THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Chinese President Xi Jinping may not need to launch a full-scale invasion of Taiwan to put the island, the U.S. and the global tech economy in crisis, according to national security experts. Some advisers to President Donald Trump reportedly fear Xi could move against Taiwan within the next five years following Trump’s recent summit with the Chinese leader, Axios reported. One Trump adviser told the outlet the summit signaled a “much higher likelihood” that Taiwan could be “on the table” during that window, warning that the highly vulnerable U.S. semiconductor supply chain would not be ready for such a crisis. National security experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that this is simply not the reality on the ground. “This is not accurate,” national security expert Brandon Weichert told the DCNF. “There is a wing of our intelligence community, and also weirdly in Israel, that really wants to gin up hostilities between us and China. There’s a litany of reasons for this, some of them are legitimate, some of them are ridiculous, but the bottom line is … simply no, this is not a real thing.” “I believe it’s unlikely that China will invade Taiwan in the next five years,” Adam Savit, director of the China Policy Initiative at the America First Policy Institute, told the DCNF. “An amphibious invasion of that scale is incredibly difficult, and the political risks to the CCP regime are incredibly high.” Trump had several goals for the U.S.-China summit, including assistance from China in opening the Strait of Hormuz, the export of critical minerals from China to the United States, the export of soybeans from the United States to China and Chinese purchases of U.S. aircraft from companies such as Boeing, Weichert told the DCNF. He said that all of those goals fell through. Despite the unlikely nature of an armed conflict with China, Savit told the DCNF that it is better to be safe than sorry. “Taiwan is the keystone of the First Island Chain which prevents unimpeded PLA access to the Pacific,” Savit told the DCNF. “Japan and the Philippines anchor the island chain on the north and south, and Washington should deepen their integration into theater defense. It is critical that our allies continue to increase military spending and strategic deployments. Japan has been a model ally in independently increasing its defense spending to 2% and soon 3%.” ‘This Is Not Serious’ The Pentagon told the DCNF that it is committed to defending against Chinese aggression in the region. “The Department [of War] remains focused on preserving peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific,” a War Department official told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We are building, posturing, and sustaining a strong denial defense along the First Island Chain to deter aggression and defend vital U.S. interests in the region. At the same time, we support maintaining open lines of communication with China to reduce risk, manage crises, and prevent miscalculation. We don’t comment on hypothetical scenarios.” “This is not serious intelligence work,” Weichert told the DCNF. “This is a political assessment that’s being put in Axios to shape opinion in the United States, because in my opinion, the United States was humiliated by the President’s recent trip to Beijing; it was not a diplomatic victory for America.” China is building its military capability to seize Taiwan and deter U.S. intervention, according to the 2026 Annual Threat Assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Beijing has ramped up its show of naval force around Taiwan in recent weeks, with Taiwanese officials spotting over 100 Chinese navy and coast guard vessels shortly after the Trump-Xi summit’s conclusion, according to multiple reports. Trump recently revealed plans to speak with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, a leader-to-leader dialogue that has not occurred since 1979. “The IC assesses that Chinese leaders do not currently plan to execute an invasion of Taiwan in 2027, nor do they have a fixed timeline for achieving unification,” the assessment states. “However, China publicly insists that unification with Taiwan is required to achieve its goal of ‘national rejuvenation’ by 2049—the 100th year anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). ” Some experts warned that Taiwan and the United States should also prepare for a digital war, rather than just a physical one. “My concern is our … semiconductor supply chain and other supply chains of critical materials,” Christopher Lay, a former Reagan-era Pentagon policy aide, told the DCNF. “I would suspect that China would use cyber attacks against us as well as Taiwan as part of any conflict or major confrontation.” Though Taiwan has been significant recipient over U.S. military aid over for decades, that arrangement has recently hit a major stumbling block as a key $14 billion arms sale sits in limbo. China has used the sale to hold up high-level talks with the Pentagon, and its fate remains unclear as Trump weighs whether to give the greenlight and provide Taiwan the arms. “As President Trump said, he will make a determination in a fairly short time regarding a new Taiwan arms package,” a White House official previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation. China could take a page out of the U.S.’ book and blockade Taiwan, but such a move wouldn’t come with out risks, experts said. “It’s important to note that a blockade would require the deployment of the PLA Navy and would increase the chances of kinetic conflict as operations would edge closer to Japanese territorial waters and the potential for accidents involving U.S. and allied navies also deployed in the region would increase,” Savit told the DCNF. Weichert explained that an invasion of Taiwan was unlikely because a blockade could accomplish the goals of an invasion with fewer casualties and fewer burned resources. “A blockade would be preferable for China rather than a full-blown invasion for a variety of reasons,” Weichert told the DCNF. “The Strait of Hormuz blockade, both the Iranian blockade and now our counter blockade, as well as what we’ve been doing in the Panama Canal, as well as our quasi-blockade of Cuba, have all sort of created the pretext that Beijing would need to pull the trigger on imposing a blockade, and they certainly have the navy size and the strength to conduct such a blockade and sustain it.” However, Weichert said that even if this is unlikely, China could probably achieve its goals with Taiwan in a decade through diplomatic means. “China would like maximum strategic capability,” Savit told the DCNF. “The ability to credibly threaten an invasion of Taiwan is a primary purpose of PRC military readiness, but it does not mean an invasion is imminent.” Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

As the first presidential impeachment trial was drawing to a close, newspaper titan Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune ran a bold headline: “CONVICTION ALMOST A CERTAINTY.” If by “certainty” the paper meant falling one vote short of the two-thirds needed to remove President Andrew Johnson, the headline proved accurate. On May 26, 1868, Johnson slipped the political noose with a 35–19 vote, after 10 Republicans—perhaps the “RINOs” of their day—broke ranks to acquit. The trial featured 25 prosecution witnesses and 16 for the defense. The Senate gallery was so packed that lawmakers introduced a ticketing system for crowd control, a practice used in later impeachment trials. Author and journalist Mark Twain observed the frenzy: “The multitude of strangers were waiting for impeachment.” He added that many “did not know what impeachment was, exactly,” but imagined it would come “in the form of an avalanche, or a thunder-clap, or that maybe the roof would fall in.” For decades, historians judged the episode harshly, noting that the Supreme Court later declared the Tenure of Office Act, which Johnson was accused of violating, unconstitutional in 1926. Yet the procedural rules forged during Johnson’s impeachment would go on to serve as a road map for the Senate trials of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Impeachment Trap Republican President Abraham Lincoln arguably made his biggest political miscalculation by selecting Tennessee Democrat and Union loyalist Andrew Johnson as his running mate for the 1864 ticket, which focused on unity. Johnson proved to be a deeply flawed president and an outspoken racist—even by the standards of his time. While he was lenient toward the defeated South, as Lincoln likely would have been, he also obstructed civil rights and voting protections for freed slaves—measures Lincoln almost certainly would have supported. By mid-1867, Republicans—armed with more than a two-thirds majority—were openly discussing impeachment but lacked a clear trigger. They created one by overriding Johnson’s veto to pass the Tenure of Office Act, which required Senate approval to remove Senate-confirmed officials. Johnson walked directly into the trap by firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The House impeached him on Feb. 24, 1868, by a decisive 126–47 vote. The Senate trial began March 5, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. Attorney General Henry Stanbery resigned to devote himself fully to leading the president’s defense. Johnson’s legal team argued he had not violated the Tenure of Office Act because Stanton had been appointed by Lincoln, not Johnson. It also contended that the president sought to test the law’s constitutionality before the Supreme Court. Skeptical of securing a conviction, Republican leaders scheduled votes on what they viewed as the three strongest of the 11 articles of impeachment. The first vote fell one short of conviction, at 35–19. After regrouping, the Senate returned 10 days later to vote on two additional articles—with identical results. On May 26, House managers abandoned efforts to vote on the remaining articles, and Johnson was acquitted. “I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable president,” Sen. James Grimes, R-Iowa, said in explaining his vote to acquit. Evolving Perception Historical judgment of Johnson’s impeachment has shifted over time. The 1943 film “Tennessee Johnson” portrayed the 17th president, played by Van Heflin, as a constitutional defender standing against overreaching Republicans in Congress. Similarly, in his Pulitzer Prize–winning 1955 book “Profiles in Courage,” then-Sen. John F. Kennedy praised Sen. Edmund G. Ross, the Kansas Republican whose vote helped secure Johnson’s acquittal. In “Grand Inquests” (1992), Chief Justice William Rehnquist—who later presided over the Clinton impeachment—argued that acquittal preserved “the American system of government” from congressional dominance. Other historians dissent. Larry Schweikart, in “A Patriot’s History of the United States,” contends the Senate failed in its duty by not focusing solely on whether Johnson committed the charged offenses. More recent works, including David O. Stewart’s “Impeached” (2009) and Brenda Wineapple’s “The Impeachers” (2019), emphasize Johnson’s racism and argue he was fundamentally unfit for office. Culture War Impeachments The Johnson impeachment, like every presidential impeachment since, unfolded amid deep cultural and political division. Johnson’s trial came during Reconstruction following the Civil War. The impeachment process against Richard Nixon took shape amid the Vietnam War and anti-war protests; Nixon ultimately resigned after the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment, but before a full House vote took place. Bill Clinton emerged from that same anti-war generation. To many Republicans, his 1998 impeachment reflected broader cultural conflicts, as critics contrasted Clinton’s personal conduct with that of his predecessor, George H. W. Bush. And, of course, the Trump impeachments took place in an era of intense polarization. Many on the left viewed Trump as uniquely dangerous and unfit for office, while his defenders saw the impeachment efforts as politically motivated—resulting in his becoming the first president acquitted twice by the Senate.

Robert L. “Bob” Woodson passed away earlier this week at the age of 89, leaving behind a rich legacy of faith, service, and patriotism.  Born in Philadelphia, Woodson and his four siblings were raised by their mother after his father died when he was nine. He quit high school at 17 and joined the Air Force, a decision that foreshadowed a career dedicated to causes bigger than himself. In the decades that followed, he became active in the civil rights movement and worked for the National Urban League in the 1970s before becoming a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In 1981, Woodson founded the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise to strengthen and support local organizations in low-income and working-class communities. That organization would later become known as the Woodson Center and grow into one of the most important institutions in the country. I met Bob in 2021 and quickly learned why he was such a revered figure in conservative circles. He was genuine, selfless, and committed to applying biblical principles to his community work. He had a deep appreciation for history but used the darkest moments in our national story as an engine to power him forward, not keep him stuck in the past. He often described his political philosophy as “radical pragmatism,” but his practice of realpolitik never included compromising his values. He believed that every person is imbued with dignity and capacity, a worldview that often was at odds with the progressives who attempt to paint themselves as champions of the poor and downtrodden. Bob’s goal when working in low-income neighborhoods was to empower leaders from those communities, not push programs that kept them trapped in the cycle of dependency. He understood the former benefits the people who live in neighborhoods struggling with crime, drugs, and despair, while the latter primarily benefits the politicians, bureaucrats, and service providers who manage the poverty economy. He was proud of the work he did to help end a gang war in one of DC’s most notorious neighborhoods and help prisoners turn their lives around. But Bob was equally invested in the people who bear the brunt of violent crime in the inner city. That is one reason he launched Voices of Black Mothers United to advocate for families who lost loved ones to homicide—in part as a direct response to the progressives who called for defunding police departments after the death of George Floyd. At his core, Bob was a teacher, and the public square was his classroom. From him, I learned about the partnership between Booker T. Washington and Julius Rosenwald, president and owner of Sears, Roebuck and Company. The civil rights leader and philanthropist partnered to build over 5,000 schools across the South for black children between 1914 and 1931. Unsurprisingly, Bob emphasized the fact that the black communities that benefited from the schools contributed millions toward the construction of the schools. This made perfect sense the more I listened to him speak. When it came to the issue of race, Bob consistently made the case that agency mattered more than equity because he understood, on a deep human level, that uplift can never be outsourced. He rejected the self-serving victimhood of Ibram X. Kendi and the self-flagellating paternalism of Robin DiAngelo. He saw how both exploited America’s complex racial history for personal gain and like me, understood the danger of the symbiotic relationship between white liberals seeking absolution for sins they didn’t commit and black liberals seeking compensation for injustices they didn’t endure. Bob, like Washington, was a leader who believed in building institutions. He supported the Piney Woods School in Mississippi, one of the oldest African American boarding schools in the country. The Woodson Center also created a curriculum focused on the lives of black Americans “whose tenacity and resilience enabled them to overcome adversity and make invaluable contributions to our country.” The animated videos that accompany these education resources are critical learning tools at a time when some on the political left cry foul when history lessons are too patriotic and insufficiently focused on slavery and some on the political right seem intent on discrediting any contribution black historical figures have made to the country. At a time when influencers focused on building their personal brand constitute a growing share of the modern conservative movement, Bob Woodson was a needed reminder of the good that can be accomplished when a person is dedicated to a cause bigger than himself. It was an honor to call him a friend and mentor. He was someone who saw the nation, in the course of his lifetime, become a more perfect union by living up to its founding principles. He was also someone who believed that upward mobility for the least, last, and the lost is impossible without the cultivation of both agency and virtue. There are future generations of young people who will be able to reach higher and see further because they stand on his shoulders. And for that, we should all be grateful.

Pope Leo XIV‘s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, is perfectly timed. In the document, signed on the 135th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the pope takes up the question that now looms over every sector of modern life: What happens to human dignity when artificial intelligence reshapes how we work, think, and relate to one another? The short answer the pope gives is the same one the Church has consistently taught: Technology is not “a force antagonistic to humanity,” nor is it “inherently evil.” At the same time, “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it.” That’s a crucial distinction, and one that too many commentators on both sides of the AI debate miss. Tech utopians treat AI as an unalloyed good that will soon bring us vast riches and perhaps even immortality. Tech doomers treat it as an existential threat that must be stopped. Leo threads the needle: AI is a powerful tool that reflects the nature and intentions of its makers. Our job is to ensure those intentions serve the common good. On the question of human dignity, Leo is at his strongest. He insists that “the fundamental dignity of each person … is neither acquired nor earned, nor does it need to be justified.” He warns that “the pressure of new ideologies or certain highly powerful interests” can reduce the human person to “a resource to be used and exploited” or define people by “what they achieve or produce.” In a world dazzled by machine performance, it’s tempting to measure human worth by productivity, as if we’re just biological computers competing with silicon ones. The pope rejects that framing root and branch. One of the key delusions of our age is that humans and smart machines are the same types of things. We are nothing but machines made of meat. It’s no surprise that those who believe all of this worry that the “intelligent” machines we create can, and probably will, replace us. There are plenty of good arguments that show this line of reasoning is mistaken. One is the late John Searle’s famous Chinese Room thought experiment. Searle explained that computers work at the level of syntax—formal rules and symbols that we provide. They don’t work at the level of semantics—that is, of meaning. A computer, or a large language model, can simulate intelligence in its outputs. But it doesn’t grasp what anything means. It has no consciousness, no intentions, no moral agency. Pope Leo makes the same point in a theological register: AI can “imitate and simulate the person, but it does not possess a moral conscience, empathy, or affective, relational or spiritual capabilities.” My favorite part of the encyclical is its critique of transhumanism and posthumanism. Leo warns against ideologies that “interpret progress as the overcoming of human limits.” He insists, instead, that “limitations are not defects to be eliminated, but a constitutive dimension of the human person, because it is in fragility and finitude that relationship and openness to God and to others mature.” He boldly declares that “humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them.” This is a profoundly countercultural claim. In Silicon Valley, finitude is a bug to be patched. For Leo, it’s a feature, the very condition that makes love, growth, and communion possible. I do have a worry, however, as both a Catholic and a policy analyst who sees how the sausage gets made. Pope Leo rightly stresses the need for “adequate AI policies and legal frameworks, independent oversight, and user education,” along with “an ethical code subject to shared standards of social justice, because ‘a more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few.'” This sounds right in the abstract. But AI is very complex. I don’t mean just the technology itself, but also the way it’s interpreted, and what its future effects will be. The prediction of mass unemployment, for instance, is one the pope treats at length. But this is, at best, a conjecture. Politicians, clerics, and self-appointed experts could use fears of mass unemployment to propose regulations that sound nice but do more harm than good. There’s also the related risk of what economists call regulatory capture, where dominant corporate and political players craft rules of “good governance” and “ethics” that lock out smaller competitors. In this way, they further concentrate their own power in a corporatist cartel—the very concentration of power Pope Leo decries. This risk of corporatism is one that the Holy See has, frankly, been slow to recognize. I’m reminded of a February 2020 conference hosted by the Pontifical Academy for Life. It produced a joint statement signed by various political and U.N. officials, as well as executives from IBM and Microsoft. “New forms of regulation,” it urged, “must be encouraged to promote transparency and compliance with ethical principles.” The principle of subsidiarity should counsel caution here: Centralized global regulation of AI would almost surely become a tool of the powerful rather than a shield for the vulnerable. Policymakers will need to avoid this risk if they are to fulfill the call of Magnifica Humanitas. Of course, the central theme of Magnifica Humanitas is not policy wonkery. It is about “humanity, created by God in all its grandeur.” Human dignity doesn’t depend on what we produce or how we perform against a large language model. It rests on what we are: Creatures made in the image of God, endowed with reason, freedom, and a capacity for love that no machine can touch. That’s a message our age badly needs to hear.

The rolling hills, dappled paths, and white crosses make Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia a place of quiet repose, deep emotion, and somber reflection. Dutifully, the nation honors its military dead there, and on this 158th Memorial Day, countless Americans will rightfully and respectfully pay homage to those who gave the last full measure of devotion in service to their nation. However, I want to point you to those who died in defense of their country during “periods of peace” and not war. Do you know that during the period 1950 to 1990, reasonable estimates show as many as 130,000 service members died in training or operational missions unrelated to combat or health-related causes. Training accidents alone during the early stages of aviation killed up to half as many during World War II as those lost in combat. During the period 1970 to 90 alone, the Department of Defense estimated that as many as 50,000 servicemembers died in non-combat, non-health-related incidents. The Cold War, from 1947 to 1991, saw major conflicts such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the First Gulf War. However, servicemembers also died in lesser-known operations, like Grenada, Beirut, the USS Liberty attack, the USS Mayaguez action, the Dominican Republic, and Panama, too. The Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in October 1983 alone resulted in 241 servicemember deaths. Still, many others died in operations that did not make the front pages. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite states formed the Warsaw Pact. They were arrogant and belligerent, and they were backed by fearsome military strength, including massive nuclear arsenals. And they often stuck their noses into places where they should not have been, waiting for the U.S. to react to their incursions and deter their ambitions. And react we did, often in forsaken places few can point to on a map. Yet, our warriors were there, confronting the aptly named “evil empire,” and some of our nation’s best paid the price. As a former USAF fighter pilot who flew the F-4 Phantom II during the height of the Cold War, I personally know nine members of my flying units who were killed during routine operational missions in Europe and other places. When you operate a 25-ton aircraft flying low-level at 600 mph in mountainous terrain, deserts, or over the ocean, in bad weather, sometimes at night, sometimes in close proximity to the bad guys, where the operational tempo is critically high, deadly incidents occur. Please remember these folks, too. At First Liberty, we have a dedicated legal practice area focused on protecting servicemembers’ rights to practice their faith. This vital liberty is one that those in harm’s way rely upon to sustain them through dire moments, like the loss of their brothers and sisters in arms. We must protect our shared legacy of religious faith in our armed forces, the group that is at the vanguard of protecting our way of life. So, this Memorial Day, remember the legacy earned by all of those who served and died in defense of our rights—including those who gave all in those forgotten, less-public incidents. David Holmes is Executive Vice President and Chief Legacy Officer for First Liberty Institute and a former fighter pilot for the U.S. Air Force. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.