Jerome R. Corsi's Blog

The White House issued a new proclamation this week restricting the entry of certain non-immigrant workers, specifically targeting the H-1B visa program. For years, Americans have demanded action against a system that displaces U.S. workers, suppresses wages and allows corporations to exploit loopholes in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This order marks a turning point: Washington has finally admitted that the program has been abused. But while the changes deserve recognition, the real question remains, what about the millions of Americans already harmed?

Why the change was needed

The fact is the H-1B program was designed to bring in “specialty occupation” workers when no American could be found, but was hijacked by outsourcing firms and multinational corporations. Instead of filling unique gaps, companies used the visa to flood the labor market with cheaper foreign workers. Americans were forced to train their replacements, laid off in mass numbers and watched as their jobs were shipped overseas.

Reports cited by the administration show how foreign STEM labor growth far outpaced actual job growth, proving that the demand was manufactured. Worse still, these temporary visas were often converted into green cards and ultimately U.S. citizenship, locking in the displacement for generations and directly contradicting the spirit of the INA, which was never intended to legalize such wholesale substitution of foreign labor for American workers.

What the proclamation does

The proclamation imposes a new requirement that employers filing H-1B petitions from outside the United States must now pay a $100,000 “supplemental payment.” Without it, applications will be restricted for 12 months. Exceptions exist if the Department of Homeland Security determines it is in the national interest or vital for security, but for the first time, the government is attaching a steep cost to a system long rigged against Americans.

The Department of Labor has also been ordered to revise prevailing wage rules, a step meant to stop employers from paying below-market salaries. Together, these measures send a message that the days of cheap, mass H-1B hiring may be numbered.

What is still missing

As welcome as these steps are, the proclamation leaves glaring holes. Millions of foreign workers are already here, many having secured green cards and even citizenship through the very system now deemed abusive. They remain in the workforce, continuing to depress wages and block opportunities for Americans.

Where is the justice for U.S. workers who were fired, forced out, or denied opportunities because corporations gamed the visa system? Where is the back pay for the years of wages lost? Where is the retribution for the economic harm, the destruction of careers and the violation of the INA’s intent?

Unless these questions are answered, Americans will continue to suffer. Closing the front door is progress, but leaving the back door wide open for those already here only entrenches the damage.

The path forward

This proclamation is proof that when Americans raise their voices, they can be heard. It acknowledges what workers have known all along: The H-1B program has been abused, and its abuse has hurt this country. But partial reforms will not restore fairness. Real justice means accountability for corporations that exploited loopholes, immigration lawyers who facilitated fraud and policymakers who helped write Americans out of their own job market.

We can be thankful that this administration has finally called out the abuse so many Americans have endured. By taking this stand, they have proven they are willing to listen and act where others ignored the problem. The hope now is that this same bold leadership will carry forward into the next steps: revoking fraudulent visas, deporting those who gamed the system, indicting bad actors and securing restitution and clawbacks for harmed U.S. workers.

No administration has ever gone this far in exposing the failures of the visa system and if these next steps are embraced, it could set a historic precedent of true justice for American workers. The fight is not over, but with this momentum, it can finally be won.

‘Crackdown’: President Trump plans bombshell for H-1B visa program

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);

It has been a week since young conservative activist Charlie Kirk was gunned down at a rally on the campus of Utah Valley University in front of his wife and hundreds of attendees.

In the days since, a suspect – 22-year-old Tyler Robinson – allegedly confessed to his father that he committed the crime. Robinson’s father turned him in to the police, who arrested him. From the information available, it appears at this point that Robinson has been in a gay relationship with his roommate Lance Twiggs, who is undergoing a gender “transition” from male to female. If text messages from Robinson to Twiggs are authentic, Robinson told his lover that he killed Kirk because he couldn’t stand Kirk’s “hatred.”

Kirk’s death has left America reeling. Across the country – and throughout the world – there have been outpourings of grief, prayer vigils, memorials and fundraisers to celebrate his life, mourn his death and support his widow and two small children.

But if Kirk’s assassination cast a pall of grief over millions of Americans, reactions from the Left have shocked and outraged them. Immediately following the shooting and announcement of Kirk’s death, social media sites like X, Bluesky and TikTok were filled with posts and videos from thousands of people cheering Kirk’s death, calling him vicious names (“Nazi b*tch,” “fascist,” “racist,” “transphobe,” “misogynist”), stating that he deserved to die, dissing his wife and children, and even calling for similar violence against other conservatives.

Those who proudly posted their indifference or outright joy at Kirk’s murder were expecting the usual cheers and praise for their left-wing virtue signaling, but the reaction has been quite different. Incensed by this appalling callousness, Americans began calling employers and demanding that action be taken. It’s difficult to know the numbers, but hundreds of employers have been contacted and dozens of people, including well-known personalities like MSNBC commentator Matthew Dowd and perennially unfunny comedian Jimmy Kimmel, have been fired for their hateful comments or for spreading lies. (Kimmel just got his show pulled by Disney after asserting that Kirk’s killer was a MAGA conservative. He was not.)

Americans are just as shocked by the sources of these inflammatory and inhumane statements as they are by the content; a disproportionate number of the posters are teachers, professors, administrators and medical professionals; those people educate children and provide medical care, and they state publicly that someone with different political views was a terrible person who deserved to die?

Anyone thinking that a spate of firings or nationwide prayer vigils are going to deter the American Left had better open their eyes and gird their loins. It is far more likely that the Left will double down on their efforts, because they think no one on the Right has the intestinal fortitude to stop them.

Why wouldn’t they think so? The summer of 2020 saw widespread chaos: riots, arson, looting, violence and murder in our cities after George Floyd’s death, with few consequences for the perpetrators. (It’s notable that there have been no similar uprisings following Kirk’s murder.)

Luigi Mangione allegedly shot and killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a public street last year. He’s been hailed as a hero by many on the Left; a new ballot initiative in California is called the “Luigi Mangione Access to Healthcare Act.” Just this week, a judge dismissed the terrorism charges against Mangione, saying that even if Mangione killed the insurance company CEO as a form of protest against the insurance industry, the act was not intended to “intimidate and coerce a civilian population.”

Tell that to the other insurance company executives across the country.

When serial criminal Decarlos Brown stabbed Iryna Zarutska to death on a public train in Charlotte, North Carolina, the city’s mayor, Vi Lyles, defended the policies that released Brown 14 times after commission of multiple felonies, saying, “We will never arrest our way out of issues such as homelessness and mental health.” No one stepped in to stop Brown from killing Zarutska. Perhaps they saw what happened to Daniel Penny, who stopped a crazed attacker from going after other riders on a New York subway. Penny was prosecuted for homicide, even though the man he physically subdued was still alive after Penny released him.

Now, the press is trying to soften the public image of a man who put a bullet through Kirk’s neck. ABC reporter Matt Gutman called Robinson’s texts to his lover “touching” and “intimate.” (Gutman has since apologized.)

According to leftists on social media, here are the rules: If your words or your views make other people angry because you disagree with them on issues like abortion, sexuality, the Second Amendment or affirmative action, you can be killed, and it’s your fault. Or, as an X meme phrases it, “They don’t kill you because you’re a fascist; they call you a fascist so they can kill you.”

In the topsy-turvy world created by extremists on the Left, words are violence, but violence in response to words isn’t violence, it’s struggle against entrenched power structures.

This is just depravity yoked to cultural Marxism.

But those same factions also say, “Silence is violence.” Translated into the operational rules of the present Leftist culture, what does that mean? Not only, “Don’t say what I don’t want to hear or else you can be killed,” but also, “Say what I demand to hear, or else you can be killed”?

As absurd as this seems, a version of this philosophy is already in play in many of our schools, where teachers and administrators “transition” minor children without their parents’ knowledge or over their objection. California passed a law in 2023 that requires parents to affirm their children’s gender transitions or lose custody. Colorado is looking to pass a similar law.

“Say what we demand to hear, or we’ll tear your family apart.”

There are, thank goodness, left-leaning voices that perceive the gravity of our present situation. In his opening monologue last Friday, Bill Maher told his audience to stop calling President Donald Trump and others Hitler, as it “makes it a lot easier to justify things like assassinations.” Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur is making efforts to get voices on the left and right together for civil discourse. Ezra Klein wrote an impassioned defense of Kirk’s political civility in The New York Times (for which he has been much maligned by his comrades on the Left).

They see, I think, what so many on their side don’t: We are teetering on the edge of the abyss.

Millions of ordinary conservative Americans – not activists, politicians, podcasters or social media influencers – hold views very similar to Kirk’s. They have tolerated smears, doxxing, demonization and violence for years, and THEY. ARE. DONE. Recent events make it appear that the Left is being held captive by lunatics, and if you disagree with them, as Kirk did, you can be murdered in broad daylight, the press will run interference for your killer, and your neighbors, your nurses and your children’s teachers will cheer your death.

People are beginning to understand that being polite, staying out of the fray, trying to be viewed as nonjudgmental has only permitted the situation to grow more extreme.

Even the most apolitical Americans, if pushed to the wall, will fight back. I don’t mean responding in kind (nor have I seen calls for anything like that – although all bets are off if we suffer through any more assassinations of public figures or random murders of innocent bystanders), but I am deeply concerned about a breakdown of order and civility that Americans tend to take for granted.

To avoid further escalation, cooler heads on the Left had better get control of their side of the aisle, and quickly. Bland statements that “violence has no place in our society” aren’t going to cut it. You can’t say that now, having spent the past 10 years calling half the country “a basket of deplorables,” racists, fascists, transphobes, bigots, white supremacists and Christian nationalists who are “a threat to our democracy.”

Additionally, we need more responsible government and law enforcement, certainly. That means arrests, swift prosecutions, convictions and imprisonment for criminals.

But that’s the easy part.

The harder part is going to be tackling our educational system. These amoral, destructive and murderous ideologies have their origins in higher education and spread from there. Weeding them out is going to require a complete overhaul of our colleges and universities: how they are funded, and the way faculty and administrators are hired, retained, promoted and, yes, let go.

This battle cannot be won unless those fighting for liberty and decency are in it for the long haul.

Our opponents are betting that we aren’t.

It was Jesus Himself who said, “Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds” (John 12:24).

Consider the many seeds produced by the five martyrs in Ecuador in 1956, Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Peter Fleming and Roger Youderian, who engaged in a very dangerous outreach mission to an unreached tribe known for its violence.

Steve Saint, the son of the pilot Nate Saint, learned the details of their martyrdom many years after the fact. Steve had frequently worked among the people who killed his father, since all of them had become believers through the widows and relatives of the martyred men. (Yes, the widows of the martyred men led their husbands’ murderers to Jesus.) He knew that his father and the other missionaries had guns, but they had made a covenant never to use those guns in self-defense against a human attack. What then actually happened on that fateful day in 1956?

It turns out that the killers of the missionaries – most of whom were teenagers and not experienced killers – were involved in a dispute with their own tribe, and they tried to shift the blame to the missionaries, taking out their anger on them. But the missionaries did not defend themselves or try to flee, a striking fact that the natives noticed, paving the way for their conversion later. After killing their victims, the Indians saw and heard strange sights and sounds: They saw people who looked just like the martyred foreigners (called cowodi in the Indian dialect) standing above the trees, singing songs that they later identified with choir music (which, of course, they had never heard before). Others saw the sky filled with lights, moving around and shining. It seems the angels – or heavenly witnesses – were singing! What a sacred moment to God.

Five young men were killed in the line of duty, leaving widows and children behind. They were cut down – actually speared to death – by the most violent of the Huaorani Indians (called Auca, meaning “savage,” in their language). Was it worth it? Steve Saint – left as a boy without a father – looked back 40 years later and gave the answer.

“God took five common young men of uncommon commitment and used them for his own glory. They never had the privilege they so enthusiastically pursued to tell the Huaroani of the God they loved and served. But for every Huaorani who today follows God’s trail in part because of their efforts, there a thousand cowodi [foreigners] who follow God’s trail more resolutely because of their example. The success withheld from them in life God multiplied and continues to multiply as a memorial to their obedience and his faithfulness.”

This is part of the Jesus-way to win the world, the principle of multiplication by martyrdom. It is the forgotten secret of church growth, the unstoppable weapon of our spiritual revolution. It is the spark that can ignite a whole generation. And while we do not have a death wish – to the contrary, we love life – we are committed to following Jesus regardless of cost or consequence. And He is worth it all!

As Nate Saint said, “People who do not know the Lord ask why in the world we waste our lives as missionaries. They forget they too are expending their lives and when the bubble has burst they will have nothing of eternal significance to show for the years they have wasted.”

What wise words!

And in the light of eternity, how wise it was for Jim Elliot to write these now-famous words: “That man is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

And how wise it was for him to lift up this petition before the Lord as a young man in college: “God, I pray, Thee, light these idle sticks of my life and may I burn for Thee. Consume my life, my God, for it is Thine. I seek not a long life, but a full one, like you, Lord Jesus.”

Oh, that all of us would lead truly full lives!

Excerpted and adapted from Michael L. Brown, “Revolution: An Urgent Call for a Holy Uprising” (second edition, 2020).

Is it really too much to ask that a murdered young man be given the dignity of a proper burial before bad-faith opportunists attempt to posthumously rewrite his legacy to better serve their own nefarious ends? Is it really too much to ask that a murdered young man’s family and friends – to say nothing of the countless individuals whose lives the young man touched and inspired – be allowed to mourn in peace, without having to fend off charlatans seeking to hijack his memory to advance their pet crusades?

Apparently, the answer is: Yes, it is.

The body of my friend Charlie Kirk, who was tragically assassinated last week during a campus event in Utah by a leftist transgender-adjacent “furry” fetishist, had barely returned home to Arizona before some grifters on the ostensible “right” started trying to capitalize on his memory. Instead of focusing on the metastasizing evil of a distinctly leftist political violence or the fact that transgenderism had yet again found itself implicated in a horrific shooting, as any sane conservative would have done, these agents of chaos decided it would be most appropriate to “just ask questions” about – you guessed it – the Jews.

Disgraced podcaster Candace Owens, never one to miss any opportunity to slander Jewish people, took precious time away from her Brigitte Macron legal defense to suggest that Jewish people or the Jewish state of Israel were somehow involved in Kirk’s assassination. To hear Owens tell it: Kirk, a lifelong vocal supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state, was souring on Israel and was getting close to publicly adopting a hostile stance. Oh, and what’s more – per Owens, Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge funder and proud Zionist, staged an “intervention” with Kirk during a retreat last month in the Hamptons where Ackman pressured Kirk to “get in line” on the Israel issue. Notably, numerous high-profile cable news has-beens have legitimized Owens’ outrageous laundering of a left-wing political assassination into an antisemitic caper.

Where to begin?

I spoke with Kirk less than 24 hours before his untimely death. The night before, a right-wing rabbi friend and I held a Zoom call with Kirk and a few others. During this call, Kirk, an unapologetic Christian Zionist who was greatly distressed by rising antisemitism in some pockets of the Right, asked us a series of Israel-related questions that he anticipated receiving on his upcoming campus tour. We answered those questions and provided messaging advice for how to best communicate and win over students. At one point, Kirk joked to me that he would simply direct students toward my book, “Israel and Civilization,” when Israel came up on tour. It beggars belief that someone on the verge of renouncing Israel would organize this call just before embarking on a campus tour.

As for the Hamptons retreat last month: I was there. Kirk had personally texted me to invite me, and I had inscribed book copies for two special retreat attendees – Kirk and Ackman. Put simply, there was no “intervention” – not from Ackman, not from Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon, not from anyone else. The retreat featured numerous open-ended conversations, usually moderated by Kirk, and only one of which was actually about Israel itself. The conversations were spirited and robust but hardly rancorous. Kirk was critical of the way some pro-Israel advocates advanced their arguments, but he was not critical of the underlying substance. On the contrary, he only doubled down on his opposition to Islam and suggested that Israel is a natural ally in the fight against jihadism. Ackman and Kirk interacted very amicably.

This is who Kirk was: He focused on building bridges and maintaining big-tent coalitions within the broader Right. He had no interest in dividing, tearing down or ostracizing. And he had a long, well-established track record of befriending Jews – like me – and defending the Jewish state of Israel. His May letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the existence of which the premier confirmed on Fox News last week and which I was given access to earlier this year, makes his affection very clear. Kirk’s own pastor and spiritual mentor, Rob McCoy, has made it clear as well.

At a time when the focus should be on ending the potentially existential threat of left-wing domestic political violence, Owens and other instigators have embarked upon the ultimate gaslighting crusade: Lie to our faces and pretend that Kirk was something other than the champion of Jewish-Christian relations that he demonstrably was, while simultaneously insinuating “the Jews” may have had something to do with his horrific assassination. All of this, moreover, while so many of us simply wish to mourn and honor our fallen friend.

From a personal perspective, such behavior is reprehensible. And from a political perspective, it is outright evil.

Nor is such a buffoonish “just asking questions” ruse evil merely because of how it seeks to fracture the Jewish-Christian alliance that is the only hope of saving the West – something Kirk fought for every day. It is also evil because such appalling idiocy and grotesque conspiracy-mongering threatens to repel the overwhelming majority of Americans who remain coherent and sane, and who may well conclude that they want nothing to do with a political movement that entertains such cranks. It is not merely the Jewish-Christian alliance that these reprobates are threatening, then. They are also threatening the integrity and viability of the MAGA coalition, which no one did more to hold together than Kirk.

Truly, could there be any greater desecration of Kirk’s memory than that?

This summer Secretary of Defense (now War) Pete Hegseth announced the rollout of a new United States strategy for drone dominance.

The message was simple: the U.S. is moving aggressively to regain drone dominance, and the Pentagon is shifting its culture from bureaucratic restraint to battlefield readiness. This posture marks a fundamental change in military procurement, strategy, and readiness with implications for future warfare. It would be hard to find someone who has worked in government acquisitions to argue with the notion that by the time the tech or purchase is approved, you’re already behind. For better or for worse, our adversaries do not have our same constraints.

In conflicts like the war in Ukraine, mass-produced drones have become the most consequential battlefield innovation in a generation, and they continue to show up throughout this conflict. This technology has been utilized in both surveillance and in delivering precise and deadly strikes at scale, including on Russia’s oil refineries, which is in part how Russia is funding this war. Russia’s imposition into Poland last week also utilized this technology. Considering a war which has now cost over 1.5 million casualties, the benefits for the warfighter are apparent. The technology has also been successfully, and covertly, used by Mossad and Israeli forces during the 12-day war with Iran.

A posture of a cautious, bureaucratic approach to drone warfare, guided by internal regulatory constraints, has prevented the U.S. from staying ahead of the curve on the rapidly evolving demands of the modern battlefield. President Trump’s Executive Order (E.O.) 14307 – Unleashing American Drone Dominance, released in early June, indicated the ways in which drones are already positively impacting other U.S.-based industries. While much of the E.O. focused on the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, it sparked conversations on the use of drone technology, and U.S. production. Although several attempts were made to bolster the U.S. lead in technological development in warfare, the issue of procurement layered with red tape, imposed risk-averse policies, and regrettably slowed innovation, restricting frontline access to small, lethal drones.

The technologies’ impact on warfare is clear, and the U.S.’ previous flat-footed posture posed grave risks, which are now being expeditiously dealt with. Hegseth and company were correct to put renewed focus on drone capabilities in high gear. While the U.S. hesitated on the efficacy of the new technology, adversaries surged ahead. U.S. adversaries now manufacture millions of low-cost drones annually, exploiting speed and scale in ways the American military was ill-prepared to counter en masse. Any time the U.S. adopts a posture of defense, rather than offense, the warfighter is left at a disadvantage in both safety and training. The Secretary knows this, and so does the .

The lag in drone development and integration left U.S. forces critically vulnerable in a domain we once pioneered but failed to fully embrace. This isn’t just the opinion of those in industry, the latest Weapon Systems Annual Assessment, conducted by the Government Accountability office, showed that the Department of Defense (DOD) “continued to struggle with delivering innovative technologies quickly and within budget.”

However, hope is not lost.

Hegseth’s doctrine on drones and technological advancement means a focus on rescinding restrictive procurement rules, delegating decision-making from bureaucracy to battlefield commanders, favoring American-made drones, using private capital to boost domestic drone manufacturing, and emphasizing low-cost, AI-powered, but highly effective, drone platforms, and implementing a “process race” to out-innovate global competitors. We’re already seeing this play out.

Due to the U.S. commitment to bolstering a free-market society that rewards innovation, there is no nation that designs or produces defense technologies at the level of consistent sophistication as the U.S. This is evident in every era of military technology from missiles and fighter-jets to lasers and defense systems – the U.S. now has the chance to bear its grit in a new arms race, once again.

For the warfighter, this means the integration of drone warfare into regular combat training, ensuring that a future for wars with drones embodies a culture of battlefield realism and is at the center of tactical operations. We need cyber-fluent, drone-fluent, warfighters.

For national security, this means regaining the technical edge against adversaries and dissuading those adversaries through clear demonstrations of U.S. capabilities, and a willingness to employ them.

For industry, this means the expansion of a strategic defense manufacturing base into a new era of arms. This signals to private investors that the Pentagon is serious about drones and the market for innovation in that sector is open.

Lethality, speed, and innovation are central to the mission. The DoW’s push is not simply about hardware, but about shifting our mindset. While debates exist on whether the future of the battlefield is unmanned, if it is, the U.S. intends to lead it.

Taylor Hathorn is a visiting fellow at Independent Women. She has over 10 years of experience in cybersecurity, policy, public relations, and non-profit management.

Although overshadowed by major conflicts and political change, significant developments regarding the Arctic recently took place in Russia and Central Asia. At the sixth “Arctic: territory of the dialogue” forum on March 27, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia’s new Arctic strategic vision to further develop the Northern Sea Route’s (NSR) transport and logistical capabilities. Notably, Putin outlined the necessity for developing Russia’s great inland rivers through port and facility investments, with the ultimate goal to increase riverine connectivity with the Arctic Ocean. Most important of Russia’s inland waterways is the Ob-Irtysh river system, which runs through the three nations of China, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Plans are already underway, with a trilateral meeting between Russia, China and Kazakhstan planned to discuss cross-border transportation along the Ob-Irtysh system. Furthermore, both Russia and Kazakhstan have begun formulating programs to have the Ob-Irtysh transport corridor fully-functional by 2030. If completed, the south-north Irtysh corridor will not only bring considerable economic benefits to Central Asia and Russia’s underdeveloped Siberian regions, but will have major geopolitical ramifications, as theorized by British geopolitician Mackinder.

Sir Halford J. Mackinder was a British geographer and politician, but most widely recognized for his seminal 1904 work “The Geographical Pivot of History”. Mackinder’s analysis of contemporary geopolitics and his Heartland Theory cemented him as one of the founding fathers of geopolitics. Mackinder hypothesized that the Russian Empire’s control over the “pivot area/heartland,” roughly comprising Central Asia and Siberia, would enable land-power domination over the world, bankrolled by the vast continental resources of Eurasia and exported by a network of railways. Mackinder theorized on the assumption that railways would triumph over sea-lanes for faster and less expensive trans-continental trade, fearing the marginalization of Britain’s thalassocratic empire.

Mackinder’s vision was nevertheless flawed due to his mistaken belief that railways would become superior transportation means to rivers and oceans. Mackinder’s assumptions were rebuffed by contemporary Alfred T. Mahan in his 1900 collection of essays titled “The Problem of Asia.” Mahan correctly articulated how maritime transport far exceeded the possibilities of railways, as greater geographical obstacles were imposed on all-forms of ground transportation and further compounded by the added expenses needed to build infrastructure. Moreover, railroads competed “in vain” with rivers or the sea, as rail had limited cargo capacity, while water traffic had larger capacities and could steadily deliver goods over extended periods. The geographical remoteness of the heartland from any open sea meant that the region was in a disadvantageous position to accumulate wealth. Furthermore, the heartland’s plentiful resources were incapable of reaching Russian ports and the sea unless bridged by land transport, by which point the main benefits of maritime commerce – its greater ease of transportation, abundant traffic, and economic gains – were nullified.

Indeed, within the inheritor of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, railways transported up to 90% of the nation’s goods and required subsidized freight rates as the heartland’s low-value energy and raw material products were highly sensitive to transport costs. These price controls and subsidies would eventually prove to be unsustainable, as the Soviet economy and the union itself would eventually collapse from an excess money supply that was out of proportion to the state’s real productive capabilities amongst myriads of other problems. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 appeared to demonstrate that Mackinder’s confidence in the heartland’s global dominance was ultimately misplaced.

Nevertheless, physical geography itself has experienced changes in relation to recent environmental developments. Since the late-70s, Arctic temperatures have risen rapidly, resulting in ever-increasing reductions of sea ice, with estimations that the NSR could be fully operational by 2030 and possibly ice free all-year. Similarly, river-ice durations in the polar regions have and are projected to continue decreasing as global temperatures rise, accompanied by a reduction in ice-cover thickness. The northern flank of the heartland, which Mackinder christened as the “Icy Sea” and its previously frozen waterways, may no longer reflect the unconnected frozen wilderness it was previously. The inevitable traversability and viability of Arctic shipping combined with increasing accessibility of Eurasia’s inland waterways, some flowing from Central Asia to the Arctic, presents the very real possibility of an oceanic frontage unlocking the heartland. Mackinder’s prophecy of the heartland’s geopolitical rise may become true in conjunction with the thawing Arctic.

A February 2025 paper from the Eurasian Development Bank, a Russo-Kazakh state-run institution, reported that a preliminary project for creating a Russia–Kazakhstan–China multimodal transport corridor utilizing the Ob-Irtysh had been developed. The Ob-Irtysh is hydrographically well-suited for maritime commerce and navigable in its entirety from Lake Zaysan to the Kara Sea, while the Ob River portion is navigable by ocean-going ships. The 5,140 km long river is projected to serve as a link between the NSR and the Middle Corridor. This new facet of trans-continental trade could prove to be a cheaper alternative to the pre-existing overland trade routes as water transport is reportedly three times cheaper than rail and five times cheaper than road. Further benefits include lower fuel consumption and reduced voyage times, resulting in decreased labor, as well as the shipment of cargo that were previously impossible or financially inefficient to transport overland. The full integration of the Ob-Irtysh corridor with the Middle Corridor and the NSR appears to bring massive economic benefits by facilitating maritime access to the heartland’s resources and augmenting trans-continental trade.

Indeed, limited small-scale operations have been relatively encouraging. In July 2016, a Dutch ship carried two 600-ton chemical reactors from South Korea to Russia’s Arctic estuarine port of Sabetta via the NSR, with the equipment then transferred to Irtysh Shipping Company barges which navigated the Ob-Irtysh upstream to the Pavlodar oil refinery in Kazakhstan. While this experimentary 39-day travel time was slightly longer than rail-based alternatives (20–30 days on this route), the ability to transport the reactors in one piece provided ample savings, underlining the particular viability of the route for otherwise difficultly transportable cargo.

With growing conflict around the world, traditional supply chains have been put to the test, with increases in cost and ever growing delays creating demand for alternatives.  Since the start of the Russo-Ukraine War, EU-China shipping through Russia has decreased by 35%. When combined with continuous attacks on merchant shipments by Houthi rebels, alternatives to traditional EU-China trade routes have grown in high demand. These were precisely the factors that led to the Middle Corridor becoming a growing hub for investment and increased reliance by Europe.

In response to these rising costs and continued instability, the Middle Corridor has seen exponential growth in its carrying capacity through renewed technological and diplomatic efforts. In 2024, it saw a 63% increase in tonnage from the previous year and is projected to achieve a yearly tonnage of up to 10 million tons by 2030. Bypassing Russia, and seen as a viable alternative, the Middle Corridor has attracted growing investments from the West. Nevertheless, the route does have its limitations. With an average of 16-20 days travel estimates and average costs 3,500-4,500 USD, it remains the most costly alternative for EU-China corridors. These costs and travel times have been projected to decrease significantly with continuous investments in infrastructure and system optimization, but the costs and travel times have increased on the contrary. For the current Middle Corridor to remain cost efficient, it is necessary for states involved to develop greater cooperation and increased amounts of investments in eradicating transnational border crossing costs (up to 300% increase from 2011 to 2020).

Nonetheless, even with all of these benefits, the Middle Corridor’s cargo capacity is comparatively much smaller than traditional and established EU-China routes, such as the Northern Corridor, International North–South Transport Corridor, or the NSR. “The Corridor’s current capacity represents only a fraction (at most 5%) of that of the Northern Route.” The potential growth of the Middle Corridor is comparatively smaller and encompasses many more challenges than its competing alternatives.

An expanded Irtysh River route would thus solve many of the Middle Corridor’s current issues, with much of the needed infrastructure for large-scale operations already in place. Indeed, the river system is already a major cargo and passenger artery in the region, with 6 million tons of goods and over a million people transported in 2018. During the Soviet era, upwards of 9-12 million tons of cargo transited through the system every year. The infrastructure needed for expanded activity is thus mostly already existent. For instance, Sabetta has already developed into the largest port on the NSR, with cargo volume exceeding 17 million tons in 2022, while LNG continues to flow through the port from the Yamal peninsula to Europe. On the Kazakh end, the Pavlodar River Port has a handling capacity of up to 650,000 tons, while the region’s ten smaller berths can accommodate an additional 10,000 tons of cargo each. Ninety-five vessels currently operate full-time in the river’s cargo fleet, with an operating window of 192 days spanning from April to November.

In January 2025, Kazakhstan approved a roadmap for the comprehensive development of shipping on the Irtysh River, underlining the economic viability of the route. This includes the construction of a new river port in Tugyl on Lake Zaysan, the modernization of existing berths, the opening of the Urlitobe river crossing point on the border with Russia, and the creation of logistics and multimodal hubs. Noting that river transport in the region is 2-3 times cheaper than rail, the government is also studying mixed rail-river transit as a means of lengthening the route’s operating window.

While assessing the economic viability of the route is challenging, there are clear signs of increased interest, investment, and transit along the river. As the Middle Corridor continues to face particularly high import and export costs along traditional routes, the Ob-Irtysh’s promise of a cheaper and facilitated access to global markets is understandably proving attractive.

The rapid growth of overland trans-Eurasian trade and transport expansion in Central Asia echoes Mackinder’s predictions of the heartland being “covered with a network of railways” and the birth of “a vast economic world.” This combined with the development of the Ob-Irtysh River corridor reveals that it may be just a matter of time until the heartland gains an “oceanic frontage” and all the benefits which derive from nautical commerce – a facet which Mackinder theorized would further advantage the heartland. Both Russia and Kazakhstan are expecting Chinese cooperation to enable their visions of Eurasian riverine connectivity. In May, transport ministers of China and Kazakhstan discussed the creation of new transport corridors using the Ili and Irtysh rivers to increase cargo turnover. Earlier in November 2024, the Russian Ministry of Transport stated its intentions of creating a bidirectional logistics route via the Ob-Irtysh to connect China to the Arctic while also connecting Russia’s Siberian industries directly to the BRI. These designs echo the days of intense riverine trade and resource extraction that occurred on the Irtysh between Soviet Central Asia and China’s Xinjiang province in the 1930s-40s, but on a far greater scale with serious implications.

What would this mean for the U.S. and its allies? One may theorize that such a development would not help Europe in reducing its dependence on Russia. Continuing conflict in the Middle East and growing tensions between China and the U.S. makes the Ob-Irtysh to NSR route an alluring alternative for Eurasian trade. Breaking free of the Malacca Strait has been core to China’s ambitions, while continued Houthi activity in the Red Sea has pushed shipping costs to record highs. However, it would also give Russia yet another card to hang over the necks of NATO allies, while multinational shipping companies remain wary of nationalization and sanction risks linked to the Ukraine conflict.

Although China and Russia have historically distrusted each other, external pressures have increasingly aligned the interests of both nations, potentially opening the door to cooperation. Sino-Russian cooperation has already encompassed economic and military alignment, such as joint development projects in the Russian Far East to increase Sino-Russian  energy integration or the joint strategic bomber patrol near Alaska. With Central Asia and the Arctic residing within the national security interests of both nations, Sino-Russian collaboration to enable riverine connectivity between the Middle Corridor and the NSR could serve to increase the economic power and influence of Moscow and Beijing over Eurasia. Such developments would further erode U.S. and European footprints in the region, confining Central Asia to Chinese and Russian economic domains.

Both Russia and China have continuously increased their economic, infrastructural and security investments, tightening their grasp over Central Asia. Should greater Chinese or Russian strategic investments provide either with preponderance over Central Asia’s existing or new critical transport routes, Washington can expect even greater influence and lobbying from Beijing or Moscow. An even tighter grip over Central Asia could mean that the region’s abundant energy and strategic minerals would be denied to Western markets. Strategic access to Central Asia’s vast reserves of critical minerals can provide the U.S. and its allies diversification of critical supply chains away from China, which controls 90% of global rare earth minerals. Failure for the U.S. to penetrate Central Asia could prove harmful to the ongoing technology rivalry with Beijing short term, while the completion of an Arctic multimodal corridor under total Russian or Chinese influence would foreclose future Central Asian business and security opportunities for America. This year, China has surged BRI investment into Central Asia’s critical minerals sector as a preliminary move to hedge against U.S. tariffs. Further Chinese and Russian ascendance in Central Asia would alleviate their strategic vulnerabilities, while endangering the geopolitical position of the U.S. and its allies.

The U.S. has not stood idly by, as the newly acquired 99-year lease over the South Caucasus Zangezur Corridor can create a direct link between Europe and Central Asia, blunting Russian and Iranian influence, while creating an alternate route bypassing Chinese infrastructure projects. Nevertheless, the U.S. should take greater measures in reducing Central Asia’s isolation to global markets by promoting trade and investment to increase American competitiveness in the region. Such initiatives would prevent the consolidation of Russian or Chinese holds by offering alternative trade routes and development opportunities.

Maximilien Hachiya is a is a War Studies scholar at King’s College London.

Paul Audoin is a senior at Columbia University and Sciences Po Paris, majoring in Political Science and Economics. He is a student scholar at the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies.

Ulysse Oliveira Baptista is a Political Science student at Concordia University Montréal. He is an associate researcher at the Canadian Center for Strategic Studies.

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

As noted before, the “alternative energy” movement, rather than positioning itself as a partner with conventional energy, is instead devoted to the complete demise of reliable and affordable energy resources while framing itself as the only path forward. But there are three ongoing developments providing reasons to believe that its efforts are doomed to failure.

“Green” movement in retreat

“Renewables” are facing a combination of political and legal headwinds. With the election of Donald Trump as president and the pro-traditional energy Republicans now in Congress, the gravy train that was once rolling full steam ahead has come to an abrupt halt, leaving the “renewables” movement feeling stranded.

“The morale is destroyed,” Ramon Cruz, a former president of the Sierra Club recently told the New York Times. “I won’t try to sugar coat it. This is a generational loss.”

“With one election and one bill (Trump’s “Big, Beautiful” domestic legislation), most of the signature climate work that organizations, advocates and movements have been working toward is largely undone,” added Ruthy Gourevitch, a policy director at the Climate and Community Institute, a progressive research organization.

The legal hurdles facing the movement are daunting as well. As the Times reported, Greenpeace is facing nearly $670 million in damages from losing a lawsuit brought by Energy Transfer Partners, which accused the group of “an unlawful and violent scheme” to incite demonstrations against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club recently fired its executive director following budget deficits and numerous layoffs. And Sierra and three other environmental groups have been hit with a defamation lawsuit by Exxon Mobil in federal court in Texas.

‘Renewables’ workforce in short supply

The “renewables” movement is facing a workforce crisis in both white- and blue-collar jobs. The shortage has been years in the making, leading one analyst to conclude, “It’s unclear where these employees will come from in the future. There are too few people with specialized and relevant expertise and experience, and too many of them are departing for other companies or other industries.”

The ”green” movement blames the shortage on “a lack of awareness of career paths and opportunities,” according to one energy news source. But just as possible is a lack of enthusiasm among workers, “especially as political developments may discourage would-be jobseekers from placing their bets on a career in the renewables sector,” as the site noted.

The crisis is worldwide, with some governments such as Australia’s investing millions to entice workers and ramp up training. The European Union, meanwhile, finds its arbitrary “renewables” targets meeting the reality of an inability to recruit the workers necessary to get there.

“According to industry association SolarPower Europe, solar employment in the EU increased by 30% by 2022 to over 600,000 jobs, including indirect roles in materials and transportation,” the industry website Reccessary reported. “By 2030 the EU will need more than 1 million solar workers to meet higher renewable energy targets set recently by the EU to end the region’s reliance on Russian oil and gas, SolarPower Europe said.” Good luck.

Climate claims increasingly outrageous

It’s one thing to raise climate-related alarms about melting icebergs or more fires and floods. But the inability to coach tennis? That’s a complaint of a Wisconsin teenager who is one of eight children aged 8-17 who recently sued the state through two non-profit law firms over its fossil fuel policies.

The lawsuit claims that “in 2023, a large boulder rolled into her backyard and knocked over trees,” which she blames on “freeze-thaw events” driven by fossil fuels. If those fuels weren’t causing climate change, the suit claims, “the boulder that tumbled toward her home would probably have never become dislodged,” as the Guadian reported.

But her troubles didn’t stop even after the teen moved to a different part of the state, according to the suit.

“I coached tennis during the summer, but I recently did have to give it up due to such extreme weather and extreme climate events that don’t make it safe for me to be outside anymore,” the teen said. Presumably, tennis instruction in Wisconsin has continued thanks to others bravely stepping up.

Health impacts due to heat can be serious. But that’s been the case throughout human history. Blaming “climate change” for events or conditions many Americans experience in routine daily life is a gift to the traditional energy sector, as an increasing number of rational Americans recognize just how far into the deep end the eco-alarmist movement has waded.

The doomsday environmentalists’ low morale is a result of their inflated expectations in the face of fading public support. Their workforce crisis is exacerbated by an uncertain future as conventional energy is on the ascent. Their increasingly fringe cause-and-effect theories have led to a loss of credibility among the general public.

Because of its own penchant for overreach, coupled with both economic and political blowback, the climate cult is on its heels. A movement that tried to position itself as the only acceptable choice is on the verge of making itself an option of last resort.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for  The Empowerment Alliance , which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.

A cryptic post by California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office had the interet a buzz Saturday.

The post reads, “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today.

“You’re welcome, America.”

Noem, of course, is secreatary of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today.

You’re welcome, America.

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) September 20, 2025

The Trump administration agreed that Team Newsom’s tweet looked like a threat. As The Gateway Pundit reports, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin slammed Newsom for hiding behind a keyboard to “threaten” Noem.

“This reads like a threat,” McLaughlin wrote. “This is ugly, @GavinNewsom.”

“Your keyboard warrior team may hide behind their laptops and spew this kind of vitriol but you would never have the guts to say this to her face,” she added.

This reads like a threat.

This is ugly, @GavinNewsom.

Your keyboard warrior team may hide behind their laptops and spew this kind of vitriol but you would never have the guts to say this to her face. https://t.co/U4IOGj76Cj

— Tricia McLaughlin (@TriciaOhio) September 20, 2025

Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli was next to respond, saying the alleged threat has now been referred to the Secret Service.

We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials. I’ve referred this matter to @SecretService and requested a full threat assessment. https://t.co/mKEN3CZjxn

— Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) September 20, 2025

One X user posted: “A week after the most consequential political assassination since Kennedy, Newsom is threatening Kristi Noem. Any democrat saying the Right needs to ‘turn down the temperature’ is a liar and complicit.”

Newsweek reports that Newsom signed five bills Saturday meant to protect immigrants, legal or otherwise.

For many kids, sports are more than just a game. They offer physical and mental health benefits – better sleep, lower illness risk, reduced stress, and improved academic performance. In an age where children are glued to smartphones and screens at alarmingly young ages, athletics are more vital than ever.

A 2025 study in the Journal of Human Development and Capabilities found that smartphone use, especially before age 13, causes serious mental health challenges and physical harm, like disrupted sleep. Sports provide a critical counterbalance, fostering physical health and social interaction. All my six children ran cross country in high school and benefitted greatly from the physical conditioning, socialization, and discipline the sport provided.

Pennsylvania’s governing body for high school athletics, the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA), acknowledges this on its website: “Participation in [sports]… builds character traits and interpersonal skills difficult to duplicate in other settings.”

So, it was puzzling to learn that the PIAA has had a long-standing policy barring parochial school students from joining public school sports teams when their smaller schools lacked athletic programs – a policy that unfairly penalized families for choosing faith-based education. Meanwhile, charter school and homeschool students were allowed to join teams at their home school district.

Simply put, families who chose a faith-based education for their kids were being unfairly excluded. This injustice sparked a federal lawsuit filed by Thomas More Society, where I serve as an attorney, on behalf of parochial school families who were harmed by the policy.

Now, as the new school year starts up, we are already seeing change as a result. Prompted by our lawsuit, the PIAA has agreed to end its discriminatory practice and entered an interim consent order this week signed off on by a federal Judge. The PIAA will now revise its bylaws in the coming weeks to permanently ensure equal access for parochial school students, just like their homeschool and charter school peers.

As a result, parochial school families are already seeing their children take the field. This triumph marks a turning point for fairness in Pennsylvania athletics. Parochial school athletes without teams will no longer be kept off the roster because of their family’s choice to prioritize religious education.

This practice was not only unfair, but a subtle form of religious discrimination that unconstitutionally penalized families for living out their faith through their educational choices.

The First Amendment guarantees that religious families cannot be denied public benefits, like taxpayer-funded sports programs, because of faith-based decisions. The Fourteenth Amendment demands equal treatment for all students, regardless of their school choice.

As U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann stated in our prior lawsuit, where we had prevailed on the same issue, against the State College Area School District: “The Free Exercise Clause is clear: regardless of what reasons some parents may have for sending their children to a non-public school, a religious reason has the same value as a secular reason.”

Building on that win, this statewide victory ensures parochial school students across Pennsylvania can now access the same opportunities as their peers. Families, who were plaintiffs in our case against the PIAA, choose religious education to ensure their children receive an education where their faith is nurtured and supported, often at great sacrifice.

Justice Samuel Alito, recently writing for the Supreme Court’s majority in Mahmoud v. Taylor, captured the importance of that choice: “[F]or many people of faith across the country, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children.”

For families in underserved or rural communities, where smaller parochial schools often lack resources to field sports teams, this news is a game-changer. It affirms that no child should miss out on the life-shaping benefits of athletics due to their family’s religious convictions.

As the new school year begins, parochial school students are already stepping onto the field, track, and court alongside their public-school peers. With this victory, a clear message is being sent: Pennsylvania families have a right to live out their faith without sacrificing opportunity.

Topline: United Healthcare potentially collected an extra $6 billion from the federal government in 2023 by exaggerating how sick their patients were, according to new analysis from the nonprofit Alliance of Community Health Plans.

Key facts: Medicare Advantage is an alternative to traditional government-run Medicare that allows elderly patients to use private health insurance companies, which get reimbursed every month based on how many patients they cover.

Because elderly patients can be expensive for private companies to insure, the government offers “risk adjustment” payments, reimbursing the companies more money for covering patients who are very sick or have several medical problems.

However, the private companies are often not entirely honest with their risk adjustments. In a process known as “upcoding,” many healthcare providers list minor diagnoses that most doctors would ignore, just to make their patients appear sicker and get a higher reimbursement rate from the government. Some companies have even been caught making up medical conditions their patients don’t have.

Now, hard evidence has emerged. United Healthcare’s risk adjustment scores are 36% higher than those of local nonprofit health-care plans, according to the Alliance of Community Health Plans. That helped United, the nation’s largest Medicare Advantage provider, receive an extra $785 per patient in 2023, costing the federal government $6 billion.

Humana, the second-largest Medicare Advantage company, has risk adjustments that are 19% higher than local nonprofits, costing an extra $423 per patient.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com . 

Background: The 2023 overpayments are a small part of the damage that dishonest practices are expected to cause to Medicare Advantage.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that from 2025 to 2034, the government will unnecessarily spend $600 billion because of upcoding. Medicare patients will also be overcharged an estimated $110 billion from their own money.

Medicare will also lose $580 billion because of “favorable selection,” a process where Medicare Advantage providers intentionally enroll patients who seem very sick on paper but are actually fairly healthy. That allows the insurance companies to boost their risk adjustments while spending small amounts of money on actual health care for the supposedly risky patients.

Summary: Health-care reform is never easy, but eliminating upcoding is a common-sense goal that both Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com