The legacy network is modifying the broadcast policy of its flagship Sunday morning show over allegations of selective or deceptive editing. CBS News, which is under new management, has announced that…

Erik Siebert, interim U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, has just turned in his resignation. This comes after reports broke President Trump was planning on firing him for refusing to bring…

United States' Rai Benjamin hits the final hurdle but still wins the gold medal in the men's 400 meters hurdles final at the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo, on Sept. 19, 2025. Petr David Josek/AP…

After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a video from the aftermath went viral. It showed someone rushing to remove an SD card from the cameras that were filming and then handing it off to another man behind…

Politics Charlie Kirk Was a Moderate Do some on the left wish all the millions who agree with him dead? When Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at a political event last week, some on the left celebrated his death. Let me repeat: Countless people celebrated the assassination of a human being simply because they disagreed with him politically. For them, Kirk, who had committed no crime, violence, or atrocities, had views so bad that he deserved to be murdered in cold blood. Many said he deserved to die because he was a “Nazi.” But what were the allegedly extreme ideas that this supposed ‘Nazi’ believed? Kirk was clear that he opposed transgender surgery for minors. An October 2024 Center Square poll found that “most registered voters, 59%, support a federal ban on transgender procedures such as puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgeries for minors.” So a majority agreed with Kirk on that issue. The Turning Point USA founder also frequently discussed his opposition to transgender women or biological men playing in women’s sports. An NBC News poll in April discovered that “overall, 1 in 4 respondents, or 25%, said they supported trans women participating in female sports in a yes/no question.” The poll added, “The other 75% of American adults said they do not believe trans women should be permitted to participate in female sports.” Seventy-five percent, according to NBC News, agreed with Kirk on this issue. But what about LGBT issues where Kirk was clearly in the minority? Kirk always said he believed marriage could only be between a man and a woman in an era when even a majority of Republicans now support same sex marriage. A poll reported by the Hill in June revealed that a whopping 72 percent of Americans overall support gay marriage, while 26 percent don’t. Twenty-six percent is a quarter of the country. That’s not exactly fringe. Kirk was also friends and allies with many gay conservatives, vocally fought to include them in his movement, and was an ally for that community in other ways. Kirk’s opinion is no different than Democratic President Barack Obama’s opposition to same-sex marriage until 2012. Senator Hillary Clinton opposed a 2004 amendment to ban same-sex marriages, but also wanted to make clear that she believed “marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage.” Clinton continued, “So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.” This was basically Kirk’s view on the subject as well, defining traditional marriage in civilizational terms. Clinton didn’t clearly come out in support of same-sex marriage until 2015. Kirk opposed Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts in government, companies and schools that put an emphasis on race over skill or experience. As President Donald Trump began to dismantle some DEI programs early in his second term, an NBC News poll in March showed that 49 percent of Americans also wanted them gone. So half the country. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a framework that interprets American history through a racial lens and has influenced many U.S. school curricula. Many conservatives like Kirk have been opposed to this. A March 2024 Center Square poll found that, “The vast majority of people think schools should focus on traditional subjects like math, reading and science, and a majority also say critical race theory should not be taught.” Kirk had a lot of company on this subject. These are but a few issues, but they are some of the more controversial ones. Yet, on each, Kirk is well within the mainstream of American political discourse. Donald Trump won the popular and electoral presidential vote in 2024 with more than 77 million people supporting him. It is likely that millions within that group probably line up comfortably with where Kirk was politically. So this raises the question: Do those on the left celebrating Kirk’s murder want the countless Americans of like mind to perish with him? Perhaps even in the same way as him? Is this where we’re at now? It’s a serious question, not a rhetorical one. Because that’s where this ghoulish thread of leftist logic now leads. It’s the kind of mass hate and death wish some might even associate with, well, the actual Nazis. Kirk was a moderate, mainstream conservative who was popular with millions of other Americans who thought like him. There was little extreme or fringe about him or his political philosophy. Charlie was even better than most in his willingness to venture out and have civil debates with people who didn’t think like him. That’s what he was known for. That’s what got him killed. If Charlie Kirk was the extremist many on the left now portray, and that dark but seemingly large sect now genuinely believe moderate conservatives are extremists worthy of death, that’s a bigger problem for America’s health than anything else in recent history (including January 6, 2021). A civilized nation roundly condemns the out-and-out killing of an innocent, no matter his beliefs. A conservative precedent to this does not immediately come to mind, if at all. An overall American precedent to this doesn’t come to mind either—perhaps racists who were glad when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot, or anti-Catholics who weren’t happy with John F. Kennedy being president. Something along those lines. But no, this unfortunately feels new. And it is scary. These people, in their current mania, are worrying. Pray for Charlie Kirk and his family. Pray for America too. The post Charlie Kirk Was a Moderate appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Poland and the Perils of Russia–Ukraine Escalation We’re approaching a wider war that almost nobody wants.  A spiral of escalation of the war in Ukraine is making a catastrophic widening of the conflict increasingly possible.The recent incident of Russian drones breaching Polish airspace has reignited a fraught and dangerous discussion: Is Poland on a path to direct conflict with Russia?This is not a new fear. Western headlines consistently warn of a Russian attack on Poland, an idea that Moscow dismisses out of hand. Simultaneously, Russian officials accuse Warsaw of plotting to send troops into western Ukraine, a charge Poland categorically rejects, insisting it has no intention to intervene even after the war.Upon examination, both of these narratives are logically flimsy. Russia, with its military heavily committed in Ukraine, gains nothing from opening a second front—with a NATO member at that.  For Poland, entering a war would be an act of economic and social self-destruction. It is currently one of the EU’s fastest-growing economies, a dynamic, business-friendly success story. Sacrificing this bright future for a war that Warsaw does not want—and for a Ukrainian neighbor with whom relations are historically complex—makes no strategic sense. As former president Andrzej Duda noted, Kiev has sought to draw Poland into the conflict from the beginning, but Warsaw has consistently refused. This reluctance is rooted in a deep-seated suspicion of being manipulated into the conflict. Duda pointed to the November 2022 missile incident as a prime example. After a missile struck Polish territory, killing two civilians, many assumed that Russia had taken the war beyond Ukraine’s borders; today, the leading theory is that a Ukrainian air defense missile misfired and landed in Poland. Duda confirmed that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky immediately blamed Russia and insisted Warsaw do the same, an accusation that, if acted upon, could have resulted in an invocation of NATO’s Article 5. After a journalist suggested Zelensky’s goal was to entangle Warsaw in the war, Duda answered, rather diplomatically, “One could say that.” Duda went onto explain that “this is in their [Ukraine’s] interests… The dream of the leaders in Ukraine’s position is for NATO to stand shoulder to shoulder with them… We, Poland, a NATO country, could not agree to that.”This testimony from a key NATO leader underscores that Warsaw’s refusal to be drawn into the fight is a conscious, strategic choice, not mere hesitancy. It is a stance born of the understanding that its own national interests are distinct from Kiev’s maximalist goals. Yet, the drumbeat for war grows louder. Why?The logic for the West’s  “War Party”—which comprises most European leaders and a considerable part of the U.S. establishment—is grim: Ukraine is losing a war of attrition. To shift the balance, another nation must significantly escalate its involvement or even join directly in fighting against Russia. Poland, with its large army, patriotic society, and shared border, is the obvious candidate.However, two monumental obstacles stand in the way. First, while the Poles are ready to defend their homeland, they have no appetite for dying for Ukraine. Second, the United States opposes any NATO member entering the conflict, fearing it would precipitously increase the risk of nuclear war. This was Biden’s position, and it has only hardened under Trump.The Polish government, for its part, isn’t looking for a pretext to wage war against Russia. Therefore, Poland’s entry into the war is only plausible under one condition: a blatant, undeniable attack by Russia itself. Not stray drones or murky sabotage, but a clear act of aggression.This cautious, almost legalistic approach was on full display in Warsaw’s response to the latest drone incursions. When asked if Poland would be willing to preemptively shoot down drones over Ukrainian territory if they approached the border, President Karol Nawrocki—a conservative sovereigntist who, like Duda, is deeply wary of being drawn into conflicts that don’t serve Poland’s national interest—was unequivocal. He stated that the Polish army shoots down drones “as soon as they cross the border of Poland.”This official stance underscores Warsaw’s razor-sharp focus on territorial defense and its refusal to be goaded into actions that could be construed as an act of war against Russia.  Still, why did Russia fly drones over Polish territory in the first place? Here is where the logic of the Western War Party collides with dangerous new realities. While provoking Poland seems insane for Moscow—threatening the Kaliningrad exclave and risking NATO’s Article 5—geopolitical discourse within Russia is shifting. Its own War Party of nationalist hardliners is buzzing with talk of raising the stakes to bring the war home to Europeans, hoping to shatter their support for Ukraine.This would be a catastrophic miscalculation. If the reaction to Ukraine’s invasion is any indicator, attacks on Poland—unlike Ukraine, a member of both NATO and EU—would likely unite Europeans in defense of Poland. It would validate the very argument Western hawks have used to increase military spending: that Russia is an existential threat to Europe. Far from ending support for Ukraine, aggression against Poland would galvanize it by seeming to vindicate those who claim that Russia’s war aims extend far beyond Ukraine.We are now in a classic security dilemma, where actions taken by one side for its own defense are perceived as threats by the other, leading to a spiral of reciprocal countermeasures. Poland, to show resolve, could fly drones over Kaliningrad. Russia in response could station short-range missiles closer to its mainland borders, within striking distance of Poland. That could be met with a threat to block Baltic shipping into Russian ports. Each step brings us closer to the brink.The only guaranteed way to stop this escalatory spiral is to stop the war in Ukraine. Unfortunately, whenever Trump succeeds in opening a constructive dialogue with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, he also meets resistance from Zelensky and European leaders.In a recent interview, Zelensky pointedly criticized last month’s Trump–Putin summit in Alaska, demanded the U.S. take a harder line on Russia (contrary to Trump’s demand that Europe move first by completely phasing out the Russian oil), and called for “clear” security guarantees that Kiev has not yet received.This points to a significant rift. Reports suggest that in Alaska, Putin offered Trump a compromise, albeit not one that Russia hawks would recognize as such: a ceasefire in exchange for Ukrainian withdrawal from the entire Donbas. Trump, seeking a deal, was reportedly amenable. Zelensky and Europe rejected it.Now, Putin waits for Trump to pressure Kiev into accepting these terms, while Zelensky’s goal is to resist that pressure and pull Trump back to a hardline position against Moscow.Trump, however, appears to be unwavering in his commitment to end the war. When recently pressed by a Ukrainian journalist on military aid, Trump said: “the country is in a difficult situation. This should never have happened. This is a war that should never have happened. The country is in a very difficult situation, but I am going to stop it.” He framed it as a personal feud between Zelensky and Putin that he is determined to resolve. The renewed talk of Polish entry into the war must be seen in this light. For those opposed to a negotiated settlement based on the Alaska parameters (the only realistic framework, given the situation on the ground), escalation is a tool. A wider war would shatter any possibility of a continued, constructive Trump–Putin dialogue and lock the U.S. into a confrontational stance.The path to peace is being sabotaged from both sides. In Moscow, by hawks pushing for a dangerous “Caribbean Crisis 2.0.” In the West, by those who believe only total victory is acceptable, regardless of the existential risks. Caught in the middle, Poland becomes the potential trigger for a catastrophe nobody wants, but which all sides are making increasingly possible. The post Poland and the Perils of Russia–Ukraine Escalation appeared first on The American Conservative.

Trade Canada and Mexico Begin Shoring Up Shaky USMCA The free-trade deal, which replaced NAFTA, is up for renegotiation in 2026. (Manuel Velasquez/Getty Images) Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney dropped down to Mexico Thursday to meet with that country’s President Claudia Sheinbaum and form a united front, as the two major trade partners prepare for the renegotiation of the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) on free trade in the summer of 2026. Both countries have been the subject of numerous tariff threats from President Donald Trump, whose protectionist policies have menaced America’s neighbors and undermined the integrity of the North American free-trade bloc. Justifying the continued economic integration of the region emerged as a key theme of the conference. “USMCA is a testament to [how], if Mexico, Canada, and the United States work together, we can create prosperity, face global challenges successfully and position ourselves as the most dynamic region in the world,” Sheinbaum told reporters during the subsequent press conference. Sheinbaum has made preserving free trade with the U.S. a priority, and she has gone to significant lengths to improve the attractiveness of Mexican markets to Trump. Earlier this month, Sheinbaum announced that Mexico would be imposing tariffs of up to 50 percent on Chinese imports, a measure aimed as much at disarming American accusations that Mexico serves as a “dumping ground” where under-market Chinese imports are resold to circumvent American import duties as it is at reducing Mexican dependence on Chinese industry. “We want to maintain the USMCA,” the Mexican president declared Wednesday. Both Mexico and Canada are heavily dependent on trade with the U.S.: More than three-fourths of both countries’ exports were America-bound in 2024. This has proven a source of political and economic stress since the beginning of the second Trump administration, as the 47th president has attempted to wield America’s massive import market as a geopolitical weapon to extract concessions from neighbors and far-flung trade partners alike.  Tariff spats with Canada were especially sharp, as Ottawa’s determination to retaliate with countertariffs led to an escalating growth of trade barriers until an August climb-down by Carney. Mexico, on the other hand, escaped with limited tariffs on steel and automotive manufacturing. Sheinbaum steadfastly refused provocative or confrontational responses and instead cooperated extensively with requests from the White House, a strategy which appears to have served her administration well. American irascibility appears to have created a consensus that the two countries need to cooperate to preserve the economic infrastructure of North American free trade. “North America is the economic envy of the world, is the most competitive economic region of the world, and part of the reason for that is the cooperation between Canada and Mexico,” Carney said after arriving in Mexico City. The cooperative approach is a contrast to the original negotiations for the USMCA in 2018, when Mexico conducted a set of unilateral negotiations with the U.S. about the resolution of commercial disputes and other important details of the agreement—an act Canadian commentators later characterized as Mexico throwing Canada under the bus. In addition to collaborating on free trade negotiations for 2026, Sheinbaum and Carney also inaugurated an important new partnership, the Canada–Mexico Action Plan 2025-2028, which aims to increase trade between the two countries and pledges increased integration between and investment in railway, port, and airport infrastructure. The Action Plan also includes cooperation on security matters—a subject which has been a major point of friction with the U.S. for both countries, as Trump seeks to reduce illegal drugs entering the country across either border. Sheinbaum seemed particularly pleased with having secured assistance with cybersecurity matters from Canada, a capacity which slots neatly into her national program for a vigorous and proactive national intelligence service capable of infiltrating and disrupting cartel operations in the country. While Donald Trump’s name was undoubtedly on the minds of everyone at the summit, both leaders carefully avoided making provocative or hostile statements about the U.S. and its president. The partners remained relentlessly focused on making the positive case for North American cooperation and economic integration—a proposition that has become much more controversial in the U.S. than it was during the inauguration of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992. As the 2026 USMCA renegotiation looms, the meeting between Carney and Sheinbaum marks an interesting strategic development in North American diplomacy. Canada is abandoning its hostile attitude and defensive approach towards assertive U.S. trade policy, an admission that Sheinbaum’s quiet cooperation proved the superior tactic. Instead, the countries are seeking to combine their influence—both diplomatic and economic—to counter the overwhelming heft of the American consumer market. That approach may prove important, as the second Trump administration has demonstrated a much more active interest in remaking U.S. trade relations with other countries than the first—a development which is likely to dominate the 2026 trade talks. The post Canada and Mexico Begin Shoring Up Shaky USMCA appeared first on The American Conservative.

Permitting Reform Now: A Blueprint for America’s Infrastructure Renaissance