By Victor Davis Hanson

Trump’s unorthodox mix of pressure, power, and pragmatism shattered old diplomatic molds—delivering a rare moment of calm to the world’s most combustible region.

What did Donald Trump do differently to obtain at least temporary calm in the Middle East compared to the failed efforts of past administrations, foreign powers, and the United Nations? Let us count ten different approaches.

1. Trump curtailed a considerable amount of Iranian oil income and its dispersal. He stopped, for the near future, the Iranian effort to build a bomb. Trump also allowed Israel to destroy Tehran’s air defenses, humiliate it militarily, and eliminate many of its top military officers and nuclear physicists. Thus, Israel’s half-century-long worries about Iranian nukes were addressed. At the same time, its stature as a military power soared to an all-time high—even if it became more isolated politically. Israel became more confident but also more sensitive to past, current, and future American military and political support—or pressure.

2. Trump allowed Netanyahu to destroy Hamas, cripple Hezbollah, and retaliate at will against the Houthis. That liberation led to general dejection among Israel’s enemies and a resurgence in Netanyahu’s own political fortunes. And that rise of Israel and the collapse of the Iranian terrorist network—the “ring of fire”— explain the greater chances for a ceasefire and possibly a peace. Trump allowed no daylight between Israel and the U.S., which, under the Biden administration, may have sent the wrong signals to Hamas prior to October 7.

So there is now no terrorist Palestinian leader, such as a Yasser Arafat or an all-powerful Hamas killer, to sandbag negotiations. Instead, Trump involved a number of self-interested surrogate Arab officials who have the money and influence to rebuild Gaza and restore calm on their own terms. Trump and Israel are not just negotiating from positions of historic strength, but they have also empowered the reasonable Arab nations to have honor and clout in Middle East negotiations in an unprecedented fashion.

3. Trump also leveraged all his benefactions to Israel by pressuring it to agree to a ceasefire. Even the optics of a strong Israeli leader conceding to Trump that there would be no annexation of the West Bank gave the U.S. credibility in the Arab world as an honest broker and yet paradoxically helped Israel’s global reputation—as well as Netanyahu’s—as a more flexible negotiator.

4. Trump used the Abraham Accords and his much-maligned tariffs, along with expanding or curtailing commercial access into U.S. markets, to pressure—or persuade—the Gulf and moderate Arab states to ensure funding for Gaza reconstruction and the continued political weakening of Hamas. There is a sense in the Middle East, as elsewhere, that when it comes to new technologies such as AI, robotics, genetic engineering, and cryptocurrencies, the U.S. will remain the global leader, and thus a nation to court and please.

5. Trump, in carrot-and-stick fashion, promised a defense protection pact with Qatar—the proverbial untrusted wild card of the Middle East. But his new quid pro quo “protectorate” also implied reining in Qatar if it should resume its customary double-dealing that so infuriates its neighbors and increasingly enrages the West. The Israeli attack on Hamas leadership in Qatar, and the signal Israel could strike again at will, terrified Qatar and drove it to seek protection in—new dependency on—the U.S.

6. Trump dealt with enemies, allies, and neutrals from a position of strength, comparative advantage, and national ascendance, unlike the appeasing and anemic Biden years or the apologetics of Obama. The successful complex bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities and the past elimination of terrorist Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and ISIS founder and thug Bakr al-Baghdadi ensured Trump was seen as more serious than either Obama or Biden ever were.

The Arab world and Israel also understood that there are no alternatives to Trump. Russia’s Syrian outpost is gone. Moscow is bogged down in a forever war in Ukraine and under sanctions. It is no longer a force in the Middle East.

Trump has confronted China and exposed its economic vulnerabilities, ensuring that the Arabs saw no outside power comparable to the U.S.

Chinese and Russian allies, like the Iranian theocracy and the former Assad dynasty in Syria, were also shown over the last year to be shrill, impotent, losing clients. At home, restoring the U.S. border, strengthening NATO, rebooting the U.S. military, fast-tracking energy development, and cracking down on crime fed the impression of an American renaissance rather than the continued Obama-Biden-managed decline.

7. Trump was entirely transactional. Unlike the Biden administration, he did not libel the Saudis, or demonize Netanyahu, or take seriously any of the past proverbial empty “peace plans” of a corrupt UN or of terrified Europeans. He had no sooner destroyed Iran’s nuclear capability than he allowed a ceremonial but innocuous “hit” on a U.S. base in Qatar and then declared he wanted to “make Iran great again.” For someone who is supposedly mercurial, holds grudges, and is reckless, Trump was careful to treat all the major parties with deference and a clean slate and offered them trade and military deals rather than diplomatese and platitudes.

8. Europe went from sandbagging Trump in 2017 to 2021 to calling him “daddy” once they realized that only Trump could save Ukraine and, by extension, Europe from Putin. The result was not an anti-American Europe trying to intrude into the Middle East negotiations or ankle-biting the U.S. To the degree that Europeans save face, it is by symbolically recognizing a Palestinian state, but not materially altering realities on the ground in Gaza. For the most part, there is now a calmer Europe, relieved that Iran was denuclearized and the Palestinian terrorists in the Middle East might no longer trigger unrest among Europe’s own restive and unassimilated Muslim populations.

9. At this 11th hour, Hamas was reminded that it has no real alternatives—as the rubble of Gaza attests. Trump signaled to Israel that it could and can still go medieval on Hamas and its remnants should they resume terrorism. Otherwise, Gaza remains a bombed-out wreck. Qatar will be pressured to kick out its conniving Hamas billionaires. The result is a stark choice: any Hamas attempt to rebuild its terrorist networks will ensure that it—and everything around it—will be moonscaped. Trump made it clear there are now no more sacred cows in the Middle East, no more safe spaces, and no more off-limits targets—juxtaposed to numerous win-win incentives that can lead to prosperity and security.

10. The Middle East was not seen as a one-off U.S. peace effort—as is usually the case. Instead, it was envisioned as a continuation of a series of prior successful Trump-led ceasefires between Rwanda and Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, India and Pakistan, Kosovo and Serbia, Cambodia and Thailand, and Egypt and Ethiopia. The Israelis and the Palestinians saw Trump’s success elsewhere and may have felt from such momentum that the same might be possible in Gaza.

And if the ceasefire holds, or at least reduces the violence, global attention will next turn to Ukraine. Expectations in and outside the Middle East will rise that if there can be quiet in war-torn Gaza, then that momentum might lead to progress toward peace on the Ukrainian border as well.

10. The Middle East was not seen as a one-off U.S. peace effort—as is usually the case. Instead, it was envisioned as a continuation of a series of prior successful Trump-led ceasefires between Rwanda and Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, India and Pakistan, Kosovo and Serbia, Cambodia and Thailand, and Egypt and Ethiopia. The Israelis and the Palestinians saw Trump’s success elsewhere and may have felt from such momentum that the same might be possible in Gaza.

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004, and is the 2023 Giles O’Malley Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and the Bradley Prize in 2008. Hanson is also a farmer (growing almonds on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author of the just released New York Times best seller, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation, published by Basic Books on May 7, 2024, as well as the recent  The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump, and The Dying Citizen

When one thinks of the Democratic Party in 2025, most don’t think of compassion or relatability. Instead, anger is the first word that usually comes to mind. 

Here are ten examples of anger on display during Trump’s second term: 

“This dude [Ted Cruz] has to be knocked over the head, like, hard, right? Like, there is no niceties with him, like, at all!” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). 

“[Trump senior advisor] Stephen Miller needs to be THUMPED! That guy’s a freaking worm. I would be willing to go to jail for – I mean, how much [time] would I get for just cracking him a couple of times?” said North Carolina congressional candidate Richard Ojeda (D). 

“Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head. Spoiler – put [Republican Todd] Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time,” said Jay Jones (D), Attorney General candidate in Virginia, who also wished death upon Gilbert’s wife and two young children in text messages released this month by a Republican colleague. Jones also referred to the children as “little fascists.” 

“Let your rage fuel you!” Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger (D) said to supporters at a rally in June. Spanberger has refused to call on Jones to drop out of the race. 

“I’m like, ‘You know what? I’m not the one. Don’t come for me unless I send for you.’ And I did not send for this malignant clown,” said House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, commenting on a confrontation he had with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) during which he told Lawler to “keep your mouth shut.” 

“The visceral response from people across the country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the healthcare system,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said after Luigi Mangione murdered United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson by shooting him in the back in the middle of Manhattan. 

“Violence is never the answer,” Warren added. “But people can only be pushed so far.”

“But…”

“There is no legacy to honor. It was a legacy filled with bigotry, hatred, and white supremacy,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said in a podcast interview after Charlie Kirk was assassinated without citing any specific quotes to back up her farcical claim. “And as a black woman and as a Muslim in this country, I refuse to join the chorus that changes the history of what is on the record from this man.”

We’re going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on his podcast, talking about Republicans. 

“Get out of my f****** shot!” exclaimed California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter to a staffer during a taped interview. The staffer tried to explain to Porter that her argument was wrong on electric vehicles, but Porter was livid despite the interview not being live.

“You also were in my shot before that. Stay out of my sho t,” Porter reiterated. 

The clip has since gone viral to the tune of millions of views. But Porter will benefit from “news” shows like The View, which somehow falls under ABC’s news department. 

Here is co-host Whoopi Goldberg somehow defending Porter with the “everybody-treats-their-staff-this-way” argument.

“I have done this, I have been rude to people…” Goldberg began. 

“But you’re not running for elected official,” co-host Sara Haines injected. 

“No, but I’ve been rude and that’s my point,” Goldberg continued. 

“And I understand, but I would expect something differently from her,” Haines replied. 

“No, she’s just another human being,” Goldberg shot back, as if this is normal behavior on display from Porter in any ordinary workplace that would get other people fired. 

This wasn’t a one-off with Porter, either. Just a day before the video of her berating a staffer made it into the mainstream, she walked out of an interview with a Sacramento CBS affiliate because the reporter, Julie Watts, actually asked follow-up questions around winning over moderate and conservative voters in her gubernatorial race. 

“I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” Porter said in attempting to end the interview over perfectly reasonable questions. 

“I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation. … If every question you’re going to make up a follow-up question, then we’re never going to get there and we are just going to circle around.”

The anger management issue threatens to turn the California governor’s race into an unexpectedly competitive one. According to betting site Kalshi, Porter’s chances of being governor were 40% just one week ago, before the CBS interview and the staffer scolding video emerged. It’s now at just 16%. Actions have consequences, especially in a social media environment. 

Democrats keep telling us that they simply need to fight President Donald Trump and Republicans harder while amping up the rhetoric. 

“We’re going to bring a knife fight to a knife fight,” declared DNC Chairman Ken Martin. 

But the party continues to plummet in the polls. A CNN poll, for example, shows that just 16% of American adults say the party has strong leaders, while just 19% say it’s a party that can get things done. Those are the lowest numbers we’ve seen for any party in polling history. 

Meanwhile, on the Republican side and especially as it pertains to Trump, the once stuffy party of country club rich guys is now the fun party. The 2024 campaign said it all: While Trump was being compared to Hitler and a fascist even after two assassination attempts, he worked a drive-through at McDonald’s, smiling and chatting up customers. And when President Joe Biden angrily referred to all Trump supporters as garbage, Trump’s team quickly secured a garbage truck in Wisconsin while the candidate dressed up as a garbage man and loved every minute of it. 

Both moments went viral in places that typical campaigns and all the TV ad buys in the world could not reach. So while Kamala Harris was doing forgetful interviews on CNN or MSNBC, Trump cast himself as the happy warrior while mocking Democrats in the process. That remains true to this day regarding the posture of both parties.  

Aristotle once said: “Anybody can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.” 

By being in desperate need of anger management, Democrats clearly need to heed this advice.

Joe Concha, Washington Examiner

Jay Jones’s vile texts expose more than personal depravity—they reveal the left’s deeper creed: that pain, not principle, is the true engine of political change.

Over the last week or so, observers—mostly on the right—have made a great deal of noise about the musings of Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General in Virginia. Jones, as I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you, openly and enthusiastically discussed killing a political opponent—the former Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates—and, more disturbingly, hoped this opponent’s children would die so that he could watch their mother suffer as she held them in her arms.

Understandably, most of the commentary on Jones and his ghoulish desires has focused on his crass exhortation to violence and the ghastly cruelty of his repeatedly expressed desire to watch children die while relishing their mother’s pain. Jones is, almost inarguably, a twisted man with a moral compass that points straight downward. That he remains his party’s nominee and that no high-profile members of that party have withdrawn their endorsement of him tells you all you need to know about the moral condition of the nation’s ruling class.

All of that said, for me, the most interesting part of Jones’s exposed texts is the justification he gives for wanting Todd and Jennifer Gilbert to suffer as they hold their dying children. When confronted about that statement, he replies, “Yes, I’ve told you this before. Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.”

Everything else in Jones’s rant can be dismissed as the overheated rhetoric of a disturbed man, the bizarre fantasies of someone unfit to mingle with normal people in civil society, much less serve them as their chief law enforcement official. It is, as I said, twisted.

By contrast, Jones’ explanation that only pain can create the necessary changes in perceptions that affect policy prescriptions is different. It is, in a sense, rational. It is an expression of purpose. Moreover, it is an expression of purpose that is so clear and so lucid that it belies the idea that the rest of his tirade is merely an emotional outburst. In other words, it demonstrates that his embrace of violence and cruelty is intentional, deliberate, and calculated. Jay Jones knew what he was saying, knew what it meant, and connected it all to a broader political philosophy: Only pain can create change among the enemy; therefore, creating pain is good, and inflicting it on one’s enemy is the sole means of achieving progress.

What’s most disturbing about this is that Jones is hardly the only person who thinks this way. He may be the only one stupid enough to put it in print (or 1s and 0s, as the case may be), but he’s not alone in believing that the application of pain to political opponents is both good and productive. Indeed, this is—and always has been—the defining motivational principle of the political left.

Now, to be clear, I think that, historically, “the left” has been largely absent from American politics. With a few exceptions (the Progressives and the radical New Dealers), even most Democrats in this country have, traditionally, been anti-leftist. The economics of Marxism never caught on here the way it did in Europe, and, for the most part, Republicans and Democrats have a shared disdain for collectivism.

At the same time, however, as I have noted repeatedly (here and elsewhere), in the West, economic Marxism largely died after World War I and collapsed completely in the 1960s. And what replaced it—cultural Marxism, the cultural left—has made far greater inroads among this nation’s governing elites. Whereas most Democrats would, even today, deny any affinity for leftist economics, many of them—perhaps a majority of them, especially among the ruling class—share the cultural left’s beliefs about current and historical social conditions and the “inequity” they embody. They are cultural Marxists and, thus, inheritors of the left’s pain-and-envy-based approach to change.

The left today is, in many ways, perfectly Nietzschean. That’s not to say that it embraces his vision or shares his beliefs (although it does both to some extent, in some cases). Rather, the left exemplifies much of what Nietzsche found loathsome and self-destructive in Western civilization.

Nietzsche disliked the left. “Socialism,” he wrote in Human, All Too Human, “is the visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be.” He continued:

Thus, its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense… it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word “justice” like a nail into the heads of the semieducated masses, to rob them completely of their reason (after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its semieducation), and to give them a good conscience for the evil game that they are supposed to play.

In this sense—and especially in his dismissal of the left’s false notion of “justice”—Nietzsche is equating socialism with religion and comparing its morality to the “slave morality” that he saw as the defining characteristic of the Western religious tradition. In short, Nietzsche viewed slave morality as the result of ressentiment, the deep-seated emotional response to powerlessness that blames an external “enemy” for all suffering and manifests as envy, jealousy, and revenge. Whereas Aristotle defined “anger” in largely heroic terms, encapsulating man’s desire to seek retribution for legitimate reasons and in response to “belittlement that is undeserved,” Nietzsche defined ressentiment as a weak emotion, the response of life’s losers to their self-inflicted suffering and the transference of their self-loathing to an external actor, a scapegoat.

For Christians, it is possible to dismiss Nietzsche’s critique of their supposed slave morality by pointing to the victory of the Resurrection and to note that the fulfillment of their conception of justice is other-worldly and, therefore, does not require the temporal moral inversion Nietzsche condemns. As an atheist, he just doesn’t “get it.” He can’t possibly get it without belief in the afterlife.

For leftists—whom Nietzsche (and countless others) saw as heretical, Millenarian Christians—such a dismissal is not so easy. His depiction of their ressentiment is largely undeniable. It is painfully accurate.

Ressentiment can, on occasion, be acted upon. In most cases, however, “slaves”—those who are noble neither by birth nor temperament—are unable to act. They wallow in their frustration and their hatred, often creating imaginary incidents of revenge and the infliction of pain. They threaten. They bluster. They try to cause small-scale suffering and infliction of pain in the hope that that pain will undermine the moral codes and empower them. In short, they believe that “only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.”

The left is, in this sense, quite small and petty, angry but impotent, and willing to undertake vain acts of vengeance instead of real acts of justice, of which it is incapable. Nevertheless, it redefines justice to serve its purposes, to enhance its self-perception, and to justify its ressentiment

Stephen Soukup, American Greatness

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday the Department of Defense is forming a new counternarcotics joint task force in order to “crush” drug cartels in the Caribbean Sea. 

Hegseth said the new task force, established at the direction of President Trump, will operate in the U.S. Southern Command (Southcom) area of responsibility. 

“At the President’s direction, the Department of War is establishing a new counter-narcotics Joint Task Force in the @SOUTHCOM area of responsibility to crush the cartels, stop the poison and keep America safe,” Hegseth said in a post on the social platform X. 

“The message is clear: if you traffic drugs toward our shores, we will stop you cold,” he added. 

The Pentagon referred The Hill to SOUTHCOM when reached for comment. The Hill has contacted SOUTHCOM for additional information. 

The formation of the task force comes as the Trump administration has launched four strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea in recent weeks. The strikes have killed 21 in total, according to the administration. 

The most recent strike, which occurred earlier this month, blew up the vessel — purportedly carrying narcotics in international waters — and killed four people, Hegseth said at the time. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday the Department of Defense is forming a new counternarcotics joint task force in order to “crush” drug cartels in the Caribbean Sea. 

Hegseth said the new task force, established at the direction of President Trump, will operate in the U.S. Southern Command (Southcom) area of responsibility. 

“At the President’s direction, the Department of War is establishing a new counter-narcotics Joint Task Force in the @SOUTHCOM area of responsibility to crush the cartels, stop the poison and keep America safe,” Hegseth said in a post on the social platform X. 

“The message is clear: if you traffic drugs toward our shores, we will stop you cold,” he added. 

The Pentagon referred The Hill to SOUTHCOM when reached for comment. The Hill has contacted SOUTHCOM for additional information. 

The formation of the task force comes as the Trump administration has launched four strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea in recent weeks. The strikes have killed 21 in total, according to the administration. 

The most recent strike, which occurred earlier this month, blew up the vessel — purportedly carrying narcotics in international waters — and killed four people, Hegseth said at the time.

By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use, have reviewed the Privacy Policy, and to receive personalized offers and communications via email, on-site notifications, and targeted advertising using my email address from The Hill, Nexstar Media Inc., and its affiliates

Trump has railed against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, accusing the leader of overseeing a massive influx of illegal drugs into the U.S. 

The president notified Congress last week that the U.S. is now at war with drug cartels that the administration has designated as terrorist organizations, offering legal rationale for strikes against vessels in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela. The first strike took place in early September. Democrats have hammered the administration over the strikes, deeming them illegal. 

On Wednesday, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro claimed the latest strike in the Caribbean Sea struck hit a vessel that was Colombian and had Colombian citizens on board. 

The White House rebuked the leader, saying it hopes the Colombian president will publicly retract his “baseless and reprehensible” statement.

“As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, representing JIATF-SOUTH & @Southcom
this is a major win for our community & will make our nation safer!” Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) wrote in a post on X, referring to the joint task force. “Thank you @POTUS & @SecWar!”

By Lars Møller

The United Kingdom is facing a confluence of challenges that strike at the very heart of its democratic legitimacy, national sovereignty, and social cohesion. At issue are, not only institutional convolutions but also growing public disillusionment with how justice is administered, how power is exercised, and how British identity is being reshaped — without the explicit consent of the people.

Pressing concerns are the erosion of “parliamentary sovereignty”, the rise of unaccountable judicial and bureaucratic influence, the consequences of unchecked immigration, the double standards in law enforcement, and the cultural tensions born from demographic and ideological shifts. As much as these developments threaten abstract principles, they offend the ordinary citizen’s basic sense of justice, fairness, and national belonging.

At the core of British democracy lies the principle of parliamentary sovereignty — the belief that the elected representatives of the people should hold ultimate authority over national policy. Yet in practice, this principle has been eroded. Increasingly, decision-making is outsourced to civil servants, regulatory bodies, expert panels, and judicial institutions that operate with limited democratic oversight. This “rule by experts” may be justified by the complexity of modern governance, but it severs the link between the electorate and those who wield power.

The result is a creeping “technocracy” in which policy is shaped behind closed doors by unelected elites. Public health mandates, immigration decisions, and regulatory changes are imposed without meaningful debate in Parliament or consideration of public opinion. Citizens rightly question: if decisions that shape our lives are made without our input, who, exactly, governs us?

The power of judges — both domestic and foreign — to overrule elected governments has become a flashpoint in this democratic disconnect. British courts, and particularly supranational bodies like the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), increasingly intervene in areas that should be the preserve of Parliament — especially immigration, deportation, and national security.

It is difficult for many to accept that foreign judges in Strasbourg can block the deportation of convicted criminals or illegal migrants from the UK, invoking vague interpretations of “human rights”. These rulings override the expressed will of Parliament and offend the basic public expectation that dangerous or unlawful individuals should be removed from the country. Such decisions feel unjust and undemocratic — a violation of national self-determination and the public’s instinctive sense of fairness.

This judicial overreach also undermines the government’s ability to enforce immigration controls and border security, further feeding the belief that Britain has lost control of who resides within its borders — and who decides.

Among the most corrosive developments in recent years is the emergence of a “two-tier policing” system — one where the law is not applied equally, but selectively, based on political ideology, social status, or identity group.

At the grassroots level, ordinary citizens increasingly feel that the police no longer serve or protect them. Across the country, crimes such as burglary, knife violence, drug trafficking, and anti-social behavior go uninvestigated. Victims are routinely told that there are no officers available, or that the crime is “low priority”. In countless cases, CCTV evidence is ignored, suspects are not interviewed, and communities are left to fend for themselves. The message to ordinary law-abiding people is clear: you are on your own.

At the same time, however, police resources appear to be readily available for other kinds of enforcement — especially when it comes to political speech, online comments, or protests that do not conform to mainstream progressive causes. Officers attend complaints about social media posts, misgendering incidents, or vaguely defined “hate incidents”, even when no crime has been committed. In some cases, citizens have been arrested or interrogated for simply expressing opinions that were once considered mainstream.

This disparity has fostered a widespread belief that there is now one set of rules for the politically favored, and another for everybody else. Consider the contrast in how protests are policed. Demonstrations aligned with fashionable or state-sanctioned causes often receive soft-handed treatment and even cooperation from law enforcement. Meanwhile, those associated with traditionalist, nationalist, or conservative causes are met with a heavier hand, surveillance, and legal barriers. The right to protest — a cornerstone of democratic freedom — appears increasingly conditional.

There is also concern over selective enforcement of hate crime laws. Offenses committed against certain minority groups are swiftly acted upon and highly publicized, while similar abuses against majority communities, such as white working-class Britons or Christians, receive less attention or are not recorded as hate crimes at all. This perception of institutional bias is beyond the anecdotal; it is reinforced by public statements from senior police officials who openly prioritize some categories of harm over others.

Such double standards damage the very legitimacy of law enforcement. The police are meant to be neutral enforcers of the law, not instruments of ideological enforcement. When enforcement becomes politicized, when justice becomes uneven, people lose faith in the rule of law itself. This loss of trust is not theoretical — it has real consequences. Citizens become less likely to cooperate with police, less willing to report crimes, and more inclined to seek justice outside the legal system.

In the long run, two-tier policing does not protect vulnerable groups — it endangers everybody. It breaks the covenant between the public and the state. It tells the citizenry that fairness is no longer guaranteed, and that your safety depends, not on your rights but on whether your views align with those in power.

Mass immigration continues to transform the social and cultural fabric of the UK. The scale and speed of recent demographic changes have raised serious concerns, not only about infrastructure and public services but also about democratic legitimacy.

Many feel that immigration policy has not been debated openly or decided democratically. Judicial interventions and bureaucratic discretion shape immigration outcomes rather than parliamentary debate or public consent. Moreover, when individuals with criminal records are allowed to remain in the UK due to court rulings, the question becomes not simply one of law, but of national security and moral clarity.

The British public has repeatedly expressed a desire for controlled, sustainable immigration. Yet time and again, that will is overridden — by courts, by quangos, or by successive governments that refuse to act decisively. The result is a population that feels ignored, powerless, and betrayed. 

Britain rightly prides itself on being a tolerant and pluralistic society. However, the balance between granting minority privileges and respecting the interests of the majority has become dangerously skewed. When institutions and political discourse prioritize minority grievances to the point of excluding or vilifying majority concerns, social cohesion is undermined.

Ordinary people — particularly in working-class communities — feel ridiculed, labeled as “backward” or “bigoted” for expressing concerns about immigration, cultural change, or the loss of traditional values. This moral condescension fuels resentment and creates a cultural hierarchy where certain identities are protected, while others are mocked or dismissed.

This dynamic is socially divisive — and politically explosive. A democracy cannot function when large segments of the population feel demonized or silenced for holding mainstream views.

The unraveling of British civil society — especially in neglected and economically struggling areas — is perhaps the most visible sign of national decay. Rising crime, collapsing community institutions, and a sense of cultural drift all signal deeper structural failures. Without strong communities, shared values, and a functioning rule of law, democracy cannot flourish. 

What many now see is not a nation growing stronger through diversity and progress, but one fragmenting under pressure — from imported ideologies, from governmental incoherence, and from elites indifferent to the everyday realities of British life. The erosion of a common culture — one born of British history, traditions, and moral clarity — leaves a vacuum that no amount of technocratic governance can fill.

The cumulative effect of judicial overreach, weak and politicized policing, unaccountable governance, and cultural disintegration is more than political instability — it is a civilizational reckoning. As it is, laws are enforced selectively, borders are porous, and many feel like strangers in their own country.

Democracy is not just about voting; it is about power residing with the people — a shared understanding of justice, national identity, and cultural continuity. When judges abroad decide who may live in the UK, when police investigate tweets but ignore theft, when violent offenders walk free while citizens are silenced, the moral foundations of the nation begin to crack.

Britain should reclaim its sovereignty and basic sense of justice — justice that is seen to be fair, proportional, and rooted in the values of its people. Without this restoration, the essence of British civilization is tragically gone.

Related Topics: Justice, United Kingdom

Two years ago, Americans anxious about the forthcoming 2024 presidential election were considering the malevolent force of an election influencer: artificial intelligence. Over the past several years, we have seen plenty of warning signs from elections worldwide demonstrating how AI can be used to propagate misinformation and alter the political landscape, whether by trolls on social media, foreign influencers, or even a street magician.

AI is poised to play a more volatile role than ever before in America’s next federal election in 2026. We can already see how different groups of political actors are approaching AI. Professional campaigners are using AI to accelerate the traditional tactics of electioneering; organizers are using it to reinvent how movements are built; and citizens are using it both to express themselves and amplify their side’s messaging. Because there are so few rules, and so little prospect of regulatory action, around AI’s role in politics, there is no oversight of these activities, and no safeguards against the dramatic potential impacts for our democracy.

The Campaigners

Beyond the realm of political consultants driving ad buys and fundraising appeals, organizers are using AI in ways that feel more radically new.

The hypothetical potential of AI to drive political movements was illustrated in 2022 when a Danish artist collective used an AI model to found a political party, the Synthetic Party, and generate its policy goals. This was more of an art project than a popular movement, but it demonstrated that AIs—synthesizing the expressions and policy interests of humans—can formulate a political platform. In 2025, Denmark hosted a “summit” of eight such AI political agents where attendees could witness “continuously orchestrate[d] algorithmic micro-assemblies, spontaneous deliberations, and impromptu policy-making” by the participating AIs.

The more viable version of this concept lies in the use of AIs to facilitate deliberation. AIs are being used to help legislators collect input from constituents and to hold large-scale citizen assemblies. This kind of AI-driven “sensemaking” may play a powerful role in the future of public policy. Some research has suggested that AI can be as or more effective than humans in helping people find common ground on controversial policy issues.

Another movement for “Public AI” is focused on wresting AI from the hands of corporations to put people, through their governments, in control. Civic technologists in national governments from Singapore, Japan, Sweden, and Switzerland are building their own alternatives to Big Tech AI models, for use in public administration and distribution as a public good.

Beyond the realm of political consultants driving ad buys and fundraising appeals, organizers are using AI in ways that feel more radically new.

The hypothetical potential of AI to drive political movements was illustrated in 2022 when a Danish artist collective used an AI model to found a political party, the Synthetic Party, and generate its policy goals. This was more of an art project than a popular movement, but it demonstrated that AIs—synthesizing the expressions and policy interests of humans—can formulate a political platform. In 2025, Denmark hosted a “summit” of eight such AI political agents where attendees could witness “continuously orchestrate[d] algorithmic micro-assemblies, spontaneous deliberations, and impromptu policy-making” by the participating AIs.

The more viable version of this concept lies in the use of AIs to facilitate deliberation. AIs are being used to help legislators collect input from constituents and to hold large-scale citizen assemblies. This kind of AI-driven “sensemaking” may play a powerful role in the future of public policy. Some research has suggested that AI can be as or more effective than humans in helping people find common ground on controversial policy issues.

Another movement for “Public AI” is focused on wresting AI from the hands of corporations to put people, through their governments, in control. Civic technologists in national governments from Singapore, Japan, Sweden, and Switzerland are building their own alternatives to Big Tech AI models, for use in public administration and distribution as a public good.

The Organizers

Beyond the realm of political consultants driving ad buys and fundraising appeals, organizers are using AI in ways that feel more radically new.

The hypothetical potential of AI to drive political movements was illustrated in 2022 when a Danish artist collective used an AI model to found a political party, the Synthetic Party, and generate its policy goals. This was more of an art project than a popular movement, but it demonstrated that AIs—synthesizing the expressions and policy interests of humans—can formulate a political platform. In 2025, Denmark hosted a “summit” of eight such AI political agents where attendees could witness “continuously orchestrate[d] algorithmic micro-assemblies, spontaneous deliberations, and impromptu policy-making” by the participating AIs.

The more viable version of this concept lies in the use of AIs to facilitate deliberation. AIs are being used to help legislators collect input from constituents and to hold large-scale citizen assemblies. This kind of AI-driven “sensemaking” may play a powerful role in the future of public policy. Some research has suggested that AI can be as or more effective than humans in helping people find common ground on controversial policy issues.

Another movement for “Public AI” is focused on wresting AI from the hands of corporations to put people, through their governments, in control. Civic technologists in national governments from Singapore, Japan, Sweden, and Switzerland are building their own alternatives to Big Tech AI models, for use in public administration and distribution as a public good.

Labor organizers have a particularly interesting relationship to AI. At the same time that they are galvanizing mass resistance against the replacement or endangerment of human workers by AI, many are racing to leverage the technology in their own work to build power.

Some entrepreneurial organizers have used AI in the past few years as tools for activating, connecting, answering questions for, and providing guidance to their members. In the UK, the Centre for Responsible Union AI studies and promotes the use of AI by unions; they’ve published several case studies. The UK Public and Commercial Services Union has used AI to help their reps simulate recruitment conversations before going into the field. The Belgian union ACV-CVS has used AI to sort hundreds of emails per day from members to help them respond more efficiently. Software companies such as Quorum are increasingly offering AI-driven products to cater to the needs of organizers and grassroots campaigns.

But unions have also leveraged AI for its symbolic power. In the U.S., the Screen Actors Guild held up the specter of AI displacement of creative labor to attract public attention and sympathy, and the ETUC (the European confederation of trade unions) developed a policy platform for responding to AI.

Finally, some union organizers have leveraged AI in more provocative ways. Some have applied it to hacking the “bossware” AI to subvert the exploitative intent or disrupt the anti-union practices of their managers.

The Citizens

Many of the tasks we’ve talked about so far are familiar use cases to anyone working in office and management settings: writing emails, providing user (or voter, or member) support, doing research.

But even mundane tasks, when automated at scale and targeted at specific ends, can be pernicious. AI is not neutral. It can be applied by many actors for many purposes. In the hands of the most numerous and diverse actors in a democracy—the citizens—that has profound implications.

Conservative activists in Georgia and Florida have used a tool named EagleAI to automate challenging voter registration en masse (although the tool’s creator later denied that it uses AI). In a nonpartisan electoral management context with access to accurate data sources, such automated review of electoral registrations might be useful and effective. In this hyperpartisan context, AI merely serves to amplify the proclivities of activists at the extreme of their movements. This trend will continue unabated in 2026.

The Citizens

Many of the tasks we’ve talked about so far are familiar use cases to anyone working in office and management settings: writing emails, providing user (or voter, or member) support, doing research.

But even mundane tasks, when automated at scale and targeted at specific ends, can be pernicious. AI is not neutral. It can be applied by many actors for many purposes. In the hands of the most numerous and diverse actors in a democracy—the citizens—that has profound implications.

Conservative activists in Georgia and Florida have used a tool named EagleAI to automate challenging voter registration en masse (although the tool’s creator later denied that it uses AI). In a nonpartisan electoral management context with access to accurate data sources, such automated review of electoral registrations might be useful and effective. In this hyperpartisan context, AI merely serves to amplify the proclivities of activists at the extreme of their movements. This trend will continue unabated in 2026.

Of course, citizens can use AI to safeguard the integrity of elections. In Ghana’s 2024 presidential election, civic organizations used an AI tool to automatically detect and mitigate electoral disinformation spread on social media. The same year, Kenyan protesters developed specialized chatbots to distribute information about a controversial finance bill in Parliament and instances of government corruption.

So far, the biggest way Americans have leveraged AI in politics is in self-expression. About ten million Americans have used the chatbot Resistbot to help draft and send messages to their elected leaders. It’s hard to find statistics on how widely adopted tools like this are, but researchers have estimated that, as of 2024, about one in five consumer complaints to the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was written with the assistance of AI.

OpenAI operates security programs to disrupt foreign influence operations and maintains restrictions on political use in its terms of service, but this is hardly sufficient to deter use of AI technologies for whatever purpose. And widely available free models give anyone the ability to attempt this on their own.

But this could change. The most ominous sign of AI’s potential to disrupt elections is not the deepfakes and misinformation. Rather, it may be the use of AI by the Trump administration to surveil and punish political speech on social media and other online platforms. The scalability and sophistication of AI tools give governments with authoritarian intent unprecedented power to police and selectively limit political speech.

What About the Midterms?

These examples illustrate AI’s pluripotent role as a force multiplier. The same technology used by different actors—campaigners, organizers, citizens, and governments—leads to wildly different impacts. We can’t know for sure what the net result will be. In the end, it will be the interactions and intersections of these uses that matters, and their unstable dynamics will make future elections even more unpredictable than in the past.

For now, the decisions of how and when to use AI lie largely with individuals and the political entities they lead. Whether or not you personally trust AI to write an email for you or make a decision about you hardly matters. If a campaign, an interest group, or a fellow citizen trusts it for that purpose, they are free to use it.

It seems unlikely that Congress or the Trump administration will put guardrails around the use of AI in politics. AI companies have rapidly emerged as among the biggest lobbyists in Washington, reportedly dumping $100 million toward preventing regulation, with a focus on influencing candidate behavior before the midterm elections. The Trump administration seems open and responsive to their appeals.

The ultimate effect of AI on the midterms will largely depend on the experimentation happening now. Candidates and organizations across the political spectrum have ample opportunity—but a ticking clock—to find effective ways to use the technology. Those that do will have little to stop them from exploiting it.

Our officers continue to risk their lives every day to arrest criminal illegal aliens despite not getting paid,’ said DHS’s Tricia McLaughlin.

Much of the federal government may be closed for business, but the men and women of ICE continue to remove the “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens from communities large and small.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are keeping up the pace even as leftist city mayors, blue state governors, and woke law enforcement officials do all they can to undermine their mission and put their lives at risk. 

The latest in-custody list of dangerous criminal aliens includes pedophiles, domestic abusers, and drug traffickers, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s latest tally, exclusively provided to The Federalist. 

“Our officers continue to risk their lives every day to arrest criminal illegal aliens despite not getting paid and the more than 1000% increase in assaults against them,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Federalist. 

“Just yesterday, DHS arrested criminal illegal aliens convicted of child sex crimes, assault, domestic abuse, manslaughter, drug trafficking, and burglary,” she added, reiterating that “under President Trump and Secretary Noem, criminals are not welcome in the United States.” 

‘Worst of the Worst’

Jose Alberto Hernandez-Alvarado. The criminal illegal alien from Mexico was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child in Texas, according to Homeland Security. 

Kemar Hamilton, a Jamaican foreign national, was convicted of manslaughter and assault in the Bronx, DHS reported. 

Walid Soualmia. The criminal illegal alien from Algeria was convicted of domestic abuse assault first offense with a dangerous weapon and intimidation with a dangerous weapon in Cherokee County, Iowa. The Cherokee Chronicle reported in 2023 that a man identified as Walid Soualmia, 35 at the time, was arrested and booked into the Cherokee County Jail on charges of third-degree kidnapping, going armed with intent, domestic assault with a weapon, and possession of a dangerous weapon while intoxicated. Soualmia allegedly brandished a .380 ACP pistol toward his wife, according to the publication. Cherokee police arrested Soualmia again in May on charges of violating a no-contact order, the Chronicle reported. 

Hugo Martinez-Jaimes. The criminal illegal immigrant from Mexico was convicted oftrying to traffic cocaine by possession in Columbus County, North Carolina.  

“Community safety is our mission! ICE in Atlanta arrested Hugo Martinez-Jaimes, a 47-year-old Mexican illegal alien convicted of attempting to traffic cocaine in NC. Together, we’re working to keep our neighborhoods safe,” ICE posted on X last week. 

Community safety is our mission! ICE in Atlanta arrested Hugo Martinez-Jaimes, a 47-year-old Mexican illegal alien convicted of attempting to traffic cocaine in NC. Together, we’re working to keep our neighborhoods safe.pic.twitter.com/eirQjXy6WA— ICE Atlanta (@EROAtlanta) September 30, 2025

William Sierra-Galeano, a Colombian foreign national in the U.S. illegally, was convicted of attempted burglary in White Plains, New York.

‘Will Not Be Deterred’

The work of rounding up criminal aliens continues even with maximum resistance from anti-ICE politicians.

In Chicago over the weekend, police officers were reportedly ordered to stand down and not assist Border Patrol agents pinned down by ICE-hating rioters. According to Fox News, on Saturday morning, anti-ICE agitators used a vehicle to ram into immigration enforcement agents and surrounded and entrapped them with 10 vehicles. An armed woman was shot at the chaotic scene. 

“Our brave ICE law enforcement will NOT BE DETERRED by the Democrats’ government shutdown or by violence against them from removing the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from our communities,” McLaughlin said in the statement. 

“We will not let political games or violence against law enforcement slow us down from making American safe again,” the assistant secretary said in a press release issued Monday after ICE agents spent the weekend bringing into custody “vicious child sexual predators, gang members, drug traffickers, robbers, rapists, and reckless drunk drivers.” 

porter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

It doesn’t matter how unpopular Democrats’ policies are, they are not going to negotiate, they are not going to compromise.

Tectonic plates are shifting in the American polity. A new dynamic is emerging, and a big part of that new dynamic is a Democratic Party and a political left that is no longer concerned with persuasion or negotiation, no longer willing to chase after popular legitimacy or win over public opinion, but is so convinced in the righteousness and urgency of its cause that it believes it must resort to force.

I’m not just referring to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, or the two assassination attempts against President Trump, or the weaponization of the federal government under Biden, or the ongoing Antifa riots in Portland, or the violent rhetoric embraced by the mainstream Democrats who still support Jay Jones for attorney general in Virginia even after he fantasized about killing Republican Todd Gilbert.

I don’t just mean that left-wing influencers like Hasan Piker and Destiny regularly call for violence against the right, or that media darlings like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ezra Klein publicly muse about whether it would be better to negotiate with conservatives, lie to them, or force policies on them against their will.

And I’m not merely thinking of rogue federal judges, like the one who gave Nicholas Roske — who now identifies as a trans woman named “Sophie” — a light sentence for attempting to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, or the parade of liberal judges who have tried to shut down the Trump administration’s agenda through a deluge of nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders, many of which have been overturned by higher courts.

It’s all of these things, but it’s also the recent pattern of behavior by the Democratic Party establishment, which seems totally uninterested in winning anyone over or engaging in democratic politics at all.

Consider the government shutdown, now nearly two weeks old. Unless you consume some form of increasingly irrelevant corporate news product, where the shutdown is being covered merely as a means of attacking President Trump, you might not even know about it. In an earlier time — before Covid, before mass immigration, before the normalization of political assassinations and violent political rhetoric — a government shutdown would have dominated the news cycle and the broader discourse.

This shutdown, by contrast, is practically a non-event. To the extent it is even registering with Americans, they oppose the shutdown. A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll this week found 70 percent of respondents are against the shutdown, and 65 percent think Senate Democrats should end it by accepting the spending bill already passed by the House, which simply carries forward Biden-era spending levels. But because the bill in question doesn’t include health care subsidies for certain classes of illegal immigrants, Democrats have decided to shut down the government.

They even think that their position is somehow getting stronger as the shutdown drags on. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared on Thursday: “Each day our case to fix health care and end the shutdown gets better and better.”

Setting aside that no one really believes Democrats have a case, much less a plan or even a desire, to fix health care, it’s a strange hill Democrats have chosen to die on, politically. As my colleague Brianna Lyman explained last week, the foreign nationals Democrats want to include in federally subsidized health care are people who under normal circumstances would have been detained and deported. The only reason they’re in the U.S. right now is because the Biden administration applied an unprecedented and legally dubious reading to a section of federal immigration law that allowed for the “parole” of certain illegal aliens only on a case-by-case basis. Under Biden, millions of illegal immigrants were “paroled” under this provision.

Not only do Democrats oppose the deportation of these people, they want to give them federal health care subsidies while they live and work in the U.S. for years on end waiting for the outcome of asylum cases that 90 percent of them will lose. Democrats, incredibly, decided to shut down the government over these subsidies — and then expected ordinary Americans to care.

This follows a curious recent pattern of Democrats getting on the wrong side of the American public on issue after issue. Another Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, released last week, shows a whopping 78 percent of respondents support deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. This includes 69 percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Republicans. Criminal illegal aliens are of course the very people Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are out there arresting. They are doing so amid protests and threats and sometimes rioting from Antifa activists, whose views on this issue seem to be shared by Democrat officer-holders — and almost no one else.

It’s actually worse than that for Democrats. The same poll found 56 percent of respondents support the deportation of all illegal immigrants, criminal or not, including 36 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans. Sixty-eight percent, including a majority of Democrats, support closing the border entirely and enacting policies that deter illegal immigration. Fifty-five percent support using the U.S. military to stop illegal immigration. A majority support using the National Guard and active-duty military to police America’s large cities and reduce crime.

These popular policies — strict immigration enforcement, closing the border, imposing law and order in crime-ridden cities — are precisely the policies Democrats cite when they accuse President Trump of imposing fascist or authoritarian rule. They don’t seem to care that most Americans want these policies and voted for Trump so he would enact them. Instead of trying to persuade Americans that they have a better plan to accomplish the things voters say they want, Democrats are rallying against those things. Their argument, to the extend they have one, is that they know better than the American people. They will tell you what you want.

This isn’t merely abstract or rhetorical. The Democratic mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, signed an executive order Monday establishing ICE-free zones. The Democratic governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, is suing the Trump administration over the deployment of the National Guard to enforce federal immigration laws in that state. No amount of polling data, or actual election results, will deter Democrats like these from resisting broadly popular policies if they conflict with their party’s left-wing orthodoxy.

The same goes for issues like transgender ideology and medical care, or unrestricted abortion-on-demand. It doesn’t matter how unpopular the Democrat position is with actual Americans, their ideological priors prevent them from reconsidering or even negotiating with the other side — even when the other side outnumbers them seven to one. This week Katie Porter, a former Democratic congresswomen who is (or was) the frontrunner in the California governor’s race, scoffed at a CBS News reporter who asked how she planned to win over Trump voters. The idea that she needed to win those votes, and that a reporter would dare to ask her about it, was ridiculous and offensive to Porter. When the reporter pushed back, Porter threatened to walk out of the interview.

Democrats, in other words, are giving up on democracy. Maybe they were never interested in it to begin with. In the same way the corporate news media has given up on reporting in favor of propaganda, Democrats have given up on persuasion in favor of coercion. Public opinion, after all, can be a great obstacle to revolution, which is what today’s Democrats are after. Back in 2008 when Obama said just days before his victory that he meant to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America, he might have been forgiven for thinking the people were on his side, that his was a popular revolution.

No one would make that mistake now. The people are not on Democrats’ side, but the Democrats don’t care. If you disagree with their revolution, you’d better watch out. They are done.

John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist

OSLO — The Nobel Committee announced that it had officially chosen Greta Thunberg to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for her pivotal role in bringing an end to the war in Gaza.

“Without her heroic and daring flotillas, this peace deal would never have happened,” said Jørgen Biørgen, the Assistant to the Vice Chair on the committee. “She braved the waters of the Mediterranean armed with nothing but Instagram, a pallet of snacks, and 42 pounds of cannabis, all to bring salvation to Palestine and hold space for the oppressed brown bodies of Gaza. There has never been a greater hero for peace. It was all Greta.”

The award ceremony was scheduled to be conducted this December in the bombed-out husk of a hospital/Hamas missile staging area, rather than the traditional venue of Oslo.

“This is ridiculous,” said President Trump upon hearing the news. “I made this incredible peace deal, and Greta had nothing to do with it. She’s very sad, very low-IQ. And her hair, she needs to find a better hairstylist. It’s so bad. Poor Greta. She’s terrible. Very unhappy person. Probably because of the haircut.”

At publishing time, the committee confirmed that Greta had won over runner-ups for the prize, Emmanuel Macron and Hamas.

The Babylon Bee

Biggs has been fighting for years to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, calling it “a disaster that never worked and only led to increased premiums across the country.”

One of the key issues underlying Biggs’ call for complete repeal of the ACA is that it has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket and is only affordable when it is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.

In a post on Facebook earlier this week, Biggs noted that “Every single Republican campaigned on repealing Obamacare,” and added, “The GOP has no excuse to cave on this issue.”

Biggs had introduced HR 114 in January 2025, having previously introduced a similar repeal bill in the 118th Congress.

If his bill were to become law and the ACA were fully repealed, employers and their benefits advisors could see a return of medical underwriting in the fully insured small-group market.

Passage of HR 114 could also bring about the elimination of the federal rule banning annual or lifetime limits on coverage for essential health benefits and the federal rule requiring plans to keep children on their parents’ coverage up until age 26.

Biggs’ bill faces review by eight different committees, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the House Natural Resources Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Administration Committee, the House Appropriations Committee and the House Rules Committee.

Critics of the ACA have long complained that Obamacare has not made their healthcare more affordable but instead has caused massive increases in premiums with those escalating costs being picked up by the taxpayers.

Republicans have taken considerable heat over the past 15 years for their failure to repeal Obamacare, even when having majorities in the House and Senate.

Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) is continuing his fight to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the introduction of HR 114, which would “completely–and responsibly–repeal Obamacare.”

Biggs has been fighting for years to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, calling it “a disaster that never worked and only led to increased premiums across the country.”

One of the key issues underlying Biggs’ call for complete repeal of the ACA is that it has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket and is only affordable when it is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.

In a post on Facebook earlier this week, Biggs noted that “Every single Republican campaigned on repealing Obamacare,” and added, “The GOP has no excuse to cave on this issue.”

Biggs had introduced HR 114 in January 2025, having previously introduced a similar repeal bill in the 118th Congress.

If his bill were to become law and the ACA were fully repealed, employers and their benefits advisors could see a return of medical underwriting in the fully insured small-group market.

Passage of HR 114 could also bring about the elimination of the federal rule banning annual or lifetime limits on coverage for essential health benefits and the federal rule requiring plans to keep children on their parents’ coverage up until age 26.

Biggs’ bill faces review by eight different committees, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the House Natural Resources Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Administration Committee, the House Appropriations Committee and the House Rules Committee.

Critics of the ACA have long complained that Obamacare has not made their healthcare more affordable but instead has caused massive increases in premiums with those escalating costs being picked up by the taxpayers.

Republicans have taken considerable heat over the past 15 years for their failure to repeal Obamacare, even when having majorities in the House and Senate.

American Greatness Staff