The United States is planning to send Israel nearly $3 billion worth of heavy munitions – all funded by you, the American taxpayer. The timing of the proposed transfer is extremely suspect, likewise the process through which it is made possible.

As top leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Sens. Jim Risch and Jeanne Shaheen, and Rep. Gregory Meeks and Brian Mast, hold, in theory, a gatekeeping power, a check and balance, on the Executive Branch. They are part of a select group overseeing the transfer of U.S. weapons to foreign countries, supposedly some of the most powerful people in Congress who are shaping American foreign policy and the outcomes of conflicts and wars around the world.

Are they really, though? Do they actually have any real power? The short answer is no; they are more like window dressing, a fake symbol of Congress’ oversight powers in American government.

Whatever power they might have has been neutered by a legal loophole, the use of which could have far-reaching consequences for all of us, and even help ignite World War III.

Read more

On the morning of September 11, 2001, everything changed.

America suffered the deadliest terrorist attack in its history. Nearly 3,000 lives were lost. Among them were 441 police officers and first responders who entered and reentered collapsing buildings, saving as many lives as they could.

In the hours and days that followed, Americans were filled with fear, sorrow, and anger. We mourned those we lost. We feared what might come next. And we struggled to comprehend the evil and devastation brought to American soil.

The terrorists intended to crush our spirit, divide us, and create chaos. Instead, we came together. Strangers helped strangers. Communities rallied. Differences faded.

It’s hard to recall a time when we were that united. Today, divided by politics, culture, and ideology, we too often see our fellow Americans as the enemy.

That division is convenient for corrupt governments and powerful institutions. When Americans are too busy fighting one another, we lose sight of who the real enemy is.

Never forget the lives taken that morning.

Never forget the heroes who faced the danger head-on.

Never forget the families who carry unimaginable loss.

But also never forget what happened afterward.

Never forget what this country looked like when Americans chose unity over division, courage over fear, and love over hatred.

Share

A 21-foot, 17,000-pound steel beam recovered from the World Trade Center’s South Tower stood just feet from Frank Siller on Tuesday. Not much farther behind him loomed the White House, the backdrop for his speech.

Over each of Frank’s shoulders, an American flag flew from a fire truck’s raised ladder. Ringing the Ellipse were photographs of the first responders who lost their lives Sept. 11, 2001.

Frank, the founder and CEO of the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, was there to introduce the president at the “Steel Across America” event — a nationwide tour marking the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The crowd was packed with military personnel and first responders, some of whom had been there that day, 25 years ago.

Frank lost his youngest brother, a firefighter, in the attacks. He took the stage to introduce the president, but first he told his own story about the tragedy his family suffered on 9/11.

He took us back to the beginning. Both his parents had died within a short time of each other, leaving his little brother, still just a kid, an orphan.

Stephen grew up to become a New York City firefighter. He was heading home from his shift to meet his brothers for a round of golf when the first plane hit the World Trade Center’s North Tower.

In an instant, Stephen turned his truck around, strapped on 60 pounds of gear and rushed toward the towers.

Read more

Hundreds of years ago, millions of bison freely roamed North America.

By the end of the 19th century, however, bison went nearly extinct in the United States. Years of overhunting, the rise of an international market for bison hides, further westward expansion, and the “Great Slaughter,” backed by the U.S. government and lasting from 1820 to 1880, reduced millions to an estimated 1,000 animals. Since then, recovery and conservation efforts have helped the bison population rebound to between 400,000 and 500,000.

Over 900 of these bison graze on a vast stretch of federal public lands along the Missouri River in North Central Montana, under the stewardship of American Prairie, a nonprofit organization whose ultimate goal is to create a sprawling wildlife refuge in the Great Plains region. The organization says that, unlike National Parks created by the federal government, it uses “a public-private partnership model that stitches together fragmented public lands through the purchase of private lands.”

As part of its effort to “rewild“ the Great Plains, American Prairie has managed a herd of free-roaming bison since 2005, aiming to increase the herd to 5,000. The organization monitors the bison for diseases and tags them for identification. They also allow many of the bison to be used for public consumption and run an annual public hunting program, which has produced approximately 75,000 pounds of meat from some 370 bison since 2016.

A crucial part of their restoration process is grazing permits granted by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that allow the organization to graze the herd on federal public lands.

But a legal fight has exploded in recent months, pitting cattle ranchers and the BLM against American Prairie and other conservation groups. The outcome could determine the fate of hundreds of bison and have sweeping consequences for the region and its inhabitants, human and animal alike.

Read more

Just one year ago, America lost one of its most influential political figures.

Charlie Kirk was not a politician. He was a kid with a dream to make an impact in the country he loved.

I attended my first Turning Point USA event in college in 2021. As a college student who wanted to get into political media but had no idea how, one of my biggest takeaways from that event was Charlie’s confidence. He was just 27 years old — only six years older than me — yet he commanded the room.

At just 20 years old, I looked up to Charlie. I knew that if he could do it, then I sure as hell could too.

He knew what he believed. He was smart, well-researched, prepared, and, most importantly, a great listener.

That is what set Charlie apart. He listened to the concerns and frustrations of young Americans, then translated them into a compelling political message that demanded respect.

He carried himself with a swagger and confidence that was impossible to ignore — head held high, unafraid to challenge anyone in the room, even those with a “higher pedigree,” despite having no college degree himself.

That confidence, combined with his ability to command a room on the strength of his ideas, was incredibly compelling.

He gave young Americans a voice in a political world that often felt dominated by an older generation still rooted in Reagan- and Bush-era politics.

Charlie charged toward debate and new ideas rather than running from them. He welcomed the challenge, even when others had not caught on. Even when establishment figures hurled insults at him, dismissed him as young, or said he had “no idea what he was talking about,” Charlie never shuttered.

He helped give young Americans a voice in a party that, at times, had refused to listen to them or seriously consider what the next generation wanted or the repercussions that could harm them.

Unfortunately, he was so effective at doing that that his life was ended far too soon. His effectiveness was a threat — his ability to reach young men and women across America, to challenge conventional thinking and to ask questions that others were unwilling to ask.

No matter what arguments surround Charlie’s death, one thing is undeniable: He deserves justice. So does his family. My heart especially goes out to his children, who will grow up knowing their father through the memories, stories, and legacy others share with them.

We got to know the Charlie they never will — and I hope they always know just how many lives he touched and how much he believed in this country.

Another thing Charlie was particularly good at was asking the right questions. The search for the truth was paramount.

I am not going to sit here and pretend I know exactly what Charlie Kirk would have wanted. But these are his own words:

“You better keep asking questions cause it’s the only thing that keeps us free.”

Charlie showed so many Americans what it meant to defend the truth and free speech in modern-day America.

He also showed us the cost of doing so.

We owe it to Charlie to keep asking questions. To keep searching for the truth. To demand justice — not only in the circumstances surrounding his death, but in the issues that will shape our country for generations to come.

Because this is bigger than Charlie.

It is about the kind of country we leave behind, the principles we choose to uphold and, most importantly, the future generations who will inherit it.

Subscribe now

For weeks, we White House reporters have had nothing to do but wait.

Tuesday marked 40 days since the last White House press briefing.

Karoline Leavitt held two after returning from maternity leave, but by her final month on the job they’d stopped altogether. When she put in her two-weeks notice, we were sure she’d want to brief one last time. Each morning, the second the White House schedule hit my inbox, I scrolled straight to the bottom, where the briefings are usually listed. Day after day: nothing.

Her last day came and went. She never said goodbye from the podium.

It’s true the president is his own best spokesperson — he takes plenty of questions. But a briefing brings a different buzz to the White House. Reporters line up hours early, claiming their spots with a stool or a bag. Three years in, and I still get butterflies that don’t settle until it’s over.

So I gasped Tuesday, sitting in the quiet briefing room, when another reporter leaned over and said, “There’s a briefing Thursday.”

Sure enough, hours before the vice president was set to take the podium, the line had already formed — a stool here, a bag there, holding places since early morning. I had to wiggle my way through the crowd spilling back into the press workspaces. A reporter behind me took pity and loudly asked everyone to make room so I could get to my seat.

The anticipation only grew as each minute past 1 p.m. ticked by. The TV reporters lined the front of the room, doing their live hits all at once, previewing what was to come.

At 1:37 p.m., we got a two-minute warning. A hush fell over the room.

But five minutes passed. Still no vice president.

“This is ridiculous!” I said, breaking the silence. The reporters around me chuckled. The last forty days, summed up in five minutes of purgatory.

And then, right on cue, the door opened and the vice president stepped up to the podium.

Read more

In recent years, the WNBA has exploded in popularity. Superstars Caitlin Clark, Sophie Cunningham and Angel Reese now dominate social media. For the first time ever, Americans actually care about a professional women’s sports league (no offense).

With this new popularity came legions of online trolls – even real-life fans throwing dildos onto courts mid-game – as the entire league became subsumed by America’s Culture War. Who would have thought the internet and anonymous social media forums would incubate vitriolic commentary?

Unsurprisingly, the WNBA has taken steps to lower the temperature. In 2025, the league launched a “No Space for Hate” campaign. It also gave players access to an AI tool that helps delete mean comments on social media.

One team, however, is going way further than a silly PR campaign or AI bots. They’re embracing a literal spook company and treating fans (and haters) as if they’re domestic extremists. The War on Terror has come home – to the WNBA, of all places.

Read more

Natural gas and electricity. Apartments and homes. Groceries: fruits, vegetables, beef, coffee. New cars. Used cars. Healthcare. Airline fares. College tuition. Apparel.

These are goods and services that help build a life. Some are bare necessities. Some are necessities that allow us to enjoy luxuries. Others are luxuries in and of themselves. But they all make life, as we know it today, possible.

We need energy to survive. Gas to go places – to work, to school, to visit loved ones – and electricity to keep the lights on at home. We need food. We need nutritious food. Food that doesn’t make us sick. Enough of it to feed ourselves and our families. We need the clothes on our backs. We need doctors and nurses, hospitals and urgent care centers. We need physicals and surgeries, chemo and root canals. We need to fly sometimes. To visit family. Attend a wedding. Attend a funeral. Take a vacation.

Across the board, they have all gotten more expensive. I remember in 2019 buying a week’s worth of groceries for myself for about $40. I was on a budget and shopped frugally (I was also looking to lose some weight), but to buy that same amount of food now, seven years later, would likely cost at least $20 extra, maybe more.

But one thing that hasn’t gotten more expensive over the past several decades is not helping Americans build or maintain a life – it’s, quite literally, doing the opposite. It is killing life, sending Americans to the morgue, and leaving in its wake unimaginable emotional wreckage.

Read more

Here’s how I draft questions for the president.

Step one: think of every topic the mainstream media is obsessed with, the questions every other reporter in the room is about to ask.

Step two: ask the opposite.

That’s exactly the process I followed Monday, when I asked the president about Flock cameras – those pesky license-plate scanners popping up across the country that have caused quite the stir well beyond conservative circles.

A White House aide texted me Sunday night. President Trump was meeting with Ryder Williams. He was the 16-year-old lifeguard who pulled a young boy from the water off the California coast. The meeting had been moved to Monday. It was originally scheduled for Friday, when I was on White House pool duty. The aide knew I’d been eyeing the event and told me to hang around in case it opened to the press. If it did, I could get in.

An hour out, it still wasn’t open. I hovered in the press office anyway. And sure enough, that familiar crackle of the intercom broke the quiet, calling us to gather in the Oval Office.

After the president delivered his opening remarks honoring Williams, he opened the floor to questions. But the president broke from his usual routine. He didn’t want questions on any topic. We were only to ask questions about the rescue.

I had none. Which was fine. I’d rather save my turn for a policy question anyway. Plus, that would make my editor happier.

So I waited as other reporters asked the teenager about the rescue, and a few asked the president about legislation to help lifeguards. Some were bolder than me and tried to slip in a policy question. He shot them down.

Eventually, the questions ran dry. Reporters had nothing left to ask the lifeguard.

I broke the silence.

Read more

Happy Friday!

This week involved some early travel troubles and, in exchange, one less video. But I couldn’t help myself — today’s video was too good an opportunity to pass up.

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Thursday posted this gem on X:

As I discussed in the video, Cruz, friend of the show, seems more focused on appeasing a foreign country than representing his own Texas constituents.

To be fair, let’s entertain the argument that a deal or “partnership” with a foreign country can absolutely be economically beneficial. Foreign investment can create jobs, grow industries, and bring money into a state.

But there has to be a caveat: transparency, safeguards and national security have to come first — especially when we’re talking about critical technologies and infrastructure.

Because overreliance on a foreign country or company can create serious vulnerabilities.

Just look at China during COVID. The pandemic exposed just how dependent the United States had become on foreign manufacturing for critical medical supplies. China was a major source of products like masks and other medical equipment, leaving the U.S. vulnerable when supply chains were disrupted.

In short… they had us in a chokehold. Frankly, no American should feel comfortable with that thought.

So, going back to Cruz’s comments, I think it’s worth revisiting an interview he gave Tucker Carlson last year — HIGHLY entertaining watch, by the way.

Carlson asked Cruz whether the Mossad spies domestically on the United States. Cruz’s response?

“Oh, they probably do — and we do as well.”

And look, there’s no great surprise there. Countries act in their own self-interest. The United States does it, and so do foreign governments.

But that raises two bigger questions: If we know foreign countries are acting in their own interests, how much influence do we allow before it becomes a threat to our own national interests?

And perhaps more importantly, how much do the political ambitions, relationships and self-interest of our own politicians influence where that line gets drawn — potentially putting ordinary Americans at risk in the process?

That’s something you would think we could all agree must be continually monitored — especially when we’re talking about foreign influence, critical infrastructure, and technologies that could have long-term consequences for Americans.

Cruz has also previously said that when he joined the U.S. Senate, he would be “the leading defender of Israel.”

And that raises an obvious question:

What about Texas?

Read more

We live in an era of technological totalitarianism. Regardless of whether we are criminals, potential threats to others, or just unwitting customers who signed up for something that we do not fully understand, we are monitored by private tech companies, 24/7. George Orwell did not even predict this world in his dystopian classic, 1984.

Over the last three decades, Big Tech giants grew and acquired power at a dizzying pace, and while most of us were too enamored by their sleek products and the ease and comfort they brought to our daily lives — the convenience of Amazon Prime shipping, for example, or the technological marvel of the iPhone — they quietly built layer upon layer of digital surveillance. They harvest our data, then use it to sell products through targeted advertising. App permissions and invisible web trackers are used to build behavioral profiles. It is as if these companies know us better than we know ourselves — and maybe they do.

Americans somewhat willingly participated in this surveillance experiment because, ultimately, they didn’t fully know what was going on behind the scenes. It is also largely invisible. You cannot see the computer code that allows a company to track your movements, and no one ever reads the fine print that gives them permission to surveil.

Digital surveillance is ubiquitous — what water is to a fish — and there is simply no way to exist outside it. You cannot be a functioning adult in the 21st century without a smartphone, for example. No matter what your occupation is, you need an email. You have to use the internet whether you work at a big Wall Street bank or a coffee shop on Main Street. Good luck trying to escape it.

But Americans might be waking up to this new reality, thanks to Flock Safety cameras, which have become a flashpoint for a new debate surrounding privacy and surveillance.

Read more

Happy Friday.

This week, we shot a video about the “Real Reason” socialist candidates keep gaining ground.

I’ve been stewing about this for the last week. And, frankly, the great $20 burrito debate helped me crystallize my thoughts on the “socialist.”

If you aren’t familiar, you should read friend of the show Will Upton’s “Definitive Guide To Burrito Inflation.”

The debate largely started when GOP commentators dogpiled on a pretty simple question: Why have food and groceries gotten so expensive?

Following Mamdani’s campaign win, affordability has become an even bigger sore spot for Republicans, who have struggled to offer a clear response—or pass legislation—on an issue voters clearly care about. Instead, they’ve often either avoided the issue altogether or insisted that things are basically fine.

And when the response to people raising a legitimate concern becomes “You’re not allowed to question that,” you’re leaving an opening for someone else to come along and say, “Actually, I have a plan.”

Which brings me back to my point about these candidates.

Establishment Democrats and Republicans—aka Burritocons—can throw out as much opposition research and media criticism as they want: “He’s a radical.” “He’s a socialist.” They can repeat those lines about people like Abdul El-Sayed all day long.

And yes, those labels may be true. But they’re SLOP.

They don’t answer the more important question: Why are people listening to him in the first place?

Funny enough, one of the comments on my Instagram reel made my point for me:

“There is nothing interesting about them. They say nothing, that is original. They just regurgitate BS that’s been being said over and over again by small minded loony people.”

To an extent, the commenter is right. There is plenty of “regurgitation,” and these candidates aren’t necessarily saying anything particularly new.

But the timing is what matters.

Compare this to 2023 or 2024, when Democrats were in power. Once Republicans take power, the dynamic changes. There is accountability that comes with being in charge. It’s a cycle—and part of why we’ve seen Democrats and Republicans go back and forth in power.

So yes, maybe El-Sayed and Mamdani are repeating ideas that have been around for years.

But when the people in power aren’t addressing the problems voters actually feel, repeating those ideas at the right moment can suddenly become politically powerful.

And that’s where this commenter—and frankly, the GOP—are making the same mistake.

When affordability is one of El-Sayed’s or Zohran Mamdani’s central campaign issues—and Americans ALSO feel that this is a real problem—you can’t simply ignore it.

Yes, it’s difficult to acknowledge when you’re the ones in power.

But whether these DSA or DSA-aligned candidates actually have a good plan—or whether their pitch is even a real solution—is exactly what Republicans should be challenging.

Instead, the mistake is assuming young people are voting for them because they’re communist or socialist.

The reality may be much simpler: you’re failing to address the problems young people care about.

Read more

President Donald Trump signed a memorandum Monday establishing a formal program that brings old-world privateering into the modern age.

Privateering is a historical practice in which governments issued letters of marque and reprisal to private ship owners and captains, authorizing them to attack, seize, and capture enemy ships and cargo during wartime. The practice was common for over 300 years and, in the U.S., was most notably used during the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The point was to disrupt enemy commerce and expand naval power without having to pay to build or maintain large standing navies.

The White House has brought this practice to the modern era. Instead of sending private ships to sea, Trump is authorizing American cyber companies to surf the internet in targeted searches of foreign enemies, representing one of the most significant shifts in U.S. cybersecurity policy.

Wake up babe the new @WhiteHouse cyber privateering construct just dropped https://t.co/cAtBYi3QM7

— joshua steinman (🇺🇸,🇺🇸) (@JoshuaSteinman) August 12, 2026

Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum, titled, “Expanding Capabilities to Combat Transnational Cyber-Enabled Crime,” enabling vetted private U.S. companies to conduct Cyber Surveillance Operations and Cyber Effects Operations against foreign Cyber-Enabled Transnational Criminal Organizations (CE-TCOs).

Under the memorandum, a CE-TCO is defined as “any foreign group that conducts cyber-enabled crime against the United States Government, a United States person, or United States interests, and that is not an institutional part of a foreign government or wholly operated under a foreign government’s direction.”

The move shifts the private sector from its role as predominantly defensive and intelligence-sharing actors to authorized participants in offensive cyber operations for the U.S. This role was previously reserved almost exclusively for government agencies. (Sign up for Mary Rooke’s weekly newsletter here!)

Monday’s memorandum builds on Trump’s March E.O. 14390, which detailed the threat environment the U.S. faces from industrial-scale global scam centers or Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs). These organizations pose a growing threat through sustained cyber fraud campaigns.

“It is the policy of the United States to protect Americans from, and harden our financial and digital systems against, these threats. The United States shall counter attacks on Americans with a commensurate response that includes law enforcement, diplomacy, and potential offensive actions,” Trump’s executive order states.

eo-14390 by Mary Rooke

Qualified U.S. companies are now authorized to conduct two types of missions against foreign CE-TCOs under this memorandum. The first is a continuation of cyber surveillance involving the collection of information or intelligence, including unauthorized access, with the express intent to remain undetected by these organizations. The other is a more active approach called Cyber Effects Operations. The government wants these companies to attack information systems, networks, and data against foreign CE-TCOs.

This won’t be open season on foreign actors, unlike classic privateering, which involved relatively independent action under a standing commission with prize courts and profit shares. Here, every operation requires case-by-case approval, continuous federal control, detailed reporting, and financial security. U.S. companies will act exclusively as agents of the federal government, not independent operators.

Read more

The hot, humid summer of socialism cooled down a couple of degrees Tuesday after Francesca Hong, a DSA darling, conceded to her more moderate opponent, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, in the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary.

Suck on that, Hasan Piker, you “Lulu Leninist.”

In all seriousness, Hong’s defeat shocked a lot of people and triggered a good old-fashioned finger-pointing war on the left.

But another big topic of debate is the polls and the pollsters. More specifically, how the polls and pollsters got the race woefully wrong. So wrong, in fact, that some online left-wingers believe the race was rigged and stolen by the Democratic establishment in the dead of night. Perhaps?

No, there are several perfectly reasonable explanations for why Hong was billed as the shoo-in candidate but still lost. One of those explanations has less to do with when and how the polls were conducted, or other problems with pollsters’ methods. It is actually evidence that Americans have discovered a chink in the armor of the Democratic socialists, and that Hong was the first to fall from arrows that slipped through this crack.

Read more

In the late 2000s and early 2010s, two major political movements formed after the taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street’s biggest banks: the Tea Party on the right and the Occupy Movement on the left.

The Tea Party helped Republicans retake the House, while GOP incumbents who had voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailouts were widely denounced. Animated by this same sense of righteous indignation, the Occupy Wall Street movement set up a protest encampment in New York City’s Financial District in September 2011, staying there for almost 60 days before police cleared them out in November.

A decade and a half later, America’s political environment feels strikingly familiar, but anti-establishment skepticism and even animosity appear stronger.

Read more

As public backlash intensified over the explosion of data centers in Texas communities, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has been forced to address the Wild Wild West his tech boom has created.

Texas spent the past several years positioning itself as the epicenter of America’s AI and data center revolution under Abbott’s leadership. Billions in private investment and state tax incentives have built an influx of hyperscale facilities, cloud campuses, and AI training hubs from some of the largest players in the tech industry, including Google and META.

Abbott has repeatedly celebrated this boom as a defining achievement in delivering jobs, innovation, and prosperity to the state without burdening ordinary Texans. Yet the reality on the ground seems to tell a different story.

Before data centers became a national discussion, their growth in Texas had largely gone unnoticed by the general public. By mid-2026, however, residents in rural and suburban Texas began organizing against noise, light, traffic, water demand, and the prospect of higher power bills.

Public opinion has turned decisively against unchecked data center expansion. A University of Texas/Texas Politics Project poll in June found that 56 percent of registered voters opposed construction of a data center in their community, with 42 percent strongly opposed. Only 29 percent supported the idea. Interestingly, opposition was strongest in rural areas (62 percent) and suburban communities (60 percent), which are precisely the places where many projects are sited or proposed. Opposing data centers is a bipartisan issue. Democrats and independents were especially opposed, but even Republicans were split, with significant resistance coming from the rural base.

The problem has become too big for Abbott to ignore, and thus he has shifted to a reactionary approach to supposedly regulate the industry. Abbott turned data center regulation into one of his top campaign promises. In letters to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), he’s laid out clear expectations to manage the growth, including reusing water and bringing their own power.

In June, Abbott directed regulators to ensure data centers pay for their own electric infrastructure and that residential bills are protected. On Aug. 3, he escalated further, ordering a comprehensive verification and audit of all data centers advancing through ERCOT’s interconnection process. Abbott’s office later highlighted specific companies—QTS, Amazon, Google, and a Chevron-Microsoft project—as examples of operators embracing the standards. One project in Henderson County even withdrew after acknowledging it could not meet them.

But Abbott’s guardrails remain more rhetorical than real, as none of these guidelines are fully codified as mandatory or enforceable requirements that apply across the entire sector.

Read more

“What’s going on today?” a White House handyman asked Thursday morning, working on the broken briefing room door.

“Nothing,” a reporter replied.

“So you’re just sitting here, waiting around for something to happen?”

“That’s the game,” the reporter said. “We wait.”

Some days I’m scheduled to be at the White House and nothing is supposed to happen. The president’s calendar is packed with policy meetings and proclamation signings, but every line is marked “closed press.” He’s working; we just don’t get to watch.

For the last few months, this has been the rhythm of my beat. I get slotted into the pool (the small rotating group of reporters who shadow the president up close) and then the day just sits there. Slow, quiet days are rare around the Trump White House. But they happen, and lately they keep finding me.

You learn to fill the hours. Reporters work the phones, chasing sources. Some pace the driveway. Others bang out a story or a social post. A few, bold and convinced nothing is going to break, slip off campus for a coffee, betting the news won’t happen the second they leave.

Thursday was looking like another one of those days. The only open-press event on the schedule was a 7 p.m. reception with Team USA athletes. A pleasant event, but not the kind of thing designed for the president to take questions. And questions are what I’m really after.

I prepped a list the moment I scanned my badge through the White House gate, then promptly forgot about it. I had reporting to do, social posts to write, videos to film.

Around 3, the president had “signing time” on his schedule. It was closed press but an aide had told me earlier there was a 50-50 chance it might open. Good enough odds for me. So I staked out a spot by the doors we use as a gathering point when it’s time to head to a presidential event. I was getting ready for something I had no guarantee would happen. But if it did, I wanted to be first in line, with the best seat in the room.

Three o’clock came and went. No call from the press office. The last I’d heard, the president’s aides had nothing. The event was still closed.

I picked at the story I was filing. 3:15, nothing. 3:30, still nothing. I gave myself a deadline: at 3:45, I’d give up my spot. That’s when the TV cameras were set to “pre-set” for the evening reception, and once they committed to that, the signing wasn’t going to open.

At 3:39, the intercom crackled to life.

Read more

Being an American comes with a basic expectation that the U.S. is supposed to be the greatest country on earth. This mentality is ingrained in our minds as a practical benchmark for measuring our standard of living.

As a product of this, we constantly ask ourselves: Am I living a life that is noticeably different from any other country? If the answer is no, we are required to spark debate and action on the issues preventing this from being true. This means that citizens should not be lectured into accepting expensive groceries, high gas prices, unaffordable housing, and a dollar that buys less now than it did five years ago as some kind of character-building exercise.

But that is exactly what some are asking of young Americans.

When the cost of ordinary life rises, and purchasing power falls, the correct American response is not stoic acceptance. We actually have no moral obligation to accept less than the absolute best economic conditions from our government. Treating economic pain as a rite of passage or complaining about it as a moral failing is a political error. Republicans who adopt that posture are repeating the exact mistake Democrats made under Biden, and they will pay for it with younger voters.

Between 2021 and 2026, the cumulative rise in consumer prices has left the dollar weaker in everyday transactions. Just because Americans have seen inflation stall in the last couple of months does nothing to change the reality that prices are still nowhere near pre-Covid levels.

Food-at-home, energy, shelter, and transportation costs have all moved higher in ways that demoralize young Americans just starting out in life. Those entering the workforce or trying to form households face rents and home prices that consume a larger share of income than the same life stage required a generation earlier. Telling them that this is simply the way things are, or that complaining about it reveals a lack of grit, does not influence anyone. It only signals that everyone in charge has decided the problem is their attitude rather than the conditions themselves.

Continuing to hold the position that young Americans are struggling because they “just don’t have what it takes to succeed” is only going to radicalize them against traditionalism and into the hands of the Mamdanis of the world. If Republicans are serious about their new crusade against socialism and communism, then they need a better answer to the cost of living issue than mocking those who are bringing attention to the very real issue.

Read more