A Chinese computer hacker who stole research from the United States on COVID has been arrested, FBI Director Kash Patel has announced.
Patel said in a social media post early Tuesday morning that 34-year-old Chinese national Xu Zewei had been extradited to the United States to face charges for stealing research from American scientists and participating in a hacking campaign targeting thousands of United States organizations.
“The FBI and our great partners have arrested Xu Zewei — a PRC national and state-sponsored hacker — allegedly responsible for a massive cyber intrusion campaign in 2020 and 2021 stealing COVID-19 research from American institutions,” Patel posted on X.
“During 2020 and 2021, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Xu and his co-conspirators allegedly targeted and hacked U.S. based universities, immunologists, and virologists conducting COVID-19 research &#8211; including key treatment and vaccines — accessing email accounts and more,” Patel added.
One example of the COVID hacking occurred before the United States and most of the rest of the world conducted shutdowns. Reports from American officials have concluded that COVID likely escaped from a Chinese lab.
Xu confirmed on February 19, 2020, to a Chinese intelligence officer that he had compromised the network of a research university in Texas, according to the indictment. On February 22, 2020, he was directed “to target and access specific email accounts (mailboxes) belonging to virologists and immunologists engaged in COVID-19 research for the university,” according to the Justice Department.
Other targets of the hacking scheme included another university in Texas, a university in North Carolina, and a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C.
Xu was arrested in Milan, Italy, on April 27, according to court documents, years after a bench warrant was first issued for him on November 2, 2023. Patel thanked Italian law enforcement for helping to locate and extradite Xu.
Patel said that Xu was also a contractor for the Hafnium cyber espionage group directed by Chinese officials that has “compromised nearly 13,000” American organizations.
“This case is a historic win for our cybersecurity efforts under President Trump, bringing bad actors who target American infrastructure to justice no matter where they try to hide,” Patel said.
The Justice Department alleges that Xu was directed to conduct the hacking by China’s Ministry of State Security’s Shanghai State Security Bureau.
Dan Cogdell, a lawyer representing Xu, told The Daily Wire that his team was still preparing their case.
&#8220;My team was only recently hired to represent Xu, so of necessity I don&#8217;t have a lot of information to share at this point. Xu entered a plea of ‘Not Guilty’ to all charges and we will return to Magistrate Bennett’s Ct on Thursday for the bond hearing,&#8221; he told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Until that time, we will prepare in earnest to try and obtain a bond on our client’s behalf.&#8221;
He added that he wouldn&#8217;t elaborate more on what their defense strategy would be.
&#8220;In terms of the defense of the charges themselves, I tend not to share what our defenses are to the media-or anyone else. I’m no Nick Saban-but as far as I know, he never told the press what his game plans were for an upcoming football game. I think I will follow that lead here,&#8221; he said. 
Xu faces decades in prison after being charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of wire fraud, conspiracy to cause damage to and obtain information by unauthorized access to protected computers, two counts of obtaining information by unauthorized access to protected computers, two counts of intentional damage to a protected computer, and aggravated identity theft.
The Justice Department said that Zhang Yu, another Chinese national suspected of aiding in the hacking scheme, remains at large. A detention hearing for Xu is set for April 30.

MixCollage-28-Apr-2026-07-11-AM-3970

He Hacked America At Its Weakest Moment, And Now He’s Finally Facing The Consequences

China

Chinese Communist Party

COVID

Crime

Cybercrime

hacking

Italy

kash patel

U.S.

A pair of giant pandas will make their way to America as part of a ten-year agreement with the China Wildlife Conservation Association, according to a statement from China on Friday. The male, Ping Ping, and the female, Fu Shuang, will relocate to Zoo Atlanta, becoming the third zoo in the United States to currently house the animals.
The announcement comes just weeks before President Donald Trump is set to visit Beijing, where he will meet with China’s President Xi Jinping.
Specific departure dates have not yet been given, but the zoo is currently working on facility upgrades and preparation work for the pandas&#8217; arrival, per the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/china-us-pandas-zoo-atlanta-743549119313ddeea6b1d838f76fe8b3">statement</a>.
Zoo Atlanta <a href="https://zooatlanta.org/two-new-giant-pandas-are-expected-to-arrive-at-zoo-atlanta/">said</a> Thursday that it was delighted and honored to be trusted to take care of the pandas. “We can’t wait to meet Ping Ping and Fu Shuang and to welcome our members, guests, city, and community back to the wonder and joy of giant pandas,” said the zoo’s president, Raymond B. King. 
The zoo cited a previous panda agreement with the association from 1999 to 2024, which &#8220;resulted in a highly productive 25 years of partnership,&#8221; where pandas Lun Lun and Yang Yang gave birth to seven cubs. They returned to China once the partnership concluded.
America was briefly &#8220;panda-less&#8221; in 2024 when several agreements ended, marking the first time without pandas in fifty years since the first pair arrived in 1972.
Pandas have long been a broader symbol of China&#8217;s ties to foreign nations, where the country loans them to strengthen its relationships; the animals are typically sent back when the agreement ends. &#8220;Panda diplomacy,&#8221; as it&#8217;s commonly called, has been a practice since the People&#8217;s Republic of China&#8217;s founding in 1949 and can conversely be used to show the nation&#8217;s negative feelings toward another country.
In 2010, China <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/china/what-is-chinas-panda-diplomacy-how-does-it-work-2024-06-18/#:~:text=Former%20Chinese%20leader%20Mao%20Zedong,opens%20new%20tab%20Read%20more">recalled</a> two pandas from Zoo Atlanta after warnings from the nation of a meeting between then-President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama. Though there was no formal statement on the matter, some speculated the timing reflected Beijing&#8217;s displeasure with Washington.
The San Diego Zoo and the Smithsonian’s National Zoo are the other two locations in the U.S. with pandas.

A Chinese Panda on a Tree

‘Panda Diplomacy’ Is Back And An American Zoo Just Hit The Jackpot

Animals

Atlanta

Communist China

General

Panda

As the risk of fighting between the United States and Iran threatens to reignite, China is caught in a bind, trying to protect its interests without getting dragged into the conflict.
Although China may soon feel pressure from reduced energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, Beijing’s approach so far has been defined by restraint, risk management, and opportunism, according to experts interviewed by The Daily Wire.
“For Beijing, the primary objective is to mitigate the downside,” said Elizabeth Economy, a Hargrove Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution with expertise on Chinese domestic and foreign policy. “This includes navigating through the threat of a global economic recession, managing its disparate relations with countries in the Middle East, and ensuring that it maintains access to the energy it needs.”
Roughly 45% to 50% of China’s crude oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. In 2025, more than half of its crude oil and nearly one-third of its liquefied natural gas came from the Middle East, <a href="https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/implications-of-the-conflict-in-the-middle-east-for-chinas-energy-security/">according to</a> Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
Official Chinese government data shows 42% of its crude (about 4.9 million barrels per day) comes from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates. An estimated additional 12% comes from Iran, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-heavy-reliance-iranian-oil-imports-2026-01-13/">Kpler</a>, even though Beijing has reported no Iranian imports since 2022. Oil from the Iranian-linked illicit “dark fleet” is often relabeled as from other countries, or transferred to different ships to disguise its origin because of U.S. sanctions.
<div id="attachment_1081679" style="width: 471px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1081679" class="size-large wp-image-1081679" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271049040-461x576.jpg" alt="" width="461" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271049040-461x576.jpg 461w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271049040-240x300.jpg 240w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271049040-768x960.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271049040.jpg 819w" sizes=" (max-width: 461px) 100vw, 461px" />Infographic with map showing how oil from Iran is transported to China circumventing sanctions with transfers to other vessels near Singapore (Graphic by AFP via Getty Images)</div>
The U.S.-imposed blockade on vessels traveling to or from Iranian ports and its coastline has put increasing pressure on the regime and its primary buyer: China. 
“Beijing has reportedly been in contact with Tehran on shipping and de-escalation issues and has urged restraint,” Craig Singleton, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said.
One vessel that drew international attention this week was the Rich Starry. A sanctioned-tanker bound for China and carrying roughly 250,000 barrels of methanol loaded in the United Arab Emirates, it appeared to transit the Strait of Hormuz before turning back toward Iranian waters after encountering the blockade.
The United States expanded the blockade last week to target Iranian-linked sanctioned vessels worldwide. These ships, known as the “dark fleet,” have allowed Tehran to continue exporting oil despite sanctions by using tankers with obscured ownership, falsified tracking data, and other methods to conceal the origin of Iranian crude — much of which flows to China.
That expanded effort was enforced in the Indo-Pacific for the first time this week, marking a shift beyond the Middle East as U.S. forces intercepted and boarded the Iran-linked sanctioned M/T Tifani.
Even if the blockade continues, China has significant reserves to cushion the impact of the blockade or conflict in the short term.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Overnight, U.S. forces conducted a right-of-visit, maritime interdiction and boarding of the stateless sanctioned M/T Tifani without incident in the INDOPACOM area of responsibility.⁰⁰As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit… <a href="https://t.co/EGwDe3dBI3">pic.twitter.com/EGwDe3dBI3</a>
— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeptofWar/status/2046544038812156177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 21, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“The impact on China’s energy access appears relatively limited,” said Singleton. “China has spent years building up significant strategic reserves and investing in alternative energy sources, including nuclear and renewables, to buffer against supply shocks.”
According to geospatial analytics firm Kayrros, China had roughly 1.39 billion barrels of oil in storage — enough to cover about 120 days of net crude imports at 2025 levels. Additional oil is still in transit, awaiting customs clearance, or in floating storage in Asia.
Still, those buffers are not a long-term solution. Beijing may eventually turn to demand reduction measures, including curbing consumption or allowing state-owned energy firms to raise prices, according to the Columbia University-run center.
Smaller Chinese refineries, known as “teapot refineries,” could feel the pressure first. Many shifted from Venezuelan crude to cheap Iranian oil after the United States moved against Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. Operating on thin margins, these refiners are particularly vulnerable to price spikes or prolonged disruption.
“In terms of price, China is facing the same problem the rest of the world is,” Michael Sobolik, a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute focusing on U.S.-China relations said. “Their smaller refiners are struggling, for sure. But in terms of supply, Beijing will be fine, at least for now.”
“But the longer this conflict goes on, the tougher it&#8217;ll become,” he added.
China’s reliance on Iranian oil also creates broader diplomatic challenges.
After the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran in Operation Epic Fury, the regime responded with rocket and drone attacks on its Arab neighbors, including Bahrain, Cyprus, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — many of which China depends on for energy and trade.
That leaves Beijing trying to maintain ties with both Iran and its regional rivals at the same time.
Sobolik said China’s own role in supporting Iran’s missiles adds another layer of complexity.
“It supplied rocket fuel for Iranian missiles, and Tehran has fired those missiles at its Arab neighbors,” Sobolik said. “Beijing needs good relations with those countries for energy reasons, so Beijing may encounter some difficult diplomatic dynamics ahead.”
Though a continued conflict could force China to diversify or take sides, experts say a major shift is unlikely for now.
“Iran has historically been a discounted and politically useful supplier for Beijing,” said Singleton. “Over time, this could create stronger incentives for China to diversify supply, but a full realignment would likely require a more durable disruption or a fundamentally different regime in Tehran.”
Though China was rumored to play a role in pushing negotiations that led to the April 8 ceasefire, experts say Beijing’s role may have been more limited.
“It looks like China leaned on Iran to accept a round of negotiations in Pakistan,” said Sobolik. However, he cautioned that Beijing’s influence over Tehran has clear limits.
“China can’t guarantee Iran’s safety, nor can they compel the regime to give up its quest for nuclear weapons,” Sobolik said.
China also refrained from publicly taking a high-profile diplomatic role in negotiations, to have flexibility and avoid being blamed if talks failed. 
Economy said this approach “minimizes China’s political risk and enables Beijing to avoid blame or embarrassment if the negotiations stall or collapse.” It also helps China avoid being “called out for hypocrisy when it talks about protection of international law and respect for sovereignty, given its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine.”
The Iran conflict may be a topic in the upcoming U.S.-China summit scheduled for May 14–15, when President Donald Trump is set to meet Xi Jinping in China, but experts say the conflict has not significantly damaged relations between the two countries.
“It has introduced additional friction, particularly around energy flows and the blockade, but it does not appear to have fundamentally altered the broader trajectory of the relationship,” said Singleton. “Both sides still seem interested in managing tensions and preserving space for engagement where possible.”
Economy offered a similar assessment, saying the conflict has not derailed ties ahead of the summit, which remains a priority for both governments.
<div id="attachment_1081683" style="width: 310px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1081683" class="wp-image-1081683 size-medium" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2243546978-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2243546978-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2243546978-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2243546978-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2243546978.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />US President Donald Trump (L) and China&#8217;s President Xi Jinping shake hands as they arrive for talks at the Gimhae Air Base, located next to the Gimhae International Airport in Busan on October 30, 2025. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)</div>
“I don&#8217;t think it has soured the relationship,” Economy said. “The summit remains a priority for both Trump and Xi, and the issues they will be discussing are largely bilateral in nature.”
She added that the meeting could still be postponed if the blockade or a more active conflict against Iran is ongoing. 
“The biggest focus for the summit — barring a new major international crisis — will be trade,” Economy said. “It is the one channel that both countries are most eager to stabilize.”
Sobolik noted that both Trump and China have “been careful to maintain positive rhetoric,” with one exception: reports that China was considering selling surface-to-air missiles to Iran.
“There were reports that China was about to sell surface-to-air missiles to Iran, which would&#8217;ve targeted U.S. helicopters and close air support planes flying over Iran,” he said, adding that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also threatened secondary sanctions on Chinese banks with Iranian accounts.
China responded by denying the reports, calling them “purely fabricated” and threatening to take “countermeasures” if such tariff hikes were implemented.
China is not simply reacting to the ongoing conflict — it is also looking for openings to advance its broader geopolitical vision.
“Is there an opportunity to demonstrate the value of China’s alternative order,” Economy said, “for example by underscoring the value of mediation over military action and the weakness of the U.S.-led alliance system in managing the conflict?”
That balancing act of minimizing risk while probing for advantage has become the defining feature of China’s response to the war.

Gemini_Generated_Image_cxc5vxcxc5vxcxc5

China Tries To Play Both Sides In Iran, But Cracks Are Starting To Show

Donald Trump

Iran

Operation Epic Fury

There is a current tendency to blame free markets and technology for dyspepsia with the economy, as if there is a nefarious group of people destroying your way of life.
People are literally trying to attack data centers.
As David Friedberg noted on the “<a href="https://x.com/theallinpod/status/2046280245758787914">All-In Podcast</a>”:
<blockquote>Most people in America are starting to really hate rich people. And there&#8217;s no physical space that better represents the wealth in America, the wealth creation that&#8217;s happened that a lot of people feel left behind from, than the data center. It is the temple of the wealthy. It is the way that the rich, elite, tech, kind of political, connected billionaires that we&#8217;re obviously all attached to are taking from the poor, getting themselves ahead, shooting themselves to space, leaving everyone else behind, and the data center, I think, is the representation of their progress. And it is a representation of the progress that others don&#8217;t feel.
For a consumer&#8217;s life to actually be altered in a meaningfully positive way, most people don&#8217;t feel that yet. The best thing they see is some medical advice they&#8217;re getting on ChatGPT or something, and that&#8217;s kind of the end of it for them. So I think there&#8217;s a lot of this populism that&#8217;s swollen and that&#8217;s taken over, not just the US, but probably a good chunk of the West. And the data center is the target.</blockquote>
David Friedberg&#8217;s explanation is exactly right. This is the way that economic populists have been pushing.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2410?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Let’s differentiate between moral and economic populism. Moral populism was exemplified by William F. Buckley back in the 1960s when he stated that he would trust the first 100 names in the Harvard phone book on matters of public policy more than he would trust 100 Harvard professors.
The idea was that the common man in the United States — shaped as he or she was by the institutions of church and family and community — had a better moral compass, on average, than the elites.
I totally agree with that, because elites very often believe that they have been freed from these systems of morality.
However, when it comes to the economy, economic populism is virtually the inverse. Economic populism assumes that there should be some sort of centralized control placed into the hands of that central power by “the people,” and centralized control should overwhelm the disseminated knowledge that is implicit in free markets and capital markets.
The basic principle of capitalism is that disparate views on things lead to better outcomes, that differential knowledge and the diffusion of knowledge are actually significantly more effective than one guy at the top with a stick beating people into submission.
But economic populism says that free markets are bad if the product of the free market is something I don&#8217;t like, therefore, we should take power away from the free market to destroy it.
Whenever there is economic unease, people tend to attack free market capitalism, or what they see as the symbols of free market capitalism, and they tend to blame people who are wealthy.
The great lie is that people in the United States are wealthy because they&#8217;re stealing from the poor. It is a full-scale lie. It is not true.
The only places in the world where people are rich because they steal from the poor are communist countries and other forms of tyranny. The reason people get rich in a free market economy is because they are providing products and services at a price people are willing to pay. People want that product or service.
But if you can somehow recast the economy of the United States as “rigged” on behalf of the wealthy and go after the means of production, you target data centers.
What you are going to end up doing, in this view, is overthrow the capitalist system.
The outcome of that will be quite dire.
There is a grievance-based, horseshoe-theory economic Right that is also wildly upset about artificial intelligence data centers because they&#8217;re big and ugly.
You know what else is big and ugly? Walmart — but it’s wonderful for the vast majority of consumers.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman&#8217;s home was allegedly targeted in the second attack in just two days; a shot was even fired. This is part and parcel of a broader movement that is targeting technology more generally, including technologies that are required for the United States to win wars.
City Journal <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/palantir-protests-ice-national-security?utm_source=virtuous&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=cjdaily">reported</a> there is a campaign against the military contractor Palantir — which generates extraordinary technologies in terms of intelligence gathering, capacity to target, and much of the actual technology that goes into the machines that we use.
This crosses paths with all of America&#8217;s enemies. America&#8217;s enemies are delighted to watch us destroy ourselves by taking down the technologies that allow us to win.
If you buy into this entire shtick — the idea that AI as a technology must be destroyed — it won&#8217;t be destroyed.
We&#8217;ll just lose.
If you think that China is going to forgo AI, you&#8217;re a fool. They won’t.
If the United States were to heavily restrict AI, not just in terms of preventing its gravest harms, but restricting the development of AI, or if there were to be a political party that attempts to prevent the building of data centers, not for any sort of understandable economic reason — like, for example, make the data centers pay their fair share of electricity production, which I think is a fair argument — if there&#8217;s a broad scale movement to destroy the AI industry out of either misplaced agrarianism or a deep and abiding hatred for capitalism or the generalized belief that capitalism rots the human soul, we will lose.
If the United States heavily restricts AI, not just by preventing its gravest harms but by restricting its development, we will lose. If a political party tries to stop the construction of data centers, we will lose. That is different from making data centers pay their fair share for electricity production, which I think is a fair argument. But if there is a broad-based movement to destroy the AI industry out of misplaced agrarianism, a deep and abiding hatred of capitalism, or a generalized belief that capitalism rots the human soul, we will lose.
China wins.
This is not a vacuum. It is not as though if the United States forgoes AI magically, we would continue to have a burgeoning, wealthy economy, and China goes weapons down.
When it comes to AI, indeed, there are problems, there are dangers — and we should all recognize those dangers, not whistling past the graveyard — but at the same time, it is a tremendous opportunity.
A China in a dominant AI position means a China in a dominant military position. The amount of AI that is being used right now by the United States military in the conflict in Iran and in the operation in Venezuela is tremendous and growing.
If China outpaces us in AI development, that means their military is now superior to ours. If their military is superior to ours, that means they can not only effectuate change in their region, it means they can also spread that technology throughout the world and make other countries dependent on the receipt of that technology.
It means that many, many other countries all over planet Earth would suddenly become dependent on China.
That is a huge problem, and it also leaves China in a dominant economic position, because AI means more productivity. If productivity goes up for China but remains stagnant for the United States, they will outcompete us. If they outcompete us, one of two things happens: Either we block off our economy and become backward and protectionist — meaning we don&#8217;t have any of the best goods and products and services at the best price, we&#8217;re all poorer and we slide into poverty and stagnation — or we have to be dependent on Chinese products, our kids work for Chinese companies, and China is able to spread its influence.
When it comes to the game of economics, you must win.
When it comes to the game of military dominance, you must win.
And when it comes to the technological game, you must win.
The economic populism that&#8217;s been rising says that we ought to tariff our way out of all our problems, that we ought to attack technological development, that it would be great to have an economy based on t-shirts — none of this is going to solve the bigger problem.
Attacking tech CEOs or healthcare CEOs or burning up Teslas and attacking Tesla showrooms or shooting Charlie Kirk or attempting to shoot President Trump — all of these are the most extreme manifestations of an ideology.
That ideology says that you are a victim of American society and therefore you get to do bad things. On a broader political level, you are a victim of American society, and therefore you ought to get together with the other victims, take over the government, and use centralized, tyrannical power r to cram down your view of the world.

Working robots

Populist Rage And AI: National Surrender

Anti-capitalist

Artificial Intelligence

Ben Shapiro

Big Tech

Capitalism

Data Centers

Economy

Opinion

Populism

Technology

U.S. authorities arrested a Chinese national at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City earlier this month who is accused of traveling to Nebraska and taking pictures of military aircraft near Offutt Air Force Base.
Tianrui Liang also allegedly planned to travel to Oklahoma to photograph more military aircraft at Tinker Air Force Base, Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/chinese-national-arrested-jfk-after-allegedly-photographing-us-military-aircraft-nebraska-base?lid=zeskeho3ui7f">reported</a>. The 21-year-old Chinese national is charged with violating U.S. law prohibiting people from photographing or sketching defense installations, according to court documents.
Authorities were first alerted to suspicious activity near Offutt Air Force Base after a person witnessed &#8220;a male holding a camera with a telescopic lens&#8221; near the military installation, according to an FBI affidavit.
Offutt Air Force Base is one of the most sensitive military installations in the United States and is the home of U.S. Strategic Command, which is <a href="https://www.stratcom.mil/About/#:~:text=Air%20Force%20Global%20Strike%20Command,United%20States%20and%20Combatant%20Commanders.">responsible</a> for nuclear defense and global strike operations. The base also hosts some of the U.S. military&#8217;s most powerful reconnaissance aircraft, including the E-4B &#8220;Nightwatch,&#8221; or &#8220;doomsday plane,&#8221; which is designed for military leaders or the president to use in the case of a nuclear war.
Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City is home to the Air Force Sustainment Center, which focuses on maintaining the Air Force&#8217;s &#8220;Weapons System Readiness.&#8221;
Liang was charged in Nebraska on April 3 and was arrested at JFK International Airport four days later. Liang was taken into custody just before he boarded a plane for Frankfurt, Germany, after which he planned to fly to Glasgow, Scotland, according to court documents. The Chinese national was in the United States on a non-immigrant B1/B2 visa, which authorizes temporary travel to America for foreign tourists or people on business trips or visiting family.
Liang told authorities at the airport that he had been previously questioned by law enforcement over the allegations, according to court documents.
Multiple Chinese nationals have been arrested in recent years for taking pictures near U.S. military bases. In August 2023, five Chinese nationals who were former students at the University of Michigan were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/5-chinese-nationals-accused-of-photographing-michigan-military-facility">caught</a> taking pictures of military equipment during joint training exercises between the National Guard and the Taiwanese military at Camp Grayling in northern Michigan, according to authorities.
Last December, a Chinese national was arrested for taking videos of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. He also took numerous photos of military equipment and the base&#8217;s perimeter fencing, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/chinese-national-charged-unlawfully-photographing-air-force-base-and-vital-military">according</a> to the Justice Department.

Chinese man photography

A Chinese Man Was Just Caught Photographing The U.S. Military’s ‘Doomsday’ Plane

Espionage

Nebraska

Oklahoma

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Military

While Democrats and much of the media have spent years focused on the trajectory of the American right, <a href="https://echeloninsights.substack.com/p/friday-findings-which-countries-do">a new poll</a> from Echelon Insights points to a shift developing within the Democratic Party’s base.
According to the data, Democrats under the age of 50 are approaching key geopolitical actors in ways that break from longstanding norms. Among that cohort, Israel is viewed with a -45-point margin of unfavorability. By comparison, the Islamic Republic of Iran registers slightly less negatively at -40, while China, widely regarded as the primary strategic rival to the United States, is viewed at a much narrower -14-point margin.
Supplemental data from Yale University’s <a href="https://youthpoll.yale.edu/spring-2026-results">Spring 2026 youth poll</a> suggests that this pattern is not isolated, though it is most pronounced among younger Democrats. The findings point to a broader generational shift in how international relationships are understood and evaluated.
That shift also appears to extend beyond foreign policy into attitudes that intersect with longstanding cultural and political sensitivities. The Yale data shows that 10% of voters aged 18 to 34 agreed with all three antisemitic statements presented to them — including claims related to dual loyalty and disproportionate influence — compared to just 2% of voters over the age of 65. At the same time, 54% of young voters describe Israel as an “apartheid state,” a position that rises significantly among those who identify as extremely liberal.
Perceptions of antisemitism itself also vary by age. Just 21% of voters aged 18 to 34 say Jewish Americans face a disproportionate number of hate crimes, despite federal data consistently placing them among the most targeted groups.
The Echelon polling further illustrates how these attitudes are reflected in broader political agreement. When presented with a paraphrased statement by Nick Fuentes arguing that the United States should end what was described as a “slavish” deference to Israel, 49% of Democrats agreed, compared to 22% of Republicans. On a separate question, 52% of Democrats agreed with the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state engaged in systemic oppression of Palestinians, while 17% of Republicans said the same.
Taken together, the data suggests that the divide is not centered on a single issue, but reflects a wider shift in how younger Democrats frame questions of alliance, conflict, ideology, and national interest. 
What makes this dynamic more significant is that it is not being driven by high-priority voter concerns, but rather by low-salience issues that still shape broader worldview. Positions that were once more peripheral within the party’s coalition are now gaining measurable traction, the intensity and direction of opinion among younger voters suggest these views are functioning as signals of ideological identity rather than responses to immediate policy tradeoffs.
That creates a situation where party leaders are not simply navigating disagreement, but a deeper reorientation in how a rising share of their coalition interprets global power, moral responsibility, ideological purity, and the role of the United States abroad. As those attitudes continue to solidify, they are likely to continue influencing both rhetoric, candidate positioning in ways more drastic than already seen.
For party leadership, the implications are less about any one policy and more about coherence. As generational differences on foreign policy and related issues become more pronounced, maintaining a unified message may prove increasingly difficult. Whether that leads to recalibration or further divergence remains unclear, but the underlying shift is becoming harder to overlook.

US-ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS-CONFLICT-PROTEST

How Did Young Dems Rank Israel, Iran, And China?

Democrats

Israel

Poll

Huawei, China’s answer to Nvidia, is rapidly expanding its AI technology into other countries and signaling a rapid acceleration in the global AI race. It&#8217;s a move AI experts predicted would not occur. 
Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, South Africa, and Turkey will now be able to build on Huawei’s Model-as-a-Service (MaaS) platform, which includes AI models like DeepSeek. 
 Much like individual consumers who become dependent on Apple’s ecosystem, companies that build on Huawei’s models and cloud infrastructure risk becoming deeply tied to that platform. At scale, this creates a ripple effect — as companies that adopt Chinese technology may find it difficult to switch to American providers later.
The switching costs are anything but trivial. Migrating away from Huawei would require rewriting code, transferring massive datasets, and re-optimizing systems — making it difficult for countries to later pivot to U.S. providers. 
But it’s not just software expansion. Rolling out its cloud compute means rolling out the underlying infrastructure — hardware and chips. Former White House AI Czar David Sacks says that’s what he wants for the United States. “You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack.” He <a href="https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/1929592692318650429?s=20">says</a> that winning the AI race looks like 80% of the world using America’s tech stack — and losing looks like 80% of the world using China’s. 
Before Huawei&#8217;s expansion announcement, AI experts downplayed Huawei’s technology. In January of 2025, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and former Trump deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-can-keep-americas-ai-advantage-china-chips-data-eccdce91">told</a> the Wall Street Journal that Huawei was &#8220;in no position to export chips at a meaningful scale.” 
Lennart Heim, former Lead on AI &amp; Compute at RAND&#8217;s Technology and Security Policy Center, <a href="https://x.com/ohlennart/status/1877391549316608254">said</a>, “I still don’t see Chinese AI chips being used much globally — or even in China. Not saying it won’t become an issue, but current evidence shows limited to no adoption both domestically and internationally.” Another advisor for RAND, a nonprofit think tank, Jimmy Goodrich, said China didn&#8217;t even have enough chips to meet its own demand.
Previously, Sacks and President Trump condemned Washington’s bureaucracy around the American tech stack, which he said resulted in businesses applying for licenses every time they sent a regulated chip. 
“The last administration was obsessed with imposing restrictions on AI, including extreme restrictions on its exports,” said President Trump. “As you know, they made it very difficult to export. This alienated American partners and drove even our friends into the arms of China and other countries.” 
In July of 2025, President Trump signed an executive order promoting the export of the American AI tech stack, including hardware, models, software, and applications, to “America’s friends.” 
Some people do not want China or the United States to advance in AI adoption. On Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) hosted a rally protesting AI&#8217;s acceleration. In March, he proposed legislation along with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) that called for a moratorium on AI data centers.

5C914536-1776-4C75-93CB-25B6C48F20EA_1_201_a

China Makes Major Move To Challenge U.S. For Key Tech Dominance

The first sentence of Section I of the 14th Amendment — a small piece in our grand Constitutional puzzle  — has left Justice Samuel Alito and his colleagues considering it a puzzle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a mystery — along with the rest of America.
It reads: &#8220;All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.&#8221;
As the Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump v. Barbara — the birthright citizenship case now before the nation’s highest court — America is finally confronting a constitutional question that should have been settled long ago: Who, exactly, is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?
Under the prevailing interpretation of this clause, any child born on U.S. soil is automatically an American citizen — full stop. It doesn’t matter whether the mother is a permanent resident, a tourist on a 90-day visa, or someone who crossed the border illegally last Sunday. Born here, citizen here, benefits and rights that come with an American citizenship — activated.
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, directing federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children born here to parents who are either unlawfully present or lawfully present only on a temporary basis. Essentially, if neither of your parents is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, the Trump administration says the 14th Amendment does not guarantee your child citizenship simply by virtue of being born on American soil.
Predictably, lower courts blocked the order. Now it’s before the Supreme Court.
Regardless of the outcome, it’s a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro/videos/us-district-judge-temporarily-blocks-president-trumps-executive-order-to-end-bir/1118885666149694/">legal win</a> for the Trump administration — but the broader debate placed a spotlight on a flaw the Founders and post-Civil War Congress never contemplated: the deliberate weaponization of birthright citizenship by adversarial nations.
One slice of the problem reveals the amendment&#8217;s most cynical exploitation: birth tourism, especially by China.
This is an organized, for-profit industry that treats American passports as a commodity. Author and political consultant Peter Schweizer recently documented what he describes as a &#8220;massive effort&#8221; by Chinese nationals — many with Communist Party ties — to secure U.S. citizenship for children raised entirely in China. He estimates that between 750,000 and 1.5 million Chinese-born U.S. citizens are currently being educated under CCP indoctrination.
The business model is brazen. Chinese companies advertise packages costing $40,000 to $80,000. Pregnant women fly in, stay at maternity hotels — often in California — deliver in American hospitals, obtain U.S. birth certificates and passports, and return home. Federal prosecutors have worked to dismantle high-profile rings: in one Southern California case, operators of USA Happy Baby and similar outfits were convicted of conspiracy and money laundering for running maternity houses that served thousands of Chinese clients. The U.S. government has identified hundreds of such firms operating inside China with the sole purpose of gaming our immigration system.
Birth tourism is not the numerical majority — illegal residents produce far more births — but it’s uniquely corrosive. These children are raised abroad with zero lived connection to America. At 21, they gain full voting rights, access to classified jobs, and the power to sponsor their parents for green cards. It is demographic arbitrage. Beijing is cultivating a reserve of future &#8220;anchor citizens&#8221; capable of influencing American elections and policy from within, while owing their primary loyalty elsewhere.
The clause that has long been glossed over — &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; — will be central to the administration in oral arguments. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to overturn the Dred Scott decision and secure citizenship for the children of freed slaves. Its authors understood “jurisdiction” to mean full political allegiance, not mere physical presence. Diplomats’ children, children of invading armies, and those whose parents owed no permanent duty to the United States were explicitly excluded.
The Supreme Court’s 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision granted citizenship to the child of legal, domiciled Chinese immigrants, but nothing about illegal entrants or short-term visitors. Illegal immigration on today’s scale and the jet-age business of birth tourism simply did not exist.
As Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro has argued, the phrase &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; means you are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation. He makes the point — if an illegal immigrant from Mexico gives birth on U.S. soil, that child remains a Mexican citizen under Mexican law — the child is NOT solely subject to American jurisdiction.
As of 2023, the Pew Research Center estimates roughly 320,000 children are born each year to unauthorized or temporary-migrant mothers, meaning approximately 1 in 10 children born in the United States is born to an illegal immigrant mother.
The vast majority of these children are born to parents who intend to stay and raise them here. Those children receive the same benefits as any other American citizen, and they can eventually sponsor their parents for legal residency — a process commonly known as chain migration. In the meantime, 59% of non-citizen households use one or more major federal welfare programs, compared to 33% of native-born households. It is these citizen children — not their illegal parents, who are often eligible for direct benefits — who strain schools, hospitals, and education services.
The Supreme Court may rule that the executive branch cannot, for now, rewrite 150 years of precedent. But the debate itself has been clarifying. The 14th Amendment was not written to hand foreign nationals a backdoor into American democracy nor to grant them a nine-month maternity vacation.
It’s long past time to unravel that mystery.

Fran Martinez, front, and other protesters gather outside San Bernardino County Superior Court as a

China’s Birth Tourism Profits From Our Constitutional Confusion

14th Amendment

birthright citizenship

Illegal Immigation

Supreme Court

A renewed commitment to the Moon, Mars, and American leadership can define the next great era of national achievement.
With President Trump and Jared Isaacman pointing the way, the United States has a chance to lead humanity beyond Earth once again.
After decades of drift, America is finally preparing to reclaim its place at the forefront of space exploration.
For the first time in 50 years, Americans are traveling to the Moon and beyond.
No one should understate the importance of this decision to venture into the solar system beyond near-Earth orbit.
The recent announcements about the Moon, Mars, and beyond by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman and the statements and executive orders of President Donald J. Trump are clear signals that America is back on track to carry freedom into space.
This is an important, indeed vital shift from the policies of the last half-century.
America met President John F. Kennedy’s challenge to go to the Moon by the end of the ‘60s — with landings beginning in 1969 and continuing through 1972. Then, the country sadly turned its back on the Moon and settled into a focus on low Earth orbit for a variety of commercial, national security, and scientific activities. During that half-century, we learned an amazing amount about how to operate close to the Earth, and our lives are impacted every minute of every day by these activities. For example, you would not have a cell phone in your pocket were it not for our innovations in low Earth orbit.
However, after the last American left the Moon in 1972, we neglected to invest in the kind of program that would have maintained the momentum of the Apollo program.
In President Trump’s first term, he indicated clearly how strongly he was committed to having America lead in space. He resurrected the National Space Council and then-Vice President Mike Pence did a great job bringing together every element of the Space community. President Trump created a Space Force dedicated to developing American military superiority in space and across the planet.
After a four-year period of neglect under President Joe Biden, the second Trump administration focused once again on pioneering in space and growing commercial opportunities in low Earth orbit.
By picking Isaacman to be the head of NASA, President Trump reached out to a unique and remarkable person. Isaacman had been a successful entrepreneur and was worth well over a billion dollars. He was also passionate about space and had spent a considerable amount to fly into space twice as a customer of SpaceX. He is the only civilian who has completed a space walk outside the International Space Station.
Because Isaacman is a visionary and an entrepreneurial manager, he has already begun to create a new, dramatically more powerful set of goals for NASA. The recent briefing outlined a permanent return to the Moon, the first voyages to preposition equipment on Mars for human development, and the high priority of building a nuclear-powered rocket (which will radically reduce travel time beyond the Moon). These are big, decisive investments in moving freedom into the solar system.
Artemis II will take four astronauts further into space than anyone has ever gone before. Soon, its larger successor, SpaceX’s Starship will revolutionize travel beyond the Earth.
As big as Artemis II is (a little more powerful than the huge Saturn rockets which carried our first manned space flights) it will be dwarfed by Starship.
As a SpaceX customer, Isaacman understands the power of Elon Musk’s determination to get things to work. The SpaceX development of reusable rockets collapsed the price of putting satellites in orbit by 90 percent. This was possibly the biggest affordability breakthrough of the last generation. Today about half of all launches in the world are SpaceX. Starship will be an even greater revolution.
Starship will launch 100 passengers or 100 tons of cargo — and will be usable repeatedly.
The Artemis II launch was the wake-up call that America is back.
This time we are not just going to visit the Moon. This time we are going to develop the Moon as usable property and learn how to get hydrogen out of the water ice which has turned out to be surprisingly abundant. Mastering in-situ resource manufacturing skills will be essential for future missions to Mars.
This time we are not just going to send clever robotic vehicles to the surface of Mars. We are going to land and begin to learn how to terraform and evolve Mars into a more hospitable, productive, and survivable environment.
There was one seeming mishap on the opening days of Artemis II, which — if looked at properly — is a sign of how far we have come.
The toilet suddenly stopped working.
Since it was a $30 million toilet, the first reaction was bad jokes and great skepticism.
Then, as the story came out, it was clear how far we had come in putting humans in space. Artemis II is the first vehicle going beyond low Earth orbit to have a toilet. It is the first time astronauts have a private room. The challenges of relieving oneself in space are enormous (think zero gravity and your imagination will do the rest). The original true pioneers in the Apollo program had astonishingly primitive systems and at times found it embarrassing.
Nevertheless, the toilet is now fixed, the mission continues, and it’s amazing how far we have come — and will go.
As Isaacman warned us, the Chinese are aggressive and serious competitors. They would like to make totalitarianism the standard across the solar system.
We are now on track to carry freedom everywhere, and Congress and the American people must rise to the occasion.
The future is now — if we are prepared to grab it.
* * *
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He is chairman of <a href="https://www.gingrich360.net/">Gingrich 360</a>.

TOPSHOT-US-SPACE-ARTEMIS II-NASA

The Race To The Moon And Mars Is Back And This Time Freedom Is On The Line

Artemis II

DW Opinion

John F. Kennedy (JFK)

NASA

Newt Gingrich

SpaceX

Trump Administration

United States Space Force

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-DEMONSTRATION

The ‘No Kings’ Protests Released New Levels Of Absurd

Democratic Socialism

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Leftists

Matt Walsh

Minneapolis

New York City

Republicans

Eight million people just took to the streets to stop a king who does not exist.
They say they are protesting tyranny. But if you look at who&#8217;s actually holding the megaphone — and more importantly, who&#8217;s signing the checks — this grassroots movement starts looking a lot less grassroots and a lot more like a sophisticated and coordinated operation by Hollywood elites and radical activists having public meltdowns demanding labor militancy. 
The real story isn&#8217;t the useful idiots on the streets. It&#8217;s the apparent $3 billion web of funding tied to a tech tycoon living in Shanghai and a wedding-turned-mysterious summit in Jamaica. 
Who are these shadowy figures funding the chaos? Why are America&#8217;s enemies cheering from the sidelines?
These people are not turning out because they suddenly oppose centralized government. You think Democrats are anti-centralized government? Against a bigger federal government run by the executive branch?
No way.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2398-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Presidents Obama and Biden radically expanded the power of the executive branch. Funny, there were no protests then.
They&#8217;re also not turning out in the streets because they oppose an intervention such as what&#8217;s going on in Iran or because they oppose tyrants. They were fine with Barack Obama&#8217;s interventions in Libya, Syria, and in the drone wars. They were totally fine with Joe Biden&#8217;s funding of the war in Ukraine.
They&#8217;re not anti-tyranny, the “No Kings” people; they&#8217;re perfectly pro-tyranny in foreign countries, and they tolerate their friends’ tyranny at home.
We all know the real reason: A lot of people hate President Trump, and they hate the American system.
How do they get this many people organized?
A lot of money. Where exactly is that money coming from?
Fox News <a href="https://www.wfmd.com/2026/03/28/500-groups-with-3b-in-revenues-are-behind-the-nokings-protests-and-communist-call-for-revolution/#:~:text=A%20network%20of%20about%20500,a%20Fox%20Digital%20News%20investigation.">reported</a>:
<blockquote>A network of about 500 groups with an estimated $3 billion in combined annual revenues is behind the coordinated nationwide “No Kings” protest Saturday, including communist groups who are using the day to call for a “revolution,” according to a Fox Digital News investigation. 
According to a copy of the permit for the “flagship” march in St. Paul, Minn., Indivisible, a national well-heeled Democratic political advocacy organization funded by billionaire George Soros, is the lead coordinator for the protest.
But Fox News Digital has also identified key participation by a network of radical socialist and communist organizations funded by Neville Roy Singham, an American tech tycoon and avowed communist living in China.
Over nearly a decade, Singham has financed a constellation of activist institutions that promote revolutionary socialist politics and frequently collaborate in protest campaigns, including the People’s Forum in New York, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the ANSWER Coalition and CodePink, whose co-founder Jodie Evans is married to Singham. These groups work closely with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.</blockquote>
So there’s a communist living in China who is funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into various protest groups.
Fox News also <a href="https://www.wfmd.com/2026/03/23/power-couple-of-chaos-how-a-tycoon-and-activist-built-a-revolutionary-base-at-the-house-of-singham/#:~:text=A%20monthslong%20Fox%20News%20Digital,a%20superpower%20through%20economic%20programs">noted</a>:
<blockquote>As far-left American activists flood Cuba to support its flailing communist regime, U.S. officials have opened a sprawling investigation into an anti-America, pro-China nonprofit network forged during a wedding celebration in late February 2017, off Runaway Bay on Jamaica’s northern coast.
There, beneath a canopy of palm trees, an elite cadre of activists, intellectuals, celebrities, political organizers and comrades in a global Marxist-Leninist-Maoist movement assembled to celebrate the “Revolutionary Love” of two luminaries, both 62 at the time: Neville Roy Singham, an American-born tech tycoon living in Shanghai, and Jodie Evans, a red-haired veteran activist and co-founder of CodePink Women for Peace.
Like the opening scene of “The Godfather,” where powerful families consolidate power, the wedding celebration was about much more than the union of two people.
Over four days of dancing, lectures and late-night conversations in venues from the Flavor Beach Bar to Sharkey’s Seafood, celebrating the bond of “Roy and Jodie,” alliances were formed that would shape protests, unrest and political agitation over the next decade, from the fiery 2020 scenes in Minneapolis to demonstrations today supporting the regimes in Cuba and Iran.</blockquote>
Apparently, Singham has pushed some $278 million into organizations that sow discord in the United States.
None of these protests are innocent. They are not happening by accident. It takes an awful lot of money to make this magic happen.
Singham said in 2025: “If we want to therefore have a new world order that is based on multilateralism that President XI and CPC and China have proposed, we have to undo the ideological damage that has been done by the narrative of World War II. &#8230; China has a very important role, and we in this forum have a very important role, that to envision a new multi-polarity order requires that, quite frankly, this deconstruction or restoration, a history of what really happened.”
He said there should be a multipolar world order with China and Russia as leading forces and that we need to rewrite the history of World War II in order to achieve this new world order.
Outside forces are trying to destroy America — and President Trump.
And it’s our job to make sure that does not happen.

No Kings Protests Across The US Rally Against Donald Trump

‘No Kings’ Rallies — Paid For By A King

Communism

George Soros

Protests

Socialists

In current foreign-policy debates on the Right, some have pushed for dividing the world into “spheres of influence.” The United States would get the Americas, the People’s Republic of China would be granted sway over Asia, and Vladimir Putin would have carte blanche to intervene in European affairs. Far from being steely-eyed “realism,” splitting up the world in that way might actually not take the national interest seriously enough.
The “spheres of influence” gambit has a superficial logic. By some measures, the United States is a smaller portion of the global economy than it was fifty years ago. It faces growing fiscal burdens. Its industrial infrastructure has withered. Some of its longstanding allies have hit economic and demographic slumps. The growth of other regional powers means that the geopolitical landscape has become more multipolar. Yet withdrawing from much of the globe would hamper the ability of the United States to respond to those changed circumstances and would also undermine the policy aims of American populists. International networks will be critical for renewing American industry and reinforcing national sovereignty.
While some European partners need urgent reforms (from cutting red tape to hiking defense budgets), the continent remains a major global economic hub. The White House’s recent <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf">National Security Strategy</a> observed that Europe “is home to cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions” and that it retains robust manufacturing and technology sectors. A full-scale American withdrawal from Europe could close down a crucial market for American industry (including defense sales) and could also threaten regional stability. Ending NATO and shuttering American military bases would create a power vacuum in that continent and also hurt the ability of the United States to project power abroad.
Nor can the United States afford to ignore Asia. Responsible for about half of <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/media-center/cusp-of-new-era-in-asia">global manufacturing output</a>, Asia has become the workshop for the world. The People’s Republic of China is already a manufacturing powerhouse, and it could consolidate industrial dominance if the United States severs its commitments to allies in the Pacific. That is especially the case for the advanced technologies that are the building blocks of the digital economy. A link in countless international supply chains, Taiwan produces about <a href="https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/taiwan-semiconductors-including-chip-design-ai">90%</a> of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. If the People’s Republic of China conquered that island, it would have a chokehold on the American and global economies. It could cut off the chips that are needed for cars, computers, missiles, and phones. Beijing is already trying to use its control of key market sectors to influence policymaking in the United States. Responding to American tariffs and industrial policy, China has floated restrictions on some critical minerals, including those that are essential for <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-new-rare-earth-and-magnet-restrictions-threaten-us-defense-supply-chains">defense technologies</a>.
Populists have rallied around the claims of national sovereignty, but allowing the Chinese Communist Party to cut off the American economy at a whim is the antithesis of national independence. While building out American domestic semiconductor production is a national-security imperative, that’s also a very long process. The United States cannot afford to surrender economic self-governance for the indefinite future while it waits for some eschaton of economic autarky.
Conversely, coordinating with allies in Europe and Asia can bolster economic agency. For example, the PRC is responsible for over <a href="https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2025/mcs2025-tungsten.pdf">80%</a> of the global annual production of tungsten, which is used for drills, computer chips, aerospace, x-rays, and more. The United States has not even mined tungsten commercially in over a decade. In addition to bringing back domestic tungsten production, American allies could help de-risk the tungsten market. Australia has massive tungsten reserves, and South Korea’s <a href="https://www.mining.com/sangdong-tungsten-mine-in-south-korea-returns-to-production-after-30-years/">Sangdong Mine</a> has returned to production for the first time in decades. Accessing those resources will require keeping Pacific alliances strong — and not surrendering that region to Beijing.
Likewise, allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East will continue to be important for American national-security aims. Even as it has stressed the need to reform certain geopolitical arrangements, the Trump administration’s foreign-policy strategy is premised on the United States being a global great-power. Losing the hard power that backs the dollar’s reserve-currency status would cause an immediate economic crisis at home, but a global defense infrastructure also helps target American foes abroad. The Jacksonian tradition of foreign policy — which prioritizes the targeted use of military force to defend the national interest — has achieved a renewed prominence in the Trump presidencies. Jacksonianism could be a way of rebalancing global commitments by keeping America’s rivals off-balance without tying down the United States. International alliances can help optimize such Jacksonian exertions of force.
From its very founding, the United States has prioritized having access to global markets. When the Barbary pirates threatened American ships, Thomas Jefferson sent frigates to Tripoli. To open up Japan, Commodore Matthew Perry brought the United States Navy to Edo Bay. The network of alliances in the aftermath of World War II could be seen as an extension of a long-term strategic imperative: that the Stars and Stripes should be able to move freely throughout the world and that those who live under that banner should be safe from both foreign and domestic threats.
We now face a very different political landscape from 1946 or 1999. Implementing “liberal democracy” in a country is a lot harder than getting an Amazon package there. If policymakers had sought to integrate the world into some post-historical bazaar, their dreams have been sorely disappointed. Great-power competition is back, and populist movements have roiled political establishments on both sides of the Atlantic. Those changes indicate the need to rethink international alliances without abandoning them entirely.
Yes, the United States needs to recognize the limits of power and to try to defer existential conflict with its competitors. It also needs to understand the interests of those competitors. At the same time, the United States needs to understand its own interests. Cutting itself off from allies in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere would squander a major geopolitical advantage and undercut efforts to build a stronger nation at home.
* * *
Fred Bauer is a writer from New England. Find his work at National Review, City Journal, The Atlantic, UnHerd, and The Washington Post. @fredbauerblog

Menu