The Trump administration has imposed new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 countries for their failure to ban or enforce prohibitions on goods made with forced labor.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced the final action on July 23, 2026, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The duties took effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on July 24, replacing the temporary global 10% tariffs that were set to expire that same day.

U.S. trade officials sorted the 60 economies into three groups based on their forced-labor import rules:

Seventeen countries that have introduced even partial restrictions face a flat additional 10% tariff. These are: Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Kingdom.

Five economies, the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland, face product-specific rates between 10% and 12.5%.

Thirty-eight economies, the largest group, received the highest levy of 12.5% after officials concluded they had neither enacted nor properly enforced bans on forced-labor imports. China falls into this 12.5% group.

The lower rate serves as an incentive for countries already taking steps against forced-labor goods, while the higher rate applies to those that have not.

The Trump administration has noted that the United States has barred imports made with forced labor for nearly a century and strictly enforces the rule through U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

Greer stressed that trading partners need to follow suit, arguing that products made under exploitative conditions are both a human rights abuse issue and an unfair trade practice that gives foreign competitors an edge, hurts American workers, and distorts global markets, stating.

Certain products are exempt from the new duties, including informational materials, donations, personal baggage, items already subject to Section 232 tariffs, select raw materials critical to domestic supply, energy products, some pharmaceuticals, and other goods officials determined would not further the policy aims. The full list appears in the related Federal Register notice.

The mere threat of tariffs has already pushed countries such as India to tighten their rules.  Import bans, even when imperfect, raise awareness and put pressure on supply chains. The International Labour Organization estimates that tens of millions of people worldwide remain trapped in forced labor.

This action builds on the President’s America First agenda. Earlier steps by the administration, particularly the forced-labor provisions secured in the USMCA during Trump’s first term and the continuing effort to embed comparable prohibitions in new trade agreements, have shaped this broader initiative aimed at restoring balanced trade, strengthening American manufacturing, and confronting unfair trade practices.

Other Section 301 investigations remain underway, including one examining overproduction by certain economies that could result in additional measures.

Donald J. Trump has always understood something that his political enemies never have. Leadership is not measured by how loudly one complains about adversity, it is measured by one’s willingness to confront it head on, to refuse intimidation, and to emerge stronger than before. That spirit was on full display at the rescheduled White House Correspondents Association Dinner on Friday July 24, 2026 where President Trump returned to the stage with confidence, humor, and unmistakable authority only three months after a deranged gunman attempted to transform the original gathering into an unspeakable tragedy.

The evening became far more than another Washington, D.C. social event, it was a declaration that the President of the United States, his administration, and the American people will never surrender to political violence, intimidation, or fear. Trump did not merely attend, he dominated the room. He reminded friend and foe alike that resilience is one of the defining characteristics of his presidency and that America is strongest when it refuses to bend before those who seek to silence political debate through terror.

The instant President Trump entered the ballroom at the Waldorf Astoria the atmosphere reflected that determination. The dinner itself had already become a symbol of perseverance. After the third assassination attempt in less than 18 months that forced the postponement of the original April event at the Washington, D.C. Hilton many questioned whether the gathering could ever proceed in the same spirit. President Trump answered that question with unmistakable clarity. He stood before an audience filled with reporters, editors, administration officials, and political figures who have spent years scrutinizing, criticizing, and often openly opposing him. Yet he approached the podium with confidence, optimism, and the unmistakable swagger that has become his trademark.

The President opened with heartfelt recognition for those who deserved it most. He praised the United States Secret Service (USSS), law enforcement officers, and members of his administration who acted decisively during the attempted attack. Their courage prevented an unimaginable catastrophe and demonstrated the professionalism of those entrusted with protecting both elected officials and members of the press. Trump made clear that bravery deserves recognition regardless of politics and that genuine heroism transcends partisan differences.

His message quickly shifted toward a broader affirmation of the American system itself. President Trump reminded the audience that political disagreements are resolved through debate, persuasion, elections, and free speech rather than violence. He declared that no disturbed individual armed with a weapon would ever alter the nation’s commitment to constitutional government or intimidate Americans into silence. It was a forceful affirmation of the principles that have sustained the Republic since its founding and a reminder that the proper response to violence is greater resolve rather than retreat.

Of course, Donald Trump has never been content to deliver solemn speeches alone. One of his greatest political gifts has always been his ability to disarm audiences through humor while simultaneously advancing his broader message. Throughout the evening he delivered one memorable line after another, proving once again that no other modern politician possesses his instinctive understanding of timing or comic delivery.

He joked about the challenge of pairing formal attire with mandatory bulletproof protection, observing that many guests seemed more concerned about appearing heavier than protecting themselves. He quipped that even he resisted wearing the protective equipment because it interfered with appearances. The room erupted with laughter, demonstrating that Trump’s ability to transform even the darkest circumstances into moments of shared relief remains unmatched.

He also displayed his remarkable capacity for self confidence by revisiting the chaos of the postponed event with jokes that only someone possessing extraordinary resilience could deliver. Rather than allowing an attempted act of violence to define the evening, he transformed it into evidence that intimidation had failed completely. Instead of fear, the audience experienced laughter. Instead of surrender, they witnessed confidence. Instead of defeat, they saw triumph.

President Trump also reminded the assembled press corps that while he respects the importance of journalism, he has never been intimidated by its excesses or its biases. Looking across the ballroom, he observed with characteristic wit that the audience represented perhaps the largest gathering of individuals suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome ever assembled in one room. The line perfectly captured Trump’s ability to poke fun at his harshest critics without allowing their hostility to diminish his own confidence.

His observations about Joe Biden reflected the same blend of humor and political critique that has made Trump one of the most entertaining communicators in American politics. Recalling a recent event on the White House South Lawn, President Trump joked that before his administration anyone wanting to witness someone lose consciousness on the South Lawn merely needed to ask Joe Biden a difficult question. The line landed exactly as intended because it reflected Trump’s long standing ability to convert political criticism into memorable humor that resonates far beyond Washington.

No target escaped his attention. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez became the subject of another joke suggesting that she might struggle in a contest against even a straightforward foreign policy question. California Governor Gavin Newsom received an equally devastating punchline after repeatedly declaring that Republicans should fight fire with fire. Trump reminded the audience that there is one thing Americans know for certain about Gavin Newsom and that is he certainly does not believe in fighting fire with water. The joke resonated because it blended policy criticism with Trump’s unmistakable comic style.

Even legendary rocker Bruce Springsteen found himself on the receiving end of the President’s wit. Trump joked about Springsteen’s recent public criticisms and wondered aloud what had happened to the once iconic performer before jokingly referring to his tour as “Bored in the USA.” It was another reminder that President Trump possesses a unique willingness to engage directly with prominent cultural figures who choose to enter the political arena.

Perhaps most entertaining of all was the President’s affectionate ribbing of his own Cabinet. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s well publicized stories involving roadkill became fertile ground for comedy as Trump joked that the evening’s beef tenderloin had been personally acquired by Kennedy after running over the cow himself. Trump then quipped that Kennedy had suggested serving raccoon as an appetizer but that the White House wisely declined. The room erupted with laughter once again, demonstrating that Trump is just as willing to tease his allies as his opponents when the joke is worth telling.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also received warm praise from the President. Trump complimented her willingness to fight aggressively on behalf of the administration, describing her toughness as precisely what is required when confronting a hostile national press corps. It was both humorous and sincere; Leavitt has consistently demonstrated remarkable composure under relentless questioning, and Trump’s acknowledgment reflected the loyalty he shows to those who stand beside him in difficult battles.

The setting itself carried symbolic significance. For the first time in decades, the Correspondents’ Dinner took place at the Waldorf Astoria, formerly the Trump International Hotel, under extraordinarily tight security. Every aspect of the evening reflected careful planning and unwavering determination to ensure that violence would not dictate the nation’s traditions. Extensive security measures guaranteed that the President, members of the media, invited guests, and public officials could gather safely while sending a powerful message that America’s democratic institutions remain unshaken.

One particularly revealing moment came when reporters from The Wall Street Journal received recognition for reporting involving Jeffrey Epstein, coverage that has also become the subject of litigation involving President Trump. Lesser leaders might have allowed personal grievances to overshadow the occasion. Trump instead smiled, applauded, and personally congratulated the journalists. That moment demonstrated something his critics frequently overlook; Donald Trump fights fiercely when necessary, but he also understands the importance of respecting institutions and traditions even while challenging them.

President Trump spoke for more than an hour effortlessly alternating between humor, reflection, patriotism, and political combat. It was vintage Trump. Every joke reinforced his confidence. Every serious passage underscored his belief in American resilience. Every applause line reminded the audience why he remains one of the most effective communicators in modern political history.

He concluded on an unmistakably optimistic note, thanking those in attendance for their role in helping restore America’s strength, prosperity, and international prestige. He declared that the United States has once again become the hottest country anywhere in the world and expressed confidence that the nation’s best days still lie ahead. It was the language of victory rather than grievance, confidence rather than anxiety, and optimism rather than pessimism.

The 2026 White House Correspondents’ Dinner will be remembered for far more than celebrity appearances or political jokes. It will be remembered as the evening President Donald John Trump returned to the very venue where violence had attempted to extinguish his life and silence the democratic process only to  transform it into a celebration of courage, constitutional government, and American perseverance.

Donald Trump has endured investigations, impeachments, prosecutions, endless media attacks, assassination attempts, and relentless efforts to remove him from public life. Yet he continues to stand before the American people with confidence, humor, and unwavering determination. That resilience explains why his supporters remain so fiercely loyal and why his opponents continue to underestimate him at their own peril.

This dinner was not about reconciliation with a hostile press corps, it was about demonstrating that intimidation will never prevail over freedom. It was about proving that leadership requires courage under pressure. Above all, it was another unmistakable reminder that Donald J. Trump never retreats from the battlefield. He advances. He competes. He fights. Most importantly, he fights to win.

Many of us have been Nixonmaxxing for more than 50 years. I told you so.

For more than 50 years the political establishment, the liberal media, the academic historians, democrats, and far too many weak-kneed, lily-livered, white wine swilling country club Republicans have repeated the same dishonest caricature of Richard Nixon.

They told Americans that Nixon was a sinister, paranoid, power hungry president whose resignation proved the righteousness of the Washington, D.C. establishment. They were wrong. They reduced one of the most consequential presidents of the 20th century to a third-rate hotel burglary he neither planned nor authorized. They ignored his enormous accomplishments, concealed the misconduct of his enemies, and conveniently forgot the cowardice of the Republican leaders who abandoned him when he needed them most.

Now, half a century later, a new generation is discovering the truth. Due to the deft marketing skills of two young officials at the Nixon Foundation, James Byron, the President and CEO of the Nixon Foundation, and Chris Barber, their marketing director—a whole new generation of young people is being introduced to Richard Nixon, the truth about Watergate, and his exceptional record as President.

This is an endeavor in which I have been engaged for over a decade—having written two books, Nixon’s Secrets: The Rise, Fall, and Untold Truth about the President, Watergate, and the Pardon, as well as Tricky Dick: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Richard M. Nixon.

This reappraisal of our 37th President was kicked off by remarks at the Nixon Presidential Library by Vice President JD Vance who said, “And by the way, if you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it’s not all that different from what the same groups of people — the same institutions — tried to do to Donald Trump in the first Trump administration. There is a parallel.”

Because there was no internet in 1974, Nixon faced a monolithically hostile media. Unlike Trump, there was no internet from which he could launch a defense and counterattack. It’s also not surprising that Nixon himself was dazed and confused by the events leading up to and culminating in the Watergate break-in. In fact, White House Counsel John Dean, the man who planned, pushed, and covered up the Watergate break-in, lied to Nixon about the White House’s knowledge of Watergate for nineteen months and went so far as to exclude the transcripts of his most damning conversations with Nixon from his book, The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew, which was supposed to be the definitive transcription of all of the Nixon White House recordings. Nixon-hating historian Stanley I. Kutler went so far as to rearrange the order of Dean’s taped conversations with Nixon in an effort to distort Dean’s true role, as reported by The New York Times.

Watergate prosecutors knew there were glaring inconsistencies between Dean’s testimony to the FBI, the Senate Watergate Committee, and his own book, Blind Ambition. Newsmax’s James Rosen has reported on declassified documents that prove the CIA knew in advance about the Watergate break-in, that at least four of the Watergate burglars had ties to the agency, and that Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman knew this and did nothing.

Senate Watergate Committee Chairman Sam Ervin prohibited Senator Howard Baker and his counsel, later Senator Fred Thompson, from publishing this in the committee’s Minority Report.

There is probably no better or more succinct summary of Nixon’s rise and fall than that by his former speechwriter, Patrick J. Buchanan.

They call this new phenomenon on social media “Nixonmaxxing.” Through the efforts of the Nixon Foundation, utilizing social media videos, archival speeches, photographs, interviews, campaign memorabilia, and a growing fascination with Nixon’s unmistakable style, young conservatives are reconsidering the man they were taught to despise. They see a president who was tough, intelligent, disciplined, patriotic, and willing to challenge the permanent political class. They see a man who rose from poverty through determination and hard work, endured repeated political defeats, and returned each time stronger than before. They see a leader who understood the forgotten Americans long before the consultants in Washington discovered that they existed.

To those now experiencing this Nixon awakening, I have only one thing to say:

I told you so. I was there. I worked for Richard Nixon. I knew the man behind the grotesque media caricature, and he was nothing like the monster portrayed by the professional Nixon haters. Richard Nixon was a fundamentally good and decent man. He loved his wife, Pat. He loved his daughters. He loved his country. He was generous to friends, loyal to those who served him, and deeply moved by the struggles of ordinary Americans because he had lived those struggles himself.

Nixon was not born into wealth or privilege. There was no family fortune waiting for him, no elite political dynasty clearing his path, and no fashionable social circle embracing his ambitions. He came from Yorba Linda, California and grew up in a family of modest means, worked in his parents’ grocery store, attended Whittier College, and earned his place at Duke University School of Law. He served in the United States Navy during World War II and built his career through intelligence, perseverance, and a capacity for work that astonished even those closest to him.

He was not polished in the manner preferred by the Georgetown cocktail circuit. He did not possess the physical grace or inherited wealth of John F. Kennedy, who enjoyed a fawning press corps.

Author Theodore H. White, who wrote the famous Making of the Presidents series of books, starting in 1960, was actually baffled why the Nixon staff would object to his riding the Nixon campaign plane as a reporter while wearing a Kennedy For President button.

Eastern and media establishment hostility toward Nixon began with his successful effort as a House member to correctly identify one of Franklin Roosevelt’s key aides Alger Hiss as a Russian communist spy. That the grocer’s son from a hardscrabble background exposed the urbane Harvard educated Hiss. When the Soviet Union fell, publicly released KGB documents confirmed that Hiss was indeed a Russian communist spy. With Nixon’s hard-hitting 1950 Senate race against left-leaning Hollywood actress and Congresswoman Hellen Gahagan Douglas, who Pulitzer Prize winner Robert Caro correctly identified as a mistress of Lyndon Johnson, both won Nixon the long-term enmity of the American left.

The now-defunct New York Herald Tribune ran a multi-part series on what they believed was the theft of the 1960 election in Nixon’s razor-thin loss to John Kennedy. That series cannot be found online, but I was able to locate it and referenced it heavily in my two books on Nixon. Both outgoing President Dwight Eisenhower and former Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the 1944 and 1948 Republican nominee for president, urged Nixon to challenge the results, but Nixon instinctively knew that not only would he go down in history as a sore loser, but the country could not go through the spectacle of such a dispute, which would telegraph weakness to America’s enemies.

Against his better instincts, Nixon launched a 1962 campaign for governor of California in a bid to hold a political base for another bid at the presidency in 1964. When the Cuban Missile Crisis erupted, weeks before the 1962 election, Nixon’s surging campaign in the Golden State was stymied, and he lost. Nixon had no way of knowing that JFK would be assassinated a little more than a year later. Nixon’s 1962 loss kept him off the 1964 ticket when the Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, was certain to lose to Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson.

Then, a miraculous thing happened. The combination of the assassination of John Kennedy, the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, the raging war in Vietnam, and the turmoil in America’s cities and on her campuses parted the seas for the most remarkable political comeback in American history, with the exception of Trump’s comeback in 2024.

Nixon was awkward because he was human. He was cautious because he had been attacked. He was suspicious because many of the people surrounding him really were conspiring against him. History has proved that his enemies were not imaginary. They occupied newsrooms, congressional offices, government agencies, universities, and even senior positions in both parties.

Today’s young conservatives recognize the pattern because they have watched the same machinery deployed against President Donald Trump. They have seen intelligence officials manipulate information, judges and prosecutors twist laws, bureaucrats leak classified material, congressional investigators conduct partisan inquisitions, and media organizations publish accusations first and corrections never. What was done to Nixon with mimeograph machines, anonymous sources, secret grand juries, and television networks has been done to Trump with social media censorship, weaponized investigations, surveillance, lawfare, and twenty-four-hour cable propaganda. The technology has changed. The establishment has not.

Richard Nixon’s presidency was far more successful than his critics will ever admit. He inherited the Vietnam War from Lyndon Johnson and ultimately brought American troops home. He ended the military draft and replaced it with an all-volunteer force. He established the eighteen-year-old vote. He pursued détente with the Soviet Union while negotiating historic arms limitations from a position of strength. His opening to China transformed global diplomacy and reshaped the balance of power for generations.

The accusation that Nixon is responsible for the danger of today’s China misses the point that China was a dirt-poor, backward agrarian society, where few had indoor plumbing and rural areas had no electricity. Neither the Chinese economy nor its military was formidable. It was not until some twenty years later, when President Bill Clinton gave China “Most Favored Nation” trading status, later extended by President George W. Bush, that China became the dangerous superpower that it is today. The 37th President had no way to foresee this disastrous decision.

Nixon unilaterally saved Israel from annihilation during the Yom Kippur War, authorizing the massive resupply operation over the objections of his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, and his entire national security apparatus, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which helped save the Jewish state and demonstrated that American friendship meant something when the moment of danger arrived. Israel’s back was against the sea when its vaunted security apparatus failed to foresee the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria.

At home Nixon spoke for the Silent Majority; the working men and women who obeyed the law, paid their taxes, raised their families, served their country, and received nothing but contempt from the radical left. He understood that Americans were exhausted by riots, political violence, campus chaos, and the cultural arrogance of elites who considered patriotism unsophisticated. His campaigns built a durable political coalition by appealing to voters abandoned by the Democratic Party. That coalition would later help elect Ronald Reagan and, decades afterward, Donald Trump.

Nixon also signed landmark environmental legislation, established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), expanded protections for endangered species, and supported significant conservation measures. He desegregated the public schools without bloodshed or uproar. His administration increased federal support for historically Black colleges and universities. Nixon appointed more African Americans to federal office than John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson combined. He signed Title IX, which transformed educational opportunities for women. These accomplishments do not fit the cartoon version of Nixon, which is precisely why they are so often omitted.

The architects of Nixon’s destruction could not defeat his record, so they destroyed his presidency. Watergate was a sloppy burglary committed by men exercising astonishingly poor judgment. Richard Nixon did not order the break-in at Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters. He did not know about it in advance. When the scandal erupted, however, he made the catastrophic mistake of trusting men who were more interested in protecting themselves than protecting the president. The investigation metastasized into a national crusade in which normal standards of fairness were discarded, and every institution in Washington joined the hunt. Geoff Shepard has documented how the trial and appeal were rigged against the Watergate burglars by Judge John Sirica, who met illegally ex parte with the Watergate prosecutors, in his epic book, The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate and the Plot to Remove the President.

Nixon’s enemies were not searching merely for the truth about a burglary. They wanted his head on a spike. The media smelled blood. Congressional Democrats saw an opportunity to reverse the verdict of the 1972 election, in which Nixon had won 49 states and one of the greatest landslides in American history.

The consequences were disastrous. Nixon’s fall demoralized Republicans, weakened the presidency, encouraged hostile powers, and produced years of instability. Nixon was essentially forced to choose House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, a deeply compromised member of the Warren Commission as his Vice President after Vice President Spiro T. Agnew was forced to resign in a venal corruption scandal. Ford actually made a spirited run at election in 1976, falling short largely because his liberal Republican advisors had him appear and pumped late resources into New York and Pennsylvania instead of Missouri and Texas—both of which he narrowly lost along with the presidency.

The nation had to endure the feckless administration of Jimmy Carter, the humiliation of Americans held hostage in Iran, Soviet expansion, economic stagnation, inflation, and a collapse of confidence at home.

There is a direct line from the surrender of Richard Nixon to the deep state attacks on Donald Trump. The forces that destroyed Nixon expected Trump to respond as Nixon had responded. They expected him to accept the judgment of hostile institutions, retreat for the supposed good of the country, and allow Washington, D.C. to return to business as usual. They misunderstood Donald Trump. He had studied the lesson of Nixon and reached the correct conclusion.

Never resign. Never surrender. Never believe that appeasing your enemies will cause them to treat you better. Nixon believed that resigning would spare the country a prolonged constitutional crisis. It was an act of personal sacrifice by a man who placed the nation above his own power. His enemies interpreted that sacrifice as an admission of every accusation they had made against him. They spent the next five decades writing the history books, producing the movies, teaching the college courses, and constructing a mythology in which they were the heroes and Nixon was the villain.

But history has a long memory, and truth has an inconvenient habit of surviving. Young Americans now watching Nixon speak are discovering a leader of extraordinary depth. They hear his warnings about political violence, radical extremists, media power, bureaucratic arrogance, cultural decline, and the dangers of a ruling class disconnected from ordinary citizens. They see his command of foreign policy and compare it with the shallow slogans offered by modern politicians. They see his resilience after defeat, his discipline under pressure, and his refusal to apologize for loving America.

They also recognize something the old establishment historians never understood. Nixon was interesting. He was complicated. He was brilliant. He was funny in a dry and often self-deprecating way. He possessed an extraordinary understanding of human nature, international strategy, and political power. He could discuss history with scholars, negotiate with world leaders, inspire enormous crowds, and speak directly to working Americans who felt invisible to the governing class.

The Nixonmaxxing phenomenon may involve humorous videos, fashionable merchandise, and the ironic language of the internet, but beneath the entertainment lies something serious. A generation that distrusts the media, the intelligence community, the permanent bureaucracy, and the political establishment is examining Nixon without first seeking permission from the gatekeepers who destroyed him.

Naturally, the surviving Watergate industry is horrified. The prosecutors, informants, media personalities, academics, and professional Nixon critics who built careers on the accepted narrative cannot tolerate reconsideration. Their authority depends upon Americans never asking whether the story was incomplete, whether punishment was selectively imposed, whether government agencies manipulated events, or whether Nixon’s removal served interests far more powerful than the burglars arrested inside the Watergate complex.

The guardians of the official story call this revisionism. I call it what it is: the truth. Historical understanding does not require pretending that Richard Nixon never made mistakes. He made serious mistakes, as every president does. He trusted the wrong people. He allowed himself to become isolated. He permitted his justified anger toward his enemies to cloud his political judgment. Most importantly, he failed to recognize soon enough that the institutions surrounding the presidency were not neutral and that many Republicans would abandon him the moment their own positions appeared threatened.

None of those mistakes erase his achievements, his patriotism, or his essential decency. They do not justify the selective prosecution, partisan spectacle, and institutional manipulation used to drive him from office.

At last, he may be receiving vindication from a generation that was not alive during Watergate and therefore has no emotional investment in the mythology. These young people are not obligated to defend the reputations of Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, or John Dean. They can examine Nixon’s entire life and presidency with fresh eyes. Strangely enough, it was President Bill Clinton who said at Nixon’s funeral, “May the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close.”

When they do, they discover what some of us have said all along. Richard Nixon was a great American. He was a formidable president. He was a statesman of rare strategic vision. He was a good man with human flaws who was targeted by enemies more ruthless than he understood them to be at the time, and was abandoned by allies far less honorable than he deserved.

So, to every young conservative posting Nixon videos, wearing Nixon hats, studying his speeches, and challenging the establishment’s official history, welcome to the arena. Many of us have been Nixonmaxxing for more than 50 years. I told you so.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, formally referred former Special Counsel Jack Smith to the Department of Justice for potential criminal prosecution on Wednesday.  The referral accuses Smith of making “willfully and intentionally false statements” during a closed-door deposition before the committee on December 17, 2025.

Jordan’s letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche cites “strong evidence” that Smith’s testimony contradicted newly obtained documents regarding his team’s access to congressional communications in the Trump investigations.

The allegation centers on Smith’s responses about whether his office subpoenaed or reviewed text messages from members of Congress.

In the deposition, Smith stated that his team had not received the contents of phone calls or text messages from lawmakers, describing records as limited “tolling” data.

However, newly released documents obtained by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, including from Sen. Chuck Grassley show that Smith’s investigators reviewed the content of text messages involving 44 lawmakers and Trump officials. Those messages were obtained as presidential records from the National Archives, not through direct subpoenas of members’ phones.

Jordan argued that Smith provided a “half-truth” by failing to disclose how the messages were obtained and reviewed. “All individuals have an obligation to comply with a duly authorized congressional inquiry,” Jordan wrote. “Mr. Smith, a former public servant, is no different.”

The chairman stated that Smith’s statements were intentionally false and designed to obstruct the committee’s oversight of the special counsel’s probes into President Donald J. Trump’s actions related to the 2020 election and classified documents.

Smith led two high-profile federal cases against Trump: one concerning efforts to challenge the 2020 election results and another involving the alleged mishandling of classified documents. Both cases were dismissed after Trump won the 2024 election.

Republicans have long criticized Smith’s work as politically motivated, and Jordan’s referral represents an escalation in congressional oversight of the former prosecutor. The Justice Department confirmed receipt of the referral and stated it “will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct.”

Smith’s legal team rejected the allegations, saying the referral “reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system” and that Smith answered truthfully.

This development comes amid broader Republican efforts to examine the conduct of the Biden-era Justice Department. Jordan has previously demanded testimony from Smith and investigated what he calls the “weaponization” of federal law enforcement.

President Trump reacted to the news on Truth Social, posting “Justice at last???” in response to the criminal referral of former Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The referral fulfills a long-standing Republican priority to hold Smith accountable.

Yuri Bezmenov decided he wanted out of the KGB and the Soviet system some 56 years ago while serving in New Delhi, India. Disguising himself as an American hippie, he defected to the U.S. Embassy and debriefed with the CIA.

It was decided that Bezmenov should settle in Canada under a new name for a while. Bezmenov came back to the U.S. in 1980 with a mission to educate people about Soviet “ideological subversion,” which is the basic systematic methodology communists use to take down countries and establish Marxist-Leninist socialist-type states.

More recently, a Chinese defector and immigrant, Xi Van Fleet, has been on a crusade to warn Americans about the parallels between what is happening in America today and what Mao did in the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

The systematic plan Bezmenov revealed involves four fluid stages of communist subversion: 1) Demoralization, 2) Destabilization, 3) Crisis, and 4) Normalization. In “Mao’s America,” Xi Van Fleet explains how Mao’s destruction of the “Four Olds” (old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits) is being replicated by today’s leftist cancel culture in the U.S., which, she says, will end what is left of freedom in America if not stopped.

Demoralization

In Bezmenov’s analysis, the first stage, demoralization, can take a generation or more. One of its main thrusts is to undermine the Judeo-Christian beliefs, customs, habits, and traditions that have been foundational to America; these parallel the “Four Olds” that Mao destroyed in China.

Included in customs and traditions is the destruction of the family, which communists want to replace with the state. Xi Van Fleet points out that just as the Chinese Cultural Revolution turned children against their parents, American families are under increasing attack. Government welfare programs that reward single mothers with more money by having more children have certainly undermined traditional family formation. Public schools, the medical establishment, and popular culture, which support the transgender movement, have also turned children against their parents.

A third demoralization strategy is breaking people’s loyalty and love for their country by rewriting history, denigrating founders and national heroes, and destroying historic monuments—again, one of the key “Four Olds.” In summary, the goal of demoralization is to disconnect people from the virtue of the past and render them unable to assess what is true.

Bezmenov argued demoralization was the most important and hardest-to-reverse stage, since it targeted how a population interprets reality itself rather than any single institution.

Destabilization

According to Bezmenov, the second stage, destabilization, which builds on the first stage, is to advance society’s disorientation, a condition wherein the masses feel bewildered and powerless. While intentionality has never been proven, the China-originated COVID-19 pandemic brought massive destabilization and disorientation in the U.S. with mandated masking, social distancing, quarantines, lockdowns, mass vaccination, and the abandonment of tried-and-true medical practices, such as quarantining only the sick, and recommending the use of proven preventive and therapeutic treatments.

Another important part of destabilization happened early in the COVID-19 crisis after the death of George Floyd. Narratives of systemic racism in law enforcement were used to trigger rioting, looting, and the destruction of several billion dollars’ worth of property, along with the tearing down of historic statues and memorials in many cities across the United States.

Americans became further destabilized when they realized government authorities were unable or unwilling to do anything about the destruction in big cities across America. There were few arrests while more than 2,000 police officers were injured. Destabilization may have reached its peak when cities with the most lawlessness, such as Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, initiated efforts to defund local law enforcement.

Crisis

Following destabilization is the crisis stage, which is often an insurrection or a coup. An unprecedented crisis stage for America came in November 2020 with election fraud, which is itself an act of sedition as an organized undertaking of disrupting the nation’s foundational mechanism to choose its government. Sedition typically focuses on the preparatory steps—such as organizing or inciting actions to disrupt the government.

Democrat operatives had exploited the fear factor of COVID-19 in the summer months of 2020, visiting every one of the six swing states with a mission: to change voting rules to accommodate expanded mail-in ballots, drop boxes, and extended vote-counting deadlines—all of which facilitate vote fraud.

The crisis that ensued from obvious election and voting irregularity was deepened by legacy media and social media censorship and cancellation campaigns that organizers within the government began well before the Nov. 3, 2020, election. The Department of Homeland Security division called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, better known as CISA, collaborated with the Stanford University-based NGO Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to suppress information that would help Trump.

EIP also launched a campaign to prevent the public from challenging the anticipated voting irregularities by getting agreements from all the social media companies—Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, and Pinterest—to modify their customer terms-of-service policies to incorporate language about “delegitimization.” Once that was accomplished, according to Mike Benz, a former U.S. State Department communications policymaker and an expert on propaganda, the door was opened to algorithmic mass censorship and cancellation.

EIP exerted pressure on all the social media companies to adhere to their customer service policies and censor, cancel, or deplatform any content that contained “delegitimized” (aka “debunked”) narratives about new election protocols and “processes,” election “issues and outcomes,” “mail-in ballots,” “early voting,” “drop boxes,” and “Antifa,” to name a few.

The media treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop story that broke in mid-October 2020 in the New York Post illustrates just how quickly the channels of propaganda and media manipulation fall into place. The laptop story (which contained massive incriminating evidence revealing a compromised Joe Biden family), was immediately delegitimized and taken down from every social media site. At the same time, 51 former top intelligence officials signed a letter, published in Politico and picked up by The New York Times and The Washington Post, stating that the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

After the 2020 election, social media effectively delegitimized and thwarted discussion about election fraud. Again, EIP insisted that social media companies uphold the terms-of-service contracts that required a continuation of censorship of social media content containing newly delegitimized terms, such as “Stop the Steal,” “dead voter rolls,” “Sharpiegate,” “stolen election,” “ballot harvesting,” “Dominion Voting Systems,” and “Postal Service,” to name a few. Additionally, people who questioned the integrity of the 2020 election were marginalized by the media labeling them as “election deniers.”

Bezmenov’s four stages are fluid, so demoralization and destabilization continue in the crisis stage. We see this with lawfare against Donald Trump, his aides, and some 1,200 Jan. 6 protest participants arrested by the FBI.

The target is not just Trump and his supporters. Many Americans who witnessed this see that law enforcement and the justice system in America had devolved into a resemblance to the procedures and protocols of banana republics. With equal justice under the law and respect for the Constitution being mocked, the subliminal message is, “This is not the America you know; it’s a new world that you have entered, so get used to it.”

Normalization

While America is still in the crisis stage, some subversion experts argue that the lawfare, censorship, and cancellation regimes that targeted the delegitimization of vote fraud that now exist are really part of the last stage of communist takeover known as normalization—Bezmenov’s fourth and final stage.

Trump did succeed in rapidly closing the borders, but many people have come to accept that there is no certainty about vote fraud or a rigged election in 2020, just as they are not sure about the legitimacy of ICE in removing illegal immigrants, just as they have gotten used to a two-tiered justice system, some limitations on free speech, and taking down historic statues and monuments. If all of this becomes the new normal, our constitutional republic that was the United States will be gone, and the new world of communist global elite control will be empowered.

Fortunately, it appears the recent speeches by President Trump, Secretary of State Rubio, and Deputy Chief of Staff Miller show they all got the memo from America’s second president, John Adams, who unequivocally warned, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” It is time to turn the tables on the destroyers.

By Townhall – https://townhall.com/columnists/scottpowell/2026/07/23/how-did-america-get-to-the-threshold-of-normalizing-sedition-n2679959

She has maintained that Crooks did not act entirely alone and is demanding full disclosure regarding any assistance or connections he may have had.

Two years after the assassination attempt on President Donald J. Trump at his campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Helen Comperatore, widow of volunteer firefighter Corey Comperatore, continues to grapple with unanswered questions.

Corey Comperatore, 50, was shielding his wife Helen and their two daughters from gunfire. Trump was grazed in the ear, and two other rally attendees were seriously injured.

The shooter, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, was killed at the scene by Secret Service countersnipers.

Local police received multiple reports identifying Thomas Crooks as a suspicious person, yet, the Secret Service received only five calls and three text messages. Agents missed all 102 local radio transmissions about the shooter.

Despite the extraordinary complexity and significance of the figure they were charged with defending, the Secret Service did not respond in its customary fashion.

A critical communications element between local law enforcement and the Secret Service was not established.

Whether these profound security failures stemmed purely from gross incompetence or involved deeper negligence remains conspicuously absent from the official account of what occurred that day.

Helen Comperatore has been unrelenting in her pursuit of answers. She believes “someone inside the government” was involved and has suggested there was a broader plan surrounding the mass shooting.

In a telephone interview with The New York Times, she expressed her theory that the gunman did not act alone:

“I do not believe that this kid just got out of bed that day and decided to come over there and kill the president,” she said. “I believe that he was involved with someone greater than him, that worked with him and probably offered him money to do this, and I would like to know what that entailed.”

While she does not subscribe to a “second shooter” scenario involving Thomas Matthew Crooks, she has maintained that Crooks did not act entirely alone and is demanding full disclosure regarding any assistance or connections he may have had.

Comperatore has rejected certain conspiracy theories, such as claims that the event was staged. However, she has voiced suspicions of deeper involvement, including past comments linking the attempt to former President Biden.

She has noted that President Trump reached out to her in the immediate aftermath and has expressed hope that he will do so again, as many questions remain unresolved. In 2025, she met with the Secret Service under a nondisclosure agreement and continues to press for the family’s right to complete information.

Comperatore has spoken to multiple news outlets as she continues pressing for transparency.