Battle Over the Demos

The most consequential domestic policy development of the 2020s is neither COVID-19 nor Donald Trump’s reelection. It is Joe Biden’s decision to import ten million foreigners into the United States in violation of standing federal law. Many of the defining political fights of this decade stem from that choice: government shutdowns over border enforcement, states unilaterally redefining the meaning of citizenship, the growing willingness of the restrictionist wing of the Republican Party to defy its own business class, major fraud investigations in Minneapolis and New York, and the unraveling of consensus over whether federal law binds the states.


These are battles in a larger fight over who constitutes the American people, one that escalated with President Biden’s decision to actively facilitate the mass importation of illegal aliens into this country by land, air, and sea.

American politics is no longer primarily a contest over how we govern ourselves. It is a contest over who we are and who decides.

None of this is merely rhetorical. The federal government has shut down six times since 2018—and immigration has been central to nearly every one of them. The government shut down over border wall funding in 2018 and benefits for “Dreamers” in 2019. Two partial shutdowns concerning immigration enforcement occurred in 2026, the second shutdown being the longest in American history at 76 days.

When the U.S. cannot keep the federal government open, it’s usually due to disagreement not over fiscal policy, but over a foundational question—who belongs to the political community. And that’s the kind of disagreement that does not get resolved simply by winning the next election, as the backlash to immigration enforcement in Minneapolis made jarringly clear.

There are two Greek words to help us frame the moment. The ancients distinguished kratos—meaning power, authority, and the mechanics of rule—from demos—the people in whom that authority resides. Most Americans likely recognize these terms because together they form the root of the word “democracy.” For most of American history, our major political disagreements have been kratos arguments—debates over the accumulation of power in the federal government and how to exercise it for the common good.

Over the first quarter of this century, as our political differences hardened, the Left endeavored to convince, and succeeded in convincing, many of our fellow countrymen that the kratos as it exists is flawed and, more alarming, illegitimate.

Recognizing they do not have the breadth of public support to have their views made law, the Left decided to expand the political terrain. They argued that the Electoral College is racist and should be abolished, that proportional representation in the Senate is an antiquated relic, and that the Supreme Court remains useful only if packed. At the same time, they came up with a more insidious innovation: the Left realized they could change the answer to the question of who we are through the mass importation of illegal aliens.

The demos is the grounds on which we now contest our politics.

Defying the People

Recall what has happened since the 2024 election. The country spoke through the most legitimate instrument it has, and the answer was decisive: mass deportation and the restoration of federal immigration law. Yet the Left decided to defy that answer.

California expanded benefits to illegal aliens in the weeks after President Trump’s decisive victory. Illinois passed new sanctuary protections. New York City reaffirmed its municipal voting policy (before it was struck down) and expanded state-funded health coverage to those here illegally.

The left-wing government contractor apparatus, built to execute the Biden Administration’s mass importation policy, sought to obscure records and coach illegal aliens in how to evade the law, often with support from state and local funding streams. And when federal law enforcement began the hard and rough work of restoring law and order in the interior, the Left’s response was not simply protest. It was the single most extreme anti-federal resistance operation in living memory: coordinated, sustained physical resistance directed at federal law enforcement, designed to prevent them from carrying out the laws the American people explicitly called for in 2024.

Mere protesters do not stalk federal law enforcement officers through airports, feed their license plate data to sources in a local police department, threaten their families on Facebook, or smash windows at their hotels. American history offers few examples of localities resisting federal authority on that scale, and those episodes belong to some of our nation’s darkest chapters.

States and cities now reject the single definition of citizenship on which our union depends. The country voted decisively on the demos question. Yet a substantial part refuses to accept the result—not by contesting the count, but by denying the legitimacy of border enforcement and mass deportation altogether, along with the work of the legislative and executive branches to carry out the American people’s wishes on immigration.

The Left is contesting the very political order that produced a second Trump Administration committed to restoring sanity on immigration. This can be difficult to see because the current political moment allows the Left, along with establishment Republicans, to cloak its rejection of immigration enforcement in principle as concern over specific enforcement tactics. But the tactics are the pretext; the real objection is to enforcement itself.

This asymmetry cannot hold for long.

A Restoration, Not an Insurgency

Much of the commentary among advocates of immigration restriction and mass deportation invokes the restrictionist turn of America 100 years ago. That precedent, however, is inadequate to the moment. The 1924 Johnson-Reed legislation and the following decades-long political consensus worked because the country still had a kratos container capable of holding a demos dispute.

Both political parties generally accepted federal supremacy over immigration. Both generally accepted that citizenship was a single, uniform, federally defined status. The argument was about whom the country admitted. What was not contested was who would adjudicate it and who had a say.

Now attempts to enforce the law are met by sanctuary jurisdictions and street-level resistance. Deep blue states are unilaterally changing the demos itself through issuing IDs, extending benefits, and granting municipal voting rights to illegal aliens. They no longer accept the federal definition of who counts as a member of the political community. Since the container is gone, the resolution cannot look like 1924.

Many in the political class presume that these policy disagreements will resolve as others have historically done—through legislation, the courts, and the slow grinding of consensus toward a workable center. That assumption is wrong.

You cannot half-recognize the ten million people the Biden Administration admitted in contravention of the law. You cannot merely half-restore the demos.

This is why the issue will not subside.

The administration that came in on the back of that reaction has been treated by its critics as a populist insurgency against governing norms. That description misreads the moment. The positions the Trump Administration is implementing were, until about a decade ago, the consensus of both parties: that the border is enforced, that deportation is a routine function of law rather than an atrocity, that citizenship is the only path to receive public benefits and the franchise, and that identification documents certify something real.

The Trump Administration is not the insurgency—it is the restoration.

The Left’s chosen terrain and the ferocity of its fight are the tell. Deportation, sanctuary jurisdictions, the status of those flown in under the Biden-era mass parole programs, the benefits for non-citizens, the IDs the government will honor: each of these, examined closely, is part of a much larger campaign to transform the demos in pursuit of permanent political dominion.

The Trump Administration stands in the breach. This is not a policy disagreement that can be resolved through compromise. It is an existential conflict over who counts as a member of the national citizenry. In an era when every political dispute is described as existential, few deserve that label more than one in which a portion of the country contests the very composition of the people themselves.

Every Issue Is Now a Proxy

There can be no return to the pre-Biden status quo. Housing, healthcare, schools, and crime are increasingly being seen through the lens of immigration, particularly the crushing fiscal weight of carrying millions of non-citizens in the markets and on the books. This is an essential question of political membership: to whom the benefits and responsibilities of that membership apply. Americans witness illegal aliens receive preferential or subsidized mortgage loan access and free emergency room visits, all while operating under a double standard that lets them flout the law at every turn.

Every domestic political debate has become a proxy for the crucial question of who is part of the American people.

Many establishment Republicans still argue that mass deportation is unworkable, that the American people will never bear the high costs of enforcement it requires, and that the country can eventually return to the old consensus. But they are mistaken.

The Left’s radicalization on immigration prevents the old consensus from re-emerging. There is no going back. They have no compunction about flouting immigration law, importing millions in a stunningly short window, and even fighting in the streets for their preferred outcome.

The Left is deliberately rejecting a uniform definition of citizenship. If they win, American citizenship will not erode but splinter irreversibly, a danger more immediate than any downstream effects on the census or future demographic trends. Every path to recovering the traditional understanding of American citizenship—to Make America Great Again—will require citizens themselves to shoulder real burdens and make real sacrifices.

It is our generation’s calling to confront this problem, whether we want to or not.

Jason Killmeyer served as Chief of Staff at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/battle-over-the-demos/

Removable Genitalia

 by John Hinderaker

Minnesota continues its descent into madness. This comes from the London Telegraph:

Minnesota is planning to hand out transgender  dolls to  children as young as four years old. 

The  paper dolls, which feature removable genitalia, were created by the University of Minnesota Medical School for children under ten to “learn about the different options that exist for who they can be”…

Each doll has a gender-neutral name, removable internal and external genitals, and more than 100 pieces of clothing, accessories and hairstyles.

Governor Tim Walz reportedly funded the controversial project, which has prompted anger from conservative groups.

Yes, one would think so. The dolls are intended for kids ages four through ten, and are intended to “make gender fun.” You gotta groom them early!

Prototypes of the dolls were shown at a 2024 conference where one called “Sam”, appeared to have undergone a partial sex change with a detachable penis on one side of the toy, and a dress and girls’ underwear on the other.

 

The policy of the State of Minnesota is to explain to four year olds that their gender is up for grabs. All you have to do is detach your genitals! This is what the trans dolls look like:

This Minnesota initiative is so insane that it is being reported on as far away as London. But do you know what newspaper hasn’t breathed a word about it? The Minnesota Star Tribune. Because the purpose of the Star Tribune is not to cover the news. Its purpose is to cover up the news that reflects badly on the Democratic Party.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/07/removable-genitalia.php

FCC To Unleash An Economic Boom, Thanks To Trump Tax Bill

 The Federal Communications Commission is wasting no time unleashing the spectrum made available by President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Chairman Brendan Carr announced that the agency is preparing to auction 160 megahertz of Upper C-Band spectrum, one of the largest blocks of mid-band spectrum ever brought to market, and he’s doing it faster than anyone expected. That’s great news for customers, businesses, and the U.S. economy.

Restoring the FCC’s authority to auction spectrum licenses to the private sector was one of the many fantastic provisions of the Big Beauty that went largely unnoticed but has massive positive economic implications.

Chairman Carr wasted no time putting that authority to work. Making more prime spectrum available at auction is exactly the kind of pro-growth action businesses have been waiting for, enabling the U.S. to expand 5G and soon 6G technology, while ensuring American dominance in internet and artificial intelligence.

This auction is projected to generate over $400 billion in economic activity and support about 2.5 million American jobs, according to industry estimates. It will accomplish that by moving spectrum that was being largely wasted by government agencies into private hands in the fairest and most efficient way possible — by taking the highest bidder.

That carries the extra benefit of reducing the federal deficit.  Since 1994, FCC spectrum auctions have generated more than $233 billion for the U.S. Treasury, but the auctions stalled for years when the authority lapsed before the Big Beautiful Bill restored it.

Private companies bid billions of dollars for the right to use this valuable public asset because they know they can earn a return on their investment. It’s a win-win for taxpayers, companies, their employees, and ultimately their customers.

Spectrum doesn’t create jobs or attract investment sitting idle on the books of federal agencies. It creates both when private companies can use it to build wireless networks and connect millions of Americans to the digital economy of the future. The faster that happens, the better, so the FCC deserves a lot of credit for moving as quickly as possible.

Spectrum is the lifeblood of the wireless sector, which has become one of the great success stories of the American economy. The real cost of wireless service has fallen by more than 41% over the past decade while Americans are getting faster speeds, using more data, and paying less due to more supply and competition.

Making more spectrum available will help companies extend reliable wireless service to more Americans, expand 5G home broadband competition to nearly 440,000 additional households, and give consumers another option to compete with cable.

This auction can’t come soon enough. We trail foreign competitors in terms of licensed mid-band availability by an average of 250 megahertz. And other countries aren’t standing still: Europe plans to make an additional 700 megahertz available in short order while China plans to license 1660 megahertz for commercial use.

If America wants to lead the next generation of wireless technology, more spectrum must come to market. The next generation of economic growth will be powered by 5G, 6G, AI, advanced manufacturing, and beyond. All of it will require better, faster, higher-capacity, and more reliable connectivity. This auction helps make sure those investments are made here in America and that we dominate the AI age as thoroughly as we did the Internet age.

The Upper C-Band auction is an important reminder that smart policy can produce real results, and the Big Beautiful Bill was packed with one economic gem after another. Kudos to President Trump and Chairman Carr.

Steve Moore is co-founder of Unleash Prosperity.

https://issuesinsights.com/2026/07/23/fcc-to-unleash-an-economic-boom-thanks-to-trump-tax-bill/

Odysseus Visits the Smithsonian

 by Roger Kimball

It seems that everyone is talking about two things these days: The Odyssey (or, to be more strictly accurate, The Odyssey as reimagined by Christopher Nolan) and the Smithsonian Institution, specifically the National Museum of American History (NMAH), one of the roughly 20 museums that huddle under the taxpayer-funded umbrella of the Smithsonian.

I have not seen the film version of Homer’s epic. But I feel confident in reporting that, for sheer entertainment, the televised cross-examination of NMAH’s longtime director, Anthea Hartig, easily beat out the cinematic version of The Odyssey. How can I say this, not having seen Matt Damon emoting around in his beard and shiny armor? Well, Sydney Smith (1771–1845) said that he never read a book before reviewing it because he found that the exercise prejudiced him. So it is with me. I shall endeavor to escape prejudice, bias, both intentional and the other kind, as well as parti pris altogether, by boldly commenting on some aspects of the Nolanized version of the story without having seen it. And seeing it is work, dear reader. A look at the screening schedule tells me that it runs nearly three hours, 172–173 minutes by the clock, though no one has been able to tell me why, in this homogenizing age of atomic clocks, we can’t get a more precise reckoning of the time.

By all accounts, Nolan’s Odysseus, unlike Odysseus in Homer’s telling, is a troubled, guilt-ridden specimen, forever agonizing over his aggressive behavior and mistreatment of others. He has, not to put too fine a point on it, anger issues, unlike Homer’s Odysseus, who experienced anger but no anger issues. In Homer’s version, Odysseus is a hero. He is clever, yes, both cunning (“πολύμητις”)  and complicated (“πολύτροπος”). But even more often than Achilles, Odysseus is described as πτολιπόρθιος, “sacker of cities.” He was a warrior. He didn’t anguish about those to whom he caused anguish. It was part of who he was. He gloried in it.

Given the length of the movie and the many liberties taken with the script, I am surprised that no one suggested having Matt Damon pay a visit to the Smithsonian or at least the congressional hearing about the Smithsonian. We know that Anthea Hartig is keen on beginning meetings with a “land acknowledgment.” It’s all a little masquerade, of course, a rancid bit of virtue signaling that costs its performer exactly nothing. But I suspect that behind the theater—by which I mean the hypocrisy—is a timid bid for expiation or absolution. There is a lot of unearned guilt sloshing around the National Museum of American History these days, and the ritual of land acknowledgment, though ever so specious, might be seen as a moral or existential hedge, drawn from the same sort of calculation Pascal conjured with in his famous wager about how individuals ought to think about the odds when it came to the existence of God.

What I want to know, however, is what Odysseus, the Homeric hero, not the movie mannequin, would have thought about the practice of land acknowledgments. Let me put cards on the table and say that I believe he would have treated the people insisting on them as he treated the Cyclops Polyphemus or, come to that, the suitors pestering the patient Penelope, his wife.

I said that the best entertainment I enjoyed last week was the cross-examination—not to say the thorough exposure and humiliation—of Anthea Hartig. And the best of the best, I thought, was the brilliant surgical evisceration conducted by freshman representative Brandon Gill (R-TX). In under 5 minutes, he performed an elegant posterior sagittal anorectoplasty on Hartig’s long tenure at the National Museum of American History. And he did it by the simple, revelatory expedient of confronting her with the Smithsonian’s own public educational materials. “Are you a white supremacist?” he asked. “Oh no, no,” replied Hartig, smiling weakly. “Do you think we all have implicit biases?” asked Gill. “If so, what are yours?” Oh dear. “Do you think it is important to be polite?” Gill wondered. “Oh yes,” quoth Hartig, perhaps thinking that if she said she approved of politeness, Gill would be polite to her. No such luck.

Politeness, you see, is one of the many bourgeois virtues that literature distributed by the Smithsonian has identified as a symptom of white supremacy. Other behaviors and attitudes that raise the alarm about lurking white supremacist tendencies are hard work, rational thinking, respect for private property, delayed gratification, and rugged individualism.

You think that I am making this up, but I am not. It’s all there in an official NMAH brochure called “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States.” File it under “Things are always worse than you think.” Here’s a thought experiment: What if these habits and behaviors really were signs of “whiteness” or “white supremacy”? What then? Or to put it another way, how much of a racist would you have to be to promulgate a brochure like “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States”? (It would be interesting to know whether most of the authors of that odious document were themselves white. I’d wager most of them were liberal white women.)

The point is this: the Smithsonian Institution was created to preserve and celebrate the American heritage. By the same process of moral entropy that has undermined American educational institutions, transforming them from unapologetic repositories of our storied past into tenebrous havens for those “men without chests” that C. S. Lewis delineated, the Smithsonian Institution has abandoned its original mandate. No longer is it about celebrating America’s past, where by “celebrate” I do not mean “exonerate” past evils and failures, the sort of deficiencies that are part of every nation, no matter how great. The Smithsonian should not be about covering up America’s failings. It should be about putting those failings in the more capacious context of America’s stupendous achievements. This the Smithsonian under its current leadership has conspicuously failed to do.

Some observers are puzzled that President Trump should lavish so much attention on what is, after all, merely a cultural institution. He does so, I believe, because he understands that the ulterior motive of the Smithsonian Institution in its current incarnation is to rob us of our heroes. As I have put it elsewhere, Trump’s attention to institutions like the Smithsonian is part of his ambition to give America back its heroes. That is why he has overseen such meticulous criticism of the Smithsonian. Admonition, Montaigne observed, is one of the highest offices of friendship. Criticism takes time and effort to formulate and dispense. If he didn’t care, President Trump could, like presidents before him, just pass by cultural institutions like the Smithsonian and our educational apparat. But he does care, which is why he devotes serious attention to improving them.

Above all, The Odyssey is a story about νόστος, homecoming. The National Museum of American History, like so many aspects of the Smithsonian, has strayed far from its original purpose. It is wandering amongst monsters, enchanted by Sirens, lost in its fatuous, puerile disillusionment. It is time to bring it home. Perhaps Donald Trump is the Athena-like guide who can pull it off.

https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/26/odysseus-visits-the-smithsonian/