Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid waste to the notion that the State Department existed as a failsafe that could potentially serve as a check on the White House: &#8220;That&#8217;s ridiculous. That&#8217;s stupid, really.&#8221;
Rubio gave reporters a brief civics lesson on Friday, explaining that it was his job to serve at the will of the President of the United States and to implement the foreign policy vision of the president and his administration, not undermine the president if they were ever at odds over any specific issue.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 JUST IN: INCREDIBLE mic drop from Sec. Marco Rubio. BOOM! 🔥
&#8220;The Constitution does not say you elect the President and then you put in place a State Department to undermine the President if the person who&#8217;s the Secretary of State doesn&#8217;t agree with him. That&#8217;s ridiculous.… <a href="https://t.co/Z1slwgvNW0">pic.twitter.com/Z1slwgvNW0</a>
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2002066653719261463?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The State Department is not its own government,&#8221; Rubio began, adding that the Secretary of State could not therefore act unilaterally to implement his own policies in place of those laid out by the president.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
&#8220;At the end of the day, the person the people of the United States elected to be the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief is Donald J. Trump. That&#8217;s who they elected. And my job, and the job of the people in our administration, is to implement the President&#8217;s foreign policy,&#8221; he explained, adding that his role was often to advise the president on how to best implement his policies, but it was never to supplant them with his own. &#8220;Why people think that somehow foreign policy can be divorced from our republic? That&#8217;s not the way our Constitution works.&#8221;
Rubio continued the civics tutorial, adding, &#8220;The Constitution does not say you elect the President and then you put in place a State Department to undermine the President if the person who&#8217;s the Secretary of State doesn&#8217;t agree with him. That&#8217;s ridiculous. That&#8217;s stupid, really. I don&#8217;t know why anybody would think that. So that&#8217;s the job I have, and that&#8217;s the job I&#8217;m proud to do.&#8221;

US-POLITICS-DIPLOMACY-RUBIO

Marco Rubio Destroys Argument That State Department Should Check The President

Marco Rubio Absolutely Destroys Argument That State Department Should Check The President

Donald Trump

Foreign Policy

Marco Rubio

Media

Politics

State Department

The United States is facing down an existential threat right now.
That existential threat comes from a lack of willpower. It comes from a doubt about what America is. But in terms of foreign policy, that existential threat comes from a team-up that has been growing.
That team-up is between China — which is really the sponsor state of the anti-American bloc — and its friends like Russia and Iran.
The existential threat doesn&#8217;t mean that China is going to attack the United States.
It does mean that as the United States recedes from the world, Russia will expand its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. China will expand its sphere of influence, not just in the Far East, but also in Africa, across the rest of Asia into South America. The United States is going to be in the unenviable position of having to withdraw from the world, and we will no longer be able to guarantee freedom of the seas.
A United States with no economic allies, a United States that is a secondary partner for all the rest of these countries while China is a primary partner, is a United States that has an economy that is shrinking, a United States that is forced within its own borders.
That is a problem.
There is this bizarre notion that has arisen on the Right that if the United States were to be essentially an autarky and withdraw from the rest of the world, suddenly things would get better. The belief that the amount that we expend in foreign aid, for example, or military expenditure, is a complete waste of money, and if we just spent that money at home, then magically everything would get better.
The problem, of course, is that the world is interconnected. The reason that you can obtain better, cheaper products that make your life easier every single day is because the interconnection of world trade makes that possible. And that, of course, is only possible because of the power of the United States economy and the power of the United States military.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2330-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&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>
Why do I bring that up? Because China seems to be posing a broader and broader threat, and yet there is a bizarre unwillingness on the Left to acknowledge the threat that is China.
And on the Right, there seems to be an unwillingness to deal with the actual realities of what it would mean to face down China in a responsible and coherent fashion.
In the West, there is the bizarre perception that what we ought to do is radically increase tariffs, not just on China — which would be retaliatory and worthwhile — but on everywhere else. 
That is a gigantic mistake. And it leads to questions about the overall policy of the United States vis-à-vis China.
What exactly are we trying to do vis-à-vis China? 
I&#8217;ve made the case that if you wish to face down China, you have to do a few things. One is that you need closer trade and security relationships, not more attenuated relationships, with other countries surrounding China, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and India.
Better relations with those countries will help box in and essentially isolate China. If China wants to cheat, if they don&#8217;t want to play by the rules, if China wishes to beggar its neighbor, let them pursue an autarkic economic policy.
Autarky tends to make the country pursuing it poorer over time. Initially, it looks like an explosion of economic activity, but over time, as countries start pouring resources into less efficient modes of manufacturing in order to do it at home, rather than to import those products from abroad, they tend to empty themselves out.
This is the common pattern in economics. Every mercantilist or fascist economic system that has worked like this shows very good early growth numbers. And then that growth curve eventually peters out, and the country ends up with economic stagnation.
This happened in Japan. It happened in South Korea. If you go back prior to World War II, this happened in Germany. One of the reasons that Germany, under the Nazis, had to become an expansionist power is because Germany tried to pursue economic autarky in the 1930s, and they saw, for a brief moment in time, a gigantic manufacturing boom, people getting off unemployment lines, moving out of the Weimar Republic era.
But as it turns out, they were doing that based on state expenditures that made them less economically viable over the long term. And so then they had to turn to actual physical territorial expansionism.
Autarky very often turns into a necessity for expanding your access to resources, which leads to invasions of other countries. It is not a coincidence that countries that tend to embrace a strong mercantilist policy, an economic policy that focuses on “Let&#8217;s build everything right here at home,” find that when they can’t, they have to expand their own territorial borders or the places under their immediate dominion.
Free trade generally means that you don&#8217;t have to invade other places because you can trade with those other places.
So, when you look at China, how would you stop China? We need to build up better security and economic relationships in the Far East, and also build up better security and economic relationships with Europe.
That means that we can use tariffs as a way to force the Europeans to get rid of their non-tariff barriers. One of the ways I would be forcing the Europeans to pay their fair share is by using things like tariffs, in order to push the Europeans to pay their fair share. When it comes to, for example, the price of pharmaceuticals, Europe pays far less than what the actual market rate should be for pharmaceuticals, and then the United States ends up paying for that via our taxpayers and via our consumers.
That’s just the way that it works. We should stop that.
There are things that we can do to fight the non-tariff barriers and also the unfairness of our systems with Europe. But in the end, we should be pursuing freer trade and better relationships. 
That’s because if you&#8217;re going to box in China, you need to offer both the carrot and the stick to China, but just carrots to our friends. 
When it comes to offering carrots for our friends, we can offer a little bit of the stick in order to achieve the carrot. That is why I&#8217;m not against using tariffs as a way to pressure other countries to lower their tariffs. This is a case that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has made.
You need to box China in. You need to treat them like the adversary they are.
You need to build out other lines of supply. You need supply chains that are diversified, so we&#8217;re not as reliant on China.
You need to cut off China&#8217;s allies at the knees. If we believe, as we should, that Russia is a geopolitical adversary of the United States, then obviously we should be pursuing an attempt to get Russia to stop invading Eastern Europe.
And that means supporting allies in the region to the extent necessary to stop the Russians, because it&#8217;s not as though Russia and China aren&#8217;t talking to each other. They&#8217;re talking very extensively to each other.
If we are attempting to form a better relationship with India, then we should be attempting to form a better relationship with them. We should be trying to make trade relations with India so beneficial to India that they don&#8217;t want to trade with the Chinese. There are natural differences in opinion between China and India, which have nearly come to blows several times over the course of the last several decades.
India and China are not working hand in glove. They have actual territorial conflicts. We could be attempting to pry India out of China&#8217;s sphere of influence. 
These are all things that a responsible foreign policy would do.
And then we certainly would not be shipping many of the most important components in the battle for the future to China.
China is already stealing our intellectual property. China is already cheating when it comes to trade relationships. China is already badgering its neighbors. Why should we be sending some of our most sophisticated microchips produced in the United States? Why should we be allowing those to flow into China? Even if we&#8217;re going to argue that it&#8217;s only a marginal increase in China&#8217;s capacity, why would we allow that increase in China&#8217;s capacity?
China is our geopolitical enemy. They are our opponent. Trying to pretend otherwise is foolish because if you allow China to continue pursuing its normal policies, China will blow itself out.
China has a serious demographic problem. It does not have enough people. China is in steep demographic decline. Even though they have a billion people, they do not have enough human beings to be able to generate the economic growth necessary to pay for their gigantic redistributionist schemes and mercantilist ideas.
They have an enormous debt problem. They&#8217;ve been burying that debt problem in local and regional debt issues, and then building gigantic empty cities rooted in debt that they&#8217;re taking out from their own citizens and against their own citizens.
We tend to look at the fact that China builds some nice things and say, “Wow, they must be doing it right.”
But the fact is that mercantilism looks systematic when you look at the areas where it succeeds, but looks like a trash heap when you look at the areas where it doesn&#8217;t succeed. The areas where you don&#8217;t succeed in a centralized economy are the areas that tend to be ignored, and there are a lot of them.
Capitalism looks really messy, but it has a much higher hit rate because capital follows the best ideas. You don&#8217;t just keep investing in bad ideas the way you do with a centralized economic system, like China.
There are ways to box in China.
The question is whether the United States will actually do it.

China trade cargo container hanging against clouds background

What Do We Do About China?

Ben Shapiro

China

Economy

India

Opinion

Russia

Tariffs

When President Trump took to Truth Social to <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115370746210555899">promote</a> Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s new book, “I Am Giorgia,” many may have viewed it as a natural alliance between two champions of national pride, family values, and strong leadership. Trump praised Meloni as an inspiration, highlighting her dedication to faith, family, and country — qualities he has always deeply valued.
However, the public display of friendship and affection stands in stark contrast to recent moves by the Italian government to harm American businesses. In fact, its recent policy decisions are quietly undermining a vital element of Trump’s economic strategy with Europe — particularly the principle against unfair, targeted fees on America’s innovators in the tech and telecom sectors.
The Italian bureaucracy, through Italy’s telecom authority AGCOM, has recently taken <a href="https://ccianet.org/news/2025/09/italys-move-towards-network-fees-sets-blueprint-for-eu-under-digital-networks-act-study-finds/">steps</a> that classify Content Delivery Networks as part of Italy’s national telecom infrastructure. This may seem like a technical regulatory shift, but it sets a dangerous precedent for forcing U.S.-based streaming giants like Netflix and YouTube to shoulder <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/italys-telecoms-regulator-walks-fine-line-between-meloni-trump-and-brussels-over-network-fees/">new costs</a>.
The idea that such platforms should pay what Europe calls “network fees” was repeatedly rejected by Brussels to avoid sparking a trade war with the United States. Yet Italy’s move appears to be a sneaky attempt to backdoor these fees through regulation rather than overt legislation.
That makes this latest maneuver particularly troubling in light of the U.S.–EU trade deal framework, which explicitly commits Europe to refraining from imposing network fees or equivalent measures that target American digital services. That commitment was celebrated as a breakthrough for fair and open digital trade — and a win for both sides of the Atlantic. Italy’s proposal represents a direct and duplicitous workaround of that agreement and should not be tolerated by either Meloni or President Trump.
The problem runs deeper than just economic policy. President Trump has always insisted that America should be treated fairly and that U.S. companies should not be subjected to unfair financial penalties while European companies enjoy protection. The essence of Trump’s “America First” trade approach is not just about tariffs but standing up to Europe’s habit of disguising predatory actions as “fairness” or “sovereignty.” Time and again, European bureaucrats have tried to charm American leadership with lofty rhetoric while quietly pursuing policies that simultaneously penalize U.S. tech innovators in favor of incumbent European firms and <a href="https://strandconsult.dk/is-there-a-correlation-between-european-nations-level-of-chinese-telecom-equipment-the-consumption-of-russian-energy-and-military-aid-to-ukraine/">hand over</a> their purportedly sacred sovereignty to Chinese companies.
In fact, in Italy’s case, more than a third of its 5G infrastructure is supplied by China. And the country’s largest telecom provider, Telecom Italia (TIM), has <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pietro-labriola_digitale-innovazione-sostenibilitaeq-activity-7383556923331162112-xRkN/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAACcXXMBcipZDNsVQ3AlxVNbqOAKXKgu_r0">deep ties</a> with other countries at the center of <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2025/10/13/john-czwartacki-brazil-is-waging-war-on-american-technology-with-chinas-help/">China’s scheme</a> to drive a wedge between the United States and our allies across the Atlantic and in our own backyard. 
The regulatory maneuvers of Meloni’s government are out of step with her public embrace of Trump’s values. She claims to stand for independence and patriotism, yet by empowering AGCOM to impose regulatory costs on American tech, she works within the same globalist, big government EU framework that Trump himself has warned against. This contradiction should raise alarms on both sides of the Atlantic. Supporting a populist vision in politics means little if the policies implemented to bring it to fruition end up stifling competition and reducing consumer welfare.
Italy’s approach to network fees could also spark retaliatory measures that hurt Italian and European interests in the process. Real partnership demands more than symbolic displays of loyalty. It requires shared commitment to open markets, fair competition, and the removal of hidden barriers.
Europe’s temptation to manipulate U.S. leaders through false promises while it advances onerous regulatory measures designed to impose new costs must be understood for what it is. President Trump’s success has come from hard-nosed deals and a refusal to be played. Europeans seem to believe they can deflect this approach by offering words of friendship and then quietly imposing rules that undermine longstanding agreements and harm the U.S. tech sector.
Meloni’s memoir captures the spirit many admire — strong roots, fierce pride, and clear principles — but her government’s recent actions surrounding network fees show that principles alone are not enough. The mutually beneficial alliance Trump seeks with leaders like Meloni must rest on policies that truly defend fairness and reciprocity and reject regulatory overreach that unfairly burdens U.S. businesses.
In the end, Trump recognizes that true partnership is built on shared interests and respect, not on central planning that distorts the market and seeks to extract money under the guise of fairness. Meloni’s Italy may talk the language of sovereignty, but on this issue, it echoes the very European playbook Trump has fought against: using regulation to impose hidden taxes on American innovation.
If President Trump’s affection for Meloni is to be returned in kind, it must coincide with a call for policies aligned with his economic principles. Otherwise, public displays of friendship are mere symbolic gestures that hypocritically mask Europe’s continued attempts to challenge American leadership. Such contradictions weaken transatlantic unity and threaten the very foundation of the deal Trump fought to secure.
* * *
Ashley Baker is Executive Director of The Committee for Justice, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rule of law and constitutionally limited government.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Trump Meets With Visiting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni At The White House

Trump’s Favorite European Ally Is Quietly Undermining His Trade Agenda

Big Tech

Business

Corporations

European Union

Giorgia Meloni

Italy

Taxes

Technology

When President Donald Trump sat between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan last week, few people realized the significance of the meeting and the months of negotiations that took place beforehand to get two hostile nations to come together at the White House.
Just weeks before the president and his team stepped in to maintain stability in the South Caucasus earlier this year, a full-scale invasion of Armenia&#8217;s southernmost province, Syunik, appeared imminent, according to Dr. Nerses Kopalyan, an Armenian-American political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Kopalyan informally advised and supported negotiations between the Trump administration and Armenia and spoke to The Daily Wire this week about the agreement that was signed last Friday.
In March, Trump administration officials were briefed on U.S. intelligence that Azerbaijan was planning a major offensive against Armenia, reigniting hostilities two years after Azerbaijan&#8217;s ethnic cleansing campaign uprooted thousands of Armenians from their ancestral homeland in Nagorno-Karabakh, Kopalyan said. The American intelligence assessment sparked immediate action from the Trump administration. Later that month, the president&#8217;s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, opened up negotiations with Azerbaijan as the White House sought to prevent another armed conflict.
&#8220;Once U.S. intelligence had that information, the Trump administration decided that they had to step in and put diplomatic pressure on Azerbaijan not to attack, and then initiate diplomacy to find a solution,&#8221; said Kopalyan, who previously <a href="https://evnreport.com/evn-security-report/pax-americana-comes-to-the-south-caucasus/">wrote</a> about the significance of Trump&#8217;s Armenia-Azerbaijan deal. &#8220;So if it were not for the Trump administration, Azerbaijan would have attacked, and we would have had severe instability in the region.&#8221;
A White House official told The Daily Wire, “We do not comment on specific intelligence, but President Trump’s administration was concerned about tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan before intervening to deliver peace and stability in the region.”
The challenge before the Trump administration at the beginning of the talks in March and April was complicated.
Armenia and Azerbaijan have been in and out of severe conflict for the past 35 years, with Azerbaijan most recently taking full control of Nagorno-Karabakh — a large patch of land inside of Azerbaijan that was inhabited by Armenians for centuries. In 2020, conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh resulted in thousands of casualties before a ceasefire was agreed upon. Nearly three years later, Azerbaijan launched a full-scale offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, forcing Armenians to flee the region.
For the past five years, Azerbaijan has threatened to encroach on Armenia&#8217;s sovereignty, pushing for its own trade route — called the Zangezur Corridor — that would cut through Armenia and connect Azerbaijan to its landlocked exclave, Nakhchivan. With Azerbaijan potentially setting its sights on southern Armenia and risking the breakout of another war, the Trump administration had to move fast.
The White House presented a &#8220;unique solution&#8221; to get the two enemies to come to an agreement, Kopalyan said.
&#8220;The United States comes and presents the proposal that became the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP),&#8221; Kopalyan added. &#8220;They present it as a very unique solution to a problem that should be accepted by both sides.&#8221;
Under the TRIPP proposal, Armenia and the United States would build a major trade route through Syunik that Azerbaijan could use freely to gain better access to Nakhchivan.
&#8220;The United States&#8217; presence would alleviate Armenia&#8217;s concerns. It would also mitigate Azerbaijan&#8217;s concerns, and Azerbaijan would no longer have the Zangezur Corridor premise to attack,&#8221; Kopalyan said.
Not all Armenians were pleased with the deal, with some in the diaspora arguing that Trump&#8217;s negotiations favored Azerbaijan. The biggest criticism of the deal is that it does not address Azerbaijan&#8217;s past human rights abuses against Armenians, such as the ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh and allegations that Azerbaijan&#8217;s government is holding at least 23 Armenians — likely more — hostage in Baku.
The Armenian National Committee of America — which is affiliated with the pro-Russia political wing in Armenia called the Armenian Revolutionary Federation — blasted the Trump-negotiated deal. The group <a href="https://anca.org/press-release/anca-calls-out-white-house-for-pushing-armenia-azerbaijan-deal-without-artsakh-return-prisoner-release-or-sovereignty-safeguards/">said</a> that the deal was &#8220;rewarding [Azerbaijan&#8217;s] aggression, compromising Armenia’s sovereignty, and consolidating Azerbaijan’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of over 150,000 indigenous Armenian Christians.&#8221;
&#8220;A true and lasting peace requires justice — the right of return for displaced Armenians, the release of hostages, protection for Christian heritage sites, and the withdrawal of Azerbaijani forces from Armenia – none of which are addressed in this agreement,&#8221; the Armenian National Committee of America added in a statement.
In a phone call with The Daily Wire, Garen Jinbachian, the community coordinator for the Western Region of the Armenian National Committee of America, said that Trump&#8217;s Armenia-Azerbaijan deal &#8220;seems like a huge PR stunt to some extent.&#8221;
&#8220;Frankly, you cannot have lasting peace, you cannot have real peace if one of the parties is held at gunpoint and practically coerced to sign it,&#8221; said Jinbachian. &#8220;The whole deal is based on injustice, the lack of justice in the region. Ethnic cleansing is not justice.&#8221;
Those criticisms are missing the full context of the deal, Kopalyan argued. The deal struck last Friday between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was less of an all-encompassing peace agreement and more of the first major step in a long process of securing communication and stability between the two countries. Kopalyan added that the White House would likely negotiate further peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan for the next three years.
&#8220;This is a normalization process initiated by the United States,&#8221; Kopalyan said.
Despite the major progress made between Armenia and Azerbaijan last week, Kopalyan remains pessimistic that a long-lasting peace treaty could be made between the two nations while Aliyev remains in power.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think Aliyev will ever sign a peace treaty because it is not in his strategic interest. It&#8217;s a very rational position by him,&#8221; Kopalyan said. &#8220;Because he enjoys so much power asymmetry and because he&#8217;s able to utilize that power disparity to exert his position in the region, if he signs a peace treaty, he&#8217;s basically giving away the last 10-15 years and the billions that he has spent to establish his position of dominance.&#8221;
&#8220;He will do normalization, he will — under American pressure — do connectivity, opening of roads and all that stuff, but unless President Trump and the United States put a gun to his head, where he realizes he has no option but to sign, I don&#8217;t see him signing a peace treaty.&#8221;

President Trump Meets With Leaders Of Armenia And Azerbaijan At The White House

How Trump’s ‘Unique Solution’ For Armenia And Azerbaijan Likely Prevented A Full-Scale War

Armenians

Global Politics

Trump Administration

For years, the diplomats and pundits who inhabit Washington have painted the MAGA movement as “isolationist.” And while they correctly identify MAGA’s antipathy for spending money on bloated international bureaucracies, they typically get its actual foreign policy preferences entirely wrong.
This caricature doesn’t survive statistical scrutiny. According to new polls from the Ronald Reagan Institute and the Vandenberg Coalition, MAGA voters overwhelmingly reject withdrawing from the world stage. In fact, a whopping 73% of MAGA Republicans want the United States to be more engaged overseas — beating out Democrats at 65% and non-MAGA Republicans at 59%.
The Vandenberg polling shows the same trend: 80% of MAGA voters support America taking a leadership role in global affairs, and 87% back increasing military spending to keep the United States strong.
Nowhere are these preferences clearer than in Europe. The Left loves to characterize the MAGA movement as soft on Russia and dismissive of NATO. But a majority (76%) of MAGA Republicans say the United States should defend NATO allies if they’re attacked by Russia. That’s a firm commitment to deterrence, not a giveaway to Vladimir Putin.
Even more striking, Reagan Institute data show nearly six in 10 Republicans, including MAGA voters, support increasing the U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe despite years of freeloading off the American taxpayer. MAGA supporters see how President Donald Trump pushed NATO countries to spend more on their own defense and succeeded. The MAGA movement is not abandoning allies–it’s seeking to strengthen them by pushing them to carry their fair share of the security burden.
China is where MAGA voters are sounding the loudest alarm — and for good reason. They don’t view the Chinese Communist Party as a distant strategic competitor but as a direct threat to the homeland.
According to the Reagan Institute’s new data, 91% of MAGA voters are “extremely” or “somewhat” concerned about Chinese land purchases near American military bases, 89% are concerned about CCP-linked companies like TikTok spying on Americans, and 86% are concerned about military-age Chinese men entering the U.S. illegally. They intuitively understand what many in Washington still downplay: that the CCP is infiltrating our society, stealing our data, manipulating public discourse, and using every tool of economic and political influence to weaken America from within.
That urgency extends to China’s global ambitions: Vandenberg polling shows that 84% of MAGA voters say it’s extremely important for the U.S. to maintain superiority over China in military, economic, and technological power. MAGA voters don’t value more summits or empty gestures. They want a strategy that defends our borders, counters CCP espionage, reclaims our technological advantage, and confronts China’s aggression head-on.
That same clarity extends to Taiwan. Once MAGA voters consider what’s at stake — control of the world’s semiconductor supply, protection of vital sea lanes, and preservation of American credibility — 84% say the United States should defend Taiwan if China invades. They know that if America retreats, our enemies advance — and global chaos fills the vacuum.
MAGA voters are even more focused on the Iran threat. Recent polling lists preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon as one of MAGA voters’ top national security concerns — second only to illegal immigration at the southern border.
An overwhelming 90% of MAGA voters say this issue directly impacts American security and prosperity — and that was before President Trump’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. After those strikes, 74% of MAGA conservatives said they would support additional military action, and 68% said the world is now safer because of them. A staggering 92% agree it is extremely important to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
For decades, American foreign policy was mired in either overextension or half-measures, endless negotiations, and failed attempts to buy peace. That record eroded the American people’s appetite for deploying power overseas. But they watched in dismay as the Biden Administration acted with weakness, unfreezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets, ignoring proxy attacks on U.S. troops, and groveling for a nuclear deal. President Trump, by contrast, has shown what it means to project strength without starting wars.
MAGA voters don’t want to remake the world in the United States’ image. They want a foreign policy that puts American security first, prioritizes deterrence, and uses force sparingly but decisively.
This worldview rejects the false choice between interventionism and isolationism. It’s a foreign policy grounded in the prudent use of American power. MAGA voters are asking for an alternative to Biden’s weakness: a foreign policy rooted in sovereignty and strength.  They want a foreign policy through which our enemies fear us, our allies respect us, and deterrence protects us — and a foreign policy that never apologizes for putting America First.
Yousif Kalian is a Policy Advisor at POLARIS National Security. He has over a decade of experience advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East and Eurasia.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Trump Delivers Address To Nation On Iran Military Operation

MAGA Voters Are Leading America’s Foreign Policy Revival

MAGA

Polls

Republican Party

President Trump Departs Washington For NATO Summit

It’s Time For America To Focus On Its Own Problems

It's Time For America To Focus On Its Own Problems

America First

Iran

Israel

Matt Walsh

Middle East

President Trump

President Trump’s strike on Iran is a seminal turning point for American foreign policy.
For years and years and years, we have been boxed into the idea that every war is the Iraq War.
Critics of President Trump — of “Peace through Strength,” going all the way back to World War II, particularly on the Left but now on the horseshoe theory Right as well — have suggested that people who do advocate for American military action liken everything to the lead-up to World War II, to Neville Chamberlain and Munich. They say not everything is World War II. Not every war is the Iraq War.
You might notice that the vast bevy of people who keep complaining about President Trump&#8217;s strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities keep comparing this to the Iraq War. That’s crazy.
These people who keep saying that a one-off strike on a nuclear facility — which is significantly more like killing Osama Bin Laden or killing Qasem Soleimani or killing Anwar al-Awlaki — is somehow more akin to the Iraq War: a full-scale, hundreds of thousands of troops ground invasion of a country in the Middle East, followed by a 20-year effort to rebuild the country and remold the government.
You have to be empty-headed to make that comparison.
But there is an Iraq War syndrome that has set in the American body politic that suggests that every military action is like the Iraq War. It&#8217;s very much like the Vietnam War syndrome that set in after the end of the Vietnam War, when every military action was supposed to be exactly what America did in Vietnam. It took Ronald Reagan breaking the Soviet Union in order for that to begin to end, and it truly ended when George H. W. Bush helped win the first Gulf War.
The lesson of Vietnam and Iraq is not: “Military power, or the threat of its use by the United States is bad,” or even worse, “The United States itself is bad,” which is an argument that is being made all the time by the horseshoe theory Left and the horseshoe theory Right.
The real lesson here is that victory is a possibility. Victory can be achieved if the commitment is clear and if the goal is defined.
President Trump had a goal. He defined that goal. He made a commitment to that goal. And then he pursued an action in pursuit of that goal.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2223-trump-s-masterstroke-what-comes-next?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
The same people who are suggesting that President Trump is wrong to bomb the nuclear facilities are the same people who suggest that the United States was wrong to use the atomic bomb to end World War II, or that America has been historically evil over the course of decades. The Howard Zinn Left and the Tucker Carlson Right shake hands on this particular prospect.
But that perspective is wrong. And it is not just wrong, it is a nefariously bad perspective, because it damages America.
The world is better off because of American power — properly used. Of course power can be misused; anyone can misuse their power. We&#8217;re the most powerful country in the history of the world, with the most powerful military in the history of the world.
But — when you use your power properly, you can effectuate good things happening.
President Trump is not George W. Bush. He ran against George W. Bush’s foreign policy. President Trump has never engaged in a long-term nation building project, nor will he. He defined this mission specifically.
<div id="attachment_938485" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-938485" class="size-large wp-image-938485" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-2220648176-864x576.jpg" alt="US Vice President JD Vance, from left, US President Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, US secretary of state, and Pete Hegseth, US secretary of defense, during an address to the nation in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Saturday, June 21, 2025. Trump said the US military struck three sites in Iran on Saturday, marking the first American involvement in direct attacks against Iranian nuclear assets in its conflict with Israel. Photographer: Carlos Barria/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-2220648176-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-2220648176-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-2220648176-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-2220648176.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Carlos Barria/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
I do not actually think that the people warning about a “quagmire” are saying something understandable. I think they are saying something dishonest. I think they are lying to you.
Israel and the United States are not talking about regime change. When President Trump says that there may be regime change in Iran, he means from the Iranian people. That&#8217;s the same thing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said. Do you think Netanyahu, from a country of 9.7 million people, two million of whom are Arabs and two million of whom are ultra-Orthodox Jews, that tiny country is going to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops to Iran to engage in nation-building? Do you think the United States is going to do that?
If Iranians don&#8217;t overthrow the regime, that&#8217;s their prerogative. But that does not mean that you allow that regime to go nuclear.
All of this raises a question. What exactly is the opposition? What is the opposition here? What is the case against the strike on Iran?
You can basically make three cases: the constitutional, the pragmatic, and the ideological. I think there are a lot of people who are making the constitutional and pragmatic arguments who secretly want to make the ideological argument.
The ideological argument is that America is bad, that when America involves itself in foreign policy, we are doing something evil and immoral, that our enemies, our geopolitical opponents, never have their own philosophy or their own interests. They are always, in every case, driven by American blowback. The only reason people are bad in the world is because America did a bad thing to them, and then those people turn bad.
That, of course, is ignorant. It is stupid. It is wrong. Civilizations have different interests. Countries have different interests. Those countries are driven by interests that are not always about America. Iran pursued regional domination in spite of what America was doing, not because America was a threat to Iran.
Iran decided that it wanted to obliterate Israel, wanted to wipe Saudi Arabia from the map, and wanted to take control of Yemen, not because of America, but because that is the Iranian goal. Russia is invading Ukraine because that has been their longstanding policy, not because Ukraine was moving in a more pro-American direction. Russia decided it wanted to invade Ukraine because it has been Russian policy since the 1990s to reunify with Ukraine, or at least turn it into a proxy regime.
Countries have their own rationales. The ideological case, a Howard Zinn-America-Hating-First case, has been adopted by many on the horseshoe theory Right.
Then there are people masquerading as constitutionalists who are interested in the constitutionality of what Trump is doing. This idea that the War Powers Act (War Powers Resolution) somehow prevents the president of the United States from engaging in a one-off strike is absolute sheer nonsense. It is not true. First of all, there&#8217;s serious doubt as to whether the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973, is even constitutional. It may, in fact, violate the Article II prerogatives of the President of the United States. Article II, Section II of the Constitution says, “The president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.” The president is the Commander-In-Chief.
Only Congress has the power to declare war under Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI.
But did we declare war against Iran? Is there a war against Iran? One-off airstrikes do not mean a full-scale war against a country. They don&#8217;t. If that&#8217;s true, then we&#8217;ve been at war many, many, many, many times since World War II, all across the globe. But that is not what war constitutes. The Supreme Court has said so.
The War Powers Resolution states: “In the absence of the declaration of war, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours after introducing U.S. military forces in hostilities, which must end within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise.”
There&#8217;s only one problem. Do you think the United States is engaging in 60 days of on-the-ground hostilities with Iran? We barely engaged in 37 hours of hostilities with Iran. Does this amount to a War Powers Resolution violation?
Then there are those people “deeply worried” about the pragmatic effect of this, who were not worried a few years ago when President Trump killed Qasem Soleimani, and who didn&#8217;t seem particularly worried five minutes ago, before this all happened, when Iran had terror cells throughout the West, but now they&#8217;re very, very worried.
Iran has been pursuing terror attacks, including an attempted assassination of the current President of the United States, for decades. At this point, they have planted terror cells all throughout the world. If the idea is that planting terror cells buys Iran impunity and Iran can now act with complete impunity all over the globe, pursuing nuclear weapons, and that means you can&#8217;t do anything about it, then what is the purpose of American foreign policy? What is the purpose?
I&#8217;m not saying there isn’t a risk when you take action. I&#8217;m saying that the greater risk would be a nuclear-armed Iran with terrorist cells all across the West. That&#8217;s the bigger risk.
This “pragmatic concern” is, in reality, something else.
It is a belief that America&#8217;s foreign policy is inherently bad, that America is the nefarious actor in the world. It&#8217;s wrong and it&#8217;s stupid.
President Trump knew exactly what he was doing when he ordered the strike on Iran. 
And he was absolutely correct.

President Trump Returns To White House From New Jersey

Trump’s Strike On Iran: A Vital Turning Point In American Foreign Policy

Iran Nuclear

Israel Defense Forces (IDF)

U.S. Military

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, who has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-lays-into-kooky-tucker-carlson-over-opposition-to-israeli-strikes-on-iran?author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=4&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Lays+Into+%E2%80%98Kooky%E2%80%99+Tucker+Carlson+Over+Opposition+To+Israeli+Strikes+On+Iran">criticizing</a> Trump over the Middle East conflict, called him to &#8220;apologize&#8221; for saying things &#8220;that were a little bit too strong.&#8221;
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump addressed the ongoing debate among some on the Right about the conflict between Israel and Iran. He dismissed a question that suggested the Israeli strikes are &#8220;dividing&#8221; his supporters.
&#8220;No, my supporters are for me. My supporters are for America First and Make America Great Again,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;My supporters don&#8217;t want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon. Tucker&#8217;s a nice guy. He called and apologized the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong.&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s comments came after Carlson interviewed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) over foreign policy in a discussion that quickly turned into a heated debate on Israel and Iran during an episode of Carlson&#8217;s podcast that was released on Wednesday.
The president added that &#8220;Ted Cruz is a nice guy. He&#8217;s been with me for a long time.&#8221; Trump said that &#8220;nobody thinks it&#8217;s okay&#8221; for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t want a fight, either. I&#8217;m not looking for a fight,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;But if it&#8217;s a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do. And maybe we won&#8217;t have to fight. Don&#8217;t forget, we haven&#8217;t been fighting. We add a certain amount of genius to everything, but we haven&#8217;t been fighting.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨NEW — President Trump says Tucker Carlson called him and apologized:
&quot;Tucker&#39;s a nice guy. He called and apologized&#8230;because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong.&quot;
&quot;If they think that it&#39;s okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, then they should oppose… <a href="https://t.co/GEz1WjYlRx">pic.twitter.com/GEz1WjYlRx</a>
&mdash; Townhall.com (@townhallcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1935419082733490666?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Earlier this week, Carlson said Trump was &#8220;complicit in an act of war&#8221; after Israel struck military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran. Carlson added in his newsletter that “This Could Be the Final Newsletter Before All-Out War.” Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-lays-into-kooky-tucker-carlson-over-opposition-to-israeli-strikes-on-iran?author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=4&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Lays+Into+%E2%80%98Kooky%E2%80%99+Tucker+Carlson+Over+Opposition+To+Israeli+Strikes+On+Iran">responded</a> to Carlson&#8217;s criticism, writing on Truth Social on Monday, “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!’”
In another statement responding to criticism over his allegiance to an &#8220;America First&#8221; foreign policy, Trump <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-america-first-iran-israel-strikes-rcna213299">said</a> earlier this week, &#8220;Well, considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First,’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides that. For those people who say they want peace—you can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don’t want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon—that’s not peace.&#8221;
Cruz <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/off-the-rails-ted-cruz-rips-tucker-carlson-for-going-bat-crap-crazy-on-foreign-policy?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=13&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=%E2%80%98Off+The+Rails%E2%80%99%3A+Ted+Cruz+Rips+Tucker+Carlson+For+Going+%E2%80%98Bat+Crap+Crazy%E2%80%99+On+Foreign+Policy">ripped</a> Carlson earlier on Wednesday, arguing that he has gone “bat crap crazy” in adopting “hardcore isolationist” views. Carlson, meanwhile, criticized Cruz during their interview for not knowing the population of Iran, as the senator calls for regime change in the radical Islamic country.
&#8220;I want to stop a lunatic who wants to murder us from getting nuclear weapons that could kill millions of Americans,&#8221; Cruz told Carlson.
&#8220;Fair,&#8221; Carlson responded.

Donald Trump/Tucker Carlson

Trump Says Tucker Carlson Called Him To Apologize After Criticizing President’s Iran Stance

Tucker Carlson

U.S.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wenesday blasted conservative commentator Tucker Carlson over his foreign policy stance, saying that the former Fox News host has gone &#8220;bat crap crazy&#8221; in adopting &#8220;hardcore isolationist&#8221; views.
On his podcast, &#8220;<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/israel-vs-iran-whos-winning-whats-next-will-america/id1495601614?i=1000713386485">Verdict with Ted Cruz</a>,&#8221; the Texas senator previewed an interview he had with Carlson slated to drop on Carlson&#8217;s podcast on Wednesday. During the discussion, Cruz and Carlson get into a heated debate over Iran and President Donald Trump&#8217;s position on the Middle East conflict.
&#8220;I agree with Tucker on 80% of the issues &#8230; during the idiotic COVID lockdowns, Tucker&#8217;s monologue every night on Fox was the single best thing on television, which I told him at the time, and I agree with him,&#8221; Cruz said after recording the interview with Carlson. &#8220;I will say on foreign policy, Tucker has gone bat crap crazy. He&#8217;s gone off the rails. He is suddenly a hardcore isolationist.&#8221;
Cruz added that he knew going into the interview with Carlson that it would be a &#8220;rough and tumble fight&#8221; over foreign policy, especially after Israel launched an attack on Iran&#8217;s nuclear facilities and military leaders last week.
&#8220;Tucker has spent the last several days attacking Donald Trump,&#8221; Cruz said. &#8220;He&#8217;s blasted Trump as &#8216;complicit&#8217; in this horrible attack, and he keeps saying World War III is going to happen. He&#8217;s just been over the top.&#8221;
The senator said the two-hour interview with Carlson immediately became &#8220;combative,&#8221; with Carlson &#8220;throwing haymakers.&#8221; A <a href="https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1935136085266387417">short clip</a> of the interview posted by Carlson on X shows the conservative commentator asking Cruz about the population of Iran, a question that Cruz couldn&#8217;t answer.
&#8220;How could you not know that?&#8221; Carlson asked.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t sit around memorizing population tables,&#8221; Cruz replied.
&#8220;Well, it&#8217;s kind of relevant because you&#8217;re calling for the overthrow of the government,&#8221; Carlson said.
Cruz shot back, &#8220;Why is it relevant whether it&#8217;s 90 million or 80 million or 100 million? Why is that relevant?&#8221;
Cruz added on Wednesday morning that Carlson criticized Trump throughout the interview and &#8220;spends 20 minutes&#8221; talking about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and &#8220;how he thinks the AIPAC lobby is dominating American foreign policy.&#8221;
&#8220;It was just unhinged, and I get there are conspiracy sections of the internet that are worried that AIPAC is running the world. It&#8217;s just not reality,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And [Carlson] didn&#8217;t like it when I called him out on it, and I did.&#8221;
The senator also accused Carlson of denying that Iran has attempted to assassinate President Trump, despite the Department of Justice <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-murder-hire-and-related-charges-against-irgc-asset-and-two">charging</a> an Iranian in November who it accuses of being &#8220;tasked by the Iranian Regime with surveilling and plotting to assassinate President-Elect Donald J. Trump.&#8221;
&#8220;He just said, &#8216;That&#8217;s not true. I&#8217;ve never heard anything about it. I don&#8217;t know anything about it,&#8221; Cruz added. &#8220;Well, it happens to be a fact. It happens to be that the DOJ has indicted Iranian hitmen for attempting to murder Donald Trump.&#8221;
Earlier this week, Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-lays-into-kooky-tucker-carlson-over-opposition-to-israeli-strikes-on-iran?author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=4&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Lays+Into+%E2%80%98Kooky%E2%80%99+Tucker+Carlson+Over+Opposition+To+Israeli+Strikes+On+Iran">called out</a> Carlson over his views on the Middle East conflict, writing on Truth Social, “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!’”
Later in his podcast, Cruz said that isolationism and interventionism are &#8220;both wrong&#8221; approaches to foreign policy.
&#8220;I&#8217;m a non-interventionist hawk. I am very reluctant to engage in military conflict, just like Trump is,&#8221; Cruz added. &#8220;But I also believe in peace through strength. The best way you avoid war is being strong enough that your enemies don&#8217;t want to stand up to you.&#8221;

Ted Cruz/Tucker Carlson

‘Off The Rails’: Ted Cruz Rips Tucker Carlson For Going ‘Bat Crap Crazy’ On Foreign Policy

Congress

Ted Cruz

Verdict with Ted Cruz

President Trump is correct to reinstate the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/restricting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-other-national-security-and-public-safety-threats/">travel ban</a> on nations like Iran. It&#8217;s a necessary step to safeguard national security. However, the greatest threat from Tehran isn&#8217;t simply attempting entry — it is already entrenched within our borders.
Sympathizers of the Islamic Republic have established <a href="https://www.hstoday.us/featured/perspective-the-u-s-must-investigate-iranian-regime-networks-inside-the-homeland/">footholds</a> in the United States, holding green cards, naturalized citizenship, or residing under visas granted through academia, government-funded programs, or employment in critical sectors. While most Iranian-Americans actively oppose the regime, a concerning minority continue promoting Tehran’s dangerous agenda — some openly, others clandestinely.
Over the past two decades — including during the Obama-era diplomatic thaw with Tehran — many Iranian nationals, including some with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-princeton-scholar-was-once-a-high-ranking-iranian-official-why-is-he-still-here?author=Aidin+Panahi&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=This+Princeton+Scholar+Was+Once+A+High-Ranking+Iranian+Official.+Why+Is+He+Still+Here%3F">regime-linked backgrounds</a>, obtained legal residency or advanced academic placements in the U.S. While most pose no threat, this period coincided with a wave of regime-aligned individuals quietly embedding into American institutions under minimal scrutiny.
These assertions aren’t speculative — they are substantiated by documented public records.
Recent intelligence reports indicate that the Islamic Republic of Iran has gone far beyond covert propaganda. Tehran has been <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/08/donald-trump-iran-assassination-plot-00188498">linked</a> to a plot to assassinate President Trump and has actively funded and <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/08/30/us-news/iran-backs-pro-hamas-protests-at-us-campuses/">promoted</a> antisemitic agitation across the U.S. — including pro-Hamas encampments on university campuses and coordinated protests following October 7. At recent riots in cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, individuals have been <a href="https://x.com/Aidin_FreeIran/status/1931929174899339352">seen</a> wearing Hamas and other Islamic terrorist group headbands while waving the Mexican flag — a manufactured coalition of chaos that Tehran helps engineer. These developments are not spontaneous. They reflect a deliberate, externally supported campaign to destabilize American cities, stoke antisemitism, and erode democratic norms.
In 20241, Iranian regime-aligned <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/exclusive-us-confirms-iran-will-run-absentee-ballot-stations-in-us/7666273.html">elections</a> were held on U.S. soil, with polling sites reportedly coordinated by pro-regime organizations embedded in American communities. While such activity is typically framed as cultural engagement, it represented an organized effort by a <a href="https://2017-2021.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/">hostile</a> foreign regime to normalize its legitimacy abroad. Participation and promotion of such events by green card holders and dual citizens raise questions about foreign influence that deserve closer examination — not dismissal.
Moreover, the situation intensifies when considering documented overlaps between participants in these regime-linked elections and anti-Israel or pro-Hamas activities across America. National security reporting, including coverage by <a href="https://www.meforum.org/meet-kian-kianfar-the-pro-iranian-cement-worker-agitating-for-mullahs-in-massachusetts">Dexter Van Zile</a>, identified individuals in Massachusetts who took part in the elections and were later seen at pro-Hamas demonstrations — a group the U.S. classifies as a terrorist organization. This alignment is unlikely to be accidental; it points to a strategic nexus of anti-American propaganda shaped or inspired by Tehran.
Alarmingly, this infiltration extends beyond propaganda. In 2024, a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/iranian-man-indicted-providing-material-support-foreign-terrorist-organization-resulting">Massachusetts-based engineer</a> holding U.S. permanent residency was federally indicted for illegally exporting drone components to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force — a designated terrorist entity. Those parts were directly implicated in lethal attacks against American military personnel overseas. Notably, this individual maintained active ties with the <a href="https://omidcenter.com/">Omid Islamic Center</a>, a Shi’a congregation in the greater Boston area — a congregation previously <a href="https://www.meforum.org/articles/iranian-regime-hosts-voting-on-u-s-soil">reported</a> to have hosted organizers of Iran’s U.S.-based regime elections. These connections reinforce a broader pattern of deliberate influence networks operating on U.S. soil.
Yet, these publicly known cases represent only a fraction of the potential threat.
<a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/iranian-national-charged-multi-year-hacking-campaign-targeting-us-defense-contractors-and">Concerns</a> are rising among U.S. intelligence and national security professionals regarding a subset of Iranian nationals or dual citizens occupying sensitive roles in critical American industries. These positions often involve access to intellectual property, infrastructure systems, or federally funded research. While most Iranian-Americans are loyal contributors to U.S. progress, a smaller group continues to travel frequently to Iran, raising red flags given Tehran’s well-documented practice of coercing travelers — including asylum seekers — into espionage by threatening their families. These tactics pose serious counterintelligence risks and may be used to collect intelligence or monitor dissident communities within the United States.
If the travel ban genuinely aims to fortify U.S. security, it must be complemented by rigorous internal review. DHS, State Department, and USCIS must urgently reassess past approvals granted to Iranian nationals for indicators of regime affiliation, including:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participation in regime-sponsored activities.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Travel to or affiliation with sanctioned Iranian institutions.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Associations with organizations known as regime front groups.</li>
</ul>
Individuals with dual nationality who actively propagate Tehran’s anti-American rhetoric, or who regularly return to Iran after asylum claims, must face immediate scrutiny, visa re-evaluation, and potential revocation.
This policy isn&#8217;t about collective punishment or discrimination — it&#8217;s purely about national security. America holds a clear right and fundamental responsibility to ensure those benefiting from its protection are not covertly serving a hostile, terrorist-sponsoring regime. Each visa, security clearance, and federal grant should withstand thorough verification when national security is demonstrably at stake.
Critics will invariably label this as xenophobic, but nothing could be further from reality. This isn’t about ethnicity or nationality; it&#8217;s about allegiance and ideology. Indeed, millions of Iranian-Americans stand firmly against Tehran’s regime, many actively advocating for democracy in Iran. Their voices deserve amplification. Protecting our society from embedded sympathizers of an oppressive regime protects the genuine opposition and strengthens U.S. national security.
For decades, Tehran has adeptly exploited America&#8217;s open society — mosques, student groups, cultural centers — to embed its agents. This soft-power infiltration has succeeded primarily because our security policies failed to adapt accordingly.
President Trump’s renewed travel ban sets a clear, necessary boundary. Now, the boundary must extend inward, addressing those already here. The U.S. government&#8217;s next logical steps must include immediate investigation, rigorous vetting, and decisive action against those who serve the Islamic Republic—regardless of residency or citizenship status.
America’s right and obligation to self-defense includes countering subversive threats posed by the agents of a regime openly committed to America&#8217;s destruction. Defending our homeland means identifying and removing those who embed themselves in our institutions to undermine our democracy and security from within.
* * *
Dr. Aidin Panahi is an Iranian-American research professor, energy expert, and political activist. He is the cofounder of the “From Boston to Iran” initiative and his analyses on security and policy issues have appeared in outlets including The Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, Middle East Forum, Homeland Security Today, and Visegrád24. X: @Aidin_FreeIran
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-UN-ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS-IRAN-CONFLICT

Citizens Or Sympathizers? Iran’s Hidden Allies In America

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps

National Security

Travel Ban

When President Trump says other countries are “ripping us off,” he is referring to more than trade or currency manipulation. He is also talking about predatory investors overseas — foreign-based hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds — that have devoted staggering amounts of money to bankroll frivolous lawsuits in American courts. Why? Their aim is to pocket a significant portion of any verdict or settlement. If successful, these litigation gamblers not only secure a sizable return on their investment, they also walk away without having to pay any taxes.
It is unfair to American companies, consumers, and taxpayers. 
There is, however, a real opportunity to stop this litigation abuse through the budget negotiations currently underway in Congress. Foreign investors are using our U.S. court systems to punish American companies and citizens while enriching themselves. Since litigation is so costly, risky, and time consuming, many companies often agree to settle even when the case lacks real merit, because the risk of going to trial is simply too high.
The lawsuit funding landscape has become akin to the wild west. Foreign investors take advantage of loopholes to avoid paying taxes on their judgments or settlements even if the plaintiffs they are bankrolling are required to pay taxes. One reason this practice is not better known is very few jurisdictions require investors to disclose their involvement in cases or the terms of their agreements.
Allowing foreign-based investors to operate in the shadows, cloaked in anonymity, raises a host of legal, ethical, and even national security concerns. How are judges to know if they need to recuse themselves if they do not have access to all the facts? Who are the attorneys acting on behalf of the plaintiffs or the investors? Is the often-confidential information obtained during the discovery process about American citizens and companies at risk of being turned over to foreign funders, some of whom may hold views antithetical to our national interests? What are the real motivations for these lawsuits? Is it about justice or achieving other geopolitical goals?
Clearly, this practice is cloaked in secrecy. And while there is much the American people still do not know, they know enough to understand it’s both unfair and a serious threat. At least $15 billion is devoted to this dubious practice as of today. We also know Russian oligarchs have <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation-finance/putins-billionaires-sidestep-sanctions-by-financing-lawsuits">dodged sanctions</a> by investing in lawsuits in American courts and investors based in China have <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/china-firm-funds-us-lawsuits-amid-push-to-disclose-foreign-ties">used</a> litigation financing arrangements to target tech companies.
The good news? There is a remedy at the ready.
Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Congressman Kevin Hern (R-OK) introduced the <a href="https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/94578FC8-8F83-48AB-9932-7D61465A7FFF">Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act</a>, a bill which cracks down on the misuse and abuse of our courts by ending investors’ preferential tax treatment and creating much-needed deterrence. This legislation will, at a minimum, make investors think twice before targeting a successful American company with a frivolous claim.
The Tillis-Hern Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act takes the “for sale” sign off of American courthouses and amends the tax code to impose a new “tax on income from litigation which is received by third-party entities that provided financing for such litigation.”
Income from lawsuits is just that – income; just as American taxpayers have to pay taxes on the money they make, so too should foreign investors who use our court systems as a casino.
President Trump’s Reconciliation Bill passed the House last month and now awaits consideration in the Senate. While it contains a permanent extension of the Trump tax cuts, No Tax on Tips, and billions for immigration enforcement – the Senate also has a chance to fix the equity and tax issues associated with predatory foreign litigation investing. In addition, the Tillis-Hern Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act would crack down on foreign intrusions in our courts, safeguard national security interests, and generate new tax revenues to fund other commonsensical American priorities.
This is an ideal time and a good legislative vehicle to stop foreign investors from using U.S. courts to harm and punish American taxpayers, and this Reconciliation Bill can accomplish just that.
* * *
Trey Gowdy represented South Carolina’s 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 until 2019.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>

USTR Greer Slated To Defend Trump Tariffs To Congress

Time To Stop Predatory Foreign Investors

finance

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

In May, U.S. energy officials <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/ghost-machine-rogue-communication-devices-found-chinese-inverters-2025-05-14/">released</a> bombshell findings about China’s ability to turn out the lights across America. Rogue communications devices were found inside Chinese solar power inverters. In addition, undisclosed cellular radios were found inside Chinese batteries. These Chinese Communist Party sabotage efforts are reminiscent of CCP-tied Huawei’s infiltration of our communications network, which gave Beijing the ability to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/23/politics/fbi-investigation-huawei-china-defense-department-communications-nuclear/index.html">disrupt our nuclear arsenal communications</a>.
Beijing seeks the ability to remotely access and destroy the systems upon which Americans depend for everyday life and upon which our military depends to project power across the globe. The U.S. rightly began to remove Huawei technologies from our market <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/ghost-machine-rogue-communication-devices-050547906.html?guccounter=1">in 2019</a> because of security risks. Since then, ironically, we’ve allowed China to flood our market with network-connected technologies such as routers, drones, cranes, healthcare devices, cameras, green tech, and more, which collectively constitute a deeper penetration of our vital systems. This trend must be reversed through new laws and better law enforcement to block and remove all Chinese network-connected technologies. 
American tax dollars should not fund technologies that facilitate Chinese espionage and sabotage efforts. At the federal level, Congress should ban federal procurement of Chinese network-connected technologies. Congress should also codify President Trump’s Information and Communications Technology <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10538/securing-the-information-and-communications-technology-and-services-supply-chain">executive order</a> from 2019 and fund ICT programs to block CCP tech. During March 2025 testimony, former Biden Administration official Dr. Rush Doshi <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/oS_aZXE6W0k">argued</a> that codifying Trump’s order “would let us prohibit certain [Chinese] goods,” especially power converters and network-connected technologies, “from being in the U.S. market.”
States must excise CCP network-connected technologies from their critical infrastructure and government systems. For example, Texas’ 2021 <a href="https://www.jw.com/news/insights-texas-lone-star-infrastructure-protection-act/">Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act (LIPA)</a> forbids Texas businesses and government from contracting with China, Russia, North Korea and Iran on critical infrastructure, especially if foreign parties would gain remote access or control of the infrastructure. A 2023 Nebraska law <a href="https://flood.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-flood-applauds-bipartisan-work-ban-state-funds-huawei-equipment">prohibits</a> the state from providing public funds to telecommunications providers that have not yet removed Huawei 5G hardware from their cell towers. Utah passed a 2024 law to end procurement of Chinese technologies such as computers and routers. All states should adopt these measures.
Furthermore, the U.S. must enforce the rule-of-law. The Chinese Communist Party has made tremendous gains at the expense of the U.S. in part because the U.S. and its allies have failed to enforce their own laws upon malicious CCP agents and entities. At a fundamental level, the two legal systems are incompatible because <a href="https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-national-security-advisor-robert-c-obrien-011521-2/">China’s laws require businesses to engage in espionage for the party-state</a>, while America’s laws require data privacy. America must pivot and crush CCP lawlessness. Consumer fraud and data privacy laws must be tightened, and robust enforcement actions must be taken by both federal agencies and state attorneys general. 
In March 2025, the FCC’s Council on National Security <a href="https://www.cybersecuritydive.com/news/fcc-investigating-china-companies-national-security/743316/">opened an investigation</a> into several telecommunications companies, including Huawei, for engaging in unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices such as selling banned equipment in the United States. The FCC can go further by revoking telecom licenses from corrupt entities. Meanwhile, other federal agencies must get in the fight.
State AGs must enforce the law against Chinese manufacturers that embed hidden backdoors in products, and American companies that “white-label” such products must also be held accountable. For example, according to the federal <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/contec-cms8000-contains-backdoor">Cybersecurity &amp; Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)</a> the Chinese company Contec sells healthcare monitors with embedded backdoors that provide Beijing with access to patient data along with the ability to manipulate readings of a patient’s vitals. AGs should investigate Contec for potential violations of consumer and medical data protections. As a recent FDA Safety Communication states, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/cybersecurity-vulnerabilities-certain-patient-monitors-contec-and-epsimed-fda-safety-communication">Florida-based Epsimed</a>, which sells Contec products in the U.S., should also be investigated.
These security concerns are amplified by ethical concerns. Chinese green energy technologies are not only riddled with backdoors, they often <a href="http://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/from-cobalt-to-cars-how-china-exploits-child-and-forced-labor-in-the-congo">rely on slave labor</a>. Too many environmental activists have been hoodwinked into promoting cheap CCP hardware to “save the planet,” all while supporting slave labor and compromising our energy grid.
The United States <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/ghost-machine-rogue-communication-devices-050547906.html?guccounter=1">2019 actions against Huawei</a> were a strong step, but since then we’ve lost ground. Rapid and concerted action is needed to protect our way of life against Chinese Communist Party sabotage, and to build an economic system based upon rule-of-law rather than communist infiltration and subversion.
* * *
Michael Lucci is the Founder and CEO of State Armor, a 501(c)(3) non-profit advocating for state solutions to the global threats posed by the CCP. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-CHINA-TECHNOLOGY-AI

CCP In The Machine: How China’s Tech Continues To Infiltrate American Hardware

Attorney General

Communism

Espionage

Spying

Menu