President Donald Trump weighed in for the first time on what are commonly referred to as Flock cameras, the controversial surveillance cameras that track license plates and car details.
The president said on Monday that the technology has &#8220;pros and cons,&#8221; adding that he would render a verdict on where he lands on the matter &#8220;over the next couple of weeks.&#8221;
“There&#8217;s a lot of debate right now about these license plate scanners that are going up across the country. They’re called Flock cameras,” Daily Caller White House correspondent Reagan Reese told the president. “People are worried that the police might misuse them. Have you heard of them?”
“Well, it&#8217;s being studied right now,” Trump responded. “You know, you have pros and cons, right? It&#8217;s being studied right now. We&#8217;ll have an answer sort of as to our views on it over the next couple of weeks.”
The cameras in question are called automated license plate readers, or ALPRs. Many of the controversial cameras are sold by the company Flock Safety.
As highlighted by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-silent-side-of-flock-cameras-saving-lives">The Daily Wire</a>, the cameras capture information about vehicles as they pass, recording license plates, details on vehicles&#8217; make, model, color, and distinguishing features, including bumper stickers, custom paint, or visible damage. That information is stored by Flock on behalf of its customers, allowing them to track and, in some cases, intercept vehicles involved in criminal activity.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-silent-side-of-flock-cameras-saving-lives">Proponents</a> say the cameras will keep more Americans safe and save lives. They also argue that they aren&#8217;t a detriment to freedom since these vehicles are in plain sight, and therefore allowed to be observed.
Those against Flock cameras view them as an infringement on Americans&#8217; privacy and say they could too easily be abused by those with access, including law enforcement. The movement against Flock cameras has picked up steam from both Republicans and Democrats. Sitting members of Congress, including Reps. <a href="https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/2081028050087456903?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2081028050087456903%7Ctwgr%5Ecfd78c9ba028019722f791a1e04fdd3aa18297f9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdecrypt.co%2F374603%2Fflock-cameras-backlash-privacy-concerns-capitol-hill">Thomas Massie (R-KY)</a>, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr9800ih/xhtml/BILLS-119hr9800ih.html">Tim Burchett (R-TN)</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/realAnnaPaulina/posts/i-am-working-on-legislation-to-ban-flock-cameras/1574803450676379">Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL)</a>, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/a-bipartisan-amendment-would-end-police-license-plate-tracking-nationwide">Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-IL), and Scott Perry (R-PA)</a>, have all argued against the surveillance technology.
In an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-texan-cure-for-high-tech-trespass">opinion piece</a> published by The Daily Wire last month, David Dunmoyer of the Texas Public Policy Foundation wrote that the cameras are “an assault” on our “constitutional freedoms.” Dunmoyer wrote about how sophisticated this technology has become with the addition of artificial intelligence, and noted that Americans still have no idea what &#8220;price&#8221; this supposed safety feature will cost us and &#8220;also have no say in the matter.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-texan-cure-for-high-tech-trespass">Flock Cameras Are An Assault On Your Constitutional Freedoms</a>

GettyImages-2289908104

Trump Weighs In On Controversial Flock Cameras

Anna Paulina Luna

Constitution

Donald Trump

Freedom

Police

Security

Thomas Massie

Tim Burchett

traffic cameras

Trump Administration

White House

In an 1838 speech entitled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” Abraham Lincoln warned that if America were ever to fall, it would come as a result of internal decay rather than foreign conquest. “If destruction be our lot,” he said, “we must ourselves be its author and finisher.” Little did he know how prescient his remarks would prove to be, and the heroic and tragic role he would play in unfolding events.
While the crucible Lincoln led America through was unique in its scope and consequences, every generation must be alert to the dangers of internal decay. In ours, the battle is being fought on two fronts.
The first we have been aware of for some time: Progressivism. Nearly a hundred years ago, building upon Woodrow Wilson’s arrogant modernism, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a cowed Supreme Court bound and gagged the Constitution, and their intellectual descendants have held it captive ever since. That’s how our government became so big and bloated, encroaching into cultural and religious spheres for which it has no Constitutional jurisdiction.
Recently, and somewhat mystifyingly, a second front against self-government has opened, this one on the far Right. Call it the Post-Liberal or “Regressive” front; a mix of intellectuals, reactionaries, and pot-stirrers who view our Constitutional order not as something to be renewed but, at a minimum, “remodeled” (especially with regard to religious freedom).
What both sides have in common is the mistaken belief that they can improve on a political order that has unfolded over thousands of years of trial and error, repression and resistance, reformation and revolution.
Historically speaking, the ordered liberty we enjoy in America is a new development. For most of time, it was humanity’s lot to be ruled by chieftains, potentates, and kings. The cultural and political advances of Western Civilization lifted whole nations out of this tyrannical mud, creating self-governing polities informed by the ideas of Rome, Athens, and Jerusalem.
America became the supreme example, “We the people” ratifying the Constitution to secure principles of self-government articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which itself codified ideas rooted in the moral and intellectual foundations of the Old and New Testaments.
Weaken or remove any one of these supports, as both Progressives and Regressives are intent on doing, and the American experiment risks sinking back into the morass. And as goes America, so goes Western Civilization.
Regressivism’s adherents correctly diagnose the problem of cultural decay, but they prescribe some sort of “friendly” authoritarianism that has been tried and repeatedly found wanting. Fond of pronouncements about “the common good,” they are coy about pinning down what exactly that means, by whom it will be determined, and whether (and to what extent) the rest of us will have a say.
We can all rue the toll rampant individualism has taken on our society, but 250 years ago government by the consent of the governed was finally and justly recognized as a natural right. Consent, like eternal salvation, cannot be coerced, and is and always will be an individual matter.
The Trump/MAGA movement was an overdue and necessary (if imperfect and incomplete) populist reaction to a pendulum that had been swinging leftward for a century. The question is what comes next, and this is the ground on which today’s battle of ideas is being fought.
Will populism, up for grabs as populism tends to be, lead to the renewal of Constitutional norms, or will its enthusiasts be hoodwinked into throwing out the proverbial baby (limited government, freedom of conscience) with the bathwater? Will Americans pay heed to what G.K. Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead,” respecting the wisdom of the centuries that led to the greatest experiment in self-government ever divined, or will we ignore the lesson of Chesterton’s fence, removing the planks whose value some don’t properly grasp?
The duty of our generation is to restore the limits on government articulated in the Constitution and ensure continued respect for natural rights as avowed in the Declaration of Independence. It’s to stand not only with Lincoln, but with Adams and Hamilton and Madison and “the indispensable man,” George Washington, who after winning the war to establish American self-government notably refused a crown.
One hundred years ago, on the occasion of America’s 150th birthday, President Calvin Coolidge said, &#8220;If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, that is final.&#8221;
You can’t progress from “final,” nor can you regress from it. You can only respect and protect it.
***
Steve McKee is a branding expert and the author of three books: “When Growth Stalls,” “Power Branding,” and “TURNS: Where Business Is Won and Lost.” Find him at <a href="http://stevemckee.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://stevemckee.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1784919152470000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2qPUHH3OkKnPWx63HWsOe6">SteveMcKee.com</a>.

U.S. Constitution

Abraham Lincoln Warned Us About The DSA

Abraham Lincoln

American History

Calvin Coolidge

DW Opinion

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)

MAGA

Populism

Progressivism

Regressivism

Woodrow Wilson

The Trump administration stood its ground Wednesday against a blatant judicial overreach, <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/07/16/us-news/trump-admin-fires-new-seattle-us-attorney-roger-rogoff-minutes-after-his-swearing-in/">swiftly firing</a> a court-appointed federal prosecutor in Seattle less than an hour after he took the oath of office. The decisive move firmly reestablished that the President — not local judges — runs the Executive Branch.
Roger Rogoff, a former state judge, was unilaterally installed as the interim U.S. Attorney for Western Washington by a panel of 17 district judges. The local bench completely bypassed the long-standing tradition of consulting with the White House, attempting to force their own preferred candidate into a critical law enforcement role.
The administration’s counter-strike was near-instantaneous. While Rogoff was waiting in the lobby of the federal prosecutor&#8217;s office, he received an email informing him that the President had terminated his appointment, ending his tenure before he could even unpack.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche drew a hard line on X, making it clear that the administration will not tolerate judicial interference in executive matters. &#8220;District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them,&#8221; Blanche posted, noting that the Seattle judges had abandoned the cooperative process required to ensure a candidate is qualified to serve the administration&#8217;s agenda.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them. WDWA judges abandoned the time-honored process of consultation with the administration so that the selected U.S. Attorney is qualified to serve in the administration. 
Roger Rogoff has been…
&mdash; Acting AG Todd Blanche (@DAGToddBlanche) <a href="https://x.com/DAGToddBlanche/status/2077501246294929627?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
At its core, the swift dismissal is a vital defense of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution&#8217;s Vesting and &#8220;Take Care&#8221; Clauses, the authority to enforce federal law belongs strictly to the President. Article II, Section I of the Constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  Article II, Section III of the Constitution states, “He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
While a loophole in statutory law allows judges to name temporary prosecutors when vacancies drag on, the administration maintains that the President holds absolute, un-reviewable authority to remove any executive official.
This is not the first time the administration has had to clean house after courts attempted to install their own picks. Earlier this year, the White House successfully dismantled similar judicial roadblocks in Virginia and New York, terminating court-appointed prosecutors <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-fires-new-top-prosecutor-eastern-virginia-hours-after-he-was-hired-by-judges-james-hundley/">James Hundley</a> and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-fires-u-s-attorney-in-new-york-hours-after-judges-picked-him-for-the-job/">Donald Kinsella</a> within hours of their selection.
The administration&#8217;s decisive strategy ensures that top law enforcement officials remain democratically accountable to the president chosen by the American people.
While career bureaucrats and partisan lawmakers like Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) blasted the firing, the administration proved once again that it will not back down from a fight to defend executive authority. Rogoff has threatened legal action, but the administration remains confident that the Constitution leaves no doubt: the buck stops at the Resolute Desk.

BRITAIN-SCOTLAND-US-EU-TRUMP

Trump Fires U.S. Attorney One Hour After Swearing In

Judges

US Attorney

Washington State

When we talk about the Founding Fathers, we’re usually just talking about the Big Five: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
Of course, these men deserve our veneration. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington are synonymous with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and presidency, respectively. Adams and Hamilton both have award-winning Broadway musicals and popular 20th century biographies that keep them top of mind.
But what of the other Founders, the men who thought, fought, and wrote this country into existence? In honor of America’s 250th birthday, The Daily Wire asked lawmakers, writers, and historians to draft a new Founding Father starting lineup. The only rule: they couldn’t choose one of the Big Five. Here are their picks.
<h3>Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives</h3>
Frederick Muhlenberg was elected to serve as the very first Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives by the First Congress in 1789, and was the first signer of the Bill of Rights. An ordained Lutheran minister, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress, and former 3rd Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, he was well prepared to accept the great privilege and challenge of leading and establishing a brand new institution.
Shepherding our great deliberative body through its formative days was no small task and required tremendous vision, skill, and patience. Muhlenberg was up to the task, and effectively crafted the rules, procedures, and protocols of Congress while actively serving in it. Because he and his colleagues had to travel treacherous or nonexistent roads on horseback, he was forced to delay the first meeting of Congress by a month until a quorum was reached. In August 1789, he cast the deciding vote for the location of the nation&#8217;s new capital.
While the speakership has changed considerably since Muhlenberg wielded the gavel, his efforts to construct a Congress capable of governing itself, debating openly, and exercising a check on the other branches of government were essential. As we celebrate America’s 250th, we do well to remember the wisdom and invaluable contributions of our founders and the unsung heroes who set our nation on its course to become the greatest in history.
<h3>Ben Shapiro, editor emeritus, The Daily Wire</h3>
Robert Morris was the greatest entrepreneur of the Founding generation. He bet his entire fortune — the largest in the country — on the riskiest startup the world has ever seen: the United States of America itself. Morris lived out the saying “freedom isn’t free”: you can proclaim your self-evident truths, but if you can’t pay your army, the British win.
Morris had every reason in the world to sit the Revolution out, hedge his bets, and stay rich. Instead, he became one of only two men to sign the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. Morris risked it all because he understood the American experiment was worth more than his own fortune, or even his own life. That’s not a businessman’s calculation. That’s closer to love than anything else.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-mini-doc-robert-morris?utm_campaign=founding&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=iterable&amp;utm_content=email_blast_creative00098_na">WATCH: BEN SHAPIRO ON ROBERT MORRIS</a></h4>
<h3>Dr. Ben Carson, president, American Cornerstone Institute</h3>
George Mason doesn’t come off the bench; he’s a starter. Mason’s thinking about liberty and the best way to structure government had an outsized impact on the Founding. To take just one example, the Virginia Declaration of Rights might be the most important but least appreciated document from the time. Too few Americans have even heard of that document. If you have never read it, take a minute and do it now; you’ll see that it was basically the first draft of both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. True, Mason did not support the Constitution, but his objections to the Constitution — based on concern about too powerful a federal government — seem prescient given how much power Washington has aggregated for itself. George Mason isn’t the B-team; he should be talked about in the same breath as the other giants of the Founding.
<h3>Dr. Larry P. Arnn, president, Hillsdale College</h3>
You could no more put together an alternative starting five for the American Founding than you could for the 1991 championship Chicago Bulls. But if asked what secondary founders deserve attention, Benjamin Rush and Robert Morris come to mind. Rush, a Philadelphia physician, was a leading opponent of slavery and a great advocate of education in addition to being an ardent revolutionary. Morris, a wealthy Philadelphia merchant, took on the impossible job of Superintendent of Finance during the Revolution and played a critical role in getting arms to American troops in the field. But these men themselves recognized the superiority of those on the starting team. Rush said of Washington, “There is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chambre by his side.” Morris, when asked by Washington to serve as the country’s first treasury secretary, declined and recommended Hamilton.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/could-donald-trump-finally-dismantle-the-deep-state-ronald-pestritto-thinks-so">READ MORE: HILLSDALE PROFESSOR EXPLAINS HOW DONALD TRUMP COULD KILL THE DEEP STATE</a></h4>
<h3>Daniel McCarthy, distinguished fellow in conservative thought at the Heritage Foundation</h3>
No one can replace the greatest of our Founding Fathers, but if we lost all record of them tomorrow, we might try to approximate the effect of their ideas and sensibilities in combination by looking to James Otis and Samuel Adams in place of Jefferson; Robert Morris, who was Washington’s first choice for Treasury secretary, in place of Hamilton; Roger Sherman, a wise constitutionalist, in Madison’s or John Adams’s stead; and James Wilson instead of Benjamin Franklin to supply some Pennsylvania principle. No one can compare to Washington, but John Marshall might occupy the place of a great Virginian profoundly committed to the Union. These less appreciated figures would give us a strong sense of our founding, though they would also remind us of what we were missing without the most renowned names available.
<h3>Richard Brookhiser, author, The Hero Returns: Lafayette and the Legacy of Revolution</h3>
For all the brilliance of the founders, not many of them understood economics. Tench Coxe, a Philadelphia merchant, did. He assembled facts and figures for Alexander Hamilton&#8217;s “Report on Manufactures,” and might have filled his shoes had Hamilton not existed. He later became a supporter of Thomas Jefferson, so he was also adroit politically. Nathanael Greene was also widely acknowledged for his military brilliance, losing every battle he fought against Cornwallis in the Carolinas yet driving him to Virginia and ultimate defeat at Yorktown. Georgia awarded Greene a plantation for his services, where he died of heat stroke after the war. Had he lived he might have made an excellent Secretary of War.
<h3>Troy Senik, author, A Man Of Iron: The Turbulent Life And Improbable Presidency of Grover Cleveland</h3>
Because he didn&#8217;t sign the Declaration of Independence, John Dickinson is always portrayed as a coward, the jittery man blind to the glory of the moment. The irony is that he walked into the Second Continental Congress arguably the most prominent advocate for colonial rights in America.
Dickinson did not oppose independence. He opposed declaring it before the preconditions for sustaining it were in place. No foreign alliance had been secured. The Articles of Confederation were nowhere near complete. The military situation was uncertain at best. His argument was methodical, not ideological: do these things first, then declare.
What happened next proved him right about virtually everything save the final outcome. The country barely survived the early days of the war, and only through a sequence of events so improbable that it would have been folly to plan for them. Had things gone south, Dickinson would have been remembered as Cassandra. Instead, he became a footnote in a story he helped write.
John Dickinson knew he was destroying his reputation by resisting the rush to declare independence. But he did so anyway because he believed the country&#8217;s long-term survival mattered more than the passions of the moment. It&#8217;s a sober patriotism to ask the questions nobody wants to hear rather than to give the hosannahs that everyone expects. Dickinson asked those questions, was overruled, and was later proven right. What had he done in the interim? Put on a uniform and fought for the cause anyway.
We could use more cowards like that.
<h3>Brian Anderson, editor-in-chief, City Journal</h3>
That’s easy: If Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Hamilton were unavailable, my first draft pick would be James Wilson. One of the Constitution’s principal architects but now less well-known than the Big Five, Wilson argued that America’s liberties rest on more than individual rights; they also grow out of a moral order discoverable through reason and grounded in natural law.
Big themes: Rights and duties are inseparable, liberty means self-government rather than license, and political authority flows directly from the people because all persons are naturally equal before that higher law. Wilson offers a distinctly American synthesis of natural rights, civic responsibility, and constitutional self-government that in my view deserves renewed attention.
<h3>Ryan Williams, president, the Claremont Institute</h3>
John Quincy Adams was only 11 years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed, but he would go on to a long career as senator, Secretary of State, Minister to Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, and finally, president. After Washington’s peerless inaugural example, JQA remains, to this day, the greatest foreign policy strategist and diplomat of American history. For a continued restoration of a truly America First foreign policy, all roads lead through JQA.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-editor-of-the-most-popular-edition-of-the-federalist-thinks-its-more-important-than-ever">READ MORE: THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE&#8217;S CHARLES KESLER ON WHY THE FEDERALIST PAPERS MATTER</a></h4>
<h3>Daniel Gullotta, assistant professor at the Ohio State University’s Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society</h3>
While I&#8217;m sad most people don&#8217;t know who Gouverneur Morris is, it&#8217;s a lot of fun telling people who he was. Just mentioning he had a peg leg usually gets people&#8217;s attention. But his role in the Constitution, crafting the opening &#8220;We the People,&#8221; is something people should know just as commonly as they know Jefferson was the drafter of the Declaration. He was also arguably the most anti-slavery Founding Father (just read some of his speeches during the compromise debates). He also refused to leave France during the Reign of Terror while serving as our minister, despite the danger. Then there&#8217;s the crazy way he died, trying to clear a urinary blockage with a piece of whalebone from his wife&#8217;s corset. I know everyone says this person or that person needs a movie or miniseries, but come on, there&#8217;s just no part of his life that isn&#8217;t compelling.
<h3>Mark Helprin, author, “Elegy In Blue”</h3>
We&#8217;re sorely in need of Benjamin Franklin, maybe a few dozen of him, to correct the abysmal ignorance and inexperience of today&#8217;s &#8220;Yutes,&#8221; who know virtually nothing and yet are powered by the energy of the young and destined to run the zoo. And it is a zoo. Franklin made use of his long experience and inherent brilliance to take under his wing Adams, Jefferson, and a lot of others, guiding them with practical and long-lasting results. Maybe I say this about the younger generations because I&#8217;m in my 80th year and am falling prey to chasing them off the lawn. But, really, they can hardly speak English, the girls&#8217; speech sounds like frying eggs, and they know so little that they buzz around communism and fascism like moths around a flame. You know what happens with moths and flames.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/he-turned-the-royals-into-a-joke-his-take-on-america-is-anything-but?trueLinkId=75JIYEMEAhD1KHqlEouqVfPC%2Fc5LDaS1niXzcEeobct2bv%2FJcUHC%2BLs8PvnWg1HDBGj%2FUEf2tfG%2B%2BQqbHoPtag%3D%3D&amp;trueLinkTs=1782577908&amp;trueLinkExpiry=43200">READ MORE: A CONVERSATION WITH MARK HELPRIN, AMERICA&#8217;S GREATEST LIVING WRITER.</a></h4>
<h3>Brenda Hafera, Assistant Director and Research Fellow, B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies</h3>
Mercy Otis Warren was an exceptional woman who contributed to the founding of an exceptional nation. A staunch republican, she depicted the happenings in her native Boston through plays and poems intended to drum up support for the patriot cause. The list of her correspondence was a &#8220;Who&#8217;s Who&#8221; of the Founding generation, including John and Abigail Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, enabling her to write the only Anti-Federalist account of the War of Independence. That opus, along with her thoughtful and uncompromising defense of the importance of morals and manners, justly earned her the designation, &#8220;The Conscience of the American Revolution.&#8221;
<h3>Anastasia Boden, Director of Constitutional Scholarship at Pacific Legal Foundation and the host of the In Dissent podcast</h3>
James Wilson has largely been forgotten. He deserves better. Wilson&#8217;s argument that the people, not the government, are sovereign justified not only rejecting Parliament&#8217;s taxes but breaking with Britain altogether. A Scottish immigrant steeped in the Scottish Enlightenment, Wilson helped popularize the radical idea that the people — not kings or Parliament — are the ultimate source of political authority and are fully capable of governing themselves. Wilson also played a leading role in shaping <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/we-can-sue-the-government-right/id1896779544?i=1000772988868">Article II of the Constitution</a>, strengthening the presidency with the counterintuitive goal of protecting liberty. In an era of debates over democracy, federal power, and constitutional government, few Founders have more to teach us.
<h3>James Patterson, author, “Why Postliberalism Failed”</h3>
The Founders we admire today were stark personalities and prolific writers, men who overshadowed impressive figures we tend to forget. One is John Witherspoon, the only member of clergy to sign the Declaration of Independence and teacher to James Madison, who gave both a religious and intellectual heft to the Revolutionary cause. As a Catholic, I have to recommend Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence, a major financier of the Revolution, and a fierce advocate for republican politics and religious liberty. And then there’s Roger Sherman, who was something of an unsung workhorse from the start of the Revolution through the early Republic years. He opposed slavery, and he was the chief author of the Connecticut Compromise that gave us the bicameral Congress we have today.

Untitled design – 2026-07-02T135605.449

14 Lawmakers, Writers, And Historians Pick Their Favorite Forgotten Founding Fathers

America 250

Declaration of Independence

Founding Fathers

Fourth of July

Heritage Foundation

Hillsdale College

Mike Johnson

Scott Bessent

Ted Cruz

Four years ago, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, ending nearly 50 years of Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.
Roe had been based on an absurd lie, one that turned the American founding on its head. The Declaration of Independence, the very first words our nation spoke, states unequivocally that every human being is equal from the moment of his or her creation, and is endowed by God with an inalienable right to life that all governments are bound to protect.
Roe read the Constitution in the opposite direction, requiring states and the federal government to actively deny the right to life to unborn human beings. As a result, more than 60 million American children were killed.
Dobbs ended that era of constitutional interpretation, but it didn’t stop the deaths. Since the end of Roe, abortions in America are up, not down, rising most recently to more than 1.1 million each year. That’s about 200,000 more than in the final years of Roe v. Wade.
One reason for the increase: Biden changed federal regulations of abortion-inducing drugs, as part of what courts have characterized as an intentional strategy to undermine pro-life states. Now, activists in blue states can prescribe and ship these pills to “patients” in pro-life states whom they have never even seen or examined — including <a href="https://sbaprolife.org/latest-news/abortion-drugs-fuel-abuse-the-women-poisoned-against-their-will">abusers</a> who are poisoning women with these abortion drugs or coercing them into taking them.
Most Congressional Republicans and most pro-life states have called for the Biden rules to be scrapped. It’s easy to understand the urgency: many states with strong pro-life laws on the books now have more abortions within their borders each year than they did under Roe v. Wade.
But the federal government has been slow to act and is actively fighting lawsuits trying to force a change. Why? Because many federal officials feel that, after Dobbs, protecting life is no longer their problem.
Some still mistakenly believe that the Constitution forbids the federal government from recognizing or protecting unborn children’s right to life in any way. Because of this, they view federal pro-life action with deep suspicion. States, they argue, are the only ones with the authority to protect the right to life — and should be free to choose whether to protect it or whether to attack and deny it without any limitation: even up until birth, or even across state lines.
This maximalist “states-only” position simply isn’t what the Constitution, or Dobbs, says. The Constitution allows states to protect life, but it doesn’t forbid the federal government from trying to do so, too. The 14th Amendment, in fact, explicitly charges Congress with the duty and authority to ensure the equal protection of the laws and to ensure that no state deprives anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Contrary to a pure states-only view, the Dobbs decision left every existing federal protection of the unborn — including a federal ban on partial-birth abortion — completely intact. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote, the Court, by finding that the Constitution didn’t require abortion, simply returned authority to the people’s elected representatives and the normal democratic process, both in the states and in Congress.
America was founded a quarter-millennium ago on the claim that legitimate governments must secure the God-given rights of every human being.
The party of Lincoln was founded 78 years later to ensure that those rights were protected federally to the maximum extent possible. The signature achievement of America after the Civil War was to put those protections squarely and clearly into the United States Constitution, and to give Congress the authority to enforce them.
The states-only philosophy is the legacy, not of Lincoln or the Founders, but of Jefferson Davis and Stephen A. Douglas. For them, as with the states-only maximalists of today, the height of the American ideal was to give each state perfect freedom to define its own “domestic institutions” however it liked. Whether these institutions were compatible with the God-given rights espoused in the Declaration was deemed immaterial.
We should acknowledge, with Lincoln, that this is a recipe for tyranny under the guise of freedom. The Founders had meant what they said, and they were right. All governments are bound to recognize the inherent and equal rights of every human being. There is no moral right for any government to restrict those basic rights to one favored class of people.
Thanks to Lincoln’s efforts and the Fourteenth Amendment, there’s no Constitutional right for any state to do so, either. Four years after Dobbs and 250 years after the Declaration, it’s time for our leaders to reject the lie that lies at the heart of Roe and to affirm, once again, that all men really are created equal.
***
Marjorie Dannenfelser serves as president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. She has been called “the woman who brought down Roe.”

abortion case

From The Declaration To Dobbs: The Unfinished Pro-Life Work

Abortion

Dobbs v. Jackson

Planned Parenthood

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

A House lawmaker introduced a constitutional amendment this week that would do exactly what Daily Wire host Matt Walsh called for last month: bar foreign-born citizens from serving in Congress.
The proposed constitutional amendment, introduced this week by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), would require members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed appointees to be natural-born citizens — the same standard the Constitution already sets for president and vice president.
In late April, Walsh <a href="https://youtu.be/OMzr9b2Rd8o?si=TkMAiOYDoYi3CnIP">proposed</a> his &#8220;heritage American Bill of Rights,&#8221; the first rule of which was intended to do exactly this:
&#8220;Rule number one: First-generation immigrants should not be permitted to serve in Congress at all, especially illiterate Somali ones,&#8221; Walsh said. &#8220;We already require that presidents must be natural-born citizens. And that requirement should simply be extended to Congress as well.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Hmm seem to recall <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MattWalshBlog</a> saying this 🤔 <a href="https://t.co/2wJ4bbORFj">https://t.co/2wJ4bbORFj</a> <a href="https://t.co/I6RqggfKTb">pic.twitter.com/I6RqggfKTb</a>
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/2057566502669127935?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Walsh added that &#8220;if you just got here, then you have no business telling Americans how to live their lives,&#8221; or &#8220;spend their money. &#8221;
Both Walsh and the amendment proposed by Mace point to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), along with the 18 other foreign-born members of Congress.
Members of Congress like Omar have made clear &#8220;their loyalty is not here,&#8221; Mace <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5887636-nancy-mace-amendment-foreign-born-citizens-holding-office/">said</a>. Walsh argued that first-generation immigrants like Omar have no business &#8220;complaining all the time or defaming millions of people,&#8221; adding that &#8220;it&#8217;s the height of humiliation for Americans to have to listen to a member of Congress talk about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ilhan-omar-hits-rock-bottom-with-her-dumbest-remarks-yet-as-trump-delivers-his-best-speech-ever">World War 11</a>.&#8221;
Mace&#8217;s proposal faces an uphill battle in its form as a constitutional amendment. Ratification would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, followed by approval from three-fourths of the states — a bar that has not been cleared by any amendment since 1992.
Democrats reacted furiously to Mace&#8217;s amendment, with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), herself a naturalized citizen born in India, <a href="https://jayapal.house.gov/2026/05/20/jayapal-statement-on-hateful-mace-legislation-to-ban-naturalized-citizens-from-government-service/">calling</a> the measure &#8220;racist legislation&#8221; and saying it &#8220;denies the very history of a country that has been proudly shaped by immigrants.&#8221;
In his &#8220;heritage American Bill of Rights,&#8221; Walsh further proposes deporting (or denaturalizing and then deporting) foreigners and naturalized citizens who cannot speak English or who become a net drain on taxpayers, as well as barring new citizens from voting for 10 years.
&#8220;We can&#8217;t prevent people from voting based on race, and we shouldn&#8217;t, and no one is suggesting that,&#8221; Walsh said. &#8220;But we can protect our institutions by taking basic steps to make sure that voters are actual adult citizens of the country who are assimilated into the culture and invested in it.&#8221;
Walsh calls for requiring all voters to pass a fifth-grade civics exam in English, and disenfranchising welfare recipients — even if they&#8217;re native-born U.S. citizens.
&#8220;If you want to vote, there has to be some legacy you want to protect,&#8221; Walsh said. &#8220;You should not be able to vote yourself money from the public treasury.&#8221;

WalshOmarDC

Matt Walsh’s Idea For Foreign-Born Lawmakers Makes It To The House Floor

Constitutional Amendment

Ilhan Omar

Matt Walsh

Nancy Mace

Calls to invoke the 25th Amendment have become a kind of political reflex — trotted out whenever opponents of a sitting president decide that sharp rhetoric, unconventional behavior, or controversial decision-making must somehow amount to incapacity. With Donald Trump, this refrain has reached predictable levels: he’s “unfit” or “unstable,” critics say, and therefore should be removed not through elections or even impeachment, but via the Constitution’s emergency mechanism for presidential disability. That argument fundamentally misunderstands what the 25th Amendment is and why it exists.
Ratified in 1967 in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the 25th Amendment was designed to address a narrow but serious problem: what happens when a president is incapable of exercising the powers of the office? Section 4, the most discussed (and most misunderstood) provision — and one that has never been invoked — allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Upon transmitting that declaration to Congress, the vice president immediately assumes the role of acting president.
Crucially, the amendment anticipates disagreement. If the president contests the declaration, Congress must decide the issue, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses to sustain the vice president’s judgment. That’s an extraordinarily high bar, reflecting the gravity of sidelining a duly elected president without impeachment.
The text is clear: the concern is inability and incapacity, not unpopularity or controversy. It’s a mechanism for dealing with presidents who cannot function, not those whose personalities provoke opposition.
Historical practice reinforces this understanding. The 25th Amendment has been invoked several times — under Section 3, which allows voluntary delegation of authority — in cases involving clear, temporary incapacity. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan had surgery for colon cancer and transferred power to Vice President George H.W. Bush for about eight hours. President George W. Bush invoked Section 3 twice, in 2002 and 2007, when he underwent colonoscopies requiring anesthesia. President Joe Biden did the same thing in 2021. In these cases, the respective vice presidents briefly served as “acting” president. They were textbook examples of the 25th Amendment’s purpose: a president temporarily unable to perform his duties due to a known, concrete medical condition.
Even outside formal invocation, the amendment’s logic reflects lessons from earlier constitutional crises. Woodrow Wilson, after suffering a debilitating stroke in 1919, remained president in name only while his wife and aides effectively ran the executive branch. That episode — along with concerns raised after President Dwight Eisenhower’s heart attack — led to calls for constitutional reform, which Kennedy’s assassination finally triggered.
In other words, this provision exists precisely because there have been presidents who were genuinely unable to govern due to physical or cognitive impairment. It’s not a catch-all remedy for political dissatisfaction.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. One can oppose his policies, criticize his rhetoric, or argue that he shouldn’t be president. The Constitution provides a mechanism for that: elections. It also provides another mechanism for serious misconduct: impeachment. But outrage over a president’s behavior can’t magically transform into constitutional “inability.”
Trump’s critics often claim that he’s erratic or mentally unstable. But these are political assertions, not medical diagnoses. More importantly, they’re not evidence of incapacity as the 25th Amendment contemplates it. There’s no indication that Trump is unable to understand his role, make decisions, or carry out the basic functions of the presidency. Indeed, whatever one thinks of his style, he’s behaving much as he did during his first term — hardly evidence of a sudden, disqualifying decline.
The contrast with genuinely incapacitated presidents is stark. Wilson was physically and neurologically impaired to the point of being unable to govern. More recently, Biden’s cognitive decline prompted debate precisely because it raised questions about whether he could perform the job’s demands. Those are the kinds of situations the 25th Amendment is meant to address: actual inability, not partisan disgust.
To stretch the amendment to cover unconventional leadership would be to weaponize it, turning a safeguard for emergencies into a tool for political maneuvering. That would not only distort the Constitution but also set a dangerous precedent, inviting future cabinets and vice presidents to attempt end-runs around elections whenever tensions run high.
Trump’s opponents are entirely within their rights to argue that he is unfit for office. They can make that case to Congress and ultimately to voters. They can even continue to deploy the language of “craziness” in the rough-and-tumble of political debate. But they shouldn’t pretend that such rhetoric satisfies the legal standard for removing a president under the 25th Amendment.
* * *
Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, senior counsel to Burke Law Group, PLLC, and author, most recently, of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lawless-Miseducation-Americas-Ilya-Shapiro/dp/0063336588/">Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites</a>. He also writes the <a href="https://ilyashapiro.substack.com/">Shapiro’s Gavel</a> newsletter.

President Trump Delivers Remarks At The FII PRIORITY Summit In Miami Beach

No, Trump Can’t Be Removed Under The 25th Amendment

25th Amendment

Congress

Democrats

John F. Kennedy (JFK)

Daily Wire host Ben Shapiro will headline a major rally this summer at Mount Vernon as part of a nationwide tour celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States, Young America&#8217;s Foundation (YAF) announced on Monday.
The event, scheduled for August 6, will kick off Young America&#8217;s Foundation’s 48th annual National Conservative Student Conference and marks the third stop on the “Freedom at 250” tour organized in partnership with The Daily Wire.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@benshapiro</a> to join YAF at George Washington&#8217;s Mt. Vernon for Freedom at 250 Rally to open 48th National Conservative Student Conference.
Register at <a href="https://t.co/jebRK1CDxm">https://t.co/jebRK1CDxm</a> <a href="https://t.co/1YLXf6nNWv">pic.twitter.com/1YLXf6nNWv</a>
— YAF (@yaf) <a href="https://twitter.com/yaf/status/2031037673549222080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
The year-long tour will commemorate the upcoming 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding by bringing together conservative voices and student leaders across the country to highlight the founding principles of the American experiment.
Shapiro said the historic setting of George Washington’s estate offers a powerful reminder of the sacrifices that shaped the nation. “At a time when many Americans are uncertain about the country’s direction, gathering at George Washington’s Mount Vernon for our country’s 250th anniversary is a powerful reminder that this nation was forged in challenge, not comfort,” Shapiro said in a statement. “It was built by men and women who risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to secure rights given by God and protected by the Constitution.”
Shapiro added that the milestone anniversary presents a profound moment to reflect upon the country’s future. “At pivotal moments, America has always faced a choice: decline or renewal,” he said. “Young America’s Foundation is helping ensure the next generation understands those founding principles and is prepared to defend them.”
The Mount Vernon rally will serve as the opening program for YAF’s flagship student conference, one of the largest gatherings of conservative college students in the country. Conference registration opened Monday as organizers prepare for what they expect to be the largest event in the program’s history.
Former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who now serves as president of Young America’s Foundation, said the event’s location was intentionally chosen to connect young conservatives with the nation’s founding ideals. “As America approaches its 250th anniversary, there is no more fitting place to gather than George Washington’s Mount Vernon, and no better person to deliver this message to young Americans than a fearless fighter like Ben Shapiro,” Walker said.
Walker added that the upcoming conference comes at a time when the country’s founding principles are increasingly being scrutinized. “At a time when our founding principles are under pressure and the direction of our country is being fiercely debated, it has never been more important for YAF to shape the next generation in the spirit of Washington and the other Founding Fathers,” he said.
Young America’s Foundation’s National Conservative Student Conference, now entering its 48th year, regularly brings together leading conservative activists, policymakers, and media figures to engage students on issues ranging from constitutional government and free speech to culture and public policy.
This year’s conference will take place August 6–8 in Washington, D.C., with Shapiro’s Mount Vernon address launching the three-day event as part of the broader “Freedom at 250” tour celebrating America’s founding and the principles of 1776. Registration opened Monday, March 9.

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro To Speak At Mount Vernon For YAF’s Freedom At 250 Tour

1776

America

Young America's Foundation

What makes America great?
Some attribute American greatness to the brilliant system of government inaugurated two and a half centuries ago. The first groups that came to this continent were Christians, and so were most of the Founding Fathers. Fifty-three out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians who believed that “God who gave us life gave us liberty” and endowed us “with certain unalienable rights” as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated. They developed a political and economic system that reflected this Judeo-Christian belief.
For the first time in human history, there existed a nation where freedom not only guaranteed the rights of citizens but also ensured the smooth operation of a market economy. Individuals, regardless of their origin or social status, could attain the American Dream by applying themselves in exercising their God-given talents to the fullest extent. Thus, our political and economic structures helped build this great nation. Rightly so.
As someone who grew up in China, I, however, have another perspective. America is great because for many decades her immigrants came from a similar cultural background that bore a heavy Christian influence.
For two centuries, the majority of immigrants came from Western countries whose civilization was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. In this new environment where they shared the same traditions, they didn’t experience severe cultural clashes. In fact, American freedom enhanced and protected the Christian values that had already been observed in their mother countries. Consequently, most of the immigrants naturally embraced the culture of their new country. The fusion of freedom and Christianity has produced — in addition to unprecedented prosperity — citizens who feared God, were honest, compassionate, hardworking, independent, and law-abiding.
Together, they made America great.
<h3>The Rise Of Multiculturalism</h3>
However, America&#8217;s immigration policy underwent a significant shift in the 1960s. On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Act, abolishing the &#8220;country-of-origin&#8221; quota system, which favored immigrants from Western countries. This change was most likely influenced by the civil rights movement, aiming at eliminating the perceived discriminatory practice in immigration. In subsequent decades, it led to an increase in immigration from outside the West, drastically altering immigration patterns and the demographic makeup of the United States. Ultimately, it contributed to the rise of multiculturalism.
<div id="attachment_1049789" style="width: 856px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1049789" class="size-large wp-image-1049789" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-846x576.jpg" alt="President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration Bill of 1965 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor with a view of the New York City skyline in the background. Next to the president on his right are First Lady Lady Bird Johnson and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. To the president's left are Senator Edward Kennedy (third from right) and Robert Kennedy (second from right). (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)" width="846" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-846x576.jpg 846w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-300x204.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060-768x523.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-615297060.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 846px) 100vw, 846px" />President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration Bill of 1965 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)</div>
Those on the Left believe that there is no good or bad culture. Every culture is equal.
I strongly disagree. They mistake the concept of the individual with the notion of culture. While individuals who are made in the image of God have innate value and rights regardless of which culture they are from, culture, on the other hand, is a complex system of learned behavioral patterns deriving from outside influences. Not all behavioral patterns are the same, and some clearly should be condemned and rejected, as the various wicked nations surrounding Israel described in the Hebrew Scripture.
In addition, culture is a powerful force that dictates and controls individuals’ thoughts and behavioral patterns; even those who strive to go against the flow often feel compelled to comply with the socially endorsed behaviors. If culture had not had such a strong pull, then God would not have commanded the Israelites to painstakingly separate themselves from the surrounding nations.
For nearly two millennia, since the death and resurrection of Christ, Western civilization has implemented a new set of behaviors and social expectations centered on the gospel message. This Western shift toward Christianity radically diverged from other non-Western cultures. It was on this Christian foundation that America was established.
<h3>Coming To America</h3>
When I first arrived in America, I could tell immediately that American culture differed fundamentally from that of China. I noticed how free Americans were; even young children could candidly express their thoughts without worrying about being silenced by adults. I also noticed how Americans, by and large, demonstrated a strong sense of law and order and right from wrong.
In contrast, in the province where I grew up, the concept of individual value and rights was totally absent. No one could exist apart from a group. Thus, who you knew was more important than who you were. The intricate interpersonal social structure and the lack of individual rights made it impossible to execute law and order successfully. Practicality often preempted rules and morality.
<div id="attachment_1049825" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1049825" class="size-large wp-image-1049825" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-864x576.jpg" alt="BEIJING, CHINA - DECEMBER 06: Large images of the late former leader Mao Zedong hang behind a vendor as a customer looks at items at a stall at the Panjiayuan Market on December 6, 2024 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-2188546758.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Kevin Frayer/Getty Images</div>
Corruption has been a common practice throughout Chinese history. It’s ironic, though, that quite a number of individuals in Chinese history have stood up against the dominant culture, championing integrity and honesty. They were hailed and are still remembered as heroes and role models for the Chinese people to emulate. Nonetheless, it takes culture to transform beliefs into behaviors. That is why being upright and incorruptible has never become part of Chinese culture, only a quality to be admired. The impact of those role models, thus, remains minimal.
By no means do I suggest that every aspect of American culture — and by extension Western culture — is preferred and that all features outside of Western civilization are questionable. However, from the perspective of cultural expectations — the shared beliefs about how people should behave in society — the difference between the two groups remains unbridgeable.
For instance, take corruption. Though not all Americans are honest, and corruption does occur among American citizens and politicians, it is widely condemned by society and has not become a cultural phenomenon.
In contrast, in many non-Western countries, bribery, fraud, and dishonest dealings are often given tacit consent, even by those who despise such practices. This is why the Chinese government’s repeated attempts to crack down on corruption are more of a show than a sincere effort. It is ultimately unattainable.
Under no circumstances do I disapprove of immigrants from outside the Western world. I am one of them. What I oppose is the notion of multiculturalism, which differs from the concept of multiethnic societies.
<h3>Multiculturalism Vs. Multiethnic Societies</h3>
A multiethnic society comprises people from different cultural backgrounds who are united by a set of essential beliefs, analogous to conservative Christian denominations that share the orthodox Christian core doctrines and moral principles, while still able to retain non-essential elements in their practices.
Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is an attempt to form a co-existence of different cultures that do not share a basic conviction and whose ideologies are irreconcilable, comparable to a church encompassing Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. The ideological incompatibility will eventually result in the dominance of one group with the extinction of the other two.
Is a multiethnic society achievable in America? My own experience says, yes. Most immigrants from a non-Western country do not ponder and analyze their own cultures before immigrating to America. They will, however, perceive the cultural differences once arriving in the United States. In a way, America’s freedom and Christian values — the core of American culture — function as a mirror, reflecting the condition of an immigrant’s own culture. Those immigrants who truly love America and treasure what she stands for would be inclined to assimilate into the American culture, relinquishing the elements in their culture that are contrary to the core beliefs of America. They would want to live in conformity with the features that have made America great — freedom, individual rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, honesty, compassion and other Christian principles. The prerequisite of a multiethnic society is assimilation.
<div id="attachment_1050899" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1050899" class="size-large wp-image-1050899" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-864x576.jpg" alt="LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 28: People holding national flags of the United States attend a parade celebrating the Chinese Lunar New Year, or the Spring Festival, at Chinatown on January 28, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by I RYU/VCG via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/02/GettyImages-1460709041.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />I RYU/VCG via Getty Images</div>
My own assimilation experience has not reduced my ethnic identity. Rather, it has in some way enhanced it. Take the concept of The Middle Way, for instance. It’s a prominent Chinese philosophical concept that advocates making compromises so as to find the more effective, appropriate, and harmonious path in a given situation. In a free society where excess tends to be the norm, an active pursuit of equilibrium through balance is especially practical. For me, the benefit of The Middle Way was more acutely felt after I immigrated to the United States. Indeed, while living in America, I have been able to practice many of the positive features of Chinese culture.
Even so, I am keenly aware that I am an American now and must abide by her fundamental beliefs. While I can still speak Chinese, enjoy Chinese food, and celebrate Chinese New Year, I must treasure freedom and be ready to fight to preserve it. While I can still visit the country of my origin, I must give America my first allegiance and live as the host and owner of the country, not as a guest. I must also be attentive to the events in society, knowing my constitutional rights and striving to contribute to her greatness, instead of taking advantage of her magnanimity.
Unfortunately, not every immigrant from outside the Western world shares my conviction.
<h3>Leftist Multiculturalism Courts Disaster</h3>
What Nick Shirley exposed about the Somali fraud in Minnesota may shock us, but it should not be a surprise. Aside from the green light given by the Democrat run state government, our immigration policy that encourages and enables mass immigration from a non-Western culture should also bear responsibility. This practice, in accordance with the multiculturalism of the Left, courts disaster by allowing immigrants — whose ideology is worlds apart from ours, and who love neither America nor what she stands for — bind together as a group, and thus permitting them to live as Somalians on American soil and openly and shamelessly steal American taxpayers’ money. Perhaps for them, America feels like heaven, whose welfare system has offered them such an auspicious opportunity to do what their culture is inclined to. It would have been a genuine shock if they had not stolen so much already.
<div id="attachment_1024577" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1024577" class="size-large wp-image-1024577" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-864x576.jpg" alt="MINNEAPOLIS, MN. - DECEMBER 2025: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey speaks during a press conference to address the media following reports that the Trump administration will be targeting Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities, held at City Hall in Minneapolis, Minn., on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. Behind Frey is Minneapolis city council member Jamal Osman." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2249632399.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Leila Navidi/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images</div>
Multiculturalism — people of different races, religions, and traditions living together — is a mirage, looking attractive only from a distance. No nation can afford multiculturalism, for diverse religions and traditions can never co-exist. One will eventually dominate the others. If we allow the idea of multiculturalism to progress, America soon will repeat the fate of Turkey and Egypt, which once were major Christian centers but were tragically replaced by Islam.
Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
America is good because her culture — centered around Judeo-Christian values and freedom — is good. Multiculturalism poses an existential threat to our culture. In contrast, a multiethnic approach protects the integrity of American culture by welcoming immigrants from diverse backgrounds, Western or not, but demanding assimilation.
* * *
<a href="https://stream.org/author/chenyuansnider/">Chenyuan Snider</a> was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the United States and studying at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor at Christian colleges and seminaries. She and her husband live in Northern California and have two grown children.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Shadows of People on the road and Flag of China concept picture

I Came From China — And I’ve Seen How This Ends For America

China

Chinese Communist Party

Illegal Immigation

Immigration

Leftists

On Saturday, elite American military operators descended upon an indicted narco-terrorist and extracted him from Venezuela, delivering him to New York to face the charges. That indicted narco-terrorist just happened to be Nicolás Maduro, the dictator who calls himself &#8220;president.&#8221;
With Maduro gone, Democrats who once called for his ouster are suddenly up in arms, simply because President Donald Trump is the one who made it happen.
For those who don&#8217;t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week&#8217;s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.
Across the major legacy networks, Democrats complained about the fact that the Trump administration had sent military operators in to extract Maduro — and media personalities quickly joined them in questioning whether or not the Trump administration had the authority to take that action without first getting congressional approval.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — who <a href="https://x.com/mazemoore/status/2007868827355484611">criticized Trump</a> in 2020 for not ending Maduro&#8217;s regime — led the charge on ABC&#8217;s &#8220;This Week,&#8221; speaking with Democratic strategist-turned-ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, Schumer conceded that Maduro was a bad actor but claimed that the Trump administration had still been coloring outside the lines in going to get him.
&#8220;Look, Maduro is a horrible, horrible person,&#8221; Schumer said. &#8220;But you don&#8217;t treat lawlessness with other lawlessness. And that&#8217;s what&#8217;s happened here. The American people, this morning, are scratching their heads in wonderment and in fear of what the president has proposed: &#8216;The United States will run Venezuela.&#8217; We have learned through the years [that] when America tries to do regime change and nation-building in this way, the American people pay the price in both blood and dollars.&#8221;
Stephanopoulos pointed out the fact that Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration had the authority to move on Maduro, and Schumer protested: &#8220;It&#8217;s a violation of the law to do what they did without getting the authorization of Congress.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticizes the U.S strike in Venezuela and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro: “It&#8217;s a violation of the law to do what they did without getting the authorization of Congress.” <a href="https://t.co/jbZuHwZD9A">https://t.co/jbZuHwZD9A</a> <a href="https://t.co/nNEQWg1d7V">pic.twitter.com/nNEQWg1d7V</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/2007838874295287924?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan brought in Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who became a household name when he traveled to El Salvador to retrieve MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Van Hollen also complained that the Trump administration had overstepped its authority in taking action in Venezuela without asking Congress first.
He predicted that in reaction, Congress &#8220;will have a vote on a war powers resolution probably as early as this week, if not next.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Chris Van Hollen says President Trump does not have the legal authority to attack Venezuela and says he’s sure that Congress “will have a vote on a war powers resolution probably as early as this week, if not next.”
“For the most part, Republicans are happy to give Donald… <a href="https://t.co/J4kq7RraNC">pic.twitter.com/J4kq7RraNC</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/2007863051152679414?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On &#8220;The Sunday Briefing,&#8221; Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) said much the same to Fox News host Jacqui Heinrich, after first claiming that more traditional avenues like sanctions hadn&#8217;t worked on Maduro because American allies hated Trump too much to join the United States in enforcing them. Then he, too, argued that Trump should have come to Congress for approval before sending military operators into Venezuela.
Kaine, as recently as 2024, had called Maduro an <a href="https://x.com/SenTimKaine/status/1836398711837974976">illegitimate leader</a> and demanded a &#8220;peaceful transfer of power.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 WOW. Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine just got UTTERLY EMBARRASSED on national television!
&#8220;If Dems cared SO MUCH about process, why didn&#8217;t THEY do anything to bring Maduro to justice when THEY were in charge? The guy&#8217;s been under indictment since 2020!&#8221; 🔥💯<a href="https://t.co/aoPkS0qMlC">pic.twitter.com/aoPkS0qMlC</a>
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2007878745403912679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
More of the same came from Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), who <a href="https://x.com/TimMurtaugh/status/2007864277823107222">said in 2019</a> that Trump would move to topple Maduro because &#8220;getting rid of Maduro is good for the United States.&#8221;
On CNN&#8217;s &#8220;State of the Union,&#8221; however, he said Trump&#8217;s actions had been &#8220;wildly illegal&#8221; and claimed that he was only moving on Venezuela to gain control of natural resources for his own personal financial gain.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Chris Murphy tells Dana Bash that Trump’s attack on Venezuela “seems to be mostly about oil and natural resources” and is “all about making money for his friends.” <a href="https://t.co/EvylbRzl5B">pic.twitter.com/EvylbRzl5B</a>
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNSOTU/status/2007847037501329477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But Rubio explained in several interviews on Sunday why the Trump administration had not asked Congress for permission to act — or even notified Congress prior to doing so — and why they hadn&#8217;t been bound to do so.
&#8220;This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn’t require congressional approval because this was not an invasion. This is not an extended military operation,&#8221; he told NBC News anchor Kristen Welker on &#8220;Meet the Press.&#8221;
&#8220;We will seek congressional approval for actions that require congressional approval. Otherwise, they’ll get congressional notification.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8220;This was not an action that required congressional approval&#8230; This was not an invasion,&#8221; says <a href="https://twitter.com/SecRubio?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecRubio</a>.
&#8220;We will seek congressional approval for actions that require congressional approval. Otherwise, they&#8217;ll get congressional notification.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/up6ZEJtmXd">pic.twitter.com/up6ZEJtmXd</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2007831235091910730?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On ABC&#8217;s &#8220;This Week,&#8221; he added, &#8220;You can&#8217;t congressionally notify something like this for two reasons. Number one, it will leak. It&#8217;s as simple as that. And number two, it&#8217;s an exigent circumstance,&#8221; Rubio explained.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sec. Rubio responds to criticism of the lack of congressional authorization in the U.S. operation in Venezuela: “You can&#8217;t congressionally notify something like this for two reasons. Number one, it will leak. It&#8217;s as simple as that. And number two, it&#8217;s an exigent circumstance.” <a href="https://t.co/qIBPiRuDYk">pic.twitter.com/qIBPiRuDYk</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/2007837470977581424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley addressed that point as well, responding specifically to the comments made by Tim Kaine, and argued that not only was the Trump administration&#8217;s action legal, it was no different than actions taken by previous Democratic presidents.
&#8220;Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va) told Fox that &#8220;the Constitution does not give the President the right to initiate military action.&#8221; That is entirely incorrect. The Constitution does not give a president the right to declare war. However, presidents are allowed to use military forces without such a declaration&#8230;&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/2007884771209187539">Turley stated</a>, adding, &#8220;Democratic presidents routinely launched attacks in other countries without any objection from Sen. Kaine. Obama not only killed an American citizen not charge with any crime but attacked Libya&#8217;s capital and attacked its military to cause a regime change without consulting with Congress.&#8221;

Nicolás Maduro

Spin Cycle: Flip Test, The Maduro Edition

ABC News

CBS News

Global Politics

Joe Biden

Media

Military

NBC News

Politics

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the Constitution is &#8220;pretty clear&#8221; on presidential term limits, putting to rest <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-third-term-talk-puts-leftists-in-a-tizzy-again">theories</a> that have been pushed recently about Trump seeking to run again in 2028.
While en route to South Korea, Trump told reporters on Air Force One, “I have my highest poll numbers that I&#8217;ve ever had, and, you know, based on what I read, I guess I&#8217;m not allowed to run.&#8221;
&#8220;I would say that if you read [the Constitution], it&#8217;s pretty clear. I&#8217;m not allowed to run. It&#8217;s too bad,&#8221; Trump added. &#8220;But we have a lot of great people,&#8221; referring to the potential Republican presidential candidates waiting to take the torch from him.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
&#8220;Based on what I read, I guess I&#8217;m not allowed to run.&#8221;
US President Donald Trump conceded Wednesday that it was “pretty clear” the Constitution didn’t allow him to seek a third term as president, despite frequently floating the idea in recent months <a href="https://t.co/3MeLI1D3J8">https://t.co/3MeLI1D3J8</a> <a href="https://t.co/08tM9EfCMu">pic.twitter.com/08tM9EfCMu</a>
— Bloomberg (@business) <a href="https://twitter.com/business/status/1983453256715063423?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/article/can-trump-run-for-a-third-term-in-2028-mike-johnson-says-he-doesnt-see-the-path-192522300.html">pushed back</a> against the third-term theories on Tuesday, saying, “It&#8217;s been a great run, but I think the president knows, and he and I have talked about, the constrictions of the Constitution.”
The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in 1951, states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” The 22nd Amendment was ratified shortly after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to four consecutive terms before he died in office in 1945.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="http://dailywire.com/Subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
Theories about Trump running for a third term in 2028 swirled this week after former Trump adviser Steve Bannon said in an interview that &#8220;there is a plan&#8221; to create a path for Trump to run again. Trump would be 82 years old when the 2028 election takes place.
“Trump is going to be president in 2028, and people just ought to get accommodated with that,” Bannon <a href="https://x.com/TheEconomist/status/1981393309869215887">said</a> during an interview with The Economist last week. “We need him for at least one more term, and he’ll get that in 2028.”
Trump was asked about Bannon&#8217;s remarks earlier this week and told reporters that he &#8220;would love&#8221; to run in 2028. Trump&#8217;s and Bannon&#8217;s comments sparked rage and trepidation among political commentators on the Left. Some leftists have also argued that Trump&#8217;s tearing down the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom is evidence that he plans on staying in office past January 20, 2029.
The president has hinted at a potential 2028 run multiple times in recent months, but has also stated that the idea &#8220;is not something I&#8217;m looking to do.&#8221; Trump&#8217;s official store also sells &#8220;Trump 2028&#8221; hats, keeping alive fears that he could run. But all of the third-term talk appears to just be talk, or possibly a ruse to troll Democrats. Political <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/27/us/politics/trump-third-term-politics.html">analysts</a> have also <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/27/politics/president-trump-third-term-2028">suggested</a> that Trump and his allies are keeping third-term theories alive to prevent Trump from becoming a lame-duck president, which could hinder his agenda as he gets closer to the end of his term.

Trump Puts Third-Term Theories To Bed, Says Constitution Is ‘Pretty Clear’

2028 presidential election

Elections

Executive

Republicans

Steve Bannon

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) made it clear on Monday that he was not going to simply step into the trap laid for him by NBC News host Kristen Welker when she asked about a conversation she&#8217;d had with President Donald Trump on Sunday&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;Meet the Press.&#8221;
Welker took an exchange from Sunday&#8217;s show regarding whether or not illegal immigrants were entitled to due process simply because they were physically in the United States — a question Trump had said he was not sure about — and asked Donalds how he would respond to the same question. Donalds, instead of answering the question directly, gave a response that exposed the framing of the question as an attempt to force him into suggesting that Trump&#8217;s answer had been out of line.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨NEW: Byron Donalds TURNS TABLES on Kristen Welker after she presses him on &#8220;due process&#8221; for illegal immigrants🚨
DONALDS: &#8220;When the framers wrote our Constitution, they never envisioned that there would be an executive that would allow millions of people to come into the… <a href="https://t.co/OIUn4VqKto">pic.twitter.com/OIUn4VqKto</a>
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1919508253928783900?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Welker read the text of the Fifth Amendment and then pressed Donalds for a response: &#8220;The Constitution says any person, not citizen and therein lies the debate and the root of my question. I mean, does &#8216;any person&#8217; just apply to citizens in your mind or does it apply to citizens and non-citizens? Secretary of State Marco Rubio says it applies to citizens and non-citizens.&#8221;
&#8220;Let&#8217;s be very clear,&#8221; Donalds began, taking a jab at former President Joe Biden and his administration&#8217;s open borders policies. &#8220;First and foremost, when the framers wrote our Constitution, they never envisioned that there would be an executive that would allow millions of people to come into the country illegally.&#8221;
&#8220;Number two, more importantly, you have a situation right now — is it okay for any administration to not follow the law, abuse border security laws, let millions of people in, and then hide behind a court system to say, &#8216;Well, now they’re here, so now we have to go through a lengthy process&#8217;?&#8221; he asked.

Menu