I Believe

We often hear that land doesn’t vote; people do.

How about a different perspective?

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

We often hear that “land doesn’t vote; people do.” This phrase highlights the humanity of our democratic republic. The adage emphasizes rights of the individual and the collective power of the electorate to shape governance and policy. But, the viewpoint oversimplifies the intertwined relationship between people and the soil.

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights. Geographical boundaries and birthplaces shape individual rights, demonstrating the enduring influence of the land on our legal and societal frameworks.

The Latin Jus soli, or the right of the soil, is a cornerstone of our legal and societal frameworks. It grants individuals a national identity rooted in their birthplace.

Our Constitution establishes rights granted to all Americans by the soil, including rights of citizenship, representation, and national service.

This connection between land and individual rights becomes especially clear when we consider the legal foundations of citizenship in America. Citizenship’s roots grow into this concept of the soil.

Citizenship

Citizenship in America is founded on jus soli, the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis, the right of blood. The right of the soil carries into the right of blood.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870 to Wee Lee and Wong Si Ping. The couple were not American citizens and had no path to citizenship; they returned to China when Wong was eight.

In August 1895, at the age of 24, Wong made a return trip to San Francisco with papers certifying his identity and legal standing as a citizen born on American soil. US customs official John H. Wise denied Wong’s entry on the grounds of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1880 Angell Treaty between the US and Qing Dynasty China, which recognized America’s ability to restrict Chinese immigration. Wise ordered Wong deported.

Wong appealed the decision and remained on shipping vessels for several months off the coast of California. In 1897, the US Supreme Court heard his case. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court found Wong to be an American citizen on the grounds of the 14th Amendment’s first clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

During deliberation, the court found Wong was born in the US. Further, though his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, they were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.” The court affirmed that Wong was subject to US jurisdiction at birth and thus a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the principle of the right of the soil for determining citizenship. It firmly clarified that children born in America to foreign citizens are US citizens, even if their parents have no allegiance to America. The Supreme Court's decision established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that the vast majority of children born on American soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality. Though the fight for equal treatment of Asian Americans continued well past Mr. Wong, this ruling has had a lasting impact on immigration and citizenship policies.

Jus soli grants citizenship to all born on US soil and carries through blood. The right of blood extends the right of citizenship across borders, allowing children born abroad to American citizens to inherit their citizenship. This dual foundation reflects a comprehensive understanding of national belonging—rights rooted in the physical land of America that reach through the blood to extend the inalienable rights to those born to American parents worldwide.

Just as jus soli grants citizenship, it also confers the right to participate in our democratic republic. This extension of rights from the land empowers us as participants in the national discourse.

Representation

The 14th Amendment is not the earliest affirmation of the right of the soil in the Constitution. The first reference to the premise that soil endows citizens with rights is earlier than even the Bill of Rights.

Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution identifies, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

This section was later amended by the 12th Amendment after some drama in the 1796 and 1800 elections. It forms the basis of the Electoral College, which grants individuals the right to representation in national elections. By ensuring that residents' votes in each state contribute to the national outcome of presidential elections, the Electoral College grants them a meaningful role in the democratic process.

The Constitution achieves this by guaranteeing that every state has a certain number of electors, regardless of population. This system grants "rights" or influence to regions, paralleling how jus soli grants citizenship rights to individuals born on US soil.

Just as the right of the soil grants citizenship, it also guarantees that each geographic state has a say in national elections. Because land doesn’t vote, the Constitution extends this guarantee to the voters in each state.

“Land doesn’t vote; people do” is a misconception. The statement overlooks how the Electoral College system carefully balances geographic diversity and population. The system allocates votes in a manner that accounts for geographic distribution, thereby preventing larger population states from completely dominating national elections. It also supports the underlying principle of our democratic republic—every vote is an expression of an individual's choice, and all states have a voice in national elections.

In short, land doesn’t bestow on Americans the right to vote; it grants people from each state influence in national elections, no matter how small the state. Elected representatives from all states ratified both the US Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Therefore, every American agreed with the premise that each state has a voice in national elections.

The influence of land on rights extends into the highest offices of national service, reinforcing the critical role that birthplace plays in determining who may lead the nation.

National Service

Serving the nation in any capacity is a privilege. Serving in the highest office is a privilege only available to those who are endowed with the right of the soil.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” If you weren’t born on US soil or with the right of the soil carried into the right of blood, you are ineligible for the nation’s highest office.

The founders included the natural-born citizen requirement to ensure the President would have the deep-rooted allegiance to the United States that only the right of the soil bestows. They believed the requirement would reduce the risk of foreign governments having control over the nation.

Eight Presidents had parents, or both parents, who were not born on US soil. They range from Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both immigrants, to Donald Trump, whose mother was an immigrant. But all Presidents have been natural-born citizens, either born on US soil or to US citizens abroad in an official capacity.

National service is a distinguished honor, especially when it involves leading the country. Only those granted citizenship by the right of the soil or the right of the soil through the blood are eligible. This precedent safeguards the presidency from foreign influence, ensuring the President's loyalty lies firmly with America.

Now for our question: What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship isn’t a legal formality. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy and identity. It ensures that every person born on American soil is a part of the nation's fabric, endowed with the rights and responsibilities that fortify our collective future. Overturning the precedent would lead to a future where many are isolated, disenfranchised, and alienated from the civic body.

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent that allegiance to America is gained through the right of the soil.

Some argue that we should repeal birthright citizenship to preserve national identity and ensure we grant citizenship only to those with a provable connection to the United States. But national identity and unity come from commitment to the American ideal, not from repealing birthright citizenship.

Some argue for the repeal of birthright citizenship because children of non-citizens place an undue economic burden on American taxpayers. They cite the costs of public education, healthcare, and other social services. This perspective overlooks the long-term economic contributions of immigrants and their children, who stay in America for generations.

Finally, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue it would enhance national security and more effectively control immigration. In fact, it would lead to stateless individuals inside the country, creating a marginalized group that's more vulnerable to radicalization and exploitation. Individuals born on American soil have a clear and immediate stake in the country's future, promoting societal integration and cohesion.

Throughout our discussion, from citizenship to national representation and service, we see a consistent theme: soil bestows rights on Americans.

Our Constitution firmly establishes that we are tied to the soil and the soil through blood. Birthright citizenship is crucial for American identity and the health of our democratic republic.

The Constitution grants individuals rights of citizenship, representation, and national service based on the soil. These rights underscore the importance of soil—whether a specific place of one's birth or the geographic boundaries of states—in defining what it means to be American.

National identity and unity come from shared values and commitments to the American ideal.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent the Constitution establishes: namely, jus soli imprints allegiance on Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, David Leonhardt, writing for the New York Times, questioned whether any of President Biden’s legacy would endure. Most Americans view his term unfavorably. Parties with one-term presidents often see those presidencies as failures and shift their focus to the future. However, Leonhardt highlighted one aspect of Biden’s agenda that may leave a lasting mark. This is the idea that “the federal government should take a more active role in both assisting and regulating the private sector than it did for much of the previous half-century.”

President Biden is not alone in his assessment. Both parties agree to some extent that unfettered free market globalization is not in America’s best interest. Similar to an approach used in the Gilded Age, President Trump intends to influence the global economic system through tariffs.

In his farewell address from the Oval Office, President Biden said, “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy…We’ve seen it before, more than a century ago, but the American people stood up to the robber barons back then.”

Biden’s use of the term ‘robber barons’ is a reference to a phrase from the late 19th century, when Mark Twain’s The Gilded Age gave that period its name. From the 1870s to the early 1900s, the Gilded Age saw rapid industrialization, economic growth, glaring inequality, and societal transformation. It was also a time of innovation. From the birth of America to 1870, the US Patent Office granted 40,000 patents. By 1900, that number exploded tenfold. The country’s population nearly doubled in those 30 years from immigrants flooding into the nation to work in the factories. During this era, industrial magnates like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Stanford amassed immense wealth. Twain satirized their greed and the corruption that defined America’s elite.

As the country experiences rapid digital transformation and robust economic growth, parallels to the Gilded Age are hard to ignore. Unlike then, wealth is concentrated in corporations rather than individuals and families. Like in the Gilded Age, many American families are left behind. Inefficient social programs that did not exist in the Gilded Age prop up society, but these programs come at the cost of unprecedented national debt. Without them, unrest would mirror the turmoil of the Gilded Age.

Leonhardt observed that the emerging idea of a more active federal role in regulating the private sector still lacks a name. Scholars and policymakers have referred to it as the “end of the neoliberal order,” “a new economics,” or “a new centrism.”

He makes a strong point. America has faced at least two significant periods of inequality before. In both instances, unifying messages helped Americans rise to the challenge. But before considering names, it’s worth breaking this idea into two fundamental questions.

First, do Americans have a mandate to address inequality?

Second, if Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?

Let’s start by considering the first question. Should Americans choose to address inequality?

Should America Address Inequality?

Businesses have no responsibility to address social inequality. None. Businesses have responsibilities only to their business and their shareholders. Diverting effort away from generating profit is using someone else’s money—shareholders, employees, or customers—for purposes they did not agree to. A business’s primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives should focus solely on maximizing shareholder value within legal and ethical boundaries. Any effort toward social justice is outside a business’s fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. While some businesses voluntarily pursue social initiatives, their fundamental legal responsibility is to maximize shareholder value.

Therefore, arguments claiming that businesses should pay higher wages to address social inequality are flawed, as businesses have no inherent responsibility to resolve societal issues. Declaring that an individual or group ‘should’ do something for which they have no responsibility (and therefore, no requirement) means they will do exactly what they are required to do. In this case, exactly nothing.

So…if businesses are not responsible for paying livable wages and can find workers willing to accept poverty-level pay, they have little incentive to raise wages voluntarily.

To continue this argument, we need to note that Americans can earn money from two sources: their work, or their fellow taxpayers in the form of the government. Because Americans get money from both sources, this leaves the government to address the shortfall in wages.

Through social programs, Congress spends the American people’s money to support society as a result of low wages. These social programs, subsidies, and incentives are supported by taxes collected from the American people. And our elected representatives certainly have the requirement to spend taxpayer money responsibly.

The basis of this requirement is found in Constitutional provisions that include the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8), which directs Congress to allocate funds for defense and general welfare. It is further found in the Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7), which mandates transparency and accountability in public expenditures. Additionally, federal laws like the Antideficiency Act prohibit spending beyond appropriations, underscoring the Congressional duty to ensure fiscal discipline.

There’s another fascinating wrinkle here.

In United States v. Butler (1936), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to spend money for the “general welfare” under the Spending Clause but that the Constitution limits that authority. This spending must serve the common good, not specific groups or industries. Subsidizing low wages with public funds serves business interests but not the American people as a whole.

Spending on social programs to help those who aren’t able to work supports American society by promoting order and tranquility. But half of American working families needing social program support is wildly excessive and points to low wages as a root cause problem.

The burden of wages has shifted from employers to taxpayers, violating the principle that public spending should benefit the nation as a whole.

We, the People, must meet the Constitutional standard to promote the general welfare. Therefore, Congress must act to reduce reliance on social programs by addressing systemic wage issues. Failure to do so violates Constitutional principles and harms the American public.

…

In short, we can answer our first question.

Do Americans have a mandate to address inequality?

Yes, Americans and our elected representatives have a Constitutional and legal mandate to address inequality. Failure to minimize spending on taxpayer-funded social programs benefits only special business interests, not the American people as a whole. This violates the Constitution. Therefore, we are mandated to take an active federal role in regulating the private sector.

Now, let’s recall our second question.

If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?

History shows that when America faced inequality in the past, it found its way through unity and purpose. To understand how this was achieved, let’s turn to our nation’s first period of radical inequality and the leadership of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s Legacy

Abraham Lincoln led the nation through its first great reckoning with radical inequality. The divide between free labor in the North and enslaved labor in the South symbolized a moral and economic conflict.

This divide was too great for Lincoln to tolerate. As a lawyer, he was known for clear reasoning and ability to simplify complex issues. In an 1862 draft titled Meditation on the Divine Will, he wrote that “God can not be for and against the same thing at the same time.” Lincoln sought to preserve the union, the first national goal outlined in our Constitution. The union could not sustain itself half-slave and half-free; it had to be one or the other.

This question defined Lincoln’s leadership. In a nation of free men and enslaved men, who had the right to the fruits of their labor?

In his Fragments of a Tariff Discussion (1847), Lincoln articulated his economic philosophy. He referenced the biblical phrase, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” to emphasize the dignity of labor and the moral imperative that workers should benefit from their toil. Later in his 1861 Annual Message to Congress, he outlined more specifically that “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

Further, in Fragments, Lincoln wrote that a “most worthy object of any good government” is to ensure that “each laborer (receives) the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible.” This belief tied directly to his fight against slavery as both a moral and economic injustice that denied millions of people their rightful share of the wealth they created.

Critics often downplay Lincoln’s connection to labor rights. They argue that he focused narrowly on preserving the Union or that the Civil War was not fundamentally about slavery. Luckily, Lincoln was a prolific writer who preserved his thoughts in ink. His views on labor were intertwined with his opposition to slavery. He believed that the right to benefit from one’s work was essential to a just and prosperous society.

Lincoln’s leadership was guided by principles that resonate as mantras even today.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand” captured his conviction that the nation’s survival depended on resolving the division between free and enslaved labor.

The Gettysburg Address’s “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” reaffirmed his belief in the republic’s role to enable the opportunity of Americans of any station of birth to benefit from their work.

As we confront modern inequality, we consider Lincoln’s legacy. He faced an economic system that denied millions of workers their fundamental rights. His vision of fairness in labor was twofold: First, each person has the right to benefit from their work, and second, ‘We, the People,’ must protect that right. These principles remain as vital today as they did during the Civil War.

The second national period of severe inequality was the Gilded Age. Several individuals led the nation through this more prolonged period, but Teddy Roosevelt left a decisive impact.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Legacy

President Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy is that for any one of us to be great, we all need to be able to be great. The primary source of our welfare is our work. The welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of us.

Teddy Roosevelt stepped forward during the Gilded Age to confront the entrenched power of industrial elites and champion the ability of individual Americans to be great. By Roosevelt’s time, the wealth and influence of “robber barons” like Rockefeller and Carnegie had reached unprecedented heights. They left millions of workers behind for a system that favored the few over the many. Roosevelt saw this disparity as a barrier to the greatness of the American people.

Roosevelt’s presidency is best remembered for his bold actions against corporate monopolies. As the “trust-buster,” he challenged the power of industrial giants, using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to dismantle monopolies like Northern Securities and to regulate companies like Standard Oil. His actions conveyed that no individual or corporation was above the law. Roosevelt understood that unchecked corporate power created inequality and stifled opportunity, making it impossible for the average person to succeed and thrive.

Roosevelt didn’t believe that the government’s role was to tear down booming businesses or level the playing field. He believed that the government should give every individual a “Square Deal,” or fair chance, to be great. A core premise of his administration was that the government needed to actively intervene on behalf of the general public to ensure economic opportunity for all.

Roosevelt’s mantras reflect these principles.

“Far and away, the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing,” reflected his belief that fulfillment, purpose, and personal greatness are achieved through dedication to meaningful effort.

“The welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of us” embodied Roosevelt’s vision of a society where every individual, regardless of birth or background, had a fair chance to succeed. In this society, the government had a duty to protect the rights of workers, promote fair competition, and ensure access to opportunity.

Roosevelt’s legacy reminds us of the importance of empowering individuals to be great. Greatness is a product of good work and a fair share of the profits from that work. Greatness is a collective pursuit. His presidency was a testament to the idea that everyone deserves a square deal to live, work, and achieve.

…

Now we can address our second question.

If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?

A New Economics: Reward Work, Build Opportunity

Lincoln faced a nation divided by slavery and inequality, but he never wavered in his belief that every worker deserved the fruits of their labor. Roosevelt fought against monopolies to ensure that individual Americans had a fair chance to succeed.

Both great leaders focused their decisive effort on enabling Americans from any station of birth to reap the value of their work.

They had two simple messages.

First, the messages “A house divided against itself cannot stand” and “Far and away, the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing” share a common theme. The survival of the nation relies on Americans finding fulfillment and purpose through meaningful work and having the right to bring the fruits of their labor home to their families.

Second, the messages “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” and “The welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of us” emphasize the government’s duty to safeguard that right and ensure opportunity for all Americans, regardless of their station of birth.

These simple messages illuminate the fundamental human truth that fulfillment comes from enjoying our work and eating and drinking with those we love.

With these truths in mind, we can answer our second question.

If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?

“A New Economics: Reward Work, Build Opportunity” is a good starting point.

May God bless the United States of America.

Should America take economic control of Greenland? Both the Prime Minister of Denmark—who oversees Greenland’s foreign affairs—and the Prime Minister of Greenland have repeatedly said that the territory is not for sale and have rejected the idea of annexation.

But American interest in Greenland has already had its intended effect. Forbes reported that Denmark is “open to a dialogue with the Americans on how we can cooperate, possibly even more closely than we already do, to ensure that American ambitions are fulfilled.”

Even if America taking economic control of Greenland seems imperialistic, rephrasing the question reframes the stakes. As in, we might ask the exact same question but with different wording.

Should China have access to rare earth elements in Greenland?

The shift in wording highlights Greenland’s role in great power competition and underscores the strategic value of its location and resources. Let’s kick our mental exercise off by considering Greenland’s significance on the world stage.

Greenland’s Strategic Value

Greenland’s strategic value has evolved over centuries, shaped by its unique location and resources. In 1721, Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede led an expedition to Greenland to search for descendants of vanished Norse settlers. While Egede did not find the Norse, he established the settlement of Nuuk, which later became Greenland’s capital and marked the start of Danish-Norwegian rule. Over time, Denmark-Norway expanded its control. It established trading posts and integrated Greenland into the European mercantile system. After Denmark-Norway split in 1814, Greenland remained under Danish control.

Greenland’s modern strategic importance emerged during World War II when the US agreed to protect the island after Germany occupied Denmark. The US established military bases that served as critical waypoints for transatlantic flights, weather stations for Allied operations, and a source of cryolite, a key catalyst for aluminum production. During the Cold War, Greenland’s pivotal Arctic location became essential for monitoring Soviet activity and hosting early warning radar systems.

In 1953, Denmark ended Greenland’s colonial status and incorporated it into the kingdom. This granted its citizens representation in the Danish parliament and access to national welfare programs. Greenland achieved home rule in 1979, gaining control over its internal affairs. In 2009, it gained further autonomy, including authority over resources and justice, while Denmark retained control over foreign policy and defense.

As climate change opens new shipping routes and enhances resource accessibility, Greenland’s economic and geopolitical significance grows. Greenland’s vast reserves of rare earth elements and strategic Arctic location make it a focal point for global competition.

Rare Earth Elements

Greenland has some of the world’s biggest stores of rare earth elements (REE), known by unfamiliar names such as neodymium, dysprosium, and praseodymium. These elements are essential for producing wind turbines, electric vehicle motors, and military equipment.

Despite their name, REEs are relatively common in Earth’s crust. However, their distribution and extraction present a mining challenge. REEs are rarely found in concentrated, profitable, mineable deposits. Instead, they are typically dispersed across vast areas, mixed with other elements. Due to their chemical similarity, extracting and refining them is complex and costly. Greenland’s reserves are especially valuable because they are believed to exist in relatively high concentrations, making them potentially more economical to extract than deposits found elsewhere.

Greenland’s untapped resources would allow Western nations to diversify their supply chains, reducing their dependence on China, which dominates the global REE market.

China controls approximately 90% of global rare earth production. Approximately 80% of the REEs used domestically in the US are imported from China. This dominance is due to its vast reserves, advanced refining infrastructure, and government policies prioritizing REE production as a strategic industry.

China’s near monopoly gives it significant leverage in geopolitical and economic arenas. Rare earth elements are critical for manufacturing everything from smartphones and renewable energy technologies to advanced military systems. This dependence poses a strategic vulnerability for Western nations, as disruptions to China’s supply—from trade disputes, export restrictions, or internal policy changes—could severely impact key industries. Even if Chinese companies wanted to negotiate business arrangements in good faith, the Chinese government controls all private businesses in China at its whim.

Greenland’s potential to become an alternative source of REEs represents an opportunity to mitigate this risk and secure a more stable and diversified supply chain for these critical materials.

However, rare earth elements are only part of Greenland’s strategic significance. Because of its strategic Arctic location, Greenland is a focal point for global competitors. 

Strategic Arctic Location

Because we tend to look at flat maps rather than globes, it’s easy to overlook that the Earth is round and the shortest path from America to Europe lies over the Arctic. For example, the distance from Los Angeles to Paris, France, is approximately 5,700 miles over the Arctic and 8,300 miles through the Panama Canal.

These Arctic routes follow what mathematicians even before the time of Columbus called the Great Circle Route. This Great Circle Route is the shortest path between two points on the Earth’s surface. From North America, it typically passes near or over regions like Greenland and the Arctic, depending on specific flight or shipping planning considerations.

Although the distance difference may not seem significant, even small reductions in distance can translate to significant savings in time, fuel, and emissions. Arctic routes offer the potential for more efficient transit between major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia, bypassing clogged routes through the Panama or Suez Canal. Greenland’s strategic location along these potential routes underscores its importance in shipping, aviation, trade, and defense logistics.

Of course, the Arctic has other transit challenges. It’s cold. Historically, extreme Arctic cold and thick ice made navigation treacherous. Shipping lanes like the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route were largely impassable for most of the year. But it’s less cold now, and previously unavailable shipping routes are opening.

This accessibility extends beyond shipping routes. The retreating ice uncovers untapped natural resources, including oil, gas, and rare earth element reserves. This new territory is fueling a modern scramble for control over the Arctic.

The US has long viewed the Arctic as a critical defense and economic security frontier. Military bases like Thule in Greenland and several in Alaska cement our commitment.

Meanwhile, China aggressively seeks influence. In 2018, It declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and incorporated Arctic development into its Belt and Road Initiative, the Polar Silk Road. China’s motives are clear. Shipping from China to Europe through the Suez Canal in Egypt takes 48 days and only 24 days by way of the Northeast Passage through the Arctic.

In response, US leaders drew firm lines. In 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated, “There are only Arctic states and non-Arctic states…No third category exists — and claiming otherwise entitles China to exactly nothing.”

Ultimately, new shipping lanes and resource opportunities have turned the Arctic into a strategic chessboard. Control over Greenland and other key locations could shift the balance of global influence. America cannot yield its position in this great power competition. If we cede influence under the guise of fairness, rival nations will not return the favor. America must act alone and with partner nations to create favorable global conditions and ensure freedom of action and influence for the American people and our allies.

The strategic necessity of great power competition and the Constitution compels us to protect national interests.

Great Power Competition

Nations have no choice but to ensure their survival and protect their interests. If they do not, or cannot, protect their interests, their competitors will not cede them prosperity. The absence of a world government creates a globally competitive environment that compels states to prioritize their security, interests, and the stability of their strategic alliances.

In this anarchic international order, nations act in their own interest. They make choices that maximize their benefit and strength—even at the expense of others. We form coalitions and partnerships as strategic efforts to enhance our power, stability, and influence. Preserving our business interests requires denying competitors the same advantages we seek, which ensures a favorable position in the global hierarchy.

This competitive reality is on full display in the Arctic. The US, Russia, and China are vying for control of a region where melting ice has opened new shipping lanes and exposed previously buried resources. The Arctic is a critical arena for global rivalry. The security and prosperity of the American people and our allies require independent action and strategic partnerships to shape favorable conditions. These efforts are essential to maintaining freedom of action and influence in this rapidly evolving region.

From America’s perspective, this imperative aligns with Constitutional guiding principles. The Constitution does not explicitly state that maintaining favorable business conditions is a federal responsibility; however, specific provisions inherently support this objective.

The Commerce Clause (in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, ensure economic stability, and facilitate commerce. However, the Clause does not grant Congress the power to regulate trade under conditions that do not benefit the American people. An implied mandate in regulating trade, ensuring economic stability, and facilitating commerce is to achieve these conditions under favorable terms.

Further, if the Commerce Clause isn’t sufficient to achieve commerce under favorable terms, the Constitution grants Congress the authority to raise and support armies (in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12). Nations that can establish favorable international conditions attract international investment, promote trade, and create new economic opportunities. Defense and the economy are interconnected. Economic power sustains defense, while defense safeguards markets and secures supply chains.

Now for our Question

Should America take economic control of Greenland?

Let’s rephrase the question to reframe the stakes.

Should China have access to rare earth elements in Greenland?

Let’s review some key points.

Greenland’s Arctic location makes it indispensable for trade, defense, and global influence.

The United States and Greenland have a longstanding and cooperative partnership.

China’s dominance in rare earth production presents a strategic vulnerability for America; Greenland’s resources offer a solution.

Climate change is unlocking Arctic shipping lanes and revealing untapped resources. Greenland’s strategic position along Arctic trade routes and the Great Circle Route solidifies its role as a vital hub for global shipping, aviation, and defense operations.

Safeguarding influence in Greenland is crucial for creating favorable conditions for the American people and our allies while preserving freedom of action and influence in the Arctic. This reflects the strategic necessity of great power competition and the Constitutional duty to protect national interests.

Securing our position under favorable terms requires denying our competitors those advantages. Therefore, we must actively prevent Chinese access to Greenland and other Arctic regions under the control of America and our allies.

Should the United States take control of Greenland by military force? Absolutely not. Denmark is a steadfast ally and a NATO member. Instead, we should pursue a collaborative arrangement that benefits Denmark and America, strengthening our partnership and mutual interests.

May God bless the United States of America.

H-1B visas have been an item of hot discussion lately. On New Year’s Day, Newsweek detailed, “At the end of December a bitter row broke out within Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement over H-1B visas, pitting business figures such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy who believe they boost the U.S. economy against more nativist elements who think they harm American workers. And, speaking to The New York Post on December 28 Trump defended H-1B visas.”

This recent debate reveals a deeper question: Why are we still relying on this program after more than 30 years? Is the H-1B visa program solving America’s workforce challenges—or masking our failure to address them?

…

An H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant visa issued by the United States. Nonimmigrant visas apply to individuals wishing to enter the US temporarily. Reasons for entry might include business, temporary work, study, or other reasons.

H-1Bs allow foreign workers to work in specialty occupations in the US for up to six years, with some opportunity to change that six years to permanent residence. Employers that sponsor H-1B holders need specialized knowledge and typically require a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a relevant field. Common industries employing H-1B workers include technology, engineering, finance, healthcare, and education.

The US Department of Labor says H-1Bs “help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.”

Proponents and Opponents

Proponents argue that we should expand the number of visas and skilled immigrant workers. They argue that the program is essential to maintaining America’s competitive edge in a global economy, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. They highlight how skilled foreign workers contribute to innovation, job creation, and economic growth. They note that H-1B visa holders bring expertise in short supply domestically.

They cite studies that find more H-1B workers in an occupation correlate with lower unemployment. That stricter H-1B policies lead US multinational companies to cut domestic jobs while expanding foreign operations, especially in India, China, and Canada. That higher H-1B approval rates lead to more patents, increased patent citations, greater venture capital funding, and higher success rates for IPOs and acquisitions.

Opponents argue the program negatively impacts US workers by depressing wages and reducing job opportunities. They claim some employers exploit the system to hire foreign workers at lower wages, bypassing qualified domestic candidates. Critics point to instances of fraud and abuse, where companies misuse the program to outsource jobs or replace existing American employees.

Opponents further see the program as a failure to invest in the domestic workforce through training and education. They argue that we need to shift our main effort toward equipping US workers with the skills needed for high-demand fields rather than relying on foreign labor.

Now, for our question: So, why do we need more H-1B visas? Or do we?

Bipartisan Immigration Efforts in the 1990s

President George H.W. Bush (Republican) signed the Immigration Act of 1990 into law on November 29, 1990. The bill represented the most comprehensive reform of US immigration laws in 66 years. It aimed to adapt national immigration to the American economy’s changing needs. In particular, it addressed the increased demand for skilled professionals in technology, engineering, and other specialized fields.

In 1990, Democrats held a strong majority in the House and Senate. Both parties agreed to increase skilled immigration in support of American business.

One key provision of the 1990 Act was the creation of the H-1B visa category. This effort specifically supported businesses seeking immigrants in “specialty occupations” and required these immigrants to have at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a specialized field of study. The bill intended to enable American businesses to fill critical skill gaps the domestic workforce could not meet.

The law established annual caps on the number of H-1B visas issued, initially set at 65,000. This cap intended to balance employer needs while protecting the domestic labor market. Further, employers seeking skilled immigrants had to attest that hiring foreign workers would not negatively impact US workers by certifying that H-1B workers would be paid at least the prevailing wage for their occupation and location.

…

By 1998, the dot-com boom raged. Tech companies clamored for more skilled workers in STEM fields, and the nation revamped the H-1B program.

But the political tides had turned. The Republican Party held strong majorities in both the Senate and House. No matter. President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) into law on October 21, 1998.

The ACWIA temporarily raised the H-1B cap from 65,000 to 115,000 for 1999 and 2000. It also introduced a training fee for employers sponsoring H-1B workers, initially set at $500 per worker. Congress intended that this fee would fund training and education programs for US workers and reduce reliance on foreign labor in the long term.

…

Employers quickly absorbed skilled workers from the 1998 cap increase, and tech companies returned to Congress a few years later, again asking for more visas. Their request led to another temporary cap increase authorized by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) of 2000.

In 2000, Republicans controlled both the Senate and House. President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed AC21 into law on October 17, 2000. It expanded the number of visas and opened the opportunity for H-1B visa holders to apply for permanent residency.

…

In sum, the tech industry has long demonstrated the need for more skilled labor. Critics argue that this pattern of periodic cap raises reveals structural deficiencies in the training and education of American workers.

Saying this condition is a training and education problem dances around the problem. What we have is a failure to meet Constitutional obligations.

Constitutional Duty

The nation’s guiding document outlines a national purpose to achieve six highly aspirational goals: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. These six goals are why the nation exists. Advancing interests not linked to these six goals is meaningless at best and damaging at worst. Two goals—general welfare and justice—apply to our discussion of H-1B visas.

First, general welfare. Individuals can contribute to society when the nation sets conditions to achieve widespread education, healthcare, housing, and safety. Though not the only components of infrastructure, these conditions build the infrastructure that is individual capability. Collective individual capability generates national capability.

Said another way, empowering Americans to contribute to society is an investment in the nation’s infrastructure.

Second, justice. Justice presents the opportunity for Americans from any station of birth to access that infrastructure. Innovation, ideas, and contributions come from every corner of society and lift us all economically and culturally. When Americans from any station of birth can access the infrastructure that supports promoting the general welfare, we strengthen American individuals and businesses.

Expanding the H-1B visa program directly means we have either failed to build the infrastructure that generates individual capability, which then generates national capability, or built the system in such a way that denies Americans the opportunity from any station of birth to access that infrastructure, or both. Therefore, we have failed to achieve welfare and justice, two of our six national goals. Worse, rather than decisive efforts to fix this deficiency, and to meet the needs of tech businesses, we bring in skilled immigrant workers from nations who do a better job of achieving these goals than we have.

We should highlight this is not a fault of American businesses. A business’s primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives working within legal and ethical boundaries should concentrate solely on maximizing shareholder value. Corporate social responsibility blurs the line between the private and public sectors.

Any effort toward individual welfare or justice is outside a business’s fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. Instead, the public sector—or government—must fulfill these roles.

…

A business’s primary responsibility is to generate profits, not solve national workforce issues. The public sector must address justice and general welfare—these are public responsibilities. After all, it is our Constitution, and we are “We the People.”

If we intend to reduce reliance on H-1B workers while meeting the demands of our tech economy, the solution isn’t curbing immigration. It’s building infrastructure and ensuring Americans from any station of birth have access to that infrastructure. To that end, here are three recommendations to set conditions enabling training and education for Americans in tech fields.

1. Change How We Measure Success

How do you know when you’ve achieved your goals? They have to be measurable, and you must actively measure them. For simple goals, the process is straightforward. For instance, if your goal is to solidify your family’s financial security, you might set a sub-goal of saving $500 each month. If your savings account grows by $500 this month compared to last, you’ve achieved your goal. Consistently meeting this sub-goal brings you closer to your broader objective of financial security.

When you lead large organizations, those goals become bigger, more complex, and more ambiguous. For example, how do you measure your organization’s innovation rate? Or…how would you measure the trust you have with your customers? You have to break your big goals down into smaller, measurable units. You have to pick the right areas to measure, and these areas need to directly correlate to your goals. If we choose a metric that is easy to measure but only loosely connected to a goal, the insights we gain about our progress become unclear and ambiguous.

Another note about picking areas to measure—whatever area we choose to measure and apply pressure to will improve. There may be unintended effects of this improvement we don’t foresee, but when there’s money or job performance associated with improving a particular measurable outcome, that direct outcome will improve.

So let’s ask: If we intend the H-1B visa program to become less necessary, how do we measure and assess the national infrastructure that is technical training and education?

Congress evaluates H-1B visas through a lens of economic metrics. Each H-1B generates revenue from employer fees. A significant portion of these fees goes to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other entities to support workforce development and education. The NSF administers these funds by distributing grants and scholarships with the intent to improve STEM education and create opportunities for US workers to compete in a global economy.

This system introduces two layers of bureaucracy. Money flows from employers to Congress, then to the NSF, and finally to education and training programs, where we hope this money has its intended impact. As the old saying goes, hope is not a strategy.

Further, the nation has attempted to implement initiatives to enhance technology training programs, particularly for students in low-income areas. Recent attempts include the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) of 2024. The US Department of Education intends NETP to close the digital gap and improve tech education for all students.

Funding and supporting training programs are commendable efforts. But, if the goal is to strengthen the national infrastructure for technical training and education to reduce reliance on the H-1B visa program, we must measure H-1B visa applications with a clear intent to decrease demand from businesses. That is something we do not do.

In sum, H-1B visa applications are a measure of the tech readiness of the workforce. So…

…

Recommendation 1. We need a better metric: H-1B visa applications per capita.

We must move beyond tracking resources and programs to focus on outcomes. To that end, we need to measure and assess the technical training and education of American students by H-1B applications.

Tracking H-1B applications per capita directly measures how well the domestic workforce meets industry demands. A decline would show progress toward self-reliance, while persistent or rising applications would highlight where gaps remain.

Declines in H-1B applications per capita should signal reduced dependency on foreign talent and reflect improvements in the domestic workforce’s readiness to meet tech industry demand. This approach will directly measure how well we are closing skill gaps towards a more self-reliant workforce. Reduced H-1B applications would signal stronger domestic readiness, national innovation, and economic resilience.

Now for our second goal. We need to build technical training and education infrastructure.

2. Build Infrastructure

The best training and education programs are focused and iterative. They’re designed to meet specific needs, build on feedback, and improve over time.

We need infrastructure that bridges the divide between high school and high-level tech performance for working Americans. This infrastructure might look like a network of training and education innovation hubs. With support from local communities, we need to use the nation’s community college infrastructure as an initial base.

We need these programs to apply to all careers. Agriculture needs tech education. Theater needs technical training. Manufacturing needs tech education.

To build this infrastructure, we need to partner with academia to create pathways for students with no education beyond high school to acquire training and professional certifications in tech. Businesses must also play a critical role by participating in class exercises and presenting real-world challenges. This involvement ensures that programs remain relevant and aligned with workforce demands.

However, business participation cannot be optional. A business’s primary duty is to generate profits, and workforce development may not always align with that goal. The duty of the public realm is then to step in and set requirements. Businesses benefit from the stability and talent of American workers, and they have an obligation to support this development.

Therefore, businesses seeking to file H-1B applications must demonstrate active participation in local training programs. This participation could include participating in relevant coursework or exercises, hosting career days, or presenting industry-specific challenges for students to solve. Companies that fail to engage in these programs should not have the option to file H-1B visa applications. This requirement aligns public and private interests, ensuring businesses contribute to the development of the American workforce while still meeting their hiring needs.

This requirement shouldn’t be imposed on all businesses—only those seeking to file H-1B visa applications. Businesses choosing to hire skilled foreign workers must first demonstrate efforts to find and hire skilled American workers.

Courses within these hubs must be laser-focused on high-performance job skills. While valuable, humanities courses are not essential for many roles and should remain optional. Programs should bridge the gap between high school and professional careers, offering practical training that goes beyond surface-level knowledge. For example, statistics might be a subject skimmed over in high school but would require deeper exploration in a program designed for data analysis.

This isn’t about theory—it’s about measurable results: reducing reliance on H-1B visas, increasing workforce readiness, and securing meaningful employment for American workers. So…

…

Recommendation 2. Create a network of focused and iterative training hubs.

This network would enable Americans to develop high-value skills, solve critical industry challenges, and secure employment in fields currently filled through H-1B applications. Investing in this infrastructure would build capability, enhance economic competitiveness, and create pathways for all Americans to succeed in the modern workforce.

Building this infrastructure would directly address our Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare of Americans.

Let’s move on to our final goal. Building a strong training infrastructure removes one barrier to workforce readiness. We must address another: the financial burden of student loan debt, which disproportionately affects low-income Americans. To fulfill our Constitutional mandate to establish justice, we need to eliminate student loan debt interest for the lower half of American students by income level.

3. Support justice by eliminating student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels

We need American students to build their individual capability through training and education. This collective individual capability drives national capability. Further, we have a Constitutional duty to establish justice for all Americans. We achieve justice when each individual has the opportunity to fulfill their role in society.

Student loan debt presents a significant barrier to this goal. For students from low-income backgrounds, this burden can become insurmountable. Due to predatory or poorly structured terms, some student loan debt grows even when borrowers consistently make their payments. A 2021 Wall Street Journal article, Why Student Debt Keeps Growing—Even When Borrowers Keep Paying, highlights how total balances can increase over time despite regular payments, trapping borrowers in a cycle of debt.

This violates the principle of justice. If students from the lowest income brackets cannot repay their loans and gain access to training and education, they are effectively barred from achieving the qualifications necessary to contribute meaningfully to society. Without this access, they cannot fulfill their potential or aid in building national capability.

Let’s consider a straightforward question: Why does the government charge interest on federal student loans? The government isn’t a for-profit institution, and the nation benefits when its citizens improve their individual capability. Charging interest on these loans neither strengthens national finances nor aids individual students—it simply prolongs repayment periods and exacerbates financial stress.

Eliminating interest on federal student loans for low-income students would provide these individuals with a fair opportunity to repay their debt within a reasonable time frame. This would enable them to focus on building their skills and fulfilling their role in society rather than being trapped in a cycle of debt.

So…

Recommendation 3. Eliminate student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels.

This change would remove a significant barrier to education for millions of Americans, ensuring that low-income students can contribute to the nation’s collective capability without being penalized by debt that grows faster than they can repay it. By supporting these students, we uphold our Constitutional duty to establish justice and strengthen both individual and national prosperity.

In Sum

America’s guiding document exists to achieve six goals.

One of these is to promote the general welfare. In part, promoting the general welfare means building national infrastructure that enables individual and national capability.

A second goal is to establish justice. We achieve justice when Americans from any station of birth have access to that infrastructure so they can take the initiative to build their capability and fulfill their role in society.

Our continued reliance on H-1B visas means we have either failed to build the infrastructure that generates individual capability or built the system in a way that denies Americans from any station of birth the opportunity to access that infrastructure, or both.

To achieve our Constitutional aims, we must set and progress towards three goals.

We must move beyond tracking resources and programs instead of focusing on outcomes. To that end, we need to measure and assess the technical training and education of American students by H-1B applications.

We need to create a network of focused and iterative training hubs. These hubs will reduce reliance on H-1B visas, increase workforce readiness, and secure meaningful employment for American workers.

And we need to eliminate student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels in order to remove barriers to tech training and education for millions of Americans.

Some will say these aims are too lofty, even unachievable.

To that, I say there are six reasons America exists, and these goals tie directly to two of those reasons. If we don’t make our decisive effort to align with America’s purpose, why are we here?

May God bless the United States of America.

I Am and the Burning Bush

This is not a religious piece. But stick with me for a minute.

I grew up attending small country churches. As a young boy, I asked my mother, “Who made God?”

She had the answers. No one made God. God has always been and always will be—the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Of course, this answer was not satisfactory to me. As a boy and now, my limited human capacity to understand infinity, quantum physics, and whether all time and space can exist simultaneously demonstrates I will never really be able to comprehend the nature of God. But I still try and understand.

The story that sticks with me most about the existence of God is the story of Moses and the burning bush. If you’re unfamiliar, here’s a quick version.

Moses was tending a flock of sheep near the mountain of God when he noticed a strange sight. A bush was on fire, but the fire wasn’t destroying it. He was curious and approached the bush to investigate.

As he approached the bush, God called out to him. God told Moses that He had seen the suffering of His people in Egypt and would deliver them from slavery.

God gave Moses a mission: He was to go to Pharaoh, convince him to release the slaves, and lead them out of Egypt. Moses pushed back. He doubted. Still trying to shirk his duty, Moses asked what name he should give when others questioned who sent him.

God answered, “I AM WHO I AM.” And, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I Am has sent me to you.’”

The story isn’t compelling to me because God spoke to Moses. It’s not compelling because the bush didn’t burn up. It’s not compelling because of the subsequent exodus and lack of faith demonstrated by humanity that doomed a generation. It’s compelling because only once in the Judeo-Christian tradition did a human ask God His name. Moses is the only one to explicitly ask God His name and receive a direct answer. And God didn’t answer the Almighty, the Creator, or the Ancient of Days. God answered, my name is ‘I Am.’

No human making up a name for God would have thought to call the Almighty ‘I Am.’ … Names signify identity but always depend on something external to the individual. No one names themselves. However, God has no ‘other’ to provide a name. God exists outside the framework of creation and human conventions. So, when asked for a name, the only possible response is “I Am.”

Of course, the 3,500-year-old story doesn’t erase the questions about the existence of God. Because tomorrow is Christmas Day, I’d like to approach national belief from another angle. The source of love for others is God. Whether you believe God exists or not, the question of how we live and treat each other remains.

God commanded us to love each other. But even if God doesn’t exist, should we not love our countrymen?

Loving one another isn’t just for the good of others. It’s for our own good. Said another way, loving each other brings us more benefits than it gives to others. And nowhere is this love better demonstrated than in the national goals enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution.

Love and the Constitution

The Preamble to the Constitution outlines the document’s purpose. Without the Preamble, the rest of the Constitution loses all meaning. The Preamble provides the foundation, outlining the reason the Constitution exists. Its aspirational and nearly unattainable goals are the greatest expression of brotherly love ever written by mankind outside a spiritual text. It outlines…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let’s look at it piece by piece. The nation’s guiding document outlines a national purpose to achieve six highly aspirational goals: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. America strives to achieve these six goals to secure the benefits for ourselves and others. The nation’s first goal…

Union

Our first national goal is to preserve the union. Our union is a union of states and individuals who live in those states. Like any marriage, partnership, or community, there is no lasting union without love.

In the context of union, love isn’t about affection. It’s commitment, sacrifice, and a willingness to work through differences. A union can’t thrive without the shared understanding that we are stronger together than apart. Without love and commitment for each other, the cracks in the union fracture and lead to collapse.

The closing line of the Declaration of Independence states, “And for the support of this Declaration…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” This line underscores the essence of union later found in the Constitution—a bond forged by shared goals and sacrifice. The signatories committed themselves to one another and to the union of states. They understood that achieving something greater than themselves required sacrifice and a willingness to stand together, even at the cost of losing the war and everything they had.

Union isn’t the absence of conflict or failure. It’s the shared responsibility of both. It doesn’t mean agreement; it means shared ownership of the outcomes, good or bad. We are a union, united in success and united in failure.

This is the heart of any lasting union. No matter success or failure, states and individuals pledge themselves to one another, not out of convenience but out of love, honor, and shared purpose. Without this kind of commitment, no union can endure.

The nation’s second goal is…

Justice

Our second goal is to establish justice. Loving each other enables justice for ourselves and others. It’s not just for the good of others. It’s for the good of ourselves.

Justice is the foundation for a society where individuals can fulfill their roles and contribute to the nation’s well-being. The founders outlined justice as a collective responsibility because it depends on the systems we build as a nation, not just individual action. It requires institutions that ensure fairness while empowering individuals to pursue their potential.

Justice means that people should be treated fairly and equally under the law. It also means that society strives toward individual opportunity and the equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing. It encompasses fair opportunities in criminal justice, voting rights, and workplaces.

Justice is not a handout program. While it’s a national responsibility to establish conditions for justice, it’s an individual responsibility to rise to greatness. No one American can tell another what’s important to them, and our opinions change as we age and have different life experiences. Further, the American dream isn’t about material possessions. It’s about having the opportunity to pursue your dreams and live a fulfilling life.

These dreams have shared themes. An environment of justice enables people from humble beginnings to buy a house in a safe neighborhood with a good school for their children. Justice enabled self-educated President Lincoln to ascend from nothing to the nation’s highest office in arguably our greatest time of need. He remarked, “I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.” Justice makes the American Dream possible for anyone willing to strive for it.

Justice ensures stability and opportunity. These conditions benefit everyone, including those who feel far removed from the injustice others face. Justice encourages progress. When we empower others to succeed, society becomes more prosperous. Innovation, ideas, and contributions come from every corner of society and lift us all economically and culturally.

Justice isn’t charity—it’s opportunity. Justice isn’t favoritism—it’s fairness. Justice isn’t abstract—it’s the foundation of progress. Loving each other enables justice for ourselves and others. It’s not just for the good of others. It’s for the good of ourselves.

Our nation’s third goal is…

Tranquility

Our third national goal is to ensure domestic tranquility. Tranquility means a society built on order, stability, and mutual respect.

Loving each other supports order and stability. Respect for one another makes compromise possible and conflict resolvable. Without it, rebellions, riots, and civil unrest rise, undermining national unity and success.

Tranquility requires effort from every individual and institution. … When we succeed, we resolve our differences with grace and dignity and are stronger together.

Tranquility was not assured in the years between the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789) and the Constitution.

Take Shays’ Rebellion (1786–1787) as an example. It began as an uprising of farmers in western Massachusetts, many of whom were Revolutionary War veterans. These farmers faced land foreclosure and imprisonment for unpaid debts. They felt betrayed by a system they had fought to defend. Led by Daniel Shays, they took up arms, closed courts, and attempted to disrupt government operations.

The rebellion revealed a dangerous flaw in the Articles of Confederation: individual states didn’t have the capacity to maintain order, and a weak federal government offered no support. The national government lacked the power to raise an army or enforce laws. This left states like Massachusetts to handle conflicts alone. The rebellion exposed the risks of a fragile union and demonstrated that the nation itself was at risk without tranquility.

Shays’ Rebellion directly influenced the drafting of the Constitution. The framers understood that tranquility had to be actively ensured through a stronger federal government capable of addressing domestic challenges while respecting state and individual sovereignty. That’s why “insure domestic Tranquility” became one of the six core national goals outlined in the Preamble.

Tranquility is a deliberate national choice to maintain collective peace, stability, and order. Peace comes from respect. Respect comes from love. Loving each other benefits us individually because it maintains stability and order.

Tranquility alone isn’t enough. We have to safeguard it, which leads us to our next goal. Our fourth national goal is…

Defense

Our fourth national goal is defense or mutual protection. If tranquility ensures domestic order, defense preserves that order and extends it to support America and her interests inside and beyond our borders. Defense is a deliberate choice to create conditions where freedom and stability thrive.

Loving each other supports protection because a united people are better equipped to ensure their survival and power. When a nation defends its interests, it does so out of love for its citizens and a commitment to the opportunities they seek to secure.

Nations have no choice but to ensure their survival and protect their interests. To guard the safety and security of the American people and our allies, we act alone and with partner nations to create favorable global conditions. These efforts protect freedom of action and influence.

Coalitions and international partnerships enhance security and contribute to global stability. These partnerships are strategic efforts that strengthen stability and set conditions for individuals to pursue their interests. By pooling resources, sharing intelligence, and projecting power, nations achieve together what none could achieve alone. When we protect our allies, we strengthen ourselves. A stable global environment ultimately contributes to the prosperity and safety of individual Americans.

A strong defense fuels economic growth. Stability provides the foundation for businesses to innovate and thrive and for investments to grow. Nations with robust defense and stable alliances attract global investment, foster trade, and expand economic opportunities. Defense and economics are inseparable. Economic strength fuels defense, and defense ensures the safety of markets and supply chains.

Economic strength underpins global influence, sustains technological leadership, and allows the nation to respond effectively to challenges. Protecting business interests and fostering growth are as much a part of defense as any military strategy.

Defense is a collective effort and a shared responsibility. Loving each other benefits us all because mutual protection creates stability and opportunity for individuals, businesses, and communities to succeed.

Our fifth national goal is…

Welfare

Our fifth national goal is to promote the general welfare. This goal identifies our collective duty to ensure the well-being of all Americans. The general welfare has nothing to do with social welfare programs. When the states ratified the Constitution to make it effective, social welfare programs did not exist.

Loving each other means recognizing that our success as individuals is tied to the success of others. People can contribute to society when the nation sets conditions to achieve widespread education, healthcare, housing, and safety. Empowering Americans to contribute to society is an investment in the nation's infrastructure.

This national infrastructure is human capital — the knowledge, skills, and abilities of individual Americans. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. Collective individual capability generates national capability. Said another way, the skills and knowledge of individuals build the strength of the nation as a whole.

Promoting general welfare requires balancing individual freedom with collective progress. This balance means providing opportunities while preserving personal responsibility.

Investing in human capital—like education and healthcare—strengthens our collective ability to thrive and innovate. Consider education. It’s a cornerstone of promoting the general welfare. Education supports individuals, regardless of background, in gaining the knowledge, skills, and training necessary to function in and improve society. Or consider healthcare. It protects individuals and communities from preventable crises. Promoting the general welfare means supporting national infrastructure that demonstrates commitment to the idea that every American deserves the chance to pursue happiness and live a meaningful life. This effective governance demonstrates love for others.

Americans don’t need handouts to connect to the infrastructure. Big infrastructure programs demonstrate that Americans will connect themselves to infrastructure when given the opportunity. When allowed to move goods across states, American businesses jump at the chance. When we need flood control for agriculture and resources for national security, Americans are ready. When electricity is available, rural Americans connect themselves to electricity.

Loving each other means promoting the general welfare. Promoting the general welfare means building national infrastructure. National infrastructure includes expanding the infrastructure that is individual capability.

And our final national goal…

Liberty

Our sixth and final national goal is to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and those who follow.

Liberty is the promise that every American has the right to live freely, to pursue their dreams, and to choose their path. It is the ultimate expression of love and respect for the individual. Liberty is the right to choose. These choices have consequences. Personal choice enables us to grow through personal responsibility. Without liberty, there is no responsibility.

Liberty empowers us to learn from the consequences of our choices, fostering resilience, innovation, and a deeper sense of responsibility.

Individual liberty is the hallmark of America. It’s a foundational concept that represents several rights. The freedom to practice a religion of your choosing, or none at all, is a right of liberty. Freedom of speech and expression is liberty. Freedom to vote is liberty. The list is long.

When we allow some to take liberty from others, we risk losing our own. To preserve our individual liberty, we must protect and fight for the rights of others.

Therefore, it’s the right of Americans to express their liberty and the responsibility of Americans to tolerate others who would express their liberty in a manner we may find objectionable.

Liberty allows for diversity of thought, belief, and action. These are the hallmarks of a thriving society. Liberty is not an excuse for selfishness. It is an opportunity to grow through personal responsibility, to learn from our choices, and to help secure the freedom of others. Loving each other means fighting for liberty—not just for ourselves, but for each other.

The Ties That Bind

These six goals tie together.

There is no union without demonstrated commitment, sacrifice, and willingness to work through differences.

There is no general welfare without the willingness to build infrastructure to expand individual and national capability.

There is no justice without stability and opportunity for Americans from any station of birth to access that infrastructure.

We can’t preserve what individuals and communities can achieve without the tranquility built on order, stability, and mutual respect.

We must protect the union and interests beyond our borders through partnership, engagement, and defense.

These conditions enable a society where Americans can choose their path, note the consequences of their choices, and develop the personal responsibility that leads to individual and community growth. This is liberty.

So…

To Love Your Country, Love Your Countrymen

We are commanded to love each other not for the good of others but for the good of ourselves. Loving others helps us individually. Loving each other isn’t an unachievable ideal. Love is a practice. It brings us union, justice, tranquility, protection, welfare, and liberty.

Therefore, we can’t love our country without loving our countrymen.

My best wishes are with you and yours this Christmas. I’m not a priest and have no right to bless you, but I’ll do it anyway.

May God bless you and keep you;May God smile on you and be gracious to you;May God look on you with favor and give you peace.

May God bless the United States of America.

Can we raise wages to fully fund Social Security?

Social Security is societal insurance, not an individual retirement plan. Its purpose is to protect society by ensuring a basic level of income security, particularly for the elderly, disabled, and survivors of deceased workers. It is a safety net to prevent poverty and economic distress in vulnerable populations. This fosters societal stability. Unlike a private retirement plan, Social Security pools contributions from the workforce to provide collective support, shielding America from the dire effects of widespread poverty that harm the economy as a whole. However, stagnant wages undermine this system. They limit revenue growth and increase dependency on government programs. Addressing stagnant wages is vital to ensuring the sustainability of Social Security and fostering financial independence.

Now that the election is over, the conversation about fixing Social Security has gained momentum. On the December 8th NBC News Meet the Press, President-elect Trump said he didn’t plan to cut Social Security. 

At the same time, Social Security is underfunded, and the program’s failure to provide full benefits is imminent.

We can’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problem will resolve itself. According to the Social Security Administration Annual Trust Fund report, “in 2023, the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) Trust Fund’s cost of $1,237.3 billion exceeded income by $70.4 billion.” At the same time, the “(Disability Insurance) Trust Fund’s income of $183.8 billion exceeded cost by $29.0 billion.” For those of us trying to do public math, the total shortfall was $41 billion. Let’s remember that figure for later.

The timeframe of 2034 to 2037 coincides with the time when all the Boomers reach retirement age. The size of the Boomer generation significantly exceeded the Gen X generation, and Social Security funding can’t keep up. Because Social Security revenue is lower than needed during this timeframe, the first Americans who could lose part of their Social Security benefits are the Boomers. Social Security benefits wouldn’t have to be eliminated; they could be reduced to distribute the available funds accordingly. The Social Security Administration estimates it could pay about 79% of benefits to retirees in 2034.

In principle, there are three approaches to addressing the deficiency, each with its trade-offs. First, we can increase revenue. Second, we can cut benefits. Third, we can increase the size of the working population.

You can rename these approaches any way you’d like. As an example, instead of saying we need to increase revenue, you can say we should raise or eliminate the Social Security tax cap. For 2024, the tax cap is $168,600. Employees and employers each contribute 6.2% of wages toward Social Security up to this income cap, totaling 12.4%. Any earnings beyond $168,600 are exempt. Advocates for this approach claim if higher earners pay Social Security taxes on earnings above $168,600, it could boost the funds available for the program. Critics say raising or eliminating the tax cap illegitimately increases taxes on a population that won’t see a proportional increase in their benefits. This creates tension between the goals of funding Social Security and maintaining a balance in tax equity.

As another example, instead of saying we need to cut benefits, you can say we should increase the retirement age. This approach means individuals would need to work longer before becoming eligible for benefits. By raising the age threshold, the proposal would reduce the total amount paid to beneficiaries over their lifetimes, as they would have fewer years to draw benefits. Advocates of this idea argue that it reflects increased life expectancy, aligning the system with modern demographics. Critics highlight that the life expectancy for the bottom half of earners has not risen since 1983, and they are the individuals who need Social Security the most.

Of course, fully funding Social Security is a systemic problem with no silver bullet solution. We need to compromise on both ends of the spectrum. But we should still consider new ideas.

I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.

Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue through larger payroll tax contributions.

Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.

Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.

First, let’s look at how we can increase revenue by raising wages.

Higher Wages Increase Social Security Revenue

Raising wages directly increases Social Security revenue by increasing payroll tax contributions. Employers match worker wages dollar for dollar. These funds are the primary source of Social Security revenue.

Social Security taxes represent a percentage of earnings. When workers earn more, they contribute more to the program.

Let’s consider the non-starter idea of raising the minimum wage across the board. An Economic Policy Institute fact sheet from 2021, titled “Why the U.S. needs a $15 minimum wage,” identified raising the minimum wage would “lift pay for 32 million workers—21% of the U.S. workforce.” We can address why this idea is a non-starter in a minute, but let’s consider the financial impact on Social Security.

If 21% of the workforce earned higher wages, an immediate effect would be a significant boost to Social Security payroll tax contributions. The Institute estimated that a $15 minimum wage would generate $107 billion in higher wages.

12.4% of worker wages goes to Social Security, 6.2% from worker wages, and 6.2% from employer contributions. 12.4% of $107 billion is $13.26 billion.

Social Security’s shortfall was $41 billion this year. Raising worker wages to $15 an hour would reduce the shortfall to $28 billion.

However, raising the minimum wage is a non-starter because businesses can’t raise wages without increasing revenue. Taking broad action, such as raising the minimum wage to a federal standard for all areas, threatens business vigor and viability nationally, making this approach politically untenable.

For example, a $15 federal minimum wage might be too low in high-cost-of-living areas, viable in some areas, and overwhelm small businesses in lower-cost rural areas. Businesses must generate sufficient revenue to support higher wages, and a one-size-fits-all mandate doesn’t account for regional differences. Even if it’s a potential solution, it’s not achievable if we can’t gain consensus.

Instead of mandating raising the minimum wage, we need to increase small business revenue and incentivize businesses to pay higher wages. We could reduce the tax burden for small businesses that prove they pay wages above social program levels. This approach would help businesses generate the revenue to pay higher wages, reduce the national need for poverty programs, and increase funding to shore up Social Security.

Beyond increasing Social Security revenue, raising wages has a compounding effect on the broader economic system. When workers earn more, their reliance on government assistance programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) decreases. This reduces the financial strain on taxpayers and minimizes the inefficiency of funneling the American people’s money through the bureaucracy. Let’s look at how higher wages decrease the need for social programs and drive efficient use of public resources.

Higher Wages: Financial Resilience and Reduced Government Waste

Let’s establish a fundamental truth: the government owns no assets. It has no money of its own. Every dollar spent by elected representatives or government workers is an asset of the American people. When government officials spend money, they allocate resources that belong to the citizens they serve.

Social programs, then, pass money from one individual to another through layers of bureaucracy that waste at least 30 to 40 percent of those resources. We should inherently oppose a system where half of American families rely on this inefficiency to survive. Even though we can’t love our country and not our countrymen, this system reflects a failure to achieve financial resilience across society.

Workers who earn livable wages achieve financial resilience and don’t need government assistance programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). One immediate benefit is that more financially resilient workers can better absorb cuts if they are necessary. Financial resilience means workers have the capacity to adapt to unexpected costs.

Further, raising wages reduces reliance on social programs, which means less of the American people’s money is funneled through the bureaucracy. Less taxpayer money eaten by the government means less waste and more efficient use of public funds.

For example, EITC is designed to supplement the incomes of low-wage workers, effectively subsidizing employers who pay below livable wages. By increasing wages, fewer workers qualify for EITC, reducing government payouts while businesses pay true labor value.

The money not spent on social programs could then be redirected to fiscally responsible efforts, such as balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, and strengthening social security.

Let’s consider the drastic impact this proposal could have on national finances. In 2023, on just these two programs, the nation spent $57 billion supplementing worker wages through EITC and $112 billion supplementing low wages through SNAP. $169 billion combined.

If higher wages led to only a 20% reduction in reliance on these programs, $34 billion of American taxpayer funds would be available to help balance the budget. This figure exceeds the necessary funds to eliminate the Social Security shortage for the year, albeit in a different money bucket. If we could reduce social program expenditures by half, we could save $85 billion annually.

Opponents of this approach argue that workers need to justify their higher wages with more productivity. This is a valid point. Some jobs and employees generate higher revenue for their employers and inherently command higher wages.

But we should consider—even if it’s true that some jobs pay low wages, does that mean it’s the taxpayer’s responsibility to pick up the tab? There’s no valid argument to justify any employer offloading labor costs onto the taxpayer. Use any example you would like—dishwasher, janitor, burger maker. Even if a business thinks it’s a low-wage job, under no circumstance should it be a taxpayer-funded one. If a business doesn’t think a janitor is an important job, they should go a month without one and see if they change their mind. When businesses pay wages below social program thresholds, those jobs become taxpayer-funded.

Beyond saving taxpayer dollars, higher wages allow Americans to escape the cycle of government dependence and build financial resilience. When individuals can rely on their earnings to meet basic needs and save for the future, they gain stability and resilience in their personal lives and can contribute to the broader economy.

Higher Wages Foster Financial Independence

Higher wages enable workers to build greater financial security and resilience. Workers can save more for emergencies, invest in their future, and rely less on safety nets.

How would we reduce the reliance on programs like Social Security without paying workers livable wages that enable them to put food on their tables, heat their houses, and save for the future?

When they don’t make livable wages, workers go to the lower-cost grocery store to put food on their tables. Except there isn’t one. They go to the same grocery store as everyone else and use SNAP benefits.

To find a house to heat, workers might move their family into a cheaper apartment. Except those don’t exist, either. Those are government housing units.

If workers can’t put food on their tables and heat their houses without government assistance, how would we reduce their dependence on Social Security and other safety nets?

If we don’t address the root cause—low wages—programs like Social Security will remain essential as a retirement benefit and a lifeline for daily survival. Reducing reliance on Social Security means ensuring workers can build financial security through livable wages, personal savings, and access to private retirement options.

We need to set conditions enabling workers to be independent from government programs to meet basic needs. Workers must be able to afford food, housing, and utilities without inefficient taxpayer-funded government assistance. Livable wages create the foundation for financial independence. With higher wages, workers can save more for emergencies and strengthen their retirement options on their own.

Some doubt higher worker wages would achieve these goals, but Universal Basic Income pilot studies prove them wrong. Americans aren’t irresponsible with money, lazy, or stupid. They use extra money to gain skills and get better jobs, move into safer neighborhoods, buy shoes and coats for their kids, and heat their houses. They go back to school and get degrees and certifications. They work MORE with the extra funds, not less, and the work they do is more meaningful.

Americans with enough money live stable, productive lives and can save money for their futures. They are less dependent on Social Security and all other social programs.

In Sum

We need to shore up Social Security funding. We have few choices: increase revenue, cut benefits, or expand the working population.

I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.

Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue.

Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.

Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.

Fixing Social Security is achievable, and higher wages directly address the root cause of the issue.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, I analyzed Air Force Captain Lacie Hester’s Silver Star to highlight a contradiction. We can’t claim to value the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while categorically excluding women from combat roles. I concluded that if we intend to value results over diversity, we should be ready to welcome any capable individual—male or female—who can help achieve efficient violence in support of national objectives.

This week, I’m pushing that logic a step further. If women belong in combat roles, do they also belong on the most elite and demanding ground combat teams? Let’s test our commitment to results-based standards and challenge ourselves to rethink how we select, train, and deploy our nation’s most specialized warfighters.

If the central premise is that results matter more than diversity, then the standards driving ground combat roles must be no exception. If a woman can meet those standards and enhance mission success, excluding her would weaken, not strengthen, our ability to achieve decisive effects. At the same time, forcing either men or women into ground combat positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.

Let’s explore.

Captain Marsh and a Cup of Coffee

In 2008, I was an Air Force Captain attached to 1st and 2nd US Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF and II MEF) under the Multi-National Forces West command structure in Iraq.

My role in Iraq was to enhance combat capability with special technical tools. My bosses were Marines, and my customers were primarily the Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) Task Forces. I developed strong relationships with my customers, identified technical tools they needed to support their missions, and integrated them into their operations. We developed some tools in-house and integrated others with support from national agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).

My work area was tucked away behind some armed Marines who kept watch day and night over the area, and it was right next to the SOF Task Force coordinator. The Task Force coordinator was a US Navy Sea, Air, and Land Captain (commonly known as a Navy SEAL). For those unfamiliar with different service ranks, an Air Force Captain is a relatively junior officer rank, while a Navy Captain ranks just below Admiral, a senior officer rank. No matter, though, he and I had a good relationship. Let’s call him Captain Marsh.

Captain Marsh had an attraction rarely found in the area—he had acquired a coffee maker and had some supply of ground coffee. I didn’t want to overstay my welcome, but I did need to determine when the Task Force might need support. So, every so often, I would tell my small team that I was “going to talk to the SEALs.” Captain Marsh would fill me in on relevant upcoming operations, and I might have a cup of coffee.

Captain Marsh’s coffee pot attracted more than just me. Other senior officers would visit, and I would hear snippets of their conversations. On one of these visits, a Marine Corps Colonel and Captain Marsh shared insight that challenged my assumptions.

Their conversation centered around the role of women in ground combat. Captain Marsh mentioned that Muslim women couldn’t freely talk with men. In many traditional Muslim societies, culture and religion restrict interactions between unrelated men and women. These norms dictate that women avoid direct communication or physical proximity with men who are not family members. For women in conservative communities, speaking with male strangers is inappropriate and brings social repercussions.

These cultural differences posed significant challenges during military operations, particularly when teams needed to gather intelligence or conduct searches. Without female team members to bridge the gap, mission-essential information from local women was inaccessible.

If a team needed to question a woman, they needed a woman to do so, which drove a requirement for women on ground combat teams. Later I learned that as a result of this requirement, the Marines established Task Force Lioness, which attached women to ground combat teams to provide support.

Five years later, at a training event in San Diego, I heard more to the story. The Navy SEAL commanding officer at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado also brought up the value of women in ground combat roles in Iraq.

This second story was that when women were attached to SOF teams, they couldn’t be decorations just because they were necessary for intelligence gathering—they had to be active team members. Female team members provided perimeter security during operations. The women were armed and applied lethal force when necessary. They also played a crucial role in stopping runners, going so far as to crash their vehicles into escaping vehicles to ensure mission success.

Both commanding officers emphasized the extraordinary bravery the women demonstrated. The women often put their lives and health at immediate risk, sometimes more than the men, to achieve objectives. In critical moments, their decisive action proved integral to mission success. The respect the officers had gained for the women was evident.

If asked, in the context of the environment we operated in at that time, whether women should be on SOF teams, I know the answer they would give. Both senior leaders shared the same opinion.

Still, regardless of operational needs or cultural advantages, inclusion in ground combat teams hinges on meeting the grueling physical and mental standards required of every member. The first and most fundamental of these is the individual physical requirement.

Individual Physical Requirements

There are domains of society in which there are absolutely no gender barriers. Only results matter. In these areas, individuals succeed or fail based solely on their ability to achieve results.

Due to the physical requirements, the National Football League (NFL) is a prime example that is not so dissimilar to Special Operations Forces (SOF). In the NFL, winning and money are the only outcomes that matter.

Women are not barred from playing in the NFL, but there are no female players. If a woman could compete and win at the necessary level, an NFL team would sign her to a contract. While women are not prohibited from playing, the competitive nature ensures that only those capable of performing at the highest level make the cut—regardless of gender.

The same principle applies to ground combat SOF teams. The stakes are higher than a football game, but the premise remains: meeting the standard matters more than who is meeting it. If a woman can perform to the required level—carry the same load, endure the same physical stress, and contribute to mission success—there is no logical reason to exclude her.

At the same time, just as there is no reason to add a player to an NFL team who doesn’t contribute to winning games, there is no reason to force the integration of women into specialized ground combat roles. Books like Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's Most Wanted Man vividly depict the grueling conditions SOF operators endure in war. Very few men can survive and operate in these conditions; the vast majority cannot. It’s possible that some women could likewise survive and operate. But forcing either men or women into these positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.

The inherent tension arises from the Department of Defense's (DoD) integration of women into combat roles, which officially started in 2013 and has continued for the past 11 years. Last month, the new nominee for Secretary of Defense stated women have no place in combat. Critics worry that as we adjust to accommodate women, we chip away at the qualities that make America’s ground combat units extraordinary. They fear a loss of unit cohesion, a decline in physical performance, and a less capable fighting force. In their view, when we soften the edges to expand eligibility, we erode the team’s razor-sharp ability to operate under the harshest conditions.

They cite a 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which concluded that putting women in combat risks the lives of entire units for the sake of career opportunities. It found, “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

They further highlight a 2015 Marine Corps Force Integration Plan assessment that found all-male units conducted movements faster and were more lethal than mixed-gendered units. They further had healthier, more physically resilient Marines. That study found differences in individual performance. For example, “When negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top.”

They posit that since the DoD directive to integrate women into combat roles, senior officers have reduced individual standards to increase participation. This view is supported by a mass email titled “Careerism, Cronyism, and Malfeasance” in the US Army Special Warfare Center and School sent through Special Operations Command in 2017.

These findings and fears are real. Many of them are rooted in firsthand studies and historical assessments. Still, they don’t capture the entire picture. While effective operations demand brute strength and raw speed, they also hinge on capabilities like cultural insight, intelligence access, and specialized skills that women can bring to the fight. In complex irregular warfare environments, overlooking these advantages means missing critical opportunities to achieve decisive effects.

So There’s the Rub

Direct accounts from SOF operators confirm that decisive action by women has proven integral to mission success. In some environments, their participation is essential. Not every combat role demands the rare physical endurance required for months-long operations in remote mountains. Perimeter security, intelligence gathering, and other specialized tasks are equally vital.

Further, if some missions require female operators, women must consistently train and serve alongside men, developing the trust and cohesion that define effective teams. While women may not meet the grueling physical demands required of some ground combat roles, the same is true for most men. What matters is finding those who can excel—whether they pilot AC-130 gunships, crew CV-22 Ospreys, or secure a perimeter as part of a SEAL team. These are combat positions. Some of these are ground combat roles.

At the same time, if throwing a pack over a Marine Corps wall obstacle translates into faster, more lethal units, we should add that and other necessary requirements to the positions in question. After reassessing what matters for mission success, we should train and hold both men and women to that standard. Those who qualify earn their place.

Rather than making blanket rules that exclude women from ground combat roles, we need policies that prioritize lethal effects. That means defining standards based on actual mission needs, not arbitrary quotas, and applying those standards evenly. Anyone who meets them should be welcomed.

If we intend to value results over diversity, we must follow through. Our standards must reflect what it takes to achieve national objectives, and we must embrace those who can meet those standards—regardless of gender.

May God bless the United States of America.

This Week’s Theme: Unenforceable Ideals

This week, we explore three unenforceable ideals—situations where two conflicting truths can’t coexist.

First, we draw parallels between Prohibition and illegal immigration, highlighting the government’s struggle to control the demand for goods and services.

Second, we examine the logical inconsistency of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing overturning Chevron deference.

Last, we address the contradiction of prioritizing military effectiveness while excluding women from combat roles.

Let’s begin with the story of Mabel Walker Willebrandt and her fight to enforce Prohibition.

The First Lady of Law

In 1921, President Warren Harding appointed Mabel Walker Willebrandt to the office of Assistant Attorney General of the United States. The appointment made Mabel the highest-ranking woman in the US government in the 1920s. Among her other duties as Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Willebrandt was charged with enforcing the Volstead Act, or National Prohibition Act. Congress passed the Volstead Act to enforce the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which attempted to ban the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.”

Ms. Willebrandt recognized that enforcing Prohibition through raids on speakeasies and small-time bootleggers was ineffective. She described this as “like trying to dry up the Atlantic Ocean with a blotter.” Instead, she enforced the Volstead Act with a two-pronged effort: addressing tax evasion and targeting major criminal enterprises.

Her first effort, addressing tax evasion, was successful. During her service, Willebrandt argued more than 40 cases before the Supreme Court. One of the most decisive was United States vs. Sullivan (1927). In that case, Willebrandt argued, and the high court agreed, that illegal income was taxable. Because illegal income was taxable, failing to declare income from illegal operations was tax evasion and a felony offense.

Since illegal alcohol sales generated untaxed income, US vs. Sullivan gave the federal government the authority to investigate and prosecute these operations under tax laws. This effort weakened the finances of organized crime. Willebrandt used the precedent set by US vs. Sullivan to prosecute powerful gangsters such as Al Capone for federal tax crimes.

Her second effort, targeting major criminal enterprises, was less effective. It required coordination across multiple federal and state agencies, which often lacked resources and cooperation. Criminal networks adapted faster than enforcement efforts, developing new smuggling routes and distribution systems that outpaced government responses.

Willebrandt’s second effort failed because Prohibition lacked broad public support. In other words, Americans wanted to drink, and no effort by the federal government was going to reduce the demand for alcohol. Although the government found some success in raiding production facilities and intercepting smuggling operations, these initiatives amounted to a game of Whac-A-Mole. As soon as one network was dismantled, another rose in its place.

The failure of Prohibition enforcement is a story about human behavior and governance: government attempts to restrict supply without addressing demand fail. Banning alcohol supply didn’t stop demand; it fueled a thriving black market. Speakeasies became social hubs, and even law-abiding citizens began to view Prohibition as government overreach, fueling resentment toward enforcement.

If we can’t turn off the demand for an item, no government effort to restrict supply will stop it.

This concept also applies to undocumented immigration. Addressing illegal immigration is a complex challenge that, like Prohibition, requires coordination among federal, state, and local agencies, each with competing interests and limited resources.

The most significant hurdle is the strong demand for undocumented labor. Many immigrants risk their lives to come to the United States because they believe they can find employment opportunities. Some employers hire undocumented workers because they may accept lower wages and work under conditions that others refuse.

If businesses face real consequences for hiring undocumented workers, the incentive to cross the border illegally would diminish. By enforcing laws that require employers to verify legal residency, we address the demand side of the issue.

Attempting to control illegal immigration solely through border enforcement is like playing a game of Whac-A-Mole—without reducing the demand for undocumented labor, these efforts are unlikely to succeed.

We can’t advocate for removing undocumented immigrants while opposing requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is a critical first step toward resolving illegal immigration.

Alternatively, we have another option. We don't have to shut off the immigrant pipeline for businesses. By expanding immigrant work programs and accepting more legal immigrants, we can align immigration policies with the economy's labor needs. This approach addresses the demand for workers legally, supporting businesses while upholding the rule of law.

The second unenforceable ideal from this week is the inherent logic fallacy of supporting stricter rules for climate change while opposing overturning Chevron deference.

The Second Unenforceable Ideal: Climate Change and Overturning Chevron Deference

Let's consider the inherent contradiction of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing the overturning of Chevron deference.

On November 25, 2024, the New York Times “The Morning” email discussed climate change regulations. Advocates for robust environmental regulations push for limits on pollution from automobiles, power plants, and factories. They support expanding access to renewable energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Opponents are concerned about the economic impact of stringent regulations and favor a more measured approach.

That morning’s email posited the new administration plans to repeal pollution limits on automobiles, power plants, and factories and expand access to federal oil and gas drilling land. Many of these regulations were established through federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—a process enabled by Chevron deference.

This discussion isn’t about the merits of specific climate policies. It’s about governance and how laws are made and enforced.

The decisive juncture is not the potential repeal of these regulations. It’s Chevron deference, which the Supreme Court overturned on June 28 of this year. Established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Chevron doctrine held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.

Under Chevron deference, federal agencies had been empowered to interpret vague or broadly written laws, effectively creating law without direct congressional approval. The judiciary then deferred to these interpretations, limiting its role in checking executive overreach, alignment with congressional intent, or constitutional principles. While this allowed for faster policy implementation, especially in complex areas like environmental regulation, it also concentrated legislative power within executive branch agencies. The practice bypassed the legislative process, blurred the separation of powers, and weakened constitutional governance.

This violated the Constitution. Article I, Section 1 states that all legislative powers reside in Congress. Allowing agencies to legislate through regulation concentrated power in the executive branch. Chevron deference undermined the legislature’s responsibility to fulfill its constitutional duty.

Article III outlines the judiciary as the independent interpreter of the law. Further, in the precedent case Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Chevron deference stripped the judiciary of its authority to conduct checks and balances.

America owes allegiance to no king, and this principle of divided power is fundamental to American liberty.

Overturning Chevron requires Congress to pass meaningful bipartisan legislation rather than the watered-down ambiguity that federal agencies use to create de facto laws.

Again, this isn’t about climate change regulations; this concept applies to all regulations. When the executive branch changes, the country shouldn’t drastically change directions. Federal agencies need to adhere to Congressional legislation, and overturning Chevron deference helps restore the nation to constitutional footing.

We can’t oppose overturning Chevron deference while resisting a new administration’s ability to change agency rules. When agencies have broad interpretive power, regulations change dramatically with each administration, leading to policy instability. Upholding the constitutional separation of powers ensures that laws remain consistent unless altered by Congress.

To achieve lasting and effective climate policies, we should support legislative action that clearly defines regulations and goals. This approach respects the Constitution and provides stability, regardless of changes in the executive branch.

Our final unenforceable ideal this week is the inherent contradiction in claiming to prioritize the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles.

Viper 72 is ‘Winchester’

On April 13 of this year, Iran launched a series of missile and suicide drone attacks against Israel. Iran’s attack was an operation designed to overwhelm Israel’s air defenses. The US condemned the attack and assisted Israel in shooting down the vast majority of missiles and drones.

The nation awarded Major Benjamin Coffey and Captain Lacie Hester the Silver Star for their actions as ‘Airborne Mission Commanders’ that evening. As the command team aboard their F-15E Strike Eagle, they led their squadron that evening to shoot down 70 Iranian drones and three ballistic missiles headed towards Israel. The award is especially significant for Captain Hester, who became the Air Force’s first woman and the tenth woman in the Department of Defense to win the Silver Star.

The Strike Eagle is a complex weapons platform that delivers precision firepower while operating in demanding combat environments. Its advanced systems integrate radar, electronic warfare capabilities, and air-to-ground or air-to-air munitions. The Strike Eagle is a cornerstone of modern air superiority and interdiction missions.

Captain Hester is a weapons system officer (WSO) on the platform. Aboard the Strike Eagle, the pilot and WSO have some interchangeable capabilities. The pilot’s primary duty is to fly the jet. The WSO primarily manages the complexity of coordinating with other assets, identifying targets, and selecting suitable munitions. A WSO’s role is critical to the platform’s mission success. They operate the advanced radar, sensor, and targeting systems that guide the aircraft’s weaponry, enabling precision engagement of air-to-air and air-to-ground threats. They are the tactical brains of the operation.

That’s just Captain Hester’s role on her own platform.

As Airborne Mission Commanders, Major Coffey and Captain Hester take on responsibilities beyond their platform. They are the squadron mission lead, coordinating an entire air mission in real-time. They oversee multiple aircraft, synchronize their actions, and ensure every asset is in the right place at the right time to achieve mission objectives.

Major Clayton Wicks was monitoring a command and signal frequency that evening. Of the event, he said, “A message comes across that just says … Viper 72 is ‘Winchester,’ which means they are out of missiles. They have no bullets left. … That was the first time I was like, ‘Oh my gosh. Command and control can’t keep up with the amount of missiles that are being shot and things that are happening. And that’s the only message they got across.”

In the middle of the chaos, Captain Hester was the tactical brains for the squadron to achieve national objectives.

In addition to the challenges, Coffey and Hester’s platform that evening expended all missiles, engaged suicide drones with their guns at “extremely low altitudes,” and landed with a live, still dangerous missile that had failed to launch.

Coffey and Hester demonstrated what the military values: decisive effects. Achieving efficient violence under extreme conditions is the essence of operational success. Captain Hester’s actions were groundbreaking not because of her gender but because they exemplified leadership in combat.

Some women, like some men, are not suited for combat roles. If we need to strengthen requirements for service members to serve in some units, we should do so. There are men who won’t meet those requirements either. But blanket rules stating that women are not suited for combat roles do a disservice to America. If the military’s mission is to achieve decisive effects, then disqualifying half the population from contributing at the highest levels undermines that mission.

We can’t claim to care about the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results. We don’t need to make special rules to select women for decisive positions. When given the opportunity, they rise to the challenge. But if we make rules that exclude them, we weaken our ability to achieve decisive effects.

Unenforceable Ideals

Unenforceable ideals are contradictions in which two things cannot be true at the same time.

We can’t be ‘for’ taking action to remove undocumented immigrants while at the same time ‘against’ requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is the first step to resolving illegal immigration.

We need to support employers’ requirements to hire legal residents. Or we could approach the solution from another direction. We could help businesses, expand work programs for immigrants, and accept more legal immigrants.

We can’t oppose overturning Chevron deference while also opposing a new administration’s ability to change the rules. If we support limiting presidential power as outlined in the Constitution, Chevron deference is incompatible. When the executive branch can use Chevron deference to make laws, those laws will change with every new administration.

We need to support the premise that the people’s representatives make the law, not federal agencies.

We can’t claim to care about the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results.

We need to value the ability for the military to achieve results. That means maintaining rules that enable women in combat roles.

May God bless the United States of America.

Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?

Situation

On November 21, 2024, Dara Lind, a Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote a fantastic piece published in the New York Times titled, What ‘Mass Deportation’ Actually Means. Ms. Lind superbly outlines the legal and logistical challenges of such a venture. She states:

“Deporting one million people a year would cost an annual average of $88 billion, and a one-time effort to deport the full unauthorized population of 11 million would cost many times that — and it’s difficult to imagine how long it would take.”

There are several severely complicating factors. There aren’t enough beds or departing flights to achieve mass deportation. Few other nations will accept deportation flights from the US. Past efforts to deport illegal immigrants have been good for political publicity but largely unsuccessful.

Further, all persons in the US, not just citizens, have rights. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides protections to all persons in America, not just American citizens. It states:

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

In addition to Constitutional protections, there are other additional legal considerations. The US is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This agreement obligates signatory members to provide asylum to individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, ratified by the US in 1968, strengthens these protections.

Last, section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act outlines that eligible persons physically present in the United States or at a port of entry may apply for asylum.

Illegal immigrants have the right to present their asylum argument to an immigration court. Nearly 4 million immigrants are waiting for the courts. These courts are insufficiently resourced.

In short, every state in the union agreed that immigrants have rights. Edmund Burke, the philosophical father of conservatism, asserted that a nation has a solemn duty to uphold its agreements, honoring them across generations. This commitment to personal and national responsibility is a cornerstone of America.

Edmund Burke and Honoring Our Agreements

Edmund Burke, Irish statesman and philosopher, was born on January 12, 1729. He is the father of conservative philosophy. His ideas and writings during the American and French Revolutions significantly influenced the development of conservative thought in both America and Europe.

Burke emphasized personal responsibility and respect for tradition and established institutions as cornerstones of his philosophy.

Burke believed traditions and institutions evolve naturally over time, carrying the collective wisdom of generations. These institutions are essential for stability and continuity and should be preserved and respected. This respect for tradition shaped his skepticism of abrupt, radical change and his belief in the importance of gradual reform. His ideas have had a lasting influence on conservative thought. They highlight the value of continuity, historical context, and careful, incremental progress in societal norms.

In American conservatism, principles like originalism in judicial interpretation demonstrate Burke's respect for tradition. Similarly, the focus on protecting Constitutional rights aligns with Burke’s commitment to preserve established freedoms and the institution that upholds them.

The Constitution’s choice of the word “person” and not “citizen” in the Fifth Amendment underscores the framer’s intent to extend protections to all individuals under US jurisdiction.

Burke would view this amendment as part of the collective wisdom of our founders. Due process protections embodied in the Fifth Amendment align with his belief that laws and institutions are shaped over time to reflect enduring principles of justice and fairness.

Conservatives and progressives alike have offered immigrants the opportunity to move to or stay in America legally. At the same time, no Congress and President has supported open borders. There is no national agreement to support open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement.

Interim Summary

Mass deportation of illegal immigrants has been largely unsuccessful. These efforts are hugely expensive. We have a Constitutional obligation to honor immigrant rights to due process of law. However, there is a political desire by politicians and voters alike to deport illegal immigrants en masse.

So, what can we do? Let’s think through some options.

Option 1: Do Nothing

Our first option is to maintain the status quo. We could allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States without significant changes to current policies. Before we write this option off as untenable, we need to think about it.

This approach would rely on existing immigration laws and enforcement to address undocumented immigration on a case-by-case basis. It has some positive aspects. Proponents advocate that it avoids the massive costs of mass deportation and saves billions in taxpayer dollars. It prevents overburdening already overwhelmed immigration courts. It supports human rights, aligns with the Constitutional protections of due process, and reflects our commitment to international treaties. It maintains economic stability as immigrants contribute to various sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, construction, and service industries.

Critics argue that failing to address illegal immigration undermines the rule of law and sows distrust in the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. Undocumented immigration strains communities that continue to face challenges related to healthcare, education, and law enforcement. And this option fails to enable comprehensive immigration reform, leaving millions in legal limbo without a clear path to citizenship.

Let’s be clear—this option has strong advocates. The American Immigration Council outlines that instead of spending $88 billion every year on mass deportation efforts, we could “Build over 40,450 new elementary schools…and construct over 2.9 million new homes in communities around the nation.”

However, this argument is a fallacy. The comparison misleads us by framing deportation costs as a trade-off with other priorities. It implies that federal funds are interchangeable. But federal spending doesn’t work like a household budget. Money from one category can’t be redirected to another. This oversimplification ignores how government spending and resource allocation work.

Frankly, the biggest problem with pursuing this option is the perception that voters told their representatives to do something, and the representatives didn’t. It would look like the name of the option—doing nothing. It would leave a foul taste in the mouths of many Americans.

In sum, this option risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. Doing nothing fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely. It kicks the can down the road for future generations, leading to longer-term challenges. It widens political extremes, creates gridlock, and polarizes public opinion.

All considered it may not be the best choice. Let’s move on to another.

Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability

Our second option is efficient, targeted immigration enforcement to safeguard the nation while addressing the root causes of undocumented immigration. This approach would combine targeted enforcement of threats, streamlined immigration processes, and stronger accountability for employers who exploit undocumented labor.

The keynote of this approach is efficient enforcement. There are 330 million people in America and an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. That means undocumented immigrants make up around three percent of the total population in America. These immigrants are not all in the same place.

So, finding undocumented immigrants by searching for them is inefficient and costly. We will not achieve efficient enforcement by looking for undocumented immigrants.

Rather than spending huge resources looking for all undocumented immigrants, this option would focus resources on removing individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. The biggest difference between this approach and the “Do Nothing” option is what we won’t do.

We won’t sweep employers to search for illegal immigrants. We won’t bog down the legal system with immigrants who don’t commit violent crimes and don’t pose security threats. We will avoid broad, indiscriminate methods of searching for undocumented immigrants who don’t pose problems to the nation.

Instead, we will emphasize removal of individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. We need to rush these individuals to the front of the legal line, conduct their hearings to meet our Fifth Amendment obligations, and deport them. Focusing on genuine security threats and due process demonstrates accountability, restoring public confidence in immigration enforcement.

This approach allocates resources more effectively. It avoids the immense costs and logistical challenges of simultaneously searching for and deporting millions of individuals.

At the same time, we need to address the root causes of undocumented immigration. Immigration courts need more funding and staffing to handle the nearly four million pending cases. Tools like remote hearings and other digital solutions could help expedite case processing while ensuring due process to honor our obligation outlined in the Fifth Amendment. Expanding immigration court capacity could help streamline the process.

And we need to toughen enforcement on employers who hire illegal immigrants. If immigrants can’t find work, this will reduce the demand for many to come to America. To achieve this goal, we need steeper fines and criminal charges for repeat offenders. We should conduct public awareness campaigns to remind businesses of their legal obligations and the consequences of ignoring them. Finally, we need whistleblower protections with robust enforcement to encourage employees to report illegal hiring practices without fear of retaliation. To address potential labor shortages, industries could work with policymakers to create or expand visa programs that legally fill gaps in sectors like agriculture and construction.

This option has downsides. Some political factions may view targeted deportations as too lenient, pushing for broader, more visible enforcement actions. Strict employer enforcement of hiring undocumented immigrants could lead to labor shortages in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Business interests and lobbying groups may oppose stricter accountability. Increasing funding for immigration courts and conducting workplace audits would require substantial investment.

But overall, it’s a tenable option. Let’s consider another.

Option 3: Conduct Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants

Our third option is to pursue mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants in the United States.

This approach would require an unprecedented scale of enforcement to locate, detain, and deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants across the country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies would need to significantly expand to conduct large-scale raids, workplace inspections, and community sweeps. We would need massive investments to house individuals awaiting deportation.

We would have to pay for transporting millions of individuals to detention centers, court hearings, and eventually to their home countries. We would need to dramatically expand immigration courts to process cases quickly. This would likely require thousands of additional judges, attorneys, and support staff.

All told, these requirements drive the reason for the $88 billion annual price tag.

Proponents advocate that this option demonstrates a firm commitment to enforcing immigration laws and addresses illegal entry. If successful, it could reduce demand for public services like healthcare and education in some communities. Proponents support this option because it’s visible. The sight of raids, detentions, and removals implies a perception of strong leadership and accountability. It signals to voters that the institution is upholding immigration laws.

Opponents cite the staggering annual costs. This option also faces the logistical impossibilities of beds, transportation, and cooperation from other nations. These factors make deporting 11 million people impractical, even with expanded resources.

The biggest downside of this option is simple: the government just isn’t good at getting things done on this scale. Even if the most efficient military subset had all the legal protections and resources to fight a known enemy hiding in the population, they couldn’t do it. We tried in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq for 48 years combined and couldn’t achieve it. What makes us think we can achieve it here?

Mass deportation would require unprecedented coordination across federal agencies, state and local governments, and international partners. The sheer logistical complexity—finding, detaining, processing, and deporting 11 million people—is far beyond what the government has successfully managed in the past.

Immigration courts are already overwhelmed with nearly four million pending cases, and detention facilities are stretched thin. Adding this burden would lead to drastic inefficiency, mismanagement, and massive delays.

In short, expecting the government to execute this option effectively is unrealistic.

Those who say that we should deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible are missing a huge point—the immigrants we can find at their workplace and home aren’t the problem. The threats are hiding elsewhere. And if we tie up our resources with the immigrants trying to make an honest living, we are going to miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.

All told, this doesn’t seem like a good option. Let’s move on.

Option 4: Expand Asylum Opportunities

Our fourth option is to focus on asylum as a legal pathway for law-abiding, non-threatening undocumented immigrants. This option emphasizes the humane and lawful treatment of individuals seeking protection.

This approach involves strengthening the asylum system to address legitimate claims while simultaneously reducing the strain on immigration courts and other resources.

This option may seem like a throwaway, but it is not. The last president to offer undocumented immigrants asylum while toughening requirements for employers was President Ronald Reagan.

Reagan and the 99th Congress of 1986 offered legalization to undocumented immigrants who had entered the country illegally. Of that event, Wyoming Senator Alan K. Simpson noted that President Reagan “knew that it was not right for people to be abused,” and “anybody who’s here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights.”

We could increase funding and staffing for asylum officers to handle cases more efficiently. We would need dedicated asylum courts to address claims separately from other immigration cases, reducing the overall backlog. We could strengthen initial screening processes at the border to ensure that we identify individuals with valid asylum claims early.

The biggest downside of this option is that many voters would perceive it as a betrayal. Expanding asylum would be viewed as prioritizing undocumented immigrants over enforcing immigration laws. Voters who demanded stricter enforcement would feel ignored or even deceived. Voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.

For this reason, this viable option is likely untenable.

What’s Our Best Option?

None of our choices is perfect. Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability, seems to be the most suitable.

It’s politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. It’s the most achievable. It doesn’t represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.

Of course, any option needs to be combined with efforts to strengthen border security and reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to come to America while at the same time supporting legal immigration.

We’ve already spent considerable effort discussing improving border security. First, we need to set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border. This will create unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal. There’s a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

We need enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment on the border itself.

Further, we’ve already considered how to reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to leave South America. We need a Plan Colombia approach that strengthens economic partnerships while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. This adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.

In Sum

Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?

We covered four distinct options.

Doing nothing risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. It fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely.

Conducting mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants is prohibitively expensive and unachievable. Further, if we tie up our resources with this group, we will miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.

Offering expanded asylum, as President Reagan did, would alienate voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration. They would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.

All told, our best option is efficient enforcement and employer accountability.

It safeguards America by focusing on reducing criminal activity and security threats. It’s politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. It’s the most achievable. It doesn’t represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.

It’s the option we should pursue.

May God bless the United States of America.

If we are going to have meaningful discussions, we need to realize that there are legitimate points on both sides of issues.

I advocate for dissenting points of view in operational and leadership matters. Dissent drives innovation. Even when we disagree with a position, failing to present it drives groupthink. Groupthink stifles growth.

Discussions about military governance and leadership have to balance civilian oversight with the military’s singular purpose: to protect the nation by achieving national objectives through precise and purposeful application of force.

Should the President dismiss senior military officers who have served honorably?

A “Warrior Board” to Recommend Removal of Unfit Officers

On November 12, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an exclusive article titled, Trump Draft Executive Order Would Create Board to Purge Generals. The Journal received an advance copy of the draft order from an undeclared source. If signed, the order intends to focus military brass “on leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence.”

The proposed executive order would create a board of retired senior military personnel to review three—and four-star officers and recommend the removal of any deemed unfit for leadership.

On November 13, the WSJ Editorial Board wrote an opinion piece titled Why Trump Wants Hegseth at Defense. The piece rightly identified the nation’s legitimate security issues and stated that military brass needs to be able to focus on their responsibilities and not their political allegiance. The Editorial Board flatly stated the order “would be a mistake that smacks of politicizing the officer corps.”

Critics worry that the order could lead to uncertainty among high-ranking officers. They are concerned that political or ideological alignment would overshadow merit as the criterion for leadership. The same day as the editorial, military.com quoted an unnamed 3-star Army General, who stated, “It could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we're appeasing someone on a political or partisan level.”

This concept of a board to identify and remove unfit leaders isn’t without precedent. Supporters of the draft order point to General George C. Marshall’s plucking boards in 1940. Those boards aimed to streamline leadership and prepare the Army for the high demands of World War II.

Marshall’s approach was driven by his conviction that effective leadership could make or break the Army’s ability to face a global conflict. It was controversial but ultimately successful.

General George C. Marshall and the US Army 1940 Plucking Boards

The great General George C. Marshall became Chief of Staff of the US Army in September 1939. On his first day in office, Germany invaded Poland to kick off World War II.

Twenty years earlier, during World War I, Marshall had observed professionally unfit officers command units with poor results. Military historian Forrest Pogue wrote that Marshall was “haunted by recollections of the droves of unfit commanders” (George C. Marshall, Memoirs of My Services in the World War, 1917-1918 (Boston, 1976), 175-76). Pogue further wrote that Marshall believed he was preparing the Army for war and that it was his duty to the nation to select the right officers for the job. He needed to reform the leadership cadre and ensure the Army was ready for World War II.

Marshall’s plucking boards consisted of six retired officers. They were intended to eliminate officers unfit for command and high rank. He believed swift action was necessary to promote a dynamic set of leaders that would innovate and handle the scale and technology of modern warfare. He recognized that the quality of commanders was crucial as the Army grew and faced more complex missions.

Marshall’s controversial approach prioritized capability over tenure. It aimed to instill a merit-based system that could better adapt to the urgency and unpredictability of wartime demands.

The newly promoted officers played crucial roles in World War II and contributed to American success. The “plucking board” initiative created a more lethal fighting force. Marshall’s boards promoted officers who would go on to shape history. Among them were Dwight D. Eisenhower, the future Supreme Allied Commander Europe and 34th President of the United States; Joseph W. Stillwell, who later commanded all US forces in China, Burma, and India; Omar N. Bradley, the commander of US ground forces during the D-Day invasion at Normandy; and Carl A. Spaatz, the future commander of Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific and the first Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

As Army Chief of Staff, General Marshall conducted his boards using authority delegated by Congressional legislation and existing military regulations. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 included provisions that allowed for the rapid expansion and restructuring of the Army as the nation prepared for involvement in World War II.

Advocates for a modern plucking board note the success of Marshall’s approach. Marshall’s review boards retired some senior officers early and selected junior officers with great potential to lead their units to achieve national objectives.

The success of Marshall’s boards highlights how effective civilian oversight, exercised through delegated authority, can transform military leadership. This authority is enshrined in the Constitution, which mandates a framework for civilian control over the military.

The Constitution and Civilian Oversight of the Military

The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military through multiple provisions. These ensure that the armed forces remain accountable to elected leaders rather than independent military authority.

Article II, Section 2 designates the President, a civilian official elected by the people, as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” This gives a civilian elected official the highest military authority and ensures that the military is subordinate to the civilian government rather than acting independently.

At the same time, the Constitution seeks checks and balances. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise and support armies, declare war, regulate military forces, and “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”

Congress exercises this power through its legislative authority by enacting nearly all laws now codified in United States Code Title 10. These laws serve as the framework for organizing the Department of Defense and each branch of the Armed Forces—the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force. Additionally, Congress oversees the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy during wartime or by presidential direction. These laws cover a comprehensive range of military operations, including pay grades, enlistments, commissions, promotions, retirements, training, education, recruitment, and honors. This legal structure underscores the essential role of civilian oversight in guiding military standards, ensuring accountability, and keeping the Armed Forces aligned with the nation’s democratic principles and strategic goals.

This framework supports a democratic republic by placing military authority under civilian oversight, preventing military dominance over the government, and protecting against potential abuses of military power.

As Commander in Chief, the President certainly has the authority to direct or conduct boards to review senior officer promotions. The President further has the authority to delegate the conduct of these boards to the service chiefs.

At the same time, Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to control the environment in which officers are raised to senior positions.

Through its structure, the military serves the people as an instrument of national capability directed by civilian leaders. This alignment preserves our democratic republic by ensuring military influence is a part of the elected government and our principles.

With this understanding, the military’s ultimate purpose is to protect and defend the United States, our Constitution, and its people while supporting national interests. The Constitution demands a lethal military under civilian control.

A Continuation of Policy With Other Means

In On War, Carl von Clausewitz famously described war as “a continuation of policy with other means.” Clausewitz was Prussian, and wrote ‘mit anderen Mitteln’ in the original German. He elaborated that we conduct war to compel the enemy to submit to our will. War combines military force simultaneously with other influences, such as diplomacy, to attempt to achieve political objectives.

In short, wartime operations are diplomacy combined with violence.

Military units do not conduct diplomacy.

Therefore, military officers and the units they command aim to achieve efficient violence in service to national objectives.

Since military officers and their units are tasked with achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives, any review of an officer’s conduct must prioritize their capability to fulfill this mission. Other considerations, such as schools attended, advanced academic degrees, and administrative marks, should be secondary. Military leadership should be assessed based on alignment with the Constitution’s mandate to achieve effects supporting national security goals under civilian direction. Military leaders must ensure their units apply force with precision and purpose.

1940 and President Franklin D. Roosevelt

There’s one more question we should ask regarding the proposed boards: Why did President Franklin D. Roosevelt choose to stand aside and not participate in General Marshall’s plucking boards?

FDR didn’t write about the boards, but he trusted General Marshall explicitly.

Roosevelt recognized that diplomacy was not the military component of influence, and he needed to focus on diplomacy. Separating diplomatic and military responsibilities avoids politicizing military decisions while maintaining strategic focus.

FDR focused on diplomatic efforts worldwide, leaving the Army in Marshall's competent hands. Roosevelt engaged in navigating the US response to the growing threat of World War II. He prioritized diplomatic efforts to support the Allies (such as the Lend-Lease program) and prepare the nation for possible involvement in the war.

Roosevelt trusted Marshall to manage the Army's internal restructuring. FDR respected Marshall’s expertise and gave him considerable autonomy to prepare the military for the growing global conflict. Marshall convened the plucking boards under existing Army regulations and legislation, making them a professional and administrative matter rather than a political one.

By allowing Marshall and his boards to operate independently, Roosevelt ensured the process focused on military effectiveness rather than politics.

In Sum

General Marshall’s plucking boards were controversial but successful. They were instrumental in preparing Army leaders for World War II.

The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military. As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to review and dismiss officers for poor performance. At the same time, Congress is responsible for passing legislation supporting an environment that raises officers to be who the nation needs.

Military officers and their units have a mandate to support and defend the Constitution by achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives.

The military’s strength lies in its unity of purpose, where everyone focuses on the mission. Political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic should never distract from the ultimate goal: to apply force with precision and purpose in service to our nation.

Senior officer review boards could make sense if they focus on enhancing military effectiveness, ensuring leaders are equipped to support national objectives through precision, readiness, and lethality in the profession of arms. To best achieve this goal, the President should delegate the authority and responsibility of conducting the boards to the service chiefs and leave the task of diplomacy for themselves.

May God bless the United States of America.