Category: Politics

  • Will the Andrew formerly known as prince appear before Congress?

    Will the Andrew formerly known as prince appear before Congress?

    Amidst all the ceremony and gravity of Britain’s Remembrance Day service on Sunday, one salient fact could not be ignored. The King has long talked of his desire for a “stripped-down monarchy,” and now he has his wish. The only male figures from the Firm who were out on show alongside him were the Prince of Wales and Prince Edward, who together had the effect of making the royals look a rather paltry selection compared to the grander gatherings of the past.

    We all know about Harry, but although some would like to see him, too, stripped of his royal title, Montecito’s second most famous resident continues to be able to refer to himself as a prince. This is not a luxury that his disgraced uncle enjoys any longer, as he adjusts to life not as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, but plain old Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. As he prepares to leave Royal Lodge for a more modest existence in a grace and favor home tucked in some obscure corner of the Sandringham Estate, he may look around and wonder if his disgrace is yet over. Well, judged by recent events, the bad news for him just keeps on coming.

    During his “heyday,” Andrew liked to present himself as a swashbuckling, entrepreneurial figure, thanks to his Pitch@Palace initiative, which invited would-be moneymakers to come to Buckingham Palace and get their businesses off the ground. Unsurprisingly, given his shame, this is no longer a going concern. Documents seen by the Guardian show that the last remaining part of the business, Pitch@Palace Global, has been wound up after its UK side foundered in 2021.

    Admittedly, after Andrew’s disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview, it is doubtful that even the most desperate would-be businessman would have seen the soon-to-be banned old Duke of York as the answer to their prayers, but the knowledge that this beleaguered endeavor is no more shows how total, and terminal, his disgrace is. (Lest we forget, it was from the Chinese arm of Pitch@Palace that the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo emerged, suggesting that Andrew’s judgment when it comes to those he kept company with has always been terrible.)

    And what of middle England? Well, Andrew has a few supporters who argue doughtily for the presumption of innocence before guilt is proved. Yet the overwhelming majority of the country consider that enough wrongdoing has now been established to regard the former prince as unspeakable, and they are not afraid to make their feelings felt. Residents of Prince Andrew Road and Prince Andrew Close in Maidenhead are hoping that the names of their streets will be changed, to avoid the taint of association. One long-sufferer local, Kelly Pevy, told the Daily Telegraph that: “If you’re giving someone the address, it’s the first thing [they’re] going to say. When I speak to energy companies and they ask for the address, they make a little joke. It’s mentioned more and more, and so then you start thinking about it more.”

    It remains to be seen whether the dwellers of Maidenhead succeed in their petition to the local MP to end this little joke, but if Andrew takes a moment out from a head-down routine of self-pity and video games, he may by now be seeing the enormity of the disgrace he faces. The Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have asked that he be summoned to the United States and Congress to answer questions about the precise nature of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Although they have no legal power to compel him to attend, Andrew knows that to do so would be potentially hazardous. Not only could he be prosecuted for perjury if any part of his testimony is false, but his presence in America would open him up to investigation, even arrest, for his alleged activities with the then-17-year-old Virginia Giuffre.

    Andrew Mountbatten Windsor – there is currently some debate as to whether his last name will be hyphenated or not – is as maligned as anyone in public life today. Yet if he had stopped playing Call of Duty on Sunday and watched his elder brother and nephew remember the fallen, he would have been aware of what real courage and real sacrifice look like. Andrew, by contrast, is an insignificant figure, too sinister and grim to be pathetic and too boring to be laughable. His downfall, in all its embarrassing little details, reflects the man perfectly.

  • Trump is creating a political Frankenstein

    Trump is creating a political Frankenstein

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump depicted himself as synonymous with winning. “We’re gonna win so much,” he said, “you may even get tired of winning and you’ll say please, please, it’s too much winning we can’t take it anymore.” Lately, however, Trump has been losing – losing not only in the court of public opinion, but also the courts themselves.

    The latest instance came with the decision of Utah judge Dianna Gibson to reject a congressional map that Republican lawmakers drew to try and ensure that a Democrat cannot win even a single seat in the state. Gibson ruled that the map “unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats.” Utah Democrats rejoiced. This is a win for every Utahn,” they said on social media. “We took an oath to serve the people of Utah, and fair representation is the truest measure of that promise.”

    The pickle for Trump is that in demanding that Republican state legislatures tilt the election playing field in their direction, he may have created something of a political Frankenstein. Democrats, incensed by what they see as a decades-long effort by Republicans to employ legislative skulduggery to squeeze them out of office, whenever and wherever possible, are starting to respond in kind. Gavin Newsom gambled that he could upend California’s legislative map with Proposition 50 and won. He not only boosted the chances of Democrats to gain an additional five congressional seats, but also his own presidential chances. Elsewhere, Democrats are looking to pad their margins, including in Maryland. Meanwhile, Republicans are starting to get cold feet. In Kansas, for example, top Republican legislators are balking at redrawing their districts. 

    Some of it may be principle. And some of it may be cold political realities. Divvying up districts, as Trump is demanding, could backfire on Republicans. There is no guarantee that Hispanics will vote for the GOP in large numbers in Texas. So the very efforts the right is adopting to try and shore up Republican prospects in 2026 could inadvertently undermine them. Trump, in other words, may be too clever by half. 

    Crybaby Republicans like Utah state representative Matt MacPherson are trying to go a step further. He’s demanding the impeachment of Judge Gibson. “I have opened a bill to file articles of impeachment against Judge Gibson for gross abuse of power, violating the separation of powers and failing to uphold her oath of office to the Utah Constitution,” MacPherson announced on X. This dog won’t hunt. Impeaching judges simply because they issue judges that politicians don’t like isn’t a winning political issue, any more than it was when conservatives erected billboards demanding “Impeach Earl Warren,” after the Supreme Court Justice issued the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 that banned racial segregation in American schools.

    Trump’s real problem remains the fact that his popularity rating continues to sink as quickly as the fortunes of the Washington Commanders football team. The Economist reports that 39 percent of Americans approve of his presidency while 57 percent disapprove. Its verdict is terse: “dissatisfaction with Mr. Trump is widespread even in states that voted for him just a few months ago. The numbers will make anxious reading for Republicans facing competitive races in next year’s midterm elections.” 

    Small wonder. As he threatens to prosecute what may well prove to be a disastrous war in the Caribbean against Venezuela, Trump is neglecting domestic issues in favor of playing battleship. No amount of gerrymandering can compensate for a presidency that is literally at sea. Trump must right the ship of state or the GOP will run aground in the midterms.

  • ‘Mamdanimaniacs’ are fleecing themselves 

    Zohran Mamdani’s victory came as little surprise. On both the left and right comparisons to the 2008 presidential election abound; Mamdani is said to mean nothing less than the rebirth of American liberalism. Like Obama, he was initially a foe of the Democratic establishment, but then embraced. And like Obama, he gets his intellectual and cultural ballast from politically active, urban, college-educated men.

    Mamdani’s victory can, in a narrow sense, be explained by the demographics of New York City. But what differentiates him from Cuomo and other establishment Democrats is his ability to speak to the popular, online leftism that millennial, professional New Yorkers traffic in. This particular subculture has seen little electoral representation until now. Given how much influence it now has over the American left, it’s worth understanding.

    The most enthusiastic Mamdani voter lives in a small apartment. His income ranges between the high five-digits to $250,000. If he’s old enough, he cast his first ever vote for Barack Obama in 2008. If not, he listens to podcasts hosted by people who did. A few years ago he became very interested in urban planning. He might have a career in law or marketing. He might even work in tech, though he finds Silicon Valley’s defection to MAGA appalling.

    The overriding concern of this person, though, is housing. Most people are familiar with New York’s absurd rents, and the anger that the city’s young feel toward their situation is justifiable. Mamdani’s solution is to build new units and, more controversially, to freeze rent on rent-stabilized apartments. This latter policy is what has generated the most enthusiasm within this subculture, mainly because it annoys the conservatives.

    You might ask of the “Mamdanimaniacs”: why not simply increase supply by deporting the huge numbers of illegal immigrants whose room and board is subsidized by the taxpayers of New York? Why rely on socialistic overreach instead of complying with the federal government in its effort to enact its deportation agenda? 

    Because the Mamdani voter is in hock to a moral consensus that does nothing for him. The ways in which his adherence shoots him in the foot are manifold and extend far beyond housing. If he uses the city’s public transport, he will, in small ways, deal every day with the consequences of cashless bail and pro-crime courts by being harangued by the homeless and mentally ill. Leftist media personalities inoculate him against thinking too hard about this – he’s regularly reassured that these inconveniences are what give the city its famous character. The costliness and high taxes of his city are owed, in part, to leftism too. Untold millions are transferred away from productive earners like himself to the city’s many social programs, none of which he or any of his hypothetical children will ever benefit from.

    What ties this all together is the stultifying social world of New York. For white-collar professionals, socializing in the city requires at least a passive adherence to leftism. Friendships, romantic prospects and relationships that can be leveraged professionally are dependent on passing all kinds of wearisome purity tests. Ideological probing masquerades as small talk. Acquaintances conspire against each other in a way that’d make a Stasi agent blush. These are hothouse conditions for the opportunist and the sneak.

    As such, the main effect of the popular leftism that Mamdani represents is to capture and neutralize the revolutionary energy of the youth, taking advantage of the anti-American and anti-white moral foundation that any young person who endured our education system is given. This demographic, in large part, chooses Mamdani because they would have faced social ostracism for doing anything else. Many can’t even bring themselves to privately consider the effects a fully realized Trumpism would have on their finances, their careers, and their standard of living. None of this is particular to New York either. Nationwide, below a certain threshold of disagreeability and perhaps courage, the only conceivable option for politically minded youth is to trick themselves into consenting to their own fleecing.

    Mamdani would have won without these “Mamdanimaniacs,” but his cultural cachet and national relevance would not exist without them. The faction that succeeds in reviving today’s moribund Democratic party will be aesthetically and ideologically informed by the “online” form of leftism that Mamdani embraced. Today, although still more or less confined to the internet, this leftist strain is poised to take over the Democratic establishment in much the same way that the GOP was supplanted by Trumpism, also forged in the crucible of the internet.

    Whether Mamdani can effect any substantial changes remains to be seen. The languishing Cuomo wing of the Democratic establishment is deeply rooted in New York City, and as an outsider he may have more difficulty implementing policies than previous Democratic mayors did. Any resistance put up by the Democratic establishment is likely to contribute even more to the dissatisfaction young leftists feel with the party, accelerating its demise. Even if Mamdani ends up changing little, though, his role in stoking alternative leftism will lead to trouble down the line for conservatives – especially in a post-Trump world.

  • The depressing truth about the media and John Fetterman

    The depressing truth about the media and John Fetterman

    When Whoopi Goldberg announced on The View that Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania would appear on the show to discuss why he voted to end the government shutdown, one audience member shouted “Boo!” It was just one audience member, on The View, on a Monday morning. But the liberal mind loves performative booing.

    Fetterman appeared on the show today via split screen from Washington, DC, wearing his signature black hoodie. The man won’t dress up for any occasion, and we must admire him for that. View host Alyssa Farah Griffin, the token Republican on the panel, said:

    You were critical of this shutdown from the outset, saying it never should have happened, never should have come to this, even at times criticizing your own party. So I want to ask you why did you ultimately decide to support this agreement? And where do you stand on the growing number of Democrats who are calling for leader Schumer to step down in light of the shutdown deal?

    That was a good question, though Fetterman wisely avoided the Schumer pile-on. “I effectively kind of led the charge that it’s wrong to shut our government down and then enough of us realized that that’s just too risky and that’s too much chaotic,” he said. “When you’re confronting mass, MASS chaos, you know, I don’t think you should respond with more chaos or fight with more chaos. It’s like, no, we need to be the party of order and logic.”

    Fetterman said he felt like the shutdown was hurting more people than it was helping, which is why he’s one of the eight Democrats who pulled the plug. It was time to stop playing with people’s lives just to own Trump. “And now I refuse to weaponize the SNAP benefit for 42 million Americans,” he said, “you know, that rely on feeding themselves and their family, or making flying in America, you know, less safe, or I refuse not to pay our military and all of the unions attached to all of this and people.”

    To me, a man who has now been forced to watch The View twice in two weeks, this was the most newsworthy of Fetterman’s comments, but not the most notable. Though the shutdown is in the news, Fetterman has a book to promote, Unfettered, which is mostly about his struggles with depression. Today’s New York Times review calls the book “dour and mournful.” Fetterman dedicates it to “anyone with depression.” In it, he writes, “I didn’t deserve anything except loneliness and sadness and isolation.”

    The View showed the book’s cover, but Fetterman used this platform to not talk about himself too much. Instead, he mentioned, on Veterans Day, how 17 veterans take their own lives daily. He begged us to think about them on this, a day that many of us get off from work.

    As he writes in the book, “a defining quality of depression, the building blocks of which I had probably struggled with ever since I was a kid. My parents were 19 when I was conceived, and I have always felt it was because of me that my parents were unable to follow their own dreams. When your self-image is negative, as mine was growing up, you gravitate toward shame. You gravitate toward feeling unwanted.” That feels familiar to anyone who’s ever even suffered a mild case of the blues, much less crippling depression.

    The View was very kind to the Senator, who clearly suffers from mental illness. He had to be hospitalized after he defeated Dr. Oz for the US Senate seat because he couldn’t deal with the criticism. You can’t, on the other hand, attribute kindness to the New York Times. In her review, Jennfier Szalai criticizes Fetterman for not sufficiently denouncing Israel or ICE. The book is out there, and all criticism is fair game. But sometimes, the last thing someone suffers from melancholy wants to hear, even a prominent Democratic senator who often sides with a Republican President, is a performative “Boo!” It’s a truly depressing situation.

  • Has Trump finally shut down Schumer?

    Has Trump finally shut down Schumer?

    The end of the Democrats’ government shutdown is at last in sight, and so too is the final act of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

    On Sunday night, eight Senate Democrats finally broke with Schumer and voted in favor of a procedural step necessary to eventually pass a continuing resolution to end the more than monthlong standoff.

    “Democrats have been fighting for months to address America’s healthcare crisis,” tweeted Schumer, who vowed that they would “keep fighting.” It was the kind of weak, empty gesture that has come to define Schumer’s tenure at the helm of his conference.

    Because regardless of what spin Schumer might like to put on this turn of events, the truth is that it represents yet another unambiguous failure on his part. The deal that his colleagues went around him to negotiate failed to extract the key concession that Democrats had professed to be holding out for: an extension of what were originally meant to be short-term Obamacare subsidies. Instead, their defectors settled for an agreement to force the Trump administration to rehire the federal workers it let go during the shutdown, as well as a promise that Republicans will hold a vote on the subsidies after the government is reopened.

    That’s the bad news for Schumer. The worse news is that much of his party is blaming him for his failure to hold the Democrats together.

    “Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?” asked Representative Ro Khanna.

    “Chuck Schumer has not met this moment and Senate Democrats would be wise to move on from his leadership,” asserted Representative Mike Levin.

    Representative Seth Moulton, who is challenging Senator Ed Markey for his seat in Congress’s upper chamber, declared that “Tonight is another example of why we need new leadership.”

    “If @ChuckSchumer were an effective leader,” he argued, “he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare.”

    California Governor Gavin Newsom, quite possibly the next Democratic standard bearer, didn’t mention Schumer, but called the deal “pathetic” and characterized it as “surrender.”

    This result should hardly be surprising, though. Even if the shutdown helped Democrats expand their margin of victory in last week’s off year election in November, Republicans were always going to hold the cards in this fight picked by Schumer. With control of Congress and the White House in hand, the GOP was never going to allow the Democrats to win by taking hostages.

    Schumer picked it anyway, though, not only because his party demanded it, but because his party demanded it or else. The loss the septuagenarian suffered in this particular fight was not the first crack in his armor, but it could be among the final ones.

    As a leader, Schumer leaves much to be desired. He’s among the worst orators in the Senate, and he’s compounded his grating voice and uneven delivery with shouting habit. As a pro-Israel senior, he is out of touch with the energetic, activist base of his party, which demands not only allegiance to the Palestinian cause, but is openly, if not self-awarely, antisemitic. And as a tactician, he was routinely routed by Mitch McConnell, and shows no signs of being able to best his successor, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, despite the fact that his caucus is far less ideologically diverse – and difficult –– than theirs.

    For those reasons, polls indicate that Schumer finds himself in troubled waters not just nationally, but with the constituents he’s spent his entire career representing. Should Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decide to run for the Senate instead of the White House come 2028, she would be the favorite in a race against Schumer. A Data for Progress survey conducted in March showed her with a 19-point lead over the incumbent. Another poll conducted in May found that she had a 21-point advantage.

    Of course, Schumer’s predicament is one not just of his own making, but his party’s. Democrats have been on a sprint leftward in the years since Donald Trump first won the presidency, leaving the Schumers of the world with no choice but to exhaust themselves trying to keep up. The demands – for both ideological conformity and no-holds-barred tactics – are either ill-advised, unrealistic, or both, yet men like Schumer who have made a career of their lack of principle are happy to comply if it means a few more years in the spotlight. Consider, as another example of his flexibility, his ill-fated call for the toppling of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year.

    And so when Schumer gives up or is forcibly removed from his post – an eventuality that is surely in motion even if it’s not imminent – his downfall will be attributable not only to his shortcomings as a political talent, but his habitual appeasement of the progressives who revile him.

  • The sinister rise of Churchill revisionism

    The sinister rise of Churchill revisionism

    Winston Churchill is one of Britain’s enduring symbols. His relentless drive, deep conviction and steadfast leadership means that he remains admired by millions around the globe. Yet for years, the political mainstream has been compelled to defend his memory from spurious attacks from the left, such as the British politician John McDonnell calling him a “villain.” Depressingly that threat – and the same pernicious desire to denigrate one of the West’s greatest heroes – can now be found on the right.

    Spawned from a sinister fringe of the ultra-MAGA movement, these views have been propagated to millions. Tucker Carlson hosted the pseudo-historian Darryl Cooper on his podcast in an episode that has attracted over 33 million downloads. Cooper made a series of absurd and ahistorical claims – including that Churchill was “the chief villain” of World War Two – while actively downplaying Nazi atrocities in eastern Europe.

    Carlson and Cooper are not alone. Major figures of the US online right, from Candace Owens to Dave Smith, have either backed Cooper or engaged in their own rewriting of the history of World War Two. Grokipedia, Elon Musk’s new AI alternative to Wikipedia, has an entry on Sir Oswald Mosley which states that “recent reappraisals” have validated his “policy prescience.” Mosley was the leader of the British Union of Fascists; the clue to his policy ideas are obvious in the name of his organization.

    Sadly, such revisionism is not confined to the United States. A new online fringe in Britain – from former Reform UK party candidate Ian Gribbin and party advisor Jack Anderton, to the popular contrarian podcast Lotus Eaters – have dabbled in revisionism of Churchill’s life, actions and legacy from an ultra-right perspective, essentially arguing that Britain should not have fought in World War Two. Of course, such views have been expressed in the past by Pat Buchanan, Alan Clark, John Charmley, David Irving and even Maurice Cowling, but were always niche. Today they are turbo-charged by tens of millions of people on social media. This new strain of ahistorical US-led Churchill skepticism must not be allowed to establish a bridgehead in British politics.

    As my and Zachary Marsh’s new report for Policy Exchange, “Defender of the West,” argues, these critiques consistently misrepresent or manipulate the historical record to present myths about Churchill as fact, such as that he was behind the decision to offer a guarantee to Poland in April 1939, when in fact he was a backbench MP and in no decision-making role. (Nonetheless it was the correct decision of Neville Chamberlain’s government.) Or that it was Churchill who initiated civilian bombing raids, despite the fact that they had been a central part of Nazi military strategy since Guernica in the Spanish Civil War.

    The repeated assertion by these critics that Churchill’s “warmongering” sustained an unwinnable war – forgetting it seems, that the Allies ultimately triumphed – is intended to suggest that Britain should instead have made peace with Hitler in 1940. Yet Hitler routinely breached every single agreement he ever signed, from the Munich Agreement to the Anglo-Germany Navy Treaty to the Nazi Soviet Pact. That he could be trusted to leave Britain and her empire alone is of the same naïve school of appeasement that Churchill himself rightly fought throughout the 1930s. He understood that a European continent dominated by any power – and particularly by Nazi Germany – was incompatible with Britain’s international interests as much as her values. Lebensraum did not just apply to the east.

    Rebutting Churchill revisionism is not only important for protecting the principles of good scholarship and evidence within the academy, but is also essential because this transatlantic fringe is determined to expand its influence over insurgent right-wing populism both in America and Europe. In doing so, the aim is not simply to manipulate the public’s view of Churchill, but through his denigration to create the intellectual space for their other pernicious ideas to flourish, specifically that isolationism and nativism should triumph over internationalism and interventionism.

    By blackening Churchill’s name (and of course that of President Franklin Roosevelt), the ultra-MAGA ideologues, several of whom have been disavowed by President Trump himself, hope to damage the cause of anti-totalitarianism more widely, to the benefit to Vladimir Putin. The attack on Churchill is not just an ivory tower spat; it is profoundly connected to calls for the West to rip up the postwar international order that Churchill helped build.

    In recent weeks, most notably with the fallout from Tucker Carlson’s interview with the foul Nick Fuentes, fueling civil war in MAGA-land and at the influential Heritage Foundation – where I have given speeches in the past – we have seen how this same fringe has embraced anti-Semitic and white supremacist rhetoric. These views are infused with admiration for the authoritarian strongmen who would thrive in a world where countries like Britain and the United States abrogated their responsibilities towards smaller democracies. Gribbin, whilst standing for Reform UK in 2024, even combined his criticism of Churchill with praise for Putin, saying, “If only the West had politicians of his class.”

    Historical debate and discussion of the merits of western internationalism are necessary and healthy for our discourse. Yet they must be routed in facts, evidence and made in good faith. These attacks on Churchill, the greatest Briton, seek to present the United Kingdom’s sacrifice and achievements in World War Two as an entirely pointless endeavor, which justifies a new isolationism. Rational, decent, conservative-minded people of all parties and movements should be steadfast in rejecting such dangerous ahistorical rubbish. 

    Lord Roberts of Belgravia is the co-author of Policy Exchange’s new report: “Defender of the West: A response to attacks on Churchill’s life and legacy”

  • Is Trump becoming a lame duck?

    Is Trump becoming a lame duck?

    No sooner did Democrats in the Senate reach a deal to end the federal government shutdown than a frenzy of liberal pearl clutching ensued. The Democrats should have held out longer, they argued. Healthcare subsidies could have been rescued. Donald Trump’s approval ratings were plunging. Golly, maybe the Democrats could even have driven the dreaded Trump from office? Jonathan Chait’s verdict in the Atlantic was not untypical: “Senate Democrats just made a huge mistake.”

    Don’t believe a word of it. The surprising thing isn’t that Democrats folded. It’s that they held out as long as they did. In the end, the moderate Democratic Senators, ranging from Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman to Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto, made the right call. Here’s the deal: ending the government shutdown puts the focus back squarely on Trump – and his failure to deal with a faltering economy and rising healthcare costs. Add in the fact that the Epstein files will now likely be released as the House of Representatives goes back into session and you have turbulent political seas awaiting Trump. Can the President safely steer his administration through them?

    Some of Trump’s key supporters are starting to get queasy. Exhibit A is a fiery excoriation from Sunday night on X issued by one of the President’s most prominent supporters in the Maga media – Sean Davis, the co-founder of the Federalist. After contending that congressional Republicans have no real accomplishments or plans, Davis laid into someone who is usually exempted from such criticisms by MAGA world: Trump himself. According to Davis: “Trump needs to ditch the foreign policy crap and focus all his attention on the domestic economy, which is still not working for the majority of people. Right now he looks weak and rudderless. Be mad all you want, but it’s the truth.”

    The truth is that Trump has in many ways become a foreign policy president. He’s been hosting a stream of foreign visitors, including from Central Asia this past week. He’s also handed out a $40 billion subvention to his Argentine chum Javier Milei, while failing to assist farmers in America who have been whacked by his tariffs. Instead, he’s engaged in happy talk about how prosperity is just around the corner. As Davis observed: “Newly minted college grads can’t find work and are saddled with debt. Where is their path to the American dream right now? Who is giving them a vision of a future worth fighting for?”

    This past weekend, I spoke with a mother whose 24-year-old son earned double degrees in mathematics and computer science and is now living in Manhattan – where he works as a rock-climbing instructor and scrapes by living in an efficiency apartment that costs $2,400 a month to rent. Small wonder that a socialist like Zohran Mamdani cruised to victory as mayor of New York.

    For his part, Trump appears to be living increasingly in the past. He dozed off in the Oval Office three days ago. Now his latest move is to preemptively pardon 77 of his supporters, including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and lawyer John Eastman, for their support of his efforts to upend the 2020 presidential election. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared, “President Trump is putting an end to the Biden regime’s communist tactics once and for all.”

    Hmm. Actually, it is figures on the right who are starting to sound the red alert. On the RealClear Politics news site, for example, Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz warned that the kerfuffle over the Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts’ defense of Tucker Carlson for interviewing the Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes could damage the conservative cause. According to Berkowitz: “Tucker Carlson’s cozying up to Holocaust downplayers, Nazi apologists, Stalin enthusiasts, and rank anti-Semites – along with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts’ October 30 insistence that conservatism’s big tent is big enough to embrace those who hate Jews and fawn over murderous tyrants – widened a parlous rift on the right.”

    Internal fights are one thing. But the economy is what could take down a president who declared in his second inaugural speech that he would usher in nothing less than a triumphant new golden age in America. With the Supreme Court poised to strike down his tariffs, Trump is starting to look like a lame duck and the 2026 midterm elections loom larger than ever. As the government reopens, the battle between Trump and the Democrats may only have begun.

  • Why is Trump sending an aircraft carrier to Venezuela?

    Why is Trump sending an aircraft carrier to Venezuela?

    Venezuela has been on tenterhooks for weeks, waiting as the United States gathers an armada of warships. The world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, looks likely to arrive in the Caribbean from the Mediterranean early next week to join the assortment of destroyers, frigates, amphibious assault vessels and a nuclear-powered submarine. 

    No one seems to know exactly what this magnificent display of American naval firepower is all about. Has it been sent to destroy the cocaine smuggling networks in Venezuela, or topple President Nicolás Maduro, the egregious leader of that poor country? Or is its purpose to remind the Latin American region that the US under Donald Trump could come in guns a-blazing whenever it wants?

    Whatever the answer, Trump is currently examining all the options for some form of possible military action over and above the target practice granted the US Navy to knock out any speedboat coming out of Venezuela suspected of carrying cocaine. So far at least 17 vessels have been destroyed, including one semi-submersible, resulting in the death of 70 people. 

    This, however, is not the sort of mission appropriate for the mighty Gerald R. Ford, a carrier with space for up to 90 aircraft on board. There has to be a grander plan. This, at least, will be the thinking of President Maduro, who has been appealing for military help from his backers, including Vladimir Putin.

    Apart from Maduro himself, his regime flunkies, the police and the army who get paid high wages to stay loyal, there can’t be many people in Venezuela who would not welcome US intervention to get rid of a president who has destroyed the country’s economy through gross mismanagement, corruption and greed since he came to power in April 2013. Nearly eight million people have already fled the country, leaving behind their unsellable homes and businesses.

    The options in front of Trump are said to include: comprehensive strikes within Venezuela on the known drug cartels’ strongholds; attacks on the military protecting Maduro; seizing the country’s oil fields; and going for Maduro directly, just like the US did in Panama three decades ago, when Mmore than 26,000 US troops swept in by helicopter and landing vessels to capture General Manuel Noriega, the country’s leader. Noriega, like Maduro, was designated by Washington as a drug trafficking baron.

    Trump, however, is already being criticized for the attacks on drug boats. They are not justified under international maritime law, experts have said. The Trump administration has argued that the US is engaged in an armed conflict against drug cartels and that those killed were “unlawful combatants.” This was the phrase used by President George W. Bush’s administration to justify the extra-judicial capture and detention in Guantanamo of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists following 9/11.

    The Trump administration has reportedly been seeking advice from the Justice Department about the legality of attacking facilities in Venezuela associated with the drug cartels, as well as, potentially, a direct targeting of Maduro. 

    Judging by leaks in Washington, it would seem the advice was that the administration does not have legal justification for strikes on Venezuela. Officials have been quoted as telling Congress that Trump was not currently planning to launch strikes inside the country. 

    If this is the case, then the arrival of USS Gerald R. Ford and its accompanying warships presents Trump with a conundrum. Deploying a carrier from the Mediterranean via the Atlantic to the Caribbean Sea, a journey of around 2,700 nautical miles, is not done for fun. It’s a deliberate and provocative move, authorized by the president to send the most potent warning that the US means business.

    The US Navy already has at least 13 surface warships and a nuclear-powered submarine operating near Venezuela. Some of the warships and the submarine are armed with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, the weapon system favoured by previous US presidents to carry out strikes without the need for sending troops. In addition to warships, the US has reactivated a Cold War era naval base in Puerto Rico, about 500 miles from Venezuela’s coast, and sent troops, F-35B stealth fighters, Marine Corps helicopters and heavy transport aircraft.

    The US is essentially facing off against not just the Venezuelan cartels, but Maduro’s military too. There is intelligence evidence that the Venezuelan army plays a role in ensuring the successful trafficking of drugs out of the country. The biggest cartel, the Cartel de los Soles, is allegedly led by high-ranking members of the Venezuelan armed forces. Military facilities identified as being linked to the drug cartels could be targets for Tomahawks. 

    But will Trump go this far? Having deployed so much firepower to the Caribbean, is he going to give the order to launch strikes, or will he listen to the Justice Department lawyers, counselling caution?

    The sudden announcement last month of the early retirement of Admiral Alvin Holsey, commander of Southern Command, which oversees American operations in the South Caribbean and Latin America, suggests there may be growing internal concerns about what the Commander in Chief has in mind.

  • Trump takes on the British disinformation complex

    Trump takes on the British disinformation complex

    President Trump is waging war on the great British disinformation complex. The White House is gearing up to revoke the visa of British citizen and chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), Imran Ahmed, amid the Trump administration’s greater battle against the BBC.

    By “countering digital hate,” the CCDH means censoring speech it disagrees with. The British campaign group, which has an office in Washington, has pushed for the deplatforming of Trump officials from social media and for greater restrictions on speech online generally. The CCDH advocated that Twitter/X remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s account for spreading anti-vaccine “disinformation,” and a whistleblower revealed last year that an internal memo had listed “kill Musk’s Twitter” as one of CCDH’s priorities.

    The founder of the CCDH, Morgan McSweeney, left to work as chief of staff to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. McSweeney is considered one of the most, if not the most, influential figures on the British left. When the Labour government passed the UK Online Safety Act, which places restrictions on online speech, the CCDH claimed it was instrumental in passing the bill into law.

    The White House has raised concerns about the Online Safety Act – not only because it dangerously and undemocratically stifles dissent against a failing political class, but because it has emboldened the UK’s online regulator Ofcom to pressure US companies to conform with the Act. Last month, the online messageboard 4chan was fined £20,000 by Ofcom. American companies could be fined by the UK for allowing American citizens to exercise their right to free speech. Where are those people who in 2016 were so concerned about foreign interference in our democracy?

    The Trump administration has taken an interest in free speech in Britain as a cautionary tale of how the left’s obsession with policing “digital hate” and “misinformation” can lead to imprisonment for social media posts, as in the case of Lucy Connolly. The resignations over the weekend of two of the BBC’s highest executives, director-general Tim Davie and CEO Deborah Turness, are major victories in Trump’s war on Britain’s censorship complex.

    Davie and Turness both resigned after revelations about the BBC’s bias against the President. Britain’s national broadcaster was exposed by the Telegraph for doctoring a speech Trump gave on January 6, 2021. The edited clip, which aired in a TV program a week before the 2024 election, made it sound like he was urging supporters to storm the Capitol, rather than telling them to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

    The two snippets which were spliced into one – “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you” and “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore” – occurred nearly an hour apart in the actual speech Trump gave. When BBC executives were presented with the now-leaked internal report, which voiced concerns about this program and other distortions in reporting, they ignored it.

    “On top of everything else, they are from a Foreign Country,” the President wrote on Truth Social of Davie and Turness. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning that the US could revoke visas for foreign nationals engaged in censorship indicates that the US is ready to wage diplomatic war to protect the First Amendment at home, and even export it abroad. Not satisfied with the ​heads of Davie and Turness, Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action and demanding the UK’s national broadcaster pay $1 billion in damages. Telegraph sources tell Cockburn that “spirits are high” at the paper after their shoutout from the Donald.

    Karoline Leavitt called the doctored clip “purposefully dishonest” and evidence that the BBC are “total, 100% fake news.” In a nod to the Trump administration’s preference for smaller, scrappier “new media” – for example, the latest member of the Pentagon’s press corps, Laura Loomer – Leavitt gave her recommendation for Brits on how to avoid establishment brainwashing. She wrote on X that the BBC “is dying because they are anti-Trump Fake News. Everyone should watch @GBNEWS!” And read The Spectator, of course…

  • The jihadist I knew: my life as al-Sharaa’s prisoner

    The jihadist I knew: my life as al-Sharaa’s prisoner

    As Washington rolls out the red carpet today for the former al-Qaeda chieftain and now Syrian president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria’s minorities continue to live in terror. An army of destruction, half Mad Max, half Lollapalooza is rolling through the desert somewhere south of the country’s capital, Damascus. Who has ordered these militants into action? No one knows. What do they want? It isn’t clear. But, as a former prisoner of al-Sharaa’s band of jihadists, I can’t say I’m surprised by what is unfolding in Syria.

    Whatever else might be said about the old regime of Bashar al-Assad, no one was ever in doubt as to who was in charge. There were statues of al-Assad on roundabouts, billboards plastered with his face on the highways and pop hits on the radio (“O Bashar, the lofty brow, but who is like you?”). These weren’t masterpieces by any means, but they had a certain catchiness to them, and so, over time, they settled into everyone’s mental jukebox. The old power wished to govern a particular place, namely Syria, and to preside over a particular people, namely Arabs, as the national anthem, Protectors of the Realm, was at such pains to point out.

    The power looming over the nation’s minorities at the moment has no such properties. Many of the foreign fighters still in Syria drifted in at the beginning of the civil war, 14 years ago. Often enough, those fighters burned their passports on arrival. It is hard to know who they are.

    Whoever the culprits, the violence is unmistakable. The powers that have been coming for the Druze over the past few months have also been targeting the Christian community in Syria, which is living through a period of danger unlike anything that has befallen eastern Christianity for over a century. The worst of the anti-Christian violence occurred last June at the Mar Elias Church in Damascus, when an attacker opened fire on the congregation. He killed 25 people before killing himself.

    As I was frequently subjected to fake executions, I spent most of my first year in a state of shock and awe

    The Alawites are also in jeopardy. A mixture of government and civilian forces, amounting to some 200,000 fighters, descended on the Alawite homeland, along the Syrian coast, in March and April. The massacres there appear to have left at least 1,500 people dead. In July, when a similar mixture of government and irregular forces attacked the Druze capital, Sweyda, they killed some 1,400 people, of whom 765, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, were civilians “summarily executed by defense and interior ministry personnel.”

    Anyone who visited Syria before the war will be familiar with the spirit that animates this violence. In the time of al-Assad, whenever the propaganda division wanted to haunt the national imagination, it depicted sectarian strife as a big-bellied gourmand sitting down for a feast. The nation of Syria was laid out before this creature like a meat pie. The cartoons depicted him, bloody knife in hand, about to carve the country into bits. That dark prophecy is alive in al-Sharaa’s Syria.

    I happen to know something about what it’s like to live under the power of Islamist extremist rule. In the autumn of 2012, during an ill-fated reporting trip in Syria, a band of jihadis, led by Syria’s then al-Qaeda chief, Mohammed Jolani, now better known as al-Sharaa, took me prisoner. In those days, he and his deputy, Mohammed Adnani, presided over a caliphate-in-miniature which operated out of the basement of the Aleppo eye hospital. Adnani subsequently became famous for his behead-the-journalists-in-the-desert videos, and for directing the November 2015 attacks in Paris.

    Almost right away, during the first hours after my arrest, I was told that Islam holds creation to be divided between the realm of the seen and that of the unseen. As Adnani was my first interrogator, I happened to hear his rantings about this important topic most often. In his view, ever since the arrival of the very first Alawite in Syria in the ninth century, the members of this only-in-Syria sect had been inflicting their barbarism and ignorance on the nation. Through the centuries, according to him, the Alawites had lied so subtly, sabotaged Islam so relentlessly and when all else failed, simply terrorized the people, that, eventually, those who truly loved Islam had been forced into hiding. Adnani and al-Sharaa were going to escort all of Syria out of its thousand years of darkness, into the light.

    As I was often held by myself in a windowless cell, I was never permitted out of it without a blindfold. And as I was frequently subjected to fake executions, I spent most of my first year in a state of shock and awe. After about 500 days, however, the effect wore off. By that point, I had been transferred to a prison somewhere on the banks of the Euphrates, in eastern Syria. By then, the little family of terrorists I had encountered at first in a warren of rooms beneath a ruined Aleppo hospital was no longer so little. Thanks to an ingenious social media footprint and a “cataract” of American weaponry, as this New York Times article (which I did not have occasion to read at the time) put it, the family now controlled an area the size of Texas.

    What does life inside an international terrorist organization feel like during its rapid growth phase? It feels like young men who’ve been shunted to the side since childhood – who’ve been poor and rootless and frightened of the police – are coming into their own at last. They are up to their ears in guns, combat vests, grenades, and two-way radios. Each one of these young men dreams of a little Playboy mansion in the desert: the four wives, the children underfoot, the loving community all around. In Syria, especially for the fighters who have access to money from Europe, it’s not so hard to make this particular dream come true.

    In a contemporary caliphate, among the fighters at least, much feasting goes on. There is singing. The happiness in the air, the resolve to do away with Syria’s three million Alawites once and for all, the high-tech western weapons, the half-suicidal, half-homicidal foreign fighters: when you live within these phenomena long enough, you will eventually feel that you have drifted away into a country which is just being born, which the outside world has never seen and cannot fathom. You will note how often the citizens here call up the old world on the phone, how they miss it and how much time everyone spends assembling improvised explosive devices.

    An al-Qaeda official in Syria who I remember lecturing a roomful of prisoners he was about to execute on charges of apostasy is now a senior minister

    Eventually, you will feel about this parallel world as you might feel about a novel in which a high school student – a clairvoyant, let’s say – is laughed at for some essential element of herself, and so withdraws into a netherworld of spirits and spells. The reader of a novel like this might not know how exactly the climactic scene will unfold but long before the spectacular bloodbath arrives, he will feel it coming. Life inside the growth phase of an international terrorist organization is like waking up to find that everyone you know is the lead character in such a novel.

    One night in July of 2014, I was let out of my cell. A kerfuffle over who was entitled to the revenue from Syria’s oil fields had broken out. During the subsequent forced march out of eastern Syria, we drove through the desert, always at night, and always without lights. Just before dawn, we would stop at the mouth of a cave or at the base of a sand dune in order to drink tea and catch a few hours of kip.

    At least a few of the pick-up drivers who escorted us have since become generals occupying plush offices in downtown Damascus. An al-Qaeda official in Syria who I remember lecturing a roomful of prisoners he was about to execute on charges of apostasy is now a senior minister. On the surface of things, it would appear that the revolution has turned everything in Syria on its head. But have things really changed all that much? I, for one, am skeptical.

    Looking back, I suspect that in the summer of 2014, when I was traveling through the desert, the nation had already slipped from al-Assad’s grasp. During the day, his men controlled certain checkpoints. But at night, bands of clairvoyants in pickup trucks roamed the countryside. Somewhere, far away, in a palace on a bluff overlooking Damascus, a president who liked to play both sides off against the middle received foreign dignitaries. He smiled for the cameras. Did he know what was going on in his own backyard? Did he care? It wasn’t clear. Meanwhile, every day, a stream of young Europeans keen on guns, pick ups and being married to four women at once was trickling into the country.

    The old stream has begun to flow again, according to a report in Le Figaro. In 2014, some of the men with whom I traveled through the desert were keen on the idea of the slave girl. The markets which used to traffic in Yazidi women are now trafficking in Alawite women. “The matter of the kidnapped women is worrisome to everyone,” an activist, Ihan Mohammed, told France 24. “Every day, two or three women disappear.”

    One of the most vexing issues in Syria in 2014 was the Europeans’ tendency to summon their friends back home into the jihad. A few weeks ago, a British TikTokker, standing at the site of an Israeli bombing in downtown Damascus, issued a general appeal. Evidently, he had seen into a nefarious plot. Israel was planning to pave a highway through Syria, into Iran, his visions told him. “It’s some crazy shit,” he says in his video. “My brothers and sisters, it seems that this is just the beginning of the war with Israel. What are you guys doing? Are you just sitting there? All of you can get on a plane right now…”

    In Syria, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Syria has a new president who is warmly welcomed in western capitals. But on his watch, the blood continued to spill.