WND

Disdain for President Donald Trump translates into a refusal to accept reality if doing it gives Trump a political victory. Examples include, but are certainly not limited to, the continuing assertion that Trump, about Charlottesville, said some variation of, “There were good and bad white nationalists and neo-Nazis on both sides”; the denial of the Hunter Biden laptop; that Trump “mocked” a disabled reporter; that Trump said to “drink bleach” to fight COVID; and that the Trump tax cuts “only benefit the rich.”

Former President Joe Biden, who called climate change an “existential threat to the planet,” engaged in what Trump called a “war on gas.” Yet, Democrats like Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Mass., point to the record production levels to deride Trump’s “war on gas” accusation as merely “rhetorical.” Even Biden called his Inflation Reduction Act mislabeled and admitted it “has less to do with inflation.” He said: “Through my investments, (it’s) the most significant climate change law ever. … It’s called the (Inflation Reduction Act). We should have named it what it was.”

The American Energy Alliance wrote “100 Ways Biden and the Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas.” It compiled a list of “explicitly anti-energy actions taken by the administration since Biden took office.” As to the record level of oil production under Biden, the AEA says this occurred despite and not because of Biden’s hostile oil and gas energy policies.

This brings us to eggs. On April 9, “The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg said, “(Trump) did promise to lower the price of groceries, I have not seen an egg fall one cent since this man got in.” Not one cent?

The following morning, The New York Times published an article titled “Egg Prices Continued to Rise in March”:

“For weeks, President Trump has repeatedly boasted that his administration had managed to bring egg prices down. But new data on Thursday showed that egg prices at the grocery store continued to climb in March.

“Egg prices rose 5.9 percent over the month, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They climbed at a slower rate, though, after rising 10.4 percent in February and 15.2 percent in January.”

But NBC News on April 8, the day before Goldberg’s claim, wrote “Egg Prices Decline Nationwide in March After Months of Increases: The Average Price for a Dozen is Still More than $6.”:

“After nearly six months of increases, the price of eggs declined in March. … The average nationwide price of a dozen eggs decreased about a quarter in March, according to data from consumer research firm NIQ.

“NIQ’s data is collected from real checkout prices paid nationwide at grocery stores, drugstores, mass merchandisers, selected dollar stores, selected warehouse clubs and military commissaries.” This means NBC, like Goldberg, referred to the retail price of eggs. “The price of eggs declined in March”? Prices “decreased about a quarter”?

Two days later, on April 10, PBS wrote an article headlined “Egg Prices Increase to Record High Despite Trump Promises and Curbing Bird Flu Outbreak”:

“U.S. egg prices increased again last month to reach a new record-high of $6.23 per dozen despite President Donald Trump’s predictions, a drop in wholesale prices and no egg farms having bird flu outbreaks.

“The increase reported Thursday in the Consumer Price Index means consumers and businesses that rely on eggs might not get much immediate relief. Demand for eggs is typically elevated until after Easter, which falls on April 20.”

On April 2, CNN wrote: “The price of wholesale eggs fell again last week to $3.00 a dozen, the US Department of Agriculture reported in their weekly egg market report. That’s a 9% decline from the week before. … But despite the bright spots, it can take weeks for wholesale prices to translate to most grocery store shells, according to the USDA.”

When it comes to this pathological unwillingness to give Trump even “one cent” of credit, it’s see only evil, hear only evil and speak only evil.

Three Hegseth aides placed on leave amid a probe into leaks have been officially fired.

On Friday it was reported that Pete Hegseth’s Chief of Staff, Joe Kasper, was leaving his role amid a shakeup at the Pentagon after a probe into leaks.

Earlier this week an advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was put on leave for leaking.

Dan Caldwell, who was also a part of the Mike Waltz Houthi Signal chat group, was escorted out of the Pentagon on Tuesday for “an unauthorized disclosure,” according to Reuters.

Deputy Chief of Staff Darin Selnick and Colin Carroll, chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg, were also placed on leave and escorted out of the Pentagon.

According to Politico, Caldwell, Selnick and Carroll were officially terminated on Friday. Two of the fired aides – Carroll and Selnick – plan to sue for wrongful termination, the magazine reported.

Joe Kasper reportedly had a “deep vendetta” against the the three men who parted ways, Fox News reported.

Kasper spearheaded the probe into the leaks to reporters.

“This is not about interpersonal conflict,” a Pentagon official told Fox News. “There is evidence of leaking. This is about unauthorized disclosures, up to and including classified information.”

Politico reported:

Joe Kasper, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s chief of staff will leave his role in the coming days for a new position at the agency, according to a senior administration official, amid a week of turmoil for the Pentagon.

Senior adviser Dan Caldwell, Hegseth deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick and Colin Carroll, the chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, were placed on leave this week in an ongoing leak probe. All three were terminated on Friday, according to three people familiar with the matter, who, like others, were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.

The latest incidents add to the Pentagon’s broader upheaval in recent months, including fallout from Hegseth’s release of sensitive information in a Signal chat with other national security leaders and a controversial department visit by Elon Musk.

Caldwell, Carroll, Selnick and Kasper declined to comment. Two of the people said Carroll and Selnick plan to sue for wrongful termination. The Pentagon did not respond to a request of comment.

[Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit.com]

President Trump’s executive order declaring a national energy emergency signals the fast-track production of more domestic energy. It also promises to generate an equally significant benefit that wasn’t even cited in the EO: Higher energy production will turbocharge our nation’s leadership in artificial intelligence by delivering the huge power supplies AI demands.

Do not underestimate how critically important it is for America to lead the global AI race, especially as China, a potent rival, invests massive resources on AI. The president’s proactive energy strategy can help the U.S. supercharge its AI capabilities and team up with our strategic partners to integrate AI into critical industries and markets. This will prove particularly critical as human-level AI emerges within the next decade.

Already, AI’s rise has triggered breakthroughs in automation, machine learning, and data analytics that are revolutionizing the manufacturing, finance, healthcare, transportation, retail and other major industries – not to mention the tech industry itself.

The president’s EO recognizes that our AI future rests on a significant increase in reliable, scalable, abundant, affordable, and clean energy, notably natural gas and, soon, nuclear. Simply consider this: Open AI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, consumes 3 watt-hours of energy per query – or 10 times more energy than a Google search query. That’s a lot of energy, considering that a common double A battery contains about 3.9 watt-hours.

My friend David Blackmon, a Texas-based public policy analyst and consultant, cites a new study from the Norwegian research firm Rystad Energy that estimates the power needs from new U.S. data computing center installations alone will balloon by 1,000% from the end of 2024 through 2035. That represents a 10-20% increase in electricity demand every year through 2030.

An Energy Department study released in December figures that data centers could account for as much as 12% of the nation’s electricity demand by 2028, tripling their load from 2023. To realize that power need, Energy Secretary Chris Wright acknowledges that the nation will need “to work at warp speed” to remain competitive in AI and keep the lights on.

Administration officials expect their pragmatic energy stance to open up American energy options will lead to new natural gas generation and more nuclear power, among other power-generating impacts. In January, Chevron announced a partnership with GE Vernova to build natural-gas powered generators that will be co-located with data centers across in the Southeast, the Midwest and West. It cited early actions by the administration for setting “the critical foundation to encourage investment leveraging America’s energy abundance to enable America’s AI leadership.” This venture also will use carbon capture and storage in the future, as well as renewable energy elements as practicable.

These are real, large investments that create jobs and economic development that states are competing to land by making it easier to site, permit, build and operate these long-term facilities. In Louisiana, Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta announced a $10 billion investment to build its largest data center – which will stretch more than a mile across – and will require new power generation to be added to the state’s grid.

Gov. Jeff Landry, who co-founded the Governors Coalition for Energy Security with the goal of streamlining permitting and facilitating smart energy policy that contributes to state and national energy security, declared it “a new chapter” for Louisiana that will help revitalize the northeastern part of the state.

There is a critical distinction in how Louisiana’s government got involved in this project with a huge energy component. Instead of dictating what can or cannot be done, the state legislative and executive branches worked together to make this project happen with the express goal of economic development. That allowed Meta to work with its partners including the state’s main utility to plan quickly and commit. With so much energy involved, this is a smart approach to ensure that the entire state of Louisiana has the affordable, reliable energy it needs for families, farmers and small businesses, as well as enormous ones such as Meta.

This has traditionally been how the government plays its role supporting private sector investments – facilitating rather than prescribing, enabling rather than hobbling.

The second Trump Administration – recognizing the fact that traditional fuels which provide 83% of our nation’s energy will remain a dominant part of our global energy mix – has expanded oil and natural gas development on public lands, signaled a cutback in unnecessary, costly regulations that delay needed energy projects, promoted energy education, and established the National Energy Dominance Council to ensure energy policies are grounded in reality.

As we bolster our AI capabilities by providing the electricity required, the president’s approach to energy will also help prevent the power brownouts and blackouts that have more than doubled since 2016. These outages have become all too familiar during peak weather conditions when extreme weather events strike more frequently.

By improving what has been the declining reliability of our aging electric grid and increasing power production, we can generate reliable power instead of no longer taking that dependability for granted.

This realistic energy path can improve our environment, meet our economic needs, and provide cleaner, always-on energy. It will keep the U.S. economy as the world’s strongest with one of the best standards of living.

That’s a far better place than the mirage utopias that certain groups would have us believe can be achieved by taking energy options off the table. Just ask residents of California, New York, Germany, or the UK, where prices are on the rise again.

President Donald Trump’s January 27, 2025, Executive Order (EO) directing the development and fielding of a “Golden Dome” air and missile defense system for America provides opportunities and challenges for the Department of Defense (DoD). Senior leaders must alter the way that the Department generates and validates requirements for an integrated air and missile defense system-of-systems in order to meet the bold objectives of the EO.

Today the American homeland faces a broad range of sophisticated air and missile threats. These include modern land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), ballistic and cruise missiles aboard submarines, air-launched cruise missiles aboard strategic bombers, hypersonic missiles, and fractional orbital bombardment systems. In addition, the United States faces an increasing threat from unmanned aerial systems (UAS) of various sizes and sophistication.

Current U.S. homeland defenses against these growing threats are woefully inadequate. The U.S. has an extremely limited capability to effectively defend against either cruise missiles or UAS. The nation’s missile defense posture was put in place almost two decades ago and has failed to adapt to significant changes in the threat environment. The U.S. ground-based ballistic missile defense system provides protection against a small number of North Korean ICBMs, but is not designed to defeat even limited strikes from China or Russia who are developing, testing and deploying advanced weapons targeted against the American homeland to coercively dissuade it from responding to threats to Washington’s global security interests.  Likewise, because of U.S. sensor coverage gaps, certain adversaries could conduct air or missile attacks with little to no advanced warning.

The benefits of deploying an effective integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) system for the homeland include strengthening deterrence of aggression by complicating the adversary’s risk calculus, denying or reducing the benefits from such attacks, enhancing protection of U.S. critical infrastructures, enabling U.S. power projection capabilities to respond to aggression abroad, and reducing risks to societal resilience and cohesion, among others.

Those who question whether an effective homeland defense is feasible need look no further than the recent highly successful U.S. and Israeli air and missile defense operations. The U.S.-orchestrated coalition helped Israel defend itself against major air and missile barrages from Iran and its proxies, thereby preventing potentially catastrophic damage and likely averting an escalatory response that could have led to a broader Middle East war.  Additionally, US- and NATO-provided air and missile defenses are playing a key role in countering Russian air and missile strikes against Ukrainian national critical infrastructure. The central lesson leaders in Washington should take away from today’s conflicts as they refocus the homeland air and missile defense program is that defenses are vital even if they are not perfect and cost more than the missiles and air vehicles they defend against.

A key challenge relates to the military requirements that will be established to determine which systems are built and ultimately how effective the Golden Dome system will be in defending against a broad range of air and missile threats to the homeland. In this regard, DoD leaders should reject the traditional requirements process, which involves establishing detailed performance specifications for a system that will be fielded years in the future and instead embrace a more agile and flexible approach.

Specifically, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine should direct adoption of an incremental approach to requirements that lays out achievable objectives for each of the four homeland defense “epochs” proposed by the Missile Defense Agency. (Epoch 1 includes capabilities delivered or demonstrated by December 31, 2026; Epoch 2 includes capabilities delivered or demonstrated by December 31, 2028; Epoch 3 involves capabilities delivered or demonstrated by December 31, 2030, and Epoch 4 involves capabilities delivered or demonstrated by December 31, 2032.)

This evolutionary approach underscores the fact that the rapid deployment of even modest and imperfect air and missile defenses can play an important role in deterrence and defense by beginning to immediately close shortfalls in today’s capabilities. It also helps usher in an era of combined space- and ground-based defenses that maximize the contributions of each layer for a more synergistic and effective defensive architecture.

A “build a little, test a lot, and refine and upgrade as deployments expand” strategy would allow technology developments and test results to inform decisions as to which combinations of capabilities should be fielded and at what pace and scale. The incremental approach recommended herein is entirely consistent with the President’s direction to DoD to establish and leverage “capabilities-based requirements” for Golden Dome. It also presents an opportunity to fully embrace agile acquisition authorities that are often talked about but sparingly implemented.

Such an evolutionary approach is much more well-suited to the fielding of a Golden Dome homeland defense system as opposed to setting a monolithic, “one size fits all” requirement for such a complex system-of-systems. Attempting to establish all-encompassing and rigid requirements now will do little more than delay the deployment of air and missile defense elements central to making Golden Dome a reality. If DoD civilian and military leaders impose overly stringent or unachievable requirements for Golden Dome, it will jeopardize any opportunity to make significant progress to address threats to the homeland during the President’s term in office. The consequences of this would be to prolong America’s strategic vulnerability and invite deadly attacks on the homeland by adversaries.

The President’s Executive Order to establish a Golden Dome for America presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to begin remedying decades of strategic incoherence. It signals a clear break from past policy constraints which for decades rejected any protection of the homeland against missile threats from Russia or China in the failed expectation that leaving the American homeland vulnerable to missile attack would induce restraint in Moscow’s and Beijing’s strategic weapons programs and contribute to a more benign geopolitical relationship.  Adherence to long-discredited “strategic stability” arguments unilaterally disincentivized U.S. homeland air and missile defenses even though America’s adversaries are building such defenses for their homelands. Likewise, a sole reliance on offensive forces for deterrence and defense in an era when America’s adversaries are threatening the use of limited strikes on the U.S. homeland with increasingly advanced strategic nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, would leave us vulnerable to coercion and blackmail.

The nation stands at a crossroads. President Trump’s determination to defend the American homeland from increasingly dangerous threats is forward-looking and justified. Doing so, however, will require breaking free from bureaucratic inertia and other constraints that stand in the way of rapidly fielding much needed capabilities for homeland defense. Agility in the military requirements process must lead the way.

---

Chris Williams served as Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Professional Staff Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and chair of the Defense Policy Board. He currently serves as Chair of the Moorman Center for Space Studies.

Dr. Peppi DeBiaso served in a number of positions in the U.S. Department of Defense, including as Director of the Office of Missile Defense Policy. He is currently Adjunct Professor in Missouri State University’s Defense and Strategic Studies Graduate Program and a Senior Associate (non-resident) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

When the White House invoked the “Immortal Chaplains” to illustrate the history between the United States and Greenland, it touched on a theme emerging in the second Trump administration: the importance of courage.

On February 3, 1943, the American steamship SS Dorchester embarked with 902 souls – soldiers, merchant seamen, and civilians – bound for a U.S. Army base in southern Greenland to support the buildup of military personnel during World War II. The ship’s captain ordered those on board to sleep in their uniforms and life jackets in case of an attack by German submarines, but many disregarded the order because of heat from the ship’s engine.

Just after midnight, a U-boat’s torpedo slammed into the Dorchester’s starboard side below the water line. Four Navy chaplains — a rabbi, a Methodist minister, a Catholic priest, and a Protestant reverend — gave up their own life vests and guided panicked crewmembers to the lifeboats. The Dorchester sank in 20 minutes. One of the 230 survivors later recalled what he saw as he swam away from the ship: “The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the Four Chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could.”

Courage means feeling fear but behaving in a way that is noble and good, as the chaplains did when they acted on their deepest convictions aboard the Dorchester. Donald Trump once wrote that courage is not the absence of fear but “the ability to act effectively, in spite of fear.”

In 2016, Trump showed moral courage when he spoke the truth to American voters: a parasitic “establishment” of political and corporate interests had been exploiting our workers, farmers, and soldiers. When Trump challenged 16 opponents in the Republican primary, he exposed untruths in a conservative orthodoxy passed down from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush. Establishment foes hounded him with investigations and impeachment proceedings throughout the four years of his presidency, but Trump refused to compromise his principles or check his ambition to “make America great again.”

Emboldened by Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021, the establishment connived to use the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Trump from running for president a third time. They leveled charges against him in two federal district courts, tried him in New York state court, and indicted him in Georgia for alleged RICO Act violations. Though Trump was unbowed, his campaign manager Susie Wiles was concerned: “I just worry that if they can’t get him this way, they’ll try to kill him.” And that almost happened on July 13 at the fairgrounds in Butler, Pennsylvania, when an assassin’s bullet grazed Trump’s ear.

Where Trump modeled courage, the establishment shows only cowardice—their decade-long effort to destroy Trump has been prosecuted from the shadows, hiding behind the anonymity that bureaucratic power affords. They falsely claimed that Trump “colluded” with Vladimir Putin and Russia. They used a cloak and dagger plan to scuttle the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. And, in 2022, someone leaked a copy of the Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade; in spite of Chief Justice Roberts’ promise, the leaker remains unidentified and unaccountable.

Some say that Trump’s opponents exemplify courage in their bold attacks on his character and reputation. But talk doesn’t make them courageous, least of all because it costs them nothing. Their admonitions are purely performative means to curry favor with the media and the establishment at large, which are viciously opposed to Trump’s reforms. There is nothing courageous about yelling “F— Trump” into a microphone. Whatever force it has in the political sphere depends on showing that the saying is accompanied by a doing. Trump’s been talking tough for years and backs it up by action of some kind. In the moment that he rose to his feet in Butler, with his face bloodied and yelling “Fight! Fight! Fight!”, he gave the final proof that he’s more than a tough talker.

Joe Biden’s presidency is a rich example of cowardice: insiders worked for years to conceal that the sitting president was incapable of executing the duties of the office. In the book Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House, longtime political reporters Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes pull back the curtain on Biden’s presidency, detailing how his staff stage-managed a declining president and hid his impairment from the American people. Biden “lived in bubble wrap inside bunkers,” the authors write. Though “the signs of decline were clear to anyone who was willing to see them,” Biden’s inner circle believed that “no one walks away from the house, the plane, the helicopter,” so onward they went. When the scam was exposed at the presidential debate last June, the power players in Washington again retreated to the secrecy of the backroom and hatched a scheme to cede the delegates that Biden had secured to nominate a candidate of their choice rather than the people’s choice.

For decades, presidents talked about moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but no one did until Trump. For years, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Bernie Sanders called for tariffs to restructure world trade. But when Donald Trump did what he said he would do and imposed tariffs? That was all it took for the same people to discover their opposition to tariffs. The cowardice of Biden and the leading lights in the Democrat party contrasts sharply with the new administration. Trump and many others have gambled their reputations, fortunes, and future interests on a bold-but-polarizing agenda. They face the American people, every day, openly and fearlessly. For Trump, the most important quality for aides and Cabinet members is not loyalty but courage — and the willingness to pay a price for things that matter.

John J. Waters is a lawyer. He served as a deputy assistant secretary of Homeland Security from 2020-21. Follow him at @JohnJWaters1 on X. 

Adam Ellwanger is a professor at University of Houston – Downtown, where he teaches rhetoric and writing. Follow him at @1HereticalTruth on X.

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) has announced she will travel to El Salvador to personally demand the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia — a deported illegal alien with alleged ties to the recently designated terrorist organization MS-13.

This is yet another example of Democrats prioritizing criminals over law-abiding Americans.

Dexter’s press release on Friday, dripping with sanctimonious outrage, claims Garcia’s deportation is a “constitutional crisis” and a “government-funded kidnapping.” She wails that Garcia, a so-called “legal U.S. resident,” had his “due process rights ripped away” and is now languishing in a Salvadoran prison.

But let’s cut through the leftist spin: Garcia was deported in March after the Trump administration identified him as a suspected MS-13 member, a designation backed by a 2019 Maryland police report and a Department of Homeland Security investigation that flagged him for potential human trafficking in 2022.

Court documents reveal Garcia was stopped in Tennessee with eight people crammed in his car, all suspiciously claiming the same address and carrying no luggage.

He played dumb with officers, pretending he couldn’t speak English. And then there’s the 2021 protective order filed by his own wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, who accused him of physical abuse and documented bruises he allegedly inflicted. This is the “family man” Dexter is championing?

President Trump himself has highlighted photos of Garcia’s knuckles, reportedly sporting MS-13 tattoos, though Democrats cry “Photoshop” to dodge the truth.

“Congresswoman Maxine Dexter, M.D. (OR-03) announced that she will travel to El Salvador to demand the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia,” according to the press release.

“Mr. Abrego Garcia, a legal U.S. resident, was wrongfully deported to El Salvador—a fact the Trump Administration has acknowledged. He is now being held in a foreign prison, despite a clear, unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal government must facilitate his return to the U.S.”

“A legal U.S. resident has had his due process rights ripped away and is now being held indefinitely in a foreign prison. This is not just one family’s nightmare; it is a constitutional crisis that should outrage every single one of us,” said Congresswoman Dexter in a statement. “I will travel to El Salvador to confront this crisis head on. Our constitutional rights are on the line.”

Dexter’s X video statement is a masterclass in Democrat delusion. She claims Trump’s actions are an “assault on the rule of law” and warns that “no one is safe in Trump’s America.”

WATCH:

I’m fighting to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia home. We will not rest until he is reunited with his family and Trump is held accountable. No president is above the law. pic.twitter.com/iprQKOKJqH

— Congresswoman Maxine Dexter (@RepDexterOR) April 15, 2025

This reckless publicity stunt follows closely on the heels of Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s (D-Md.) similar trip to El Salvador, where he held a photo-op with Abrego Garcia and declared him a victim of U.S. policy.

Rather than demanding justice for Americans like Rachel Morin — a Maryland mother allegedly murdered by an illegal alien with gang ties — Democrats are traveling to foreign countries to plead for the release of violent offenders.

[Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit.com]

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 president election outraged Democrats and delighted Republicans. Progressives have been tempted to console themselves with congenial fantasies or to sink into despair and blame the voters for their ignorance and vulgarity. Conservatives have been inclined to believe that the scales have fallen from the people’s eyes, that the right’s electoral dominance is secure, and that voters have given them a mandate to disrupt, shatter, and overturn – dramatically illustrated by President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to justify a raft of hard-hitting tariffs.

Thoughtful figures in both camps recognize that ordinary citizens’ discontents with elite performance contributed decisively to the improbable return of the nation’s 45^th president to the White House as America’s 47^th president. It is far from sinking in on either side, however, that the future of freedom in America hinges on reconciling the nation’s tradition of individual liberty, equality under law, and limited constitutional government with the powerful populist and nationalist turn in American politics.

Among Democrats, Minnesota governor and former Kamala Harris running mate Tim Walz exemplifies the self-deception crowd. At a late-March townhall meeting in Texas, Walz lamented those occasions “when we see people back off and we see corporations back off to the threats, instead of leaning into” diversity, equity, and inclusion. For Walz, embracing DEI is a political must “because it’s not only morally the right thing to do, it’s economically the right thing to do.” Contrary to Walz, however, government classification of citizens based on race and ethnicity violates America’s founding principles, and the 2024 elections results indicate that clinging to DEI would further erode Democrats’ electoral prospects.

In contrast, a day or two later, the New York Times editorial board published a sober reflection about where Democrats went wrong and how to right the ship. In “The Democrats Are in Denial About 2024,” the Times editorialists recognize that while Trump’s victory did not confer the mandate he claims, Democrats suffered last November a “comprehensive defeat.” They “lost control of the Senate and failed to recapture the House of Representatives,” writes the editorial board. “Of the 11 governor’s races held last year, Democrats won three. In state legislature races, they won fewer than 45 percent of the seats.”

The Times editorialists reject the soothing tales that Democrats have been telling themselves. The party was not unlucky in 2024, and the problem was not an ineffective messenger delivering a winning message. Yes, post-pandemic inflation hurt Democrats as the incumbent party but, as the Times does not say, the Biden administration’s enormous spending as the pandemic receded aggravated matters. Furthermore, the Times acknowledges, incumbent parties “in Denmark, France, India, Japan, Mexico and Spain” won reelection. And, the Times stresses, low voter turnout did not harm the party last November because those who stayed home favored Trump.

What then, according to the Times, was the problem? Party leaders’ lying about Biden’s declining mental acuity eroded voter trust. The transparent fibbing reinforced voters’ suspicions that Democrats “refuse to admit uncomfortable truths” on matters of prime importance such as “crime, illegal immigration, inflation and Covid lockdowns.” In addition, “the party moved too far left on social issues after Barack Obama left office in 2017,” and it “remains too focused on personal identity and on Americans’ differences – by race, gender, sexuality and religion – rather than our shared values.” While understating matters in asserting that “progressives sometimes adopt a scolding, censorious posture,” the Times editorialists recognize that identity politics “has alienated growing numbers of Asian, Black and Latino voters.”

To broaden the party’s appeal, the editorial board urges Democrats to generate “new ideas” for “improving life for all Americans” and to search for political leaders who “deftly mix boldness and moderation.” This, though, does not capture the depth and breadth of the divide that has opened in American politics.

Progressives would do well to consult Henry Olsen’s recent analysis, as would conservatives. An Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow and host of the weekly podcast “Beyond the Polls,” Olsen is an uncommonly astute observer of American politics. In “Germany and the Future of National Populism” he turns his attention to large social and political forces that are transforming rights-protecting democracies on both sides of the Atlantic.

“In Germany and elsewhere in the world, populist parties and figures continue to increase in size at the expense of the old parties, left and right,” writes Olsen. The reason is simple: “Populists of all stripes are gaining because the old elites are failing.” Following the Allies’ victory in World War II, elites in American and Europe “rose to power by delivering peace, social solidarity, and prosperity.” In recent decades, however, they have frittered away their credibility by failing to secure these crucial political goods.

In Germany, France, and Italy – with Hungary and Poland ahead of the curve – the trend lines suggest “that in a decade, perhaps two, most of the West will be governed by a conservative-populist coalition not unlike what Donald Trump has created in America.” One could add to the list Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hollowed out the old Likud, with its staunch commitment to individual rights and equality under law, in favor of a coalition of the ultra-Orthodox, religious ultranationalists, and traditionalists united by a resentment of Israel’s own post-World War II elites.

While the European left is losing more ground, the continent’s traditional center-right parties are seeing substantial numbers of their voters switch allegiance to the national populists. The center-right has sought to keep at bay the rising nationalist-populist challenge by cobbling together centrist coalitions. These coalitions, however, are proving too heterogeneous and fragile to handle the discontents that have driven voters to far-left parties as well as to the national populists. Olsen suspects that as immigration further strains European politics, the center-right will increasingly – and with an increasingly clean conscience – join the national populists.

“Those coalitions will likely take Europe in a much different direction than it has been traveling for decades,” argues Olson. Instead of pursuing multicultural and social democracy priorities, the new national-populist-led governments will crack down on illegal immigration and raise the bar for legal immigration. They will vigorously oppose the woke-progressive sensibility and stand up for the West. They will combine free-market elements and a social-welfare state favoring lower taxes for the working class but not for the wealthy and for corporations. They will adopt a host of family-friendly measures. And they will exhibit ambivalence toward NATO and express skepticism concerning a common European defense policy but will demonstrate a greater readiness to rearm to defend their traditional ways of life.

European national-populist-led governments, in other words, will look a lot like the merging of national populism and the center-right presided over by President Trump in the United States, and pursued by Nigel Farage in Britain and Pierre Poilievre in Canada. This consolidation of traditional-right and national-populist factions across the West’s rights-protecting democracies, maintains Olsen, marks not “a populist moment” but the dawn of “a populist age.”

In the new populist age, progressives face a harsh political landscape. If they move left, they likely turn their back on the voter anxieties and dissatisfactions that have fueled national populism’s rise. If progressives move to the center, which has shifted rightward, they risk abandoning their distinctive political commitments.

While the traditional center-right faces a clearer path to exercising political power in the new populist age, it too faces difficult choices. National populism marshals popular discontent with highly credentialed, overweening, and incompetent elites while supposing that the people are a reliable repository of good sense and moral decency. It also attacks the nation-state’s subordination to universal principles and international institutions while insisting that law and public policy should uphold religious faith. But not all wishes of the people, even those backed by a supermajority, are wise and lawful. And many aspects of the people’s faith should not be translated into political imperatives and enforced by government. When clashes arise between popular will and basic rights, or between religious faith and fundamental freedoms, traditional center-right parties – which seek to preserve individual liberty, equality under law, and limited government – may be compelled to choose between their principles and their access to power.

At the same time, American conservatives, national-populist as well as center-right, enjoy an advantage in reconciling nationalism, populism, and universal principles. That’s because the principles of individual freedom, equality under law, and limited government form constitutive features of the American political tradition. So too does the conviction that a nation-state grounded in the consent of the governed is the best vehicle for securing basic rights and fundamental freedoms.

As the country confronts the momentous changes and challenges that mark our populist age, America’s national populists – along with center-right conservatives and indeed all Americans – should regard fidelity to the nation’s founding principles and constitutional form of government as a political imperative, not least because such fidelity honors the nation’s precious inheritance.

Vice President JD Vance met Saturday with the Vatican’s No. 2 official amid tensions for the Trump administration’s crackdown on migrants, with the Holy See reaffirming good relations but noting “an exchange of opinions” over current international conflicts, migrants and prisoners.

The Vatican stated that Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, met with the secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and the foreign minister, Archbishop Paul Gallagher. There was no indication that Vance met with Pope Francis, who has been slowly resuming some official duties during his recovery from pneumonia.

The Holy See has responded cautiously to the Trump administration, keeping with its tradition of diplomatic neutrality, expressing alarm over the administration’s crackdown on migrants and cuts in international aid.

Former Majority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer recently admitted that he is responsible for confirming 235 “progressive” judges who are “ruling against Trump time after time.”  Activist judges are Schumer’s Plan B.

Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to make policy for the military. But as things stand now, unelected, unaccountable federal judges are overruling President Trump’s Executive Orders and arrogating to themselves power to run the armed forces.

Unless the 119^th Congress intervenes, President Joe Biden’s radical policies regarding transgender people in the military will continue indefinitely.

Self-Appointed “Supreme Judicial Commanders” Take Charge

President Donald Trump’s January 27 Executive Order #14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” is one of several calling for an undistracted focus on military warrior ethos, not “political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.”

Executive #14168 (January 20) defined biological reality – differentiating “sex” from subjective “gender identity” and proclaiming the existence of two immutable sexes, male and female. This EO also prohibited male access to women’s sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities and discontinued use of inaccurate invented pronouns and bureaucratic markers that reflect subjective gender identity instead of biological sex.

The reality-based principles stated above, applied to DoD policies regarding persons having a history of gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender, logically justified orders to revoke President Joe Biden’s Executive Orders and Directives accommodating persons with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender in the military.

Trump’s EOs and directives restored gender dysphoria to the DoD list of physical and psychological conditions that affect eligibility to serve, and ended Biden-era mandates and subsidies for irreversible treatments and surgeries for “transitioning” purposes that attempt to change sex.

Trump’s Executive Orders also mandated respectful treatment for persons separating with generous benefits due to gender dysphoria, and protected vulnerable children from chemical and surgical mutilation based on “junk science” recommended by discredited “experts” like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Lawsuits Filed to Halt Trump Gender Dysphoria/Transgender Policies

A lawsuit titled Nicolas Talbott v. U.S., plus two more, (Shilling v. Trump in Seattle and Ireland v. Hegseth in New Jersey), are challenging the directives and premises behind President Trump’s Executive Order regarding persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender.

In the Washington, DC Talbott case, District Judge Ana C. Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked implementation of Trump’s order.  Judge Reyes, a longtime Democratic/left-wing activist described as the first gay Latina U.S. District Judge, displayed extreme bias in her handling of this case.  Her behavior toward the Justice Department attorney defending the Trump policy was so egregiously hostile, the office of the Attorney General filed a formal complaint.

Not surprisingly, Judge Reyes’ March 18 opinion in the Talbott case lashed out at Trump’s recognition of only two sexes and concerns about male/female sexual privacy. Her strident rhetoric could be the start of a Plan B campaign of judicial lawfare against President Trump and his efforts to restore sound priorities in our military.

A similar national injunction in the Shilling case, a temporary restraining order in the Ireland case, plus additional adverse rulings expected from other activist judges, could make Biden’s extreme transgender policies permanent while various lawsuits wind their way to an unpredictable Supreme Court.

Absent Congress Action, Biden Policies Likely to Become Permanent

The 78-page Talbott opinion exploited weaknesses in the government’s case, but Judge Reyes’ intemperate language and obvious bias showed why federal judges should not be making policy for our military.

Among other things, Judge Reyes disregarded Defense Department data on the costs and consequences of Obama-era treatments for gender dysphoria. In 2018, a DoD panel of experts reported to then-Defense Secretary James Mattis that 994 active-duty service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria accounted for 30,000 mental health visits – a 300% increase per capita.

The Mattis panel’s report also cited long-term studies highlighting the operational and human costs of gender dysphoria, including disproportionately high risks of suicide.

Why has this data not been updated? Perhaps because Biden’s policy prohibited discussion of problems with the transgender policy without approval from high-level officials.  Now Biden-era officials are praising their own policies before Congress and the courts.

We don’t know whether the Justice Department, representing the DoD, mentioned several empirical studies that have questioned lucrative treatments for gender dysphoria.  A 2025 University of Texas study, for example, reported elevated risks of depression and suicide following “gender-affirming surgery.”

The Reyes ruling does not mention WPATH, a prominent organization advocating for irreversible puberty blockers and mutilating surgeries for minor children, which has been charged with medical ethics violations.  Nor does the record show consideration of the 2024 Cass Review in England, which questioned the benefits of “sex change” treatments for children.

Even if the Justice Department had presented many recent critical studies in court, the judge probably would have still described Trump’s policy (twice) as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.”

Judge Reyes’ over-the-top opinion showed zero concern about operational complications, medical ethics, and overwhelming public opinion against men entering women’s private facilities and athletic teams.  Activist court injunctions that usurp power from Congress and the Executive Branch are about reality-denying transgender ideology, not military effectiveness.

Congress Should Enact Common Sense in Defense Bill (NDAA) for 2026

Years could pass before the issue reaches the Supreme Court, which may or may not hand down a decision favoring the Trump policy. This puts the ball squarely in Congress’ court.

Without principled congressional action, accomplished in a way that can withstand judicial scrutiny, members could be held accountable for not delivering on promises made during the 2024 elections.

It would help to inscribe four essential principles in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2026: Merit as the exclusive basis for personnel actions, a prohibition on non-merit factors such as race in personnel actions, clear definitions of key terms such as “merit,’ “male,” and “female,” and narrow exceptions for operational reasons.

Congress also should dismantle ideological power bases in the Pentagon.  Non-discriminatory practices and common-sense, reality-based measures would support President Trump’s efforts to end woke policies in the military, while reaffirming purposes of the military that some federal judges refuse to respect.

---

Elaine Donnelly is President of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), an independent public policy organization founded in 1993, which reports on and analyzes military/social issues. More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.