Article Pages The New American Mobile

The Mecca Agreement: A New “Islamic NATO” and What It Means for American Retrenchment

On August 7, in Islam’s holiest city, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the Mecca (or Makkah) Joint Defence Agreement , declaring that an armed attack on any one of the three nations “shall be regarded as an attack against them all” — language deliberately echoing NATO’s Article 5. Analysts and outlets quickly nicknamed it the “Islamic NATO,” though none of the three governments has officially embraced that label. The pact builds on a bilateral Saudi-Pakistani mutual-defense agreement signed in 2025, with Turkey’s addition transforming it into a trilateral security framework.

The combination is formidable on paper: Turkey brings NATO’s second-largest standing army and a fast-growing defense-export industry; Saudi Arabia contributes vast financial and energy leverage; and Pakistan supplies a large military and the only nuclear arsenal in the Muslim world. Yet as one legal analysis noted, the signed text sets out no specific military commitments, and neither of the prior bilateral defense arrangements it builds on has ever actually been invoked — grounds for skepticism about how operationally binding the “Article 5” language really is.

Geopolitical analyst George Friedman, in a recent interview , offered a striking read on what the pact signals about America’s regional posture. In his view, the alliance emerges directly from a deliberate American retrenchment in the Middle East — a strategic choice by Washington to shift burdens onto regional partners rather than continue underwriting their security indefinitely. Friedman argued that the U.S.-Israel relationship, “essential” during the Cold War when it helped block Soviet-aligned Egypt and Syria, has become something closer to what he called an “elective affinity” now that the Cold War rationale no longer applies — meaning Washington may increasingly value ties with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan on their own terms rather than automatically subordinating them to Israel’s preferences.

While the new bloc is telling Washington that one of its interests is dismantling Iranian-backed non-state actors such as Hezbollah, journalist Pepe Escobar suggests a somewhat cozier relationship, writing, “Significantly, Turkiye informed Iran before signing the Mecca deal. Extra layers of spin even promote Iran joining the deal in a later stage, as Riyadh in theory rejects military strikes on Tehran, and Iran might be covered by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella.”

Whatever the truth of the matter, it’s a reminder that American disengagement doesn’t leave a vacuum so much as invite new blocs to fill it, on terms Washington won’t be able to fully control. — Rebecca Terrell

Texas Governor Proposes Banning H-1B Visas in Public Schools

At a news conference on August 18, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that he would propose banning public-school districts from hiring employees through the federal H-1B visa program. Texas would become the first state to have such a ban, if enacted by the state Legislature when it convenes early next year.

Abbott, who vowed to eliminate “indoctrination in the classroom,” added , “Bottom line is this: foreign influence of any kind has no place in our classrooms.”

The next day, he formally requested Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Don Huffines to “undertake a review to determine whether independent school districts (ISDs) are appropriately spending their funds.” The request, which noted that Texas spends $104.9 billion annually on K-12 education, did not specifically mention H-1B visas, although they and other forms of “foreign influence” may be included in the review.

Texas is the state most reliant on H-1B visas for public education, with more than 340 visa holders employed, and Dallas Independent School District is the single most-reliant school district in the country.

Earlier this year, Abbott ordered state agencies and public universities to freeze new H-1B visa applications through mid-2027. The governor’s August 18 announcement appears to be an extension of this earlier action.

The H-1B visa program, created by the Immigration Act of 1990, is one of many federal pro-open-borders programs that facilitate legal mass migration into the United States. Along with other programs such as the H-2A visa, it allows the federal government to artificially flood the workforce with cheap labor rather than allow the free market to regulate wages.

According to John Miano of the Center for Immigration Studies, “H-1B works exactly as Congress intended it to work”:

A broken program is one that fails to achieve its intended purpose.

But Congress deliberately eliminated the labor-shortage requirement. Congress chose not to require employers to recruit Americans first. Congress created a Labor Condition Application system that relies largely on employer self-certification. Congress has known for decades that American workers have been replaced by [H-1B] employees, yet it has never prohibited the practice broadly.

Congress has known for decades that employers have been replacing Americans with H-1B nonimmigrants. Congress’s response to this abusive behavior was to make the practice explicitly legal. No one should be surprised at an employer that lays off thousands of Americans while hiring thousands of H-1B nonimmigrants.

In addition to its economic harms, the H-1B visa program undermines national security. In an interview published in the May 28, 2007 issue of The New American , immigration activist Robert Sanchez noted that “H-1B and L-1 visas are a conduit for spying and espionage,” and few safeguards exist to prevent visa holders from overstaying.

On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation imposing restrictions on the H-1B visa program and the U.S. Department of Labor announced an enforcement initiative to prevent H-1B abuse. On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security proposed charging a $103,265 fee for individual visas, replacing an earlier, narrower proposal based on Trump’s 2025 proclamation that got struck down by a federal judge. Despite these efforts, however, Congress must go further by eliminating the H-1B program entirely.

As for Texas, it must also go further than merely eliminating H-1B visas from its education system. Public education — which was virtually nonexistent before the late 1800s — is not a legitimate function of government. Accordingly, state governments must ultimately eliminate all involvement in education, including phasing out their public-school systems and replacing them with fully private education. Unfortunately, Texas moved in the opposite direction last year when it enacted an Education Savings Account bill, which massively expanded government involvement in education. State governments must return to their core purpose — “to secure [God-given] rights,” in the words of the Declaration of Independence — and a system of government in line with America’s founding principles.

As with virtually every other policy, following the U.S. Constitution and America’s founding principles is the solution. — Peter Rykowski

Interest on the National Debt Set to Eclipse Medicare Spending by 2028

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) long-term projections, interest payments on the national debt are set to exceed Medicare spending by fiscal year 2028, and the trajectory continues beyond that point.

Through the first seven months of fiscal 2026, the Treasury paid $628 billion in net interest, more than gross spending on Medicare ($588 billion) or Medicaid ($409 billion) over the same period. That works out to roughly $23.8 billion a week, or about $3 billion a day, spent purely to service past borrowing before a single dollar goes toward defense, healthcare, education, or infrastructure. Currently, only Social Security spending outpaces net interest. Measured “net of offsetting receipts,” the crossover with Medicare (the figure CBO uses for its official comparisons) lands at 2028, though on a gross basis the two are already essentially neck-and-neck.

CBO projects interest payments will grow from $1.0 trillion (3.3 percent of GDP) in 2026 to $2.1 trillion (4.6 percent of GDP) by 2036, and to $6.6 trillion (6.9 percent of GDP) by 2056: a 538-percent increase over three decades. Interest is already growing faster than any other major budget category, and CBO projects it will overtake combined defense and non-defense discretionary spending by 2038 and become the single largest line item in the entire federal budget by 2048. Zoom out further, and the cumulative interest bill over the next 30 years comes to an estimated $99 trillion.

Debt held by the public stood at 99 percent of GDP at the end of 2025 and, absent a change in law, CBO projects that ratio will climb to 175 percent of GDP by 2056. Meanwhile, the entitlement programs that interest payments are set to overtake aren’t shrinking to make room. Medicare spending alone is projected to rise from 3.4 percent of GDP in 2027 to 4.2 percent by 2036, and Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is projected to be exhausted by 2032, with an automatic benefit cut set to follow.

None of this is inevitable, strictly speaking; it reflects current law and current spending trajectories, both of which Congress could alter. Analysts note two mitigating historical facts: U.S. debt-to-GDP was higher immediately after World War II yet the country eventually grew its way down from that peak, and the dollar’s reserve-currency status still lets Washington borrow more cheaply than any other government. But relying on a repeat of the postwar boom is unrealistic, given the fact that America’s manufacturing dominance was based on a world that was covered in dust and debris from the largest war in human history. Under these conditions, the United States, as the one major industrialized country untouched by war, was so dominant in creating manufactured products for the international market that the American percentage of finished goods was 60 percent in 1950, according to economist Ha-Joon Chang . For reference, although Chinese manufacturing is dominant today, as of 2026, China produces between 28 to 30 percent of the world’s goods.

So to posit that the United States (which today only accounts for 16 percent of the world’s manufactured goods) can eke itself out from under the debt, as it did after World War II, is a gamble, not a plan. Since the 1970s, America’s elites have done everything in their power to shrink U.S. global manufacturing dominance, thus depriving the United States of a critical instrument in its economic toolbox. — Rebecca Terrell

Swiss Politician Seeks to Change 600-year-old Coat of Arms in Name of “Progress”

In a story that seemingly belongs on humorous news website Not the Bee, a Swiss cantonal parliamentarian proposed changing the coat of arms of his canton, Bern, in order to make it more “progressive” and “gender neutral.”

The proposal, made in March, sought to change how the bear depicted on the coat of arms was displayed. Swissinfo reports :

The cantonal government was responding to a written question from Liberal Green parliamentarian Thomas Brönnimann, who wondered whether it would not be more appropriate to depict the bear without its masculine attributes, so that the population as a whole would feel better represented. As a symbol of progress, the bear could also be moved from bottom to top and from left to right in future, he said.

Brönnimann, who has also advocated gender-neutral restrooms, described the current coat of arms as “simply outdated.”

In a moment of sanity, Bern’s cantonal government rejected the proposal, noting that the coat of arms has been virtually unchanged since the 15th century.

Although Brönnimann’s proposal was borderline satirical, it highlights the importance of symbolism. A country’s symbols — including its flag and coat of arms — reflect its character, culture, and political principles. Accordingly, we should not be surprised or take it lightly when individuals seek to change them to suit their ideological preferences.

Throughout history, competing factions have tried to change their national symbols to conform with their own ideologies. For example, the tricolor flag was popularized as a symbol of the ideals of the French Revolution , and multiple newly created Swiss cantons adopted green , then regarded as a “revolutionary” color, in their coats of arms at the turn of the 19th century. Similarly, when communists took over Russia, China, and other countries, they frequently replaced those countries’ flags and emblems with expressly socialist symbolism. And in Europe today, most European Union member states display the EU flag alongside their national flags, symbolizing the EU’s intent to supplant its member states’ sovereignty.

Architecture is another example of the use of symbolism to display culture and principles. In the West, classical architecture and other traditional styles have been gradually replaced by modernist and postmodernist architecture detached from Western culture.

Similar attacks are occurring in the United States. For example, the American flag is becoming increasingly divisive as the “pride” flag and other cultural-Marxist symbols become more common. Additionally, several states, including Minnesota , have changed or considered changing their flags because of accusations of “racism.” And the official title of Juneteenth that Congress formally enacted in 2021 — Juneteenth National Independence Day — directly competes with the real Independence Day (July 4) as the nation’s central holiday. In these and other areas, traditional American emblems are being supplanted by symbolism completely detached from the Republic’s founding principles.

These attacks on our traditional symbols should spur us to boldly defend Americanism — not only its principles, but also the figures that represent it. — Peter Rykowski

Record House Retirements Signal Deep Institutional Decay

An unusual number of House members is heading for the exit ahead of the 2026 midterms — a warning sign, regardless of party, about the state of Congress as an institution. So far, 37 House Republicans have announced they won’t seek reelection, exceeding the previous record of 34 set during the 2018 “blue wave” cycle, while 23 House Democrats have made the same call, bringing the combined total to 60 and making this the second-largest retirement wave in modern congressional history, trailing only 1992.

The reasons cited range from the mundane to the alarming. Some retirees point to standard factors — family commitments, a desire to make room for new leadership, or moves toward higher office. Three sitting senators, for instance, are leaving Washington to run for governor.

But many are naming something deeper. Multiple retiring lawmakers, in interviews reviewed by Brookings , described their work environment as a “toxic partisan atmosphere,” while others cited sheer exhaustion with endless reelection cycles and legislative gridlock that leaves little to show for the effort. The New York Times flagged the rise of political violence directed at members as a distinct factor pushing lawmakers away from public service altogether — a genuinely troubling data point for anyone concerned with the health of representative government.

The list of departures is politically notable in its own right. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is retiring after nearly four decades in office. On the Republican side, retirements include several members who have publicly clashed with the administration’s approach to executive power, alongside a headline-grabbing early resignation by Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who isn’t included among the official 37 retiring but is in addition to it. In other words, the exodus cuts across the ideological map.

For an institution built on the constitutional premise of accountable, citizen-rooted representation, a retirement wave this size, driven substantially by burnout, toxicity, and fear rather than natural political transition, deserves more scrutiny than it’s getting. Midterm elections are historically difficult for the party holding the White House, and a lopsided ratio of departing Republicans to Democrats (37 to 23) offers Speaker Mike Johnson a genuine challenge in defending an already-thin majority.

But the more fundamental story here isn’t which party benefits from the churn; it’s what it says about the incentives and pressures now facing anyone willing to serve. Whatever the makeup of the 120th Congress that convenes in January, it will do so with an unusually large share of institutional memory walking out the door, and an unusually clear signal that the job itself has become one many capable people no longer want. — Rebecca Terrell

Polling Company Shuts Down, Admits Polls Were Fake

On August 17, Median Strategies, a company that published multiple election polls, shut down and admitted that its polls were fake.

In a message posted on its website (since deleted), the company stated:

Median Strategies has concluded its polling project and will not publish additional polls.

All previously published polling releases have been withdrawn and should not be cited or treated as genuine polling data.

Median Strategies was created as a short-term social experiment examining how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem without independent verification.

The company published three polls — for elections in California, Nevada, and Wisconsin — including one showing incumbent Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass leading her race, which she promoted on social media.

In an interview with The Guardian , the individual behind Median Strategies, Rahil Prakash, admitted that he “wanted to see if fake polls could really penetrate the ecosystem that easily. And as it turned out, it could.”

Professional pollsters largely condemned Median Strategies, noting that its “polls” lacked basic methodological information, and media agencies noted that they did not share or promote them. However, pollster Chris Wilson told The Associated Press, “It’s never been easier to make invented numbers look legitimate, and campaigns and outside groups have every incentive to amplify anything favorable before anyone verifies it.”

We have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the pollsters’ condemnation of Median Strategies, and many opinion polls are conducted professionally with transparent methodology. However, this does not prevent polling companies — or the clients that commissioned their polls — from obtaining favorable results through their specific methodologies. For example, The New American previously reported that a 2022 poll commissioned by Convention of States Action likely inflated public support for an Article V convention based on how the poll was conducted.

Moreover, the very origins and intent of professional opinion polling are at odds with America’s founding principles. Early pollsters such as George Gallup argued that opinion polling would strengthen democracy — overlooking the fact that the Founding Fathers abhorred democracy and established the United States as a constitutional republic. According to the Miller Center of Public Affairs , “Gallup believed polling would establish a new age of ‘scientific democracy’ in which public opinion would continually guide the policy choices of elected officials.”

To that, we will give the last word to 18th-century British philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke : “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” — Peter Rykowski

Fauci Associate Pleads Guilty

On August 18, David M. Morens, a longtime senior advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Maryland to one count of conspiracy to commit offenses and to defraud the United States. The 78-year-old from Chester, Maryland, admitted to participating in a scheme to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and the Federal Records Act by concealing communications related to coronavirus research grants during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Morens served as a senior advisor in NIAID’s Office of the Director from 2006 through 2022. According to the plea and court documents, he and others conspired after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) terminated a grant titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” The grant, awarded to a New York-based nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance , and its president, Peter Daszak, included a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. Termination followed allegations linking the lab to the origins of Covid-19.

In the aftermath, Morens and co-conspirators agreed to hide their communications from public view by using Morens’ personal Gmail account rather than his official NIH email. They exchanged nonpublic NIH information, discussed efforts to restore the grant and counter the lab-leak narrative, edited letters to NIH leadership, and back-channeled information to a senior NIAID official. These actions involved federal records that should have been maintained on government systems.

Morens also admitted to a related conspiracy involving illegal gratuities. One co-conspirator gifted him wine for his “behind-the-scenes shenanigans” and discussed additional benefits such as meals at posh restaurants. Morens identified an official act — authoring a scientific commentary supporting natural origins of Covid-19 — as something he could perform to “deserve” the gift.

The charge carries a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing is scheduled for November 12 before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis. Actual sentences often fall below the statutory maximum under federal guidelines.

Prosecutors have not accused Fauci of wrongdoing in the case. In prior congressional testimony, Fauci described Morens’ conduct as wrong and inappropriate and said he was unaware of efforts to conceal official emails. Morens’ attorney, Tim Belevetz, stated that by pleading guilty, Morens “has taken responsibility for what he did and will continue to do so.”

The case stems from FOIA requests received by NIAID between 2020 and 2022 seeking communications about the research grants and Covid origins. Earlier emails released by a House panel showed Morens discussing ways to make emails “disappear” after FOIA requests and directing colleagues to use private channels. The guilty plea resolves the criminal charges against Morens; the other individuals referenced have not been charged. — Rebecca Terrell

New Jersey Law Raises Concerns Over Prayer Outside Abortion Clinics

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill last week signed a law expanding shield protections for abortion clinics and practitioners of so-called gender-affirming care while creating a new crime of “interference with reproductive health care services.” The measure shields New Jersey providers and patients from certain out-of-state investigations and makes it a crime to injure, threaten, intimidate, or physically obstruct people seeking or providing such services, or to damage property. Penalties start at a fourth-degree crime (up to 18 months in prison) and rise with injury; civil lawsuits are also authorized.

Pro-life groups, including New Jersey Right to Life , condemned the law. They argue that subjective terms such as “intimidate” and “threaten” — which can depend on a reasonable person’s apprehension of harm or an individual’s claimed feelings — risk criminalizing peaceful sidewalk counseling, prayer, sign-holding, or offers of alternatives such as adoption. Defenders, including the governor’s office , maintain that the statute targets purposeful interference with access rather than free speech.

A central feature of the law is its specialized character. No ordinary commercial businesses receive comparable statutory protection from First Amendment-protected protesting. Under federal law, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ( FACE ) Act already confers upon abortion clinics a force-field shielding them from the U.S. Constitution (exempting them from the enshrined right of the people to be able to protest). New Jersey’s S2260 builds on and expands that model within the state. Ordinary businesses rely only on general tools available to everyone: private-property rules, trespass statutes, disorderly conduct laws, noise ordinances, and civil claims. They do not enjoy a dedicated criminal statute elevating “intimidation” of customers or staff in the same way.

Comparable buffer-zone and access laws are cropping up elsewhere. In England and Wales, 150-meter “ safe access zones ” around abortion clinics have been in force since October 2024. These make it an offense to intentionally influence a person’s decision to use services, obstruct access, or cause alarm or distress. Guidance indicates silent prayer and vigils can fall within the prohibition. Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Ireland enacted similar rules at the same time. And multiple Australian states and several Canadian provinces maintain comparable buffer or access zones that restrict protesting, counseling, or leafleting near clinics. — Rebecca Terrell

The Two Ignorances

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816

Jefferson was not offering an opinion in the letter quoted above. He was stating a law, as fixed and unforgiving as gravity. A people may be ignorant. A people may be free. None has ever been both for long.

The natural-law writers our Founders read did not treat ignorance as one thing. Samuel Pufendorf, studied in every Colonial college worth the name, cut it into kinds and gave them names. Learn the names — we are living under every one of them.

The Ignorance That Would Have Stopped You

The first kind he called efficacious , which means the ignorance caused the deed. It is the missing fact that would have stopped a man cold had he known it. Abimelech took Sarah into his house because no one had told him she was Abraham’s wife. Knowledge would have been the brake. He simply did not have it.

Most Americans surrender their liberties in exactly this condition. They do not know that the Fourth Amendment was written by men who had watched British officers search any house they pleased, or that the 10th Amendment is not a suggestion. Tell them, and many will act. That is the good news, because this kind of ignorance has a cure, and the cure is a book.

The Ignorance That Changes Nothing

The second kind he called concomitant , which means the ignorance made no difference. A man kills his enemy with a blind blow, and would have struck him anyway had he known who stood there. Knowing would have changed nothing. The will was already set.

This is the ignorance of the men who govern us. Cite the Constitution to them and they nod, then vote the other way. They are not waiting to be informed. They are waiting to be unopposed.

The Ignorance We Choose

Pufendorf then asks where ignorance comes from, and here the knife goes deeper. Ignorance is voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary ignorance is the kind you sign for. It comes of laziness and inattention, or, worse, of flat contempt for the plain means of learning what it was your duty to learn.

Voluntary ignorance is the American condition. In the form of a smartphone, a citizen carries in his pocket the complete Federalist , Madison’s notes on the Convention, every ratification debate, and all of Blackstone, and he uses the device to watch strangers dance. Cicero warned that to remain ignorant of what came before you were born is to remain forever a child. We have raised a nation of toddlers holding voter-registration cards.

Pufendorf allows one hard case: The drunk man who cannot think his way out of a fog he poured himself is guilty all the same. That is the citizen numbed by entertainment and partisan noise. The excuse is real. It is also worthless. No republic ever accepted drunkenness as a defense.

Involuntary ignorance is the other kind, in which a man could not have known and had no duty to find out. It is real. It is rare. It shrinks with every archive that goes online. It is not your excuse. Claiming it is not humility. It is cowardice in humility’s coat.

The Remedy

So read. Not someday. Tonight. Read the Constitution until its clauses answer you in your sleep. Read Madison, who built it. Read Montesquieu, who taught him. Read the Anti-Federalists, who told you in advance exactly what would go wrong, and were right. One hour a night is the entire price. Men have paid for those pages with their lives.

Liberty is not a feeling. It is not an inheritance that keeps itself. It is knowledge, held by a people who mean to hold it. Set the knowledge down and liberty goes with it. Jefferson gave us the terms. The bill is due. Ignorance will not be accepted as payment, and no one is coming to read the thing for you. Open the book. — Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

When Governments Stop Refereeing and Start Playing

For decades, American economic orthodoxy held that Washington’s role was to set rules, not pick winners. That premise is eroding fast. Analysts now describe a “new industrial strategy playbook” in which the U.S. government has fused muscular economic interventionism with dealmaking. Other governments are adopting the same model, turning states into active players in corporate arenas rather than neutral referees.

This isn’t entirely new. Washington nationalized Amtrak’s freight functions in the 1970s, took an ownership stake in Chrysler in the 1980s, and seized majority control of General Motors during the 2009 automaker bailout. But the scale and normalization of the practice has grown. During the Covid pandemic, the Treasury received stock warrants from major airlines (American, Delta, and others) as partial compensation for CARES Act support, with resulting government ownership stakes reported in the range of roughly 0.5 to 3.3 percent of each carrier. More recently, the federal government has taken direct equity positions in chipmakers under industrial-policy initiatives — a level of state ownership unusual even by Cold War standards.

The trend runs in both directions, however — not just government buying into private firms, but private interests effectively absorbing public functions. Journalist Whitney Webb, in a recent interview with Chris Hedges, described how billionaire Leslie Wexner helped engineer this model in Ohio, first through the “Columbus Partnership” and later at the state level via JobsOhio — a privatized economic-development authority created in 2011 that purchased the rights to the state’s liquor tax for $1.4 billion. Because JobsOhio operates as a private entity, it isn’t required to disclose how it spends the public revenue it now controls — earning it, in Webb’s words, a reputation as a “dark money organization.” She noted that independent studies suggest the tax incentives JobsOhio dangles to lure employers, including data-center operators, are decisive in attracting them only a fraction of the time, while the resulting jobs are frequently short-term construction work rather than the lasting employment promised.

Longtime researcher Walter Burien has argued that this visible activity is only the surface of a larger phenomenon: State and local governments, through pension funds and institutional investment accounts, collectively hold enormous, underreported equity positions across corporate America. The public is led to believe that tax money that’s collected just sits in a vault. It doesn’t. It’s invested. And money is made off that money (oftentimes not reported to the taxpayers). Meanwhile, as state and local governments cry poverty, they’re generating shadow revenue from investments in the private sector that can have enormous effects across the economy.

Burien lays emphasis on the influence of institutional funds (made up of pooled pension money from public-sector employees) used to buy significant blocks of stock in corporations. Asset managers such as BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard are huge players in this process, administering the pension funds of firefighters, police officers, and government bureaucrats to purchase controlling interest in a wide array of corporations. Since mid-2025, for instance, the federal government has taken or proposed ownership positions in as many as 30 companies , beginning with a “golden share” in U.S. Steel that handed Washington veto rights over major corporate decisions, followed by $400 million in MP Materials and, in August, an $8.9 billion stake — nearly 10 percent — in Intel, making the U.S. government Intel’s largest single shareholder.

As a result of this trend, there’s a blurring of the line between public authority and private enterprise — often dressed up as “public-private partnership.” Critics of that fusion have long alluded to a line popularly attributed to Mussolini’s intellectual tactician Giovanni Gentile, namely, that fascism “should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” It illustrates a legitimate concern: What happens to markets, and to liberty, when government and industry become so intertwined that neither taxpayers nor shareholders can tell who is actually accountable to whom? — Rebecca Terrell