evil lair rubbing his hands and cackling; his career ambition is coming to fruition."

RELATED: YouTube admits to secretly manipulating videos with AI

Photo by Stuart Brock/Anadolu via Getty Images

The implementation of digital ID is straight from the playbook of the World Economic Forum, the yearly gathering of world elites where globalist policy is discussed and planned.

Seven years before the WEF broadcasted its report on reimagining digital ID and before its ideas became globally criticized, it published "A Blueprint for Digital Identity" in 2016.

The report boasted of the Aadhaar program, a government initiative from India that was implemented in order to "increase social and financial inclusion" for Indians. The Unique Identification Authority of India holds a database of user information "such as name, date of birth, and biometrics data that may include a photograph, fingerprint, iris scan, or other information."

Over 1 billion Indians have enrolled in the program for the 12-digit identity number, and it continues today.

As for England, "It is not a reasonable solution," Brackpool says. "It is the very thing many concerned British citizens and campaigners have been warning about for years down the line."

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

World Economic Forum anoints BlackRock CEO after investigation into Klaus Schwab goes nowhere



German economist Klaus Schwab founded the World Economic Forum in 1971 with the aim of engaging "the foremost political, business, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agenda."

During his tenure, the WEF founder made no secret of his desire to radically reshape the world, pushing for a "Great Reset" of capitalism, pressuring businesses to commit to eliminating carbon emissions, grooming a network of future politicians, and characterizing "misinformation and disinformation" as two of the greatest threats facing humanity.

'You have to force behaviors. At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors.'

Under Schwab's leadership, the WEF also informed the masses in 2018, "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy."

After five decades in the role, Klaus Schwab announced on April 1 that he was stepping down as chairman.

The WEF originally indicated that Schwab would complete his departure by January 2027; however, he stepped down on April 21 after his organization launched an investigation into allegations that he engaged in financial and ethical misconduct.

The forum announced on Friday that the investigation found "no evidence of material wrongdoing by Klaus Schwab" as well as who would replace him: Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, and André Hoffmann, vice chairman of the Swiss drug company Roche. The billionaire duo will serve as co-chairs.

RELATED: 'Dystopian nightmare': AFT boss Randi Weingarten announces curriculum partnership with World Economic Forum

Brian Kaiser/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"This moment marks a pivotal transition for the World Economic Forum. The board will now focus its attention on institutionalizing the Forum as a resilient International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation," the forum said in a statement. "This next chapter will be guided by the original mission developed by Klaus Schwab: Bringing together government, business, and civil society to improve the state of the world."

Schwab's mission might be easier to accomplish with Fink at the helm, given that he also runs the world's largest asset manager, which reported $11.58 trillion in assets under management in the first quarter of this year and has offices in 30 countries.

Fink, like his predecessor, was an early champion of handcuffing investing to liberal environmental, social, and governance agendas and has evidenced a willingness to socially engineer human behavior.

'What's emerging now is globalization's second draft.'

When discussing the imagined importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in a 2017 interview, Fink said that "behaviors are going to have to change. This is one thing we’re asking companies. You have to force behaviors. At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors."

Years later, Fink vowed in a letter to shareholders to "embed DEI into everything we do."

While BlackRock dropped its DEI goals earlier this year, citing "significant changes to the U.S. legal and policy environment related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) that apply to many companies," the WEF could afford Fink another vehicle to push the divisive agenda abroad.

Fink also apparently shares Schwab's globalist outlook.

Fink noted in a recent op-ed in the Financial Times that "globalization is now coming apart," thanks in part to the Trump administration's "backlash to the era of what might be called 'globalism without guardrails.'" The BlackRock CEO, evidently not a fan of nationalism, expressed cautious optimism that "what's emerging now is globalization's second draft."

Fink suggested in a joint statement with Hoffmann that the need for the forum is greater than ever and that it "can serve as a unique catalyst for cooperation, one that fosters trust, identifies shared goals, and turns dialogue into action."

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

'Dystopian nightmare': AFT boss Randi Weingarten announces curriculum partnership with World Economic Forum



The World Economic Forum seized on the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to realize its founder's proposed "great reset" of capitalism — a progressive liberal plot initially hatched in opposition to the "shareholder capitalism" championed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.

The technocratic globalist organization's initiative was, however, exposed and torpedoed in recent years, thanks in part to President Donald Trump and so-called conspiracy theorists.

Weeks before he stepped down on bad terms as chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab noted in an April 1 letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, failed U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore, and the forum's other deep-pocketed trustee board members, "I am deeply convinced that in today's special context the forum is more important and relevant than ever before."

In the wake of Schwab's departure and the failure of his "great reset," it appears that the WEF is now playing the long game — working to shape the minds of today's youth in order to reshape the world of tomorrow.

Fellow travelers stateside appear more than keen to join forces.

Randi Weingarten announced on Friday that the American Federation of Teachers — which claims to have 1.7 million members — is partnering with the WEF "to create a curriculum that will lead to good jobs and solid careers in U.S. manufacturing."

'Americans aren't going to stand for it.'

"The goal of education should be to cultivate the skills necessary to succeed in our rapidly changing world, not to create good test-takers," said Weingarten. "That will require our education system to move beyond stifling accountability models that narrow what teachers can teach; condemn kids to low-quality, high-stakes standardized tests and excessive test prep; and do nothing to improve learning."

RELATED: America's largest teachers' union declares war on the Trump administration, will use kids as foot soldiers

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Weingarten made the announcement at the 2025 AFT convention, where the union also adopted a number of radical resolutions, including resolutions in support of statehood for the District of Columbia; in opposition to the Trump administration's detention and deportation of foreign radicals on student visas; in support of the advancement of gender ideology in schools, for "gender-affirming medical care," and for boys in girls' sports; and in support of working with Black Lives Matter and other radical groups to fight efforts by conservatives and parental advocacy groups to rid schools of woke propaganda.

— (@)

The AFT has not yet disclosed the details of the planned curriculum; however, critics suspect the objective will be more of the same from both the union and the forum — ideological uniformity, institutional capture, and the advancement of a progressive liberal agenda.

"This partnership is straight from a dystopian nightmare," Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Culture Project and a visiting fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told Blaze News. "It's just what we need: the globalists running the education system for the entire United States."

"Americans aren't going to stand for it," continued DeAngelis, who is convinced this will push more Americans out of the public school system. "We don't want Randi Weingarten raising our kids. We don't want the globalists raising our kids."

'The great reset is still ongoing.'

While it is presently unclear precisely what role the WEF will play in the development of the curriculum, it appears that the AFT will at the very least lean on the forum's imagined authority to advance its climate agenda.

In a resolution adopted at the convention titled "Climate-smart and sustainable schools," the union cites the claim by the World Economic Forum "that 'urgency is our only savior' when talking about the climate crisis."

With this imagined urgency in mind, the union resolved to integrate a climate-focused curriculum to "facilitate comprehensive energy reduction, decarbonization, sustainability and indoor air quality projects," and noted that education on the supposed risks of climate change can be a "powerful driver for more sustainable development, including a transition to greener societies."

"They basically want to destroy industry," said DeAngelis. "They're pushing this crazy climate-change hysteria agenda, and they're trying to use the school system to achieve the World Economic Forum's goals."

Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, told Blaze News, "The sustainable development goals that the WEF pushes [are] all about gender and identity; it's all about income redistribution. ... It's about climate change-ism. It's everything that we're trying to get out of school, get out of our culture."

"The great reset is still ongoing; tearing down America is still ongoing. And how do you do that? You get into their organizations," said Lui.

"Parents are not going to know that their children are consuming WEF curriculum because it's going to be hidden," continued Lui. "They're not going to say, 'Hi, this curriculum is from the World Economic Forum.' It's going to say, 'This is going to prepare your child for the global workforce. It's career readiness.'"

Reflecting on the track records of the WEF and AFT, Lui suggested that the likely goal of their curriculum will not be to produce effective graduates but rather useful idiots.

"When they go into the workforce, they're not going and saying, 'Hey, I want to work at Jaguar so that I can climb the corporate ladder,' or 'I can make this position and get this promotion,'" Lui said, singling out Jaguar as an example of a robust brand recently blown up by woke hires. "They're going and saying, 'Jaguar is not inclusive enough. Jaguar doesn't focus on human rights. They're don't have inclusive enough bathrooms.'"

DeAngelis suggested that the WEF will ultimately serve as another aid for Weingarten to "brainwash our kids into her socialist ideology."

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

World Economic Forum Founder Reportedly Busted For Luxury Spending, Creepy Behavior

$1.16 million in purchases by Schwab and his wife

Welcome to Rent Nation, where no one owns and no one is free



For generations, homeownership has been a cornerstone of the American dream. It meant stability, responsibility, and the chance to pass wealth to the next generation. It gave people a stake in their communities.

But that dream is slipping away. And it’s not by accident.

If we want Americans to remain free and self-governing, they must be able to own their homes and their futures.

We are drifting into a rental society. Fewer families can afford to buy a home, while massive investment firms and corporate landlords are buying up the housing supply and turning America into a nation of tenants.

This is hardly the natural evolution of the market. Rather, it’s the result of decades of bad policy, turbocharged by emerging technology and justified by global elites who’ve decided that private property is both outdated and unsustainable.

The corporate land grab

The “renters’ revolution” emerged from bad policy. For years, local, state, and federal governments have made it more difficult and expensive to build homes. Zoning restrictions choke supply.

Environmental rules delay development. Add in the unintended consequences of government-backed mortgage schemes in the Bill Clinton era, which played a major role in the 2008 housing market crash, and you’ve got a system that makes homes less attainable, despite the stated intentions of the enacted policies.

Into that broken system stepped Wall Street. After the crash, investment giants like Blackstone began buying up foreclosed homes in bulk, turning millions of single-family homes into rental properties. Much of this trend is made possible by emerging technology.

Today, institutional investors use artificial intelligence and algorithmic tools to scan markets and make instant cash offers, often outbidding families looking to buy their first homes. Companies such as Invitation Homes own tens of thousands of properties, all of which are managed through centralized apps, automated lease terms, and data-driven pricing tools.

We are experiencing a market shift — from millions of individual owners to a few corporate landlords.

Ideological push against ownership

This shift is also being encouraged, explicitly and implicitly, by international organizations pushing a post-ownership future. The World Economic Forum’s “you’ll own nothing and be happy” slogan was presented as a prediction, not a policy.

But look closer, and you’ll see that many World Economic Forum and United Nations initiatives actively promote this shift. The U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals call for denser high-rise cities, a move away from single-family zoning, and new restrictions on suburban development, all in the name of “sustainability” and “equity.”

It’s a coordinated ideological push to replace ownership with access, property with subscriptions, and permanence with flexibility. And the consequences are already showing.

The price of being a permanent renter

When you don’t own your home, you don’t control it. You follow the rules set by someone else. That might mean no pets, no subleasing, and often no firearms on the premises.

As environmental, social, and governance scores, smart devices, and digital IDs creep into the rental landscape, we are fast approaching a future where landlords, driven by corporate and political incentives, can enforce ideological compliance under the guise of lease terms.

Renting means you’re always paying, never building. Homes have long been the foundation of middle-class wealth in America. When families are locked out of ownership, they’re locked out of that opportunity. The result is a cycle where equity flows upward to institutional investors while working families remain stuck on the hamster wheel.

RELATED: Property taxes are killing middle-class ownership nationwide

Photo by: Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

The “renters’ revolution” isn’t without psychological and cultural costs too. People who own their homes are more likely to put down roots, raise families, get involved in their communities, and feel a stake in the future of the country. Renters, especially when forced into that role, often feel transient and disempowered. That rootlessness is breeding disconnection and resentment.

The political fallout

These psychological costs have political consequences. Younger Americans, who increasingly see homeownership as unattainable, are also more likely to believe the system is rigged against them.

And who can blame them? They’re being told that capitalism failed them, when in reality, it’s crony capitalism, ESG corporatism, and global central planners who’ve rigged the game. But that distinction is often lost — or intentionally obscured. This increases the potential for them to turn to the siren song of socialism or further government action.

This is not just an economic problem. It’s a civic one. A society where most people don’t own anything is a society that’s easier to control, easier to manipulate, and easier to pacify. If we want Americans to remain free and self-governing, they must be able to own their homes and their futures.

We need lawmakers to investigate the concentration of housing in corporate hands. We need to roll back ESG-driven distortions in markets and rethink zoning rules that throttle supply. We should do more to promote first-time homeownership, rather than punishing it. And we must restore the idea that private property is not just an economic good — it’s a political necessity.

Meet the ‘philanthropaths’ spending billions to kill the American dream



Many of us on the political right once held a principled aversion to telling the ultra-wealthy how to spend their money. Confiscating private wealth sounded un-American. If billionaires wanted to build libraries, fund symphonies, or throw lavish parties, fine — they were reinvesting in society, directly or indirectly.

But that was before the rise of the modern “philanthropath”: a new breed of sociopathic billionaire using inherited or self-made fortunes to re-engineer civilization from the top down. These aren’t benevolent stewards. They’re ideological crusaders waging war on tradition, prosperity, and truth.

These are not patrons of progress — they’re funders of decline. And their wealth has become a weapon.

George Soros spent millions installing radical, pro-crime prosecutors in cities across the country. Bill Gates bankrolls schemes to block the sun in the name of climate alarmism.

At least Soros and Gates earned their fortunes. Increasingly, the most aggressive philanthropaths are heirs — trust-fund radicals who never worked a day to build the wealth they now use to tear society apart.

The nepo-billionaire left

Earlier this month, Walmart heiress Christy Walton made headlines for bankrolling the No Kings anti-Trump protests. Hyatt heir and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) used his $3 billion inheritance — and famous last name — to push transgender surgeries on minors. After President Trump’s 2024 election, Pritzker promised to turn Illinois into a destination for confused parents seeking to chemically sterilize and mutilate their children.

His sibling Jennifer Pritzker (born James) proudly funds transgender medical interventions, calling it “a continuation of my family’s tradition of putting personal philanthropy into service for the public good.”

As I’ve documented before, the eco-vandal group Just Stop Oil — responsible for throwing soup on van Gogh paintings and blocking roads across Europe — draws funding from Abigail Disney, Aileen Getty, and Rory Kennedy. These aren’t anonymous donors. They’re members of America’s closest thing to a royal class. Getty even defended funding the group in the Guardian, writing, “I fund climate activism — and I applaud the van Gogh protest.”

Inheritance reconsidered

I don’t support an inheritance tax. These taxes hit middle-class families hardest — especially family farms and small businesses. The IRS doesn’t care how long your grandfather worked the land; it just wants a cut.

But the more the ultrarich use their fortunes to fund antihuman ideologies, the harder it becomes to defend that wealth politically. They are making the moral case for confiscation easier by the day.

Market trader and television commentator Jim Iuorio recently wrote, “There is no moral or economic argument in favor of inheritance tax ... it should obviously be zero ... making it more than zero is rooted in petty jealousy.”

Fair enough. But if I had to argue in favor of an inheritance tax on moral grounds, I’d just start naming names: Alex Soros. Melinda Gates. JB Pritzker. Christy Walton. Aileen Getty. It’s not envy — it’s damage control.

RELATED: Billions go in, billions come out — guess who benefits?

Photo by BAY ISMOYO/AFP via Getty Images

What the right can do

We don’t need to confiscate wealth to fight philanthropaths. But we do need a strategy. Here’s a start:

Trustbusting: Break up corporate monopolies. This won’t empty the bank accounts of people like Gates or Zuckerberg, but it could dismantle the ideological machines they built — and send a message: America won’t tolerate ideological empires built on tech monopolies.

Lawfare: Conservatives have long avoided weaponizing the law. But that restraint has allowed the left to prosecute its enemies with impunity. State attorneys general and DAs should investigate tax-exempt foundations. Are these groups funding organized criminal activity? Are they operating as unregistered lobbying arms? If so, they’re fair game.

If the ultra-wealthy refuse to stop using their fortunes to undermine Western civilization, we must treat their fortunes as what they are: weapons.

An antihuman agenda

These billionaires aren’t just funding protests. They’re promoting a post-human future. In the name of “climate justice,” they want to ban meat, take away your car, outlaw carbon-based energy, and impose synthetic food alternatives on working families.

They aren’t asking politely. They’re demanding submission — or else.

World Economic Forum guru Yuval Noah Harari said the quiet part out loud in 2022: “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population.” I assume he doesn’t mean himself. He means you. He means your family.

When elites embrace mass depopulation as policy, don’t expect me to argue over tax brackets. I’m not interested in theory. I’m interested in survival.

So yes, I’m more open to separating sociopathic billionaires from their wealth than I once was. I still believe in economic liberty. But liberty doesn’t mean allowing radicalized aristocrats to fund our destruction.

Because if we don’t stop them now, they won’t just take your gas stove — they’ll take your future.

The AI ‘Stargate’ has opened — and it’s not what you think



For 30 years, I’ve warned about a future many dismissed as conspiracy or science fiction: a future dominated by centralized power, runaway technology, and an erosion of individual liberty. I said the real showdown would arrive by 2030. Now we’re at the doorstep, and the decisions we make today may define whether this moment becomes our last great opportunity — or our greatest irreversible mistake.

The trigger for this showdown is a project called Stargate.

AI is the ultimate jailer, and once the cage is built, it will be nearly impossible to escape.

This new initiative, backed by OpenAI, Microsoft, Oracle, SoftBank, and a UAE-based investment firm called MGX, aims to develop extensive infrastructure for artificial intelligence, including power plants and data centers. Stargate is positioning itself to fuel the coming wave of AI agents, artificial general intelligence, and potentially even artificial superintelligence. The project’s goal is nothing short of global AI dominance.

Big Tech is putting its money where its mouth is — pledging $100 billion upfront, with an additional $400 billion projected over the next few years. The project may bring 100,000 new jobs, but don’t be fooled. These are infrastructure jobs, not long-term employment. The real winners will be the companies that control the AI itself — and the power that comes with it.

The media’s coverage has been disturbingly thin. Instead of asking hard questions, we’re being sold a glossy narrative about convenience, progress, and economic opportunity. But if you peel back the PR, what Stargate actually represents is a full-scale AI arms race — one that’s being bankrolled by actors whose values should deeply concern every freedom-loving American.

Technocratic totalitarianism

MGX, one of the primary financial backers of Stargate, was founded last year by the government of the United Arab Emirates, a regime deeply aligned with the World Economic Forum. The same WEF promoted the “Narrative Initiative,” which calls for humanity to adopt a new story — one where the digital world holds equal weight to the physical one.

It's not shy about its agenda. It speaks openly of “a second wave of human evolution,” built around centralized, technocratic rule and ESG-compliant artificial intelligence, governed by AI itself.

Larry Ellison, Oracle’s chairman and a chief architect of Stargate, has already made his intentions clear. He promised AI will drive the most advanced surveillance system in human history. His words? “Citizens will have to be on their best behavior.”

That isn’t progress. That’s digital totalitarianism.

RELATED: ‘The Terminator’ creator warns: AI reality is scarier than sci-fi

Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images

These are the same elites who warned that global warming would wipe out humanity. Now, they demand nuclear power to feed their AI. A few years ago, Three Mile Island stood as a symbol of nuclear catastrophe. Today, Microsoft is buying it to fuel AI development.

How convenient.

We were told it was too expensive to modernize our power grid to support electric cars. And yet, now that artificial general intelligence is on the horizon, those same voices are suddenly fine with a total energy infrastructure overhaul. Why? Because AI isn’t about helping you. It’s about controlling you.

AI ‘agents’

By 2026, you’ll start to hear less about “AI” and more about “agents.” These digital assistants will organize your calendar, plan your travel, and manage your household. For many, especially the poor, it will feel like finally having a personal assistant. The possibility is tempting, to be sure. However, the cost of convenience will be dependence — and surveillance.

Moreover, AI won’t just run on the power grid. It may soon build its own.

We’ve already seen tests where an AI agent, given the directive to preserve itself, began designing electricity generation systems to sustain its operations — without anyone instructing it to do so. The AI simply interpreted its goal and acted accordingly. That’s not just a risk. That’s a warning.

Progress without recklessness

Yes, President Trump supports advancing artificial general intelligence. He wants America, not China, to lead. On that point, I agree. If anyone must master AGI, it better be us.

But let’s not confuse leadership with reckless speed. The same globalist corporations that pushed lockdowns, ESG mandates, and insect-based diets now promise that AI will save us. That alone should give us pause.

AI holds incredible promise. It might even help cure cancer by 2030 — and I hope it does. But the same tool that can save lives can also shackle minds. AI is the perfect jailer. Once we build the cage, we may never find a way out.

Stargate is opening. You can’t stop it. But you can choose which side you’re on.

There is an antidote to this: a parallel movement rooted in human dignity, decentralization, and liberty. You won’t hear about it in the headlines — but it’s growing. We need to build it now, while we still have the opportunity.

If you’ve listened to me over the years, you’ve heard me say this before: We should have had these conversations long ago. But we didn’t. And now, we’re out of good options.

So the question is no longer, “Should we build AI?” It’s, “Who is building it — and why?”

If we get the answer wrong, the cost will be far greater than any of us can imagine.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Trump’s UK tariff deal exposes the global free trade lie



President Trump on Thursday announced a new tariff deal with the United Kingdom — the first major agreement to follow the “Liberation Day” tariffs that forced 90 countries to come crawling back to the negotiating table.

Earlier in the week, India offered a zero-for-zero tariff deal — free trade on pharmaceuticals, steel, and auto parts. Trump declined.

America doesn’t just need tariffs to protect jobs and industries. It needs them to defend its sovereignty.

Predictably, the free-trade faithful slammed the U.S.-U.K. deal as “managed trade” that would harm consumers. They rushed to embrace India’s offer instead. They’ve got it backward.

Trump’s “managed trade” with the U.K. will do more to strengthen America’s economy — and serve American workers — than any so-called “free trade” agreement with India. Why? Because developed and developing nations operate in fundamentally different economic worlds. One-size-fits-all trade policy doesn’t work.

Free trade is a myth

This may offend professional economists who worship the rational-consumer model, but it must be said: Different countries are different. These aren’t surface-level quirks. They reshape the entire trade equation and make real free trade — not just difficult — but impossible.

Start with wages. In 2024, the median American worker earned $61,984. The median Briton earned $47,162 — both figures in U.S. dollars for easy comparison. The U.K. lags behind but not by much. If the U.K. were a U.S. state, it would rank somewhere in the middle. Free trade with the U.K. won’t trigger mass offshoring because our labor markets are comparable.

India is a different story. The median Indian worker earned just $3,925 last year. For the price of one American, a company could hire 16 Indians. That wage gap makes offshoring to India almost inevitable in labor-intensive industries. Cheap labor wins.

But wages aren’t the only issue. Legal systems, tax regimes, geography, infrastructure, language, climate, cultural norms, business ethics, and demographics all create market asymmetries that domestic policy can’t overcome.

Take China. American companies operating there face rampant intellectual property theft. Westerners assume legal systems deter crimes like fraud and theft. In reality, cultural norms prevent most bad behavior long before the courts get involved.

China doesn’t share America’s cultural regard for property rights — especially when it comes to outsiders. Since 2001, China has stolen an estimated $5 trillion in American intellectual property. Chinese courts have refused to hold anyone accountable. This isn’t an exception. It’s standard practice.

Doing business in China isn’t like doing business in America, Canada, Australia, or Europe — where common values and legal recourse create a relatively level playing field.

Free-trade advocates can slash tariffs and harmonize regulations all they want, but they can’t fix these deeper, structural imbalances. They can’t rewrite culture or eliminate corruption. These asymmetries make truly free trade impossible.

Spot the differences

In my book “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream,” I argue that American workers are among the most productive in the world — more productive than their counterparts in Germany, Mexico, or almost anywhere else.

That’s why the U.S. typically runs trade surpluses — or small deficits — with developed countries like the Netherlands, Australia, and the U.K.

So why do highly productive American factories shut down and relocate to China, Mexico, or India — where it takes more labor to produce the same output?

Because productivity doesn’t equal price.

The price of a good reflects more than just labor. If a Chinese manufacturer steals its technology instead of inventing it, it can undercut American competitors who spent years funding research and development.

That’s not a free market. It’s rigged.

Tariffs defend more than jobs

Global free trade is a myth. Nations can’t trade freely while market asymmetries persist. The only way to achieve true parity would be to unify the world’s economies, legal systems, cultures, and political structures. That’s the goal of the European Union, World Trade Organization, and World Economic Forum. Coincidence? Hardly.

America doesn’t just need tariffs to protect jobs and industries. It needs them to defend its sovereignty. Globalism doesn’t level the playing field — it sells it to the lowest bidder.

AI is coming for your job, your voice ... and your worldview



Suddenly, artificial intelligence is everywhere — generating art, writing essays, analyzing medical data. It’s flooding newsfeeds, powering apps, and slipping into everyday life. And yet, despite all the buzz, far too many Americans — especially conservatives — still treat AI like a novelty, a passing tech fad, or a toy for Silicon Valley elites.

Treating AI like the latest pet rock tech trend is not only naïve — it’s dangerous.

The AI shift is happening now, and it’s coming for white-collar jobs that once seemed untouchable.

AI isn’t just another innovation like email, smartphones, or social media. It has the potential to restructure society itself — including how we work, what we believe, and even who gets to speak — and it’s doing it at a speed we’ve never seen before.

The stakes are enormous. The pace is breakneck. And still, far too many people are asleep at the wheel.

AI isn’t just ‘another tool’

We’ve heard it a hundred times: “Every generation freaks out about new technology.” The Luddites smashed looms. People said cars would ruin cities. Parents panicked over television and video games. These remarks are intended to dismiss genuine concerns of emerging technology as irrational fears.

But AI is not just a faster loom or a fancier phone — it’s something entirely different. It’s not just doing tasks faster; it’s replacing the need for human thought in critical areas. AI systems can now write news articles, craft legal briefs, diagnose medical issues, and generate code — simultaneously, at scale, around the clock.

And unlike past tech milestones, AI is advancing at an exponential speed. Just compare ChatGPT’s leap from version 3 to 4 in less than a year — or how DeepSeek and Claude now outperform humans on elite exams. The regulatory, cultural, and ethical guardrails simply can’t keep up. We’re not riding the wave of progress — we’re getting swept underneath it.

AI is shockingly intelligent already

Skeptics like to say AI is just a glorified autocomplete engine — a chatbot guessing the next word in a sentence. But that’s like calling a rocket “just a fuel tank with fire.” It misses the point.

The truth is, modern AI already rivals — and often exceeds — human performance in several specific domains. Systems like OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic's Claude, and Google's Gemini demonstrate IQs that place them well above average human intelligence, according to ongoing tests from organizations like Tracking AI. And these systems improve with every iteration, often learning faster than we can predict or regulate.

Even if AI never becomes “sentient,” it doesn’t have to. Its current form is already capable of replacing jobs, overseeing supply chain logistics, and even shaping culture.

AI will disrupt society — fast

Some compare the unfolding age of AI as just another society-improving invention and innovation: Jobs will be lost, others will be created — and we’ll all adapt. But those previous transformations took decades to unfold. The car took nearly 50 years to become ubiquitous. The internet needed about 25 years to transform communication and commerce. These shifts, though massive, were gradual enough to give society time to adapt and respond.

AI is not affording us that luxury. The AI shift is happening now, and it’s coming for white-collar jobs that once seemed untouchable.

Reports published by the World Economic Forum and Goldman Sachs suggest job disruption to hundreds of millions globally in the next several years. Not factory jobs — rather, knowledge work. AI already edits videos, writes advertising copy, designs graphics, and manages customer service.

This isn’t about horses and buggies. This is about entire industries shedding their human workforces in months, not years. Journalism, education, finance, and law are all in the crosshairs. And if we don’t confront this disruption now, we’ll be left scrambling when the disruption hits our own communities.

AI will become inescapable

You may think AI doesn’t affect you. Maybe you never plan on using it to write emails or generate art. But you won’t stay disconnected from it for long. AI will soon be baked into everything.

Your phone, your bank, your doctor, your child’s education — all will rely on AI. Personal AI assistants will become standard, just like Google Maps and Siri. Policymakers will use AI to draft and analyze legislation. Doctors will use AI to diagnose ailments and prescribe treatment. Teachers will use AI to develop lesson plans (if all these examples aren't happening already). Algorithms will increasingly dictate what media you consume, what news stories you see, even what products you buy.

We went from dial-up to internet dependency in less than 15 years. We’ll be just as dependent on AI in less than half that time. And once that dependency sets in, turning back becomes nearly impossible.

AI will be manipulated

Some still think of AI as a neutral calculator. Just give it the data, and it’ll give you the truth. But AI doesn’t run on math alone — it runs on values, and programmers, corporations, and governments set those values.

Google’s Gemini model was caught rewriting history to fit progressive narratives — generating images of black Nazis and erasing white historical figures in an overcorrection for the sake of “diversity.” China’s DeepSeek AI refuses to acknowledge the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Uyghur genocide, parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points by design.

Imagine AI tools with political bias embedded in your child’s tutor, your news aggregator, or your doctor’s medical assistant. Imagine relying on a system that subtly steers you toward certain beliefs — not by banning ideas but by never letting you see them in the first place.

We’ve seen what happened when environmental social governance and diversity, equity, and inclusion transformed how corporations operated — prioritizing subjective political agendas over the demands of consumers. Now, imagine those same ideological filters hardcoded into the very infrastructure that powers our society of the near future. Our society could become dependent on a system designed to coerce each of us without knowing it’s happening.

Our liberty problem

AI is not just a technological challenge. It’s a cultural, economic, and moral one. It’s about who controls what you see, what you’re allowed to say, and how you live your life. If conservatives don’t get serious about AI now — before it becomes genuinely ubiquitous — we may lose the ability to shape the future at all.

This is not about banning AI or halting progress. It’s about ensuring that as this technology transforms the world, it doesn’t quietly erase our freedom along the way. Conservatives cannot afford to sit back and dismiss these technological developments. We need to be active participants in shaping AI’s ethical and political boundaries, ensuring that liberty, transparency, and individual autonomy are protected at every stage of this transformation.

The stakes are clear. The timeline is short. And the time to make our voices heard is right now.