Positive views of capitalism among American adults have hit a record low of 54%. Sixty-five percent say the country is headed in the wrong direction. And 54% of Americans say they have little to no confidence in the FBI to investigate Charlie Kirk&#8217;s assassination impartially. Support for this nation is eroding, and it’s being accelerated not just by the predictable agitators on the Left, but increasingly by figures on the horseshoe Right.
Tucker Carlson sits at the center of this grievance party phenomenon, where progressive socialists and former-right podcasters converge to paint a portrait of a broken America. As someone whose friends and colleagues are being pulled in by these takes, it’s time we acknowledge that &#8220;just asking questions&#8221; has gone too far, it&#8217;s tiring, and it&#8217;s doing real damage.
Carlson has been telling audiences that the American capitalist system is &#8220;completely doomed,&#8221; made up of a &#8220;corrupt oligarchy&#8221; that hoards wealth while destroying the working class. He says this with the same energy as Hasan Piker and Bernie Sanders. You can dress it up in flannel, a navy blazer, or a Twitch hoodie — the message is still a lie.
The U.S. unemployment rate sits at 4.3%. Prime-age labor force participation is at a multi-decade high. Young people are not “screwed,” they&#8217;re competing in the most dynamic economy on earth. Over the last century, free markets lifted America to the world&#8217;s largest GDP, providing the tax base for infrastructure, defense, and schools. Because companies compete for your money, they are forced to innovate. That competitive drive gives you the internet, the iPhone, and medical treatments keeping your grandparents alive. The American Dream exists because capitalism rewards labor, skill, and entrepreneurship, regardless of starting point.
Tucker even wants to thwart capitalism’s future. He told Ben Shapiro he would ban self-driving cars to protect Midwest truckers — a specious position that would cost the rest of us dearly. Autonomous vehicles are projected to cut logistics costs 30–50%, add upwards of $70 billion to the GDP, and create high-skilled jobs in software, fleet management, and data analytics. Tractors didn&#8217;t kill farming; they multiplied output, allowing farmers to do more with less, and freed labor for entirely new industries. Every major innovation follows that same pattern. Short-term disruption equals massive long-term gains for everyone. Tucker&#8217;s demagoguery doesn&#8217;t save families; it raises prices, slows growth, and guarantees the stagnation he claims to hate.
His position is not conservative. It is the exact mirror of the grievance-party Left.
Tucker’s worldview, that nefarious forces are conspiring against the American people, doesn’t stop at the economy. In his recent New York Times interview, he stated explicitly that President Donald Trump &#8220;had no choice&#8221; but to join Israel in striking Iran, calling him &#8220;more a hostage than a sovereign decision-maker.&#8221; He claims Israel, Jewish donors, and evangelical Christians control U.S. foreign policy. He said Citibank poses a bigger threat to Americans than Hamas and Hezbollah. When asked about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion — a proven 1903 forgery by Russian secret police — he waved it off: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know what that is. I&#8217;ve heard references to it. It&#8217;s like czarist forgery or something.&#8221;
There’s a lot to unpack there.
First of all, Trump’s decision to strike Iran was driven by the nuclear and ballistic missile threat that the Islamic regime posed and a decades-long urge to take out the world’s largest funder of terrorism, which had been bullying America and her allies for decades. That is America First. That is not some slavish loyalty to Tel Aviv. Trump defied neocons, pressured NATO, brokered the Abraham Accords without a single American troop, and has repeatedly pressured Netanyahu to stand down. He is not anyone&#8217;s puppet. He never has been.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbies like every other interest group, including Saudi Arabia, Big Tech, and public sector unions. There is no evidence of &#8220;control.&#8221; Tucker&#8217;s &#8220;spell&#8221; and &#8220;hostage&#8221; language is the same occult-tinged conspiracy he once mocked when it came from the Left.
As for the Protocols, that document was debunked in 1921 by The Times of London, weaponized by the Nazis to justify genocide, and has zero basis in reality. Tucker knows this. His &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; is not intellectual humility. It is a deliberate wink. There are 15 million Jewish people worldwide, 6 million of whom live in America among 340 million citizens. Jewish Americans succeed through the same merit, education, and entrepreneurship available to everyone. If you want to talk about foreign influence operations, look at Qatar funding Ivy League campuses, Chinese influence in our social media ecosystem, and Shanghai billionaires funding anti-American protest movements. Those are documented. Those are real.
On Citibank being a threat to Americans…there was a Hezbollah-linked shooting in Michigan last month, and I use Capital One, pay my bills, and budget monthly. So no, Citibank isn’t keeping me up at night, and if it does for Tucker, I would suggest he lay off the ALP pouches.
Tucker&#8217;s final avenue for institutional sabotage is the FBI&#8217;s handling of Charlie Kirk&#8217;s assassination. Listen, friends, I understand why many of us are skeptical of the FBI. Both President Barack Obama and Joe Biden&#8217;s DOJ weaponized federal power against conservative leaders, grandmothers, and a sitting president in ways this country had never seen. That consequential distrust was justified, but here the goalposts have moved to an unrecognizable place: Trump is in office, Kash Patel is running the FBI, Dan Bongino walked out and told us everything, and somehow, even now, it&#8217;s all still a cover-up. At some point, the conspiracy has to end, and the evidence has to begin.
The fact is that Tyler Robinson’s guilt is overwhelming. Prosecutors have matched DNA on the rifle trigger, the towel wrapped around the bolt-action, and the spent casing to Robinson. ATF ballistics confirmed the weapon. Before the shooting, Robinson wrote a letter to his roommate stating he &#8220;had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I&#8217;m going to take it.&#8221; He posted confessions on Discord. Video placed him on the Utah Valley University campus hours before the shot. He surrendered voluntarily within 33 hours after his father tipped off authorities. The investigation wasn&#8217;t sabotaged; it was solved.
Carlson isn&#8217;t defending Kirk&#8217;s legacy. He&#8217;s exploiting a martyr&#8217;s death to erode trust in the institutions conservatives fought to reclaim.
Carlson has been transparent about where this is all heading. He wants a new political party: isolationist on foreign policy, restrictionist on immigration, and — crucially — interventionist in the economy. Ben Shapiro identified it correctly: that&#8217;s a National Socialist Party, and history has a unanimous verdict on that experiment.
Every government that has tried centrally managed economies — the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Venezuela, Cuba — followed the same arc. First, they promise protection from the chaos of the market. Then, they pick winners and losers. Next, shortages, stagnation, and repression follow, inevitably. The Soviet Union&#8217;s GDP per capita in 1990, after 70 years of central planning, was one-seventh of America&#8217;s. Venezuela, once the wealthiest country in Latin America, saw its economy collapse 75% between 2013 and 2021 after nationalizing industries and freezing prices. These aren&#8217;t outliers, they’re the rule. Carlson&#8217;s &#8220;carve-outs&#8221; for truckers and banks are just the polite, populist entry point to a far uglier destination.
Here is the uncomfortable truth about why we&#8217;re even having this conversation: America is so extraordinarily prosperous that we have the luxury of entertaining these ideas. Our poor have air conditioning. Our working class has smartphones. Our life expectancy, even accounting for recent dips, is historically high. When you&#8217;ve never known genuine scarcity — not theoretical scarcity, but Cuban-pharmacy-shelf scarcity — it becomes very easy to romanticize the idea that the system is rigged.
That’s precisely the audience Carlson is playing to: comfortable enough to be frustrated, not desperate enough to remember what actually fails.
Tucker Carlson is not a conservative. He&#8217;s not America First. He is Tucker Carlson First. He’s a man who has found that grievance sells, that &#8220;just asking questions&#8221; about Jewish cabals and FBI cover-ups generates more clicks than defending the free market ever will. His brand is built on the premise that America is broken. He loses his audience if America heals. That is not patriotism. That is a business model.
Reagan proved the alternative. Trump is proving it again. Free markets, applied honestly, have produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history. They’ve lifted over a billion people out of it in the last three decades alone. Strong borders, enforced consistently, are not racist; they’re necessary. An America First foreign policy means striking Iran when our nation is threatened, not when Tel Aviv asks. Rejecting antisemitic conspiracy theories is not defending Israel — it&#8217;s defending logic, because 15 million people do not secretly run a planet of 8 billion. Sorry.
Tucker Carlson is a talented broadcaster who chose the wrong hill to die on. He can come back, but until he does, I would treat his content the way you&#8217;d treat a teenager having a tantrum: acknowledge the emotion, reject the premise, and don&#8217;t let her near the car keys.

Tucker Carlson, former FOX News host and current host of The Tucker Carlson Show

In Tucker Carlson’s World, It’s Not America First, It’s Tucker First

America First

DW Opinion

Social Media

Tucker Carlson

“Fly me to the moon,” Frank Sinatra sang in 1964, “Let me play among the stars.” The song was recorded more than 100 times before Sinatra’s version appeared on his album, It Might as Well Be Swing. It was released one year after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In another five years, Sinatra’s recording would play on a Sony TC-50 portable cassette player on the Apollo 10 mission, which orbited the Moon in May 1969.
It was fitting that the biggest star in American entertainment — the Chairman of the Board, the leader of the Rat Pack, Mr. Las Vegas and Palm Springs — with those electric blue eyes and buttery voice, would lend his singular vocals to the mid-20th century’s consummate moment. Pop culture meets celebrity meets the American Space Cowboy in one bold, frontier-expanding, mind-blowing, breathtaking, victorious, seemingly impossible starburst adventure into the heavens themselves.
What happened to us?
Space, that final frontier, is overshadowed by the perpetual glow of screens and the mind-crushing, unimaginative “creator class” more interested in monetizing people’s brain synapses through cat memes and AI slop bots.
At one time, astronauts ruled the covers of glossy magazines, nightly newscasts, and film reels. The nation hung breathlessly on NASA updates during our Cold War battle with the Soviet Union. It was a unique convergence of nerd-meets-jock as America’s brightest minds built a pathway to space helmed by the country’s daredevil real-life rocket men who practically double-dog dared each other to blow Death himself a kiss behind the throttles of experimental planes as post-WWII test pilots. These men had the Right Stuff, and Americans were cheering them every step of the way because the very existence of the free world and the American way of life was at stake.
At the time, astronauts and just about anyone in NASA’s orbit could be included in the celebrity-hero category. Even <a href="https://www.allure.com/story/space-age-beauty-of-the-astronauts-wives-club">astronauts’ wives</a> piqued the American people’s curiosity and subsequent press coverage. They were the first “Real Housewives,” but with a more wholesome, patriotic plotline.
Now, famous-for-being-famous is the truthism of our time. Celebrity is not much more than a slurry of performative indulgence, self-important fame whoring, and personal branding. One needs to look at Jeff Bezos’s foray into civilian space travel to see this in action. It was a real cast of characters in the worst all-female remake of a space adventure imaginable. The Girl Power Space Cadets — <a href="https://apnews.com/article/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-lauren-sanchez-katy-perry-gayle-king-55d1fe6d39213ffb8278a01f605c00db">launched</a> into a few minutes of weightlessness via the Blue Origin spacecraft — were powered by Bezos, who seems plenty happy to orbit his wife’s celestial spheres and send her, in a nod to Jackie Gleason’s Honeymooners character Ralph Kramden, “To the moon!” in addition to making those same celebs angry about buying his way into Monday evening’s <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/style/protest-movements-jeff-bezos-met-gala-2026-1236585809/">Met Gala</a>. What’s a billionaire to do?
No, these aren’t heroes, and they barely qualify as celebrities, even by today’s standards. The real astronauts, the ones who should be cruising down New York City’s Fifth Avenue in a ticker-tape parade, who should be invited to speak at every college and university commencement address this graduation season, who should be the star of every party and never have to buy a beer at one ever again, are the Artemis II astronauts. Sure, they didn’t actually land on the moon, but they reached farther into the depths of space than any human ever. They witnessed the Earth set behind the moon. They didn’t listen to Dark Side of the Moon; they experienced it. It was the first crewed flight beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972, and everyone just shrugged.
In fact, when the four-man crew (Victor Glover, Christina Koch, Jeremy Hansen, and Reid Wiseman) recently <a href="https://x.com/Kaelan47/status/2049556105424929176?s=20">appeared</a> in the Oval Office standing behind President Donald Trump, not a single question was directed at them by the press. The late comedian-prophet <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykza4L41N4s">Norm Macdonald</a> is nodding with knowing disappointment from the great beyond.
Even when the press asks the Artemis II crew questions, they center on an identity-based narrative rather than the enormity of the accomplishment. To his credit, Victor Glover has redirected this messaging toward an American experience and achievement rather than on his being a black man.
We should expect as much from the press and fame ecosystem, where what passes for being a celebrity or an admired entertainer is their “influencer” status. Ask kids these days what career path they aspire to, and influencer is the safe (non-porn-adjacent) answer. If you were to take a time machine and travel back to, say, 1955 and explain that, Yes! We made it to the moon. By golly, we even hit a few golf balls while we were there. And no, not every little Jimmy and Susan aspires to explore the thing that has captured mankind’s imagination for eons and been a reference point for everything from classic literature, science fiction film and television, art and design, and even <a href="https://www.motorbiscuit.com/7-classic-american-cars-influenced-by-the-space-race/">automobiles</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGyT_bV0RSA&amp;t=3s">ladies’ undergarments</a>.
Kennedy implored his fellow Americans to reach the moon before 1970. In his 1962 address at Rice University about the nation’s efforts into space, he declared, “This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward — and so will space.”
Kennedy’s words are a reminder that the American spirit is the driver of great things. The soul of an American yearns for a challenge, to meet what lies beyond the horizon, and to push beyond the quiet complacency of mediocre content dished out to us. We mustn’t accept our exceptionalism as a characteristic of a bygone era. What we should do is turn on Sinatra, gaze up at space, and “See what spring is like, On Jupiter and Mars.”

Apollo 11 astronauts Waving to Crowds

Fly Me To The Moon — America’s Celebrity Hero Slop Factory Killed Outer Space Dreams

Air and Space

Artemis II

Celebrity

Throughout April, Congress <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2026/04/17/congress-passes-short-term-spy-powers-extension-as-conservatives-fight-for-surveillance-reform/">faced</a> a deadline everyone knew was coming. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a spy tool that enables our intelligence agencies to collect information on non-U.S. persons, was set to expire. Despite years of documented abuses and a growing bipartisan demand for reform, talks stalled, and Congress initially opted for a 10-day extension to work out their differences. After once again reaching an impasse, despite the grumblings of the deep staters, a last-minute agreement for another short-term reauthorization was reached for another 45-day extension, and life in America will go on.
The House <a href="https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/2049794823859630164?s=20">passed</a> a measure to reauthorize Section 702 of FISA for three years without meaningful changes. However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune <a href="https://x.com/jordainc/status/2049237669788418138?s=20">indicated</a> this measure was “dead on arrival” in the Senate because of an attached ban on central bank digital currency. His preference is for a <a href="https://x.com/LauraEWeiss16/status/2049861057527570894?s=20">45-day</a> clean extension, and a <a href="https://x.com/jordainc/status/2049872261440553416?s=20">three-week extension</a> by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) failed on unanimous consent due to an objection from Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) to an added provision to declassify a recent FISC ruling.
While the intelligence community might argue that this uncertainty threatens national security, the reality is that the precarious position they find themselves in was entirely avoidable. Rather than taking the bipartisan calls for reform seriously, they played chicken and got burned.
This fight has offered a rare, final chance for redemption, a chance to finally secure common-sense reforms that organizations across the political spectrum have spent years fighting for.
Why FISA Isn’t Serving Our National Interest
Section 702 is one of the most powerful surveillance authorities the federal government possesses, empowering it to collect the communications of non-U.S. persons located abroad. In the process, it also incidentally collects billions of Americans&#8217; communications, and it has become a backdoor for warrantless surveillance of Americans. The FBI has routinely queried this massive database on Americans, all without ever seeking a warrant. When the public learned that the program was abused for everything from vetting romantic matches to spying on protesters and sitting members of Congress, the intelligence agencies shouldn’t be surprised that “trust us” isn’t a viable policy anymore.
For years, <a href="https://youtu.be/SmoggfXJqJ4?si=OUXsD9mvft3CFfkC">critics</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/opinion/section-702-surveillance-safe-act.html">politicians</a> across the political spectrum have raised serious <a href="https://www.aclu.org/documents/coalition-letter-urging-reforms-section-702-fisa">concerns</a> over the misuse of Section 702. Rampant, repeated violations and a lack of meaningful accountability have eroded trust in a key institution charged with keeping the country safe. Considering the stakes and value of the program, a significant portion of the president’s daily briefing contains information collected via 702; the fact that Congress and the intelligence community allowed this to come down to the wire reflects a sense of complacency.
The 10-day extension didn’t have to happen, and it’s disappointing that another short-term reauthorization of 45 days was needed. Lawmakers had ample time to debate potential reforms, negotiate compromises, and pass something to keep the program’s lights on. Hopefully, this latest extension provides the necessary space to move beyond the false choice between subjecting Americans to total surveillance or total blindness for our intelligence agencies.
Priorities For Reform
First and foremost, Congress needs to close the backdoor search loophole. If the intelligence community would like to search an American’s communications, get a warrant. In many reform camp legislative proposals, there is a litany of carve-outs to allow for defensive queries, identify victims, and exempt metadata from the warrant requirement, all to ensure that, in exigent circumstances, these agencies can operate with the needed flexibility.
Second, the government shouldn’t be able to buy its way out of Fourth Amendment scrutiny by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/19/fbi-buying-location-data-use">purchasing information</a> on Americans from data brokers. Ending the data broker loophole is critical. Otherwise, we are effectively turning every consumer’s smartphone into a tracking device for the state.
Third, we must fix the definition of an electronic communications service provider. During the last FISA reauthorization fight, this definition was expanded so broadly that it could potentially deputize a wide range of businesses and organizations into the national security apparatus for simply providing access to communication infrastructure. This approach, where “everyone is a spy,” is a massive overreach that needs to be reined in.
There is also a broader economic consideration. As the administration seeks to export the American AI tech stack globally, our domestic surveillance practices matter. If we fail to incorporate serious reforms, we undermine the faith other nations place in American technology. We will hinder our ability to win the AI race if our tech stack is viewed as a Trojan horse for our intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance.
This isn’t about blinding agencies to legitimate threats. National security and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. In fact, when the government violates Americans’ rights by ignoring the Constitution, it erodes the social contract that empowers it to operate effectively. That erosion is its own fundamental threat to national security. The administration, the intel community, and Congress have been given a second chance to stop kicking the can down the road and move toward reform.
We need a Section 702 reauthorization that respects the law as much as it protects the country. There is more than enough time to do the right thing.
***
James Czerniawski is the head of Emerging Technology Policy at the Consumer Choice Center. His work has been featured in The New York Post, Newsmax, Newsweek, and more. He has testified to Congress on government surveillance issues. You can follow him on X @<a href="https://x.com/JamesCz19">JamesCz19</a>.

Digital code and Washington DC, USA

Protecting America Without The Surveillance State Starts With Fixing FISA

Congress

FISA

As the conflict with Tehran has reached a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/28/iran-war-peace-talks-stalemate">stalemate</a>, it is up to the United States to declare victory, but first, it must define what victory means. Three outcomes qualify. First, degrading Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal to the point that it no longer poses a credible threat to U.S. bases, allies, or the Strait of Hormuz. Second, dismantling its nuclear program by ending uranium enrichment and subjecting all facilities to inspections. Third, a systemic transfer of power in Tehran that establishes a pro-West government that represents the Iranian people rather than the current theocratic order. 
The third option is not only the most desirable but also the only plausible avenue, resolving the other two while reshaping the world. Eliminating Iran’s military capabilities would be costly and prolonged, and even then reversible so long as the regime remains in power. Islamic Republic <a href="https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/04/06/5-men-now-running-iran/">leaders</a> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-says-it-wont-negotiate-over-its-missile-capabilities-2026-02-11/">refuse</a> to even negotiate missile ranges, and the new Ayatollah sees <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/04/30/world/iran-vow-nuclear-tech/">enrichment</a> as a red line, a stance that hardens as the regime weakens. While regime change remains taboo to discuss, President Donald Trump is already bearing its costs without securing its outcome.
Every American president since 1979 has tried either to <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-231.html">contain</a> the Iran problem or to manage it through <a href="https://jinsa.org/jinsa-ceo-makovsky-on-obamas-unforced-errors-with-iran-in-the-weekly-standard/">appeasement</a>. Trump broke from that approach by seeking to resolve it. To do so, he must avoid a core miscalculation: the regime is structurally incapable of changing its behavior. Tehran’s missile arsenal and nuclear program are its primary points of leverage, and the premise that a durable diplomatic settlement can neutralize both ignores the historical reality that agreements tend to defer rather than remove the threat. An Islamist system built on anti-Americanism and the export of terrorism cannot abandon the very tools that sustain it. 
The <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/iran-us-narrow-differences-after-pakistani-mediation-splits-remain-senior-2026-04-16/">nuclear</a> file remains the lingering issue. Despite long-standing <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/04/iran-attacks-vessels-in-hormuz-avoids-concrete-stance-on-ceasefire-extension.php">differences</a> among the regime’s pillars, they remain aligned on preserving uranium enrichment to retain a pathway to weapons-grade material and maintain leverage. Late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/world/middleeast/seeking-nuclear-insight-in-fog-of-the-ayatollahs-utterances.html?_r=0#:~:text=But%20those%20comments,now%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20added.">drew</a> that lesson from Muammar Gaddafi, who gave up his nuclear program and was later overthrown. His successor, Mojtaba, is following his father’s logic. Tehran has chosen <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2025/06/israel-targets-irans-nuclear-sites-and-senior-military-figures.php">war</a> <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/02/us-and-israel-launch-extensive-military-campaign-against-iran-israel-says-supreme-leader-khamenei-killed.php">twice</a> rather than budge on enrichment and will do so again, while Trump cannot settle for another version of the deal he withdrew from.
On missiles, the campaign has dealt the most severe blow to Iran’s primary military asset, not only its arsenal but also its <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/03/us-israeli-strikes-hit-irans-missile-nuclear-political-and-repression-sites.php">manufacturing</a> base. More than 20,000 <a href="https://www.ajc.org/news/the-iran-strikes-explained-how-we-got-here-and-what-it-means">targets</a> across Iran were struck jointly by the U.S. and Israel, including missile bases, stockpiles, <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/03/us-israeli-campaign-hits-iranian-regimes-military-and-repression-apparatus-regime-forms-leadership-council-march-1-updates.php">launchers</a>, and key <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/03/us-israeli-strikes-continue-as-talks-over-strait-of-hormuz-stall-and-iran-intensifies-internal-crackdown.php#:~:text=Saeed%20Shamghadari%2C%20a%20university%20professor%20linked%20to%20missile%20development%2C%20was%20killed%20in%20a%20Tehran%20strike.">personnel</a> tied to their development. Before the April 7 <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/04/us-iran-agree-to-2-week-ceasefire-in-exchange-for-reopening-of-strait-of-hormuz.php">ceasefire</a>, Iran was launching significantly fewer medium-range ballistic missiles, the <a href="https://jinsa.org/irans-missile-launches-have-fallen-sharply-since-start-of-war-data-shows/">systems </a>it relies on to strike more distant targets such as Israel.
Without a doubt, the regime is significantly weaker than before the war, but it remains lethal. That is due to its cheaply produced yet extensive stockpile of short-range missiles and drones that can still strike <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/04/despite-ceasefire-iran-and-its-militias-continue-attacking-regional-states-april-2-8-updates.php">targets</a> across the Persian Gulf, paired with hundreds of thousands of ideologically devoted <a href="https://www.jns.org/opinion/ceasefire-with-tehran-doesnt-end-the-regimes-war-on-iranians#:~:text=In%20fairness%2C,across%20security%20forces.">personnel</a> willing to fight to martyrdom. 
Another challenge in assessing a military victory is how the U.S. and Israel present data on the regime’s missile and drone stockpiles. Both <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/03/25/iran-missiles-israel-air-defense/">share</a> <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/03/13/us-news/irans-missiles-down-90-drone-attacks-down-95-hegseth-says/">percentage </a>reductions to illustrate damage rather than providing baseline figures and what remains, making the true scale of degradation harder to gauge.
The war against the regime, despite the Islamic Republic being a nation-state, still reflects an asymmetric balance. The munitions used to destroy Iranian military sites are far more <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-war-iran-has-cost-25-billion-so-far-says-pentagon-official-2026-04-29/">expensive</a> than the targets they hit, while Tehran can disrupt the global economy with relatively <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/04/18/world/middleeast/iran-us-war-drones-cost.html">cheap</a> drones and missiles in the Strait of Hormuz. The regime’s bar is survival, while Trump is, and should be, pursuing a far more ambitious definition of victory.
This leaves a systemic transfer of power in Tehran as the only viable path to a historic breakthrough. The key is to level the playing field between regime forces and their only true existential threat: the Iranian people. The war has already set in motion most of the components required for regime collapse, tightening <a href="https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/05/01/blockade-pressure-mounts-as-washington-rejects-tehrans-proposal/">economic</a> pressure, <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/03/israel-intensifies-strikes-on-repression-sites-expands-outreach-to-iranians-as-regime-repression-deepens-march-8-10-updates.php">degrading </a>the repression apparatus, and pairing both with direct messaging so Iranians are prepared to shape what follows. <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/03/israel-shifts-to-hyperlocal-targeting-in-iran-as-regime-military-power-degrades-march-11-13-updates.php">Hyperlocal </a>strikes on internal security personnel proved a turning point, forcing these fighters to fear for their lives as much as ordinary Iranians do. The abrupt ceasefire cut short these dynamics before they could produce a decisive outcome.
The window for regime change remains open, as <a href="https://www.jns.org/opinion/ceasefire-with-tehran-doesnt-end-the-regimes-war-on-iranians">Iranians</a> still await the call from the president to take to the streets, a step Washington has <a href="https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/02/us-and-israel-launch-extensive-military-campaign-against-iran-israel-says-supreme-leader-khamenei-killed.php#:~:text=The%20conclusion%20of,this%20murderous%20regime.%E2%80%9D">signaled</a> more than <a href="https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603220220#:~:text=%22They%27re%20launching%20missiles%20and%20drones%20from%20populated%20areas%20and%20you%20need%20to%20stay%20inside%20for%20right%20now%2C%22%20he%20said.%20%22There%20will%20be%20a%20clear%20signal%20at%20some%20point%2C%20as%20the%20President%20has%20indicated%2C%20for%20you%20to%20be%20able%20to%20come%20out.%22">once</a>. The naval <a href="https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/05/01/blockade-pressure-mounts-as-washington-rejects-tehrans-proposal/">blockade </a>has already alarmed Tehran’s leadership, which faces the prospect of renewed unrest and growing difficulty paying its supporters. Washington should be prepared to press further while sustaining the economic pressure that is constraining cash flow and deepening public resentment.
Expanded support would require strikes not only on repression forces and military figures but also on the regime’s political leadership. In parallel, select dissident networks in major urban areas should be equipped to confront their oppressors. As mid- and lower-level personnel see leadership either eliminated or in hiding, while dissident cells operate across key cities, it reinforces the sense that the regime’s end is near and forces a <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-threatening-iranian-officers-on-the-phone-as-part-of-efforts-to-stir-unrest/">choice</a> between holding the line at great risk or defecting.
The <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/why-helping-iran-would-not-lead-us-a-new-quagmire">conditions</a> are in place. Iranians are overwhelmingly anti-Islamist, the region’s <a href="https://www.fdd.org/in_the_news/faq/2026/02/25/iran-faq-what-you-should-know/#:~:text=The%20confrontation%20is%20not%20with%20the%20Iranian%20nation%20but%20rather%20with%20its%20rulers.%20Iran%20is%20the%20home%20of%20the%20region%E2%80%99s%20most%20anti%2DAmerican%2C%20anti%2DWestern%2C%20and%20anti%2DIsraeli%20regime%20and%20its%20most%20pro%2DAmerican%2C%20pro%2DWestern%2C%20and%20pro%2DIsraeli%20population.">most</a> pro-American and pro-Israeli population, highly educated compared to their neighbors, and anchored by a strong national identity rooted in their ancient monarchy. They mobilized in the <a href="https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601092353">millions </a>in January 2026 behind Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the only viable transition figure.
The Iran war presents Trump with an opportunity more transformative than the collapse of the Soviet Union. A shift in power in Tehran would eliminate the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and a global arms <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/feature/iran-creeping-international-arms-market-212318">proliferator</a> that has fueled conflicts from Europe to Africa and supplied oil to China. Achieving this historic shift runs through the Iranian people.
Born and raised in Tehran, Janatan Sayeh is the Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Previously, he held various research roles at the International Republican Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the American Enterprise Institute. Sayeh studied Hebrew and Arabic at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and received his BA in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.

Supporters of Regime-Change in Iran Rally in L.A.

In Iran, Behavior Changes Only When The Regime Does

Iran

Iran Nuclear Deal

Regime change

Terrorism

Jennifer Welch — or as I like to call her, “Jennifer Miserable Wench” — took to her &#8220;I&#8217;ve Had It&#8221; podcast this week to unload on Erika Kirk for the unforgivable sin of looking at a camera.
The widow of assassinated Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk had the audacity to film a segment for her late husband&#8217;s show. She wore black. She looked serious. She spoke about the future of the conservative movement. For this abhorrent crime, Welch dressed up like a discount Matrix extra, mocked the outfit as &#8220;cosplaying as an assassin,&#8221; and declared Erika &#8220;the racist fascist about whom I am talking.&#8221;
She used the word “whom!” Brilliant commentary. Except it’s not. It’s performative art for the clinically miserable.
It should go without saying, but this is pretty despicable. Erika Kirk has two small children and no husband. Before Charlie was gunned down in cold blood at a college event last September, most of the world had no idea who she was. After his death, she became the Left&#8217;s universal grievance vacuum. The same online ghouls who cheered that assassination are now using Erika as their personal punching bag, drowning her in the same hatred that ultimately killed the love of her life.
She forgave his killer. She kept her family intact. She stepped into leadership at TPUSA to continue what Charlie started. And for that, she is mocked, libeled, and dragged across every podcast willing to platform these people.
She is not your piñata. Stop hating on a widow because it makes your own emptiness feel purposeful. This is Mean Girl 101. Did none of you grow up with sisters?
Now, Welch the Wench. The Kamala-crazed Karen with the botched Botox. This is the same woman who previously called Erika &#8220;an absolute grifter,&#8221; laughed along with guests rationalizing Charlie&#8217;s murder, and once suggested banning Trump supporters from Mexican, Chinese, and Indian restaurants. These aren&#8217;t off-the-cuff remarks — they are the brand. &#8220;I&#8217;ve Had It&#8221; is less a podcast than a support group for people whose entire personality is performative contempt.
We used to laugh these people off. We used to condemn them back to their theater-kid corners, where their shrill self-righteousness was safely contained to faculty lounges and group chats. Then we gave them microphones, Netflix deals, and New York Times profiles, treating their rage as profound moral clarity.
What on God’s green earth were we thinking?
Here is the sinister part: Jennifer Welch is not the story. She is the symptom.
There are a million Jennifer Miserable Wenches. They are ubiquitous and multiplying. This isn&#8217;t just a sad woman coping with the miseries of her own life by tearing conservatives apart online. It is a pattern of spiritual rot that has consumed the Left entirely. These are the same people who could barely conceal their glee when someone shot at President Trump. They celebrated, openly and grotesquely, when Charlie Kirk was murdered in front of college students. They post sneering jokes about Ben Sasse, a once-in-a-generation man currently dying of five different types of cancer. Nobody is off limits. Not the murdered. Not the grieving. Not the dying.
I didn&#8217;t realize we were living under backwards theocratic rule, but here we are, surrounded by a mob of self-appointed moral dictators who have decided that anyone to the right of them deserves whatever they get.
The Left has rejected any shared moral code rooted in religion or natural law. When you strip that away, when you delegitimize your opponents&#8217; basic humanity and decide that disagreement is fascism, hatred fills the void.
Conservatives statistically report higher life satisfaction, stronger marriages, more children, and less depression and anxiety. Deep-blue enclaves have collapsing birth rates and skyrocketing mental illness. These people are not living; they are existing. So they invent a purpose: spreading hatred in the guise of eliminating it.
Can’t they just take up watercoloring?
Erika Kirk is not a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. Hitler was a fascist. They murdered millions and crushed dissent by force. What Charlie Kirk and TPUSA taught is that America is good, that capitalism, though flawed, is the most humane and helpful system we&#8217;ve got, and that Christianity offers grounding and grace. If that message threatens you, the problem is not the messenger.
Welch, Wench, Whackjob: read a history book. Stop flattening it into a weapon you point at grieving widows.
This is no longer a fringe phenomenon. It’s the mainstream Left. The sickness is not spreading in spite of their platforms. It is spreading because of them.
The antidote is millions of young Americans choosing faith, family, and something hopeful worth living for. The antidote is people like Erika Kirk. Conservatives just need to do a better job of defending them.

One Story. One Future: GLAAD Celebrates Pride 2025

Jennifer Welch Is Proof That Hate Makes You Ugly

Erika Kirk

Jennifer Welch

Leftists

The drivers of the 2026 midterm elections are crystallizing. The voters are deciding what this election is about. Of course, as a midterm, our sitting president, Donald Trump, plays a significant role, but he’s by no means the only factor. Once again, the economy holds center stage.
The media has branded this year’s form of economic concern the affordability crisis, and to some degree, that moniker fits. In that context, one expense is quickly emerging as the fastest driver of budgetary pain for millions of Americans. And that would be the unbearable rise in the out-of-pocket costs of health insurance. This issue is not about access to coverage. It’s about the rapid rise in the cost of coverage and the ever-shrinking nature of that coverage.
The vast majority of voters are now certain that health insurance companies are taking advantage of them with price-gouging, vertical integration, and a lack of transparency, with next to nothing being done to stop it. Today, voters are primed to reward a candidate who is willing to fight back against the insurance giants with their vote.
As pollsters, we’ve tracked voter sentiment on the issues they will take to the ballot box for decades. This year, health insurance costs have cemented themselves as a primary driver of cost-of-living concerns.
In our recent national polling, 36% of voters said healthcare costs were a top concern, trailing only groceries and gas. Of those top three concerns, healthcare costs are the area where our elected officials can make the most impact.
Over the last 14 months, our polling shows an increase in concerns over rising health insurance costs. And voters in focus groups routinely tell us this is an area neither party is addressing.
The voters are loud and clear on what they want the government to do. Overall, 60% say Congress should focus on health insurance companies to solve the problems affecting them the most, with majorities across party lines pointing their fingers in the same direction. Comparatively, 18% say they should focus on pharmaceutical companies, 8% hospital systems, and 6% on Pharmacy Benefit Managers.
Voters are looking for the federal government to go much farther in taking on health insurance companies with policies that punish them for shady practices. Over 90% support requirements to report insurance coverage denial rates and requiring transparency for drug mark-ups — telling patients what extra health insurance profits actually fund. Similar shares support requiring insurers to cover all FDA-approved drugs so they can’t only cover the most profitable ones, and banning health insurance companies from cutting deals with the pharmacies and clinics they own.
They don’t stop there. A whopping 70% of voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who wants to break up big health insurance companies. What’s more telling is that it includes 70% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and 70% of Republicans. That’s not a typo. In the age of hyper-political polarization, this issue is a bipartisan unicorn.
Being beholden to health insurance companies is as politically damning as any hit we’ve seen this election. Nationwide, 86% are less likely to vote for a candidate who was funded by big health insurance companies.
The path to expanding coalitions of voters with real wins on healthcare and costs-of-living is out there. Standing up to big insurance companies and the politicians who have sold out to them is as politically ripe as any issue today. When healthcare comes up in the halls of Congress or on the campaign trail, the voters will be listening, and they know what they want to hear.
***
<div dir="ltr">
Wes Anderson is a founding partner, and Henry Parkhurst is a pollster with OnMessage Inc., a political consulting firm with decades of experience in advising Republican campaigns and public affairs communications.
</div>

Economic Inflation Increase

The Growing Frustration That Could Flip Races And Neither Party Is Ready

2026 elections

affordability

Health Insurance

When historians look back on this period of war in Ukraine and Iran, they will be deeply puzzled by a simple question: why can’t the leaders of the Western Democracies hear our enemies?
There were two examples last week, one from Russia and one from Iran, in which our enemies were extraordinarily clear about their view of things.
In both cases, our enemies’ comments were dramatically different from what we have been telling ourselves.
We keep hoping for reasonableness, for negotiating to a peaceful conclusion, for finding some common ground to build a better future.
Our enemies share none of those goals, and they are very clear about their goals and how different they are from the West’s self-delusion.
Consider first the Russian position.
While Putin was having a very nice chat with President Donald Trump for over an hour, his senior national security spokesperson was preparing a radically different message.
Dmitry Medvedev has been president, prime minister, and now deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia. He would never make an aggressive, hostile speech without Putin’s approval.
Yet the day after Putin’s call with President Trump, Medvedev gave a speech in which he declared that the United States is Russia’s geopolitical rival and that the conflict with the West is “a question of existence” that will last longer than this generation. He rejected any American mediation between Russia and Ukraine and asserted that victory over Ukraine would solve a lot of Russia’s problems.
Medvedev’s speech was a pretty clear statement of long-term conflict. Remember that Putin, in his April 2005 State of the Nation address, said he believed the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
Why would we expect a former KGB Colonel who is a fervent Russian nationalist and who wants to reassemble a very strong Russian state to settle for the survival of a Ukraine he is determined to conquer?
While the Russians were telling us we were in a very long conflict that would last over a generation, the Iranians were sending us a clear, unambiguous statement about their intentions.
As the Institute for the Study of War reported:
<blockquote>
Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared on April 30 that Iran will retain control over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and maintain its nuclear and missile capabilities, which supports ISW-CTP’s assessment that the Iranian regime is unlikely to make meaningful concessions in its next proposal to the United States … Mojtaba also underscored that Iran will defend its nuclear, missile, and advanced technological capabilities as resolutely as it defends its territorial borders. A senior Iranian official speaking to the Washington Post on April 30 similarly asserted that Iran’s security establishment rejects compromise on key matters, such as Iran’s ability to enrich uranium.
</blockquote>
It seems clear that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Major General Ahmad Vahidi now dominates the Iranian dictatorship and represents the hardline position that Iran can withstand American and Israeli attacks and ultimately win the war simply by not giving in.
Western analysts, including those who dominate Washington, D.C., simply cannot break out of their rational, Enlightenment model of reasonableness to understand how unreasonable alternative systems can be, and yet, within their own values and their own experiences, they are following a logic train that is easily understandable.
This was the key problem Winston Churchill faced after reading “Mein Kampf” in the early 1930s and understanding the logic of Hitler’s insanity. He simply could not get the British establishment to listen to Hitler and rearm accordingly.
Consider first the belief system and history that shape General Vahidi. He is part of a religious dictatorship that has been chanting “Death to America” for 47 years. General Vahidi was born in 1958 and joined the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in 1979 at the age of 21. He is sanctioned by the United States, Canada, and the European Union for terrorism and nuclear activities.
When we think about the pain our bombing campaign is causing the Iranian government, we have to put it in the context of their experience of the war with Iraq from September 1980 to August 1988. This was a brutal meat grinder in which the Iraqis used chemical weapons. The best estimate is that Iranian casualties were over 1,000,000, with the Iranian death toll somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000.
If you consider that General Vahidi’s experience from the age of 22 to 30 was this brutal war, and since then he has waged terrorist campaigns against the West while focusing on building nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach Europe and the United States, you get a different sense of what we are up against.
If the religiously inspired (and this is the vital fact which the rational West refuses to consider) dictatorship, when it was barely established, could endure an eight-year war with a million casualties, what is the historic yardstick by which we should expect them to accept terms they would regard as a betrayal of the revolution?
This question of pain levels also applies to Putin and the Russian dictatorship. The Soviet Union lost over 20 million dead in World War II. At Stalingrad alone, they lost 40,000 civilians and had about 1,100,000 soldiers killed or wounded.
From a Ukrainian perspective, the horror of the Stalin-enforced famine of 1932 and 1933, which killed 3,900,000 (about 13% of the population) through starvation, is a horrifying reminder of why they fight against Moscow so intensely and at such costs. The Ukrainian word for the famine is Holodomor, which combines the Ukrainian words for starvation and to inflict death. It is reasonable to suggest that the Ukrainians will fight to the end rather than accept subjugation to a city that deliberately starved millions of them to death.
Our enemies are trying to tell us who they really are. Future historians will puzzle at our inability to hear them.
The Chinese and North Korean dictatorships are watching carefully our inability to confront and respond to reality. They will develop their own strategies accordingly, and both will help Russia and Iran survive the inadequate efforts of the United States and its allies.
Literally, the future of the world will be decided by the American ability or inability to learn and change when faced with aggressive evil.
If we do not change and recognize that our enemies are enemies who think differently from us, we will lose. It is that simple.
***
Newt Gingrich was the Republican Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. Follow him on X @NewtGingrich. Join his newsletter at <a href="https://www.gingrich360.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.gingrich360.net/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1778011290065000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1zn9zi0baZTNq2_7KeHn-r">Gingrich360.net</a>.

IRAN-POLITICS-US-HOSTAGE-ANNIVERSARY

Newt Gingrich: Why Can’t We Hear Our Enemies?

American History

Foreign Policy

Iran war

Ukraine-Russia War

When my daughter Jeanette was only four years old, she looked up at me and said, “Mommy, thank you for giving me my life.”
Those words have echoed in my heart ever since. They marked the beginning of a journey that taught me the profound truth I hold today: We must choose life under all circumstances, because life is worth fighting for.
At 12 years old, after moving from Mexico City to Los Angeles, my world shattered. I was kidnapped by two men, repeatedly raped, and left for dead.
No one is ever prepared for that to happen.
When I finally made it out and home, I was severely depressed. My family had no idea how to help and offered little compassion. I was told that my life was ruined, that no one would ever want me, and that everything was destroyed. At such a young age, hearing those things left me with nowhere to turn.
I felt utterly alone. Nightmares haunted me. I couldn’t sleep. In desperation, I took all the pills I could find, hoping to end the pain. I woke up in a hospital, where doctors informed me I was pregnant.
Since many people consider this one of the “exceptions” where abortion seems justifiable, the doctor told me not to worry. He said abortion was legal, and I could have one. But at that moment, questions flooded my mind: Would abortion take away my nightmares? Would it erase my fear of going outside? Would it heal the abuse or undo what had been done to me?
He answered no to every question. Abortion would do none of those things. So why was that the only option offered? I needed real help — like psychological support, medical care, and legal assistance — but none were offered. The only solution presented to me was to kill my child.
The doctor performed a sonogram, and I asked if I could hear the heartbeat. When that tiny sound reached me, hope stirred in my heart for the first time. I realized I wasn’t going to be alone anymore. This child was mine; my DNA, my blood, growing inside of me.
I refused to give my baby the death penalty for a crime she didn’t commit.
To this day, those two men who hurt me have never faced trial. It took many years, but I eventually prayed for them. Forgiveness came slowly, but it came.
Raising a child at 12 was incredibly hard. I grew up amid domestic violence and my father’s alcoholism. No one is truly prepared to parent at any age, but my daughter became the light in my darkness. She gave me the courage to stand up, find work, and strive to be better.
Although people judged me because I was a young girl already with a baby, I didn’t care. She loved me more than anyone ever had. Through her love, my heart began to heal. She was the reason I got up every morning, worked, and pushed forward. I emancipated myself, lived on my own with her, and we grew up together.
Jeanette went to college and graduated. She founded a nonprofit to support girls facing depression, discrimination, and teenage single-motherhood. She provided diapers and baby clothes — anything a struggling mother needs because she knew what I had lacked. She would say, “Look at me, Mom. I’m normal.” She was kind and compassionate, and she believed her purpose was to help others.
Tragically, my daughter passed away a few years ago. The pain still breaks my heart. She was no second-class citizen. She deserved every bit of respect and dignity as anyone else. Her conception came from violence, but that never defined her. She shaped the woman I am today.
Abortion doesn’t undo rape. It inflicts double trauma, a second violation you will never forget. If I had chosen abortion, I wouldn’t be here. I would have ended up dead, on drugs, or lost entirely. Instead, Jeanette helped me become a better person. She reminded me that love is always stronger than violence.
When people say a child conceived in rape will only remind the mother of her trauma forever, I say yes, she is a reminder. But she is a reminder that life triumphs over brutality, that hope can rise from ashes.
We must make abortion unthinkable, even in the hardest cases. We need more programs: legal aid, psychological support, safe housing, and protection for girls abused in their own homes. Remove them from danger and protect the child, because it’s never the child’s fault.
No woman should be violated as I was. But if you ask what was worse, the rape or losing my daughter, the answer is clear: losing her was the worst pain I’ve ever known. She gave me hope, love, and purpose. I am grateful for every day we shared.
When Jeanette was four years old, she thanked me for giving her life. But in truth, it was my daughter I should have thanked instead. She gave me my life back.
Life is worth fighting for. Every life, no matter how it is conceived. One single life saved changes the world.
***
Lianna Rebolledo is an inspirational speaker, journalist, and counselor who founded Loving Life. She works closely with Live Action to share her powerful story globally.

Abortion – Miscarriage

Being Pro-life Can Turn The Cruelest Circumstances Into Hope And Love

Live Action

Pro-Life Movement

Political and sports commentator Clay Travis recently <a href="https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/2044421978765906124">suggested</a> that Michigan Republicans should cross over and vote for Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic Senate primary. His reasoning: El-Sayed is a far-left radical who can&#8217;t win in November, and his securing the nomination would help Republican Mike Rogers win the all-important seat.
This is seriously bad advice — not just because it’s tactically risky, but because it asks Republicans to do something they should be unwilling to do: lend their votes, even instrumentally, to a candidate who represents a newly imported and genuinely dangerous ideological project.
Primary meddling is a stupid game that typically produces stupid prizes. Anticipating that some conservatives might start floating this ill-advised idea, I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/michigan-voters-dont-let-radicals-fool-you-into-thinking-theyre-normal">wrote</a> about it recently for this site.
Democrats were <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/">eager</a> to see Donald Trump win the 2016 Republican presidential primary, convinced he would be a gift to Hillary Clinton in November. That failed calculation reshaped American politics. Closer to home, primary meddling has occasionally “worked” in narrow tactical terms, elevating weaker nominees who go on to lose. But those cases are the exception that seduces people into ignoring the far more dangerous reality: sometimes the candidate you boost actually wins.
But the bigger issue here is that the Michigan Senate race is not just another contest between interchangeable Democrats. It is a referendum on what kind of Democratic Party emerges in one of the country’s most crucial swing states. Republicans ignore that meaningful difference between the candidates at their peril.
Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who began this race as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/michigan-us-senate-election-polls-2026.html">polling</a> frontrunner but now lags in <a href="https://kalshi.com/markets/kxsenatemid/mid/kxsenatemid-26">prediction markets</a> as a distant third, is a conventional Democrat with a frequently (and somewhat <a href="https://x.com/Jesse_Leg/status/2049807103385063728">unfairly</a>) mocked Midwestern twang. She ran as a moderate and has governed as something less than that — hardly a surprise in modern politics. As the election of Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger illustrates, Democrats who campaign toward the center often govern further to the Left once in power, pursuing policies they never fully advertised on the trail.
That <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/spanberger-faces-bait-and-switch-backlash-final-hours-before-redistricting-referendum?intcmp=xpal_politics">bait-and-switch</a> dynamic is real. Republicans are right to be frustrated by it. But frustration is not an excuse for abandoning basic judgment.
Because whatever one thinks of Stevens’s voting record on taxes, regulation, or abortion, she does not represent a fundamental threat to the American political order. She operates within it. She is recognizably part of the long-standing Democratic coalition that, for all its many faults, accepts the basic premises of American life: liberal democracy, civil society, and the legitimacy of the United States as a nation. The same can be said of the third major candidate in the race: progressive state legislator, MS NOW fixture, and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/29/politics/kfile-mallory-mcmorrow-deleted-tweets">Middle America-critic</a> Mallory McMorrow.
Abdul El-Sayed, on the other hand, represents something different: <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/mamdani-and-the-lefts-alliance-with-radical-islam-new-york-mayor-658b68ad">Islamoleftism</a>. This is the uneasy fusion of the radical political Left with the ideology of political Islam — not a religion, but a political radicalization that has found in the far-left Democratic coalition a vehicle for its ambitions. It is what happened to Jeremy Corbyn&#8217;s Labor Party in the United Kingdom, where radical Muslims became culture carriers inside a major political party, importing eliminationist antisemitism into the mainstream of left-wing politics until the rot became undeniable and the party paid a historic price.
Michigan is that <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jesse-arm-on-michigan-democrats-islamism-problem/id921756215?i=1000763352131">story</a> in its American infancy. Dearborn — which one Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/welcome-to-dearborn-americas-jihad-capital-pro-hamas-michigan-counterterrorism-a99dba38?st=K8oSiw&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink">essay</a> called “America&#8217;s jihad capital” — has developed an Islamist political infrastructure whose leaders curry favor from ambitious Democrats. El-Sayed has obliged them. A leaked <a href="https://freebeacon.com/democrats/there-are-a-lot-of-people-in-dearborn-who-are-sad-democratic-senate-hopeful-abdul-el-sayed-said-he-needed-to-stay-silent-on-khamenei-killing-because-many-of-michigans-muslim-voters/">recording</a> of him speaking with campaign staff revealed he didn&#8217;t want to say anything about the U.S.-Israeli elimination of Ayatollah Khamenei earlier this year because, he explained, too many people in Dearborn would be sad about the death of the theocratic butcher who led the world&#8217;s top state sponsor of terrorism.
El-Sayed has appeared at Islamist conferences with speakers who praised Hamas terrorism, addressed groups that have been designated as terrorist organizations, raised money from antisemitic PAC leaders, and <a href="https://freebeacon.com/democrats/michigan-senate-candidate-abdul-el-sayed-compared-an-oklahoma-ban-on-sharia-law-to-the-trail-of-tears/">fought</a> efforts to keep Islamic law out of American government. His response in the days following a Hezbollah-inspired terrorist attack that attempted to murder 140 children by driving an explosive-laden truck into the preschool at Temple Israel — the largest Reform synagogue in my hometown of West Bloomfield — was to post a smiling photo appealing to fans of Hasan Piker, announce joint campaign appearances with him, and minimize and rationalize the near-massacre by declaring: “Hurt people hurt people.”
Piker, for the uninitiated, is a self-described Marxist who has called Jews &#8220;inbred,&#8221; declared America deserved 9/11, and recently used a filmed New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/22/opinion/shoplifting-political-protest-microlooting-whole-foods.html">roundtable</a> to explain his moral framework for the various scenarios in which carjacking, shoplifting, and murder are excusable. His approval is increasingly a litmus test for Democratic office-seekers.
The broader picture in Michigan confirms this isn&#8217;t just about one candidate. At the state’s Democratic Party convention earlier this month, organized labor — long the kingmaker of Michigan Democratic politics — was <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/michigan-democrats-labor-unions">routed</a> by the coalition El-Sayed represents. The attorney general candidate who held every major union endorsement, including the United Auto Workers and the Michigan Education Association, lost to an opponent with a single local endorsement. Jordan Acker, the Jewish incumbent University of Michigan Democratic regent whose home and car were repeatedly vandalized with antisemitic graffiti by fanatical-left Palestine obsessives, was denied renomination and replaced by a Dearborn attorney who has praised Hezbollah and the Iranian terror regime. Twenty-four union locals and a former Michigan AFL-CIO president have already defected to endorse an independent candidate running for governor rather than follow where the party is heading.
My Manhattan Institute colleague Charles Lehman recently <a href="https://www.commentary.org/articles/charles-fain-lehman/anti-americanism-vs-patriotism/">wrote</a> about the growing disease of anti-Americanism and the expanding patriotism gap between our two parties. In 2001, Democrats and Republicans were a mere three points apart in their pride in being American. Today, the gap is vastly larger — 92% of Republicans call themselves very or extremely proud; among Democrats, that number is just 36%.
The Democratic Party once feared being seen as unpatriotic, but it now rewards politicians for the viciousness of their America-criticism and punishes those who hesitate to go along. El-Sayed is the natural endpoint of that trajectory. Stevens and McMorrow are much less of an accelerant on this front.
Republicans should want to win this race. But as the state party has rightly <a href="https://x.com/MIGOP/status/2044456040696000701?s=20">pointed</a> out, they should not get too cute when thinking about how. Not all Democrats are fungible, and it matters which faction prevails inside their party. A conventional liberal can be defeated and replaced; a radical movement, once legitimized, reshapes the party around it and the country that has to contend with it.
Boosting El-Sayed isn&#8217;t a clever tactic. It&#8217;s a bet that anti-Americanism stays contained once you help elevate it. That’s a bad, risky bet.
Better to defeat Democrats by making the affirmative case for why Republicans deserve to govern. Don’t evade countering the arguments made by bad Democrats by instead attempting to elevate worse ones.
***
Jesse Arm is vice president of External Affairs at Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.  His affiliation is presented for identification only; all views expressed are his own and not those of his employer.

Michigan Democratic Nominating Convention

With Abdul El-Sayed On The Ballot, Michigan Democrats Are At A Crossroads

Abdul El-Sayed

Democrats

Michigan Primary

Today is May Day, and we begin hot with nationwide protests in our schools. This shouldn’t come as a surprise — the past few weeks have been a whirlwind of political events. From the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner to the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, there is no shortage of political controversy.
What is May Day, you might ask? For months, teachers&#8217; unions and high-profile left-wing nonprofits have <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/a-may-day-2026-host-toolkit-includes-training-information-for-a-coordinated-day-of-action-and-promotes-tactics-such-as-a-school-walk-in-nea-provided-1-7m-in-funding-to-organization-involved/">geared</a> up for mass mobilizations and boycotts to honor the socialist holy day and to flex their political power. Part of the preparation <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/a-sunrise-movement-training-guidebook-calls-for-students-to-take-action-monthly-to-disrupt-business-as-usual-to-bring-about-a-political-revolution/">efforts include</a> training and organizing children to engage in <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/k-12-student-walkout-and-protest-tracker/">school walkouts</a> and protests.
While left-wing activism is not new itself, what is relatively new is the degree to which the education system has been corrupted to engineer new generations to activists. These May Day protests are a feature, a byproduct really, of an education system steeped in radical ideologies designed to mobilize far-left activism and a “<a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/newly-obtained-slides-from-a-sunrise-movement-membership-meeting-calls-for-a-political-revolution-that-includes-the-need-to-structurally-change-the-foundations-of-this-country-to-achieve-eco/">political revolution</a>.”
Nor are these protests the end. They are an opening act for what the professional agitators and activists intend to be an ongoing affair leading up to the 2028 elections. K-12 schools are strategic collateral damage.
This pattern is visible in the series of <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/k-12-student-walkout-and-protest-tracker/">student walkouts</a> since January, many of which focused on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Less visible to the public, however, is the role of the <a href="https://defendinged.org/incidents/nea-president-becky-pringle-joins-sunrise-movements-roadmap-to-political-revolution-event-series/">teachers&#8217; unions</a> and <a href="https://defendinged.org/incidents/group-messages-and-training-documents-suggest-k-12-student-ice-protests-in-minnesota-may-be-organized-by-the-sunrise-movement-and-its-members-including-a-current-ivy-league-student-with-ties-to-past/">nonprofit allies</a> in these protests.
For American children, the learning experience is a constant barrage of heavily lopsided <a href="https://defendinged.org/incidents/minnesota-eighth-graders-shown-videos-of-ice-arrests-and-alleged-harassment-of-u-s-citizens-principal-says-its-part-of-state-geography-standards/">political messaging</a> meant to train the youngest kids to see the world through a <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/politics/critical-competency-consciousness/2023/12/07/id/1145144/">warped oppressor-oppressed</a> framing and to engage in action or activism to stop the perceived “injustice.”
Whether through <a href="https://web.ped.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/K12ParentandFamilySocialStudiesGuides.pdf">state standards</a> and guidance, such as New Mexico Public Education Department’s Social Studies “<a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/new-mexico-education-documents-for-high-school-history-and-ethnic-studies-include-climate-change-intersectionality-and-january-6-insurrection-content/">Instructional Scope</a>” or <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/liberated-k-12-liberated-ethnic-studies-industrial-complex/">ethnic studies</a> courses, students are being conditioned to be political actors from the <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Liberated-Ethnic-Studies-Model-Curriculum-What-is-Normal_-Slides-presentation-Gr-Pk-2.pdf">earliest ages</a>.
For example, a free <a href="https://defendinged.org/investigations/liberated-universities-landing-page/">lesson</a> produced by the University of Minnesota’s &#8220;Ethnic Studies Initiative” teaches sixth-grade students about the Black Lives Matter movement through the creation of “protest art.” The middle school students are then required to produce their own social justice protest art.
Such indoctrination is not only reserved for ethnic studies. It has permeated into our school system through Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) <a href="https://defendinged.org/resources/sel101/">programming</a>.
SEL is no less a political tool than ethnic studies. In 2019, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) <a href="https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2021/jagers_skoog-hoffman_barthelus_schlund">mainstreamed</a> “transformative” SEL, which integrates anti-racism and <a href="https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/research-evaluation/youth-organizing-and-transformative-sel">activism</a> into its framework.
Second Step, a popular SEL company that utilizes CASEL’s platform, went further and <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-28-at-4.17.30-PM.png">aligned</a> its curriculum with Learning for Justice’s Social Justice Standards, focusing specifically on action and activism. Learning for Justice is a program of the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-southern-poverty-law-center-wire-fraud-false-statements-and">Southern Poverty Law Center</a> (SPLC).
As students, teachers&#8217; unions, and left-wing activist organizations take to the streets this May Day to champion policies and an ideology that the majority of Americans reject, the public needs to understand that this is the starting gun, not the finish line.
Left-wing actors desperately want a “political revolution” and have no problem using other people&#8217;s children to achieve their goals. They have no issue turning the K-12 education system into a far-left activist pipeline. What we’re seeing now is just the beginning.
* * *
Rhyen Staley is a researcher for Defending Education. He holds a master&#8217;s degree in elementary education and has over a decade of classroom experience in both public and private schools. He has over 25 years of coaching experience from junior high to Division I.

May Day Workers Rally

Teachers’ Unions Celebrate Socialist Holy Day

Protests

Public Schools

Students

Teachers Unions

Teenagers

The New Yorker had a full-blown meltdown this week over E.P.A. Administrator Lee Zeldin’s unapologetic effort to carry out President Trump’s environmental agenda.
In the process, the magazine unintentionally elevates Zeldin to folk hero status among the conservative faithful, making him look exactly like what many conservatives have long wanted: an E.P.A. chief who is finally willing to fight aggressive environmental leftism instead of accommodating it.
Titled “<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/05/04/can-the-epa-survive-lee-zeldin">Can the E.P.A. Survive Lee Zeldin</a>?” the article begins by expressing outrage over Zeldin slapping the wrists of 144 insubordinate career E.P.A. bureaucrats who published a public letter excoriating their boss. The <a href="https://www.standupforscience.net/epa-declaration">letter</a> begins by stating, “Declaration of dissent: E.P.A. employees join in solidarity with employees across the federal government in opposing this administration&#8217;s policies,” while singling out Zeldin by name for special criticism.
The letter reads like an Ilhan Omar press release. It alleges that “black communities,” “disabled communities,” “LGBTQIA+ communities,” and the usual mix of leftist special-interest groups are disproportionately impacted by climate change and environmental harm. The letter then chastises Zeldin for cutting back funding and staff dedicated to “environmental justice.”
So much for career bureaucrats in Washington being dispassionate, politically neutral applicators of law and policy.
<div id="attachment_1087961" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/05/04/can-the-epa-survive-lee-zeldin"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1087961" class="size-large wp-image-1087961" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/TNY-LZ-1024x474.jpg" alt="Screenshot: The New Yorker" width="1024" height="474" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/TNY-LZ-1024x474.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/TNY-LZ-300x139.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/TNY-LZ-768x356.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/TNY-LZ-1536x711.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/TNY-LZ.jpg 1624w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>Screenshot: The New Yorker</div>
For the crime of carrying out the elected president’s agenda, Zeldin is accused by career bureaucrats of “undermining public trust,” “promot[ing] misinformation,” and even backing “President Trump’s tariffs.”
The E.P.A. is part of the executive branch of the federal government, and the administrator reports directly to the president. E.P.A.’s role is to implement environmental laws and policies consistent with federal law and the president’s direction.
By definition, it is aggressively insubordinate for a federal agency’s bureaucratic employees to publicly criticize and issue a “Declaration of dissent” against the boss of their agency.
How did Zeldin respond? He placed the offending employees on temporary administrative leave, receiving full pay and benefits. In other words, Zeldin gave the insubordinate staffers free vacation time. Reading The New Yorker article, however, one would think Zeldin sentenced the staffers to hard labor in a gulag.
The New Yorker then goes on to attack Zeldin’s voting record in Congress. As an elected Republican, Zeldin voted “mostly along party lines” rather than joining Democrats in opposition to Republican-supported policies.
According to the <a href="https://heritageaction.com/scorecard/search/">Heritage Action Scorecard</a>, which tallies how often a member of Congress votes the conservative or liberal position on the most important congressional votes, Zeldin strayed from the conservative Republican position 22% of the time during his years in Congress. By comparison, so-called “conservative” Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema deviated from the liberal Democrat position just 21% and 10% of the time, respectively.
Zeldin deviated from the conservative position more frequently than so-called conservative Democrats, and yet The New Yorker still brands Zeldin a conservative extremist.
The New Yorker then complains that in the September 12, 2025, issue of the official E.P.A. newsletter, Zeldin engages in “mourning” Charlie Kirk’s assassination. To illustrate its outrage, The New Yorker points out, exasperated, that Zeldin wrote, “In Loving Memory” in the E.P.A. newsletter under a picture of Kirk.
The fact is, The New Yorker, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and the rest of the leftist cabal are <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-epa-chief-vows-he-wont-take-morality-lessons-dem-senator-after-heated-clash">losing their minds</a> because Zeldin is the most principled and effective implementer of common-sense conservative environmental policy in the history of the E.P.A.
Under the squishy presidencies of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, the two Bushes searched for the most environmentally leftist “Republican” they could find. Both cases were a futile effort to win Democratic votes. George H.W. Bush chose William K. Reilly, who previously served as head of the leftist environmental activist group World Wildlife Fund, to lead his E.P.A. George W. Bush chose one of the most liberal self-identified Republican politicians in the country, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, to lead his E.P.A.
Lee Zeldin is unquestionably the greatest conservative administrator the E.P.A. has ever had. The New Yorker can’t stand that, and its amateurish hit job on a very competent and effective Zeldin only makes them look more toxic.
* * *
James Taylor (<a href="mailto:JTaylor@heartland.org">JTaylor@heartland.org</a>) is President of The Heartland Institute.

Zeldin II

The Left’s Latest Hit Job On Zeldin Goes Sideways

The Left's Latest Hit Job On Zeldin Goes Sideways

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Lee Zeldin

The New Yorker

Trump Administration

On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court sided with fairness and the rule of law in its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, which returned the Voting Rights Act to its original intent: to protect against intentional racial discrimination. This decision doesn’t discriminate; it says we are all Americans. It restores equal protection under the law, which should be easy for all of us to celebrate. The court sided with Martin Luther King, Jr.’s vision for a colorblind society and said that racial preferencing doesn’t belong in our elections, just as it doesn’t belong in college admissions.
Following the ruling, I immediately called for our Tennessee state legislature to reconvene as soon as possible to redraw our map — this should yield another conservative seat. From hosting campaign schools to supporting strong conservatives up and down the ballot, I&#8217;ve worked to keep Tennessee a red state, and now we have an unprecedented opportunity to ensure Tennessee has nine solid Republican congressional seats by revisiting the state’s Ninth Congressional District, home to the solidly Democratic area of Memphis.
As governor, I&#8217;ll work tirelessly to make this map a reality, but the fact of the matter is, we can’t wait that long. The legislature must reconvene as soon as possible to pass a new map for it to be in effect for this year’s elections.
I was encouraged when President Donald Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116494706928688681">posted on Truth Social</a>: “I had a very good conversation with Governor Bill Lee, of Tennessee, this morning, wherein he stated that he would work hard to correct the unconstitutional flaw in the Congressional Maps of the Great State of Tennessee. Likewise, all of the other Political Representatives of Tennessee have promised to do so.”
Since the ruling, liberals have bemoaned that redrawing the lines would create a “lack of representation,” but it’s funny, I’ve never heard a liberal bemoan the lack of conservative representation in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Hawaii, or Delaware.
There is no doubt: Tennessee is a conservative state — we don’t have a state income tax, we don’t allow illegals to run our state, we fight to protect faith, family, freedom, hope, and opportunity, and I want to keep it that way. In fact, that’s why I’m running for governor. We have the potential to be America’s conservative leader. But this is bigger than the Volunteer State; the trajectory of our country is at risk.
If we are to make Tennessee America’s true conservative leader, this is where it begins.
As Donald Trump himself said, this will &#8220;help Save our Country from the Radical Left Democrats, and their Country destroying Policies of High Tax, Open Borders, Transgender Mutilization[sic], Defunding the Police, ICE, and Border Patrol, No Voter ID, Soft on Crime, and so much more.”
Immediately passing a new, 9-0 map is essential to cementing President Trump’s America First agenda and America’s Golden Age. I will do everything I can to support the legislators who take up this mantle and help us secure the future of our state and of our great nation.
***
Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is the state’s senior senator. She is also running for governor.

Menu