Category: Politics

  • Have the Virginia Giuffre revelations got Prince Andrew sweating?

    Have the Virginia Giuffre revelations got Prince Andrew sweating?

    It is a staple of Gothic fiction that the malefactor is often caught out by a document or apparition that appears from beyond the grave. And so it appeared for Britain’s scandal-riddled Prince Andrew, ever since it was announced that Virginia Giuffre, who the now-former Duke of York allegedly had sexual relations with when he was 41 and she was 17, was posthumously publishing a memoir, entitled Nobody’s Girl, in which she offered candid accounts of what, precisely, happened with Andrew, courtesy of the disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Everyone – including the royal family – braced for impact, and the decision to remove Andrew’s title and Order of the Garter must surely have been dictated by this latest humiliation.

    Although Nobody’s Girl is not published until next week, excerpts have now been released to newspapers and magazines on both sides of the Atlantic, and it is a strange mixture of the newsworthy and the unremarkable. Giuffre once again recounts how she had sex with Prince Andrew three times, courtesy of Epstein’s pimp, Ghislaine Maxwell, and how she was paid $15,000 by Epstein to keep the duke happy. She describes the actual sex as being unremarkable, if tending towards the fetishistic – “He was particularly attentive to my feet, caressing my toes and licking my arches” – and the whole thing was over in less than half an hour.

    The picture painted of Andrew is certainly unflattering and aligns closely with that Giuffre had already said in various court depositions – how she was taken to the exclusive London nightclub Tramp, despite being underage, and how the duke “was sort of a bumbling dancer, and I remember he sweated profusely.” (This, of course, led to Andrew’s reputational downfall in his 2019 Newsnight interview, in which he said, straight-faced, that he was medically incapable of perspiring.) The most damning statement is Giuffre’s reflection that “he was friendly enough, but still entitled – as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright.” After all, in her recollection, Andrew was the second son of Elizabeth II, and Giuffre was just one of the innumerable girls that Epstein provided for him, as if on a platter.

    Andrew, of course, denies all claims of wrongdoing and also has suggested that not only did he never have sex with Giuffre, but that he has no recollection of meeting her. Few are convinced. Resurfaced emails suggested that he and Epstein were “in this together” and that when the fuss had died down, “we’ll play some more soon.” These were far more damaging than anything that has so far been released from Nobody’s Girl, because the association with Epstein – which lasted far longer than Andrew had admitted – is so toxic that it will hang over him like a nuclear cloud for the rest of his life.

    With this calumny removing any chance of a public comeback, Andrew will now be grasping at what little comfort he can seize from the situation. It is highly unlikely, on present evidence, that criminal proceedings will be brought against him, and even if they were to be opened in the US, it is highly unlikely that an extradition attempt would succeed. It is widely believed that no member of the royal family would ever be tried in a criminal court in the UK – noblesse oblige dies hard – and so it is likely that Andrew will remain at liberty, even with his reputation shot to naught. Likewise, there is no revelation from Giuffre’s book – so far, at any rate – that dramatically worsens his situation. Yet there is every chance that, as the Epstein emails slowly drip-feed into public view, there is worse to come, and one could hardly blame the banned old Duke of York for lying awake at night awaiting the next revelation – and sweating profusely at the thought of it.

  • Trump, the foreign policy president?

    Trump, the foreign policy president?

    President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine continued his excellent sartorial adventure at the White House, appearing in an elegantly cut black suit and shirt on Friday as he met with President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room. But while they may have helped avoid any emanations of wrath from his host, his habiliments did not appear to prompt Trump to approve the dispatch of Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv, a coveted item indeed. “We’d much rather not need Tomahawks,” Trump said. “We’d much rather get the war over. It could mean a big escalation. It could mean a lot of bad things could happen.” 

    Back to square one, in other words. In August, Trump had claimed that his summit meeting with President Vladimir Putin would lead to a breakthrough. It never happened. Instead, the Russian President made Trump look like a patsy. Now he’s trying to play the same game.  

    Trump acknowledged that Putin might be trying to string him along once more. Was he concerned? “Yeah, I am, but I’ve been played all my life by the best of them,” he said. “I’m pretty good at this stuff. I think that he wants to make a deal.” So far, his optimism has proven unwarranted. 

    For his part, Zelensky played his cards, the ones that Trump previously claimed he did not possess before reversing that judgment, very well. He did not provoke Trump. Instead, he said it was important to maintain pressure on Putin and ensure that Ukraine receives real security guarantees. Zelensky also held out the possibility of Ukrainian cooperation with America on advanced drone technology in exchange for long-range missiles. 

    The question for Trump is simple: does he want to up the pressure on Putin before he enters negotiations in Budapest? Or does he want to try and placate the Russian tyrant in the coming weeks? Trump’s very avidity for a deal is what has made him such a pliant object in the hands of Putin, a former KGB agent who has a shrewd understanding of his counterparts. Few, if any, American presidents have been able to come out ahead in dealing with him, whether it was Bush, Obama or Biden. Instead, Putin has outmaneuvered them while steadily increasing his reach and power, both at home and abroad. A bad hombre, to use Trump’s phrase. 

    The person that really seems to have incurred Trump’s ire is another dictator. “He doesn’t want to fuck with the US,” Trump announced during lunch with Zelensky. He was referring to Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro who has been a thorn in the side of Trump.  

    In what he regards as his sphere of influence, Trump wants to dictate the terms of surrender to pesky fellows like Maduro. Elsewhere, he wants to preside over ceasefires and peace agreements. The main thing is that Trump, and Trump alone, is at the center of events. 

    A summit in Budapest, where he is supposed to meet Putin, will once more allow Trump to seize the spotlight, at least for a few days. It may also provide a fillip to Trump’s ally, Hungarian president Viktor Orbán, who faces a tough election in April. The government shutdown in Washington may not have ended by then, but this prospect does not appear to trouble Trump unduly. He’s too busy becoming a foreign policy president to preoccupy himself with domestic matters.

  • Tucker Carlson, ‘belle of the ball’

    Tucker Carlson, ‘belle of the ball’

    Tucker time

    In the month since his death, Charlie Kirk has been credited for his role as a unifying figure on the American right. Nowhere was that more evident than at the Tuesday afternoon service posthumously awarding him the Presidential Medal of Honor, where four hosts of Fox News’s prestigious 8 p.m. slot posed for a photo together: Jesse Watters, Glenn Beck, Bill O‘Reilly and Tucker Carlson.

    Tucker also got a picture with Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham – incredible considering how acrimoniously things ended between him, his former network and a number of his other high-profile colleagues. (Carlson branded Hannity a “warmonger” as recently as June.)

    Per a source: “Tucker was the belle of the ball among the press – and was the only guest who ‘gaggled’ with reporters after the ceremony ended, until Katie Pavlich shooed them away. He talked at length to LindellTV’s Cara Castronuova about her work on the new January 6 committee. He was definitely the most goo-gooed figure there. Perhaps evidence of how much the GOP will need Tucker on their side for the next couple of elections.”

    On our radar

    LIGHT LUNCH President Trump is briefly hosting President Volodymyr Zelensky for lunch – before jetting off to Mar-a-Lago at 3 p.m.

    ZOH NO In a Fox News poll taken before last night’s New York City mayoral debate, Zohran Mamdani holds a 21-point lead. (Obviously Cockburn’s debate highlight was the bizarre exchange about parades.)

    TRAP HOUSE TISH A new twist in the Leticia James fraud case: the New York Post discovered the New York AG is housing her grandniece Cayla Thompson-Hairston at one of her properties in Virginia. The Post describes 21-year-old Thompson-Hairston as “an OnlyFans star with a public, X-rated social media presence” (which has been nuked since they broke the story last night).

    Cockburn would have signed the Pentagon pledge

    Not all the media has decided to shun the Pentagon’s new “loyalty pledge” that it asked reporters to sign. Conservative outlets like the Federalist, One America News and the Epoch Times will lick the Department of War’s boots, as will several Turkish journalists. So will Kristina Anderson from AWPS News, with its 212 followers on X, who tweeted that she felt “a profound sense of loss as I walk the Pentagon’s Correspondent spaces today.”

    Cockburn would obviously have signed the agreement, but his lunch went long and he missed the deadline, so now he’s out of the loop. You can email any tips about goings-on at the WarDep to cockburn@thespectator.com, safe in the knowledge that he’ll keep your identity anonymous until Pete Hegseth applies the thumbscrews (or offers to share an 11 a.m. gin and tonic).

    Cockburn is definitely not interested in leaks about procurement scandals, Venezuela invasion plans, Chinese drone strikes, funneling of Tomahawk weapons systems to Ukraine, disgruntled personnel, or cabinet secretaries being sleazy. That would be thoroughly inappropriate and un-American. So whatever you do, do not email cockburn@thespectator.com because, again, Cockburn missed the deadline and is now inadvertently on the naughty list of the Pentagon – which is his favorite building and favorite shape, that houses his very favorite cabinet department that never conceals any shenanigans. Once again: the tips email to avoid is cockburn@thespectator.com.

    State rep kills on Kill Tony

    Smash-hit Austin comedy show Kill Tony had a surprise guest at Joe Rogan’s Mothership club the other night when they pulled far-left-wing Delaware State Representative Medinah Wilson-Anton’s name from the “bucket.”

    In each edition of the show, Tony “Puerto Rico is a garbage island” Hinchcliffe, Brian Redban and other comics sit on stage as judges while scores of aspiring comics wait in the green room. Wilson-Anton was one of the chosen few on Monday’s episode.

    Representative Wilson-Anton, who revealed that she’d taken the Greyhound bus to Austin from Fort Worth, emerged from backstage wearing a red hijab and did a few quick jokes about her vitiligo, a condition that causes the loss of melanin pigment. “My body is gentrifying itself,” she said. “My mom smacked the black off me.”

    Hinchcliffe, who described himself as a “common-sense centrist who just saw in the last election that there was only one option,” asked Medinah-Wilson about her ethnic background. She said, “Black and black. Blackety-black.”

    Medinah Wilson said that in the State House, “I wish that we had a light. Because my colleagues go on and on. Democrats and Republicans all suck.”

    Hinchcliffe liked that – and also nodded along when she said, “this is the America I love. You can have voted for Trump and not agree with everything, just like you can be a Democrat and not suck. We all exist in multiplicities.”

    “Indeed,” Hinchcliffe said. “We’re all meeting in the middle. We are the United States of America. The greatest country in the world.”

    Then one of Hinchcliffe’s co-hosts pointed to Anton-Wilson’s hijab and said, “Is there a yarmulke under that?”

    Subscribe to Cockburn’s Diary on Substack to get it in your inbox on Tuesdays and Fridays.


  • John Bolton’s AOL chat with Iran

    John Bolton’s AOL chat with Iran

    “John Bolton Surrenders To Federal Authorities” is a headline I could have only dreamed of seeing 20 years ago, but this morning it came true. Following yesterday’s grand-jury indictment of Bolton, the former Trump National Security Advisor and W. Bush Iraq War architect/manipulator gave himself up and pled not guilty in federal court on charges of mishandling classified information. But if Bolton isn’t guilty, I’m a high-stakes poker professional.

    The charges claimed that Bolton was “unlawfully hoarding” documents, that he sent classified information over grandpa communication medium AOL instant Messenger in 2018 and that he shared more than 1,000 pages of notes, while working on a memoir, with his wife and daughter, neither of whom had security clearances. “From on or about April 9, 2018, through on or about September 15, 2019, on a regular basis, Bolton sent diary-like entries to [his wife and daughter] that contained information classified up to the Top Secret/SCI level,” says the indictment.

    Now, let’s be clear, even though we can dream, this isn’t Julius and Ethel Rosenberg or Aldrich Ames-like stuff. Bolton was just trying to enjoy a final cashing-in on a lifelong career of neoconservative warmongering. But Iranian hackers, representatives of a government that wouldn’t mind targeting Trump, not to mention Bolton, also have access to AOL. According to the indictment, they intercepted the messages. Looks like the man with the walrus mustache got a little careless with his “secret travel memos.”

    Bolton said, in a statement, “These charges are not just about [Trump’s] focus on me or my diaries, but his intensive effort to intimidate his opponents, to ensure that he alone determines what is said about his conduct,” Bolton said. “Dissent and disagreement are foundational to America’s constitutional system, and vitally important to our freedom. I look forward to the fight to defend my lawful conduct and to expose his abuse of power.”

    It’s true that Bolton has had some unkind things to say about Trump since leaving his political orbit, and it’s also true that Trump is using any means necessary to target his political enemies, real or perceived. But unlike James Comey and Letitia James, Trump’s other two most powerful recent lawfare targets, Bolton’s indictment actually has a chance to stick. He almost certainly won’t serve a full 10-year sentence, but the grand jury indictment is quite specific and pointed. The law tends to be biased against a guy who’s “hoarding strategic government communications” for his memoir.

    Let’s keep in mind that Bolton was a key architect of one of the biggest government deceptions of our time, or any time, the absolute insistence of the George W. Bush administration that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which led to one of the most pointless wars in American history. Talking to NPR in 2023, a sure sign that the political winds had shifted, Bolton said, “it depends on how you define a lie, because if you believe that’s a lie, then a lot of what I hear on NPR on any given day is a lie. To me, a lie is a statement that’s untrue, that’s uttered deliberately knowing it’s false. The administration didn’t lie.”

    Sure, John. In my mind, Bolton’s indictment is about yellowcake uranium, not about saying mean things about Donald Trump in a memoir called The Room Where It Happened. But you can only go to war with the army you have. John Bolton as the ultimate defender of free speech, dissent and disagreement feels like a bit much to me. Next thing you know, Democrats will be trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the Cheney family. Truth be told, it’s kind of hard to believe.

  • Schrödinger’s covert action

    Schrödinger’s covert action

    While much of the pushback from the right wing to Donald Trump’s international hawkishness has come from voices focused on the Middle East, and feared potential for wider wars prompted by support for Israel, the actual test of a break within the Republican coalition on foreign policy disputes could come over the president’s stepped up focus on Venezuela.

    The most recent development, with Trump issuing a rare public acknowledgement that he has authorized covert CIA actions on land. “I authorized for two reasons, really,” he explained this week. “Number one, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America. And the other thing are drugs, we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela and a lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea.”

    Think of it as Schrödinger’s covert action – does it really stay covert once you announce it? This would also seem to go against Trump’s stand against starting new wars, particularly those with a mind on regime change, which some of the president’s more hawkish supporters would clearly like to be the ultimate aim. It also includes newly ordained Nobel Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who took to the airwaves in an interview with Christiane Amanpour this week practically begging Trump to greater action against Nicolas Maduro’s regime.

    The sheer amount of resources the United States has moved into the region is impressive, well beyond the drones being used to take out a series of Venezuelan drug shipments at sea. As The Wall Street Journal reports:

    “The U.S. has moved advanced weaponry into the Caribbean and in the skies north of Venezuela, including eight Navy warships, an attack submarine, F-35B jet fighters, P-8 Poseidon spy planes and MQ-9 Reaper drones. The Pentagon has deployed elite special operations forces, including the Army’s secretive 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, the ‘Night Stalkers,’ a U.S. official said. Large troop-carrying and attack helicopters are part of the mix, with some aircraft conducting training flights fewer than 90 miles from Venezuela, the official said.”

    This is definitely a significant force, but what it isn’t is a prelude to a land invasion of the sort likely necessary to take on Maduro’s armed forces. Instead, for now at least, Trump seems happy with the kind of actions that disturbs Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, but doesn’t commit larger troop numbers or personnel to a regime change project.

    A fundamental aspect of the Trump tenure in his second term is that everyone is mindful about the future and what it will bring – namely, if his personally defined version of America First is the enduring approach of the GOP, or if there is a shift toward either further pullback around the world or back toward a default pre-Trump Republican security policy.

    There are plenty of observers on both sides who emphatically believe they will be the beneficiaries once that post-Trump sort happens. Their reactions, and the reactions of voters on the American right, to whatever does happen in Venezuela in this ramped up non-covert covert action could determine where the wind is blowing headed into 2028. Or it could become an object lesson in how even the president most resistant to starting new farflung foreign wars might end up in one much closer to home.

  • Why the French are dreaming of a Donald Trump à la française


    A year ago Donald J Trump was still roundly disliked by the French commentariat. Even the conservative Le Figaro newspaper held its Gallic nose in disdain, running a haughty article headlined “Trump, vulgarity runs rampant.”

    The left still loathe the president of the United States but for the right in France he has become a role model.

    The same Le Figaro now writes approvingly of Trump and admits it got him wrong. “We expected an isolationist Trump, focused solely on American interests,” it declared on Friday. “But in nine months, the president has established himself as a peacemaker in multiple international crises.”

    The French perhaps more than any European nation have never got The Donald. The political class in France are bland, humorless and conventional, as is most of the mainstream media.

    The British populist politician Nigel Farage once said of the American president: “There’s a lot of humor with Trump. It’s quick-witted repartee, which he is a master of. He’s very funny. He’s enormous fun to be with.”

    It’s hard to think of any French politician who could be described as “enormous fun,” certainly not Emmanuel Macron. The only thing enormous about the president of the Republic is his ego. And his list of failures.

    Macron has run France into the ground and reduced the country – and himself – to a laughing stock. The French did not appreciate the sight of Trump mocking Macron in Egypt at the start of this week. But their anger wasn’t directed at the American president, as he wondered with a smirk why Macron was being so “low-key.” For the French, the ridicule of their president is richly deserved.

    The contempt for Macron is arguably most profound within France’s business community. They believed his promise in 2017 to relaunch the country’s economy after five years of shambolic socialism under president Francois Hollande. Macron was hailed as the “Mozart of Finance.”

    Eight years later France finances are out of control and last month two rating agencies downgraded the country’s debt.

    If French conservatives are to break this socialist stranglehold they will need to do more than simply win an election. They must launch a counter-revolution.

    A few weeks ago a book was published in France titled Bosses: the Trump Temptation. Its author, Denis Lafay, interviewed numerous business leaders in France and discovered that they dreamed of a Donald à la française. It was more than his business approach; they also approved of his “strong rejection” of the mainstream media, public spending, international institutions and wokeism. Above all, wrote Lafay, they admired Trump’s personality. “His virility, his taste for combat, his culture of deal-making, his resilience and finally his very authoritarian side, which reassures them.”

    One suspects that France’s business leaders are more desperate than ever for a Donald of their own after the events of this week in parliament. Centrist Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced on Tuesday that his coalition government was suspending the pension reform bill of 2023 until after the 2027 presidential election. The main plank of this bill raised the age of retirement from 62 to 64.

    The Socialist Party celebrated. Their 66 MPs had threatened to join a motion of no confidence in the government if the bill wasn’t suspended. Lecornu capitulated to the blackmail. Patrick Martin, the president of Medef, the largest employer federation, said it was “a sad day for France,” and lamented the fact that a minority socialist party was dictating government policy.

    The Socialist Party’s representation in parliament has dwindled from 295 MPs in 2012 to 66 today, but they have been marching through France’s institutions for decades. They control the Supreme Court, the State Council, the National Audit Office, the state-owned broadcaster and much of the judiciary.

    If French conservatives are to break this socialist stranglehold they will need to do more than simply win an election with an absolute majority. They must launch a counter-revolution, as Trump and J.D. Vance have in America, purging the institutions of the left-wing dogma that has taken root since Francois Mitterrand’s presidency of the 1980s.

    Earlier this week a conservative magazine called Frontières ran an editorial headlined “A plea for a French Trump.” It listed his achievements this year, including the deportation of illegal immigrants and the classification of Antifa as terrorists, and contrasted Trump’s administration of seasoned experts with their own “incompetent elites.”

    France, declared the editorial, “deserves a Trump and the government that goes with him to restore its greatness.”

    Making France great again won’t be easy given how low the country has fallen this century. So if there is a French Trump out there, bonne chance.

  • Who deserves credit for the Gaza ceasefire?

    Who deserves credit for the Gaza ceasefire?

    Since the Gaza ceasefire was announced last week, two distinct narratives have emerged. The first gives President Donald Trump the lion’s share of credit. The second, mostly pushed by former Biden officials, is trying to share the glory. Both are wrong and for the same reason: they give the United States unrealistic credit and ignore the obvious fact that it is the belligerents who decide the fate of a war. More than any world leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deserves credit.

    After the return of the living hostages, Biden-administration Secretary of State Antony Blinken posted on X to explain the ceasefire’s emergence: “It’s good that President Trump adopted and built on the plan the Biden Administration developed after months of discussion with Arab partners, Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

    Blinken is correct that Biden and Trump plans are similar, but there’s a big difference between devising and implementing a plan. The Biden administration had an uneasy relationship with Israel. This led to Israeli distrust of any American proposal on the one hand and Hamas’s hopes that, by exploiting the tensions, it could get more favorable terms or even a unilateral Israeli withdrawal.

    More important is the fact that the Biden plan contained clauses that doomed it to failure. The initial stages of that plan saw Hamas agree to release the living hostages drip by drip. Israel was wary of this as it would have potentially allowed the terrorist group to leverage hostages even after a ceasefire had been reached. The only plan Israel could expect – given Hamas’s habit of “playing games” with hostages – was one that saw a simultaneous liberation. By March, it became clear that the drip-feed Biden framework would not secure an ending to the war, and Israel resumed fighting. As the Persian proverb goes, if the mason lays the first stone crooked, the wall will be crooked all the way up to the stars.

    The Trump plan made sure to plant the first stone straight: it ensured the initial stages were acceptable to Israel. It made Hamas responsible for starting the ceasefire by releasing all the living hostages at once and then returning the dead bodies.

    Even so, Trump can’t really take credit for this. As the Israeli journalist Amit Segal wrote, “Every Trump plan [for] the Middle East is a plan written by Ron Dermer (senior adviser to Netanyahu) and just wrapped in this shining bright gift package to President Trump.” Avi Shavit further reports that Dermer, former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair, and Emirati president Mohamed bin Zayed had been working on this plan since December 2023. This proved mutually beneficial for Israel and Trump. Any plan that seemed to come obviously from Israel would have been rejected by Hamas and Arab states, so by allowing Trump to take credit for a framework, the Israelis increased the likelihood of its acceptance. And by putting his name on it, of course, Trump got to be the peacemaker. The genius of the so-called Trump plan is that it was conceived in Jerusalem then slapped with a “Made in America” label.

    Many of the talking heads who Trump deserves most of the credit for ending the war argue – without evidence – that he did so by exerting pressure on Netanyahu to wrap things up. There is no evidence that he did so. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite. The attitude of the Trump administration toward Israel behind closed doors has been to ask, “What do you need from us?” This was a reversal of Biden-administration policy, which berated Israel and frequently withheld arms deliveries.

    In other words, the Trump administration applied pressure not to Israel, but to Hamas. And they did so primarily by getting out of Israel’s way. After the President chose not to resist Israel’s invasion of Gaza City, Hamas’s last stronghold, the terrorist group realized it could not drive a wedge between the US and the IDF.

    What this means is that the majority of the credit must go not to Trump – and certainly not to Biden – but to Benjamin Netanyahu and the strength of Israeli soldiers. This is not a criticism of Trump, who did everything right, but a simple fact that the belligerents are the primary drivers of change.

    Non-belligerents can only do so much to end a conflict. This war only ended when the US decided to get out of Israel’s way. As our nation’s policymakers again turn their full attention to Russia and Ukraine, they would be wise to remember this fact.

  • Is Putin stringing Trump along with the promise of a Budapest summit?

    Is Putin stringing Trump along with the promise of a Budapest summit?

    Sorry, Volodymyr. There won’t be any Tomahawk missiles headed to Ukraine now that  President Vladimir Putin of Russia has talked on the phone with President Donald Trump, who called their session “very productive.”  

    What it will produce remains an open question. But it does seem to have resulted in a decision to hold an upcoming summit in Budapest. The bottom line: Putin has outflanked Ukrainian President Zelensky, who will meet at the White House with Trump tomorrow. 

    Trump is a transactional president and he has business that he wants to transact with Russia, including, but not limited to, a peace deal between it and Ukraine. If anything, Trump, intent on winning the Nobel Peace Prize that eluded him this year, appears to be on the verge of becoming a foreign-policy president. He’s hopscotching around the globe, trying to solve conflicts, wherever and whenever he can. Whether they are truly solved is another matter. For Trump the art of the deal is to secure one, no matter how precarious it may appear. Then move on to the next zone of conflict. 

    For Zelensky, Putin’s missive could not come at a worse time. Ukraine has been bathing in the warmer rays emanating from the Trump White House to it. Trump has repeatedly voiced his frustration with “Vladimir,” as he likes to call him, for refusing to end the war. Now Putin is once more dangling the bait of a ceasefire at the very moment that he is pounding Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in preparation for what looks to be a very cold winter indeed. 

    Zelensky had been hoping to persuade Trump to up his game and confront Russia more openly. Since the Alaska summit, Trump has approved further cooperation between American and Ukrainian intelligence services, ensuring that they receive better targeting information to hit Russian energy infrastructure. But acceding to Tomahawk missiles, which can reach deep into Russia, would have escalated the conflict, particularly with the Kremlin threatening that it would erase the barrier to the nuclear threshold. Anyone who doesn’t get a case of the collywobbles from confronting that prospect should head directly to the local cinema and watch the new and sparkling film, A House of Dynamite, which offers a timely reminder of the destruction that one warhead can deliver. 

    Here’s hoping that Trump can forge some kind of viable agreement between the two sides, one that could lead to further cooperation on the nuclear arms-control front, where most of the agreements forged during and after the Cold War lie in tatters. Putin’s track record, of course, should hardly inspire much confidence. A master of the tactical move, the Russian President may well have intervened simply to stymie Trump from delivering more potent weapons to Ukraine. 

    Zelensky will be on his best behavior in meeting in Washington with a president who is desperate to reach some kind of accommodation with Putin. Throughout, Zelensky would do well to make favorable noises about peace and allow Putin to once more emerge as the recalcitrant party. It is Putin, and Putin alone, who has steadily been saying nyet to ending the conflict in his mad desire to reestablish the Russian empire of yore.

  • The UN’s ‘climate crisis’ tax

    The UN’s ‘climate crisis’ tax

    In between votes to legitimize the world’s worst regimes and condemn the world’s only Jewish state, the United Nations has found the time to introduce itself as a global governmental structure with the power to levy taxes on every inhabitant of Earth.  

    No, really. 

    The UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) is of the opinion that it can impose duties on the carbon emissions of ships to the tune of between $100 and $380 per metric ton. All of the revenue generated would be paid out to the UN’s “Net Zero Fund,” which would be used to “reward low-emission ships,” or pick winners and losers.    

    Worse yet, the fund would also be used to transfer wealth to “developing countries,” as well those the UN deems especially “vulnerable” to the consequences of climate change. Among them: China, the world’s second biggest economy and America’s chief geopolitical competitor, which is currently waging a no-holds-barred trade war against it. 

    To its eternal credit, President Donald Trump’s administration has drawn a hard line rejecting this unprecedented proposal. A joint statement released by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy made it clear that the United States would “not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists.” 

    “The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10 percent or more,” submitted the three Trump deputies, who went on to threaten those who vote in favor of the proposal with a bevy of investigations, regulations, visa restrictions, commercial penalties, fees and sanctions that ought to make the ill-inclined think twice about crossing Uncle Sam on this matter.  

    The administration’s efforts to strong-arm the rest of the world are righteous. There are, of course, no shortage of economic arguments to be marshaled against this global carbon tax. According to economist Stephen Moore, American vessels representing 12 percent of global maritime shipping are set to pay out 20 percent of all of the revenue generated under the proposal. Moreover, Americans have already been robbed of years of wealth-building opportunity by post-pandemic, post-Biden profligate spending spree-induced inflation. Is yet another cost-raiser really what the doctor ordered? 

    But there are also plenty of principled, long-term reasons to pull out all the stops to kill this pernicious idea in its cradle. 

    The IMO considers this proposal to interfere with the free market and infringe upon its member states’ sovereignty in the name of social justice at a moment when people around the globe are increasingly skeptical, and indeed resentful of such heavy handed interventions. 

    Do the American people really wish to accept the UN’s assertion of the power to tax them at face value? What will follow next? And why should America continue to allow authoritarian China and the motley crew of naive Europeans and malevolent allies to continue to weaponize progressive pet causes to punish the U.S. and advantage themselves?  

    America First is a loaded term with a loaded history. But Trump and his team are doing vital work by championing American interests and spurning this power grab at the IMO. While Presidents Biden and Obama spent their White House tenures practically begging for opportunities to demonstrate that the United States would fall on the “right” side of history on issues like climate change, Trump has accurately diagnosed measures like this carbon tax as a Trojan Horse for wealth redistribution, and bad actors like the Chinese Communist Party. 

    If he was elected to do anything, it was to identify, expose, and consign such measures to the dustbin of history.

  • Why woke doesn’t work

    Why woke doesn’t work

    Many conservatives will have long suspected that “woke” language – the cocktail of victimhood narratives and group identity – alienates most Americans. It is simply too grating, and it is simply too divisive. And no matter what your politics, it is almost impossible to imagine a healthy society that is built on an aggressive competition over who is the most historically aggrieved. 

    Up until now this has been mostly an intuition. But a new study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) finally puts evidence on the table: that this “woke” language actively provokes real anger, defensiveness and bile in respondents. Woke language is often used as a way to browbeat ordinary people into submission, but we now have plausible grounds to conclude that it’s achieving the precise opposite. 

    Many leaders have tried solving (often very real) social problems by applying “woke” doctrines, but have usually ended up making things worse. Why? This kind of politics offers a very dubious picture of how society actually works, and an even weaker guide to what we should do about it. Peoples and nations are vast and complex, and it is incredibly difficult to make any high-level policy decisions based on simplistic evaluations of group victimhood or oppression. More than anything else, “woke” was just stupid. 

    But our research shows that there is more to this story. The survey tested the actual effect of “woke” language on Americans by drawing from public messaging put out by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The organization is one of America’s most influential liberal NGOs. It has been at the forefront of shaping how anti-Semitism is taught in schools across the US, developing a variety of educational resources like handbooks and curriculum programs.

    In an effort – no doubt well-intentioned – to fight the scourge of increasing Jew hatred, the ADL embraced the language of “woke” in their campaigns. And, generally speaking, they have increasingly adopted language that presents Jews as victims: of physical violence, of prejudice, of “silence” from neutral bystanders. Jews are framed simply as one of many oppressed group identities in America and, so the logic goes, we can fight anti-Semitism by getting people to see them in such “woke” terms. 

    The problem is that this type of rhetoric only partly stimulates feelings of solidarity, care, concern, positivity or even respect. Most strikingly, the study demonstrates that exposure to this psychological framing actually increases participants’ reported anger, defensiveness, even hostility towards Jews. It also increases something called the “hostile attribution bias” – a jargonistic way of assessing whether you interpret people’s behavior in good faith or not. 

    Paradoxically, fighting anti-Semitism using the ADL’s language can measurably increase feelings of anti-Semitism. Talking about social issues like inequality or racism in “woke” language appears to upset people because it divides, accuses and relies on a message of competition rather than unity. Conservatives have long suspected this. Now, we have some more hard evidence.

    This is not the first study indicating that “woke” messaging creates more hostility, not less. Back in November last year, the NCRI ran a similar research project after learning that an astonishing 52 percent of US professionals have to attend DEI meetings and training events at work, with the stated intention of increasing awareness of and opposition to “systemic oppression”.

    Yet, surprisingly, nobody had bothered to run the numbers before and see if this corporate training works. If they had done so, they’d see that, more often than not, the cure is worse than the disease. (And even that’s only if you actually believed that DEI was about curing anything, as opposed to, say, subsidizing a class of HR professionals and conjuring an entire micro-economy – totaling $8bn according to McKinsey – out of thin air.)

    We found that when Americans were exposed to messaging lifted directly from the work of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, as these DEI programs entail, it significantly increased their perception of racism in the workplace – even without any evidence for it whatsoever – resulting in heightened racial prejudice, intergroup hostility, suspicion and division. (The same is true for Islamophobia.) These programs also led to increased support for actual punishment against those who committed “microaggressions”, something which has caused people to lose their jobs and livelihood.

    The implications of these studies are enormous. Even anecdotally, it’s been obvious over the past few years that “woke” language alienates voters and drives social polarization away from the political center of shared values. Trump’s election was, inter alia, clearly a reaction to the increasing “wokification” of American politics and culture. And when public institutions adopt this kind of messaging, they find themselves unable to positively shape hearts and minds on social issues, no matter how noble. 

    Yet this doesn’t mean we should toss out the ambition of making society at least a little bit less crap – particularly for the long-suffering American middle classes. Most interestingly, what our study also showed is that you can reverse the negative effects of DEI training by simply adopting a language of shared humanity instead of “woke”. If you shift the framing from competition to cooperation, adopt a message of common dignity and responsibility towards each other, this new bad blood almost completely vanishes. Woke, in short, does not work. The language of shared humanity and common cause might be the secret to shoring up an increasingly faltering civilization.