Category: Opinion & analysis
Universities treated free speech as expendable in 2025
The fight over free expression in American higher education reached a troubling milestone in 2025. According to data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, efforts to censor speech on college campuses hit record highs across multiple fronts — and most succeeded.
Let’s start with the raw numbers. In 2025, FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire, Students Under Fire, and Campus Deplatforming databases collectively tracked:
- 525 attempts to sanction scholars for their speech, more than one a day, with 460 of them resulting in punishment.
- 273 attempts to punish students for expression, more than five a week, with 176 of these attempts succeeding.
- 160 attempts to deplatform speakers, about three each week, with 99 of them succeeding.
That’s 958 censorship attempts in total, nearly three per day on campuses across the country. For comparison, FIRE’s next-highest total was 477 two years ago.
The 525 scholar sanction attempts are the highest ever recorded in FIRE’s database, which spans 2000 to the present. Even when a large-scale incident at the U.S. Naval Academy is treated as just a single entry, the 2025 total still breaks records.
The common denominator across these censorship campaigns is not ideology — it’s intolerance.
Twenty-nine scholars were fired, including 18 who were terminated since September for social media comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
Student sanction attempts also hit a new high, and deplatforming efforts — our records date back to 1998 — rank third all-time, behind 2023 and 2024.
The problem is actually worse because FIRE’s data undercounts the true scale of campus censorship. Why? The data relies on publicly available information, and an unknown number of incidents, especially those that may involve quiet administrative pressure, never make the public record.
Then there’s the chilling effect.
Scholars are self-censoring. Students are staying silent. Speakers are being disinvited or shouted down. And administrators, eager to appease the loudest voices, are launching investigations and handing out suspensions and dismissals with questionable regard for academic freedom, due process, or free speech.
RELATED: Liberals’ twisted views on Charlie Kirk assassination, censorship captured by a damning poll
Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images
Some critics argue that the total number of incidents is small compared to the roughly 4,000 colleges in the country. But this argument collapses under scrutiny.
While there are technically thousands of institutions labeled as “colleges” or “universities,” roughly 600 of them educate about 80% of undergraduates enrolled at not-for-profit four-year schools. Many of the rest of these “colleges” and “universities” are highly specialized or vocational programs. This includes a number of beauty academies, truck-driving schools, and similar institutions — in other words, campuses that aren’t at the heart of the free-speech debate.
These censorship campaigns aren’t coming from only one side of the political spectrum. FIRE’s data shows, for instance, that liberal students are punished for pro-Palestinian activism, conservative faculty are targeted for controversial opinions on gender or race, and speaking events featuring all points of view are targeted for cancellation.
The two most targeted student groups on campus? Students for Justice in Palestine and Turning Point USA. If that doesn’t make this point clear, nothing will.
The common denominator across these censorship campaigns is not ideology — it’s intolerance.
RELATED: Teenager sues high school after tribute to Charlie Kirk was called vandalism
rudall30 via iStock/Getty Images
So where do we go from here?
We need courage: from faculty, from students, and especially from administrators. It’s easy to defend speech when it’s popular. It’s harder when the ideas are offensive or inconvenient. But that’s when it matters most.
Even more urgently, higher education needs a cultural reset. Universities must recommit to the idea that exposure to ideas and speech that one dislikes or finds offensive is not “violence.” That principle is essential for democracy, not just for universities.
This year’s record number of campus censorship attempts should be a wake-up call for campus administrators. For decades, many allowed a culture of censorship to fester, dismissing concerns as overblown, isolated, or a politically motivated myth. Now, with governors, state legislatures, members of Congress, and even the White House moving aggressively to police campus expression, some administrators are finally pushing back. But this pushback from administrators doesn’t seem principled. Instead, it seems more like an attempt to shield their institutions from outside political interference.
That’s not leadership. It’s damage control. And it’s what got higher education into this mess in the first place.
If university leaders want to reclaim their role as stewards of free inquiry, they cannot act just when governmental pressure threatens their autonomy. They also need to be steadfast when internal intolerance threatens their mission. A true commitment to academic freedom means defending expression even when it is unpopular or offensive. That is the price of intellectual integrity in a free society.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen
One of the most consequential developments of 2025 has received far less scrutiny than it deserves: the steady surrender of executive authority to an unelected judiciary.
President Trump was elected to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, yet his administration increasingly behaves as if federal judges hold final authority over every major policy decision — including those squarely within the president’s constitutional and statutory powers.
Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.
By backing down whenever district courts issue sweeping injunctions, the administration is reinforcing a dangerous precedent: that no executive action is legitimate until the judiciary permits it. That assumption has no basis in the Constitution, but it is rapidly becoming the governing norm.
The problem became unmistakable when federal judges began granting standing to abstract plaintiffs challenging Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to protect ICE agents under attack. Many assumed such cases would collapse on appeal. Instead, the Supreme Court last week declined to lift an injunction blocking the Guard’s deployment in Illinois, signaling that the judiciary now claims authority to second-guess core commander-in-chief decisions.
Over the dissent of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, the court allowed the Seventh Circuit’s decision to stand. That ruling held that violent attacks on ICE agents in Chicago did not amount to a “danger of rebellion” sufficient to justify Guard deployment and did not “significantly impede” the execution of federal immigration law.
That conclusion alone should alarm anyone who still believes in separation of powers.
No individual plaintiff alleged personal injury by a Guardsman. No constitutional rights were violated. The plaintiff was the state of Illinois itself, objecting to a political determination made by the president under statutory authority granted by Congress. Courts are not empowered to adjudicate such abstract disputes over executive judgment.
Even if judges disagree with the president’s assessment of the threat environment, their opinion carries no greater constitutional weight than his. The commander in chief is charged with executing the laws and protecting federal personnel. Courts are not.
If judges can decide who has standing, define the scope of their own authority, and then determine the limits of executive power, constitutional separation of powers collapses entirely. What remains is not judicial review but judicial supremacy.
And that is precisely what we are witnessing.
Courts now routinely insert themselves into immigration enforcement, national security decisions, tariff policy, federal grants, personnel disputes, and even the content of government websites. The unelected, life-tenured branch increasingly functions as a super-legislature and shadow executive, vetoing or mandating policy at will.
RELATED: Judges break the law to stop Trump from enforcing it
Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty Images
What, then, remains for the people acting through elections?
If judges control immigration, spending, enforcement priorities, and foreign policy, why bother holding congressional or presidential elections at all? The Constitution’s framers never intended courts to serve as the ultimate policymakers. They were designed to be the weakest branch, confined to resolving concrete cases involving actual injuries.
Trump’s defenders often argue that patience and compliance will eventually produce favorable rulings. That belief is not only naïve — it is destructive.
For every narrow win Trump secures on appeal, the so-called institutionalist bloc on the court — Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — uses it to justify adverse outcomes elsewhere. Worse, because lower courts enjoin nearly every significant action, the administration rarely reaches the Supreme Court on clean constitutional grounds. The damage is done long before review occurs.
Consider the clearest example of all: the power of the purse.
Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill explicitly defunding Planned Parenthood. The bill cleared both chambers and was signed into law. Under the Constitution, appropriations decisions belong exclusively to Congress.
Yet multiple federal judges have enjoined that provision, effectively ordering the executive branch to continue sending taxpayer dollars to abortion providers in defiance of enacted law. Courts have not merely interpreted the statute; they have overridden it.
That raises an unavoidable question: Does the president have a duty to enforce the laws of Congress — or to obey judicial demands that contradict them?
Continuing to fund Planned Parenthood after Congress prohibited it is not neutrality. It is executive acquiescence to judicial nullification of legislative power.
The same pattern appears elsewhere.
Security clearances fall squarely within executive authority, yet the first Muslim federal judge recently attempted to block the president from denying clearance to a politically connected lawyer. Immigration, long recognized as a sovereign prerogative, has been transformed by courts into a maze of invented rights for noncitizens — including a supposed First Amendment right to remain in the country while promoting Hamas.
States fare no better. When West Virginia sought to ban artificial dyes from its food supply, an Obama-appointed federal judge intervened. When states enact laws complementing federal immigration enforcement, courts strike them down. But sanctuary laws that obstruct federal authority often receive judicial protection.
Heads, illegal aliens win. Tails, the people lose.
RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back
Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images
What we are witnessing is adverse possession — squatter’s rights — of constitutional power. As Congress passes fewer laws and the executive hesitates to assert its authority, courts eagerly fill the vacuum. In 2025, Congress enacted fewer laws than in any year since at least 1989. Meanwhile, judges effectively “passed” nationwide policies affecting millions of Americans.
This did not happen overnight. Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.
It is not.
Trump cannot comply his way out of this crisis. No president can. A system in which courts claim final authority over every function of government is incompatible with republican self-rule.
The Constitution does not enforce itself. Separation of powers exists only if each branch is willing to defend its role.
Right now, the presidency is failing that test.
Trump broke decorum. The media broke the truth — again.
Recently, Paul du Quenoy published a necessary piece at Chronicles putting President Trump’s remark after the murder of Rob and Michele Reiner in proper context. In a Truth Social post that went viral, Trump quipped that Rob Reiner had died of “Trump derangement syndrome,” while also offering condolences and praying that the deceased would “rest in peace.”
The media response was instant and hysterical. As du Quenoy notes, legacy outlets erupted in moral outrage, eager to condemn Trump as uniquely depraved. He highlights one of the ugliest examples: a sermon from David Remnick in the thoroughly politicized New Yorker, denouncing Trump as a “degraded” human being.
Trump’s remark was ill judged. The media’s response was dishonest. Only one of those failures is being treated as a permanent moral indictment.
Du Quenoy asks: Where was this moral sensitivity when figures on the left trafficked in venom — or worse — after the assassination of Charlie Kirk?
The answer, of course, is nowhere.
This double standard defines our media culture. When rhetorical excess comes from the left, it is ignored, excused, or rationalized. When it comes from the right — especially from Trump — it is proof of moral disqualification. Etiquette is enforced selectively, always against the same targets. From the BBC to the Los Angeles Times, outlets had no difficulty canonizing Reiner while casting Trump as a cartoon villain.
A fair point must be made: Trump should not have said what he did. A president should observe certain proprieties, and Trump violates them all too often. I supported his policies and voted for him repeatedly, but that does not require defending every avoidable verbal misfire. This one was a mistake.
What deserves closer scrutiny, however, is the media’s attempt to weaponize that mistake. In outlets like People magazine, Trump’s comment was contrasted with Reiner’s allegedly noble reaction to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Reiner, we are told, expressed “horror.” Trump, by contrast, showed cruelty.
This framing collapses under minimal honesty.
After seeing this contrast repeated again and again, I searched for Reiner’s public statements — not about Kirk, but about Trump. What emerges is not a portrait of an angelic figure suddenly besmirched. For years, Reiner unleashed a steady stream of invective against Trump: “mentally unfit,” “con man,” “fascist,” “lying buffoon,” along with a great many four-letter flourishes unprintable here. He pushed the Trump-Russia hoax long after it had been exposed as fantasy. His political obsession was not subtle, incidental, or private.
RELATED: Glenn Beck addresses Trump’s controversial Rob Reiner message
Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images
Yet this entire record has been scrubbed from the story. Media profiles dwell on Reiner’s filmmaking career and his role as a loving father while erasing his lifelong activism and venom toward Trump. The reason is simple: The people telling the story agree with Reiner’s politics and share his hatred of Trump. Presenting Trump’s animus as unprovoked is not journalism. It is narrative laundering.
The comparison with Charlie Kirk’s murder is equally dishonest. Kirk, to my knowledge, never publicly attacked Reiner. There was no shared history, no prolonged feud. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) put it plainly: Trump should have said nothing after Reiner’s death, even if Reiner was obsessed with him. Still, pretending that Trump’s reaction should mirror Reiner’s response to Kirk ignores reality. The relationships were not the same.
Nor should Reiner be recast as a purely apolitical figure whose ideology can be set aside for the sake of a tidy morality play. He embraced his identity as a committed leftist as openly as he embraced his Hollywood career. The media’s erasure of that fact mirrors older myths, such as the claim that the “Hollywood Ten” were merely innocent artists with no communist affiliations. You can oppose blacklisting without lying about politics. The left never resists the temptation to lie.
So once again, we are presented with a familiar fable: a gentle, virtuous man smeared by a deranged tyrant for no reason at all. It is nonsense — but useful nonsense. It allows the media to posture as arbiters of decency while ignoring their own complicity in coarsening public life.
Trump’s remark was ill judged. The media’s response was dishonest. Only one of those failures is being treated as a permanent moral indictment — and that tells you everything you need to know.
All truckers want in 2026 is safe roads
As Americans ring in the new year with family and friends, it’s worth remembering a simple fact: A truck driver delivered nearly everything carrying us into 2026.
From champagne and party hats to the presents under our Christmas trees — and the everyday goods that keep businesses running — truck drivers power the economy year in and year out. They work long hours, spend weeks away from loved ones, and keep freight moving through nights, weekends, and holidays. As the calendar turns, truckers ask for just one thing in 2026: safe roads.
A safe trucking industry depends on qualified drivers, safe equipment, and a system that rewards compliance while swiftly removing bad actors.
For too long, America’s highways have grown more dangerous — not because of professional truck drivers, who rank among the most highly trained and regulated workers in the country, but because of systemic failures that allow illegal, unqualified, and unsafe operators to put lives at risk.
The trucking industry has sounded the alarm, and this White House has listened. By cracking down on fraudulent commercial driver’s license mills, addressing the risks posed by illegal drivers, and taking meaningful steps to combat the surge in cargo theft, the Trump administration has restored accountability to the transportation system and made clear that safety — not shortcuts — is the priority.
Consider CDL mills. These sham operations churn out licenses without proper training, undermining professionalism and putting unqualified drivers behind the wheel of 80,000-pound vehicles. Shutting them down isn’t about limiting opportunity. It’s about ensuring that every driver on the road has earned the right to be there. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s decision to remove thousands of suspect training providers from the federal registry sent a clear message: If you cut corners on safety, you won’t be tolerated.
The same principle applies to basic qualifications. Truck drivers must be able to speak English, read road signs, understand safety rules, and follow the law. Weak state verification standards and lax oversight have allowed illegal operators onto American highways. That is unacceptable.
A commercial driver’s license is not just a credential — it is a promise to the public. When that promise is broken, the consequences can be deadly. Fatal crashes this year in Florida and California show exactly what’s at stake when illegal and unqualified drivers remain behind the wheel.
We are encouraged that the administration has acted quickly to prevent future tragedies by holding states accountable and removing unqualified drivers from the road.
RELATED: Illegal drivers, dead Americans — this is what ‘open borders’ really mean
Photo by Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images
At the same time, law-abiding motor carriers and drivers face another growing threat: cargo theft. What was once an occasional crime has become a nationwide epidemic driven by organized criminal networks. Thieves exploit technology, impersonate legitimate carriers, and target supply chains with increasing sophistication. The result is billions in losses — roughly $18 million per day — and heightened risk for drivers, along with disruptions that raise costs for consumers, especially during the holidays.
Truck drivers should not have to worry about being targeted simply for doing their jobs. That’s why the industry welcomes legislation to elevate cargo theft as a federal priority and improve coordination among law enforcement agencies. Protecting freight isn’t just about economics. It’s about protecting the men and women behind the wheel.
These challenges share a common thread: Safety needs to be enforced consistently, comprehensively, and without exception. A safe trucking industry depends on qualified drivers, safe equipment, and a system that rewards compliance while swiftly removing bad actors.
Professional truck drivers take pride in their work. They train hard, follow the rules, and understand that every mile carries responsibility. They don’t want special treatment — just a level playing field and a government that takes safety as seriously as they do. Today, they have a White House that does.
Let’s ensure that America’s highways remain worthy of the 3.5 million professionals who keep them moving — this year and every year.
If parental rights can be bypassed in Alabama, no state is safe
Millions of Americans fled deep-blue states like California and New York because they believed the rules were different elsewhere. They moved to places like Alabama to escape lockdowns, mandates, and ideological capture of public institutions. They believed red states meant red lines.
That belief is proving dangerously naïve.
If red states cannot enforce their own parental rights laws, then the red-state refuge is a myth.
Alabama is one of the most conservative states in the country. It has a Republican supermajority and some of the strongest parental rights laws on the books: bans on gender-transition procedures for minors, curriculum transparency requirements, legal definitions of male and female, protections for girls’ sports, and a rare requirement that parents must opt in before schools provide any mental health services, including discussions of suicide or bullying.
And yet those protections are now being quietly hollowed out — not by legislators, but by bureaucratic subversion.
The footnote loophole
The Alabama State Department of Education is undermining parental consent by inserting exceptions into the fine print of a required opt-in form distributed after a new parental consent law took effect Oct. 1.
The law itself is unambiguous. Parents must provide prior written consent before schools offer mental health services, including discussions related to suicide or bullying. But the department claims in the footnotes that mental health-related conversations may still occur “as appropriate” in other school settings — and that these interactions do not require parental permission.
The ALSDE has stated that “instruction, advisement, and occasional interventions are not subject to opt-in requirements, as these are regular duties of school counselors and other educators.”
That language does more than stretch the statute. It appears designed to bypass it entirely. When schools engage minors in discussions with clear psychological or therapeutic implications — trauma, gender identity, suicidal ideation — without parental consent, they move into legally and constitutionally questionable territory.
Same playbook, new label
Parents have seen this before. During COVID, mandates were imposed first and justified later. Dissent was sidelined. Authority flowed downward, not outward.
Now the same model is being applied to school-based mental health. Whether embedded in social-emotional learning, “student wellness,” or character education, the result is the same: psychological interventions delivered by school employees, not licensed physicians, without parental oversight.
This is not a gray area. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed parents’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. When school systems create end runs around opt-in requirements — especially on matters involving suicide or gender ideology — they invite serious legal and civil rights challenges.
No state is immune
This is not an Alabama anomaly.
Illinois now mandates mental health screenings for public school students, with no opt-in. Mississippi is rolling out a statewide “youth wellness platform.” Tennessee is placing mental health clinicians in every public school through a $250 million trust fund. Ohio is expanding school-based health centers that embed mental health treatment directly on campus.
These programs erase the line between education and health care. They normalize a system in which children’s emotions are monitored, recorded, and interpreted by the state without parental consent. That is state-sponsored emotional profiling.
Who decides what helps?
This debate is not about whether children need support. It is about who decides what support looks like — and who has the authority to provide it.
Parents possess a fundamental right to make decisions about their children’s mental and physical health. The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor reaffirmed that when schools impose ideologically loaded services or content without notice or opt-out, they burden parental rights and religious liberty.
RELATED: ‘Incredible victory’: Federal judge prohibits trans-related grooming efforts in California schools
Photo by Luis Soto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Alabama’s counseling framework includes DEI-driven language encouraging students to “identify individual differences” and “describe and respect differences among individuals.” In practice, that language provides a vehicle for embedding gender ideology and values-based content into guidance lessons.
When that content is paired with school-based interventions, the issue is no longer education. It is ideological formation funded by taxpayers and imposed without consent.
Alabama’s warning
If this can happen in Alabama — arguably the most pro-parental-rights state in the country — then no state is safe.
Agencies should not be allowed to bury statutes in footnotes, reinterpret laws by memo, or use therapeutic language to bypass parental authority. These are not technical disagreements. They are unconstitutional and demand legal pushback.
If red states cannot enforce their own parental rights laws, then the red-state refuge is a myth.
Strong laws matter, but enforcement matters more. Parents must demand both.
Preparedness isn’t paranoia. It’s pattern recognition.
A certain smug comfort belongs to people who have never stood between a riot line and a camera, never smelled accelerant on the wind, never watched their phones lose signal while fire chewed through an entire neighborhood. They talk about “heated rhetoric” and “charged atmospheres” as if danger were theoretical. For women reporters on the ground, it isn’t.
The front line is not a metaphor. It is a place. And it is getting more dangerous by the year.
This is not a gadget story. It is a survival story.
I have covered Antifa riots where the mob knew my name before I reached the sidewalk. I have been screamed at, followed, and threatened by people who publicly denounce violence while privately practicing it. I have watched law enforcement stand down under progressive policies that place the comfort of agitators above the safety of citizens. And I have learned, the hard way, that when cities become unlivable, women pay first.
The left loves to talk about “lived experience.” Here is mine: Democrat governance has made America’s major cities objectively less safe, and being a female independent journalist in them now requires the mindset of a survivalist.
That became brutally clear during the Los Angeles wildfires of 2025.
I was there when the sky turned orange and evacuation orders contradicted one another. Cell towers failed. Emergency lines were overwhelmed. Friends and family lost homes — not hypothetically, not statistically, but completely. In that chaos, the only reason I was able to coordinate help, locate people, and call for assistance was a satellite phone. While 911 systems collapsed, that device worked. No signal dependency. No excuses.
That is not a gadget story. It is a survival story.
The same lesson repeats itself elsewhere. In Washington, D.C., shootings now occur in places that once felt immune — near offices, events, and corridors of power. I was at Butler. I have been steps away from moments that could have gone very differently. Anyone insisting that “these things don’t happen here” is either lying or sheltered by privilege.
When whistleblowers reach out to me, they do not do it over casual cell calls. They use secure satellite communications, because they understand something our leaders prefer not to acknowledge: privacy is safety. Satellite phones are resistant to interception, independent of fragile infrastructure, and immune to spam and shutdowns. When people have something dangerous to say, they choose tools that help keep them alive.
This is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition.
People have died hiking because there was no signal. Boaters have vanished because help could not be reached. Hurricanes do not care about ideology. Fires do not check voter registration. Yet one party consistently opposes disaster preparedness, energy independence, and resilient infrastructure — while demanding blind trust in systems that fail precisely when they are needed most.
Preparedness is not extremism. It is common sense.
Redundancy in communication is not political. Neither are solar-powered backups or hardened devices. Nor is concern about electromagnetic vulnerabilities when our lives run through centralized, fragile networks. Thinking ahead does not make you radical. It makes you female in a country that keeps telling women to be brave while stripping away the tools that make bravery survivable.
And yes, it matters who builds those tools.
If I am calling for help, I want American customer service — American voices, American-owned companies. Safety should not come with a foreign accent and a hold button. Trust is part of security.
This is why satellite phones, solar chargers, emergency kits, and hardened cases are no longer niche products. They are rational responses to an increasingly unstable political and physical environment. They are also meaningful gifts — because nothing says you care like giving someone a way to come home alive.
RELATED: A nation without trust is a nation on borrowed time
Photo by Jay L Clendenin/Getty Images
Which brings us to 2026.
Around President Trump, TPUSA events, or Republican members of Congress, the threat environment is asymmetric. The left has normalized political violence while denying it exists. Media figures excuse it. Politicians minimize it. Prosecutors decline to prosecute it. And women journalists who refuse to conform are expected to absorb the consequences quietly.
I won’t.
The question voters should ask heading into the midterms is not which party sounds kinder on cable news. It is which party acknowledges reality — and equips Americans, especially women, to survive it.
One side treats chaos as a political tool. The other treats safety as the foundation of freedom.
I know which one kept me connected when the fires closed in. I know which one refuses to pretend riots are “mostly peaceful.” And I know which one understands that strong borders, strong policing, resilient infrastructure, and personal preparedness are not luxuries in dangerous times.
The front line is expanding. It runs through our cities, our forests, our streets, and our inboxes. Women are already on it — whether policymakers realize it or not.
The only question left is whether America will choose leaders who take our safety seriously or continue sacrificing us to ideology.
Because the danger is real. And pretending otherwise is the most reckless policy of all.
DOGE didn’t die — it moved to the states
The media and conservative pundits may have buried the Department of Government Efficiency, but they have yet to carve a date of death on its tombstone. While DOGE in Washington may have appeared to insiders as a vanity project, voters saw it as a mandate — one that Republicans at the federal level have largely set aside in favor of politics as usual.
But activists have not forgotten. In red states across the country, they are still demanding accountability. And in Idaho, that pressure is finally producing results.
If Idaho can succeed and follow Florida’s lead, there is no serious reason other red states cannot do the same — unless they are prepared to admit they never intended to keep their promises.
For what appears to be the first time, state legislators serving on Idaho’s DOGE Task Force concluded their 2025 work with a meeting that departed from months of cautious, procedural discussion. Members asked harder questions, voiced long-simmering frustrations, and issued a recommendation that could reshape the state’s fiscal future: urging the full legislature to consider repealing Medicaid expansion, a costly policy that has drained taxpayers of millions.
Red states can’t stall forever
Idaho may not be Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ DOGE-style reforms have produced consistent wins for fiscal sanity and limited government. But it is doing more than other red states, such as North Dakota, where a DOGE committee stacked with Democrats predictably ignored the voters’ mandate.
The Idaho meeting exposed growing dissatisfaction with the task force’s approach. Over the summer and fall, the committee — charged with identifying inefficiencies — repeatedly deferred to state agencies for suggestions on cuts. Unsurprisingly those agencies offered little beyond cosmetic changes.
Idaho state Rep. Heather Scott (R-LD2, Blanchard) gave voice to that frustration. “What is the goal of this committee?” she asked, pressing colleagues to offer recommendations that actually matter. “Twenty thousand here, 50,000 there, or removing old code is not meaningful efficiency,” Scott said. Repealing Medicaid expansion, she argued, would be one of the “best decisions” the state could make.
Nibbling at the edges
Scott’s experience on the Idaho task force stands in stark contrast to the early federal DOGE efforts, which moved aggressively to slash U.S. Agency for International Development’s workforce, freeze fraudulent payments, and cancel billions in corrupt contracts. By comparison, Idaho’s task force had mostly nibbled at the edges. This recommendation marked its first serious step toward substantive reform.
Another revealing moment came from co-chairman state Sen. Todd Lakey (R-Nampa), who read a letter from a small-business owner offering health insurance to employees. Workers routinely request schedules capped at 20 to 28 hours per week to preserve Medicaid expansion benefits — even though full-time work would require only a modest contribution toward employer-provided coverage.
The result is a perverse incentive structure: businesses struggle to find full-time workers while taxpayers subsidize underemployment. The government fuels workforce shortages through welfare, then spends more taxpayer dollars trying to fix the shortages it created. This welfare-workforce vortex is the opposite of efficiency, and it is spreading nationwide.
The meeting’s most explosive moment came from state Rep. Josh Tanner (R-Eagle), who described Idaho’s Medicaid reimbursement structure as resembling “money laundering.”
Citing analysis from the Paragon Health Institute, Tanner explained how provider assessment fees allow states to inflate Medicaid spending to draw down larger federal matching funds, cycling the money back through enhanced payments. Paragon has described these arrangements as “legalized money laundering” — schemes that shift costs to federal taxpayers while enriching connected providers or funding unrelated priorities.
Nationally supplemental payments now exceed $110 billion annually, siphoning hundreds of billions from taxpayers over a decade.
RELATED: Turn off the money; they’ll leave: Elon Musk nails the border truth
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
DOGE’s second life
My sources tell me that hospital lobbyists went into panic mode after the meeting, urgently contacting Capitol officials to contain the fallout from Tanner’s remarks.
For the first time, the task force aired real frustrations, documented real harms, and named real abuses. That alone offers reason for cautious optimism.
Idaho now has committed conservatives in positions of influence. With the task force’s recommendation to revisit Medicaid expansion heading to the legislature, the state has an opportunity to govern as it campaigns — preserving liberty, restoring accountability, and expanding opportunity.
If Idaho can succeed and follow Florida’s lead, there is no serious reason other red states cannot do the same — unless they are prepared to admit they never intended to keep their promises in the first place.
The American dream lives where people still choose to build
“For many, the American dream has become a nightmare,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said, capturing a sentiment that has become common on the political left and across modern culture.
That line now travels far beyond politics. Scroll social media for five minutes, and you’ll see the same message repeated in endless variations: Owning a home is impossible. Raising a family is irresponsible. Work doesn’t pay. The system is rigged. The future is closed.
The American dream was never a promise of ease or comfort by age 25. It was an invitation to build something meaningful over time through responsibility and perseverance.
This message is everywhere, and it is doing real damage.
Harder lives, false conclusions
Life has become harder in tangible ways. Housing costs have surged. College has grown bloated and expensive. Inflation punished families already living close to the margins. Young adults feel delayed, uncertain, and anxious about the future.
Those frustrations are real. The conclusion being pushed alongside them is not.
The lie is not that things are harder. The lie is that effort no longer matters.
That lie spreads quickly online because it feels validating. A 30-second video declaring the system broken beyond repair asks nothing of the viewer except agreement. Building a life requires patience, sacrifice, and time. One goes viral. The other happens quietly.
Much of this shift comes from where young Americans now form their beliefs. For many in Generation Z, ideas about money, marriage, and the future are no longer shaped primarily by parents, churches, employers, or local communities. They are shaped by algorithm-driven platforms like TikTok and X, where extremity is rewarded with attention.
In those spaces, online figures routinely dismiss the American dream as a scam and portray starting a family as a trap rather than a source of meaning or stability. Cynicism is marketed as realism. Detachment is framed as wisdom. A generation looking for guidance is taught to expect failure before it ever tries.
Why despair is profitable
This narrative didn’t arise by accident. It feeds on real pain, but it’s also profitable. Political movements gain leverage by convincing voters that only sweeping control from the top can fix a hopeless system. Media companies thrive on pessimism because fear keeps people watching. Online grievance entrepreneurs build massive followings by telling young people that nothing they do will ever be enough.
If Americans stop believing they can build a future, someone else will gladly build power over them.
History keeps disproving this story.
Tell the generation that survived the Great Depression that the American dream was dead. Tell the men who returned from World War II, many wounded and broke, who used the GI Bill to buy homes and start families, that the climb was too steep. Tell the children of factory workers who grew up without air conditioning, college degrees, or safety nets — but still built middle-class lives through work and sacrifice — that the odds were unfair.
Tell the families of the 1950s and 1960s who lived modestly, saved slowly, and delayed gratification for decades that life was easy. Tell the Americans who endured oil crises, layoffs, and double-digit inflation in the 1970s and early 1980s that the system was designed for their comfort.
The dream was never easy
Life has never been easy. The climb has always been steep. The American dream was never built on convenience. It was built on resilience.
The truth is less dramatic — and far more hopeful. The American dream didn’t disappear. It changed shape.
It was never a promise of ease or comfort by age 25. It was an invitation to build something meaningful over time through responsibility and perseverance. For generations, it rested on a simple foundation: Work hard, form families, contribute locally, and invest in something bigger than yourself.
That path was never easy. What changed is not the dream, but our tolerance for effort and our patience for delayed reward.
The quiet math of real life
Despite the noise, the American dream remains visible in places social media rarely celebrates. It shows up in the quiet math of real life.
Research from the Institute for Family Studies finds that stably married Americans approaching retirement hold, on average, more than $640,000 in household assets, compared with roughly $167,000 for divorced or never-married adults — even after accounting for age, education, and race. That gap reflects decades of shared sacrifice, income pooling, planning, and commitment.
These stories don’t trend online. They play out quietly every day.
Ironically, many of the loudest voices declaring the dream dead are doing quite well selling that message. Entire online brands are built on telling people that life is impossible — while generating substantial revenue and influence in the process. Despair has become an industry.
RELATED: Christmas is worth celebrating, even if your family is fractured
Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images
What truly threatens the American dream is not capitalism, competition, or even inequality. It’s a culture that encourages permanent adolescence. A culture that treats commitment as a burden, delays adulthood indefinitely, and then wonders why people feel anxious and untethered.
The American dream doesn’t die because life is hard. It dies when people are convinced that hard things aren’t worth doing.
Too many young Americans are told that marriage can wait, children are optional, faith is outdated, and roots are restrictive. They’re promised freedom through detachment and fulfillment through endless choice — then wake up years later with more options than ever and less meaning than expected.
Builders still have the advantage
This isn’t a policy argument. It’s a cultural one. No law can manufacture purpose. No program can force optimism. But a nation that teaches its citizens the dream is dead shouldn’t be surprised when fewer people try to live it.
The American dream has always belonged to builders of families, businesses, and communities. It never belonged to those waiting for perfect conditions or guaranteed outcomes.
The American dream isn’t dead. But telling Americans that it is has become fashionable, profitable, and politically useful.
The question is whether we continue to accept that story — or choose, once again, to build.
What Christmas says to tyrants
As we come to the end of 2025, peace feels hard to find. We are surrounded by news of barbaric terrorism once again — most recently in Australia — erupting in violent displays of prideful, ethnic hatred. We watch regional wars grind on, prolonged by an implacable tyrant bent on self-glorification and the expansion of his own wealth and power.
At such a time, it is good to remember that 2,000 years ago, a child was born for whom there was no room at the inn — a child laid instead in a stable because there was nowhere else to go. Jesus spent his childhood in the simplest of households and his adulthood accounting for every penny, for the life of a carpenter brought little money.
Let us set aside the calamities of the world, if only for a moment, and celebrate the birth of the most extraordinary child ever born — the one who offers eternal love and shelter from the storm.
When Jesus left his home to serve the world, his life became unlike that of the foxes, who have dens, or the birds, who have nests. The Son of Man had no place to lay his head. He rejected the paths of wealth, power, and pride, choosing instead humility, love, and suffering.
His ministry began when he read from the prophet Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.” That good news was revolutionary. God was not, as the Greeks imagined, a distant and uncaring master of abstractions. Nor was he, as many expected, a cold and exacting judge.
The good news was that God is filled with love for humanity — and that was cause for celebration.
So Jesus’ first miracle was not an act of conquest or condemnation, but joy: the transformation of water into wine at a wedding in Cana.
When Jesus chose his companions, he chose people like himself — humble, ordinary, and yet extraordinary. He welcomed women into his ministry, from his mother Mary to Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and many others, treating their womanhood as sacred. As F.R. Maltby observed, Jesus promised his followers three things: that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy, and in constant trouble. Wherever they went, they brought hope, kindness, and cheer, and when Jesus spoke, his words carried the breath of heaven.
Jesus welcomed everyone he encountered — Jews and Romans, Greeks and Samaritans. He spoke with rabbis, tax collectors, and sinners alike. But he devoted his deepest attention to those who suffered: the blind, the deaf, the lame, the lepers. He touched those no one else would touch and loved those no one else would love.
When disciples of John the Baptist asked who he was, Jesus answered simply: “Tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them” (Luke 7:22).
Even more radical was his teaching. “Love your enemies,” he said. “Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for those who mistreat you. As you would have others treat you, so must you treat them.”
And above all: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27).
RELATED: The algorithm sells despair. Christmas tells the truth.
Photo by Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images
Jesus taught through parables, stories anyone could understand. Perhaps the most famous is that of the prodigal son — a young man who squandered his inheritance on gambling, drink, and excess, only to be welcomed home with celebration rather than condemnation. Jesus explained it this way: “If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?” (Matthew 18:12).
God, in his love, was searching for a lost humanity, and Jesus was the shepherd sent to bring it home.
When the Pharisees asked when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus answered, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). It is entered freely — not by force, not by empire, not by the power of Caesar. There exists a realm where Caesar’s writ does not run, a domain belonging wholly to God.
To bring us into that kingdom of peace, Christ endured the cross — the only place on earth that finally made room for one so profoundly good.
Before he departed, he instructed his apostles to greet every home with a prayer for peace — a peace available only in the kingdom he builds within each of us.
So let us set aside the calamities of the world, if only for a moment, and celebrate the birth of the most extraordinary child ever born — the one who offers eternal love and shelter from the storm.
Merry Christmas.
Your laptop is about to become a casualty of the AI grift
Welcome to the techno-feudal state, where citizens are forced to underwrite unnecessary and harmful technology at the expense of the technology they actually need.
The economic story of 2025 is the government-driven build-out of hyperscale AI data centers — sold as innovation, justified as national strategy, and pursued in service of cloud-based chatbot slop and expanded surveillance. This build-out is consuming land, food, water, and energy at enormous scale. As Energy Secretary Chris Wright bluntly put it, “It takes massive amounts of electricity to generate intelligence. The more energy invested, the more intelligence produced.”
Shortages will hit consumers hard in the coming year.
That framing ignores what is being sacrificed — and distorted — in the process.
Beyond the destruction of rural communities and the strain placed on national energy capacity, government favoritism toward AI infrastructure is warping markets. Capital that once sustained the hardware and software ecosystem of the digital economy is being siphoned into subsidized “AI factories,” chasing artificial general intelligence instead of cheaper, more efficient investments in narrow AI.
Thanks to fiscal, monetary, tax, and regulatory favoritism, the result is free chatbot slop and an increasingly scarce, expensive supply of laptops, phones, and consumer hardware.
Subsidies break the market
For decades, consumer electronics stood as one of the greatest deflationary success stories in modern economics. Unlike health care or education — both heavily monopolized by government — the computer industry operated with relatively little distortion. From December 1997 to August 2015, the CPI for “personal computers and peripheral equipment” fell 96%. Over that same period, medical care, housing, and food costs rose between 80% and 200%.
That era is ending.
AI data centers are now crowding out consumer electronics. Major manufacturers such as Dell and Samsung are scaling back or discontinuing entire product lines because they can no longer secure components diverted to AI chip production.
Prices for phones and laptops are rising sharply. Jobs tied to consumer electronics — especially the remaining U.S.-based assembly operations — are being squeezed out in favor of data center hardware that benefits a narrow set of firms.
This is policy-driven distortion, not organic market evolution.
Through initiatives like Stargate and hundreds of billions in capital pushed toward data center expansion, the government has created incentives for companies to abandon consumer hardware in favor of AI infrastructure. The result is shortages that will hit consumers hard in the coming year.
Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron are retooling factories to prioritize AI-grade silicon for data centers instead of personal devices. DRAM production is being routed almost entirely toward servers because it is far more profitable to leverage $40,000 AI chips than $500-$800 laptops. In the fourth quarter of 2025, contract prices for certain 16GB DDR5 chips rose nearly 300% as supply was diverted. Dell and Lenovo have already imposed 15%-30% price hikes on PCs, citing insatiable AI-sector demand.
The chip crunch
The situation is deteriorating quickly. DRAM inventory levels are down 80% year over year, with just three weeks of supply on hand — down from 9.5 weeks in July. SK Hynix expects shortages to persist through late 2027. Samsung has announced it is effectively out of inventory and has more than doubled DDR5 contract prices to roughly $19-$20 per unit. DDR5 is now standard across new consumer and commercial desktops and laptops, including Apple MacBooks.
Samsung has also signaled it may exit the SSD market altogether, deeming it insufficiently glamorous compared with subsidized data center investments. Nvidia has warned it may cut RTX 50 series production by up to 40%, a move that would drive up the cost of entry-level gaming systems.
Shrinkflation is next. Before the data center bubble, the market was approaching a baseline of 16GB of RAM and 1TB SSDs for entry-level laptops. As memory is diverted to enterprise customers, manufacturers will revert to 8GB systems with slower storage to keep prices under $999 — ironically rendering those machines incapable of running the very AI applications they’re working on.
Real innovation sidelined
The damage extends beyond prices. Research and development in conventional computing are already suffering. Investment in efficient CPUs, affordable networking equipment, edge computing, and quantum-adjacent technologies has slowed as capital and talent are pulled into AI accelerators.
This is precisely backward. Narrow AI — focused on real-world tasks like logistics, agriculture, port management, and manufacturing — is where genuine productivity gains lie. China understands this and is investing accordingly. The United States is not. Instead, firms like Roomba, which experimented with practical autonomy, are collapsing — only to be acquired by the Chinese!
This is not a free market. Between tax incentives, regulatory favoritism, land-use carve-outs, capital subsidies, and artificially suppressed interest rates, the government has created an arms race for a data center bubble China itself is not pursuing. Each round of monetary easing inflates the same firms’ valuations, enabling further speculative investment divorced from consumer need.
RELATED: China’s AI strategy could turn Americans into data mines
Grafissimo via iStock/Getty Images
Hype over utility
As Charles Hugh Smith recently noted, expanding credit boosts asset prices, which then serve as collateral for still more leverage — allowing capital-rich firms to outbid everyone else while hollowing out the broader economy.
The pattern is familiar. Consider the Ford plant in Glendale, Kentucky, where 1,600 workers were laid off after the collapse of government-favored electric vehicle investments. That facility is now being retooled to produce batteries for data centers. When one subsidy collapses, another replaces it.
We are trading convention for speculation. Conventional technology — reliable hardware, the internet, mobile computing — delivers proven, measurable utility. The current investment surge into artificial general intelligence is based on hypothetical future returns propped up by state power.
The good old laptop is becoming collateral damage in what may prove to be the largest government-induced tech bubble yet.
