The tax collection data shows that April was the month Trump’s campaign of tariffs started to make a real financial impact. Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs against all U.S. trading partners ranged from 10% for many countries to 145% for Chinese products. That came on top of previous tariffs, including a 25% duty on foreign cars that went into effect that month.

Trump’s stated goals for his import taxes include raising revenue to fund the government, restoring U.S. manufacturing by protecting it from foreign competition, and pressuring foreign governments to make trade deals favorable to the U.S. Economists have warned the tariffs are likely to drive up the cost of living, and risk plunging the economy into a recession.

Do you have a news tip for Investopedia reporters? Please email us at

tips@investopedia.com

Sponsored

The Right Place for Expert Financial Advice

If you’re interested in working with a financial advisor, Unbiased has you covered. They make it easy for you to find the right match by connecting you to an SEC-regulated, fiduciary advisor who is focused on your unique financial needs and goals. Best of all, getting started is easy, fast, and free. Learn more and match to your perfect advisor now.

Diccon Hyatt, Investopedia

Let’s Never Forget: Free Trade Requires Free Nations

According to a report from the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of Tues. Sept. 24, 2024, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has “made it abundantly clear that diplomacy and free trade should be America’s tools for reducing tensions, not more counterproductive heavy-handed government mandates and sanctions.”

Let’s not forget to emphatically add, that free trade among free people is not only a good thing, it’s a great thing.

However, if you’re trading with someone who lives in a country ruled by totalitarian fascists labelling themselves Communists or “Democrats,” it’s anything but free trade.

By the way, you’re deluding yourself if you don’t agree.

By its very name, free trade denotes free individuals doing the trading.

In America, at least under President Donald Trump and the better members of the GOP, you are free, at least in relative terms.

Not so for people living under the socialist regimes of Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan, or under the totalitarian regime of China.

They are not free.

They operate only with permission of their governments and on the terms set by those governments. To be clear, Sen. Paul and other free market advocates are mistaken when they uncritically accept the premise that what we have is free trade in a world with overwhelmingly unfree countries.

Oppose Trump’s tariffs if you wish, but opposing them on the false assumption that free trade is universal doesn’t comport with global harsh realities.

Trading and dealing with people in totalitarian countries is like dealing with the Mob.

It’s not that the people in those countries are necessarily bad; but their rulers most certainly can be — and frequently are.

China is not a free nation, it’s totalitarian.

Workers in China are borderline (if not actual) slaves. They work not for their own benefit, but their rulers’ welfare.

They operate only with the consent of the government.

If you reside in a free country, it’s an absurd delusion to claim you are “trading” with slaves. You are never trading with workers or businesspeople in a Communist or fascist country, like China; it’s all an illusion perpetrated by the totalitarian government.

The only appropriate policy of a free country toward a slave country’s government is to do everything possible (economically or even militarily) to undermine or destroy that government.

At the least, you don’t trade with them, because it’s no different than doing business with the Mob. It will come back to bite you. Everything Trump is doing to the Chinese government at present is morally justified and long overdue.

Before you get free trade, you must first have free nations. I’ll again state the obvious: China is not free.

Nobody would say that Ayn Rand, the author of the classic “Atlas Shrugged” and an unyielding defender of unhampered capitalism and individual rights, is opposed to free trade.

Yet . . . during the Cold War she supported a form of economic intervention against the Soviet Union even stronger than what President Trump is doing today with China.

At the height of the Cold War, Playboy magazine asked Ayn Rand, “Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or the Soviet Union?”

The author’s response?

“Not at present. I don’t think it’s necessary. I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott.

“I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia. And you would see both of those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.”

Rand understood that Communist countries are not free markets. You don’t apply the principle of individual rights to countries disrespecting individual rights.

It’s beyond naïve and gullible to think that the legal and economic status of people in countries like China are anything like ours in America.

If you want to trade with the people of these countries for mutual benefit, then you’ve got to get rid of their governments.

Or, as Ayn Rand suggested, undermine those governments enough that they’d collapse and perhaps the people will then become willing and able to embrace freedom, including free market capitalism.

With its citizenry as property of the state, nations like China have no regard for individual rights.

Obviously that structure does not comprise freedom.

The government of a truly free country merely upholds contracts and private property rights. The government doesn’t decide who gets to have what property; the government doesn’t get to decide how much is or isn’t a reasonable profit.

Once again, our nation’s 47th commander in chief is merely the messenger.

Pointing out the obvious: China isn’t fair to the U.S. China is a totalitarian Communist government. Totalitarian governments are not, and never have been, fair.

Increasingly, we let China’s government-run system:

Produce our pharmaceuticals.
Our computer parts.
All things we require for living.

Additionally, we’re letting the red giant:

Buy up our farmlands.

Remember, the Chinese government can cut us off at any time. Even starve us.

At some point, they’ll be able to overtake our military (that is, unless Trump’s policies prevail); that means they’ll threaten to cut off our internet and devices if we don’t comply.

It’s only a matter of time.

Punishing China isn’t thwarting free trade.

It’s treating a Communist country in exactly the manner it deserves to be treated.

It’s a matter of stern, strong foreign policy.

And yet again, President Trump is right.

Why?

Because he lives in the reality of global realpolitik, seeing it for what it is, unlike so many supposed leaders.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Founder of Frontpage Mag and his Freedom Center, David Horowitz, has died. According to his website:

On behalf of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, we are very saddened to announce the passing of the Center’s founder, David Horowitz. After a lengthy battle with cancer, David passed yesterday at the age of 86.

The Freedom Center’s founder and guiding force was a relentless conservative warrior who survived a previous brush with death (chronicled in his book Mortality and Faith), confrontations with the Black Panthers, campus radicals, government investigations, death threats, and hate campaigns, some led by his former friends and allies, without ever considering giving up or letting up. Nothing short of the end that comes for us all could silence his voice. He continued writing, working, and steering the Center to the very last; his final article, “The Biggest Lie of All,” appeared earlier this month.

Although he was a giant in the conservative liberty movement for over 40 years, David was raised a Marxist and was one of the leading intellectuals of the New Left movement at Berkeley in the 1960’s. But David, along with his writing partner and Freedom Center co-founder Peter Collier, eventually had a political epiphany and joined the side of freedom in the early 1980‘s. They committed the second half of their lives and work warning Americans of the dangers of the Progressives whose intellectual roots and totalitarian aims they understood better than many Leftists themselves.

David’s legacy is vast and the number of people that he inspired, mentored, and impacted is incalculable. That we live in a world today where there is a fighting chance of defeating the Leftist utopians who would enslave us is due in no small measure to the rare courage and unflagging passion that exemplified David’s work these past 40 years.

Over the years, David became something of a Saul Alinsky for the conservative movement, shaking a complacent Right out of its sleep and reinventing it as a war machine, laying out the strategies and principles for defeating the Left in too many bestselling books, articles, and pamphlets to count.

***Support The Liberty Daily and Mike Lindell — use code TLD at MyPillow.com and get up to 66% off!***

David’s message to the conservative movement was that it needed to abandon its habit of embracing noble failure and instead fight to win. Indeed, Donald Trump’s MAGA movement was shaped and guided by David and his disciples like Stephen Miller. And while his passing is an incalculable loss, David lived long enough to see his ideas and tactics become the heart and soul of a new movement to take back America.

The post on X announcing his death includes a tribute video:

On behalf of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, we are very saddened to announce the passing of the Center’s founder, David Horowitz. After a lengthy battle with cancer, David passed yesterday at the age of 86.

Mark Carney defeated conservative challenger Pierre Poilievre in Canada’s 2025 federal election to become the next Prime Minister of America’s 51st state. What exactly does he have planned for The Great White North?

Nine improvements Carney is bringing to a Canada near you:

1. Shorter wait times for assisted suicide: If you need a hip replacement, however, you might have to wait several years.

2. All parents will be required to trans their kids: There’s no better way to show solidarity with the trans community.

3. The means of maple syrup production will be seized for the proletariat: A classless society can only be established by the equitable redistribution of maple syrup reserves.

4. Change national anthem to “The Lumberjack Song” by Monty Python: Much more appropriate for modern Canada.

5. Double the size of Canada’s military to 12: It’s important for Canada to be ready in case Trump attacks.

6. Establish a war victory monument in case Canada ever wins a war: You never know.

7. More unnecessary “u”s will be added to words: In addition to “humour” and “colour,” we’ll also get “elevatour,” “authour,” and “dictatour.”

8. Will advance several exciting new hoaxes against the Catholic Church: What fun!

9. Will work closely with President Xi to bring Canada under the watchful protection of the glorious People’s Republic of China: Having a big brother is so comforting.

Wow! These are exciting. Maybe Canada is finally back.

Babylon Bee

Democrats: at least as bad as the Nazis or the Communists. With a far greater capacity for destruction. They control half the state and local governments in the country, nearly all of the media, key elements of the military, all of the Deep State agencies, and literally all of our government-subsidized education system. The Nazis, Communists and other enemies of America were homicidal. Democrats are suicidal-homicidal, and have both the power and the will to do it right to our faces. We had better step up the efforts to destroy this party, because if we don’t, the next time they seize power at the federal level, they will eradicate absolutely everything.

President Trump’s victory and subsequent efforts to “drain the swamp” are courageous and impressive, but the magnitude of the evil we are up against requires far more than DOGE or arresting a couple of low profile judges. Until or unless we treat the Obamas, Bidens, Soros family, Faucis and all the other top-level Democrats as the war criminals and traitors they literally are, I fear we are going to lose the war to save America. Don’t let it go.

*******

Big Dictator Putin vs Little Dictator Zelensky. Who the hell cares about either of them? Let them demoralize and (best case) destroy each other. President Trump is wasting his time trying to end this war. Our only obligation: Stop funding it. Translation: End the Biden gravy train (money laundering) and stop funding Zelensky’s wife’s shopping sprees.

*******

A reader reminded me of what I wrote in the spring of 2020:

“…Mandatory quarantines for the healthy is a bizarre and twisted concept. Immunologists and physicians outside the government swamp will tell you that. It’s really about self-sacrifice. Decimation of the entire world economy for the sake of a small number of sick people is not something we have done with any other illness, contagious or not…”

It was true in 2020 when almost nobody agreed with me, and it’s still true 5 years later, where only the truly dense and dishonest don’t see the truth.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Disrupter, firebrand, or provocateur – call him what you will – but in the first 100 days of his second and last term, President Donald Trump has shaken and stirred American progressives to their core. His commanding presence is not for the faint of heart, as he proceeds at breakneck speed to fulfill his campaign promises. Today (April 29), which marks the 100th day of his presidency, is cause for reflection. And unsurprisingly, satisfaction with his priorities, projects, and plans has fallen along party lines.

Tariffs, immigration, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headline the start of Trump’s second time around as commander-in-chief, and all three have caused hysteria on the left – and that’s not an exaggeration. Progressives have been reduced to firebombing Tesla dealerships, keying cars, assaulting Tesla owners, and more. The reason for this appears to be the leadership of billionaire Elon Musk, who stands at the helm of DOGE. The fact that Musk was a former darling of the left seems to be lost on them, as is the reality that their actions signal what — that they support government waste, fraud, and abuse?

At this writing, the website DOGE.gov reports $160 billion in savings from a “Combination of asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions.” According to DOGE calculations, the bottom line is a saving of almost a thousand dollars per taxpayer. That the left finds this reason to protest is unfathomable.

100 Days of Immigration Reform

The first few months of the Trump presidency have demonstrated – beyond any reasonable doubt – that the United States was never in need of additional immigration legislation to defend US borders, but rather a chief executive who had the courage to enforce the laws already on the books. Many Americans intuitively knew this, but somehow it got drowned out by all the Swamp noise. So how has the president performed thus far?

Border Czar Tom Homan, not one to be trifled with, asserted yesterday, “Well, today as I’m standing here, we have the most secure border in the history of this nation and the numbers prove it.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in the White House briefing room yesterday that illegal immigration has been down 95% in March of this year compared to 2024. She also reported that more than 85 miles of a new “border barrier” is now in various stages of construction, with “75 additional miles of temporary barriers across the southern border.” Both Homan and Leavitt maintain this massive reduction in crossings has severely limited fentanyl distribution in the United States, and deaths of women and children trying to make their way across the southern border have been almost entirely eliminated.

The progressive response to the crackdown on illegal immigration has been the rabid defense of one suspected MS-13 gang member who lived in Maryland. This sparked a coalition of Democratic lawmakers to travel to El Salvador seeking the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Their chief aim was to return him to the United States. Yet another example of tone-deaf hysteria, considering roughly three-quarters of Americans support the removal of illegal gang members from US shores.

Tick-Tock, It’s Tariff Time

Perhaps the most controversial move in his first 100 days has been Trump’s ratcheting up US tariffs worldwide. It’s a policy in its early stages that needs time to play out. And this is what has many so jittery, especially on Wall Street. Still, the president is moving forward with renegotiating long-standing unfair trade deals one country at a time. Where this change in policy lands could be Trump’s most significant victory or his most agonizing defeat. However, it is a necessary move for the future of US economic stability and the one systemic economic problem that no other president has been able to rectify. The simple truth is that the United States is bathed in red ink, mired in an untenable situation that cannot last much longer.

The economy, immigration, and government spending make up the trifecta of Trump’s first 100 days in office. Changes are coming fast and furious, and the chaos of such large-scale shifts in US policy has reduced the left to ironic and, many maintain, laughable actions. The legacy media still stands athwart these presidential priorities, bashing them daily with front-page headlines and negative political analysis.

Remarkably, the president does not seem to care. He’s acting very much like a man on a mission who will not be diverted from what he believes is right for the United States and what he contends Americans voted for when they put him back into the Oval Office against all odds. But, above all, President Trump’s first 100 days have been a wild ride, and if the past is prologue, tough days lie ahead for the status quo and those who support it.

Leesa Donner, Liberty Nation

Peaceful solution to America’s civil war? I don’t think so. Speaking for myself: I will not live peacefully under the rule of these people. They do not seek peace; they want mass coercion. They want COVID fascism times 1,000 — forever. Applied to every aspect of human life … control, control, control. By woke, crazy, always leftist totalitarians. They do not want to leave anyone alone. They want to impose their ideas of socialism, gender psychosis, racial supremacy and censorship on the rest of us. Millions of us will never, ever give in. But I know the ruthlessness of their leaders and the sickness of their minds will never quit. Looking beyond Trump, I see no solution here. Our differences are irreconcilable — and unsustainable.

Every single Trump policy is being overturned by a leftist lower court judge. Does this mean when Gavin Newsom or AOC become President that a Trump appointed judge may repeal open borders, 90 percent tax rates, censorship, state-run genital mutilation of children and gun confiscation? Of course not. The Democratic Party is not Constitutionalist. It’s a raw, unhampered dictatorship movement. Leftists lack rule of law, objective arguments or any sense of justice. We know it; and they know we know it. They simply do not care. That’s why Democrats should not be permitted to hold office. They swear to uphold the Constitution and in practice they obliterate every part of it — laughing while they do so. This should disqualify them for any office. If New York and California wish to secede, fine — let them go. If “democracy” means the right to vote away the inalienable rights guaranteed you by your Constitution, then how can you uphold the right of open totalitarians to hold office?

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

The free trade brigade obsesses over economic minutiae—they cry that tariffs will raise the cost of plastic spatulas by 50 cents! What a disaster!

The reality is that trade with China is not in America’s interests because it funds our greatest rival. Here’s how America funded China’s rise, and why tariffs will help keep America safe and free.

A Dragon Fed: How America Funded China’s Rise

Economists say freer trade benefits everyone—even trade with China. America gets cheap goods and China gets money. Win-win.

Even if we assume America benefits, which is a false assumption as proven in my book Reshore, China has clearly benefited more. For example, China’s economy has grown by an average of 8.12% since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001—about four times greater than America’s. China and America benefited asymmetrically from trade.

Asymmetry may not be a problem economically, but it is a problem politically. Why? Power is zero-sum. The stronger China grows, the weaker America becomes relative to China. As such, trade with China is also a political issue. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether cheap goods are worth surrendering America’s political dominance.

To be clear, trade is not the only way that America has funded China’s rise. There are three primary ways that America enriches and empowers China: investment, trade, and theft.

First, America invested directly in China by building factories—offshoring 60,000 factories does not come cheap. The total value of American investment in China is unknown. According to China’s Ministry of Commerce, cumulative foreign direct investment (“FDI”) totalled $2.7 trillion in 2023. Just 2.1% of this investment was categorized as American.

The reason that this amount is so low is because American investment is usually routed through intermediaries, mostly Hong Kong, Singapore, and the British Virgin Islands. This is why Hong Kong—a city smaller than Shanghai—owns 68% of FDI in China.

Not coincidentally, Hong Kong is a major recipient of FDI from the U.S. and from the British Virgin Islands—a tiny banking archipelago that is itself capitalized by the U.S. and the City of London. Because of this shell game, we cannot know the actual amount American companies have invested in China, but if we assume that FDI correlates with the relative size of China’s trade surpluses, then America’s investments total $972 billion.

This estimate is probably low. Why? China runs trade surpluses with countries that clearly contributed no investment, such as most countries in Africa and the Middle East. Given the level of economic integration, I would hazard an estimate that most FDI ultimately originated in America or the City of London, funneled through their banking havens.

Second, America indirectly funded China’s rise through the trade deficit, buying more Chinese goods than we sold. The cumulative trade deficit with China since 2001 is roughly $6 trillion, after accounting for inflation. Not only were the Chinese able to spend these profits, but they were also able to borrow against the revenue, greatly multiplying their access to capital.

Third, China has stolen an almost unquantifiable amount of American technology. In 2017, the Office of the United States Trade Representative estimated that China steals intellectual property worth between $225 and $600 billion per year, more than the value of the annual trade deficit. If we use the low estimate and do not adjust for inflation, the value of stolen technology would be at least $5.4 trillion.

Interestingly, the above numbers actually undervalue the quantity of this theft. Why?

The other vector is through Sino-American corporate partnerships. Basically, American companies that build factories in China are forced to partner with a local Chinese company, a corporate clone. The plant is staffed by Chinese workers, who are taught America’s industrial processes and how to replicate American technology.

Providing China access to American technology is actually the price to enter China’s market—American companies cannot operate in China without giving up their technological and industrial secrets. Yet they do it anyways because the Chinese make it worth their while.

In my view, the value of America’s stolen technology was priceless.

Remember, mainland China’s economy was largely preindustrial—about as productive and technologically advanced as the Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolution. Now, China has reached technological parity with the U.S. Theft allowed China to skip 200 years of technological and economic development.

America funded China’s rise. This has not only impoverished America, but it has also ended America’s superpower era. We now live in a multipolar world, bought and paid for by America’s corrupt politicians and Wall Street.

Spencer P. Morrison, American Greatneess

No University Is Above the Law 

“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?,'” President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform very recently.

“Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

By last Wednesday, reports suggested that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which determines tax-exempt status by administrative protocol, was already studying Harvard’s tax-exempt status with an eye toward revoking it.

Higher education is wavering between fear and defiance as the Trump administration employs governmental power to withhold federal funds from institutions found to have violated civil rights laws.

Over the last month, multiple government agencies have paused or cancelled billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts.

Those federal grants and contracts were bound for institutions with questionable records on civil rights enforcement, including measures to protect Jews and women, disestablish DEI programs, curb pro-terrorist activism, and abandon the use of race in admissions.

So far, almost all affected schools have entered into discussions with the relevant agencies to recover their funds.

On April 14, Harvard University, the largest federal grantee in higher education, formally refused to meet government requirements.

Upon its refusal, it was deprived of $2.26 billion in federal funds (about $7 billion more, which is granted to institutional partners of Harvard but not the university itself, is on the line but has not been cancelled), or just over one-third of its 2024 operating budget.

That’s a sizeable number, and reports indicate that Harvard has been seeking high-value financing and considering other options to make up the difference — even if simply obeying federal civil rights laws appears to be off the table.

According to some calculations, the unrestricted portion of Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment — or about 20% of the total — could easily cover the lost federal funds and leave some $8.4 billion for future purposes.

A glance at Harvard’s most recently available tax returns reveals administrative bloat and soaring executive compensation that could be trimmed.

Does a university really need 11 vice presidents, nine of whom are paid over $500,000 per year?

Lawsuits filed on the behalf of Harvard faculty members by the American Association of University Professors, and this week by Harvard itself, could at least temporarily halt the cuts if they come before the right judges.

Even if those strategies work, however, Harvard’s tax-exempt status could prove an Achilles’ heel, not only there but at any non-compliant university.

Tax-exempt status, granted under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, allows organizations with a non-profit and non-partisan charitable purpose to operate without paying taxes on income, property, or purchases.

It further allows donors to claim an unlimited amount in deductions from their own federal income tax obligations.

Harvard’s losing its tax-exempt status would make it liable for taxes on par with any for-profit corporation while also disincentivizing donations, which would no longer convey any tax benefit.

Can it be done?

Certainly.

As President Trump correctly noted in his post, the test for tax exemption is conditional and rests on the IRS’s determination of whether an entity’s purpose and operations are in the public interest, confer “public benefit,” and support public policy.

As the Internal Revenue Code makes clear, discriminatory policies “cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the ‘charitable’ concept” of the common law” or “within the Congressional intent” in establishing tax-exempt categories under federal law.

In the foundational case of Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the IRS that “government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating . . . discrimination in education” and that this public interest “substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places” on an offending institution.

The high court found that this applied even to First Amendment rights, to which both Bob Jones University and Harvard appealed to justify their policies.

Bob Jones’s loss of tax-exempt status was accordingly upheld and only restored after the university abolished its discriminatory policies in full.

In subsequent cases, authorities denied or removed tax-exempt status from multiple organizations that had discriminatory membership policies, operated racist missions, conducted activities intended to undermine public order, or showed partisan political bias.

In Bob Jones, moreover, the Supreme Court purposely left the scope of violations broad, to the extent that having just one discriminatory program or policy among many, even at a large and complex institution, is sufficient to merit disqualification from tax-exempt status.

Earlier this month, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a Texas-based non-profit that monitors the public sphere for instances of unlawful discrimination, filed a complaint with the IRS against the Gates Foundation, which reportedly holds over $75 billion in assets, because one of its scholarship programs was closed to whites.

Very soon after AAER’s president Ed Blum publicized the complaint and the legal theory behind it in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, the Gates Foundation opened eligibility to all races, likely saving its tax-exempt status.

But as Harvard may well find out, the threat to its tax-exempt status is all too clear and can readily be used against it.

No university is above the law.

Paul du Quenoy is President of the Palm Beach Freedom Institute. Read Paul du Quenoy’s Reports — More Here. 

The race to select the next UN Secretary-General of the United Nations is well underway. All the frontrunners are women, and they are well-known abortion advocates.

Western-backed feminist organizations are lobbying countries to select a woman to the lead the United Nations when the term of the current UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres ends next year. At the recent UN Commission on the Status of Women, forty-five member states agreed that the UN Security Council should “consider nominating women as candidates.” The final candidate must then be approved by the General Assembly.

Here is a quick look at the top three candidates the UN Security Council is being asked to consider for the position and where they stand on abortion and gender ideology.

The undisputed front-runner for the UN’s top job is Michelle Bachelet, a two-term president of Chile who led the UN agency for Women as well as the UN human rights office. She is a known champion of abortion rights and gender ideology and has been described as the Hillary Clinton of Latin America.

As president of Chile, she successfully shepherded a multi-year campaign to legalize abortion in Chile. As head of UN Women and the highest UN human rights official she streamlined abortion promotion in the UN bureaucracy as well as the promotion of transgender rights, including self-identification.

She issued a scathing attack against the U.S. Supreme Court after the 2022 Dobbs decision. In that case the court declared abortion was an issue that each American state should legislate democratically and not a constitutional right. Bachelet called the decision a “huge blow to women’s human rights and gender equality” and said that “abortion is firmly rooted in international human rights law and is at the core of women and girls’ autonomy.”

Given her track-record Bachelet is the preferred candidate of the feminist left. Bachelet has failed to address human rights abuses in China, likely a calculated move necessary to avoid a veto from China in the Security Council. Even leftwing supporters called her work there “whitewashing.”

The runner-up is Mia Mottley, the current prime minister of Barbados. Barbados is one of the few countries in the Caribbean that allows abortion. She has expressed support for LGBT issues and her government is working with EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to expand access to reproductive health commodities, including abortion and contraception, in the Caribbean and Africa.

Another significant candidate with experience promoting abortion through the United Nations is Rebecca Grynspan. The former vice-president of Costa Rica has held several leadership positions in the UN bureaucracy. As assistant UN Secretary-General she interfered in the internal political debates about abortion in Nicaragua. She openly opposed a law to protect children in the womb under all circumstances.

The candidates are being discussed earlier than in previous campaigns for Secretary-General. This is by design. A vote on the next Secretary General is not expected in the General Assembly until October 2026. Feminists have openly said they want to put pressure on the Security Council to nominate a woman. Formal and informal interviews in the Security Council and General Assembly will likely take place next spring.

The Secretary General is picked by region. It is now Latin America’s turn to choose.

Given her track-record Bachelet is the preferred candidate of the feminist left. Bachelet has failed to address human rights abuses in China, likely a calculated move necessary to avoid a veto from China in the Security Council. Even leftwing supporters called her work there “whitewashing.”

The runner-up is Mia Mottley, the current prime minister of Barbados. Barbados is one of the few countries in the Caribbean that allows abortion. She has expressed support for LGBT issues and her government is working with EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to expand access to reproductive health commodities, including abortion and contraception, in the Caribbean and Africa.

Another significant candidate with experience promoting abortion through the United Nations is Rebecca Grynspan. The former vice-president of Costa Rica has held several leadership positions in the UN bureaucracy. As assistant UN Secretary-General she interfered in the internal political debates about abortion in Nicaragua. She openly opposed a law to protect children in the womb under all circumstances.

The candidates are being discussed earlier than in previous campaigns for Secretary-General. This is by design. A vote on the next Secretary General is not expected in the General Assembly until October 2026. Feminists have openly said they want to put pressure on the Security Council to nominate a woman. Formal and informal interviews in the Security Council and General Assembly will likely take place next spring.

The Secretary General is picked by region. It is now Latin America’s turn to choose.

Given her track-record Bachelet is the preferred candidate of the feminist left. Bachelet has failed to address human rights abuses in China, likely a calculated move necessary to avoid a veto from China in the Security Council. Even leftwing supporters called her work there “whitewashing.”

The runner-up is Mia Mottley, the current prime minister of Barbados. Barbados is one of the few countries in the Caribbean that allows abortion. She has expressed support for LGBT issues and her government is working with EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to expand access to reproductive health commodities, including abortion and contraception, in the Caribbean and Africa.

Another significant candidate with experience promoting abortion through the United Nations is Rebecca Grynspan. The former vice-president of Costa Rica has held several leadership positions in the UN bureaucracy. As assistant UN Secretary-General she interfered in the internal political debates about abortion in Nicaragua. She openly opposed a law to protect children in the womb under all circumstances.

The candidates are being discussed earlier than in previous campaigns for Secretary-General. This is by design. A vote on the next Secretary General is not expected in the General Assembly until October 2026. Feminists have openly said they want to put pressure on the Security Council to nominate a woman. Formal and informal interviews in the Security Council and General Assembly will likely take place next spring.

The Secretary General is picked by region. It is now Latin America’s turn to choose.

Given her track-record Bachelet is the preferred candidate of the feminist left. Bachelet has failed to address human rights abuses in China, likely a calculated move necessary to avoid a veto from China in the Security Council. Even leftwing supporters called her work there “whitewashing.”

The runner-up is Mia Mottley, the current prime minister of Barbados. Barbados is one of the few countries in the Caribbean that allows abortion. She has expressed support for LGBT issues and her government is working with EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to expand access to reproductive health commodities, including abortion and contraception, in the Caribbean and Africa.

Another significant candidate with experience promoting abortion through the United Nations is Rebecca Grynspan. The former vice-president of Costa Rica has held several leadership positions in the UN bureaucracy. As assistant UN Secretary-General she interfered in the internal political debates about abortion in Nicaragua. She openly opposed a law to protect children in the womb under all circumstances.

The candidates are being discussed earlier than in previous campaigns for Secretary-General. This is by design. A vote on the next Secretary General is not expected in the General Assembly until October 2026. Feminists have openly said they want to put pressure on the Security Council to nominate a woman. Formal and informal interviews in the Security Council and General Assembly will likely take place next spring.

The Secretary General is picked by region. It is now Latin America’s turn to choose.