Author

admin

Browsing

As a writer, there are times when I read something and think, ‘Wow, that’s good, this cat has chops.’ Very rarely do I read something that’s new, that I didn’t know was possible. Ben Sasse, he just wrote one of those.

The former Republican senator from Nebraska was informing the nation that he has stage four cancer and is going to die soon.

‘Advanced pancreatic is nasty stuff; it’s a death sentence,’ he write. ‘But I already had a death sentence before last week too — we all do.’

It may seem trivial, or even cruel to ponder Sasse’s written words when we know the pain he and his family must feel, but it is not trivial to me, and never has been in the history of man.

Shakespeare called death the undiscovered country, but Sasse preferred to focus on what we know, writing, ‘To be clear, optimism is great, and it’s absolutely necessary, but it’s insufficient. It’s not the kinda thing that holds up when you tell your daughters you’re not going to walk them down the aisle. Nor telling your mom and pops they’re gonna bury their son.’

‘Kinda,’ as a writer, this casual usage that my editors often change when I employ it is the embodiment of what Sasse has wrought here. His words make me think that beauty always portends tragedy, but that’s okay. To invoke a New Yorkism, it is what it is.

Sasse, who went from the Senate to serve as president of University of Florida until last year, goes on to say, ‘A well-lived life demands more reality — stiffer stuff. That’s why, during Advent, even while still walking in darkness, we shout our hope — often properly with a gravelly voice soldiering through tears’

Aside from a few modern references, Sasse’s letter to our nation would have been understood perfectly 2,500 years ago in Athens, where such writing of the examination of the human condition was born.

Sasse tells us that, ‘Remembering Isaiah’s prophecies of what’s to come doesn’t dull the pain of current sufferings. But it does put it in eternity’s perspective: 

‘When we’ve been there 10,000 years…We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise.’

Maybe what stands out the most in this incredible piece of writing is that it is not performative at all, in an age in which everything is. In the law, a dying declaration holds special weight. In Sasse’s pen, it holds our hearts.

Much of our languages’ great work involves death, Dylan Thomas imploring his father in poetry: ‘Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

As I read his profound letter to us, I couldn’t help but see the image of Sasse in his running clothes, stooped on a stone wall at the capitol, chopping it up with Schumer and McCain. Just a regular guy, one of us.

Reading his words about his own mortality, I see now he is much more than that. I spend almost the whole time I’m awake reading, when I’m not writing. At 50, little surprises me. This did.

My mother died of damnable cancer when I was 24, her final request of me was to write and deliver her eulogy, and I’ll be honest the request felt too hard. But when she died, I had a job to do, and for two days I did nothing but write, it was her last gift, she knew me, and she got me through it.

I’m so grateful for Sasse’s words, and that at a time when everything is so ugly, he took the occasion of personal horror to buck us up. His great-great-grandchildren will know of it and feel rightful pride.

God bless Ben Sasse and his family, and may his profound and beautiful words echo down the centuries as the epitome of grace in a falling world.

As a writer, I want to say, thank you senator, I know right now it must seem completely insignificant, but there is a scribe in West Virginia today who will be forever changed by those words, and I’m grateful for it.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The president of the Kennedy Center on Friday sharply criticized longtime jazz musician Chuck Redd for canceling his Christmas Eve performance days after the White House announced that President Donald Trump’s name would be added to the iconic performing arts institution in Washington, D.C.

Kennedy Center president Richard Grenell said Redd’s decision financially harmed the nonprofit institution, and he would seek $1 million in damages, accusing him of carrying out a ‘political stunt.’

‘Your decision to withdraw at the last moment — explicitly in response to the Center’s recent renaming, which honors President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to save this national treasure — is classic intolerance and very costly to a non-profit Arts institution,’ Grenell wrote in a letter to Redd, obtained by Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital could not immediately reach Redd for comment.

Redd, who has hosted holiday Jazz Jams at the venue since 2006, abruptly canceled his Christmas Eve performance after Trump’s name was added to the facility.

‘When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert,’ Redd told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

On Dec. 18, the Kennedy Center’s board voted unanimously to rename the institution the ‘Trump-Kennedy Center.’

The update was immediately criticized by members of the Kennedy family who argued it undermined the legacy of President John F. Kennedy.

Maria Shriver, Kennedy’s niece, reacted harshly to the decision, saying it was ‘beyond comprehension.’

Several artists have canceled performances at the Kennedy Center since Trump’s return to office, including Lin-Manuel Miranda, who called off a production of ‘Hamilton.’

Kennedy Center vice president of public relations Roma Daravi told Fox News Digital Friday that Redd was politicizing art by calling off his performance.

‘Any artist canceling their show at the Trump Kennedy Center over political differences isn’t courageous or principled—they are selfish, intolerant, and have failed to meet the basic duty of a public artist: to perform for all people,’ she said in a statement.

Daravi stated that art is ‘a shared cultural experience meant to unite, not exclude,’ calling the venue ‘a true bipartisan institution that welcomes artists and patrons from all backgrounds.’

She added that ‘great art transcends politics,’ and that ‘America’s cultural center remains committed to presenting popular programming that inspires and resonates with all audiences.’

Last week, workers added President Trump’s name to the building’s exterior, and the website header was updated to read, ‘The Trump Kennedy Center.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump said he will call the final shots on a peace deal to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy preparing to unveil a new peace plan when the two meet Sunday. 

‘He doesn’t have anything until I approve it,’ Trump told Politico Friday. ‘So we’ll see what he’s got.’

Zelenskyy told reporters Friday he will meet with Trump Sunday in Florida and will share a 20-point peace proposal for the president to review. 

Additionally, Zelenskyy said the meeting will likely focus on security guarantees for Ukraine, adding it was unclear if ‘territorial issues will be discussed.’

‘The 20-point plan that we worked on is 90% ready. Our task (is) to make sure that everything is 100% ready. It is not easy, and no one says that it will be 100% right away, but nevertheless we must bring the desired result closer with each such meeting, each such conversation,’ Zelenskyy told reporters Friday.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital to confirm the meeting. 

Trump voiced optimism about the meeting with Zelenskyy and future conversations with Putin. 

‘I think it’s going to go good with him. I think it’s going to go good with [Vladimir] Putin,’ Trump told Politico. Trump also said that he expects to speak with Putin ‘soon.’

Trump said in November he would not meet with Zelenskyy again — or Putin — unless a deal to end the war was in its final stages. 

Zelenskyy has indicated progress is being made and touted that he had a ‘a very good conversation’ with Jared Kushner and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff Thursday. Specifically, Zelenskyy said, talks focused on ending the war and efforts to ensure lasting peace in the region.

Trump has met with Zelenskyy multiple times since taking office in January, including in February when Zelenskyy sparred openly with Trump and Vance in the Oval Office over engaging in diplomacy with Russia to end the conflict. Additionally, Trump met with Putin in Alaska in August. 

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Supreme Court has been systematically dismantling the modern administrative state. In several decisions, the justices have pushed back against the idea that executive-branch agencies can be insulated from presidential oversight. The constitutional principle is straightforward: Executive power must be accountable to the president.

Yet the court has hesitated to apply this logic to the Federal Reserve, easily the most important independent agency. That exception is increasingly hard to defend.

Recent Supreme Court cases such as Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen reject the notion that Congress may create powerful agencies whose leaders are shielded from removal by the president. The Court has been clear that technocratic expertise, political convenience, and even good policy outcomes do not override the Constitution’s separation of powers. If an agency exercises executive authority, it must ultimately answer to the elected chief executive.

Monetary policy would seem to fit squarely within that framework. The Fed regulates banks, influences the availability and price of credit, and controls the nation’s ultimate settlement asset. These decisions materially shape markets for labor, housing, and securities, which include the market for Treasury debt. If this does not count as executive power, what does?

And yet the Court appears willing to carve out an exception for the central bank. Defenders of Fed independence point to history, especially the First and Second Banks of the United States, and to the dangers of presidential meddling with monetary policy. They warn that subjecting Fed decisions to democratic accountability would invite political interference, with the likely result of excessive dollar depreciation.

But these are not constitutional arguments. They are prudential ones. They do not change the basic matter of what the Constitution says about executive authority. If the Constitution rules out conventional central banking, it is central banking that needs to change, not the Constitution.

History alone cannot justify departures from constitutional structure. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s claims, the First and Second Banks of the United States bore little resemblance to today’s Federal Reserve, as even Fed Chair Powell recognized. They lacked modern macroeconomic stabilization powers, operated under government charters, and existed for limited terms. Invoking them as precedent for an unaccountable central bank with sweeping discretionary authority is an historical solecism.

Nor can expertise supply a constitutional warrant. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that technical competence licenses insulation from political control. If Ph.D. economists qualify for special treatment, why not epidemiologists, climate scientists, or national security analysts? The argument has no limiting principle.

The real issue, though perhaps uncomfortable, is simple: Either the president runs the executive branch, or he does not.

If we believe that presidential interference with monetary policy is so dangerous that it must be prevented at all costs, the Constitution offers two solutions. One is to place the Federal Reserve firmly under executive control and accept political accountability for monetary outcomes, just as we do for every other entity that enforces laws passed by Congress. The other is to eliminate discretion altogether by binding monetary policy to strict, automatic rules—ones that leave no room for judgment calls by policymakers, however credentialed.

What the Constitution does not permit is what we have now: discretionary macroeconomic governance by financial insiders who answer to no elected official.

The Fed’s defenders often invoke “constrained discretion” as a middle ground. But discretion is still discretion. Choosing inflation targets, interpreting economic data, timing interventions, and deciding when to bend or suspend rules all involve judgment. Those judgments often have significant distributional consequences, benefiting some groups at the expense of others. Exercising such power without political accountability is precisely what the Court has rejected in other contexts.

To be sure, markets have grown accustomed to an independent Fed. But market expectations do not confer constitutional legitimacy. Investors once took Chevron deference and expansive agency authority for granted, too. Stability is desirable, but it cannot come at the expense of constitutional government.

The uncomfortable truth is that the Federal Reserve survives not because it fits neatly within our constitutional order, but because the alternative frightens us. Presidents might pressure the Fed to run the printing presses before elections, just as President Nixon had Fed Chair Arthur F. Burns do. Yes, inflation might follow. These are real concerns—but they are not legal ones.

If discretionary monetary policy is incompatible with democratic accountability, the answer is to reform monetary institutions so that discretion is radically constrained, not exempt those institutions from constitutional scrutiny. Alternatively, we should rethink whether a centralized monetary authority is compatible with the letter and spirit of constitutional law in the first place.

The Supreme Court has rightly insisted that the separation of powers means what it says. If that principle stops at the doors of the Federal Reserve, it is not a principle. It is an exception born of fear. And fear is a poor foundation for constitutional self-government.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is expecting a baby girl, Fox News Digital has learned. 

Leavitt and her husband Nick are expecting their second bundle of joy to be born in May 2026. Their first son, Niko, was born in July 2024.

‘My husband and I are thrilled to grow our family and can’t wait to watch our son become a big brother,’ Leavitt told Fox News Digital. ‘My heart is overflowing with gratitude to God for the blessing of motherhood, which I truly believe is the closest thing to Heaven on Earth.’

Leavitt told Fox News Digital that she is ‘extremely grateful to President Trump and our amazing Chief of Staff Susie Wiles for their support, and for fostering a pro-family environment in the White House.’

‘Nearly all of my West Wing colleagues have babies and young children, so we all really support one another as we tackle raising our families while working for the greatest president ever,’ Leavitt said.

Leavitt added: ‘2026 is going to be an amazing year for the President and our country, and personally, I am beyond excited to become a girl mom.’ 

A senior White House official told Fox News Digital that Leavitt will remain in her post as press secretary.

Leavitt will be the first pregnant press secretary in U.S. history.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump is taking his pressure campaign to the next level against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and making it clear he doesn’t believe the strongman should be leading the country — all while China and Russia are speaking out on the escalating conflict involving their ally.

The Trump administration has launched a series of strikes targeting alleged drug boats off the coast of Latin America in recent months and announced this month a ‘complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela’ as his administration has significantly beefed up its naval assets in the region. 

While the Trump administration has said that these efforts align with the administration’s effort to curb the influx of drugs into the U.S., the campaign also appears geared toward removing Maduro from power. This isn’t the first attempt by Trump to squeeze out Maduro. He previously imposed sanctions on Venezuela and backed opposition leader Juan Guaidó during his first term. 

As a result, Trump said Monday that Washington’s pressure campaign against Venezuela would ‘probably’ be sufficient to coerce Maduro to step down and made it clear he believes that’s something Maduro should be doing.

‘That’s up to him, what he wants to do,’ Trump said Monday. ‘I think it would be smart for him to do that. But, again, we’re going to find out.’

The White House has historically refused to comment on whether it is pursuing regime change in Venezuela even though it does not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state and insists he is the leader of a drug cartel. 

China and Russia are speaking out about U.S. actions in the region, accusing the U.S. of breaking international law after the U.S. seized multiple oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The first seizure occurred Dec. 10, and Trump confirmed Monday that the U.S. is still pursuing another oil tanker that a U.S. official told Fox News Digital is a ‘sanctioned dark fleet vessel that is part of Venezuela’s illegal sanctions evasion.’

‘The U.S. practice of arbitrarily seizing other countries’ vessels grossly violates international law,’ Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian told reporters Monday. Jian said Beijing opposes anything that ‘infringes upon other countries’ sovereignty and security, and all acts of unilateralism or bullying.’

Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Venezuela’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Yván Gil spoke over the phone Monday, and the ‘Russian side reaffirmed its all-out support and solidarity with the leaders and people of Venezuela in the current context.’ 

‘The ministers expressed grave concern in connection with Washington stepping up its escalation actions in the Caribbean, actions fraught with far-reaching consequences for the region and creating a threat for international shipping,’ the statement said.

Katherine Thompson, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, previously told Fox News Digital that adversaries like Russia and China are likely perplexed as to why the Trump administration has zeroed in on the Maduro regime. That’s because Caracas doesn’t jeopardize U.S. interests as much as other actors, in addition to the Trump administration’s ‘American First’ mantra, Thompson said. 

‘I imagine, for them, it’s probably a bit puzzling if they’re looking at it through a real, brass tacks, realist lens why this administration would be prioritizing ousting the Maduro regime as opposed to conflicts in other theaters,’ Thompson said earlier in December. 

The Trump administration has conducted nearly 30 strikes in Latin American waters since September as part of its hard-line approach to crack down on the influx of drugs into the U.S. 

For example, the Trump administration designated drug cartel groups like Tren de Aragua, Sinaloa and others as foreign terrorist organizations and bolstered its naval assets in the region in recent months, including signing off on the unprecedented step of sending the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to the region.

In addition to the strikes against alleged drug vessels, Trump has suggested for months that strikes on land could be the next step.

‘We’re knocking out drug boats right now at a level that we haven’t seen,’ Trump said Dec. 3. ‘Very soon we’re going to start doing it on land too.’

Although the Trump administration has said it has the authority to conduct these attacks against alleged drug boats, Democrats and some Republicans have questioned the legality of the strikes.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and senators Tim Kaine, D-Va., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a war powers resolution this month to bar Trump from using U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela.

Fox News’ Lucas Tomlinson contributed to this report. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar blasted the Palestinian Authority (PA) for emboldening terrorism with its infamous ‘Pay-for-Slay’ program after a Palestinian on Friday murdered two Israelis.

Palestinian terrorists murdered 19-year-old Aviv Maor from Kibbutz Ein Harod and Mordechai Shimshon, 68, from Beit She’an on Friday in northern Israel.

The Palestinian Authority ‘Pay-for-Slay’ policy gained wide public attention when Taylor Force, a West Point graduate who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, was savagely knifed to death by a Palestinian terrorist on March 8, 2016, while on a tour of Israel. President Donald Trump signed the Taylor Force Act into law in October 2018, after a vigorous campaign by Force’s parents, Robbi and Stuart Force.

Prior to Friday’s terrorist attacks, Sa’ar issued warnings to the international community about alleged Palestinian leadership deception. He wrote on X: ‘Don’t believe Mahmoud Abbas’ lies. The Palestinian Authority’s payments to terrorists and their families haven’t stopped. The PA decided to continue its ‘Pay-for-Slay’ policy. This includes payments to the families of ‘martyrs’ and injured terrorists, jailed terrorists and released terrorists.  The PA is also disguising the payments to the released murderers as payments to pensioners of the Palestinian Security Services!   This is distorted.  End ‘Pay-for-Slay’ now!’

Abbas is the 90-year-old chain-smoking president of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank (the region is known in Israel by its biblical names of Judea and Samaria.)

Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, told Fox News Digital that contrary to Palestinian Authority claims about stopping the ‘Pay-for-Slay’ program, there has been ‘no substantial change in Palestinian Authority policy with regard to the payments to terrorists.’

He continued that ‘They are making noises as if they are changing their policies.’ But he termed it a ‘façade’ with no change in policy.

Michael said that ‘Pay-for-Slay will continue in a different manner. Donors and the international community [who finance the PA] will find it more difficult to monitor it.’

The counter-terrorism expert, Michael, who is also a fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy, said the PA ‘defines terrorists as social welfare. They continue to support incitement against Israel. They continue remaining dysfunctional.’

According to a Dec. 19 report in the Times of Israel, a PA-linked organization –The Palestinian National Economic Empowerment Institution (also known as Tamkeen) — disputed the Israeli government claim that ‘Pay-for Slay’ is still intact.

Tamkeen noted in its statement that it ‘confirms that the payment system linked to the number of years of imprisonment has been completely and permanently abolished and is no longer in effect in any way.’ It added that ‘Claims regarding its continuation fall under the category of deliberate misinformation and falsification of facts.’

Fox News Digital reached out numerous times to the Palestinian Authority for a comment and sent press queries to the Palestinian National Economic Empowerment Institution (Tamkeen.)

When asked by Fox News Digital what donor nations can do to stop ‘Pay-for-Slay,’ Michael said, ‘Be strict when it comes to financial donations,’ adding there are ‘many ways to pressure the Palestinian Authority.’

He sharply criticized Western European leaders who recognized an independent Palestinian state in 2025 without ensuring that the state would be a non-sponsor of terrorism. ‘Western leaders, the British prime minister, the French president and the Spanish prime minister are rushing and running to recognize a Palestinian state, and they don’t care what takes place under the Palestinian Authority in the territories.’ He said their recognition is ‘an incentive to continue to ‘Pay for Slay.’’

Michael said the Trump administration is the only one ‘applying pressure on the Palestinian Authority.’

He stressed that if the U.S.-designated terrorist movement Hamas is not dismantled and disarmed in Gaza, ‘it will be another achievement of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.’

The U.S. State Department and American Embassy in Jerusalem did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital press queries.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Capitol Hill is a ghost town with both the House and Senate out of session until a few days into the new year.

Lawmakers left town the week before Christmas, and with their departure have left several key fights unresolved — with deadlines looming large for both Republicans and Democrats.

Government funding

Congress voted to end the longest-ever government shutdown in history last month after 43 days of gridlock.

But lawmakers did not strike a deal on federal funding for the rest of fiscal year (FY) 2026, which they’re expected to do annually. Instead, they passed a portion of FY 2026 funding while punting the deadline for the majority of areas to Jan. 30.

Senate Republicans had hoped to strike a deal on the vast majority of the remaining funds before leaving town, but various objections from senators on both sides of the aisle delayed an actual vote. 

Now, that legislation will have to be reckoned with in early January. During that month, the House and Senate will only have a total of eight days in session together before the Jan. 30 deadline.

The Senate will have 15 total days in session, while the House will have 12.

Healthcare

Millions of people across the country are expected to see an increase in how much they pay for healthcare premiums every month starting in January.

Congress, meanwhile, has failed to pass a compromise between the House and Senate to help Americans deal with the rising cost.

For some Americans on Obamacare, part of that is due to COVID-19 pandemic-era enhanced subsidies expiring at the end of 2025. 

Republicans have largely rejected the notion of extending those subsidies, at least without significant reforms. But a small group of moderate GOP lawmakers are pushing for a short-term extension to give Congress time to create a more permanent system for lowering costs.

The House passed a healthcare reform bill aimed at expanding options in the commercial insurance marketplace the week before leaving town. In the Senate, however, dueling plans by Republicans and Democrats failed to advance.

It will now be an issue for GOP congressional leaders to tackle in 2026 — while Democrats are likely to seize on it as an election-year issue.

Redistricting

Mid-decade redistricting has upended state and federal politics across the U.S. this year, with President Donald Trump pushing multiple GOP-controlled states to change their congressional lines in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterms.

Democrat-led states like California have responded by moving to redraw their own maps to give the left an advantage. It’s resulted in prolonged court battles on both sides.

In Texas, where new maps could give Republicans as many as five new House seats, the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay on a lower court’s order allowing the GOP-led initiative to move forward.

The federal court battle over the Golden State’s new map is likely to draw into the new year. Meanwhile, states like Virginia, Illinois, Alabama, and Louisiana could still move to make new lines before next November.

Multiple House lawmakers have introduced legislation to ban mid-decade redistricting, but to no avail so far.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., warned at a press conference earlier this month, ‘Republicans may have started this redistricting battle. We as Democrats plan to finish it.’

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., by contrast, has taken a largely hands-off approach, preferring to leave the matter to state legislatures and the courts.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

In 1980, at Dartmouth College, psychologists Richard E. Kleck and Angelo G. Strenta set out to study how people perceive subtle social cues. In their own mischievous words, “Individuals were led to believe that they were perceived as physically deviant in the eyes of an interactant.”

Over a series of studies, dozens of volunteers (mostly females) pretended to have a physical ailment or disfigurement — often a facial scar — during an interview. The rub was this: the person pretending to have the disfigurement was the true test subject.

To make volunteers believe they bore a scar, each subject sat down with a professional makeup artist, who carefully applied a facial “injury.” The participants were shown their fake scar in a hand mirror and given a moment to absorb their appearance. But before meeting the stranger, the makeup artist returned under the pretense of “touching up” the scar  —  and quietly removed it. Participants were unaware of the subterfuge and entered their interview convinced their face still bore the disfigurement.

Even though no scar was present, nearly all subjects reported that the strangers they met seemed uneasy by their appearance — avoiding eye contact, speaking awkwardly, or looking at them with pity.

A Distorted ‘Social Reality’

What Kleck and Strenta had uncovered was how easily human expectations about how we’re perceived can color — and distort — our reading of other people’s behavior.

Though the study was groundbreaking, previous studies had treaded similar ground. This included Beatrice A. Wright’s “Physical Disability: A Psychological Approach,” which had found that once a person acquires a physical disability, their perception of social reality becomes filtered through that disability.

While Kleck and Strenta noted that their research differed from Wright’s in key ways, they also saw a clear connection, noting “that persons who are permanently physically deviant make the same kinds of disability-linked attributes to a natural stream of behavior as did the subjects in the present studies.”

The findings of Kleck and Strenta are highly relevant half a century later. In modern America, it’s not uncommon for people to see their group identity as a kind of social handicap. The idea that certain identity groups face discrimination has taken root in the American mind. For example, a May 2025 Pew Research survey asked Americans how much discrimination they think various groups face. Their responses are instructive:

  • Illegal Immigrants: 82% say some (57% say “a lot”) 
  • Transgender people: 77%
  • Muslims: 74%
  • Jews: 72%
  • Black people: 74%
  • Hispanic people: 72%
  • Asian people: 66% 
  • Legal immigrants: 65% 
  • Gay/Lesbian individuals: 70%
  • Women: 64%
  • Older people: 59%
  • Religious people: 57%

Discrimination certainly exists, at both the individual and collective level. No doubt some individuals in all these groups have faced discrimination, just as some individuals have in groups less commonly associated with it, such as rural Americans (41%), young people (40%), white people (38%), and atheists (33%).

Kleck and Strenta’s experiment shows that people often believe they’re being discriminated against because they expect to be, not because they are. Edgier comedies of the 1990s explored this idea.

In one Seinfeld episode, Jerry is on a date and stops to ask a mailman (whose face is obscured) if he knows where a certain Chinese restaurant is. “Excuse me, you must know where the Chinese restaurant is around here,” the comedian says.

Things get awkward, however, when it turns out the mailman is Asian. “Why must I know? Because I’m Chinese?” the mailman says in a heavy accent. “You think I know where all the Chinese restaurants are?”

The scene is comical and a bit absurd, but it reflects a phenomenon Kleck and Strenta observed in their experiments: Once humans begin to feel they are being treated differently based on their physical appearance or inherent attributes, they will believe people are treating them differently even when that is not the case.

“… if we expect others to react negatively to some aspect of our physical appearance,” the authors wrote, “there is probably little those others can do to prevent us from confirming our expectation.”

The Cost of Victimhood Culture

I learned about the Kleck-Strenta as an undergraduate in an introductory psychology class nearly 30 years ago. But I had rarely thought about it since — until Konstantin Kisin, a British-Russian political commentator, brought it up in recent podcast appearances and connected the study to the rise of victimhood culture.

“If you preach to people constantly that we’re all oppressed, that we’re all being discriminated against, then that primes people to look for that,” says Kisin, “even where it doesn’t exist.”

As a concept, victimhood culture wasn’t articulated until the 1990s. But by 2015, the phenomenon was widely discussed in academic literature and mainstream publications, likely due to the rise of political correctness that preceded it. 

“‘Victimhood culture,’ Arthur Brookes wrote in the New York Times a decade ago, “has now been identified as a widening phenomenon by mainstream sociologists.”

Though relatively new in scholarship, the psychological phenomenon itself has been around for ages. In his masterpiece The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky explores the human proclivity to manufacture grievance by taking offense. 

“A man who lies to himself is the first to take offense. It sometimes feels very good to take offense, doesn’t it? And surely he knows that no one has offended him, and that he himself has invented the offense and told lies just for the beauty of it, that he has exaggerated for the sake of effect, that he has picked on a word and made a mountain out of a pea — he knows all that, and still he is the first to take offense, he likes feeling offended, it gives him great pleasure, and thus he reaches the point of real hostility.”

These words are uttered by Father Zosima, a wise monk tasked with settling a dispute among the Karamazov family. Fyodor Karamazov, the lecherous patriarch, practical purrs in agreement.

“Precisely, precisely—it feels good to be offended,” he replies. “You put it so well, I’ve never heard it before.”

Dostoevsky was observing a psychological tendency: our ability to see ourselves as victims. (Anyone who has watched The Sopranos has seen this idea explored in brilliant artistic fashion.) 

Combine that impulse with postmodern philosophies that have turned oppression into a kind of fascination, and you get a potent—and corrosive—worldview.

None of this is to deny that real oppression exists or that people are sometimes treated differently because of their appearance. But the research of Kleck and Strenta suggests that, oftentimes, the perceived discrimination exists only in the minds of those who believe they’ve been wronged.

“Regime uncertainty” should be our bywords for understanding the economy of 2025. Trump’s push for “state capitalism,” ranging from tariffs to taking federal stakes in companies to industrial policy to jawboning companies to fire executives to targeted regulatory carveouts, has created a chaotic, pay-to-play environment in which firms find they can get favorable treatment by contributing to Trump’s political success, but the basic rules of the economic game are unpredictable and open to constant negotiation. That unpredictability has in turn deterred private investment and brought on stagflation.

Economist Robert Higgs developed the concept of regime uncertainty to explain why American recovery from the Great Depression was so slow. Investors feared for the security of their contracts and their private property rights as FDR turned explicitly anti-business during the 1936 presidential campaign. As a result, private investment stagnated and the economy tipped back into recession, prolonging the Great Depression. Investor confidence didn’t return until after the war, when it launched an economic boom.

Regime uncertainty was on my mind when I watched the fateful “Liberation Day” press conference in the Rose Garden on April 2, when President Trump held up the schedule of so-called “reciprocal tariffs” that would apply to imports from other countries. The tariff rates themselves were extremely high, but more than that, they were absurd and irrational. They had no logical basis in law or economics. I immediately moved my retirement savings out of US equities into global equities and bought physical gold with all my family’s free cash. After most of the tariffs were rolled back, I gradually started shifting back to a 60-40 US-global equities mix, which is still overweighted to international stocks compared to most Americans’ portfolios.

I didn’t shift to gold or global stocks because I thought the tariffs themselves would be so destructive, but because I lost all confidence in this administration’s economic policy team. I figured we were in for a wild ride, and unfortunately, we have been.

Regime uncertainty explains not just why global stocks have outperformed US stocks (Figure 1), but why gold has performed so well, despite reasonably moderate inflation (Figure 2). Gold is hedging not just ongoing inflation, but policy uncertainty more broadly.

Figure 1: S&P 500 Index vs. S&P Global Index, Jan. 2025 to Dec. 2025 (source: WSJ)

Figure 2: Gold Spot Price, Jan. 2025 to Dec. 2025 (source: TradingView)

Regime uncertainty explains another curious fact about the current US economy: the return of mild stagflation. With private investment lagging, unemployment has risen along with inflation. Macroeconomists would interpret this combination as an “adverse supply shock,” that is, a loss of productivity growth.

As Figure 3 shows, US job growth has slowed markedly since April. Monthly job growth since then has averaged a measly 35,000 workers, compared to over 100,000 every single month going back to October 2024.

Figure 3: US Nonfarm Jobs, Monthly Change, Jan. 2022 to Nov. 2025

The unemployment rate has also now risen a full percentage point since its 2023 low. Note that there is a gap in the series because of the government shutdown: the October figure is missing. The November figure is 4.6%, which means that the unemployment rate has risen a full half a percentage point just since June.

Figure 4: US Unemployment Rate, Jan. 2022 to Nov. 2025

Figure 5 shows monthly personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation rates up through November (excluding October). While this series is highly noisy, an upward trend since March is plainly apparent. Moreover, the disinflationary trend that we saw from the beginning of the series up until March has definitively come to an end. For the months through September, we had six straight months of PCE inflation near or above the Fed’s target. The last time that happened was the six months ending in June 2023.

Figure 5: US PCE Inflation, Monthly, Jan. 2022 to Sept. 2025

So far the data suggest the US economy is slowing, investors are hedging against something, and investors prefer to park their money abroad rather than in the US. But the smoking gun that suggests regime uncertainty is at fault is private investment. Real gross private investment is the series that Higgs himself uses to establish a “capital strike” during the late New Deal period.

What do we see when we look at US real gross domestic private investment in 2025? In Q2 2025, the quarter that includes Liberation Day, we see the largest single-quarter decline in US private investment since Q2 2020, the quarter most affected by the global pandemic (Figure 6). To see another decline as large, we have to go all the way back to 2009, during the throes of the Great Recession. Indeed, to find another quarterly decline as large outside the immediate period during or around an official recession, we have to go all the way back to Q1 1988. The just-released figures for Q3 show another decline in real private investment, of 0.3%.

Figure 6: US Real Gross Domestic Private Investment, Quarterly Growth, Q1 2020 to Q3 2025

All of this has been happening at the same time as an AI-fueled boom in capital investment for electricity generation and data centers has taken hold. Had this technologically driven boom not been ongoing, the effects of regime uncertainty on the US economy presumably would have been much worse.

Indeed, if we look at the components of private investment, “information processing equipment,” “software,” and “research and development” have contributed significantly to growth this year. But their growth has been more than offset in the last two quarters by declines in nonresidential structures and residential construction.

Why has regime uncertainty become such a problem? After all, the Trump Administration has made a verbal commitment to deregulation, and the tax cuts passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill should have incentivized business investment. But all of the deregulation enacted by the Trump Administration has come through executive orders and the rulemaking process, not legislation. A future administration could easily undo it. As a result, businesses lack the confidence that large capital investments will pay off in the long run.

The evidence suggests that to turn the American economy around, the Trump Administration needs to work through Congress to pass statutory deregulation, end its experiments with industrial policy, government ownership, and tariffs, and shift from a “deal-making” posture of transactional politics to a firm, credible commitment to enforcing a level playing field for private business. Without a believable shift in strategy, this administration risks incurring an economic malaise that could last for another three years.