The Insider Report from The New American

Trump Nominates Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence

On June 11, President Donald Trump announced his nomination of Jay Clayton to serve as the next director of national intelligence (DNI). The move comes after the resignation of Tulsi Gabbard.

In a Truth Social post, Trump praised Clayton: “Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay…. I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible.” The nomination follows pushback over an earlier interim pick lacking intelligence experience.

Walter Joseph “Jay” Clayton III, born in 1966, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. (See page 43 of our latest Conspiracy Issue.) He served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from 2017 to 2020, during Trump’s first term. Before and after his time with the SEC, Clayton was a partner at the infamous globalist international law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, where he co-headed the corporate practice and handled complex cross-border transactions. He previously served as a law clerk, and holds degrees in engineering, economics (from Cambridge), and law from the University of Pennsylvania. In 2025, Trump appointed him U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), known colloquially as the “Sovereign District of New York” due to its status and influence as a federal prosecutorial office.

As SDNY chief, Clayton has overseen high-profile cases involving national security, financial crimes, and public corruption. Republicans have hailed the pick for his proven leadership and prosecutorial toughness, while critics, including Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), point out his relatively limited direct experience in intelligence work. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) indicated the Senate could move “fairly quickly” on confirmation.

For constitutionalists, the nomination is a red flag. While Clayton is viewed as a competent figure with Trump administration experience, he is nonetheless a member of the Establishment. Concerns persist about his 21-year association with Sullivan & Cromwell (which gave the world Allen Dulles and countless CIA coups). Notably, CIA director John Ratcliffe suggested Clayton for the job of DNI. Supporters naively assert that Clayton will break from his globalist ties and prioritize American sovereignty, depoliticize intelligence, and focus resources on genuine threats rather than domestic political opponents. Incidentally, Clayton is not a registered Republican, but an Independent.

The DNI role coordinates 18 intelligence agencies and provides the president with daily briefings on national-security threats. — Rebecca Terrell

Trump Signs Border-security Reconciliation Bill. What’s in It?

On June 10, President Donald Trump signed legislation ensuring that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will remain fully funded through fiscal 2029, ending a standoff with Democrats, who refused to support funding for either agency.

S. 2, titled the Secure America Act, was introduced in May as a reconciliation bill, meaning its provisions are designed to bypass the U.S. Senate’s filibuster rules. The Senate passed the bill on June 5 by a near-party-line 52-47 vote, with Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) being the only Republican to join all Democrats in voting against the bill. The House of Representatives passed S. 2 on June 9 by a party-line 214-212 vote.

At the signing ceremony, Trump declared that S. 2 “will give the heroes of ICE and Border Patrol … the support and resources they need to defend our borders, protect our homeland, and keep America safe.” In a June 10 interview on Fox News, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said that “we have employees at ICE and CBP … [who] haven’t been paid since February,” and because S. 2 funds those agencies through the end of Trump’s presidency, “we won’t have the Democrats threatening to shut [them] down.”

The Secure America Act appropriates $69.5 billion through September 30, 2029. Of that amount, the bill appropriates $26 billion to CBP, including $9.55 billion “to hire, pay, train, and equip Border Patrol agents and … support personnel”; $13.02 billion “for hiring, paying, training, and equipping [CBP] agents, and the necessary support staff, and … mission support and operations and maintenance”; and $3.45 billion for various border-security operations and technology.

S. 2 appropriates another $38.5 billion to ICE, including $31.075 billion for ICE personnel, technology, and operations. Of that amount, the bill specifies that at least $350 million must be used for immigration-enforcement operations in states or localities that do not cooperate with ICE. S. 2 appropriates an additional $7.45 billion “to hire, pay, train, and equip Homeland Security Investigations [HSI] agents and support personnel,” as well as “mission support and operations and maintenance.” Of that amount, the bill requires that $108.5 million be used “to train [HSI] personnel and State and local law enforcement regarding identifying victims of child sexual exploitation and abuse.”

Additionally, S. 2 appropriates $2.5 billion to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to support federal cooperation with state and local governments on immigration enforcement — including the 287(g) program — and an additional $2.5 billion is appropriated to DHS without a specified purpose.

The Secure America Act gives CBP and ICE a massive boost. In addition to the fact that these agencies will not need to worry about renewed congressional funding until late 2029, they are also receiving major funding increases. The $38.5 billion for ICE, for example, dwarfs the agency’s $9.8 billion budget in fiscal 2024 — and this is on top of the $170.7 billion that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already appropriated for immigration enforcement and border security through fiscal 2029.

In a Fox News interview on June 8, border czar Tom Homan asserted that with the bill’s funding, “You’re going to see targeting increase, you’re going to see arrests increase, [and] we’re also going to be able to pay our vendors, our detention facilities, our medical contractors. So that means that we’re going to do a lot more.”

S. 2 is an unprecedented funding bill, since it used the reconciliation process — thus bypassing the Senate’s filibuster rules — to enact non-supplemental funding for federal agencies. This is yet another step toward weakening — and ultimately abolishing — the filibuster and breaking down the “regular order” process for appropriations bills. Both the Republican and Democratic parties will likely enact appropriations in the same manner in the coming years.

Although S. 2’s funding will help deter mass migration to the United States — helping protect American sovereignty — the bill represents another step toward expanding federal law enforcement. Globalist-induced mass migration, combined with the broader breakdown in law and order, has been used as an excuse to transfer police powers from the states and their local governments to Washington, D.C., and S. 2 intensifies this trend.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has no authority to conduct interior law-enforcement activities, and nowhere does the Constitution grant the federal government authority over immigration — only naturalization. Constitutionally, both immigration and law enforcement are reserved to the states — authority that they must reclaim. Additionally, S. 2’s funding for interior immigration enforcement could potentially be used against American citizens in the form of domestic surveillance.

Regardless, S. 2 is now law. Its impact — both good and bad — will become clear in the coming years. — Peter Rykowski

Is the U.S.-Iran War Over?

As of mid-June 2026, the United States has reached a tentative peace framework with Iran to end the military conflict that began, unconstitutionally, on February 28, when U.S. and Israeli forces launched strikes on Iranian military and nuclear targets. What started as a limited operation to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities escalated into a confrontation involving tit-for-tat strikes, disruptions to energy infrastructure in the Strait of Hormuz, and significant economic fallout.

President Trump has announced a “great settlement” and memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran, describing it as effectively ending the war. The framework includes a 60-day ceasefire extension, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, $300 billion in reconstruction-fund access for Iran, lifting of the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports, and provisions for further negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. A formal signing is anticipated in Geneva on June 19, with Vice President J.D. Vance representing the United States. Iran has signaled acceptance of the framework while claiming a degree of victory, though details on full compliance and sanctions relief remain under discussion.

Recent escalations had threatened earlier ceasefire efforts, including exchanges in early June and U.S. responses to incidents such as the downing of a U.S. Apache helicopter. However, Trump has since canceled planned further strikes and publicly touted progress toward de-escalation. He has also criticized Israeli actions in Lebanon that risked derailing the talks.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to fully align with the U.S.-Iran framework. Israel, which is not a direct party to the MoU, has stated it will maintain its military positions and operations in Lebanon, as well as buffer zones in Gaza and Syria, “for as long as necessary,” prioritizing its own security interests over the ceasefire. Netanyahu emphasized that the “struggle has not finished” and that Israel retains the right to act independently against perceived threats. This stance has created tensions with Trump, who has described Netanyahu as “a very difficult guy” and urged restraint to preserve the deal.

The failure of full regional buy-in carries heavy costs. Military expenditures have already reached tens of billions, with massive economic impacts from disruptions to global oil flows. Energy prices spiked during the height of the conflict, but have eased with the prospect of reopened shipping lanes. Analysts estimate that Americans have paid more than $40 billion in elevated gasoline and diesel costs since the conflict began, though Trump recently bragged that he kept prices at $85 to $90 a barrel instead of $250 a barrel, by secretly “stealing oil” from Iran.

Analysts such as retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor have warned of the risks of renewed escalation, including inflation pressures and strain on the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Investor Grant Cardone and others have highlighted risks to Treasury yields and broader economic stability if tensions reignite. — Rebecca Terrell

Trump Admin Locates 146,000 Unaccompanied Migrant Children; 300,000 Still Missing

Trump administration officials announced June 11 that they had located 146,000 unaccompanied migrant children who had been lost after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border during the previous administration — but 300,000 additional children remain missing.

During a news conference with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin announced that “we found 146,000 kids so far,” a significant increase from 22,000 last September.

Mullin quickly added, however, that “we still have nearly 300,000 [children] missing.” He continued, “When we start digging into these cases, and you start hearing the absolute horrific things that took place underneath the Biden administration, [it is] either true neglect at best and criminal at worst, to allow 450,000 kids to go missing throughout this country.”

Blanche added that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security had identified “15,500 super-sponsor cases … when somebody [fraudulently] sponsors more than three [unrelated, unaccompanied, migrant] children” to enter the United States.

Mullin and Blanche’s announcement comes after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced on June 3 that it had uncovered “rampant fraud in the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) process,” which “provides a pathway to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, and ultimately naturalization, for illegal alien minors under the age of 21 who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by either one parent or both parents.”

These incidents highlight the national-security risks and human cost of the Biden-era border crisis that brought more than seven million illegal aliens into the United States. — Peter Rykowski

FISA 702 Defeated — For Now

Congress has refused to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the U.S. government to spy on Americans without a warrant. The Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it, but the nays wouldn’t have prevailed had it not been for 19 Republicans.

The vote to extend FISA 702 failed 198-218 in the House of Representatives on Thursday. Afterward, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stepped in front of media cameras to warn that Americans are now under great threat. “It is shameful, it is very, very dangerous,” he said. “I pray that we do not have a serious calamity on our shores over the next few weeks.”

Johnson, a constitutional lawyer by trade, was once a critic of FISA 702. After becoming speaker, however, he did a complete 180 on the matter. Then-Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who had instigated a mutiny against the previous speaker, was stunned. “These were views that the Speaker deeply held, like, 20 minutes ago,” Gaetz observed back in 2024.

President Donald Trump, who was once a victim of FISA 702 abuse, has also flipped on the issue. He now fully supports it.

Johnson attributed his turnaround to learning more about the program. (More on how the intel cartel convinces lawmakers later.)

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) also warned that bad things can happen if this law expires. “This critical tool is set to go dark on Friday, and what the consequences of that will be, we cannot predict,” said Thune.

Johnson blamed the failed vote on Democrats playing political games. “The Democrats are using [FISA 702 extension] as a political hostage,” he said. Meanwhile, House Republicans are doing everything they possibly can to govern, according to Johnson.

X users issued a community note pointing out that 19 Republicans joined the Democrats:

19 Republicans joined 199 Democrats in voting against the short term FISA extension. The measure needed two thirds approval but received 198 votes. Some opposed it because it did not include a requirement for warrants when querying data of US citizens.

Nevertheless, Johnson is right, at least partially. The reason for Democratic opposition, not surprisingly, was not principle but politics. Democrats have never been a bunch to let the Constitution get in the way of a yes vote. In this case, they wanted Trump to withdraw his choice of Bill Pulte for acting director of national intelligence (DNI). “Democrats said they would not support the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act … unless the Republican president withdrew Pulte’s appointment and nominated a permanent replacement as director of national intelligence,” The Washington Post reported. After the vote, Trump did budge, saying he was tapping Jay Clayton as permanent DNI. “But the president’s move did not seem able to break the standoff over Pulte before the deadline,” the Post added.

The Republicans, on the other hand, oppose FISA 702 for the right reasons. Representative Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), one of the nays, explained after the vote:

The Fourth Amendment is there for a reason.… Remember those illegal search and seizures done during the Biden administration, literally thousands of them? Some of these guys were FBI agents trying to hook up with some lady or something. It’s just pathetic abuse.

The above is part of an article by Paul Dragu. To see the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.

U.S. State Department Dismantles International Birth Tourism Networks

The U.S. Department of State has dismantled multiple “birth tourism” networks operating across Europe and Africa, according to The Daily Wire. These operations helped foreign nationals fraudulently obtain visitor visas primarily to give birth on U.S. soil, securing automatic U.S. citizenship for their children under the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provisions.

Birth tourism involves pregnant women traveling to the United States on temporary B-1/B-2 visitor visas with the intent of delivering a child who automatically gains U.S. citizenship. Federal regulations prohibit issuing visitor visas for this purpose.

U.S. embassies acted after heightened alerts for fraudulent documentation. In West Africa, one embassy identified a “sophisticated birth tourism network” involving more than 100 foreign nationals who used fake documents and “visa fixers.” Officials revoked the visas and are coordinating with local authorities to disrupt similar operations. In North Africa, consular officers, working with law enforcement and data analytics, revoked more than 100 visas linked to birth tourists.

In Europe, investigators traced more than 400 suspected birth-tourism cases since 2024 to at least six companies. These entities reportedly coached applicants on visa interviews, arranged U.S. housing, and planned deliveries. The State Department shut down these activities, revoked visas, and imposed permanent bans on several fraudsters.

“Under President Trump, the State Department is defending the integrity of U.S. citizenship by ending illegal birth tourism schemes,” the State Department announced. “No foreigner is permitted to obtain a visitor visa for the primary purpose of acquiring U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the U.S.”

The Trump administration previously targeted birth tourism through visa rules (notably a 2020 regulation creating a rebuttable presumption against pregnant applicants suspected of this intent) and has highlighted domestic cases, such as operations in Texas involving centers accused of facilitating births for foreign nationals, particularly from China.

Birth tourism commodifies U.S. citizenship, straining public resources and potentially creating national-security risks (e.g., “anchor babies” who could later facilitate chain migration or return with foreign influences). Watchdogs also have sounded the alarm about how foreign countries could use these newly minted “paper Americans” to vote in U.S. elections. The ghost student scandal is another way criminal networks exploit the system. Organized operations bring pregnant foreign nationals to the United States to secure automatic citizenship and, critically, a Social Security number. The credentials — a legitimate American identity tied to a real Social Security number — are later transferred to criminal syndicates who weaponize them years down the road, enrolling fictitious “students” in open-enrollment community colleges, filing federal financial-aid claims, collecting thousands of dollars per application, and vanishing. Taxpayer money flows out of the U.S. Treasury and into overseas criminal networks. — Rebecca Terrell

Rubio: U.S. May Rejoin Global Vaccine Alliance

During a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on June 4, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that the United States may rejoin Gavi, a global vaccine alliance that the country withdrew from last year.

The New York Times reports:

But Mr. Rubio suggested in pointed testimony that he was reclaiming control of the U.S. relationship with Gavi, which has historically been managed by the State Department.

The State Department is “going to re-engage on the issue of Gavi,” Mr. Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said that the department was not going to “yank” the matter from [Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F.] Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, or ignore “his points of view.” But he said that a few weeks ago, he had made the decision to resume management of the relationship….

Congress has appropriated $600 million for Gavi that has been blocked by Mr. Kennedy, despite the State Department’s usual role in handling the relationship….

The State Department refused to comment on whether Mr. Rubio’s reference to re-engagement meant a return to previous levels of funding for Gavi, or on what timeline that might occur.

On June 25, 2025, Kennedy announced that the United States would end all support for Gavi. Rubio’s announcement indicates that the Trump administration will reverse this action.

All foreign aid is unconstitutional, not being authorized under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Instead of restoring funding for Gavi, the United States should end all foreign aid and return to a traditional foreign policy of noninterventionism. — Peter Rykowski

Former World Bank President Critiques Central Banking

David Malpass, who served as president of the World Bank from 2019 to 2023 and previously as a U.S. Treasury official, has described the Federal Reserve as having “basically become a giant hedge fund” that has incurred over a trillion dollars in losses. He argues it borrows from banks at rates around 5.4 percent to invest in government bonds, creating an illusion of fiscal health for the U.S. government while distorting markets.

The Fed borrows from commercial banks to buy government bonds. When short-term rates rise, its interest expenses exceed earnings on its portfolio, leading to operating losses. The Fed reported operating losses of roughly $114 billion in 2023, $78 billion in 2024, and about $19 billion in 2025. Cumulative deferred assets from losses had reached around $243 billion by the end of 2025. Unrealized losses on its holdings (losses if sold before maturity) peaked at more than $1 trillion and stood at approximately $844 billion at the end of last year.

In a 2023 article, investor Lyn Alden wrote, “The U.S. Federal Reserve is now operating at a financial loss, and is months away from having negative tangible equity for the first time in modern history.”

Malpass argues that this encourages excessive government borrowing by suppressing yields, and crowds out private investment. He explains that in this case there is no “money printing.” Instead, the Fed is “taking money from the economy in order to buy government bonds.” Similar dynamics exist at other central banks (e.g., the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan), where large bond-buying programs have expanded balance sheets but led to losses when rates normalized.

Critics such as Malpass see the scale of trillions in assets as transforming the Fed from a monetary authority into a de facto allocator of capital favoring government debt. This results in an opportunity cost of money from commercial banks being siphoned away from Main Street to prop up the government. As Malpass commented, “Banks get squeezed out because they’re lending so much to the Fed…. It’s literally a floating rate loan from banks to the Federal Reserve so it can buy government bonds. So if that were freed up, that would allow the banks to at least consider a small business loan and inventory loans — the kinds of things that help the economy grow.”

In a statement to the House Financial Services Committee, Malpass wrote, “I think Federal Reserve policies have been weakening and distorting the economy rather than providing stimulus. The policies are hurting savers, distorting markets, and redistributing capital rather than increasing it. The policies subsidize government, big corporations, big banks, foreign investment and gold, none of which is a robust private sector job creator, at the expense of small and new businesses and other job-creating parts of the economy.” — Rebecca Terrell

Rockefellers & Co. Work to “Refound” America With “Color Revolution”

As America approaches its 250th anniversary of independence, powerful forces including Rockefellers and others are working on a comprehensive plan to fundamentally transform America and “Refound” it, explained researcher and writer Lisa Logan in an interview on Conversations That Matter with The New American’s Alex Newman.

This refounding agenda involves a “color revolution” organized by many of the same individuals and organizations that conducted such operations in Eastern Europe and North Africa, Logan said.

However, if Americans are educated about this danger, it can be stopped, she said.

Watch and share the interview at TheNewAmerican.com. — The Editors

Sam Bankman-Fried Loses Bid to Overturn 25-year Prison Sentence

On June 12, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously upheld the fraud conviction and 25-year prison sentence of Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX. The ruling rejected Bankman-Fried’s arguments that his 2023 trial was unfair, effectively affirming one of the most high-profile white-collar convictions in recent U.S. history.

Bankman-Fried, once a billionaire crypto prodigy and major political donor, was convicted in November 2023 on seven felony counts, including wire fraud and conspiracy charges. Prosecutors proved that he diverted approximately $8 billion in FTX customer funds to cover losses at his affiliated hedge fund, Alameda Research. The money also financed personal luxuries, real-estate purchases, and substantial political contributions. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced him to 25 years in March 2024, describing the scheme as a profound betrayal of trust.

In his appeal, Bankman-Fried’s legal team contended that Judge Kaplan improperly restricted testimony intended to show that FTX held sufficient assets to cover customer withdrawals, arguing this evidence would have demonstrated no intent to defraud. They also claimed the trial was tainted by judicial bias. The appeals court firmly rejected these claims in its opinion. Circuit Judge Barrington Parker wrote that the government’s evidence was “conservatively stated [and] robust,” and emphasized that fraud occurs the moment funds are misappropriated through deception, regardless of any later intent to repay.

“While he was publicly reassuring customers, investors, and regulators that FTX customer funds were safe, he was simultaneously using FTX as his own personal piggy bank,” Parker stated. The panel found that Kaplan acted within his discretion and that additional testimony risked confusing the jury.

The decision leaves Bankman-Fried, now 34 and incarcerated at a low-security federal prison in Los Angeles in Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Terminal Island, with limited options. He may seek rehearing by the full Second Circuit or petition the U.S. Supreme Court, though success is considered unlikely. He remains eligible for release around 2044.

Bankman-Fried has also formally applied for a presidential pardon from Donald Trump. While Trump has granted clemency to other crypto figures, public statements suggest little appetite for pardoning Bankman-Fried. FTX customers have recovered most of their funds through the bankruptcy process, but there are still open wounds.

The FTX collapse in November 2022 erased billions in value and sent shock waves through global markets. Bankman-Fried’s rapid rise, marked by Super Bowl advertising, arena-naming rights, and influence in Washington, ended in ignominious failure. Former lieutenants, including Caroline Ellison, testified against him after pleading guilty. — Rebecca Terrell

Switzerland Narrowly Rejects “No 10 Million” Immigration Proposal

In a referendum with major implications for Switzerland’s sovereignty and relationship with the European Union, Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a proposal to cap their country’s population at 10 million by restricting immigration. Despite the proposal’s defeat, however, the relatively narrow vote margin demonstrates growing public opposition to mass migration.

The proposal, titled “No 10-million Switzerland,” was rejected with 54.79 percent of the popular vote. As a constitutional amendment, it also needed a majority of cantons (the Swiss equivalent to states in the United States) voting in favor. Only 10 cantons (including half-cantons) supported it, while 13 voted against it. Nearly 59 percent of voters turned out, an unusually high proportion for nationwide referendums.

“No 10-million Switzerland,” a popular initiative spearheaded by the conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP), would have required the Swiss federal government to restrict immigration in order to prevent Switzerland’s population from surpassing 10 million before 2050. Specifically, the measure stipulated that if the country’s population surpassed 9.5 million, the government would have had to restrict asylum and family reunification and renegotiate international agreements that promote mass migration. If the population exceeded 10 million, Switzerland would have been required to withdraw from the UN’s Global Compact for Migration and its agreement with the European Union allowing for the free movement of people.

Switzerland’s parliament and Federal Council (executive branch) had urged voters to reject the proposal, arguing that it would force the government to withdraw Switzerland from multiple international agreements, particularly with the European Union.

Although the proposal failed, the SVP performed strongly in multiple cantonal and other down-ballot elections. Those results demonstrate that immigration will remain an important issue in Switzerland.

In the last 30 years, Switzerland’s population has increased from seven million to more than nine million — five times faster than the EU’s population growth — fueled almost entirely through migration. Foreigners currently comprise more than a quarter of Switzerland’s population. This influx has had significant negative impacts on the country, leading to the SVP’s proposal.

In recent decades, Switzerland has ceded large parts of its sovereignty to the European Union despite not being a member, and the EU continues to pressure the country into becoming a mere satellite state. The country is already a member of the EU’s open-borders Schengen Area and allows the “free movement” of EU citizens into the country.

Mass migration inherently threatens national independence. By importing significant numbers of people with no allegiance or cultural affinity, a country loses its unique identity, cultural cohesion, and patriotism. This erodes citizens’ desire to maintain an independent nation-state, and advances the globalist goal of merging that country into a regional or one-world government. To stop and reverse the advance of big-government globalism, it is essential that countries put an end to mass migration.

The United States is experiencing similar — and intensifying — attacks on its system of government. Rather than allowing America to go the way of Europe, Americans must boldly defend their country’s founding principles and inform others of those principles. If we do so, we can restore our country as the U.S. Founding Fathers envisioned it.

The above is part of an article by Peter Rykowski. To see the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.

Trump Has No Authority to “Take Back Washington” If Janeese Lewis George Becomes D.C. Mayor

When a reporter asked President Trump last Thursday how he would feel if Janeese Lewis George won the District of Columbia’s Democratic mayoral primary, he did not hesitate. “I wouldn’t like it,” he said, and then offered the country a glimpse of an older, uglier form of rule. “Maybe we take back Washington, run it on the federal basis. We won’t put up with it.”

Let us be plain about what was threatened. Not a policy. Not a veto. A punishment. Trump announced that if the residents of the District elect a mayor he dislikes, he may simply seize the city and govern it himself. The threat is unconstitutional, and it is worth understanding precisely why, because the reason is not the one his critics usually reach for.

Begin with the text, as we always must. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 vests in Congress the power “to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the seat of government. I will not pretend, as some will, that the District enjoys the sovereignty of a State. It does not. The Framers placed the capital under the plenary authority of the national legislature precisely so that no single State could hold the federal government hostage. On this narrow point Trump’s defenders are correct: The District is not Virginia, and home rule is a statute, not a birthright.

But notice the word the Constitution chose. Congress. Not the president. Not the executive. The District Clause is a grant of legislative power, and the man who threatened to “take back Washington” sits in the executive branch. He may no more repeal the Home Rule Act by his own word than he may coin money or declare war from the Oval Office. To seize the governance of a city by executive fiat is not to exercise a constitutional power. It is to usurp one.

James Madison saw this coming two centuries ago. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,” he wrote in The Federalist, No. 47, “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Montesquieu, whom Madison was quoting, understood that liberty dies not in a single thunderclap but in the quiet merger of offices that ought to remain apart. When a president arrogates to himself the legislative authority the Constitution assigned to Congress, the structure that shields the citizen collapses inward. The question is never merely whether a thing may be done. It is who may do it, and by what authority. Here the answer is settled, and it is not the president.

Now press further, because the deeper offense lies beneath the separation of powers. Suppose Congress itself, and not the president, moved to dissolve home rule the morning after Lewis George took the oath. Even then the act would be poisoned at its root, for its purpose would be to nullify an election whose result displeased the powerful. That is not governance. That is reprisal against the franchise.

Thomas Jefferson grounded the whole American experiment in a single sentence: Governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Consent withdrawn the instant the governed vote the wrong way is no consent at all. A republic in which the citizen may cast his ballot freely, provided he chooses the candidate the executive approves, is not a republic. It is a pantomime of one.

The above is part of an article by Joe Wolverton II, J.D. To see the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.