Now a decade since the vote, the United Kingdom has had six different prime ministers, endured repeated leadership crises, and watched membership in both major political parties shrink amid rising voter apathy and disillusionment - and that turmoil is raising an important question: did Brexit deliver everything its campaigners promised?

The nation’s economic record reveals the harsh reality. A National Bureau of Economic Research analysis argues that, by 2025, Brexit had reduced the United Kingdom’s GDP by as much as 8 percent, with business investment 18 percent lower, and productivity and employment each down by almost 4 percent. Despite new trade deals with Australia, New Zealand, and other Pacific Rim economies, the United Kingdom’s Office for Budget Responsibility attributes the productivity drag specifically to the reduced trade intensity with the European Union. Instead, goods traded with the European Union now face extra paperwork and delays, and global shocks such as the pandemic and energy crisis exacerbate the downturn.

Immigration, too, reveals a similar pattern of partial delivery. Leaving the European Union ended free movement and created a points-based system, satisfying the formal demand for control. Yet net migration climbed sharply under these new rules, peaking above 900,000 in 2023 before visa tightening brought it down to 171,000 by the end of 2025. The post-Brexit surge came mostly from non-European Union routes. Although a mechanism of control now exists, the sustained reduction in overall numbers that many Brexit supporters originally expected has not.

Politically, the instability stands out. Six prime ministers in ten years - David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, and Keir Starmer - point to unresolved tensions inside both governing parties rather than renewed democratic strength. The Conservatives and Labour parties have each suffered sharp declines in membership as frustrated voters move to newer options, such as Reform UK, or disengage. The result has been a politics of drift, not the confident renewal that was once promised.

Domestic security and foreign policy are perhaps the only parts of this that present a balanced ledger. The United Kingdom has preserved its central place in NATO, strengthened bilateral ties with the United States, and joined frameworks such as the trilateral security partnership AUKUS without European Union vetoes. Even intelligence and law-enforcement cooperation with European partners has continued, further ensuring that no security collapses occur.

But culturally, the referendum gave voice to long-standing concerns about national identity, sovereignty, and the speed of demographic and economic change. Those concerns were real and predated it. At the same time, however, the process exposed and sometimes widened geographic and generational divides, especially in places like Scotland and among younger voters who, according to recent polling, now show greater support for closer ties with the European Union.

Some campaign promises were even harder to keep. The claim that Brexit would free up $350 million a week for the National Health Service never materialized, as health spending rose from general taxation amid competing demands and post-pandemic backlogs. Trade was supposed to flourish worldwide, but in practice, the European Union remains the dominant partner, and new deals have delivered only marginal economic lift. Regulatory sovereignty is real on paper, yet meaningful divergence has been constrained by the practical need to keep market access.

The United Kingdom’s experience through this shows that a democratic vote to reclaim sovereignty can rest on legitimate grievances about accountability and borders. Those issues did not vanish inside the European Union; however, the optimistic forecasts of frictionless global trade, immediate fiscal gains, and straightforward control proved far more difficult to achieve than campaigners suggested. Prolonged uncertainty, internal divisions within the party that held power for most of the decade, and the sheer complexity of unbinding deep integration turned a legitimate choice into a costly and protracted adjustment.

Across the Atlantic, in the United States, where debates over border, trade, and institutional trust are equally alive, the lesson here is straightforward. National sovereignty matters. Exercising it effectively, however, requires serious planning, competent implementation that is sustainable across party lines, and honest communication about trade-offs. Populist mandates can open doors, but they do not build the house that follows.

Ten years later, the United Kingdom has formal control of its laws, borders, and money again. But whether it has turned that control into the stronger, more prosperous, and more cohesive country its citizens were promised remains an open question.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

This isn’t some fringe protest. It’s the leading edge of a continent-wide shift to the right, fueled by Europeans who have had enough of policies that prioritize outsiders over citizens. Illegal migration is the hottest hot-button issue in Europe right now, and it’s driving political change not seen in a generation.

Italy gave power to Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy on a hardline anti-migrant platform in 2022. She’s governed with pragmatic toughness on borders while navigating European Union politics, proving that these movements can actually deliver results - and it’s why her government is on track to hold the longest continuous term in the history of the modern Italian Republic.

Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party ruled for 16 continuous years by resisting EU migrant quotas. Even after their crushing defeat earlier this year to Péter Magyar’s conservative Tisza party, which has promised to continue that resistance, the voter revolt against unchecked migration endures.

The same playbook is being used all across Europe. The Netherlands’ Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders, is surging by forcing tough talks on Islam and integration. Austria’s Freedom Party, under Herbert Kickl, dominates polls on similar themes. France’s National Rally, led by Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, is putting pressure on Emmanuel Macron and the centrist establishment. And, of course, there is Britain’s Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party, which is poised to shatter the nation’s old two-party stranglehold if Keir Starmer’s Labour government collapses early, as anticipated.

Europeans aren’t suddenly turning “far-right.” They’re reacting to reality - the kind you can see in your community, your wallet, and your kids’ schools. Decades of high-volume, low-selection inflows, especially from regions with weak integration track records, have strained welfare systems, eroded social trust, and turned safe cities into no-go zones. The establishment called it compassion; voters are calling it a disaster.

Look at Sweden: once Europe’s poster child for progressive openness. Today, foreign-born residents make up 20% of the population. The result is parallel societies, honor-based violence, gang shootings, and bombings in places like Malmö that were unthinkable a generation ago. Official data shows that foreign-born individuals and their children are massively overrepresented in violent crime and sexual assaults. What began as humanitarian gestures ended with specialized police units patrolling immigrant-heavy areas.

Germany tells a similar story. Non-Germans, about 16% of the population, account for a wildly disproportionate share of crime suspects - often more than a third overall, and far higher in categories like violent offenses and sexual assaults. Young men from certain Middle Eastern and North African backgrounds drive much of the spike. Temporary migrants and asylum seekers punch above their demographic weight in key crime stats. This isn’t prejudice; it’s police data that the media has spent years burying.

In Britain, the small-boat invasion across the Channel - tens of thousands annually and mostly asylum claims - has cost taxpayers billions in housing, processing, and benefits. Hotels turned into migrant camps sparked local fury. France’s suburban communities have erupted in riots repeatedly, with entrenched unemployment, Islamist separatism, and cultural clashes that mainstream parties pretend to manage but never fix.

These aren’t cherry-picked anecdotes. Millions of non-EU arrivals have hit Europe in recent years, with 4.2 million in 2024 alone. Many came irregularly, overwhelming systems built for high-trust, homogenous societies with low native birth rates. Schools now overflow, housing shortages worsen, welfare budgets strain, and working-class communities bear the brunt while elites lecture from gated enclaves.

While economic contributions exist in some cases, the net picture - especially with low-skilled inflows - shows high upfront costs, severe service strain, and long-term fiscal drag. Social cohesion is shattered in too many places. Trust erodes when citizens feel their country is changing against their will.

Europe’s left and center parties spent years smearing border skeptics as racists and xenophobes. They minimized grooming scandals in Britain, terror attacks with migration links, and everyday crime spikes. They pushed amnesty and weak deportations while ignoring integration failures. No wonder support has fled to parties willing to say the quiet part out loud: ENOUGH!

“Remigration” - once a fringe concept - now polls mainstream in Germany because repeated policy failures created visible parallel societies. Citizens are demanding democratic accountability. If open-border experiments produce outcomes voters never asked for - like high crime, cultural division, and strained budgets - why keep doubling down?

This shift isn’t necessarily anti-immigrant in the blanket sense. Europe has integrated waves before. This is anti-chaos: it rejects volume without vetting, inflows without assimilation demands, and the suicidal notion that national identity is disposable. High-trust welfare states do not survive rapid demographic transformation without strict controls.

Europeans are reclaiming their nations at the ballot box. Parties adapting their rhetoric on tighter borders, skilled immigration priority, real deportations, and assimilation requirements are winning. Those clinging to the failed consensus are fading.

The slow-but-steady rightward turn across Europe isn’t extremism; it is a course correction. Europeans are telling their leaders to preserve their societies, secure their borders, and put citizens first - or get replaced. The map is changing because reality finally broke through the spin.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

In raw terms, this initiative seeks to redefine “animal abuse” to include any intentional, knowing, or reckless act causing injury or death to mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. It would outlaw standard hunting and fishing seasons, commercial livestock slaughter, breeding practices such as artificial insemination, and even many forms of pest control. Narrow carve-outs would remain for veterinary care and self-defense, but the practical effect would be a near-total ban on animal agriculture and traditional wildlife management.

Proponents of this initiative have attempted to frame it as a simple extension of basic cruelty laws already applied to household pets. They delusionally envision a future of non-lethal wildlife control and plant-based food systems while ignoring the cultural and economic realities of these policies. Their path to ballot recognition, however, paints a different picture: persistent, paid activism that refuses to accept repeated rejection.

Attempts to place this initiative on the ballot failed in 2020, 2022, and 2024 because organizers could not gather the 117,000 signatures required by law. This year, they submitted over 120,000 signatures, and though verification will continue through the summer, the reliance on paid circulators reveals an unmistakable problem.

Campaign finance reports show roughly $300,000 raised, with much of it spent on signature gathering. The operation’s major supporters include PETA and the Craigslist Chairtable Fund, as well as Bitcoin investor Owen Gunden and, because of Oregon’s lax rules on certain foreign contributions, a Russian national named Leonid Postnov.

This donor profile is rightfully raising legitimate concerns about the initiative’s true grassroots support in Oregon. Animal rights organizations have a track record of using ballot initiatives in politically friendly states as beachheads for broader cultural change. What begins as “compassion” can evolve into a policy that ignores biological, economic, or cultural realities.

The stakes for Oregon are profound. The state’s hunting and fishing culture runs deep, especially in rural and coastal regions. Recreational fishing alone generates hundreds of millions of dollars in spending and supports thousands of jobs; hunting only adds to it. Commercial fishing delivered a record $517 million in household income impact in 2025, sustaining over 10,000 jobs. Together, these sectors contribute billions toward gross state product and represent a significant share of rural employment.

If this initiative passes, it would deliver a decisive blow to Oregon’s economy. Small family farms raising chickens, cattle, or pigs for market would face criminal penalties for standard operations. Wildlife management - essential for controlling deer overpopulation and protecting endangered species - would lose key tools. Tribal treaty rights tied to fishing and hunting would face direct conflict. While urban Oregonians living comfortably in cities like Portland might cheer these symbolic victories, rural economies and food production would bear the real costs, further exacerbating the urban-rural divide that Oregon and states like it already struggle with.

The good news is that this initiative faces strong bipartisan opposition. Governor Tina Kotek, a Democrat, has voiced her opposition, calling it the “wrong direction” for Oregon, and legislative sportsmen’s caucuses, the Oregon Farm Bureau, hunters’ associations, and rural political groups are lining up against it too. And, most importantly, the measure’s past failures to qualify suggest limited organic enthusiasm from Oregon voters.

But dismissing it entirely would be shortsighted. Progressive movements have mastered the art of incremental normalization. Ideas once confided to academic fringes - like those on gender, speech, or energy policy - have gained traction through repeated attempts, sympathetic media, and institutional capture. Animal rights activism follows a similar playbook: start with the pets, move to farms, then wildlife, and always frame dissent as cruelty. Over time, what seems absurd today can become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom, especially when backed by consistent funding and emotional appeals.

If this initiative reaches the ballot, Oregon voters should reject this overreach, not out of indifference to animal welfare, but out of recognition that humans, too, are part of nature. Sustainable hunting, fishing, and farming have conservation success stories - from restored game populations to responsibly managed livestock - that blanket prohibitions would erase. Sound policy balances welfare with reality; this initiative does not.

The broader cautionary tale extends beyond Oregon, however. When well-funded, ideologically driven groups treat democracy as a long game, voters must stay vigilant. Cultural erosion rarely arrives with a single dramatic blow. It advances petition by petition, redefinition by redefinition, until traditions that sustained generations become illegal.

Oregon voters may have the chance this year to draw a clear line, and the rest of the country should watch closely - because what begins as an extreme ballot initiative in one state can foreshadow pressure on national norms if left unchallenged.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

This isn’t a fringe issue as some would want you to believe - it’s the broad erosion of confidence that threatens turnout and legitimacy.

I’m not writing to re-litigate the 2020 election. Both parties have hurled fraud accusations when convenient - Hillary Clinton did in the aftermath of her landslide loss in 2016, and President Donald Trump did after his loss in 2020. The real crisis, actually, is the accelerating erosion of institutional trust paired with rising voter apathy. When processes look sloppy, secretive, or overly complicated, people tune out. Democracy doesn’t die from one dramatic theft; it withers from quiet, compounding disillusionment.

California’s recent primary stands as Exhibit A in this slow-motion disaster. The nation’s most populous state, saddled with its chaotic jungle primary system, still has millions of ballots unprocessed nearly a week after polls closed. As I write, roughly 3.6 million ballots remain pending statewide, heavily concentrated in massive counties like Los Angeles. Projections indicate full certification could stretch weeks, with final results potentially not expected until mid-July.

Why? California’s universal vote-by-mail system - a pandemic product that was made permanent in 2021 - automatically sends ballots to every registered voter. Those technically postmarked by Election Day can arrive and count days later, followed by signature verification, curing periods, and manual processing. California officials have pointed to staffing shortages and the sheer scale - over 23 million registered voters. And while recent laws have tried to accelerate things, the late-arriving mail-ins keep the backlog alive.

What makes California the focal point is this: every other state in the nation has delivered substantial election results on election night, and developing countries like India, with its 1.4 billion people, tabulate just as fast despite a massive logistical operation. California’s delays aren’t some unavoidable fate; they are the direct result of bad policy.

Prolonged uncertainty doesn’t just frustrate voters - it supercharges every rumor and suppresses future participation. Perception of vulnerability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of apathy.

The barriers to oversight only make it worse. California’s SB73, signed just before the primary, restricts federal investigators’ access to voter rolls, systems, and processes absent specific court orders or state-law violations. Framed as shielding against “interference,” it lands amid ongoing scrutiny and voter roll challenges from the Department of Justice, raising serious questions about transparency.

Poll watchers and observers encounter their own practical obstacles. California state law permits party representatives, candidates, and groups to observe, but partisan election officials tightly control numbers, proximity, noise, and activities. Restricted sightlines, guardrails, and discretionary enforcement can render oversight more symbolic than substantive. Audits do happen, but since they are often layered with delays, restricted access, and defensive legal barriers, the whole setup invites doubt. Even without proven widespread fraud, when the system seems to resist real-time scrutiny, public faith collapses.

This isn’t unique to California, but it highlights a deeper national tension over expanding access through mail-in ballots, same-day registration, and digital systems. Digital voting machines, in particular, heighten anxiety because vulnerabilities have already been demonstrated. Tangible paper ballots, on the other hand, offer robust audit trails that software alone cannot provide.

And even though I hate to admit it, this is the one subject we can look to Europe for lessons on. France conducts elections primarily in-person on a single day, and voters must show identification. Universal mail-in voting is virtually nonexistent domestically, and limited absentee voting requires justification. France’s model is proof that with strict identity checks and auditable paper processes, you get fast, credible results.

Germany, the United Kingdom, and many other European nations prioritize same-day, in-person paper voting with identification requirements and strong chains of custody. Hand-counting or hybrids maintain both speed and trust: India’s electronic voting machines paired with paper trails demonstrate that scale doesn’t justify endless delays. America’s fragmented, mail-heavy patchwork often trades timeliness and verifiability for volume - without equivalent safeguards.

Americans overwhelmingly recognize the problem. Voter ID maintains 80% or more bipartisan support across repeated polls, including strong majorities of independents and Democrats. That very principle is in the SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship for federal voter registration and adds critical voter roll checks. It passed the House earlier this year, yet remains stalled in the Senate despite repeated calls from President Trump for Senate Republicans to make it a priority.

This November, however, California voters will have the rare opportunity to act. The Voter Identification, Citizenship Verification, and Registered Voter List Administration Initiative - or just the California Voter ID Initiative - would mandate government-issued identification for in-person voting, push citizenship verification using government databases, require annual accuracy reports on voter rolls, and empower State Auditor reviews. If voters do approve the initiative, California would become the 37th state to require identification when voting.

These aren’t extreme changes, but they are maintenance for a strained system. And while they won’t eliminate every risk or instantly heal all skepticism, they do signal seriousness.

Of course, other measures can be taken: layer in mandatory paper trails, aggressive risk-limiting audits, unrestricted poll-watcher access, strict postmark and deadline enforcement, boosted resources for timely counting, and proactive voter roll maintenance using federal data. That combination of aggressive policy deflates stolen-election narratives by addressing the root causes.

America stands at a defining crossroads. Politicians defending opaque systems, and those filibustering or outright opposing measures like the SAVE America Act, are ignoring the overwhelming consensus. They gamble that voter frustration won’t deliver consequences. But history proves that bet often fails, and that apathy today hardens into abandonment tomorrow.

Two groups hold the power, and for once, they’re not inherently partisan. The American people must demand transparency, speed, and verifiability. America’s leaders must enact commonsense reforms that balance access with integrity. Because when we prove that our elections resist theft - or even the appearance of it - only then will trust rebuild, participation rebound, and democracy regain strength.

California’s mess serves as a loud warning. America must act before the next cycle cements perception into permanent damage.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

Yet predictably, once again, Democrats and talking head pundits on the left are going into total meltdown mode while completely detaching from reality. Their unhinged tantrums that decry this celebration as “tone-deaf” and “beneath the dignity of the People’s House” conveniently forget Joe Biden’s tone-deaf and dignity-lacking Pride Month celebration that featured transgender activists streaking across the very same backdrop.

As if their delusions weren’t deep enough already, some of these voices have invoked Theodore Roosevelt - the Rough Rider, conservationist, and our nation’s 26th president - to claim that he would be “rolling in his grave” at the sight of a fighting cage on the South Lawn. History, however, tells a different story. Far from opposing such a display, Roosevelt would likely be lacing up his gloves.

Roosevelt embodied the “strenuous life.” He preached that national greatness demanded toil, effort, and courage - not ease or retreat from hardship. As a young man, he boxed at Harvard. As president, he made combat sports a regular part of White House life. He installed training mats in the basement and sparred frequently with military aides, cabinet members, guests, and even professional boxers. These were no light affairs. It’s rumored that in one sparring session with an artillery captain, Roosevelt took a blow that detached his retina. It left him blind in one eye for life, an injury he kept private for years, while still pushing his body through other demanding pursuits, like jiu-jitsu.

The man who charged up San Juan Hill, built the Great White Fleet, and hunted lions in Africa understood that strength - physical, moral, and national - could not be preserved by pearl-clutching. Roosevelt viewed boxing and wrestling as character builders. They test will, discipline, and resilience - the same values that drove generations of American pioneers, soldiers, and innovators.

If he were alive today, Roosevelt would not merely attend the cage match - he would cheer athletes, admire their skill, and quite possibly step into the octagon for an exhibition round himself. The critics who weaponize his legacy reveal more about their discomfort with raw American vitality than about Roosevelt’s actual beliefs.

This controversy exposes a sharp cultural divide. For some, the White House should remain a sterile museum, insulated from the rough-and-tumble energy of everyday American life. They prefer decorum over dynamism. Yet our history tells a different tale. The White House has hosted raucous celebrations, military reviews, and displays of American power since its earliest days. Public spectacles of strength and competition have long reinforced national identity.

I see similarities - though not perfect - with ancient Rome. The storied gladiatorial contests held at the Colosseum, for all their brutality, symbolized Roman confidence and martial excellence. They unified citizens around shared ideals of courage and dominance. America, as the modern heir to that republican spirit, has always celebrated its fighters. From Revolutionary Minutemen to Greatest Generation heroes to today’s warfighters and UFC champions, we are a nation that honors those who compete, strive, and win. Mixed martial arts capture this perfectly: a meritocratic arena where skill, strategy, heart, and preparation determine outcomes regardless of background. It is, perhaps, the most ultimate expression of American exceptionalism - ordered liberty expressed through disciplined combat.

But here’s what the hot-headed critics ignore: the octagon is temporary, and the UFC is funding the project entirely, including the site’s restoration. A significant portion of tickets has been earmarked for military members and their families, and the event will draw massive crowds to the Ellipse, creating a festival atmosphere worthy of our semiquincentennial.

This is not a distraction - it is an affirmation. After years of institutional gloom, political correctness, and eroded national confidence, Trump is delivering the kind of memorable, joyful, strength-affirming celebration that reminds Americans who we are. It is just one of many bold celebrations planned for this historic anniversary.

As we prepare to celebrate 250 years of independence, the choice before us is clear. We can embrace a timid, managed decline dressed up as sophistication, or we can reclaim the Rooseveltian spirit of being bold, physical, competitive, and relentlessly optimistic about America’s future. UFC Freedom 250 does not diminish the White House. It honors the republic it serves by reminding us that freedom requires strength.

Theodore Roosevelt understood this truth deeply. On June 14, when fighters clash in the octagon on the grounds of the place he once called home, his legacy will be alive - not desecrated, but celebrated. America remains a fighting nation, and under Trump’s leadership, we are becoming proud of it once again.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

Power in our republic flows from the voters, not from hushed complaints in Capitol hallways. With five months until the November election, Republicans aligned with Trump are undertaking a significant effort to consolidate support and improve their electoral position. Far from disarray, the party in power is demonstrating resilience rooted in a clear mandate for action.

The truth that remains uncomfortable for so many in the establishment class, however, is that Trump operates outside the conventional playbook of Washington politics-as-usual. It’s the reason his supporters back him so enthusiastically - and why his critics struggle to make sense of his motives.

That’s because, unlike those who came before him, Trump does not need to obsess over traditional midterm mechanics. Unburdened by the pressures of seeking re-election, he is embracing this rare opportunity to focus squarely on his legacy as an effective president. This freedom allows him to pursue an ambitious agenda aggressively and unapologetically, challenging entrenched norms without hesitation. The message is pretty clear: get on board or step aside. Everyone has had their chance to align with the priorities that earned Trump and the Republican Party a decisive mandate two years ago.

This approach, however, is not about loyalty to one man. It centers on fidelity to the agenda that voters demanded in 2024. Across the country, Republican stakeholders - the voters - have acted decisively in primary contests, rejecting establishment figures who appeared disconnected from the core goals of the agenda. In Texas, voters delivered a clear verdict, choosing Attorney General Ken Paxton over longtime incumbent Senator John Cornyn by approximately 30 points. In Louisiana, Congresswoman Julia Letlow and Treasurer John Fleming defeated two-term incumbent Senator Bill Cassidy to advance to the Senate run-off. In Kentucky, voters chose Ed Gallrein over incumbent Thomas Massie by nearly 10 points. And with several more primary contests to go, we are likely to see similar signals emerge elsewhere over the coming weeks.

What the critics struggle to understand is that these outcomes represent a peaceful, democratic exercise in accountability - not top-down purges, but bottom-up insistence on results. The establishment class that for too long controlled the right is being refined to better reflect the party’s evolving base.

In politics, critics will always exist. Healthy debate has long been a defining principle within the Republican Party and remains essential. No one agrees with every decision. But at the end of the day, Republicans will rally around this president and trust that his direction serves the nation’s best interests. What truly unites the right is a shared desire to win, to elevate American excellence to new heights, and to decisively reject radical left-wing politicians at the ballot box - like James Talarico in Texas, whose progressive rhetoric stands in stark contrast to the priorities and values of everyday Texans.

This voter-centric reality directly counters any assertion that the Republican Party is fractured ahead of this year’s critical midterm elections. Politicians entrenched in the status quo may lament disruption, but actual stakeholders - the people who show up at polls and drive turnout - respond to authenticity and results over procedural niceties. And what makes Trump a true wildcard to his critics is that he is a leader who refuses to play the same game that has delivered decades of broken promises and incremental decline.

On the electoral front, Republicans are already making notable strides in fortifying their position, and this primary season is succeeding in better aligning the Republican Party with the America First agenda. Liabilities are being removed, and the base is being energized.

While early generic ballot polling reflects the historical headwinds faced by the party in power, the picture is far more nuanced. Even forecasters that traditionally favor Democrats, such as Sabato’s Crystal Ball and the Cook Political Report, highlight structural Republican advantages from recent redistricting efforts, favorable Senate maps in key states, and record fundraising. And predictive markets like Polymarket and Kalshi currently project a competitive environment with a slim but noticeably growing probability that Republicans can defend or expand their majorities in both houses of Congress.

Still, with summer just weeks away, we remain outside the peak season for the heavy advertising, grassroots mobilization, and targeted voter outreach that typically shift these contests. It provides Republicans with an ample runway for economic messaging, further border security achievements, and legislative wins to resonate. Efforts to highlight tangible progress on gas prices and institutional reforms like the SAVE America Act will likely narrow gaps as undecided and low-propensity voters engage. These recent primary wins demonstrate accountability and further consolidate enthusiasm rather than fracture it.

Democrats, however, appear mired in the very dysfunction they project onto others. Instead of introspection, we witness tantrums, gaslighting, and misinformation. Their strategy this cycle relies on hoping Republican unity falters, yet time and again, Republicans have shown great ability to coalesce around a shared message. This disciplined focus offers a master class in political resilience that Democrats would do well to study.

The attempt to frame routine primary competition and agenda enforcement as “disarray” is a transparent bid to distract from substantive issues. Voters understand that real strength comes from delivering on promises, not preserving comfortable incumbencies. Trump’s emphasis on results over re-election optics embodies this. As the midterms near, the party’s trajectory points toward opportunity, not peril - provided its leaders continue listening to the grassroots rather than the gossip.

Republicans are poised to prove that a movement grounded in voter sovereignty and bold leadership can overcome conventional wisdom. The path forward demands continued focus on the agenda that earned the mandate: securing the border, restoring prosperity, and rejecting the radical forces attempting to erase American culture. In rejecting nostalgia for a failed status quo, the Republican Party is not weakening; it is renewing itself for the fights ahead - and it is Trump who is ensuring that we are bold enough to seize it.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

This isn’t nuanced public health regulation like they want you to believe. It targets a relatively low-risk product while leaving more dangerous alternatives untouched. And at the end of the day, this is the same paternalistic prohibition masquerading as compassion that has become so synonymous with the American left - which is why it troubles me.

France justifies the crackdown primarily by citing the products’ appeal to young people. Discreet use, flavors, and rising nicotine poisoning cases - 131 cases in 2022, up from only 19 in 2020. Fair concerns on the surface, indeed, yet the same logic collapses under scrutiny. Cigarettes, for example, are responsible for vastly more disease and death, yet remain fully legal for adults in France, complete with their iconic branding, social ritual, and chain-smoking cafe culture. Flavored vapes, which saw explosive usage among youth globally, also escape this total ban. Why criminalize the cleaner, tobacco-free alternative while tolerating the combustion-driven killer?

The selective outrage reveals a discomfort with modern, innovative nicotine products that disrupt traditional tobacco markets.

The hypocrisy becomes glaring when you compare France to Sweden. Sweden has embraced harm reduction with snus and nicotine pouches, achieving Europe’s lowest smoking rate at around 5.3% and possibly even lower. France’s rate hovers near 25%, with daily smoking around 17-18% even after recent declines. Sweden’s pragmatic approach of treating adult nicotine use as a far safer alternative to smoking has driven massive reductions in tobacco-related disease. France’s prohibitionist stance will only deliver stagnation.

Data best underscores the missed opportunity. Nicotine pouches are tobacco-free, produce no smoke or tar, and rank significantly lower on harm scales than cigarettes. Banning nicotine pouches risks pushing users back to traditional tobacco products rather than facilitating switches. Sweden’s success isn’t theoretical; it’s a real-world demonstration that harm reduction works when governments prioritize outcomes over ideology.

From an American vantage point, this matters deeply. Too often, progressive American policymakers draw inspiration from European models - importing expansive government control under the banner of public good. They’ve done the same with “clean energy” policy for years. Democrats are once again signaling that instinct, like in New York, for example, where Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed slapping a 75% excise tax on nicotine products like Zyn. It would treat nicotine pouches the same as traditional tobacco products despite their lower risk profile. And some American policymakers are already pushing to ban flavored pouches, even as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration begins authorizing certain products for their potential to help smokers quit. Flavored vapes, too, faced aggressive restrictions several years earlier.

This pattern, alarmingly, echoes France: target the new, discreet alternatives while legacy products - and more importantly, their associated tax revenues - get a pass. It’s not consistent risk management. It’s cultural and political discomfort with consumer choice and personal agency.

The irony is glaring: France bans nicotine pouches to “protect public health,” while celebrating the chain-smoking cafes, wine at lunch, and steady diet of espressos that partly defines their culture. It highlights how bureaucrats have shifted from building strong societies to confiscating “contraband” from grown adults. It runs a slippery slope: today, Zyns, tomorrow red meat. The more pointed critique, however, is this: the left obsesses over control disguised as compassion, regulating every ounce of fun, risk, and personal responsibility out of existence. They will ignore the dangers of seed oils, ultra-processed foods, SSRIs, and late-night doomscrolling.

Young adults are noticing. This micromanagement of being taxed to death and lectured on vices and masculine habits is fueling a drift toward freedom-minded politics. It’s part of the reason why Donald Trump was the victor in 2024. Adults tire of being treated as permanent children needing permission slips from mommy-daddy bureaucrats. A healthy society produces resilient individuals capable of making informed choices, not dependents awaiting regulatory approval.

America must reject this path. Our nation’s governing documents prioritize liberty alongside safety. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s evolving stance on authorized products reflects a more balanced - even if imperfect - approach. The bottom line is this: we cannot import more of Europe’s failures.

American policymakers on the left who are thinking about restricting nicotine pouches would do well to study Sweden’s results rather than France’s rhetoric. True public health advances through innovation and choice, not prohibitionist reflexes. Overreach like France’s Zyn ban doesn’t protect the vulnerable - it erodes the freedoms that make self-governance possible.

In the states, we must champion better: evidence over emotion, and liberty over control.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

In a top-two primary system where all voters see the same ballot - also known as a jungle primary - these numbers matter. They reflect motivation in what would traditionally be one of the lowest-turnout elections on the calendar. California’s gubernatorial primaries often hover in the low-to-mid 30% range for final participation; however, amid Gavin Newsom’s term-limited departure, the race to reshape California’s post-Newsom future is wide open.

Voters face a choice between two leading Republicans - conservative commentator and Trump-backed Steve Hilton, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco - as well as a crowded field of Democrats, most notably former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, billionaire Tom Steyer, former Congresswoman Katie Porter, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Early voting turnout this cycle, like in those before it, reflects the realities of primary elections in California: they’re driven primarily by older, white, often conservative, homeowners - groups that have long favored mail ballots. And after a 2020 confidence dip driven by concerns over election integrity, Republicans are finally rebounding with a return to practical participation at roughly 1.6 times the rate of Democrats so far. In raw share terms, Republican ballots make up a higher portion of early returns this cycle than in 2022.

This is good news. In a state where Democrats hold a roughly 45%-25% registration advantage - with No Party Preference voters filling much of the rest - any sign of Republican energy is welcome. It suggests pragmatism: California Republicans are engaging the system as it exists rather than sitting out due to past skepticism of mail ballots, as we’ve seen in other states. In rural and inland counties with strong Republican leanings, this trend could help build momentum.

And downballot races are also playing a role in driving localized turnout, such as in Los Angeles, where former reality television star Spencer Pratt - whose home was destroyed in the horrific Palisades fire - is running in the city’s top-two mayoral primary. Pratt’s unfiltered, energetically raw style and personal story have drawn national attention. It proves just how compelling narratives can be in energizing voters even in low-profile contests.

However, Republicans should view these figures with cautious realism rather than premature celebration. This is not evidence of a seismic realignment or broad demographic breakthrough. Youth turnout remains anemic at around 2%, and Hispanic and Black participation trails White and Asian rates in these early returns. The patterns align with habitual voters in low-salience elections - not a sudden expansion to non-traditional early voters.

A blue shift is still likely as Election Day and later urban returns roll in. The final statewide primary turnout in 2022 was about 33%, and expectations for 2026 are similar. Overinterpreting early Republican strength risks complacency heading into November’s general election, where higher overall stakes and turnout will test the party’s ability to compete in a Democrat-dominated state.

Polling data indicates the primary will most likely advance one Republican and one Democrat into the November battle. That means the fight - and the work - isn’t done until then. California Republicans face structural headwinds. No Republican has won statewide office since 2006, and while the top-two system offers a theoretical path, registration realities and cross-party voting habits make sustained gains difficult.

The real prize is building sustainable momentum: stronger recruitment and clearer messaging on pocketbook issues like affordability, crime, and infrastructure.

The post-Newsom era presents a genuine opportunity. After years of one-party dominance, Californians are grappling with tax fatigue, high energy prices, and a homeless epidemic, among many other issues. A competitive gubernatorial race is the perfect trigger for accountability. And for their part, the race’s leading Republican candidates are positioning themselves as reformers emphasizing fiscal responsibility, public safety, and practical governance. If communicated effectively, it’s a message that could resonate beyond traditional bases to independents and disillusioned moderates.

But to capitalize, the party must seriously treat this primary as a diagnostic. Early voting participation is a strong start, particularly in overcoming the stigma of mail ballots. Scaling that engagement for November will require aggressive outreach that targets suburban and Central Valley areas, as well as coalitions that expand the electorate rather than relying solely on core supporters.

California’s challenges are just too profound to coast on preliminary data. Republicans have reason for measured optimism - higher relative motivation in a low-turnout environment signals resilience. Yet the path forward demands humility, strategy, and hard work to convert early promise into lasting influence.

The Golden State’s future hangs in the balance. Turning out voters is the first step; persuading a broader swath of the electorate is the mission that will ultimately define success or cement irrelevance for California Republicans.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

You might be wondering why any of this matters, especially to a Republican like me. The art of political warfare requires studying your opponents to gauge their strengths and perceive their weaknesses. What I expected to be a highly self-aware retrospective on their 2024 performance actually fell short. Surprising? Not at all. Democrats have serious problems heading into the next presidential cycle, with cracks already starting to form as they prepare for the midterm elections later this fall.

As it stands, their war chest has been significantly depleted, their grassroots network is fractured, and while there may be plenty of rising stars within the party’s ranks, they do not yet have a clear standard-bearer to coalesce around for 2028. This lack of energy and cohesion hints at a party apparatus on life support, with ramifications that may be far worse for them than those in 2024.

The email accompanying the report signals that Martin, at least, possesses some self-awareness about the state of his party. He calls for stronger organizing in ignored communities, year-round campaigning, re-engaging with working families on issues like affordability, and an affirmative agenda that goes beyond just being anti-Trump.

These are reasonable observations rooted in the realities of the day. If the Democrats actually work to address them, it would show that they mean business. The question, however, is whether they are even capable?

The report lamented declines since Barack Obama’s 2008 peak while acknowledging some obvious structural flaws, like underfunding and reduced training for state parties, major shifts in voter registrations that favored Republicans, a loss of organizing capacity, and a “persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters” - especially in working-class communities. It also noted a heavy over-reliance on advertising while underinvesting in field operations. These, too, are reasonable but convenient excuses.

And while it leaned heavily on these familiar comforts, the report virtually ignored the real problem: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Harris - a historically weak and unpopular candidate who was installed through an unprecedented closed-door coronation following Biden’s infamous debate collapse - was not adequately prepared to be the party’s nominee, let alone president. A recent report in Vanity Fair speculating Harris’ potential 2028 bid perhaps captured this sentiment best, with one former Biden aide stating that Biden “fucked” Harris by forcing her into an impossible position two years ago.

Biden’s presidency was a disaster by every measure: his approval ratings languished in the mid-to-low 30s for much of his term, with especially brutal numbers on his administration’s handling of the economy, the border crisis, and crime. Compounding all this was Biden’s visibly declining mental acuity, which was widely observed and yet actively covered up by those in his administration and party, including Harris, until his debate performance made it no longer possible to ignore.

The lack of self-awareness on the left is so telling that Martin himself admitted he couldn’t put the DNC’s stamp of approval on the product. The delay, as well as the disclaimers plastered on every page of the report in red font, reveal a deep institutional discomfort with truly uncomfortable truths.

The Democrats have long been saddled by an insular consultant class, the priorities of coastal elites, and a reluctance to challenge core assumptions about voters. They spent billions in 2024 only to watch Republicans win the popular vote for the first time in 20 years and make historic gains with Hispanic, Black, and young voters.

These problems weren’t always isolated to just one party, however. The Republican National Committee underwent a total transformation in 2024 following years of consultant bloat under Ronna McDaniel, among other issues. It was Michael Whatley and Lara Trump - both handpicked by Trump - who pivoted the party toward aggressive grassroots organizing and coalition building, data-driven targeting, and a relentless focus on working-class issues like the economy, border security, and cultural common sense. The result was one of the strongest Republican performances in decades.

That’s because RNC leadership didn’t just talk about reform - they executed it. That discipline continues to position them as a juggernaut heading into the 2026 midterm elections, with record cash on hand, election integrity operations already underway, and a fierce redistricting offensive that many believe will preserve the House majority.

In comparison, the Democrats appear stuck. Martin’s forward-looking acknowledgements are sensible on paper, but the party’s track record suggests that execution will falter without radical institutional changes. The same consultant network and donor class largely responsible for 2024 remain entrenched, and the instinct to blame external factors over internal failures remains dominant.

Harris’s campaign exemplified these problems by emphasizing heavily on suburban identity appeals while hemorrhaging support among working-class voters, men, and rural communities. Ticket-splitting showed that voters could back individual Democrats more in tune with local realities, but that the national brand was too toxic to support its headliner.

The problem for the Democrats today is an identity crisis, which is why Martin is so smart to acknowledge that anti-Trump messaging alone is no longer enough to reach voters. But without a respected standard-bearer - not even at the party leadership level - or a uniform message, their base will continue to fracture. On issue after issue, the party sends mixed messages and alienates working-class Americans while struggling to maintain enthusiasm among its progressive core. It is so bad that most Democrats don’t even know what they stand for anymore.

But truly, the deeper issue is discipline. The Republicans showed it by reforming their practices and evolving their message. The Democrats, however, risk another cycle of navel-gazing that produces little change. In fact, the tortured handling of this very report proves they still can’t get out of their own way.

With another contentious election on the horizon, the Democrats seem doomed to repeat the same mistakes - welcome news for us Republicans.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

I’ll admit, Massie had his virtues - a consistent record on government spending and a stubborn independence that appealed to the parts of the Republican Party that resonated most with the Tea Party movement in 2010. But those qualities couldn’t save him once he began standing in the way of Trump’s agenda. Massie’s votes against critical spending packages like the Big Beautiful Bill, foreign policy measures, and his headline-grabbing push on the Epstein files painted him as an obstructionist at a time when Republican voters are demanding unity and results from their leaders. And at the end of what will go down as the most expensive House primary race in American history, the voters ultimately sided with someone who would stand with Trump, not against him.

This isn’t an isolated casualty. It’s the latest unmistakable sign of a profound generational evolution sweeping the Republican Party - one that Trump and his allies are directing with remarkable skill and success. The Reagan-Bush style of neoconservatism that once guided Republicans is being retired, not with regret, but with clear-eyed recognition that it no longer matches the nation’s mood or the challenges we face.

Just last weekend, in Louisiana, two-term Republican Senator Bill Cassidy finished his hotly contested primary in a distant third, losing to Julia Letlow, the Trump-backed Congresswoman who surged to first place with about 45% of the vote. She advances to a runoff next month against Louisiana Treasurer John Fleming, who took second place. Cassidy’s fatal sin? He voted to convict Trump in his 2021 impeachment trial over J6, and later clashed over Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Health and Human Services Secretary. Trump called Cassidy disloyal, and Louisiana Republicans listened.

In March, Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw - once considered a rising star in Republican circles - lost his primary fight to State Representative Steve Toth. Trump withheld his endorsement of Crenshaw, making him the only House incumbent in Texas without it and allowing his opponent to successfully cast him as insufficiently aligned with the president’s movement. It’s not surprising: Crenshaw broke with Trump on many key issues. He criticized Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results and supported an immigration bill that had been backed by former President Joe Biden.

The departures don’t stop there, however. Former Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, once Trump’s fiercest defender on the Hill, broke with the president late last year in a bizarre meltdown. The rift centered on her aggressive push for transparency with the Epstein files - a stance that put her at odds with Trump’s priorities at the time - along with criticisms of his focus on foreign policy. The public feud escalated quickly, with Trump withdrawing his support and Greene ultimately stepping aside rather than face a brutal primary battle.

And in Indiana, just weeks ago, Trump-backed insurgents crushed five of the seven Republican state senators who blocked a congressional redistricting plan that would have strengthened the Republican majorities in Washington. These were seasoned legislators with long records - until they crossed the wrong line.

Left-wing pundits, the woke right, and generally anxious Republicans - Trump has affectionately named them “Panicans” - have long tried to declare that Trump’s influence over Republican intraparty affairs is waning. They grasp at straws and chase ghosts while proclaiming “MAGA is dead.” Yet the results prove that this is merely wishful thinking masquerading as amateur analysis. The primary scoreboard tells the real story: Trump’s endorsed candidates are winning at a formidable rate this cycle. His endorsement isn’t just helpful - it’s become the gold standard for authenticity with the Republican base.

Despite what the critics may say, this isn’t the result of blind loyalty or a cult of personality. It’s voters recognizing that the political ground has shifted beneath their feet. Demographics are changing. Cultural norms have fractured. Working-class Americans - the heart of the new Republican coalition - care far more about secure borders, American manufacturing, energy dominance, and foreign policy that places the interests of America first than they do about preserving the pieties of the pre-Trump era. Trump understands this better than anyone. His primary interventions aren’t score-settling; they’re strategic pruning, ensuring the party evolves into a leaner, more aggressive vehicle capable of winning and governing in this new reality.

But the next critical test arrives soon in Texas, where Attorney General Ken Paxton now carries Trump’s fresh endorsement into the Senate primary runoff against incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn. It came down to pure loyalty. Cornyn voted against two measures to indict Trump in 2020 and 2021, but later voted to certify the results of the 2020 election, a decision that put him at odds with the president. He was also seen as someone more willing to compromise with Democrats on issues like immigration, something which does not sit well with more ardent Republicans. Paxton, on the other hand, despite all the controversy surrounding him, better represents the combative, results-oriented style that now defines this new era of Republicanism. Trump’s decision to back him - even with insider hand-wringing to not make an endorsement in the race - sends a powerful message.

What we’re witnessing is healthy and, quite frankly, long overdue. Political parties that refuse to adapt die, and the Republican Party under Trump is not shrinking or moderating itself into irrelevance. It is sharpening, broadening its appeal, and refusing to apologize for prioritizing America first. The old stalwarts who couldn’t or wouldn’t make the leap are naturally fading away. Their departure clears the path for a new generation of fighters who get it.

Massie’s exit, alongside Cassidy’s humiliating defeat, Crenshaw’s loss, Greene’s retreat, and the Indiana purge, should silence the doomsayers once and for all. MAGA is not fading - it is consolidating, maturing, and positioning itself for sustained electoral dominance, and Trump’s leadership in this realignment has been nothing short of masterful.

Trump is delivering exactly what his base demanded: a Republican Party that fights as hard as they do, unapologetically and without compromise.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

Now, more than 50 years later, President Donald Trump returned to Beijing for a high-stakes state visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. This was Trump’s second visit to China as president - the first was in 2017 - and this time he arrived with a powerful group of American business leaders in tow. Their presence showed that America means business - both figuratively and literally.

There’s simply no comparing Nixon’s historic visit to Trump’s. China is no longer the impoverished nation it was some five decades ago. Today, it is a wealthy global superpower, the world’s second-largest economy, a manufacturing giant, and a serious economic, technological, and military power competitor to the United States. The two nations are deeply connected through trade, yet at the same time, sharply divided over issues such as technology theft, military strength in the Pacific, and, of course, Taiwan.

But Trump’s visit matters, and it may even be just as generationally significant as Nixon’s. This wasn’t about becoming best friends or sudden allies - it was about managing a difficult relationship in a practical way that protects America’s interests. The results, though still fresh, show that Trump’s second visit was a success.

Seventeen of America’s top CEOs traveled to China with Trump - one of the largest business delegations ever to join a presidential trip to China. The list reads like a who’s who of titans: Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg, and leaders from Cargill, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Qualcomm, Micron, Meta, Visa, and more. Trump’s display sent a strong message to China: the focus of this visit is on deals that create American jobs and lower costs for American families.

It wasn’t just pageantry, though, and the wins are a practical reflection of the real-world stakes: China agreed to buy 200 Boeing jets and billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. soybeans, beef, and other agricultural products, as well as a renewed interest from China in purchasing more U.S. oil and energy products - a significant shift given China’s reliance on Iranian oil and the ongoing instability across the Middle East. China also pledged to work with the United States on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, opposing militarization, and not supplying military equipment to the Iranian regime.

Even more significant was tackling the biggest contest of our time: artificial intelligence. The United States leads in advanced AI models and the powerful chips that power them, but China is investing heavily and closing the gap fast. Winning the AI race matters because the technology shapes economies and national defense strategies.

During the visit, both leaders discussed the risks of AI and the need for basic “guardrails,” beginning with keeping the technology out of the hands of terrorists and preventing dangerous mistakes. It is a small but important step that doesn’t stop the competition, but reduces the chance of a crisis while preserving our edge in innovation.

For China, these talks were equally as significant, given that relations were strained under former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Beijing saw those administrations as less respectful of China’s national interests and lacking the personal rapport needed for tough deals. Remember, the Chinese are all business. Trump and Xi, by contrast, have built a relationship over the years, with Xi emphasizing their “mutual respect” as the foundation of these talks.

Of course, there are still several sticking points. Taiwan remains a flashpoint among all of this, as the U.S. has long supported Taiwan’s democracy while officially recognizing only one China. The competition in artificial intelligence and semiconductors will continue. Military tensions in the South China Sea are persistent. But no one expected this visit to solve everything. It was never the point.

Instead, this was about pragmatic engagement. A full decoupling - severing all ties with China - would be too expensive and detrimental in the long term. It would raise prices for everyday goods, hurt American exporters, and disrupt supply chains for medicine, electronics, and defense products. Smart, limited cooperation where interests overlap makes more sense. America can compete vigorously on security and technology while still trading in areas that benefit both sides. Trump understands this best, perhaps because he is one of the greatest negotiators of our time.

The world is more complicated than when Nixon was in power, yes, but the basic idea that personal diplomacy between leaders can lower temperatures and produce practical results remains the same. In a world of great-power competition, ignoring China is not the responsible option. Nor would pretending that it is a partner with identical values.

The path Trump has chosen to take is one of clear-eyed realism: compete where we must, cooperate where we can, and always put America first.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

The claim is tidy and fit for a press release - but the reality is not.

As I wrote in a previous article about Mamdani’s bid to “tax the rich,” New York City didn’t exactly stumble into this $12 billion hole overnight. That gap was a predictable result following decades of fiscal mismanagement. Under former Mayor Bill de Blasio, city spending ballooned - universal pre-K and 3-K expansions, massive rental subsidies through CityFHEPS, and many other entitlements that were often financed with one-time federal pandemic aid that inevitably ran out. Former Mayor Eric Adams compounded the problem through chronic underbudgeting of core obligations, such as shelter and homeless services, special education due-process costs, pension liabilities, and an unfunded state mandate to reduce class sizes.

By late 2025, both the city and state comptrollers were sounding alarms. The structural rot - in this case, spending commitments outpacing sustainable revenue - had been building for years. Mamdani simply inherited the bill.

Yet, during his 2025 campaign for mayor, Mamdani sold voters expensive progressive dreams that the city could not afford on its own existing revenue base. He promised a citywide universal childcare program and fare-free bus service. It was politically potent, but fiscally detached from reality.

Once in office, the math caught up, and rather than scale back or find genuine structural savings, Mamdani turned to Albany. He pressured Governor Kathy Hochul - a fellow Democrat - and state lawmakers for a bailout in the form of a millionaire’s tax. When they balked - it’s an election year - he floated an egregious 9.5 percent property tax increase on city homeowners. The threat worked: Hochul blinked.

What followed was a compromise giving Mamdani a victory by advancing parts of his agenda. The state authorized nearly $8 billion in new assistance over two years, including roughly $4 billion in the first year. This also includes a projected $500 million in annual revenue from a newly created pied-à-terre tax for non-residents who own luxury secondary homes valued over $5 million. Christmas came early by way of Albany.

Objectively, Mamdani deserves some credit for his aggressive internal work identifying “efficiencies” that narrowed the budget gap - but here’s the truth that Democrats won’t ever admit: these “efficiencies” are austerity by another name. They involve real reductions in staffing levels and program overhead. It’s precisely the kind of discipline Mamdani campaigned against. City Hall insists that there are no cuts to city services, yet watchdog groups, for example, were quick to point out curbs on housing voucher and shelter costs that run counter to Mamdani’s earlier expansion pledges. Whether you agree with the policies or not, pretending that they didn’t touch services is purely spin.

Even with the “efficiencies,” the final balance sheet relies heavily on one-shots and short-term fixes - plus there’s still the controversial pension-payment stretch-out that shifts costs onto taxpayers well into the 2030s, saddling future generations with today’s budget woes. The City Comptroller has already flagged this heavy use of non-recurring revenue, and Mamdani’s own plan quietly projects a $7 billion deficit for Fiscal Year 2028 - meaning this is a problem deferred, not solved.

But the problem runs deeper. Mamdani didn’t singularly zero out the deficit. He temporarily closed it with a state bailout and accounting maneuvers that echo the very practices that created the crisis in the first place. This “money grows on trees” mentality of endless spending financed by bailouts and targeted taxation is what bloated the city government to begin with. New York’s economy faces real headwinds: softening personal income tax receipts amid a population exodus and a shrinking job market. Experts warn that without structural reform, the cycle will only repeat itself.

Mamdani’s budget may balance on paper today, but fiscal health is measured in structural balance - not press releases. New Yorkers deserve the truth: the deficit is tamed, not eliminated, and that progressive wishlist comes with a future bill. We must confront the bloat head-on rather than kick the can - and the costs - down the road.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

To understand any of this, you must first understand the hierarchy of Britain’s government. Local councils manage everyday services, like waste collection, road maintenance, zoning, and social services. Councillors are elected in rolling cycles that use a first-past-the-post system in what are mostly called wards. Councils are not the highest level of government in Britain - like Parliament in Westminster - but they are also not the lowest, meaning these results are often used as a national barometer. To put it in an American perspective: think about how our gubernatorial and state legislative elections are used to gauge support for the party controlling the White House and/or Congress. In this case, it signals major trouble for Britain’s ruling party.

The verdict is utterly devastating for Labour after less than two years in power. What began as a landslide for Labour in 2024 has evaporated into one of the party’s worst local performances on record. Combine that with heavy losses in Wales and mixed results in Scotland, the two major parties - Labour and Conservatives - saw their dominance implode. Reform, which was written off by the aforementioned political juggernauts and had been polling in only the mid-20s nationally before the election, successfully translated discontent into power.

For once, the “why” here isn’t much of a mystery. Voters rejected Labour and Conservative candidates for familiar reasons: uncontrolled immigration, the cost-of-living squeeze, strained public services, stagnant wages, exuberant energy costs, and a sense that Westminster elites lost touch. Despite Labour’s attempts to get a handle on the problem, Britain’s net migration remains high and small-boat arrivals across the English Channel persist. In what was once Labour’s “Red Wall” heartlands, communities watched newcomers be prioritized for housing and benefits while hospital waitlists ballooned and council taxes rose. It was Labour’s cuts to winter fuel payments for pensioners that ultimately crystallized the betrayal.

When apathy runs deep, and elections have low-to-moderate turnout - like in this case - the voices of the angry and motivated are only amplified.

But Reform’s surge is not merely anti-establishment. It offers blunt, unapologetic prescriptions: like a freeze on non-essential migration, mass deportations, and healthcare reforms that blend extra public funding with private options. Reform has successfully peeled away disaffected Labour voters in Brexit-supporting, working-class areas alongside former Conservatives, flipping more than 1,450 seats in a single night. Its base - older, more pragmatic, and manual occupation voters - are finally heard for the first time in years.

For Labour and Prime Minister Starmer, the blood is unmistakably in the water. He acknowledged that the results were “very tough” and took responsibility, but refused to walk away. Despite an effort to whip support among his ranks, calls have grown for his resignation, with senior Members of Parliament, councillors, and backbenchers openly calling for him to step aside as the party’s leader in both government and politics. Behind closed doors, the knives are already sharpened as Starmer’s own cabinet members engage in a whisper campaign for him to vacate by year’s end. And with Labour’s popularity plummeting this early before the next national election in 2029, Starmer’s reckoning could come sooner than expected.

Of course, these local results do not end Starmer’s premiership - but they do greatly weaken him. A fragmented electorate makes future Labour majorities under first-past-the-post even harder, and projections based on these results hint at a potential for a hung parliament in the next general election. As it turns out, Starmer’s cautious managerialism pleased no one and alienated Labour’s core bases.

The broader story, however, transcends one leader. The two-party system that dominated Britain’s politics for generations is cracking - a mirroring trend across Europe. Voters are rejecting the complacent rotation of parties that failed on borders, living standards, and competence. To the credit of Farage, Reform has emerged as a permanent fixture on Britain’s political right.

For Americans, this lesson is familiar: ignore the kitchen-table issues like immigration, economic stagnation, and institutional distrust at your peril.

Starmer’s survival now hinges on whether he can deliver tangible results before the next verdict arrives, and Labour must choose whether it will reconnect with the working voters who propelled it to power or watch this realignment accelerate. What’s clear is that business as usual in British politics is over.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

At a time when our nation’s political discourse is so charged, Kimmel’s “jokes” come across as incitement - not entertainment - and yet, for all the outrage that they’ve generated, those bits are not the reason for this piece. The real reason is simpler and more damning: he’s not funny.

The same goes for his late-night colleagues. Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, and Seth Meyers have turned what was once a great showcase for sharp cultural observation into something closer to partisan press releases delivered with laugh tracks. Their “jokes” are predictable rhetoric dressed up as comedy, and the audience knows the punchline before it lands because the setup is always the same: Republicans are the problem, Democrats are the solution, and the studio claps on cue. That isn’t comedy - it’s confirmation bias with a house band.

Compare it to the late-night hosts my parents grew up watching. Steve Allen, Jack Paar, and especially Johnny Carson - men who built empires on actual jokes. Carson, who hosted The Tonight Show from 1962 to 1992, regularly drew 15 to 17 million viewers a night at his peak - roughly six to eight times more than what today’s top hosts manage. His monologues skewered the absurdities of the day, from politicians and celebrities to everyday life. But he did so with wit, timing, and a light touch that invited everyone, and Carson rarely leaned hard into partisan combat. He understood late-night comedy’s job was to make people laugh, not lecture them.

When he did touch on politics, it was observational, not accusatory. The audience trusted him because he wasn’t preaching - he was performing - and that trust produced cultural dominance. Carson’s show wasn’t just watched, it was appointment television. People quoted his bits at work the next day.

Today’s late-night programs limp along with roughly 2 million viewers - on a good night. Kimmel’s recent averages hover around 2.1 to 2.5 million - a fraction of Carson’s reach and a sign that the format is culturally irrelevant.

The contrast becomes clearer when you look at comedians who manage to successfully tackle politics today, like Dave Chappelle, whose stand-up specials routinely rack up tens of millions of views while selling out arenas. He wades into topics like race, gender, and cancel culture with layered jokes, surprise turns, and a willingness to punch in every direction. Bill Maher’s Real Time draws strong ratings precisely because he calls out nonsense on both sides instead of reading from a partisan script. Even Fox’s Greg Gutfeld has built a thriving late-night alternative by being irreverent and funny rather than preachy.

These performers succeed because their material is crafted for laughs first. The politics, when present, serve the joke - not the other way around.

Kimmel and his cable colleagues have that formula backwards. Their monologues read like talking points with rim shots from the Democratic National Committee. The laugh track does the heavy lifting because the writing can’t. When every Trump reference lands as “orange man bad” and every left-wing policy gets a standing ovation, you are no longer watching comedy - you’re watching a rally with better lighting.

Don’t mistake my sentiment as nostalgia for a gentler era. It’s recognition that comedy works when it surprises, when it observes human folly across the board, and when it trusts the audience to laugh without being told when. Carson’s genius was making millions feel like they were in on the joke. Today’s hosts just make half the country feel like they are the joke. It’s no wonder viewership has collapsed.

While the networks defend these shows by pointing to their “cultural relevance” and ability to reach younger audiences online, the truth is that relevance without ratings is just noise. The linear audience keeps shrinking, not because America suddenly hates comedy, but because the comedy stopped being funny.

Late-night television once reflected American culture. Now it lectures. If ABC truly wants to save a sinking ship, it should do what any smart business does when a product stops selling: replace the talent. Fire Jimmy Kimmel - not because he dislikes the president or vice versa, but because night after night he fails the one test that actually matters in comedy: he doesn’t make people laugh.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

Consider the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as the latest example. Just days before a gunman tried to storm the annual affair - attended by President Donald Trump for the first time since 2016 - House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared “an era of maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.” He was defending his party’s aggressive redistricting strategies, but the message was unmistakable: total, unrelenting combat against Republicans. Jeffries even stood by the remark after it was clear that the shooter was attempting to assassinate the president.

This wasn’t an isolated slip. It fits a broader pattern of Democrat leaders and their media allies painting President Trump and his supporters as domestic terrorists while downplaying or excusing left-wing unrest. Remember the summer of 2020? Cities burned during riots tied to Black Lives Matter and Antifa terrorists. Police were attacked, businesses looted, and entire neighborhoods devastated. Yet many on the left described the violence as “mostly peaceful protests” or a justifiable expression of righteous anger.

Contrast that with the January 6th riot at the Capitol, which - no matter your opinion - is treated as an enduring insurrection that defines all Republicans.

The left’s projection goes deeper. President Trump has now survived multiple credible threats to his life, including most notably the one in Butler, PA, in 2024. These are not abstract concerns. They occur in a climate where inflammatory rhetoric is twisted into calls for literal violence, and labeling political opponents as existential threats has been normalized on the left. Democrats decry “MAGA extremism” while their own words and the actions of fringe elements fuel real-world danger.

While right-wing extremism is real and shouldn’t be dismissed, incidents involving left-wing extremism have surged in recent years. A report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 2025 marked the first time in decades that attacks from left-wing extremists outnumbered those from far-right groups. High-profile cases tied to ideological motives on the left challenge the one-sided narrative that conservatives are the primary source of the threat.

But let’s be honest: this projection serves a clear political purpose. By labeling Republicans as extremists, Democrats justify their own escalations - lawfare against opponents, censorship under the guise of combating “misinformation,” and rhetoric that treats half the country as enemies rather than fellow citizens. It is much easier to rally your base against a caricature of fascism than to debate policy on borders, crime, energy, or the economy, and actual failures get buried under accusations that anyone pointing them out is a danger to democracy.

The irony is thick. Republicans have largely pursued change through elections, courts, and legislation, whereas Democrats, in moments of frustration, have too often turned to the streets, boycotts, cancellations, and worse.

When a Republican wins, as President Trump did decisively, the response is not reflection, but renewed claims of threat. And projection allows evasion of accountability: our side’s radicals are “activists,” your side’s are “insurrectionists.”

Breaking this cycle requires rejecting the projection game. Both sides must condemn violence unequivocally, regardless of the perpetrator’s politics. Rhetoric like “maximum warfare” has no place, and political disagreement, no matter how fierce, should stay within democratic norms: ballots, not bullets.

Americans are exhausted by the endless demonization. Most Republicans aren’t extremists; they simply want secure borders, economic opportunity, and safe communities. Painting them as villains doesn’t make those desires go away - it only deepens division. If Democrats continue projecting their own worst impulses onto the right, they risk further eroding trust in institutions already on shaky ground.

The solution isn’t more accusations. It’s honesty: acknowledge that political violence and toxic rhetoric exist on both sides, but stop pretending like one side holds a monopoly on extremism. Projection has defined our politics for too long. It’s time to demand better.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

Regardless of where one stands on the merits, the legislative reality is now clear: this bill is effectively frozen.

That outcome is, in part, the result of a lack of attention, urgency, and political energy from Senate leadership, like Republican Leader John Thune. But it is also the result of a procedural threshold that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation - a requirement that increasingly determines the outcome of debate and whether debate translates into law at all.

This is where the filibuster has moved from being a tool of deliberation to a mechanism of inertia.

The SAVE America Act perfectly illustrates the consequences of that structure with unusual clarity. A bill that has passed one chamber of Congress and remains central to one party’s legislative agenda cannot advance - not because it’s been defeated on a majority vote in the Senate, but because it cannot reach one.

That distinction matters because it means the question is not simply whether legislation should pass, but whether the rules of the Senate allow it to be considered under majority vote in the first place.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Anna Pauling Luna of Florida are among those highlighting this growing disconnect between House-passed priorities and Senate procedural outcomes. Their criticism reflects a broader concern that the Senate’s rules are preventing the advancement of core policy objectives, and in this case, something imperative to election integrity.

At the center of this debate is Senate Republican Leader Thune and others seeking to maintain the institutional tradition of opposing alterations to or outright elimination of the filibuster. That resistance is rooted in the belief that the Senate should remain a deliberative body that requires broad consensus to act.

But in practice, that belief has evolved into a governing constraint that frequently prevents majority-supported legislation from being considered on its merits.

And it raises a fundamental question: does the filibuster still serve the purpose it was designed for in a modern legislative environment defined by polarization and narrow governing margins - or has it become a structural barrier that distorts accountability by preventing elected majorities from enacting their agendas?

The SAVE America Act’s stalled trajectory shows that the latter concern is no longer hypothetical and that legislation holding partisan urgency, with broad support from the American people, cannot ever reach a final vote in the Senate. That result is not deliberation - it is perpetual delay.

Those institutional supporters of the filibuster argue that it protects minority rights and encourages compromise. While those are important principles in any legislative system, the reality is that compromise has become rare, and the Senate filibuster increasingly functions not as a bridge to consensus, but as a substitute for it.

As the nation cruises through another federal election cycle, this procedural reality takes on added significance. Voters who evaluate parties based on their priorities are finding that those priorities do not translate into legislative outcomes, even when one party controls a chamber of Congress and has passed its agenda through the House.

This disconnect isn’t sustainable in a system that relies on responsiveness as a measure of effectiveness and legitimacy.

The question becomes, then, whether the Senate’s procedural structure allows any high-salience, high-conflict legislation to be resolved on majority terms. The answer is no, and the debate over the filibuster is no longer theoretical or institutional - it’s practical and immediate.

Eliminating the filibuster does not guarantee consensus, but it would restore a basic principle of democratic governance: that legislation supported by a governing majority in both chambers should be allowed to a vote and be decided on its merits.

The SAVE America Act stalemate is simply the latest example of a broader problem - and perhaps its most shining one. Unless Senate leadership finds the courage to adapt its rules to match the realities of modern governance, that pattern is unlikely to change.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

This was achieved without an American ground invasion - no endless occupation, just decisive strikes and sustained economic pressure.

Compare that timeline to every major U.S. conflict since the Korean War. Korea dragged on for three years. Vietnam consumed America for a decade with major combat operations. Iraq’s initial phase lasted almost nine years. Afghanistan stretched on for twenty. Each began with clear tactical successes - swift advances, toppled regimes, routed armies - only to sink into years of nation-building, counterinsurgency, and mission creep that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

President Trump’s Iran incursion is different, moving at a speed unmatched by those predecessors. It is now poised to become the shortest U.S. military engagement in the past sixty years.

The first difference is objective clarity. Prior administrations blurred the line between defeating an enemy and remaking a society. In Vietnam, for example, President Lyndon Johnson escalated to prevent a communist domino while at the same time attempting to build a democratic South Vietnam. President George W. Bush’s administration toppled Saddam Hussein in weeks but then committed to transforming Iraq into a stable, pluralistic state, taking eight years and empowering Iran’s proxies in the process. Presidents Barack Obama and Trump - in his first term - inherited Afghanistan’s forever war, where the mission shifted from hunting al-Qaeda to propping up a corrupt central government that collapsed the second U.S. troops left.

But President Trump’s stated goals for Iran have remained laser-focused and finite from day one: destroy the regime’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity, annihilate its ability to threaten international shipping and energy supply, dismantle its terrorist proxy network, and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. There is no Marshall Plan for Tehran and no dreams of Jeffersonian democracy on the Persian Gulf.

The second difference is technology and tactics. The modern U.S. military is not the force that slogged through rice paddies in Vietnam or patrolled Fallujah block by block. Precision munitions, drones, cyber operations, and real-time intelligence allow devastating effects with minimal boots on the ground - and Operation Epic Fury demonstrated this. Key Iranian commanders and nuclear scientists were eliminated in hours, not months of searching. The recent naval blockade - enforced with overwhelming surface and air power - has strangled Iran’s oil revenue without a single U.S. division crossing the border.

Past wars relied on massive troop footprints that created targets for insurgents; this one uses standoff power and economic isolation.

The human cost inside Iran is real - a fair criticism of any conflict - and the economic impact at home is felt but only temporarily. The alternative, however, of another decade-long quagmire would have been far worse. Where past presidents went wrong can be widely debated - that’s not my battle - but we can probably agree that it began with confusing tactical victory with strategic transformation. They allowed initial successes to seduce them into occupations that could not be sustained politically or militarily. They underestimated the resilience of local insurgencies and overestimated America’s patience for indefinite commitments.

President Trump avoided the trap. He inherited a regime that has spent nearly five decades chanting “Death to America,” funding attacks on U.S. troops, and racing toward nuclear breakout. He instead chose a calibrated, overwhelming force to break Iran’s offensive capacity rather than occupy its territory. The result is a conflict measured in weeks of combat rather than years.

With attempts to negotiate amid the ongoing ceasefire, it seems that a resolution could be on the way without the endless cycle of surge and withdrawal that defined Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran’s economy is gasping under the blockade, its military infrastructure lies in ruins, its proxies are reeling, and though the Strait of Hormuz is not yet fully reopened, the leverage is clear.

The wars of post-1945 America have too often turned initial triumphs into expensive, demoralizing stalemates. President Trump’s approach in Iran shows a better path: define the mission narrowly, execute it ruthlessly with modern tools, declare victory when objectives are met, and leave.

If the coming weeks confirm what the first two months already suggest, historians will record 2026 as the year Washington finally remembered that the fastest way to win a war is to refuse to fight the wrong one.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

At its core, the measure allows the Virginia legislature to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, outside the normal post-census redistricting cycle. Democrats claim it is a corrective step in response to partisan gerrymanders elsewhere. Republicans argue that it is a deliberate antagonization amid an already unstable national pattern, with states changing the rules of representation in real time to maximize partisan turnout.

The result is not an isolated policy debate but instead a growing wave of reciprocal political retaliation - and the face of House Democrats, Leader Hakeem Jeffries, just set the tone for this fight by declaring that Democrats would engage in “maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.” This rhetoric reflects a broader shift in how both parties now approach redistricting: less as an administrative responsibility and more as an ongoing contest for control of the House itself.

Leader Jeffries’ framing is revealing. It doesn’t represent a defense of neutral principles or long-standing institutional norms. It represents escalation - and escalation only invites counter-escalation.

President Donald Trump called the Virginia referendum rigged and warned that Democrats were attempting to reshape election maps in their favor ahead of the midterms. True to character, he’s direct - and it’s resonating with Republicans. The guardrails once surrounding redistricting have eroded, and Democrats are now shamelessly using these mid-decade redraws for a political advantage.

Several states have either already undertaken or are actively pursuing mid-cycle redistricting. Democrat-controlled states have moved to redraw their maps in ways that strengthen Democrat prospects in closely contested districts, and Republicans have responded with their own efforts to counterbalance those gains. Virginia now joins that pattern.

Whatever the facts are, each side has framed its actions as defensive, arguing that the other started it. But the cumulative effect is a system in which the idea of a stable ten-year redistricting cycle is increasingly giving way to continuous political adjustment.

That shift has consequences far beyond partisan advantage, as it weakens public confidence in the neutrality of electoral maps and encourages perpetual litigation that places the courts in the position of refereeing what is increasingly a permanent political conflict.

Virginia’s referendum is already facing legal challenges, with the courts stepping in to block certification of the new map pending a review of the constitutional and procedural claims. In that case, it focuses not on whether the outcome was desirable, but whether the process complied with Virginia’s constitutional requirements for amending its electoral rules. That distinction matters because it highlights the tension of the moment: that even when voters approve changes, the method by which those changes are implemented remains subject to judicial scrutiny.

Republicans shouldn’t back down. They must respond to Leader Jeffries’ call for “maximum warfare.”

The response hinges on continued litigation. Courts across the country are being asked to determine whether mid-decade redistricting efforts comply with state constitutional requirements, including procedural rules governing amendments and ballot language. These cases will likely shape the broader legal boundaries of what states can do between census cycles.

Republican-controlled states are already facing pressure to respond in kind - and in a political environment defined by reciprocal map changes, unilateral restraint is often viewed as strategically untenable.

More significantly, however, Republicans must elevate redistricting itself as a central issue in the 2026 election cycle. The argument must not simply be about which party benefits from which maps, but about whether the American people are comfortable with a system in which the political class can treat district boundaries as flexible political instruments rather than stable democratic structures.

Of course, Virginia’s referendum did not create this dynamic - but it is a clear marker of where the system stands. What was once a once-a-decade institutional process has now become a continuous contest for advantage, with courts, legislatures, and voters all pulled into a cycle that shows few signs of slowing down.

With the 2026 midterms fast approaching, the question is no longer whether redistricting will be political - it already is. The question is whether any durable norms governing it can survive in an environment where both parties now accept escalation as the governing strategy.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

Many - including his critics - can’t deny the appeal of Mamdani’s story. At 34, he’s the city’s youngest mayor in over a century, its first Muslim and South Asian mayor, and its first from Queens.

Like the populist wave that carried President Donald Trump into power in 2016 and again in 2024 - a surge of voters who were fed up with establishment elites and their broken promises - Mamdani rode in on a powerful anti-establishment current. His progressive credentials and outsider energy tapped into deep frustration with rising costs and ineffective governance, delivering a genuine electoral mandate for change and giving him real potential to shake things up.

Yet his doubling down on the Democratic Socialist label and “tax the rich” playbook has the potential to be a foolish political mistake. By leaning into this partisan branding and policies that risk eroding the economic base that funds city services, Mamdani undercuts the revolutionary mandate that elected him - and it not only threatens his lethality as a political disruptor but his legacy as one too.

First, let’s consider the practical realities of his tax proposal. This 2-percent surtax would hit roughly 33,000 filers - approximately 0.7 percent of New York City taxpayers. Those filers already shoulder a wildly disproportionate share of the city’s personal income tax revenue. High earners in finance, real estate, professional services, and entrepreneurship are not just “the rich,” they are job creators whose businesses employ tens of thousands of working- and middle-class New Yorkers.

New York is already bleeding taxable income to lower-tax states. Internal Revenue Service migration data shows the state lost a net of $9.9 billion in adjusted gross income from 2022 to 2023, with Florida gaining $20.6 billion in the same period. New York’s national share of income millionaires has fallen sharply over the past decade. When those earners and their companies leave or scale back, the jobs, investment, and tax revenue they generate go along with them - and the working New Yorkers who depend on that economic activity end up paying the price through slower wage growth and fewer opportunities.

Even if the revenue materializes on paper, the politics make implementation difficult. New York City cannot raise its own income tax without state approval, and Governor Kathy Hochul - entrenched in her own re-election fight - has already signaled strong resistance. Business groups and fiscal watchdogs warn that further increasing an already high-tax jurisdiction will accelerate the bleed. And if optimistic projections fall short, Mamdani’s own “Plan B” has always been a threatened 9.5 percent property tax increase. Property taxes aren’t just paid by millionaires; they hit working- and middle-class homeowners directly and get passed along to renters in the form of rent increases. Those New Yorkers that Mamdani wants to protect would bear the brunt.

But like most things, this issue goes much deeper than the balance sheet. By explicitly embracing the Democratic Socialist label at every turn, Mamdani signals ideological purity over pragmatic coalition-building. Sure, it may fire up the base, but it entrenches partisan divides at the exact time he needs buy-in from a skeptical state legislature, a business community with one foot out the door, and independent-minded New Yorkers who voted for change. The potency of his age, his background, and his electoral wave lies in the possibility of doing big things outside of the usual left-right trench warfare. That means delivering results that transcend labels. Tying himself to policies and rhetoric that have become entrenched partisan red meat risks turning a once-in-a-generation mandate into just another chapter of gridlock.

Mamdani is right to sound the alarm over New York’s budget pressures and affordability crisis - burdens he did not create but which were passed down through decades of fiscal mismanagement by those we previously elected. But his approach is self-defeating and may even be his undoing.

The energy that put Mamdani in City Hall was never meant to be an ideological purity test; it was about delivering results for working New Yorkers. Doubling down on the Democratic Socialist branding and policies that raise taxes for any New Yorker squanders the very opportunity he was elected to seize. The smarter path is to govern as the pragmatic disruptor his voters thought they were getting - not as the avatar of a national partisan brand.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act - or the SAVE America Act - ends that reliance on self-attestation. It requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, like a birth certificate, naturalization certificate, or even a valid passport, when an individual registers to vote. It would also require a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot in federal elections and mandate states to utilize existing federal databases to identify and remove non-citizens from their voter rolls.

The measure is straightforward and simply enforces long-standing federal law that only American citizens are eligible to vote in federal elections - yet it remains locked in Washington gridlock.

As federal lawmakers return from their spring recess, the clock is ticking for the Republican majority to turn this proposal into law.

The SAVE America Act is urgently needed to close the enforcement gaps that have eroded our nation’s election integrity. State audits continue to uncover non-citizens on voter rolls - people who have actually cast ballots in our elections. In Michigan, for example, a 2025 review identified fifteen non-citizens who voted in the 2024 presidential election. And it’s not only in blue states - in Texas, authorities opened investigations into thirty-three potential non-citizen voters from the 2024 cycle, and in Georgia, an audit revealed twenty non-citizens registered with at least nine having voted in prior elections.

Indeed, these cases represent a tiny fraction of total votes, but they carry outsized consequences. I’ve seen many elections in my lifetime decided by only a small margin of votes, especially at the local level. When ineligible votes slip through, even unintentionally, they provide legitimate grounds for doubt and fuel widespread skepticism. Americans have given lawmakers a clear mandate to act, with an overwhelming majority supporting proof-of-citizenship and voter ID laws. Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll reported in a February survey that more than 70% of voters across the political spectrum responded favorably to the SAVE America Act - meaning this isn’t even a partisan issue.

Voters intuitively understand that the documents needed for passports, firearms purchases, banking, and federal benefits should also apply to the sovereign act of electing our representatives.

The SAVE America Act closes these vulnerabilities at the registration stage instead of relying on after-action cleanups. It shifts from reactive enforcement to proactive verification while preserving state flexibility. Thirty-six states already require voters to show some form of identification to vote, like in Iowa and Georgia, where voter turnout is sustained despite stricter identification requirements. And despite what Democrats and their talking-head pundits in the media have claimed, the bill includes practical accommodations for voters facing name changes or who have lost their documents. The burden is minimal and outweighs the far greater risk of the slow decay of public trust.

Speaker Mike Johnson, to his credit, did his job - the SAVE America Act passed the House with unanimous Republican support and even one Democrat breakaway. Yet it now remains stalled in the Senate, with unanimous Democrat opposition blocking the remaining seven votes needed to bypass debate and overcome a filibuster. And with the midterm election nearly six months away, this rare alignment of Republican power may be squandered.

Senate Leader John Thune - and President Donald Trump, in part - face a defining test. They must prioritize this bill and deploy every procedural tool reasonably available to secure a final up-or-down vote - even if it means changing Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold. Letting it languish in gridlock or get sidelined by other priorities signals weakness on an issue that has maintained broad public support.

Passing the SAVE America Act must transcend partisanship as it reaffirms the core principle of self-government: that only the citizens who live under our laws should choose the leaders who write them. The time to act is now, and Republican leaders must move quickly to enact this essential safeguard before another election cycle unfolds under a shadow of doubt and division.

Peter Giunta is a millennial voter and Republican strategist based in New York. He has appeared on Fox News and writes about the issues driving Republican voters from the youth perspective.