I’ve always said that Eric Swalwell was a crook. From the moment he burst onto the national scene as a freshman congressman from California back in 2013, something about the guy never sat right with me. He was Nancy Pelosi’s right-hand man in so many ways—her attack dog on Trump, her reliable vote on every progressive cause, and the guy who seemed to relish every opportunity to grandstand against conservatives like me who just wanted honest government. Remember how he behaved during the Supreme Court nominations? The way he went after Brett Kavanaugh with that smug certainty, or how he hammered away at Trump for years on everything from Russia to January 6th? It was all so performative, so self-righteous, while the man himself was hiding a mountain of personal failings that made those accusations look tame by comparison.
I mean, let’s start with the elephant in the room that everyone on Capitol Hill has known about for years: the Chinese honey pot named Christine Fang, or “Fang Fang” as she was affectionately called by those who knew her. This woman wasn’t some random flirt; she was a suspected Chinese intelligence operative who embedded herself in California politics like a tick. She helped Swalwell with fundraising for his 2014 reelection campaign, placed an intern in his office, and had what can only be described as an uncomfortably close relationship with him. The FBI briefed him on her in 2015, and he cut ties—publicly claiming he cooperated fully and that the case was closed. But come on. A congressman on the House Intelligence Committee sleeping with a foreign agent who was actively cultivating access to American politicians? That’s not just reckless; it’s a national security red flag the size of the Golden Gate Bridge. And yet, the media gave him a pass. Pelosi and the Democratic machine circled the wagons, and Swalwell kept rising through the ranks, preaching about ethics and women’s rights while his own conduct screamed hypocrisy.
Fast forward to early April 2026, and suddenly the mask slips in spectacular fashion. Between April 9 and April 11, four women came forward accusing Swalwell of sexual misconduct—unsolicited explicit photos sent to their phones, non-consensual encounters while they were intoxicated, abuse of power with staffers and interns, and offers of political access in exchange for sex. The San Francisco Chronicle and CNN laid it all out: one former staffer detailed how he raped her when she was too drunk to consent, leaving her bruised and bleeding. Another spoke of waking up in a hotel room with no memory after a night out, only to realize what had happened. These weren’t random accusers; they were people who worked for him or crossed paths in his professional world. Then, just a week later, around April 14 or 15, a fifth woman, Lonna Drewes from Beverly Hills, went public with her story of a 2018 incident where she believes she was drugged and raped—classic Cosby-style horror, complete with choking and loss of consciousness. She described it in harrowing detail at a press conference, standing with the other women and vowing to report it to law enforcement. By then, Swalwell had already suspended his campaign for California governor—the race he was leading as a top Democratic contender—and soon after resigned from Congress altogether amid a House Ethics investigation and calls for his expulsion from both sides of the aisle.
I wasn’t surprised one bit. I’ve been watching this guy for over a decade, and the pattern was always there. The same Eric Swalwell who loved to lecture America about Donald Trump’s alleged mistreatment of women was allegedly drugging and assaulting young women in his orbit while holding positions of immense power. The irony is thicker than the fog rolling off the Bay. He positioned himself as a progressive champion, a defender of the vulnerable, all while his staffers and associates whispered about his behavior behind closed doors. And let’s not forget his wife—how does someone in that position not know or at least suspect? The whole thing reeks of the kind of entitlement that comes with unchecked power in Washington. You get elected, you surround yourself with ambitious young interns and staffers in their 20s and 30s who are hungry for advancement, and suddenly the lines blur. It’s not hard to see how it happens: a late-night drink after a long day on the Hill, a flirty text on Snapchat, an offer to “help” someone’s career. But when it crosses into coercion, assault, or exploitation, it becomes something far darker.
What really gets me—and what should scare every American—is the timing and the coordinated silence until it became politically convenient. These women didn’t just materialize out of nowhere in April 2026. Rumors had been swirling on Capitol Hill for years about Swalwell’s personal life. Everybody knew, or at least suspected. Nancy Pelosi, his longtime ally and mentor in the California Democratic machine, suddenly developed amnesia? Please. The same Democrats who rushed to defend him during the Fang Fang scandal years earlier turned on him like a pack of wolves the moment he became a threat to their control of the governor’s race. California Democrats were already scrambling in a crowded field with no clear frontrunner—Katie Porter, Tom Steyer, Xavier Becerra, and others jockeying for position. Swalwell was polling strongly, and his presence was complicating matters, especially as Republicans like Steve Hilton were gaining ground. I picked Steve Hilton early on; I even had him at my place of business here in Ohio to announce aspects of his run alongside other conservative voices. I told folks over a year ago that this shakeup was coming. Now, with Swalwell out, Hilton’s leading in polls, and the race is wide open. Coincidence? Not a chance. This was a calculated hit from inside the party to clear the field and protect their power structure.
I’ve seen this playbook before, right here in my own backyard in Ohio. Take the Cindy Carpenter case in Butler County— a local commissioner who couldn’t handle the power and got called out for misconduct. Republicans didn’t circle the wagons; we held her accountable and moved on to someone who could do the job without the drama. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But Democrats? They protect their own until the political math changes. Swalwell wasn’t exposed because of some noble pursuit of justice for these women. He was exposed because he was running for governor and threatening the status quo. The media that had ignored or downplayed his ties to Fang Fang for years suddenly amplified every accusation. The same outlets that spent years attacking Trump over Access Hollywood or Stormy Daniels looked the other way on Swalwell until it suited the narrative. It’s selective outrage at its finest, and it erodes trust in the entire system.
Think about the broader culture this reveals. Politics attracts ambitious people, especially young staffers and interns flooding into state capitals and Washington, D.C. They’re in their 20s and 30s, working long hours, volunteering for campaigns, hoping to climb the ladder. Some are genuine public servants; others see it as a shortcut to power, money, and influence. How do you stand out in a sea of thousands of eager faces? Exceptional work is one way, but too often it’s by compromising—attending the right parties, accepting the “extra” invitations, blurring professional boundaries for that extra boost. I’ve talked to enough people who’ve been through it to know the temptation is real on both sides. Power is intoxicating. You’re no longer “Dad” or “Husband” at home; you’re “Congressman Swalwell,” the guy with staff calling you “sir” and donors throwing money at you. Your family doesn’t worship you like the political machine does. It’s easy to fall into the trap of late nights, flattery, and affairs that make you feel alive again. But it takes real integrity to resist, and Swalwell clearly didn’t have it. The same goes for plenty of others—Anthony Weiner sending explicit photos while married to a Clinton insider, or the countless scandals we’ve seen from both parties. It’s human nature amplified by proximity to power.
Swalwell’s hypocrisy on this front is what sticks in my craw the most. He spent years weaponizing accusations against Trump—impeachment after impeachment, endless hearings, public shaming—all while allegedly engaging in the very behavior he condemned. He preached progressive values, women’s empowerment, and holding the powerful accountable, yet treated his own staff and associates like personal playthings. The unsolicited explicit photos, the drugged encounters, the abuse of authority—it’s the kind of thing that would have ended any Republican’s career instantly. But for Swalwell, it took a gubernatorial bid and internal party pressure to bring it to light finally. Even then, he categorically denied everything, calling the claims “flat false” and vowing to fight them. Fine, let the investigations play out—due process matters. But the pattern, combined with the Fang Fang mess, paints a picture of a man who was always more interested in self-preservation and advancement than in serving the public.
And don’t get me started on the media’s role. For years, they carried water for Swalwell. They platformed him as a fresh face against Trump, ignored the spy scandal’s implications, and only turned when the Democrat establishment signaled it was time. It’s the same machine that protected Biden’s obvious decline until it couldn’t, or that downplays scandals on their side while amplifying anything on the right. This isn’t journalism; it’s narrative control. The public deserves better. We need a vetting process that actually works—real scrutiny of candidates’ personal lives, financial dealings, and associations before they get near power. But in a system where the press picks sides, that rarely happens until it’s too late or politically expedient.
Looking back, I remember watching Swalwell’s rise and thinking, “This guy is too slick for his own good.” He went from local prosecutor to Congress, landed on the Intelligence Committee despite the red flags, and became a fixture on cable news attacking conservatives. His wife had to have known about the wandering eye; the staffers whispered; the Hill insiders joked. Yet nothing stuck until April 2026. Now, with him out of Congress and the governor’s race in chaos, California Democrats are scrambling, and Republicans like Steve Hilton—who I backed early—are poised to capitalize. It’s a reminder that power corrupts, and absolute power in one-party strongholds like California corrupts absolutely. The women who came forward deserve justice, not to be used as pawns. But the real scandal is how long the system protected one of its own.
This isn’t isolated to Swalwell. It’s systemic. From local capitals to D.C., the temptations are everywhere. Young people enter politics with stars in their eyes, only to learn that climbing requires compromises. Staffers trade favors for access; politicians leverage their positions for personal gratification. Politics should be about service, not a lifestyle upgrade. When you see someone like Swalwell preaching against Trump while allegedly living the exact opposite, it confirms what I’ve long suspected: many in that bubble can’t handle the power. They’re weak, entitled, and dangerous to the republic.
The Fang Fang connection adds another layer of recklessness. A suspected Chinese spy with direct access? Helping pick interns and raise money? And Swalwell on Intelligence? It boggles the mind that he wasn’t removed sooner. The FBI knew, briefed him, and yet he stayed. Now, with fresh scrutiny amid the scandal, calls are growing to release those old files. Why the resistance? If he has nothing to hide, let it all out. But transparency has never been the Democrats’ value.
In the end, this whole saga should be a wake-up call. We can’t trust the process when it’s this rigged by insiders. The women spoke out when it mattered for the party machine, not necessarily for justice alone. Everybody knew, but nobody said anything until it served their interests. That’s the real betrayal—of the public, of women seeking fair treatment, and of the democrat ideals they claim to uphold. I’ve been saying it for years: Democrats like Swalwell aren’t just misguided; they’re often operating with a different set of rules. The hypocrisy, the cover-ups, the selective amnesia—it’s all part of maintaining power at any cost. California voters, and the rest of us watching, deserve representatives with integrity, not predators in suits. As more details emerge from the investigations, I hope the truth finally prevails over the politics. But based on history, I’m not holding my breath. The machine grinds on, and guys like Swalwell are just symptoms of a deeper rot.
Footnotes
¹ San Francisco Chronicle report on former staffer allegations, April 10, 2026.
² CNN investigation detailing four women’s accounts, including unsolicited photos and non-consensual encounters.
³ Axios original reporting on Fang Fang ties, December 2020 (updated context in 2026 coverage).
⁴ Coverage of Lonna Drewes press conference and fifth allegation, April 14-15, 2026.
⁵ Reports on Swalwell’s resignation and governor campaign suspension.
Bibliography for Further Reading
• “Four women describe sexual misconduct by Rep. Eric Swalwell,” CNN, April 10, 2026.
• “Ex-staffer says Rep. Eric Swalwell sexually assaulted her,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 10, 2026.
• “Woman alleges violent sexual assault by Eric Swalwell,” CalMatters, April 14, 2026.
• “How a suspected Chinese spy gained access to California politicians,” Axios, December 8, 2020.
• “Eric Swalwell’s exit shakes up chaotic California governor’s race,” BBC, April 13, 2026.
• “Trump endorses Republican Steven Hilton for California governor,” Washington Post, April 6, 2026.
• Various AP, NYT, and Politico reports on the timeline of allegations and investigations, April 2026.
Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.
He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.
Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.
I have said it repeatedly, and the events of recent years only reinforce my conviction: the stability of the United States rests on strong institutions that resist the short-term, destructive impulses of partisan power grabs. I am a vocal supporter of the Supreme Court. America is far better off because we have this body of nine justices, even when they do not always rule exactly as I or any single citizen might prefer. That independence is its strength. Yet independence does not mean immunity from political pressure or erosion. We must guard the Court fiercely against attempts to pack it—something Democrats have openly discussed and pursued whenever they sense they can regain majorities in Congress and the White House. Court packing would destroy the legitimacy of the judiciary, turning it into just another partisan tool rather than the constitutional anchor it was designed to be. In the future, preventing such packing is issue number one if we want to preserve the Republic as the Founders and the Reconstruction-era Republicans envisioned it.
This brings us directly to the current debate before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara and the related challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order sought to clarify and limit automatic birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment for children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally or on temporary visas. Trump attended the oral arguments himself on April 1, 2026—the first sitting president to do so in such a historic case—because the stakes could not be higher. He wanted the justices to see him, to understand that this is not abstract legal theory but a direct defense of American sovereignty against deliberate abuse.
I watched the arguments closely, as did many Americans. The presentations from the White House side were strong, but I believe they could have been plainer in connecting the dots for the broader public and, frankly, for any justice still wrestling with the text. Some justices, including moderates like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, seemed focused on the literal wording of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. That is understandable in a chamber built for deep constitutional deliberation. But context, history, and the clear evil intent behind modern exploitation of that language demand more than wooden literalism. The Supreme Court has the opportunity—and I would argue the duty—to rule in favor of the executive order, or at least to rein in lower courts from overstepping while setting a precedent that corrects the ambiguity Democrats have weaponized for decades.
Let’s go back to the text and the moment that produced it. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 during Reconstruction, reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This was not written in a vacuum. The Republican Party was founded explicitly to abolish slavery. The Constitution itself contained mechanisms—free speech, open debate, federalism with sovereign states competing against one another—that allowed moral philosophy to challenge the evil of slavery through open discussion. Slavery was not uniquely American; it was a global human tragedy. The Hebrew enslaved people in Egypt, freed by Moses and God through forty years in the wilderness, remind us that this is not about skin color but about the human experience of bondage. Every ancient culture practiced it. In the antebellum world, it remained economically entrenched because the Industrial Revolution had not yet provided mechanical alternatives to physical labor on plantations.
Democrats of that era were the party of the plantation South, defending slavery as essential to their economic and political power. Republicans, led by figures like Abraham Lincoln, fought to end it. The Civil War nearly destroyed the nation. Think of Gettysburg: the pivotal Union victory where Robert E. Lee overreached, and the Confederacy lost Stonewall Jackson earlier. Had things gone differently, slavery might have persisted longer, and the Democrat vision could have dominated. But Ulysses S. Grant took command after Gettysburg, ground down Lee’s army through superior resources and will, and the Union prevailed. Reconstruction followed, and the 14th Amendment was crafted with strong, deliberate language to protect the children of formerly enslaved people from being undermined by resentful Southern Democrats. It overrode the horrific Dred Scott decision and ensured that those born on American soil to people now under full U.S. jurisdiction would be citizens with equal protection. The strong wording was necessary because the country had almost died; Republicans needed ironclad guarantees against future subversion by the very forces that had supported secession and slavery.
The amendment was never intended as an open invitation for the entire world to produce “anchor babies” by entering the United States—legally or illegally—and claiming automatic citizenship for their children as a pathway to chain migration and demographic transformation. That perversion creates an administrative nightmare and devalues the priceless gift of American citizenship. Only about 3 million people are born in the U.S. each year with that “lottery ticket.” Opening the borders to everyone dilutes its worth to nothing. You do not see mass “birth tourism” or anchor strategies overwhelming France, Germany, or other European nations in the same way because the U.S. Constitution’s freedoms and opportunities are uniquely attractive. Parents exploit this to give their children benefits they themselves lack, while the broader society bears the cost.
Democrats have exploited this ambiguity with vicious intent. Just as they once defended slavery and later resisted Reconstruction, they now use the 14th Amendment’s language—written to heal a broken nation after a war over bondage—as a Trojan horse for open borders. The strategy is clear: flood the country with illegal immigration, encourage births on U.S. soil, and secure a new voting base that tilts heavily Democrat. They have lain in wait behind the scenes, playing the long game, just as they did during Reconstruction when they sought to undermine enslaved people formerly. If they regain majorities, their plans include court packing to dilute the current conservative-leaning Court, eliminating the filibuster where convenient, and accelerating policies that erode national sovereignty in favor of a “citizens of the world” globalism. They are counting on literal readings that ignore the “subject to the jurisdiction” qualifier and the original context of full allegiance to the United States.
President Trump’s executive order directly corrects this abuse. It does not rewrite the Constitution; it restores the original meaning by directing agencies to interpret “jurisdiction” properly—excluding those whose parents owe primary allegiance elsewhere (illegal entrants or temporary visa holders not fully subject to U.S. authority in the complete sense intended). This aligns with historical exceptions noted even in cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which involved children of lawful, domiciled residents, not illegal or transient populations. The order prevents the slow erosion that Democrats rely on, where administrative inertia and activist lower courts allow the problem to fester until it becomes irreversible. We do not have decades to wait for a new amendment; the border crisis and demographic shifts are immediate threats. Republicans have often been too nice, playing by rules that Democrats discard when inconvenient. Trump’s presence in the courtroom signaled: this is serious; the people who elected me demand action now.
I cannot understand why any justice would struggle purely on constitutional grounds if they weigh the full history. The 14th Amendment’s strong language protected the most vulnerable—children of formerly enslaved people—from the very Democrats who had championed slavery. Now those same political forces (in evolved form) flip the script, using that protective language to punish America by overwhelming it with migration that collapses social services, wages, and cultural cohesion in under two years if unchecked. It is the same evil at work: resentment, power through numbers, destruction of the Republic’s foundations. Slavery was about controlling labor; today’s open-border policies are about controlling future electorates through imported dependency.
The Supreme Court sits in one of the most magnificent intellectual environments on Earth. The chamber, connected by tunnel to the Library of Congress with its majestic architecture and vast repository of human knowledge, invites precisely the deep consideration this case requires. I suggest to the justices: take a break from arguments, walk that tunnel, sit amid the great books, and reflect on humanity’s trajectory. The Republic pivots on decisions like this. The Library of Congress and Capitol Hill represent the accumulated wisdom that brought us here—from the wilderness with Moses, through the philosophical debates that birthed the Republican Party, through the blood of Gettysburg and the resolve of Grant, to the Reconstruction amendments that stitched the nation back together.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, in particular, have the chance to cement their places in history not as strict literalists who enable modern subversion, but as guardians who adapt to the clear wartime-like conditions at the border without destroying the Court’s integrity. A two-part ruling could work: affirm the executive branch’s authority to interpret and enforce the “jurisdiction” clause against abuse, while cautioning against overreach. Or uphold the order’s core while leaving room for Congress to legislate further clarity. Either way, failing to support it risks handing Democrats the weapon they crave. They will wait out Trump, then pack the Court if given power, bust the filibuster, and accelerate the “citizens of the world” agenda that treats American sovereignty as an outdated obstacle.
This is not abstract. As I have written in my books, including ongoing work like The Politics of Heaven, spiritual and cultural warfare underlies these battles. The same forces that resisted abolition now resist secure borders and a coherent national identity. Slavery was a global curse divorced from humanity through moral debate, protected by American mechanisms. Christianity and Western philosophy advanced the idea of divorce. Today, the blood cults of old may be gone, but new mechanisms—demographic replacement, erosion of citizenship’s value—serve similar ends of control and destruction of God’s ordered creation under sovereign nations.
Trump’s order offers the corrective language the 14th Amendment needed but could not foresee in 1868, when the threat was resurgent Southern Democrats undermining formerly enslaved people, not global migration engineered for partisan gain. The executive order prevents the administrative nightmare of “anchor” policies that reward lawbreaking. It honors the Reconstruction Republicans’ intent to build a stable, sovereign nation where citizenship means full jurisdiction and allegiance, not a loophole for invasion by birth.
I urge the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the order. Do so knowing that Democrats play by no rules when power is at stake. They have shown their hand with past court-packing proposals and threats to undermine safeguards. Republicans must not be “too nice” here. The slow pace of constitutional amendment cannot match the urgency; evil percolates in the interim. Support the executive order, set the precedent, and preserve the Court’s role as a bulwark rather than a casualty of partisan war.
This decision will be judged for centuries. Get it right. Visit the Library of Congress, absorb the weight of history—from the Exodus to Gettysburg to today—and return to chambers ready to defend the Republic. The human intellect that built these institutions demands it. American sovereignty, the value of citizenship, and the stability of our constitutional order hang in the balance. Trump showed up because he cares. The justices must now do their part in history.
Footnotes
1. Text of the 14th Amendment, Section 1, ratified July 9, 1868.
2. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), distinguishing lawful domiciled residents.
3. Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” January 20, 2025.
4. Historical accounts of Reconstruction and the Joint Committee on Reconstruction’s intent to protect enslaved people’s children formerly.
5. Debates surrounding Democratic resistance to abolition and Reconstruction policies.
6. Oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, April 1, 2026.
7. References to court-packing proposals by Democrats in recent Congresses.
8. Civil War context, including the Battle of Gettysburg and Ulysses S. Grant’s campaign.
9. Biblical parallels to slavery and liberation (Exodus narrative).
10. My prior writings on sovereignty, spiritual warfare, and cultural mechanisms in The Politics of Heaven and related works.
Bibliography for Further Reading
• Hoffman, Rich. The Politics of Heaven: Evidence of a Vast Conspiracy Involving Giants, Disembodied Evil Spirits, and the Ancient Book of Enoch (ongoing project).
• Hoffman, Rich. The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business.
Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.
He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.
Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.
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
I’m sure I will visit the new museum that just opened in Cairo, Egypt, which cost over a spectacular $ 1 billion. I love museums and have been to several around the world. They are to me like books that tell a story about a significant moment in history, and there are always interesting things to consider in the context of a museum that assembles information to put forth a point of view. I’m sure the new one in Egypt will be fantastic. However, in that context, the Museum Center in Cincinnati, I think, is great as well, and it’s a place I like to visit frequently for many of the same reasons. However, for me personally, the Museum of the Bible is a very special place in Washington, D.C., and one of my favorite destinations. There are many great museums in Washington, D.C., including the Smithsonian and the National Geographic Museum, both of which are located there. So when President Trump called out the various woke museums like the Smithsonian as targeted to change their ways as part of his reform of Washington D.C. culture, what is he talking about? And I would point to the Museum of the Bible as the answer, as it was created by very passionate people, such as the ownership of Hobby Lobby and many others, who put forth a lot of effort to make the place really something special. But why was it so much better than the other area museums for which Washington, D.C. is known? Well, it all comes down to wokeness and how modern political spins on information provided tend to water down the experience for everyone. And people don’t like it. However, the Museum of the Bible is remarkably free of any woke influences, and this is noticeable upon entering and leaving, a place that has truly captured the spirit of what a museum should be and the impact a good one can have on visitors.
The Museum of the Bible is just a few blocks away from Capitol Hill and the Mall, home to many well-known museums. But on the way to it, when walking through the parking garage just to the west of the main entrance, a woman of color was in the elevator with my wife and me, and she noticed a particular glow of enthusiasm from us, and she asked about it. “You guys are going to the Museum of the Bible,” she asked, smiling. “Well, yes, we are as a matter of fact,” I said. “How did you know?” She was smiling, but she was a rough-looking, large woman with neck tattoos who looked like she had been living in an urban jungle for quite some time. However, she said that the Museum of the Bible was her favorite place and that she was happy for us to experience it. Now this wasn’t just a bunch of people happy about a museum dedicated to a religious experience. The Museum of the Bible is dedicated to the most significant literary achievement ever produced on earth. But it’s the way it’s presented that carries the most significance toward lasting appeal and makes it more than just another museum for most people. I was very impressed with it. It wasn’t trying to convince me of anything, as most museums saturated with wokeness do. It was just proud of what it was, and it offered to let people share in that pride without pretension. It enables you to enjoy it for all its glory without further explanation.
And that’s what makes The Museum of the Bible special: it lacks woke references. It wasn’t about being close to God or unashamed of biblical references that the outside world might attempt to impose on free minds. It was authentic and put together with a genuine love of the subject, and was just a bit more than the usual museum because of it. The displays are good, but more than that, the architecture, down to the kind of paint used, was very well put together. The people working there came across as genuinely loving the place; they weren’t just workers fulfilling mandates for a paycheck. I also noticed that the museum in the basement of the Capitol Building had just been reopened, and it was really good, which surprised me coming out of a recent Biden administration where wokeness was a big issue. It was a nice museum, and my wife and I spent a lot of time there watching votes from the House on the big screens in real time. It was put together well by people obviously passionate about the subject matter. So the common theme here is not religious, but passion. And once propaganda of a modern political nature is infused into the subject, people have a natural revulsion to it. That is one of the significant criticisms of the Smithsonian and National Geographic, which have been trying to present a Charles Darwin view of science, despite evidence pointing to many other contributing factors. It’s the authenticity of the presentation that elevates sentiment to a higher status. And woke presentations that are filled with modern political propaganda are something that people naturally reject. Evidence is what museums put forth. However, interpreting that evidence in a way that advances a political narrative, if the public is not naturally inclined to agree, is a sure way to push people away, which is what has recently happened to Cracker Barrel and many other trusted commercial endeavors that have tried to embrace woke trends. The public naturally rejects them.
The Smithsonian and National Geographic are both dedicated to science, which I love to see. But they are terribly woke and progressive. And the Smithsonian has been accused of censoring evidence, such as the massive amount of evidence that giant skeletons in the mounds of North America indicate a society that predates what many call Native Americans. The real native Americans go back much further than the Indians of modern politics, and people can smell a phony that the Smithsonian is trying to steer evidence toward a political sentiment, and that is the case that America was built on stolen land from indigenous people. And rather than let the evidence tell the story for itself, the museum tells you a fake story, and you are supposed to accept it. And museums that push civil rights issues from a Democrat perspective, when it was Democrats who were slave owners and it was Republicans who stopped slavery, come across as phony because the material presented attempts to glaze over the facts that are culturally well known. And that is why woke doesn’t work and why Trump is pushing woke behavior away from everything he can, especially woke museums like the Smithsonian. America has a rich history, and museums should tell the story without the desire to steer the public in a direction that validates certain political views. If there were giants on Earth in the form of very tall people, predating what we call “Indians,” then let’s discuss that and examine the evidence. However, suppose we propose something that contradicts logic. In that case, the public will be uncomfortable and even resistant to enjoying it, which is the problem with ‘woke’ everywhere it is presented, in music, movies, restaurants, and even museums. Wokeness as a propaganda tool was never going to work, and when we see things like The Museum of the Bible, which is wonderfully woke-free, we reward them with our time and attention.
I am pleased with the work that my new Senator, Bernie Moreno, is doing in Washington, D.C. It’s almost a shame that Trump is doing such a good job that great people like Bernie Moreno are being overlooked amidst all the goodness. But that’s a good problem to have. Bernie, in particular, has been great at keeping up the pressure on the Fed, and specifically, Jerome Powell. So, let’s answer a common question first: No, our Federal Reserve doesn’t need to be independent of politics. That is the dumbest thing perhaps ever said. That our political system needs to be separate from our fiscal policy is an entirely dumb idea that needs to be destroyed in our era. The Fed’s independence is only suitable for one entity, and that is the banks. It’s there for their protection and nothing else. And because of that assumption, banks and all financial institutions have gained way too much power in the world, and they need their teeth knocked out in substantial ways. Old man Jerome Powell and all the rest who came before him at the Federal Reserve need a reality check, and I’m more than happy to see that Bernie Moreno has been leading the charge to reform. Warren Davidson, my congressman, has also been excellent on this issue. Criticism of the Fed is a very good thing, and here’s why. I have recently received more education than I ever wanted regarding banking practices, and the more you learn, the more obvious it becomes that many of these banking types have been influenced by comfortable terms that have inspired very anti-American activity. The way the Fed was created was outside our Constitution, and the belief over the years that it should be separate from other social concerns has only benefited banks by providing a stable environment for them, even if harm is being inflicted on the people who are voting.
This idea that our elected government would not have direct control over fiscal policy is an absolute joke, but that has been the assumption. When people say that Bernie Moreno, Warren Davidson, or President Trump should respect an independent Fed, they are smoking crack. Currently, the economy is humming along nicely, with excellent job reports, energy costs coming down, and a significant amount of money being generated from tariffs. However, this activity has not had the intended effect of raising fears of inflation, as the Fed had anticipated. Inflation, generally speaking, is when you have too much money chasing too few goods. The Fed has been accused of printing too much money, which causes inflation to saturate the market. The Biden administration had too many rules, which constricted market saturation for desired goods and services, leading to inflation. Inflation is usually caused by standing in the way of human enthusiasm. Price breaks occur due to market saturation, revealing the actual price that a person is willing to pay for a product or service. You can usually figure that out if you have four fast food restaurants selling their version of a hamburger. If you have only one, they can charge whatever they want for a hamburger. However, if you have four places to choose from, then they must compete for your attention. Therefore, when a government effectively removes barriers to market entry, a tangible value can be expressed. However, when a government creates obstacles, we can say that we witness inflated values due to the restriction of that enthusiasm. And that is precisely what the Fed is currently guilty of doing.
Currently, the rates set by the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, are in the range of 4.25% to 4.5% which equates to about $600 billion of money generated for lenders. Nobody is saying that banks and other financial institutions shouldn’t pay a fair wage. Credit card companies make it extremely easy to spend money with the swiping machines and chips that we have today, where nearly every transaction for a mature adult is monitored by their computer systems, making it easy for all of us to spend money. That is a valuable service, but it is currently being done at an artificially high rate because the Fed policy protects lenders at the expense of the public, the voters. As Trump and Bernie Moreno have been saying, we are probably sitting on at least two interest rate points too high for what this Red-Hot American economy should be, holding back over a trillion dollars from money flowing into our financial system. The excuse from Jerome Powell for keeping interest rates as high as they are is to keep inflation in check. However, as it stands, the Fed has been contributing to inflation, rather than preventing it. And that has been grotesquely obvious with their sinful relationship with BlackRock. The Fed printed too much money, which was then distributed through Wall Street, as seen through people like Larry Fink, and this money was used to acquire companies, effectively taking away private ownership and control, which is why I have been discussing this issue so intensely. The foundation of communism is to abolish the concept of private property, and the Fed has been facilitating the subversion of this foundation at the bank level in very detrimental ways. And when we have tried to address it, we keep hearing that the Fed needs to be independent of political theater. No, that’s only good for one party, the banks.
Trump’s approach to the economy has been brilliant. Usually, we rarely find political figures who understand fiscal policy as well as banks do, so there is always an unfair advantage. But in Bernie’s case, and Trump’s, they have had to slug it out with banks in the past and understand the games as opposed to the typical loser politician who has done nothing else in their life but get elected to a public position. And once you know that the name of the game is to take away as much risk as possible from banks and to give them enormous power in the process, then the errors become very obvious. If we got rid of Jerome Powell at the Fed and put in someone who truly represented the Trump administration, and would bring down interest rates into the 2% range, we would see wealth creation beyond the scope of what anybody thought previously to be possible. And everyone would make a lot of money in the process, including the banks. However, this 4.5% approach is excessively restrictive and primarily focuses on exerting power over the political process and securing international financing. And no, the Fed doesn’t have to be independent of our elected representatives. We need a monetary policy in America that is representative of the people, who seek representatives to run their government on their behalf. And the Fed is only suitable for shielding international banks from the whims of political sentiment. The only people profiting from these high interest rates are the banks. However, in the process, they restrict economic output, such as having only one place to buy a hamburger, as opposed to four. And if Powell wants to fight it out to hold his term to its close, he should feel the pressure that people hate him for artificially restricting their options. Interest rates should be at 2%, not 4%. And when that happens, the grip that socialism and communism around the world have on all this centralized banking will lose control over mass populations, and a real era of prosperity can begin. And Bernie Moreno gets it, and I’m proud that he does. The Fed stronghold is breaking, as it should. And we are seeing the light on the other side, perhaps for the first time in all human history.
While we are going through a process of transition, as we consider the signing of the Big Beautiful Bill and the amount of debt being added to it to fuel extraordinary growth, which on the surface appears irresponsible, but rather, and this is the case with the criticism of Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve, everyone has to understand the attack on American culture that has taken place to grapple with the need to spend trillions of future dollars to jump-start an economy that has so many parasites in it. We have to look at what the BBB is poised to do as Trump campaign promises, such as NO TAX ON TIPS, or NO TAX ON OVERTIME, and making the Trump tax cuts permanent, to get the big picture implications. The philosophy of big spending is similar to how we would approach a military engagement. Bombs, missiles, and troops cost a lot of money, and whenever you fight a war, on any level, it is usually an inspiration for debt, because very little that is profitable comes out of war. For instance, the recent bombing of Iran, which most people generally support and attribute to Trump being very successful, and people are very proud of its success, cost around $500 million. The B2 operations cost alone is $38.85 million, the GBU-57 bombs are $280 million, the Tomahawk missiles are $48 million, and all the supporting assets are $15 million. That’s a lot of money to spend on one bombing campaign, and a prolonged war can quickly exceed all possible revenue sources and throw everyone into massive debts. That’s why I said there would be no war with Iran, because Iran simply can’t spend money at that scale to fight a war. War costs money, and if a country doesn’t have access to cash, it can’t fight a war. Looked at another way, what’s the value of a gun if you can’t afford the bullets?
I do, and I get it! Let’s get GDP growth over 3%, 4-5% at least!
And that makes Trump’s appointment of Pete Hegseth from Fox News into the Defense Secretary position that much more appropriate because in the past when we have spent this kind of money on military operations, we always had some stiff who would stand in front of a hostile socialist media and try to explain why what we did was a good thing. However, Trump understands these situations very well; his knowledge comes from many sleepless nights of worrying about how to make deals and knowing how to get the most bang for his buck, so to speak. In order to force peace in the Middle East, the threat of nuclear war had to be taken off the table. Iran had to lose that leverage point in the conversation. So Israel opened the door to a military attack, targeted at limited casualties and mostly cosmetic, to take that piece of hostility off the world stage. So Trump sent in the B-2s at the extraordinary cost mentioned, around $500 million. Anticipating the tremendous success and knowing that Iran can’t outspend anybody in a prolonged war, because they don’t have many missiles left to shoot and nobody in the world can give them new ones at the rate they would require, they had no choice but to play nice and sit at the table and talk about peace with Israel. But even all that wasn’t enough; Trump had to have someone like Pete Hegseth, who understands how the media works and can talk on their terms, to explain it all to the world appropriately. Otherwise, all that money spent on success wouldn’t mean anything in the end.
Pete Hegseth, when he gave his press conference briefing to explain the effectiveness of the B2 raid, which essentially took Iran off the map of world terrorism sponsorship, was brilliant. If that were all he did from now on, that would have been enough. Pete Hegseth was fabulous, and I think it will go down in history as one of the most fantastic explanations of military endeavor in the world. It’s not just the cost involved, but the human ingenuity that usually goes unsaid, for which Pete Hegseth was able to communicate. To have the ability to take off on a secret mission from Missouri, at the fantastic Whiteman Air Force Base in Knob Noter, just 70 miles south of Kansas City and to fly non stop to Iran on the other side of the world and drop bombs to such a precision that these guys did, then be headed home before anybody in Iran even knew to look up in the sky, was a remarkable feat. Astonishing actually. And the group landed back at Whiteman without a scratch, for which Pete Hegseth was able to provide a correct explanation. If you’ve ever been to that part of the world, you know just how far away from anything that it is. To have that kind of reach demonstrates to the world not just the monetary ability to conduct such a raid, which costs roughly $500 million every time, but also to have that kind of reach under stealth capabilities is a terrifying prospect for the rest of the world. Nobody in the world could have pulled that operation off, and when Trump did it, he took the gas out of the winds of fire from the minds of the world and their hostilities. So, yes, the money spent was worth it, even if it generated short-term debt, because the prosperity of peace will create many more opportunities for revenue.
And that same mentality is what is in this Big Beautiful Bill. I understand it; I love Warren Davidson, he’s my congressman, and I get not trusting anyone from the future to cut spending that’s done today. It doesn’t make sense under any rules of responsible spending practices. However, we are discussing military engagement against the hostile economic forces in the world that have been impacting our economy, and the scale of the cost structure is a result of their imposition. And Trump is looking to dismantle those constraints with growth, in the same way that he is attacking the Federal Reserve for foolishly sitting on interest rate hikes under the guise of prudence and patience, when boldness and spontaneity are needed for the massive growth Trump intends. The purpose of the Big Beautiful Bill is military; it is meant to cut revenue and reduce spending by exposing all those with their hands in the cookie jar, and to promote manufacturing growth among the people who do the work. The opportunity cost generated will be substantial. The deficit generated, much like a B2 attack, will be measured in dollars up front. But the intangibles that have a much higher value will be exploited for great opportunities that wouldn’t be achieved any other way. The optimism created by the Big Beautiful Bill will far outpace the actual cost in dollars, which is controlled by so many hostile agents in the finance industry, and it will change the scale for how we measure debt. So, the achievements of the passage and the first year of the Trump presidency in this second term will far outweigh the cost once the threats to our economic security are eliminated through capitalist rules of engagement. When the other economies of the world collapse, due to their reliance on socialism, communism, and Marxism, the scale shifts for all considerations. And revenue sources that cannot be considered at this point will become available to backfill any debt produced in the short term. And, just as putting Pete Hegseth in position well before he was needed, the same kind of experience has gone into the mechanics behind this Big Beautiful Bill. It’s not about money; it’s a military attack against the Lords of Easy Money and their control of the process of debt spending that is much more of a threat in the world than Iran ever was. And it’s a way to bomb them where they hide in ways that take them off the map as the parasites that they always were. And massive prosperity will follow in the wake of their destruction.
This is something that has never been resolved in America, and it has always been headed for a collision course. The question hasn’t been asked well for over a century now, because we allowed too many presidents to be picked for us by the established two-party system controlled through international finance and foreign tampering. But if you heard Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell the day after President Trump was elected, you get a sense of where it’s going. President Trump was the people’s pick, as it should have always been. But not since President Jackson has a president been willing even to challenge the authority of the centralized banks, and based on what we know about how they have mismanaged our affairs, it’s long overdue. However, this problem goes back to Alexander Hamilton and his great fights with Thomas Jefferson, who advocated for a strong federal government and a centralized bank to run the money supply. Many will say that America would have never gotten off the ground without Hamilton’s policies. However, to Jefferson’s point, Hamilton only made it so that a country of free people would always be ruled over by those who control the money supply. So, this problem was never solved in the American Constitution and has been kicked down the road to our present time. Ultimately, this is one of the reasons that Trump has so much support. However, in regard to the Federal Reserve and its creation in 1913, it might have had good intentions. Someone has to manage a country’s money supply; it can’t just be ruled over by chaos. But, there must be rigid civilian oversight of the economy by the nation’s people, which was never the intention of the Federal Reserve.
To answer the question for all the legal people out there, I’ll be happy to provide it; if there is going to be a Federal Reserve, it must be managed by the Executive Branch, a president picked by the people to do their business. A president does not just appoint someone to it to appease the people; the Executive Branch must manage the money supply. Even if the Constitution doesn’t spell it out word for word, the spirit of the Constitution indicates that the president has the responsibility for the nation’s security, and nothing makes a country more vulnerable to foreign attack than control over the money supply. However, when a reporter asked Jerome Powell if he would step down if President Trump asked him to, Powell quickly (too quickly) said no, that his term was in place through 2026, and that was the end of the story. The implication is that American Presidents are free to deal with other issues in running the nation; they can ask for more money for a military or crusade to save a turtle trying to cross the road in California. But they are designated by mandate to stay out of the money supply, and we are all supposed to sit on the edge of our seats and wait for the Fed Chairman to tell us whether or not the economy will have interest rates raised or lowered based on what the central banks decide in Jackson Hole at the annual retreat that the Federal Reserve has there to discuss these matters. As I said, the intentions for creating the Federal Reserve may have been good, but it has turned out to be catastrophic for our national security and sovereignty. Even though Trump appointed Jerome Powell during his first term, Trump’s lack of control over him quickly caused the President to consider firing him. However, there was much ambiguity over whether Trump had that right. So Trump needed another term to deal with the issue, which was taken from him with the insertion of Biden in the Presidency. In many ways, to preserve these central bank-run institutions like the Federal Reserve, they don’t want a meddlesome president asking too many questions.
But as often happens, the people who end up in these positions are bleeding-heart liberals who support globalism, and the Fed has dug itself into a deep hole that it hoped nobody would ever get into the details enough to manage. But this is the heart of the argument of Ron Paul and his End the Fed campaign that has only gained steam over the years. There has been an increasing desire to attack the premise of Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal policies and to start all over, and that is where Trump is heading. The Federal Reserve is not independent of American management; it is to be ruled over by the Executive Branch. Not just appointed, then turned loose like some dog in the field. But managed and fired should they stray away from the needs of the country they are to serve. One of the reasons that the Broadway play institutionalists advocated for Hamilton during Trump’s first term was to attempt to prop up Hamilton’s stature as a Founding Father and tear down Thomas Jefferson and his Anti-Federalist ideas. They didn’t just pick that Founding Father to feature out of thin air, they had a point to it. It’s that same preservation of institutional value as opposed to civilian oversight behind Jerome Powell’s refusal to step down should Trump ask him to once he returns to office in January 2025.
Over the last few years, a lot of smart cookies have asked the right questions about the unreasonable imposition of central banking connected to international finance that has eroded our sovereignty in the background, and they aren’t going to let the Fed stand unmanaged, as it has now for over a century. Jerome Powell and his predecessor Janet Yellen, who was the economic advisor for Joe Biden and is a contributor to the World Economic Forum in Davos, have made terrible financial arrangements with Larry Fink of BlackRock to funnel money printed through Modern Monetary Theory and washed through Wall Street 401K plans that have allowed those prominent money managers to buy up many of the largest corporations in the country which were spelled out very well by Vivek Ramaswamy in his book Woke, Inc., And Vivek is going to be a part of the Trump team in the White House. So, this issue is coming back to the table and is not in favor of the globalists. Larry Fink, through his arrangement with the Fed and Jerome Powell specifically, should have never gained the kind of power he has over people, which is quite evident if you’ve read Larry’s ridiculous letters to the CEOs of America that are worth less than used toilet paper. But the intent to run America through its money supply and force companies to hire more liberal CEOs to appease the gods at the Federal Reserve through Larry Fink and the gang of Democrat-minded thugs from Wall Street, going back to the accusations that were leveled at Hamilton, to have the nation’s money ran by speculators and gamblers for the moral impurity of womanizers and con artists, which was undoubtedly the case. Those kinds of people need civilian oversight, not just a cosmetic president, and Trump was not put back in the White House to be just an ornament. No, a real standoff will happen, and the rule of law says that the elected President must manage the money supply for the nation’s security. And for Jerome Powell, he doesn’t get a vote on the matter. If Trump wants him gone, he will go because people are backing Trump and putting him in the White House to do this job and many others. And it’s either this, as was evident by the recent landslide election against all odds, or the physical removal of people like Jerome Powell by an angry public. And I don’t think he wants that. So the way to get rid of Powell, just for those paying attention, is to exploit the irresponsible management of money through Larry Fink and Jerome Powell’s involvement in that scam, with full knowledge of what he was doing, which ultimately was criminal in destabilizing American sovereignty.
Don’t kid yourself; it is entirely possible that the reason that the political left wanted Kamala Harris was to suppress the voting results so that many Republicans would fall asleep thinking Trump was going to win. Only to give themselves a better chance at picking up some of the close-down ballots, using Harris as a throwaway for the White House. Any admissions at this point by radical Marxists who are concerned that Kamala is losing everywhere could, in truth, just be a calculated ruse meant to suppress the actual vote count to hide the massive fraud in 2020 by comparison so that Republican voters stay home and give easier congressional races over to Democrats so that they can win control of the House. Kamala Harris, especially down the stretch, has been horrible. She is essentially polling exactly where Biden was after the June debate, and there is no potential at this point of doing any better. And I think she was a calculated disaster for all kinds of reasons. But the thing to watch out for is that as Republicans and converted Democrats who are voting for Trump and MAGA, perhaps for the first time, not to be suckered by the fly-paper trap and assume Trump was going to win and to stay home on election day and leave any votes on the table. Even if Trump blows away Kamala Harris, that’s not enough. She has only one path to the White House if many crazy things fall her way, which isn’t likely. But I think that is part of the game they are playing, and they’ve known it since before they pulled Biden off the ticket. The key to this election cycle is gaining Republicans in the House and extending the current majority. Democrats, however, are hoping to gain a small majority, which has been their game all along.
There are around 22 seats up for a flip in the House this year. Of those, Republicans should gain a 6 to 7-member majority. If things go well, it could be as high as 10. If Republicans get cocky as everyone did in 2022 and assume there will be a big red wave that turns out to be just a little splash of water, then in that case, Democrats hope to gain control of Congress, ultimately putting them in charge of Washington, D.C., as a surprise for the election cycle because nobody has been talking about it. In that case, they don’t care if Trump is president or not because Jamie Raskin has already said what they are all thinking: they have impeachment papers already prepared for Trump to throw him out of office. And that is if they certify the election at all. Republicans, we learned with Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, did not have the guts not to approve the 2020 election as they should not have because of all the problems that were obvious at the time. But Democrats have no such qualms. They don’t care, and they play for blood. So if they have a majority, they will resist with everything they have to certify Trump’s win. That’s why you can’t assume that Kamala’s baffling stupidity isn’t part of the Democrat’s strategy into other offices. Nobody puts someone as dumb as her on the front line unless she is a distraction meant for voter suppression. Democrats might have hoped that her being a woman and a person of color might have been like a Hail Mary pass at the end of a desperate football game. But experience says that what they are really after is voter suppression by making Republicans think they didn’t have to vote because Trump was easily going to win.
The Senate also looks to be well in hand for Republicans. As he said he would do all along, Bernie Moreno, down the stretch in Ohio, looks poised to beat the long-time Sherrod Brown, which is alarming for Democrats. There are similar races, such as Keri Lake in Arizona, that are trending in the same direction, and all Democrats can hope to do is to get a few thousand Republicans to stay home and not vote so that the Democrats’ election fraud machine can keep tight races within the margin of cheating, and perhaps keep some of those Republican seats in the senate from holding a majority. It’s the only play that Democrats have at this point. They have been routinely rejected in just about every category over the last 8 years, and there are so many peelaways from Democrats who are now voting Republican that there is no other move for them but sheer desperation. I would advise that nobody take anything for granted and that you vote like there is no tomorrow for Republicans, no matter how comfortable you think your person is leading. As I say all the time, and now is one of those times, if Democrats can’t cheat, they can’t win. It is my offering that Kamala Harris was constantly pushed out there to look stupid so that Republicans would get cocky and assume Trump would win easily, allowing Democrats to keep it close in the down-ballot races. Nobody is put in a position as Kamala Harris has been, to be that stupid without it being on purpose.
I hope this article reaches the eyes and ears of those who can still get on the horn and ensure voter engagement stays high. I have some particular people in mind as I write this who do reach many people, and they read every day. This is what we have all been working for over a long period. This is the day. Don’t let off the thrusters one bit. I don’t have any compassion for Democrats. Vote Republican. Don’t worry about that local RINO you hate so much. We’ll sort that out later through the marketplace of ideas. They won’t last long in the world that is coming. But for now, we need every last seat in every previous state that will support the MAGA agenda for Trump. To do what we need to do as a country, we need as many MAGA supporters in as many positions as possible, from judges to mayors. Keep voter engagement high, and don’t be suckered by Kamala’s horrendous campaign and sheer stupidity. Nobody is that stupid; it is my offering that all of it was on purpose to instill voter suppression against Republicans by inspiring them to resist same-day voting trends that would allow Democrats to squeak by in a few places with low voter engagement. I don’t think that will happen. Instead, I think it will be the other way around; voter engagement will be very high for Trump and all the down ballots, whereas Democrats will be very light because they won’t be able to cheat as they did in 2020. But assume nothing until after the election. Make it too big to rig so they can’t drag out the election for days after and allow chaos to change the results. Make it evident that everything is known by 8 PM on election night. And you can do that by voting so overwhelmingly that there won’t be any doubt in the coming days and months. Don’t just talk about victory; make it happen by voting and doing so in a massive way, knowing what we’ve been through and understanding that we never want to see it again. Take back your country one vote at a time.
The brand damage that the CIA has is their fault. Based on their performance, we would all be better off without them. They are supposed to keep America safe, but as it has turned out, they are the advocates for globalism and the destruction of American sovereignty. And their dysfunction is because they don’t have proper civilian oversight. Since they don’t get a lot of their funding through Congress, but rather through black budget enterprises like the drug trade, they don’t have any accountability. And when we have tried to pin them down, they point to aliens or some other enterprise and declare that their secrecy is for our own national security. But as Trump is promising to release the Kennedy assassination report, which Mike Pompeo encouraged him not to do during his first term, after the assassination attempt against Trump over the summer of 2024, the public needs to know. I understand why Mike Pompeo didn’t want more bad press for the CIA, which he was in charge of at the time under Trump. He did a good job and didn’t like the additional bad press. But truthfully, nothing good can come out of the CIA at this point. Their reputation is terrible, and there isn’t any evidence that they are acting in a way that is best for our country. So, they have strayed way off the mark. And I get Mike Pompeo as well, I have been able to ask him directly about what he thought of the 51 intelligence agents who declared that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. He didn’t want some citizen journalist disparaging the department he was in charge of, so he just smiled politely and hoped that I would go away. But it was an honest question with no good answer, and we both knew it. There is no saving the CIA.
This all came to my mind because I was playing the new Call of Duty Black Ops Six video game, and this CIA plot is central to the game. For context, Call of Duty is one of the most significant cultural entertainments that we have in the world these days. Millions and millions of people play the game and they do so all hours of the day and night. It’s a viral mainstream activity. People over 50 may not understand that, but Call of Duty is one of those shared experiences for most adult households. But in the campaign mode for this particular one is a rogue CIA agent who has gone off the grid to expose a big globalist scandal that involves the mainstream CIA as a contributor to plots against domestic sovereignty, which is pretty serious stuff. In recent years, we have seen several movies go in the same direction, such as the Mission Impossible movies and even James Bond. People have developed a genuine distrust of all these intelligence agencies over time to the point where they are no longer helpful. Trump understands the game better than anybody in politics and how best to make America safe. It’s not with a bunch of secretive agents of doom advocating a destructive political platform when, in reality, the best weapon in the world is economic. If you control the money supply of any country or any people, then you control them much better than with direct CIA involvement toward border destruction. What you end up with instead are radicals advocating for a borderless world and globalist intentions because they don’t have to report anything to Congress or answer to anybody for that matter.
And they have been working against all the ways that the fictional game of Call of Duty portrays, not because conspiracy theorists have won the day with speculative talk, but because art has become a free expression of socially deep concerns. It also shows up in mainstream entertainment, such as Call of Duty. As I was playing this most recent one and thinking about Jack Posobiec’s new book Bulletproof, there is no statistical way that the killer, Thomas Crooks, acted alone. No mathematical analysis could be done over that event where his acting alone could be the case. Likely, as the evidence points out very well in that book that is very well researched, the FBI and CIA were behind the assassination attempt, just as they were with Kennedy and the coup against Nixon. If you do a little digging, it’s easy to see that the CIA was created in 1947, right after World War II. And since then, they have not made America a better place, but far worse. There may have been well-intentioned people in it, like Mike Pompeo. Trump may have wanted it to work. But in truth, the CIA can’t be trusted, and at this point, they never will be. They have such a horrible reputation that they will never be able to repair it. Their very creation works against the concept of an American Constitution and needs to be reconsidered. Adults over 50 who do not play Call of Duty may still want to think the CIA is salvageable, but when pop culture reveals how they feel about it, there is no going back. Millions and millions of people have grown up not trusting the CIA because the government entity hasn’t done a very good job of justifying what they do and why. And that is their fault. People’s opinions of the CIA come from their experiences.
When you read the Constitution and all the talk about standing armies and civilian oversight, you quickly realize that the CIA was created for all the wrong reasons and that its purpose in the world works against American sovereignty. So, of course, when Trump came along to make America Great Again, the CIA has been working against him, even getting caught up in the many scandals of performing the same kind of coup on Trump that they do with other leaders around the world over time. And we know that because of the 51 agents and the Russian dossier. And the Kennedy assassination report. From Watergate. But what’s worse is the many times we suspect what they do is wrong but have not been able to prove it essentially because they lack proper civilian oversight and control of the evidence that might be used against them. So, with a lack of evidence, they can make up any narrative they want, which they have done. But it doesn’t change how people think about them, which comes out in art and entertainment, such as in this new Call of Duty game. The CIA only had relevance to those around for its creation and had some sentimental hope that they were good people who wanted to do what was right. But in reality, the CIA has proven to be a bunch of anti-American terrorists who work against the Constitution, seeking to subvert it at every opportunity, and they have been controlling our elections for many years, as they have been caught doing with Trump on several occasions. And it’s not unfair for people to have an unfavorable opinion about them. However, for accountability and making America great again, the CIA is one of those departments that should be on the chopping block during the next Trump term and reconfigured into something else. The CIA was rotten from the beginning, and it has never been good. If they are not accountable to voters, they shouldn’t exist. And that’s all there is to it, especially now that their reputation has proven irretrievable.
What’s different now as opposed to any time in the past is that President Trump is talking about real and substantial tax cuts, whereas the Harris communists are seeking to perpetually raise them, with nonsense like “tax the rich” and “pay your fair share.” Well, who determines a “fair share,” these government losers are addicted to spending like crack addicts looking for the next hit. When we look at our government and talk about taxes, we are talking about paying for more government that does less for us without expecting the quality of a job done. It’s a ridiculous proposal. And as the Democrats say the same old thing in an election year and we watch gas prices drop under three dollars per gallon right before the election, hoping to sucker people into voting for these idiots one more time, what they are more than asking for is more money to get a government that serves us horribly and to like it. And to like it so much that we suspend any expectation of performance, which is appalling. The differences between one vision and the other couldn’t be more stark. Trump is proposing to remove taxes not just on tips but on overtime pay as well, which is a wonderful idea. One thing that America could really use is incentives to work more, not less. What the idiots behind COVID-19 did to our global employment culture has been ridiculous. There are still lazy people who want to work from home instead of getting back to work over the whole social distancing policy, which has turned out to be a complete and total scam created by the United Nations administrative state losers and their schemes of social detriment. Trump understands from experience that economic growth occurs when people are not penalized for doing more work.
To the mind of the socialists, communists, and general global citizen Marxists, government expansion means a job without any expectations for performance attached to it. The purpose of growing government is to develop well-paying jobs that don’t expect to actually do anything. The pay for that job comes from the government’s ability to steal the money from the people it is supposed to serve and give it to people who have done nothing to deserve it. This has always been a problem, and people have complained about it since the beginning of the concept of government. The government is resented when it uses its force to take what doesn’t belong to it for service to itself. And those lazy in our society seek government employment to protect their ability to make a pressure-free living, which shows up in various degrees of corruption throughout all human activity. When money is made too easy to get through coercion, your political system has planted and watered the seeds of corruption. Trump understands, as any real economist does that by letting people keep more of what they make, they work more to get more, and the economy does better. But most people in government, especially those who call themselves Democrats, do not grasp that concept because they see government as the way to make the most money with the least risk possible. That’s why all these billionaires find refuge in the Democrat party, because the power of government protects them from the risk of competition, and therefore, the money paid in taxes is less than the risk of going toe to toe with competition in the free and open marketplace. For all these people, big government is less risky, which settles their timid minds from the realities of social performance.
But with all our talk of revolution, the tactical approach well before we pick up arms against a tyrannical government is to defund it. With the discussions of more budgets in the current and future congress, if we do not like the government we have, then why should we continue to throw money at it? They are just going to waste it. For all the money they have given to Ukraine, the cost of our more than 35 trillion dollars in debt is, for the first time, a trillion dollars to pay for the people who have loaned us money; why on earth would we waste more money on such a ridiculous government. That is the question that losers like Kamala Harris and the Obama clan have never asked or answered. They expect that if they need more money to waste on more growth in government, then we are obligated to pay it like some slack-jawed dope-smoking loser. And that isn’t how it is. We are in control, not them. And if you don’t like the service you are getting from the government, we can more than deny those funds to the people misusing them. It’s no different than telling a crack addict that you aren’t going to give them more crack to destroy their lives with. Government is addicted to spending, and they expect us to fund that addiction. When in reality, they should be given less to force them to reduce their growth into a more manageable and efficient government. The source of the problem is that significant government types have no expectation of performance placed on them, so they don’t see money as a measure to be earned but taken by the force of government to feed an addictive personality that leads in only one direction: corruption.
Behind all the anger at Trump is that this trend culminates in a genuinely accountable government, perhaps for the first time in history. We knew there would be pushback when we talked about draining the swamp. But the level of violence that we have witnessed has been obtuse in several respects that are simply unreasonable. The assumption that people would always pay these ridiculous prices for a government that isn’t even good would never work. And when there are surprises that so many people are turning to Trump to provide a much-reduced government that asks for far less money, we shouldn’t be surprised. However, the plan never reasonably paid for all these useless government employees. We’ve seen plenty of government workers who have gone wrong; James Comey and Dr. Fauci come to mind. If you interview the typical government employee, you will generally find the same kind of lazy losers looking to inflate their egos with the power of government service without the expectation of actually doing anything. And to be paid extraordinarily high for doing it. Why would we want more people doing anything from a power position like that? That’s why a less powerful government is the only way to go. We need a government big enough to do the work of the people it serves. But too small to impose themselves on the public as an oppressive force. We are not obligated to pay a fair share, determined by those with broken minds, to continue to grow something that is a detriment. With the Trump election, the government is positioned to reduce its size dramatically, and through the election process, we have a peaceful right to do so under the need to administer those resources as a country. We do not have an obligation to support the cause of global government with all its problems of corruption and ineffectiveness. And to pay for it with all our hard-earned money. Then, we suffer the consequences of having it. No, it’s time for a fundamental change, and perhaps for the first time in history, it’s within our reach if only we dare to perform the task.
The Overmanwarrior 