Month: April 2025

Dr. Jordan Peterson is making the rounds to warn that the political right faces a new need to bar “psychopaths” from insinuating themselves among us and using social media platforms to acquire attention and power.

I agree!

However, Peterson says he is particularly concerned about psychopathic antisemites taking over the right, and on this point he deserves some pushback.

“Antisemite” is a term that has become both more meaningful and almost meaningless in recent years. More meaningful in that there has been a sharp increase in genuine anti-Jewish bigotry on the political right. More meaningless in that political and media elites (including on the political right) now smear as “antisemitic” anyone—including any Jew or other Semite in the Holy Land—who opposes the ongoing deadly actions of the state of Israel against the people of Gaza.

So, my response to Peterson would be that if he wants to protect the political right from being manipulated by “psychopaths” who are seeking “their own gain,” as he has said, then he should put first things first.

Rather than going on a booby-trapped quest of condemning “antisemites,” now is the time to call out the group that has already very successfully insinuated itself on the political right: The radical Zionists who empty the word “antisemitic” of its meaning (therefore making it impossible in the first place to meaningfully oppose Jew hatred), and who use both Jews and the political right for the shallow purpose of paving the way for the military ambitions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu certainly does not deserve the affection and loyalty of America’s right wing. He isn’t merely an ordinary politician in a foreign country—though he is that, too—but a corrupt and unpopular one who seems to be sustaining the war in Gaza as a means to secure his grip on power.

The radical Zionists who have insinuated themselves among us in America, however, present Netanyahu’s goals as fundamentally beyond critique. In fact, unlike the “antisemites” Peterson warns us about, these “psychopaths” have so much influence that you’d be hard-pressed to find a respectable conservative American treating Netanyahu as anything other than a perfect representative not only of the state of Israel, but of all Jews.

But this isn’t just about Netanyahu and Israel. Indeed, these “psychopaths” strike at the root of the Western civilization that conservatives are supposed to stand for.

As I wrote recently elsewhere, 

Western Civilization is founded on God’s revelation that every human person is made in His image. And it’s founded on Christ’s insistence on associating Himself most intimately with the most vulnerable among us—the widow, the orphan, and all of those rejected by the powerful and living under urgent threats of violence…

That Gospel truth is the meaning behind all the best articulations of Western Civilization. It’s in the Magna Carta’s words of warning against unjustly arresting and punishing individuals without trial. It’s in the Declaration of Independence’s recognition of “Nature’s God,” before Whom “all men are created equal” with “inalienable rights.” It’s in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and in the West’s condemnations of Nazi offenses against human dignity at Nuremberg.

Contrast that foundational conservative principle with best-selling author Douglas Murray’s calling Arabs “a people of death” and suggesting they are inherently a noxious threat to the West—including, presumably, their women and children dying in the tens of thousands in Gaza.

Or with mainstream Christian conservative commentator Erick Erickson’s encouraging the Israeli military to “carpet bomb” an entire city in Gaza. 

Or with the numerous other expressions of dehumanizing hatred—even more mainstream in the sense of being more pervasive—among smaller but still significant right-wing social media accounts like this one, whose crude and brutal language I dare not quote here. 

Of course, Douglas Murray and Erick Erickson do not strike me as actual clinical psychopaths, but their pronouncements do represent a tide of small-minded bigotry that Peterson ignores.

But, thank God, that tide may be turning, in part due to the bluntness of President Donald Trump. Last week, Trump recounted that, during his last talk with the prime minister, he said, “You got to be good to Gaza.” 

“Those people are suffering,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One. “There’s a very big need for food and medicine, and we’re taking care of it … We’re pushing [Israel] very hard.”

Given Trump’s incredible influence on conservative discourse, such statements are significant, and hopefully matched by real action.

I’m not here to say Dr. Peterson’s warning about bad actors using conservatives for their own sinister purposes doesn’t make any sense or isn’t true in principle. 

On the contrary, what concerns me about it is just how true it already is—and has been since long before Peterson got it into his head to defend the political right from infiltrators.

In fact, Peterson’s message itself may prove more than anything else just how vulnerable the political right is to the kind of infiltration he’s warning against. 

The evidence? Right now, at the high-water mark of conservatives’ moral indifference to the people of Gaza—if not active hatred for them—a great conservative-leaning intellectual like Peterson is drawing the public’s attention away from the plight of the Palestinians and helping to pathologize criticism of the state that is brutalizing them.

The post Dear Jordan Peterson, the Psychopaths Are Already Here appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Trump administration and Iranian government concluded another round of nuclear talks on Saturday. A “senior Trump administration official” termed the discussion “positive and productive.” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he was “hopeful but very cautious.” 

Much depends on whether President Donald Trump is seriously committed to reaching a deal with the Islamist state. He long has appeared to be in thrall to a disparate group of uber-hawks and neocons, many of whom promoted the Iraq debacle and are now campaigning for war against Iran. Although the president claims that he wants a diplomatic solution, he has been moving, per a report in the War Zone, “B-2 stealth bombers, fighters, support aircraft, another carrier strike group, air defenses, and more” into the Mideast.  

Last month Trump declared, “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” In an interview published Friday he dismissed concern about the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s persistent campaign to drag Americans into war with Iran, stating, “I may go in very willingly if we can’t get a deal. If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack.”

No doubt, rather like China in its policy toward Taiwan, Trump hopes intimidation will deliver a favorable result. But like Taipei, Tehran has spent years resisting pressure. What if Iran rejects the president’s terms? Before approving military strikes on its nuclear facilities, he should remember that acting in haste is often followed by repenting at leisure—in his case through the rest of his term and probably well beyond. Launching an unprovoked war against Iran would make George W. Bush’s disastrous legacy look good in comparison.

Of course, the radical forces that dominate the current Tehran regime are malign. Unfortunately, multiple U.S. administrations have done much to turn Iran, the state and many of its people, into adversaries if not enemies. In 1953, at the behest of Great Britain, angry over Tehran’s nationalization of British oil assets, President Dwight Eisenhower helped overthrow the elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh, and empower the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was mostly a figurehead. For a quarter of a century Washington supported its often difficult, but always corrupt and autocratic, partner. President Jimmy Carter, who ostentatiously promoted human rights, hosted an embarrassing state dinner for the shah and reciprocated with a sycophantic visit to Iran. Ironically, it was this nominal American ally which began Tehran’s nuclear program.

Growing public dissent eventually ended the Pahlavi dynasty, despite the Carter administration’s support for a deadly crackdown. Reported the New York Times: 

Over lunch at the Knickerbocker Club in New York, [President Jimmy] Carter’s special envoy to Tehran, Gen. Robert E. Huyser, told the Project Eagle team that he had urged Iran’s top military leaders to kill as many demonstrators as necessary to keep the shah in power. If shooting over the heads of demonstrators failed to disperse them, “move to focusing on the chests,” General Huyser said he told the Iranian generals, according to minutes of the lunch. “I got stern and noisy with the military,” he added, but in the end, the top general was “gutless.”

Ignoring the Shah’s many crimes, the U.S. gave sanctuary to the dying dictator. 

A radical Islamic state followed, but, despite the early kidnapping of American diplomatic personnel, Tehran never seriously threatened the U.S. Rather, it was Washington that constantly threatened Iran. Successive administrations had provided sustained support for and weapons sales to the Shah’s repressive regime. While his forced modernization was understandably welcomed by both educated elites and the West, it fostered resentment and opposition among more traditional communities and spurred the Islamic revolution.

After the shah’s overthrow, the Reagan administration supported Iraq’s bloody aggression against Iran, even reflagging oil tankers to protect Baghdad’s revenue stream. The result was eight terrible years of conflict and a million or more casualties. The U.S. also armed Saudi Arabia and Israel, Iran’s principal regional rivals, imposed economic sanctions on Tehran, repeatedly threatened military action against the Islamic regime, deployed air and naval assets around Iran, assassinated Qassem Soleimani, the influential head of Iran’s Quds Force, and actively intervened on Israel’s behalf even after the latter initiated military attacks on Iranian personnel and interests, including on a diplomatic facility in Syria and a government building in Tehran. It should come as no surprise that many Iranian policymakers desired to build a potent retaliatory nuclear arsenal. 

Nevertheless, despite the outsize role of the militant Islamic Revolutionary Guards, there are more moderate and responsible leaders, who negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the Obama administration. That agreement constrained the Iranian nuclear program. Moreover, successive Iranian governments forged a détente with Saudi Arabia, whose de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, once called Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “the new Hitler of the Middle East.” In mid-April, the Saudi defense minister traveled to Tehran for talks, the first visit by a senior Saudi royal in almost 30 years.

Although Washington’s war lobby dismisses Tehran’s suitability as a negotiating partner, the Iranians abided by the JCPOA. Washington, on the other hand, proved to be faithless. Congress opposed the agreement and undermined its implementation. The Obama administration did little to ease the spillover effects of remaining U.S. sanctions, which continued to discourage trade with and investment in Iran. Despite Tehran’s continued compliance, Trump abandoned the pact and reinstated sanctions, leading the Islamic regime to revive its nuclear program. Then the Biden administration, rather than restore the agreement, sought to take advantage of its predecessor’s breach to force harsher terms. 

After all this, the U.S. is threatening military action. But war is not just another foreign policy tool. It is unique, sending Americans into combat, killing and disabling many. It also means visiting death and destruction upon other peoples and lands. The economic costs, too, are high. Imagine America if thousands of lives and trillions of dollars had not been squandered in Washington’s foolish wars over the last quarter century. Conflict with Iran would only increase the criminal toll.

The situation with Tehran is one of Uncle Sam’s great policy failures, but war is not the answer. Indeed, military action would not be justified even if it seemed likely to be successful in some abstract sense. War should require a serious and imminent threat to vital or critical interests. Iran falls short in every way.

First, the JCPOA demonstrated the success of diplomacy. The agreement placed serious restraints on the Iranian nuclear program, made proliferation less likely, and “ensured that in the worst-case scenario, Iran would be proliferating from a lower baseline.” Neither Riyadh nor Jerusalem, along with their advocates in Washington, were happy with the accord, because they were committed to a U.S. war against Tehran, irrespective of the cost—to Americans and Iranians alike. Nevertheless, the JCPOA benefited both the U.S. and Middle East, avoiding unnecessary war and nuclear proliferation. 

Unfortunately, after Trump resumed economic war, Iran predictably revived its nuclear program. As a result, today Tehran is better positioned to weaponize the results. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has threatened to join the nuclear race. And the Israeli government risked war by targeting aspects of Iran’s program and threatening broader strikes, even though it likely lacked the means to halt weapons development. 

Second, Iran is not an easy target. It has three times the population of Iraq and, unlike the latter, was not an artificial creation of the West. Even younger Iranians who want liberalization aren’t likely to welcome American bombs. While the Iran would lose a shooting war, it could cause serious U.S. casualties and regional damage. The Iranian military commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh warned: “The Americans have at least 10 bases with 50,000 troops in the region, meaning they are sitting in a glass house”—and should be wary of tossing stones. Military action would likely only delay development of a bomb and would certainly convince any regime doubters that they required a nuclear weapon to survive. Moreover, an extended military campaign likely would be necessary to have a serious chance of halting Iranian nuclear development. The Washington Institute’s Michael Eisenstadt predicted that “a preventive attack likely won’t be a one-off but rather the opening round of a lengthy campaign employing military strikes, covert action, and other elements of national power. Such a campaign…could presage either a more stable order for the region or a new, dangerous phase.”

Moreover, war would threaten Tehran’s neighbors. A desperate Iran might strike at facilities hosting U.S. forces throughout the Gulf and seek to block oil traffic. Angry populations might challenge royal regimes with negligible popular legitimacy. Which helps explain why even Saudi Arabia, once an enthusiastic advocate of American military action against Iran, has urged the U.S. and Israel not to let slip the dogs of war.

Third, Tehran would not use nuclear weapons against the U.S., given Washington’s ability to retaliate on a massive scale. Iran is seeking deterrence in a bad neighborhood, where nuclear-armed Israel’s depredations dramatically demonstrate its conventional superiority. Moreover, the latter has long been informally allied with several of the Gulf kingdoms and other Arab states, with Iran their primary target. Although the latter has greatly improved its relations with its neighbors, it remains vulnerable. The region would benefit from an effective balance of power.

Indeed, 13 years ago Kenneth Waltz, at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, provocatively contended that a nuclear Iran “would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.” Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians within its control and Arabs elsewhere demonstrates its dangerous mix of excessive ambition and power: “Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced.” Best would be an agreement by Tehran to forego nuclear weapons made possible by corresponding Israeli and U.S. military restraint.

Fourth, America has ever less at stake in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. The region was never a vital interest. The Cold War fear was a Soviet attempt to cut off oil to the US and Europe. Now Russia’s military weakness, China’s dependence on imported energy, increased diversity of the international market, and expanded American energy production, have steadily reduced threats to and importance of Middle East oil. A secondary fear was for Israel’s survival, but the greatest threat to Jerusalem today is internal, the growing impossibility of Israel being both democratic and Jewish.

In any case, the heedless desire for cheap gasoline and bizarre conflation of Biblical and modern Israel provide no justification for the U.S. going to war. As noted earlier, over the last quarter century Washington policymakers have promiscuously sacrificed American lives and wealth in reckless Mideast conflicts. Adding Iran to the list of misbegotten U.S. targets would be criminal.

Trump surely knows better than to start shooting at Iran. He campaigned against forever wars. He criticized George W. Bush’s criminal attack on Iraq. In 2019 Trump refused to retaliate against Iran for its shootdown of an American drone and for the attack on Saudi oil facilities. Neither warranted war. Nor is there cause for conflict with Iran today. When even Riyadh is urging the U.S. and Israel not to ignite the Mideast, the president should keep the peace. 

The post Will Donald Trump Say No to War with Iran?  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Norbert Röttgen, a member of the German Bundestag and its Foreign Affairs Committee (which he chaired from 2014 to 2021), sat down for an exclusive interview with The American Conservative on the politics and foreign policy of Germany today.

Germany is undergoing a strategic revolution, or so the thinking goes. Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s alteration of the debt brake signals a newly assertive Germany, ready to take up its natural hegemonic role in Europe. But in reality, how will that affect both German politics, and perception of Europe? Is the new German leadership willing to unilaterally lead, or will the new leadership will still be hamstrung by EU consensus politics?

To fully understand the magnitude of the change in Germany, one needs to know that the debt brake was formerly introduced by the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) as a consequence of the global financial crisis. It has now been lifted for only one specific area, namely defense spending, even before the new government has taken office. This shows how serious we are about assuming a new role in security and defense—and with a debt-to-GDP ratio of slightly above 60 percent we have the fiscal capacity to do so.

As Christian Democrats, we are ready to massively invest in European security out of our own strategic interests in response to Russia‘s imperialist war in Europe and in light of the changes we see in the United States. This readiness is personified by the CDU leader and likely new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz. 

But leadership in a European context must never again mean hegemony. For centuries European powers fought brutal wars, including two world wars, to assume hegemony. Following the Second World War and with the help of the United States, we have come to a new understanding of Europe as a common peace project. Hence, leadership in Europe can never be unilateral, but must take place in coordination with our European partners. 

Since defense continues to be a national competence within the EU framework, Germany is ready to pursue intergovernmental cooperation amongst like-minded states both aligned with and beyond the EU institutions. This framework is open to anyone willing and able to contribute to shaping a new European security order, with the prime objective of deterring further Russian aggression. 

Speaking of American retrenchment, allow me to ask you a few strategic questions. There seems to be a significant division between the new American administration, particularly the VP’s office, and the new German government. What are the sources of this tension, and is there any possible alignment between the two sides?

As Germans we are long-term strategic partners of the United States, and I am confident that our future Chancellor Friedrich Merz will have a good working relationship with the new U.S. administration. This relationship should be based on a shared understanding of interests in primarily three areas: security, economy, and values.

In Germany and Europe, we fully understand that U.S. taxpayers are no longer willing to do the heavy lifting on European security. I absolutely concur that we should have acted on this earlier, but we have now taken major and unprecedented steps to make the money available that is necessary to massively ramp up European defense capabilities. This creates space for the United States to militarily focus on the Indo-Pacific and China, while maintaining Europe as a comprehensive strategic partner.  

With regards to economic and trade policy, we acknowledge that the United States pursues its own interests. So do we. We will define and defend our economic interests while remaining strongly convinced that our economic relationship isn’t bound to be zero-sum but bears huge potential to create win-win solutions. 

And finally, there is the topic of values. After centuries of warfare in Europe, culminating in two devastating world wars, we are proud of the liberal democracies we have become. In Germany this would not have been possible without the helping hand from the United States. 

Hence, when U.S. politicians challenge the fabric of our liberal democracies in supporting far-right extremist parties such as the AfD [Alternativ für Deutschland] in Germany, this is somewhat disturbing for us and not acceptable. These parties intentionally undermine our democracies. They are not only allies of Putin but are also strongly aligned with China. When U.S. Vice President Vance endorses these parties that openly sympathize with China, it becomes more difficult for us to explain to voters why we should reduce trade with China and bear the economic costs. 

As Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth commented recently, an ideal American strategy would be one where Europe takes the ownership of the “conventional deterrence,” and it is implied that the U.S. will provide the nuclear and naval umbrella needed. What is a good burden-sharing model in your opinion? 

I agree with Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth on this, and the necessary transition is taking place in Europe. This is in large part an American achievement as well. But after decades of dependency from the United States as our main security provider, some U.S. military capabilities cannot be substituted overnight. To transition successfully requires a bit of time. 

Given Russian and Chinese interest in the Arctic, a renewed American presence in Greenland is beneficial to both the U.S. and Europe. From what can be gathered, Europe is bending over backward to offer further mining, basing, and settlement rights to Americans in the northern hemisphere. In your opinion, are the Americans being too coercive in Greenland and will that lead to an adverse diplomatic effect?

The United States has long had a military base in Greenland. From my understanding neither Denmark nor Greenland as an autonomous territory had an issue with U.S. military or industrial presence. What has been counterproductive and led to major irritation in Greenland and across Europe is the coercive language used in relation to a NATO partner. I think the United States would find that a great deal of understanding exists in Denmark and Greenland if it simply talked to both about American and shared security interests instead of issuing threats. 

Chancellor Merz recently hinted that Taurus missiles might be used in Crimea, which resulted in some disagreement even among the coalition partners. How far is the new German leadership willing to escalate against Russia, given the very real possibility that there will be no American support if the Russians counter-escalate? Is Germany going to be part of the “coalition of the willing” trip-wire force in Ukraine, in the possibility of an American retrenchment? 

I disagree with the narrative that supporting Ukraine, in whatever way, constitutes an escalation against Russia. There is only one country that keeps escalating and continues to commit horrendous war crimes against Ukrainian civilians. This country is Russia. The United Kingdom, France, and the United States have already delivered long-range missiles to Ukraine. While the Kremlin has been verbally threatening them, we have seen no actual retaliation by Russia. This is because Putin has already fully escalated with all means available to Russia. Using nuclear weapons against Ukraine or its allies is a red line defined by Russia’s most important ally—China—that Russia cannot afford to lose.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t carefully weigh the risks involved when delivering new weapons systems. We must and will avoid becoming a party to the war ourselves. But after lots of deliberation I personally concluded that not (sufficiently) supporting Ukraine entails a much greater risk than supporting it. If Putin were to be even partially successful in Ukraine, he would feel emboldened to attack other countries such as Moldova or even one of the Baltic states. This is both in line with Russian imperialism as well as the level of military build-up we see in Russia which goes way beyond what is necessary to continue the war against Ukraine.

I am therefore in favor of a European coalition of the willing. This coalition needs to be willing to support Ukraine with all means available to ensure that Russia’s war fails. Sending German Taurus missiles in coordination with our allies should thus of course be on the table. But we should avoid discussions that are pointless at this moment in time and only disclose rifts amongst the allies. This applies to a potential European trip-wire force in Ukraine, as long as no one can say which troops would be deployed and what their exact mandate would be.

You are a notable China hawk in Germany. In that regard, you’re perhaps the closest of all German politicians to the current U.S. political elite. But is the European Union too cozy to China when it comes to trade? If Europe has to choose between the U.S. and China on some of the core strategic questions of our times, will it be a unified decision, or will it be split and divided? Do you think the VP’s speech has pushed the European public opinion towards China?

The European Union has considerably toughened up on trade vis-à-vis China. The Commission actively advocates a derisking approach, which includes protecting our infrastructure against Chinese manipulation (i.e. 5G). At the end of last year, the EU issued tariffs against Chinese electric vehicles entering Europe. It did so against German opposition. Unfortunately, it has long been Germany with its export-oriented economy that has pushed back against a tougher EU China policy. 

However, given the painful and expensive experience we made with respect to our Russian energy dependency, the incoming CDU-led government is determined to reduce economic dependencies from China. Doing so is necessary to put ourselves in a position to withstand sanctions and counter-sanctions in the event of Chinese aggression against Taiwan. 

This policy shift reflects a newly found realism towards China both amongst German politicians as well as the general public. Hence, I do not believe that Vice President Vance’s Munich speech has pushed the public opinion towards China. But his siding with pro-China parties in Germany and Europe has caused some irritation.

You have been a rare German voice about the need for human rights and war crimes accountability, not just in Ukraine, but also elsewhere. Would you elaborate the position of Germany with regards to the Middle East, especially in regards to Syria, Palestine, and Turkey? 

Germany is an advocate of universal values as enshrined in the UN Human Rights Declaration. This entails that we do what is within our means to enforce those rights. Sometimes, and that is part of the truth, this is not a lot. 

With regards to Syria, Germany has always opposed the idea of a normalization of relations with the Assad regime, which was responsible for gross human rights violations, including the use of chemical weapons against its own population. We upheld far-reaching economic sanctions against the regime. With the new government now in place, we are carefully readjusting our posture. We are offering sanctions relief to allow for an economic recovery and political stabilization of the country, but with effective snap-back mechanisms in case the new leadership does not live up to its promises.

We have equally taken a tough stance on Iran, putting into effect new sanctions after the brutal government crackdown against peaceful protests following the death of Jina Mahsa Amini. Personally, I would like to go even further and put the Islamic Revolutionary Guard on the EU terror list. 

Regarding Israel, one of our closest allies, we are steadfast in our support of its right to self-defense. But this right does not entail a carte blanche, as jus in bello (the law that governs the way in which warfare is conducted) applies to the defending state as well. 

Berlin, as noted in these pages, and elsewhere, has the real European “special relationship” with America. A duopoly between Germany and the U.S. is not only needed, but is beneficial to surviving the coming great power competition, especially with a rising China and revanchist Russia. Should there be a rapprochement (for lack of a better word) and a new social compact between the two, and if so, what might be the steps and confidence building measures, to reach that new relationship, especially from a position of mutual respect and admiration? And what might be the German red-lines, related to American interference and meddling? 

I share your assessment that U.S.-German relations are particularly important. They have a European dimension that extends beyond Germany, as we collectively want to keep the USA as a strong ally; and a geopolitical dimension that stems from Germany’s importance in positioning itself against a rising China and a revisionist Russia. Pursuing a relationship not based on military dependencies but mutual interests and benefits would be something new for both countries. For such an endeavor to be successful the conditions are easy to define: First, Germany must continue to match its words with actions and demonstrate that it is truly committed to its new stance on European security. 

Second, a new accord must be based on the shared assessment that China’s rise as a systemic rival and Russia’s persistent belligerent imperialism are the most pressing threats to regional and global security. It is a pressing but achievable task for the United States and Germany to design a coherent and joint policy to contain these security threats. 

Third, from a German and European perspective we consider any external support for extremist political parties that are aligned with powers that we perceive as threats to our national security as incompatible with such an approach. 

The post Röttgen: ‘U.S. Taxpayers Are No Longer Willing to Do the Heavy Lifting’ appeared first on The American Conservative.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has apparently figured out how bad it looks for members of his party to travel to El Salvador to advocate for illegals who have been deported by the Trump administration. He is quietly telling other Democrats to knock off the trips.

This week it was revealed that four of the Democrats who traveled to El Salvador stayed at a luxury resort. The optics of that could not be worse.

This entire affair has caused millions of Americans to wonder why Democrats would go to such lengths for people who are not even American citizens.

FOX News reports:

Jeffries distances himself from Democrat trips to El Salvador as border security debate splits party: report

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is privately signaling to fellow Democrats that it’s time to hit pause on trips to El Salvador aimed at spotlighting the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a move reflecting growing internal tensions over how the party is handling border security and immigration enforcement optics in the 2026 cycle.

Though Jeffries has publicly said Democrats are committed to securing Abrego Garcia’s return from a notorious Salvadoran prison, sources told The Bulwark that the New York Democrat has discouraged more lawmakers from traveling to the country.

One senior House staffer described the leadership’s position bluntly: “They want to let the El Salvador stuff slow down.”

“This is patently false, and thinly sourced innuendo,” said Jeffries staffer Christie Stephenson. “When Leader Jeffries says ‘more is more’ pushback on this lawless administration, he means it. As Leader Jeffries has repeatedly said, House Democrats will never stop fighting for the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia.”

Shorter Jefferies: No more trips to the Hilton San Salvador hotel bar to defend criminal illegal aliens. pic.twitter.com/oAQp0ENhaJ

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) April 30, 2025

does fighting to bring back terrorists and illegal immigrant gang members not poll well? https://t.co/v7otk2YXMa

— Ryan (@alwaysonoffense) April 30, 2025

You don’t need to be an expert in polling or public relations to know how bad this looked for Democrats.

The post REPORT: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is Privately Telling Democrats to Stop the Trips to El Salvador appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz made an appearance at the Harvard Kennedy School this week and told people that he was picked to be Kamala Harris’ running mate because he could ‘code talk’ to white guys.

That strategy didn’t work out too well for the Harris campaign, did it? Democrats lost men of all races by a wide margin. In fact, the Democratic party is struggling to figure out how to win back male voters who have deserted them in record numbers.

Tim Walz went on to compliment Harris as one of the most qualified candidate to ever run for president, showing just how out of touch he really is.

The New York Post reports:

Tim Walz says Harris picked him for VP to ‘code talk to white guys’

Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz continued a self-described “listening tour” across the country at a Harvard Kennedy School forum on Monday night, ruling out a 2028 presidential bid and revealing why former Vice President Kamala Harris chose him as her running mate.

Walz said Harris chose him, in part, because “I could code talk to white guys watching football, fixing their truck” and “put them at ease.” The Minnesota governor described himself as the “permission structure” for white men from rural America to vote for Democrats.

“I think I’ll give you pretty good stuff, but I’ll also give you 10% problematic,” Walz added when pushed by moderator Brittany Shepherd, an ABC News national political reporter, about why he didn’t take that message to cable news to reach a larger audience. Walz laughed off criticism over inconsistencies in his background on the 2024 campaign trail, describing himself as a “knucklehead.”

Walz told CNN’s Jake Tapper earlier this month that he was considering a third bid for Minnesota governor but was not thinking about running for president in 2028. When asked by Shepherd to explain, Walz said the Democratic Party should run a collective 2028 presidential campaign.

Here’s the video:

WALZ: I was picked for Kamala’s VP so “I could code talk to white guys.”

“I was the permission structure to say, look, you can vote for this.”

pic.twitter.com/SpXk0FWl3X

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 30, 2025

It’s amazing that this person tried to accuse JD Vance and Trump of being weird. Walz has the market cornered on weirdness.

The post Tim Walz Claims He Was Chosen as Running Mate for Kamala Harris Because He Could ‘Code Talk’ to White Guys (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Venezuelan Dictator Nicholas Maduro is illegally holding an unknown number of American hostages and the media refuses to cover this urgent story. We know at least two men are being held.

One is an active duty Navy Seal named Wilbert Castaneda the other is a decorated Air Force veteran named Joseph St. Clair. We owe it to these American heroes to get them back home.

Making matters worse the U.S. under Joe Biden failed to label 20 year active duty Navy Seal Castaneda an “Illegal detainee” becasue of that the Dept. of Defense suspended his pay.

President Trump got his pay re-instated but he has still yet to receive back pay. He is a father of four and a GoFundMe page has been set up to help his family.

Venezuela refuses to provide the families with any “proof of life” evidence. Even President Trumps close confident Ambassador Rick Grinnell didn’t get confirmation that the two Americans were alive during a trip where he negotiated the release of 6 other American hostages in Venezuela.

Plus the main stream media’s Terry Moran gets destroyed by President Trump in an Oval Office adversarial interview. It serves as more proof the main stream as lost their minds.

The post Venezuela Refuses to Release American Hostages… The Media is Silent! (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Trump administration has revoked the visas of approximately 4,000 foreign students in their first 100 days. Almost all of these students have some sort of criminal background.

Over the last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said repeatedly that they were trying to root out as many student radicals as they could find. Apparently, he wasn’t kidding.

This is an important policy change in the United States. The American people don’t want to play host for foreign students who come here and call for the nation’s destruction or that of our allies.

FOX News reports:

Trump admin revokes 4K foreign students’ visas in first 100 days, nearly all with serious criminal records

The State Department revoked the visas of 4,000 foreign students – 90% of whom have serious criminal records – during the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term, a senior State Department official confirmed to Fox News Digital.

“Our visa system has lacked oversight and accountability,” a senior State Department official told Fox News Digital. “Over the past 100 days, the Trump Administration has worked to fix a broken system.”

“Secretary [Marco] Rubio has led the State Department to take a surgical vetting approach to ensure individuals in America as visitors are abiding by ours laws,” the source said. “We established an action working group, which has resulted in thousands of visas being revoked because these individuals broke our laws. This is what effective governance looks like.”

Those serious crimes included arson, wildlife and human trafficking, child endangerment, domestic abuse, driving under the influence and robbery, according to the New York Post, which first reported the number.

This sends a very clear message.

BREAKING: The Trump administration has revoked the visas of 4,000 foreign students in its first 100 days — the bulk of which have committed crimes in the US including arson, assault and robbery. pic.twitter.com/FfCIzpthhH

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) April 29, 2025

Things have changed and we’re not putting up with radicalism in foreign students anymore. It’s a good thing.

The post The Trump Administration Has Revoked the Visas of 4,000 Foreign Students in First 100 Days – Most With Criminal Records appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Left: United States Magistrate Judge Jessica Hedges, Right: Owen McIntire Credit: Northeastern Law and Fox 4 Kansas City Screenshot

An outrageous travesty of justice occurred in Missouri recently that could cause millions of Americans to lose faith in the criminal justice system.

As KSHB reported on Wednesday, a radical judge ordered a deranged leftist credibly accused in federal court of firebombing two Tesla Cybertrucks and charging stations in Kansas City to be released from prison back on April 24.

United States Magistrate Judge Jessica Hedges ruled that it was wrong to hold 19-year-old Owen McIntire behind bars before trial for his alleged crimes after agreeing with the defense’s desperate pleas for mercy.

FOX4 obtained court documents that revealed the defense’s reasons for releasing Owen McIntire from jail. Among the reasons listed are treatment for depression and ‘gender-affirming care.’

Yes, McIntire’s lawyers wanted him freed partly because the suspect wanted to continue his transition toward becoming a ‘female!’ And the judge ruled in their favor!

FOX 4 Kansas City reported:

According to federal court documents, McIntire’s attorney argued he should be released, citing several “serious and ongoing” medical needs and treatments that McIntire’s attorney believed could not or would not be provided while in federal detention.

The defense filing says McIntire is undergoing treatment for depression and is receiving gender affirming care that began in March of this year — and that care would likely be interrupted or terminated in federal custody.

McIntire’s attorney also cited his client’s lack of a criminal history and deep ties to the Kansas City area community as reasons he would not be a flight risk. He was arrested earlier this month in Boston.

According to KSHB, McIntire’s travel is limited only to the Western District of Missouri and Wyandotte and Johnson counties. In a just system, his travel would be restricted to behind prison walls.

The alleged crimes of McIntire occurred on March 17 at 11:16 p.m. at a car dealership at 10111 State Line Road, according to a court document obtained by KSHB.

The document states that McIntire used a ‘Molotov cocktail’ to commit his crimes. The devices were empty apple cider vinegar bottles filled with gasoline and dish towels.

Two Cybertrucks and two charging stations were damaged, even though one of the devices did not work.

KSHB reports that McIntire has been charged in federal court with malicious destruction of property and unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm. He is due back in the United States Federal Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri, for a hearing at 1 p.m. on Thursday, May 1.

The post OUTRAGEOUS! Radical Judge RELEASES Alleged Tesla Firebomber From Prison, Citing Suspect’s Multiple Supposed ‘Medical Needs’ Including Access to “Gender-Affirming Care” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Donald Trump clashed with cringe ABC News reporter Terry Moran during an exclusive interview marking his first 100 days in office on April 29, 2025, in the Oval Office. The interview turned contentious as Trump slammed Moran for asking “fake” and “stupid” questions, particularly on topics like deportation, tariffs, Ukraine, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, even telling Moran, “I don’t trust you” and “I never heard of you.”

President Trump was not having it, grilling Moran for not being “nice” and declaring ABC was “one of the worst.” Moran attempted to press Trump on deporting MS-13 gang members, yet when the President would respond with the facts, the fake news reporter would attempt to jump to a different subject.

Sponsor | https://www.purgestore.com | Use promo code DREW for 20% off and support The Gateway Pundit today!

Follow Drew on X: https://x.com/DrewHLive
Follow Drew on Rumble: https://rumble.com/DrewHernandez

The post President Trump COOKS Fake News ABC Reporter | Drew Hernandez appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

After months of negotiations and false starts, the United States and Ukraine on Wednesday signed an extensive agreement for postwar reconstruction funding in the so-called minerals deal.

In a statement on X, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term.” The deal directs American capital toward accessing Ukraine’s stores of rare minerals.

The agreement comes against the backdrop of the difficult peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia brokered by the U.S., which continue to face headwinds from both parties. The minerals deal is a proxy for a formal American security guarantee to Ukraine.

The post U.S., Ukraine Sign Long-Awaited Minerals Deal appeared first on The American Conservative.