Fox News RSS Feed

We call it "Trumpism" for short, the collection of positions, policies and preferences embraced by the president of the United States.

But does all this amount to a coherent philosophy that can be carried out by future Republicans once Donald Trump is no longer in office?

And where does that leave conservatism? Trump never pretended to be a classic conservative, which deeply divided the movement.

There are those who quietly abandoned their previous views and have backed virtually everything Trump does, from tariffs to deportations to the war in Iran.

CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST SAYS DONALD TRUMP HAS LOST THE COUNTRY. IT’S COMPLICATED.

And there are those who renounced Trump from the start, who believe he betrayed conservatives – and who tend to have prime spots in cable commentary, so shows can boast they have Republican pundits (who happen to hate Trump).

Some on the right bring a fierceness that eclipses the attacks by liberal critics. Former Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker, a Fox News contributor, said yesterday after the Iranians denied having talks with the White House that the "unsettling reality" is Americans have to "suspect that the enemy’s version of events is more likely to be true than our own. We have become Baghdad Bob."

Talking to reporters before leaving Palm Beach yesterday, Trump said: "My life is a deal. That’s all I do is deals." 

WHY TRUMP IS DENOUNCING THE MEDIA’S IRAN WAR COVERAGE AS TOO NEGATIVE – BOOSTED BY RHETORICAL FCC BACKING

The context was what he insisted were the negotiations with Iran, but the declaration certainly applies to his business pursuits and political career.

I’ve known Trump since 1987, and I can tell you that he basically does whatever works in the moment. If that is inconsistent with his position the previous day or week or month, so be it. Let the pontificators argue about that. 

Trump is immune to corrosive criticism about flip-flops because he views every day as a clean slate, in which his allies may be those he once furiously criticized and his enemies may be former loyalists.

For instance, the president’s first-term position, backed by Congress, was that TikTok was a threat to national security because of its Chinese ownership, and should be banned unless it was sold to an American company.

When I asked him about this before the election, Trump, whose campaign greatly benefited from its use of TikTok, said he was no longer in favor of a ban. This, he said, was because removing TikTok would help Facebook, and he deemed Mark Zuckerberg’s empire more of a threat.

Not a terribly convincing explanation, but with the president, that was then, this is now.

AS AMERICA TURNS 250, TRUMP SHOULD RESTORE WASHINGTON, DC'S ORIGINAL BORDERS

For what it’s worth, a deal was finally reached this year to sell the hugely popular app to a joint venture in which American investors have majority control.

The hot media debate right now is what comes after Trump, and whether future Republicans – JD Vance, Marco Rubio, whoever – must follow his blueprint. This is especially resonant because the America First candidate who crusaded against foreign wars radically changed his approach by attacking Iran.   

Atlantic contributor Pete Wehner, whose specialty is Christian ethics, says that in 2016 he was a lifelong Republican who had served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

He said in a New York Times op-ed that Trump "would threaten the future of the Republican Party," that he "sought to cultivate and encourage the ugliest passions within the GOP, dousing the embers of hate with kerosene."

Among Republicans, including evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, the president "rewired their moral circuitry… And in the process, he killed American conservatism. MAGA is not just antithetical to conservatism; it is at war with it."

But look at Trump’s record. He sealed the southern border which was utterly porous under Joe Biden. He launched a mass deportation program aimed at illegal immigrants, a major target on the right. He cut taxes, and if most benefits went to the affluent, that’s what Republicans have always done. He slashed regulations at such places as the EPA. He reduced the size of the federal government by at least 300,000 jobs, or 10 percent, despite the mixed record of DOGE. And he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade.

Aren’t all these things, from easing tax burdens to restricting abortion to shrinking government, in line with conservative principles?

That’s not to say all these initiatives were handled well – look at the excesses of ICE and the killing of two Americans – or that they were wise decisions. But they’re not exactly at war with the conservative agenda of yore. 

TOP TSA WATCHDOG BACKS TRUMP’S ICE AIRPORT MOVE AS SHUTDOWN SNARLS TRAVEL

And then there’s all the other stuff, some of it breaking with fiscal orthodoxy, including the vow to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Wehner concedes that many Republicans voted for Trump because they were struggling economically (and, I would add, felt marginalized by the mainstream culture).  He twists the knife by saying "at the core of the MAGA project and Trumpism is disruption and destruction, the delegitimization and razing of institutions, and the brutalization of opponents… The MAGA movement represents the betrayal of the temperamental tradition of conservatism" and "the disfigurement of the Republican Party."

Jonah Goldberg, co-founder of the Dispatch, which has had success as a conservative, anti-Trump site, scoffs at such pointy-headed analysis.

"Trump has no ‘ideology,’" Goldberg writes. "He does have a few ideas. Off the top of my head: take the oil, tariffs are economic Viagra, strength good, never apologize, women won’t resist celebrities when they grab them by their privates, ‘good genes’ matter a lot, allies are whiny b----es, a bunch of romantic convictions about the supremacy of his instincts…"

He says these "gut impulses" and "sentiments" could be turned into an ideology. "But constructing an actual ideology requires thinking about how your various commitments might conflict, where the trade-offs are, what the edge cases might be, etc."

To Jonah, it’s a matter of psychology. "But Trumpism is not just about Trump’s psychology, it’s the psychology of many of his supporters. If Trump is for it, it must be right."

JOHN FETTERMAN SAYS TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME IS THE 'LEADER' OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

I’d just note that our politics is so polarized that many liberals engage in similar behavior, demonizing opponents, spouting the party line and never giving the other side a scintilla of credit. 

Iran has been the world’s leading terror state since 1979, but while raising questions about congressional approval, nearly all Democrats won’t say anything positive about the attack on Iran.

Chuck Schumer, on "Morning Joe" yesterday, repeatedly refused to acknowledge to Joe Scarborough that the U.S. decimating Iran’s military was a good thing. He just kept deflecting.

One notable dissenter, John Fetterman, told CBS that what the president has accomplished in Iran is "remarkable." And the senator said on a podcast that "our party is governed by TDS," Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Of course, Democrats don’t seem as wedded to one ideology because of undeniable splits over Israel, over pronouns, over transgender issues, over the old defund-the-police rhetoric, running the gamut from more moderate lawmakers to the Squad. What’s more, they don’t have a leader ready to denounce them and endorse primary opponents, so there’s little penalty for going off the reservation.

Gavin Newsom, a man of the left, has problems with progressives in his party because he has fought labor initiatives, backed housing deregulation, vetoed a bill allowing colleges to favor descendants of slaves, and opposes trans women playing in men’s sports.

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

There’s no single answer to the future legacy of Trumpism. That depends on the president’s popularity, and the economic picture, and how Iran is viewed, in 2028. Trump the dealmaker is a singular figure, impossible to imitate.

But one thing is certain: the Republican Party will never return to the green-eyeshade stinginess of Paul Ryan, the compassionate conservatism of Bush 43, the NATO embrace of Bush 41, or the bipartisan chumminess of Ronald Reagan with Tip O’Neill. 

The next era may be unclear, but Donald Trump has transformed the GOP forever.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/Sbwlc5z
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

There is nothing wrong with questioning U.S. policy toward Iran. In fact, it is essential. The press should probe, Congress should challenge, and both parties should debate the wisdom of any potential military action. These are not trivial matters, and the stakes—American lives, regional stability and nuclear proliferation—are too high for anything less than serious scrutiny.

What has become troubling, however, is how unserious the conversation has become around a single phrase: "imminent threat."

Following recent testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a number of lawmakers—particularly Democrats—expressed disbelief when she stated that whether a threat qualifies as an "imminent threat" is ultimately a determination made by the president. Some Republican voices, eager to distance themselves from the political risks of escalation, have echoed similar skepticism, suggesting that unless there is clear, near-term evidence of an attack, any preemptive posture is unjustified.

Both sides are missing the point.

GABBARD SIDESTEPS IRAN ‘IMMINENT THREAT’ CLAIM UNDER SENATE GRILLING

The intelligence community’s role is to assess capabilities, estimate timelines and evaluate intent. It provides a range of probabilities and scenarios. It does not—and should not—make the final determination about when a threat becomes an "imminent threat." That responsibility rests with the president, who must integrate intelligence with military readiness, alliance considerations and the broader strategic landscape.

The problem with the current debate is that an "imminent threat" is being treated as if it has a precise, universally accepted definition. It does not.

In a conventional setting, an imminent threat might be easy to identify: troops massing at a border, missiles being fueled, orders being transmitted. But nuclear proliferation does not unfold that way. It is gradual, opaque and often deliberately ambiguous. A regime like Iran’s advances its capabilities in stages—enriching uranium, refining weaponization and expanding delivery systems—without ever presenting a single, definitive moment that clearly signals that the threshold has been crossed.

MICHAEL OREN: IRAN HAS WAGED WAR ON AMERICA FOR 47 YEARS — TIME TO END IT

If the standard for an imminent threat is that the Ayatollah must be on the verge of pressing a launch button, then the United States has already forfeited its ability to prevent the outcome. At that stage, the options available are severely constrained, and the risks multiply dramatically.

A more realistic assessment recognizes that the convergence of capability and intent defines an imminent threat.

And on the question of intent, there should be no confusion.

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the regime has consistently and openly defined itself in opposition to the United States and its allies. "Death to America" has not been a slogan used in passing; it has been a defining feature of the regime’s identity. Iran has funded and armed proxy groups throughout the region, targeted U.S. interests and worked systematically to undermine stability from Lebanon to Yemen.

DAVID MARCUS: THE MAGA 'CIVIL WAR' OVER IRAN IS A MYTH

This is not a regime whose intentions are unclear or evolving. Its posture has been telegraphed for more than 40 years.

When that long-standing intent is paired with advancing capability, the nature of the threat changes.

TRUMP'S OPERATION EPIC FURY PROVES REAGAN-STYLE PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH IS BACK

If Iran is within one to two years of developing a deliverable nuclear warhead and is simultaneously expanding its ballistic missile capacity, that timeline cannot be dismissed as distant. In strategic terms, it is compressed. The closer those two tracks come to intersecting, the fewer viable options remain for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.

This is not a theoretical concern. It is a question of whether the United States and its allies retain the ability to influence the outcome at all.

Some Democratic critics argue that without concrete evidence of an impending strike, the threshold for an imminent threat has not been met. Their concern, understandably, is that broadening the definition risks justifying unnecessary conflict. That is a legitimate fear, and it deserves to be part of the discussion.

GORDON SONDLAND: NO MORE 'RESTRAINT': EUROPE MUST STAND WITH AMERICA ON IRAN

At the same time, some Republican skeptics suggest that unless the intelligence community can point to a specific, near-term trigger, restraint should be the default. This position, while framed as prudence, risks ignoring the cumulative nature of the threat. Nuclear capability is not built overnight, and waiting for a final signal often means waiting until it is too late to act effectively.

In both cases, the debate is being framed around a false binary: either the threat is immediate and undeniable, or it is speculative and avoidable. Reality lies somewhere in between.

Presidential decision-making in matters of national security rarely benefits from that kind of clarity. It requires evaluating incomplete information, weighing uncertain outcomes and choosing between imperfect alternatives. Acting too early carries costs. Acting too late carries risks that can be far more severe—and irreversible.

WINNING THE BATTLES, LOSING THE WAR? AMERICA MUST DEFINE THE ENDGAME IN IRAN

That is why the concept of an imminent threat cannot be reduced to a soundbite. It is contextual. It depends on trajectory—whether the threat is accelerating or contained. It depends on capability—how close an adversary is to achieving its objective. And it depends on intent—what that adversary has demonstrated over time.

In the case of Iran, that trajectory has been consistent. The regime has steadily advanced its nuclear and missile programs while maintaining enough ambiguity to avoid triggering decisive action. It has also demonstrated patience, exploiting divisions among its adversaries and using time as a strategic asset.

Under those conditions, a one- or two-year window is not a margin of comfort. It is a narrowing corridor.

DNI TULSI GABBARD SAYS THAT TRUMP ACTED BECAUSE HE CONCLUDED THE IRANIAN REGIME 'POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT'

The media’s fixation on whether a threat meets a narrow definition of "imminent" risks obscuring this broader reality. By focusing on the absence of a singular, immediate trigger, it creates the impression that the situation is less urgent than it is.

This does not mean that any particular course of action is correct or inevitable. There are valid arguments for diplomacy, for containment and for pressure short of military engagement. Those options should be debated thoroughly.

But that debate should be grounded in an accurate understanding of the threat, not an artificially constrained definition of when it becomes real.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The president’s responsibility is not to wait for perfect certainty. It is to determine when the risk of inaction outweighs the risk of action. That determination is informed by intelligence, shaped by history and tested against consequences that no model can fully predict.

After all the intelligence has been gathered, briefed, challenged and debated—after the charts are reviewed and the timelines are modeled—the final decision does not come from a spreadsheet.

It comes down to judgment.

It comes down to real-world experience, to pattern recognition and to understanding how adversaries actually behave. And yes, it comes down to something less tangible but no less real: instinct.

At the end of the day, the commander in chief is not deciding whether a definition has been met. The president is deciding whether the American people are at risk—and whether waiting makes that risk worse.

And in those moments, the decision ultimately rests on judgment—and on the instincts of the president, including those times when the hairs on the back of his neck tell him what the data alone cannot.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM AMB. GORDON SONDLAND

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/xqvieHR
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

I don’t hear any cheering out there.

A federal judge has thrown out the Pentagon’s draconian restrictions on what journalists can report, but most Americans don’t care.

A policy that led to the eviction of major news organizations — from the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, to ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News — has been overturned. It’s a big-time win for free speech.

But the media’s credibility is at an all-time low, the result of years of bias, blunders and boneheadedness. That’s why there’s no sign-waving in the streets or digital high-fiving outside those involved in the business. 

MEDIA UNDER FIRE: JOURNALISTS KEEP QUESTIONING IRAN WAR AS HEGSETH CALLS THEM ‘UNPATRIOTIC’ AND ‘ANTI-TRUMP’

Just compare that with the tsunami of reaction to ABC canceling "The Bachelorette" over violent footage of its star.

Sure, many people may not know about the judge’s ruling, given that it’s hard for civilians to follow the blizzard of court cases involving President Donald Trump. It’s a challenge even for those of us who do this for a living.

But here’s why ordinary folks should care.

If this administration, or a future Democratic administration, can routinely yank the credentials of correspondents who cover defense, then the official version of how great things are going will dominate the news.

And here’s why they should especially care right now.

We’re in the middle of a war with Iran.

In the lawsuit brought by the New York Times, Judge Paul Friedman in Washington said, "those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech." It’s been that way, he said, for 250 years. 

A Pentagon spokesman said the department is appealing.

What news outlet, regardless of political persuasion, could agree not to solicit information that hasn’t been officially approved for release by the Department of War?

Well, there’s MyPillow guy Mike Lindell, who blew up his business to zealously support Trump. He regularly promotes conspiracy theories about how the 2020 election was stolen. His LindellTV is credentialed press at the Pentagon.

PETE HEGSETH CRITICIZES 'FAKE NEWS' COVERAGE OF IRAN STRIKES, SAYS ONLY TRAGEDIES MAKE FRONT PAGE

So is former Congressman Matt Gaetz, whose nomination as attorney general collapsed over accusations of paying an underage girl for sex. He now hosts a show on One America News.

So is Laura Loomer, the far-right activist and Trump confidante who has said a 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo was a hoax perpetrated by the Democrats; suggested that the deep state used weather manipulation in 2024 to cause a blizzard before the Iowa caucus to benefit Nikki Haley; and, during that campaign, that "Joe Biden is dying."

So is James O’Keefe, founder of the conservative group Project Veritas, which used undercover video to capture biased conduct and embarrassing comments by those in the mainstream media. He once pleaded guilty to entering a senator’s office under false pretenses, and was removed by his board in 2023, over allegations of financial improprieties.

Trump has long been engaged in legal and rhetorical combat against the media, especially in the last year. He has successfully sued CBS and ABC for settlements worth at least $16 million apiece. He has denounced journalists he views as unfair and major news outlets as corrupt. Trump has said some media outlets should be prosecuted for treason over their "lies" about the Iran conflict.

At the same time, Trump provides previously unthinkable levels of access, holding constant news conferences and gaggles, and repeatedly taking brief calls from reporters and anchors on his cellphone. 

At the Department of War, Secretary Pete Hegseth has also accused "dishonest" media outlets of deliberately playing up American casualties and other negative war news to make Trump look bad. 

But such criticism, even if it’s warranted, is a far cry from the secretary’s move last October, giving his department sweeping power to classify reporters as "security risks" and revoke their credentials. What’s more, journalists, who regularly rely on unnamed sources, had to agree to seek information only from those authorized to speak for the Pentagon. 

That, said the judge, would allow only stories "favorable to or spoon-fed by department leadership." He said the evidence shows that the department targeted "disfavored journalists" and sought to replace them with those who are "on board and willing to serve."

Imagine the reaction on the right if Gavin Newsom was president and his defense secretary went after journalists with conservative viewpoints.

WHY TRUMP IS DENOUNCING THE MEDIA’S IRAN WAR COVERAGE AS TOO NEGATIVE – BOOSTED BY RHETORICAL FCC BACKING

Friedman tied his 40-page ruling to the current military environment and even the midterms.

"Especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing — so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."

Journalists have been asking plenty of probing questions about the war. How can the U.S. break Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which has choked off a chunk of the world’s oil supply? How can Americans in the surrounding Arab countries be protected from Iranian drones? What about soaring gas prices at home?

The president addressed such questions at a news conference the other day without attacking the press. He’s upset with our European allies who refuse to protect the strait. He thought the rise in oil prices would be much worse. He initially projected a timetable of four to six weeks, but now says he can declare victory and end our "incursion," as he calls it, at any moment.

Trump keeps stressing that our military has decimated Iran’s defenses, and of course he’s right, a reality that sometimes gets lost in the coverage.

The point is that journalists have to ask these questions in wartime. But it is harder for Pentagon correspondents, who tend to be specialists, to do their jobs without credentials. They’re not "in the room," as they say in "Hamilton," but outside the massive building looking in.

If the judge’s injunction stands, that will change. Defense reporters will no longer be excommunicated for doing their jobs or holding certain political views. 

The vast majority of Americans may not care, but the press corps — for all its flaws and excesses — is making sure they get the full story when the stakes are life and death.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/Fz2Rhqw
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

An Air Canada Express regional jet crashed into a Port Authority vehicle on the ground after landing at New York's LaGuardia Airport late Sunday night, forcing the airport to close.

The CRJ-900 plane, which was arriving from Montreal, struck the vehicle at about 24 miles per hour shortly before midnight, according to flight tracking website Flightradar24.

The jet was operated by Jazz Aviation, Air Canada's regional partner. Air Canada and Jazz Aviation confirmed the incident to Fox News Digital.

"Flight 8646 was en route to LGA from Montréal (YUL)," Jazz Aviation said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "The preliminary passenger list indicates the aircraft was carrying 72 passengers and 4 crew members, although this is subject to confirmation. The incident occurred at approximately 11:47PM on March 22, 2026."

DEAD PASSENGER ALLEGEDLY STORED IN HEATED GALLEY FOR 13 HOURS ON BRITISH AIRWAYS FLIGHT, 'FOUL SMELL’ REPORTED

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued a ground stop for all planes at the airport, saying there was an emergency without offering specific details.

LaGuardia's website showed arriving planes had been diverted to other airports or returned to where they took off from.

The Port Authority confirmed that the jet collided with a Port Authority Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting vehicle.

"At approximately 11:40 p.m. on Sunday, a Jazz Aviation flight operating on behalf of Air Canada was involved in an incident on Runway 4 at LaGuardia Airport in which the aircraft struck a Port Authority Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting vehicle that was responding to a separate incident," a Port Authority spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

"Emergency response protocols were immediately activated," the statement continued. "The Port Authority Police Department is on scene along with the agency’s Chairman and Executive Director. The airport is currently closed to facilitate the response and allow for a thorough investigation."

The spokesperson added: "This is a developing situation based on preliminary information. The Port Authority Police Department is working closely with our airline partners as well as federal authorities, and will provide additional updates as more details become available."

The New York Fire Department said in a statement that it was responding to an incident involving a plane and a vehicle on the runway at LaGuardia Airport, although it did not provide additional details.

SOUTHWEST FLIGHT DIVERTED AFTER PASSENGER SCARE AS SECURITY INCIDENTS RATTLE US AIRPORTS

The New York City Police Department confirmed the collision but did not offer further information.

Multiple videos taken at the scene showed the jet with severe damage to the front of the aircraft.

Fox News Digital reached out to the FAA and LaGuardia Airport for additional information.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/6yvgwc3
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

EXCLUSIVE - Former Vice President Mike Pence says his fight to keep the Republican Party from drifting too far from its conservative roots and principles, amid a rise of populism in the GOP and big government creep in President Donald Trump's second administration, is "the calling of my life right now."

And Pence takes issue with the conventional wisdom that Trump, since he first won the White House a decade ago, has upended and completely transformed the Republican Party.

"I'm convinced that while President Trump has changed some aspects of the agenda of the Republican Party, he hasn't really changed the Republican Party," Pence argued in an exclusive interview this past week with Fox News Digital, a couple of months ahead of the release of a new book promoting the conservative agenda.

Sitting in his Washington, D.C., office at Advancing American Freedom, his policy and advocacy organization that has been expanding in recent months, the former vice president emphasized, "We intend to be a voice for what conservatives believe and have always believed, and that's fiscal responsibility, traditional values, strong defense and American leadership."

ONLY ON FOX NEWS: PENCE SAYS TRUMP ‘TURNED A DEAF EAR’ TO ISOLATIONISTS IN GOP

Pence is a former congressman and Indiana governor who served as vice president during Trump's first term in office before breaking with his boss amid the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as he oversaw congressional certification of the 2020 election results.

The former vice president gave a thumbs up to some of what Trump's accomplished in his second term.

"I've been very proud of the fact of what this administration accomplished in securing our border. I was pleased that the administration turned aside from those that were talking about raising taxes on top marginal earners. They extended all the Trump Pence tax cuts," he highlighted.

PENCE URGES SENATE TO ‘RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE’ WITH NATIONWIDE VOTER ID LAW

But Pence took issue with the second Trump administration for "embracing more big government programs and solutions, price controls on pharmaceuticals and credit companies, taking a position in private companies, the nationalization trend that has emerged, as well as marginalizing the right to life in so many ways and ignoring the scourge of mail order abortion pills around the country."

"I am hopeful those advising the president are reminding him that it... was the conservative agenda that we governed on in our four years...that led to great prosperity for American families, for our economy and for strength in the world," Pence said.

But the former vice president warned that "the Republican Party today is experiencing a scourge of some ‘-isms.’ We've seen protectionism show itself in unilateral tariffs that the Supreme Court of the United States recently turned back. We've seen some voices of isolationism that question our support for Israel, that would leave allies like Ukraine defend for themselves."

And Pence added, "I think that the on the fringe and on the margins, voices of antisemitism in the party all need to be confronted, because none of those things represent what conservatives believe."

But many Republicans would take issue with the former vice president's argument that Trump hasn't transformed the GOP.

"Donald Trump has tremendously altered the make-up of the Republican Party and the issues that it focuses on," veteran GOP strategist and communicator Ryan Williams told Fox News Digital.

Williams emphasized that Trump "has altered the voter base of the Republican Party" and taken "the values and trajectory of this party in a different direction... It’s never going back to the way it was before."

FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE: PENCE CHARGES DEMOCRATS' HOLDUP OF DHS FUNDING ‘UNCONSCIONABLE’  

While not aiming to return the party to its pre-Trump image, Pence said his mission is to remind people that Republicans believe in a strong national defense of American leadership in the world. We believe in free market economics and limited fiscally responsible government. We believe in the right to life and traditional values."

"It's been those principles that have guided our party for more than a half a century and have been to the betterment of the American people," he added.

Pence said his hope is that "we'll see not only this administration hew back to our roots of conservatism, but that we'll see candidates for the House and Senate and statehouse around the country come back to those core conservative principles."

Republicans are battling stiff political headwinds as the party in power in the nation's capital traditionally loses seats in the midterm elections, and a rough political climate fueled by economic concerns amid persistent inflation and Trump's underwater approval ratings.

But Pence said that pushing a conservative platform is "not only a pathway toward American prosperity and the vitality of freedom, but it's also a winning agenda."

Likely boosting the former vice president's push will be his new book, "What Conservatives Believe: Rediscovering the Conservative Conscience," which is expected to release in June.

Pence ran on a traditional conservative platform, framing the future of the Republican Party against what he called the rise of "populism" in the party, as he bid for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, as part of a large field that unsuccessfully challenged Trump.

While Pence, who became the first running mate in over 80 years to run against their former boss, regularly campaigned in the crucial early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, his White House bid never took off.

Struggling in the polls and with fundraising, he suspended his campaign just four and a half months after launching it.

"It was clear to me that there's a portion of the Republican Party today that's being drawn aside by the siren song of populism unmoored to conservative principles. I spoke out against that as a candidate. Our foundation, Advancing American Freedom, has been championing that conservative agenda and will continue to," Pence noted.

Asked if there's another White House run in his future, Pence didn't rule anything out.

"I will tell you, I'm not a long-term planner," he answered. "We'll let the future take care of itself."

But he added, "For me, for my family, it really is all about the issues and values that first drew me to the Republican Party. Those are conservative values. And reminding our party and sharing with people across the country what conservatives believe and why it will make America stronger and more prosperous is really the calling of my time."

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/47kPhxZ
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

No. 12 High Point put everyone on notice for the second time in as many games this March Madness, but could not find the same success.

After advancing to the Round of 32 following an upset victory over No. 5 Wisconsin, the Panthers' season ended after No. 4 Arkansas ran away from them late Saturday night.

High Point led by as many as five early in the game, and they were up 56-52 with 14:17 to go after going on a 12-2 run. 

Both teams exchanged buckets for several minutes, with no one expanding their respective leads by more than three points for a little while.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM 

With 7:04 to play, the Panthers took a 72-71 lead, to which the Razorbacks responded with a 10-2 run, putting them up by seven and giving them their largest lead of the night.

The game was then quickly tied at 83 after a wild run by High Point, but over the final 3:19, Arkansas outscored High Point, 11-5, to snatch the victory, despite a valiant effort from the Panthers.

VANDERBILT'S HAIL MARY SHOT MISSES BY NARROWEST OF MARGINS AS NEBRASKA ADVANCES TO SWEET 16 IN EPIC FASHION

Arkansas was favored by 11.5, and while they couldn't cover, it was another Sweet 16 appearance for legendary head coach John Calipari.

Two Panthers, Rob Martin (30) and Cam'Ron Fletcher (25), combined for 55 points, but Darius Acuff Jr. of Arkansas trumped everyone by dropping 36.

Arkansas will face the winner of No. 1 Arizona and No. 9 Utah State in the Sweet 16.

High Point's victory over Wisconsin on Thursday marked their first ever in March Madness after making the tournament last year for the first time.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/C9jLsrg
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

This is an excerpt from Shyam Sankar and Madeline Hart’s forthcoming book Mobilize: How the Reboot the American Industrial Base and Stop World War III. Mobilize is available to order now.

Everything about how Marine Colonel Drew Cukor ran Project Maven, the Department of Defense’s upstart AI initiative, put a target on his back. He infuriated the acquisition community, which is a powerful enemy in the Pentagon. Ultimately, the firestorm of criticism triggered a series of unfounded but unrelenting IG reports that would harry Cukor until his retirement. Some of the details that follow may seem obscure, but they’re essential to understanding the bureaucratic inertia and pettiness that hold our military back.

When Cukor launched Maven in 2017, the government still bought software like it bought hardware. This posed a problem. The phases of a hardware program are research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), followed by production and sustainment. Costs are very high initially, and then they decline. The Department of Defense treated software the same way. It paid a lot up front for a systems integrator to build software, then it paid very little when the software went into production for patches and minor security upgrades. Software was treated as a static, finished product once it entered production.

Here’s the problem: software (at least, good software) is not static. It’s constantly improving, yet the cost is relatively flat across stages of development, which is why you pay a recurring subscription for commercial software instead of a large, upfront fee. This insight is the basis of the software-as-a-service model, and it enables constant improvement of the product. Development, testing, and production of software happen simultaneously, all the time. Understanding this, Cukor made the heretical argument to Congress that Maven should be procured as a continuously evolving capability, with a similar cost over its lifetime. Cukor procured software using Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs), a flexible contracting vehicle that categorized software as RDT&E. Although this categorization wasn’t perfect, the BAA allowed the program costs to reflect how software was developed and deployed and allowed Cukor to make frequent changes to the product while it was in production.

AMERICA MUST POWER AI WITH SPEED AND DISCIPLINE — OR CHINA WILL DOMINATE

Cukor would soon run into other problems with categorizing software as RDT&E. The department’s general posture is that if the US government is paying for R&D, it should own the intellectual property (IP) that results from that work. The problem is that despite the categorization of the contract vehicle as R&D, Maven wasn’t paying for commercial companies to perform R&D. When Palantir or Microsoft or Amazon showed up on day one of their work with Maven, they showed up with products that had decades and billions of dollars already invested. The R&D was already done. Yes, that product would get fine-tuned during the program and the companies would learn from the government’s mission and data, but fundamentally, the government was paying for software, not R&D. To Cukor, the government’s obsession with owning IP was an "overstated matter" more likely to harm the companies, and therefore national security, in the long term. As Cukor correctly notes, "If you [the company] can’t monetize this after working with us, then what’s the use of doing this? Why would you hand over your IP ever?"

To be clear, the companies did not own the government’s data and were not free to, say, sell a terrorist-targeting algorithm to China. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) were in place, and the government’s interests were protected. But a company that built a deep learning algorithm maintained the IP to its proprietary model weights. For Palantir, this meant that we retained the IP to our core platform while giving the government rights to Maven-specific logic configured on top of it.

Safe to say, Cukor’s approach was correct. Almost a decade later, Maven remains the best example of a robust ecosystem of leading commercial technology companies working with the government. Unfortunately, Cukor’s view on IP remains in the minority. It was heretical then, and it’s heretical now. For this heresy, Cukor was cast by his enemies as acting against the interests of the government. "I was considered to be just a horrific human being.… There’s a whole class of people in the government that will go to their grave hating me because I would not compromise on this topic: platform IP belongs to the vendor, configurations on top are the customer’s."

What happened next is almost hard to believe, if you know little about how the government operates: Cukor was punished for being too effective at his job. He was very good at rapidly getting money for Project Maven because he knew how acquisition worked and because his program was delivering. What’s more, he viewed acquisition as a form of "maneuver warfare" and never underestimated its importance as a source of continuous, rapid change to solve the most difficult problems.

MADURO RAID QUESTIONS TRIGGER PENTAGON REVIEW OF TOP AI FIRM AS POTENTIAL ‘SUPPLY CHAIN RISK’

In the Pentagon, the easiest way to attack someone is to accuse him of stealing money and issuing contracts illegally. For almost the entirety of Cukor’s time running Maven, a vicious stream of anonymous complaints were filed against Cukor. Some of these complaints were fueled by personal vendettas. It was a clear abuse of the process, but each allegation was treated with the utmost seriousness. Cukor was forced to face off against his mostly faceless opponents with little more than a heavily dog-eared copy of the Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR), the bible for procurement law and regulations. It had a permanent spot on his desk. 

One day, the under secretary—Cukor’s boss—received an anonymous, five-page letter with a litany of terrible accusations against Cukor: he was corrupt, with bags of government money in his house that he used to buy expensive cars. He was wining and dining people to get contracts to move faster. His use of BAAs was illegal. He was setting himself up for a plush job after Project Maven. He had created a command environment that did not respect rank. (To this charge, Cukor pleads guilty: "I had some very strong captains that would happily tell off a colonel or general if they were wrong. We had a climate of moving fast and getting things done.") Worst of all, the letter alleged, Cukor was illegally harboring a family of foreigners in his basement. This last, fantastic allegation came about because Cukor sponsored the (very legal) immigration of exceptional foreign mathematicians.

Cukor explains why he was a target: "You just have to understand this: when one group of people in the Pentagon get ahead of everybody else, the natural reaction is to kill that thing and get everyone back in line. That’s the Pentagon." One is reminded of the Soviet Union, where the central government suppressed exceptional individuals who threatened the state’s uniformity and control. Everyone was doing exceptional work, which meant no one was.

Cukor told his boss the allegations were patently false and demanded the identity of his accuser. But his boss insisted on a full investigation. An Army officer was hired to investigate Cukor. This was a bad omen. The Marines and the Army have a long-standing rivalry that became even more acrimonious when the Army advocated abolishing the Marine Corps during the reorganization debates in and immediately after World War II. Harry Truman, partial to the Army, famously said that the Marines "have a propaganda machine almost the equal of Stalin’s."

The Army officer published his investigation, but the best he could find, in his opinion, was that Cukor had not properly enforced rank, thereby creating a command climate that the Army officer said was anti-military. There were no allegations of criminal conduct. What he "found," essentially, was that Cukor let his captains loose and didn’t enforce niceties—hardly fireable offenses. And what about the crazy allegations of money laundering and human smuggling? The Army officer didn’t have the skills to look into these matters, so he recommended that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) do it instead.

At this point, Cukor’s ordeal turned from tragedy to farce. When an NCIS investigator showed up at Cukor’s 1,400-square-foot home in Northern Viriginia, where he lived with his wife and four kids, there were no bundles of cash, fancy cars, or illegal immigrants in sight (although there were a few modest vehicles, all with more than 100,000 miles). The investigator left in disbelief. How had Cukor managed to support all these people on a government salary in such a small house?

PENTAGON’S AI BATTLE WILL HELP DECIDE WHO CONTROLS OUR MOST POWERFUL MILITARY TECH

That the NCIS found no incriminating evidence further enraged the establishment. Their options dwindling, they seized on a final chance to attack: Cukor’s retirement. After thirty years of exceptional service, Cukor had announced his intention to exit. Because of the baseless allegations, he knew there was no path for advancement. But instead of letting Cukor retire in peace, his critics went for his rank, threatening to demote him to lieutenant colonel!

At this point, any confusion on your part is excusable. Shouldn’t the Marine Corps be fighting for the person responsible for bringing AI to the Department of Defense? One of its own? Cukor finds the suggestion quaint. No, "the institution is always more important than the individual. We all know this; we sign up knowing this." And Cukor was now associated, however baselessly, with money laundering, luxury cars, and undermining national security. He underwent two years of soul-crushing IG investigations that never really ended.

Cukor’s critics eventually gave up their campaign to take his rank, but he still suffered one final indignity on his way out the door. The last conversation that Cukor had before exiting the Pentagon was with the IG, who made clear that while Cukor was walking free today, the investigations would stay open for years. They could come after him at any point during that window.

STEVE FORBES: THE AI COLD WAR HAS BEGUN AND AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE

In 2022, after Cukor had retired, the Office of Inspector General finally published an unclassified but redacted version of its findings, "Evaluation of Contract Monitoring and Management for Project Maven." The sanitized report contains no findings of fraud or impropriety. The primary conclusion is that Project Maven was indeed run "in accordance with FAR, DFARS [Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement], Defense Grant and Regulatory System, and contract requirements." The worst the IG could find is that the "AWCFT did not document its approach to monitoring by formalizing the reporting metrics, processes, and procedures for monitoring and managing Project Maven contracts." Cukor disputes even this one minor, critical finding. If you bother to read deeper in the report, it supports Cukor’s claim, too. Maven "actively monitored contract deliverables using AWCFT-developed reporting, metrics, processes, and procedures to meet Project Maven objectives," and it scheduled "frequent and transparent programmatic reviews." The IG admitted that monitoring and management techniques for AI and machine learning "are not captured in current procedures and best practices that are used by the DoD acquisitions community." If only the IG applied such scrutiny and thoroughness to outcomes, rather than process. We should all be a little more concerned with whether a program actually works and a little less concerned with whether bureaucrats are checking the right boxes along the way.

The IG did, begrudgingly and in its own way, admit that Project Maven worked. It explained that documentation was needed, or else "future DoD acquisitions related to this complex, rapidly-moving technology may not benefit from the AWCFT’s monitoring and management lessons learned." In other words, the IG criticized Maven for making it harder for other programs to learn from its example! The IG doesn’t write reports like this. It’s the equivalent of going before the Spanish Inquisition and coming away with a gold star for good behavior. 

By the time the report was published, Cukor had already been driven out of the military. He’d had several chances for promotion, but because of the litany of accusations against him he couldn’t even be on the list of potential candidates. By the time his name was cleared, it was too late. What type of people do get promoted? Per Cukor:

Those that ascend are a rare breed: they’ve figured out how to survive in an environment where people can log any complaint against them and start investigations that jam up everything. This often results in a risk-averse senior leadership who avoid controversy at all costs. And the IG process is an unfortunate reality that favors the status quo and instills institutional complacency.

By contrast, Cukor had relentlessly pushed a contrarian AI agenda. People didn’t like it when a colonel ran through their organization at breakneck speed, delivering new technology via real-word experimentation, unorthodox contract terms, and vendors far outside the Beltway.

As Cukor recounts this vendetta, he does so without bitterness. There’s passion in his voice, but no anger. There’s no victim mentality. It’s actually kind of weird. Most people would, understandably, be bitter. Cukor attributes his equanimity to his Marine stoicism. He knows what’s right and what’s wrong. "There are many of us like that in the military. That’s why you have people who literally jump on hand grenades. They’ll do anything because it’s what’s right." What’s more, the bad actions of others were often a source of motivation. This is the reason he was able to continuously deliver Maven even while these investigations were ongoing. After the fact, people on Maven were shocked to learn he’d been under investigation for more than two years, because it hadn’t altered his focus or output one bit. One engineer said that Cukor so effectively shielded the team from the politics that he had a nickname for him: the "iron dome of Pentagon bullshit."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Project Maven was the culmination of Cukor’s military career. Fighting for better intel methods and technology, fighting for Legacy to get police intelligence on the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting against non-performant programs such as DCGS—all of these experiences trained him to bring a revolutionary AI effort to the military when the cards were stacked against him.

Significantly, Cukor was in his seat for five years—long enough for it to count. Too many talented officers are rotated in and out of their positions every two years. How many potential Mavens has the military lost due to constantly rotating personnel policy? Cukor is also a prime example of why you can’t separate the role of creating requirements from the role of delivering capabilities: designer and builder must work together. Much like Rickover built and then operated nuclear submarines, Cukor created the specifications for the AI solutions he wanted to exist, coordinated them, and then built them.

Cukor insists that while he and his team accomplished something exceptional with Maven, it need not be the exception. There are many others like him out there, just waiting for a chance and a climate that doesn’t presume they’re guilty until proven innocent. In many ways, Cukor views himself as a typical Marine: he came from a humble background, imbibed the service’s values, and put his training to good use.

Perhaps most important, Cukor is living, breathing proof that herculean effort and selfless service are still possible in government—even in as flawed and sclerotic an institution as the Pentagon. We think of titans like Rickover as existing solely in a bygone and inaccessible age. Cukor shows that isn’t true, either. Cukor had a book about the Yazidis, a basement office, and a righteous fire burning within him. That was enough for him to revolutionize the Pentagon and the way we fight wars forever.

Madeline Hart is a Defense Lead at Palantir Technologies, where she works on next-generation defense and space products. She started Palantir’s First Breakfast publication.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/6cQjWR9
via IFTTT