Author

admin

Browsing

Former White House speechwriters from both parties say President Donald Trump must decide whether to double down on the rally-style politics that powered his campaign or broaden his message to unify a divided country around his governing agenda in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

As Trump prepares to speak to the nation and the world, a majority of Americans think the country is worse off today than it was a year ago, according to a recent Fox News survey. The challenge he faces Tuesday night is to persuade skeptical voters that his economic policies are bringing costs down, that tougher immigration enforcement is making the country safer and that he has a disciplined, forward-looking plan for the years ahead — a message that could shape Republicans’ prospects as they head into the 2026 midterm elections with narrow majorities in Congress.

Clark Judge, a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan and now chairman of the Pacific Research Institute, told Fox News Digital that Trump should address America’s position in the world.

‘Threats to the country and to the economy were growing,’ Judge said. ‘Now, in area after area, those threats have been confronted and defeated.’

Judge said Reagan’s strength was clarity. People ‘knew where he would come down. One advantage of working with him was that he had been so clear throughout his career on what he was for,’ he said.

There are lessons from Reagan that Judge suggested Trump should take to heart. ‘Know the president, know the administration, know the public — where is the public at any one moment?’

‘Where are the Democrats? What are they trying to do — and how do we disarm their arguments?’ he said.

The balance needed in a State of the Union is finding a ‘middle ground’ between the president’s Cabinet fighting for their mentions and ‘trying to create big, thematic connections,’ former Jimmy Carter presidential speechwriter James Fallows told Fox News Digital.

Fallows, the Georgia Democrat’s chief speechwriter during his first two years in office, has since been a book, magazine and Substack writer. He said Trump’s challenge, both now and in his previous addresses, is to unite the country around his agenda, not just please his supporters.

Trump’s preferred rhetorical style is a rally-style approach — ‘where he can digress and weave’ and create ‘us versus them’ scenarios to rile the audience,’ he said, adding that a State of the Union address requires the opposite.

Former Joe Biden speechwriter Dan Cluchey expressed skepticism that Trump would be able to rise to the occasion.

‘President Biden has a deep reverence for both the constitutional role of Congress and the dignity of the presidential office, so he approached the State of the Union as an opportunity to rise above the fray and bring Americans together,’ Cluchey said, pointing to what the Delawarean considered the ‘Unity Agenda’ laid out in his 2022 address.

When asked what could surprise him about Trump’s Tuesday address, Fallows said sticking to his script would be a novelty.

‘[Also,] given what the next day’s news will describe as a ‘big tent speech’’ à la Reagan, the Carter speechwriter said.

Former George W. Bush speechwriter and current Wall Street Journal editorial board member Bill McGurn said presidents do tend to differ, sometimes greatly, from each other in style, contrasting the president with his former boss.

Democrats divided on response to Trump’s upcoming State of the Union address

‘George W. Bush was very driven by logic — the speech had a flow and had a logic that was coherent.’

‘He’d always say, ‘make it so Bubba would understand what that meant’ — don’t dumb it down; but make it so an intelligent person listening can get the idea of what you’re about.’

Trump, he said, will likely repeat what many presidents often say, that ‘the State of the Union is strong.’

‘Even if it is a laundry list, there’s ways to make it more compelling if you find a unifying thread to it.’

Fallows told Fox News Digital there are many ‘structural challenges’ for any president and his team crafting a State of the Union.

‘So much to cover and only so much time you can hold the attention of even a captive audience.’

Fallows, who now writes ‘Breaking the News’ on Substack, said the SOTU is a rare moment for a president to address the nation as a whole, not just partisan supporters.

McGurn agreed.

‘For all the grandiosity and the important things they cover, they’re usually not remembered,’ he said, noting how many more Americans remember Bush’s 9/11 speech or his brief address through a bullhorn atop the rubble of the Twin Towers.

‘A dirty little secret is most speech artists hate the State of the Union for the laundry list kind of thing,’ he added.

Sometimes, a State of the Union may not be remembered itself, but it may lead to something much more memorable.

Judge recalled drafting Reagan’s 1988 address, thinking ‘this is technical and dull — what I need is an image.’

Settling on the phrase, ‘1,000 sparks of genius in a 1,000 communities,’ the line went viral in then-fledgling ‘dial’ polling — to the extent that Reagan’s protégé, the future President George H.W. Bush, borrowed the line for his ‘Thousand Points of Light’ speech, Judge said.

Kilmeade breaks down Trump’s State of the Union & major SCOTUS tariff showdown

While the public may not remember everything from every SOTU, the speechwriters collectively said there are parts they still recall today. Cluchey said his best memories are of Biden choosing to share stories of everyday Americans he helped, ‘in order to illustrate the impact of his policies.’

In other cases, there are times the world takes notice.

Working with Reagan near the end of his successful bid to stifle the Cold War, Judge said crafting the speech was important not just for Congress in front of him and the American people at home, but everyone at once.

‘Behind the cameras are the editors and producers — even if they’re hostile, how do I frame something so it gets through? Behind them is our world leaders — what will catch them and move them in the direction you want?’

With Reagan pushing hard to end the Soviet Union, he was also speaking to both the leaders and those to the East.

Reagan would later be greeted by Soviet dissidents in public who would tell him, ‘You don’t know how important that was – the speeches gave us courage.’

Fallows said that Trump may have to overcome some habits to give an effective address this year.

‘State of the Unions are best in areas that are not Donald Trump’s strengths. They’re meant to be embracing the country as a whole. They’re meant to be delivered from a prompter but without seeming too scripted.’

‘We’ll see how this goes.’

Related Article

WATCH: Top 5 most memorable moments in American State of the Union history
WATCH: Top 5 most memorable moments in American State of the Union history

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A new study aims to jolt Israel’s security and technology establishment into embracing a new post-Oct. 7, 2023 business model that will advance the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership in the heart of the Middle East and across the globe.

The Henry Jackson Society study titled ‘Israel 2048: A Blueprint for a Rising Asymmetric Geopolitical Power’ jumps into the future, with a view toward advancing American and Israeli security interests.

Co-author of the report, Barak M. Seener, told Fox News Digital that America requires Israel for ‘its security architecture in the region via the Abraham Accords and, more broadly, will be a force multiplier regarding the technological edge against China.’

During President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration sealed diplomatic normalization deals between Sunni Gulf and North African countries: Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Sudan and Israel.

Seener and co-author David Wurmser argue that there is a pressing need to reframe the U.S.–Israel strategic partnership ‘around technology,’ and ‘shift from military aid dependency towards joint R&D and investment in shared technological platforms in defence-tech, AI, quantum computing and next generational warfare capabilities.’

They wrote, ‘Israel must prioritize passing negotiated regulations for technology sharing to prevent AI/ quantum technology leakage to China.’

Seener noted that the U.S. Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy (released in January) describes Israel as a strategic military partner. That hat has never happened before.’

He continued that ‘Israel is not only achieving regional dominance but international power by connecting trade routes and digital connectivity. Israel simply cannot remain in a purely defensive posture and hunker down and react to threats on its borders.’ 

Seener said following Israel’s successful air war campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran in June 2025, ‘America now wants to be part of this success story. ‘

He argues that President Donald Trump entered on the side of Israel with military attacks because ‘Israel demonstrated intelligence acumen and military prowess. For the first time, America joined Israel’ in the prosecution of a war.

Consequently, Seener said Israel’s ‘defense technology makes it indispensable for nations.’

Seener and Wurmser’s 51-page study contains granular information on how the U.S. can strengthen American security and recommend embedding ‘Israel as a defense-tech and deep-tech power that is indispensable to Western security and global technological competition in supply chains for AI, semiconductors, missile defense, cyber capabilities and critical materials. Israel’s technological dominance must be leveraged to anchor alliances and shape global supply chains.’

The wobbliness of America’s European partners is also highlighted to show the need for Israel to ‘Accelerate domestic lines of production of critical military systems, munitions and energy infrastructure to reduce vulnerability to foreign political pressure such as Europe’s growing ambivalence, coupled with episodic constraints on arms transfers,’ according to the authors.

Earlier this month, Britain’s left-leaning government reportedly denied the U.S. military’s use of British bases to strike the Islamic Republic.

Israel is uniquely positioned to help regenerate relations among Western powers, the study notes. According to the authors, there is an opportunity to ‘use Israel’s defense-tech, quantum computing, AI and cyber capabilities as a tool of statecraft to deepen alliances, deter political isolation and strengthen influence in Europe, the Gulf and Asia.’

Seener said that ‘Israel is not a superpower but a geopolitical power that gives nations a force multiplier, and they benefit from Israel as a tech defense nation.’

Related Article

Trump’s America First strategy builds deterrence through strong US-Israel alliance, experts say
Trump’s America First strategy builds deterrence through strong US-Israel alliance, experts say

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

France has restricted U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner’s access to senior government officials after he failed to attend a summons from the French Foreign Ministry over comments regarding the death of a French activist.

Speaking Tuesday in an interview with public broadcaster France Info, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Kushner’s decision not to appear at the Quai d’Orsay ‘will naturally affect his ability to carry out his mission in our country,’ and demanded ‘explanations’ from the ambassador.

Barrot described the no-show as a ‘surprise,’ saying that when an ambassador has ‘the honor of representing your country in France,’ they are expected to ‘respect the most basic practices of diplomacy’ and respond to summons from the ministry.

The diplomatic dispute stems from social media posts by official U.S. government accounts following the death of Quentin Deranque, a 23-year-old activist who was killed in Lyon earlier this month.

The Associated Press reported that Deranque, described as a fervent nationalist, was beaten during clashes between far-left and far-right activists and later died of brain injuries sustained in the attack.

‘Reports, corroborated by the French Minister of the Interior, that Quentin Deranque was killed by left-wing militants, should concern us all. Violent radical leftism is on the rise and its role in Quentin Deranque’s death demonstrates the threat it poses to public safety,’ the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism said in a Feb. 19 post on X. ‘We will continue to monitor the situation and expect to see the perpetrators of violence brought to justice.’

The U.S. Embassy in France later shared the statement on its official account.

Barrot said the remarks amounted to an ‘injunction’ toward France and rejected what he characterized as foreign interference in the country’s domestic political debate. 

‘We have no lessons to learn in matters of maintaining order or public order in matters of violence and we have no lessons to learn at all from the reactionary international, simply,’ he told France Info.

The State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Barrot said Kushner could regain access to French officials if he provides clarification to the ministry, stressing that the dispute would not alter broader relations between France and the United States. 

He noted the two countries are preparing to mark the 250th anniversary of their historic alliance this year and expressed hope that cooperation would continue ‘in this spirit.’

Related Article

Witkoff and Kushner scheduled to meet Putin in Moscow
Witkoff and Kushner scheduled to meet Putin in Moscow

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The U.S. Secret Service-involved shooting of a man with a shotgun inside the secure perimeter of Mar-a-Lago over the weekend brought the Department of Homeland Security’s partial shutdown into new focus.

Two USSS agents and a Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office deputy confronted and later shot and killed Austin Martin, 21, who authorities said slipped through a vehicular exit gate that had opened for a car before brandishing his weapon.

‘They confronted a white male that was carrying a gas can and a shotgun. He was ordered to drop those two pieces of equipment that he had with him – at which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position… the deputy and the two Secret Service agents fired their weapons and neutralized the threat,’ according to Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw.

Those agents are among the many working their dangerous jobs without pay due to the ongoing partial shutdown of DHS, which Republicans say was brought on by Democrats’ demands that ICE, which remains funded through other means, be reformed.

Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., who represents Daytona Beach just up the coast from Mar-a-Lago, said the incident proves the bravery of the Secret Service no matter the circumstances.

‘The attempted assassination of President Trump at Mar-a-Lago is a stark reminder of growing leftist political violence in our country,’ Fine said in a statement.

‘Grateful to the Secret Service who neutralized the terrorist. Even as Democrats refuse to pay them because of their shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, these men and women continue to stand their post.’

Top White House aide Stephen Miller offered an even more pointed response to the dynamic:

‘Democrats voted to defund Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations (who partner with Secret Service) and all the intelligence and law enforcement functions that support Secret Service,’ Miller said.

‘Never before in history has federal law enforcement been purposefully defunded.’

House Small Business Committee Chairman Roger Williams of Texas added that Americans should take note of the agents who responded whether paid or not.

‘As we continue to learn more about the armed man at Mar-a-Lago this morning, we must remember that the brave agents who responded are serving our country without pay due to the Democrat-led shutdown,’ Williams, R-Texas, said.

Prior to the incident, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., warned that the Secret Service and other agencies like FEMA would be put in a bad spot if the partial shutdown went forward.

‘Democrats are prioritizing illegal immigrant criminals ahead of the safety of the American people,’ he said in a February 12 floor speech.

At least one Democrat did react to the agent-involved shooting.

Rep. Lois Frankel of Florida, for whom Trump is technically a constituent at his Mar-a-Lago address, said that ‘political violence is never the answer.’

‘Thank you to the Secret Service and Palm Beach County law enforcement for their swift response today and for their continued work in keeping the president safe,’ Frankel said.

The Northeast blizzard presents separate challenges for resource-suspended agencies like FEMA, while certain Homeland Security-run services, such as TSA escorts for members of Congress, are also suspended.

Fox News’ Elise Oggioni contributed to this report.

Related Article

Democrats risk FEMA disaster funding collapse as DHS shutdown hits Day 5
Democrats risk FEMA disaster funding collapse as DHS shutdown hits Day 5

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the war in Ukraine has settled into a grinding conflict defined by high casualties and incremental territorial shifts. Russia still controls roughly one-fifth of Ukrainian territory, while Kyiv has recently clawed back limited ground in counteroffensives. Military estimates put Russian losses at about 1.2 million casualties since 2022, with Ukrainian losses between 500,000 and 600,000, underscoring the scale of attrition on both sides.

Diplomacy has intensified alongside the fighting. President Donald Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last August for high-stakes talks aimed at advancing negotiations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has traveled to Washington multiple times since Trump returned to office, including a contentious Oval Office meeting in Feb. 2025 and a follow-up visit later in the year.

The most recent U.S. engagement with both sides came during trilateral negotiations in Abu Dhabi earlier this year and more taking place in Geneva on Feb. 17–18, where special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian and Ukrainian delegations as part of ongoing efforts to broker a settlement.

As the war enters its fifth year, former officials and analysts say the next phase could unfold along three possible paths: prolonged stalemate, shifting Ukrainian momentum, or a dangerous erosion of Western resolve.

Scenario one: Prolonged stalemate

The most immediate trajectory is continuation. The war remains defined by attrition, with neither side delivering a decisive blow and negotiations producing little progress.

Ret. U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, former NATO supreme allied commander of Europe, said Moscow is not winning despite its territorial hold, ‘There isn’t a winner right now.’

‘Russia, supposedly a world superpower with one of the world’s probably top three world armies and top four world air forces, in 12 years has gained about 20% of Ukraine. And they have lost some, say, over 1.2 million in the conflict so far. It’s a conflict that Ukraine is working hard to manage. It’s also a conflict that Russia is not, I repeat, not winning,’ he said.

Scenario two: Ukrainian momentum reshapes diplomacy

Recent battlefield developments suggest another possibility. Breedlove pointed to rapid Ukrainian gains following disruptions in Russia’s command-and-control systems.

‘In the last three or four days, because of the loss of the Starlink command and control system, Ukraine launched an offensive, and they have snatched back months of Russian gains in three days, three-pronged push, hundreds of square miles regained, and Russia is backing up in several places right now.’

Carrie Filipetti, executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition, said such advances could shift leverage at the negotiating table. ‘Ukraine’s recent advances to recapture its territory is yet another signal that Putin’s war machine is continuing to atrophy as the world marks the fourth year of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Russia’s latest territorial losses shows that far from being invincible, Putin and his army are beginning to experience real failures in terms of capability and resources.’

She added that momentum matters. ‘Not only is this the most significant Ukrainian advance on the battlefield in more than two years, its importance may be felt even more concretely at the diplomatic table. Finding a lasting and equitable peace deal through negotiation is often about momentum – and right now the Ukrainians have it.’

If sustained, such gains could alter Moscow’s calculations and give Kyiv a stronger footing in negotiations as long as Ukraine has strong U.S. support, Breedlove argues, ‘The first thing and the most important thing Ukraine needs is a declaratory statement by the West and specifically by the United States that we are not going to allow Russia to win in Ukraine, and we will give Ukraine what it needs to stop Russia… where Putin hears it loud and clear and where the people of Russia hear it loud and clear that is a game changer. And I think that’s when Mr. Putin is going to have to make some tough decisions.’

Scenario three: Escalation or Western fatigue

A third path worries some Western strategists: that inconsistent support could prolong or tilt the conflict in Russia’s favor.

Heather Nauert, who served as spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State from 2017 to 2019, framed the war as more than a territorial dispute. ‘As we now enter the fifth year of Putin’s war in Ukraine, we’re reminded that this conflict has never been only about territory — it’s about identity, faith, and the future of a free nation. Russia has destroyed more than 600 churches, persecuted millions of Ukrainian Christians under occupation, and abducted more than 19,000 children in an effort to break Ukraine’s spirit. President Trump’s push for a lasting peace must be backed by strength and accountability – one that protects innocent lives, defends religious freedom and brings stolen children home.’

Ret. Lt. Gen. Richard Newton said deterrence remains central. ‘Four years into this horrific war, the fundamental lesson remains unchanged: Peace is only possible when strength shapes the terms. Putin will continue to savagely test our resolve until the costs of his aggression outweigh any possible gain.’

‘What Ukraine needs isn’t gestures from the world, but instead, unwavering support from the U.S. and Europe that convinces Moscow further advances carry unacceptable consequences,’ he argued. ‘Russia must not prevail against Ukraine and the West. What are needed are credible security guarantees, robust offensive and defensive capabilities and a unified, long-term commitment by the West to ensure deterrence isn’t an elusive goal, but a lasting reality.’

Breedlove warned that negotiations alone will not shift the balance. ‘The most dangerous scenario is that we do not do what we should do in Ukraine and Russia takes over Ukraine because they’re not done.We have a policy of peace through strength and we’re using it in Iran. We’ve used it in Venezuela. We’re using it with oil tankers around the world… But when it comes to Putin and Ukraine, we are peace through weakness.’

‘Mr. Putin is making a point that he’s in charge in Ukraine, not the West and certainly not America. And so we need to change that dynamic. You got good guys and you got bad guys. And right now the bad guys have told America to take a hike. So now, rather than telling them what to do, we are going to the good guys and saying, you have to give up more because the bad guys are not playing well in the sandbox. That’s peace through weakness, not peace through strength,’ Breedlove concluded.

Related Article

Zelenskyy announces next round of talks with US, Russia as Ukraine seeks
Zelenskyy announces next round of talks with US, Russia as Ukraine seeks ‘real and dignified end to the war’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fourth year since Moscow’s full-scale invasion in 2022, United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer referred to the ongoing conflict as ‘the most critical issue of our age,’ according to a press release announcing additional UK assistance for Ukraine.

‘On this grim anniversary, our message to the Ukrainian people is simple: Britain is with you, stronger than ever. That is why we are announcing new support today and we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes,’ Starmer said, according to the press release.

‘For all the noise in world affairs today, this war remains the most critical issue of our age. It asks the question of whether Ukrainian and European freedom will endure. Our answer, together, is unequivocal. Russia is not winning this war. They will not win this war. Ukraine’s courage continues to hold the line for our shared values, in the face of Putin’s aggression,’ Starmer continued. ‘We will stand by their side, until a just and lasting peace – and beyond. Slava Ukraini.’

Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has suggested that the Western World is ‘pussyfooting around.’

‘Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it. Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories. Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice,’ Johnson wrote in a post on X.

‘The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year — if we stop pussyfooting around,’ he said.

President Donald Trump’s administration has been attempting to help broker peace between Russia and Ukraine.

In its statement, the UK government said the country’s security is closely tied to Ukraine’s fate and outlined new assistance, including £20 million (about $27 million) in emergency energy funding to help repair and protect Ukraine’s power grid and expand generation capacity.

The package also includes £5.7 million (around $7.7 million) in humanitarian aid for frontline communities, including people requiring evacuation and those affected by airstrikes or internal displacement, according to the release.

Related Article

Zelenskyy dismisses Putin’s
Zelenskyy dismisses Putin’s ‘historical s—‘ in peace talks as ‘delay tactic,’ urges focus on ending the war

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

“Without tariffs,” the President said on his affordability tour in Georgia, “everybody would be bankrupt, the whole country would be bankrupt.” In court, the Trump administration has made similar sweeping claims, arguing that revoking certain tariff authorities would have “catastrophic consequences” and “lead to financial ruin.” 

The Supreme Court has now struck down the administration’s “reciprocal tariffs” imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This is a major victory for American consumers and businesses who suffered from higher taxes and higher prices that the tariffs imposed.  

And contrary to the President’s claims, tariffs were never going to prevent national bankruptcy. America’s debt crisis does not arise from a revenue problem. The federal government has an unsustainable spending problem. 

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest Budget and Economic Outlook shows debt held by the public exceeding 100 percent of GDP this year and rising past its World War II record by 2030. Ten years from now, debt reaches roughly 120 percent of GDP and continues climbing to 175 percent by 2056 — and that is under optimistic projections that assume no economic, financial, or public health crises over that time frame. 

Revenues are not the problem. Even after extending and adding to the Trump tax cuts, federal receipts are projected to remain near or above their historical average as a share of the economy, growing from $5.2 trillion (17.2 percent of GDP) to $8.3 trillion (17.8 percent of GDP) over the decade. 

The problem is that federal spending exceeds revenues by a lot and is growing much faster than revenues. Spending is projected to grow from $7 trillion (23.1 percent of GDP) to $11.4 trillion (24.4 percent of GDP).  

The widening annual deficit (the gap between annual spending and revenue) is overwhelmingly driven by the growth in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and rising interest costs. By 2036, interest costs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are projected to consume 100 percent of federal revenues. 

Read that again. 

Under current law, within a decade, every dollar collected in revenue will be absorbed by health care programs, Social Security, and interest spending to service the ballooning federal debt, leaving nothing for national defense or any other core function of government. 

Against that backdrop, the claim that revoking tariff authority would produce “financial ruin” or “bankrupt” the country does not withstand scrutiny. 

Multiple estimates, from the Congressional Budget Office, the Yale Budget Lab, the Penn Wharton Budget Model, and the Tax Foundation, estimate that the Trump tariffs would generate from $1 trillion to $3 trillion in additional revenue over a decade, depending on assumptions and whether economic feedback effects are included. 

Those are large numbers in isolation. But they are small relative to the size of the federal budget hole. 

CBO projects that the United States will borrow an additional $25 trillion over the next decade. Closing that gap would require eight to 25 times the revenues that Trump administration tariffs were estimated to bring in. About $16 trillion of those deficits will go toward interest payments alone. Even under optimistic assumptions, tariff revenue would offset only a small fraction of that amount. 

Put differently: even if every dollar of projected tariff revenue materialized, the debt would still surge past its historic high within a few years and continue unsustainably climbing thereafter. 

Moreover, tariffs are neither free money nor are they paid by foreign exporters. They function as taxes on imported goods and production inputs that are paid by Americans. According to the Kiel Institute, American consumers and importers paid 96 percent of tariff costs, while foreign exporters absorbed only four percent. Higher input costs reduce business profits and workers’ wages, shrinking corporate and individual income tax collections. From generating uncertainty to reducing available capital for investment, tariffs reduce hiring and dampen economic growth. 

Part of the “revenue gain” from tariffs is thus clawed back through weaker economic performance and a smaller tax base. That’s one way to shoot yourself in the foot.  

Meanwhile, the real driver of America’s debt trajectory is far more entrenched. 

The entirety, more than 100 percent, of the federal government’s long-term funding shortfall stems from the growth of Social Security and Medicare, according to the Financial Report of the United States Government. These programs expand automatically as the population ages, beneficiaries live longer, benefits increase by design, and health costs rise. They were set up for a younger country with far fewer retirees per worker and transfer income from working Americans to retirees, regardless of need. One of the best ways to curb their growth is to refocus these programs’ benefits on seniors in need. 

As debt climbs, interest costs compound. CBO projects that net interest will more than double over the next decade, consuming a growing share of the budget.  

Interest costs already surpass what the United States government allocates toward national defense expenditures. As the Hoover Institution’s Niall Ferguson writes: “when a great power spends more on debt service than on defense, it will not be great for much longer.” The US Senate unanimously recognized  deficits as “unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous,” but Congress has yet to act to curb the debt threat. 

This is how fiscal crises develop — not because a single revenue stream disappears, but because structural commitments grow faster than the economy that must finance them. 

The United States is already well above the debt levels that much of the economic literature associates with slower long-term growth. Every year of delay increases the eventual adjustment required to stabilize the debt. 

Congress should adopt a credible plan that stabilizes spending and the growth in debt. Members of the bipartisan fiscal forum in Congress recently proposed a three-percent-of-GDP deficit target, led by Representatives Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Scott Peters (D-CA), Lloyd Smucker (R-PA) and Mike Quigley (D-IL). That’s a promising goal. To succeed in meeting it, Congress will need structural entitlement reforms. Not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs with economy-crushing tax hikes — whether those are dressed up as tariffs or as a border adjustment tax. 

Congress can reduce excess health care spending, streamline taxes, and cut welfare programs prone to fraud and abuse, using the same reconciliation process that Republicans leveraged in July to extend and expand the Trump tax cuts and slow the growth in Medicaid and food stamps (SNAP).  

Going yet further, Congress can work toward advancing a Base Realignment and Closure–style fiscal commission to overcome policy inertia and provide Congress with political cover to advance necessary entitlement reforms. The Fiscal Commission Act, championed by Representatives Scott Peters (D-CA) and Bill Huizenga (R-MI) is a promising step in that direction. 

If America ever experiences fiscal “ruin,” it will not be because presidential tariff authority was constrained. It will be because elected officials of both parties failed to modernize the country’s largest entitlement programs and halt their automatic spending growth. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not create a fiscal crisis. Tariffs raised revenue at the margin. In the process, they also distort trade and slow growth. But they do not alter the fundamental arithmetic driving America’s debt. 

The path to fiscal stability runs through entitlement reform and spending control — not through executive-imposed tariffs that were never large enough to solve the problem in the first place. 

Conversations around artificial intelligence have dominated the news cycle and culture at large for the better part of three years, with concerns becoming amplified more and more as time has gone on. These concerns focus mainly on regulation, safety, and environmental impacts.

Many policymakers argue that the scale of “Big Tech” threatens innovation, a claim often more motivated by political incentives than true economic analysis. More helpful than anecdotal assumptions, however, is the work of two twentieth-century Austrian economists, F.A. Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter. It seems the real threats to innovation may be less about Big Tech and more akin to bureaucratization and central planning by regulators. While critics fear capitalism’s excesses, both Hayek and Schumpeter warn that overreaction can stifle innovation. Overall, the two thinkers demonstrate that the danger is not “unregulated capitalism,” but the merger of large corporate bureaucracy with state planning impulses.

As Schumpeter describes in his magnum opus, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, the process of capitalism is a complex one. He describes the phenomenon of creative destruction, where an entrepreneur innovates a particular good or service. This eventually erodes the very entrepreneurial ambition that created the product, replaced instead by a large bureaucratized firm, drunk on its own success and unable to innovate with the same veracity as before, until the next innovative competitor comes along and the cycle continues. This is evident in Big Tech: Amazon, Apple, and Meta are no longer scrappy startups but what Schumpeter would call “perfectly bureaucratized industrial units.”  The innovation that led to their initial success becomes routine inside R&D departments, layers of middle management, and the firm ultimately becomes technocratic. This erodes the risk taking that led to the innovation in the first place, and risk taking becomes less commonplace. The public then interprets this slowdown as a “market failure,” opening the door to the appeal of government involvement. 

This slowdown is happening in the midst of the AI revolution, with massive tech company layoffs. The mantra of ‘move fast and break things’ has given way to a crisis of middle management, most visibly in Elon Musk’s decision to lay off over half of Twitter’s workforce. These firms are not “monopolies” preventing competition, as much as they are bureaucratic giants facing internal stagnation, an ironic product of their own entrepreneurial success. 

If Schumpeter shows why big firms ossify, Hayek shows why regulators cannot fix the stagnation, and often make it worse. Policymakers always assume they can design rules for “safe AI,” “fair algorithms,” or something of the like, and appeal to a populous afraid of change and often experiencing paralysis around technological development. Such regulatory interest may seem like “common sense,” but they each require information that no central authority can gather, even with hearings, white papers, and expert panels.

Hayek dubs this phenomenon “the knowledge problem,” a commonality in his critique of socialism and the “fatal conceit” of central planning. Hayek famously said, “The curious task of economics is to show men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.” The best opportunity for AI progress is decentralized, happening in small labs, and promoting innovation and development as much as possible. The “best” AI architectures, training data, or safety protocols cannot be known ahead of time, because the extent of the technology has yet to be explored. Regulation attempts to “freeze” innovation into one approved path, which amplifies the sclerosis Schumpeter describes and stifles incentives to innovate. There are several notable examples of these bad regulations, including the EU’s recent AI act which prohibits certain model categories and imposes heavy ex ante compliance. With regulatory capture comes tremendous barriers to entry for smaller firms. This means only large tech companies can comply with the regulation, entrenching the narratives around Big Tech by preventing new innovators from coming to the table. The more policymakers decide the future of innovation, the less room innovators have to discover what actually works.

With both of Schumpeter and Hayek’s concerns put together, managerial bureaucracy merges with managerial government regulation, forming what Schumpeter calls “the heir apparent to capitalism,” a hybrid of corporate technocracy and state regulation, akin somewhat to China’s current economic system. This results in lower entrepreneurial entry, less experimentation, higher regulatory moats, more political dependence of firms, a decline of economic freedom, and a decrease in innovation, already seen in non-AI sectors. The threat is not “monopoly power,” but policy-induced stagnation. Big Tech, combined with big government, creates a self-reinforcing cycle of bureaucratization.  

In order to prevent this vicious cycle of bureaucracy, there are Hayekeian improvements that could prove helpful, including reducing regulatory barriers that privilege incumbents, and allowing open entry, open-source experimentation, and competitive discovery. A system of stable rules rather than discretionary regulatory action prevents cronyism and the kind of corporate welfare involved with regulation.

From a Schumpeterian standpoint, solutions are less direct. Generally encouraging entrepreneurship—through lower compliance costs and reduced barriers to entry—fosters innovation and a more competitive market, which better serves consumers. At the end of the day, creative destruction should be recognized as a healthy feature of economic life, not a pathological one.

If policymakers treat Big Tech’s bureaucratic stagnation as a justification for more bureaucracy, the outcome will be a self-fulfilling Schumpeterian slide into managerial socialism. The path forward is not to plan innovation, but to let a new wave of entrepreneurs challenge bureaucratic giants. Big Tech does not need to be centrally managed, and AI does not need a planner. 

What it needs is competition, openness, and the freedom to discover what no regulator or executive committee can foresee. Hayek and Schumpeter help us see that innovation survives only when we defend the institutions that make creative destruction possible.

The era of “smooth globalization” is over, and mining is entering a more fragmented, politically charged phase defined by strategic nationalism, according to speakers at S&P Global’s latest webinar.

Jason Holden, who opened the “State of the Market: Mining Q4 2025” session with a macro overview, said the industry is operating in a world increasingly shaped by supply chain security and state intervention.

“For decades we operated under a model of frictionless trade,” said Holden, a senior mining analyst at the firm. “That era is over. We’ve entered a world of strategic re-nationalization.”

While the base economic outlook remains resilient, with moderate growth and easing headline inflation, Holden warned that “sticky core inflation remains stubbornly high.”

For mining companies, that has two major implications: higher capital costs and less room for the easy-money valuation surges seen in past cycles. Central banks, led by the US Federal Reserve, are no longer aggressively tightening, but are also not on a clear-cut path to interest rate cuts.

“We’re no longer on a predictable path of easing,” Holden explained to listeners. “The market is now focused on if and when cuts might resume.” At the same time, geopolitical disputes are increasingly spilling into trade policy. The conversation around critical minerals, he noted, has shifted decisively.

“It’s no longer just about economics,’ said Holden. “It’s explicitly framed as national security.”

That shift is driving greater government intervention, subsidies, capital screening and “friend-shoring,” where materials are sourced from politically aligned nations.

Gold’s insurance premium

Nowhere has geopolitical risk been more visible than in gold.

The metal surged to fresh highs in early 2026 after setting 40 new records in 2024 and 53 more in 2025, a pace not seen since 1979. The price briefly pushed beyond US$5,500 per ounce at the start of the year.

“The message from this price action is unmistakable,” Holden said. “In an uncertain world, the market is paying a premium for insurance, and gold is the ultimate safe asset.”

While short-term flashpoints helped fuel the rally, the structural driver has been central bank buying. Since sanctions in 2022 prompted reserve managers to rethink US dollar exposure, official sector purchases have accelerated.

“The sustained buying from central banks is the real engine behind the rally,” Holden said.

S&P’s base case sees gold averaging US$4,247 per ounce in 2026, with upside potential toward US$6,000 by 2027 in a more bullish scenario.

Copper tightness, nickel politics

Luiz Amaral from S&P’s exploration team said copper ended 2025 on strong footing, with London Metal Exchange (LME) prices reaching US$12,500 per metric ton in December.

Supply-side tightness, a weaker US dollar and copper’s growing role in electrification supported prices. The US decision to formally list copper as a critical mineral reinforced its strategic importance.

S&P has lifted its 2026 copper price forecast to US$11,400 per metric ton, projecting a 543,000 metric ton concentrate deficit next year. However, the refined market is expected to move into surplus later in the decade as new smelter capacity ramps up. Longer term, the concentrate picture darkens again.

“Our base case shows a 3 million metric ton shortfall by 2036,” Amaral said.

Nickel’s recent rally, by contrast, has been driven more by policy than fundamentals. The price broke above US$18,000 per metric ton in January after Indonesia reduced its 2026 production quota.

“The market is responding emotionally to policy updates,” Amaral said, noting that despite the rally, the broader market remains in surplus and LME inventories are building.

Lithium rebounds amid persistent surplus

Lithium prices have also staged a sharp rebound, rising 57 percent in China between mid-December and mid-January on renewed demand optimism and supply concerns. Yet S&P expects the market to remain oversupplied for most of the decade, with deficits not emerging until the early 2030s.

New supply from Australia, Latin America and China continues to outpace demand growth, even as electric vehicles account for roughly 75 percent of lithium consumption through 2035.

Diverging margins

At the mine level, gold producers are enjoying some of the strongest margins in years, with prices rising faster than all-in sustaining costs. Silver has outperformed even more dramatically, climbing 154 percent in 2025 versus gold’s 71 percent gain, compressing the gold-silver ratio to below 70.

Battery metals face a tougher backdrop.

“Lithium and nickel continue to face margin pressure as prices lag elevated costs amid oversupply,” said Monica Ramirez from S&P’s mine economics and emissions team.

Across 12 metals analyzed, S&P sees a structurally higher cost environment emerging due to inflation, energy expenses and maturing ore bodies. Precious metals retain the strongest buffers, while copper remains positive but increasingly sensitive at the upper end of the cost curve.

Exploration at a crossroads

Despite record prices in some commodities, exploration spending tells a more cautious story.

Global exploration budgets totaled US$12.4 billion in 2025, down 1 percent year-on-year. Adjusted for inflation, spending has slipped back to levels last seen nearly two decades ago.

“Gold continues to dominate,” Amaral said, accounting for roughly half of global exploration budgets. Lithium, once a standout, saw budgets fall nearly 50 percent amid weaker prices.

More concerning is the structural shift away from grassroots exploration.

In the mid-1990s, two-thirds of spending targeted generative programs. Today, that share has fallen to a record low as companies prioritize near-mine and late-stage work.

“We are underinvesting at the very front end of the supply chain,” Amaral warned. Without renewed grassroots spending, the long-term discovery pipeline could suffer.

M&A: Quality over quantity

Mining M&A remained active into late 2025, though deal value normalized after earlier mega-mergers. Transaction value fell 45 percent quarter-on-quarter to US$16.1 billion, but deal count rose to its highest level in more than five years.

Gold led activity, with buyers focusing on large-scale, long-life assets in low-risk jurisdictions.

“Gold M&A today is no longer about simple volume growth,” Ramirez emphasized to viewers. “It’s about asset quality, jurisdictional safety and durable cashflow.”

As the webinar made clear, mining is navigating a landscape defined by geopolitical risk, tighter capital and structural cost pressures. For companies able to secure high-quality assets and control costs, opportunities remain, but the margin for error is narrowing.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Here’s a quick recap of the crypto landscape for Monday (February 23) as of 9:00 p.m. UTC.

Get the latest insights on Bitcoin, Ether and altcoins, along with a round-up of key cryptocurrency market news.

Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at US$64,409.84, down by 4.4 percent over the last 24 hours.

Bitcoin price performance, February 23, 2026.

Bitcoin price performance, February 23, 2026.

Chart via TradingView.

XS.com senior market analyst Linh Tran suggested that the medium-term uptrend is limited without major catalysts. She predicts that Bitcoin will fluctuate between US$65,000 support and US$70,000 resistance; however, if current pressures persist, there is a risk of Bitcoin retesting the US$60,000 low, which could trigger a deeper decline.

Software stocks slipped alongside a further decline in crypto prices after Anthropic said its Claude platform can help ‘break the cost barrier to COBOL modernization,’ a high-level, compiled computer programming language that the firm says ‘runs in production every day, powering critical systems in finance, airlines, and government.’

Ether (ETH) was priced at US$1,860.34, down by 4.1 percent over the last 24 hours.

Altcoin price update

  • XRP (XRP) was priced at US$1.36, down by 2 percent over 24 hours.
  • Solana (SOL) was trading at US$78.37, down by 5.6 percent over 24 hours.

Today’s crypto news to know

Yield Basis thrives on market volatility

Some parts of the DeFi ecosystem have benefited from the chaos of Bitcoin’s sudden price drop in January, which liquidated billions of dollars’ worth of positions. A DeFi project called Yield Basis, which helps people trade Bitcoin and Ether through its liquidity pools, says it’s handled US$769 million in trades since the beginning of 2026, with more than half occurring after January 28, when crypto prices began swinging wildly.

According to a recent report, the protocol has collected US$12.15 million in fees since it launched its v2 pools in November 2025, compared to US$5.31 million worth of tokens it paid out as rewards, leaving about US$6.84 million in net profit for the users providing liquidity and holding the project’s tokens.

Open-source AI project distances itself from crypto

An open-source AI agent framework known as OpenClaw has inadvertently become the center of a crypto controversy. The project, built to power autonomous agents capable of browsing the web and executing complex tasks, was briefly rebranded amid a naming dispute before scammers launched a fake Solana-based token using its former branding.

The token’s market capitalization surged to roughly US$16 million within hours before collapsing more than 90 percent after developer Peter Steinberger disavowed any connection.

Steinberger publicly rejected the speculation, writing on X: “To all crypto folks: please stop pinging me, stop harassing me. I will never do a coin. Any project that lists me as coin owner is a SCAM.”

USDT contraction flashes rare stress signal

Tether’s USDT stablecoin is signaling liquidity strain reminiscent of the market turmoil following the FTX collapse.

According to CryptoQuant, the 60 day change in USDT supply has dropped to negative US$3 billion, which marks only the second time such a contraction has occurred. Bloomberg reported that USDT is on pace for its steepest monthly supply decline since December 2022, already shrinking by roughly US$1.5 billion in February alone.

Large-scale redemptions typically suggest institutions or major holders are pulling capital out of the crypto ecosystem rather than simply rotating between tokens. The last comparable contraction came as Bitcoin fell toward US$16,000 during the FTX crisis before stabilizing and beginning a multi-year recovery.

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com