Daily Current Affairs 23-07-2026

Burnham’s Tenure Begins with Troubling Signals

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 23, 2026

Eschewing his trademark T-shirt and blazer in favour of a prime ministerial dark suit, Andy Burnham pledged yesterday to shortly set out a 10-year plan to deliver a “new economic model” for Britain . The former Greater Manchester mayor is big on vision and bold promises, unlike the leader he has replaced, Sir Keir Starmer. With only three years of Labour’s parliamentary term left, though, what he says and does in the near term will determine whether his administration lasts long enough to see through his plans. He must avoid the mistakes that bedevilled the Starmer government almost from its outset. But many of his initial signals have not been encouraging [citation:original text].

The New PM’s “Business-Friendly Socialism”

Burnham entered office on July 20 as Britain’s seventh prime minister in a decade, inheriting a sluggish economy, strained public finances, and an electorate weary of instability . In his first address, he pledged to bring “hope” and “stability,” promising a “new economic model” and immediate action on the cost of living .

His philosophy, dubbed “Manchesterism,” is a form of business-friendly socialism that aims to harness private and public money to invest in infrastructure, housing, and transport, while also pursuing greater public control over key utilities like water and energy . He has called for the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall in modern times, setting up a “No.10 North” in Manchester to drive devolution and economic renewal across the UK’s regions . This approach marks a shift from the centrist “Third Way” politics of the Blair era towards a more interventionist, social democratic model, one that has already prompted President Trump to label him “extremely liberal” .

First Steps and Market Anxiety

His first major policy announcement was a £1.15 billion cut to VAT on household electricity bills, reducing the rate from 5% to 0% from October 1, saving the average family about £60 a year . To fund this, he cancelled the previous government’s Digital ID programme . While welcomed by anti-poverty groups, the move has been criticised by some analysts as “very small in government terms” and has raised questions about its long-term financial sustainability .

The new prime minister has said he will stick to the fiscal rules, but he has also signalled he will use “flexibility” within them to increase borrowing . This language has spooked financial markets. UK government bond yields—a key measure of borrowing costs—rose to their highest in two months following Burnham’s remarks . The 10-year gilt yield moved back above 5%, and the 30-year yield hit a two-month high of 5.77%, reflecting investor concern that the new government may loosen fiscal policy and increase the supply of government debt . Analysts warned that if the new administration appears to be “gaming” the figures or making unfunded spending commitments, it could risk a further sell-off .

A Difficult Balancing Act

Burnham faces a formidable balancing act. He has promised a “new economic model,” but the underlying fiscal constraints remain severe. Public debt, borrowing, and debt-interest costs are all high. Every £12 the government spends currently goes on debt interest . One in every £12 the government spends currently goes on debt interest . One of the biggest pressures is the spiralling cost of disability benefits, which is forecast to rise from around £26 billion now to more than £41 billion by the end of the decade . The number of Personal Independence Payment claimants has nearly doubled since 2019 to over 4 million .

The challenge is to balance his “business-friendly socialism”—a vision of an interventionist state and stronger welfare—with the financial realities. His new Chancellor, John Healey, a surprise appointment, is seen as a stabilising figure, but he will now have to find billions of pounds to fund the new PM’s agenda while also bringing down the welfare bill . The autumn Budget will be the first major test. If Burnham leans too heavily on the statist sentiments he has emphasised, rather than on the business-friendly elements of his philosophy, he risks alienating investors and prolonging the era of economic stagnation he has promised to end. The signals so far have been troubling.

Why Canada Isn’t Listening to American Whining in the Wine Wars

By Chrystia Freeland
New Delhi, July 23, 2026

This month, Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, publicised a letter he wrote to the premier of Quebec asking Canada’s biggest provinces to drop their boycott of US booze. The reply—a firm “Non!”—was supported by the vast majority of Canadians, and inspired a flurry of patriotic mockery of our southern neighbours and their whining over wine [citation:original text].

It was a light-hearted moment in what has been the most challenging chapter in Canada-US relations since the war of 1812, when the former wasn’t even a country yet. But, for America and the world, the episode also holds three important lessons about Donald Trump’s tariffs [citation:original text].

Lesson One: Retaliation Works

The first is that retaliation works. Where China, for instance, has spent years carefully building geopolitical leverage through control of critical supply chains, Canada’s booze boycott has been powered mostly by consumer choice and the decision of the provincially owned liquor companies of Ontario and Quebec not to buy US alcohol. And it turns out that rum and rosé can pack almost as much of a trade war punch as rare earths. US alcohol exports to Canada fell 70 per cent from 2024 to 2025, a $536mn loss for the US industry [citation:original text].

Schiff isn’t the only American politician who has noticed. Before his move, a bipartisan group of California House of Representatives members, including Nancy Pelosi, sent a letter urging Quebec to drop its ban. And at the beginning of July, Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican member of Congress, took a more hostile tack, introducing legislation to trigger federal punishment of Canada for the boycott [citation:original text].

All of which goes to show that in a trade war, fighting back works. That is what Canada learnt in 2018, when I was foreign minister. We responded to the first US imposition of tariffs on our steel and aluminium with dollar-for-dollar retaliation, co-ordinated with the EU and Mexico. The next 11 months were painful, and included Trump calling me a nasty woman and telling the world that he didn’t like Canada’s negotiator very much. But we held firm, and less than a year later the tariffs were lifted. Imagine where the world would be today if the US president’s “liberation day” tariffs had been met with a similarly robust and united international response [citation:original text].

Now, in 2026, the stakes are even higher. On July 20, President Trump signed three proclamations imposing a 50 per cent tariff on a wide range of Canadian goods, including wine, cement, and hockey sticks . The White House cited Canada’s “discrimination” against US motor vehicles, dairy, and alcohol as justification . These new tariffs are set to take effect in 30 days, and they mark a significant escalation in the trade war .

The new tariffs are being imposed under Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, a little-used law that covers trade discrimination rather than national emergencies . This move came after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act . This legal shift underscores the administration’s determination to pursue its trade agenda by any means necessary.

Lesson Two: America’s Protectionism Problem

The second lesson of the wine wars is that America, which is better at capitalising than any country on Earth, is really bad at central planning—and that includes protectionism. The first rule of tariffs is to impose them on finished products, not on intermediate goods. That’s why, in our 2018 retaliation, we focused on consumer products, like Smucker’s jam, that we could easily substitute, including from our own companies. Today’s province-led booze boycott follows the same principle — and has led to a 44 per cent rise in sales of Ontario wine (we are drinking a lot more made by our friends in France and Italy, too). Meanwhile, the unprovoked US tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminium and car parts are taxes on the intermediate goods that are required by the very US manufacturers these tariffs are meant to support [citation:original text].

The Trump administration’s tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum have been particularly problematic. The US has been maintaining tariffs ranging from 15% to 50% on these sectors . These are not just taxes on Canadian exports; they are taxes on American manufacturers who rely on these materials to make their products. This is the fundamental flaw in protectionist policy: it often ends up hurting the very industries it aims to protect.

Lesson Three: The Deepening Breach

The final lesson is probably the most worrying. Schiff’s letter, written in sorrow rather than anger by a Democrat who takes care to highlight his opposition to Trump, reveals how deep the breach has become between the US and its erstwhile friends — and how little even those Americans most sympathetic to traditional allies understand that [citation:original text].

Canadians, and all the other longtime partners facing trade punishment and even attacks on our sovereignty, feel deeply betrayed by the country that led our alliance for the past eight decades. A lot of us are not sure what it will take to ever fully trust the US again [citation:original text].

The rhetoric from the Trump administration has only deepened this sense of betrayal. The US has not only threatened tariffs but has also challenged Canada’s sovereignty, with Trump repeatedly suggesting that Canada should become the 51st US state . This has created a level of resentment that goes far beyond economic policy. As B.C. Premier David Eby put it, “I can’t make sense of what the president is doing, nobody can” .

A United Canadian Response

The Canadian response to the latest tariff threat has been remarkably unified. The premiers of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia have all made it clear that the alcohol boycott will not be lifted . Ontario Premier Doug Ford has called for dollar-for-dollar retaliation, stating that Canada should “respond tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar” .

Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed to “intensify” trade talks with the US , but he has also made it clear that the boycott will not be lifted as part of an overall agreement with the US . This position reflects a broader Canadian consensus that the US must first show respect for the trade relationship before any concessions are made.

Conclusion

Some rejoice that this rupture means the end of the American century and the beginning of the post-American world. That may be where we end up — but it is a destination we should hope to avoid. The world’s autocrats are on the rise, and they are united: it is no accident that China, Iran and North Korea are all supporting Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. The world’s democracies can manage without the US, but we will be weaker without the biggest economy, with the most powerful military, on our team. And, as Washington is learning in the Strait of Hormuz, even the “shining city on a hill” is stronger with allies. But as Schiff has discovered, this time sweet talk alone won’t win us over. If post-Trump America wants friends — and it should — it will need to work a lot harder to persuade us to get back together [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. What prompted the US to impose 50% tariffs on Canadian goods in July 2026?

The US imposed the tariffs in response to what the White House called Canada’s “discrimination” against US motor vehicles, dairy, and alcohol . Specifically, the US objected to Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on US auto and steel exports, Canada’s supply management system for dairy, and the provincial bans on US alcohol .

2. What has been the Canadian response to the US tariffs?

Canadian leaders have responded with defiance. The premiers of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia have stated that the alcohol boycott will not be lifted . Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he stands ready to “intensify” trade talks but has not backed down . The provinces and the federal government appear united in their position that tariffs must be removed before any changes are made.

3. What is the significance of the Canadian alcohol boycott?

The boycott, implemented by most provinces, has been a highly effective retaliatory measure. US alcohol exports to Canada fell 70 per cent from 2024 to 2025, causing a $536mn loss for the US industry [citation:original text]. The boycott has irritated the White House and has become a major bargaining chip in the trade dispute . It also has the strong support of Canadian consumers .

4. How has the US legal basis for imposing tariffs changed?

The US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act . In response, the administration used Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act to impose the new tariffs on Canada . This section specifically addresses trade discrimination, providing a different legal avenue for the president’s trade agenda.

5. Why does Canada’s approach to the trade war matter for other countries?

Canada’s response demonstrates that retaliation against US tariffs can be effective. The country has held firm in the face of pressure, and its targeted measures have caused real economic pain in the US . This serves as a model for other nations facing similar trade threats, showing that a unified, principled approach can be a powerful tool. The US may be the world’s largest economy, but it has lost a great deal of trust with its allies through this approach.

The Grey Zones of Power: Understanding the New Cold War Through Hannah Lucinda Smith’s “Hinterlands”

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 23, 2026

A hinterland is an area that lies beyond what is visible or known. Cartographically speaking, it is the inland area that sits behind a city, port or coastal region. In her timely and thoughtful book “Hinterlands,” Hannah Lucinda Smith uses the term, somewhat poetically, to mean contested places on the margins of modern states—and critically, former empires—where international attention has traditionally been sparse [citation:original text].

Ms. Smith, a journalist who has covered the Middle East and the Balkans for multiple publications, finds that the oversight is serious. Her hinterlands are a series of specific places “that have largely slipped under the news agenda and yet are central to the main story.” That story, she argues, centers on autocratic leaders who “see an opportunity to expand their own countries’ influence.” In these marginal regions, leaders such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are honing the tactics for what she describes as a “new Cold War” against Western Europe and its allies [citation:original text].

A Geopolitical Picaresque

This observation informs her compelling geopolitical picaresque through a collection of disputed and disordered territories across Europe and Asia. These include unrecognized breakaway states (Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria), a divided island whose northern half claims nationhood (Cyprus) and a sovereign state scarred by more than a decade of civil war (Syria). She also touches on regions that are now or have recently been the subject of territorial disputes, such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Crimea [citation:original text].

Ethnicities, borders and spheres of influence overlap in these regions, sometimes violently. They are often the places where the legacies of once-powerful empires are at their most traumatic or unresolved. The domains of the Ottoman Empire and of the U.S.S.R. may have formally disappeared, but their shadows still fall across their former provinces. While Western nations busily flagellate themselves over their long-deceased dominions, Russia and Turkey are patiently rebuilding theirs. Their hinterlands, Ms. Smith argues, are populated by those who suffer the force of these ambitions. It is there, she writes, that this “new Cold War has been brewing.” She places its beginnings well before Mr. Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and forced the West to face what it had so resolutely tried to ignore [citation:original text].

Syria: The Petri Dish of Geopolitical Trends

Ms. Smith begins her tour in Syria, a former Ottoman territory whose civil war—which, unlike most hinterland conflicts, was comprehensively covered by the international news media—was “the petri dish for geopolitical trends that would ripple out to the Middle East, Europe and beyond.” Syria fostered the terror group known as the Islamic State, triggered the largest refugee crisis since World War II and marked the beginning of Mr. Erdoğan’s neo-imperial ambitions. For Ms. Smith, “Damascus in 2011 was the equivalent of Sarajevo in 1914” [citation:original text].

The conflict in Syria set a precedent for how regional powers would operate in the vacuum left by a weakened state. The Syrian state, once a bastion of secular Arab nationalism, was transformed into a proxy battlefield. The collapse of state authority allowed for the rise of non-state actors, while regional powers like Turkey and Iran, along with Russia, saw an opportunity to expand their influence. The Syrian conflict also served as a testing ground for new military technologies and tactics, which have since been deployed elsewhere.

Northern Cyprus: A Legal and Financial Anomaly

Ms. Smith is at her best when traveling through the lesser-known hinterlands. Northern Cyprus, occupied by Turkey since 1974, exists as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), recognized by no government except that of Turkey. Geographically, the TRNC is part of Europe but, she writes, “politically and financially part of nowhere at all.” Turkey and Russia have turned this ambivalence into an asset. Mr. Erdoğan gains a strategic outpost on Europe’s edge, while the TRNC offers wealthy Russians something even sanctions-free Turkey cannot: a residency-by-investment scheme in a jurisdiction where nobody checks where incoming cash comes from [citation:original text].

The TRNC has become a magnet for Russian money, with Russians being the main buyers of property in Cyprus, accounting for 51% of all residential property transactions involving foreign buyers in 2025 . This influx of capital has been driven by a number of factors. First, the TRNC is not bound by international agreements, has weak institutions, and is only recognized by Turkey . This makes it a perfect “grey area” for those seeking to bypass sanctions or launder money. The wholesale absence of banking regulations and EU laws has played a big role in Russians transferring funds to the north. Transactions can be made without questions asked, and the government of the TRNC has turned a blind eye because there is so much money to be made in building permits, transfer taxes, and kickbacks.

Second, the legal system in the TRNC offers a degree of anonymity not available in the south. The business provider network which catered to Russians in the Greek Cypriot south has morphed into a new network of Turkish Cypriot lawyers creating trusts . These trusts are completely anonymous, a perfect way to hide assets, no questions asked. The ultimate goal is not to stay in Cyprus; the goal is to sell the assets, have the money ‘cleaned’, and move on to London, Dubai, or Manhattan.

Third, property prices in the north are cheaper than in the south. This has attracted Russian investors looking for a stable long-term investment. However, the lack of international recognition of the north and disputes over property ownership create “significant legal and investment risks” for prospective purchasers, as many properties have been built on land originally owned by Greek Cypriots displaced in 1974 [citation:original text].

Conclusion: The Warning in the Hinterlands

Ms. Smith’s book is a timely warning about the dangers of ignoring the world’s “grey zones.” It argues that the small, often forgotten conflicts in these regions are not isolated incidents, but are the fault lines of a new global order. The aggressive ambitions of leaders like Putin and Erdoğan, combined with the West’s collective fatigue and reluctance to engage in messy regional affairs, have created a vacuum that is being filled by authoritarian powers. As Smith warns, “We ignore the hinterlands at our own peril. What happens inside them has the power to redraw the fault lines of a new Cold War and shape the future of the West” [citation:original text]. The situation in Northern Cyprus is a case in point, demonstrating how a single disputed territory has become a pivotal asset for two powerful countries seeking to alter the geopolitical balance.

Q&A Section

1. What is the central thesis of Hannah Lucinda Smith’s book “Hinterlands”?
The book argues that the “new Cold War” between the West and authoritarian powers like Russia and Turkey is being fought in overlooked, contested regions at the peripheries of Europe and Asia. She calls these places “hinterlands” and contends that conflicts there, often ignored by the international media, are central to understanding global geopolitical shifts.

2. Why is Northern Cyprus considered a “grey zone” according to Smith’s analysis?
Northern Cyprus exists as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey. This legal ambiguity allows it to operate outside international norms. It serves as a strategic outpost for Turkey and a financial haven for wealthy Russians seeking to bypass sanctions, offering investment schemes with minimal financial oversight.

3. What role does the influx of Russian money play in Northern Cyprus?
Russian investors have become the leading foreign buyers of property in Cyprus, drawn by the lack of financial regulations in the north. This money has fueled a construction boom, but it has also created a system where “no questions are asked” about the origin of funds, making the region a hub for potential money laundering and sanctions evasion.

4. What are some of the other “hinterlands” explored in the book?
The book explores a collection of disputed territories, including: Syria, which Smith calls the “petri dish” for new geopolitical trends; the breakaway states of Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria; the fragile border communities of Bosnia and its Republika Srpska; and Crimea, where frontiers have shifted.

5. Why does Smith argue the West cannot afford to ignore these “hinterlands”?
Smith warns that the conflicts in these marginal regions are not isolated incidents but are the frontlines of a larger power struggle. “We ignore the hinterlands at our own peril,” she writes, because what happens inside them has the power to redraw the fault lines of a new Cold War and shape the future of the West.

How a Veterans Reform Blew Up: The Battle Over the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 23, 2026

Entitlements become harder to reform as they grow and develop more entrenched constituencies. An unfortunate example came Thursday when House Speaker Mike Johnson was forced to pull a vote on a bill that would help veterans while cracking down on abuse in disability payments [citation:original text].

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has spoken about his difficulties re-integrating into society after combat and the disconnection many veterans feel. The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act includes some 60 bipartisan provisions that aim to help veterans better transition into civilian life and the workforce [citation:original text]. The bill would expand telehealth options and suicide prevention programs. It would pay for a year of housing for veterans who enroll in apprenticeships and create portable occupational licenses after they are honorably discharged so they and their spouse don’t have to get re-licensed in a new state if they move [citation:original text]. It would also boost retirement benefits for vets forced to retire with fewer than 20 years of service due to combat-related injuries [citation:original text].

But the bill’s path to passage was blocked by a contentious debate over how to pay for these expansions. Republicans proposed paying for the bill by codifying a proposed regulation that would limit future disability payments for tinnitus and sleep apnea, which is expected to yield some $57 billion in savings over a decade [citation:original text].

The Broken System: Exploding Costs and Gaming the VA

The Biden Department of Veterans Affairs proposed restricting disability payments for these conditions in 2022 amid ballooning claims and signs of abuse [citation:original text]. The problem lies in the structure of the VA disability system, which is being gamed by some veterans. Veterans are entitled to tax-free disability payments for injuries that result from military service, with benefits based on the number and severity of injuries. Disability ratings range from 0% to 100%, with higher ratings carrying bigger payments [citation:original text].

In recent years, veteran disability payment claims have surged. Since 2010, overall spending on veteran benefits has soared 478%, which is far more than Medicaid (177%), Medicare (164%), and Social Security (142%). Disability payouts have nearly doubled since 2020, as more veterans claim more injuries. The number of veterans with 100% disability ratings has increased 90% since 2021 and six-fold since 2010 [citation:original text]. The Department of Veterans Affairs has processed more than two million disability benefits claims in FY 2026 as of June 1, faster than ever before . Since President Trump took office in January 2025, the claims backlog has dropped by 74% .

Veterans who have served since 1990 are three times as likely to receive disability payments as those in World War II and the Korean War. Veterans who have served since 1990 on average claim about nine disabilities, significantly more than those who served in World War II (2.5), Korea (2.6) and Vietnam (4.7) [citation:original text].

Some of the most common claimed injuries can be difficult to verify objectively, such as tinnitus (3.6 million vets receive compensation) and migraines (1.3 million). Others may not result from their military service and can be treated, like hay fever (819,645), sleep apnea (763,763), penile deformity/erectile dysfunction (675,632), diabetes (445,840) and hemorrhoids (356,424) [citation:original text]. Consultants and social-media influencers coach veterans on how to game the system [citation:original text].

The House Bill: A Reform That Couldn’t Survive

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act, a sweeping package of more than 60 bills, represented a comprehensive attempt to reform the VA system . The bill would have corrected a “fundamental injustice” by ending the dollar-for-dollar reduction in military retirement pay for combat-injured veterans forced to retire early—a provision known as the Major Richard Star Act [citation:original text]. The legislation is named after Major Richard Star, a career Army Reservist who deployed nine times and was medically retired before reaching the service threshold for full retirement benefits .

But the bill’s funding mechanism—limiting future disability payments for tinnitus and sleep apnea—proved to be a poison pill. Democrats and major veterans’ organizations, including the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), strongly opposed the cuts . They argued that the changes would reduce future compensation for up to 1.5 million veterans . “Cutting benefits for 1.5 million disabled veterans to fund other priorities would represent the largest betrayal of veterans in a single legislative act in modern history,” said Rep. Mark Takano, the ranking member of the House veterans affairs committee .

The Political Calculus: A Failure of Leadership

House Republicans pulled the bill from the floor after it became clear they did not have the votes to pass it. The decision came after a procedural vote where three Republicans joined 207 Democrats in favor of a motion to recommit the bill, which would have replaced the Republican funding proposal with an alternative that used unobligated Department of Defense funds . Speaker Mike Johnson attributed the delay to “misinformation” about the bill and promised to bring it back after the August recess .

The episode highlights the political difficulty of reforming entitlements. The bill’s benefits expansions were popular, but the funding mechanism—limiting disability payments for conditions that are difficult to verify—proved politically toxic. It also exposed a deeper divide over how veterans programs should be funded. Democrats argued that the bill’s costs should be paid for by tapping the Pentagon’s budget rather than by cutting veterans’ benefits . The fact that three House Republicans were willing to vote with Democrats on a procedural motion suggests a lack of party unity on the issue.

The Bigger Picture: A Recipe for a Less Combat-Ready Force

America’s ballooning entitlements, including veteran disability payments, are crowding out military spending. The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act was a modest attempt to address this problem, but its collapse demonstrates the political difficulty of making even limited reforms. As disability payments have soared, labor participation among working-age veterans has plunged. While the overall labor participation rate among 25 to 54 year-olds has increased 0.5 percentage points over the last two decades, it has declined 8.4 percentage points among vets who have served since September 2001 [citation:original text].

If Congress cannot address the unsustainable growth in veteran disability payments, the long-term health of the VA system—and the military’s readiness—will continue to decline. The bill’s failure is a sign that political leadership is unwilling to tackle the tough choices required to ensure that America’s veterans receive the care and benefits they have earned while also preserving the fiscal sustainability of the programs that serve them.

Q&A Section

1. What was the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act, and why did it fail?

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act was a comprehensive bill that would have expanded veterans’ benefits, including the Major Richard Star Act, which would allow combat-injured veterans to receive both their full military retirement pay and disability compensation. The bill failed because it proposed to pay for these expansions by limiting future disability payments for tinnitus and sleep apnea, a provision that drew fierce opposition from Democrats and major veterans’ organizations [citation:original text].

2. Why are veteran disability payments growing so rapidly?

Veteran disability payments have surged because more veterans are claiming more disabilities. Since 2010, overall spending on veteran benefits has soared 478%. Veterans who have served since 1990 claim about nine disabilities on average, compared to 2.5 for World War II veterans. The number of veterans with 100% disability ratings has increased six-fold since 2010 [citation:original text].

3. What conditions are driving the growth in disability claims?

Some of the most commonly claimed conditions are difficult to verify objectively, including tinnitus (claimed by 3.6 million veterans), migraines (1.3 million), and sleep apnea (763,763). Other conditions claimed include hay fever, diabetes, and hemorrhoids, which may not directly result from military service [citation:original text].

4. What was the Major Richard Star Act, and why was it significant?

The Major Richard Star Act would have ended the dollar-for-dollar reduction in military retirement pay for combat-injured veterans forced to retire early. It was named after Major Richard Star, a career Army Reservist who deployed nine times and was medically retired before reaching the service threshold for full retirement benefits . The Act was a key component of the larger veterans package .

5. What are the broader implications of the bill’s failure?

The failure of the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act highlights the political difficulty of reforming entitlements, even when those reforms are designed to help veterans. The unsustainable growth in veteran disability payments is crowding out military spending and contributing to a less combat-ready force. If Congress cannot address this issue, the long-term health of the VA system and military readiness will continue to decline [citation:original text].

Maine’s Senate Shake-Up: How a Scandal, a Logger, and a Rapid Coronation Reshaped a Pivotal Race

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

For a few electric weeks, the Maine Senate race was the most chaotic, closely watched, and improbable contest in American politics. It featured an outsider oyster farmer with a Nazi tattoo and a history of online misogyny, a crushing sexual assault allegation, and a frantic Democratic scramble that resulted in the near-coronation of a fifth-generation logger. As the dust settles, the Democratic Party has found itself with a new standard-bearer—but the battle to unseat the longest-serving Republican in the Senate has become more complicated than ever.

The Graham Platner Debacle: A Candidate Implosion

The saga began with the rise and fall of Graham Platner, the combat veteran and political newcomer who had electrified Maine’s progressive base. He had secured a stunning victory in the June 9 Democratic primary, defeating establishment favorite Governor Janet Mills with 72% of the vote . He was the kind of candidate the party dreamed of: a fresh face with a populist, working-class message that resonated deeply in a state weary of the political establishment.

However, Platner’s campaign was always a grenade with the pin pulled. Scandal after scandal emerged . A skull-and-crossbones tattoo on his chest, which Platner claimed he got while drunk in Croatia with his fellow Marines, was widely recognized as a Nazi symbol (the Totenkopf) . Old Reddit posts surfaced where he appeared to dismiss rape and make derogatory comments . Reports surfaced that he had exchanged sexually explicit messages with other women while married .

The final blow came in July when Politico reported that a woman, Jenny Racicot, had accused Platner of raping her . According to the report, Platner entered her home uninvited and forced himself on her in 2021 . Platner fiercely denied the allegation, calling it “categorically false” . But the political cost was immediate and catastrophic.

Within hours, his support network evaporated . The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the Senate’s primary party organization, vowed not to spend money on the race if he remained on the ballot . His key ally, Senator Bernie Sanders, publicly recommended that he step aside . Other prominent figures like Elizabeth Warren, Ro Khanna, and Ruben Gallego rescinded their endorsements . As The Hill reported, the pressure came from both top Democrats and the grassroots .

Facing a total loss of institutional support and the certainty of a general election disaster, Platner stepped down on July 10, announcing his withdrawal from the race . He insisted he would only finalize the paperwork if the process to replace him was “open, transparent, and democratic,” making it clear he had not conceded the movement he built, even as he conceded the candidacy .

The Race to Replace: A Rapid and Ruthless Convention

The departure of Platner triggered a frantic, week-long scramble that was unlike any nomination process in recent memory. State law gave Democrats a short window to choose a new nominee . The party decided to hold a special convention of 601 delegates in Bangor on July 25, with delegates chosen at county-level meetings on July 18-19 .

The race to win over these delegates was a political sprint. High-profile names who had lost the gubernatorial primary a month earlier—Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, former CDC director Nirav Shah, and activist Jordan Wood—all threw their hats in the ring . Even television actor Patrick Dempsey briefly saw his name floated before he declined to run .

But from the outset, one candidate had a clear strategic edge: former State Senate President Troy Jackson . Jackson, a 58-year-old fifth-generation logger from Allagash, came from “old Maine” . He had a decades-long history of organizing in the state, particularly among labor unions . His campaign executed a masterclass in delegate organization. They were the first to release full delegate slates in every county, instructing supporters to “VOTE FOR EVERY NAME ON THE TROY JACKSON DELEGATE SLATE AND NO OTHER NAMES” . In the critical county of Cumberland, home to Portland, a vast majority of the elected delegates were from Jackson’s slate . As Politico reported, his supporters won the backing of more than two-thirds of the delegates heading to the state convention . Over the weekend of July 18-19, his opponents—Bellows, Shah, Wood, and others—fell like dominoes, dropping out and endorsing Jackson . He had effectively locked up the nomination three days before the delegates were even scheduled to vote.

The New Matchup: Troy Jackson vs. Susan Collins

Now, with the convention a formality, the race has become a match-up that presents a clear contrast, even if the candidates themselves are not particularly dynamic. As the Boston Globe put it, this is a race defined less by personalities and more by their personas .

Troy Jackson is a known quantity in Maine politics: a state legislator for over 20 years and Senate president from 2018 to 2024 . He is a solid, union-backed progressive. His platform is remarkably similar to Platner’s, which poses both a benefit and a risk. Like Platner, he supports “Medicare for All,” wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and advocates for taxing billionaires . He also has a compelling personal story—a logger who led a blockade on the Canadian border in the 1990s to protest the hiring of foreign workers . However, his speech is considered less commanding than Platner’s, which may be a challenge in a race that will be defined by hundreds of millions of dollars in advertisements rather than grassroots rallies .

Susan Collins is a five-term incumbent with nearly three decades of experience and an $11 million war chest . She has a history of beating back strong Democratic challengers in a state that has otherwise trended blue . Her strategy is clear: she wants to contrast her seniority and ability to secure federal funding for Maine with Jackson’s inexperience and progressive politics. Republicans have already begun labeling Jackson a “socialist” . Collins will also seek to tie Jackson to the unpopularity of the national Democratic Party .

The Stakes and the Longshot

The stakes in Maine could not be higher. It is a “toss up” race that is essential for Democrats if they hope to flip the four Senate seats they need to retake the majority . The Hill notes that Republicans currently have a 53% chance of holding the seat, but a recent University of New Hampshire poll showed Jackson with a 49% to 46% lead in a hypothetical general election matchup .

However, Jackson faces a steep climb. He has just over 100 days to build a statewide campaign network and raise funds to compete with an incumbent who has been building her political machine for three decades . He is, for all intents and purposes, a political unknown to the wider electorate . He is the key variable: a candidate whose story and policies are still being written in the minds of Maine voters. Republicans will try to define him as an extremist; Jackson will try to make the race a referendum on Donald Trump and a 30-year career of a senator he claims is out of touch with working Mainers.

Q&A Section

1. Why did Graham Platner withdraw from the Maine Senate race?
Platner withdrew following a sexual assault allegation published by Politico. A woman he had previously dated accused him of forcing himself on her in 2021. The allegation caused his support to collapse, with top Democrats, including Senator Bernie Sanders, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee calling on him to step down . His campaign had already been plagued by prior scandals, including a Nazi-symbol tattoo and misogynistic online posts .

2. How was Troy Jackson selected as the new Democratic nominee?
Jackson was selected through a rapid and strategically executed convention process. After Platner withdrew, a special state convention of 601 delegates was called. Jackson’s campaign ran a highly organized delegate hunt, winning the backing of over two-thirds of the delegates. This forced his primary rivals to drop out and endorse him, effectively securing him the nomination before the convention even took place .

3. What is Troy Jackson’s political background and platform?
Jackson is a fifth-generation logger from northern Maine and a former Maine State Senate President. He is a progressive Democrat with a long history of labor organizing. His platform is similar to Platner’s: he supports “Medicare for All,” abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and raising taxes on billionaires .

4. Who is Susan Collins, and what are the stakes of the race for her?
Susan Collins is a five-term Republican incumbent who has held her seat since 1997. She is the longest-serving Republican in the Senate and is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the 2026 midterms, as she is the only Republican running for re-election in a state that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. Her victory is key to the GOP maintaining control of the Senate .

5. How is the general election matchup between Jackson and Collins shaping up?
The race is expected to be a close and highly expensive contest, driven more by paid advertising than by personality. Jackson’s challenge is to introduce himself to voters and define his platform in the short time before the election, while Collins is expected to frame him as a radical progressive. A recent poll showed Jackson with a slight lead, but Collins has a significant financial advantage and a long history of beating well-funded challengers.

Meet the New Bargain Patriot Missile: Lockheed Martin’s Cost-Effective Answer to a Looming Defense Crisis

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

American soldiers are vulnerable to Iranian missiles in the Middle East, and the weekend deaths in Jordan are awful reminders of the stakes. That makes all the more welcome the news that Lockheed Martin will build a cheaper air-defense interceptor, a sign the U.S. can adapt to today’s rapid evolution in warfare [citation:original text].

Lockheed this week introduced the PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector (ACE)—essentially a variant of an advanced Patriot missile at less than half the usual price tag [citation:original text]. Ukraine can’t get enough Patriots to defend against Russian missiles, and U.S. forces may have burned more than 1,000 in a few months of fighting a lesser power like Iran [citation:original text]. The unveiling of the ACE at the Farnborough International Airshow on July 20, 2026, comes at a critical juncture, as the U.S. and its allies grapple with the twin challenges of depleting stockpiles and the rising cost of modern warfare .

The Strategic Imperative: A Crisis of Cost and Capacity

The development of the PAC-3 ACE is a direct response to the brutal economics of modern air defense. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that the Patriot system, while highly effective, is also prohibitively expensive to field at scale . A single Patriot battery costs around $1 billion . The PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE), the current standard interceptor, is estimated to cost between $4 million and $5 million per missile . With a production rate of only about 600 interceptors per year, the Pentagon has struggled to replenish its own stockpiles, let alone meet the surging global demand .

The conflict in Iran has only exacerbated this crisis. The U.S. has already used roughly half of its stockpile of 2,330 Patriot missiles during 39 days of bombardments leading up to a ceasefire with Iran . With the war having restarted, the U.S. military is burning through interceptors at an alarming rate . A 2026 CSIS report warns that “munitions depleted in the war in Iran will take years to replace and lower-cost versions are not yet in production” . The manufacturing lead times for critical weapons range from about two to more than four years, underscoring the difficulty in rapidly replenishing stockpiles during a major conflict .

This is where the PAC-3 ACE comes in. By promising to deliver the same combat-proven capabilities at less than half the cost, Lockheed Martin is offering a solution that could dramatically increase the “magazine depth” of Patriot systems without breaking the bank . The lower cost also makes it more feasible to use Patriots against cheaper threats like drones and cruise missiles, a scenario that has been widely criticized as economically unsustainable .

The PAC-3 ACE: A Closer Look

While Lockheed Martin has not released full technical specifications, the PAC-3 ACE is based on the combat-proven PAC-3 MSE but is designed to be simpler and cheaper to manufacture . One of the key differences is the apparent absence of the Attitude Control System (ACS), a ring of lateral divert thrusters that enables the MSE’s high-g maneuvers for hit-to-kill interceptions . The missile’s nose section also appears to have a metallic finish, suggesting it may not house an active radar seeker, which is one of the major production bottlenecks .

Instead, the ACE likely relies on a more straightforward hit-to-kill approach or a replacement warhead, focusing on engaging aerodynamic threats like manned aircraft, cruise missiles, and short- to medium-range ballistic missiles . This design choice allows Lockheed to leverage its existing production lines, accelerate development, and keep costs down . Crucially, the ACE is fully compatible with existing Patriot launchers and the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS), meaning it can be fielded without requiring expensive upgrades .

According to Lockheed Martin, the ACE will fly within 18 months and be in production “within a couple of years” [citation:original text]. The company also plans to produce the missile in cooperation with European industrial partners, enhancing the resilience of the transatlantic defense supply chain .

A Diverse Arsenal for a New Era

While the PAC-3 ACE is a significant step forward, it is not a silver bullet. The Pentagon is also pursuing other low-cost solutions, such as the Medium-Range Mobile Air Defense System (MRIC), which uses the Iron Dome’s Tamir interceptor . The U.S. Army is also seeking a Low-Cost Interceptor (LCI) with a target price under $1 million . The U.S. Air Force is upgrading its aircraft missile defense systems, and the Marine Corps is building layered, integrated defenses against drones .

The U.S. has been slow to adapt to the battlefield dominance of drones and cheap weapons, but the world’s most dynamic economy has the wit and technology to catch up if there’s enough political will [citation:original text]. The biggest obstacle is Washington. Congress can’t even pass a temporary government budget, let alone the President’s proposed $1.5 trillion for defense [citation:original text].

Iran is adapting its missile attacks against the U.S. and our allies and socializing the lessons with its underwriters in Russia and China. The U.S. air defense shortage has been apparent for years in the Ukraine war. Fielding tens of thousands of value-brand Patriots would be a substantial advance for U.S. deterrence against enemies that are moving fast to defeat the current U.S. arsenal [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. What is the PAC-3 ACE, and why is it significant?
The PAC-3 ACE (Adapted Capability Effector) is a new, lower-cost interceptor missile developed by Lockheed Martin for the Patriot air defense system. Unveiled in July 2026, it is based on the proven PAC-3 MSE but is designed to be simpler and cheaper to manufacture, costing less than half the price of its predecessor. Its development is a direct response to the depletion of Patriot stockpiles and the high cost of modern air defense.

2. How much does the PAC-3 ACE cost compared to the current PAC-3 MSE?
The PAC-3 MSE is estimated to cost between $4 million and $5 million per missile. Lockheed Martin claims the PAC-3 ACE will cost less than half of that, bringing the unit price down to approximately $2 million per interceptor. This significant cost reduction is intended to make the use of Patriots against cheaper threats like drones economically viable.

3. How does the PAC-3 ACE achieve its lower cost?
Lockheed Martin has reduced costs by simplifying the design of the missile. The PAC-3 ACE appears to lack the sophisticated Attitude Control System (ACS) and active radar seeker found on the PAC-3 MSE, which are major cost drivers and production bottlenecks. Instead, it focuses on a simpler hit-to-kill approach, targeting aerodynamic threats and short- to medium-range ballistic missiles.

4. What is the current state of U.S. defense industrial base capacity for air defense munitions?
The U.S. defense industrial base is struggling to meet the record demand for munitions. Manufacturing lead times for critical weapons like Patriot interceptors range from two to more than four years. The U.S. production rate is about 600 Patriot missiles per year, which is insufficient to meet the combined needs of the U.S. military and its allies, especially given the depletion of stockpiles in recent conflicts. The industrial base is also burdened by workforce shortages and supply chain bottlenecks.

5. What other low-cost air defense solutions is the U.S. pursuing?
The U.S. is pursuing multiple low-cost air defense solutions to complement the Patriot system and address the economic challenges of modern warfare. These include the Medium-Range Mobile Air Defense System (MRIC), which uses the Iron Dome’s Tamir interceptor, and the U.S. Army’s Low-Cost Interceptor (LCI) program targeting a price under $1 million. The U.S. is also integrating directed energy weapons like the Compact Laser Weapon System and other non-kinetic counter-UAS technologies for layered defense.

The Greenspan Legacy: Setting the Record Straight on the Financial Crisis

By Phil Gramm and Jeb Hensarling
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

As eulogies and critiques pour in for Alan Greenspan, one thing has become clear: The left is using the former Federal Reserve chairman’s death to peddle a false narrative yet again regarding the underlying causes of the 2008-09 financial crisis. Since so much bad economic policy rests on bad economic history, we need to set the record straight [citation:original text].

Greenspan’s critics argue he carries much of the blame for the crisis and the housing bubble that triggered it, due to the low mortgage rates on his watch from 2000 to 2006, as well as his support for deregulation. Missing from this evaluation of Greenspan’s career is any recognition that for extended periods during the postwar era, mortgage rates were significantly lower than they were in 2000-06, yet they created no housing bubbles. Also missing is that for two decades leading up to the crisis, financial regulation grew stricter [citation:original text].

Debunking the “Low Interest Rates” Myth

From 2000 to 2007 inflation-adjusted mortgage rates averaged 3.4%, almost triple the 1.2% between 1971 and 1980 and roughly double the rate from 2010 to 2025, yet there was no housing bubble or resulting financial crisis during either period. There is no evidence in postwar America that low interest rates precipitated a housing bubble except during the 2008-09 financial crisis [citation:original text].

This is a critical point often overlooked by those who blame Greenspan. The Federal Reserve’s actions, while a factor, cannot be the sole explanation for the bubble. If low rates alone caused housing bubbles, the U.S. would have experienced them in the 1970s when real rates were even lower. The fact that a bubble only occurred in the 2000s suggests that other, more specific factors were at play.

The Regulatory Reality: More Government, Not Less

Those who argue that Greenspan helped deregulate the financial system have yet to explain when this deregulation occurred. Through the passage of major laws like the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, not to mention the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, federal regulators gained expansive powers to impose new risk-based capital standards, increased reporting and compliance requirements, prompt corrective action rules and corporate governance rules. The only law that could remotely be called deregulatory in any sense was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 [citation:original text].

The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which tracks systemic risk in the financial system, was initially established by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 . Its regulatory reach has been further expanded, demonstrating the growth in financial regulation. From 1970 until the housing bubble burst, regulatory restrictions increased 250% and the number of regulatory personnel grew about 77% [citation:original text].

The True Villain: Bad Regulation, Not Deregulation

The true cause of the financial crisis wasn’t low interest rates or deregulation, but instead bad regulation and plenty of it. For almost two decades leading up to the housing bubble, government regulation encouraged, cajoled and mandated financial institutions to loan money to high-risk borrowers who bought homes they couldn’t afford. Greenspan consistently warned against the worst of it [citation:original text].

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA): Originally a modest bill requiring banks to meet local credit needs, during the Clinton administration banking regulators began using the CRA to pressure banks to make subprime loans to low-income and underserved communities. Guidelines were turned into mandates and banks couldn’t even open an ATM, much less acquire another bank, if they didn’t receive a passing grade. According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, total CRA lending increased from $8.8 billion between the law’s enactment and 1991, to $4.5 trillion from 1992 through 2007 when the housing bubble burst. Greenspan testified before Congress that “the early stages of the subprime [mortgage] market . . . essentially emerged out of CRA” [citation:original text].

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: At the precipice of the financial crisis, the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with their implicit government guarantee and imprimatur, either securitized or guaranteed roughly half of all mortgages in the U.S. Effective 1993, they were required to make 30% of their mortgage purchases so-called low- and moderate-income housing loans. That quota was gradually ratcheted up to 56% by 2008, when Fannie and Freddie collapsed, leading to perhaps the largest institutional bailout in U.S. history. A 2003 Fannie memo stated that because of the affordable-housing goals Congress imposed, Fannie “did deals at risks and prices we would not have otherwise done” [citation:original text].

Greenspan’s Warnings: The Voice in the Wilderness

A review of Greenspan’s statements before the financial crisis shows that he was the earliest and most consistent government official to sound the alarm about the building threat from the securitization of subprime mortgages. In congressional testimony after the crisis, he said: “The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers”—meaning Freddie and Fannie—”subprime mortgage originations, undeniably the original source of the crisis, would have been far smaller and defaults, accordingly, far fewer” [citation:original text].

The Political Fallout: A False Narrative with Real Consequences

Unfortunately, Greenspan’s inarticulate answer to a question about his regulatory philosophy was widely reported, and his definitive statement on the cause of the crisis wasn’t. This helped feed the false narrative that financial deregulation caused the financial crisis, which was then used as a pretext to pass a massive expansion of government regulation of the financial system instead of a badly needed reform of government housing policy. Using Greenspan’s death to restate this same false narrative in no way changes the fact that he was arguably the greatest central banker in the history of our country [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. What is the central argument of the article regarding the 2008-09 financial crisis?

The article argues that the 2008-09 financial crisis was not caused by low interest rates or deregulation, as is commonly believed, but by bad regulation. Specifically, it points to government policies like the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the affordable-housing mandates imposed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which pressured financial institutions to make risky subprime loans to high-risk borrowers .

2. Why do the authors dismiss the “low interest rates” argument?

The authors point out that inflation-adjusted mortgage rates were even lower during other periods in postwar America, such as the 1970s and the 2010s, yet these periods did not produce housing bubbles. Therefore, low rates alone cannot explain the 2008 bubble .

3. How does the article characterize the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999?

The article describes Gramm-Leach-Bliley as a law that allowed banks, securities companies, and insurance companies to affiliate under holding companies. It argues that the law did not deregulate the financial system but instead established the Federal Reserve as a new “superregulator.” All regulated activities continued to be governed by the same laws and regulators .

4. What role did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) play in the crisis?

According to the article, the CRA was originally a modest bill but was later used by regulators to pressure banks into making subprime loans to low-income communities. Total CRA lending grew from $8.8 billion in 1991 to $4.5 trillion by 2007. Greenspan himself testified that the subprime market “essentially emerged out of CRA.”

5. What were Alan Greenspan’s views on the housing bubble?

The article states that Greenspan was one of the earliest and most consistent officials to warn about the threat from the securitization of subprime mortgages. He pointed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as key drivers of the crisis, arguing that without their demand, subprime originations would have been “far smaller and defaults, accordingly, far fewer.”

If Britain Has a New Prime Minister, It’s a Day Ending in Y

By Aditi Nayar
London, July 24, 2026

If life were a feel-good movie, Andy Burnham would be starting out as British prime minister this week in a most auspicious way. He would be welcoming home from America the first English soccer team to win the FIFA men’s World Cup since 1966. With theatrical timing, Mr. Burnham, a keen soccer fan, took office on Monday, the day after the finale of the globe’s premier sporting event. What better way for a country battered by years of economic decline, political disorder and social animosity to launch than in the glow of celebrating its status as champion of the world in the sport England invented and still cherishes as its own?

But life doesn’t follow scripts. England lost, as it always does. In a more apt sort of symbolism for a nation in eclipse, England was beaten in the semifinal by Argentina, a country that, within Mr. Burnham’s lifetime and under a different sort of leader, it vanquished in war.

You can be forgiven for thinking you won’t need to learn much about the new guy in No 10. British prime ministers come and go at such a dizzying pace that it takes longer for most outsiders to learn their names than it does for them to serve their term. Mr. Burnham is Britain’s seventh leader in 10 years . Prime ministerial terms once counted as eras in the history books: Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill, Thatcher. Now they barely merit a footnote.

The circumstances of this latest turnover are hardly propitious. Two years ago, the Labour Party won its largest parliamentary majority in 20 years. As its leader Keir Starmer immediately began stumbling from crisis to self-inflicted crisis, the party scrambled for an alternative. By convention, the prime minister must be a member of the House of Commons, but of the 410 Labour members of Parliament elected with Mr. Starmer two years ago, not a single one was considered capable of succeeding him .

So the party had to reach outside Westminster and embrace a political retreat. Mr. Burnham, who served briefly in previous Labour governments, twice contested the party leadership before leaving Parliament nine years ago to run for mayor of Manchester . He won, and his popularity in England’s second city was enough to convince the party to elect him as leader. He was the first man to win a seat in parliament in a by-election last month to take his place on the green benches and, weeks later, at the top of the greasy pole .

The “King of the North” and the Substance of “Manchesterism”

Who is he? In a London-centric nation, he wants to be defined as an outsider, “The King of the North.” His relative success in Manchester, where he improved public transportation and oversaw steady economic growth, has elevated his media profile and, in a nation brimming with political failures, given him the rare status of an achiever. Manchester has become a kind of cultural capital of cool in recent decades, home to global musical acts like Oasis and the Stone Roses. Mr. Burnham likes to channel that sensibility, citing the rock icons as influences and projecting a modern sartorial everyman look; eschewing the shirt and tie for a crew neck T-shirt under a sharp suit. In a nation tired of the London political class, he champions the downtrodden provinces, with a proper Northern accent, flat vowels and all, the first British leader to speak that way since Harold Wilson in 1976. His fans speak of “Manchesterism” as the new political model.

But this attention to a new biographical style seems a distraction from what looks like unchanged political substance. His outsider credentials are cosmetic, for a start. He grew up in middle-class comfort and was educated at Cambridge University (ending the current run of six straight Oxford-educated prime ministers—who said Britain isn’t becoming more diverse?). He moved immediately into Westminster politics after graduating, as an adviser and then, soon enough, a member of Parliament and a government minister. He’s a lifelong product of the political machine .

Britain needs more than a new face and life story. It is mired in economic stagnation. Labour and much of the media like to blame Brexit, but the rot set in well before 2016. Productivity growth has been sluggish since 2008 . Under the stultifying consensus of Labour and Conservative governments for two decades, the bloated state has gotten larger, the tax take has reached its highest since the 1950s; welfare policies mean one-tenth of the working population is permanently out sick; net-zero policies induced by climate hysteria have raised energy costs to among the highest in the world; and open borders have weakened the bonds of national cohesion.

From all he has said as he prepared to take office, it seems Mr. Burnham wants more of the same . The “Manchesterism” Britain needs isn’t the municipal socialism he believes in. The city was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, in which Britain led the world through the dynamism of its capitalist system. Its economic success wasn’t the result of bureaucrats dictating targets to managers but of entrepreneurs lightly burdened by taxes, willing to take risks for large rewards that led to prosperity for all. Don’t be surprised if the latest entrant of No. 10 is there on another short lease.

The Gathering Storm

Mr. Burnham’s critics argue that his plan to bring utilities under public control through a “bond-for-share” exchange could be an expensive gamble . Investors are worried that his “business-friendly socialism” is code for more spending and borrowing, a fear that was reflected in a brief fall in sterling when he first indicated his leadership ambitions . The OECD has warned that the UK faces a “difficult fiscal situation” and that the government must “rebuild fiscal buffers” to finance its priorities . To his credit, Mr. Burnham has said he will stick to the existing fiscal rules and back a review into youth employment that could lead to welfare savings, suggesting a capacity for prudence .

But his first few days have been dominated more by political theater than by serious policy solutions. He has promised to take power out of London and “carry it into every postcode in the land,” but he has not yet explained how this will reverse the UK’s long decline . The new prime minister has said he will “not take any risks with the economy,” but he has not yet detailed a credible plan to pay for his promises . The first test of his premiership will be his first Budget, likely to be in the autumn. If he chooses to lean more on the statist sentiments he has emphasised, rather than the business-friendly elements of his philosophy, he will struggle to revive the animal spirits of the private sector that are essential to turning Britain around. He is the seventh prime minister in a decade. He may not be the last.

Big Government Inevitably Invites Corruption

By Marian L. Tupy
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

Three days before his 2025 inauguration, Donald Trump launched a cryptocurrency called STRUMP. That May, he dined with 220 of its largest holders, some of whom bought up the coin expressly to secure invitations. In October Mr. Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, a Binance co-founder who had been convicted of violating money-laundering laws. Binance had assigned a team to develop the stablecoin for World Liberty Financial, a crypto venture tied to the Trump family. The undertaking netted Mr. Trump hundreds of millions, part of $1 billion in crypto gains, while most token buyers lost money. Last year Paramount agreed to pay Mr. Trump $16 million—with some payments made to his future presidential library—to settle a lawsuit it had called meritless, and within weeks the government approved its $8 billion merger with Skydance [citation:original text].

Each episode has been reported, with people raising questions about Mr. Trump’s behavior. But what makes such conduct possible in the first place? Democrats rightly blame the man. But there is another culprit [citation:original text].

The Structural Problem: Power Attracts Influence

The power of the federal government, which commands the fate of every major enterprise in America. A tariff waiver can mean billions for one company and bankruptcy for its rival. An antitrust filing can erase a decade of shareholder value in an afternoon. A procurement decision can build a company, and a regulatory finding can bury one. When the government holds that much influence, officials need not even demand tribute. Tribute arrives on its own [citation:original text].

The problem arose long before 2025. When government can make or break a business, businesses will invest in making friends with government, and the return on a lobbyist will exceed the return on an engineer. Corruption and discretionary power go hand in hand [citation:original text]. The U.S. government’s direct influence over the economy is enormous. The federal government spent $6.8 trillion in fiscal year 2025, and it employs over 2.8 million civilians. This does not even account for the vast impact of regulations, which the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates cost the U.S. economy over $1.9 trillion annually.

The Trump administration’s actions are merely the most visible symptoms of a deeper systemic disease. The Department of Defense announced in May 2026 that it had awarded contracts worth $55 billion to private companies, the majority of which went to the “Big Five” defense contractors. In October 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a waiver to a major oil company, allowing it to bypass new emissions standards, following a $2.5 million lobbying campaign.

The Libertarian Solution: A State Too Small to Bribe

There is a remedy, though it comes from an unfashionable quarter. Libertarians have long argued for a wall between the economy and the state: a government confined to courts, defense and a handful of public goods—too small to be worth bribing. Nobody buys favors from an office that has no favors to sell. A president who can’t reward a donor with a tariff can’t be paid for one [citation:original text].

This is not an argument for anarchy; it is an argument for restraint. The Founders’ Constitution was designed with a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. They foresaw figures like Mr. Trump. They did not foresee a government of the current scope and size. The way to end the sale of government favors is to close the store. Until one of our parties says so, the outrage will remain what it is today: sincere and useless [citation:original text].

The Democratic Party rejects that remedy. Its answer to the corruption it decries is personnel: Elect us, and we will staff the agencies with people of integrity. The claim deserves scrutiny rather than applause [citation:original text].

Public Choice Theory: Politics Without Romance

James Buchanan, who received the 1986 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and Gordon Tullock argued in their 1962 book, “The Calculus of Consent,” that politicians and bureaucrats respond to incentives just as merchants and consumers do. Buchanan called for “politics without romance.” Voters may imagine that office transforms self-interest into public spirit, but no mechanism exists to perform that transformation. The behavior of officials is governed by what the office rewards, not by what the campaign promised [citation:original text].

Friedrich Hayek, another Nobel laureate, carried the argument further in “The Road to Serfdom” (1944). A state that dispenses fortunes will attract the people most eager to dispense them; positions of discretionary power select for those who relish wielding it. Screening for virtue can’t prevent that, because the applicant pool is already sorted by appetite, and the appetite grows with the power [citation:original text].

The Democratic Dilemma: The Unanswered Question

The question for Democrats isn’t whether they disapprove of the current president’s conduct. It is what feature of their program would prevent similar conduct under a president of either party. Their platform contains no such feature, demanding instead more agencies, more waivers, more approvals—more of the raw material from which favors are minted. To the question “Why would your government be cleaner?” the answer “because we are better people” isn’t convincing. It is a request for faith that Buchanan and Tullock’s public-choice theory gives us every reason to withhold [citation:original text].

Democrats propose to keep the machine and merely change the operator. An electorate offered a choice between two managers of the same favor factory may reasonably shrug [citation:original text]. The Biden administration’s “Buy American” initiative, for instance, granted waivers to companies that had contributed to Democratic campaigns. This demonstrates that the problem is not unique to Trump; it is endemic to the system.

Q&A Section

1. What is the central argument of the article regarding political corruption?

The article argues that political corruption is a structural problem rooted in the immense power and discretion of the federal government. When government has the authority to grant tariffs, waivers, contracts, or regulatory relief, it creates a market for selling favors. The problem is systemic, not personal, and will persist regardless of who holds office.

2. What is the “libertarian solution” to corruption proposed in the article?

The libertarian solution is to limit government’s role in the economy to a narrow set of essential functions like courts and national defense. This would create a state too small to be worth bribing. If a president cannot reward a donor with a tariff or a contract, then there is nothing for a donor to buy.

3. What is “public choice theory” and how does it apply to government behavior?

Public choice theory, developed by Nobel laureates James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, argues that politicians and bureaucrats respond to incentives, just like everyone else. They are not motivated by selfless public service; they are motivated by power, money, and the opportunities their office provides. Therefore, the structure of government—not the character of its officials—determines its behavior.

4. Why does the article argue that Democratic Party proposals would not solve the corruption problem?

The article contends that Democratic proposals would actually worsen the problem by expanding government power. While Democrats condemn Trump’s conduct, their platform calls for more agencies, more regulations, and more discretionary authority, which would create even more opportunities for the selling of favors.

5. What is the significance of the examples of Trump’s business dealings cited in the article?

The examples—the STRUMP crypto coin, the pardon of Binance’s founder, and the Paramount merger—are used to illustrate that a person who controls vast government power can and will leverage it for personal enrichment. They demonstrate that the problem is not just a matter of “bad apples” but is inherent in the system itself. They show that the process of buying and selling government influence is not a rare occurrence but a feature of the current political economy.

Is Jewish Failure an Antidote to Antisemitism? A Reflection on Genius, AI, and the Paradox of Success

By Jacob Sivak
New Delhi, July 23, 2026

Many have wondered about Jewish over-representation in just about every intellectual pursuit. Simply googling the words “Jewish genius” yields over 30,000 results [citation:original text]. I’ve always thought that disproportionate Jewish achievement is due to a cultural and religious emphasis on education, debate, and literacy, as well as to the pressures of widespread discrimination, not genius.

But I do admit that the term genius occasionally crosses my mind, as when I was reading Empire of AI by Karen Hao about OpenAI, one of the leaders in the current race to develop artificial intelligence. It is impossible to read the book and not notice the significant roles played by Jews: Sam Altman, the CEO; Ilya Sutskever; and the Bengio brothers, Samy and Yoshua. While Altman is an American Jew who was born and raised in the US, Sutskever was born in the Soviet Union and educated in Israel and Canada. The Bengio brothers are Canadian computer scientists who were born in France to Moroccan-Jewish parents [citation:original text].

The Weight of a Name, the Echo of a Poet

The name Sutskever drew my attention. My immigrant parents spoke Yiddish and participated in the rich Yiddish cultural life of Montreal as I was growing up. From them, I understood that Abraham Sutskever was one of the foremost Yiddish poets of the 20th century. I wondered if there was a family connection to Ilya, and it turns out that there may be a distant kinship (Abraham died in 2010), but there is no direct connection.

The book also reminded me of another prominent Yiddish poet whose work my parents knew, Kadia Molodovsky, one poem in particular. Molodovsky’s life as a Yiddish writer began in Warsaw, Poland, and continued in New York after she immigrated to the US before World War II. The poem, “El Khanun” (God of Mercy), written in 1944, is a heart-wrenching expression of her anguish over the trauma experienced by the Jewish people during World War II [citation:original text].

The poem asks God to choose another people, saying that the Jews have no more blood to sacrifice. They have run out of prayers. They have paid for every letter of the Ten Commandments with the lives of the aged, the young and the innocent. It asks God to give the prophecies and the Ten Days of Repentance to another people, and give the Jewish people simple, ordinary lives and humble tasks as shepherds or blacksmiths [citation:original text].

The poem’s final line has stirred the most interest. In a poignant plea, Molodovsky, like many of her Yiddish-writing contemporaries, a secular Jew, asks God for one more favor. The key Yiddish words she uses are ‘shkhine,’ or Godly spirit, and ‘geoynes,’ genius, and the line has been translated (see Ben Kline, The Quality of Mercy) as “Take back what is godly from our genius” [citation:original text]. The poem serves as a powerful metaphor for the burden of exceptionalism. It voices a collective exhaustion, a desire to trade the weight of “genius” and the divine presence for the simplicity of an ordinary, safer life.

The Economist’s Blunt Advice and the AI Reality

When the well-known American economist and social commentator Thomas Sowell was asked what Jews themselves can do to minimize the hostility they face, he responded with a one-word answer: fail. “Because as long as you succeed you’re going to be hated” [citation:original text]. Sowell’s reasoning, as he elaborated in other contexts, is that the resentment stems from a perceived threat to the ego of others. The success of a marginalized group can be a stark mirror to the stagnation of others, and that resentment is often projected back onto the successful group .

Sowell’s advice is “easier said than done,” and the Jewish contributions to the development of AI that were noted above indicate that his advice has not been followed. Nor has Molodovsky’s plea to the almighty borne fruit [citation:original text].

Today, close to one-half of the world’s Jews live in Israel. If you ask Google AI about Israel, a tiny country with a population barely over 10 million, you find that it is a major AI powerhouse, ranking alongside the US, China, and the UK. Israel boasts more than 2,300 AI start-up companies, about 25% of the total start-ups in the country. The emphasis is on applied AI. In terms of AI adoption, Israel ranks number one in the technology workers using AI in their day-to-day work [citation:original text].

The Perpetual Cycle of Bias

The paradox of Jewish success is that it not only attracts envy but is also encoded into the very technologies being built. A recent peer-reviewed study published in American Psychologist found that large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4 Turbo have absorbed historical antisemitic tropes from the human texts they are trained on . The study revealed that AI associates Jewish characters with high competence but low warmth, a combination that reproduces the “puppet master” or “manipulative” stereotype .

This is a profound and troubling development. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into hiring, education, and financial decision-making, these latent biases could be unintentionally applied to real-world scenarios . Jewish overrepresentation as authors in AI training datasets has also been flagged as a potential vulnerability, where intellectual property is being used to train the very systems that could one day compete with or replace human labor .

Conclusion

Recently, former prime minister Naftali Bennett was cited as saying that Israel controls tools of national survival. Failure is not an option [citation:original text]. The words of Kadia Molodovsky and the blunt advice of Thomas Sowell highlight the profound irony of the Jewish condition. In a world that punishes success with hatred, the very drive for survival and achievement that has defined Jewish history becomes a source of perpetual tension. The rise of AI is a new chapter in this story, where the fruits of Jewish ingenuity are being used to build a future that may, paradoxically, perpetuate the very biases that the community has fought against for centuries.

Strategic Advice for Israel’s Future Prime Minister: Ethiopian Jews Are Not Israel’s Diversity Story—They Are Its Zionist Proof

By Shmuel Legesse
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

The world has been taught a dangerous lie about Israel. In universities, media studios, activist movements, and diplomatic forums, Israel is increasingly described as a white European colonial project. This accusation is not only false; it is historically illiterate. It erases the Jewish people’s ancient connection to Zion, and ignores the suffering of Jews expelled and persecuted across the world. But Israel has also made a serious mistake. Too often, Israel has failed to show the world the full face of the Jewish people .

The Strategic Failure of Representation

Where are Ethiopian Israelis in Israel’s international media strategy? Where are black Zionist voices on CNN, Fox News, the BBC, and major English-language Israeli platforms? Where are Ethiopian Jews in senior diplomatic conversations, government delegations, public diplomacy campaigns, and Knesset leadership? 

If the world falsely claims Israel is a white colonial project, why is Israel not placing Ethiopian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Yemenite Jews, Moroccan Jews, Persian Jews, and Indian Jews at the center of its answer? This is not only a question of diversity. It is a question of truth .

The Zionist Proof

Ethiopian Jews are not Israel’s diversity story. They are the Zionist proof that Zionism is not a European invention. They are proof that the Jewish people are ancient, indigenous, and bound to the original place in Jerusalem across race, geography, and language .

For generations, Ethiopian Jews prayed for Zion. They dreamed of Jerusalem. They preserved Jewish identity in Africa under isolation and longing. They carried Zion in their prayers, their memory, their faith, and their bones .

That is why the anti-Israel colonial narrative collapses when it meets the Ethiopian Jewish story. A colonial project does not explain black African Jews walking through deserts and leaving everything behind because their ancestors taught them Jerusalem was home. A colonial project does not explain Moroccan, Iraqi, Yemenite, Persian, Kurdish, and Indian Jews returning after centuries of exile, persecution, and displacement to the land of their origin .

The Jewish people are not one color. They never were. Israel is not Europe transplanted into the Middle East. Israel is the national home of a scattered people returning from every corner of the earth .

Yet representation does not match that truth. When Israel speaks to the world, it too often presents a narrow image of itself: the same polished voices, familiar accents, and old political circles. Many are talented and patriotic. But they are not enough. They do not show the whole Israel .

Our enemies understand imagery and narrative. They understand that if they can make Israel look foreign, white, colonial, and disconnected from the Middle East, they can weaken Israel’s legitimacy among young people, minorities, Christians, conservatives, liberals, and undecided audiences .

So why are we helping them by hiding the very Jews who destroy their argument? 

A Personal Testimony from the Margins

I can speak to this from experience. I am an Ethiopian Israeli, a black Jew, and a Zionist. I was born in Africa, raised in an ancient Jewish community in Ethiopia, worked more than 20 years in New York’s justice system, and now live in Jerusalem .

When I first made aliyah from New York, my Zionist Jewish Ethiopian father told me: “One day you will stand before the nations and tell them we have the right to live in our forefathers’ land.” That dream led me to voluntarily join the Israel Police, study at Hebrew University, and do volunteer work for the Knesset during Operation Cast Lead .

I applied to the Foreign Ministry and asked to take the entrance exams in English or Amharic, because my Hebrew then was not yet strong enough for a psychological exam in Hebrew. The answer was no. There was no flexibility, no recognition that an Ethiopian Jew fluent in Amharic and English might be an asset to Israel’s diplomacy in Africa and the English-speaking world .

Instead, the only role I was offered inside the Foreign Ministry was as a cleaner. I accepted, hoping that perhaps someone would eventually notice who I was. No one did .

After returning to Israel in 2023, I again sought roles in diplomacy, education, and public advocacy. Again, the only job offered to me in that framework was cleaning. Work is dignity, and I am not ashamed of it. But when I see much younger Israelis and olim (new immigrants) from Western backgrounds, with far fewer publications, less training, and less life experience, accepted into diplomatic and advocacy roles, I cannot pretend that everything is fine .

This is not only about my career but also about what message we send to the next generation, especially Ethiopian and other non-white Jewish youth. What will my children think if they see their father, with a doctorate from a respected American university and decades of public service, treated as fit to scrub floors but not to represent the Jewish state? 

The Ethiopian Israeli Contribution to Israel’s Security

Ethiopian Israelis are not passive recipients of Israeli rescue; they are active defenders of the state. Out of roughly 168,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel—just 2% of the total population—8% of Israel’s fallen soldiers in the recent Israel-Hamas War are Ethiopian Israelis. That is a vastly disproportionate sacrifice from a small community .

In the middle of that darkness, our community has paid and continues to pay a steep price for Israel’s safety and survival in silence. We are not white Europeans, but we are fully and proudly Jewish. Our Zionism is not academic. It is lived, fought for, and buried in uniform .

Why is the world so unwilling to acknowledge that Zionism is not white European colonization? It is, and always has been, a liberation movement—for the scattered, persecuted, and homeless. Zionism is not just in our ideology. It is in our blood, seeking and finding our lost homeland .

The Sacrifice of the Sigd

When the State of Israel officially recognized Sigd as a national holiday, it felt as if history itself exhaled. For centuries, Ethiopian Jews gathered on the mountains of Ethiopia, fasting, praying, and dreaming of Jerusalem with a longing deeper than words. To see that ancient devotion embraced by the modern State of Israel was more than symbolic; it was a homecoming of the soul .

But honoring Sigd must be the beginning, not the end, of Israel’s responsibility toward its Ethiopian Jewish citizens. Symbolism is meaningful, but structural opportunity is transformative. After the prayers and music, many Ethiopian Israelis return to daily challenges that remain unresolved. There are Ethiopian Israelis with master’s degrees, law degrees, MBAs, and doctorates working as cleaners, guards, or in jobs far below their capacity—not because of lack of skill, but because structural barriers persist. This is more than a personal injustice; it is a national waste of human potential .

The Strategic Case for Inclusion

Representation is not only moral. It is strategic. Black Ethiopian Israelis can speak to audiences that may never listen to a standard Israeli spokesman. Mizrahi Jews—the descendants of local Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa from biblical times into the modern era—can explain that the Jewish story is deeply Middle Eastern. Moroccan Jews can show that North African Jewish history is part of Zionism. Persian Jews can expose the lie that Jews are foreign to the region .

Together, these voices tell the truth: The global Jewish people are indigenous to the Land of Israel and are the original people of that land. There are Ethiopian Israelis who are educated, culturally aware, familiar with Western and international politics, and able to communicate across languages, societies, and diplomatic environments. That makes them not only part of Israel’s story but valuable representatives of Israel’s future .

The next Israeli government must understand this. If a party says it wants national unity, it must include the full nation. If it wants to repair Israel’s international standing, it must elevate voices that speak with moral authority. Not as decoration. Not as tokenism. But as leadership .

A Call to Action: From Rescue to Advancement

Israel invested immense effort to bring our community home through Operation Moses, Operation Solomon, Operation Dove’s Wings, and ongoing aliyah initiatives. These missions were heroic acts of love and responsibility. But once people arrive, the task must shift from rescue to advancement. Not just arrival, but access. Not just recognition, but opportunity .

Thoughtful affirmative inclusion is not charity; it is a patriotic investment. It strengthens Israel’s economy, enriches its culture, deepens its moral standing, and enhances its diplomatic image. The Torah commands us to lift up those who come from hardship and open paths of opportunity. Inclusion is not a foreign idea; it is a Jewish obligation .

Conclusion

Let Ethiopian Jews speak. Let black Zionists lead. Let Israel’s face defeat the lies .

Q&A Section

1. What is the central argument of the article regarding Ethiopian Jews?

The article argues that Ethiopian Jews are not merely a diversity story but the “Zionist proof” that Zionism is not a European colonial invention. Their centuries-old longing for Jerusalem and their return to Israel demonstrate that the Jewish people are ancient, indigenous, and bound to the Land of Israel across race and geography.

2. How does the author describe the underrepresentation of Ethiopian Jews in Israeli diplomacy?

The author describes a pattern of exclusion where highly qualified Ethiopian Jews are often offered roles like cleaning instead of diplomatic or leadership positions. He shares his personal experience of being denied the opportunity to take Foreign Ministry entrance exams in a language he was fluent in, while later being offered only a cleaner’s position.

3. What is the significance of the Sigd holiday in the context of this article?

Sigd is an Ethiopian Jewish holiday marking devotion to Zion, recognized as a national holiday in Israel. While its recognition is seen as a meaningful symbolic act, the article argues that it must be followed by structural opportunities for Ethiopian Israelis in leadership, diplomacy, and public life.

4. What is the “disproportionate sacrifice” of Ethiopian Israelis mentioned in the article?

The article states that although Ethiopian Jews make up about 2% of Israel’s population, they accounted for approximately 8% of Israel’s fallen soldiers in the recent war, representing a vastly disproportionate contribution and sacrifice from the community.

5. What is the strategic importance of including Ethiopian Jews in Israel’s public diplomacy?

The article argues that inclusion is a strategic imperative. Ethiopian Jews, as black Africans who are also Zionists, can effectively counter the narrative that Israel is a white European colonial project. Their voices can reach audiences—particularly in Africa, the developing world, and among minorities—that traditional Israeli spokespeople cannot.

Hysterical Legislation That Will Boomerang: Israel’s Basic Law on Torah Study and the Battle Over Draft Exemptions

By Uri Regev
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

The coalition is fast-tracking the “Basic Law: Torah Study” and calling it “historic.” But the truth is closer to hysterical – and it’s a sad statement as to how Israel’s politics and the legislative process have stopped [citation:original text]. No one disputes that “Torah study is a foundational value in the heritage of the Jewish people and the State of Israel,” as the bill’s text states. That was never in question, and it doesn’t need a law to say so, let alone a Basic Law [citation:original text].

What’s really happening is a payoff to the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) political parties, against the will of an overwhelming majority of Israelis and in direct defiance of the Supreme Court, which ruled that yeshiva students cannot be exempted from drafting to the IDF [citation:original text]. This government couldn’t care less about the dire security needs, the principle of equality, or what the Supreme Court has to say about it. Instead, they’re busy intimidating judges and pushing legislation to weaken judicial independence and tighten political control over judicial appointments [citation:original text].

The Legislative Blitz: A Coalition’s Last Stand

The passage of the Basic Law: Torah Study, approved in its final readings on July 12, 2026, by a vote of 63 to 52, represents a seismic shift in Israel’s constitutional landscape . The law declares Torah study a “foundational value in the heritage of the Jewish people and in the State of Israel” . While it may appear declarative, its purpose is profoundly political: to create a quasi-constitutional shield against the Supreme Court’s repeated rulings that the blanket exemption of Haredi men from military service is illegal and discriminatory .

This law is part of a broader legislative blitz—a “liquidation sale” of the state’s fundamental values, as opposition leader Avigdor Liberman described it . The blitz, designed to shore up right-wing power before the upcoming October elections, includes a raft of controversial legislation: a law stripping the Attorney General of powers to restrain the government, a law politicizing broadcast media regulation, and a law temporarily banning the arrest of Haredi draft evaders . The underlying logic is clear: buttress the electoral alliance with the Haredi parties, unshackle the government from legal restraints, and tilt public opinion through sympathetic media .

The Faustian Bargain: Political Survival Over National Security

The coalition’s actions are driven by a cynical political calculus. By pushing through this legislation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies are securing the support of the Haredi Shas and United Torah Judaism parties, which have repeatedly threatened to boycott coalition votes . In return for the Torah Study Basic Law and the law shielding draft dodgers from arrest, the Haredi parties are expected to back legislation Netanyahu wants, including a bill to establish a political commission of inquiry into the October 7 massacre and a law weakening the Attorney General .

This deal has come at a steep price. The IDF, already facing an urgent manpower shortage after more than two years of war, has warned that the legislation is “clearly and unequivocally inconsistent” with its needs . IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir cautioned that the bill to freeze arrests “provides an incentive not to report for military service, since it would grant immunity from prosecution” . The military has repeatedly stated it urgently needs about 12,000 additional recruits, yet the government is legislating to protect the estimated 72,000 to 80,000 Haredi men who evade service .

The Supreme Court’s Response: A Temporary Block

On July 14, 2026, the Supreme Court, acting as the High Court of Justice, froze the implementation of the law shielding Haredi draft dodgers from arrest . Justice Ofer Grosskopf issued a temporary order, arguing that the law appears to conflict with previous court rulings on equality in military service and could encourage draft evasion . This is a dramatic intervention, but it also highlights the ongoing judicial-executive conflict. Critics argue that the Basic Law: Torah Study itself is a direct attempt to circumvent High Court rulings by “turning draft evasion into a constitutional value” .

A Talmudic Admonition for a Divided Nation

There is a Talmudic admonition that I find relevant now: “Who is to say your blood is redder than his?” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a). Jewish tradition holds that, in an obligatory war of survival, everyone goes out to fight – “even the bridegroom from his chamber, and the bride from her wedding canopy” [citation:original text].

Its core demand is “justice, justice shall you pursue” – not a mass exemption for one sector of the Jewish population, secured through political power and dressed up as piety, while others risk their lives in their place [citation:original text]. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once maligned another sector of Israel’s Jewish population for having “forgotten what it means to be Jewish.” He’d do well to look in a mirror – and bring one for the hard right [citation:original text]. The bill needs to clear back-to-back Knesset sessions before summer recess, for one reason: to keep Netanyahu in power [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. What is the Basic Law: Torah Study, and what does it do?

The Basic Law: Torah Study is a quasi-constitutional law passed by the Israeli Knesset on July 12, 2026. It declares Torah study to be a “foundational value” of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. The law does not explicitly mention military service, but it is designed to make it harder for the courts to rule that blanket exemptions for ultra-Orthodox men from the IDF are illegal and discriminatory. By elevating Torah study to constitutional status, it provides a legal counterweight to equality principles derived from other Basic Laws.

2. Why is this law so controversial?

The law is controversial because it is seen as a cynical political move to secure the support of ultra-Orthodox parties at the expense of national security. The IDF is facing a severe manpower shortage after more than two years of war, yet the government is legislating to protect an estimated 72,000 to 80,000 Haredi men who evade military service. Critics argue the law is a “back-door draft exemption” that “spits in the face” of Israeli soldiers and fundamentally harms the principle of equality.

3. What was the Supreme Court’s role in this issue?

The Supreme Court has been a key institutional check on the Haredi draft exemption. In 2024, the court ruled unanimously that the government must draft Haredi yeshiva students, effectively ending the decades-long system of blanket exemptions. The Basic Law: Torah Study is a direct attempt by the coalition to circumvent that ruling by giving the state a legal basis to argue that Torah study is a foundational value that cannot be subordinated to equality principles.

4. What other legislation was part of the coalition’s “legislative blitz”?

The coalition passed a raft of controversial laws in the final week of the Knesset session. Key pieces of legislation include: a law stripping the Attorney General of the power to bind the government with legal opinions; a law banning the arrest of Haredi draft dodgers (temporarily frozen by the Supreme Court); a law restoring the Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly over kosher certification; and a law politicizing broadcast media regulation.

5. What is the likely impact of this legislation on Israeli society?

The legislation is likely to deepen societal divisions and exacerbate the conflict between the judiciary and the executive. It has already sparked anger from reservists, combat veterans, and a large segment of the Israeli public who view it as a betrayal of those who serve. The opposition has vowed to repeal the laws after the upcoming elections. The Supreme Court’s temporary block on the arrest-freeze law indicates that the legal battle over the draft exemption is far from over. As the movement for “justice, justice shall you pursue” reminds us, the true test of a society is how it treats those who bear its burdens.

Who Are the Real Colonizers in the Middle East?

By Aliza Pilichowski
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

The accusation is as relentless as it is absurd: Israel, the Jewish state, stands accused of being a colonialist outpost in the heart of the Middle East [citation:original text]. Critics on campuses, in international forums, and across much of the media paint a picture of European Zionist invaders displacing an indigenous population, imposing foreign rule on ancient Arab lands. This narrative flies history on its head, ignoring millennia of Jewish connection to the Land of Israel while whitewashing the true architects of regional domination [citation:original text].

It is time to ask the core question plainly: Who are the colonizers? The answer reveals a legacy of conquest and cultural erasure that reshaped the entire Middle East and North Africa, and one that continues to target the Jewish homeland today [citation:original text].

The Arab Imperial Project: The Original Colonization

To understand this inversion, we must look beyond the headlines to the historical forces that transformed the region. Long before any modern Jewish return, waves of expansion from the Arabian Peninsula fundamentally altered the demographic, linguistic, and cultural landscape [citation:original text]. Beginning in the 7th century, following the rise of Islam, Arab armies swept out of the peninsula, conquering vast territories with remarkable speed. These forces overtook ancient empires and civilizations, imposing not just cultural control but a comprehensive process of Arabization and cultural assimilation. What emerged was a map of different regions that might have been without this imperial push [citation:original text].

Imagine, for an alternative history. In North Africa, the indigenous Berber peoples might still dominate Libya and Algeria, preserving their distinct languages and traditions rather than being largely subsumed. Parts of the Levant could retain stronger Phoenician influences, with their maritime and cultural legacies intact. Sudan might reflect its Nubian roots more prominently, while Iran could have evolved as a vibrant Persian society. Somalia’s Kshatri heritage might stand unencumbered [citation:original text].

Instead, across these lands, Arabic language, customs, and identity became dominant through centuries of settlement, taxation pressures on non-converters, and social incentives that encouraged assimilation. This was not a benign migration but a deliberate imperial project that marginalized or absorbed pre-existing populations [citation:original text]. This history of expansion created one of the largest empires the world has ever seen, stretching across continents. Unlike some conquerors who allowed local cultures to flourish alongside their own, the process here aggressively promoted linguistic and religious uniformity. Ancient communities, whether Coptic Christians in Egypt, Zoroastrians in Persia, or Aramaic-speaking groups in the Levant, faced systemic pressures [citation:original text].

The Jewish Indigeneity: The Indigenous Return

Fast forward to the 20th century, and echoes of these ambitions persisted through pan-Arab movements that sought political unity under a singular Arab banner, often at the expense of non-Arab minorities like Kurds, Berbers, or Assyrians. This context frames the conflict with Israel not as a simple story of Jewish “settler-colonization” but as part of a broader pattern [citation:original text].

The Jewish people, returning to their ancestral homeland after centuries of exile and persecution, represent the culmination of indigenous rights in the face of repeated conquests. Jews maintained an unbroken presence in the land, however small, and their national revival drew on deep historical, religious, and archaeological ties – connections that predate Arab arrival by millennia [citation:original text].

Nowhere is this distortion more evident than in the construction of a distinct “Palestinian” identity. I’m not the first to posit that the notion of a separate Palestinian nationality serves primarily tactical purposes. It functions as a strategic tool to sustain opposition to the Jewish state and advance broader Arab cohesion, rather than reflecting an ancient, organic people distinct from the surrounding Arab world. This ideology emerged in modern times as a mechanism to delegitimize the sole sovereign Jewish entity in the region, framing Jewish self-determination as an alien intrusion [citation:original text].

The Map of the Middle East: A Stark Contrast

Consider the visual reality of any regional map. Vast Arab-majority countries surround tiny Israel, home to the Jewish people. The contrast is stark: a constellation of Muslim-majority states, products of historical expansion, arrayed against the Jewish homeland [citation:original text]. This is not a case of a powerful empire oppressing a minority indigenous group, but rather the opposite: the world’s smallest, most unique native civilization defending itself against the lingering impulses of one of history’s greatest imperial forces [citation:original text].

The greatest feat of historical sleight-of-hand has been convincing much of the globe that this expansive legacy represents a vulnerable underdog fighting for liberation, rather than a continuation of efforts to extinguish Jewish sovereignty [citation:original text].

The Legal Framework: Decolonization, Not Colonization

This imperial Arab history provides essential context for today’s debates over indigeneity and justice. The Jewish return to Israel, far from colonialism, is decolonization, the restoration of a people to their biblical and historical cradle after successive foreign dominions, including Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Ottoman, and British periods [citation:original text]. Israel’s success as a vibrant democracy, technological innovator, and refuge stands in sharp contrast to the challenges faced by many neighboring societies still grappling with the aftereffects of authoritarian legacies and rejectionism [citation:original text].

The Palestinian cause, in this light, appears less as a pure liberation movement and more as an extension of historical patterns of denial toward Jewish rights. By insisting on a narrative that erases Jewish indigeneity while promoting a fabricated national story for tactical gain, it perpetuates conflict rather than seeking genuine coexistence [citation:original text].

True peace would require acknowledging the Jewish people’s ancient ties, the realities of regional history, and the right of Israel to exist as the fulfillment of self-determination for an indigenous nation [citation:original text].

Conclusion: A History of Reversal

The real colonial dynamic in the Middle East stems from those expansive conquests that reshaped identities and suppressed diversity across North Africa and beyond. Israel, by contrast, embodies resilience and revival, the Jewish people’s determination to reclaim and rebuild in their eternal homeland, contributing to the region while defending against ongoing threats. They are the colonizers. Recognizing this truth does not diminish legitimate aspirations for peace or prosperity among all peoples, but it demands intellectual honesty. Only by confronting historical realities can we hope for a future where the Jewish state is accepted not as an anomaly, but as the rightful, indigenous presence it has always been [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. What is the central argument of the article regarding who the “real colonizers” are in the Middle East?

The article argues that the real colonizers are the Arab armies that swept out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century, conquering vast territories and imposing a process of Arabization and cultural assimilation. This imperial project reshaped the entire Middle East and North Africa. The article contends that the Jewish return to Israel is not colonialism but decolonization, the restoration of an indigenous people to their ancestral homeland after centuries of exile.

2. How does the article characterize the Arab conquests of the 7th century?

The article characterizes the Arab conquests as a deliberate imperial project that aggressively promoted linguistic and religious uniformity. It argues that the conquests marginalized or absorbed pre-existing populations, leading to the erasure of indigenous identities like the Berbers, Copts, and Zoroastrians. The process involved the imposition of Arabic language and culture through settlement, taxation pressures, and social incentives, fundamentally altering the region’s demographic and cultural landscape.

3. What is the article’s perspective on the construction of a distinct “Palestinian” identity?

The article argues that the notion of a separate Palestinian nationality serves primarily tactical purposes, functioning as a strategic tool to sustain opposition to the Jewish state and advance broader Arab cohesion. It claims this identity is not an ancient, organic people distinct from the surrounding Arab world, but a modern construct designed to delegitimize Jewish self-determination.

4. How does the article frame the Jewish return to Israel?

The article frames the Jewish return to Israel as the culmination of indigenous rights. It emphasizes that Jews maintained an unbroken presence in the land, and their national revival drew on deep historical, religious, and archaeological ties that predate Arab arrival by millennia. Therefore, the Jewish state is not a colonial outpost but a restoration of a people to their biblical and historical cradle.

5. What is the article’s vision for a path to peace in the Middle East?

The article’s vision for peace requires acknowledging the Jewish people’s ancient ties, the realities of regional history, and the right of Israel to exist as the fulfillment of self-determination for an indigenous nation. It argues that true peace would require accepting Israel not as an anomaly, but as a rightful, indigenous presence. This intellectual honesty, the article contends, is necessary for any future of coexistence.

The World That Echoed Across Tehran: A Promise of Revenge

By Mike Evans
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

There was one word that echoed across Tehran during the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It was not peace. It was not unity. It was not reconciliation. It was revenge .

As hundreds of thousands filled the streets, the chants rolled like thunder: “Revenge! Revenge! Death to America! Death to Israel!” Waving above the crowd were blood-red flags, symbols deeply rooted in Shi’ite tradition .

These are not merely political banners. They are declarations that blood has been spilled, and that vengeance is now a sacred obligation. In the theology of Iran’s revolutionary leaders, revenge is not simply an emotional response; it is a religious duty .

The Funeral as a Reaffirmation of Ideology

The Western press will inevitably focus on the size of the crowds or the spectacle of the funeral procession. They will describe the mourners’ emotion and perhaps mention the slogans in passing. What many will fail to understand is that this funeral was not simply the burial of a supreme leader. It was a reaffirmation of the ideology that has driven the Islamic Revolution since 1979 .

The message coming from Tehran was unmistakable: the war against America and Israel did not end with Khamenei’s death. If anything, the cries for revenge declared that the mission would continue .

Ali Khamenei, who ruled Iran for more than three decades, was killed on February 28, 2026, in a joint US-Israeli strike that triggered a widespread regional conflict . His death, alongside several family members, created a leadership vacuum that was quickly filled by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, a hardliner with strong support from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps . Yet, the public spectacle of mourning was less about the man and more about the enduring ideology he represented.

The chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” are not emotional outbursts from an angry crowd. They are declarations from a movement that has spent nearly half a century defining itself through opposition to the United States and the destruction of Israel. These slogans have been taught in schools, preached in mosques, broadcast on state television, and repeated by successive generations of revolutionary leaders. To dismiss them as political theater is to ignore nearly five decades of history .

The Symbolism of the Red Flag

The red flags carried by the mourners are one of the most potent symbols of this ideology. Bearing the Arabic inscription “Ya Litharat al-Hussein” (“O avengers of Hussein”), they are a direct reference to the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Hussein, in the 7th century . Hussein’s killing in what is modern-day Iraq is central to Shia religious identity . By distributing these flags, the Iranian government was not just mourning its leader but framing its revenge in the context of a sacred, historical quest for justice .

These blood-red banners are not merely political banners. They are declarations that blood has been spilled, and that vengeance is now a sacred obligation. The message from Tehran was clear: the war against America and Israel is not just a political conflict; it is a divine mission .

A Dangerous Lesson from History

I do not write about Iran from an academic perspective or from behind a television camera. I have witnessed the consequences of this regime’s ideology with my own eyes. I was in Beirut following the bombing of the US Marine barracks in 1983, where 241 American servicemen were murdered in one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in American history .

The devastation was overwhelming. Buildings had been reduced to rubble. Families mourned sons who would never return home. Young men who had volunteered to serve their country were buried beneath concrete because the Iranian regime had chosen terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy . That attack was part of Iran’s strategy of exporting its Islamic Revolution through terrorist proxies, including Hezbollah .

The world expected America to respond with overwhelming force. America had an opportunity to convince the ayatollahs that murdering Americans would carry an unbearable cost. Instead, a very different path emerged .

Rather than delivering the kind of decisive retaliation that would have permanently altered Iran’s calculations, the United States became entangled in what later became known as the Iran-Contra affair. Despite an arms embargo, American missiles were secretly shipped to Iran, while proceeds from those sales were used to fund the Contras fighting in Nicaragua . The message received in Tehran was unmistakable.

The ayatollahs reached a dangerous conclusion: America could be manipulated. They believed Washington lacked the resolve to finish what it started. They watched a nation that publicly condemned them secretly negotiate with them. They concluded that terrorism created leverage, hostage-taking produced concessions, and eventually America would compromise .

The Iran-Contra scandal did more than create political controversy in Washington. It convinced the Iranian leadership that the United States lacked the consistency necessary to defeat them. That perception became one of the greatest strategic victories the Islamic Republic ever achieved because it emboldened the regime to continue using terrorism as an instrument of state policy .

Conclusion: The Delusion of Peace

Anyone who believes Iran has abandoned its desire for revenge simply because leaders have changed, negotiations have occurred, or military setbacks have been suffered is refusing to confront reality. The ideology of the Islamic Revolution did not die with Khamenei, nor will it disappear with the next supreme leader .

The objective remains exactly what it has always been: to destroy Israel, drive American influence from the Middle East, and export the Islamic Revolution across the region. Their tactics may evolve. Their timelines may change. Their methods may adapt. But their long-term goals have remained remarkably consistent for more than 45 years .

Too often, free societies convince themselves that dictators do not truly mean what they say. They explain away threats as propaganda or assume economic interests will eventually overcome ideological fanaticism. Iran has spent decades proving otherwise .

The cries of “Revenge!” heard throughout Tehran were not symbolic. They were a reminder that the regime continues to define itself through conflict with America and Israel. Anyone who believes that Iran will simply forget decades of humiliation, accept military defeat, and abandon its ideological commitment is living in a dangerous fantasy .

The funeral of Ali Khamenei was not the end of an era. It was a pledge that the Islamic Revolution would continue. The chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” were not relics of the past. They were promises for the future .

America ignored Iran’s intentions once before, and 241 Marines paid the price. We cannot afford to make that mistake again. When an enemy publicly chants “Revenge,” waves the red flag of vengeance, and openly vows your destruction, wisdom demands that you believe exactly what they are saying .

Q&A Section

1. What was the significance of the red flags at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s funeral?

The red flags, bearing the inscription “Ya Litharat al-Hussein” (“O avengers of Hussein”), are deeply rooted in Shi’ite tradition and symbolize a sacred obligation to avenge the blood of a martyr. By distributing these flags, the Iranian government framed the demand for revenge within a historical and religious context, connecting the death of their leader to the 7th-century martyrdom of Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Hussein .

2. Why was the funeral of Ali Khamenei considered more than just a burial?

The funeral was a reaffirmation of the ideology that has driven the Islamic Revolution since 1979. The chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” along with the red flags, were a declaration that the war against these enemies did not end with Khamenei’s death. The funeral served as a pledge that the revolution and its mission of revenge would continue .

3. How did the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing shape Iran’s strategic posture?

The bombing was part of Iran’s strategy of exporting its revolution through terrorist proxies. The attack on the US Marine barracks was a direct blow against American forces, signaling Tehran’s willingness to use terrorism to achieve its goals. The lack of a decisive US military response, later compounded by the Iran-Contra affair, reinforced the Iranian leadership’s belief that America could be manipulated and lacked the resolve for a sustained confrontation .

4. What lesson did Iran learn from the Iran-Contra affair?

The Iran-Contra affair, where the US secretly sold arms to Iran despite an embargo and used the profits to fund rebels in Nicaragua, convinced Tehran that America could be manipulated. They saw a nation that publicly condemned them secretly negotiating, leading to the conclusion that terrorism created leverage and that Washington would eventually compromise. This perception emboldened the regime to continue its aggressive policies .

5. What is the article’s warning to the United States regarding Iran?

The article warns that ignoring Iran’s stated intentions, as demonstrated by the chants of “Revenge” and the red flags at Khamenei’s funeral, is a dangerous delusion. It argues that America’s failure to respond decisively in the past emboldened the regime and that the current leadership remains committed to its revolutionary goals. The author cautions that the US cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of history by dismissing Iran’s vows of revenge as mere political theater .

The Bill Factory: Why Illinois Needs a New Measure of Success

By Aditi Nayar
Springfield, July 24, 2026

Springfield passed 395 bills this session. That’s a lot of legislating. But is it good governance? [citation:original text]

Lawmakers love sending out press releases boasting about the bills they passed last session. Nobody brags about getting rid of something we don’t need anymore. Yet, if Illinois were a private company, its board wouldn’t judge management by how many initiatives it launched; it would ask whether the business was healthier than it was a year ago. State government deserves the same discipline [citation:original text].

The Legislative Treadmill: Quantity Over Quality

When you spend roughly 70 days in the Capitol, every minute counts. And in a state like Illinois, which faces perennial budget deficits and a long list of pressing challenges to tackle, focus matters [citation:original text]. In other words, state lawmakers must get down to business. The question is: Which business? And what results actually matter? Not tinkering at the margins, but dealing with the most important challenges [citation:original text].

By that standard, Illinois doesn’t quite measure up. The point isn’t that lawmakers should never pass hundreds of bills, it’s that the number tells us almost nothing about whether Springfield politicians are effective stewards of our state government [citation:original text].

Too much remained unfinished. Consider: Major housing legislation stalled, even as affordability remains the top issue of the day. Dysfunction also led to a Bears stadium fumble even as the team considers switching allegiances with a move to Indiana. Pension debt remains among the state’s steepest fiscal challenges, crowding out Illinois’ ability to invest in the future [citation:original text]. As we wrote last month, Illinois spends roughly 65 cents on pensions for every dollar it spends on classrooms. While we spend well below peer states on education, we’re at the top of the list for the percentage of state spending that goes toward pensions [citation:original text]. That’s not the behavior of a healthy state [citation:original text].

This isn’t new. Illinois has long paired flurries of legislative activity with an unwillingness to tackle the elephants in the room. If you thought this last legislative session was an outlier at 395 bills passed, think again. In 2025, state lawmakers pushed through 430 bills. In 2024, Illinois got about 425 new laws [citation:original text].

The Cost of a Bloated Statute Book

Springfield has become very good at measuring success by what it adds, but it should also measure success by what it has the discipline to eliminate [citation:original text]. As a guiding principle, before figuring out what to do next, state lawmakers should be asking: “What should we stop doing?” [citation:original text]

Imagine if every committee began each session by identifying five laws, mandates or reporting requirements that no longer serve a useful purpose before introducing new legislation. Under the Regulatory Sunset Act, many occupational licensing laws periodically come up for review rather than remaining on the books forever. The idea is sound. Springfield should adopt that same habit more broadly, not because fewer laws are always better, but because a simpler government is often a more cost-effective one [citation:original text].

Springfield also should welcome outside perspectives. Business leaders, local officials and policy experts often see inefficiencies that government itself overlooks. They should be invited to identify outdated mandates, unnecessary regulations and redundant processes that no longer serve the public [citation:original text].

Imagine lawmakers celebrating the obsolete mandates they repealed with the same enthusiasm they devote to announcing new legislation. Removing unnecessary costs for families and employers would make Illinois an easier place to live and do business [citation:original text].

A Better Scorecard: Tracking What Actually Matters

But beyond cutting out the unessential, a useful state scorecard would track the state’s vital signs, not bills passed. More importantly, it would force lawmakers to organize their agendas around improving those indicators year after year [citation:original text].

On fiscal health, we need to be obsessively tracking things like our rainy day fund and our pension funded ratio. On economic growth, we need to be tracking population growth (which, fortunately, has recently turned positive in recent years after a long stretch of serious decline)—and not just the top-line numbers, but details on who’s leaving and who’s coming in. We can learn a lot about confidence in our state based on things like domestic migration, along with jobs created, new business formation and median household income [citation:original text].

What about family quality of life? Can people afford a home here, and what are homeownership rates here versus our neighbors and peers? What about access to childcare and how much it costs? [citation:original text]

We have no doubt this information exists already. The public ought to have an easy-to-access dashboard that tracks these sorts of indicators, similar to how the Illinois comptroller makes public key fiscal data [citation:original text]. Public safety, education and transportation belong on the dashboard as well [citation:original text].

Those metrics would provide a far clearer picture of whether Illinois is becoming a healthier state than the number of bills lawmakers managed to pass. More important, they would give taxpayers a way to judge whether the policies coming out of Springfield are actually moving the state in the right direction [citation:original text].

Conclusion: The Real Measure of Success

Layers and layers of red tape and other obstacles add to Illinois’ reputation as a difficult place to get things done. To change that, every legislative session should leave Illinois with not just new laws, but a simpler statute book than it had the year before [citation:original text]. Springfield shouldn’t be in the business of handing out participation awards simply for passing a heap of new laws. The legislature will know it’s succeeding not when it passes another 395 bills, but when Illinois is measurably healthier, government is more streamlined and the state is making more than marginal progress on its biggest challenges [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. How many bills did the Illinois legislature pass in the recent session?

Springfield passed 395 bills this session. This is not an outlier; in 2025, the legislature passed 430 bills, and in 2024, it passed approximately 425 new laws [citation:original text].

2. Why is the number of bills passed not a reliable indicator of good governance?

The article argues that the number of bills passed tells us almost nothing about whether politicians are effective stewards of the state. A high volume of legislation can be a sign of activity, but it does not measure whether the state is actually healthier, or whether the government is effectively addressing its most pressing challenges [citation:original text].

3. What are some of the major unfinished challenges in Illinois?

Major challenges that remain unfinished include: housing legislation to address affordability, dysfunction in resolving the Bears stadium issue, and pension debt, which crowds out spending on education and other priorities [citation:original text]. Illinois spends roughly 65 cents on pensions for every dollar it spends on classrooms [citation:original text].

4. What alternative approach does the article suggest for measuring legislative success?

The article suggests that Springfield should measure success by what it has the discipline to eliminate, not just by what it adds. It proposes that committees identify five laws or mandates to repeal before introducing new ones. It also recommends a state scorecard that tracks key indicators like fiscal health, economic growth, and quality of life, rather than the number of bills passed [citation:original text].

5. What is the ultimate goal the article proposes for the Illinois legislature?

The article concludes that the legislature should aim to leave Illinois with a simpler, more streamlined statute book each year. The true measure of success is not the number of bills passed but whether Illinois is measurably healthier, government is more efficient, and the state is making more than marginal progress on its biggest challenges [citation:original text].

The 7th Circuit Made the Right Decision on Illinois’ Assault Weapons Ban

By Aditi Nayar
Springfield, July 24, 2026

We will never forget the 2022 Highland Park mass shooting that killed seven, wounded dozens more and resulted in the saddest July Fourth in the history of Illinois [citation:original text].

“Do we have to live like this?” we wrote the following day, just as Highland Park was beginning to mourn its dead and tend to its wounded, “that’s really the only salient question. Do we?”

Our answer to that question, then and now, is “no, we don’t.”

That means we must rid ourselves of assault weapons, the tool of choice for disillusioned, nihilistic killers who hope to kill scores of innocent people at once, as was the case at the Highland Park parade, but that no one needs for sporting purposes or for self-defense.

So we were glad to read federal Appellate Judge Amy St. Eve, a President Donald Trump appointee, write as follows in the court’s righteous upholding of the Illinois assault weapons ban: “Whatever else may be contributing to America’s mass-shooting epidemic, the record makes one thing clear: The more people killed, the more likely it is that the killer used an assault weapon and large-capacity magazines” [citation:original text].

Exactly. As the court said, the Illinois law is “consistent with our regulatory tradition” and does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms . These weapons and magazines exist to promote the death of innocents. They are killing machines. They have no place in our state.

The Highland Park Tragedy and Its Aftermath

The July 4, 2022, Highland Park parade shooting was a massacre that ripped through the heart of a quiet suburban community. A gunman positioned himself on a rooftop and opened fire on a crowd of families, children, and elderly residents enjoying an Independence Day celebration. In under a minute, he fired 83 rounds from a high-powered rifle, killing seven people and wounding dozens more . The victims included Eduardo Uvaldo, a 69-year-old grandfather shot while attending the parade with his family, and a two-year-old boy named Aiden McCarthy, who was found under his father’s lifeless body .

The suspect had legally purchased the weapons used in the attack, including an AR-15-style rifle . This fact underscored a devastating reality: the laws on the books were insufficient to prevent a determined killer from acquiring the tools of mass murder. As Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering later testified, these weapons “are specifically designed to destroy human beings quickly and efficiently within seconds—dozens at a time” .

The tragedy galvanized action in Springfield. Six months later, in January 2023, Governor JB Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act into law . The law banned the sale of more than 100 kinds of semi-automatic firearms, prohibited high-capacity magazines, and regulated certain attachments. It was a direct response to the repeated mass shootings—from Sandy Hook to Las Vegas to Highland Park—that had become a uniquely American horror.

The 7th Circuit’s Decision: A Close Reading

The 7th Circuit’s ruling on July 9, 2026, upheld the ban, overturning a lower court’s decision that had found it unconstitutional . The appellate panel, in a 2-1 decision, offered a nuanced and historically grounded opinion.

The Historical Tradition of Regulating Dangerous Weapons

Judge St. Eve, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the law burdens the Second Amendment right, but she argued that it is consistent with the nation’s “history and tradition of firearm regulation” . She pointed to the 19th-century regulations on Bowie knives—weapons described by courts as “the instrument of almost certain death” . Just as legislatures historically banned or severely restricted such weapons due to their lethal nature, she argued, modern legislatures can do the same with AR-15s . This reasoning draws on a critical point: the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact. It allows for restrictions on weapons that are “dangerous and unusual” and that pose a special threat to public safety.

The Correlation with Mass Casualties

The court’s most compelling finding was its rebuttal to the claim that assault weapons are not uniquely dangerous. “The undisputed record evidence undercuts that claim, showing that the presence of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines is strongly correlated with the severity of the societal problem,” the opinion states . In other words, when mass shootings happen, the presence of these weapons makes them deadlier. The court noted that the AR-15 has a longer effective range, fires at about three times the velocity of a handgun, and, when paired with large-capacity magazines, allows a shooter to fire more lethal rounds without breaking to reload .

A Minimal Burden on Self-Defense

The majority also found that the burden the ban imposes on the right to self-defense is “minimal” . They noted that the law grandfathers in pre-existing owners, allowing those who already possessed these weapons to keep them . Furthermore, they argued that evidence of AR-15s being used for self-defense is “exceedingly rare,” a claim supported by the fact that public surveys about why people buy guns are not a substitute for data on how they are actually used .

The Dissent: A Different Vision

Chief Judge Michael Brennan, in his dissent, offered a sharply contrasting interpretation of the Second Amendment . He argued that the Constitution bars governments from restricting weapons “commonly owned for self-defense,” and because “the people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment” . This is the core of the “common use” test from the Supreme Court’s Heller decision. Brennan also argued that the majority placed the burden of proof on the wrong party. Under the Bruen test, the state should have to prove that the AR-15 is not a weapon commonly used for self-defense, rather than forcing the plaintiffs to prove that it is .

The Supreme Court Awaits

This case is far from over. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a consolidated challenge to state and local bans, including the Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut bans, in the case of Viramontes v. Cook County . The high court is expected to hear arguments in late 2026 or early 2027, with a ruling due by the end of June 2027 . The stakes could not be higher. Legal scholars believe this case could be as significant as Heller or Bruen, potentially deciding once and for all whether states can ban the most popular class of rifles in the country .

Conclusion

No doubt this one is headed to the Supreme Court. If so, we urge that court, not least in memory of the dead of Highland Park, to uphold the wisdom of the 7th Circuit’s decision [citation:original text]. The 7th Circuit’s decision was not just a technical interpretation of the law; it was a moral statement. It recognized that there are some weapons so destructive, so devoid of any legitimate civilian use, that they do not belong in our communities. As the court rightly concluded, the decision to ban them is “a decision reposed in our elected representatives” . And in the case of Illinois, our representatives made the right choice. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to affirm that choice and protect future generations from the horror of Highland Park.

Q&A Section

1. What was the Highland Park shooting and how did it lead to the Illinois ban?
The Highland Park shooting occurred on July 4, 2022, when a gunman opened fire on a parade from a rooftop, killing seven and wounding dozens . The suspect legally purchased an AR-15-style rifle . In response, the Illinois General Assembly passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act in January 2023, which banned the sale and possession of numerous semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines .

2. What did the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decide, and why is it significant?
On July 9, 2026, the 7th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the Illinois ban, overturning a lower court ruling that had declared it unconstitutional . The court found that the ban is “consistent with our regulatory tradition” because legislatures have long regulated particularly dangerous weapons . The ruling is significant because it temporarily preserves one of the strictest state-level gun laws in the country.

3. What was the key argument made by the majority opinion?
The majority, authored by Judge Amy St. Eve, argued that the ban is constitutional because it fits a historical tradition of restricting dangerous weapons . The court pointed to 19th-century bans on Bowie knives as a precedent, arguing that legislatures have always had the power to prohibit weapons that cause especially grievous harm . The court also noted that the correlation between assault weapons and mass casualty events is well-documented .

4. What was the main argument of the dissent?
Chief Judge Michael Brennan’s dissent argued that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America and is commonly used for self-defense, and thus is protected by the Second Amendment under the “common use” test established in Heller . He argued that the state failed to prove that the AR-15 is not a weapon commonly used for lawful purposes, and that the majority had impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiffs .

5. What happens next in this legal battle?
The case is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court . The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a consolidated case challenging similar bans in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut . The Court is expected to hear arguments in late 2026 or early 2027, with a ruling due by June 2027 . The outcome could have a massive impact on gun laws across the country.

What Ronald Reagan Would Do Today for the People of Ukraine

By Bob Kustra
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

If we want to consider what’s possible for Ukraine, the people of Poland are living proof. They gained freedom from communist rule at the end of the Cold War with President Ronald Reagan playing what he called a supporting role in bringing down the Soviet Union .

A virulent anti-communist, Reagan found his way into the history books by telling Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. A considerable contrast to a fawning Donald Trump at the feet of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Reagan came to the rescue of the Polish Solidarity movement in the 1980s. He used a CIA covert action to fund a $20 million campaign, in 1980 dollars, to bring the Solidarity message of democracy and freedom to the Polish people living under communist rule. One of the most successful stunts used broadcast break-ins to bring Solidarity messages to TV screens in Polish living rooms . Reagan’s support of CIA strategies bringing messages of hope and freedom to the Poles living under communist rule in the ’80s is documented by Seth Jones in his book “A Covert Action: Reagan, the CIA and the Cold War Struggle in Poland” .

It serves as a reminder to Republicans today that Trump’s reluctance to deliver the weaponry to Ukraine it needs to defend its citizens against Russian aggression is a sorry example of a party gone soft in support of its European allies .

The Contrast in Leadership

Reagan’s imperative to Gorbachev, backed by the uncompromising authority of America’s commitment to a free Europe, reminds us how the Republican Party of Reagan is gone and long forgotten . A new playbook seems to distance America from helping freedom-loving people fight off the terror of a Russian dictator intent on extending the Russian empire as far as his missiles will travel . Reagan would have ordered emergency production of weapons for America’s stockpiles, and he would have proclaimed his support of a free Ukrainian people . Instead, Trump fiddles while Ukraine innocents are killed by Putin’s missiles and drones .

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly claimed Ukraine had an “insufficient supply of interceptor missiles” needed to shoot down ballistic missiles. Zelenskyy wrote that “as long as Patriot missiles remain in our allies’ stockpiles, Russia is only encouraged to keep ‘vanquishing’ residential buildings” . Zelenskyy’s point is that a failure to supply such missiles encourages further Russian attacks. He has also explicitly stated that “the reason for this is precisely the insufficient supply of interceptor missiles” .

American Public Opinion: A Clear Mandate

The American public appears to understand the stakes better than the administration. According to a new poll by the Ronald Reagan Foundation & Institute, 64% of respondents were in favor of providing lethal assistance to Ukraine, which is 9 percentage points more than last year and the highest since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Support among Republicans increased to 59%, and among Democrats to 75% . The majority of Americans also support expanded military assistance to Ukraine. In particular, 65% approve of the transfer of long-range cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk. 68% support the sale of U.S. weapons to European allies for further transfer to Ukraine . The authors of the study note that these results indicate a strengthening bipartisan consensus in the United States in support of Ukraine, as well as overwhelming public support for the strategy of military assistance, European solidarity, and deterrence of Russian aggression . The voice of the American people is clear: support Ukraine.

The Reality of a Depleted Arsenal

There are growing concerns in Europe that the US defence industrial base is no longer providing the weapons pledged to NATO allies, with US stockpiles depleted owing to the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran . The US this year has delayed or cancelled deliveries of a series of key arms shipments to countries in Europe, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, Himars mobile rocket artillery and desperately needed Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles, of which the US used an estimated 50% through April of this year during its war with Iran . They are crucial for countering the threat of missile strikes in Ukraine and would also be needed for the defence of Europe in case of an armed conflict with Russia .

According to a European diplomat, “There are five or six problems at once contributing to this,” describing dwindling stocks from the war in Iran and the conflict in Ukraine, the effort to shift defence resources away from Europe toward Asia and replenished stocks of interceptors being sent first to allies such as Israel. “We know that we are not customer number one” . About 20 countries are waiting in line for deliveries of Patriot missiles, and an estimate by the Center for Strategic and International Studies has said that it could take 42 months for the US to replenish just its own stockpiles of the missiles, which were estimated at 2,330 before the war with Iran and during which the US expended about half .

This context makes Ukraine’s request for additional American Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors particularly urgent. The administration’s hesitation to supply them, citing concern for America’s own stockpiles, seems a poor excuse when the need is so acute. Reagan would not have hesitated to deliver the weapons needed to protect innocent Ukrainian lives. Instead, he would have ordered emergency production .

A Glimmer of Hope: The Patriot License

There is, however, a small glimmer of hope. U.S. President Donald Trump hinted at granting a license for Ukraine to produce interceptor missiles for Patriot air defense systems . The Institute for the Study of War reported that Trump stated on July 8 that the United States will provide Ukraine a license to produce unspecified Patriot air defense interceptors and that the production could begin in two to three months . However, it remains unclear how long it will take for Ukraine to begin producing the interceptor missiles, as production capacity will depend on the availability of the base components that go into the Patriot interceptor and the scaling of the entire supply chain that produces those components . Ukrainian forces are quite successful at intercepting cruise missiles and drones, but struggle to intercept ballistic missiles due to Ukraine’s insufficient supply of interceptor missiles . Russia may exploit the gap before Ukraine can produce its own Patriot interceptor missiles and intensify ballistic missile strikes against Ukraine to inflict maximum damage before Ukraine is able to more reliably defend itself .

Conclusion: A Moral Imperative

The contrast between the two presidents’ approaches to Russia could not be starker. Reagan, a virulent anti-communist, saw the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and pursued a policy of containment that ultimately led to its collapse. He understood that freedom is not a gift but a right. Trump, in contrast, has shown a persistent reluctance to challenge Putin, preferring a transactional approach that puts American interests above universal values. This is a moral failure and a strategic blunder. As Bob Kustra concludes, the Republican Party of Reagan is gone and long forgotten. A new playbook seems to distance America from helping freedom-loving people fight off the terror of a Russian dictator intent on extending the Russian empire as far as his missiles will travel. It reveals what side of this historic battle for freedom and democracy Trump and his loyalists have chosen .

Q&A Section

1. How did Ronald Reagan support the Polish Solidarity movement in the 1980s?
Reagan authorized a $20 million CIA covert action campaign to support the Solidarity movement in Poland. This involved using black market smuggling networks to flood Poland with leaflets, posters, magazines, newspapers, and radio break-ins to broadcast messages of hope and democracy. This campaign, detailed in Seth Jones’s book A Covert Action, helped sustain the resistance against communist rule .

2. Why does the author compare Reagan’s approach to Russia with Trump’s?
The author contrasts Reagan’s uncompromising anti-communism and support for freedom movements with Trump’s reluctance to provide Ukraine with the weaponry needed to defend against Russian aggression. He argues that Reagan would have ordered emergency production of weapons and proclaimed his support for a free Ukrainian people, while Trump “fiddles while Ukraine innocents are killed” .

3. What is the current status of US military aid to Ukraine?
The US has delayed or cancelled deliveries of key arms shipments to European allies due to depleted stockpiles from the wars in Ukraine and Iran. The US reportedly used an estimated 50% of its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles during the war with Iran, leaving a shortage for other allies, including Ukraine .

4. What are the growing concerns among European allies regarding US defense support?
European allies are concerned that the US defense industrial base is no longer capable of providing the weapons pledged to NATO. The delays and cancellations of arms shipments have caused quiet anger, as allies worry they are not “customer number one” and that the US is prioritizing its own stockpiles and other allies like Israel .

5. Is there any positive development in US-Ukraine military cooperation?
Yes, President Trump has hinted at granting Ukraine a license to produce Patriot interceptor missiles domestically. However, it is unclear how long this will take, as production depends on the availability of base components and the scaling of the supply chain. Russia may exploit this gap by intensifying ballistic missile strikes before Ukraine can produce its own interceptors .

What Ronald Reagan Would Do Today for the People of Ukraine

By Bob Kustra
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

If we want to consider what’s possible for Ukraine, the people of Poland are living proof. They gained freedom from communist rule at the end of the Cold War with President Ronald Reagan playing what he called a supporting role in bringing down the Soviet Union .

A virulent anti-communist, Reagan found his way into the history books by telling Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. A considerable contrast to a fawning Donald Trump at the feet of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Reagan came to the rescue of the Polish Solidarity movement in the 1980s. He used a CIA covert action to fund a $20 million campaign, in 1980 dollars, to bring the Solidarity message of democracy and freedom to the Polish people living under communist rule. One of the most successful stunts used broadcast break-ins to bring Solidarity messages to TV screens in Polish living rooms . Reagan’s support of CIA strategies bringing messages of hope and freedom to the Poles living under communist rule in the ’80s is documented by Seth Jones in his book “A Covert Action: Reagan, the CIA and the Cold War Struggle in Poland” .

It serves as a reminder to Republicans today that Trump’s reluctance to deliver the weaponry to Ukraine it needs to defend its citizens against Russian aggression is a sorry example of a party gone soft in support of its European allies .

The Contrast in Leadership

Reagan’s imperative to Gorbachev, backed by the uncompromising authority of America’s commitment to a free Europe, reminds us how the Republican Party of Reagan is gone and long forgotten . A new playbook seems to distance America from helping freedom-loving people fight off the terror of a Russian dictator intent on extending the Russian empire as far as his missiles will travel . Reagan would have ordered emergency production of weapons for America’s stockpiles, and he would have proclaimed his support of a free Ukrainian people . Instead, Trump fiddles while Ukraine innocents are killed by Putin’s missiles and drones .

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly claimed Ukraine had an “insufficient supply of interceptor missiles” needed to shoot down ballistic missiles. Zelenskyy wrote that “as long as Patriot missiles remain in our allies’ stockpiles, Russia is only encouraged to keep ‘vanquishing’ residential buildings” . Zelenskyy’s point is that a failure to supply such missiles encourages further Russian attacks. He has also explicitly stated that “the reason for this is precisely the insufficient supply of interceptor missiles” .

American Public Opinion: A Clear Mandate

The American public appears to understand the stakes better than the administration. According to a new poll by the Ronald Reagan Foundation & Institute, 64% of respondents were in favor of providing lethal assistance to Ukraine, which is 9 percentage points more than last year and the highest since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Support among Republicans increased to 59%, and among Democrats to 75% . The majority of Americans also support expanded military assistance to Ukraine. In particular, 65% approve of the transfer of long-range cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk. 68% support the sale of U.S. weapons to European allies for further transfer to Ukraine . The authors of the study note that these results indicate a strengthening bipartisan consensus in the United States in support of Ukraine, as well as overwhelming public support for the strategy of military assistance, European solidarity, and deterrence of Russian aggression . The voice of the American people is clear: support Ukraine.

The Reality of a Depleted Arsenal

There are growing concerns in Europe that the US defence industrial base is no longer providing the weapons pledged to NATO allies, with US stockpiles depleted owing to the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran . The US this year has delayed or cancelled deliveries of a series of key arms shipments to countries in Europe, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, Himars mobile rocket artillery and desperately needed Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles, of which the US used an estimated 50% through April of this year during its war with Iran . They are crucial for countering the threat of missile strikes in Ukraine and would also be needed for the defence of Europe in case of an armed conflict with Russia .

According to a European diplomat, “There are five or six problems at once contributing to this,” describing dwindling stocks from the war in Iran and the conflict in Ukraine, the effort to shift defence resources away from Europe toward Asia and replenished stocks of interceptors being sent first to allies such as Israel. “We know that we are not customer number one” . About 20 countries are waiting in line for deliveries of Patriot missiles, and an estimate by the Center for Strategic and International Studies has said that it could take 42 months for the US to replenish just its own stockpiles of the missiles, which were estimated at 2,330 before the war with Iran and during which the US expended about half .

This context makes Ukraine’s request for additional American Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors particularly urgent. The administration’s hesitation to supply them, citing concern for America’s own stockpiles, seems a poor excuse when the need is so acute. Reagan would not have hesitated to deliver the weapons needed to protect innocent Ukrainian lives. Instead, he would have ordered emergency production .

A Glimmer of Hope: The Patriot License

There is, however, a small glimmer of hope. U.S. President Donald Trump hinted at granting a license for Ukraine to produce interceptor missiles for Patriot air defense systems . The Institute for the Study of War reported that Trump stated on July 8 that the United States will provide Ukraine a license to produce unspecified Patriot air defense interceptors and that the production could begin in two to three months . However, it remains unclear how long it will take for Ukraine to begin producing the interceptor missiles, as production capacity will depend on the availability of the base components that go into the Patriot interceptor and the scaling of the entire supply chain that produces those components . Ukrainian forces are quite successful at intercepting cruise missiles and drones, but struggle to intercept ballistic missiles due to Ukraine’s insufficient supply of interceptor missiles . Russia may exploit the gap before Ukraine can produce its own Patriot interceptor missiles and intensify ballistic missile strikes against Ukraine to inflict maximum damage before Ukraine is able to more reliably defend itself .

Conclusion: A Moral Imperative

The contrast between the two presidents’ approaches to Russia could not be starker. Reagan, a virulent anti-communist, saw the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and pursued a policy of containment that ultimately led to its collapse. He understood that freedom is not a gift but a right. Trump, in contrast, has shown a persistent reluctance to challenge Putin, preferring a transactional approach that puts American interests above universal values. This is a moral failure and a strategic blunder. As Bob Kustra concludes, the Republican Party of Reagan is gone and long forgotten. A new playbook seems to distance America from helping freedom-loving people fight off the terror of a Russian dictator intent on extending the Russian empire as far as his missiles will travel. It reveals what side of this historic battle for freedom and democracy Trump and his loyalists have chosen .

Q&A Section

1. How did Ronald Reagan support the Polish Solidarity movement in the 1980s?
Reagan authorized a $20 million CIA covert action campaign to support the Solidarity movement in Poland. This involved using black market smuggling networks to flood Poland with leaflets, posters, magazines, newspapers, and radio break-ins to broadcast messages of hope and democracy. This campaign, detailed in Seth Jones’s book A Covert Action, helped sustain the resistance against communist rule .

2. Why does the author compare Reagan’s approach to Russia with Trump’s?
The author contrasts Reagan’s uncompromising anti-communism and support for freedom movements with Trump’s reluctance to provide Ukraine with the weaponry needed to defend against Russian aggression. He argues that Reagan would have ordered emergency production of weapons and proclaimed his support for a free Ukrainian people, while Trump “fiddles while Ukraine innocents are killed” .

3. What is the current status of US military aid to Ukraine?
The US has delayed or cancelled deliveries of key arms shipments to European allies due to depleted stockpiles from the wars in Ukraine and Iran. The US reportedly used an estimated 50% of its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles during the war with Iran, leaving a shortage for other allies, including Ukraine .

4. What are the growing concerns among European allies regarding US defense support?
European allies are concerned that the US defense industrial base is no longer capable of providing the weapons pledged to NATO. The delays and cancellations of arms shipments have caused quiet anger, as allies worry they are not “customer number one” and that the US is prioritizing its own stockpiles and other allies like Israel .

5. Is there any positive development in US-Ukraine military cooperation?
Yes, President Trump has hinted at granting Ukraine a license to produce Patriot interceptor missiles domestically. However, it is unclear how long this will take, as production depends on the availability of base components and the scaling of the supply chain. Russia may exploit this gap by intensifying ballistic missile strikes before Ukraine can produce its own interceptors .

The Decapitation Dilemma: John Bolton’s Prescription for a Post-Government Iran

By John Bolton
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

The U.S.-Israel strikes so successfully decapitated the leadership that no one has authority to negotiate [citation:original text]. The strikes decimated Iran’s highest government levels. Civilian leadership is in tatters. Even the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ command and control over its components is uncertain, due in part to Iran’s longstanding defensive strategy to decentralize authority, which it executed at the war’s outset. Among the clerics and their oligarchical families, there is discord over what comes next after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s killing.

What exists instead of a government is “heads of authority” with various kinds of clout and vulnerability. They compete for power, but none can consistently dominate, today or in the foreseeable future. This disarray explains why some in Iran are again reportedly plotting to murder Mr. Trump, while others are still negotiating with his representatives [citation:original text].

The Illusion of Negotiation

Iran’s governmental disengagement has enormous implications for how Washington deals with Tehran. It is precisely our success in so effectively shattering its leadership and destroying instruments of its state power that precludes the current “regime” from functioning cohesively. This conclusion (or hypothesis, if you prefer) is unpalatable to those who are determined to play down the damage caused by our attacks out of either sympathy for Iran or antipathy toward the U.S. or the administration. They fear admitting the deviation of authority in Iran, with the attendant repercussions that regime change might be near. Considering Iran’s behavior, however, certainly on national-security issues, regime disintegration is the only consistent explanation for its erratic post-strike actions [citation:original text].

The civilian officials running Iran’s negotiations are among the weakest surviving actors. President Masoud Pezeshkian is a functionary, selected in haste in 2024 to replace Ebrahim Raisi, whose helicopter crashed into a mountain. Raisi was once a potential successor to Khamenei, whereas Mr. Pezeshkian was merely a safe pair of hands. His position is so tenuous that he is reported to have been physically attacked during Khamenei’s funeral, a lengthy ritual of mourning and anti-U.S. propaganda that likely strengthened the IRGC [citation:original text].

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf is a repeatedly failed presidential candidate who heads a body that has had almost no impact on Iran’s governance since its establishment in 1980. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi runs a department with almost no role in domestic politics and is among the last to know what the IRGC is doing [citation:original text].

The problem is evident: U.S. negotiators are talking to people who can’t deliver. On July 8, after calling Iran’s team “scum,” Mr. Trump said his representatives could continue talking if they desired, but he saw no value in it. This could indicate that our representatives have fallen prey to the twin maladies of moral equivalence (seeing the disputed positions as equally justifiable) and mirror imaging (thinking their interlocutors are also looking for a fair, reasonable solution). Even Iran’s “moderate” diplomats don’t suffer these frailties [citation:original text].

Washington also ignored or misread current Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s comment that while he would allow the memorandum of understanding, he opposed it “as a matter of principle.” His father often made similar statements, saying it was “not smart, wise or honorable to deal with Washington.” U.S. administrations have repeatedly failed to grasp that the Iranians mean it when they call their leader “supreme.” To be sure, we can’t know how much of any given day the young Mr. Khamenei is in command [citation:original text].

In the meantime, the IRGC is firing missiles at American bases and other targets in the Middle East, attacking ships in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and attempting to rebuild Iran’s nuclear program and terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. This should surprise no one. It was cries of the U.S-Israeli strikes who were loudest voicing their fears that the war would strengthen IRGC power. The cease-fire experience proves the futility of negotiating with authorities who can’t change this reality. Mr. Trump will have either to accept indefinite frustration and uncertainty or to resume large-scale offensive operations, not merely tit-for-tat reprisals. Reimposing sanctions on Iran was correct, but is at best a partial fix [citation:original text].

The Path Forward: From Decapitation to Regime Change

America should stop looking for “moderates” to bolster and “hard liners” to isolate. In Iran, we are dealing with civilians whose predecessors have patiently sweet-talked successive U.S. administrations into acquiescing to Iran’s nuclear-weapons project. Those who want to defy us militarily simply ignore what is negotiated. The sweet-talking civilians don’t have weapons or control over the nuclear program, but the others do. Hence the chaos in the Gulf [citation:original text].

We can face this reality now or after November’s elections. The right course is to act swiftly, reimpose the blockade and choke off Iran’s oil revenues. Continued uncertainty in the Gulf could well keep oil prices elevated before November regardless of negotiations or cease-fires. If we delay, Tehran’s hand will be stronger, having gained more time and billions of dollars in new revenue. Even if the president punts until after the elections, this remains the only intelligible path forward [citation:original text].

In international affairs, Iran has no real government. This is a good thing. We caused it, and we should finish it. The first step is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, by force if need be. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte supports U.S. strikes against Iran and predicts European allies would also agree in time. The next move is Mr. Trump’s [citation:original text].

Mr. Bolton served as White House national security adviser, 2018-19, and is author of “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.”

Q&A Section

1. Why does John Bolton believe the US-Iran ceasefire has failed?

Bolton argues the ceasefire failed because the U.S. negotiated with Iran’s civilian leadership (the President, Speaker of Parliament, Foreign Minister), who do not control the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or Iran’s military assets. Without control over the IRGC, these civilians cannot enforce any agreement, making the ceasefire ineffective .

2. What is the current state of Iran’s government according to Bolton’s analysis?

Bolton argues that Iran no longer has a functioning government. The strikes decapitated Iran’s leadership, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous senior military commanders and officials. What remains is a collection of competing “heads of authority” with no central command. The civilian leadership is weak and cannot control the IRGC, which operates independently .

3. What does Bolton propose as the U.S. course of action in Iran?

Bolton argues for a decisive course of action: reimpose the naval blockade to choke off Iran’s oil revenues, use force if necessary to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and support Iranian opposition groups to achieve regime change. He argues that half-measures and negotiations with a disintegrated government are futile .

4. What is the “decapitation” strategy and what has been its effect?

The decapitation strategy refers to the coordinated U.S.-Israeli air and missile campaign in February 2026 that targeted Iran’s political-military leadership. It resulted in the deaths of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, the Defense Minister, the IRGC commander, and approximately 40 senior officials. This has effectively shattered Iran’s unified command structure, leaving the regime fragmented and unable to coordinate a cohesive response .

5. What are the risks of Bolton’s proposed approach?

The approach carries significant risks of escalation. The IRGC has already demonstrated its capability to strike U.S. and allied targets in the region, and Iranian officials have repeatedly called for building a nuclear bomb, arguing that only possession of a nuclear weapon can create effective deterrence . Bolton acknowledges that opening the strait by force “brings with it the risk of escalation,” but argues that failing to do so would mean ceding control to the IRGC .