FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Sorry

This feed does not validate.

line 140, column 6: Missing enclosure attribute: length (20 occurrences) [help]

      <enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
      ^

line 140, column 6: url must be a full URL: (20 occurrences) [help]

      <enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
      ^

line 140, column 6: Unexpected fileSize attribute on enclosure element (20 occurrences) [help]

      <enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
      ^

In addition, interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 2, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: http://ogp.me/ns# [help]

<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl. ...

line 2, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: http://schema.org/ [help]

<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl. ...

line 2, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns# [help]

<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl. ...

line 2, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: http://rdfs.org/sioc/types# [help]

<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl. ...

line 2, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core# [help]
```
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl. ...
```
line 2, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# [help]
```
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl. ...
```
line 12, column 0: description should not contain data-annotation attribute (149 occurrences) [help]
```
  <description>&lt;p&gt;The idea of a Latino museum originated in a Clinton- ...
```
line 589, column 0: description should not contain data-entity-type attribute (3 occurrences) [help]
```
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ma ...
```
line 589, column 0: description should not contain data-entity-uuid attribute (3 occurrences) [help]
```
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ma ...
```

line 589, column 0: description should not contain decoding attribute [help]

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ma ...

line 589, column 0: description should not contain fetchpriority attribute [help]

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ma ...

line 589, column 0: description should not contain sizes attribute [help]

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ma ...

line 589, column 0: description should not contain loading attribute [help]

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ma ...

line 1125, column 0: description should not contain data-type attribute [help]

  <description>&lt;p&gt;Regarding “&lt;a data-type="link" href="https://www. ...

line 1344, column 2: Missing atom:link with rel="self" [help]
```
  </channel>
  ^
```

Source: https://www.heritage.org/rss

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:schema="http://schema.org/" xmlns:sioc="http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#" xmlns:sioct="http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" version="2.0" xml:base="https://www.heritage.org/">
<channel>
<title>Heritage RSS Feed</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/</link>
<description>Content from www.heritage.org.</description>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title>The Smithsonian’s Latino Museum: Victimhood Culture Is in Its DNA</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/the-smithsonians-latino-museum-victimhood-culture-its-dna</link>
<description>The idea of a Latino museum originated in a Clinton-era report<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Raul Izaguirre and Mari Carmen Aponte, Willful Neglect: The Smithsonian Institution and U.S. Latinos, Report of the Smithsonian Institution Task Force on Latino Issues, May 1994, https://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/forum-pdfs/Willful_Neglect_The_Smithsonian_Institution%20and_US_Latinos.pdf (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF authored by the chair and co-chair of the task force charged with it, Raul Yzaguirre and Mari Carmen Aponte. Yzaguirre was one of the founding members and second president of the 1960s radical leftist group La Raza (The Race), and Aponte was on La Raza’s board. Their 1994 report charged the Smithsonian with systemic exclusion and underrepresentation in all aspects of its operations, claiming that such marginalization could only be the result of racism. The report also twisted history, by, for example stating, “Because of both indigenous roots and Spanish heritage, Latinos predate the British in the Americas,” loosely using a term that applies to the entire hemisphere. The report, in other words, amounted to a heavy-handed attempt to shame the Smithsonian and the government into accepting its recommendations. These included racial preferences in hiring and promotion and, notably, that the Smithsonian “begin immediately to do the groundwork needed to assure the establishment of one or more museums portraying the historical, cultural, and artistic achievements of U.S. Hispanics.”
That laid the groundwork for Congress to create in 2008 the “Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;National Museum of the American Latino Commission, To Illuminate the American Story for All, Final Report to the President and Congress of the United States, May 2011, https://americanlatinomuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/To-Illuminate-the-American-Story-for-us-All.pdf (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF President Bush, in his last full year in office, facing a hostile Congress after suffering a major shellacking in the 2006 elections, signed the commission into law on May 8, 2008. The commission’s recommendation in May 2011 urged the creation of the museum, wrapping the idea in patriotic language: “The time has come for the creation of a new museum on the National Mall, the place where our nation’s most important monuments are located, where we conduct the business of our Congress, pay tribute to our veterans, gather to inaugurate our Presidents and where we give full voice to our freedom of speech.”REF The leftist group La Raza’s fingerprints were all over this report as well, with its members participating in the commission and the activist group promoting its work. The museum, in other words, is intended to perpetuate societal divisions that La Raza helped create in the first place, and the process that led to it is a textbook example of the Left’s March Through the Institutions.
Congress should end this madness and cut off funding for the museum.
<h3>Enshrining La Raza’s Life Work</h3>
The commission’s report said that “the museum will make Latinos proud of their heritage” and “serve as a permanent place for Latinos in U.S. history.” The museum, in other words, represented a culmination of decades of work by La Raza, and Yzaguirre personally, to forge a Hispanic category that had to be officialized in government papers, creating an identity where one had hitherto not existed, one cobbled out of very different nationalities, races, and traditions. What the activist organizations sought was a minority group that felt separate from the mainstream—and even aggrieved by it—to whom the very real suffering of black Americans could be analogized. The category of Hispanics, Yzaguirre wrote in 1974, “would best convey their national minority group status. There is a difference between a minority group and a national origin group—a difference recognized in terms of national economic and social policies.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Quoted in Cristina Mora, Making Hispanics: How Activists, Bureaucrats and Media Constructed a New American (University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 64, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Making_Hispanics/SQjGAgAAQBAJ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
These were all preposterous propositions, but the political implications in terms of power and funding were crystal clear. Vilma Martínez of the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a far-Left activist group also deeply involved in the writing of both museum reports, was very clear about why these activists sought the Hispanic identity: “We are trying to get our just share of political influence and federal funds.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Mike Gonzalez, “Trump Is Right: Illegal Immigrants Shouldn’t Be Counted in Census,” The Daily Signal, August 14, 2025, https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/08/14/trump-is-right-illegal-immigrants-shouldnt-be-counted-census/.&lt;/p&gt;">REF The fact that this was about political power was not lost on Congressman Daniel Flood (D–PA), who asked militants at a 1969 hearing: “Are you forming a bloc? Are we financing the formation of a bloc?”REF But preposterous as they may have been, these were propositions that the bureaucracy and petrified Republican officeholders came to not only reluctantly accept but even gleefully defend.
The Latino museum, thus, would enshrine on the National Mall La Raza’s life work. Its activist promoters used the same scare tactics and promises of patriotic intent (which were forgotten before the ink had dried on the signed enacting bill) that they had employed with such success with the bureaucracy and Republicans in the 1960s and ‘70s to create the Hispanic ethnic category in the first place. Founded in 1968 with seed money from the Ford Foundation, La Raza—today called UnidosUS—had devoted itself from the start to creating an official “Hispanic” group, first compelling the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to so in 1977 with OMB Policy Directive No. 15 and then forcing the Census Bureau to add the category to the decennial census for the first time in 1980.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Mike Gonzalez, The Plot to Change America (Encounter Books, 2020), https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Change-America-Identity-Politics/dp/1641771003 (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Up until that time, immigrants from all over the world had been catalogued according to traditional races. Immigrants from, say, Uruguay who were black were logged as black in government documents, and those who were white were counted accordingly. Nation of origin was the important factor. In her very good 2014 book Making Hispanics, the progressive Berkeley sociology professor Cristina Mora recounts how the Census Bureau had resisted the creation of the panethnic community. “For census officials, this omission reflected a consistent empirical finding: Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans and Cuban Americans overwhelmingly considered themselves to be separate groups.”REF Mora quotes a Census official as saying that “they didn’t really” identify with each other, and more tellingly, they “didn’t really know what Hispanics meant.” The term, in fact, was used only in New Mexico, “primarily by more upwardly mobile Mexican Americans … to assert a European identity and distance themselves from Mexican immigrants.”REF But after OMB and the Census created the group, all immigrants from lands between the Rio Grande and Tierra del Fuego were somehow consigned to a category apart: Hispanics. Another minority group was created. Latino was later added as another name for the same group by activists who thought that Hispanic was too redolent of the colonial power Spain (and who apparently never heard of the area around Rome called Latium). But the two terms are interchangeable.
More importantly, the reasoning behind constructing the category is such that a “Hispanic museum,” if built, would have to treat these Americans as victims. The museum would be a physical expression of the idea that the real bond between members of the group was shared discrimination. Public Law 94-311—the first and only law in U.S. history that identifies an ethnic group and whose stated objective was to “implement an affirmative action program”—specifically stated that what Hispanics have in common is being the target of bigotry. It maintains that “a large number of Americans of Spanish origin or descent suffer from racial, social, economic, and political discrimination and are denied the basic opportunities they deserve as American citizens and which should enable them to begin to lift themselves out of the poverty they now endure.”
Therefore, what united this new Hispanic group was neither culture, ethnicity, race, nor even language (Brazilians—33 percent of the people in Latin America—speak Portuguese, while many million others speak Indian languages) but being victims of discrimination.REF When La Raza militants urged the government to create the group in 1973, their argument likewise was that these Americans “were a disadvantaged minority group that deserved representation in data.”REF Portraying Hispanics as victims is thus not a bug that can be fixed; it is a factory feature of a Latino museum. La Raza even held off adding Cuban Americans to the category until it could find an organization that “accepted a disadvantaged minority status.”REF Accepting a subordinate status is a pre-condition to inclusion in the category. That this may be an extremely offensive stereotype is immaterial to those who sought separation, division, and set-asides back when racial preferences were the order of the day.
There was segregation against Mexican Americans, to be sure, especially in South Texas, though nothing on the scale of the horrific persecution of blacks in parts of the South. There was also poverty in areas such as the Rio Grande Valley, though, again, it was roughly comparable to that of such other rural subsets as the Scots Irish in Appalachia or the Cajuns of Louisiana. So the use of victim status as the bonding agent for the group was political and ideological, especially because residents of the valley themselves chafed at being denominated as such by activists. A massive 1970 study by UCLA paid by the Ford Foundation discovered, much to chagrin of the scholars, “that merely calling Mexican-Americans a ‘minority’ and implying that the population is the victim of prejudice and discrimination has caused irritation among many.” The researchers also found that Mexican Americans—even those with dark complexions and thus most visibly susceptible to prejudice—could achieve success even in the most benighted parts of Texas. Moreover, the immigrants coming in from Latin America did not immigrate here to see themselves, or be seen, as members of a subordinate caste but to have a chance at the American Dream. This is why, after the decision to wrap the new Hispanic identity around victimhood was made, it became the job of the activists to instill into the children of the new immigrants—and those with longer pedigree alike—the aggrieved feelings of oppression. That, as this report makes clear, is the mission the Latino museum is now dedicated to carry forward.
This far-fetched notion that shared victimhood actually constitutes a race is widely shared in the academy. UCLA Chicana studies professor Laura Gomez practically devotes her oft-quoted book Inventing Latinos: A New Story of American Racism—a 2022 NPR Book of the Year—to this idea. The webpage for the book claims that “it is only recently that Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, Central Americans, and others are seeing themselves (and being seen by others) under the banner of a cohesive racial identity. And the catalyst for this emergent identity … has been the ferocity of anti-Latino racism.”REF
<h3>The Road to Approval</h3>
The activists used the 11 years between the commission’s report and the signing of the bill that created the museum to lay down the infrastructure required to achieve this key milestone in the Left’s advance on our institutions. To work Congress, the activists approached the Raben Group, which was known for its lobbying work for La Raza, the abortionist group NARAL, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the NAACP.REF In 2004, Raben founded Friends of the National Museum of the American Latino, which was to be its lobbying vehicle to muscle this milestone through Congress, and which received its formal tax-exempt status in 2014.REF Raben boasts that it practically wrote the legislation that eventually passed Congress in 2020: “We led a national campaign to create a Smithsonian National Museum of the American Latino. Working with Congress and the White House for almost 20 years, we advanced legislation to authorize the building of a museum on the National Mall.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Raben, “Friends of the Museum of the American Latino,” https://www.raben.co/initiatives/friends-of-the-museum-of-the-american-latino (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
The activists, clearly, understood how the U.S. government works. Their strategy was to sow victimization and transform America into a majority-minority country, at first simply by changing how people were counted and then solidifying the new identity in a museum. It was, by definition, subversive of America’s assimilationist ethos. But the activists and their new lobbyists rightly intuited that there were politicians who would calculate that supporting the museum might be good for their electoral prospects. They also knew they needed Republicans to back the effort and thus cleverly camouflaged their efforts with patriotic language. They were able to convince enough Republicans to go along in Congress.
“Our Story: One of family, patriotism, hard work, ingenuity, and pride in the country we’ve all built together. American Latinos are veterans, artists, athletes, business leaders—active participants in every walk of life.” These stirring red, white, and blue sentiments are found on the website of Friends of the Museum. Joaquin Castro, the very progressive chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus—a Democratic pressure group that does not let Republicans join—equally sounded an atypical patriotic tone when the House of Representatives passed a bill approving the museum in mid-2020: “The Latino story is an American story, and our history is a central thread in the history of our nation. Latinos have fought in every U.S. war.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Matthew Daly, “House Approves Bill to Create Latino Museum on National Mall,” PBS, July 27, 2020, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/house-approves-bill-to-create-latino-museum-on-national-mall (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
To be sure, no part of this pro-America story would be included in the museum exhibits that the public has been able to see so far—or in those that we know had to be canceled for being ant-capitalist. Instead, as we shall soon see, what has been put on display are collections that depict Hispanics as victims. Veterans have been mentioned but only in order to praise Army deserters.
In 2020, the lobbyists and activists got Texas’s senior Senator John Cornyn, a Republican, to sponsor the bill to create the museum. “Close to 40 percent of all Texans identify as Hispanic, and their history is an integral part of Texas history that must be recognized and remembered,” read Senator Cornyn’s statement. “By creating a new museum in the Smithsonian Institution, we can honor American Latino contributions and highlight their stories for future generations.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Senator Cornyn’s statement after introducing the bill can be found at https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-bill-to-establish-smithsonian-museum-for-latino-history-passes-house/ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF The bill creating the museum was tucked into the almost $1 trillion omnibus bill that Trump called a “disgrace.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Jennifer Shutt, “Trump Signs Massive Omnibus Spending, Coronavirus Relief Package,” Roll Call, December 27, 2020, https://rollcall.com/2020/12/27/trump-signs-massive-omnibus-spending-coronavirus-relief-package/ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
One man stood in the way of the museum’s creation: Senator Mike Lee (R–UT), who saw clearly what was afoot and tried to block the vote as late as mid-December. “The last thing we need is to further divide an already divided nation with an array of segregated, separate-but-equal museums for hyphenated identity groups,” Lee said at the time. “At this moment in the history of our diverse nation, we need our federal government and the Smithsonian Institution itself to pull us closer together and not further apart.” The Smithsonian, he added, “should not have an exclusive museum of American Latino history or a museum of women’s history or museum of American men’s history or Mormon history or Asian-American history or Catholic history. American history is an inclusive story that should unite us.”
Lee faced withering opposition from colleagues. One good example was this comment from Senator Susan Collins (R–ME): “I could not help but wonder as I heard the comments of my colleague from Utah whether he also tried to block the museum celebrating and telling the history of African Americans. It seems wrong that one senator can block consideration of a bill that would have overwhelming support by a majority of this body.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Paul LeBlanc, “Utah Sen. Mike Lee Blocks Votes to Establish Smithsonian Museums for Latinos and Women,” CNN, December 10, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/mike-lee-smithsonian/index.html (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF On December 27, Trump signed the omnibus bill, saying he was doing so only because “it is my responsibility to protect the people of our country from the economic devastation and hardship” brought on by COVID-19.
<h3>The Museum Becomes Reality</h3>
The newly approved Latino museum revealed in spectacular fashion that its critics had been right all along. In June 2022, only two years after approval, the administrators of the museum opened a gallery at the National Museum of American History to showcase what was coming down the line. The set of different collections were called ¡Presente!, a term with a long association with leftist defiance. The exhibit was housed in the Molina Family Gallery.
After reviewing the gallery’s contents when it first went public, three authors—Alfonso Aguilar, now at Parents Defending Education; Joshua Trevino at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (now also splitting his time at the America First Policy Institute); and Mike Gonzalez of The Heritage Foundation (the author of this report)—wrote an article in The Hill newspaper calling it “disgraceful” and saying that its only redeeming quality was that it made clear why the museum must not be funded. ¡Presente!, we wrote, “simply erases the existence of Hispanics who love, contribute to, and benefit from the promise of American liberty. That is to say, it erases the Hispanic majority.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Alfonso Aguilar et al., “The Smithsonian’s Latino Exhibit Is a Disgrace,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, August 16, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-smithsonians-latino-exhibit-disgrace (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF The exhibits made it abundantly clear that all the promises that the activists, the creators of the museum, and their lobbyists had made were written in sand.
The Texas Revolution? It was presented at the Molina Gallery not as a heroic struggle of 1835–1836 fought by both English- and Spanish-speaking colonists to liberate themselves from the Santa Anna dictatorship but a defense of slavery against abolitionist Mexico. The Cuban exile? It was not Cubans seeking freedom from a communist dictatorship that has destroyed their island and still uses terror against the population. No. According to the Latino Museum, it was all prompted by economics, not politics. The leftist dictators Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Plutarco Elias Calles, and Daniel Ortega? Not named once. Instead, the Molina gallery highlights Fulgencio Batista and Rafael Trujillo, who ruled 70 years ago or more, and accuses the United States of giving them support. We added:
<blockquote>Nowhere to be found are the Hispanic contributions to the American founding, most notably in the campaigns of the Spanish commander Bernardo de Gálvez against British forces in Louisiana and Florida. Similarly, the half-Spanish commander of the Union fleet at Mobile Bay, Admiral David Farragut of “damn the torpedoes” fame, is absent. Jose de la Luz Saenz, a Tejano who volunteered for service in World War I and returned to found the League of United Latin American Citizens, is missing. So too are modern-day Hispanic heroes of American wars like Medal of Honor recipients (and proud south-Texas Mexican-Americans) Roy P. Benavidez and Freddy Gonzalez.</blockquote>
<h3>Repercussions</h3>
That article—and others by the three authors that followed—had a direct impact on the museum. First, Jorge Zamanillo, the archeologist who had been named the founding director of the Latino museum in February 2022, cancelled within three months a second exhibition that was to follow ¡Presente! at the Molina Gallery. Second, the publicity that ensued finally stirred some Republicans into action, and House appropriators defunded the museum in mid-2023.
The second exhibition was to be about Hispanics and civil rights (once again, drawing the false analogy between black Americans and Americans of Latin ancestry). The two historians chosen to work on the project were Johanna Fernandez of Baruch College in New York—who has made it her life’s cause to lobby for the release of cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal—and Felipe Hinojosa of Baylor University, a sympathizer of the Marxist liberation theology.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Mike Gonzalez, “How the Marxist Left Tries to Rewrite History,” The Daily Signal, October 3, 2023, https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/how-the-marxist-left-tries-rewrite-history (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF In a 2023 podcast, Hinojosa even credited liberation theology with helping Hispanics “reject this notion that they were to just assimilate and become white Americans, to take on a brown identity.” That, he said, “was a beautiful moment.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Pete Enns, host, Faith for Normal People, podcast, episode 23, “Felipe Hinojosa—Latino Church History Is American Church History,” August 21, 2023, https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episode-23-felipe-hinojosa-latino-church-history-is-american-church-history/ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In 2023, Time magazine reported, “After the Hill op-ed came out, Zamanillo started fielding angry calls from members of Congress and former members of Congress.… Fernandez and Hinojosa say that in the weeks that followed they began to feel pressure from the leaders of the museum to hammer home positive themes in American history.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Olivia Waxman, “Inside the Controversy Over the National Museum of the American Latino,” Time, September 15, 2023, https://time.com/6314166/museum-american-latino-controversy/ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Then, “On Nov. 28, 2022, Fernandez and Hinojosa got an email from Zamanillo informing them that their exhibit would be put on hold.” It would be replaced by an exhibit on salsa music. In a Zoom call with Fernandez and Hinojosa that followed his cancellation email, Zamanillo said that “the exhibits at the Molina were as much about fundraising for the history museum as they were about raising awareness about Latino history,” according to Time.
The museum’s defunding came on July 19, 2023, when the House Appropriations Committee passed the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill, which said, “None of the funds made available by this Act shall be obligated for the planning, design, or construction” of the Latino museum.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Press release, “Committee Approves FY24 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Bill,” House Appropriations Committee, July 19, 2023, https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-approves-fy24-interior-environment-and-related-agencies-bill (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R–FL), who is of Cuban origin, had heard the criticism and led other members of his party on the party-line 33–27 vote. That bit of bravery was short-lived, however. In a statement dated July 27, 2023, Diaz-Balart disclosed that he and Tony Gonzales (R–TX) had led a delegation of Hispanic Republicans to a meeting with Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III. The statement said, “After meeting with Smithsonian leadership, it is clear, that finally, the message has been heard. The Institution understood the unfortunate and even insulting portrayal the gallery had of our community. Based on the conversation, the Smithsonian has seriously committed to rectifying its actions. Procedural changes in the review of content and leadership have been made.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Press release, “Congressional Hispanic Conference Members Meet with Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III Regarding the Museum of the American Latino,” Office of Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, July 27, 2023, https://mariodiazbalart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/englishespanol-congressional-hispanic-conference-members-meet (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Funding was soon restored after that. One of the Cuban exhibits was soon changed to reflect the historical fact that Cubans fled political persecution. Representative Monica de la Cruz (R–TX) was later added to the museum’s board. Nothing else, however, changed after that. The institution understood that strategic cosmetic changes and empty promises can get a lot accomplished in Washington, DC.
<h3>“The Death of the West”</h3>
Not six months later, in January 2024, Zamanillo hired as the museum’s chief curator someone whose work has been so offensive that she was featured in a book called The Death of the West. Tey Marianna Nunn, the new associate director of content and interpretation, does personify how little had changed, or can change, after Bunch’s empty promises.
A Latino studies PhD, Nunn casually employs critical race theory’s jargon, whether discussing “Chicano and Latino art historical critical theory practice”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Tey Marianna Nunn, “Decolonizing the Arts: Native American and Latina/o Media,” UNM-Taos Digital Services, October 19, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwQRnXRBUkU (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF or the ultimate grievance cliché, “we didn’t cross the border; the border crossed us.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Mike Gonzalez, “¡No Mas!: Time to Halt Funding of Smithsonian’s Latino Museum,” The Daily Signal, Commentary, February 5, 2025. https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/02/05/no-mas-time-halt-funding-smithsonians-latino-museum/.&lt;/p&gt;">REF In a revealing 2015 talk “Decolonizing the Arts,” Nunn railed against the art market’s dependence on an “Anglo-centric market, on Anglo ideas of what is real, or native, or Hispanic art.” She complained bitterly that in the early 20th century, Anglo transplants (a group in which she supposedly lumps all “white” non-Hispanic Americans, whether Italian, Irish, Armenian, or sometimes actually WASP) focused too much on “traditional and primitive Nuevo Mexicano art.” That focus on tradition has left modern New Mexican artists to subversively work at “recontextualizing and resisting and rewriting the aesthetics rules and regulation imposed in the early 20th century.”REF New Mexican artists, she told her audience, have a political cause, and that is dealing with prejudice. “It is an art historical myth that Hispanic New Mexican artists are folk artisans, are not political, and are not asserting identity, do not have a cause, have not been displaced and are not dealing with prejudice.”
Much worse is the work Nunn has done herself recontextualizing art. In 2001 she was the curator of an exhibit—which was shown on Holy Week, no less—that featured Our Lady of Guadalupe naked, save for a bikini of roses. Rather than the meek Guadalupe venerated by Catholics, especially throughout Latin America, the Virgin was depicted with bare midriff and legs, boxing gloves, and a cloak engraved with the symbols of the Aztec moon goddess Coyolxauhqui. The incident drew Pat Buchanan’s attention. He included it in his 2002 bestseller The Death of the West, a book about how the 1960s counterculture is an attempt to destroy the West. In it he remarked how Nunn was “puzzled” at the fact that angry demonstrators had shown up at Santa Fe’s Museum of International Folk Art. “Art, it is said, is the mirror of the soul,” wrote Buchanan. “T. S. Eliot called art the incarnation of a people’s religion. If that is true, who or what inhabits the souls of these ‘artists’?”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), p. 97.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Why does a museum that has already come under criticism hire people such as Fernandez, Hinojosa, and Nunn? One answer is that the Left’s ideological capture of museum-related professions has been almost complete. In 2016, Verdant Labs conducted a study based on campaign contribution data from the Federal Election Commission that revealed widespread political bias in the field:
<ul>
<li>Museum directors: 89 Democrats for every 11 Republicans</li>
<li>Museum curators: 94 Democrats for every six Republicans</li>
<li>Art conservators: 100 percent Democrats</li>
<li>Art historians: 96 Democrats for every four Republicans</li>
<li>Art administrators: 96 Democrats for every four Republicans</li>
<li>Art advisors: 91 Democrats for every nine Republicans</li>
<li>Archaeologists: 94 Democrats for every six Republicans</li>
<li>Historians: 88 Democrats for every 12 Republicans<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Verdant Labs, “Democratic vs. Republican Occupations,” 2016, https://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/index.html (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF</li>
</ul>
Bunch has a demonstrated bias toward woke narratives, using his time at the Smithsonian to elevate Black Lives Matter, communist icon Angela Davis, and diversity, equity and inclusion. More telling, Bunch was a champion of the 1619 Project, which set out to reframe U.S. history. “Everybody that thought about the 1619 Project, whether they liked it or disagreed with it, saw that the Smithsonian had fingerprints on it. And that, to me, was a great victory,” he told the Smithsonian magazine in 2019.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Ryan P. Smith, “Lonnie Bunch Sizes Up His Past and Future at the Smithsonian,” Smithsonian Magazine, September 23, 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/lonnie-bunch-sizes-his-past-and-future-smithsonian-180973198/ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Embracing a product as historically inaccurate as the 1619 Project calls into question Bunch’s ceaseless claims to put scholarship above all else.
The public record is thinner for Zamanillo, though it hardly inspires confidence. In the Smithsonian press release announcing his appointment, he is quoted as saying that he wants in the new museum “powerful stories that capture the adversity faced over centuries by Latinos in the U.S.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Press release, “Jorge Zamanillo Named First Director of the New Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Latino,” Smithsonian, February 2, 2022, https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/jorge-zamanillo-named-first-director-new-smithsonians-national-museum-american (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF As for the Latino museum’s 18-member advisory board at the time of the hiring, as Aguilar and Gonzalez pointed out in a 2023 article, it was dominated by “woke professors, researchers, and activists whose work focuses on advancing culturally Marxist concepts like critical race theory and gender and queer theory. Many teach the academically questionable subject of ‘Latinx’ studies.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Mike Gonzalez and Alfonso Aguilar, “Smithsonian’s Planned Latino Museum Is Woke Move Designed to Radicalize US Hispanics,” Fox News, September 25, 2023. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/smithsonians-planned-latino-museum-woke-move-designed-radicalize-us-hispanics (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
But even if either Bunch or Zamanillo, or the board, had wanted to appoint conservative curators, which appears doubtful, they would be hard put to find any.
<h3>Trump Is Re-Elected</h3>
Donald Trump was re-elected in November 2024, and in March 2025 he issued an executive order calling for the Smithsonian to be cleaned out. Its first paragraph seemed to have been written with the Latino museum in mind:
<blockquote>Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth. This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light. Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed. Rather than fostering unity and a deeper understanding of our shared past, the widespread effort to rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame, disregarding the progress America has made and the ideals that continue to inspire millions around the globe.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;The White House, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” March 27, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF</blockquote>
The executive order went on to declare “that future appropriations to the Smithsonian Institution prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.”
When the Smithsonian apparently dragged its feet on purging woke interpretations of history from its museums, President Trump went further. In an August 12 letter, the Administration informed Bunch that it was putting the entire complex under review.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;The White House, “Letter to the Smithsonian: Internal Review of Smithsonian Exhibitions and Materials,” August 12, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/letter-to-the-smithsonian-internal-review-of-smithsonian-exhibitions-and-materials/ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In his fiscal year (FY) 2026 budget request to Congress in May, the President requested that funding for the Latino museum be zeroed out: “The President’s FY 2026 Budget does not fund the development of the National Museum of the American Latino,” read the Smithsonian’s FY2026 Budget Justification to Congress. “Instead, the request returns the Smithsonian to the integrated approach previously used to share the collections throughout the Institution that chronicle American Latino history and culture. That approach was led by the Smithsonian Latino Center (SLC), which promoted the Latino presence within the Smithsonian’s collections, programs, and educational content.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Smithsonian Institution, Fiscal Year 2026, Budget Justification to Congress, May 2025, https://www.si.edu/sites/default/files/about/fy2026-budgetrequestcongress.pdf (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
The Administration followed up all these actions on August 21 by posting 22 examples of woke outrages by the Smithsonian museums, with five of them coming from ¡Presente! and online content. One of them was content educating users “on their identity being Latinx, LGBTQ+, and disabled.” Another characterized the Texas Revolution as a “massive defense of slavery waged by ‘white Anglo Saxon’ settlers against anti-slavery Mexicans fighting for freedom, not a Texan war of independence from Mexico.” Yet another asserted that “what unites Latinas and Latinos” is Black Lives Matter.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;The White House, “President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian,” August 21, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/president-trump-is-right-about-the-smithsonian/ (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Yet, despite this abundant and abominable record, members of the Appropriations Committees of both houses of Congress have apparently decided to test the White House’s willingness to stand its ground by voting to fund the museum. The Senate bill, which passed the committee in July on a 25–2 vote—so with most Republicans voting for it—even contained a hostile amendment:
<blockquote>None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to close, halt development of, merge with or transfer to another function or program, reduce funding, or otherwise diminish the operations of the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum or the National Museum of the American Latino.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Senate Appropriations Interior Bill, S. 2431, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_interior_bill_text.pdf (accessed September 16, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF</blockquote>
<h3>Why the Latino Museum Should Not Be Built</h3>
Why these congressmen acted in this manner is a mystery, as the Latino museum project is clearly athwart of America’s interests. To recap:
<ul>
<li>This museum enshrines the balkanizing views and dreams of the radical groups most hostile to American unity.</li>
<li>When selling the idea of the museum, La Raza hired its lobbyists, the Raben Group, which also goes to bat for abortionists and the extortionist SPLC.</li>
<li>Definitionally, the museum can depict Americans of Latin ancestry only as victims of an oppressive America. This means that American taxpayers will be asked to fork over money for a project that will, by design, denigrate their country and promote separation.</li>
<li>What examples we have seen of the museum’s offerings amply demonstrate that this will be the case. ¡Presente!, the exhibition that was to follow it, and the content already on the web faithfully follow critical race theory, gender theory, intersectionality, etc.</li>
<li>When it came time to garner support in Washington, its supporters tucked it inside an amendment that was part of a must-pass omnibus bill.</li>
<li>The leaders of the museum—from Bunch to Zamanillo to Nunn—are all committed to an oppressor-oppressed paradigm that has its origins in Marx’s manifesto whether they are aware of it or not.</li>
<li>There are not enough conservative museum professionals to staff one single museum.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
Somehow, the involvement of La Raza, MALDEF, the Raben Group, NARAL, and the SPLC around this museum apparently did not arouse suspicion among enough Republicans to get this monstrosity canceled. But now it is different. President Trump has offered a way forward—sharing artifacts and collections among the Smithsonian’s 21 museums. Local museums dedicated to real communities—such as the Cuban Museum of the Cuban Diaspora in Miami and the Museum of South Texas History in the Rio Grande Valley, which explores Tejano culture—do a wonderful job. That may be because they are closer to the communities they represent. Most importantly, those communities are real, not imagined, with a common history, an actual geographical area, and common traditions. Let’s take up Trump’s idea and use local content from these museums instead of wasting money on another monument to leftist victimhood.
Mike Gonzalez is Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. 
</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:24:00 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mike Gonzalez</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/the-smithsonians-latino-museum-victimhood-culture-its-dna</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Trump’s D.C. Crime Success Puts Spotlight on Chicago’s Deadly “War Zone”</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/trumps-dc-crime-success-puts-spotlight-chicagos-deadly-war-zone</link>
<description>President Donald Trump’s focus on crime across America is timely and necessary. It’s epidemic in many blue cities in our country, and something must, and can, be done about it. His crackdown in Washington, D.C., proves that dramatic reductions in crime in cities acclimatized to perpetual lawlessness and violence are possible, but only if you have the political courage to do so.
Next up is Chicago, another city plagued by non-stop violent crime. Trump’s focus there has forced local leaders to defend their lax policies and deny the reality of rampant crime in their cities—claims that ring hollow to terrorized local residents.
Before exposing the crime rates in Chicago and the lax policies that have caused them, let’s look at the results of the D.C. crime crackdown.
In Washington, D.C., since the operation began on Aug. 7, arrests are up, homicides are down nearly 60%, and violent crime has decreased by 17%. In one two-week stretch, there wasn’t one homicide, which is, sadly, remarkable.
Despite this impressive decline, more effort is needed. There have been 106 homicides, 984 reported robberies and 3,157 car thefts this year alone. Those numbers are unacceptable in any city, especially the nation’s capital.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/i-live-dc-im-glad-trump-sent-the-national-guard-fight-crime">I Live in D.C. I’m Glad Trump Sent In the National Guard To Fight Crime.</a>
Lax local laws passed by the D.C. City Council and local judges who give criminals a pass every day are major contributors to the city’s culture of violence. To fix these gaps, Congress is considering several proposals to fix the criminal justice system in D.C. permanently.
As a developer who owns property in Chicago, Trump is quite familiar with the chronic crime carnage in the Windy City. The numbers speak for themselves, despite what Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson declare.
To put this carnage into perspective, between 2003 and 2010, 3,481 Americans were killed in action in Iraq, an average of 435 a year. In the war in Afghanistan, between 2001 and 2014, 1,833 Americans were killed in action, an average of 141 per year. In Chicago, between 2017 and 2024, there were 5,220 homicides, an average of 652 per year! Chicago is a war zone, pure and simple.
Like in most big blue cities across America, there is a stark difference in crime rates between the richest and poorest parts of town. White liberal elites in the safest parts of town are oblivious to, or at least immune from, the constant drumbeat of violent crime in their own city. Chicago is a perfect example.
District 3, which includes Hyde Park and Washington Park, had a homicide rate of 80.68 per 100,000 residents, according to 2024 Chicago Police Department data. District 6 (Englewood, Roseland, Woodlawn) had a rate of 73.43 per 100,000 residents. And District 11 (Humbolt Park, West Garfield Park, Near West Side), had a homicide rate of 72.86 per 100,000 residents.
Compare those killing fields to Jefferson Park (1.97), Lincoln Square (2.29), and Uptown (3.27)—home to doctors, lawyers, venture capitalists and other professionals. Not surprisingly, liberal elites who live in those areas tend to be the ones who complain the loudest when Trump engages in increased federal enforcement, including offering much-needed assistance to state and local officials.
It’s also no coincidence that the first George Soros-backed “progressive” prosecutor, Kim Foxx, was in Chicago. As I detailed in my <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.amazon.com/Rogue-Prosecutors-Destroying-Americas-Communities/dp/1637586531/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1AIASHHPL191T&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.worPPQcP-Y4TDETJqIE3DCYDGF3iUkhv-hcpleLJelj-Y3Lfzc1ngEgGgsWSVZZDV7oKIhDb4J65RvieSgLqWQ.AIQ4o6WIp9E4SsAqddxkW8zw_pbZ30shqxnO-cK5V6s&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=rogue*prosecutors&amp;qid=1757601804&amp;sprefix=*2Caps*2C37&amp;sr=8-1__;KyUl!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!3Zy-RXxA38e-K22FdwWDNW8yMrPJP37BJahrfLU2EWj0BnXkW-QNjLFduQyh413dKlAU57LhpoAeLZElsciio3V0buU%24" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">book</a>, Foxx was hoisted from obscurity into office in 2017 with almost $700,000 of <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/george-soros" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Soros-connected financial support</a>. Foxx unleashed a tsunami of pro-criminal, anti-victim, anti-business policies on the city as its top prosecutor, causing a dramatic increase in violent crime.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/week-without-murder-trumps-crackdown-restores-safety-washington-dc">A Week Without Murder: Trump’s Crackdown Restores Safety to Washington, D.C.</a>
In the six years prior to that, there was an average of 510 homicides per year (2011–2016). In the three years before Foxx was elected, 4,460 rapes were reported to the police, an average of 1,486 per year. During Foxx’s tenure (2017–2022), 10,789 rapes were reported to the police, an average of 1,804 per year.
Two weeks into the job, Foxx announced that she had raised the bar for prosecuting felony shoplifting from $300 per incident to $1,000 per incident, even though the law in Illinois was clear: felony shoplifting starts at $300.
When she made that announcement, there were 101 people in Cook County Jail on felony retail theft charges. Ali Abid, a staff attorney at the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, said, “I think this is a really positive step.” Abid’s boss, Malcolm Rich, was on Foxx’s transition team with then-Sen. Kamala Harris.
But Rob Karr, the president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, said he was “extraordinarily shocked and disappointed,” adding Foxx’s rewriting of the laws “sends a message that retail theft is victimless and not serious… this is tantamount to declaring open season on retail stores.”
By 2019, three years into Foxx’s social experiment, Karr was proved right. Retail theft reports had skyrocketed across the city. In the ritzy Rush Street shopping district, reported incidents had more than doubled. And on State Street, retail theft cases were up 32%.
President Trump’s use of the bully pulpit to highlight the high crime rates of Chicago and other blue cities is welcome news. Gone are the days of feel-good slogans about “reimagining” reform and “mass incarceration.” The Soros rogue prosecutor movement has failed, as has the “defund the police” and cashless bail experiment.
Americans of all stripes want and deserve to live in safe neighborhoods. Thankfully, the national mood has shifted in the right direction on crime.
</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2025 14:31:17 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Charles Stimson</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/trumps-dc-crime-success-puts-spotlight-chicagos-deadly-war-zone</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jewish Students Are Seeing the South as a Safer Place To Study</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/jewish-students-are-seeing-the-south-safer-place-study</link>
<description>With hostility toward Jews and Israel overtaking many American college campuses, Jewish students are wondering: What schools are best for them to attend?
As application deadlines approach this fall, Jewish parents and their children are poring through the news and consulting each other to avoid universities where antisemitic activity has surged. They can see that last year’s cohort of Jewish applicants was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ynetnews.com/jewish-world/article/skhy9matel#autoplay" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">steering away</a>&nbsp;from colleges in the Northeast, Upper Midwest and California in favor of those in the South.
Many are attracted to public schools like the University of Florida and the University of Texas. Both have a critical mass of Jewish students, which is necessary for maintaining essential Jewish institutions and practices on campus. And both have responded positively to state policymakers by cracking down on organizations and instructors who promote Jew-hatred.
Some Jewish students, however, seek a private university experience. If you rule out Ivy League institutions, and “private Ivies” like Stanford and Northwestern universities, are there any selective institutions that would be welcoming for Jews?
Happily, there are: Vanderbilt University in Nashville and Washington University in St. Louis,&nbsp;bridging&nbsp;the South and the Midwest, stand out as attractive options.
What have they done differently to become&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/what-makes-universities-speak-out-some-issues-not-others" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">safe havens</a>&nbsp;when other academically competitive institutions have become overrun with Jew-hatred?
According to Rabbi Shlomo Rothstein of the Chabad of Vanderbilt, one of the keys to success has been the willingness of the university to articulate and consistently enforce neutral rules about student conduct. “This is not a favor for the Jewish community,” he says. “It’s about treating all communities with equality and civility across the board.”
Among the rules Vanderbilt enforces are prohibitions on disrupting classes or speakers, occupying university buildings or building encampments.
At Wash U, Chancellor Andrew Martin has emphasized protection for freedom of speech while warning students away from engaging in incitement or harassment. Chanting slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is not forbidden, but Martin denounced the phrase,&nbsp;<a href="https://andrewdmartin.washu.edu/free-speech-and-responsibility/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">saying</a>&nbsp;that “the hatred associated with [it] is well understood by most in our community” and “to use that phrase, particularly in circumstances where we know it will have a harmful impact, is well beneath the dignity of every member of our community.”
As Rabbi Hershey Novack, of the campus Chabad House there,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.chabadwashu.org/templates/viewemail_cdo/aid/6197566" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">put it</a>: “Wash U remains a fierce believer in free speech. They also hope that people will act like menschen.”
But maintaining a civil free-speech environment requires more than hopes. Both schools have promptly had students crossing the line from speech into rule-breaking behaviors arrested and punished.
At Vanderbilt, students attempting to occupy the chancellor’s office were arrested, with three of them&nbsp;<a href="https://wpln.org/post/expelled-vanderbilt-student-could-face-nearly-a-year-in-prison-for-pro-palestinian-sit-in/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">expelled and prosecuted</a>&nbsp;for assault. At Wash U, 23 students and four employees were arrested when they tried to build a tent encampment in violation of the rules, despite repeated warnings to cease their activity.
As Wash U’s statement&nbsp;<a href="https://andrewdmartin.washu.edu/this-weekends-demonstration/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">described it</a>: “Everyone arrested is facing criminal charges for trespassing and, for some, potentially resisting arrest and assault. For those who are students, we also have initiated the university student conduct process.”
The situation has been decidedly different at other U.S. institutions of higher learning.
At Harvard, administrators coddled the radical students occupying a university building. Not only did they face zero consequences for violating university rules, but senior administrators also personally delivered burritos and Twizzlers to them while they occupied the building. When two students blocked a Jewish student from crossing campus and were charged with assault, Harvard not only refused to cooperate with the prosecution—they actually rewarded the assailants. One was given the honor of serving as marshal at commencement, while the other was positively featured on Harvard’s law school admissions website.
At Columbia, months of encampments blocking Jewish students from crossing campus and multiple building occupations were met with little or no punishment until the university decided to settle with the Trump administration. At&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-finds-university-california-los-angeles-violation-federal-civil-rights#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Department%20of,Assistant%20Attorney%20General%20Harmeet%20K." rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">UCLA</a>, a weeklong encampment blocked Jewish students from areas of their own campus before violent clashes forced the police to be called in.
The primary difference between colleges that are welcoming for Jewish students and those that are not is a willingness to articulate and enforce reasonable rules for student conduct while still protecting free speech.
The divide between universities that are good or bad for Jewish students also revolves around how they understand the missions of their institutions. At places like Vanderbilt and Wash U, they envision themselves as intellectual institutions focused on the world of ideas.
The places that have become inhospitable to Jews have become more interested in action that applies ideas to improve the world. As Claudine Gay&nbsp;<a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/12/claudine-gay-details-her-own-past-at-harvard-plans-for-future/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">said</a>&nbsp;when she was appointed to lead Harvard: “The idea of the Ivory Tower, that is the past, not the future, of academia. We don’t exist outside of society, but as part of it. Harvard has a duty to lean in and engage, and to be in service to the world.”
If universities think they have “a duty to lean in and engage,” they don’t find it unscholarly or inappropriate to hire and advance faculty who use their positions to engage in political activism. They favor creating or expanding various “oppression studies” departments to promote social justice. And they are not averse to having universities adopt official positions on political and social issues as a method for engaging and improving the world.
Both Vanderbilt and Wash U have rejected this role for their universities by adopting policies that protect free expression, as well as what is called “institutional neutrality,” in which they refuse to adopt official institutional positions on political and social issues. By contrast, Chris Eisgruber, president of Princeton University, opposes institutional neutrality, embracing the idea of taking official stands on a variety of issues, including diversity and sustainability.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2024/09/princeton-news-adpol-president-eisgruber-university-no-institutional-neutrality">He argued</a>, “We got to do it. … We’re speaking out on behalf of those things. So I think institutional neutrality is just a misleading formulation.”
The reason why institutional neutrality, in particular, matters for Jewish students is that universities that adopt official positions create a potential reward for aggressive protesting. If they can bully and intimidate enough people on campus, they might receive official endorsement of their views. The lack of institutional neutrality and robust free-speech protections that are applied the same way to all students are policy failures that essentially declare open season on Jewish students. But if universities maintain institutional neutrality, there is no prize to be won and therefore less reason to engage in bullying and intimidation.
Some universities that have run into trouble have recently adopted at least a partial version of institutional neutrality, including Harvard. Still, they lack the credibility that they will always remain neutral when faced with organized pressure from students and faculty. Vanderbilt and Wash U have a longer track record of demonstrated commitment to neutrality that more effectively deters aggressive protesting.
Jewish applicants have many options when it comes to higher education. And they are taking notice.
</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2025 10:30:37 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Jason Bedrick, Jay P. Greene, PhD</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/jewish-students-are-seeing-the-south-safer-place-study</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>On the Christian Roots of American Republicanism</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/report/the-christian-roots-american-republicanism</link>
<description>Is it simply an incidental fact that American republicanism emerged from Christendom, or is Christianity in some way responsible for its establishment, growth, and sustenance? As the United States seems to be moving into a post-Christian epoch, the answer to this question will tell Americans what more they stand to lose along with their faith.
To those who are not interested in the preservation of faith for its own sake, the retreat of Christian influence might seem inconsequential. If the American Founders had deemed Christianity important to the preservation of healthy republicanism, would they not have done more to secure its place in the American political regime? After all, our organic laws, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, are silent or explicitly neutral about the country’s religious commitment.
Notwithstanding the references to “Providence,” a “Creator,” and “Nature’s God,” the Declaration of Independence does not say that Christianity is a prerequisite for good government, defined as government that fulfills its fundamental duty to secure the natural rights of its people. The prerequisites are that political society knows what its rights are and is generally committed to protecting them, but according to the Declaration, knowledge of natural rights is not the peculiar gift of Christianity. We are left to infer that any religion or irreligion could be reconcilable with good government. The only places religion is directly addressed in either document are in Article VI of the original Constitution, which protects public servants of heterodox religious professions, and the First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion and prohibits Congress from establishing Christianity or any other creed of religious character as an official religion. To the extent that our Founding documents say anything at all about religion, one could defensibly conclude that religious indifference was built into the American political regime at its outset.
Nevertheless, citizens of all religious professions (or, for that matter, of none) who love liberty ought not to be indifferent about the end of Christian preeminence in American culture. American republicanism owes its origin and a large measure of its past success to Christianity. To see this and to begin to understand what social and political life might look like without Christianity, we must work back from the pre-Christian epoch when Christianity brought mankind out of darkness, study anew the political development of Christian Civilization, and reconsider its relation to the American Founding.
<h3>Comparative Savagery</h3>
The Declaration claims that all members of the human family are equal and endowed with the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that these are self-evident truths. If they are self-evident truths, then they are knowable to anyone with ordinary sense. Hence, all men, irrespective of time and place, are responsible for knowing and aligning their conduct with these truths. Even the barbarians are without excuse.
Had mankind measured up to this standard by the time the United States was established? No, preached Reverend Israel Evans to the General Court of New Hampshire in 1791: “The histories of mankind, with only a few exceptions, are the records of human guilt, oppression, and misery.” The atrocities of “inhuman butchers” had “filled so many bloody pages of history.” These butchering tyrants had “slaughtered millions of the human race, for no other purpose but to extend their cruel and ambitious power, and oppress and lay waste the world.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Rev. Israel Evans, “A Sermon Delivered at Concord, Before the Hon. General Court of the State of New Hampshire,” June 1791, in Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, I730–I805, 2nd ed., ed. Ellis Sandoz (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998), Vol. 2, pp. 1075–1076, https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/817/0018.02_Bk.pdf (accessed August 26, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Evans was right, and scholarship since then has heaped the evidence high in support of his thesis. More often than not, rather than demonstrating obedience to the great moral truths that should have been self-evident to them, men have treated each other with appalling cruelty in flat disregard of their brethren’s natural rights. The scholarly literature on the most flagrant attacks on natural rights—cannibalism, slavery, and human sacrifice—is deep and constantly augmented by new studies.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;General surveys include Reay Tannahill, Flesh and Blood: A History of the Cannibal Complex (New York: Stein and Day, 1975); Peggy Reeves Sanday, Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Silvia M. Bello, “The Archaeology of Cannibalism: A Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 32, No. 1, Article No. 11 (March 2025); Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982); Jan Bremmer, ed., The Strange World of Human Sacrifice (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2007); Karel C. Innemee, ed., The Value of a Human Life: Ritual Killing and Human Sacrifice in Antiquity (Leiden, Netherlands: Sidestone Press, 2022); Matthew J. Walsh et al., eds., Human Sacrifice and Value: Revisiting the Limits of Sacred Violence from an Anthropological and Archaeological Perspective (London and New York: Routledge, 2024).&lt;/p&gt;">REF The sobering fact is that everywhere human societies have existed, these atrocities have existed—not hidden from view as high crimes against the principles of society are so hidden, but held up as noble deeds approved by the principles of their society. One suspects that after just a day spent reviewing this evidence of universal human depravity, even an avowed atheist would have trouble disagreeing with the judgment of Christ that there is none good but God.REF Secular scholarship has enhanced the rational respectability of the Christian doctrine of man’s universal sinfulness.
Common patterns of oppression appear across cultures, although separated by time and distance. For example, in ancient Mesopotamia, the Assyrians proudly memorialized the vicious punishments they inflicted on those who resisted their rule. King Assurnasirpal II boasted that he piled up their corpses, flayed and burned them alive, impaled them on sharpened stakes, and decorated his palace with their decapitated heads. Other Assyrian kings bragged of their own innovations. One hung the severed heads of enemy kings around the necks of the dead kings’ captured nobles and marched them through Nineveh to music. Their inscriptions say they killed their victims “like pigs,” and in fact, they executed them on tables used for slaughtering animals.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Seth Richardson, “Death and Dismemberment in Mesopotamia,” in Performing Death: Social Analysis of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, ed. Nicola Laneri (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2007), pp. 196–197.&lt;/p&gt;">REF To such people, slavery was hardly scandalous, and they practiced it.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Heather D. Baker, “Slavery and Personhood in the Neo-Assyrian Empire,” in On Human Bondage: After Slavery and Social Death, eds. John Bodel and Walter Scheidel (Chichester, UK: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2017).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Kings of Dahomey in West Africa hoisted the heads of conquered enemies in their palaces, built by slave labor. They went to war to take captives for the purpose of selling them into slavery or for human sacrifice. In one instance, they sacrificed four thousand victims. Their harsh, absolute rule precipitated revolts.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;J. Cameron Monroe, The Precolonial State in West Africa: Building Power in Dahomey (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 21, 44, 47, 69–70, 82, 165, 221–225.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
The early inhabitants of Europe rank alongside the savage offenders of natural right. The Gauls beyond the Alps decorated their abodes with the severed heads of their enemies. Their Druid priests sacrificed men in order to foretell the future in the twitching bodies and spilled blood of the victims. They also practiced slavery among themselves: Diodorus Siculus commented in passing that they would trade one of their own people as a slave to the Romans for a jar of wine.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica [Library of History] (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939), Book V, Chapters 26, 29, 31.&lt;/p&gt;">REF Julius Caesar wrote that the Gauls were divided into noble and subaltern ranks, the latter so lowly that they were little better than slaves, and noted that the slaves of the rich were sacrificed on their masters’ funeral pyres.REF
Archaeological scholarship confirms what the ancient texts attest: that slavery was already “a substantial part” of all Celtic societies before contact with the Romans.REF Among the native people of ancient Spain just before the Roman conquest, for example, a military aristocracy ruled and kept slaves. They also used the skulls of their enemies for adornment by ritually nailing them to public places.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;J. B. Tsirkin, “Romanization of Spain; Socio-Political Aspect,” Gerión, Vol. 10, No. 11 (January 1992), pp. 213, 217; M. L. Sampietro et al., “The Genetics of the Pre-Roman Iberian Peninsula: A mtDNA Study of Ancient Iberians,” Annals of Human Genetics, Vol. 69, No. 5 (September 2005), pp. 535–536.&lt;/p&gt;">REF The Germanic tribes, said Tacitus, enslaved their own and used them in agriculture. Tacitus further noted that their masters—presumably warriors who did not work and were indolent in times of peace—often killed these slaves in fits of anger.REF Like the Gauls, the Germans practiced human sacrifice and sold their own people as slaves to the Romans.REF
The literature suggests that the presence of extreme violations of natural right correlated with the rule of one or few over the many and that, together, oppression and monarchic-aristocratic rule have dominated human history. Recent studies in the relatively new interdisciplinary field of bioarchaeology have added empirical evidence that strengthens this hypothesis. Researchers in bioarchaeology bring the skills of forensic doctors to the study of human bones in archaeological sites. Because the unequal distribution of resources and power manifests in diet, health, work, and violence, which leave traces in bones, bioarchaeologists can mine those bones for valuable data that can help them to reconstruct the social and political organization of society. In the language of political science, their studies frequently identify clearly distinguished ruling and ruled classes, harsh rule, and the manner of oppression.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Debra L. Martin, Ryan P. Harrod, and Ventura R. Pérez, eds., The Bioarchaeology of Violence (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2012); Tiffinity A. Tung, Violence, Ritual, and the Wari Empire: A Social Bioarchaeology of Imperialism in the Ancient Andes (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2012); Ryan P. Harrod, The Bioarchaeology of Social Control: Assessing Conflict and Cooperation in Pre-Contact Puebloan Society (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
<h3>Atrocities and Political Regimes</h3>
How do we explain this historical evidence, and what broke the recurring pattern of tyranny and oppression and led to the founding of a regime in 1776 that was dedicated to principles directly opposed to tyranny and oppression?
The political theory of Thomas Hobbes, with a proviso, best explains the correlation of cruelty and the rule of the one or few. Wherever men live in fear, in an effort to save themselves from violence, they will seek out and do homage to one or a few who are perceived to have superior strength. The savior-prince may well turn out to be as vicious as or not much better than one’s neighbors in prior anarchy were or the prior prince was. The widespread historical pattern of atrocities shows that the relative harshness of rule does not deviate much from the vicious mean, but in ages when men are especially cruel, options are especially limited. Usually, a less cruel ruler is the best reward that men who successfully run the deadly risk of shifting allegiance can win. In his commentaries on Gaul, Julius Caesar observed the pattern of conduct that we see in Hobbes’s theory. To maintain their authority, the leading men of Gaul depended on their effectiveness in protecting their retainers. If they failed to protect them, the commoners would seek out stronger men and pledge themselves as slaves to their new masters.REF
The key that unlocks this tendency of political society toward the concentration of rule in few and fewer hands is the prevalence of oppression. The greater the active rejection of natural right—in other words, the worse the oppression—the more likely it is that unequal strength shall obtain rule. In such a political society, the attempt to found a republic is a fool’s errand. Oppression is the active rejection of natural rights, and the stability of a republic depends on the opposite sentiment, on the prevalence of mutual respect for the rights of others, even if the citizens fail to recognize and express that dependence in those terms. No sane person would entrust the protection of his own rights to a political society that regularly devours itself and, by example, teaches everyone the respectability of doing violence to others if you can get away with it. The safer, more prudent course would be to entrust protection to one who seems to be strong and less cruel. Within an already established republic, if the mores within political society change and humanity gives way to cruelty, the republic cannot last, as Federalist 9 and 10 explain.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;See Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9, November 21, 1787, National Archives, Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0162 (accessed August 26, 2025); James Madison, Federalist No. 10, November 22, 1787, National Archives, Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 (accessed August 26, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Once cabals of citizens, or factions, organize to assault the rights of their fellow citizens, equality becomes lost in the strokes and counterstrokes against life, liberty, and property, and unequal strength becomes prized: the new coin of the realm, the new basis for rule. Rule must concentrate in fewer and fewer hands.
Occasionally, remarkable exceptions appear in the historical record that lend weight to the claims of the Declaration and to the idea that the origin of monarchy-aristocracy is unequal strength under general conditions of inhumanity, not kings’ and nobles’ singular inhumanity. These are the few who suddenly and inexplicably exhibit a conscience of the type we might predict to see, if the truths of the Declaration are knowable to all, at all times and places. Rather than “using cruelty well” as a political tool, they turn their power against the inhumane practices of their own cultures and lift up wounded humanity in their respective realms.
In the third century before Christ, King Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire conquered most of the Indian subcontinent. After a final, bloody war against the Kalinga people, he laid down his arms and suddenly broadcast public expressions of his remorse for having destroyed them, which included the enslavement of thousands. Then Ashoka devoted the rest of his life to studying the welfare of his realm and reforming his empire on what we would call humanitarian principles. By the edicts and teachings he spread throughout his empire, using a class of bureaucrats he created for that purpose, he promoted freedom of conscience, directed his people to avoid the killing of living things, and instructed them to treat slaves well. Ashoka insisted that slaves should be considered part of the family, respected, and governed gently.REF In Mesoamerica in the 10th century after Christ, Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, philosopher-king of the Toltecs, suddenly refused to permit human sacrifice. His opposition was especially sensational because these sacrifices were a critical part of a sophisticated system of religion that was purportedly necessary for the perpetuation of mankind. Yet Quetzalcoatl, like Saint Augustine in City of God, imputed the instigation of this worship to demons and justified his refusal to support human sacrifice as a reflection of love for his people.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;H. B. Nicholson, Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl: The Once and Future Lord of the Toltecs (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001), pp. 42, 45.&lt;/p&gt;">REF Both the Mauryan and Toltec Empires resumed their harsh customs when the relatively gentle reigns of Ashoka and Quetzalcoatl ended.
Cases such as those of Ashoka and Quetzalcoatl affirm the likelihood that the problem with the Declaration’s claims is not one of universal knowability (that is, whether they are self-evidently true). The Indian Ashoka, the Mexican Quetzalcoatl, and the American Founders all evince a commitment to governing principles that are tolerably comparable despite their separation by vast differences in time and place. Rather, these cases show that the problem with the Declaration's claims is that they are perennially weak, that political society rarely is devoted to upholding them and instead tends to give way to the historically dominant conditions of inhumanity. Ashoka and Quetzalcoatl stand out because they were morally enlightened kings. By their commands, they could instantly attach the highest political status to those principles, but they were rare examples. What of other men of conscience like them who lacked royal power? How many unknown to history have recognized the self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration but lived in societies that dishonored them? How many were too preoccupied with navigating violent societies to be bothered with moral speculation?
Religion seems to have been the only variable that has altered the default condition of mankind for sustained periods of time. Under the influence of the quasi-religion of Confucianism, the Han Dynasty perhaps came close to refounding ancient China on principles similar to those in the Declaration but ultimately failed when the empire collapsed and divided. There is also considerable evidence that in some countries, Buddhism substantially modified conduct, ameliorating the grossest abuses of individual rights; but Buddhist countries also fell short of installing principles like those in the Declaration as their organizing principles of government.
Christianity is a unique case because its altering effect on social conditions continued to advance until its central moral teaching about man defined the mission of government. Christianity revolutionized one barbaric part of the world, and after many centuries of social and political development, of reshaping mores, governance, and social life, a nation adopted the principles of natural right for the first time in its founding law in 1776. That result was produced by more than a millennium of extraordinary devotion and sacrifice, and we can identify both the place where and the time when that history began.
<h3>The Franks and Christian Civilization</h3>
In 1841 in Notre Dame Cathedral, Father Henri-Dominique Lacordaire of the Order of Preachers (the Dominican Order) dubbed France “la fille aînée de l'Église” or “the eldest daughter of the Church.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Henri-Dominique Lacordaire, O.P., Sermon Prononcé à Notre-Dame de Paris le Dimanche, 14 février, 1841 [Sermon Delivered at Notre Dame de Paris, on the Sunday of the Sexagesima, February 14, 1841] (Paris: Bureau de l’Univers, 1841), p. 13.&lt;/p&gt;">REF He was alluding to the conversion of the Franks, the fathers of France and builders of Christian Europe, to Nicene Christianity under the auspices of the Holy See of Rome. More than any other people, the Franks were responsible for defending and extending the boundaries of Christendom and developing Christian Civilization within those boundaries.
Looking forward from the time of the conversion of the Franks, they might have seemed the unlikeliest of choices to carry Christianity into the future.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;But from a Christian point of view, a fit choice; cf. Luke 1:52 (King James Version): “He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.”&lt;/p&gt;">REF By 508 AD, the probable year when Saint Remigius (the Bishop of Reims) baptized King Clovis I, the episcopal sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem presided over major centers of Christian wealth, culture, population, and learning that were protected by the resurgent Roman Empire in the East. Clovis was a minor king of the tribe of Salian Franks occupying a small territory around modern Tournai, Belgium, within the former jurisdiction of the Roman Empire in the West that had collapsed. Rome itself had been sacked and occupied multiple times during the preceding hundred years. In their neighborhood of Western Europe, the ruling barbarian people were Arians, votaries of a heretical offshoot of Christianity, or pagans, as the Franks were.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Ian Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751 (New York: Longman, 1994), p. 48; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1910), Vol. 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, pp. 233–235; Michael McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communication and Commerce, A.D. 300–900 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 28–38, 60–61; “The Price of Survival: Western Society, 450–600,” chap. 10 in Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity, AD 150–170, new ed. (London: Thames &amp; Hudson, 2024).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In the course of time, Muslim armies overran all four of these episcopal sees, which constituted four of the five sees of the Pentarchy and three-quarters of Christian lands.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;“Islam Takes Christendom by Storm: The Battle of Yarmuk, 636,” chap. 1 in Raymond Ibrahim, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War Between Islam and the West (New York: Hachette Books, 2018); Thomas F. Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades, 3rd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman &amp; Littlefield, 2013), p. 197.&lt;/p&gt;">REF The two horns of those armies did not advance farther than Tours, France, on one side, and Vienna, Austria, on the other. The landmass between those points overlapped the Frankish empire that Clovis founded and that his Merovingian and Carolingian successors expanded. Armies of Franks or armies of nations whose conversion to Christianity is ultimately attributable to the Franks halted the Muslim advance.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), pp. 193ff.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Under the protection of Frankish arms, the Holy See at Rome, the fifth see of the Pentarchy, was able to build its ecclesiastic empire. The Franks subdued the enemies of the Catholic Church, and the Church subdued the savagery of the Franks. The transformation of the Franks from brutes to chivalrous knights may be quickly ascertained by contrasting the countless instances of lechery, thuggery, betrayal, and murder in the History of the Franks, written by Gregory of Tours in the sixth century, to the admonitions to piety and charity in the letter written by Saint Louis IX, King of France, to his son in the 13th century.
The taming of the Franks was an impressive feat. The Roman orator Libanius had said of the war-loving Franks that “[p]eace is for them a horrible calamity” and that, according to their custom, they fought to the death in battle. Before their conversion, they had attacked Trier, the capital of Roman Gaul, four times in 34 years in the fifth century and had devastated the country, forcing the Romans to move the Gallic capital to Arles in the South.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Kenelm Henry Digby, Mores Catholici; Or, Ages of Faith (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1905), Vol. 3, p. 800; A. F. Norman, trans., Libanius: Selected Works (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), Vol. 1, p. 325; Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, pp. 131–132.&lt;/p&gt;">REF Of his ancestors, the Comte de Montalembert wrote that the Merovingian princes had “directed massacres or executions, which rank among the most odious recollections in history.” Nevertheless:
<blockquote>[Despite their] deceit and ferocity, wild incontinence and savage pride…it is impossible to deny the sincerity of their faith, and the influence which Christian virtue and penitence almost always exercised upon them. They passed with a rapidity which now seems incomprehensible from the atrocious excesses of their native cruelty to passionate demonstrations of contrition and humility.</blockquote>
Always, it was scolding clergy who converted them and exacted contrition and penance from them.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Charles Forbes, Comte de Montalembert, The Monks of the West: From St. Benedict to St. Bernard (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1867), Vol. 2, pp. 246–247.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Soon the Frankish nobles were founding and richly endowing monasteries and redeeming and manumitting slaves; and many of them, pious and zealous for religious life, became priests, nuns, missionaries, monks, and saints.REF Concerning Saint Audoen, a bishop of Rouen from a noble Frankish family who preached to his pagan brethren, his biographer said that “he transformed the savage cruelty of the Franks into gentleness” so “that they turned from their pagan ways and voluntarily chose to submit themselves to the yoke of Christ.”REF So powerful was their zeal for piety that Carloman, son of the Frankish political leader Charles Martel, yielded power and wealth to his younger brother Pippin, who became king of the Franks and father of Charlemagne, so that he could live out his days as a monk at Monte Cassino. There, Montalembert wrote that in humility “he did not wish to be recognised.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Michael Edward Moore, A Sacred Kingdom: Bishops and the Rise of Frankish Kingship, 300–850 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), p. 222; Forbes, The Monks of the West, Vol. 6, p. 53.&lt;/p&gt;">REF Just a few centuries after their ancestors were murdering and pillaging with little self-restraint, the great-nephew of Carloman, the emperor Louis the Pious, unveiled a new motto of his greatly reformed Franks to a rebellious tributary: “The Franks are invincible in war, but pacific, full of religion and humanity, and never taking up arms without regret.”REF
The Franks sent missionaries to their barbarian cousins, and the process of transformation was repeated and extended farther still. They reached out to the Anglo-Saxons in England, where “[o]ne single century,” British historian Samuel Astley Dunham wrote, had “raised them from barbarism to civilisation; had transformed them from bloodthirsty savages into mild, and humane, and affectionate men; had banished from their hearts the selfishness which is everywhere the distinguishing mark of barbarity, and in its place had implanted the self-denying and magnanimous virtues.” At least 30 of their kings and queens are claimed to have voluntarily abdicated their thrones for monasteries and convents and joined in missionary work.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Samuel Astley Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire (London: Longman, Rees et al., 1835), Vol. II, p. 58; Forbes, The Monks of the West, Vol. 5, p. 106; Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, pp. 152, 161, 199–212.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
For converting and ennobling the spiritual and moral lives of the barbarians of Western Europe, many priests became martyrs. Too often, the ancient savagery of the barbarians overcame their new piety. During the first 150 years after the conversion of Clovis, the Franks cut down many of their confessors and scolding schoolmasters, as the known body count of bishops shows, but the unarmed priests simply replenished their ranks and cheerfully completed their work. They were responsible for the transformation of Europe, which was acknowledged and deplored by Nietzsche because conversion brought with it “slave morality,” the adoration of weakness and the humiliation of strength; in other words, the beatitudes converted into principles of custom and law.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;See Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage, 1989); Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, p. 239.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
<h3>The Political Regime of Christendom</h3>
The conversion of the Franks and their revolutionized moral character gave Christendom a new and strong geographic base upon which Christian government was refounded. We now turn to the establishment of that government.
Government collapsed around the city of Rome in the fifth century amid invasions, raids, and succession struggles. These disasters and threats of more disasters revealed the impotence of imperial authorities, and this engendered fear among the people. Pope Saint Leo the Great stepped into the vacuum. Using the weapons of peace, he turned Attila the Hun away from Rome and persuaded Geiseric, king of the Vandals, to end his depredations in the city. Under the supervision of Leo, the Church at Rome organized relief for the people and redeemed captives taken into slavery by the marauding barbarians. These efforts spread to other dioceses in Italy and Gaul.
In short, the Church was governing and filling the place of government vacated by imperial administration in the Western Empire, and Leo began to act as a head of government. His homilies took on the character of addresses by an executive and founder of a new political regime, and the people of Rome, awed by Leo’s courage and charity, followed his promptings. The Church would reestablish the Roman Empire on new principles—principles found in the beatitudes that lift up the poor and the weak. Why? Because, Leo said, the Lord commanded “that you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And who is a neighbor? “[N]ot only those who are joined to us by friendship or kinship, but all people.” He explained that all people have a “common nature, be they enemies or allies, free or slave,” because “One Creator fashioned us all.” The practice of Christian citizenship within the new order, whereby all acted charitably toward all irrespective of distinctions, promised an overthrow of the default condition of mankind, an end to enmity and atrocities, and the establishment of civil peace.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Massimiliano Vitiello, “The ‘Fear’ of the Barbarians and the Fifth-Century Western Chroniclers,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 66 (2021), pp. 115–150; Bronwen Neil, “‘Blessed Is Poverty’: Leo the Great on Almsgiving,” Sacris Erudiri: A Journal of Late Antique and Medieval Christianity, Vol. 46 (2007), pp. 143–156; Leo the Great, Sermons, trans. J. P. Freeland, C.S.J.B., and A. J. Conway, S.S.J. (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), pp. 50–51; Susan Wessel, Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2008), p. 147.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In addition, Leo represented his high office, the seat of Saint Peter, as the rightful and supreme authority over Christendom. Leo understood that during his earthly ministry, Christ had conferred authority on Peter to administer justice over a unified ecclesiastical order. However, the pope was not expected to rule Christendom directly. Thirty years after Leo’s papacy, Pope Gelasius I added some clarity to the constitutional structure of Christendom in a letter to Anastasius, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. According to the letter, God ordained that the world is ruled by the authority of the popes and the power of kings, but papal authority is higher than royal power. The royal office is human; the sacerdotal office, divine. Priests must answer to God for the conduct of kings, and even kings depend on priests for the sacraments.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Vitiello, “The ‘Fear’ of the Barbarians,” pp. 136–137; Wessel, Leo the Great, pp. 285–297; George E. Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), pp. 89–91; Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen, trans., The Letters of Gelasius I (492–496): Pastor and Micro-Manager of the Church of Rome (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2014), pp. 73–80.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Scripture does affirm that the function of temporal rulers is legitimated by God and that those rulers ought to be obeyed, but Gelasius affirmed the higher authority on Earth that God has delegated to the Church. The consequence is that, while the human office may be preeminent in executing rule, the divine office may judge and guide the administration of rule due to its higher authority. In other words, the Church was a divinely appointed authority charged with presiding over the integrity of the political regime of Christendom and defending the Christian constitution. With respect to temporal government, the Church was not responsible for executing the daily tasks of rule; it was responsible for ensuring that temporal rule was just and faithful to the first principles of Christian government. The Church was intended to be the voice of justice on Earth and a check on earthly power.
Away from Rome, the bishops of Gaul integrated themselves into the new constitutional order under the leadership of the pope. There, the system shaped by Leo and Gelasius was set into motion, and it worked. The Frankish state and the Church had separate functions but were partners, each assisting the other in discharging the functions of government. Clergy with legal training moved smoothly between royal administration and diocesan duties. Church councils produced canons or ecclesiastic legislation that respected and shaped secular law, and the councils served as courts.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Wessel, Leo the Great, p. 96; Moore, A Sacred Kingdom, p. 139; Gregory Halfond, The Archaeology of Frankish Church Councils, AD 511–768 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
The bishops adopted roles as fathers of their people in their dioceses, protecting the destitute and the weak, redeeming slaves, and winning the people’s trust and affection, just as Leo the Great had done in Rome. With a grateful people behind the bishops, kings could not dismiss their advice and rebukes, and the bishops, supported by an approving pope, could use that popular power to shape the development of temporal government.REF Before he had baptized Clovis, Saint Remigius was already beseeching his catechumen to use his wealth and power to succor the afflicted, widows, and orphans and to manumit slaves.REF At the Council of Orleans in 511, the first synod Clovis called after his baptism, 32 bishops committed to using a portion of episcopal revenues to aid the poor and sick and to redeeming captives from slavery.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;J. N. Hillgarth, ed., Christianity and Paganism, 350–750: The Conversion of Western Europe, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), pp. 100–101.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Consistent with the political direction established by Leo and Gelasius, churchmen began to define more specific duties and limits of Christian monarchy, an effort that culminated in formal pronouncements by the Council of Paris in 829. According to the council, the first duty of the king should be to defend the church and its clergy, which is to say that the supreme duty of the king is to support the protectors of the constitution. Next in order of priority is the duty of the king to care for the poor and weak, which manifests the first principles of the political regime. Finally, the Church’s check on temporal rule, which Gelasius had advanced in theory, was put into action. Although scripture commands obedience to rulers, if a king fails to uphold justice and behaves like a tyrant, he has forfeited his title as king and may be removed, because a king properly speaking is one who rules well, not one who oppresses his people.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Moore, Sacred Kingdom, pp. 324–327. Nine centuries later, New England pastors and ministers recognized the same biblical command to obey rulers and employed the same rationale to be excepted from the command while preaching republican principles of government. See Jonathan Mayhew, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers,” January 30, 1749, in The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Or, the Political Sermons of the Period of 1776, ed. John Wingate Thornton (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1860), pp. 70–71; Samuel Cooke, “A Sermon Preached at Cambridge, in the Audience of His Honor Thomas Hutchinson, Esq.,” May 30, 1770, in The Pulpit of the American Revolution, pp. 162–163; Jacob Duché, “The Duty of Standing Fast in Our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties,” July 7, 1775, in The Patriot Preachers of the American Revolution, 1766–1783, ed. Frank Moore (New York: Printed for Subscribers, 1860), p. 82; William Smith, “A Sermon on the Present Situation of American Affairs,” June 23, 1775, in The Patriot Preachers, pp. 105–106; John Joachim Zubly, “The Law of Liberty. A Sermon on American Affairs,” 1775, in The Patriot Preachers, p. 130; Samuel West, “A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Council, and the Honorable House of Representatives of the Colony of the Massachusetts-Bay,” May 29, 1776, in The Pulpit of the American Revolution, pp. 272–275.&lt;/p&gt;">REF The Church had asserted the power to impeach and remove, which is the institutional substitute for rebellion.
<h3>Articulation of the Political Regime</h3>
The maturation and expansion of Christian government entailed a clearer understanding of distinctly Christian governing principles and the development of governing institutions faithful to those principles.
The guiding principles of Christian government—the natural equality and dignity of mankind—appear in the homilies, sermons, biblical exegeses, and writings of many Christian theologians in the centuries before Leo the Great. For example:
<ul>
<li>In the dialogue Octavius, written sometime between the second and third centuries, the Christian apologist Minucius Felix claims that by nature, all men are born with the ability to reason and without distinction of sex or rank;</li>
<li>In the fourth century, Saint Gregory of Nyssa’s revealing and unique philosophical meditation on the creation of man in God’s image contrasts the more dignified likeness of man to the Creator in Christianity and the degraded likeness of man to creation in paganism;</li>
<li>The apologist Lactantius explained why the Greek and Roman philosophers did not understand the equality of mankind and as a result omitted this necessary element from their conception of justice; and</li>
<li>It would be hard to put forward any work, ancient or modern, that surpasses the pathos and surgical logic of Saint Ambrose’s commentary on Naboth with respect to the perennial oppression of the poor by the rich and the undoing of our created state as natural equals made for loving one another.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;J. H. Freese, The Octavius of Minucius Felix (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: Macmillan, 1919), XVI; Saint Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man XVI; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book V, chap. 14–15; Saint Ambrose of Milan, On Naboth.&lt;/p&gt;">REF</li>
</ul>
Latin Christendom could draw from these and other sources as well as a long history of the charitable deeds of saints that provided robust support for first principles. However, in articulating or working out the laws and institutions that comprise political order, rulers need common definitions of first principles from established, politically authoritative sources. What the older sources clearly affirm is the natural equality and dignity of mankind. Less clear was their measure of the equal dignity of man and how that should be recognized in law. What may human dignity command as its due? What is owed to that dignity? In other words, what are the natural rights of mankind if indeed mankind possesses natural rights?
Medieval philosophers, theologians and canonists tackled this problem in what ought to be framed as a broad, multi-century research program within Latin Christendom, certainly occasioned by many disagreements but heading toward one endpoint: to fix the rights of mankind with precision according to reason and Christian revelation. The effort included many famous names of medieval Europe: Gratianus, Saint Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Jean Gerson, and Francisco de Vitoria among others.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Richard Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1979); Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law and Church Law 1150–1625 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Identification of some rights (for example, the right to resist tyranny) was easy, and identification of others (like the right to property) was notoriously difficult. Whatever the results would be, the magnitude and direction of the effort reflected a deep commitment to doing justice to man in a way that had never been attempted and, as a consequence, further to shape conceptions of how government should be administered, which was done by kings and nobles at this time. Hence, treatises proliferated on the duty of ruling well or, one might say, on the right of the people, in consideration of their dignity, to be ruled well according to the Christian principles of justice.
In the 12th-century work Policraticus, John of Salisbury confirmed the political order of Christendom established by Popes Leo and Gelasius. The priesthood is the soul of the political body, the voice of justice, that directs the state, whereas the prince is the head. A true prince conforms his statutes to the higher law of justice, guarded by the soul of the state, obeys the law, and rules for the common good. Tyrants reject the constraints of law and seek to become a law unto themselves, impiously imitating God. Common people, too, can behave tyrannically toward anyone in their power. John’s conclusions also repeat the findings of the Council of Paris, centuries earlier, that insofar as princes behave tyrannically, they are no longer princes properly speaking and may be removed and even killed.
In his letter to the King of Cyprus, On Kingship, and in the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th-century priest and theologian of the Dominican Order, justified rebellion against tyranny as the second blow of self-defense, answering the first blow of injustice against the people; yet in consideration of the proofs of history as well as reason, he concluded that popular rule was more prone to lapse into tyranny than was royal government. For William Peraldus, another 13th-century Dominican, the power of the prince was derived from the people. Pride leads a prince astray, and he should seek humility as Christ taught in order to be loved and supported by his people. He should love God, love his neighbor, and serve his people with humility in keeping with those commands of Christ. Many of the writers in this literature emphasize the diffusion of education, greater equality between the sexes, and the duty to avoid war.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;John of Salisbury, Policraticus 4.1–4.2, 5.2, 7.17, 8.20; Saint Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship 1.6–1.7; Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II–II, q.42, a.2; William Peraldus, De Eruditione Principum 1.6, 2.10–2.12. For an excellent survey of the literature, see Lester Kruger Born, “The Perfect Prince: A Study in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Ideals,” Speculum, Vol. 3, No. 4 (1928), pp. 470–504; for modern appraisals of the same authors, see Istvan P. Bejczyand and Cary J. Nederman, eds., Princely Virtues in the Middle Ages, 1200–1500 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2007).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Meanwhile, the development of governing institutions corresponded to these developments in theory. Although kings were the heads and priests were the souls of Christian countries, the Church essentially ran a parallel or adjunct government, committed to charitable works including systems of social welfare, hospitals, and education.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Brian Tierney, Medieval Poor Law: A Sketch of Canonical Theory and Its Application in England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959); Peter Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2002); Pierre Riche, The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe, trans. Michael Idomir Allen (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), pp. 326–330; Julia Barrow, The Clergy in the Medieval World: Secular Clerics, Their Families and Careers in North-Western Europe, c. 800–c. 1200 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015), chap. 6; M. M. Hildebrandt, The External School in Carolingian Society (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1992); Jean Leclercq, O.S.B., The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, 2nd rev. ed., trans. Catharine Misrahi (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974), pp. 238–241; Nicholas Orme and Margaret Webster, The English Hospital, 1070–1570 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995); Adam J. Davis, The Medieval Economy of Salvation: Charity, Commerce, and the Rise of the Hospital (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2019).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In addition, the constitution of Christendom’s political regime was clarified further still. In the ninth century, Pope John VIII had used the name respublica christiana to signify the corporate unity of Christians. The kings ruled according to law and famously clashed with popes so that, in general, they resembled Roman governors more than independent princes, and the popes seemed more like emperors. In the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII asserted the papal right to depose royals and absolve the people from allegiance to those rulers who were deemed wicked by the papacy. He reaffirmed the corporate unity of Christian society and the pope as the spiritual father of that realm.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power (London: Methuen, 1955), pp. 219–222, 275–277, 281–282.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In the 15th century, Paulus Vladimiri, a Polish priest who was a professor of canon law and rector of the University of Cracow, proposed a renovation of the constitutional order in a memorandum prepared for the Council of Constance. Under his plan, the nation-states composing Europe would confederate and send representatives to a federal center to legislate for the whole. The Holy Roman Emperor would be charged with maintaining law and order, and the pope would preside over the Church and oversee temporal rule. The people of the member states would enjoy fundamental rights derived from natural law, including the rights of property and conscience. Though not adopted, the plan at the endpoint of this medieval timeline illustrates how Christian first principles unleashed a logic terminating in the design of structures of government that aimed at securing the rights of mankind.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Stanislaus F. Belch, Paulus Vladimiri and His Doctrine Concerning International Law and Politics (London: Mouton, 1965), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26, Chapters 7–10.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Much later, a similar constitution was proposed that borrowed the institutional advances produced by the political logic of Christianity. “Happily for mankind,” Alexander Hamilton acknowledged in Federalist No. 9, “stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty” had “flourished for ages.”REF Those institutional inventions were tested in Christian Europe and then studied, improved and refined, and placed in the Constitution of the United States.
<h3>Revolution</h3>
Evidence that further demonstrates the similitude of the first principles of Christian government and the principles of the Declaration of Independence may be adduced from the history of popular uprisings from the mid to late Middle Ages. Leaders—some of them clergy—of these uprisings and attempts to reform government drew the same democratic conclusions from Christian scripture that readers can draw from the Declaration.
We begin by asking why, if Christianity affirms natural equality and the dignity of man, entailing rights, monarchy was the dominant form of government in Christendom. The answer is that the political institutions of Latin Christendom were aimed at securing good rule by producing better princes, tethering them to good law, and subjecting them to Church supervision. At least in France, the machinery was successful according to the priest Gerald of Wales, who served the Angevin court in England and presumably was less prone to pro-French bias. In his treatise on how to rule well, written at the end of the 12th century, he held up the French kings as a model. They were just, merciful, and generous toward their subjects. They heard complaints in person at court and permitted subjects to speak freely. They were chivalrous in personal conduct and moderate in their rule, and their successions were peaceful.REF
But the logic of natural equality and the dignity of man also led priests and laymen in revolutionary directions that were at odds with the system that was built. The known cases of these revolutionary disturbances show that, at least to the revolutionaries, fidelity to Christian principle demanded a more popular system of government. The origin of modern democratic revolutions, Alexis de Tocqueville argued in the introduction to Democracy in America, was the principle of equality in the Church, and he dated its perturbing effects on political society to the 12th century, holding up medieval France as exemplar.
In that century, Arnold of Brescia, along with John of Salisbury, was a student of Peter Abelard at the University of Paris, where many leading medieval intellects studied and taught. Arnold returned to Brescia, became a priest, participated in a popular revolt against the bishop, was expelled from Italy by Pope Innocent II, returned to France, was expelled from France, and finally was attracted to a republican revolution in Rome, where he became its leader and opposed both the Holy Roman Emperor and the papacy. This republic of Rome lasted for several years until Arnold was captured and executed in 1155. From the available evidence, which includes writings from liberal men who were connected to him, Arnold was an uncompromising, imprudent man who lived in austerity and demanded the same from the priesthood. He insisted on popular rule and the Church’s total retreat from temporal affairs.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;George William Greenway, Arnold of Brescia (London: Cambridge University Press, 1931); Marjorie Chibnall, trans., John of Salisbury’s Memoirs of the Papal Court (London: Thomas Nelson, 1956), pp. 63–65; Bruno Scott James, trans., The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1998), pp. 318, 322, 329–332; Otto of Freising, The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), pp. 61, 143–144.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In France from 1356 to 1357, Robert le Coq, Bishop of Laon, led the Estates General in an attempt to democratize the monarchy, giving control of military and monetary policy to councils administered by the estates. In this effort, le Coq allied himself with Etienne Marcel, the leader of the commoners. Marcel proposed a slate of his own reforms with the same end in mind. After the reforms failed, bloody revolts broke out. Among the rebels, later proceedings show, were a spirited priest named Verrigues; another, Jean Nerenget, parish priest of Gelicourt; and the brothers Jean and Guilbert Doublet, priests accused of being rebel captains in the dioceses of Beauvais and Amiens and of having participated in the destruction of the castles of Aumale and Poix.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Arthur Layton Funk, “Robert Le Coq and Etienne Marcel,” Speculum, Vol. 19, No. 4 (October 1944), pp. 478, 481; Simeon Luce, Histoire de la Jacquerie d’après des documents inédits [History of the Jacquerie from Unpublished Documents], new ed. (Paris: Honore Champion, 1894), pp. 46–47, 64.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Another priest, John Ball, was a leader of the peasant revolt of 1381 in England and was assisted by “nearly a score of clerics.” Ball preached natural equality from the text of the Bible and on that basis repudiated inequality in social and political life as ungodly. Like Arnold, he attacked the Church, for which he was excommunicated.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;James Crossley, Spectres of John Ball: The Peasants’ Revolt in English History, 1381–2020 (Sheffield, UK: Equinox, 2022), chap. 2; Rodney Hilton, Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (London: Methuen, 1973), pp. 207–209; Rodney Hilton, Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism: Essays in Medieval and Social History (London: Hambledon Press, 1985), pp. 222–224.&lt;/p&gt;">REF Although it is debated whether or not theologian John Wycliffe inspired or approved of the revolt, Ball definitely shared Wycliffe’s positions opposing inequality and hierarchy in the Church. Other examples can be adduced from the medieval period of clergy justifying their leadership or support of popular causes on religious principle, all the way forward in time to the participation by followers of Martin Luther in the bloody 1524–1525 Peasants’ Revolt in Germany.REF
Most of these revolutionary priests must have been very sincere but very imprudent men, and their cases highlight the dangerous consequences that flow from the improper application of sound principles to existing social and political conditions. In The City of God, Saint Augustine acknowledges that of course mankind is by nature equal but says that sin is the reason for inequality.REF Hence, the only way to recover and maintain the created state of equality in political order on Earth is to make political society more heavenly by banishing sin or tempering its effects. In other words, successful republicanism depends on widespread piety. If one were to found a new political order on terms approaching absolute equality without considering the moral condition of society, one would need only to consult the legion of archaeological monographs on past atrocities to remind oneself of the possible result. For these reasons, the Catholic Church was understandably reticent to support such republican experiments and instead entrusted good government to princes whom the Church could educate and supervise. Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton, who was a professor at the University of Paris and the driving intellectual force behind Magna Carta, understood this problem well, and the provisions of Magna Carta amply reflect his prudence.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;John W. Baldwin, “Master Stephen Langton, Future Archbishop of Canterbury: The Paris Schools and Magna Carta,” The English Historical Review, Vol. 123, No. 503 (August 2008), p. 813.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
However, the system developed by the Church ended after the Protestant Reformation. The corruption of men within the Catholic Church might deserve much of the blame for hastening the Protestant exit, but the result of following men like Luther and Calvin out of the Church instead of remaining with Erasmus to reform the Church from within was the weakening of the Church’s supervision of earthly rule. The Reformation marks the end of the political regime of Christendom. The Church lacked the strength to check monarchs as it once did, and monarchs then asserted their independence from moral oversight by the Church. Hobbes even justified vesting spiritual authority in the sovereign. Because the Church could no longer check monarchs effectively, the people lost its protection from their rulers and were exposed. Arnold of Brescia had his wish—the papal retreat from temporal affairs—but the result was far from what he had dreamed. The contest within Christendom for earthly authority then was taken up by monarchs and the people, aptly pictured by the debate between Robert Filmer and John Locke. Monarchs asserted the divine right of kings; the people asserted popular sovereignty by natural right.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;John Neville Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings, 2nd ed. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1914); Glenn Burgess, “The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered,” The English Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 425 (October 1992), pp. 837–861.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
<h3>American Republicanism</h3>
Alexis de Tocqueville believed that the English Protestants who settled in Massachusetts Bay were the authors of American republicanism, and that judgment still seems right.REF Although the New Englanders did not devise a famous theory of natural rights as Locke did more than half a century after they landed at Plymouth in 1620, they were from their earliest days republicans in the organization of their churches and then their communities because God and reason taught them that all men were created equal and had a right to liberty.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;James F. Cooper Jr., Tenacious of Their Liberties: The Congregationalists in Colonial Massachusetts (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Their drift toward independence and self-government had already made them ungovernable according to the Council of English lords appointed to superintend the colony. As a result, the Council attempted to surrender the charter in 1635 back to the king, complaining that the New Englanders had “wholly excluded themselves from the public government of the Council” and “had made themselves a free people…and so framed unto themselves both new laws and new concepts of matters of religion.”REF New England freemen pressed their rights, and New England magistrates acknowledged them; consent was understood to be the ground of legitimate government, and land relations were redesigned around the right to property.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;William Scott, In Pursuit of Happiness, American Conceptions of Property from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), pp. 10–17; Stephen Foster, Their Solitary Way: The Puritan Social Ethic in the First Century of Settlement in New England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
The motive of the English emigrants was to go wherever they could best achieve their aim, to live in the closest possible conformity with the dictates of Christian faith.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1956), chap. 1; George H. Williams, Wilderness and Paradise in Christian Thought (New York: Harper, 1962).&lt;/p&gt;">REF For that reason above all others, New England republicanism, despite sometimes having to labor against the irritating interference of the mother country, was as successful as any prior exemplar. City of God explains their simultaneous willingness to abandon earthly attachments and success in the most difficult earthly endeavor, the founding of a durable republic. The paradox of Christians’ earthly citizenship is that, contrary to the calumny of pagan Romans in Augustine’s day, Christians are excellent citizens on Earth because they first regard themselves as citizens of the city of God, which pagan idolatry of earthly things despises. As a result of Christians’ primary allegiance to heaven, their character is renewed and softened. Augustine explained that by following the first law of the heavenly city—to love God with all one’s heart and soul—Christians love what God loves, and because Christ revealed extraordinary love for mankind by His extraordinary sacrifice, Christians can love mankind also, which consists in desiring and doing good for one’s neighbor, which is charity.REF
The New Englanders were well prepared to live up to that standard of citizenship. The Protestant revolution did leave Christendom with a great gift that was especially keen in those settlers: a revivified zeal to live piously. In forswearing the authority of the Church, they were forswearing its sacraments and ministries. Because they did not recognize any intermediary between themselves and God, the success of the Protestant project demanded that each believer become his own priest, which required the piety at least equal to that of one sworn to a life without marriage and property for the sake of serving God. They were betting their eternal souls on their ability to live according to God’s will on their own, and commoners did show a level of determination that an atheist or agnostic would likely find bizarre, in trying to understand and apply God’s word to their lives with exact precision.REF Both the intensity of their effort to audit their own souls for sin and their healthy fear of sin’s many traps in life are reflected in John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim's Progress.
Their piety gave them an advantage in the effort to establish and maintain a republic, in overcoming the impeding effects of sin, and in recovering a measure of that primitive equality among themselves that was mankind’s created condition. But they were not lovers of republicanism per se; they were not baptized Robespierres and Dantons whose goal was to exceed the glory of Athens and Rome. They loved God and their neighbor, and that is why they succeeded while others failed.
John Winthrop and other leading men among the New England settlers were the true founders of the United States.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Francis J. Bremer, John Winthrop: America's Forgotten Founding Father (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); Francis J. Bremer, First Founders: American Puritans and Puritanism in an Atlantic World (Durham: University of New Hampshire Press, 2012).&lt;/p&gt;">REF They solved the perennial problem that had unsettled republics: the problem of the few and the many.REF According to Aristotle, in all political regimes, chronic tension between the few who are rich and powerful and the many who are poor and weak is the ultimate cause of all revolutions of all kinds. Each side provides plausible reasons for the other side to be offended. Charity, or the active love for one another, as the basis of political society overcomes this discord and was the basis of Winthrop’s sermon to the passengers of the Arabella. Nature did teach, he said, that we were all equal, made in the image of God, and Christians therefore should do good to all—a precept that touches every member of political society, Christian or not. Winthrop, the founder of republican America, was reading from the same textbook as Saint Leo the Great, pope and founder of the respublica christiana, who preached the same to the Roman people in the fifth century.
Shaped by the precepts of their religion to which they were devoted, the people of New England, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged, were respectful of the liberties belonging to others, which was not true of the southern character.REF The character of the New England people was ideal for sustaining republican government and the opposite of the default character of mankind in which violent disregard for the rights of others predominates.
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
Is America a Christian nation? Our Constitution does not explicitly favor Christianity and in fact protects worshippers of all religions. But what other religion welcomes citizens of latitudinarian belief? To what antecedent should we attribute protections of religious conscience? Drawing from Christian scripture, Saint Augustine (among others) had said that coercion cannot compel belief. Alcuin of York quoted Augustine in a letter to Charlemagne to explain to the king why he should use persuasion instead of force to convert the newly conquered Saxons and Avars. These are the same arguments prefixing and justifying the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia in 1786: “Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions….”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Saint Augustine, On the Spirit and Letter, chaps. 53–55; On Catechising the Uninstructed 5.9; Sophia Moesch, Augustine and the Art of Ruling in the Carolingian Imperial Period: Political Discourse in Alcuin of York and Hincimar of Rheims (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 74–75; W. W. Hening, ed., Statutes at Large of Virginia (Richmond: George Cochran, 1823), Vol. 12, pp. 84–86.&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Our republican Founding did not favor Christianity, but Christianity favored our republican Founding. Subtract the faith and the support is gone. Perhaps the Founders took the achievements of Christianity too much for granted, gave too much credit to the Enlightenment for the progress of liberty, or assumed that the faith would remain strong without greater intervention. We today cannot afford those illusions. Our forebears enjoyed a fuller account of moral capital created by Christianity, and that account is clearly spent down. Atheists, agnostics, and the religiously indifferent might celebrate the evanescence of Christianity, but if they love their liberty, in the difficulties ahead that we all might face, they might discover a new appreciation for its Author and learn to pray for a genuine revival of Christian faith.
Forrest Nabors is Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, at the University of Alaska Anchorage. 
</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:50:24 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Forrest Nabors</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/report/the-christian-roots-american-republicanism</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Moving Beyond Moynihan: A New Blueprint to Revive Marriage and Rebuild the Black Family</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/moving-beyond-moynihan-new-blueprint-revive-marriage-and-rebuild-the</link>
<description/>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 23:46:57 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Delano Squires</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/moving-beyond-moynihan-new-blueprint-revive-marriage-and-rebuild-the</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Four Ways We Can Bring Manufacturing Jobs Back to the American Heartland</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/four-ways-we-can-bring-manufacturing-jobs-back-the-american</link>
<description>“Reindustrialize.” It’s the latest rallying cry <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/20/us/manufacturing-tech-trump-reindustrialize.html" target="_blank">gaining traction</a>, with both the left and right calling for policy reforms to modernize American industry and finally bring back manufacturing jobs to the American heartland. But President Trump has been sounding this alarm for years, long before it became politically fashionable.
In line with this vision, the Trump administration has acted to revive manufacturing in the United States, and it’s worked with Congress to implement these policies through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Here are 4 reforms in OBBBA that will help achieve reindustrialization:
Permanent Full Expensing
OBBBA permanently extends several pro-growth provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/end-the-war-manufacturing-agenda-restore-industrial-production-the">End the War on Manufacturing: An Agenda to Restore Industrial Production in the United States</a>
First, it permanently establishes 100% bonus depreciation, a provision that allows businesses to immediately deduct the total cost of qualifying capital investments, including most manufacturing machinery and equipment. While the TCJA had temporarily expanded this policy, OBBBA permanently locks it in, providing tax certainty for long-term investment.
Without this provision, business costs to replace old equipment or expand operations would be taxed as if they were profits to shareholders—even before they actually produce any profits. But with the provision, OBBBA eliminates the penalty on capital-intensive investment, encouraging domestic manufacturers to invest in new equipment and expand production capacity.
OBBBA also permanently establishes full and immediate expensing for research and development costs. Since 2022, domestic R&amp;D costs have been forced to be amortized over 5 years—which allows inflation to erode the deduction’s value, thereby penalizing innovative pursuits.
By promoting permanent full expensing for R&amp;D, OBBBA encourages domestic investment and manufacturing, providing tax certainty and removing upfront tax penalties on innovation.
Full Expensing for Factories and Other Goods-Producing Structures
OBBBA also enacts another key tax code reform: allowing businesses to immediately deduct the cost of constructing new factories and structures that produce or refine American-made goods.
Under prior law, these costs were recovered over a depreciation schedule of up to 39 years, a complex and burdensome process that penalized long-term domestic investment. But the new provision adds on to the deductions for equipment and R&amp;D to ensure that there are no direct tax penalties on building new factories in America.
Permitting Reform
OBBBA also takes a step in the right direction to reduce bureaucratic delays in the permitting required to build factories. Specifically, it reforms the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), adapting it so that project developers can obtain expedited environmental reviews by paying a fee of 125% of the estimated cost of such a review.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/government-broke-the-housing-market-only-will-fix-it">Government Broke the Housing Market—Only This Will Fix It</a>
This reduces one of many outdated roadblocks on the path toward building new factories and industrializing America. And by streamlining the NEPA permitting process, OBBBA also accelerates the construction of mines, oil and gas wells, and power plants that produce cheap and reliable energy required for reindustrialization.
529 Expansion for Apprenticeships
Finally, OBBBA increases the likelihood that firms will find highly skilled workers to operate machinery and equipment—a necessary step that’s often overlooked.
Rather than following the left’s playbook of importing foreign workers to meet these needs, OBBBA expands 529 educational savings accounts to cover costs associated with a broader range of apprenticeship programs and trade training and licensing. These apprenticeships are often better suited than most university programs to train young Americans for high-demand, high-paying jobs that will strengthen domestic production capabilities.
These reforms are promising, but OBBBA isn’t the end. Rather, the Trump administration continues to make meaningful reforms to boost domestic manufacturing by further <a href="https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/30/secretary-rollins-rolls-back-overly-burdensome-environmental-regulations-unleash-american-innovation" target="_blank">rolling back regulations</a> and fixing America’s outdated tax system.
Together, these reforms lay the foundation for a new era of American reindustrialization.
</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:06:20 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Richard Stern, Ethan Xu</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/four-ways-we-can-bring-manufacturing-jobs-back-the-american</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The “Gold Standard” of Jobs Data Is Broken—and America Is Paying the Price</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/the-gold-standard-jobs-data-broken-and-america-paying-the-price</link>
<description>On Tuesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/bls-preliminary-benchmark-revision-job-growth-2025" rel="noopener" target="_blank">published a revision</a> of its latest job numbers, a report that shows just how far off its estimates of overall employment were from reality.
The latest data just confirms what many already suspected—that the situation is worse than we thought. There’s something incredibly wrong at BLS, and for the sake of our economy, it’s time to fix it.
From March 2024 to March 2025—a period mostly covering the final year of the Biden administration—BLS overestimated job numbers by 911,000. In other words, for that period, the nation added a stunning 911,000 fewer jobs than were originally reported, the largest such error on record. &nbsp;
Let that sink in. &nbsp;
But it's a lot worse than that. Over the last three years, the BLS has overcounted nearly 3 million jobs that didn't exist. &nbsp;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/labor-department-admits-hundreds-thousands-biden-jobs-were-fake">Labor Department Admits Hundreds of Thousands of Biden Jobs Were Fake</a>
These aren't random errors when every revision skews in the same direction. &nbsp;
Even more troubling, the BLS numbers released last week pointed in opposite directions. One survey showed 22,000 jobs created while the other suggested nearly 300,000. Which is it?
By relying on faulty data and skewed reporting methods, BLS essentially invented millions of jobs that weren't there. That flawed data was then used by the Biden administration and the legacy media to promote a job market that didn’t exist, instead of reporting the weak jobs' recovery.&nbsp;
For an agency that describes itself as the “principal fact-finding agency for the federal government” in labor economics and statistics, that’s a shocking and intolerable error. &nbsp;
These kinds of miscounts have become the norm for an agency tasked with producing data that regularly steers public policy and drives private economic market swings. &nbsp;&nbsp;
BLS doesn’t just publish job reports—it also tracks critical issues like inflation, running the Consumer Price Index that measures how far Americans’ money goes.
This isn't just an academic exercise. There are real policy implications that result from faulty numbers. Bad numbers lead to bad policy.
Policymakers throughout the government rely on BLS data to shape decisions on taxes, spending and monetary policies. Americans across the country rely on BLS data to judge how elected officials’ decisions affect their daily lives and the issues that matter to them, meaning flawed data could change the outcomes of our elections.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/four-ways-we-can-bring-manufacturing-jobs-back-the-american">Four Ways We Can Bring Manufacturing Jobs Back to the American Heartland</a>
Most of the period covered in this week’s report took place in the waning days of President Joe Biden’s tenure. For his last year in office, BLS job numbers were off by more than 50%.
That overestimation came during a highly contentious election focused largely on the economy and centered on issues like jobs and inflation. Flawed BLS data painted a far better picture of Biden’s economy than reality—potentially pushing some voters to favor him (and later, Harris) over Trump.
President Trump ended up winning the election regardless—and he’s now proven that his concerns about BLS are absolutely correct. President Trump believes the numbers were “rigged” to make the economy to appear better than it was. Perhaps. Or maybe it was just sheer number counting incompetence.
Either way, this cannot happen again.
Trump ran on the promise to restore transparency, accountability and efficiency to the federal government. That’s a mission he needs to take to BLS to restore it as the gold standard of jobs and labor data. That means depoliticizing the agency, improving data collection and refining its communication with the American people.
There is something seriously wrong at BLS. It can and must be fixed. Americans should back the president's efforts to do so—including his nominee. &nbsp;
</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:04:16 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Stephen Moore</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/the-gold-standard-jobs-data-broken-and-america-paying-the-price</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Chinese Drone Flying in Your Neighborhood Could Be a National Security Threat</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-chinese-drone-flying-your-neighborhood-could-be-national-security-threat</link>
<description>Across <a href="https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/russia-just-rocked-ukraine-with-over-500-drones-and-missiles/" target="_blank">today’s battlefields</a> and even above American neighborhoods, small <a href="https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/ukraine-is-tag-teaming-drones-and-ancient-tanks-to-fight-russia/" target="_blank">drones</a> are rewriting the playbook of modern warfare and domestic security.
In Ukraine, swarms of low-cost drones have devastated armor and artillery. Here at home, Chinese-manufactured drones—particularly those from <a href="https://www.heritage.org/technology/report/chinese-made-drones-direct-threat-whose-use-should-be-curtailed" target="_blank">Chinese-owned</a> Dà-Jiāng Innovations (DJI)—dominate our skies, law enforcement fleets, and even hobbyist shelves.
Beijing’s national security laws give the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) the ability to access any data collected by Chinese companies, including drone imagery. That means every flight over a power plant, a military facility, or a U.S. city risks feeding information back to an <a href="https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/russia-wants-to-build-79000-kamikaze-drones/" target="_blank">adversary</a>.
DJI already controls a dominant share of the U.S. market. Recently, U.S. Customs <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-customs-halting-some-drone-imports-chinese-manufacturer-dji-company-says-2024-10-16/" target="_blank">withheld</a> shipments under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act—showing how America’s reliance on Chinese drones collides with enforcing human rights and security standards. Each seizure <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-customs-halting-some-drone-imports-chinese-manufacturer-dji-company-says-2024-10-16/" target="_blank">underscores the friction</a> of regulating supply chains when so many users still depend on these platforms.
Congress needs to respond decisively—and it has two bipartisan opportunities before it to do so.
The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1793/text" target="_blank">COUNTER Act</a>, authored by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), equips the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security with narrowly tailored authority to detect, track, and neutralize unauthorized drones around military installations and critical infrastructure.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/china/commentary/staying-the-course-means-war-china">Staying the Course Means a War With China</a>
COUNTER isn’t a blanket surveillance measure; it’s a defensive tool designed to stop hostile or suspicious drones before they can collect intelligence, disrupt operations, or cause harm. Reps. August Pfluger (R-TX11) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA06) are leading companion efforts in the House.
Complementing this effort, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced Amendment <a href="https://www.congress.gov/amendment/119th-congress/senate-amendment/3154/text?s=2&amp;r=1&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22sa+3154%22%7D" target="_blank">SA 3154</a> to the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2296" target="_blank">FY26 NDAA</a> (S.2296) to close a critical loophole. Last year’s NDAA already banned federal procurement and use of drones from Chinese firms like <a href="https://uavcoach.com/dji-ban/" target="_blank">DJI and Autel</a>. But adversary companies have a history of dodging restrictions by rebranding, spinning off subsidiaries, or shifting production overseas.
Scott’s amendment directs a national security review of unmanned aircraft systems, software, and communications equipment linked to any foreign adversary. If no determination is made within a year, the equipment is automatically added to the federal “<a href="https://dronelife.com/2024/12/08/fy-2025-ndaa-conference-text-what-happened-with-the-countering-ccp-drones-act/" target="_blank">covered list</a>.” This ensures the CCP cannot sidestep U.S. law simply by creating shell companies or new labels, as it has done in other industries.
The risks of such evasion are not theoretical. In 2024–25, Anzu Robotics used licensed DJI technology to manufacture <a href="https://dronedj.com/2024/06/08/anzu-robotics-dji-mavic-drone/" target="_blank">near-identical drones</a> in Malaysia, allowing them to re-enter the U.S. market under a different name. House investigators allege the arrangement enables <a href="https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/letters/letter-commerce-department-and-anzu-robotics-exposing-prc-drone-company-masquerading" target="_blank">near-identical</a> airframes to reach U.S. buyers through offshore manufacturing and a separate LLC.
DJI <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/08/27/dji-drone-china-loophole-security/" target="_blank">denies</a> corporate affiliation, but the episode illustrates exactly why loopholes matter: without clear anti-evasion provisions, adversary technology will continue to seep into American markets. Scott’s amendment is designed to stop precisely this kind of work-around.
Unless Congress writes clear anti-evasion language and supply-chain disclosure requirements into law, the U.S. could remain exposed even while banning Chinese-branded drones.
Some opponents have voiced <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-rejects-bid-fast-track-bill-address-threats-drones-2024-12-18/" target="_blank">concern</a> that counter-drone authorities risk expanding government surveillance. Protecting civil liberties is an essential principle—but in this case, the criticism misunderstands the legislation.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/reestablish-first-fleet-and-advance-aukus-close-critical-gaps-americas-pacific">Reestablish First Fleet and Advance AUKUS to Close Critical Gaps in America’s Pacific Defense</a>
The COUNTER Act does not authorize the monitoring of Americans’ private communications. Its scope is limited to intercepting and disabling drone command signals around defined facilities. It contains oversight and reporting requirements to prevent misuse. In short, it balances the constitutional protections we hold dear with the practical necessity of defending soldiers, families, and communities from adversarial drones.
At a time when Congress is divided on so many issues, this bipartisan alignment delivers a powerful message: Countering Chinese technology dominance isn’t a partisan project—it’s a national imperative. Together, these provisions form a coherent strategy.
The stakes could not be higher. Our adversaries have already demonstrated how drones can change the character of war. Waiting until a catastrophic incident on U.S. soil would be a dangerous mistake. The combination of the COUNTER Act and Sen. Scott’s amendment provides a clear, bipartisan path: one that defends the homeland, safeguards civil liberties, and bolsters American industry.
Heritage Foundation research has warned for years that foreign-made drones are a direct threat, that DHS has been <a href="https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/dhs-ignoring-the-foreign-drone-threat" target="_blank">slow</a> to respond, and that the U.S. military <a href="https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/countering-the-drone-threat-steps-the-us-military" target="_blank">lacks</a> the legal and technological framework to counter this challenge. These two measures close these gaps and deserve serious attention and swift action—not for partisan advantage, but for our national security.
Given the pace of technological change, delay only increases risk; Congress must act swiftly to align U.S. law with the urgent realities of drone warfare and supply chain security.
America shouldn’t depend on Beijing for the eyes in our skies. We can’t leave our bases, critical infrastructure, or city streets exposed to drones we know are compromised. Passing these bipartisan measures—while ensuring strong anti-evasion provisions—will send a clear message: We intend to lead, not lag, in securing the skies above us.
</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:01:34 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Chris Wingate</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-chinese-drone-flying-your-neighborhood-could-be-national-security-threat</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Washington Post Was Sold an Arizona School Choice Story</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/the-washington-post-was-sold-arizona-school-choice-story</link>
<description>Arizonans have a pet peeve involving people from “back East” who judge us before they understand us. The Washington Post jumped into this with both feet by publishing a story with the headline&nbsp;<a href="https://archive.md/TbtgY">Public schools are closing as Arizona’s school voucher program soars</a>.
The story, which prominently features the long-troubled Roosevelt Elementary School District’s decision to close five schools, has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/3493388/school-choice-didnt-close-arizona-schools/">multiple problems</a>. The paragraphs below will document one of the main problems. Before moving to that, the reader should note that multiple people made efforts by both email and phone to alert the Post reporter to these data during the research process, including the sharing of many of the links to the same state data sources that will be used below.
Arizona K-12 choice is complex&nbsp;<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/in-defense-educations-wild-west-charter-schools-thrive-four-corners-states/">with multiple types of choice operating simultaneously and interacting with each other</a>: the nation’s largest state charter school sector, multiple private choice programs, and (the granddaddy of them all) district open enrollment. No one should fault anyone for failing to appreciate the complexity of a situation from afar, but ignoring data to formulate a fundamentally misleading narrative is another matter.
Just to set the stage, under the Arizona education formula, spending follows the child. From the perspective of a school district, it makes little financial difference as to whether a child transfers to another district, enrolls in a charter, takes an ESA, or moves to California—you either have enrollment to get funded, or you do not. Because districts also generate local funding with enrollment, they are (by a wide margin) the best-funded K-12 system in the state on a per-pupil basis on average.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/manufactured-outrage-how-school-choice-deniers-weaponize-minimal-esa-fraud">Manufactured Outrage: How School-Choice Deniers Weaponize Minimal ESA Fraud</a>
The Arizona Department of Education&nbsp;<a href="https://www.azed.gov/finance/data-collection-reporting-school-and-student-membership-data">tracks public school students by district of residence and by public district or charter school of attendance</a>. The 2025 report includes a tab called “District by Attendance,” and it reveals that of the total public-school students residing with the boundary of Roosevelt Elementary and attending a Roosevelt Elementary district school amounts to 6,551 students. The same report reveals that 5,764 students live within the boundaries of Roosevelt but attend charter schools. Finally, the open enrollment report documents that 2,741 students live within the boundaries of Roosevelt but attend other district schools through open enrollment.
Separate reports from the Arizona Department of Education document ESA use by school district. The most recent quarterly report currently available finds&nbsp;<a href="https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2025/01/Q4%20FY2024%20SBE%20report.pdf">that 803 students reside within the borders of Roosevelt Elementary and are enrolled in the ESA program</a>&nbsp;(see page 22). If we stopped the story there, the conclusion that the fiscal impact on Roosevelt Elementary from other school districts was more than three times larger than that of the ESA program would appear unavoidable. “Public schools are closing as a majority of families choose other public schools” does not seem quite as exciting but would be far more accurate.
But we should not stop the story there.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2025/06/ESA%20FY25%20Q3%20Executive%20%26%20Legislative%20Report%20Final%20submitted%205.30.25.pdf">Another report from the Arizona Department of Education</a>&nbsp;tracks not only which districts ESA students reside in, but also what school they previously attended.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2025/06/ESA%20FY25%20Q3%20Executive%20%26%20Legislative%20Report%20Final%20submitted%205.30.25.pdf">Page 17 of this report reveals</a>&nbsp;that the number of students residing in Roosevelt Elementary district and which previously attended a Roosevelt Elementary school stood at 129. Put it all together, and the picture looks like this:
<a href="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MattRooseveltWAPO.png"><img alt data-entity-type data-entity-uuid decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" height="1618" sizes="(max-width: 2156px) 100vw, 2156px" src="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MattRooseveltWAPO.png" srcset="https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MattRooseveltWAPO.png 2156w, https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MattRooseveltWAPO-300x225.png.webp 300w, https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MattRooseveltWAPO-1024x768.png.webp 1024w, https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MattRooseveltWAPO-768x576.png.webp 768w, https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MattRooseveltWAPO-1536x1153.png.webp 1536w, https://nextstepsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MattRooseveltWAPO-2048x1537.png.webp 2048w" width="2156" loading="lazy"></a>
School boards don’t close five schools in a 6,551-student district because of the loss of 129 students. Enrollment in Roosevelt Elementary began to decline years before the ESA program existed. “Public schools are closing as Arizona voucher enrollment soars” is akin to “Sun rises as rooster crows” as it pertains to Roosevelt Elementary. If the ESA program did not exist, we have every reason to believe that a large majority of ESA students would employ other choice programs.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/the-clumsy-crusade-against-school-choice">The Clumsy Crusade Against School Choice</a>
The fault lies not in Roosevelt’s stars, but in itself—a large majority of the community it serves prefers schools other than the ones they are operating. Statewide Arizona school districts spend&nbsp;<a href="https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/arizona/research/education/echoes-in-the-halls-arizona-school-districts-growing-problem-with-empty-buildings-and-empty-buses">an estimated billion dollars annually on underutilized and vacant school buildings</a>—funds they could be spending on teacher salaries and academic recovery, and which also happens to approximately equal the budget of the ESA program, which 90,000 Arizona students use for K-12 education.
The Roosevelt school board has decided to focus their efforts, and good luck to them. The unstated thesis of the Washington Post’s narrative, however, is that readers should sympathize with the interests of Roosevelt employees rather than with those of the Roosevelt families exercising agency in the education of their children. This is the greatest misdirection of all. We fund schools first for the benefit of children, not the adults working in the schools.
This is all an all-too-common sort of thing in K-12 journalism these days, and it is hardly unique to Arizona.&nbsp;<a href="https://nextstepsblog.org/2025/08/the-truth-about-florida-scholarships-impact-on-districts/">Florida, for example, has no shortage of hugely exaggerated claims regarding the impact of choice on school districts</a>. Author Amanda Ripley,&nbsp;<a href="https://kappanonline.org/ripley-conflict-journalism-school-shutdowns-and-education-news-russo/">interviewed for a book she wrote on deep problems of journalism</a>, noted the “strange and insular world of journalism prizes,” which encourage simplistic “us versus them” stories. “This adversarial model that we’ve got going in education, journalism, and politics no longer serves us. There’s a good guy and a bad guy, and everything’s super clear; it just breaks down. And we keep awarding prizes in that model. But 99 percent of stories are not that clear-cut,” Ripley noted.
What is clear-cut: Roosevelt Elementary may have 99 problems, but losing 129 kids to the ESA program ranks far from being one.
</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:51:41 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Matthew Ladner</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/the-washington-post-was-sold-arizona-school-choice-story</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>For-Profit Colleges Deserve Equal Treatment</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/profit-colleges-deserve-equal-treatment</link>
<description>To most Americans, colleges like Grand Canyon University look pretty benign. But not to the Federal Trade Commission. Until recently, the FTC looked at this Phoenix-based institution and many others like it and saw a big target.
Fortunately, its yearslong assault against GCU seems to have edufailed. Last month, the FTC dropped its lawsuit against the school, “<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttps-3A_news.gcu.edu_gcu-2Dnews_ftc-2Dlawsuit-2Dvs-2Dgrand-2Dcanyon-2Ddismissed-2Dagainst-2Dall-2Dparties_-5F-5F-3B-21-21K695gA-21RTl9JDB6dGVevzAZMbi2poryOahy6n-2DxVtXbdYE5cPC6rj3BwmUrs-2DeCa4fOkcPCFNhQWf7-5FHgJTKTkIzeM-24&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=65hdeRHqg-fE41ak6GcojBjItJa3uOrz7JiismbUoSM&amp;m=oRPnNc-2hrFbQr8DBuh5IY15l4v4EqNQ94cXxRitqS55THGEf86hQZ-uXeDfotO4&amp;s=44xUvJEBJiSIKeyCK4J7518-ecNYXWzz7qBPFCwwulM&amp;e=" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">ending years of coordinated lawfare</a> by government officials” against a Christian university that had once been a for-profit institution.
Yes, Grand Canyon’s alleged sin was that it had once earned profits… by meeting students’ educational needs, no less.
Then there’s the Center for Excellence in Higher Education. In May of this year, a Utah jury <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttps-3A_news.bloomberglaw.com_litigation_for-2Dprofit-2Dcollege-2Ddefeats-2Dgovernments-2Dfraud-2Dclaims-2Dat-2Dtrial-5F-5F-3B-21-21K695gA-21RTl9JDB6dGVevzAZMbi2poryOahy6n-2DxVtXbdYE5cPC6rj3BwmUrs-2DeCa4fOkcPCFNhQWf7-5FHgJTf7HRcPw-24&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=65hdeRHqg-fE41ak6GcojBjItJa3uOrz7JiismbUoSM&amp;m=oRPnNc-2hrFbQr8DBuh5IY15l4v4EqNQ94cXxRitqS55THGEf86hQZ-uXeDfotO4&amp;s=zkCfb73RDQfG2lbrxwnMuiYhcGrTOe9E5wVOFFH56lk&amp;e=" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">exonerated</a> it over a technical violation of Department of Education regulations. But it had already closed its colleges due to a long train of persecution by the department and by Colorado’s assistant attorney general. Although it was a nonprofit school, its own transgression of leftist ideology was that it had bought for-profit colleges long before.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/disguising-dei-schools-keep-trying-push-discredited-ideology">Disguising DEI: Schools Keep Trying To Push a Discredited Ideology</a>
Even though the center had converted them to nonprofit schools, an anti-profit animus on the Left remains strong. But for-profit colleges deserve equal treatment.
In my new Heritage Foundation report, I explain the Center for Excellence in Higher Education’s ordeal and the broader story of unequal treatment of the “proprietary” sector.
When public and nonprofit colleges have low graduation rates and low return on investment for their degrees, these colleges tend to escape scrutiny and criticism. Appropriators, regulators, and accreditors usually keep their heads in the sand. But when the focus is on a for-profit college, anti-market forces are quick to punish the college or even blame capitalism itself.
The story goes back decades. By 1992, legislators had concluded that easy money for federal student aid—highly subsidized student loans that had no relation to future earnings or the kind of risk analysis used for loans in the private sector—had a perverse effect on America’s colleges. Schools were heavily recruiting new students who weren’t prepared to succeed.
In response, Congress amended the Higher Education Act to <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttps-3A_www.govregs.com_uscode_expand_title20-5Fchapter28-5FsubchapterIV-5FpartG-5Fsection1094-2Auscode-5F17-5F-5F-3BIw-21-21K695gA-21RTl9JDB6dGVevzAZMbi2poryOahy6n-2DxVtXbdYE5cPC6rj3BwmUrs-2DeCa4fOkcPCFNhQWf7-5FHgJTZLSEDX8-24&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=65hdeRHqg-fE41ak6GcojBjItJa3uOrz7JiismbUoSM&amp;m=oRPnNc-2hrFbQr8DBuh5IY15l4v4EqNQ94cXxRitqS55THGEf86hQZ-uXeDfotO4&amp;s=puUnEWwM4P_ScA3HvCKu7DtV1Q8gFSeUgp_JbHPtxwg&amp;e=" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">prohibit</a> any “incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid.” All participating colleges, public or private, still follow this rule as a condition of access to Department of Education programs.
This provision interfered with a free market in enrollment. Congress treated every college as a potential fraudster. Moreover, this provision gave the Department of Education a new tool to target proprietary colleges.
In 2014, the Department of Justice partly joined a <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttps-3A_www.bloomberglaw.com_public_desktop_document_UnitedStatesofAmericaetalvStevensHenagerCollegeIncetalDocketNo215_1-3Fdoc-5Fid-3DX5LSQKV6II98PNQS6RHIMKCNQL0-5F-5F-3B-21-21K695gA-21RTl9JDB6dGVevzAZMbi2poryOahy6n-2DxVtXbdYE5cPC6rj3BwmUrs-2DeCa4fOkcPCFNhQWf7-5FHgJT3i9F3rQ-24&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=65hdeRHqg-fE41ak6GcojBjItJa3uOrz7JiismbUoSM&amp;m=oRPnNc-2hrFbQr8DBuh5IY15l4v4EqNQ94cXxRitqS55THGEf86hQZ-uXeDfotO4&amp;s=p8x51-sU1MWTotiIs4OCbEZreL-mpK0dcnPqeOUXnPQ&amp;e=" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">False Claims Act lawsuit</a>&nbsp;alleging that Stevens-Henager College, one of the colleges owned by the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, was out of compliance with the ban on enrollment incentives.
This was one of many tools that the federal government used against proprietary colleges. In the case of GCU, the Department of Education refused to accept that the university had become a nonprofit school.
When the Stevens-Henager College case finally went before a jury this spring, the&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttps-3A_law.justia.com_cases_federal_district-2Dcourts_utah_utdce_2-3A2015cv00119_95627_640_-5F-5F-3B-21-21K695gA-21RTl9JDB6dGVevzAZMbi2poryOahy6n-2DxVtXbdYE5cPC6rj3BwmUrs-2DeCa4fOkcPCFNhQWf7-5FHgJTVoNFf-2DY-24&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=65hdeRHqg-fE41ak6GcojBjItJa3uOrz7JiismbUoSM&amp;m=oRPnNc-2hrFbQr8DBuh5IY15l4v4EqNQ94cXxRitqS55THGEf86hQZ-uXeDfotO4&amp;s=N4Gc1nWR1NijRRvLk2EC2OWXP8AdEkUVZM3ypHfxuP8&amp;e=" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">question</a>&nbsp;was whether the college knew it was out of compliance with the latest version of the rules against incentive payments and, if so, whether that noncompliance triggered federal liability.
The jury decided for the college, but it was too late.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/education/report/legitimate-role-the-department-educations-institute-education-sciences">A Legitimate Role for the Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences</a>
From delayed approvals to requiring unreasonable “letters of credit” to weaponizing the ban on enrollment incentives, the process was sufficient punishment to put the Center for Excellence in Higher Education out of business.
Fortunately,&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttps-3A_www.dailysignal.com_2023_10_31_feds-2Dkeep-2Dharassing-2Dsuccessful-2Dchristian-2Duniversity-5F-5F-3B-21-21K695gA-21RTl9JDB6dGVevzAZMbi2poryOahy6n-2DxVtXbdYE5cPC6rj3BwmUrs-2DeCa4fOkcPCFNhQWf7-5FHgJTk0KYIm8-24&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=65hdeRHqg-fE41ak6GcojBjItJa3uOrz7JiismbUoSM&amp;m=oRPnNc-2hrFbQr8DBuh5IY15l4v4EqNQ94cXxRitqS55THGEf86hQZ-uXeDfotO4&amp;s=SDUC9mh1eUhZfbeiJspBmmpeKMydH1GsczFkKM5tj7g&amp;e=" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Grand Canyon University</a>&nbsp;has survived the federal onslaught.
The government persecutors have been&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttps-3A_onedtech.philhillaa.com_p_anatomy-2Dof-2Dattack-2Don-2Dreciprocity-2Dpart-2Dduex-5F-5F-3B-21-21K695gA-21RTl9JDB6dGVevzAZMbi2poryOahy6n-2DxVtXbdYE5cPC6rj3BwmUrs-2DeCa4fOkcPCFNhQWf7-5FHgJT5flLQnY-24&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=65hdeRHqg-fE41ak6GcojBjItJa3uOrz7JiismbUoSM&amp;m=oRPnNc-2hrFbQr8DBuh5IY15l4v4EqNQ94cXxRitqS55THGEf86hQZ-uXeDfotO4&amp;s=Skui5f01A_bWFcz_OACHspWn4y8Bh3oirBCJdJE7FpQ&amp;e=" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">egged on by nongovernmental actors</a>&nbsp;as well. Arnold Ventures and the Institute for College Access and Success have worked against the for-profit sector for years. Antagonists spin minor, technical violations into enterprise-level “consumer protection” scandals.
The legal process demonstrated that the Center for Excellence in Higher Education’s infractions were indeed minor, but critics have pursued a hyperventilating outrage narrative.
Next, watch for developments in the center’s&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__urldefense.com_v3_-5F-5Fhttps-3A_carlbarney.com_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2022_12_CEHE-2DComplaint.pdf-5F-5F-3B-21-21K695gA-21RTl9JDB6dGVevzAZMbi2poryOahy6n-2DxVtXbdYE5cPC6rj3BwmUrs-2DeCa4fOkcPCFNhQWf7-5FHgJTG9MeF6g-24&amp;d=DwMGaQ&amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&amp;r=65hdeRHqg-fE41ak6GcojBjItJa3uOrz7JiismbUoSM&amp;m=oRPnNc-2hrFbQr8DBuh5IY15l4v4EqNQ94cXxRitqS55THGEf86hQZ-uXeDfotO4&amp;s=YbVGvOYBTE_vuqjFcOcKDPIUPMO3g95usHF_OccwxpM&amp;e=" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">2022 lawsuit</a>&nbsp;against the federal government for ill-treatment.
Meanwhile, the broader saga involves implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which brings accountability to all colleges participating in federal student aid programs. Degree programs that fail a minimum income test will lose access, whether the institution is proprietary or not.
We may finally see some equal justice in the higher education sector.
</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:06:09 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Adam Kissel</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/profit-colleges-deserve-equal-treatment</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The UK’s Sinister Turn On Free Speech and Why America Should Care</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/the-uks-sinister-turn-free-speech-and-why-america-should-care</link>
<description>Should we care here in America that the Brits and the Europeans appear to be taking a sinister turn toward limiting freedom of speech? They have always been more socialist than we are, which has traditionally meant they have suffered higher taxes and some repression of liberties we consider sacred. Why should we care?
Under Prime Minister James Callaghan in the late 1970s, for example, the top marginal tax rate on investment income in the United Kingdom was 98%, and on earned income it was 83%. Yes, you read <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/business/economics/2012/02/chart-day-highest-income-tax-rates" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">that right</a>.
Even during the parlous tenure of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the top marginal income tax rate in America was 70%, which Carter tried to reduce to 50%.
But the Callaghan-Carter comparison makes the point that we should be attentive to events in the U.K. and Europe. Callaghan’s government was so bad on numerous issues, such as taxes, inflation, and productivity, that the country was dubbed “the sick man of Europe.”
That was why Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher won a resounding victory in the 1979 general elections. She cut the earned income tax to 60%, still high but much better than 83%, and ushered in an 11-year rule.
A year after Thatcher’s victory came U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s victory over Carter. To many of us around then, Thatcher played the role of John the Baptist. She didn’t just announce that horrible Keynesian economics was killing the West; she showed voters on both sides of the Atlantic that voting out the bums and starting down a different path was possible.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/britain-no-longer-the-country-we-americans-thought-it-was">Britain Is No Longer the Country We Americans Thought It Was</a>
After that, we had eight years of Morning in America. Thatcher and Reagan, working together with other leaders, went on to defeat communism and bring down the Soviet Union.
What happens over there has an effect over here. The arrest of a comedian by five armed police officers for merely posting on X that men should not be allowed into women’s bathrooms or to compete with women has touched a nerve here in America, as it should.
And many Americans are also paying attention to demonstrations against a hotel where asylum-seekers are being housed in Epping, in Essex, northeast of London, after an illegal immigrant from Ethiopia sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl.
Hadush Gerberslasie Ketabu, 38, was found guilty last week <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/epping-sexual-assault-trial-verdict-xj68h9dpw" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">after a court heard</a> he had asked the girl to go with him to his hotel and “make lovely African babies.” The demonstrations in that forest town and throughout the U.K. have attracted a lot of attention here.
But the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07p7v2nn8mo" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">arrest of the Irish comedian</a> Graham Linehan at Heathrow Airport on Sept. 1 has garnered the most attention. Five officers converged on Linehan after he exited a flight from the U.S. and arrested him on suspicion of “inciting violence.”
After his blood pressure shot up (whose wouldn’t?), the police took him to the hospital. He was later released on bail. One of his bail conditions was that he was “not to go on Twitter,” the old name for X.
<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07p7v2nn8mo" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">The posts</a> date back to April. The first one said, “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”
The second accompanied a post of a protest and said, “A photo you can smell.” The third post said he hated “misogynists and homophobes.” For these posts, Linehan was arrested and had his right to post on X taken away.
The arrest came at a very timely moment for Britain’s Reform party, which is quickly becoming the leading opposition party, eclipsing the Tories. Leader Nigel Farage testified at the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee last Wednesday on Britain’s increasingly repressive status regarding the right to free expression.
“It doesn’t give me any great joy to be sitting in America and describing the really awful authoritarian situation that we have now sunk into,” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/farage-washington-takes-aim-uk-government-over-free-speech-2025-09-03/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Farage said</a> to the committee. The committee’s chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), invited him.
U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, sensing a public relations avalanche gathering speed toward him, hit out at Farage and said he was lobbying the U.S. to hit Britain with sanctions. But his Cabinet started criticizing the arrest, too.
“You cannot get more unpatriotic than that,” Starmer said of Farage’s testimony. Starmer was referring to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-weighs-sanctions-officials-implementing-eu-tech-law-sources-2025-08-26/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">reports</a> that President Donald Trump may be getting ready to hit the European Union with sanctions because of its Digital Services Act, which compels tech companies to police “hate speech.”
The issue, as we are seeing with the sudden backlash against Linehan’s arrest, is that “hate speech” is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. All of us in the public arena are criticized now and again for our policy positions.
These actions are harder to take in the U.S. because we have robust protections of free speech and other liberties, such as the right to property, free association, and the right to own guns. These protections don’t exist in Europe. The U.K. does not even have a written constitution; Britons refer to their constitution constantly, but what they mean by that is the existing laws, practices, and traditions.
But the Starmer government knows that the Linehan arrest has crossed a line. Author J.K. Rowling, a fierce defender of the rights of women against encroachments by transgender people, <a href="https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1962847107343139014" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">wrote on X</a> the day after the arrest, “What the f*** has the UK become? This is totalitarianism. Utterly deplorable.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1962864920657305794" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">quoted her post</a>, adding, “Police state.”
John Cleese of Monty Python fame, not a conservative, <a href="https://x.com/johncleese/status/1963597399277867271?s=12" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">posted on X</a>, “I see that it took five London policemen to arrest a comedian. Meanwhile, people in Chelsea have learned not to waste their time reporting burglaries. Is this an intelligent use of resources?”
Metropolitan police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley defended his men, saying, “Officers involved in the arrest had reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed” under the Public Order Act, which is similar to the EU’s DSA.
But Cabinet members have been backtracking as fast as grace will allow. To their credit, they are saying it’s not the officers’ fault. Parliament has clearly written a bad law.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting said ministers need to “look at” these laws policing online speech, as they have “diluted the focus and priorities of the public.”
Starmer <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2922w73e1o" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">said</a>, “We must ensure police focus on the most serious issues. That includes tackling issues like anti-social behavior, knife crime, and violence.” Answering the opposition at the prime minister’s questions—British leaders must subject themselves weekly to grilling by the opposition—Starmer added, “We have a long history of free speech in this country. I’m very proud of that and I will always defend it.”
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/i-fear-visiting-britain-promote-my-book-when-speaking-freely-can-get-you-trouble">I Fear Visiting Britain To Promote My Book, When Speaking Freely Can Get You in Trouble</a>
That last part is clearly open to interpretation, but it makes clear that criticism over this arrest in his own country and here in the U.S. is making a mark.
Farage’s appearance as a witness came after Jordan <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2025/08/05/the-uk-triggers-a-global-internet-argument-00494579" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">led a delegation</a> to the U.K. in July to discuss the law’s effect on the U.S. It was bipartisan, a rare thing these days. “When foreign governments try to export their speech codes to the United States, it undermines our First Amendment values,” Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) said during the trip.
A bonus was that Farage got to call Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/30/uk-farage-jamie-raskin-visit-00483853" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">“most pig-headed person”</a> he had ever met, after Raskin started to accuse Trump of stamping out free speech protections. “We’re not here to talk about Trump,” Farage shouted, according to witnesses.
Britain’s Online Safety Act, misnamed, misguided, and dangerous, has transnational pretensions, too. Last month, Britain’s media regulator tried to impose fines on the online message board 4chan for supposed violations of the OSA. 4chan’s lawyer, however, told the BBC that the American platform would just ignore the British action.
“[The U.K. Office of Communications’s] notices create no legal obligations in the United States,” Preston Byrne, managing partner of law firm Byrne &amp; Storm, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq68j5g2nr1o" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">told the BBC</a>. The investigation, he said, was part of an “illegal campaign of harassment” against U.S. tech firms.
And Europeans seeking to quash free speech have their U.S. allies. Nina Jankowicz, former President Joe Biden’s infamous “disinformation czarina,” traveled to Brussels in April <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-era-disinfo-czar-nina-jankowicz-urges-european-union-to-resist-trump-administration/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">to urge</a> the EU to hold firm with the DSA, accusing the Trump administration of allowing tech giants to gain traffic on hate speech and disinformation.
So what happens over there has an effect over here. For many reasons, Europeans will always have fewer liberties. They are democracies; if they want to trade freedom for illusory safety, that’s up to them. But, yes, what they do matters to us.
</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 12:17:07 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Mike Gonzalez</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/the-uks-sinister-turn-free-speech-and-why-america-should-care</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Disguising DEI: Schools Keep Trying To Push a Discredited Ideology</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/disguising-dei-schools-keep-trying-push-discredited-ideology</link>
<description>It’s back-to-school season, and some teachers have promised that the racist ideas from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) would not be in their classrooms this year. That’s the good news. The bad news is that many of these teachers and administrators are clearly telling whoppers.
In fact, K-12 schools and colleges around the country are disguising their DEI offices and their racial preferences. Take Maryland, across the border from the nation’s capital and where many federal bureaucrats sleep and send their children to school.
State education officials said schools would comply with President Trump’s executive orders calling on schools to reject DEI, citing the ways in which DEI programs violate civil rights laws.
Yet schools in Montgomery County, precisely where the swamp lives, still have resources on their website dedicated to DEI and critical race theory.
This wealthy school district, which receives $51.5 million in federal taxpayer spending for children in its lower-income areas, offers online classes for teachers on “How to be an anti-racist and anti-racist educator.” These sessions argue that everything around us is racist because not everyone receives the same rewards in life.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/education/report/uncovering-radical-efforts-disguise-dei">Uncovering Radical Efforts to Disguise DEI</a>
So it does not matter how hard you work in life—everyone should have the same amount. That is “equity,” the course materials say. The way equity’s champions rationalize this to themselves is to say that success is the result of “whiteness,” or systemic racism or some such, not the result of effort.
Montgomery County is hardly alone.
In August, the U.S. Department of Education found that George Mason University—just 35 miles from Montgomery County on the Virginia side of the Potomac—had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by “illegally using race and other immutable characteristics in university practices and policies, including hiring and promotion.”
The department’s finding came after university president Gregory Washington told students in February that he had no intention of dissolving DEI programs at the school.
And, in a harbinger of perhaps the model to come, Democrats in the Virginia Senate have thrown out 10 appointments that Gov. Glenn Youngkin had made to GMU’s Board of Visitors. That leaves the board with only six members, meaning it lacks a quorum and cannot fire Mr. Washington.
And then there is Harvard.
Despite a recent court ruling in Harvard’s favor, saying the Trump administration could not freeze federal research spending, whistleblowers have uncovered ongoing DEI activities.
Even in this latest ruling, the court said that “based solely on Harvard’s own admissions … Harvard has been plagued by antisemitism.” Meanwhile, the university has resisted calls to adhere to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that prohibited the use of racial preferences.
Unsurprisingly, the federal judge in Boston who found in Harvard’s favor is Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs—who also found in favor of Harvard in the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions case.&nbsp;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/george-mason-university-dust-shows-the-lefts-hypocrisy-politicized-education">George Mason University Dust-Up Shows the Left’s Hypocrisy on Politicized Education</a>
The U.S. Supreme Court shredded her opinion and ruled against the use of racial preferences. The White House will likely appeal and Harvard continues to try to negotiate a settlement with the administration.
Undercover investigations have found college officials elsewhere admitting that DEI is simply being renamed so the racist activities can continue.
One former administrator at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte told a reporter that if students and faculty want to do “covert” DEI work, “there are opportunities.”
The Trump administration has correctly identified DEI practices that violate civil rights laws, such as training sessions that rely on racial stereotypes, hiring according to racial quotas, and requiring student applicants or potential university hires to write DEI statements as a condition of admission or employment.
The White House issued two executive orders earlier this year that sought to end DEI. The country has turned away from DEI, racial preferences, set asides, quotas, etc. The Trump administration understands this and will continue to make its case. It should also be aware that schools are doing precisely what they tell their students not to do—they’re cheating.
</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 11:53:01 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Jonathan Butcher, Mike Gonzalez</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/disguising-dei-schools-keep-trying-push-discredited-ideology</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Iran’s Proxy War on Jews Is an All-Out Attack on Western Civilization. Australia Gets It</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/irans-proxy-war-jews-all-out-attack-western-civilization-australia-gets-it</link>
<description>In late August, the government of Australia announced it had hard evidence that the Islamic Republican Guard Corps (IRGC) was responsible for domestic antisemitic incidents after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, and the Iranian ambassador would be expelled—the first such expulsion since World War II.&nbsp;
On the surface, this makes no sense. If, as the official legacy media narrative contends, Oct. 7 was an outburst by some desperate Palestinians radicalized by the Israeli occupation of their land, why would the Iranian regime be trying to foment violence against Jews some 7,600 miles away?&nbsp;
The grim answer is that Oct. 7 was only a symptom of the <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/fox-news-antisemitism-exposed-newsletter-go-home-greta" rel="noopener" target="_blank">antisemitism</a> that has been growing for some 20 years. It simply revealed itself after the attacks.&nbsp;
The fundamental bigotry that is Jew-hatred has not significantly changed over the millennia, but this manifestation wears a different face. The antisemitism of the Spanish Inquisition was religious; that of the Third Reich, racial. This version is civilizational.&nbsp;
The goal of modern antisemitism is to eradicate Western civilization, as we understand it, by eradicating Jews. Recognition that this threat extends far beyond the borders of modern Israel is why The Heritage Foundation launched <a href="https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/project-esther-national-strategy-combat-antisemitism" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Project Esther</a> last year—to combat antisemitism here in America, now in support of the robust initiatives of President Donald Trump and his administration.&nbsp;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/trumps-landmark-deal-the-real-key-peace-the-middle-east">Trump’s Landmark Deal Is the Real Key to Peace in the Middle East</a>
Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the primary force behind this effort. Its stated objective is the elimination of Israel (the little Satan) followed by the United States (the great Satan). In this world view, both Satans represent an insufferable blasphemy that cannot be accommodated or tolerated, but must be destroyed.&nbsp;
From the emergence of their regional proxies Hamas and Hezbollah in the 1980s, to their deployment to plot terrorist attacks from Gaza to Beirut to Buenos Aires, to the clandestine development of a nuclear program to provide them with ever more powerful weapons, Tehran has poured precious resources into projects that only exist to target Israel and the United States—as well as partners and allies such as Australia.
No degree of sympathy for the Palestinians can offset this reality. Many in America and even Israel, not to mention Australia, consider themselves strong supporters of the Palestinian cause. But this jihad isn’t actually about the Palestinians. Their adherents are only “useful idiots” in the real battle to destroy the civilization that inspired all three countries.&nbsp;
For months, demonstrations in support of the Palestinian cause have become a fixture in Australian and American cities and campuses, despite both countries having small Muslim populations located thousands of miles from the Middle East. Their apologists insist they are “mostly peaceful” political protests expressing opposition to the Netanyahu government in Israel.&nbsp;
The supposed nobility of this cause justifies in their minds any aberrational violence—from Oct. 7 to attacks on Jewish students in New York City, to Jews set on fire in Boulder, Colorado, to the destruction of a kosher food company in Sydney, to the arson attack on Melbourne’s oldest synagogue while worshipers were inside.
None of these incidents had anything to do with Israel or the war in Gaza, but rather with targeting Jews wherever they might be found, regardless of their nationality. And now the Australian government admits this activity is not spontaneous but coordinated by the Iranian military, just as the Oct. 7 attacks were.&nbsp;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/dont-delay-recommitting-aukus">Don’t Delay Recommitting to AUKUS</a>
Presumably Canberra did not act lightly, any more than the Biden administration did when it admitted in July 2024 that Iranians had been funding protests on American campuses. Both governments bent over backward to create a moral equivalency between Israel and the Palestinians after Oct. 7, primarily by insisting Israel exercise restraint and take extraordinary measures to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. Rather than treating Hamas as a proxy of a common enemy, they tried to elevate the terrorist group into a negotiating partner for hostage releases.
In early August, tens of thousands of Australians poured across the Sydney Harbor Bridge in the so-called “March for Humanity” demanding the end to the war in Gaza and the creation of a Palestinian state. Just a few days later, the Australian government announced its intent to recognize this state at the United Nations General Assembly in September.&nbsp;
But all this appeasement turned out to be in vain, because—again—the Palestinians are not the point and never were. They are an Iranian vehicle to gain traction in the strongholds of the West—vibrant democracies such as America, Australia and Israel—and destroy them from within by encouraging the ancient hatred that is antisemitism.&nbsp;
</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 12:06:59 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Victoria Coates</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/irans-proxy-war-jews-all-out-attack-western-civilization-australia-gets-it</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Don’t Renew New START. It Only Helps Our Adversaries.</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/dont-renew-new-start-it-only-helps-our-adversaries</link>
<description>New START, the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/21/what-is-new-start-treaty/">last remaining nuclear arms-control treaty</a> between Russia and the United States, will expire in February. Once it does, there will be <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2024-02/nuclear-disarmament-monitor">no limits</a> on how many nuclear weapons Russia or the United States can build or field.
<a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2025-07-24/trump-laureates-agree">Many argue</a> that President Donald Trump should seek an agreement with Vladimir Putin for some type of follow-on agreement, even a nonbinding one, to maintain the limits on nuclear weapons established by New START during the early days of the Obama administration.
It is certainly tempting—and perfectly understandable—to want some type of arms-control agreement with Russia. From <a href="https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/radio-address-nation-nuclear-weapons">Ronald Reagan onward</a>, American presidents have rightly sought ways, through <a href="https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/18016.htm">presidential agreements</a> or arms-control treaties or <a href="https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/22067-document-22">unilateral actions</a>, to rid the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-prague-delivered">world of nuclear weapons</a>.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-nuclear-force-requirements-protracted-conventional-war">The Nuclear Force Requirements of a Protracted Conventional War</a>
But pursuing a follow-on to New START would be reckless. The <a href="https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/inf-treaty_-russian-cheating-and-american-suspension">Russians have cheated on</a> and abrogated treaty after treaty, including Reagan’s landmark <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1924779/us-withdraws-from-intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-treaty/">Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty</a> and <a href="https://2021-2025.state.gov/russian-noncompliance-with-and-invalid-suspension-of-the-new-start-treaty/">New START itself</a>. Even if Trump and Putin settled on a gentleman’s agreement to maintain New START warhead levels, establishing an inspections regime to verify that Russia was not cheating on its warhead count would be challenging. Russian leaders have <a href="https://www.nti.org/risky-business/whither-new-start-implications-of-russias-suspension-of-the-last-remaining-u-s-russia-arms-control-treaty/">not allowed U.S. inspectors</a> into their country for years, and any agreement that did not require inspections or verification measures would incentivize Russia to continue cheating.
Most important, maintaining current warhead levels would benefit only one party: China.
New START limits the United States to mounting one warhead apiece on its <a href="https://www.military.com/equipment/lgm-30-minuteman-iii">450 intercontinental ballistic missiles</a>. U.S. nuclear doctrine generally requires that <a href="https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-12_Issue-3/Kroenig.pdf">two warheads be used</a> to engage and destroy enemy targets—which today means we would have to launch two ICBMs per target, allowing us to cover about 225 targets. This is enough to serve as a credible deterrent against Russian aggression toward the American homeland.
But China is believed to <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/chinas-nuclear-arsenal-surges-20-in-one-year-reaching-over-600-warheads-sipri/">have the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal</a>. Since 2020, it has <a href="https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2025/08/how-big-will-chinas-nuclear-arsenal-get/407230/">tripled the size of its warhead count</a>. Within a few years, it will have as many operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons as the United States. And when it reaches that point, the United States will not have the number of operationally deployed warheads to cover—and therefore deter—both Russia and China simultaneously. (In fact, given <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/china-nuclear-missile-silos/2021/06/30/0fa8debc-d9c2-11eb-bb9e-70fda8c37057_story.html">China’s rapid expansion in ICBM silos</a>, that threshold might have already been crossed.)
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/responding-limited-theater-nuclear-attack-the-arms-reduction-path-vs-the-nuclear">Responding to a Limited Theater Nuclear Attack: The Arms Reduction Path vs. the Nuclear Deterrence Path</a>
If New START expires without any follow-on agreement, the United States could <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2024.2441624#abstract">add nuclear warheads from its reserve stockpiles</a> to its existing ICBM force—having <a href="https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Mmiii.html">each ICBM carry two or three warheads</a>, not just one. So instead of firing two ICBMs to destroy a target, a single ICBM would suffice. The United States would then be able to hold 450 targets at risk, allowing it to cover significant portions of China’s nuclear force. Both Russia and China could be deterred in the immediate term without additional ICBMs having to be deployed.
Critics argue that Russia could react by adding additional warheads to its own existing ICBM force. But this would not change U.S. targeting requirements. A single American ICBM loaded with two to three warheads would still be able to counter a single Russian ICBM, whether it was loaded with one or three or five warheads. (And given Russia’s track record with previous agreements, it might already be cheating in this manner.)
Imagining that a meaningful arms-control agreement with Russia will emerge after the expiration of New START early next year amounts to wishful thinking. There is simply no good deal to be had at this point. Instead, it would be far better for the United States to create the leverage it needs by fielding a more robust and credible nuclear deterrent. Only that kind of pressure can incentivize both Russia and China to come to the negotiating table at the same time, allowing all three nuclear superpowers to attempt to negotiate a more meaningful and effective agreement.
</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2025 14:44:40 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Robert Peters</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/dont-renew-new-start-it-only-helps-our-adversaries</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>From Uncle Herschel to Mickey Mouse: Cracker Barrel’s Disney Dilemma</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/uncle-herschel-mickey-mouse-cracker-barrels-disney-dilemma</link>
<description>As someone who grew up going to Cracker Barrel on road trips, I, along with millions of Americans, heaved a sigh of relief when I heard the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cracker-barrel-thought-the-logo-u-turn-would-be-enough-it-wasnt?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Cracker+Barrel+Thought+The+Logo+U-Turn+Would+Be+Enough.+It+Wasn%E2%80%99t." rel="noopener" target="_blank">old logo</a>&nbsp;would remain.
But while we won’t have to endure the Soviet-style brutalist-inspired logo redesign, the new minimalist décor and proposed architectural plans for new stores are still on the menu.
If you aren’t familiar, these architectural plans look suspiciously like those at new Taco Bells (where the current Cracker Barrel CEO was before)—and they’re indistinguishable from those of a small industrial warehouse.
This is yet another example of the push for a Woke Generica from those trying to erase familiar symbols of American art and architecture. But their movement targets more than just symbols—it’s a movement against the entire pioneering and entrepreneurial spirit that defined and built America.
American history is filled with people seeking to fill in the blank edges of the map and build the impossible. For centuries, we’ve been a nation that stood out for our accomplishments. Now, though, we have a corporate culture that overwhelmingly views blending into the crowd as an accomplishment.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/corporate-sponsors-are-pulling-back-pride-heres-what-shoppers-parents-need">Corporate Sponsors Are Pulling Back From Pride. Here’s What Shoppers, Parents Need To Know</a>
One of our greatest entrepreneurs, Henry Ford, warned of this kind of latent unimaginative culture when he said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” There’s a reason it’s cliché to say that innovators and entrepreneurs expand our horizons.
The most groundbreaking and quality-of-life-uplifting innovations—whether an invention such as the computer, or a business model such as Amazon’s logistical empire—almost always stem from the kind of pioneering risk-taking that is so core to the American identity.
But the new Cracker Barrel redesign is a case study in a futile attempt to simply make a faster horse. And while blandly blending into the background can feel safe, it’s a clear road to stagnation.
In part, what we are seeing is a business world losing perspective with what they actually sell. Only part of a product is its material, functional, form. Whether you call it the vibe, style, or aesthetic, part of the service that people want is what inspires the mind and the soul.
One of the many failings of Eastern European communist societies was their focus on the tangible practicality of things. It was an overtly Marxist pursuit, but it was also—inadvertently—a movement focused on draining artistry out of the ordinary experiences of life and on assaulting our sense of rootedness and belonging.
The man they tried so casually to take off the Cracker Barrel logo isn’t just a generic old man. He’s Uncle Herschel—the real-life uncle of Cracker Barrel founder Dan Evins. He’s also a kind and friendly face, welcoming you into not just the eatery, but the environment that is a Cracker Barrel “Old Country Store.”
That environment conjures the spirit of the pioneering West and the ideal of a rural farming community’s gathering place and grocery supplier—featuring a favorite of mine, a wall of a dozen or so unique types of root beer.
But more importantly, that environment reminds us of a crucial and unique piece of our shared national spirit and identity.
Steve Jobs gave warnings about just this sort of thing—about the danger of a business replacing the people who created the product with people focused simply on marketing it without a deep respect for the richness of the product or brand.
Sadly, Cracker Barrel is only the latest in what is now a long line of businesses that have abandoned their purpose and history.
The most stunning example is, perhaps, the Greek tragedy that Disney has turned into—an existence that, over the last 10 years, has cost them the respect of most of their long-time fanbase and 20% of their inflation-adjusted market cap.
The Disney story presents a set of roadmaps that would be useful for Cracker Barrel and, indeed, the broader corporate world today to study.
After the sudden death of Walt Disney in 1966, the company largely lost its sense of soul and purpose and languished for 18 years.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/trumps-culture-war-offensive-working">Trump’s Culture War Offensive Is Working</a>
When Michael Eisner came in as CEO in 1984, though, he oversaw the next 15 years of what is now called the Disney Renaissance, featuring “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “The Lion King,” cruise lines, overseas theme-park expansions and many of the things that we now think of as the height of Disney art and culture.
Disney’s stock soared more than twenty-fold in inflation-adjusted terms during this period. But this is more than a simple business success story.
On day one, Eisner went to visit the Disney Imagineers—the people who knew Walt and still embodied the spirit of his vision.
Eisner ignored pressure to pursue what was seen as standard and safe—the pressure to radically depart Disney from its heritage. Instead, he sought to re-embrace that heritage and to rebuild the company in its truly unique style. That made all the difference.
Today, Disney’s current woke stagnation is the product of the last generation or so of abandoning those principles and following the same crowd that brought Cracker Barrel to take the barrel, and Uncle Herschel, off the logo.
Will we sheepishly go down the road of the brutalist logo and woke live action remakes? Or will we go the way of the Disney Renaissance—and reclaim the way of the rugged American pioneer and entrepreneurial innovator?
For now, the market has spoken and saved Cracker Barrel’s logo. But the question remains—and the nation as a whole must answer.
</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 12:43:39 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Richard Stern</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/uncle-herschel-mickey-mouse-cracker-barrels-disney-dilemma</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Family: The Foundation of America’s Next 250 Years</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-family-the-foundation-americas-next-250-years</link>
<description>At this moment in history, we face a choice: Will America’s second 250 years be greater than its first 250 years?
If we have the courage, the discipline, and the vision, I believe this generation can lay a foundation of renewal so deep that our descendants will look back on us with gratitude, just as we look back on the Founders. And the most important choice we can make together to ensure that the next 250 years of America are greater is to focus—through our laws, our labors, our loves—on making the family the centerpiece of everything we do.
No nation in human history has entrusted so much of its future to the virtue and vitality of its families as America. The great empires of Europe—France, Spain, and England—placed their hopes in armies and palaces. The stability of their regimes rested on the health of a king’s bloodline and the strength of his throne.
But America bet her future on something humbler, yet infinitely stronger: not the pomp of royalty, not the machinery of a permanent bureaucracy, not the shifting will of mobs. We staked it all on what G.K. Chesterton called “the most extraordinary thing in the world”: an ordinary man and an ordinary woman, bound in covenant love, passing on their faith and virtue to their ordinary children.
We staked it all on the American family.
The family is the seedbed and safeguard of our grand experiment in ordered liberty. The source and summit of our political order. The true origin of our exceptionalism. To quote John Witherspoon, “The family is the seminary of the state; the first school of instruction, wherein we have our tempers formed to virtue or vice.”
Strong families, led by great men, were the heartbeat of 1776. And the American Revolution—the birth of this great nation—was sustained and won because of the strength of this heart beating in every American home. The men and women of the Founding generation were hopeful about their future, and saw the family as the bedrock on which the fledgling nation would flourish. In their homes, they cultivated prudence, courage, justice, temperance, integrity, and humility—long before such virtues of statesmanship were demanded of their children in public life. Strong families were the assumed condition of the republic’s survival—as natural and self-evident to Americans as freedom itself. &nbsp;&nbsp;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/foreign-policy-americas-golden-age">A Foreign Policy for America’s Golden Age</a>
While the quiet heroism of ordinary fathers and ordinary mothers raising ordinary children with obedience to God and love of country was not inscribed plainly in the Declaration of Independence, it was inscribed on the hearts of the American people. Our Founders, for all their erudition, prescience, and political imagination, could never have envisioned the state of the American family today.
The Hollow Republic
As we approach the 250th anniversary of our independence, our political architecture is still outwardly intact. The Constitution that gives our body politic its structure remains in its glass case in the National Archives. But the American family—the spiritual heart and soul that animates our Constitution—has grown weak, fractured, and hollow.
We cannot say we were not warned of this risk. As early as 1798, John Adams told us that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” and that “it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Yet today we permit, and even applaud, an all-out, sustained assault on the very institution that Adams and his contemporaries were counting on to form such moral and religious people. The numbers paint a grim picture.
In 1776, the average age at first marriage was just over 22 for women and 26 for men. Today, it is nearly 30 for women and 32 for men—the highest in American history. Other relevant troubling statistics—chiefly the dramatic decline in marriage rates and birth rates—could be listed.
And yet the American heart still longs for more. Since the 1970s, Americans have consistently said their ideal family size is about two and a half children. But reality has fallen short. Financial pressures, cultural hostility to marriage, and the erosion of hope have opened a tragic gap between the families that Americans desire and the families they believe they can achieve. That gap has only widened since 2008, as more young women and men quietly lower their expectations, even while their deepest longings remain unchanged. But the most profound damage cannot be captured by statistics alone.
Numbers do not express the frustration and loneliness of countless young Americans drifting through life, desperate for duty, meaning, and purpose in a culture that offers only cheap satisfaction—which it calls “freedom.” And numbers do not convey the righteous anger such young men feel when our elites say they can be replaced by immigrants—or machines. Likewise, numbers cannot show the emptiness that many women experience. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Both men and women are told that marriage and family might stand in the way of personal fulfillment. But today many are finding themselves longing for what the heart has always known: to give in love, to prepare the next generation, and to help build something enduring.
Furthermore, numbers alone cannot capture the quiet heartbreak felt by so many young men and women in a culture that treats marriage as just another lifestyle choice, trading the depth of lifelong vows for the transience of cohabitation and casual relationships.
Because of such arrangements, as many as one in three conceptions in this country end in abortion. Numbers alone can never convey the depth of that loss, or the generations of lives and love that will never be known. Numbers only measure. They can show us that the basic elements necessary for the good life—a spouse, children, a home—lie out of reach for far too many Americans.
But they can’t show the spiritual ruin that accompanies this reality. They can’t convey that feeling we all have of being lost at sea, tossed about by cultural currents we did not choose, as if we were helpless.
Taking Responsibility
But we are not helpless. We remain the masters of our fate, both as individuals and as participants in the commonweal. We can make the next 250 years of America greater than the last 250—if we so choose.
The American people have entrusted us with the power to govern. They are asking us to “make America great again.” They are urging us to usher in a new Golden Age in American life.
To honor their request, we have one clear task. We must do intentionally what the Founders did instinctively: stake our future on virtuous and ordinary mothers and fathers. As conservatives, this means we must change the way we approach and prioritize the issues of our time. It will require being uncomfortably honest about our present crisis and taking responsibility for our part in it.
That means acknowledging that the American family’s collapse is neither recent, accidental, nor inevitable. Rather, our situation today is the result of a deliberate campaign to uproot the most fundamental institution of human life.
You can call this campaign liberalism. Or Enlightenment rationalism. Or modernity. The name doesn’t matter. What matters is realizing that our current crisis has been centuries in the making.
Take marriage. As early as the mid-1700s—decades before the American Revolution—certain Enlightenment philosophers were already taking a sledgehammer to its foundations. What Cicero called the “first bond of society,” Rousseau dismissed as nothing more than a civil contract. And David Hume, for all his insight into the frailty of human reason, spoke approvingly of the “liberty of divorce” as a remedy to what he viewed as the inconveniences of lifelong commitment.
Such ideas were not yet dominant in popular culture at the time of the Founding, but like rot within the beams of a house, they slowly weakened the structure from within.
By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the assault grew bolder. The collapse in our birth rate didn’t start with Instagram influencers or the careerist feminism of the sexual revolution.
It began more than a century ago, when Margaret Sanger, funded by a coterie of wealthy industrialists and American eugenicists who touted “trust the science,” set out to reduce births among the poor, the devout, and what Sanger diabolically considered the racially “undesirable.” She championed sterilization, spread contraceptives, and began reengineering our culture around the idea that children are a burden.
These efforts were accompanied by a transformation in education. Men like John Dewey led the charge. They shifted children’s formation from home and church to state institutions, providing an education not grounded in classical or Christian principles and an understanding of the human person, but an activist education, a tool for social engineering that shapes children according to the latest theories of progressive ideology.
Being honest about the current crisis requires us to admit that these people have largely succeeded. While we have won many battles recently, we are still losing the war.
If that is difficult to hear, think about how they have affected every part of our society. I’m not just talking about pride flags, DEI, and ESG. I’m talking about the anti-family campaign of the uniparty, which has run Washington, D.C. for too long. Isn’t it good and just and beautiful to see their anti-American project finally collapse?
The economic policies they champion are built on the assumption that maximizing GDP is an overriding (if unspoken) goal. They push women who would rather be at home raising the next generation to work full-time to keep up with their neighbors, or even simply to make ends meet. As a result, we now have longer school days and shorter summer vacations—with parents delegating the role of raising their children to strangers they barely know. That some of those strangers facilitate abortions and sexual mutilation surgeries without parents’ consent is a direct result of the family being too weakened to withstand the onslaught of the degradation that has taken its place.
The national security strategies they push aren’t guided by the sanctity of the life of each and every one of our soldiers. Instead, they prop up what uniparty leaders call “the family of nations.” The cultural orthodoxies and technological pursuits they cling to deny the very reality of man and woman. Our opponents have succeeded in redefining the family and weakening our nation because we have allowed them to.
One contemporary observer foresaw this tragedy 25 years ago. The great Patrick J. Buchanan—who is so deserving of a Presidential Medal of Freedom—said in 2001 that
<blockquote>
many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations.
</blockquote>
Indeed, since then, time after time after time, our leaders have opposed the latest and most outrageous policies of the Left while slowly conceding the philosophical ground on which those policies were built. We have fought them in the public square, only to quietly allow their ideas to seep into every institution of American life: our laws, our schools, our churches, and even our homes.
Taking Back Our Homes
But there is another truth, which is just as important: what has been done by design can be undone. The family’s decline is not a law of nature, nor is it an unstoppable force. It is the product of human choices—and human choices can change. Indeed, if we hope to restore the family and save our republic, they must change.
We must meet the long campaign being waged against the family with an equally long offensive campaign to restore it. And this campaign must begin, first and foremost, with taking back our own homes.
Why?
Because if those of us who claim to fight for the family do not order our lives around that truth, then every word we speak in its defense will ring hollow. Today, there is a temptation to separate the personal from the political—to believe that our private lives are of no concern to our public work.
That separation is a lie.
A movement that seeks to save this nation and restore the family must itself be composed of men and women whose private lives are not a contradiction, but a confirmation of their public witness.
Pope Leo XIII, in&nbsp;Rerum Novarum, called the family “a society very small…but none the less a true society.” He meant that the family is not a mere adjunct to the state, not a creature of legislation, but a community with its own God-given purpose and authority.
This authority is exercised not through force or bureaucracy, but through love and example. And it is precisely this example—of duty embraced, of promises kept, of sacrifice made for the sake of others—that will rebuild the moral capital of our nation.
Just last week, Pope Leo XIV echoed his predecessor of a century ago:
<blockquote>
There is no such thing as a public personality split in two: on one side the politician, on the other side the Christian. No. There is the politician who, under God’s gaze and in conscience, lives his commitments and responsibilities as a Christian.
</blockquote>
So, in that spirit, we cannot just praise marriage from a podium. We must enter into it, embrace its commitments, and remain faithful through its trials.
We cannot merely lament the falling birth rate. We must welcome children into&nbsp;our&nbsp;homes and give them the love and discipline they need to grow into virtuous citizens.
We cannot merely shake our heads at falling marriage rates. We must be hospitable and bring people together in our homes—just as the Founding generation did—so that young, marriage-aged people can meet one another and, God willing, fall in love. Our republic depends on this most simple act.
We cannot criticize the state of our schools while outsourcing the next generation’s formation to institutions that work against our values. We must build new schools or transform our very own kitchen tables into places of learning and wonder.
Rather than simply opposing loneliness, atomization, and secularism, we should observe the Sabbath, open our homes to our neighbors, and pray with them and share the joy of a proper feast.
And we cannot sit back and complain about our leaders. We must become leaders ourselves and raise our children to rule with the prudence that so many of our current leaders lack.
Taking Back Our Politics
Which brings me to my final point: the importance of prudence cannot be overstated. This virtue, above all others, has been missing from our politics. Recovering it is essential to ensuring that our nation survives for another 250 years.
But what&nbsp;is&nbsp;prudence?
Prudence is not mere caution. It is not the timidity of those who are afraid to act, nor the endless calculation of those who never decide.
Prudence is the ability to govern action by the light of reason—to discern, in concrete circumstances, the means most likely to achieve that which is good. St. Thomas Aquinas named it the “charioteer of the virtues,” for it guides courage, justice, and temperance toward their proper ends.
Prudence is the opposite of ideology.
Ideology, whether on the Left or the Right, begins with an abstract formula and forces the complexity of human life to conform to it. As Russell Kirk reminds us, “[C]onservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.”
Prudence begins with the concrete reality before us—the family, our culture, the circumstances God has placed in our care—and asks what must be done here and now to promote the good. Reclaiming prudence has profound implications for the future of the conservative movement.
For too long, our debates have been dominated by questions framed in rigid abstractions: Are we for or against tariffs? For or against regulation? For or against immigration, foreign wars, new technologies? As if the answer to such questions could be settled once and for all, regardless of changing conditions, and then applied like a mathematical equation to every new situation.
Prudence does not permit such laziness. It recognizes that the interests of the family and the national interest are not merely aligned—they are one and the same.
It demands that we ask of every policy, every proposal: Will this strengthen the American family? Will it advance the common good of our people? Will it cultivate the virtues without which liberty cannot endure? If the answer is no, even if the proposal aligns with some past ideological commitment, prudence requires that we reject it. But if the answer is yes, then prudence requires us to pursue it.
Consider trade. There are times when tariffs are a tool of justice, protecting the livelihoods of families from unfair foreign competition and preserving the industries and crafts that sustain communities and strengthen our national defense. There are other times, however, when tariffs raise the cost of living for working families, driving up the price of food, clothing, and shelter.
An ideological movement will declare itself pro-tariff or anti-tariff and remain so forever, regardless of the consequences. A prudent movement will ask, in each case, what serves the long-term welfare of American families—and act accordingly.
Again, Kirk offers a pithy path:
<blockquote>
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
</blockquote>
Consider regulation. There are industries—pornography, sports betting, and social media—where business models prey on the weaknesses of our children, addict them, corrupt their innocence, and hollow out their capacity for love and responsibility. Prudence demands that we, at the very least, regulate those industries with a firm and heavy hand.
At the same time, there are other industries such as construction where overregulation has made it impossible for young couples to afford a home to raise their children. Prudence demands that we deregulate these industries immediately.
Consider technology. There are advances in medicine and science that can help couples overcome infertility, that can heal children before they are born, that can make family life more secure and prosperous. Prudence embraces these.
But there are also technologies—cloning, IVF, gene screening, surrogacy, certain uses of artificial wombs—that seek to bypass or even replace the family altogether. Prudence rejects these without apology.
To some, this flexibility will seem inconsistent. To the ideologue, it will seem like compromise. But to the statesman, it will be clear that keeping our eyes fixed on the good of our families—while pragmatically adjusting our means to changing circumstances—is the only true form of politics.
And to the careful observer of American history, it will be obvious that prudence is the animating principle of several core tenets of our system of government. Federalism, in particular, is dependent on prudence to determine which level of government is best suited to address a given problem.
As we seek to restore the family, we would do well to remember that states’ proximity to the people may at times make them better equipped than Washington to implement ambitious family policies. Indeed, considering that their powers are “numerous and indefinite”—as James Madison reminds us in&nbsp;Federalist&nbsp;45—we should empower them to become laboratories of family formation, incentivizing them to compete to be the best place in America to be born, marry, raise a family, and die with dignity.
In the years to come, we must be willing to say to our friends and allies, “This policy may be good for your industry, for your donor base, for your Twitter engagement, or even for your electoral prospects—but if it weakens the American family, we will oppose it.” And we must be equally willing to say, “This policy may offend certain ideological shibboleths, but if it strengthens the American family, we will fight for it.”
Prudence is not a retreat from conviction—it is the application of conviction to reality. And in this moment, conviction and reality both tell us the same thing: the surest test of any policy, any law, any reform is whether it fortifies the institution upon which the future of our nation stands. If it does, it is worth pursuing. If it does not, it is not worth the time of free men and women.
Without recovering prudence our movement will continue to lurch from one election cycle to the next, mistaking short-term victories for long-term success and confusing ideological purity with civilizational renewal.
But with it, we can chart a course that is faithful to our heritage, responsive to our present, and worthy of the generations yet to come. That choice will determine whether America is merely another passing power—or a great and enduring civilization.
Onward, Always
In 1776, our forebears pursued freedom from the mightiest empire on earth. They did so with a boldness that defied the wisdom of their age, but it was the prudent choice.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/report/the-great-falling-away-the-decline-religious-services-attendance-the-united">The Great Falling Away: The Decline in Religious Services Attendance in the United States Over the Past 50 Years</a>
They knew that in winning independence, they would inherit a duty to preserve it. And they understood that this duty would not be discharged by armies alone, nor by parchment constitutions, nor solely by the prosperity of markets. It would be preserved, if at all, by the same force that had birthed it: the strength and virtue of ordinary mothers and fathers—American families.
Two hundred and fifty years later, we stand where they once stood—at the edge of a future we cannot fully see, but for which we will be held accountable by history, by our children, and by God.
The weight of this moment is heavy. America’s 250th anniversary should underscore that our obligation to the future will outlast a single election cycle or a handful of legislative victories. Further, our rich cultural inheritance should remind us that we need to think in terms of centuries, not decades, and that we should measure success not by the headlines of the moment but by the lives of the generations to come.
This project will require hope—the kind of hope that does not deny hardship but endures it for the sake of something greater. And it will require sacrificial love—love that binds husbands and wives, parents and children, and citizens to one another as members of a great, intergenerational covenant.
It won’t be easy. Some may even think it impossible. I can only remind you of this: America is not just an idea. She is both a place—one where ordinary men and women are born, where they will die and be buried—as well as a people who inhabit what they see as their homeland. She is, in the deepest sense, a great family, stretching across generations, entrusted with a sacred inheritance. Our forebears passed it to us, often at great cost. Now the burden and the privilege are ours.
And so, I ask you—not as a political leader, not as the president of the Heritage Foundation, but as a fellow citizen, as a husband, as a father—will you choose to join me in doing the difficult work to pass it on to our children?
Together, can we have the courage to plant oak trees whose shade we will never sit in? Can we labor to build cathedrals whose spires we will never see completed? And will we embrace the sacrifices necessary to make America’s next 250 years greater than her first?
A Golden Age awaits our answer. And our answer must be: Yes, Onward. Always.
</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 12:18:34 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Kevin D. Roberts, PhD</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-family-the-foundation-americas-next-250-years</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Staying the Course Means a War With China</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/china/commentary/staying-the-course-means-war-china</link>
<description>Regarding “<a data-type="link" href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-isnt-rebuilding-the-u-s-military-national-security-defense-spending-266b41e6?st=PgQQNM&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink&amp;mod=article_inline" target="_blank">Trump Isn’t Rebuilding the U.S. Military</a>” (Review &amp; Outlook, July 12): The U.S. can still execute missions like the Iran strike successfully—for now—but deterrence of China is slipping. Our aging, shrinking force can’t confront the growing, modern Chinese military with assurance of victory. Unless Washington changes course, there will be dire consequences.
Taken together, the reconciliation bill and what has been made public about President Trump’s defense budget are heartening—especially after the Biden years, when identity mattered more than military professionalism. That said, refocusing the military on lethality requires more than a few ceremonial firings or a single year of increased resources.
Reversing the 30-year downward spiral of naval shipbuilding, critical to deterring China, won’t be cheap. But failure is worse. According to Bloomberg Economics, a war with China could cost more than $10 trillion. It would also drag on for years and exact death on a scale not seen since World War II.
Getting the Navy where it needs to be requires leadership, and too many key roles remain unfilled—notably the assistant Navy secretary charged with R&amp;D and acquisition. While the Navy has yet to put forward its annual long-range shipbuilding plan to Congress, that’s no reason to wait. It’s evident America needs producers to build more than 19 new ships with stable designs annually to grow the Navy.
Sadly, America can’t catch up to Chinese warship numbers before Beijing’s self-imposed 2027 deadline to be ready to invade Taiwan. Adding U.S. shipyards, expanding the workforce and growing the supply chain, however, can ensure the Navy can rapidly meet the demands of modern war. Every American warship and unmanned vessel ordered is a down payment to grow the naval shipbuilding industrial capacity.
Years of misplaced priorities have so weakened U.S. deterrence that the decision to go to war or not rests more with Beijing than Washington. The U.S. can still take action to ensure that China loses that fight—by restoring deterrence on America’s terms.
</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 15:49:06 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Brent Sadler</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/china/commentary/staying-the-course-means-war-china</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Congress Has Unfinished Business Regarding Naval Shipbuilding</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/congress-has-unfinished-business-regarding-naval-shipbuilding</link>
<description>When President Trump told a joint session of Congress in March that he was creating a shipbuilding office dedicated to reviving America’s maritime industry, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle applauded. “We used to make so many ships,” Mr. Trump said. “We don’t make them anymore very much. But we’re going to make them very fast, very soon.”
After a quick, aggressive start, though, the effort appears to have stalled. Like a sailboat stuck in a flat calm, the nation’s maritime revival is adrift, needing a breeze to regain momentum. Here are some ways to get that breeze blowing, and fast.
First is seating key maritime and naval leaders who can execute the president’s plan: maritime administrator nominee Stephen Carmel and Undersecretary of the Navy nominee Hung Cao. Next up: selecting the Navy’s shipbuilder, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition.
They must be joined quickly by a dedicated shipping and shipbuilding team at the Department of Commerce, another effort that has stalled in recent weeks. Just as crucial is naming a maritime security adviser to the president to corral interagency efforts and connect the economic and national security imperatives for a revitalized American maritime industry.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/reviving-americas-maritime-strength-comprehensive-necessity">Reviving America’s Maritime Strength: Comprehensive by Necessity</a>
Such a role is, in fact, stipulated in legislation introduced in April: the Building Ships in America Act. This yearslong, bipartisan, bicameral effort can finally begin the process of America’s maritime reindustrialization.
Given the complex landscape of special interests, legacy legislation and limited maritime industrial capacity, the endeavor is unavoidably complex, but it’s urgent. World events have awakened us and our allies to the danger of an America hobbled by its maritime weakness. Take the Houthis’ impact on global shipping and on American industry during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
As Congress returns to work this week, it is time to regain the cadence by calling for hearings to accelerate and hold accountable delivery on the Maritime Action Plan. Certain tasks—the naming of maritime prosperity zones, the establishment of a maritime security trust fund, a shipbuilding review, etc.—should have already been completed.
Congressional leaders should set a goal to vote on proposed maritime legislation before the year’s end. The Building Ships in America Act should top the list.
Additionally, Congress has unfinished business regarding naval shipbuilding. Although the reconciliation bill and proposed presidential budgets for the next fiscal year include a combined 21% increase in naval shipbuilding spending and 19 new warships, it remains unclear whether the necessary investment can be sustained, let alone increased (as it should be).
Another critical task is to name a new public shipyard to address shortfalls in the naval nuclear maintenance capacity.
We also must revive the Coast Guard. Significant resources are clearly coming, but without political leadership at the helm ensuring that these resources are executed, the endeavor remains at risk. An elegant proposal addressing this concern is to name a secretary of the Coast Guard, not unlike that for the Navy, who can advocate for the military branch at the White House and Congress.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/reestablish-first-fleet-and-advance-aukus-close-critical-gaps-americas-pacific">Reestablish First Fleet and Advance AUKUS to Close Critical Gaps in America’s Pacific Defense</a>
Finally, securing numerous deals from our allies to join in the national maritime revival is critical, and the sooner, the better. France’s shipping giant, CMA CGM, has proposed $20 billion to reflag its ships to the U.S., South Korea’s president has pledged $150 billion in investments, with $5 billion specifically for modernizing the Hanwha Philly Shipyard in Philadelphia, and others are eyeing the opportunity to join, but they need a signal.
That signal can be sent with renewed energy from the White House to the maritime cause and by opening informal dialogues to propel future investments and coordinate maritime activities in the global maritime sector. One way is to pursue an informal, Group of Seven-like body of maritime nations before the end of the year.
Since 2021, world events, supply chain crises and the threat of having a strategically important sector dominated by our rival China have led to this unique maritime moment. Filling the vacant maritime offices, naming a new public nuclear maintenance shipyard and prioritizing maritime legislation before the end of the year are achievable goals that will spur action.
The challenge is to regain the momentum we need before this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity passes, imperiling Americans’ sustained prosperity, freedoms and security.
</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 15:10:59 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Brent Sadler</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/congress-has-unfinished-business-regarding-naval-shipbuilding</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Spain’s Socialist Government Has the Least Responsible Security Policies in NATO</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/spains-socialist-government-has-the-least-responsible-security-policies-nato</link>
<description>Beginning in 2006 and reaffirmed in 2014, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were asked to pledge 2 percent of their annual gross domestic product (GDP) to defense spending.
Spain reached its highest military expenditure in 1984, spending 3 percent of its GDP.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;World Bank Group, “Military Expenditure (% of GDP)–Spain,” 1960–2023, chart, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=ES (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF By 2016, Spain spent a mere 1.1 percent of GDP on defense. Since its 1984 peak, and especially since the end of the Cold War, Spanish defense spending has been insufficient and stagnant, not meeting the previous 2 percent of GDP standard, and falling even further short of the new 3.5 percent core defense spending goal (along with 1.5 percent associated infrastructure spending for a total of 5 percent) announced at the NATO summit in The Hague in July 2025.
The Spanish government under Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez distinguished itself even among NATO’s lowest spenders at this summit by being the only NATO member to explicitly reject the new minimum of 3.5 percent of GDP on core defense spending, claiming that 2 percent was more reasonable (despite having long fallen short of this goal, as well).<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Kevin Roberts, “Los españoles tienen razón: Sánchez daña la reputación de España en el mundo” (The Spanish are right: Sánchez is damaging Spain’s reputation around the world), El Debate (The Debate), July 2, 2025, https://www.eldebate.com/opinion/en-primera-linea/20250703/espanoles-tienen-razon-sanchez-dana-reputacion-espana-mundo_313330.html (accessed September 5, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Sánchez, who is also acting president of the Socialist International, said that meeting the new defense spending target “would be incompatible with our welfare state and our world vision,” and also that it would require scaling back spending on Spain’s green transition.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Suman Naishadham and Lorne Cook, “Spain Rejects NATO’s 5% Defense Spending Proposal as ‘Unreasonable,’” AP News, June 19, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/spain-nato-spending-increase-f9d105eb41d708acc78356599032b95a (accessed September 5, 2025), and Socialist International, “Presidium,” http://www.socialistinternational.org/about-us/presidium/ (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Prime Minister Sánchez has repeatedly pledged to meet the NATO 2 percent defense spending standard—but has yet to do so. Originally, Spain set a goal to reach 2 percent spending by 2029, but after pressure from President Donald Trump and from the rest of NATO, Madrid accelerated the timetable and now plans to hit the 2 percent minimum in 2025.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Linus Höller, “Spanish Spending Spike to Help Hit NATO Budget Target This Year,” Defense News, April 22, 2025, https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/04/22/spanish-spending-spike-to-help-hit-nato-budget-target-this-year/#:~:text=Of%20the%20%E2%82%AC10.5%20billion%20boost%20%28%2412%20billion%29%2C%2035%25,to%20support%20for%20emergency%20and%20natural%20disaster%20management (accessed September 5, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
As a percentage of GDP, Spain has been among the lowest defense spenders in the Alliance, having only allocated 1.28 percent—$21.3 billion—of its GDP toward defense in 2024.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014–2024),” NATO, June 17, 2024, http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Spain is nevertheless perfectly capable of meeting its defense obligations, given that it is the fourth-largest economy in the eurozone and the 14th-largest economy in the world. In fact, in 2025 Spain became Europe’s fastest growing major economy, with a projected 1.9 percent growth rate in 2026.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Goldman Sachs, “How Spain Became Europe’s Fastest-Growing Major Economy,” July 31, 2025, http://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/how-spain-became-europes-fastest-growing-major-economy (accessed September 5 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
<h3>New Defense Spending</h3>
The Sánchez administration unveiled a $12 billion military investment plan that would raise Spanish defense spending to $39 billion for fiscal year 2025, within reach of the 2 percent defense spending standard. The military investment plan included methods for confronting adversarial threats by developing “human and technical capabilities,” making Spain a “central and reliable member of the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance,” and reindustrializing dual-use technologies.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Tim Martin, “Spain Launches $12 Billion Defense Plan to Meet NATO’s 2 Percent GDP Spending Target,” Breaking Defense, April 23, 2025, http://www.breakingdefense.com/2025/04/spain-launches-12-billion-defense-plan-to-meet-natos-2-percent-gdp-spending-target/ (accessed September 1 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Within this plan, 35 percent is allocated for improving troop working conditions, 31 percent will be devoted to cybersecurity and telecom improvements, about 19 percent for defense and deterrence tools, and around 17 percent for emergency and natural disaster support.REF However, less than a fifth of the new spending will be used for “the purchase of arms in the traditional sense of the word,” as the prime minister put it.REF
The $12 billion investment plan that came to fruition almost overnight is necessary but extremely delayed. The Sánchez administration has stated that the bulk of funding planned for 2025 will come from three different sources: (1) reorienting items from the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan, (2) government savings, and (3) the margin provided from some items in the General State Budget that are “no longer needed.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;La Moncloa (Palacio de la Moncloa, seat of the Spanish government), “El Gobierno presenta el Plan Industrial y Tecnológico para la Seguridad y la Defensa” (The government presents the industrial and technological plan for security and defense), April 22, 2025, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/consejodeministros/resumenes/paginas/2025/220425-rueda-de-prensa-ministros.aspx (accessed September 5, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
The investment plan is designed to generate additional funds for the Spanish government. Sánchez estimates that the plan will increase total GDP by 0.4 percent to 0.7 percent. He states that “the objective [of the plan] is to turn this security crisis into a new economic stimulus for Spain.”REF Military capability and contributing more to collective deterrence in Europe are quite clearly not the goal.
<h3>Security Strategy</h3>
Published in 2021, Spain’s National Security Strategy is intended to set policy for the foreseeable future, as it is only the fourth strategy of its kind in Spain’s democratic history.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Spanish Department of Homeland Security, “National Security Strategy 2021,” November 4, 2021, http://www.dsn.gob.es/sites/default/files/documents/ESN2021%20EN.pdf (accessed September 5, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF The strategy presents two prevailing plans, the “Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan” and the “Spain 2050” strategy.
Woven throughout both plans are three pillars: “protecting people’s lives, rights, and freedoms, and the constitutional order; promoting the citizenry’s prosperity and well-being; and participating in the preservation of international peace and security.”REF Each of these plans, with the pillars intertwined, provides a road map for Spanish defense strategy. These three pillars are further divided into objectives that improve the crisis management model, favor the security dimensions of technological capabilities, and develop Spain’s capabilities for prevention, deterrence, detection, and response to new adversarial hybrid strategies.
Pillar one incorporates deterrence and defense strategies alongside the efforts to combat terrorism, take action in crisis situations, and conduct counterintelligence campaigns. Pillar two emphasizes cyber, maritime, and aerospace security, economic and financial stability, combating organized crime, organizing migratory flows, and securing energy. Finally, pillar three underscores strengthening multilateralism, European strategic autonomy, a higher profile in NATO, and the conservation of the environment. Spain’s national security strategy also contains a great deal of deeply unserious talk about climate change and other non-defense topics.
Outrageously for a U.S. ally, Spain’s national defense strategy identifies competition between the United States and China as a challenge and appears to blame the United States for the rising tensions. The strategy states that “China’s economic expansion, together with greater US protectionism, have increasingly strained their trade relations” and that “US efforts to consolidate alliances and regain a certain degree of leadership in global governance are part of this tension between these two powers.”REF
This hardly seems coincidental, given the importance that Sánchez has placed on deepening ties between Spain and China. In April of this year, Sánchez visited Beijing the same week that President Trump launched his tariff initiative, and Xi Jinping took the opportunity to call for China and the EU to “jointly oppose unilateral acts of bullying,” in reference to President Trump’s tariffs.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Joe Cash and David Latona, “China, EU Must Oppose Tariff ‘Bullying,’ Xi Tells Spanish PM,” Reuters, April 11, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/spains-sanchez-calls-more-balanced-relationship-between-eu-china-during-visit-2025-04-11/ (accessed September 5, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF On a previous visit to China, Sánchez noted “the enormous potential for growth in the relationship between Spain and China,” especially in green and innovative industry.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;La Moncloa, “Pedro Sánchez Reaffirms Spain’s Commitment to Building Bridges and a Fair and Balanced Relationship with China,” November 9, 2024, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/presidente/news/Paginas/2024/20240911-trip-to-china-kunshan.aspx (accessed September 5, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
<h3>Military Capabilities</h3>
The Spanish Armed Forces are impressive and professional, and with the full support of the Spanish government and funded at the appropriate level, could easily be among the biggest contributors of security in NATO.
Considering the dearth of Spanish defense spending in recent decades, the Spanish Armed Forces field some impressive capabilities across the land, sea, and air domains.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Robert Czulda, “Spain’s Defence-Industrial Capabilities,” European Security &amp; Defence, May 25, 2023, https://euro-sd.com/2023/05/articles/31342/spains-defence-industrial-capabilities/ (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF On land, the Spanish Army employs Leopard 2A4 tanks and Pizarro infantry fighting vehicles. The Spanish Navy deploys Aegis-equipped F100 Álvaro de Bazán-class frigates, the new Isaac Peral-class submarines, and a multipurpose amphibious assault ship-aircraft carrier, the Juan Carlos I. The Spanish Air Force fleet fields Eurofighter Typhoon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft as well as Airbus A400M transport aircraft for strategic and tactical airlift.
The Spanish defense-industrial base designs, develops, and produces air, sea, land, and space systems. Spain’s aerospace sector leads its international defense sales and Spain is involved in several major European aerospace projects, including the A400M, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Airbus Helicopters Tiger. Spain is also involved in the production of munitions for European militaries through MBDA, a joint venture between major Western European countries.REF State-owned Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, the fifth-largest shipbuilder in Europe, builds the Álvaro de Bazán-class frigates, the Isaac Peral-class submarines, and the Juan Carlos I, and is currently building the first of a new class of frigates, the F110 Bonifaz-class frigates.REF
Spain contributes to and participates in NATO operations across the continent. The Spanish Air Force deploys fighter aircraft to the Baltic states and to Romania, taking part in the air policing missions. The Spanish Navy is a regular contributor to Operation Sea Guardian in the Mediterranean and other NATO maritime operations.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Spanish Ministry of Defence, “Operation Sea Guardian,” https://emad.defensa.gob.es/en/operaciones/operaciones-en-el-exterior/34-OTAN-SEA-GUARDIAN-Mediterraneo/index.html? (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Spain has contributed to the Enhanced Forward Presence mission in Latvia as part of a multinational battle group deterring Russian aggression.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Spanish Ministry of Defence. “Misión en Letonia” (Mission in Latvia), Ejército de Tierra (literally: Army of the Land—the land component of the Spanish Armed Forces), http://www.ejercito.defensa.gob.es/misiones/europa/Letonia/index.html (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
The unseriousness of the Sánchez government is likely to seriously erode Spanish military capabilities even beyond the chronic underfunding. For example, the recent decision of the Spanish government to cancel its F-35 purchase makes no sense in terms of force planning. There is no fifth-generation alternative to the F-35 in Europe, and there is no suitable replacement with short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) capability like the F-35B. Because Spain is set to retire its AV-8B Harrier II fleet by the early 2030s, this will render the Spanish Navy’s flagship, the Juan Carlos I, purely a helicopter carrier and no longer an aircraft carrier.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Peter Suciu, “Spain Just Pulled Out of the F-35 Program,” The National Interest, August 6, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/spain-just-pulled-out-f-35-program-ps-080625 (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF This will severely degrade the Spanish military’s capabilities in air superiority, maritime strike operations, close air support, and for power projection, more generally.
The U.S and Spain jointly maintain a naval facility in Spain at Naval Station Rota, which functions as a hub for the forward deployment of U.S. and other allied vessels in the Mediterranean and beyond. Four U.S. Navy Aegis destroyers are homeported in Rota.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;U.S. Navy, “Naval Station Rota,” Commander, Navy Region Europe, Africa, Central (EURAFCENT), https://cnreurafcent.cnic.navy.mil/Installations/NAVSTA-Rota/ (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
<h3>The Mediterranean and North Africa</h3>
Spain should be spending more on defense to contribute to European collective deterrence—and the Sánchez government is also failing to address significant and ongoing threats to the Spanish homeland from Spain’s near abroad.
According to Spain’s National Security Strategy, its priorities in the Maghreb are to “promote an area of security, political stability, and development [by] collaborating with countries that are Spain’s preferential partners and friends.”REF
Integrated within its National Security Strategy, Spain has presented four lines of effort related to combating organized crime and organizing migratory flows. From the perspective of the national security needs of the Spanish people, the most relevant of these lines of effort in the Maghreb region should be strengthening coordination with countries of origin and transit to prevent the illegal trafficking of drugs and people into Spain.
Some of what Spain is doing in this regard makes sense, such as strengthening bilateral military ties with West African governments in an attempt to fill part of the security vacuum left by the general French withdrawal from the Sahel in recent years. Stable governments can help to reduce illegal migrant and drug flows.
Other initiatives make far less sense, such as the signing by Sánchez of circular migration agreements with Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania over the past two years, efforts that are almost certain to result in increases of visa overstays and further contribute to the mass migration problems that Spain (and the rest of Europe) is facing. According to a 2024 survey by the Spanish newspaper El País, 57 percent of Spanish respondents believe that Spain has too many immigrants, and 75 percent of respondents associate this surge in migration with negative developments like increasing crime and housing costs.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;“El 57% cree que hay demasiados inmigrantes en España y el 75% los asocia a conceptos negativos” (57 percent believe there are too many immigrants in Spain and 75 percent associate them with negative concepts), El País (The Country), October 8, 2024, https://elpais.com/espana/2024-10-08/el-57-cree-que-hay-demasiados-inmigrantes-en-espana-y-el-75-los-asocia-a-conceptos-negativos.html (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In 2024, Spain’s Canary Islands alone received 47,000 migrants arriving illegally by sea, and in 2025 the number of boat migrants began to surge in the Balearic Islands as well.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;“East African Migrants Drive Surge of Arrivals in Spain’s Balearic Islands,” Reuters, August 13, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/east-african-migrants-drive-surge-arrivals-spains-balearic-islands-2025-08-13/ (accessed September 5, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
These unprecedented migrant flows augment security risks connected to drug smuggling. In February, Spanish authorities announced the discovery of a drug smuggling tunnel from Morocco to Ceuta, a Spanish exclave in North Africa. During the initial discovery of the smuggling tunnel, authorities seized 6.6 tons of hashish.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;“Police Discover Drug-Smuggling Tunnel Linking Morocco and Spanish Enclave of Ceuta,” AP News, February 20, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/spain-morocco-drugs-tunnel-discovery-6f010205fc0251ecd588dcd03cfce1e7 (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF In addition, Spain has also seen a huge surplus in cocaine smuggling, with innovative new tactics being used by smugglers, such as the routine use of narco-submarines for smuggling drugs into Spain.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Javier Martín, “New Cocaine Trafficking Methods: From Stockpiling Drugs Until Prices Rise to Using Offshore Drop-Offs,” El País, June 29, 2025, https://english.elpais.com/spain/2025-06-29/new-cocaine-trafficking-methods-from-stockpiling-drugs-until-prices-rise-to-using-offshore-drop-offs.html (accessed September 1, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
So long as Spain remains an inadequate defense spender with a national security strategy that is both unserious and unaligned with its traditional allies, the security of Spaniards and the success of the nation as a whole remain at risk. Spanish national security strategy should focus on defending the security, prosperity, and sovereignty of the Spanish people and on contributing to collective deterrence within the framework of NATO and the European community. It should do so both by defending Spanish borders and working to stabilize Spain’s near abroad, and by spending sufficiently on the Spanish military to sustain Spanish contributions to NATO.
Wilson Beaver is Senior Policy Advisor of the Defense Budgeting and NATO Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for National Security at The Heritage Foundation. Ellyn Chatham is a member of Heritage’s summer 2025 Young Leaders Program.
</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 14:35:10 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Wilson Beaver, Ellyn Chatham</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/spains-socialist-government-has-the-least-responsible-security-policies-nato</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Asserting Assured American Access to the Panama Canal</title>
<link>https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/asserting-assured-american-access-the-panama-canal</link>
<description>Following his re-election, President Donald Trump criticized the government of Panama for its decision to permit the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to exert considerable influence over the Panama Canal. This action was motivated by treaty obligations that address potential threats to the United States’ economy and security that are posed by an adversary nation’s control of a crucial maritime passageway.
In accordance with treaty commitments, President Trump is justified in pursuing both a change of operator for the ports at either end of the Panama Canal and a veto over modifications to or new infrastructure along its length within the adjacent Canal Zone. However, China’s response to President Trump’s intent to ensure American access to the Canal suggests that a more comprehensive approach is necessary.
&nbsp;
<img alt="IB5392 Map 1" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e4ce6908-204b-4f7b-b55d-0378de8164bb" src="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/IB-panama-canal-map.gif">
&nbsp;
<h3>Current Significance of the Panama Canal for the United States</h3>
More than 74 percent of cargo, shipping, and warships transiting the Panama Canal originates from the United States. Consequently, any disruption of this transit would have a profound and detrimental impact on the nation’s economy and security.REF Currently, Hong Kong–based CK Hutchison Holdings Limited operates the Balboa and Cristóbal ports at either end of the Panama Canal, effectively controlling the waterway.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Ryan C. Berg, Christopher Hernandez-Roy, Juliana Rubio, Henry Ziemer, and Rubi Bledsoe, “Chinese Ports in Panama Come Under New Management,” Center for Strategic and International Studies Critical Questions, March 6, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinese-ports-panama-come-under-new-management (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Infrastructure projects in the Canal Zone (a treaty-bound buffer area)—notably, the construction of a new fourth bridge by the China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) and China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC), collectively known as the Panama Fourth Bridge Consortium (CPCP)—also could have an impact on canal transit.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Matt Murphy, Jake Horton, and Erwan Rivault, “Mapping China’s Influence Around the Panama Canal,” BBC News, February 14, 2025, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-943c9a5e-32c0-4eae-8abb-4d9c4c6eae1e (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In light of the inherent risks and historical significance of the canal, which was constructed over a century ago by the United States, President Trump has asserted unequivocally that the United States did not cede the canal to China. His declaration, made during a joint session of Congress on March 5, 2025, underscored his resolute determination to rectify this perilous situation.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Associated Press, “Transcript of President Donald Trump’s Speech to a Joint Session of Congress,” updated March 5, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-speech-congress-transcript-751b5891a3265ff1e5c1409c391fef7c (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
For a period, an agreement at least to address potential PRC influence over the ports of Balboa and Cristóbal was nearing finalization until Beijing intervened. In early March 2025, President Trump approved a $19 billion deal that would result in CK Hutchison Holdings Limited selling many of its ports, including those in Panama, thereby clearing a $17 billion debt to a consortium led by BlackRock Incorporated.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Clare Jim and Scott Murdoch, “Trump Hails ‘Reclaiming’ of Panama Canal After BlackRock-Led Group’s Deal to Buy Stake,” Reuters, March 5, 2025, https://gcaptain.com/trump-hails-reclaiming-of-panama-canal-after-blackrock-led-groups-deal-to-buy-stake/ (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Successful completion of this deal would jeopardize a decade-long Beijing strategy to control strategic ports, and it clearly enraged the Chinese government. On July 31, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of Commerce announced that Beijing will oversee any sale of the ports.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Xinhua, “China Says to Review, Supervise CK Hutchison’s Ports Deal in Line with Law,” China Daily, July 31, 2025, https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/617114 (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Consequently, a definitive agreement had not yet been reached as of August 21 and is not likely to be finalized before the end of the year.
There are indications that the only sale Beijing would support would be one that includes China COSCO Shipping Corporation, a state-owned entity.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;MI News Network, “CK Hutchison Confirms Delay in Controversial $19 Billion Global Ports Deal,” Marine Insight, August 19, 2025, https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/ck-hutchison-confirms-delay-in-controversial-19-billion-global-ports-deal/ (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF This is clearly unacceptable, as the inclusion of a Chinese state-owned enterprise in such a deal would exacerbate the threat in Panama. Should control be relinquished to parties favorable to Washington, China or another adversary could choose to close the canal through more direct means.
<h3>Lessons from the Ever Given Suez Canal Grounding</h3>
As container ships grow ever more massive, it is becoming increasingly difficult to clear accidents promptly in strategic waterways like the Panama Canal. This danger was made evident when the ultra-large container ship the Ever Given grounded on March 23, 2021, closing shipping traffic for 11 days and creating a 360-ship traffic jam that disrupted 13 percent of global maritime trade.
On the day before Ever Given’s grounding, the&nbsp;Eisenhower&nbsp;carrier strike group&nbsp;was in the Eastern Mediterranean conducting operations against ISIS (Islamic State in Syria and Iraq) and was expected to relieve the&nbsp;Makin Island amphibious ready group&nbsp;that was in the Arabian Sea.&nbsp;Had tensions then simmering turned to open conflict as they did a year later in Ukraine, the nearest significant naval carrier strike force (the&nbsp;Theodore Roosevelt&nbsp;CSG) would have had to make a circuitous transit from the Indian Ocean—a danger&nbsp;acknowledged publicly&nbsp;by the Pentagon.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Emily Jacobs, “Pentagon Says Suez Canal Traffic Impacted US Military Vessel Movement,” New York Post, March 29, 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/03/29/pentagon-says-suez-canal-traffic-will-impact-us-military/ (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF For a war in the Pacific, the shutting of the Panama Canal would negatively affect military operations by forcing naval vessels in the Atlantic to take an additional 26 days to arrive at the front.
&nbsp;
<img alt="IB5392 Map 2" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="9673db74-8633-455a-9aca-880e6f7fd529" src="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/IB-panama-canal-map-2.gif">
&nbsp;
To mitigate such disruptions, the Navy can distribute its forward naval presence—an option that today’s too-small fleet does not have. This makes it imperative that the Panama Canal remains accessible and can be rapidly reopened if blocked. Dealing with the Ever Given incident required a special suction dredger that was able to remove two thousand cubic meters of soil an hour and special heavy-capacity salvage tugs like the Dutch&nbsp;ALP Guard,&nbsp;which took five days to arrive. Such delays in a war with China would carry unacceptable risks.
<h3>Treaties Governing U.S. Interests in Panama</h3>
The basis for President Trump’s action’s is Article IV of the 1977 Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal between the U.S. and Panama.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal (with Annexes), signed at Washington September 7, 1977, in United Nations, Treaty Series: Treaties and International Agreements Registered or Filed and Recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations, Vol. 1161, I-18342, pp. 177–187, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/UNTS/Volume%201161/v1161.pdf (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Since the turnover of the canal, it is this treaty that is understood to assure the U.S. that no third party can control access to the canal and the Canal Zone, an area extending five miles from either side of the center point of the canal. On January 28, 2025, international law professor Eugene Kontorovich testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that the existing situation—specifically, the operation of facilities proximate to the Canal under the control of companies subordinate to a rival or even a hostile China, known for its integration of civilian and military sectors and use of infrastructure development to project global power— can be viewed as a treaty violation.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Eugene Kontorovich, “Potential Violations of the Panama Neutrality Treaty,” prepared written testimony before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, January 28, 2025, pp. 2–3, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/A0C20269-7816-455A-93DB-A4E98234FB03 (accessed August 29, 2025). See also video, “Hearing on Panama Canal,” C-SPAN, January 28, 2025, https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/hearing-on-panama-canal/654984 (accessed January 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Moreover, the Federal Maritime Commission has recently conducted a review of maritime choke points to include the Panama Canal and the country’s shipping registry, which includes more than 8,000 commercial vessels.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Federal Maritime Commission, “Order of Investigation into Transit Constraints at International Maritime Chokepoints,” Order of Investigation and Request for Documents, Federal Register, Vol. 90, No 49 (March 14, 2025), pp. 12158–12161, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/14/2025-04042/order-of-investigation-into-transit-constraints-at-international-maritime-chokepoints (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF When the findings are made available, they will provide further insights into violations of this treaty and the potential for wider Chinese maritime industrial and shipping interference.
<h3>China’s Control of Ports</h3>
Since 2013, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under Secretary General Xi Jinping has implemented a global infrastructure investment program called the Belt and Road Initiative. Panama was a participant in this program until March 2025, when it withdrew under pressure from the Trump Administration.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Igor Patrick, “Panama Formally Exits China’s Belt and Road Initiative as US Claims ‘Victory’ in Decision,” South China Morning Post, updated February 8, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3297689/panama-pulls-out-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-president-mulino-says (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF The danger, however, is still present.
Various institutions have long pointed to concerns about the opaque loan structures behind China’s overseas projects and its Belt and Road Initiative. After China assumed control of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port in 2017 “[u]nder heavy pressure” from the Chinese in “one of the most vivid examples of China’s ambitious use of loans and aid to gain influence,” Beijing’s state-led approach to overseas investment came to be known as “debt diplomacy.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Maria Abi-Habib, “How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port,” The New York Times, June 25, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&amp;referringSource=articleShare (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF A report by AidData has detailed how opaque and nefarious debt structures enable Beijing’s collateralization of national or even private debt for Chinese state strategic purposes.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Anna Gelpern, Omar Haddad, Sebastian Horn, Paulina Kintzinger, Bradley C. Parks, and Christoph Trebesch, “How China Collateralizes,” AidData Working Paper No. 136, June 2025, pp. 3–4, https://docs.aiddata.org/ad4/pdfs/WPS136_How_China_Collateralizes.pdf (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Moreover, according to the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission, there are various legal and de facto avenues for state control that are further enabled by CCP committees that are present in more than 72 percent of China-based firms to ensure party orthodoxy and execution of party diktats.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;See “The Chinese Government’s Evolving Control of the Non-State Sector,” Chapter 2, Section 3 in 2021 Report to Congress of the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., November 17, 2021, pp. 216–226, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2021_Annual_Report_to_Congress.pdf (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
In short, there is no such thing as private enterprise in China, and any such investment or affiliation must be considered as under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. In recent years, the CCP has also expanded its influence over multinational maritime regulatory bodies.
<h3>International Maritime Organization and the Panama Nexus</h3>
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is involved primarily in ensuring safe and environmentally responsible shipping. However, in recent years, the IMO has approved policies that serve Chinese shipping and political interests. Most recently, for example, it has approved carbon-zero policies that would effectively impose a tax on Americans and benefit China’s maritime industry at the expense of others.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Marcus Hand, “Trump Administration Threatens Backers of IMO Net Zero Proposals,” Seatrade Maritime News, August 13, 2025, https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/regulations/trump-administration-threatens-backers-of-imo-net-zero-proposals (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF Failure to advocate effectively for U.S. interests at the IMO has resulted in calls to replace the U.S. representative, who oversaw the imposition of onerous mariner credentialing and exhaust standards.<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;John A Konrad V (@JohnKonrad), “Several sources told @gCaptain that a DHS team under @Sec Noem called for the resignation of the chief U.S. delegate to the IMO before the vote. Many were shocked when she still appeared at the IMO Maritime Safety Committee meeting after agreeing to resign. Medina, born in Panama, became a U,S. citizen after marrying a U.S. Coast Guard officer she later divorced. Rumors swirled after Panama secured the powerful Secretary-General post with China’s backing—and without Medina’s objections. It was the first time in IMO history that a flag of convenience with a record of registering shadow-fleet ships captured the top spot.” X, August 12, 2025, 1:30 PM, https://x.com/johnkonrad/status/1955320887378374671?s=61&amp;t=6LM3DzKIMNIzaH72EZQEdg (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
It was also during this time that China’s favored IMO chair was elected without objection, furthering PRC influence over this important maritime body. These developments led Lloyd’s List, an influential maritime news outlet, to characterize China as the “default power broker inside the IMO having strategically built a political and technically adept representation, capable of outstripping all other maritime nations inside the [United Nations] system.”<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;Richard Meade, “China’s Influence Within the IMO Is Growing,” Lloyd’s List, August 8, 2025, https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1154472/China’s-influence-within-the-IMO-is-growing (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF
Even should the U.S. and Panama work out a new arrangement that ensures treaty obligations and meets U.S. security concerns, China’s ability to impact the shipping that transits the canal must be addressed. One way to ensure that this does not occur would be to enhance the U.S. voice at the IMO by acting in concert with like-minded maritime nations.
<h3>Safeguarding America’s Interests</h3>
To safeguard America’s interests and counter any attempts by China to oppose reimposition of U.S. control of the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone, the United States needs to:
<ol>
<li>Ensure that there is no CCP presence in the Panama Canal Zone. China’s counterproposals for control of ports in Panama only recast and do not ameliorate Chinese Communist Party influence over strategically important infrastructure. The U.S. government must not agree to any deal that allows any China-based or CCP-controlled entities (including entities based in Hong Kong) to maintain a presence in the Panama Canal Zone.</li>
<li>Work with Panama to establish a minimal military and salvage presence in Panama. Given the potential impact on U.S. military operations, it is prudent to maintain a minimum military presence to augment Panamanian security forces. At the same time, because of the potential for significant economic impact, the U.S. government must ensure that it can rapidly clear obstructions and reopen the canal.</li>
<li>Reassert U.S. influence in the International Maritime Organization. The IMO plays a key role in setting international shipping standards and cannot be allowed to constrain shipping in a way that is harmful to U.S. interests. Accordingly, the U.S. government should name a new U.S. representative to the IMO as soon as possible. This new nominee would be tasked with aggressively advocating for U.S. interests and rallying like-minded delegates to counter any CCP reprisals for the loss of strategic ports in Panama.</li>
<li>Form a maritime group of nations. Establish an informal maritime group of like-minded partner nations modeled on the G7 (Group of Seven).<span class="annotation__highlight" data-annotation="&lt;p&gt;U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Policy Issues: G-7 and G-20,” https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/g-7-and-g-20 (accessed August 29, 2025).&lt;/p&gt;">REF This body would coordinate engagement in multinational organizations, enhance investment opportunities in critical ports, and work to limit adverse Chinese maritime actions.</li>
</ol>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
As China prepares its response to U.S. efforts to regain control of the Panama Canal, the United States needs a comprehensive global maritime strategy. Most urgent is the need to attract like-minded nations to invest in America’s maritime industry, assure access to critical ports and shipping, and specifically uphold the treaties that govern the Panama Canal. Any deal with Beijing that enables China to maintain a continued presence in the Panama Canal Zone is unacceptable and does nothing to lessen the threat to America’s security interests that China’s presence poses.
Brent D. Sadler is Senior Research Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for National Security at The Heritage Foundation. 
</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:27:48 -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Brent Sadler</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/asserting-assured-american-access-the-panama-canal</guid>
<enclosure url="" fileSize="" type="image/jpeg"/>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms