I’ve talked about Cydonia: The Secret Chronicles of Mars by David E. Flynn before, but after diving into the newly republished edition, I felt compelled to share my thoughts in depth. This book, originally self-published around 2002 by End Time Thunder Publishers, was ahead of its time—a dense, brilliant exploration that ties ancient mythology, biblical narratives, and apparent anomalies on Mars into a cohesive narrative about humanity’s origins. Thanks to Timothy Alberino’s advocacy, including his foreword in the new edition released in early 2026 by Sunteleia Press (with contributions from Mark Flynn), it’s now more accessible in hardcover, paperback, and digital formats, reaching a broader audience ready for these ideas.
I wouldn’t have picked it up without Alberino’s influence. I’ve followed his work since Birthright in 2020, appreciating how he bridges scriptural truth with adventurous inquiry into giants, Nephilim, and posthuman themes. He’s a genuine explorer with a scriptural backbone, not the stereotypical “New Age” figure some might dismiss. His promotion of Flynn’s work—calling it one of the most consequential books ever written—sparked my interest. I grabbed the new edition as soon as it dropped, read it multiple times to let the concepts sink in, and recorded my podcast thoughts because this material deserves serious consideration.
Flynn was a high-IQ thinker who operated outside mainstream channels. Through his Watcher website in the 1990s and early 2000s, he delved into biblical ufology, eschatology, sacred geometry, and the implications of structures photographed in Mars’ Cydonia region—like the so-called “Face on Mars” from the 1976 Viking images and nearby pyramid-like formations. He argued these weren’t mere pareidolia but encoded remnants of a civilization that fled Mars after catastrophe, bringing knowledge to Earth. Myths from Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Greece, Rome, and even indigenous Americas trace back to this diffusion, centered in the Near East near Mount Hermon—the biblical entry point for fallen angels (Watchers) in the Book of Enoch.
In Flynn’s view, these “sons of God” descended, fathered giants (Nephilim), taught forbidden arts, and corrupted humanity, leading to the Flood. Post-flood, survivors or their cultural echoes rebuilt civilizations, with megalithic sites worldwide aligning on geometric grids—pentagrams anchored at Giza and the Prime Meridian. This “As Above, So Below” principle suggests Mars’ Cydonia as a template for earthly monuments, from Stonehenge to Ohio’s Serpent Mound. Flynn connected this to ley lines, occult symbolism (serpents, hyperborean origins), and mystery schools preserving elite knowledge while suppressing it from the masses.
I’ve long collected accounts of giants in Ohio mounds—newspaper clippings from the 19th and early 20th centuries reporting oversized skeletons unearthed during excavations, often dismissed or “lost” by institutions like the Smithsonian. Many researchers chase these leads, get excited, then fade when mainstream scrutiny hits. Flynn escaped that cycle by grounding his work in scripture and comparative mythology rather than pure speculation. He wasn’t chasing kooks; he was synthesizing evidence that scripture and emerging science increasingly align.
This shift—from fringe “New Age” shelves (Graham Hancock, Zecharia Sitchin, Erich von Däniken) to respectable inquiry—began with thinkers like Flynn and accelerated with Michael Heiser’s The Unseen Realm and Reversing Hermon. Heiser, a Semitic languages scholar, unpacked Genesis 6 without extraterrestrial leaps, focusing on divine council and supernatural rebellion. Alberino builds on this, applying it to modern threats like transhumanism. Reading Flynn after Heiser and Alberino feels like puzzle pieces clicking: ancient myths aren’t fiction but distorted memories of real events, possibly involving ultra-terrestrial and/or extraterrestrial contact preserved in Enochian texts and global lore.
Critics point to NASA’s higher-resolution images (Mars Global Surveyor 1998 onward) showing the “Face” as a natural mesa eroded by wind, with no artificial symmetry. Pareidolia explains much—humans see faces in rocks, just as in clouds or toast. Yet Flynn’s geometric arguments persist intriguingly: if alignments predict undiscovered sites, why not consider cosmic origins? Hallucinogens like ayahuasca induce shared visions across cultures, echoing cave art from Lascaux to remote tribes, suggesting subconscious or spiritual exchanges. UFO phenomena add layers—disclosure talks under recent administrations hint at deeper truths.
I want to go to Mars not to abandon Earth but to verify. SpaceX and commercial efforts make it inevitable; we’ll build habitats, explore, and likely find preserved ruins—pyramids, mounds, architectural echoes—on a stripped world. No thick atmosphere or active society buries evidence there. If we discover ancient civilization remnants 10,000, 100,000, or millions of years old, it redefines history: humanity as refugees or engineered arrivals, not isolated evolution. Myths become chronicles; scripture’s miracles include survival of truth through millennia.
Power structures suppress this—China buries pyramids to control narrative; mystery schools hoard knowledge for dominance. Flynn exposed that, self-publishing because no mainstream house would touch it. Early internet allowed geniuses like him to connect, compare notes at 3 a.m., and build followings organically. Alberino, inspired, helped republish it, giving it legitimacy. His podcasts dissecting it (dozens in his community) make it digestible.
This book shatters illusions but in a good way. As disclosure ramps up—political, technological, archaeological—we must prepare. Root-cause analysis demands we question origins beyond Darwin or uniformitarianism. Mars may have been part of our past, not just future. Stories of tragedy, survival, and migration from the asteroid belt (Phobos/Deimos as remnants?) to Earth explain gods’ names and shared archetypes.
I’ve read extensively—Heiser, Sitchin (for contrast), Enoch translations, Hoagland’s Monuments of Mars—and Flynn stands out as genius-level synthesis. It’s dense, requires rereading, but rewards with awe at God’s design amid cosmic drama. Humanity’s dominion over Earth includes exploring to reclaim lost truth, bringing heaven here as representatives.
In these times, with information exploding and institutions failing, books like this empower us. Read it on your terms before media forces the conversation. It prepares for paradigm shifts—good ones, shattering control for freedom.
Bibliography
• Flynn, David E. Cydonia: The Secret Chronicles of Mars. End Time Thunder Publishers, 2002 (original); Sunteleia Press edition with forewords by Timothy Alberino and Mark Flynn, 2026.
• Alberino, Timothy. Birthright: The Coming Posthuman Apocalypse and the Usurpation of Adam’s Dominion on Planet Earth. Self-published, 2020.
• Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Lexham Press, 2015.
• Heiser, Michael S. Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers & the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ. Defender Publishing, 2017.
• The Book of Enoch (R.H. Charles translation, 1917; various modern editions).
• Hoagland, Richard C. The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever. North Atlantic Books, 5th ed., 2001.
I find the stories of the Temple Mount in Israel infinitely fascinating. The way authority figures hide things—whether it’s a father at the dinner table deflecting his daughter’s question in the movie Fire Walk with Me or entire systems built around keeping eyes off what’s buried—keeps echoing louder in the news and in the air. That scene isn’t just cinema; it’s a blueprint for how power protects itself. Laura asks the direct, impossible-to-ignore question—“Why were you in my room?”—and the response isn’t denial or apology. It’s inversion: Leland grabs her hand, inspects it closely, and declares, “Your hands are filthy… look, there is dirt way under this fingernail.” Suddenly, the spotlight shifts, the original inquiry evaporates, and the hierarchy snaps back into place. The abuser stays safe behind the façade of parental authority, and the victim is left doubting her own reality. I see that exact mechanism repeating at every scale, from family secrets to the kind of institutional cover that goes on at the Temple Mount.
What makes it so gripping is how deliberate it can feel when you zoom out. After the 1967 war, Israel had the Mount in hand—full military control, the keys to the gates, the ability to reshape everything. Yet the Waqf keeps running the show day to day. The official line has always been peace preservation: don’t inflame the Muslim world, avoid a wider religious war, and show tolerance as the new custodian of holy sites for all faiths. It sounded pragmatic at the time, almost noble. But layer on the archaeology angle, and it starts looking like genius-level deflection. Create a permanent tension zone where any serious dig—any probe into the tunnels, chambers, ancient wells, or pre-Davidic features—gets framed as an assault on Islam’s third-holiest site. The Waqf has a motive to block it (preserving their narrative overlay), the world has a motive to pressure Israel against escalation, and nothing changes underground. No permits for neutral international teams, no comprehensive mapping with modern tech without diplomatic blowback, no accidental exposure of whatever Solomon’s people might have sealed away before the Babylonians arrived. Hostility becomes the perfect guard dog: it barks at intruders, keeps the curious at bay, and nobody has to admit they’re hiding something.
The red heifer push keeps underscoring how serious this feels on the ground. Preparations haven’t stopped; they’ve accelerated in ways that are hard to ignore. The Temple Institute has been at it for over a decade, educating, crafting vessels, training priests, and monitoring candidates. Those five from Texas back in 2022 got a lot of attention—flown in, raised under strict conditions in Shiloh. Some were disqualified over time for developing imperfections (a single white hair can disqualify under halachic rules). There was that big July 1, 2025, event in the Samarian hills: a full simulation of the ritual burning with a disqualified animal, complete with priests in garments, ashes collected. The Institute clarified it was practice only, non-kosher because the heifer wasn’t perfect, and the setup wasn’t fully consecrated. Still, four candidates remain under observation there as of early 2026. Ministers have visited the site; photos circulate, and the message is clear: when a truly flawless one is ready, and everything else aligns, purification of the ashes becomes possible. That’s the biblical prerequisite for resuming Temple-level purity and service. No ashes, no Third Temple activity. With record numbers of Jewish visitors to the Mount lately—over 76,000 in 2025, shattering previous highs—and quiet shifts like police allowing limited prayer pages or sheets on site (a crack in the old status quo since late 2025 into this year), the momentum builds.
Those tunnels are key to the story. Explorers like Josh Gates have documented what they can—ancient passages, some possibly water systems from way back, others sealed or restricted. In episodes of Expedition Unknown, he rappels into shafts beneath Jerusalem, navigating cramped, centuries-sealed tunnels that hint at connections to the Mount area, though collapses and restrictions halt full exploration. Rabbis and Orthodox groups have long held traditions that the Ark never left Jerusalem: hidden by Solomon in purpose-built chambers, or by Josiah, or Jeremiah, or someone in that chain before the First Temple fell. A few bold digs happened quietly decades ago—1981 efforts by rabbis like Yehuda Getz chiseling into bedrock passages under the Mount, rumors of cleared rooms but no public Ark reveal. Modern statements from some rabbis lean hard on “it’s here, well hidden, we know where.” If it’s in those under-Mount networks—pre-David threshing-floor caves, Solomon-era vaults—the current setup is an ideal lock. Islamic administration means no Jewish-led archaeology without crisis. Muslim sensitivities mean no validation of biblical claims through digs. Politics means endless stalemate. And yet the pressure cooker is heating: October 7 still looms as a possible reaction to perceived Temple threats, red heifer talk fuels messianic expectations across lines, and post-COVID distrust means fewer people accept the old “don’t ask, don’t dig” deflection.
Whether it’s unaccountable governments sitting on restricted zones (Afghanistan caves, Chinese pyramids, Iraqi museums), or mystery-school oral traditions guarding knowledge, or straight gaslighting at the family level, the playbook is the same: manufacture antagonism or taboo to keep inquiry radioactive. But the erosion of blind trust changes everything. People aren’t swallowing “your hands are dirty” as an answer anymore. They’re asking why the room was entered in the first place. That’s why this feels like disclosure season—UFO files crack open, ancient anomalies get debated publicly, and the Temple Mount simmers closer to a boil. If the Ark surfaces, or a red heifer ritual goes live, or the status quo finally snaps, the cascade could rewrite maps, faiths, and power structures overnight.
Footnotes
1. The dinner table scene in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, where Leland inspects Laura’s hands and says, “Your hands are filthy… look, there is dirt way under this fingernail,” is from the screenplay by David Lynch and Bob Engels (1991 shooting draft).
2. Moshe Dayan’s decision to maintain the status quo on the Temple Mount, granting the Waqf administrative control while Israel handles external security, was made shortly after the Six-Day War in June 1967, without formal cabinet ratification.
3. The Waqf’s role and the ban on Jewish prayer have been key elements of the status quo, though recent reports indicate limited allowances for Jewish prayer pages or sheets as of early 2026.
4. Jewish visitor numbers to the Temple Mount reached record highs, with over 76,000 in 2025, according to activist groups.
5. The Temple Institute conducted a practice red heifer ritual simulation on July 1, 2025, in the Samarian hills using a disqualified heifer; four candidates remain under monitoring in Shiloh as of early 2026.
6. Explorations of tunnels beneath Jerusalem, including potential links to the Temple Mount, feature in Expedition Unknown episodes with Josh Gates, showing sealed passages and historical signatures but no conclusive Ark discovery due to restrictions.
7. Jewish tradition and rabbinic statements often hold that the Ark was hidden in underground chambers beneath the Temple Mount before the Babylonian destruction, with some rabbis claiming knowledge of its location.
Bibliography
• Lynch, David, and Bob Engels. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me screenplay (shooting draft). Lynch/Frost Productions, August 8, 1991.
• Shragai, Nadav. “The ‘Status Quo’ on the Temple Mount.” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, November-December 2014.
• “What is the Temple Mount ‘status quo’?” JNS.org, June 19, 2022.
• “Jewish prayer signals Temple Mount’s shifting status quo.” The Jerusalem Post, 2026.
• “UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE RED HEIFER.” The Temple Institute official website and Instagram, November 2025.
• “Record Temple Mount Visits and Red Heifers Signal Prophetic Momentum in Israel.” MyCharisma.com, February 4, 2026.
• “Josh Gates Searches For The Lost Ark Of The Covenant In Jerusalem.” Expedition Unknown, Discovery Channel.
• “The Ark of the Covenant.” Associates for Biblical Research.
• Moskoff, Harry H. “The Enigma of the Lost Ark of the Covenant.” The Times of Israel Blogs, September 10, 2017.
The practice of financial institutions abruptly severing relationships with clients—often termed “debanking”—has emerged as a serious threat to American businesses, particularly those in politically sensitive sectors like defense contracting. This phenomenon is not merely a business decision; it can resemble a calculated impairment strategy, where a bank or lender deliberately wounds a company financially, leaving it vulnerable to acquisition or collapse by opportunistic players, such as private equity firms. I refer to this as the “wounded deer strategy,” drawing from a vivid analogy: imagine a majestic buck, seasoned and resilient, evading hunters for years. One day, lured by trusted advice toward greener pastures across a road, it is struck by a vehicle, breaking its legs and leaving it helpless on the roadside. The driver speeds away, and soon a truck full of opportunists arrives, claiming the easy prize as a trophy without the risk or skill of a true hunt.
In the business world, the “trusted advisor” is often the bank that has provided liquidity and guidance for years. When ideological or political divergences arise—perhaps a lender’s leadership shifts toward progressive priorities incompatible with supporting defense suppliers under a particular administration—the institution can withdraw credit lines, demand accelerated repayments, or impose punitive terms. The company, suddenly cash-strapped and unable to meet obligations, becomes the wounded deer: limping, exposed, and prime for plunder by private equity firms eager to acquire distressed assets at fire-sale prices.
This is not hypothetical. Reports have highlighted cases where companies face account closures or service denials seemingly tied to political affiliations or industries disfavored by regulators or bank leadership. For instance, defense contractors and suppliers aligned with certain administrations have encountered scrutiny, with some executives and observers pointing to “politicized debanking” as a tactic to undermine supply chains indirectly. While direct evidence of widespread ideological targeting in defense remains anecdotal in public discourse, the broader pattern of debanking—often justified under vague “reputational risk” guidelines—has affected industries from cryptocurrency to politically active individuals and businesses. In one high-profile context, executive actions have sought to curb such practices by requiring risk-based, individualized assessments rather than blanket political exclusions.
The vulnerability stems from the absence of strong guardrails. Banks hold immense power over liquidity, and without legislative protections, they can exit relationships with minimal recourse for the client. A clean “divorce”—mutual termination of lending without malice or destruction—should be possible, but too often, the exit inflicts maximum damage: frozen accounts, called loans, or reputational smears that cascade into further isolation. This leaves companies unable to pivot to new lenders quickly, especially in capital-intensive fields like aerospace or defense, where contracts demand stability.
Compounding this is the explosive growth of private equity, which thrives on distressed opportunities. Private equity firms manage trillions in assets; global private equity deal value rebounded sharply in recent years, reaching $2.6 trillion in 2025, with buyouts alone nearing $1.8 trillion. Assets under management in the sector have ballooned, with estimates placing private equity-held companies at record levels and dry powder (uninvested capital) fueling aggressive acquisitions. Firms often use leveraged buyouts—acquiring targets with borrowed money loaded onto the acquired company itself—leading to high failure rates: roughly one in five large leveraged buyouts results in bankruptcy within a decade.
Brendan Ballou’s book Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America (2023) provides a stark examination of this dynamic. Ballou, a former federal prosecutor and special counsel for private equity at the Justice Department, details how firms acquire businesses—often retailers, medical practices, nursing homes, or other essential services—using minimal equity while saddling them with debt. Profits are extracted through fee structures, cost-cutting (including job reductions), price hikes, and quality reductions, shifting resources from productive enterprise to financial engineering. The result: higher costs for consumers, lost jobs, and weakened companies. Reviews describe the book as “infuriating” and “essential,” highlighting how private equity has reshaped the economy by prioritizing extraction over long-term value creation.
A parallel Ohio example illustrates how regulatory pressure can wound companies, creating openings for corruption and plunder. FirstEnergy, facing challenges from Obama-era policies promoting renewables over traditional nuclear and coal, sought bailouts amid financial strain. This culminated in the House Bill 6 scandal—the largest corruption case in Ohio history—involving $60 million in bribes funneled through dark money groups to secure legislation subsidizing failing nuclear plants. FirstEnergy admitted involvement, paying $230 million in penalties, while executives and politicians faced charges. The scandal exposed how wounded utilities, pressured by federal regulations, turned to political influence rather than market adaptation—ultimately harming ratepayers and eroding trust.
Private equity’s role in housing offers another cautionary tale. Firms like Blackstone (often confused with BlackRock) pioneered large-scale single-family home purchases post-2008 crisis, converting them to rentals. While institutional ownership remains a small fraction nationally, concentrated in certain markets, it has driven up prices and rents in hotspots by outbidding families with cash offers and low borrowing costs. Tenants face added fees, and communities lose owner-occupied stability. This mirrors the “plunder” pattern: acquire undervalued or distressed assets, extract value, and leave diminished foundations.
These examples underscore a systemic issue: without regulatory constraints, financial institutions can act as activists against disfavored sectors or politics. Large international banks, with global priorities over domestic patriotism, pose particular risks. They fund diverse causes, yet behind the scenes may undercut supply chains supporting certain administrations—eroding American infrastructure indirectly. Fiduciary responsibility demands impartiality, but temptations arise when no guardrails exist. Ethics alone fails; self-discipline yields to pettiness or ideology.
Ohio can lead by enacting legislation to protect businesses. Proposals could include:
• Mandating civil, non-destructive terminations of financial relationships, with notice periods and transition assistance.
• Prohibiting impairment tactics driven by political or ideological motives, with penalties for violations.
• Strengthening fiduciary standards to prevent malicious wounding.
• Requiring transparency in debanking decisions, allowing appeals or independent reviews.
Such measures would encourage local and regional banks—more rooted in community values—over distant giants. Entrepreneurs deserve protection to innovate without fear of becoming roadkill for ideological or opportunistic predators.
The stakes are high. A thriving economy relies on confident investment and job creation. When private equity controls trillions, often through plunder rather than creation, and banks enable impairment without consequence, the foundation weakens. Ohio, with its manufacturing and defense ties, must act to install guardrails before irreversible damage. Reading Plunder and examining cases like FirstEnergy provides the intellectual foundation; legislative action provides the solution.
Bibliography
• Ballou, Brendan. Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America. PublicAffairs, 2023.
• Morgenson, Gretchen, and Joshua Rosner. These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America. Simon & Schuster, 2023.
True executive leadership is not something taught in classrooms through textbooks or lectures on management theory. It is forged in the crucible of real-world challenges, where fear, uncertainty, and the need for decisive action collide. I learned this early, during an unusually formative childhood that exposed me to high-stakes environments far beyond typical teenage experiences. As a young teen, I participated in the High Adventure Explorer Post, a program that graduated from Boy Scouts and emphasized rigorous outdoor challenges. This led to my involvement in Project COPE—Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience—a Scouting initiative designed to build confidence, trust, leadership, and teamwork through group games, trust falls, low-course elements, and high-course obstacles such as climbing walls, rope swings, and balance challenges.
In one memorable weekend seminar, around age 13 or 14, about 20 strangers were thrown together to solve impossible-seeming problems. We had to transport everyone across a field using only a few 2×4 boards, balancing on pegs where touching the ground meant starting over. We climbed a 20-foot wall without ropes, stacking bodies to create human ladders, pivoting people into position, and hauling others up from vantage points. The trust fall was particularly vivid: standing on a 6-foot stump, falling backward unthinkingly, relying on the group below to catch you. These weren’t games; they demanded communication under pressure, overcoming personal fears, setting aside differences, and articulating a clear plan that everyone could execute. Success required a narrative—a story that unified the group around a shared vision. Failures taught the team what not to do: hesitation, poor coordination, and ego-driven decisions doomed the team. Those who emerged as natural leaders could rally perfect strangers, build trust quickly, and guide them through duress to victory.
This experience wasn’t isolated. I rose to become vice president of the Dan Beard Council, a significant Boy Scouts organization in the Cincinnati area, under somewhat controversial circumstances that provided invaluable lessons in organizational dynamics and influence. At 14, I was invited to speak at GE’s Evendale facility—a massive engine manufacturing site—where I delivered a pitch on leadership drawn from these adventures. Standing before seasoned professionals as a kid, articulating principles of vision, trust, and collective action, cemented my path. It wasn’t credentials that carried the day; it was the ability to communicate a compelling story and inspire follow-through.
These early trials shaped my understanding of executive leadership, a skill rare even among those who hold C-suite titles. Many executives excel at spreadsheets, regulations, data analysis, and compliance—tasks that engineers and administrators handle well. But leadership transcends that. It is the art of creating a vision that others buy into, communicating it clearly enough that diverse groups align, and leading from the front to pull everyone through obstacles they couldn’t surmount alone. True leaders don’t micromanage every detail; they don’t need to know how to code the software, assemble the product, or balance every ledger line. They orchestrate the team, provide the overarching narrative, and empower others to execute. Think of a kitchen: the chef doesn’t wash dishes or make noodles from scratch, but ensures the entire operation runs smoothly so spaghetti arrives hot and customers return. Leadership is that orchestration under fire.
This truth stands in stark contrast to prevailing misconceptions. Schools rarely teach it properly; corporate retreats often superficially mimic it with trust falls and ropes courses, checking boxes without the depth of real hardship. Many in leadership positions mimic “mob rule”—placating safety concerns, enforcing endless administrative loops, or prioritizing equality over merit. They hide behind regulations, consensus-building, and democratic processes that dilute accountability. The result? Stagnation. When organizations are mired in bureaucracy, innovation slows, and potential leaders get sidelined.
Consider recent local examples in West Chester Township, Butler County, Ohio, where I’ve lived most of my 58 years. It’s a prosperous, conservative community built on business-friendly policies and strong leadership. Yet newcomers like Amanda Ortiz, who relocated here in 2016 with her husband and now serves as a trustee (elected in 2025), bring perspectives shaped by different environments. As a veterinarian focused on animal welfare, she campaigns on “people over business,” critiquing development and emphasizing resident input over economic growth. While well-intentioned, this risks importing anti-business sentiments—such as higher taxes on enterprises and wealth-redistribution rhetoric—that clash with what has made the area thrive. It’s the same mindset seen in broader progressive movements: viewing successful CEOs as “greedy” and advocating for shared wealth without acknowledging the rare skill of value creation.
This echoes larger ideological battles. Socialism and communism promise equality through state control or democratic redistribution, suppressing individual leadership. They assume administrators can orchestrate prosperity through rules alone, without the visionary drive of a single, accountable leader. History shows otherwise: state-run economies falter because they penalize autonomy, stifle innovation, and equalize performance at mediocrity. No one climbs the wall if everyone’s voice is equal and no one leads decisively. Remote work trends exacerbate this—employees scattered, communication fractured, approval loops endless. You can’t build trust or rally a team when half are at home; the COPE lessons prove that interaction under pressure forges bonds that Zoom can’t.
Contrast that with proven leaders like Jack Welch at GE (who transformed it into a powerhouse through bold vision), Steve Jobs (who articulated Apple’s future and pulled teams to it), or Elon Musk (who leads from the front on audacious goals). They don’t consult committees for every decision; they communicate big concepts, inspire buy-in, and drive execution. Donald Trump exemplifies this politically—articulating massive ideas that mobilize millions without micromanaging details. He leads the metaphorical train, helping people over walls they couldn’t scale alone.
America’s success—its unmatched GDP, entrepreneurial spirit, and job creation—stems from empowering such leaders. Capitalism rewards those who develop the rare skill of pulling others forward through narrative, trust, and action. Boy Scouts programs like COPE and Explorer Posts cultivate this through sweat, cold nights, cut fingers, and mud—trials that separate natural leaders from followers. Most participants become capable followers, which is fine; society needs both. But the few who rise, who can get strangers over obstacles and keep harmony afterward, become CEOs, founders, and visionaries who employ millions.
The fantasy that mobs or committees can replace this ignores reality. Numbers don’t vote on facts; gravity doesn’t bend to consensus. Leadership isn’t democratic—it’s directional. Empower leaders with autonomy, and organizations soar. Suppress them with equality mandates or administrative burdens, and decline follows. This is why communist models fail: they suppress leadership, fearing individual excellence threatens the collective illusion.
In my book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business: A Skeleton Key to Western Civilization, I explore these themes deeply—strategy drawn from hardship, the primacy of vision over bureaucracy, and how true leadership saves companies, communities, and civilizations. It’s not theory; it’s lessons from the school of hard knocks, much like those COPE weekends or speaking at GE as a teen.
We need more such leaders, not fewer. Penalizing success through spiteful policies—resenting wealth creators, demanding redistribution—creates injustice and stagnation. Gratitude for effective leaders, who lift everyone, builds prosperity. Civilization learns this slowly, but the path is clear: identify, empower, and follow those who can get us over the wall. Without them, we stay grounded.
Bibliography and Footnotes
1. Scouting.org, “Program Feature: COPE,” detailing Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience as group initiatives, trust events, and high/low challenges for leadership and teamwork.¹
2. Wikipedia, “COPE (Boy Scouts of America),” overview of the program focusing on strength, agility, and personal growth through outdoor tests.²
3. Grand Canyon Council BSA, “COPE,” emphasizing confidence, self-esteem, trust, and leadership via mental/physical challenges.³
4. West Chester Township official site, “Board of Trustees,” bio of Amanda Ortiz, resident since 2016, veterinarian, elected trustee term 2026–2029.⁴
5. Amanda Ortiz for Trustee campaign site, platform stressing “people over business” and resident-focused leadership.⁵
6. Journal-News, “Longtime West Chester Twp. trustee unseated in election,” Nov. 6, 2025, coverage of Ortiz’s 2025 win unseating incumbent.⁶
7. Rich Hoffman, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business: A Skeleton Key to Western Civilization (Liberty Hill Publishing, 2021), core text on strategy, leadership, and capitalism.⁷
8. Overmanwarrior.wordpress.com, author bio and book commentary, linking personal experiences to leadership philosophy.⁸
9. Various Scouting resources on high-adventure programs, including Explorer Posts and leadership training via challenges.⁹
⁹ Multiple Scouting America sites on COPE and high-adventure bases.
Additional references include historical accounts of Boy Scout leadership development, economic analyses contrasting capitalism and socialism (e.g., works on Jack Welch and Steve Jobs biographies), and local Ohio political coverage.
The recent election in West Chester Township, Ohio, marked a significant shift in local governance when political newcomer Amanda Ortiz unseated longtime incumbent Trustee Mark Welch in the November 4, 2025, general election. West Chester Township, located in Butler County and known for its strong economic growth, low tax burden, and high quality of life, has long been a model of conservative-leaning, business-friendly administration in a largely Republican-leaning area. The township’s success stems from a deliberate balance between residential appeal and commercial/industrial development, which generates substantial tax revenue to fund services without heavy reliance on property taxes from homeowners. This model has positioned West Chester as one of the most desirable places to live in the United States, attracting families and businesses alike.
The 2025 trustee race involved four candidates vying for two at-large seats on what they call a nonpartisan Board of Trustees, but there is no such thing. Incumbent Lee Wong retained his position with 26.1% of the vote, while Amanda Ortiz emerged as the top vote-getter at 27.1%. Mark Welch, who had served for 12 years and was widely credited with contributing to the township’s prosperity through pro-growth policies, finished third with 24.3%. Alyssa Louagie received 22.5%. Ortiz’s victory was narrow but decisive, reflecting voter turnout and a desire among some residents for fresh perspectives focused on “resident-first” priorities.
Amanda Ortiz, a veterinarian, has lived in West Chester since 2016, not very long, with her husband, Matt, and their two young daughters. She holds a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine from The Ohio State University (earned in 2010) and has worked in private practice and at a local cat shelter, focusing on animal welfare, rehabilitation, and placement for abused or neglected animals. Her campaign emphasized shifting township decisions away from developer priorities toward residents’ needs, including better roads, safer intersections, more walkable communities, improved parks, bike lanes, sidewalks, and collaboration with local schools. Her platform slogan, “People over Business,” highlighted concerns about overdevelopment and the impact of rapid commercial growth on quality of life.
Ortiz campaigned as a community-oriented candidate and mother, stressing resident-focused governance. She received support from groups such as Matriots Ohio, an organization that promotes women in local politics. While the trustee race is officially non-partisan under Ohio law for township positions, questions arose post-election about her political leanings. Some residents and observers noted endorsements or alignments that suggested Democrat sympathies, though her campaign materials did not prominently feature party affiliation. Her website and social media focused on practical, family-centric issues such as pedestrian safety and parks, rather than overtly partisan rhetoric. Critics, including some who felt misled, pointed to her as embodying a “concerned mom” archetype common in suburban Democrat circles—prioritizing protective measures for children, such as traffic calming, bike paths, and limits on aggressive development that might increase truck traffic or visual impacts near homes.
Mark Welch, by contrast, represented continuity with the township’s established pro-business approach. During his tenure, West Chester maintained a healthy mix of residential and commercial properties, with industrial and warehouse developments along corridors like State Route 747 contributing significant tax revenue. These developments help keep residential property taxes low, fund schools and services, and allow the township to operate in the black without excessive burdens on homeowners. Welch and similar trustees have supported strategic growth that attracts jobs and revenue while preserving the residential character that draws families to the area.
This highlights a common tension in growing suburbs: rapid commercial expansion, particularly warehouses and logistics facilities near major roads like I-75 and SR 747, can bring economic benefits but also drawbacks. Residents on the western side of the township, or near these corridors, have expressed dissatisfaction with the volume of such developments, citing increased traffic, noise, and landscape changes. Some developments in the area predate Ortiz’s election and involvement, but her campaign rhetoric about prioritizing residents over developers resonated with those wary of unchecked growth. Post-election, discussions have included concerns that her third vote on the board could tilt decisions toward more restrictive policies on commercial projects, potentially disrupting the revenue balance that has kept taxes low.
This dynamic reflects broader patterns in American suburbs. Many high-growth areas in Ohio and elsewhere attract newcomers fleeing high-tax, heavily regulated blue states or cities, seeking lower taxes, safer streets, and better schools. Yet once settled, some voters support candidates who advocate for “quality of life” measures—slower growth, stricter development regulations, and enhanced safety features like bike lanes and stop signs—that can inadvertently strain the economic engine sustaining low taxes. Democrats or left-leaning independents often emphasize resident protections, environmental concerns, and family safety, sometimes at the expense of pro-business policies. In conservative-leaning townships like West Chester, non-partisan races can obscure these differences until after the vote, leading to feelings of deception when post-election actions or affiliations emerge.
The “protective mother” instinct is a real phenomenon, rooted in biology and amplified by modern parenting culture. Mothers of young children often prioritize risk aversion—slowing traffic, adding buffers near roads, enforcing helmet laws, or limiting perceived hazards—which can translate into policy preferences for greater government intervention in everyday life. While sympathetic in personal contexts, these instincts in elected office can lead to overregulation that stifles growth or unfairly shifts costs. In West Chester’s case, the township’s success relies on commercial tax contributions offsetting residential demands. If policies tilt too far toward restricting warehouses and industrial sites in favor of purely residential zoning, revenue could decline, leading to higher property taxes or service cuts—precisely what many residents moved to Butler County to escape.
Economic literacy plays a key role here. Conservative trustees like Welch understand that a balanced tax base—residential charm paired with commercial vitality—is essential to fiscal health. Democrats or progressive-leaning officials sometimes focus on spending priorities (schools, parks, social services) without grasping how revenue is generated. Ohio’s ongoing property tax debates, school funding challenges, and shifting revenue streams make this balance even more critical.
Ortiz was sworn in on January 13, 2026, alongside returning Trustee Lee Wong, with Butler County Common Pleas Court Judge Erik Niehaus administering the oath. Her term runs through December 31, 2029. Early actions include participation in township initiatives, such as updates to development moratoriums along corridors like Cincinnati-Dayton Road and SR 747, to support planning studies. These steps suggest ongoing attention to growth management, which could align with her campaign promises but test the board’s commitment to economic balance.
The election outcome serves as a cautionary tale about voter complacency in non-partisan races. Longtime incumbents like Welch can be taken for granted, especially after years of success. Voters seeking “something new” may overlook underlying differences until policies shift. In West Chester, a community that has thrived under pro-growth leadership, the addition of a trustee who prioritizes resident protections over business expansion could lead to noticeable changes—higher scrutiny of developments, greater emphasis on walkability and safety, or resistance to certain commercial projects. If these alter the tax base or growth trajectory, residents may face the hard lessons of ideological shifts in local government.
West Chester’s story is not unique; similar dynamics play out in suburbs nationwide, where prosperity breeds experimentation with new ideas, sometimes at the risk of eroding what made the place attractive. The coming years will reveal whether Ortiz’s approach enhances or undermines the township’s model. For those who supported continuity, it underscores the importance of vetting candidates beyond surface appeal. For others, it represents a chance to test resident-focused governance in a high-performing community.
Ultimately, local elections matter profoundly because they directly shape daily life—taxes, services, development, and community character. West Chester’s trajectory under its new board will offer valuable insights into balancing growth, resident concerns, and fiscal responsibility in modern America. And I would bet that people will regret voting for this liberal experiment quickly.
Bibliography and Further Reading
• Journal-News article: “Longtime West Chester Twp. trustee unseated in election” (November 6, 2025) – Primary source on election results and candidate statements.
• West Chester Township official website: Board of Trustees page and news releases (e.g., swearing-in on January 13, 2026).
The push to eliminate property taxes represents one of the most significant challenges to longstanding fiscal structures in the United States, particularly in states like Ohio, where a citizen-led movement has gained substantial momentum. This effort is not merely a local grievance but part of a broader national conversation about taxation, homeownership, government dependence, and economic freedom. In Ohio, a proposed initiated constitutional amendment known as the Ohio Eliminate and Prohibit Taxes on Real Property Initiative has been cleared for signature gathering and targets the November 3, 2026, ballot. If successful, it would permanently prohibit taxes on real property, defined to include land, growing crops, and permanently attached buildings (though public utilities might still face some taxation under specific interpretations).
To qualify, proponents need 413,488 valid signatures (10% of votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election), with signatures required from at least 5% of voters in 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties. Groups such as the Committee to Abolish Ohio Property Taxes and Citizens for Property Tax Reform have been actively collecting signatures, with reports indicating progress well in excess of 100,000 signatures as of late 2025 and early 2026, alongside widespread deployment of petitioners. The movement is explicitly citizen-driven, emerging from frustration with rising tax burdens rather than legislative initiative. Legislative allies and local officials express sympathy for taxpayer concerns but highlight the practical difficulties of abruptly replacing the revenue stream.
Property taxes in Ohio fund a substantial portion of local government operations, with estimates indicating they account for roughly 65% of regional revenue. For public schools, which receive over three-fifths of real property tax collections (approximately $13.6 billion for tax year 2024, payable in 2025), this is the largest single funding source—surpassing state aid and supporting the education of nearly 1.5 million students. Counties, townships, libraries, parks, fire districts, and other special districts also rely heavily on these funds for services ranging from emergency response and road maintenance to mental health, addiction treatment, developmental disabilities support, elderly services, and children’s protective services. In many townships, property taxes are the primary revenue source because they lack the authority to levy income or sales taxes.
Opponents of abolition, including local officials, school districts, and organizations like the Ohio Municipal League, warn that elimination would be “disastrous,” potentially forcing sharp increases in sales taxes (possibly to 18-20% in some areas) or income taxes (doubling or tripling rates) to fill the gap. Schools could face severe disruptions, including cuts to programs, staff, or facilities, amid already escalating costs from collective bargaining agreements and professional salaries. Now, where was all this concern when DeWine shut down schools for Covid protocols? Talk about disruptions, how would any of this be different regarding a disruptive culture? Recent legislative reforms—such as bills signed by Governor Mike DeWine in late 2025 that limit inflation-linked increases, expand homestead exemptions, and provide rollbacks—aim to provide relief without complete abolition, capping certain levies, and redirecting funds to homeowners. These measures offer partial mitigation but have been dismissed by advocates as insufficient, fueling continued signature drives.
This Ohio initiative aligns with similar debates in other states, where post-World War II rising home values have increased tax bills, eroding a sense of ownership. In North Dakota, proposals leverage oil revenues to phase out homeowner property taxes over a decade. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis has advocated phasing out non-school property taxes on homesteads, with multiple joint resolutions under consideration for gradual exemptions. Texas seeks to eliminate school-related property taxes, while Georgia, Indiana, Wyoming, and others are exploring offsets through sales tax expansions or state funds. These efforts reflect taxpayer discontent with “rent to the government” models, where perpetual payments undermine actual private ownership.
Historically, property taxes trace back to early American systems, evolving from feudal obligations and colonial practices. In Ohio, taxation of land began under territorial rule in the 1790s, with classifications by fertility until 1825, when an ad valorem system emerged. The 1851 Ohio Constitution mandated uniform taxation of real and personal property (with limited exemptions), and significant reforms followed, including the 1930s caps on unvoted levies (1% of actual value) and the shift away from state-level property taxes by 1932. The modern system solidified as local governments increasingly relied on property taxes for schools and services, especially after state income taxes (introduced in 1971) and other revenues reduced direct state dependence.
Critics frame property taxes as a “socialist enterprise,” enabling expansive government growth by treating property as a shared resource rather than a private asset. People like me argue that painless extraction—via escrow in mortgages or withholding—masks the burden, allowing unchecked expansion of services, union-driven salaries, and inefficiencies. High taxes, combined with stagnant or declining home values in some areas, risk forcing sales to corporate buyers such as private equity firms, thereby eroding individual wealth and control. This echoes broader concerns about progressive taxation funding “Great Society” programs, where expectations for government services outpace sustainable revenue.
Proponents of abolition envision a shift toward true market capitalism: lower utility costs, energy exports, improved deportation efficiency, and economic expansion that generates revenue through productivity and voluntary mechanisms such as sales taxes. Education could shift to competitive models—private, charter, homeschooling, or online—where families direct funds to preferred providers rather than relying on zip-code monopolies. This aligns with calls for accountability, in which services compete for “business” and excessive spending (e.g., inflated administrative costs or underperforming outcomes) is subject to market discipline.
Yet the transition poses risks. Abrupt revenue loss could destabilize essential services, exacerbate inequalities if alternatives favor the wealthy, or lead to regressive shifts toward consumption taxes. Historical precedents, such as the New Deal era’s expansion of government through property-based funding, suggest that entrenched interests resist change. Even sympathetic legislators face constraints from revenue dependencies and collective bargaining.
Ultimately, this debate transcends Ohio, reflecting a national reckoning with post-war fiscal models. Rising awareness that home ownership should confer security—not perpetual rent—fuels momentum. Whether through the 2026 ballot success or gradual reforms in the coming years (2027-2028), property taxes face severe scrutiny. The gravy train of unchecked expansion may indeed conclude, pushing society toward enterprise-driven wealth creation and limited government. Failure to adapt risks further alienation, while thoughtful restructuring could foster genuine prosperity. I warned public schools, especially, for many years that they had built their entire foundation on this socialist property tax model, where government grows on the back of property ownership and, as an irresponsible action, grows too big. In our family, all my grandchildren are being homeschooled because the product of public education is garbage. And as it was for my own children when they were in school, I had to do most of the work of teaching anyway. They traditionally attended public school for about two-thirds of their school days, and I had to unteach them all the material they learned in school. So this day was long coming, and now, it’s here. And people are seeing what they got for all that money that was wasted, and they don’t like it.
For millions of Americans, the 2020 presidential election left an indelible mark—not just because of its outcome, but because of the questions that have lingered ever since. Joe Biden received over 81 million votes, a record at the time, yet four years later, Kamala Harris garnered roughly 75 million in a similar political landscape with population growth and comparable partisan divides. This drop of more than 6 million votes, combined with Donald Trump’s increase from 74 million to around 77 million, has fueled widespread skepticism. Many see it not as natural voter shifts, but as evidence that 2020’s totals were artificially inflated through lax rules, mail-in ballot chaos, and vulnerabilities in electronic systems—especially under the cover of COVID-19 policies that expanded unmonitored voting.
These concerns are not fringe theories whispered in corners; they have driven national policy debates, legal actions, and now federal interventions. In late January 2026, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Fulton County’s election facility in Georgia, seizing hundreds of boxes containing 2020 ballots, tabulator tapes, electronic images, and voter rolls.<sup>1</sup> Fulton County, the epicenter of Georgia’s 11,779-vote margin favoring Biden, has long been a focal point for allegations of irregularities—misinterpreted surveillance video at State Farm Arena, disputed absentee ballot handling, and chain-of-custody questions. County officials promptly challenged the seizure in federal court, seeking the return of the materials and the unsealing of the warrant affidavit, arguing that it constituted overreach.<sup>2</sup> Yet for those convinced of fraud, this move signals accountability finally arriving under a Trump-led Justice Department.
We’ll examine these claims in the context of historical developments, empirical comparisons, and current developments. I would argue that, while courts and audits in 2020 found no widespread fraud sufficient to overturn the results, the system’s vulnerabilities—loose voter eligibility verification, the absence of universal ID requirements in key states, and reliance on potentially manipulable technology—created opportunities for abuse. And the authorities didn’t find fraud because they either didn’t want to look, or they deliberately looked in the wrong place to hide their complicity in the radicalism that did not want to honor voters in a self-governing government. Genuine self-governance requires secure elections in which every vote is verifiable, and every citizen’s voice counts equally. Reforms such as the Safeguard American Voters Eligibility (SAVE) Act offer a practical path forward, ensuring that only eligible citizens participate without disenfranchising legitimate voters.
A Brief History of Voting Technology and Fraud Concerns
America’s voting systems have always balanced innovation with risk. Paper ballots gave way to mechanical lever machines in the late 1800s to reduce intimidation and speed counting. Optical scanners emerged in the 1960s, followed by direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines in the 1990s. The 2000 Florida recount debacle led to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, which pushed states toward more modern systems but also highlighted persistent issues: punch-card errors, hanging chads, and questions about machine accuracy.
By 2020, many jurisdictions used touchscreen DREs or ballot-marking devices with paper trails, while others relied on hand-marked paper ballots scanned optically. Critics point to shared origins with machines used in countries such as Venezuela and to concerns about the security of Dominion and ES&S systems. High-profile lawsuits against companies making fraud claims (e.g., Mike Lindell’s defamation losses) have chilled some discussion, but audits consistently show machines perform accurately when properly maintained and paper records are available for verification.<sup>3</sup> The evidence is there in most cases with the paper backup to match the vote count. However, this manual check often doesn’t occur, creating opportunities for discrepancies to affect results.
Fraud itself has historically been rare. The Heritage Foundation has tracked and documented cases since 1982, totaling approximately 1,500, which is insignificant relative to the billions of votes.<sup>4</sup> Yet rarity does not equal impossibility, especially in high-stakes, loosely regulated environments. The 2020 expansion of mail-in voting, drop boxes, and relaxed signature-matching requirements—often justified as a pandemic necessity—amplified risks in states without strict safeguards.
Fulton County in Focus: From 2020 Allegations to 2026 Federal Action
Georgia’s narrow 2020 margin made Fulton County a lightning rod. Biden’s considerable urban advantage there offset rural Trump’s strength statewide. Allegations included “suitcase” ballots retrieved from beneath tables (later explained as standard procedure), water main breaks that delayed counting, and discrepancies in absentee ballot processing. Multiple recounts, including a hand audit, confirmed results, and courts rejected challenges.<sup>5</sup>
Fast-forward to 2026: The FBI’s seizure of roughly 700 boxes has reignited debate. Agents sought physical ballots, scanner tapes, digital images, and voter rolls from 2020.<sup>6</sup> Body camera footage shows tense interactions, with county staff expressing confusion over the warrant.<sup>7</sup> Fulton leaders, including Chair Robb Pitts, received warnings of potential arrests and filed for return of materials, citing state sovereignty and lack of transparency.<sup>8</sup>
Proponents view this as evidence that emerging issues—chain-of-custody breaches, unauthorized votes, or tampering — could surface. Critics call it political retribution, noting Trump’s repeated claims and the administration’s push to “nationalize” elections in Democratic areas.<sup>9</sup> Regardless, the action underscores why many demand reforms: if doubts persist after years of scrutiny, prevention through stricter rules is essential.
Vote Total Discrepancies: What the Numbers Really Tell Us
The stark contrast between 2020 and 2024 Democratic performance is central to skepticism. Biden’s 81.3 million votes dwarfed Obama’s 2012 total (65.9 million) and Harris’s ~75 million. In states with loose rules—no voter ID, universal mail ballots, minimal verification—Democrat margins often aligned with these patterns.
Turnout in 2020 hit 66.6%, driven by pandemic expansions and polarization. By 2024, fatigue, reduced mail voting, and demographic shifts (e.g., Harris underperforming among nonwhite voters) explain much of the decline.<sup>10</sup> Yet the gap—over 6 million fewer Democrat votes despite population growth—raises legitimate questions about 2020 inflation.
Comparisons with prior elections indicate that Democrats gained ~15 million votes from Obama to Biden, then lost most of them back to Harris. If electronic flipping, non-citizen voting, or dead voters on the rolls contributed even modestly, the numbers could align more closely with a natural ~55-60 million Democratic base in clean elections. States with strict ID and in-person emphasis showed more stable patterns.
The SAVE Act: A Common-Sense Safeguard
Introduced as H.R. 22 in the 119th Congress, the SAVE Act requires documentary proof of citizenship (passport, birth certificate, naturalization papers) for federal voter registration, ending reliance on sworn statements.<sup>11</sup> The House passed it in April 2025; it remains stalled in the Senate amid opposition from groups like the League of Women Voters and Brennan Center, who argue it could disenfranchise millions lacking easy access to documents.<sup>12</sup>
Supporters counter that non-citizen voting, though rare, occurs in lax systems and that proof requirements mirror those for passport or employment verification. Recent efforts urge Senate action before the 2026 midterm elections.<sup>13</sup> For Ohio—already requiring non-strict photo ID—the Act could complement existing rules without significant disruption, ensuring federal elections reflect citizens only.
Voter ID and Security: Protecting Access While Closing Loopholes
Thirty-six states require some voter ID; 23 mandate strict photo ID. Ohio’s non-strict system permits alternatives such as utility bills. Evidence indicates that ID laws deter negligible fraud but can slightly suppress turnout among low-income or minority voters.<sup>14</sup> Free IDs, expanded provisional ballots, and affidavits mitigate this.
States without strict ID requirements (e.g., California) have not documented widespread fraud, yet critics argue that loose rules enable abuse. A balanced approach—universal ID with accommodations—enhances security without barriers.
Electronic Systems, Audits, and Accountability
Machines face hacking fears, but paper trails and post-election audits (risk-limiting or full) verify accuracy. Cases such as Tina Peters’ ruthless conviction for unauthorized access highlight the risks of not having proper security in all elections with federal consequences. To that point, all indications point to Arizona where Kari Lake should be the governor if election security had been properly utilized.<sup>15</sup> Robust audits, not bans, address concerns.
Conclusion: Toward a More Accountable Republic
The 2020 election exposed vulnerabilities that eroded trust. Courts dismissed widespread fraud claims, but anomalies and lax regulations raise doubts. The Fulton seizure may reveal more—or reaffirm prior findings—but prevention is preferable to reaction.
The SAVE Act, voter ID mandates, and improved audits offer solutions. Ohio legislators and federal counterparts can lead by prioritizing citizenship verification and transparency. Secure elections ensure the government reflects the people, not manipulation. Restoring faith requires action now—before doubts harden into division, which I would argue has already occurred. Stealing elections by any means is a serious crime and we need to understand who has done what, and what impact that has had on a free republic for which the people rule over themselves. And without secure elections, that just can’t happen. And it must happen. Which is why the SAVE Act is absolutely necessary.
Footnotes
1. CBS News, “Body camera footage captures confusion as FBI agents seize election records in Fulton County,” 2026.
2. PBS News, “Fulton County asks court to return 2020 election documents seized by the FBI,” Feb. 2026.
3. Various court rulings and audits (e.g., Georgia hand recount).
4. Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Database.
5. Georgia Secretary of State audits and court dismissals.
6. Reuters, “Georgia’s Fulton County challenges seizure of election records,” Feb. 2026.
7. GPB News, “Footage released of FBI search and seizure,” Feb. 2026.
8. The Guardian, “Fulton County leader says he was warned he faced arrest,” Feb. 2026.
9. Brennan Center analysis, Feb. 2026.
10. Election turnout data from U.S. Census and AP analyses.
In Butler County, Ohio, public office is supposed to be about service, fiscal responsibility, and representing the people who elected you—not leveraging your title for personal favors, flipping off constituents on camera, or repeatedly crossing party lines while clinging to a Republican label. Yet for over a decade, Butler County Commissioner Cindy Carpenter has operated in ways that have tested those expectations, culminating in a series of self-inflicted controversies that now threaten her long-held seat. The latest chapter, unfolding quietly but decisively in early February 2026, marks a turning point: on February 3, 2026, during a regularly scheduled commissioners’ meeting, the board—acting on advice from Prosecutor Michael Gmoser—voted to remove Carpenter from her position on the Housing and Homeless Coalition board due to mounting complaints about her conduct. This isn’t speculation or rumor; it’s documented in public video of the meeting, where the prosecutor’s guidance was read into the record, underscoring that the severity of the issues warranted her immediate removal pending further review.[1]
This move didn’t come out of nowhere. It builds directly on the December 2025 investigation into Carpenter’s heated exchange at her granddaughter’s apartment complex near Miami University in Oxford. What started as a family visit escalated into accusations of racist language, intimidation, and abuse of office. The apartment manager filed a formal complaint, prompting Prosecutor Gmoser to investigate. His report, read aloud at a commission meeting shortly after, cleared her of criminal wrongdoing—no charges for intimidation or racial utterances that would trigger prosecution—but pulled no punches on the optics: her behavior was “distasteful” and “beneath the dignity of an elected officeholder.”[2] Carpenter admitted to making an obscene gesture (the middle finger) caught on video, but denied any racial slurs. The prosecutor emphasized it wasn’t illegal, but that leniency was never meant to be a free pass. It was a warning that such actions erode public trust, especially from someone in a position of authority.
Fast-forward to January 2026, and the political repercussions accelerated. The Butler County Republican Party, which had long endorsed Carpenter in past cycles, shifted decisively. At their endorsement meeting, they backed challenger Michael Ryan—a former Hamilton City Council member—with a strong 71% vote, described internally as “historic.”[3] Carpenter didn’t even seek the endorsement this time, a move party chair Todd Hall called “not unusual” for her, but one that spoke volumes. Ryan’s platform emphasizes conservative values, accountability, and a fresh approach to county issues like economic development and public safety—areas where Carpenter’s tenure has drawn criticism for divisiveness. Other challengers, including a Democrat (Mike Miller) and minor Republican candidates, round out the May 2026 primary field, but Ryan’s GOP backing positions him as the serious alternative.
Why the party abandonment? It’s not just politics; it’s pattern recognition. Carpenter has served since 2011, winning multiple terms but often amid complaints about her temperament. Colleagues and observers describe her as “difficult” to work with—quick to outbursts, resistant to collaboration, and prone to going rogue on policy. One glaring example: while holding a Republican endorsement, she was caught campaigning for a Democrat—Middletown’s mayor—at a polling place, holding signs and promoting the candidate.[4] That incident alone alienated many in the GOP base, who saw it as a slap in the face to party loyalty. For years, she received the benefit of the doubt: “That’s just her personality,” people said. “She flies off the handle sometimes, but she’s effective.” But effectiveness wears thin when trust erodes.
The homelessness portfolio, ironically, has been a flashpoint. Carpenter has long advocated for addressing homelessness, chairing related committees, and pushing for more permanent supportive housing units (she cited a need for 274 in prior gap analyses).[5] Yet her approach has sparked internal rifts. In 2025, she led a grassroots effort through her Housing and Homeless Collaborative to remove Butler County from Ohio’s Balance of State Continuum of Care, seeking independent HUD status to secure additional funding potentially.[6] Commissioners Don Dixon and T.C. Rogers vigorously opposed it, sending objection letters and questioning accountability for millions of taxpayer dollars. Dixon was concerned about providers making unchecked decisions without voter oversight; Carpenter argued that urban counties like Hamilton and Montgomery receive far more funding under similar arrangements.[7] The split highlighted her willingness to buck the majority on the board she shares with them.
Enter the February 3, 2026, meeting. Amid ongoing fallout from the Oxford incident, new complaints surfaced—severe enough that Prosecutor Gmoser advised Dixon and Rogers, as legal counsel to the board, to remove Carpenter from the Housing and Homeless Coalition board immediately.[8] The prosecutor isn’t pursuing criminal charges (yet), but his guidance underscores that elected officials must maintain public confidence. Complaints from coalition members, providers, or stakeholders—possibly building on years of perceived abrasiveness—pushed the issue over the edge. Dixon voted in favor of the removal; the action passed, stripping her from a board central to her self-proclaimed expertise. Video from the meeting shows the discussion, the prosecutor’s letter read aloud, and the vote—no ambiguity.[9]
This isn’t a partisan witch hunt. The complaints aren’t coming solely from political opponents; they’re from people who’ve dealt with her directly—young residents at the apartment complex who felt bullied, coalition partners frustrated by her style, and even fellow Republicans tired of defending the indefensible. As noted, “You can’t be mad and say things or do things that people can scrutinize negatively—you have to be smart enough not to walk into traps.” Throwing your weight around as a commissioner to demand special treatment for family, then escalating when challenged, is exactly that trap. When it’s on camera, it doesn’t fade; it festers.
The broader lesson here is accountability. Public officials aren’t above scrutiny. Carpenter’s 11+ years in office gave her the benefit of the doubt for too long—personality quirks excused, party-crossing overlooked, outbursts tolerated. But once the Oxford video surfaced, the dam broke. More people felt empowered to speak: “If she did that there, what about here?” The prosecutor’s initial “not criminal, but distasteful” statement was fair at the time; now, with additional complaints drawing him back in, it’s harder to dismiss. He has other priorities—crime, opioids, budgets—but when complaints pile up against a commissioner, he must investigate. Removing her from the homelessness board isn’t punishment; it’s prudence. Trust in county government requires it.
For voters heading into the May 2026 primary, the choice is clear. Michael Ryan offers a contrast: endorsed by the GOP, focused on conservative principles, and with no history of similar scandals. He’s attended events, built relationships, and positioned himself as a team player. Carpenter’s absence from many GOP gatherings and her reputation for difficulty have left her isolated. The primary isn’t about punishing her—it’s about what’s best for Butler County. A commissioner who can’t handle public interaction without controversy, who loses party support, and who faces board removals isn’t serving effectively.
Her past is catching up because she built the momentum herself. No one forced her to go to that apartment complex and leverage her title. No one made her flip off people on camera. No one compelled the emotional outbursts or party-line crossings. Those were choices. Now, consequences follow—not because of “politics,” but because behavior matters. In a Republican-leaning county like Butler, voters expect alignment and decorum. When that’s absent, options emerge.
This story matters beyond one person. It reminds everyone in the office that power is temporary and trust is earned daily. When you abuse it—even in small ways—it compounds. Carpenter could have de-escalated, apologized fully, and collaborated more. Instead, the pattern continued, and now the board on which she sits has acted against her. The prosecutor provided avenues for explanation; she hasn’t helped herself.
Butler County deserves better than stale leadership mired in self-made drama. The shoes are dropping, and they’re landing squarely where they belong—on choices made over the years. Cindy Carpenter is a mess, and there are now fewer and fewer people around to clean it up. Because she just keeps making messes.
Bibliography / Sources
1. Video evidence from Butler County Commissioners’ meeting, February 3, 2026 (public session; removal vote and prosecutor’s advice read into record).
2. Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser’s report, December 2025 (read into commission record; covered in Journal-News, December 3, 2025).
3. Butler County GOP endorsement announcement for Michael Ryan, January 2026 (Journal-News, January 12, 2026).
4. Reports of Carpenter campaigning for the Democratic Middletown mayor (local accounts, referenced in multiple critiques).
5. Carpenter statements on homelessness gap analysis (Journal-News, various 2023–2025 articles).
6. Efforts to redesignate Continuum of Care (Journal-News, March 2025; Cincinnati Enquirer, July 2025).
7. Dixon/Rogers objection letter and board discussions (Citizen Portal, March 2025).
8. Prosecutor Gmoser’s advice on board removal (February 3, 2026, meeting video; emerging mentions on social media, e.g., Facebook groups).
9. Public meeting archives, Butler County website (butlercountyohio.org; video footage).
The recent events surrounding the Federal Reserve and President Trump’s administration lay bare a fundamental tension in American governance: the supposed independence of the central bank versus the democratic accountability demanded by an elected executive and, ultimately, the people. In early 2026, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell publicly accused the administration of using a Justice Department criminal investigation—ostensibly into cost overruns on the Fed’s headquarters renovation and his congressional testimony—as a pretext to intimidate him into slashing interest rates more aggressively. Powell stated plainly that this threat stemmed from the Fed’s refusal to align monetary policy with the president’s preferences for lower borrowing costs, which Trump has repeatedly demanded to ease federal debt servicing and stimulate growth. This episode is not mere political theater; it exposes the core flaw in the Federal Reserve’s design. While defenders hail its independence as essential for sound economic stewardship—insulated from short-term political pressures—the reality is that this insulation has enabled an unaccountable entity to wield immense power over the nation’s currency, economy, and even its sovereignty, often in ways that favor entrenched financial elites over ordinary citizens.
The Federal Reserve was never meant to be a neutral arbiter of economic stability in the way its proponents claim. Established in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act, it emerged from a secretive 1910 meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, where powerful bankers—including representatives of J.P. Morgan interests, Paul Warburg, and others representing a quarter of the world’s wealth—crafted a plan for a central bank disguised as a public institution. As detailed in G. Edward Griffin’s seminal work, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, this gathering aimed to create a cartel that could issue money from nothing (fiat currency via fractional-reserve banking), control bank reserves to prevent reckless competitors from collapsing the system, socialize losses through taxpayer bailouts, and present the whole apparatus as a safeguard for the public. The result was not a government agency in the traditional sense but a hybrid: privately influenced yet granted governmental authority, with board members appointed by the president but insulated from direct oversight on monetary decisions.
This structure deviates sharply from the constitutional framework envisioned by the Founders. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” implying a system of sound money tied to tangible value, not endless fiat expansion. Early American history reflects fierce resistance to centralized banking precisely because it concentrated power in unelected hands. Andrew Jackson, a Democrat who understood the threat of financial monopolies, waged war on the Second Bank of the United States in the 1830s. He viewed it as a corrupt engine benefiting the wealthy elite at the expense of farmers, mechanics, and laborers. Jackson’s veto of the bank’s recharter in 1832 declared that such concentrated power could “influence elections or control the affairs of the nation.” His policies dismantled the bank, ushering in a period of decentralized, state-chartered banking that coincided with explosive economic growth and westward expansion.
Similarly, Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican president during Reconstruction, navigated pressures from banking interests amid the Panic of 1873 and debates over greenbacks versus specie resumption. Grant’s administration pushed for sound money policies, resisting inflationary schemes that favored creditors and speculators over debtors and producers. The post-Civil War era under Grant saw the U.S. rise to global prominence through industrial expansion, innovation, and opportunity—precisely because monetary policy was not yet fully captured by a central cartel. These leaders—Jackson the populist Democrat and Grant the steadfast Republican—stood against centralized banking as antithetical to republican virtue and economic freedom. Their eras produced wealth creation that lifted millions, contrasting sharply with the boom-bust cycles exacerbated by modern central banking.
The Federal Reserve’s defenders argue that independence prevents politicians from manipulating money for electoral gain, ensuring decisions based on data rather than demagoguery. Yet history shows the opposite: central banks enable endless government spending, fund wars without direct taxation, and create inflation that acts as a hidden tax on savings and wages. The Fed’s massive bond purchases post-2008 crisis, for instance, flooded the system with liquidity, inflating asset bubbles while eroding purchasing power for average Americans. Ron Paul’s End the Fed powerfully articulates this critique, drawing on economic history to show how the institution fosters dependency, rewards recklessness, and undermines liberty. Paul argues that fiat money debases currency—stealing value from holders—and that true prosperity requires sound money, competition in banking, and accountability to voters.
Trump’s recent pressure on the Fed, including calls for rates as low as 1% and the escalation to subpoenas and threats, highlights the problem from the other side. If the Fed is truly independent, why does an elected president feel compelled to intimidate its chair? The answer lies in the Fed’s unchecked power over interest rates, money supply, and thus the cost of government debt. Trump’s frustration stems from a desire to align monetary policy with executive goals—lower rates to reduce borrowing costs on trillions in debt and boost growth. Yet this very dynamic reveals the constitutional mismatch: monetary policy, which affects every citizen’s wallet, remains largely outside the branches accountable to the people. Congress delegated its coinage power to an entity that operates with minimal direct oversight, creating a shadow government of bankers.
This setup serves globalist interests more than American ones. Centralized banking facilitates international coordination, where interest rate policies can be manipulated to favor multinational finance over national sovereignty. The Fed’s actions post-2008—buying toxic assets and guaranteeing returns—exemplified how losses are socialized while profits privatize. It rewards legacy wealth and entrenches inequality, preventing the broad access to opportunity that defined America’s rise.
The alternative is not chaos but a return to constitutional principles: Congress reclaiming money creation, perhaps through sound money standards or competing currencies, and subjecting policy to electoral scrutiny. Presidents like Jackson and Grant demonstrated that decentralized systems foster innovation and prosperity. Trump’s challenge, however flawed in execution, underscores a truth: the Fed cannot remain an island unto itself. True independence from scrutiny invites abuse; accountability to the people ensures service to the republic.
The intimidation tactics against Powell may backfire, raising inflation expectations and yields as markets lose confidence in institutional integrity. But they also force a reckoning. The Federal Reserve’s vaunted independence is, in practice, independence from the American people. Until that changes, the system remains rigged—favoring those who pull levers behind closed doors over those who build, work, and vote. And we can’t allow that kind of system to erode our means of management over our money supply and the nation it is poised to serve.
Bibliography
• Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. American Media, 2010 (updated editions available).
• Paul, Ron. End the Fed. Grand Central Publishing, 2009.
• Lowenstein, Roger. America’s Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve. Penguin Press, 2015.
• Meltzer, Allan H. A History of the Federal Reserve (multiple volumes). University of Chicago Press, various dates.
• Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832. Harper & Row, 1981.
Footnotes for Further Reading
1. For the Jekyll Island meeting and origins: Griffin (above), chapters on the “secret meeting.”
2. Jackson’s Bank War: Remini’s biography series; also “The Bank War” essays from the Miller Center and Richmond Fed.
3. Ron Paul’s critique: End the Fed, especially sections on inflation as theft and unconstitutional nature.
4. Recent events: Powell’s January 11, 2026 statement (federalreserve.gov); coverage from Reuters, NPR, PBS News, and The New York Times on the DOJ probe and independence concerns.
5. Grant-era policies: Discussions in economic histories of Reconstruction and the Panic of 1873.
The coining of money and the imposition of tariffs represent two interconnected levers of economic sovereignty that the framers of the Constitution intended to place firmly in the hands of the people’s representatives, yet the practical evolution of American governance has exposed persistent vulnerabilities in how these powers are exercised. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the authority “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,” establishing a clear congressional role in monetary matters, while the power to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises—including tariffs—resides with the legislative branch as a core taxing function. In theory, this framework ensures democratic accountability: elected lawmakers, responsive to voters, would shape both the nation’s currency and its trade policies to protect domestic interests and maintain economic balance.
Yet, over more than two centuries, the regulation of money has slipped through constitutional cracks into an administrative realm dominated by extra-legislative influences. The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, while nominally under congressional charter, delegated vast monetary policy authority to a quasi-independent entity influenced by international banking interests and private financial networks. This backdoor arrangement has allowed unelected actors—often aligned with globalist priorities—to leverage America’s economic freedoms in ways that favor concentrated wealth over broad national prosperity. Congress retains oversight in name, but the practical ability to define how money is created, its value regulated, or interest rates set has been diluted, creating a loophole where monetary policy operates beyond direct electoral accountability. The result has been chronic trade imbalances, wealth redistribution upward through financial mechanisms, and a system where banking interests exert disproportionate sway, often at the expense of American workers and industries.
This monetary vacuum stands in stark contrast to the current debates over tariff authority, particularly in the context of recent executive actions upheld as necessary to restore trade equilibrium. While some argue that returning tariff regulation strictly to Congress aligns with separation of powers—emphasizing Congress’s constitutional primacy over taxation and commerce—such a move risks exacerbating existing imbalances. Justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett have expressed concerns during oral arguments about unchecked executive overreach, questioning broad delegations that could allow presidents to impose sweeping tariffs without clear congressional limits, potentially eroding legislative authority. Roberts highlighted tariffs as fundamentally a form of taxation on Americans, a core congressional power, while Barrett probed whether statutes like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act truly confer such expansive authority, warning against interpretations that grant presidents near-unlimited discretion over imports from any nation.
These concerns about checks and balances are valid on paper, yet they overlook the deeper structural flaw: the Constitution’s under-specified framework for monetary regulation has already permitted centuries of exploitation by unaccountable financial elites. Upholding executive tariff powers in this instance—particularly when used to counter predatory trade practices and rectify persistent deficits—actually enhances overall balance. A strong executive, directly elected and subject to voter judgment every four years, provides a more immediate mechanism for the people’s will to influence financial and trade outcomes. Voters can reward or punish administrations based on tangible results in jobs, wages, and national wealth retention, bypassing the slower, more insulated congressional processes often swayed by lobbying and international pressures.
In contrast, rigid congressional control over tariffs, without addressing the monetary loophole, would likely perpetuate the status quo of unprofitable trade arrangements that have functioned as a stealth wealth pre-distribution scheme favoring global capital over domestic producers. The Trump-era tariffs, by leveraging executive action to force renegotiated deals and protect strategic industries, demonstrate how proactive leadership can begin to correct these distortions more swiftly than fragmented legislative efforts. While Roberts and Barrett rightly guard against executive aggrandizement in general, their emphasis on defined separations should not blind us to the reality that monetary policy’s administrative drift has created far greater long-term vulnerabilities than targeted executive trade interventions. True constitutional fidelity demands closing the money regulation gap—perhaps through renewed congressional assertion or structural reform—while recognizing that a vigorous executive, checked by elections, offers the quickest path to voter-driven corrections in trade and finance. Upholding such executive authority in the tariff realm thus restores a practical balance of power, empowering citizens to regulate their economic destiny more effectively than the current system ever has, and paving the way for genuine, profitable equilibrium in America’s global standing.
In mid-January 2026, the Supreme Court stands on the threshold of a consequential ruling that will define the practical limits of presidential power over trade and the durability of “emergency” tariff programs launched in 2025. The consolidated challenges—captioned in press and policy coverage as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.—ask whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose sweeping, global, and “reciprocal” tariffs without new, specific congressional direction. Oral argument on November 5, 2025, suggested significant skepticism from justices across the ideological spectrum about using IEEPA as the legal engine for across-the-board import duties. The Court has not yet issued a decision, after passing on its first January opinion day and again this week. That delay is notable because the Court purposely fast-tracked these cases from the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit. 1234
The stakes are immediate and measurable. Customs authorities reported more than $200 billion in tariff collections during 2025 under the new suite of executive orders, while estimates of potential refund liability if the IEEPA tariffs fall range from roughly $150 billion upward, depending on how the Court structures remedies. Market and logistics watchers warn that an adverse ruling could trigger a surge in imports as firms rush to capture a “tariff holiday” window before any replacement system comes online. The freight cycle, inventory planning, and pricing strategies across large swaths of the economy will respond quickly to whatever the Court decides. 567
Here, we want to take a strictly factual, doctrinal, and quantitative approach to the pending decision, as many key players in the process will read it, perhaps ahead of time, to avert a disaster. Few people like the Supreme Court in the world as much as I do; I understand their role in all this very well. But these are history-making circumstances that require unique, new definitions. It (1) outlines the legal question presented and the Court’s apparent lines of concern; (2) catalogs the statutory scaffolding of U.S. tariff authority, distinguishing IEEPA from Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair practices); (3) quantifies revenue and exposure; (4) compares analogous Supreme Court and lower‑court precedents in the tariff/delegation space; and (5) sketches credible “Plan B” pathways if the Court curtails the 2025 IEEPA program, with attention to timing, procedures, and policy leverage.
—
I. What the Court Is Being Asked to Decide
The 2025 tariff program had two pillars: (a) “trafficking” tariffs, tied to fentanyl and illicit drug flows from China, Canada, and Mexico, and (b) “reciprocal” tariffs, including a 10% baseline global duty and higher rates calibrated to perceived imbalances. The Administration grounded both in IEEPA after declaring national emergencies affecting national security, foreign policy, and the economy. The lower courts held that the program exceeded statutory authority, and the Supreme Court granted expedited review. During the argument, justices repeatedly pressed the government for the textual hook in IEEPA authorizing the imposition of general import duties—tariffs—as opposed to targeted sanctions or restrictions. Several also raised the “major questions” and nondelegation doctrines, signaling discomfort with reading an emergency statute to confer a virtually open-ended tariff power, typically associated with Article I, rather than a more specific trade statute. 12
Press and legal analyses after the argument captured that mood: both liberal and conservative justices “appeared to cast doubt” on IEEPA’s suitability as a vehicle for comprehensive tariffs, even while recognizing that Congress has, in discrete statutes, granted presidents contingent tariff tools in specific contexts. Reuters and SCOTUSblog, among others, reported that a majority of the Court seemed skeptical that the 1977 law—long used for asset freezes and sanctions—also permitted an across-the-board import duty regime. 31
Since January’s first opinion day, the Court has released decisions in other argued cases but has not resolved the tariffs matter—leaving businesses, importers, and government accounts in limbo. Newsrooms tracking the Court’s calendar expect additional opinion days this month; still, no one outside the Court can reliably predict the exact release date of this decision, underscoring the need for scenario planning on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. 89
—
II. The Statutory Map: IEEPA vs. Section 232 vs. Section 301
IEEPA (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701‑1707). Enacted in 1977, IEEPA gives the President broad powers to regulate transactions involving “any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest” during a declared national emergency tied to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. Historically, administrations used IEEPA for targeted sanctions, asset blocks, and export/import prohibitions directed at specific adversaries or behaviors—not for comprehensive tariff schedules. The text does not use the words “tariff,” “duty,” or “tax.” Those omissions featured prominently in the justices’ questions and in lower‑court opinions that found the 2025 program ultra vires. 102
Section 232 (19 U.S.C. § 1862). By contrast, Section 232 expressly allows the President to act—after a Commerce Department investigation and finding—to “adjust” imports that “threaten to impair” national security. The Supreme Court held in Algonquin (1976) that the President may require licenses and impose fees within Section 232’s framework, and, in 2018‑- 2020 litigation, courts rejected nondelegation challenges to the 232 steel/aluminum tariffs. Yet the Court has never squarely blessed the use of IEEPA for general tariffs. Of note, since early 2025, the Administration increased and expanded 232 duties (e.g., raising aluminum to 25%, adding derivative products, eliminating country exemptions), and Commerce/BIS formalized derivative‑coverage procedures—moves that could support a post‑IEEPA “Plan B.” 111213
Section 301 (19 U.S.C. § 2411). Section 301 authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate and respond to unfair trade practices with duties and other measures—after notice‑and‑comment and findings. The Federal Circuit in 2025 upheld the legality of the 2018‑- 2019 expansions of China 301 tariffs, confirming that 301 provides a durable (if slower) pathway for targeted tariffs. In 2024, USTR completed the statutory four-year review and locked in additional increases on strategic items (e.g., EVs, solar, semiconductors), underscoring that the policy machinery for 301 remains active and court-tested. 1415
Policy think tanks and trade‑law advisories have, accordingly, framed three tiers of fallback authority if IEEPA tariffs are struck: (1) 232 (national security) investigations and proclamations; (2) 301 (unfair practices) investigations and tariff lists; and (3) narrower legacy tools (e.g., Section 338) in limited contexts. These paths differ sharply in speed, scope, and litigation risk—critical for planning if the Court narrows IEEPA. 1617
—
III. Revenues, Effective Rates, and Refund Exposure
Collections. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported collecting “more than $200 billion” in tariffs between January 20 and December 15, 2025, attributing the surge to “more than 40” executive orders under the tariff program. Independent modeling by the Penn Wharton Budget Model suggests that from January to June 2025 alone, new tariffs raised $58.5 billion in customs revenue and lifted the average effective tariff rate from ~2.2% to ~9.1%, with China-linked flows facing the steepest increases. 518
Macro‑budget effects. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in an August 2025 update, estimated that if the higher tariff levels persist through 2035, primary deficits would fall by ~$3.3 trillion and total deficits by ~$4.0 trillion, with an ~18‑percentage‑point jump in the effective tariff rate relative to 2024 flows. CBO caveated that these are projections contingent on policy continuity and trade diversion dynamics. 19
Refund risk. Reuters reported companies, customs brokers, and trade counsel bracing for a potential refund fight “approaching $150 billion” if the Court voids IEEPA-based collections, a figure echoed across the trade press. The sheer transaction volume—hundreds of thousands of importers and tens of millions of entries—would make any refund program administratively complex, and CBP quietly prepared for electronic refund processing to take effect in February 2026. 6
Sectoral and logistics impact. Freight analysts warn that a ruling against IEEPA tariffs could quickly boost U.S. inbound volumes, particularly ahead of Lunar New Year and spring replenishment, after a 2025 “rate recession” and inventory drawdowns; Project44’s tariff report cited sharp year-over-year contractions in U.S.–China trade during 2025. A tariff‑pause window—even brief—could spur import front‑loading as firms hedge against whatever successor regime the Administration deploys. 7
Pre‑2025 baselines. To contextualize the 2025 spike, remember that the first-term 301 China tariffs and Section 232 actions already raised annual customs duties to historically high levels, with FY2024 customs receipts around the upper tens of billions. The 2025 additions layered global and reciprocal constructs on top of the existing 301/232 scaffolding, which helps explain the extraordinary jump in CBP collections in late FY2025. 20
—
IV. The Doctrinal Frame: Separation of Powers and Trade
The Court’s resolution will likely turn on statutory interpretation sharpened by separation‑of‑powers canons. Three strands matter:
1. Text and structure of IEEPA. IEEPA empowers the President to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit” transactions in foreign‑interest property during a declared emergency. Courts have long treated it as a sanctions statute—powerful, but not a blank check to “lay and collect” duties, a core Article I function typically exercised via detailed tariff statutes. If the government asks the Court to accept a reading that silently authorizes all-purpose tariff authority, skepticism follows. 102
2. Major Questions and Nondelegation. Recent terms saw the Court invoke “major questions” to require explicit congressional authorization for actions of vast economic significance. While that doctrine often polices agency interpretations, the logic—demanding a clear statement when the Executive claims vast new powers from old statutes—can carry over to IEEPA. Relatedly, nondelegation concerns lurk: if IEEPA were read to grant open-ended tariff authority, would that constitute an impermissible transfer of legislative power? Oral argument reflected precisely these themes. 2
3. Trade precedents: Algonquin, AIIS, and Transpacific. The Supreme Court in Algonquin upheld a then-current version of Section 232 and found no nondelegation problem where Congress set a process keyed to national security findings. More recently, the Federal Circuit in American Institute for International Steel rejected a facial nondelegation attack on Section 232 steel tariffs, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. In Transpacific Steel, the Federal Circuit addressed the timing and scope of Section 232 and again denied review. Those decisions underscore that Congress can and does arm presidents with tariff levers—but by statute‑and by specific design. That makes the IEEPA controversy distinct: the question is not whether presidents may ever levy tariffs, but whether this emergency statute authorizes these tariffs, absent the procedural guardrails and more explicit statements found in 232/301. 112122
—
V. If the Court Narrows IEEPA: Practical Plan‑B Pathways
Almost every serious brief and policy memo anticipates that an IEEPA loss would prompt tariff-makers to seek other authorities. The key considerations are speed, scope, and justiciability:
A. Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act).
Speed & process. A Commerce investigation, public comment, and report precede presidential action; “emergency‑fast” still means 60–90+ days, and complex cases can run longer. Scope. Security tethered and product-specific, but the 2025 expansions (including autos/parts and derivatives) show how 232 can reach large value streams—litigation risk. Algonquin remains a pillar, and AIIS / Transpacific litigation history suggests courts tolerate 232 if process and findings are followed. Operationally, Commerce/BIS’s 2025 inclusions process and expanded derivative codes would make a rapid, well-documented reprise feasible. 171213
B. Section 301 (Trade Act).
Speed & process. Investigations are procedurally heavier (petitions, hearings, findings); typical timelines are measured in months, not weeks. Scope. Country‑ or practice‑specific (e.g., PRC IP/tech transfer), not a global baseline—litigation risk. The 2018–2019 expansions survived appellate scrutiny in 2025, reinforcing 301’s staying power for targeted regimes. Operationally, USTR’s 2024 four-year review and targeted increases in strategic sectors provide ready-to-deploy playbooks. 1415
C. Hybrid and interim measures.
Refund/off‑ramp management. If the Court invalidates IEEPA tariffs, it may or may not dictate the mechanics of refunds. CBP planned electronic refunds beginning February 6, 2026, but Treasury and Justice could seek limiting constructions (e.g., net‑of‑pass-through, documentation thresholds) to moderate fiscal impact—market signaling. Agencies could announce immediate 232/301 initiations to compress any “holiday” window, dampening import surges and price whipsaw—foreign‑policy posture. Even in the absence of IEEPA, the Administration can combine export controls, procurement preferences, and inbound investment screening to maintain leverage while 232/301 spools up. 617
—
VI. If the Court Upholds IEEPA Tariffs: What That Would Mean
A win for the government would validate a novel reading of IEEPA as a general‑tariff instrument during a declared emergency. That would preserve the Administration’s preferred speed and scope and keep the reciprocal/baseline design intact. But it would also mark a meaningful shift in the balance of‑powers in trade, making the White House—any White House—the central actor for broad import duties absent new congressional limits. Expect reactions on several fronts:
• Congressional recalibration. A decision upholding IEEPA tariffs could spur bipartisan efforts to cabin emergency powers in trade, as we saw with attempts to reform Section 232 post-2018. 10
• Global response. Trading partners could challenge IEEPA-based tariffs at the WTO or retaliate; retaliatory cycles would depend on the scope, carve-outs, and negotiation dynamics. (Press coverage has already tied 2025 tariff moves to escalating global trade uncertainty.) 23
• Domestic litigation. Even with a green light from IEEPA authority, commodity‑ – or country-specific challenges would continue (e.g., exemptions, product coverage, due process), as seen under 232/301. 1214
—
VII. The “Checks and Balances” Debate: Courts vs. Elections vs. Congress
This case has revived a perennial question: where are the real checks on economic power—in the elected presidency (via election cycles), in Congress’s Article I tariff prerogatives, or in judicially enforced statutory limits? On one side, skeptics of judicial intervention argue that a president elected on a mandate to renegotiate trade relationships should retain leverage tools—tariffs included—to force outcomes that Congress could not or would not legislate. On the other hand, the Constitution assigns tariff-taxing power to Congress, and emergency statutes like IEEPA are not presumed to displace that allocation absent clear text. The Court’s doctrinal trend—major questions, limits on agency adventurism—leans toward requiring Congress to speak plainly when it wishes to authorize sweeping economic moves. Oral argument reflected this balance: the justices queried whether IEEPA’s “regulate or prohibit” language could bear the weight of a global tariff system without a more specific, contemporary congressional say. 21
If the Court narrows IEEPA here, that doesn’t foreclose robust tariff policy; it pushes the Executive to use trade-specific statutes (232/301) that incorporate the processes and findings Congress designed. The Administration has plainly anticipated this outcome, and policy analyses across the spectrum acknowledge multiple “Plan B‑F” tracks already sketched out. The question is timing: how quickly can those processes be triggered to avoid leverage loss and economic whiplash if IEEPA collections stop? 1716
Although Article I gives Congress authority “to coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof,” the Constitution leaves the modern mechanics of monetary governance—and the interaction between domestic liquidity, cross‑border finance, and trade accounts—to a sprawling lattice of statutes and administrative actors developed long after the Founding. That institutional reality has produced a practical “administrative gap”: global banking and market infrastructures can shape capital flows and relative prices faster than Congress can legislate, yet courts lack obvious textual hooks to referee those dynamics ex ante. In that setting, shifting all broad tariff levers back to Congress may vindicate separation‑of‑powers in theory while still leaving intact the back‑door channels through which financial interests exert pressure on trade outcomes in practice. The constitutional allocation of tariff power and the constitutional silence on contemporary monetary intermediation simply do not map one‑to‑one.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett have signaled, in different contexts, a premium on clear lines: Congress writes the big rules; the Executive executes those rules; courts enforce the boundaries. If they cabin IEEPA on that basis, they will reinforce an elegant blueprint—but they will not, by doing so, resolve the persistent vulnerability created by the Constitution’s sparse treatment of modern money and market plumbing. A strong, election‑checked Executive tariff tool operates as a direct, voter‑responsive counterweight to those vulnerabilities: it allows the White House to alter relative prices at the border in real time when global financing channels or state‑capitalist rivals tilt the playing field. In that sense, upholding the 2025 tariff architecture would not erase Congress’s role; it would supply a democratic “fast gear” that complements Congress’s slower, statute‑driven “torque.”
Nor is this an argument for unbounded presidential discretion. The point is that, where monetary and financial influences can exploit gaps the Framers could not fully specify, a court‑affirmed executive tariff lever—subject to judicial review for statutory fit and to electoral review by the public—can restore a measure of balance that monetary‑policy lawmaking alone has not delivered. For Roberts and Barrett, who prize administrable limits, the question is whether a narrowed but viable emergency‑trade instrument can coexist with Congress’s trade statutes to keep power distributed across branches and, critically, responsive to voters. Preserving that instrument would give citizens a more immediate say over how the United States defends its terms of trade—something the Constitution’s money clauses, standing alone, have never been able to guarantee.
—
VIII. Quantifying What’s at Risk—Short‑Run and Long‑Run
Short‑run (next 90‑180 days).
Revenue. A ‑less adverse decision could halt IEEPA collections immediately, potentially opening a short “free trade” interval before 232/301 measures kick in. That’s particularly salient with seasonal ordering cycles (apparel, consumer durables, autos) already in motion—trade volumes. Logistics managers expect a near-term import bounce if duties drop, especially in categories hit with elevated 2025 rates—fiscal exposure. Refund claims processing—if ordered—would begin amid questions of pass-through and interest. 76
Medium‑run (6‑18 months).
Replacement architecture. A sequenced deployment—232 for strategic categories (steel, aluminum, autos/parts, strategic minerals), 301 refreshes for PRC practices—could reconstruct much of the leverage with more procedural guardrails—market adaptation. Effective rates would likely settle below IEEPA’s 2025 peaks but above pre-2018 levels, depending on scope and carve-outs. Budget path. CBO’s $4 trillion decade-long deficit effect is explicitly conditional; a narrower regime reduces that top line. 121519
Long‑run (multi-year).
Precedent. A Supreme Court ruling limiting IEEPA for tariffs would set an enduring boundary between “sanctions-style” emergency tools and the tariff‑taxing power, nudging big trade choices back toward Congress or trade-specific delegations—institutional response. Expect Congress to revisit emergency‑powers statutes and tariff‑process statutes, and expect administrations of both parties to plan with 232/301 front‑of‑mind for large-scale tariffs. 10
—
IX. Comparable Cases and Lessons
Three bodies of law are particularly instructive:
1. National‑security-linked tariff actions: Algonquin (1976) validated a 232 regime embedded in executive‑branch investigation and findings. Later challenges to 232 (2018–2022) failed on nondelegation grounds (AIIS) and on procedural‑timing theories (Transpacific), with SCOTUS denying cert. The through‑line: Congress can delegate tariff levers when it provides intelligible principles and procedures; courts tend to defer if the statute is specific and the Executive follows the steps. 112122
2. Trade‑remedy statutes with administrative processes: Section 301 litigation in 2018–2025 resulted in a Federal Circuit decision upholding USTR’s authority to modify and expand China tariff lists. These cases show courts accept robust tariff countermeasures when Congress built the pathway and agencies compile the record. 14
3. Emergency powers repurposed for fiscal instruments: The novelty of using IEEPA to impose a generalized tariff schedule is what attracted the Court’s scrutiny. Post‑Loper Bright (Chevron’s demise), claims of broad executive power from ambiguous statutes face a steeper climb—especially when the asserted authority has vast economic consequences, and Congress has enacted detailed, alternative tariff statutes. 2
—
X. A Practical Note on Implementation, Regardless of Outcome
Whatever the decision, implementation choices will shape real-world impact:
• If IEEPA is curtailed: The Court could (a) invalidate prospectively, (b) remand with guidance while staying the mandate to allow transition, or (c) order broader remedies affecting past collections. A stay or phase‑out would blunt immediate shocks, though not remove refund fights. Agencies will likely announce rapid 232/301 steps to signal continuity of trade policy objectives. 617
• If IEEPA is upheld: Expect challenges to particular rates, categories, and exemptions, and congressional moves to refine emergency trade powers. International countermoves are likely. Agencies may still shift some weight to 232/301 to reduce litigation exposure while keeping IEEPA as a backstop. 2312
—
The Court’s pending tariffs decision is not a referendum on whether the United States may use tariffs as leverage; it is a statutory and constitutional inquiry into which branch authorizes what, and under which law. If the justices read IEEPA narrowly—as the argument hints—they will be vindicating Congress’s primacy over tariff design while leaving the Executive ample room to pursue similar objectives through Section 232 and Section 301. Those alternatives are slower and more procedurally demanding, but they anchor policy in text and precedent the Court has historically respected. But it will cost a tremendous amount of revenue our country desperately needs, with no real recourse to fill the hole with a path forward.
From a policy‑operations standpoint, the Administration’s leverage need not evaporate with an IEEPA loss; it would, however, require a disciplined pivot to trade‑specific authorities and a careful choreography to avoid a damaging “shock‑gap” in collections and bargaining power. Conversely, an IEEPA win would secure maximum executive flexibility, while likely triggering congressional oversight and international friction that would re-enter the calculus.
Either outcome will echo beyond this term. It will signal how the Roberts Court balances emergency‑power claims against Congress’s Article I prerogatives in the economic sphere—an area where the Court has lately demanded clear legislative statements for actions of significant significance. That signal will guide not just tariff policy in 2026, but the larger architecture of U.S. economic statecraft in the years ahead. 1
—
Footnotes
1. Oral‑argument coverage and analysis emphasizing skepticism toward IEEPA tariffs: SCOTUSblog argument analysis; Holland & Knight post‑argument alert. 12
2. Docket timing and opinion‑day reporting indicating no tariff opinion yet and next windows: Reuters; USA Today; SCOTUSblog live coverage. 384
3. Overview of the 2025 tariff program and legal challenges: Reuters; The Center Square case roundup. 324
4. CBP 2025 collections announcement; PWBM practical rate analysis through June 2025. 518
13. Continuing press chronology of January opinion‑day expectations and non-decisions. 89
—
Bibliography (selected)
• Primary Legal & Congressional Analyses
• Congressional Research Service, Court Decisions Regarding Tariffs Imposed Under IEEPA (LSB11332, Sept. 15, 2025). 10
• CRS Insight, Expanded Section 232 Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum (IN12519, Sept. 26, 2025). 12
• U.S. Dept. of Commerce/BIS, Adoption and Procedures of the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff Inclusions Process (Federal Register notice, Aug. 19, 2025). 13
• Supreme Court & Appellate Cases
• Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976). (discussed in sources). 11
• American Institute for International Steel v. United States, 806 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 133 (2020). 2111
• Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 4 F.4th 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1414 (2022). 2225
• Oral‑Argument & Docket Coverage
• SCOTUSblog, Court appears dubious of Trump’s tariffs (Nov. 5, 2025); No tariff opinion (Jan. 9, 2026). 14
• Reuters/US News & World Report, Supreme Court Plans Rulings … as Trump awaits fate of tariffs (Jan. 9, 2026). 3
The Overmanwarrior 