There was a time when political parties engaged in introspection after electoral defeats. Psephological autopsies–despite some of their stupidity–are scarcely novel.
But 2025’s Democratic Party appears insistent on bucking the trend of self-reflection, pressing on with its recently rejected extremist platform, promoting its most heinous abusers of the electorate as its most vocal spokespeople, and shoving in America’s face its losing mantra: We’re Not Going Back.
And America should, at least for once, believe the Democrats when they say this.
Instead of reevaluating strategies and/or even apologizing to the wider electorate, the party continues to champion policies and positions that alienated a record-breaking number of voters. During the 2024 election, nearly half of Hispanics supported Donald Trump despite the incessant racial pandering and fearmongering (or perhaps, better yet, as a result of them).
On cultural issues, the party’s stance is increasingly disconnected from mainstream America. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s “I’m not a biologist” moment still looms large in meme culture, and no one is “over” (nor should they be) how Democrats have championed men in women’s locker rooms for the past decade.
For all that Bill Maher and James Carville kick and scream in their own party’s direction, the answer from up top still comes back the same: We’re Not Going Back.
On immigration, the Democratic Party finds itself at odds with America again, opposing legislation aimed at deporting non-citizens convicted of crimes, most recently pledging to send emissaries to El Salvador to re-emigrate alleged MS-13 gangster Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Whatever the squishiest amongst you argue of the so-called lack of “due process” behind Garcia’s removal, you will continue to find yourselves spitting into the wind as far as the American electorate is concerned. While data indicates the nation is increasingly quizzical when it comes to Trump’s tariff strategy and broader economic plan, his immigration numbers remain steady and favorable.
In January, 158 House Democrats voted against a bill that would have mandated the deportation of foreign-born criminals, which Republicans should freely clip from and cite in the impending mid term election battles. With a svelte majority, the GOP should be looking to go on the strategic offensive, rather than sit back and hope to maintain. At least by the right’s standards, the soil is fertile.
Finally, Democrats’ continued commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, coupled with a resistance to any internal leadership change which recognises the shortcomings of the party, gives Republicans a huge opportunity, if they’re smart enough and brave enough to take it: run on the last election.
The ad campaigns could literally hark back to November: “Hey, remember when you roundly rejected extreme Democrats and their radical agenda? *insert Kamala cackle* Well, guess what? They’re doubling down. Claiming they weren’t wrong, but you were. A party this obstinate and vengeful against America can’t be rewarded with success in the upcoming elections. Say no to the radical Democrats FOR GOOD until they change… FOR GOOD.”
You get the idea.
show less
There was a time when political parties engaged in introspection after electoral defeats. Psephological autopsies–despite some of their stupidity–are scarcely novel.
Today is Holy Monday, formally the second day of Holy Week following Palm Sunday—which marks Jesus’s Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem astride a humble donkey, fulfilling Zechariah’s ancient prophecy of the Messiah.
Certain events in Jesus’s life, particularly those leading up to his Crucifixion and Resurrection, are commemorated on each day of Holy Week. Holy Monday is a time to reflect on Christ not as the Lamb but as the Judge—for as St. Paul warns in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”
CURSING A TREE AND CLEANSING A TEMPLE.
Returning to Jerusalem after a quiet night in Bethany following Palm Sunday, Jesus paused at a fig tree to eat. It was in leaf but without fruit, and Jesus cursed it, saying, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward forever.”
This was not truly intended as punishment for the tree—as St. Mark’s Gospel notes, “it was not the season for figs”—but as a lesson for his disciples, which we will revisit on Holy Tuesday tomorrow.
Entering Jerusalem, Jesus proceeded to the Temple, where He employed no such cryptic methods to make His will clear. Eyes flashing at the sight of merchants hawking animals and moneychangers counting coins in the holy place, He wove “a whip of cords” and “drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables” in a whirlwind of fury.
“Take these things away!” He thundered, His voice echoing through the chaos. “Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”
The temple authorities were rebuked directly: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations’?” He demanded, “But you have made it a den of thieves.”
ANOTHER TEMPLE.
St. Mark’s account reveals this was the moment the Jerusalem elite made up their minds to have Jesus killed: “And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching.”
St. John’s Gospel describes how they challenged Jesus, demanding a sign to prove He had the authority to chastise them thus. He challenged them in turn, proclaiming, “Destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it up.”
“It has taken 46 years to build this temple,” they sneered. “And will You raise it up in three days?”
But the temple Jesus spoke of was not made of stone and mortar. On Easter Sunday, the meaning of his words would become clear to the priests—and will be made clear to readers of this Holy Week series.
show less
Today is Holy Monday, formally the second day of Holy Week following Palm Sunday—which marks Jesus's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem astride a humble donkey, fulfilling Zechariah’s ancient prophecy of the Messiah.
show more
Dr. Peter Navarro walked out of prison in the middle of July 2024 after serving months behind bars because he stood up for President Donald J. Trump and the MAGA movement. He refused to bow to the illegitimate Jan 6 Committee. He didn’t cut deals. He didn’t fold. He defended executive privilege and paid for it with his freedom.
He stepped out of the gulag and walked onto the stage at the Republican National Convention, declaring: “The Jan. 6 committee demanded that I betray Donald John Trump to save my own skin… I refused.”
Meanwhile, Elon Musk—who backed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the GOP primary and has historically cozied up to Chinese Communist Party figures and Chinese state-linked investors to keep his business empire afloat—is now publicly calling Navarro a “moron” for his and President Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy.
Let that sink in: Navarro went to prison for standing with Trump. Musk is now trashing Trump’s tariffs, not just to defend corporate interests, but to protect his own supply chains in Shanghai.
Trump’s tariff strategy—as we have explained multiple times—was never about spreadsheet economics—it is about economic warfare, and the security of the American worker. That’s why Navarro fought for it. And that’s why the establishment tried to silence him as America’s adversaries cheered on the J6 committee.
Screenshot
Musk—whose business depends on CCP batteries, CCP rare earths, and CCP subsidies—wants to pretend he’s the adult in the room. But his antics have found him in stark opposition to Trump, not just on the tariffs, but also on America’s Defense budget. It’s not been openly reported yet, but Musk also currently finds himself in a stare down with top MAGA figures at the Department of Defense.
Who benefits from a weakening of the U.S. military, as Musk has privately lobbied for in recent weeks? Again, the Chinese Communist Party.
Navarro served time with honor. Musk serves profits with no loyalty. But we knew that already, right?
In 2025, the fight isn’t just against Democrats and the deep state. It’s against the oligarch class that have long mocked Trump and his loyalists, sabotaged tariffs, and sold out to foreign powers.
Choose your side. Navarro did.
show less
Dr. Peter Navarro walked out of prison in the middle of July 2024 after serving months behind bars because he stood up for President Donald J. Trump and the MAGA movement. He refused to bow to the illegitimate Jan 6 Committee. He didn’t cut deals. He didn’t fold. He defended executive privilege and paid for it with his freedom.
show more
❓What Happened: The UK is under mounting pressure to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius—a move that would put one of America’s most important military bases at risk of falling under Chinese influence.
🌍 Who’s Involved: The UK, the U.S., Mauritius, the UN, and the International Court of Justice—plus a Labour government eager to appease global institutions at the expense of British sovereignty.
📜 Historical Context: Britain has controlled the Chagos Islands since 1814. The population removed in the 1960s were not indigenous, but descendants of plantation laborers brought by French and British colonists.
🪖 Strategic Value: Diego Garcia, part of the Chagos Archipelago, is home to a massive U.S. military base that has supported operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and beyond for decades.
⚖️ The Legal Fight: The UN and ICJ have backed Mauritius’s claims, but their opinions are non-binding and motivated by decolonization ideology, not strategic realism.
🇨🇳 What’s at Stake: Ceding the islands would all but guarantee Chinese involvement—either through infrastructure projects or military presence—undermining the West’s foothold in the Indian Ocean.
🔻 Labour’s Position: The UK’s Labour government is quietly moving toward surrendering the territory, ignoring military imperatives and playing directly into China’s hands.
🚫 The Bottom Line: There is no legal, strategic, or historical reason to give up the islands. The West must hold the line against globalist pressure and CCP encroachment.
IN FULL:
The Chagos Islands are a remote British overseas territory in the Indian Ocean, located halfway between Africa and Indonesia. They are best known for one thing: Diego Garcia—a vast American military base that serves as a launchpad for power projection across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.
But that strategic lifeline is now under threat. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the left-wing Labour government in Britain are all pushing for the territory to be handed over to Mauritius, a small island nation that has no ability to defend or manage it—and deepening ties to Beijing.
At the center of this dispute is a legal and moral narrative that falls apart under scrutiny. Mauritius claims the Chagos Islands were “illegally separated” from its territory in 1965. The UN agrees, but its resolution is non-binding. The ICJ issued an “advisory opinion”—not a ruling. And none of this overrides the reality: Britain has administered the islands since 1814, long before Mauritius even existed as a sovereign state.
The islands themselves were uninhabited until the French began using them for coconut plantations in the 18th century. The so-called “Chagossians” removed in the 1960s were not indigenous, but descendants of enslaved and indentured laborers brought there to work. Claims of native displacement are historically shallow and politically opportunistic. In any case, the displaced islanders oppose the transfer of their former homes to Mauritius.
What makes this more than a legal quarrel is the increasing certainty that China stands ready to fill the vacuum if the West withdraws. Mauritius is a Belt and Road partner. It doesn’t have a navy. And Beijing has a proven track record of using debt, trade, and soft power to gain access to strategically positioned territories. The moment Britain hands over Chagos, it opens the door to a Chinese surveillance and logistics hub in the heart of the Indian Ocean.
Diego Garcia has hosted U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader war on terror. It houses intelligence facilities, satellite tracking stations, and airfields capable of supporting B-52 bombers. Its value is incalculable—and it is currently safe, stable, and under allied control.
And yet, Britain’s Labour government wants to give it away. In a time when the West should be consolidating strength, the UK’s left-wing leadership is choosing appeasement—placing its obsession with international approval ahead of national security, allied deterrence, and geopolitical common sense.
Labour and their apologists claim a 99-year lease for Diego Garcia will form part of the transfer deal—at the cost of billions of pounds—but the Mauritians have already tried to alter the terms of the agreement once following a change of government. Even with a lease, Mauritius could simply lease another island in the archipelago to China—leaving the U.S. base dangerously exposed.
This isn’t about colonial guilt. It’s about strategic survival. And surrendering Chagos would be a historic mistake that future generations may not be able to undo.
For me, America has always been a symbol of free thinkers and opportunity. As a kid, I experienced communism in the Czech Republic, and the USA really was a beacon of freedom for us. But in recent years, its light has been going out. America was in crisis. And when the USA is in crisis, the whole world is infected. Unnecessary wars have arisen, centuries-old values have collapsed, and freedom has been restricted.
The return of Donald Trump and his people changes that.
The good old USA is back: confident, strong, free, and democratic. That’s what I knew in my youth, and that’s the America I admired. I believe the return of Donald Trump is a return to peaceful conflict resolution and respect for life. I know that Donald Trump sincerely desires an end to the war in Ukraine and is devoting enormous energy to this goal. The USA is changing the world for the better and is finally being heard again.
But the so-called “democratic” forces that aggressively promoted progressivism and woke ideology are hardly giving up. They continue to try to undermine the efforts of the U.S. and try to create crisis after crisis. They do not want peace; their choice is war. Such anti-American voices are loud, especially in Europe. I consider it my duty to write clearly that not all political forces in Europe are against the U.S. As a Czech politician, I actively support the new America, and I am not ashamed of it. The Czech Republic is very grateful to the U.S.
America stood at the cradle of Czech independence in 1918; in 1945, it participated in the liberation from Nazism, and in 1989 America helped return freedom and democracy to the Czechs. Thank you, America! That is why I consider it important that my homeland, the Czech Republic, follow the U.S. and be a solid ally and aircraft carrier of the U.S. in Europe. We are destined for each other more than other nations.
There is a lot of talk about Europe having to become completely independent from the USA. I do not agree with that. Every time in history, when Europe has been outside of cooperation with the USA, terrible wars have occurred with tens of millions of deaths. Europe without the USA also means an increase in anti-Semitism. This is not in the interest of the Czech Republic. I support and propose close cooperation with the USA and clear support for Israel. This autumn, there will be parliamentary elections in the Czech Republic. I believe that people will support the concept of Czech-American cooperation and reject the dangerous European dream leading to conflict.
Peace for the Czech Republic means partnership with the USA.
Radek Vondráček is the former President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, current Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Deputy Chairman of the opposition movement ANO. Image by Sejm RP.
show less
For me, America has always been a symbol of free thinkers and opportunity. As a kid, I experienced communism in the Czech Republic, and the USA really was a beacon of freedom for us. But in recent years, its light has been going out. America was in crisis. And when the USA is in crisis, the whole world is infected. Unnecessary wars have arisen, centuries-old values have collapsed, and freedom has been restricted.
show more
❓What Happened: President Trump imposed a 10% blanket global tariff and additional reciprocal tariffs this week, aimed at reshaping both the U.S. and global economies—not just fixing trade deficits.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, his economic team (including chief economic advisor Stephen Miran), and U.S. importers/exporters. Global trading partners are watching closely.
💬 Key Quotes:
Trump’s team believes “the bond market is a more significant economic problem at the moment than the volatility in the stock market.”
Miran argues a weaker dollar would “reduce haven demand” and close the trade gap by decreasing overvaluation.
📉 Fallout: The 10-Year Treasury Bond yield fell below 4% after the tariff announcement, suggesting markets see the move as deflationary in the long run. However, the U.S. dollar unexpectedly weakened, raising concerns about rising import prices and consumer inflation.
🏭 Economic Shift: The policy pushes toward restoring U.S. industry—steel, autos, manufacturing, and tech—by penalizing foreign-made goods and reducing reliance on market speculation and financial arbitrage.
Shift the economy from financial engineering back to tangible production;
Realign the value of the U.S. dollar to support exports.
🚨 Buried Lede: Trump’s true economic revolution isn’t just tariffs—it’s a bid to de-financialize the U.S. economy, cut Wall Street’s grip, and refocus on real industrial growth. The bond market, not the trade deficit, may be the real target.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump’s imposition earlier this week of a 10 percent blanket global tariff and additional reciprocal tariffs appears intended to achieve far larger and more complex changes to the international and domestic American economies than simply ending foreign trade imbalances.
Trump’s economic team has subtly suggested the impact of the import duties could extend to increasing foreign direct investment in American industries, incentivize a shift in economic investment away from market speculation and into industries focused on producing tangible value, and put downward pressure on interest rates by lowering the 10-Year Treasury Bond yield.
The myriad economic objectives the Trump White House hopes to achieve through its tariff policy are ambitious, to say the least. However, if the policy succeeds, President Trump will have fundamentally moved the United States into a position to dominate the global economy for the foreseeable future.
IT’S ALL ABOUT TREASURY BONDS?
One of the more important secondary policy goals that the Trump White House likely hopes to achieve is a reduction in the 10-year Treasury Bond yield. While most people focus on the Federal Reserve Bank and its interest rate policy, the yield of long-term government bonds impacts interest rates on types of debt held for longer durations, including mortgages, credit cards, and, most importantly, government debt.
The tariffs are anticipated to push the 10-Year Treasury Bond yield lower, meaning the cost of the federal government’s payments servicing the national debt will be reduced. Notably, the inflationary cycle that set in under the Biden government—and was exacerbated by former President Joe Biden’s reckless spending policies—caused the cost to service the debt to increase dramatically and made it difficult for the government to take on any new debt.
Trump’s economic team appears to believe that the bond market is a more significant economic problem at the moment than the volatility in the stock market being generated by the new tariff policy. This assumption is likely correct, and already, the 10-Year Treasury Bond yield rate has fallen below the key four percent benchmark following Trump’s imposition of tariffs on April 2.
If the rate can be held below four percent for the foreseeable future, the lower cost of long-term debt should have significant positive impacts on the U.S. economy.
PRODUCTION OVER ARBITRAGE.
Another policy goal the Trump White House likely hopes to achieve with the tariffs is a shift away from America’s financialized economy, which focuses on maximizing shareholder value and market speculation, toward an economy more focused on producing tangible value. Tariffs are often used to protect and grow strategically important domestic industries, such as shipbuilding and steelmaking, though the aggressive trade policy announced by President Trump appears intended to have a far more significant and transformative effect than simply protecting certain companies from foreign competition.
Over the last several decades, the American economy has become overly focused on shareholder interests, resulting in companies prioritizing profit maximization to increase investor dividends. This change encouraged large-scale outsourcing of jobs from the United States to foreign countries with either weak currencies or generous state subsidies, drastically reducing labor and production costs. The shift away from production resulted in many American businesses deriving most of their profits through arbitrage rather than producing products themselves.
Companies engaging in arbitrage essentially contract production out to foreign firms and then import the product to the United States for sale in the domestic market. In essence, these businesses are, at best, glorified importers. At worst, arbitrage-focused companies actively aid foreign trade schemes intended to crash domestic prices for certain products and kill off domestic American competitors.
Trump’s tariffs will increase the cost of importing goods to the United States, which will not only incentivize companies to locate in the U.S. to avoid the import duties but also make it less profitable for companies to derive profit through arbitrage.
A WORKER’S ECONOMY.
While President Trump has focused chiefly on tariffs as a tool to reduce America’s trade deficit with foreign nations, he has indicated that reshoring jobs and rebuilding the United States’s steel, manufacturing, automobile, and technology industries are other goals. The White House has pitched the secondary effects of the tariffs as the rebirth of American industry and an economy focused on rewarding American workers.
Throughout history, tariffs have been used to protect and grow domestic industries and prevent predation by foreign nations engaging in manipulative trade practices like currency manipulation, product dumping, and state subsidization. The Trump administration argues that the 10 percent blanket global tariff will incentivize companies that have moved most of their production overseas to relocate back to the United States to avoid paying import duties and maintain their market share.
Additionally, the tariffs should boost foreign direct investment in the United States. This will boost domestic investment in American companies through increased foreign capital flows into the United States. While it is too early to determine whether the tariffs will have the desired effect of reshoring and rebuilding key industries and increasing foreign investment, the policies being implemented by President Trump are certainly tailored toward this goal.
THE DOLLAR PROBLEM.
While early signals suggest the Trump tariffs will prove ultimately successful, one significant problem could cause a period of price and market volatility that the White House had hoped to avoid. In theory, the tariffs imposed by President Trump should have strengthened the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, Trump’s economic team anticipated this effect and argued that, in the short term, a strong dollar would help blunt the increased cost of imports.
However, against expectations, the U.S. dollar weakened in the immediate days after Trump announced the new tariffs. While the dollar did see a rally on Friday, if its value were to begin eroding again, the possibility of negative domestic impacts caused by higher prices on foreign goods would not likely be avoidable.
Conversely, after the tariff effects have subsided in the long term, the Trump White House economic team is likely to pursue policies aimed at weakening the dollar’s value to reduce America’s trade deficit. According to a theory proposed by President Trump’s chief economic advisor, Stephen Miran, weakening the dollar will discourage foreign governments through their central banks from moving assets into the United States. Miran argues this would reduce haven demand, where foreign governments move assets into stable economies to avoid domestic volatility. He contends this causes the dollar to be overvalued and subsequently increases America’s trade deficit.
President Trump ran on a platform pledging to transform the United States economy and put American workers first. The tariffs announced on April 2 are a significant step in fulfilling that promise, though the road to achieving an America-First economy still has many obstacles ahead.
The debate over marijuana has long been a tug-of-war between those pushing for full federal legalization and others worried about issues like stinky streets, psychological damage, and lazy teenagers (and others) puffing away on skunk. But as President Trump indicated last year, the rescheduling of marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug actually offers a sensible middle ground that addresses concerns on both sides.
Right now, marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance means it’s considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, which is hampering research efforts into the plant. Moving it to Schedule III would acknowledge its medical benefits, allowing scientists to study its therapeutic potential. This could very well lead to new treatments and a better understanding of how medical cannabis can help patients.
For veterans, as an example, dealing with chronic pain or PTSD, medical marijuana has already shown promise as a treatment option. Federal restrictions can make it difficult for them to access cannabis-based therapies, but rescheduling enables veterans to discuss and consider medical marijuana with healthcare providers without legal ramifications.
Cannabis businesses also face hefty tax burdens due to marijuana’s Schedule I status, which prevents them from claiming standard business deductions under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. Reclassification would lift these penalties, allowing businesses to deduct ordinary expenses and operate on a more level playing field.
Former President Donald Trump has expressed support for rescheduling marijuana, emphasizing the need to end unnecessary arrests and promote research.
“As I have previously stated, I believe it is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use. We must also implement smart regulations, while providing access for adults, to safe, tested product. As a Floridian, I will be voting YES on Amendment 3 this November. As President, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug, and work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies, and supporting states rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens.”
– President Donald J. Trump, 2024.
Over 10 million patients across more than 40 states rely on medical marijuana for various health conditions. The current disconnect between federal and state laws creates confusion and potential legal risks for these individuals.
Concerns about public safety, such as fears of increased street use and its impact on youth, are valid. Rescheduling allows for the implementation of stringent regulations and quality controls, ensuring that cannabis products are safe and access is restricted.
Trump’s endorsement highlights a growing consensus that rescheduling is a practical step forward, balancing the need for reform with appropriate safeguards.
This policy shift addresses critical issues in a practical and compassionate manner by facilitating medical research, supporting veterans, rectifying tax inequities, stimulating economic growth, clarifying legal ambiguities for patients, and enhancing public safety through regulation. It’s a move toward a more sensible and fair approach to cannabis policy in the United States.
show less
The debate over marijuana has long been a tug-of-war between those pushing for full federal legalization and others worried about issues like stinky streets, psychological damage, and lazy teenagers (and others) puffing away on skunk. But as President Trump indicated last year, the rescheduling of marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug actually offers a sensible middle ground that addresses concerns on both sides.
show more
Jeffrey Goldberg’s revelation that he was accidentally added to a Signal group chat with top Trump administration officials discussing imminent military action against Houthi targets in Yemen is, without question, a great scoop. The Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic found himself privy to real-time planning between Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and others. The texts detailed timing, targeting, and tactical objectives—and were confirmed when the operation was executed successfully.
But once again, the process-driven left media is seizing on the story as a scandal of process, focused less on the operational success of an administration just a few months into implementing its policies, and more on perceived violations of the Federal Records Act, Espionage Act, and the use of encrypted messaging in government.
BORING!
The conclusion of Goldberg’s piece on the matter is the real rub, wherein Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declares, “We are currently clean on OPSEC,” without noticing the accidental inclusion of an America-hating “journalist” in the chat. Needless to say, Michael Waltz will have to answer some awkward questions about how that even happened, and operational security will need revisiting, posthaste.
But as the MSNBC and CNN chyrons whirl aggressively later tonight, as “top-level national security” guests are ferried into D.C. and Manhattan studios to opine about “the serious implications!!!!!!111!1” of this all, the framing misses the far more consequential truth: the Trump administration’s national security team demonstrated ruthless clarity of mission, hard alignment with presidential policy, and fear-inducing tactical competence.
Far from a picture of chaos, the Signal exchange captures the Trump war cabinet executing a swift and decisive retaliatory strike on foreign adversaries. No leaks actually ended up compromising the mission. The planning was otherwise tight. The strikes were exceptionally precise. The communication—despite the unintentional inclusion of a journalist—was professional and focused.
Compare this with the Obama administration’s decision to grant security clearances to Iranian regime-linked figures, or the Biden government’s chronic leaking of internal deliberations to preferred media outlets in the name of “narrative shaping.” In both cases, information was shared deliberately for political advantage—sometimes with actors who had no loyalty to U.S. interests. The Trump team’s sole error was accidental and internal; the others were strategic and often hostile to American strength.
Moreover, the episode underscores a divide between the political class’s and the public’s priorities. The Beltway fixates on process violations and bureaucratic niceties, while voters care about results. They expect American officials to act decisively against threats, not to seek institutional cover from multilateral committees.
The Goldberg leak inadvertently revealed a reality the press has long tried to deny: this is a second-term administration that knows what it’s doing. It is staffed by people who are aligned with the President’s agenda, capable of rapid execution, and unapologetic about protecting American interests. In trying to embarrass them, the story could end up doing the opposite.
show less
Jeffrey Goldberg’s revelation that he was accidentally added to a Signal group chat with top Trump administration officials discussing imminent military action against Houthi targets in Yemen is, without question, a great scoop. The Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic found himself privy to real-time planning between Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and others. The texts detailed timing, targeting, and tactical objectives—and were confirmed when the operation was executed successfully.
show more
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
