Ukraine is a 32-year-old democracy navigating the brutal realities of war while rapidly transforming its economy for survival. Who better to advise this maturing nation than Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Treasury Secretary and the architect of its economic independence?

Hamilton’s brilliant foresight, dare I say clairvoyance, offers urgent relevance to modern Ukraine. His vision embraced private enterprise while advocating for strategic government intervention to build national power, an economic realism that still resonates in today’s polarized debates on tariffs, trade, and wartime industry. Let’s also examine how Hamilton’s thinking has aged, how economists have debated his legacy, and how Ukraine might interpret and apply these lessons in the crucible of war.

Hamilton, Smith, and Ricardo

In March of 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, just months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. At the time, a 19-year-old Hamilton was serving in the Continental Army. Smith’s “invisible hand” theory argued that individual self-interest, channeled through free markets, leads to efficient resource allocation and a more prosperous society than one guided by top-down state control.

While Smith championed laissez-faire capitalism, Hamilton emphasized the need for a more muscular economic state, especially in times of crisis.

As cataloged by The Alexander Hamilton Society:

He “was certainly a nationalist,” writes scholar Edward Mead Earle, “and he certainly believed in using economic policy as an instrument of both national unification and national power.”1

Despite his willingness to meddle in the economic sphere, however, Hamilton remained a staunch market capitalist. He “was emphatic in his commitment to private enterprise and to a market economy,” historian Forrest McDonald claims.2 A closer look at Hamilton’s writings verifies McDonald’s assessment. In “Federalist No. 12,” for instance, the New Yorker endorsed market capitalism for introducing “human avarice and enterprise” as a way to “vivify and invigorate all the channels of industry.”3 And, as Thomas G. West notes, many of Hamilton’s points in his Report on Manufactures paraphrase arguments made by Adam Smith, including his emphasis on the domestic manufacture of supplies essential for national defense.4 For Hamilton, a commitment to market capitalism was more than compatible with economic nationalism.

Rejecting absolutism, Hamilton held two seemingly conflicting views and left room for the nuance required when weighing the trade-offs in a complex, globalized economy.

Hamilton died in 1804, before David Ricardo advanced his theory of comparative advantage, which demonstrates how nations benefit most from specializing in what they produce most efficiently. Ricardo departed from Smith, who supported free trade but claimed that fairness is integral to these relationships. Ricardo doubled down on free trade, arguing that even "unfair" practices, like export subsidies ("dumping"), are less harmful than the inefficiencies of protectionism. Today’s economists who study tariffs and global price distortions still build upon Ricardo’s core logic.

But Hamilton carved out a critical exception. His rationale for protectionism was less concerned with “dumping” and noncompetitive practices, and more focused on the preservation and expansion of domestic manufacturing capabilities essential to national security.5 French support during the Revolutionary War was an essential input to the colonies’ eventual victory. Hamilton understood that relying on foreign powers, though convenient, could become dangerous if their political interests diverged. Thus, he established economic independence as a core principle of early U.S. governance.

Protectionism: Strategic Tool or Political Theater?

Throughout human history, economic revolution has been spurred by technological advancement, creatively destroying antiquated products and industries. The graph below depicts manufacturing employment totals in blue, and the steady decline of these workers as a percentage of the total workforce in red.

Fear of offshoring and its impact on workers and one-factory town economies is not new. Today politicians on both sides of the aisle blame NAFTA and China’s World Trade Organization entrance for hollowing out America’s industrial base. In Hamilton’s time, Thomas Jefferson warned that manufacturing could undermine the agricultural sector.

The data shows us that America’s industrial workforce peaked in the 1940’s, long before NAFTA, as post-war global integration and technological advancement led to further economic differentiation. The American economy expanded into entertainment, financial services, and technological innovation itself. Technology, not free trade, is the underlying cause of creative destruction, a term coined by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. Technology generally boosts economic value and productivity, and the concentrated job losses are relatively small.

A prime example of protectionism run afoul took place in the 1980’s automobile industry. Paying full-salary unemployment benefits to laid-off auto workers would have been more economical than the “voluntary export restraints” (pseudo-tariffs) on Japanese automobiles that drained $6B from the pockets of car consumers in a single year, disproportionately burdening low-income Americans who depend on car transportation. The costs shared by American consumers far outweigh the “saved” jobs of auto workers. Mitigating this inevitable harm with mid-career education and training can help facilitate the re-alignment of these workers to sectors of the future. A more robust social safety net, including universal health care, can catch workers who fall through the cracks of tectonic economic shifts.

Made-in-America policies touted by the Biden administration gave into the fear of natural economic transformation. Protectionism is a misguided policy embraced across the political spectrum. Pandering to swing-state voters in the industrial Midwest, if not disingenuous, is a losing game that we should refuse to play.

American products, whether cars or denim jeans dripping with cultural nostalgia, don’t need protection. Domestically manufacturing clothing at the scale necessary to spread out overhead costs and lower prices, is an unrealistic relic of the past. As Jenna Lyons, former Executive Creative Director at J. Crew and Real Housewife of New York notes on TikTok, high-quality denim production was smartly acquired by Japan in the 1950s and 60s. In business jargon, this is considered “cultural arbitrage,” a value-creation tactic that taps into international demand for American fashion.

Those who value American-made products are free to pay a premium for American labor and small-batch manufacturing. Fast fashion brands that manufacture in Bangladesh, China, and Vietnam are rightly criticized for unsafe working conditions and unlivable wages. The 2013 garment factory collapse in Rana Plaza, which claimed 1,134 lives and injured thousands more, is a tragic example of corporate irresponsibility.

Coupling higher labor standards with free trade deals can incentivize safer and more humane business practices. The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is a step in the right direction, requiring supply chain transparency from multinational corporations (MNCs) who seek access to European consumers with immense purchasing power. Future U.S. administrations would be wise to join this higher global standard by implementing equivalent policy through the Securities and Exchange Commission. MNCs with revenues overshadowing the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of developing nations are critical to improving human rights, but nation-state human rights violators like Russia remain among the worst offenders. Leaders of MNCs grew to understand geopolitical risk exposure in the months following Russia’s 2022 invasion, with over 1,000 businesses exiting Russia.6

Which brings us back to Ukraine and its economy. It will cease to exist if Russia achieves an imperialist takeover. In the words of Friedrich List, "power is of more importance than wealth ... because the reverse of power-namely, feebleness - leads to the relinquishment of all that we possess, not of acquired wealth alone, but of our powers of production, of our civilization, of our freedom, nay, even of our national independence, into the hands of those who surpass us in might."7

Industries like microchip production, cybersecurity, and other essential components of modern technological warfare, fall under Hamilton’s exception, in line with List’s thinking.

When safety of civilians is existentially threatened, an economic behavioral shift occurs. Individuals are willing to sacrifice freedoms in exchange for perceived safety. Some sacrifices are direct and clear, for example, conscripted military service. Other sacrifices are less apparent, taking the form of higher consumer prices and fewer choices due to investments redirected to the defense industry. Though capital and labor resources may lead to greater profitability if invested elsewhere, this short-term gain risks greater near-term and long-term costs under Russian occupation.

Under these certain circumstances, protectionism and government-directed investment is without a doubt necessary. Russian occupation is not only detrimental from a human rights perspective, it also stifles the Ukrainian economy to a greater extent than interfering with the free market.

From Dependence on NATO to Defense Tech Leader

Ukraine has experienced Hamilton’s cautionary tale of foreign dependence firsthand. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine lacked the military infrastructure to defend itself. NATO, led by the Biden administration, rallied behind Ukraine with weapons and limited personnel support. The closest the French came to sending a modern-day Marquis de Lafayette was floating the idea of covering Ukraine under their nuclear umbrella.

Earlier this year The New York Times reported on the deep intertwinement of U.S. and Ukrainian military operations. Hamilton, no stranger to the political volatility of alliances, would have called out this risk. Leaning on its partners was imperative for Ukraine, but foreign dependency exposed the country to the unpredictable winds of American politics.

When Trump entered office, intelligence sharing switched off and on, jeopardizing Ukraine’s battlefield awareness. Soon after, Ukraine was pressured to spend time and political capital on negotiating a mineral deal in order to shore up continued U.S. support.

Trump’s transactional approach to domestic and foreign policy came into full view in the heated Oval Office meeting between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, Trump, and Vice President JD Vance.

When I hear sirens in Kyiv warning of ballistic missiles, I have learned to be relieved by the booming and shaking of American Patriot systems that provide aerial defense. Ukraine’s gratitude for American support is obvious here, irrespective of Vance’s demands for continued groveling.

Bridget Brink, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, later described that meeting as her first glaring signal that official U.S. policy under the Trump administration was to pressure Ukraine, instead of the clear violator, Russia. She resigned last month in protest of the policy direction, warning that “peace at any price is no peace at all.”8

While Biden understood the alignment between Ukraine’s security interests and the United States, Trump and Vance do not. They blamed NATO, Biden, and Zelenskyy for provoking Putin, providing justification and cover for Russia’s illegal and murderous invasion. Trump and Vance do not prioritize morality or human rights as objectives in foreign policy. Shamelessly, they engage in international cooperation primarily for resource extraction and personal or political gain.

The Russian economy is kept alive by fossil fuel exports, a tit from which even Ukraine’s European allies have struggled to completely wean themselves. Facilitated by warming relations with Russia and other Oil Producing and Exporting Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the goal of Trump administration’s “drill baby drill” energy policy is to lower domestic manufacturing costs. These interests are fundamentally misaligned with Ukraine’s, and explain Trump’s floundering as he struggles to broker the “peace” he promised.

War by Wi-Fi: Drones and Deterrence

Hamilton’s reference points for national security belong to a bygone era. Firstly, due to the development of nuclear weapons; and secondly, due to the internet and emergence of cyber warfare.

The introduction of nuclear technology radically changed the strategy of war, privileging countries in possession of nuclear weapons with deterrence. In the post-World War era, international military cooperation reduced the need for domestically-outfitted militaries. Liberal democracies formed alliances with guarantees of mutual protection. When two nuclear powers, the U.S. and the USSR, faced off throughout the Cold War, mutual destruction was narrowly avoided in several instances of brinksmanship.

Today, France’s proposal to include Ukraine under its nuclear umbrella echoes this logic. Ukraine, with its nuclear power infrastructure, can develop weapons of its own. However, the cost would be enormous, and the political risks higher still. A nuclear-armed Ukraine would likely deter Russia, but it could just as easily provoke a catastrophic escalation.

Ukraine’s security edge is not nuclear. It’s digital, and increasingly self-produced. In the past two years, Ukraine has transformed itself into a manufacturing hub for drones, precision weaponry, and electronic warfare. Ukraine’s wartime economy embodies Hamilton’s vision of domestic strength: where the U.S. once built ships, Ukraine now builds code for drones.

Ukraine’s aerial defense systems include the IRIS-T from Germany, Ravens from the United Kingdom, and Patriots from the United States. Duplicative manufacturing of these systems domestically would require intense investment over time that Ukraine does not have. Instead, the country has carved out a comparative advantage that NATO never developed: high-volume, tactical drone warfare. Western drones were designed for limited strikes, whereas Ukraine’s are built for relentless defense, and increasingly, for offense.

This new industrial niche has been made possible by Ukraine’s educated, tech-savvy workforce and by the government’s focus on strategic investment rather than all-out protectionism. The state didn’t resort to tariffs or trade barriers, instead betting on competitive labor, innovation, and wartime necessity.

The results are striking. Ukraine is now producing long-range drones with larger payloads, making it a leader in defense technology. NATO countries, recognizing Ukraine’s expertise in cyber warfare and unmanned systems, are shifting course and investing directly in Ukrainian manufacturing with the goal of incorporating these technologies into their own military arsenals.

Meanwhile, European consumer goods steadily flow into the country. Food prices remain low, with grocery stores stocked full of both imported goods and those produced domestically in Ukraine’s fertile farmlands. Hamilton would be proud of Ukraine’s delicate economic balance, but it might take us a while to explain drone technology to him, starting with the internet.

Power, Principles, and What Comes Next

The macroeconomic force of globalization is not Ukraine’s only challenge. Like many nations, it faces the pressure of demographic decline: longer life expectancy, falling birth rates, and the risk of a lopsided population skewed toward retirees. Ukraine’s decision to set the conscription age at 25 protects its ability to educate and train a new generation, insulating the economy from the consequences of a shrinking labor force.

At the same time, inequality continues to erode the legitimacy of capitalism. As oligarchs and the “One Percent” hoard wealth, average workers miss out on the gains of global growth. Hamiltonian economics offers a blueprint for building national strength, but it must be updated with modern lessons, especially from social democracies that have invested in labor alongside technology.

Investment in public education pays for itself with workforce productivity gains that bolster GDP. A smarter, healthier work force is simply good for economic growth. Nationalization of the health care system not only drives down costs, but also centralizes investment in medical innovation, which is already heavily subsidized with public grant funding for research and development. Health care and education, unlike consumer goods, cannot be imported. They must be built. Public ownership ensures that the value created is returned to the people, not siphoned off by shareholders.

Ukraine’s future cannot rest solely on drones and deterrence. Its postwar economy must be diverse, inclusive, and strategically ambitious. That means resisting both cronyism and austerity, and embracing public investment, shared prosperity, and long-term planning. The United States should follow Ukraine’s lead, returning to its Hamiltonian roots.

Desensitization occurs when the brain is overwhelmed by stimuli, and it must determine whether signals are truly life-threatening. An alarm bell does not cross the panic threshold in the same way that an Iranian-made Shahed drone humming outside one’s window does. Threat levels can be difficult to assess at a single point in time, especially with limited information about trajectory or rate of change.

But when it comes to Donald Trump, we do know the trajectory and rate of change; Trump’s impact on the health of American democracy does not require carefully parsing out causal variables. It is this “analysis paralysis” that may account for why so many Americans have difficulty seeing Trump’s second administration as a lethal drone outside the window of US democracy. Still, we have an opportunity to resist and refuse to go gently into the light.

There is no time to confirm Trump’s danger with empirical studies that track the rise and decline of democracies, which are inherently reactionary1. Varieties of Democracy’s (V-Dem) annual report tracking such trends came out last week, but only includes data through the end of 2024, prior to Trump’s second inauguration. Nevertheless, incoming data points from Trump’s first hundred days in office show a rapid descent into autocracy.

"If it continues like this, the United States will not score as a democracy when we release [next year's] data," said , head of the V-Dem, run out of Sweden's University of Gothenburg. Lindberg added, "if it continues like this, democracy [there] will not last another six months."

The United States scored 75 out of 100 in the 2025 report, toward the lower bound of the “liberal democracy” bucket. Soon, America will slide into the grey zone and subsequently “electoral autocracy.” And while the descent into autocracy can come as quickly as pressing a detonator, re-democratizing is a steep uphill climb that will require enormous investments of energy and resources.2

What has Trump done to concern Lindberg?3 Well, he’s following the playbook of Adolph Hitler, detailed in Timothy W. Ryback’s piece “How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days,” published in The Atlantic in January 2025.4

Hitler

Tuesday, March 21, 1933, an Article 48 decree was issued amnestying National Socialists convicted of crimes, including murder, perpetrated “in the battle for national renewal.” Men convicted of treason were now national heroes. The first concentration camp was opened that afternoon, in an old brewery near the town center of Oranienburg, just north of Berlin.

Trump

• Pardoned 1,500 criminals who supported him and called his predecessor's pardons void and vacated;

• instructed Salvadorian President to build more prisons to jail Americans.

Hitler

Wilhelm Frick, Hitler’s minister of the interior, undermined states’ rights and imposed bans on left-wing newspapers—including the Communist daily The Red Banner and the Social Democratic Forward.

Trump

• Threatened numerous universities with sanctions;

• drafted a memo to Congress outlining its intent to end nearly all federal funding for public media, which includes NPR and PBS;

• gave a bitterly partisan speech at the Department of Justice, demanding the prosecution of the media and certain adversaries.

Hitler

Campaigned on the promise of draining the “parliamentarian swamp” —den parlamentarischen Sumpf—

Appointed Hermann Göring as acting state interior minister of Prussia, the federated state that represented two-thirds of German territory. Göring was tasked with purging the Prussian state police, the largest security force in the country after the army, and a bastion of Social Democratic [opposition party] sentiment.

Trump

• Fired independent agency watchdogs without process and purged apolitical police and military brass;

• called for a judge who ruled against him to be impeached, eliciting a response from Chief Justice Roberts;

• the FBI arrested Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping an undocumented defendant avoid arrest by ICE agents.

Hitler

Frick had responsibility over the republic’s federated system, as well as over the country’s electoral system and over the press. Frick was the first minister to reveal the plans of Hitler’s government: “We will present an enabling law to the Reichstag that in accordance with the constitution will dissolve the Reich government.”

Trump

• Unilaterally deleted federal programs, and an entire organization, created by U.S. Congress;

• invoked a 227-year-old war measures law during peacetime — for the first time ever — to deport accused gang members without due process. And, most importantly, when that deportation plan wound up in court, he may have — although it's still in dispute — defied a court order, cracking the ultimate constitutional safeguard.

Hitler

A Schiesserlass, or “shooting decree,” followed. This permitted the state police to shoot on sight without fearing consequences. “I cannot rely on police to go after the red mob if they have to worry about facing disciplinary action when they are simply doing their job,” Göring explained. He accorded them his personal backing to shoot with impunity. “When they shoot, it is me shooting,” Göring said. “When someone is lying there dead, it is I who shot them.”

Trump

In an interview with ABC News’ Terry Moran, Trump refused to acknowledge that due process is required by law in deportation cases, regardless of citizenship status. Mirroring Göring, Trump cites the need for efficient deportation as justification for circumventing the legal system.

Even more troubling, is that Moran’s minor concession that American citizens have yet to be deported without due process is no longer accurate. In recent days the case of a 2-year old American citizen who was deported with their mother has generated public outcry. Moreover, green card holders who are in the United States legally have been detained and face deportation, while student visas have been revoked preemptively to justify deportation without a hearing.

Trump’s claims that his administration’s different “standard” only applies to criminals and those who entered the US unlawfully. Quickly, Trump’s definition of criminality twists and warps to include additional “enemy” groups. Clearly, Trump’s “standard” applies to anyone who poses a threat to his power, particularly judges, politicians, academics, lawyers, journalists, and activists including student protestors.

Trump and his administration’s autocratic actions will be accounted for in the 2026 V-Dem report, but it will be too late. Congress must act now to stop Trump’s consolidation of power.

In Nazi Germany, Centrists, as well as the representatives of the Bavarian People’s Party, voted in favor of Hitler’s enabling law, despite reservations.

Reinhold Maier, the leader of the German State Party, expressed concern about what would happen to judicial independence, due process, freedom of the press, and equal rights for all citizens under the law, and stated that he had “serious reservations” about according Hitler dictatorial powers. But then he announced that his party, too, was voting in favor of the law, eliciting laughter from the floor.

Sound familiar? Senator Susan Collins’ (R-ME) consistently expresses her deep concern when commenting on Trump’s disregard for the constitution and rule of law. Collins, one of seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump for the January 6 insurrection, refused to cast a vote for him in November. Instead, she wrote-in Nikki Haley, a symbolic gesture that did not effectively block Trump’s return to the White House. Now is the time for Collins to pledge support for impeachment, initiating the bipartisan support required to remove Trump from office. Trump’s unconstitutional behavior is deeply concerning to say the least, tyrannical at face value, and warrants an impeachment trial.

Hitler’s rise required the complicity of those around him who underestimated their own power and responsibility.

Across the aisle, House Democratic Caucus chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) is abetting Trump’s consolidation of power. Earlier this week articles of impeachment were filed by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI), with several other House members signing on as cosponsors. But when Aguilar came out against impeachment proceedings, Thanedar’s support from co-sponsors dwindled.

Aguilar prefers a path of meek submission over challenging the Republican majority to a public debate on impeachment. “We don’t have any confidence that House and Senate Republicans would do their jobs. And so this is not an exercise that we’re willing to undertake,” he capitulated.

Aguilar is letting Republicans off the hook despite the majority of US voters saying “it's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power,” according to a poll published last Friday.

Not only does Aguilar refuse to hold Republicans’ feet to the flames, his position in minority party leadership effectively suffocates Thanekar’s popular grassroots spark. As frustrating as Aguilar’s faint-heartedness may be, infighting among democracy’s defenders will only serve Trump’s interests.

I have no interest in earning a loser’s participation trophy for being on the “right side of history.” A privilege reserved for those who survive Trump’s authoritarianism, moral superiority carries little utility.

If and when Republicans abdicate their responsibility to protect American civil liberties, I will woefully admit that impeachment was ineffective. But ineffectiveness is preferable to apathy, which only reinforces public distrust in our political system. If impeachment fails and Trump remains in office, we will pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and fight another day. We need not wait for more egregious violations to occur before disempowering Trump. “Sitting, hoping, waiting, wishing,” is a timeless Jack Johnson song, but a death sentence for American democracy.

My mother is a retired speech and language pathologist who worked in Oregon public schools her entire career. As her son, I have always appreciated language and communication, but as a native English speaker, I’ve had the privilege of entering most spaces unimpeded by language. However, as a globalist, I believe that pushing through language barriers facilitates an essential dialogue that when nurtured, can form powerful, even world-changing, connections

.

The first friend I made on this trip to Europe was Lynn, an energetic 26 year-old living in Warsaw, Poland. Lynn is a trans dude and polyglot on the autism spectrum. As my mother would say affectionately, Lynn is “aspy” as fuck (the profanity is on me).

Driving from the airport to their family home was a riot, and I would soon find out that we were riding in his mom’s Honda Element because two years ago Lynn’s mini cooper was T-boned and totaled by a motorcycle. According to Lynn’s retelling of what followed the car accident - a criminal court case that is still ongoing - Poland’s judicial system doesn’t instill much confidence.

Lynn’s mom is a producer at studio kakadu, a private media company with a rightward slant resembling Fox News. After a quick tour of the studio, I was treated to a traditional sour soup with sausage and horseradish.

Two motor mouths, Lynn and I covered cross-cultural topics including politics, the LGBTQ+ experience, media, and crucially, our pets. Sponsored by Claritin D, I met all four of Lynn’s furry friends, Cinnamon Garfield, Junior, Buckshot, and Fidel.

Lynn’s human family support the center-right party, “peace, law and justice”(PiS), while he supports the minority Labor party on the left. Both the left and center-right disavow the far-right Confederation, Liberty, and Independence (Konfederacja) party’s extreme antisemitism and homophobia, but the electoral success of PiS hinges on a rural voter base that it fears will unite behind the far-right. Recent polls show Karol Nawrocki, the PiS Presidential candidate, just ahead of Slawomir Mentzen, leader of the far-right Konfederacja party. Aiming for second place and the opportunity to compete in a runoff against progressive Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, the Civic Platform (CP) nominee, Nawrocki has echoed Mentzen’s anti-Europe, pro-Russia messaging. Criticizing Ukraine as “ungrateful,” stealing a line from Papal Assassin1 JD Vance, Nawrocki’s pandering to euro-skeptical voters may come back to bite him in a run-off. Centrist Poles may reject Nawrocki as a Putin sympathizer who would threaten Poland’s security by isolating the country from its democratic allies in Europe.

Poland’s well-established state media apparatus, and its history of partisan interference, has elevated media oversight as a priority policy issue for Presidential campaigns.

Members of the public who see journalistic independence as a pillar of democracy have reason to be skeptical of media trustees installed by politicians. PiS supporters cried foul when the CP takeover of state-owned media, which Lynn claims was a justified and necessary reform, even if legally dubious. In his Polish Politics blog, Aleks Szczerbiak questions what is at stake in the dispute over Polish state-owned media.

‘De-politicising’ Polish state-owned media outlets was one of the [CP] party’s main election pledges. They argued that during Law and Justice’s period in office the taxpayer-funded media outlets, especially TVP’s news and current affairs programs, had violated their statutory duty to provide services that were pluralistic and impartial, turning the state-owned broadcasters into crude ruling party propaganda channels. They said that this point had been made repeatedly by international bodies such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) election monitoring missions, while the CBOS polling agency found that public trust in state TV’s news output had fallen to its lowest ever levels.2

I expressed envy founded in the frustration that many American progressives feel toward liberal Democrats who tie their hands with legal norms before getting knocked out in fights with conservative Republicans who have no respect for the rule of law. As Trump decimates public media institutions like PBS and Voice of America, our youth will suffer from the absence of moral wisdom imparted by voices like Fred Rogers and Elmo. This is likely the point, though. Stop children from feeling empathy for others, and indoctrinate selfishness such that collectively-achieved societal progress is dismissed as futile. When Trump’s reign inevitably comes to an end, those committed to strengthening independent media institutions should follow the lead of Poland’s Civic Platform party and implement bold reforms. Until ultranationalist propaganda loses its time slot, we will be hard pressed to find a common truth based in fact.

train to the Poland-Ukraine border

On the train from Warsaw to Hecht I sat across from a quiet woman traveling solo. When I woke up from a nap, we broke the silence and I discovered she was fluent in English. Lucky me! Amused by an American traveling to a conflict zone, she shared her first-hand experience living in the suburbs of Kyiv under the constant bombardment of drones and missile strikes. In return, I was able to share my Western perspective on the war that kicked off in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea.

My train buddy thoughtfully contextualized Ukraine’s three-decade history of democracy. Ukraine established independence in 1991, but its sovereignty was quickly constrained by more powerful states. She called this Ukraine’s “greatest mistake.” I learned that Ukraine’s tragic circumstances today stem from a clear root cause: the Budapest Memorandum. The 2014 annexation of Crimea and full-scale invasion in 2022 was written on the wall shortly after Berlin’s crumbled.

On December 5, 1994, the same month I was born, Ukraine’s President Leonid Kuchma co-signed the Budapest Memorandum alongside US President Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister John Major, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and Khazakstani and Belarusian heads of state.3 In the noble name of denuclearization, Ukraine agreed to zero-out its nuclear stockpile, which was the third largest in the world behind the US and Russia at the time. Ukraine knew that denuclearization would add national security risk, which is why the US, UK, and Russia coupled nuclear weaponry reduction with security promises.4

Hearing this history relayed to me from the Ukrainian perspective, I had a bubble-bursting epiphany. The United States is directly responsible for Ukraine’s insecurity and the horrific human rights violations perpetrated by the Russian state in Ukraine. It’s not only in our democratic and national security interest to support Ukraine’s victory, it’s a duty we have largely abdicated.

In 2013, President Obama’s government justified sanctions against Belarus for human rights abuses, claiming that the 1994 Memorandum was not legally binding. If the US was not legally bound by the memorandum, why would Russia be? The next year Russia annexed Crimea, shocking Western audiences who had consumed media that consistently painted Putin as a transformational and liberalizing leader. We were duped by Russian propaganda that continues to plague our political system today.

Twenty Years of Putin Playing the West in 3 Minutes | NYT Opinion

Going down a rabbit hole of US politics, I described the modern era of congressional gridlock, our “first-past-the-post” electoral system, and the unprecedented danger of Trump’s second term to civil liberties and the rule of law.

As a student of US politics and government, my teachers consistently characterized American democracy as exceptionally diverse. Multi-racial democracy, they argued, presents unique challenges. After all, our founding fathers’ assertion that all men are created equal was an idealistic principle, not an input. Throughout our history, constitutional amendments enfranchised Black people, other minorities, and women, arcing our country toward the ideals of equality and justice by rejecting nativism and eugenics-based hierarchy.

Rooted in racial and gender resentment, MAGA stands for the disenfranchisement of minority groups and women who have gained political representation and power over the past 80 years.

Setting aside the notion that America is unique in our multiracialism, we can learn from the strength of Ukrainian democracy. In Kyiv, elected officials are tasked with representing a multi-ethnic population that speaks several languages. The home-spoken language of Ukrainians correlates with both generational and geographic factors. Those who grew up in soviet-era Ukraine are more likely to speak Russian, while those under age 40, who attended school “post-Ukrainization,” are more likely to speak Ukrainian and English. Latching onto natural divisions, Russia has deliberately stoked domestic unrest by pitting Russian-speaking Ukrainians against those who support the democratic government in Kyiv. As Putin annexed Crimea, the Kremlin inserted chaos agents into eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, home to many Russian-speaking Ukrainians. The map below depicts languages spoken at home in each region based on 2015-17 municipal survey data, not including data from annexed Crimea.

train to Kyiv

In Hecht my new friend and I parted ways into sleeper train cars for the long journey across the border toward Kyiv. Squeezing my bags through the narrow passage to my assigned cabin, I met my bunkmate Yosef, an elderly German-speaking man. We were able to communicate with hand gestures as we stowed luggage and helped one another prepare our beds. Next came Raymon and Katarina, Russian-speaking Ukrainians from the Kharkiv region. Raymon knew a some English phrases, and these two were comfortable using the google translate app to kindly engage with me.

After crossing two border checkpoints in the middle of the night, I woke up to the news that an overnight Russian assault on Kyiv killed 13 civilians in cold blood. Katarina showed me a video of explosions, to which I sheepishly asked, “Kyiv?” She nodded. I arrived in Kyiv around noon and was picked up by my boss Leathers and our colleague Dennis.

Dennis, a Kyiv local, is a popular guy, his phone constantly abuzz. His one-handed driving skills were impressive, a master multitasker. I could pick up a few Ukrainian words here and there as he bantered with his younger “witchy” sister Veronika, whose reputation preceded her. I knew we’d get along.

“Nika” graciously met met at the office and brought me to her parent’s apartment on the Eastern bank of the Dnipro river, where I showered off my long journey and sat down to a delicious home-cooked meal and leftover Easter cake for dessert. For second dessert, Nika and Dennis’s mother brought fresh apple and orange slices to my room while I was FaceTiming my own mother. Though Nika’s parents speak Russian, gratitude expressed from one mother to another did not require common tongue to be communicated.

waking up in Kyiv

The next morning Nika picked me up and took me to the mall to purchase an electronic sim card. An excellent English speaker and professional translator, Nika helped me with Ukrainian pronunciations as I attempted to chat with workers, finding limited success. After Nika hooked me up at the phone store, we exchanged stories over coffee and brainstormed how we can collaborate in developing Ukraine Torch’s media vertical. Nika was sporting an oversized color-blocked yellow and blue tee and jeans, an iconic Gen-Z look.

The Kremlin propaganda machine leverages targeted and sometimes conflicting messaging to influence audiences in their own language. Language itself has been the focus of many disinformation campaigns carried out by Russia, which claims that Ukrainization, or the promotion of Ukrainian language, is a government effort to erase Russian identity. In reality, promotion of Ukrainian language seeks to preserve a Ukrainian culture that has been brewing in the melting pot of Kyiv for centuries, predating Moscow.

To Ukrainians, equating Russia with the “new” USSR is equivocating; both are post-soviet countries, but Russia has usurped the political power of the USSR. This is particularly evident at the UN, where Russia has claimed and occupied the USSR’s permanent seat on the security council, undermining the council’s purpose of global stability and peace by perpetrating violence and war crimes. I recalled that in the 90’s, when my teachers unrolled outdated maps at the front of the classroom, they would say “the USSR does not exist anymore… now it’s called Russia.” In retrospect, I recognize how this oversimplification miseducated my generation.

Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula underscores a concerted effort to rebuild the USSR empire, Putin’s primary policy objective. Forced to acquire Russian passports in order to renew housing access, Ukrainians under Russian occupation must comply or risk incarceration in dismal prison and labor camps. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children have been kidnapped and trafficked to Russia, while tens of thousands more are re-educated with lessons that falsely rewrite Ukraine’s history.5

Americans who stand to benefit from patriarchy and white supremacy are targeted with anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-woman propaganda that promises to restore regressive power structures. The story of national rebirth that returns the US to a “golden era” is repeated ad nauseam to justify mass-deportation, incarceration, and the violation of civil rights and bodily autonomy.

Like in the United States, Russia’s ultranationalist movement fights its battle in schools, aiming to reverse generational progressivism. Asserting dominance over minority ethnic groups, Putin’s fascist regime disappears those who dissent and resist. State-run media outlets like Sputnik and Russia Today reinforce Putin’s narrative and dismiss counter-narratives as Naziism. These “cyber influence” campaigns, as described by Microsoft’s Threat Analysis Center, have been underway in eastern Ukraine and Crimea for decades, framing Russian-speaking Ukrainians as victims who should rebel and reunite with their neighbors to the East.6 These same pro-Russia headlines are amplified by conservative news outlets like Fox, One America Network, and The Washington Examiner, reaching Western audiences. In 2024 the DOJ released a report that exposed right-wing influencers who were paid by Russia to spread propaganda.7

Over time, anti-Ukraine messaging found open ears, and separatist movements in the East established a foothold. Unable to spark a home-grown revolt, in 2022 Putin bet the bank on a full-scale military invasion, a last-ditch effort to demonstrate regional power and dominance over Ukraine. However,Russia overestimated the effectiveness of its propaganda machine. Expecting Ukrainians to cheer on their own demise, Kremlin group-think concluded that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours of Russia’s 2022 multi-front offensive.8 Ukrainians are not considered students of history, but many hold onto personal experiences from living under soviet rule that conflict with Putin’s conception of reality. Ukrainians refused to allow Kyiv to fall into the Kremlin’s hands, and three years later the Ukrainian story has been cemented as one of freedom and democracy.

Though the country still struggles with political corruption that erodes public trust in institutions and stands in the way of EU and NATO membership, Ukrainians are generally willing to give President Zelenskyy leniency while he prioritizes the country’s war effort. Zelenskyy was elected on an anti-corruption platform in 2019, vowing to hold oligarchs accountable through the justice system. But overhauling domestic politics took a back seat when the country was invaded by Russia in 2022, as oligarchs controlled many of the resources necessary to muster a strong national defense.

The progressive youth of Ukraine, like Nika, see this compromise as necessary, but temporary. Nika remains confident that good governance reform in Ukraine will come with time, even if Ukrainians have to take to the streets and make their demands heard from the Maidan.

I am willingly risking my safety in pursuit of humanitarianism and life experience, and I made this decision resolutely.

When I met my former boss “Leathers” for lunch at Grand Central Station in early March, he had just returned from a trip to Ukraine. While I was in graduate school, Leathers left Deloitte to run Ukraine Torch (UT) full-time, an NGO he co-founded after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Since its bootstrapped inception, UT has raised over $300,000 to provide first-aid, training, technology, and supplies, meeting the greatest needs of front line Ukrainian troops.

I’d had a brutal career setback earlier that week, and it was confidence-building to reconnect with Leathers, who I had worked with through highs and lows, including a COVID-19 vaccination project for my home State of Oregon. Exhausted by the virtue signaling and tightrope walking of the corporate social impact job hunt, it was a relief to chat with a trusted colleague who knows me and what I’m capable of in the workplace.

When Jonathan found out I was available indefinitely, he started the Ukraine Torch recruitment pitch. I was an easy sell. Truly, as soon as the opportunity to join Ukraine Torch was on the table, I never doubted for a second that this was the path I should take. Perhaps a more directly impactful position than any of the roles I was considering in the private sector, but certainly less lucrative, deep down I knew that a bird in the hand was better than a six figure salary in the bush. The uncertainty of an increasingly tight job market, confirmed anecdotally by my peers, further reinforced my gut feeling. My future flashed before my eyes; another three months of resumes, cover letters, networking, and interviewing, but still no offers. What a waste of my precious time on this earth! And for what? To pay off student loans? Buy a small apartment in Brooklyn?

Why was it so easy for me to abandon my job search and pivot to an unpaid volunteer job with an NGO? After all, I took out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans, and my plan was to exit MBA with a high-paying salary to chip away at my debt. My looming debt influenced the career paths I considered all throughout graduate school, but my heart sang at the chance to escape the rat race. The same opportunity cost and risks remain, but more than anything, I want to get back to work and regain my sense of societal contribution.

Moreover, the blatant cronyism of the Trump regime has revealed the weak spines of American corporate, institutional, and political leaders. I have little interest in banging my head against the wall just to minimize the backsliding of corporations and governments on human rights and sustainability violations. At our lunch, Leathers and I lamented about Deloitte’s recent capitulation to the Trump administration, ending DEI programming and investments citing the importance of federal contracts to its business and employees. Though I know many of the leaders we personally worked under feel queazy about this moral collapse, I refuse to work for a firm that abandoned its values when push came to shove, in one of the moments that mattered most.

With Ukraine Torch, I can blaze my own path without the constant compromising and permission-seeking. I will demonstrate the leadership I believe those with more power and influence than I should. Undoubtedly, Ukrainians need help, especially as US government support dissipates and Russia’s assault on Ukrainian freedom persists. Why not me? Why not now? I couldn’t genuinely answer these questions, so I booked a flight. Now, I’m on my way to Kyiv.

More to come soon

!

Warmly,

Brian

Monday, April 7, 2025

Climbing a steep Capitol Hill

In the basement of the US Capitol Building, yellow “Ukraine Action Summit” lanyards dangled around the necks of delegates from around the United States. Each biannual Summit has attracted new and seasoned faces, deepening engagement with Congressional members. The Spring 2025 Summit, the American Coalition for Ukraine’s (ACU) 6th gathering, brought together over 600 delegates representing all 50 states, setting record attendance.

After attending trainings with fellow delegates led by state delegation leaders, Ukrainian witnesses and veteran heroes, Ukrainian-Americans, and allies mingled in the halls of the Capitol, admiring one another’s blue and yellow scarves, ties, bowties, and pins. Bonding over shared disorientation and nervous excitement, Summit attendees settled into the Congressional auditorium, reconvening for the first time since the administration change in January.

Monday evening events included a demining symposium in the Rayburn House Office Building co-hosted by The Halo Trust, and a film screening of “Porcelain War,” featuring remarks from Congressman Tom Kean (R-NJ).

In Rayburn, Ukrainian advocates networked with military leaders and other demining experts. Exchanging business cards with intent to build collaborative and supportive relationships between the US and Ukrainian militaries and NGOs, it was apparent that experienced, nonpartisan public servants understand the value of investment in Ukraine’s cause. Although Ukraine may prefer formal bipartisan aid, sanctions against Russia, and security commitments, informal connections between players with aligned interests may prove to be pragmatic and fruitful.

According to Humanity & Inclusion’s 2023 Landmine Monitor, “Russian forces have widely utilized antipersonnel mines since their full invasion of Ukraine commenced on February 24, 2022. It has been reported that Russian forces have employed at least 13 types of antipersonnel mines. The Monitor also reports the use of antipersonnel mines by Ukrainian government forces in and around the city of Izium in 2022 when the city was under Russian control. Ukraine is bound by the Mine Ban Treaty.”

In 2023, 22 donors contributed 308 million US dollars to mine action activities in Ukraine. Ukraine received the most mine action assistance of all recipient countries in 2023, accounting for 39% of total contributions.1 Demining efforts in Ukraine will continue for decades to come.

Crowd favorites from the symposium included demonstrations featuring a gigantic rat from a Maryland Zoo - Apopo partnership, and an explosive-detection dog named Rico. The robotic machinery didn’t stand a chance against such cute competitors.

10 USC Sec. 407 states that under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department may provide humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled conventional munitions assistance to a country if the Secretary concerned determines that the assistance will promote either: 

(A) the security interests of both the United States and the country to which the assistance is to provided; or

(B) the specific operational readiness skills of the members of the armed forces who participate in the activities

As for US collaboration on demining efforts, former-Fox News personality Pete Hegseth’s interpretation of US security interests may not include a secure and democratic Ukraine, or even a democratic United States. A Trump loyalist, Hegseth echoes the Commander in Chief’s talking points on the Russia-Ukraine War and defers to his decision-making.

"My job today and in Brussels was to introduce realism to the conversation. The reality that returning to 2014 borders as part of a negotiated settlement is unlikely. The reality of U.S. troops in Ukraine is unlikely. The reality of Ukraine membership in NATO as a part of negotiated settlement, unlikely," said Hegseth last Friday.2

Trump has made clear that he subscribes to Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine and committing war crimes: a neighboring country potentially joining NATO was an instigating act. Also clear, Trump sees peace as an end that should be achieved by any means necessary, including conceding to Russian interests.

Undercutting Ukraine’s bargaining position, Hegseth signals to Russia that American isolationism applies both to economic and foreign policy. If Russia is able to stall peace negotiations, it can count on waning US patience and support, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to Putin and his war crimes.3

Hegseth’s “realism” is weak and aligned with Putin’s interests, who has asserted that all of Ukraine should be governed by an external body with elections overseen by the United Nations, revoking its sovereignty and legitimizing unlawful borders.4 Without the security assurances of NATO membership, continued Russian expansion into Ukraine over the next decade is predictable if not inevitable.

Competing for Congressional Attention

With high stakes, the energy echoing through the corridors was positive, and the community optimistic despite gloomy weather and push notification reminders of a turbulent economy. Members of Congress undoubtedly split attention between competing interests this week. Morning Star reported “roughly $11.1 trillion has been wiped away from the US stock market since Jan. 17, the Friday before President Donald Trump took the oath of office and began his second term, according to data from Dow Jones Market Data.”5

Trump’s tariff policy streak has destabilized the market and created opportunities for insider trading. Between additional retaliatory tariffs on China and a 90-day pause on retaliatory tariffs between the US and EU, each announcement moved markets. For this reason, Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) has called for an insider trading investigation.6

Despite the change in political and economic landscape, the main priorities of the American Coalition for Ukraine are consistent with years past. The coalition’s main legislative priority is sanctions on Russia to hold Putin accountable for good-faith negotiations and progress toward peace. Ahead of Tuesday April 9th, UAS attendees were prepared to attend scheduled meetings and drop by congressional offices to share data and stories, aiming to influence policymaking.

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

Yellow lanyards lined up at Common Grounds in the House Office basement cafeteria to caffeinate for a long day ahead. Staffing the registration desk, I connected with other volunteers for the American Coalition for Ukraine, currying boxes of name tags, folders, and one-pagers with the following high-level messaging:

Target Legislation

H.R.2548 / S.1241

Bipartisan and bicameral sanctions legislation targeting Russian aggression aimed at ensuring accountability and supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty. It imposes sanctions on Russia if it refuses to negotiate peace, violates agreements, or initiates further aggression against Ukraine.

Policy Priorities:

Enduring Peace

The Ukrainian people seek peace above all and look to strong, decisive American leadership to secure it. By agreeing to a ceasefire, Ukraine has welcomed and demonstrated its willingness to follow US leadership toward peace . However, history shows that Russia cannot be trusted to honor peace agreements - it has broken every deal since 2014

Reject Russian Expansion

The US must never recognize Russia’s illegitimate claims on Ukrainian territory. Rewarding Putin’s aggression would embolden tyrants worldwide, signaling that wars of conquest can succeed and occupied territories can become theirs with time.

Make Russia Pay

Frozen Russian assets held in the US and Europe should be transferred to Ukraine to support its defense efforts and ease the financial burden on American taxpayers. Seizing frozen Russian assets strengthens the US and Ukraine’s position ahead of any peace talks and ensures Russia pays for the destruction it caused.

Act Against Religious Persecution and Child Abduction

Russia targets Christians in occupied territories through re-education, detention, and execution. Additional, Russia’s forced transfer of Ukrainian children constitutes genocide under international law. As a signatory of the Genocide convention, the US must act decisively against these atrocities.

Lobbying Strategy

S.1241 was introduced with fifty Senate co-sponsors, indicating near-certain passage. Strong bipartisan support in the Senate may inspire confidence in representatives on the fence to vote in favor the House version of the bill, H.R. 2548. Given these political dynamics, the American Coalition for Ukraine invited delegates from across the ideological spectrum to meet members “where they’re at” while sending a unified pro-Ukraine message.

Religious leaders prayed with conservative Senators and Speaker Mike Johnson, Ukrainian heroes in fatigues shared their harrowing experiences in battle, and Ukrainians from minority ethnic backgrounds described living through an active genocide.

Cardboard virtual reality headsets transported viewers to the sites of destruction in Ukraine through a smartphone, bringing scenes from the war into congressional offices. A gentle “in your face” tactic, delegates returned to the cafeteria from early meetings and confirmed the persuasion power of the interactive tool. Children’s art work demonstrated the strong and hopeful spirit of the Ukrainian nation and made for touching gifts to members of Congress.

Blue and yellow portrait cards of the 40th President with the words “WHAT WOULD REAGAN DO?” flew off the registration desk as delegates restocked for meetings and youthful congressional staffers passed by. Some rolled their eyes, others smiled and said “I love this design.” Four years after Reagan’s famous speech at the Berlin Wall, following the collapse of the USSR, a resounding 92% of Ukrainians voted for independence7

Delegates understood that Spring 2025 was the most challenging and perhaps critically important Summit since the start of the war, and packed their schedules accordingly. When asked how a meeting went, one of the most common responses was “surprisingly well!” Going back-to-back-to-back, one would have expected exhaustion to kick in. But the delegates were on a mission to knock on every door and make their voices heard.

Party Time!

Tuesday evening’s event was across the river at the Ukraine House, a charming venue celebrating Ukrainian people and culture. Ukrainian beer and cherry wine flowed, and the pirogies were popping off. Pickled beets? More please!

Inside the house, an art exhibit featured paintings of Ukraine’s history and photos capturing the acutely human experiences of Ukrainians under Russian siege. In-frame, couples separated at train stations, youth fended for themselves and their siblings, and mass graves revealed the war crimes committed by Russia.

My new friend Iuliia (pronounced Yulia) was kind enough to take me on a guided tour of the exhibit and provide context behind the moving still images. Iuliia proudly heralds from Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv, which has remained under Ukrainian control thanks to the courageous defense mounted by citizens and Artan warriors, one of Ukraine’s elite special forces unit.8

One photo brought tears to both of our eyes - a mass grave in Izium, where 440 Ukrainians were hastily buried and discovered after Ukrainians forced Russian troops to retreat from the area.

According to officials documenting war crimes, most of the dead showed signs of violent death and 30 presented traces of torture and summary execution, including ropes around their necks, bound hands, broken limbs and genital amputation.9 Outrageous, dismal, inhumane.

I look forward to joining Iuliia in Ukraine later this month, and one day visiting her home city when safety risks are lower.

As we roamed, Iuliia emphasized that Ukrainians’ main concern is not about geographic territory, but rather the Ukrainian people living in occupied regions.

At the onset of the full-scale invasion, Russians created a network of filtration camps to detain the local population, targeting those deemed undesirable or a threat to Russian interests. Approximately four million Ukrainians live under Russian occupation, facing genocidal policies. Over 40,000 youth have been sent to re-education camps, and the general population has been forced to apply for Russian passports in order to acquire housing vouchers in their own homeland.10

“Nobody wants peace as much as the soldiers on the front lines and their families,” said Iuliia. But without security guarantees, Ukrainians do not trust that peace will last. Moreover, many Ukrainians feel a strong and emotional desire to ensure heroes who gave their lives to the fight did not do so in vain.

🌻 In the poetic words of ,

Wednesday, April 9, 2025

Working with MAGA teammates

Volunteering with ACU I had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with individuals holding different political ideologies from my own, who share the same values of individual liberty and democracy.

From registered Republicans with disdain for the MAGA movement, to two-time Trump voters, we found common ground in our support for Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, and recouping frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s ongoing war effort.

Comforted by a safe policy area of mutual agreement, I found I was more willing to both hear out and challenge individuals on other policy topics. I was genuinely curious how a pro-Ukraine Trump supporter rationalizes these seemingly conflicting viewpoints. After all, Trump has blamed Ukraine for its own invasion.

This morning photos of that same delegate smiling for a photo with Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, a deeply conservative Freedom Caucus member, popped up my social media feed. Immediately, I felt gratitude. Firstly, I didn’t have to pose for photos with Jordan myself, and secondly, our coalition was able to deliver a pro-Ukraine message from a messenger much more likely to persuade Jordan to support our cause than I. To achieve our common goals, we all have specific roles to play.

On the final day of lobbying, delegates channeled their remaining energy into meetings with legislators and staff. Though Congress has a heaping plate with budget reconciliation on the docket, many still made time to meet with Ukraine’s advocates. If H.R. 2548 does not pass the House, it will not be due to a lack of advocacy or awareness - delegates made sure of that.

In the evening, Summit participants celebrated their most expansive lobbying effort yet with a world premiere of the documentary film “No Sleep Til Kyiv - citizens defending democracy.” Joined by former Representative , a champion for Ukraine, the film was a stark reminder of the ongoing work to defend Ukraine and its people.

7

1991 Ukrainian Independence Voting Results by Region

Last year’s Ukraine Summit made oil lobbyists look like pansies.

Meeting with 300 members of congress, more than 500 delegates from 44 states descended upon Capitol Hill to voice their support for Ukraine’s security.

At the time, U.S. aid to Ukraine was army-crawling beneath Congressional gridlock. The Biden administration, with a bipartisan majority in the Senate, faced off against Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, who wanted to bundle Ukraine Aid with H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, a partisan bill that even two Republican Senators voted against and that Biden said he would veto.

The Senate passed $95 billion in war aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, which was signed and deployed by President Joe Biden after months of delays and debate over U.S. involvement in foreign wars. The bill passed the Senate on an overwhelming 79-18 vote after 300+ House members formed bipartisan coalitions mostly comprised of Democrats, voting in favor of each package separately.1 The strategy of army-crawling and flooding the zone with compassion worked for the Ukraine lobby.

The persuasive stories shared with representatives during the 2024 Ukraine Action Summit undoubtedly weighed on the minds of Congress members as they cast their votes.

From AP reporting at the time -

“Speaker Johnson had met recently with Trump, who objects to much overseas aid and has invited Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ in Ukraine.”

Johnson’s decision to join Democrats in passing the bill amused many, as it was a clear rebuke to Trump and the House Republican Freedom Caucus threatening his tenuous and nascent speakership.

“History judges us for what we do,” Johnson said during an impromptu press conference in Statuary Hall.

“I could make a selfish decision and do something that’s different, but I’m doing here what I believe to be the right thing,” he said.

Johnson disclosed that his son is headed to the Naval Academy this fall.

“To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys,” he said.

“This is a live-fire exercise for me, as it is so many American families. This is not a game. This is not a joke.”2

The political landscape has changed dramatically since the 2024 summit, but Johnson’s core principles, the protection of American military personnel, may still be alive (even after signal-gate). Will Johnson and the larger Republican party lean into their moral nature, with Trump behind the Resolute desk, and U.S. - Russia relations shifting tectonically?

A year after partisan divisions were bridged to send weapons to Ukraine, the stakes have been raised and democracy is in a generally worse geopolitical position.

Trump has falsely claimed that Ukraine is responsible for Russia’s invasion of its own internationally-recognized borders, and embarrassed himself and our country in an explosive oval office meeting.3

Early in the Trump administration’s transition, Trump and JD Vance dangled intelligence sharing and aid above Zelenskyy’s head, undercutting his negotiating position with Russia by demanding he agree to a 30-day ceasefire ahead of talks with Russia.

Unsurprisingly, Russia did not come to the negotiating table in good faith. A total cease-fire was likely never on the table. Drones continue to target civilians and front line troops every day, straining Ukrainian defense systems that are deeply integrated with U.S. resources.4

From Reuters -

“U.S. and Russian officials wrapped up day-long talks on Monday focused on a narrow proposal for a ceasefire at sea between Kyiv and Moscow, part of a diplomatic effort that Washington hopes will help pave the way for broader peace negotiations.

Even as the meeting was under way in Saudi Arabia, where a Ukrainian delegation was present on the sidelines, a Russian missile strike damaged a school and a hospital in Ukraine, wounding at least 88 people.”5

The role of the U.S. in peace negotiations has been economically self-interested, prioritizing U.S. isolationism over Ukraine’s security. Mineral rights and trade exports have been focal points of early peace negotiations held in Riyadh. Thus far, deescalation has been limited to targeting infrastructure necessary for industrial production and shipping through the Black sea.

These limited cease-fires have been a gift to Putin. Churning out global headlines with the words “cease fire,” Putin is able to push a global narrative of deescalation and peaceful intent. Realistically, Trump’s demonstrated disinterest in Ukraine’s security leaves Ukrainian negotiators at a rickety table across from Russia, without the good-faith backing of the United States. The party with the strongest democratic interests is Ukraine, which is why it’s so vital they receive support from others around the world; individual politicians, democratic states, and businesses who share these interests.

The Ukraine lobby has proven itself to be effective storytellers and communicators, and may be able to warm Donald Trump’s heart. While Trump’s second term is not a “clean slate” opportunity by any means, one can hope that the story of Ukrainian bravery and national courage might break through to him.

As the 2025 Summit convenes this week, Ukraine is looking to us in the West for reinforcement as it actively fights for its independence. When engaging with Congress members, I’ll be asking them about their positions on:

1. Security guarantees from the West, including aid, weapons, NATO membership and EU membership

2. UN peace-keeping forces armed to enforce a neutral zone in Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula

3. Maintenance of sanctions against Russia until final stages of peace

4. Free and fair elections in Ukraine coinciding with the suspension of martial law, further legitimizing liberal democracy and allowing for constitutional amendments required for EU membership

These are nonpartisan foreign policy proposals that should resonate with politicians across the ideological spectrum, who all took an oath to defend our constitutional democracy.

Together, Russia and the United States took down the fascist Nazi regime in WWII. During the Cold War, the U.S. and U.S.S.R faced off in a competition of technological innovation and military brinksmanship. Today, I question whether the United States will devolve into the same style of autocratic faux-democracy that Putin has installed to maintain his powerful grip on the Russian political system for over two decades.1

A century ago, the American public was unified behind the defense of liberal democracies, sacrificing its own youth on the battlefields of Europe and in the Pacific. Protecting democracies around the world became America’s modus operandi, and military victories were followed by military overextensions and prolonged wars - Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 during the peaceful revolution, marking the collapse of the Soviet Union, and ending the Cold War period of geopolitical bipolarity. Remaining stood a unipolar superpower in the United States to pontificate about democracy on the world stage. In January 1991, George H.W. Bush launched the Gulf War, a tactical strike that drove invading Iraq forces out of Kuwait by the end of the following month.

The quick success of Operation Dessert Storm reaffirmed the U.S. public’s belief in superior American military capabilities. Coalition-building also shined; although NATO was not directly involved in the Gulf War, it did support the U.S.-led coalition of 42 nations with naval and airspace coverage and coordination. With a balanced budget under President Bill Clinton, solid economic growth supported by a ballooning dot-com industry, and relative peace at home, the 90’s decade was mysteriously idyllic. Perhaps something to do with my birth in the middle of the decade, perhaps not.2

Coinciding with the dot-com bubble bursting, China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001, leading to two decades of offshoring U.S. manufacturing and importing cheap consumer products and supply chain components from Asia. It’s clear now that the economic gains from free trade had concentrated losers, like those in small one-factory towns or employed by other labor-intensive industries, undercut by under-regulated labor markets.3 Though not directly caused by globalization, the Great Recession of 2008-09 imparted widespread economic pain in America. In the years since, politicians from both parties have been scared to leave economic nationalism behind, even though protection of American-made products prioritizes nostalgia for the past over the economic possibilities of the future.

where we are

Attention to China’s WTO entrance quieted quickly when the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 captured the world and shook its axis.

A quarter-century later, freedom from want and fear have been twisted by state and non-state media propagandists who have formed an efficient machine. Preying on the fearful and deprived by scapegoating low-wage migrants and trans people, the machine promotes a national scarcity mindset that boxes our country into a zero-sum game with Elon Musk.

Americans and elected officials across the political spectrum voice support for a return to core principles of liberal democracy - fair elections, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from fear and want. From the Bill of Rights to FDR’s Four Freedoms to the Civil Rights Acts, demands for expanded political, social, and economic rights have been central to America’s story.4 Measuring Americans’ commitment to these fundamental rights is challenging, though, in part because the public generally cannot recall the five freedoms guaranteed under the first amendment.

I personally combine assembly and petition in my head - maybe I’m not alone!

Chronically underfunded public education institutions combined with trends of social withdrawal and polarization leave Americans uninformed on the basic civil liberties underpinning both democracy and competitive markets.

Ability to name a specific protection is one data point, correct interpretation is another. Over half of respondents (53%) thought it was accurate to say that freedom of speech means Facebook must permit all Americans to freely express themselves on the site, while nearly half (47%) said that is inaccurate. The First Amendment protects citizens from government action that silences free expression, but courts have ruled that private companies such as Meta and X are not covered. Companies remove content en-masse from their platforms each day to remove spam and hate speech that makes for an undesirable user experience. The constitutionality of public-private cooperation in identifying violations and enforcing content-moderation policies has been debated extensively (exhaustingly).5

Write-ups of last year’s Supreme Court decisions on social media regulation reveal how complex free-speech issues can get.6 Though public recall of free speech rights suggests they are valued, Americans may not interpret the Trump administration’s blatant censorship of institutions as a violation of free speech rights. Or, these actions may be perceived as not personally relevant, unworthy of rebelling against if retaliation follows.

Donald Trump has thrown an American-made wrench into globalization, piling steel and foreign vehicle tariffs onto country-specific tariffs. Reneging on the trade deal he negotiated in his first term, and applying comparably weak tariffs to China, Trump employs a more combative approach with neighboring countries and “The West” in general. America’s isolationism aligns with the broader expansion and retraction pattern in U.S. foreign policy, but what are Trump’s personal and political motives for abandoning global democracy in Ukraine and Taiwan?

Trump has latched Americans distaste for post-9/11 interventions that extended through the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The non-exhaustive intervention record includes Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and highly contentious ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.

As Jack Schlossberg explained on TikTok this weekend, by going easy on China and Russia, Trump is establishing new boundaries of non-engagement in a regionally-divided multipolar geopolitical landscape, expecting mutual inaction when the U.S. invades a sovereign country.7 The shift from isolationism to expansion and extraction will add new revenue streams essential to feeding Trump’s new world order, an attempt to pacify the American public as it loses freedoms and economic stability.

Unsurprisingly, the complexities of foreign affairs are lost on Americans. Historical pro-democracy arguments that received bipartisan support have lost Republican voices8, as voters lose confidence in the integrity of our democratic system for a myriad of reasons.9

Powerful threats to liberal democracy are rising in magnitude in the United States, Europe and Asia. Donald Trump’s return to power after winning the 2024 election is evidence that he’s reassembled a lasting American fascist movement. As defined by Roger Griffin in his 2019 book titled “The Nature of Fascism,”

“fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism.”

Let’s break down this definition to digest. Above I explained why Trump’s electoral political movement is a populist one, at least popular enough to win last year. Trump’s MAGA slogan and “America-first” policies are narratives founded in nationalist language and rhetoric, a political tool not necessarily dangerous in isolation.

Ultranationalism, though, which places the interests of one state or people above all else, leads to horrific outcomes for those ostracized as aliens. Individual rights are sacrificed on an altar to false idols who stoke divisions, and who claim that curated, state-mandated, White Christian lifestyles will lead to a prosperous nation, divinely guided by Donald Trump and his branded bible.10

Ultranationalism has erupted in the form of the hateful, anti-immigrant, anti-racial minority, anti-woman, anti-veteran, anti-disability access, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-free speech, anti-democracy actions perpetrated by the Trump administration. Trump’s ultranationalism playbook combines mass incarceration and deportation with an increasingly narrow and legally arbitrary definition of “real American” citizenship. Migrants and those suspected of gang membership may be the first group stripped of due process, but they won’t be the last. The Trump administration has already violated the legal rights of green card holders and naturalized citizens.11 Enacting constitutionally questionable policies, the Trump White House rationalizes its selective punishment of immigrants and political dissidents by citing blanket “national security” concerns that serve as a catch-all. When we hear the words national security, we should hear “ultranationalism enforcement.”

Yes, these are the consequences of elections. Still, popular institutions such as slavery, Jim Crow, and Japanese internment in the United States have obviously violated individual liberties since our nation’s founding. The country’s ability to collectively acknowledge and rectify these wrongs leads to enfranchisement and ultimately belonging, which occurs when activists build a coalition powerful enough to influence state and non-state decision-making, allowing for new groups to live and thrive in mainstream culture.

Ok, so what the hell does “mythic core in its various permutations is palingenetic” mean? In the MAGA context, palingenetic refers to a national rebirth, a yearning to revive a golden era - when fundamental rights were further from universal, long before the enfranchisement of Black women or transgender Americans. Because this reborn American utopia is mythical in nature, it can easily be intertwined with multiple religions that fall under the broader umbrella of Christianity. The mythology, not so constrained by logic or consistency, can also morph to enfranchise non-white followers or nonreligious conspiracists.12

Though hate in America is not new, it continues to corrode our political system and cause new leaks to spring each day. As we patch holes and mitigate immediate harm, we eventually have to plunge the hate from America’s pipes. We don’t need a rebirth, we need a snake and some drain - o.13

where to go from here

Effort spent pushing restorative justice through a clogged-toilet-of-a-system is futile and resource-draining. These critical efforts can proceed through non-government channels until a rules-based, single-tiered justice system is realized. Current governance gaps give private actors the opportunity to abuse vulnerable groups, and an even greater responsibility to behave ethically on their own accord. A two-pronged, sector-based strategy will deliver the most good under present volatility and constraints.

Institutional norms and laws are regularly tested or ignored to determine the acceptability of violated freedoms. Balancing on a tightrope, we must learn lessons from history without letting our nation’s unjust past and present freeze our response to immediate danger. Only then can a focused and unified pro-democracy coalition stand to counter Trump and categorically lower risk for all groups. Drawing a strong red line around non-acceptable fascist behavior, popular counterprotest against the state and its co-conspirators can limit the expansion of fascism.

Looking back to the Annenberg School report, we can gauge how different political ideologies may support future good governance reforms. Inferring from the chart below, we find that knowledgable republicans view court reform as a relative loss, while knowledgable Democrats and Independents, as well as less knowledgable Republicans, view court reform as a relative gain. This suggests that court reform, and perhaps other reforms to strengthen democratic integrity, draws cross-party appeal, but is muddied by partisan messaging, politics, and self-interested behavior.

Freedom from fear and want are still cornerstones to the messaging needed to break through to the American people. Emphasize that authoritarians are more fearsome than asylum-seekers, and that sustained investment in developing communities will generate better returns than trade wars, speculative crypto-currencies, and tax cuts for the one percent.

At some point the Trump Administration will inevitably disturb enough Americans to provoke a popular resistance movement. Social Security checks could bounce, Trump could order an invasion of Greenland, or Oligarchs may inherit greater control of public goods while exploiting the working class and impoverished. These plausible scenarios will undoubtedly lead to unpopular outcomes and resistance.

The cause of social, political, and economic collapse - Trump - will not be clear to everyone. When quality of life declines due to bad policy, autocrats double down on blaming minority groups.14 Get ready - the remedy to America’s sickened state will be found beyond its borders in the form of precious resources that can be acquired by force. Under these pretenses, Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal could be raided. The ultranationalist propaganda machine will rationalize the previously unimaginable to the masses.

JD Vance’s recent trip to Greenland was received by locals as a threat.15 Americans should take the perception of our leaders seriously and respect the sovereignty of our neighbors. Democracy and Russian imperialism cannot both exist, just as democracy and American imperialism cannot co-exist.

Putin’s deadly invasion of Ukraine serves his ambition to return Russia to a golden era of imperialism by conquering former-Soviet territories that have since formed liberal democracies. In Putin’s image, Trump has threatened annexation of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal. He renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, confirming that his definition of nationalism extends beyond current U.S. borders to a broader American continent, foretelling a return to colonialism and empire-building. It’s the Monroe Doctrine on Cialis and cocaine.

Secretary Marco Rubio’s State Department has hidden Russia’s war crimes from the public, removing catalogues intended to bring about justice for crimes against humanity. Censored materials include reports from the Ukraine Conflict Observatory published by Yale’s Humanitarian Research Lab, which collects evidence to bring to court. Immediate, reparative justice, like returning trafficked Ukrainian children to their parents, hinges on the preservation of the Observatory’s work and ongoing investment.

The boldest violations of sovereignty and human rights may trigger louder outcries and dissent, but future waves of incarceration and deportation will focus on crushing those who speak out. Those who stand between the state and its victims will be painted as enemies of the state by a broad-sweeping and powerful brush, just like pro-Palestine activists. To win the fight, paint in the eyes must be anticipated.

It’s time to dispense the globalism goggles to protect ourselves from unpatriotic paint and pepper spray as we plunge out hate from America’s pipes.

In line with bipartisan, pro-business ideology, state intervention to correct this market failure is fundamental to free market capitalism.2 Careful, incremental interventions that avoid government missteps are preferred over radically overhauling the economic system. Still, those of us in favor of better business behavior with respect to people and planet should recognize that our opponents are radically downsizing and debilitating democratic institutions, and plan to fill the vacuum with a pay-to-play system that lines their own pockets. The words of Adam Smith, “father of the free market,” are poignant:

“The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”3

Smith’s famous invisible hand remains a useful metaphor for market forces, but the rise of cronyism and “human hand” interference has resulted in an unfair and inefficient marketplace.

Good governance policies like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Sarbanes - Oxley Act gained traction from the 1970s through early 2000s. In part, these policies came as a response to political scandals and corporate malfeasance perpetrated in the Watergate and Enron/Arthur Anderson scandals. Laws that institutionalized ethical business practices were followed by a 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission that found limits to corporate political donations unconstitutional on grounds of free speech. In the years since, outside political spending has skyrocketed, and fundraising pressures continue to distract elected officials from responding to constituent needs.4

As the U.S. economy adjusted to globalization, proposed reforms to implement legal standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and human rights violations have failed at the federal level. Over the past decade, industry lobbyists have downplayed the negative externalities of corporations to politicians, obscured them from the public, and largely abdicated responsibility.5 A lack of accountability raises doubt in the electoral feedback mechanism between voters and politicians and its conduciveness to reigning in corporate actors.

Trust in government is linked to partisanship, a phenomena taking place globally according to Edelman Trust Barometer’s 2024 analysis.6 An individual’s trust in government increases when their preferred party wins, and decreases when the opposing party wins. Politicized perception of government corruption has become detached from the reality that all politicians have opportunities and motivations to prioritize corporate and self interests over public interests. Though some U.S. officials, predominantly Democrats, have sworn off of corporate PAC money in an attempt to demonstrate public fealty, the distinction between ethical and corrupt officials is clouded by a hectic media environment and targeted disinformation.

Many elected members of Congress regularly buy and sell assets based on the privileged, asymmetric information they collect on the job, bursting any illusion of objectivity in decision-making. Bipartisan legislation to ban members and their immediate family from stock ownership was introduced with 29 House cosponsors and two Senate cosponsors in 2023, but both bills died in committee.

Perhaps the most troubling finding in Edelman’s analysis, is that our social fabric decays without government trust, as government distrusters are much more likely to prioritize “personal freedom” over “the common good.” This slump in altruism speaks to the hard-to-measure feeling that our interactions with one another have become increasingly self-interested. When it comes to solving societal problems that require cooperation, heightened independence is limiting.

The economic inefficiencies of crony capitalism are clear: when personal interests and relationships lead to noncompetitive markets, value creation is diminished. More importantly, though, the systemic harms of crony capitalism and government distrust are greater than the sum of each corruption and bribery occurrence. 67% of Americans believe that the government is biased against regular people and in favor of the rich and powerful, a clear sign that solidarity and sacrifice is not aligned with the collective consciousness of the nation. In a time when unified action is vital, our country is stuck in a cycle of government distrust, socially isolated behavior, and lack of progress on solvable problems. The government distrust narrative has become self-reinforcing, and breaking this cycle will require an anti-cronyism overhaul.

Disentangling cronyism from our political and economic systems would involve an investigative marathon, overcoming inertia, hurdles, and even political persecution. The most vulnerable in our communities already feel the heat from crony capitalism, and freedom to speak in defiance of an emboldened Trump administration is not guaranteed. Federal funding pauses have been planned for universities unwilling to exact race, gender, and the LGBTQ+ community from academic research and administrative policies.7 Political activists with legal-resident status have been arrested and held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents without charges, under the antiquated Alien Enemies Act of 1798.8 We have already witnessed private firms including Meta and Deloitte change their policies based on executive orders that did not include mandates for businesses.9 These leadership decisions can and should be interpreted as currying favor with the current administration, setting up a quid-pro quo arrangement.

Fireproof, dynamic, and integrity-based democratic institutions are needed for the future, else firms will continue to compete on an inefficient and unfair playing field, and society will be burdened by unaccountable firms and truncated economic growth. This framing illustrates crony capitalism as an economic issue relevant to both the business community and public advocates, drawing a through-line between anti-cronyism and the economic rights described by Franklin Delano Roosevelt as “freedom from want.”10 We the people deserve to trust that our government officials do not accept bribes at the expense of our economic freedom.

Looking to long-term reforms, rebuilding democratic institutions that are unburdened by cronyism is prerequisite to achieving high global standards for human rights and environmental protection within business activities. Self-regulation has proven insufficient, and when legal violations can be covered-up with bribery, accountability is too easily evaded. In an under-regulated U.S. and global landscape, we are left to organize with players who come to the table of their own volition and firms complying with the European Union’s due diligence and reporting laws. Although firms take a risk by withdrawing from markets soiled by corruption in the short-term, committing to a rules-based system mitigates the greater long-term risk of eroded business value.

The counter-argument that businesses and CEOs should fly under the radar, or even pay into crony capitalism, to protect stock prices and avoid souring relationships with an administration’s regulators and contract-awarders, is shortsighted. Once first-movers have made bold public displays of allegiance to an administration, those with the greatest ability to pay subsequent bribes can outlast others, forming oligarchical structures, and bidding in an exclusive auction for tailor-made laws and access to public goods. In order to enter corrupt foreign markets, some multinational enterprises have developed corruption-navigating capabilities.11 These firms are well-positioned for a U.S. market backsliding into corruption. Corruption “distances” can help us better understand firms’ investment behavior, as firms from corrupt states have the capacity to bribe when necessary, entering markets regardless of the presence of corruption, while firms from less corrupt countries struggle to enter more corrupt markets.

The majority of firms, especially small and medium-sized firms, do not have capabilities to navigate the inside track to the Trump administration, nor the resources for staying power, and should recognize the high likelihood that they will “lose” in consecutive games of cronyism. By banding together as “losers” and advocates for integrity-based politics and democracy, we all stand a better chance at “winning” in the long-run. Even first-movers that respond to new regimes with flattery and donations would be wise to recognize that returns from cronyism eventually dilute and diminish, and that the United States’ economic security is endangered by crony capitalism. In a doomsday scenario, the anticipatory behavior of oligarchical firms and actors leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Highly-insulated firms and actors stand the best chance to survive a complete meltdown of the U.S. economy, which constitutes 26% of global GDP, and would send forceful international shockwaves.

A more commonplace game theory scenario shows us that without state intervention in the form of harsh penalties for abusers, individual actors shift from lawful behavior toward cronyism. As depicted in the mock-up below, we land at a Nash Equilibrium that includes suboptimal outcomes for individuals and the economic system as whole.

Even though all parties benefit from near-universal adherence, avoiding punitive action and a bribery tax, the first detractor advantage incentivizes individuals to break from the anti-bribery pact. Once individuals detract, those left in the pact risk punitive action and can only improve their positioning by joining in bribery, ultimately arriving at a suboptimal Nash Equilibrium. When central authorities reap the benefits of cronyism instead of enforcing rules and punishments, value is extracted from the system and consolidated by the powerful.

From Dabla-Norris and Liu’s game theory methodology, we learn how to isolate variables and better understand the scenarios in which firms choose to pay illegal bribes.1213 Of particular salience, Dabla-Norris's analysis concludes that “the self-interested behavior of central authorities determines the optimal level of corruption in the hierarchy,” highlighting the fragility of behavioral norms and inevitability that individuals and firms will break existing laws if doing so is permissible. Applying this rationale to the United States, we observe President Trump at the top of the executive branch's regulatory hierarchy, not only permitting violation of anti-corruption law, but demanding that anti-corruption laws go unenforced. In the case of NYC Mayor Eric Adams, Trump’s Department of Justice accepted resignations from officials who refused to carry out the personally and politically motivated order to drop charges against Adams.14

Skeptics are free to push back on my diagnosis of crony capitalism. Are these just buzzwords motivated by political partisanship, or perhaps even hollow words understating the ills of capitalism? Verbiage aside, uncontroversial economic principles and empiricism drive the analysis in this piece, and a litany of peer-reviewed literature has been published on the harms of corruption in developing nations. It’s time for the United States, a nation ranked 28th globally in the 2024 Corruption Perception Index, to abandon its exceptionalism, and let objective, good-faith investigators evaluate the pervasiveness of corruption and cronyism.15

Pushing past ideological differences to reach candid inquiry, we may discover that crony capitalism in the United States predates Donald Trump as a politician or businessman, and that crony capitalism is an institutional and global problem, not a partisan one. We should endeavor to eliminate it from our political system without falling into a trap of partisan finger-pointing. Corrupt actors such as former-NJ Senator Robert Menendez and NYC Mayor Eric Adams, both Democrats, face serious consequences.16 At the same time, we must acknowledge that Elon Musk and Republican President Donald Trump pose a unique and unmatched present threat as a public-private sector duo, due to the powerful levers they control and the asymmetric information at their disposal - not to mention their conflicts of interest.1718

Share Brian’s Substack

Leave a comment