For Donald Trump, China has served as a major justification for economic protectionism, highlighting our dependencies and need to onshore products with national security implications. But that’s the talk. The reality is more dismal: a less-than-hawkish trade deal this month, with tariffs that seem to isolate allies and, inversely, reshore production on China’s mainland. For Team Trump, three camps have merged into one contradictory mess within the administration. Members of these camps look to use tariffs as leverage for trade deals, as a source of revenue, and to protect domestic industry. No single tariff can achieve all three and brief, ambiguous trade deals do little to decouple with China, friend-shore, and rebuild American industry. Where do we go from here? How will these tariff camps shake out? And how can we improve our strategic approach to global trade and protect America from the very real China threat?

Scott Lincicome is the Vice President of General Economics the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. He writes on international and domestic economic issues, including international trade; subsidies and industrial policy; manufacturing and global supply chains; and economic dynamism. Lincicome also is a senior visiting lecturer at Duke University Law School, where he has taught a course on international trade law. Prior to joining Cato, Lincicome spent two decades practicing international trade law at White & Case LLP, where he litigated national and multilateral trade disputes. He also authors a column for The Dispatch entitled, Capitolism.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

The legislative filibuster is one of the most important guardrails against the tyranny of the majority that exists in the United States Senate. Despite this critical function, both parties have, at various times, entertained the idea of eliminating the filibuster and with it, bipartisan compromise. Such an act of unbelievable shortsightedness would transform the Senate into a mirror image of the House of Representatives. This change would result in drastic policy reversals as party control shifts and could permanently disadvantage Republicans from ever again controlling the chamber. With gridlock and polarization so commonplace, how can we ensure the survival of the filibuster while addressing constructive suggestions for change? How likely might a permanent, constitutionally protected filibuster be? And what would the Senate look like if either party was successful in getting rid of it?

Martin B. Gold is a partner with Capitol Counsel, LLC. With over 50 years of legislative and private practice experience, he is a recognized authority and author on matters of congressional rules and parliamentary strategies, and U.S. policy in Asia. He frequently advises senators and their staff and serves on the adjunct faculty at George Washington University. Before business, professional, and academic audiences, he speaks about Congress as well as political and public policy developments. He has authored several publications including, The Legislative Filibuster: Essential to the United States Senate as well as Senate Procedure and Practice, a widely consulted primer on Senate floor procedure.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

The fever swamps of the alt-right have crept upstream. Fringe figures are making their way onto increasingly mainstream platforms, spreading ideological contagion to impressionable young audiences. Having long covered the creeping antisemitism of the Left, the fight now unfolding on the Right is an inspiring and essential one. With his debut WTH appearance, Eli Lake reminds us that this isn’t a question of free speech, it’s a question of policing one’s own coalition with moral clarity. If the Right doesn’t get this right, what will 2028 look like for the Republican Party?

Eli Lake is a veteran journalist with expertise in foreign affairs and national security who has reported for Bloomberg, The Daily Beast, and Newsweek. He was the senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast and covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI. Eli is currently the host of Breaking History, a new history podcast from The Free Press, where he regularly publishes.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

Europe’s center of gravity has shifted eastward, and few political leaders stand out as capable of leading the necessary changes to revitalize, rather than regulate, the aging West. The Washington Post’s new editorial vision hopes to address these concerns, shaping how we think about ourselves and our allies in the coming years. The first step in avoiding Europe’s fate here at home is confronting the complacency that assumes we could never backslide. And part of that responsibility rests with the media. What can we learn from Europe? Which policies should we avoid imitating? And how will a more diverse editorial page report on them?

Adam O’Neal currently serves as the Opinion Editor at the Washington Post. Prior to that, Adam worked as a correspondent for The Economist, as an Executive Editor for the Dispatch, and as a Wall Street Journal editorial page writer. Previously he worked as a Vatican correspondent for Rome Reports and as a political reporter in Washington, D.C.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

With just one week until Election Day in New York City, we’re reflecting on the past and future of the Democratic Party, Gracie Mansion, and the political home of mayoral hopeful, Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani is a Democratic Socialist, having campaigned alongside and accepted donations from members of the Democratic Socialists of America, a group with a clear, parasitic strategy towards the Democratic establishment and post-colonial West. What does this mean for our political parties? If successful, what does it mean for New York? And for our country?

James Kirchick is a journalist and the New York Times-bestselling author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington and The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age. A contributing opinion writer to the New York Times, a writer at large for Air Mail, and a contributor to the Axel Springer Global Reporters Project, he has reported from over 40 countries and his writing has appeared in many publications including the Atlantic, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

The Trump administration continues to focus on achieving peace in the Middle East, navigating a fragile ceasefire and defining the conditions for a Palestinian future. Meanwhile, Putin’s war in Ukraine rages on, marked by stalled negotiations and continued bombardments. Both situations have proven more complex and unpredictable than the President initially hoped. Lately, Tomahawk missiles remain top of mind for President Zelensky, while Trump cancelled a proposed summit with Putin. What comes next for these two conflicts? And what can we do to ensure the good guys prevail in the end?

General Jack Keane is a retired 4-star general and the former Vice Chief of Staff of the US Army. He is also the Chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, a Fox News Senior Strategic Analyst, and a member of the Secretary of Defense Policy Board. General Keane has previously advised four Defense Secretaries and was a member of the 2018 and 2022 Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

After two incredibly long years, we are finally able to celebrate the return of all living Israeli hostages from the hell of Hamas. Absent specifics and relying on a long history of failed “new beginnings” in the Middle East, Trump’s 20-point Peace Plan begs the question, what comes next? With a successful Phase One and a fragile Phase Two, it is with cautious optimism that we ask: how will disarmament and demilitarization be successfully carried out in Gaza? What does this mean for Israeli politics and the looming election? And how will Western leftist groups react to the end of the fake “genocide”?

Dan Senor currently serves as the Chief Public Affairs Officer at Elliott Investment Management in addition to hosting his own podcast, Call Me Back. Mr. Senor served as a senior advisor to U.S. Senator Mitt Romney and former U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan in their campaigns for national office. During the presidential administration of George W. Bush, Mr. Senor was based in Baghdad, where he served as chief spokesperson for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Before that, he was a senior Defense Department official based in US Central Command in Qatar.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

More than three years into Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, our European allies are reconsidering whether or not frozen Russian assets, totaling $300 billion on the continent, can be used to help Ukraine. As part of a broader brought about by the Trump Administration, Western countries are finally prepared to act in concert to overcome financial concerns, investment retaliation, and collective action challenges in supporting Ukraine. In addition, the Cuba-oriented Helms-Burton Act provides useful precedent for the options on the table to further pressure the Russian economy. With the noose tightening via proposed oil sanctions, potential Tomahawk missiles, and mobilized transatlantic support for Ukraine, what choices does Putin have left? Will he be forced to face the music? And what will ultimately bring him to the negotiating table?

Stephen Rademaker currently serves as Senior of Counsel at Covington and Burling LLP, helping clients navigate international policy, sanctions, and CFIUS challenges. With over 20 years of experience working on national security issues in the White House, the State Department, and the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, Stephen served as an Assistant Secretary of State from 2002 through 2006 and headed three bureaus of the State Department, including the Bureau of Arms Control and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.