See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

• The American Revolution of 1800: How Jefferson Rescued Democracy from Tyranny and Faction—and What This Means Today By Thom Hartmann argues that the American elections of 1800 was a defining moment that reshaped American history and ensured the survival of America’s democratic system into the present day. Compared to 1776, 1800 proved to the world that peaceful transfers of power were possible in non-monarchial systems. Hartmann investigates the divide between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, the crisis of Washington’s succession, and the crucial role Thomas Jefferson played in the process. The book showcases how this election defined the role of political parties, drawing lessons on the danger of polarization, attacks on civil liberties, the importance of respecting election outcomes, and the need to prioritize common principles over partisan gain. He suggests that modern democracy needs restraint, legitimate opposition, and peaceful transitions of power to survive.

Read more

Ten years ago, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union was a potential opportunity. It could have allowed Britain to pivot and develop new rules and approaches to prosper as a highly educated, competitive economy in the world market.

This transition to competitiveness, creativity, and British-centered policies which rejected the Brussels bureaucracy had happened once before.

A generation earlier, in 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher led the Conservative Party to a historic victory on a platform of dramatic reforms. Thatcher won three general elections. By the time she left office in 1990, the coal miners’ union had been tamed, much of the civil service had been reformed, many government-owned institutions had been privatized, and entrepreneurial free enterprise was at its high point in modern British history.

Read More

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

Bitterness and deadlock define much of our current politics and government. Ending this cycle requires returning to the idea of an American majority - rather than a narrowly defined Republican or Democratic majority.

Subscribe now

When people ask me how a Republican Congress and a Democratic President could get so much done in the late 1990s, the answer was not personality so much as focus on serving the American people. We knew what issues most of the American people wanted solved, and we knew that we could build large, intense grassroots support for those changes.

We reformed welfare (a 92% issue). We created Medicare Advantage (so popular the AARP supported it as a reform). We balanced the federal budget for four consecutive years for the only time in the last century (over 90% support). We listened cheerfully to the American people and worked to develop policies that would bring us together rather than drive us apart.

When our Republican majority passed welfare reform, half of the Democrats voted with us (91 to 91 among Democrats).

On many major reforms — FDA, telecommunications, even litigation reform (extraordinarily hard given the power of the trial lawyers) — bipartisan efforts were successful. Congressman John Dingell, a Democrat, had chaired the Commerce Committee for 14 years before the GOP took over. Despite many efforts, he had never been able to pass telecommunications reform. In fact, Dingell said he was surprised and pleased we had finally gotten it done.

The key to the successes was that they grew from the beliefs of the American people. Having served while President Ronald Reagan was in office, I knew how carefully he worked to represent the views and hopes of the vast majority of Americans.

President Abraham Lincoln set the principles of effective popular government when he said, “with popular sentiment nothing can fail, without popular sentiment nothing can succeed.”

At America’s New Majority Project, we have been working since 2018 to find values, principles, and issues which attract 70 percent support or more. We believe it is possible to listen to the American people and build a program that has enough popular support that it becomes an American program. In this scenario, House and Senate members will be under pressure to support the program, because it will represent the will of the American people — not the establishment, lobbyists, or the media.

If candidates focus this fall, in a positive way, on their commitments to the issues and values the American people believe in, we may discover that it is possible to build a vastly bigger majority for governing and problem solving than anyone currently thinks is possible.

Give a gift subscription

This American majority poses a particular problem for the radical wing of the Democratic Party, because in almost every issue it represents 10 percent to 15 percent of the country. When you start working from a majority-based analysis, it is strange how many Democrats have ended up voting against the beliefs of voters in their own states or districts. In effect, they are trying to govern against the American people on behalf of a militant and well-financed minority.

Consider these examples:

• 77 percent of Americans think only citizens should vote in elections - 213 house Democrats voted against the SAVE Act.

• 88 percent of Americans think you should be able to pick what kind of vehicle you want to drive - 164 House Democrats and 44 Senate Democrats voted against repealing the California electric vehicle mandate.

• 77 percent of Americans want more border patrol agents - 211 House Democrats vote against the Secure America Act.

• 82 percent of Americans believe parents have a right to see what schools teach their children - 203 House Democrats voted against the Parents Bill of Rights Act.

• 79 percent of Americans want middle class tax relief - 201 House Democrats and 46 Senate Democrats voted against tax cuts and in favor of massive tax increases by opposing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2025.

In these issues alone, you have an average of 80 percent of Americans on one side and the House and Senate Democrats on the other.

Shouldn’t 80 percent Americans have their values respected by their elected officials?

This is what an American majority would do.

Refer a friend

Latest from Newt’s World:

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

Newt Gingrich talks with Social Thomist founder Grady Connolly about faith, social media, and his remarkable journey to visit every minor basilica in the United States.

Subscribe now

In this episode of Newt’s World, Newt Gingrich sits down with Grady Connolly, founder of Social Thomist and author of the forthcoming book Basilicas: A Pilgrim’s Guide to America’s Most Remarkable Catholic Churches. What began as a promise made during Connolly’s college years at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception evolved into a four-year pilgrimage to all 94 minor basilicas in the United States and the four major papal basilicas in Rome. Along the way, Connolly discovered not only the architectural beauty and rich history of these sacred places, but also the stories of faith, sacrifice, and perseverance that helped shape Catholic life in America.

The conversation also explores Connolly’s unique career at the intersection of faith and digital media. As the founder of Social Thomist, he has helped Catholic creators, priests, and organizations reach millions through social media, viewing online platforms as a modern mission field for evangelization. Connolly shares insights on the opportunities and challenges of the digital age, the growing demand for faith-based content, and why authentic encounters with faith must extend beyond screens and into real-world experiences. Together, he and Newt discuss the importance of purpose, community, and spiritual formation in an increasingly connected yet often disconnected culture.

Listen to their conversation below, or scroll down for an edited transcript.

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Newt Gingrich

You grew up in a small town in southern Maine and eventually earned a scholarship to attend Catholic University of America. How did that experience shape you?

Grady Connolly

My parents taught me the value of hard work and faith from an early age. When I first visited Washington, D.C., and the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, I knew I wanted to attend Catholic University. Through a series of scholarships and opportunities, I was able to make that dream a reality.

The Basilica became central to my life during college. I had made a promise that if I was able to attend Catholic University, I would visit the Basilica every day. That commitment helped deepen my faith and ultimately shaped much of what I’ve done since.

Newt Gingrich

Today, you’re the founder of Social Thomist, a company focused on helping Catholic creators and organizations reach audiences online. What inspired that mission?

Grady Connolly

I came from the social media and content creation world and began to see digital platforms as a modern mission field. People spend hours every day online searching for meaning, community, and purpose. If that’s where people are spending their time, faith needs to be present there as well.

The goal of Social Thomist is to help creators, priests, and organizations share meaningful content that brings people closer to truth and helps them discover a deeper sense of purpose.

Newt Gingrich

You often describe social media as a “digital continent.”

Grady Connolly

That’s exactly how I see it. Every generation has new frontiers. Today, millions of people live much of their lives online. The challenge is bringing goodness, truth, and human dignity into those spaces.

People are hungry for something deeper than outrage and clickbait. Faith-based content resonates because it offers hope, meaning, and a vision of purpose that many people are desperately seeking.

Newt Gingrich

Your new book chronicles your journey to all 94 minor basilicas in the United States. How did that project begin?

Grady Connolly

It started while I was in college. My original thought was that I would visit all of them over the course of my lifetime. Instead, it became a four-year pilgrimage that took me across the country.

I traveled everywhere from Maine to Hawaii, often driving long distances to visit churches in small communities. Along the way, I discovered remarkable stories of faith, sacrifice, and perseverance that helped shape Catholic life in America.

Newt Gingrich

What did you learn from the experience?

Grady Connolly

More than anything, I learned that faith requires action. Pilgrimage isn’t simply travel, it’s a journey that changes you.

The long drives, quiet moments of prayer, and time for reflection created opportunities to think deeply about purpose and vocation. I also developed a greater appreciation for America and the role faith played in building communities throughout the country.

Newt Gingrich

Were there particular basilicas that stood out?

Grady Connolly

The Cathedral Basilica in St. Louis is one of the most beautiful churches I’ve ever visited. I was also deeply moved by the Basilica of St. Fidelis in rural Kansas, which stands as a testament to the faith and determination of immigrant families who sacrificed to build a place of worship.

Those stories are repeated all across America and became one of the most inspiring aspects of the project.

Newt Gingrich

One of the themes throughout your work is that faith must move beyond the screen.

Grady Connolly

Absolutely. Online content can inspire people, but it should ultimately lead them into real-world experiences.

Watch the videos. Listen to the podcasts. Read the books. But then go on pilgrimage, visit a church, spend time in prayer, and build community. The goal isn’t simply to consume content. The goal is to live it.

Newt Gingrich

Grady, thank you for joining me.

Grady Connolly

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s been a pleasure.

About the Guest

Grady Connolly is the founder and president of Social Thomist, a Catholic social media company working with clergy, theologians, and lay apostolates who share the mission of giving glory to God and drawing people nearer to Jesus Christ.

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

Subscribe now

During Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” reporters noted that President Trump was greeted by several familiar faces as he landed in Switzerland, including Ambassador Gingrich and Speaker Gingrich. The president then traveled to nearby Evian, France, where leaders from the world’s leading economies gathered for discussions on international security, economic growth, and global stability.

As U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, Ambassador Gingrich was among the officials on hand to receive the president before a series of high-level meetings with allied leaders. The summit comes at a pivotal moment as Western nations confront challenges ranging from instability in the Middle East and Russia’s war against Ukraine to growing competition in emerging technologies.

The presence of Ambassador Gingrich reflected her longstanding commitment to advancing American interests abroad and supporting strong relationships with key allies. The gathering also underscored the importance of diplomatic engagement as world leaders work to address shared economic and security concerns.

The G7 Summit provides an opportunity for leaders to coordinate on some of the most pressing issues facing the free world. President Trump’s meetings with allied leaders are expected to focus on strengthening cooperation, promoting economic growth, and reinforcing the partnerships that underpin global stability.

Listen to the latest on Newt’s World:

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a huge week for President Donald J. Trump.

His birthday party with the UFC fight on the White House lawn was an amazing worldwide spectacle. The first steps toward a truce with the Iranian dictatorship have already helped with the price of gasoline and the sense of stability in the Middle East. A capital investment boom and — a wave of scientific and technological breakthroughs — are rapidly expanding and strengthening the American economy.

Subscribe now

Negotiating with Iran, monitoring its commitments and occasionally having to pressure the dictatorship militarily or economically is simply reality. (Remember Ronald Reagan’s advice to “Trust but verify” and Connie Mack’s “You get what you inspect, not what you expect.”) There will be no end to the requirement to police, monitor, and occasionally penalize the religious dictatorship. The leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will try to push for as much influence and flexibility as they can get away with. It’s simply their nature.

A lot of people on the right and left have already criticized the upcoming agreement — even when they have never seen it. It is hard to understand what they thought the alternative should be. The simple fact is the religious dictatorship was more resilient, ruthless, and willing to endure pain than the planners who designed this campaign expected.

It is also clear that almost none of the critics appreciate the size of the coalition President Trump has assembled. Many countries in this coalition want to contain the Iranian religious dictatorship and ensure their own resources are not destroyed in the process. Many of these countries have responded to the Trump presidency by dramatically increasing their purchases of American goods and their investment in the American economy.

Among even the most vocal critics of the Iran deal, there are few people who want to put ground troops into Iran. It is a country of 90 million people which covers an area the size of Texas, California, Montana, and Illinois combined. At the same time, most Americans agree we cannot allow the Iranian dictatorship to get nuclear weapons.

Faced with these realities, President Trump steered a course between the Barrack Obama-Joe Biden appeasement model and strategy which would have required a huge ground invasion. He used our technological strengths in airpower and intelligence capabilities to bludgeon the religious dictatorship into positions far distant from where they were under Obama and Biden.

President Trump has been managing a broad coalition which is committed to a more stable Middle East and is prepared to work together despite Iranian attacks. He has also been developing an extraordinary American economy.

While the liberal news media does not want to report it, the fact is the United States is on the edge of one of the greatest economic booms in American history. Much of this boom will have been created by President Trump’s personality and policies. I emphasize both qualities. More than any other president, Trump has been personally engaged in creating the conditions for extraordinary economic growth.

Give a gift subscription

President Trump is the most entrepreneurial president in American history. His entire career was based on founding businesses, creating deals, and growing jobs and incomes. It is how he thinks every day.

His sense of entrepreneurship helps him see deals and possibilities that others miss. It also helps him relate to other entrepreneurs so they can develop the kind of psychological momentum which is vital to a free market economy. Finally, Trump’s enthusiasm attracts and arouses entrepreneurial risk taking in many other people.

President Trump also has a sense of scale that few past presidents could match. He has attracted $17 trillion in capital projects. As he visits countries, he focuses on selling American goods and encouraging investment in America. Watching President Trump on these visits around the world is more like watching a governor bringing economic growth to his state than the traditional aloof, policy-oriented approach of most presidents.

At the G-7 meeting this week, the world’s leaders will continue to move in the general direction President Trump has been advocating. They will be more willing to spend on defense and participate in sanctions against aggressors (note the British just seized a tanker containing Russian oil). They will be more open to helping with the Middle East. And they will be much more aware of the aggressiveness and toughness with which President Trump protects American interests.

The gigantic IPOs, such as SpaceX, and the emergence of other huge investment opportunities are more signs of the coming Trump boom. Stephen Moore, in his remarkable Unleash Prosperity Hotline, noted that with the Space X IPO alone nearly 4,500 Americans became millionaires because their work for SpaceX had included equity opportunities.

Moore also had another observation about Social Security’s financial situation. If President George W. Bush’s 2005 proposal to allow younger Americans to put some of their FICA payroll tax into indexed stock funds, the value of those investments would be 725 percent higher today. Imagine what the increase will be like as the Trump Boom grows opportunity, prosperity, and security.

The liberal media will try to slant everything against President Trump and the Republicans as much as they can. But in the end, reality will win out. People will realize how much of the current gloom and doom predictions are simply left-wing fake news.

Refer a friend

Latest from Newt’s World:

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

Dear Inner Circle Member,

I could not write this report on Monday because Callista and I went to Geneva to welcome President Trump, who was on his way to the G-7 meeting in Evian, France (which is right next to Geneva).

I had planned to write immediately after our meeting with the President, who landed at 4 p.m. Swiss time (10 a.m. back in Washington). However, while we were chatting at the foot of the stairs from Air Force One, he turned to Callista and asked “would you like to ride with me?”

Read more

How the Chinese Communist Party is targeting religious freedom and why Sam Brownback believes America must respond.

Subscribe now

For decades, many American leaders believed that greater trade and engagement with China would encourage political openness and freedom. Former Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback argues the opposite has happened. On this episode of Newt’s World, Brownback explains how the Chinese Communist Party has used economic growth, technological innovation, and state power to build one of the most sophisticated systems of religious persecution in modern history.

Brownback joins Newt Gingrich to discuss his new book, China’s War on Faith, and shares firsthand accounts of the CCP’s campaign against Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and Falun Gong practitioners. He argues that religious freedom is not simply a human rights issue, it is a strategic challenge central to the growing competition between the United States and China. Their conversation explores how authoritarian regimes view faith as a threat, why China fears independent belief systems, and what America can do to defend religious liberty at home and abroad.

Listen to their conversation below, or scroll down for an edited transcript.

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Newt Gingrich:

Ambassador Brownback, welcome and thank you for joining me on Newt’s World. You’ve spent decades in public service, from Congress and the Senate to serving as governor of Kansas and ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. Before we discuss your new book, China’s War on Faith, I’d like to start with your own story. What was it like growing up on a farm in Kansas?

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

Looking back on it now, it was idyllic. My parents were always there, and our entire family was involved in the farm operation. It was hard work, and we were constantly dealing with forces we couldn’t control, markets and weather, but we were together.

At the time, I didn’t fully appreciate it because we worked six days a week and often more during planting and harvest seasons. But it taught me discipline, responsibility, and the value of family. I expected farming would be my future until my brother was chosen to take over the operation. That pushed me toward a different path.

Newt Gingrich:

That path eventually led you into public service. In fact, while still young, you became state president of Future Farmers of America. Was that your introduction to politics?

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

It really was. As state president of Future Farmers of America, I came to Washington and met my congressman, Joe Skubitz. Watching what he did made me realize public service could be a meaningful career. That experience planted a seed that eventually grew into a desire to run for office myself.

Newt Gingrich:

You ultimately served in Congress, the Senate, as governor, and later as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. What first drew you to the issue of religious liberty?

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

When I arrived in the Senate, I had a staff member named Sharon Pate who worked extensively on religious freedom issues. She encouraged me to begin advocating for persecuted believers around the world.

One of our first efforts involved a Christian missionary imprisoned in Uzbekistan. We simply drew attention to his case and wrote a letter to the government. Not long afterward, he was released. That experience showed me that even small actions could make a real difference. From that point forward, I became deeply committed to defending religious freedom.

Newt Gingrich:

That commitment eventually brought you into direct conflict with the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, China sanctioned you in 2020 and barred you from entering the country.

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

I considered it a badge of honor.

At the time, I was working to expose China’s treatment of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. We successfully pushed for sanctions against Chen Quanguo, a senior Chinese Communist Party official responsible for implementing many of the policies targeting religious minorities.

The Chinese government retaliated by sanctioning me and several others. I viewed it as confirmation that we were exposing something they wanted hidden.

Newt Gingrich:

Your new book opens with a stark warning: “The Chinese Communist Party is waging a war on faith.” Why do you characterize it that way?

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

Because that’s exactly what they’re doing.

The Chinese Communist Party studied the collapse of the Soviet Union. They saw the role that people of faith played in undermining communist authority, whether it was Catholic believers in Poland or Jewish dissidents in the Soviet Union.

As a result, they concluded that independent religious belief represents a threat to their power. Today they aggressively suppress Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and Falun Gong practitioners because these groups recognize a higher authority than the state.

Newt Gingrich:

One of the most striking parts of the book is your discussion of Falun Gong. Many Americans don’t fully understand why the Chinese government views it as such a threat.

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

What finally became clear to me is that Falun Gong is an indigenous Chinese movement. It grew from virtually no followers to tens of millions in just a few years.

That growth frightened the Communist Party because it demonstrated that millions of Chinese citizens were embracing something deeply rooted in Chinese culture rather than communist ideology. The regime viewed that as a direct challenge to its authority and launched an extensive campaign to eradicate the movement.

Newt Gingrich:

You also argue that China uses technology as a tool of repression in ways the world has never seen before.

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

Absolutely.

China has created a sophisticated surveillance state powered by artificial intelligence, cameras, biometric data, and digital tracking systems. Those technologies are being used to monitor religious communities and suppress dissent.

My concern is not only what China is doing within its borders, but how those technologies could spread around the world and be used by other authoritarian governments.

Newt Gingrich:

What should the United States and the free world do differently?

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

First, we must recognize that we are in a long-term competition with the Chinese Communist Party.

Second, we should elevate religious freedom as a strategic priority. This is not simply a human rights issue. Religious freedom is one of America’s defining values and one of the greatest vulnerabilities of authoritarian systems.

Finally, we should stop treating China’s actions as normal. We need to speak honestly about religious persecution, challenge dependence on Chinese supply chains, and stand unapologetically for freedom.

Newt Gingrich:

Sam, your book is both timely and important. Thank you for joining me and for your continued work defending religious liberty around the world.

Ambassador Sam Brownback:

Thank you, Newt. China may be at war with faith, but that’s a war they will not win.

About the Guest

Sam Brownback is a former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, former Governor of Kansas, and longtime advocate for religious liberty around the world. He served as Kansas governor from 2011 until 2018, when he was confirmed as ambassador, following nearly 15 years in the U.S. Senate and earlier service in the U.S. House of Representatives. Brownback began his public service career as Kansas Secretary of Agriculture and also served as a White House Fellow under President George H.W. Bush. A licensed attorney and graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law, he continues to work internationally to advance and protect religious freedom and has taught international religious liberty as a fellow at the Center for Religious Liberty.

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

Podcast host and investigative journalist Sarah Westall joins Newt Gingrich to discuss her lawsuit against Google and the federal government, the future of artificial intelligence, and what Minnesota’s fraud scandals reveal about institutional failures.

Podcast host and investigative journalist Sarah Westall joins Newt Gingrich to discuss her lawsuit against Google and the federal government, the future of artificial intelligence, and what Minnesota’s fraud scandals reveal about institutional failures.

Subscribe now

Sarah Westall has spent years examining powerful institutions, emerging technologies, and the intersection of government and corporate influence. In this wide-ranging conversation with Newt Gingrich, she shares the story behind her federal lawsuit involving Google, YouTube, Alphabet, and the U.S. government, arguing that the modern internet has drifted far from its original promise of open dialogue and free expression. Westall discusses Section 230, online censorship, and the challenges independent content creators face in a rapidly changing digital landscape.

The conversation also explores the future of artificial intelligence, the infrastructure needed to support it, and the ethical questions that accompany increasingly powerful technologies. Westall raises concerns about privacy, manipulation, and the concentration of power, while Gingrich highlights the broader civilizational implications of AI development. They conclude with a discussion of Minnesota’s high-profile fraud cases and what they may reveal about accountability, governance, and public trust in institutions.

Listen to their conversation below, or scroll down for an edited transcript.

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Newt Gingrich:

Welcome to Newt’s World. I’m joined by Sarah Westall, host of the Business Game Changers Podcast, which reaches millions of viewers each month. Congratulations on your success.

Sarah Westall:

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Newt Gingrich:

You recently filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. government, Google, YouTube, and Alphabet. What led you to take that step?

Sarah Westall:

The roots go back to 2020, when many independent creators were removed from major platforms. I was among those whose YouTube channels were deleted. A group of creators challenged those actions in court, but Section 230 protections made it difficult to move forward. Over time, I became convinced that the law was being interpreted in ways that went beyond its original intent.

Newt Gingrich:

For listeners who may not know, what is Section 230?

Sarah Westall:

Section 230 was designed to protect online platforms from liability for content posted by users. The goal was to encourage a free and open internet. My concern is that the law has evolved into broad immunity that allows platforms to make editorial decisions without meaningful accountability.

Newt Gingrich:

Do you think Congress should revisit Section 230?

Sarah Westall:

Yes. Either Congress or the courts should clarify how it is applied. The original purpose was to support open discussion, not to create protections that shield every platform decision from scrutiny.

Newt Gingrich:

YouTube told Congress it would restore certain channels. What happened in your case?

Sarah Westall:

My channel was briefly reinstated and then removed again. At the same time, impersonation channels using my content remained online. Efforts to have those channels removed were unsuccessful, despite repeated requests and legal notices.

Newt Gingrich:

What is the status of your lawsuit today?

Sarah Westall:

The case has been filed in Washington, D.C. Google is seeking to move it to California. We believe the issues involved have national significance and should remain in D.C., especially since the federal government is also a defendant.

Newt Gingrich:

Let’s shift to artificial intelligence. What is your perspective on the rapid expansion of data centers?

Sarah Westall:

My background is in telecommunications and data systems. While AI is driving major infrastructure investment, I think the bigger issue may be energy. Data centers require enormous amounts of power, and many technology companies are investing heavily in alternative energy solutions because they recognize those demands.

Newt Gingrich:

Are you concerned about AI itself?

Sarah Westall:

Yes. Some systems are simply advanced computing, but more sophisticated AI models have the potential to influence behavior, shape decision-making, and collect enormous amounts of personal information. Those capabilities raise serious questions about privacy, freedom, and accountability.

Newt Gingrich:

What worries you most?

Sarah Westall:

The possibility of AI systems being used without adequate safeguards. Whether the risk comes from governments, corporations, or bad actors, we need clear boundaries and oversight. The technology is powerful enough to affect fundamental questions of human freedom and self-determination.

Newt Gingrich:

You’ve also spent time examining Minnesota’s fraud scandals. What stands out to you?

Sarah Westall:

The scale of the alleged fraud and the repeated warnings that were reportedly ignored. The larger issue is whether institutions are willing to address systemic problems when they emerge. Minnesota is not alone. Similar concerns are being raised in other states, and many citizens are frustrated by what they see as a lack of accountability.

Newt Gingrich:

Do people take these issues seriously?

Sarah Westall:

Many do. Most people oppose fraud and want accountability. The challenge is that they often feel discouraged when they believe meaningful reforms are not happening.

Newt Gingrich:

We’ve covered a remarkable range of topics today—from free speech and technology to governance and accountability. It’s a fascinating moment in history.

Sarah Westall:

It certainly is. We are living through a period of enormous change, and many of these issues will shape the future in profound ways.

Newt Gingrich:

Sarah, thank you for joining me. Listeners can find the Business Game Changers Podcast on major podcast platforms.

Sarah Westall:

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Newt Gingrich:

Thank you for listening to Newt’s World.

About the Guest

Sarah Westall is a dynamic investigative journalist and systems thinker whose work bridges global affairs, technology, business, and human freedom. With a background as an engineer, computer scientist, and systems design expert, she brings a rare analytical lens to the complex forces shaping our world.

Her career spans high-level roles in technology, entrepreneurship, academia, and media — giving her a multidimensional perspective few can match.

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

• California’s November Surprise: There Isn’t One By John Heubusch: Heubusch argues that despite the well-publicized campaigns of Steve Hilton and Spencer Pratt, California’s electoral system all but guarantees a Democratic Party victory. In what he calls “one party rule” in California, Heubusch shows how California prohibits voter identification measures, pushes for mail-in ballots, and created the “Jungle Primary” system that no longer guarantees Republican candidates get a spot in general state elections. For instance, in LA’s mayoral race Spencer Pratt does not meet the threshold for continuing onto the runoff election, forcing Democratic voters to decide between two Democrat candidates. Along with the larger share of registered Democrat voters, he concludes that the races for California Governor and Los Angeles Mayor were long been decided before they even began.

  Subscribe now

Read more

There is an enormous opportunity to save money, increase innovation, and provide a better defense system at dramatically lower cost.

Compare shopping at Amazon or Walmart with the United States Defense Procurement System. You will immediately realize there are tremendous levels of regulated waste that weaken our defenses by spending money inefficiently.

Consider the Ukrainian production of 7 million drones this year — and their ability to respond to new Russian weapons in as little as 14 days — you begin to have a yardstick for thinking through a dramatically better American defense purchasing system.

Read More

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

The Ukrainians are using drones and ground robots against Russia. In Iran, both sides are using drones, and we recently used remote piloted boats to rescue downed helicopter pilots. The development of artificial intelligence and innovation is accelerating rapidly.

Subscribe now

Every week, Ukraine demonstrates that conventional war patterns of the 20^th century are increasingly obsolete. This is true for Russia, but also for America.

There must be real changes to the ponderous, bureaucratic, over-regulated, and lobbyist-dominated Pentagon. A half-century of Congressional micromanagement and pork barrel decisions have made it harder and more expensive to modernize our national security systems. The large, self-sustaining, self-interested bureaucracies have exercised enormous power over our national defense system — and we are less safe for it.

Politicians make good speeches about the importance of change and reform. Then committees are set up to eventually report on change and reform. When faced with the need for significant changes, the Pentagon announces minor tweaks wrapped in big language.

And the badly needed, serious changes don’t happen.

Here are some historic examples that will help us distinguish between small changes and big changes.

During the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln could not find a general capable of winning in the Eastern theater, he appointed seven new commanders over two years. Six different individuals were picked. Maj. Gen. George McClellan was appointed twice.

In 1906, when Admiral John Fisher introduced the Dreadnought battleship, he ruthlessly decommissioned 154 ships in the Royal Navy. He believed they were no longer survivable in the modern emerging world — and he needed the money to build an expensive new class of battleships, which revolutionized naval warfare.

Give a gift subscription

During World War II, when it was clear that the Commandant of Cavalry and his team could not adjust from horse-based warfare to the tank-based German Blitzkrieg, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall simply abolished the post and moved all cavalry functions into the new armored organizations.

In fact, Marshall faced and implemented several major changes. He had a plan for a 200-division army to fight World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt informed him that the United States was going to build 50,000 airplanes a year. Roosevelt intuited that airplanes would be vital to winning, and he was determined that the United States would have the scale and the modernity to be the dominant airpower.

Marshall objected that the manpower to build 50,000 planes a year made it impossible to have a 200-division army. The President explained to Marshall that he had to figure out how big an army he could field if we built 50,000 planes. Marshall’s plan dropped from 200 to 89 divisions.

On Oct. 1, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Goldwater-Nichols Act requiring a revolution in jointness among the military branches into law. The bill had been developed beginning with the founding of the Military Reform Caucus in 1981. After five years of work (including a big report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies), the Congress reached a consensus that profound change was necessary. President Reagan, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and every active duty four star officer opposed the bill. The evidence of the need for profound change was so great that the Congress moved ahead anyway. Today virtually everyone agrees that jointness was a vitally needed change.

These are examples of real change.

As we watch our national security system wrestle with these emerging realities (including many agencies beyond the Pentagon), we must demand change on the scale that is really needed.

Recent history has taught us a variety of painful lessons — in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Ukraine to name a few). Our equipment is too expensive. There is too little of it. We cannot keep up with the rate of change happening around us.

Perhaps most importantly, our systems do not plan backward from victory. They plan forward from the comfortable, familiar tools and habits we already have.

Every year that goes by the gap between what we need and what we have grows. The United States has been the most powerful force in the world for eight decades. Now, our past strength may be crippling us from thinking clearly about the future.

We need real change — on a scale that defeats our real challenges.

The defense system must learn that being uncomfortable is better than being dead.

Refer a friend

Latest from Newt’s World:

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

On this episode of Newt’s World, Newt Gingrich speaks with health policy expert Elle Minarik about a troubling new report from the Paragon Health Institute examining what researchers describe as widespread fraud and improper enrollment within the Affordable Care Act marketplace. According to Minarik, enhanced subsidies, weak verification systems, and misaligned incentives have contributed to millions of potentially improper enrollments, creating significant costs for taxpayers while undermining confidence in the healthcare system.

Their discussion explores how government subsidies, insurance company compensation structures, and third-party enrollment intermediaries may be fueling an “enrollment at any cost” environment. Minarik argues that the problem extends beyond wasteful spending, affecting Americans who have reportedly been enrolled in plans without their knowledge and later faced unexpected tax consequences or disruptions to their healthcare coverage. The conversation also examines why certain states appear disproportionately affected, what role technology and oversight failures play, and what reforms Congress could pursue to improve program integrity and protect both taxpayers and consumers.

Subscribe now

Listen to their conversation below, or scroll down for an edited transcript.

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Newt Gingrich:

Today we’re discussing a new report on Obamacare enrollment fraud. The report suggests that as many as 6.2 million ACA enrollments in 2026 may have been improper. Can you put that number into perspective?

Elle Minarik:

To understand the issue, it helps to look at how the ACA marketplace works. These plans primarily serve people who do not receive employer-sponsored insurance. Since COVID, enhanced subsidies have dramatically increased the availability of zero-premium plans.

Our analysis compared Census income data with ACA enrollment figures. We found that approximately 6.2 million people are enrolled in highly subsidized Obamacare plans despite not appearing to qualify based on available income data.

Newt Gingrich:

What does that mean in terms of taxpayer cost?

Elle Minarik:

We estimate roughly $25 billion annually is being spent on improper Obamacare enrollment. Over the last three years alone, that amounts to about $75 billion.

We also found that billions of dollars have been paid to insurers for enrollees who never used their coverage even once during the year.

Newt Gingrich:

Has Obamacare effectively become more beneficial to insurance companies than to the people it was intended to help?

Elle Minarik:

The problem stems from what we call an “enrollment at any cost” strategy. Policymakers focused heavily on increasing enrollment numbers. When plans become essentially free to consumers, incentives change dramatically.

The federal government pays insurers monthly for each enrollee. That creates incentives for insurers and enrollment intermediaries to maximize enrollment, sometimes regardless of whether individuals are truly eligible.

Newt Gingrich:

How do those enrollment incentives work?

Elle Minarik:

Insurance brokers, call centers, marketing firms, and lead-generation companies often receive commissions for each enrollee. Some brokers receive bonus payments during open enrollment and then ongoing monthly commissions afterward.

When consumers pay nothing for coverage, it becomes easier for bad actors to enroll people without their knowledge because the financial incentive exists throughout the enrollment chain.

Newt Gingrich:

So taxpayers are effectively paying people to enroll individuals who may not qualify?

Elle Minarik:

In some cases, yes. Unfortunately, many victims only discover the problem when filing taxes. They may learn they were enrolled in an ACA plan without their consent and become responsible for reconciling subsidy payments they never knew existed.

Some families have faced thousands of dollars in unexpected tax liabilities because of fraudulent enrollment activity.

Newt Gingrich:

Your report shows that a handful of states account for the majority of improper enrollments. Why is that?

Elle Minarik:

States such as Florida and Texas have unique dynamics because they did not expand Medicaid. That creates strong incentives for some individuals to overstate income in order to qualify for ACA subsidies.

There are also significant concentrations of enrollment intermediaries and call centers operating in certain regions, particularly South Florida.

Newt Gingrich:

How much of this is a technology problem?

Elle Minarik:

Technology is a major factor. State-based exchanges often use stronger verification systems than Healthcare.gov. Many employ tools such as multi-factor authentication and real-time data matching.

The federal system has historically lacked some of these protections, making it easier for fraudulent applications or unauthorized plan changes to occur.

Newt Gingrich:

Why were some verification protections removed during the Biden administration?

Elle Minarik:

The administration prioritized increasing enrollment. High enrollment figures became a major policy success metric. In our view, that emphasis sometimes came at the expense of program integrity and fraud prevention.

Newt Gingrich:

What reforms should Congress consider?

Elle Minarik:

First, we should eliminate zero-premium plans by requiring a modest monthly contribution from enrollees. That would reduce incentives for fraudulent enrollments.

Second, we need mandatory multi-factor authentication for enrollment and plan changes. Finally, Congress and federal agencies should strengthen oversight of enrollment intermediaries, call centers, and lead-generation companies.

Newt Gingrich:

Are conditions improving or worsening?

Elle Minarik:

The trends are moving in the wrong direction. We continue to see increasing levels of improper enrollment, rising numbers of people who never use their coverage, and more incomplete enrollment information.

All of those indicators suggest that stronger safeguards are needed.

Newt Gingrich:

This seems to be about more than money. It raises broader questions about accountability, healthcare access, and public trust.

Elle Minarik:

Exactly. Everyone wants affordable, accessible healthcare. But when billions of dollars are lost to fraud and abuse, it drives up costs and undermines the system’s effectiveness. Improving program integrity is essential if we want healthcare markets that truly serve patients.

Newt Gingrich:

Elle, thank you for joining me and for sharing your research.

Elle Minarik:

Thank you for having me.

About the Guest

Gabrielle “Elle” Minarik is the Program Manager at the Paragon Health Institute. She is an expert in free-market healthcare policy, public-private partnerships, and regulatory issues, frequently speaking on health delivery, the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) framework, and Community Health Centers.

Subscribe now

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The true colors of the Democratic Party are slowly being revealed to be the pro-Iran party, given their overwhelming support for the War Powers Act that would rip away an impending victory from American armed forces. Gingrich reminds us that politicians should be thinking strategically, not politically, if we are going to win.

The risks to leaving the job unfinished hardly need to be said, but it is obvious that the United States would be in danger of a nuclear attack on a major city if we try to appease a fanatical regime that, for decades, has sought the total destruction of America and Israel.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has performed outstandingly when it comes to shaking the Iranian economy with sanctions, crippling the regime’s assets and making sure that it has less money to spend on bombs aimed at American troops.

According to Gingrich, this war is not just waged on the battlefield. The fight is being carried over to the Iranian economy, which is falling under the weight of high inflation. Letting up the pressure, as many Democrats want to do, would be a big mistake. It would ensure that the regime survives long past its expiration date.

Lastly, the surprising outcome of the California gubernatorial primary election indicate that state residents are fed-up with leftist policies. Steve Hilton earned his place on the ballot, and he may just earn his place in the governor’s mansion.

Subscribe now

You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.