It is officially 2026, which means America is turning 250 this year. Our question on this semiquincentennial looks back to America’s founding and the constitutional framework that gave birth to our nation. America is the only nation founded not on blood or soil, but on a creed. Established by the Declaration of Independence, this creed, now more than ever, should be viewed through Jefferson’s words as a unifying force in our country as we continue to confront the challenges of a multicultural society. Both sides of the aisle have factions that seek to blame American democracy for our difficulties. Still, Professor Wood assures us that Americans are better positioned than any other people to mitigate these challenges because of our creedal identity. So what is the source of our strength? Is civic education the key to protecting our ideals? And how important are a free society and assimilation in preserving them?

Gordon Wood is a renowned and highly awarded historian and Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University. He is the author of the Creation of the American Republic which won the Bancroft Prize and the John H. Dunning Prize, and The Radicalism of the American Revolution, which won the Pulitzer Prize for History and the Ralph Waldo Emerson Prize, among many other written works. In 2011 he was awarded a National Humanities Medal by President Obama and the Churchill Bell by Colonial Williamsburg. He is largely regarded as a leading scholar of Early American history, known specifically for his masterful prose and transformative understanding of true radicalism of the American Revolution. The American Enterprise Institute most recently awarded him the Irving Kristol Award.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

While we celebrate the remarkable achievement of 250 years of the US military being a bulwark of democracy, it is important to understand the intentionally laid foundations on which America’s civil military relations tradition rests. Military deference to civilian authority and the legislature is a principle pioneered and championed by General George Washington, setting a powerful precedent for commanding officers to follow… with some instructive exceptions. As we look toward the New Year, and wearily at the political posturing of some military leaders, Kori Schake reminds us of a central theme from her new book, The State and the Soldier (Polity, 2025): “We want a military that's not partisan. We want a military that is subordinate to whatever lunatics the American public see fit to put into high office.” How are military leaders inherently political? How do we avoid forcing them to make partisan choices? And, as we have discussed all year, why does Congress refuse to exercise the powers it has, even in this realm?

Kori Schake is a senior fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Before joining AEI, Dr. Schake was the deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. She has had a distinguished career in government, working at the US State Department, the US Department of Defense, and the National Security Council at the White House. She was also senior policy advisor on the 2008 McCain campaign. She has taught at Stanford, West Point, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Maryland. Dr. Schake is the author of 5 books, with her newest titled “The State and the Soldier: A History of Civil-Military Relations in the United States.”

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

Find The State and the Soldier here.

The Reagan National Defense Survey has again illuminated the MAGA world: MAGA Republicans are not isolationists, nor are the majority of Americans. Despite what those in Washington assert Americans believe, the latest polling reveals that 64 percent of Americans support U.S. leadership on the world stage, with eight in ten self-identified MAGA Republicans driving that figure. So why do we see this dissonance on the Right? Who gets to speak for “America First,” and what does it really mean? Why are figures within Trump’s ranks convincing him that his base opposes intervention and a strong foreign policy? The latest polling reminds us that the American people know who our enemies are, and they are telling us how they want to deal with them. Who’s going to listen?

Roger Zakheim serves as the Washington Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. He previously practiced law at Covington & Burling LLP where he led the firm’s Public Policy and Government Affairs practice group. Before joining Covington, he was General Counsel and Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Zakheim also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense where he supported the department’s policies and programs related to Iraq and Afghanistan coalition affairs. Mr. Zakheim also currently serves on the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace and is a Commissioner on the Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy of the United States.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

If you were in your twenties and could choose to be born at any point in human history, would you be insane to choose any other time to be alive than right now? Our guest says yes, and the statistics back him up. Regardless of perception, shaped in part by politicians and populists, the average person today is richer than John D. Rockefeller simply by virtue of being alive in 2025. And yet, the “anxious generation” of Gen Z and Gen Alpha seem unaware of their own financial wellbeing and appear confused as to why they aren’t instantly as well off as their parents in providing for themselves. Many believe homeownership is impossible, that they will never pay off their loans, and that the cost of living is unmanageable. Is this belief based in any reality? Was life truly better for their parents? Or is this a generational cycle of perception? And who benefits from peddling this fear?

Norbert Michel is the Vice President and Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, where he specializes on issues pertaining to financial markets and monetary policy. Michel was most recently the Director for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation where he edited and contributed chapters to multiple books. Michel is also the author of the book “Crushing Capitalism: How the Stagnation Narrative is Threatening the American Dream”, and coauthor of “Financing Opportunity: How Financial Markets Have Fueled American Prosperity for More than Two Centuries”.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

Over the last decade, China has carried out the largest illicit transfer of capital, innovation, data, and technology in human history. One of the most overlooked elements of this heist is the role of industrial espionage and the theft of corporate secrets. The government-backed intelligence apparatus designed to clone American technology has strengthened Chinese competition across all industries and, most notably, enabled advances in military hardware, microchips, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications. In his newest book, The Great Heist: China’s Epic Campaign to Steal America’s Secrets (Harper Collins, 2025), David Shedd, with Andrew Badger, exposes the CCP’s campaign and presents a counterstrategy informed by his distinguished career in intelligence. But what exactly are they stealing and how are they carrying it out? Why is the IC so silent on this? And why do we insist on bringing more Chinese nationals into our universities?

David Shedd is the former deputy director and acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). He also served as chief of staff for the director of national intelligence and National Security Council senior director and as special assistant to the president for intelligence under George W. Bush. He began his intelligence career in 1982 immediately after his studies at Geneva College and Georgetown University, and served nearly thirty-three years in a number of capacities in the DNI, National Security Council, CIA, and in U.S. embassies overseas. Since leaving the federal government, he has worked at The Heritage Foundation and as an adjunct professor and is currently working as an independent national security consultant.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

Find The Great Heist here.

Between the pardoned turkeys and those running loose on Capitol Hill, controversy over insubordination and sedition seem to be on the menu this holiday. The six Democrats who posted a video addressed to service members sowed chaos and confusion about the proper chain of command and lawful military orders. It is crucial to understand the constitutional framework that distinguish lawful military action, legislative and executive powers, crime, and war. In today’s politics, rhetoric can make it difficult to discern the line between war and crime. John Yoo reminds us that not everything that harms society constitutes a war or justifies the use of military tools. That being said, where is the line drawn, and who draws it? And what is the proper role for members of Congress?

John Yoo is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Yoo has served in all three branches of government. He was an official in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism issues after the 9/11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. He has been a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and federal appeals Judge Laurence Silberman. Professor Yoo has published almost 100 scholarly articles on subjects including national security, constitutional law, international law, and the Supreme Court. Professor Yoo’s latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

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.