• “Birthright Citizenship Not Settled After Supreme Court Case”: The opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling did not resolve the underlying constitutional dispute over birthright citizenship. Instead, the Court addressed the authority of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict automatic citizenship for some children born in the United States. The author explains that the central question remains how the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, particularly the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” should be interpreted. Supporters of birthright citizenship maintain that the amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, while opponents argue that the language permits exceptions for children whose parents lack permanent legal allegiance to the United States. The piece concludes that the constitutional merits remain unsettled by this particular Supreme Court decision and will require further litigation before the Court can directly determine whether the administration’s policy is constitutional.

Read more

Subscribe now

Democrats are undermining America’s technological edge in artificial intelligence, warns former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on ‘Kudlow.’ Gingrich joins Larry Kudlow to discuss how AI impacts national security and the Republican path forward on data centers.

Refer a friend

How to Win 2026

The 2026 midterms could be a defining moment for America. Follow Newt Gingrich and Gingrich 360’s latest columns and analysis on the ideas, policies, and strategies Republicans need to win the big arguments, grow the American majority, and deliver real results for the American people.

How to Win 2026 is part of a larger effort to identify the ideas, policies, and arguments that can create a lasting American majority.

Explore our latest columns, research, commentary, and analysis on the Republican Opportunity in 2026.

Republican Opportunity

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

Republicans can win the 2026 election.

They can expand the House majority, win Senate races, strengthen Republican governors and state legislators, and build a much broader national majority.

But victory will not happen automatically.

Subscribe now

Republicans have a bad habit of assuming that if Democrats are sufficiently unpopular, voters will simply turn to us. History does not work that way. Elections are won by parties that understand the choice, define the choice, and relentlessly communicate the choice. That is why I developed a five-part series on How to Win 2026.

It is not intended simply as political commentary. It is a practical framework for Republican candidates, campaign staffs, activists, donors and voters who want to understand what must be done between now and Election Day.

The first requirement is strategic clarity.

Read More

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

In July 2025, when President Trump decided he had to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, I suspect he thought that would be the end of it. The seven B-2 bombers flew all the way from Missouri, refueled multiple times in-flight, and then hit the facilities around 2:10 a.m. Iranian time.

Subscribe now

American dominance seemed total as the airplanes flew home without having lost a single aircraft. The combination of B-2s, Tomahawk missiles, and other aircraft seemed to prove that Iran had no choice but to submit to joint American-Israel power.

Unfortunately, 15 months later, the Iranians have not been intimidated into doing what America wants. There are reports of a fourth nuclear site. There are reports that the Iranians have begun work rebuilding some of the bombed sites — and hardening them against future airstrikes.

READ MORE

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

In 2004, Democratic Sen. Bob Byrd of West Virginia passed a small amendment to a funding bill to create Constitution Day. Sen. Byrd always carried a copy of the Constitution in his coat pocket and believed most Americans did not understand how central it was to our freedom. He picked Sept. 17, because that was the date the Constitution was signed.

Subscribe now

Sen. Byrd understood a key component of American exceptionalism.

While the Declaration of Independence is our founding document (and we are celebrating its 250th anniversary) the fact is the Constitution is our governing document. In 2037, we should put similar energy into celebrating the 250th anniversary of its creation.

The fact is the founding fathers courageously took on the world’s strongest empire. They wrote and signed a declaration which remains to this day an historic assertion that our rights from God, although they did not immediately have a system to match their idealism.

Most of the founding fathers had a good sense of how to develop constitutions. As provinces moved from royal colonies to free standing, independent states, they had to have constitutions to govern how they would function. Some states took two or three drafts to finally stabilize on one that would work.

Both New Hampshire and South Carolina had adopted two state constitutions between 1776 and 1787. In Massachusetts, the people had repudiated the effort to write a constitution in 1780, and John Adams, coauthor of the Declaration of Independence, had to step in and write a state constitution which was acceptable to the people.

The first efforts at a national governing system produced the Articles of Confederation, which established a weak central government. It simply could not solve the new country’s problems.

A meeting of five states in Annapolis in 1786 concluded that the Articles of Confederation had to be amended, and leaders called for a meeting in 1787 in Philadelphia.

Those who gathered in Philadelphia ultimately concluded they could not effectively amend the Articles of Confederation, because they were simply too weak and clumsy to ever work. In what was, in effect, a coup d’état, the delegates simply decided they would write a completely new constitution for a dramatically stronger government.

It may surprise people to learn that the entire 55-day affair in Philadelphia was closed off to the public. The delegates knew that the negotiations were going to be difficult, and they thought press coverage to engage the public would arouse passions and make it virtually impossible to work through the arguments and compromises needed to produce an effective, acceptable governing document.

Ironically, the core document which would be the basis of the freest and most robust public dialogue in history was written in secret and initially reported based on private negotiations.

The tension between different factions was real. At one point, Benjamin Franklin, the oldest man at the convention, called for a day of prayer. A pastor was brought in to preach to the delegates in the hope it would engender a spirit of cooperation and compromise.

The founders were trying to walk a tightrope between a government strong enough to defend America from aggressive foreign powers such as Britain, France, and Spain — while at the same time making sure government strength could not be used to control the American people.

The founders were also walking a tightrope on the issue of slavery. If they did nothing on the issue, the northern states would refuse to participate. If they did too much, the southern and slave-holding states would refuse to participate. They reached a compromise which paved the way for slavery to be phased out. Unfortunately, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin and other devices reignited the Southern cotton industry and the best laid plans for gradual abolition were drowned in the next generation by profitability. Only the American Civil War (which cost more American lives than every war through Korea) could ultimately abolish the scourge of slavery in America. Even after the Civil War, it would take another century to break down the barriers to freedom in some parts of the country.

It is fair to say that the founding fathers pushed the system of freedom as far as they could for their time, while still retaining support for the strong structure of a national government.

If the Declaration of Independence is the moral statement of our freedom coming from God, and the legitimacy of our desire to live as free people. The Constitution was the operating manual which established clear decisive rules by which a free people could govern themselves.

Constitution Day is an annual reminder that liberty comes within a framework of rules which enable an extraordinarily diverse group of people — coming from all over the world — to work, live, and prosper together.

The Constitution without the Declaration would have no moral purpose. The Declaration without the Constitution would have collapsed into anarchy and been absorbed by one or more of the great monarchies.

This synergistic power of moral and practical structures made America the astonishingly successful country it is today.

That is an achievement worth revisiting every year.

Refer a friend

How to Win 2026

The 2026 midterms could be a defining moment for America. Follow Newt Gingrich and Gingrich 360’s latest columns and analysis on the ideas, policies, and strategies Republicans need to win the big arguments, grow the American majority, and deliver real results for the American people.

How to Win 2026 is part of a larger effort to identify the ideas, policies, and arguments that can create a lasting American majority.

Explore our latest columns, research, commentary, and analysis on the Republican Opportunity in 2026.

Republican Opportunity

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

Every Sept. 17, our nation marks Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, a time set aside to reflect on the foundational framework of our democracy and the shared bonds of American citizenship.

Subscribe now

Federal law mandates that every educational institution receiving federal funding conduct dedicated educational programming on the Constitution on this day. It is an annual reminder that forces us to look past the routine of daily life, ensuring that every rising generation understands both the mechanics and the moral weight of our self-governing republic. This day reminds us to examine the enduring covenant that binds us together across generations.

Recent national polling by America’s New Majority Project reinforces how deeply this shared legacy resonates: over 81 percent of Americans agree that all citizens should take pride in the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing the world’s longest-surviving democracy, while nearly 80 percent agree that they are proud to be an American.

My own deep appreciation for this date goes back to a classroom that brought these abstract ideas vividly to life. As a legal immigrant from Switzerland, I have been fortunate to be a product of American education and to absorb the values this country instills. Having spent my most formative years and all my adult life here in the United States, my perspective on this day is shaped by deep gratitude. On every Constitution Day, my high school AP Government teacher would dress up as prominent American historical figures and stride through the classroom, passing out pocket Constitutions to each student. His enthusiasm inspired me to learn about the Constitution, memorize its amendments by heart, and understand not only the rights it protects but also the responsibilities it demands. More importantly, he showed me that citizenship is not passive. It is something that must be practiced every day as an active commitment to participating in the ongoing story of American self-governance.

Consider the famous opening words of the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

When we reflect on this passage, we are confronted with both a bold promise and a profound responsibility. I know that no country is perfect, but the United States is a nation defined by its continuous strive to better itself through the constant pursuit of happiness and a more perfect union. It all has flaws, but as the saying goes, the grass is ultimately greener wherever you water it.

The Constitution balances authority and safeguards human dignity through core structural principles: popular sovereignty, in which government power derives strictly from the consent of the governed; the rule of law, which guarantees that no leader or institution stands above the law; federalism and the separation of powers, which split authority to prevent tyranny; and the Bill of Rights, which secures our essential liberties against government overreach.

Yet, the true beauty of “We the People” lies in its recognition that a document on parchment cannot preserve a republic on its own. Theodore Roosevelt said it best in his 1910 address at the Sorbonne in Paris, France:

“With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average woman, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional crises which call for the heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation; therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher than the average.”

Give a gift subscription

United States citizenship is first and foremost a privilege, one that must be honored, respected, and lived with an intentional sense of duty toward the American people and this country. Whether one is fortunate enough to be born as a U.S. citizen or earn that title through naturalization, extraordinary rights, liberties, and freedoms are both inherited and embraced. But those rights exist in a delicate balance with civic obligations. Freedom without responsibility eventually falters, and liberty without community devolves into isolation.

We must also remember that the Constitution and the freedoms it secures are protected by generations of Americans who have answered a higher call to service. The men and women in uniform exemplify an extraordinary commitment to country, sacrifice, and civic duty. Their dedication reminds us that the preservation of our constitutional republic depends upon citizens willing to serve something greater than themselves. We owe them a debt of gratitude that can only be repaid by how we choose to live our daily lives and whether we make a positive impact on our communities.

The strength of the United States has never rested solely in its institutions or its founding documents. It rests in its people. As America’s New Majority Project polling also found, over 81 percent of Americans affirm that the founding principles of equality, self-governance, and fundamental rights are just as relevant today as ever. Every day, ordinary Americans become extraordinary citizens by volunteering, serving their communities, participating in civic life, standing up for what is right, and working to build a better future for those around them. Every time citizens cast an informed vote, show up for jury duty, participate in town halls, advocate for fairness, or simply extend a helping hand to a neighbor, they help fulfill the Constitution’s aspiration to create a more perfect Union.

I am profoundly grateful to the United States, its citizens, and its institutions for all the opportunities and privileges I have enjoyed. As someone actively working toward one day becoming a U.S. citizen, I am excited to return that level of gratitude by dedicating myself to the service and protection of this nation, its constitution, and its citizens.

On this Constitution and Citizenship Day, everyone should reflect on the enduring promise contained in the opening words of the American Constitution: “We the People.” These three words remind us that the Constitution is not merely a document of laws and institutions; it is a covenant among citizens, a shared commitment to liberty, justice, and the common good. The question before each of us is not only what the Constitution guarantees, but what it asks of us in return.

As we celebrate today, let us pause to ask ourselves: What does the Constitution mean to me? How am I participating in civic life? How am I contributing to my community, supporting my neighbors, and helping to strengthen this country? How am I exercising the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution, while also fulfilling the duties and responsibilities that accompany them?

On this Constitution Day, let us celebrate not only the rights it guarantees, but also the shared responsibilities it requires. Let us recommit ourselves to the timeless work of ‘We the People’ by building, protecting, and strengthening the American experiment — for present and future generations of Americans, whether citizens by birth or by choice, and for all who dare to dream of one day earning that privilege.

— With gratitude for the journey and steadfast hope for the privilege of one day calling this nation officially my own.

Danielle Greminger

Refer a friend

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

“I think the odds are much better than even that by election day, we will win one of the most shocking off-year elections in American history,” Newt said.

Drawing on his experience developing the Contract with America, Newt said successful campaigns begin by winning the argument. Republicans must have confidence that when they wage a real campaign, tell the truth and have the facts on their side, voters can move dramatically.

For 2026, Newt said that means drawing a clear contrast with big government socialism while offering an affirmative agenda on issues that matter to Americans. He pointed to his five-part How to Win 2026 series as a roadmap built from lessons learned during the Republican campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s and his four years as speaker.

Newt cautioned that Republicans should not assume the political fight is over simply because they are “back on offense.”

“We haven’t won this fight,” Newt said. “We’re back on offense and we’re in better shape than we were. But this fight is real.”

The central lesson from Newt’s decades in the political arena remains the same: “Be not afraid.” Republicans who make the case, define the choice and fight for their ideas can reshape the political landscape.

How to Win 2026

The 2026 midterms could be a defining moment for America. Follow Newt Gingrich and Gingrich 360’s latest columns and analysis on the ideas, policies, and strategies Republicans need to win the big arguments, grow the American majority, and deliver real results for the American people.

How to Win 2026 is part of a larger effort to identify the ideas, policies, and arguments that can create a lasting American majority.

Explore our latest columns, research, commentary, and analysis on the Republican Opportunity in 2026.

Republican Opportunity

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

Newt Gingrich talks with Dr. Robert Redfield and Dr. Brent Beasley about breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s detection and treatment and the policy changes needed to bring them to patients.

Subscribe now

For decades, an Alzheimer’s diagnosis offered patients and their families few options beyond preparing for the disease’s progression. That reality is beginning to change. New blood-based biomarkers can help identify Alzheimer’s before clinical dementia develops, while emerging treatments may slow its progression. For Dr. Brent Beasley, a physician diagnosed with Alzheimer’s at just 57, early detection and treatment became deeply personal. After cognitive decline cost him his medical career, a blood biomarker test helped lead to his diagnosis and treatment. Today, he describes a future for Alzheimer’s patients filled with far more possibility than existed even a decade ago.

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield believes this scientific progress demands an equally significant change in public policy. Drawing on lessons from the fight against HIV/AIDS, he argues that America must move from waiting for symptoms to routinely identifying Alzheimer’s earlier, expanding access to available treatments, and accelerating the development of new therapies. With millions of Americans already living with the disease and millions more family members affected as caregivers, the question is no longer simply whether science can change the trajectory of Alzheimer’s. It is whether Congress, CMS, and the health care system can move quickly enough to take advantage of the breakthroughs already underway.

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

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

More Newt's World

Newt Gingrich

Alzheimer’s disease is quietly becoming one of the greatest public health and fiscal challenges this country has ever faced. More than seven million Americans live with Alzheimer’s today, a number projected to nearly double to almost 14 million by 2060. Its reach extends far beyond patients themselves, touching millions of family members and caregivers.

For decades, this was a disease we could only watch unfold. That is starting to change. We now have blood testing that can help diagnose Alzheimer’s, along with treatments that can slow its progression.

The science has arrived. The question is whether our policy and health care system can keep up.

Today, I’m joined by two guests who bring very different and equally essential perspectives. Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the CDC, sees striking parallels between the federal response needed for Alzheimer’s and the one he helped lead against HIV/AIDS. Dr. Brent Beasley is a physician who spent his career treating patients, including those with Alzheimer’s, until, at 57, he became one himself.

Dr. Redfield, just how big a crisis is Alzheimer’s disease for the United States?

Dr. Robert Redfield

It’s a significant problem for two reasons. First is the number of individuals who suffer from Alzheimer’s, which I think is really underappreciated. The FDA has staged Alzheimer’s into three stages, with stage three being clinical dementia and stages one and two being preclinical.

Second, Alzheimer’s doesn’t just affect the patient. It also requires caregivers. The economic impact of Alzheimer’s over the next decade or two is going to be enormous.

That’s why we’ve become such strong advocates for early diagnosis. There are interventions we have now, including non-pharmaceutical interventions that have been shown to delay progression. There are also pharmaceutical interventions, with new ones on the horizon.

I think it’s important that doctors routinely evaluate brain function for those of us over 50, just as they evaluate our hearts, lungs, and kidneys.

Newt Gingrich

Brent, tell us about your experience with early diagnosis and what is happening with the science that makes it so valuable.

Dr. Brent Beasley

I had a career as an academic general internist, researcher, and teacher of medical students and residents. After I had a mild case of COVID-19 in 2022, my three grown children began asking my wife, Cindy, “What’s wrong with Dad?”

We initially thought it might be COVID fog.

Then, in August 2023, while I was seeing patients, my supervising physician sat me down and fired me. She had been monitoring my performance and was worried about me.

Afterward, a friend suggested I go to the University of Kansas Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. He had ordered a blood test called P-Tau 217. That marker suggested I probably had Alzheimer’s.

Additional testing confirmed it. I began treatment with lecanemab, known by the trade name Leqembi.

Dr. Robert Redfield

There was a paper published in JAMA that really highlighted the importance of the P-Tau 217 test. It gives us an opportunity to identify people who are at significant risk of developing clinical dementia years before it occurs.

That’s important because we now have interventions that can be used earlier.

If we can delay the onset of clinical dementia by five or 10 years, that could be the ballgame for many people.

Newt Gingrich

Brent, because you’re a medical doctor and understood what the diagnosis meant, how did you deal with it emotionally?

Dr. Brent Beasley

Not well. It was devastating. It upended our whole household.

My wife became the main breadwinner while continuing a career she is passionate about. Alzheimer’s is an incredibly difficult thing for families to navigate.

I’m thankful there was a medication available to treat my disease. After being treated, I remember coming away from serving as a deacon at church, turning to my wife and saying, “I’m back.”

She said, “I could tell.”

That was a great day for us.

Newt Gingrich

Years ago, I co-chaired a task force on Alzheimer’s. One reason it was difficult to get people interested in early diagnosis was that there wasn’t much we could do.

That has changed dramatically.

We may now be entering a period in which breakthroughs in early detection and intervention could create breathtaking human and financial savings.

Dr. Redfield, what do we have to do to make that happen?

Dr. Robert Redfield

First and foremost, CMS has to recognize that routine diagnosis of Alzheimer’s needs to become standard practice.

We now have blood testing available. I believe people over 50 should be tested and should also receive standardized evaluations of cognitive function.

The next thing that needs to happen involves access to treatment. CMS currently requires coverage with evidence development, or CED, for certain Alzheimer’s treatments. That creates an additional administrative burden for physicians and can restrict patient access.

I think CMS needs to remove that restriction and allow physicians who believe these drugs are indicated for their patients to prescribe them.

Those are things I’d like to see happen yesterday.

Newt Gingrich

You spent much of your career dealing with HIV/AIDS, from a period when the diagnosis was terrifying to a period when patients can live normal lifespans. Do you see a parallel with Alzheimer’s?

Dr. Robert Redfield

Yes, I do.

Initially, people didn’t want to diagnose HIV infection. I was very aggressive in promoting early diagnosis because I believed early diagnosis was good.

When my patients came to me in 1982, they had less than a year of survival. Today, they can live a natural lifetime.

Once the pharmaceutical industry understood the extent of the HIV problem, it brought the power of science to the field and revolutionized treatment.

I believe the same thing will happen with Alzheimer’s.

We have to get more people diagnosed, routinely evaluate cognitive function, and provide easier access to the drugs available now. Once we understand the full extent of the disease, I think we’ll also accelerate the development of better treatments.

Newt Gingrich

If you could address a joint session of Congress, CMS, NIH, and HHS, what are the biggest policy changes you would advocate?

Dr. Robert Redfield

The first is a central principle of medicine: Early diagnosis is good.

We have to promote early diagnosis.

Second, I would have CMS pay for blood-based testing for people over 50.

Third, people should have an evaluation of their mental function as part of their regular medical care.

Fourth, CMS should remove the CED requirement that is blocking access to treatment.

I’d also like Congress to stimulate the private sector to pursue new therapeutic advances in Alzheimer’s and have HHS seriously focus on developing care delivery systems that actually work for people with the disease.

Dr. Brent Beasley

I would add the ASAP Act. It is a bill in Congress that could help people with Alzheimer’s gain access to Medicare earlier and make these kinds of treatments more affordable.

Newt Gingrich

The earlier we can treat people and maintain their cognitive capabilities, the greater the impact not only on the patient but on their families.

Brent, after everything you’ve experienced, are you optimistic?

Dr. Brent Beasley

I’m very excited about what the future holds for those of us who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and those who will be diagnosed.

We have an aging population, and we need to be ready for what is coming.

But we’re living in an age that is unparalleled in possibility. The things we’re discovering about Alzheimer’s, how to treat it, and the medications on the horizon give me enormous hope.

Dr. Robert Redfield

There are some very exciting drugs in Phase III trials right now.

If we can get people diagnosed and understand their stage of Alzheimer’s, we can prepare for success. Pharmaceutical companies can understand the size of the need and prepare manufacturing capacity so patients can access new drugs when they are proven effective.

Newt Gingrich

There is an act in the House and Senate called the ASAP Act, which would create a Medicare pathway for FDA-cleared blood-based biomarkers. There are already 240 House and Senate members co-sponsoring the bill.

I hope people who hear this podcast will call their senators and House members.

Alzheimer’s is an enormous challenge, and its impact extends well beyond those who have the disease.

Brent, what would you say to a person or family receiving an Alzheimer’s diagnosis today?

Dr. Brent Beasley

We’re living in an age that is unparalleled in possibility.

I’m very hopeful about the medications being developed and what we are learning about treating Alzheimer’s.

There are people throughout medicine and industry who care deeply about solving this. It isn’t simply about money. There is a passion to save loved ones.

I’m very hopeful that we will have even better drugs than we have now.

Newt Gingrich

That willingness to stay engaged is important. Having a medical doctor who is also a patient gives the rest of us a sense of hope.

This conversation has strengthened what has been an almost 30-year commitment for me. The idea of tackling Alzheimer’s with greater intensity and speed, while cutting through bureaucratic red tape, is a cause worth pursuing.

Thank you both for joining me.

Dr. Robert Redfield

Thank you for having us.

Early Detection and Alzheimer’s Risk

Newt Gingrich

How do you determine whether you or a loved one has an Alzheimer’s disease risk? What early signs should people watch for?

Dr. Robert Redfield

I want to identify it before symptoms.

The FDA has classified Alzheimer’s into three stages, and in stage one there can be no symptoms.

The best way we have right now to understand whether you may be at risk of developing symptomatic Alzheimer’s is through biomarker testing such as P-Tau 217.

If you wait until someone is experiencing memory problems, word-finding problems, recall problems, or concentration issues, the disease has already progressed.

I want to shift the focus away from waiting for symptomatic Alzheimer’s and toward identifying the disease at the earliest possible point.

Newt Gingrich

We don’t require someone to have a heart attack before we begin working on their cardiovascular health.

Maybe that is the right analogy for the brain. We want to intervene so early that we never quite get to the problem.

Dr. Robert Redfield

That’s a very appropriate analogy.

If you were at risk of a heart attack, we would tell you to eat better, sleep better, and exercise. We now have evidence that these kinds of non-pharmaceutical interventions can also help delay the onset of clinical Alzheimer’s.

Newt Gingrich

What are some of the routines people can follow?

Dr. Brent Beasley

I encourage people to eat a healthy diet, including plenty of fruits and colorful vegetables.

The other thing is aerobic exercise. It can be difficult to get outside our comfort zones and do the exercise we need, but it’s important.

Dr. Robert Redfield

I would also add good sleep patterns.

Dr. Brent Beasley

I discovered I had obstructive sleep apnea and now use a CPAP. It has been a game changer for me, along with the medications I’m taking for Alzheimer’s.

Newt Gingrich

What strikes me is how much the world of Alzheimer’s has changed.

There was a time when learning about the disease early offered relatively little opportunity to change its course. Today, we are beginning to have tools for earlier detection, treatments that can make a difference, and promising new therapies on the horizon.

The challenge now is ensuring that our institutions change as quickly as the science.

Refer a friend

About the Guest

Dr. Robert Redfield served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the first Trump administration. Before leading the CDC, he spent two decades in the U.S. Army Medical Corps and played a significant role in HIV/AIDS research and treatment. He later co-founded the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology. He has become an advocate for applying lessons from America’s response to HIV/AIDS to the growing challenge of Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Brent Beasley is a retired internal medicine physician, researcher, and medical educator who spent years caring for patients before receiving his own Alzheimer’s diagnosis at age 57. His disease was identified through blood biomarker testing and additional diagnostic testing, allowing him to receive treatment relatively early. He now speaks publicly about his experience and the possibilities emerging from advances in Alzheimer’s detection and treatment.

More Newt's World

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 war with Iran has gone on far longer than people expected — including those in the administration who have been managing the conflict.

Subscribe now

If we are determined to protect America’s cities from Iranian nuclear weapons, then we must confront the reality that this is a bigger, longer project than we first assumed.

A military effort on this scale must be supported by the American people or it cannot be sustained.

At America’s New Majority Project, we did a survey in early September to assess where the American people were on the whole issue of stopping the Iranian religiously inspired dictatorship from getting nuclear weapons.

Americans understand what’s at stake: 64 percent agreed that a nuclear-armed Iran could target an American city and kill millions of people.

When informed about the nuclear threat, previous intelligence warnings about potential attacks inside the U.S., the human rights violations in Iran (at least 47,000 Iranians killed this year by their own government), and Iran’s absolute refusal to negotiate in good faith, support for the war jumped from 39 percent to 48 percent and opposition to the war fell from 52 percent to 43 percent.

If President Donald J. Trump made an Oval Office address and then put on a series of “save our cities” rallies, the support for the war would become overwhelming. It is hard to look at a dictatorship which has been chanting “Death to America” since 1979 and pretend they don’t mean it (55 percent of Americans take the threat seriously).

It is vital to have this debate in the next few weeks.

Every Democrat except Sen. John Fetterman has voted to invoke the War Powers Act, cut funding for the effort, or support other means to terminate the war. These would deny the United States a victory and otherwise grant the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a de facto win.

Give a gift subscription

This Democratic strategy of delay and undermine is remarkably like the American left’s strategy in the Vietnam War. It led the North Vietnamese to conclude they would not beat America tactically on the battlefield, but they could win strategically by eroding support for the war among the American people. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s tactical strategy is clear: It is trying to simply survive past the midterms. Iran is hoping for a Democrat victory, which it believes would translate into the strategic victory it seeks. The Iranians clearly see the Democrat position as a strategic tool, which they plan leverage it to the maximum extent.

These facts should lead every Democrat to be forced to answer one question: “Why do you want the United States to lose the war?” They will no doubt equivocate — or insist that the war should never have happened (in attempt to avoid the question). The immediate Republican response must be that we are in a war: Whose side are they on — the United States or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard?

GOP candidates should hammer their opponents (especially incumbents with voting records) over their votes and speeches. Simply stopping the war without victory — or otherwise withholding the resources to win — only helps the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and makes America less safe. There is no wiggle room. Democrats must prioritize Americans’ safety over political showmanship.

The American people understand the danger of this moment. The America’s New Majority Project survey showed 67 percent of Americans believe a nuclear-armed Iran would trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. This includes 85 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of independents, and 51 percent of Democrats. Half of Democratic voters see the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. But nearly every Democrat in Congress voted to end the war without preventing it. Democratic leaders must be made to answer for their positions.

An open national debate will lead most Americans to vote for American victory and an end to the Iranian dictatorship threat to our cities. This debate must be initiated and sustained by President Trump. The absence of this debate will make the war much harder to sustain and ultimately win.

The American people seem to get what few in Washington do: This is not about Republican or Democrat survival — it is about American survival.

Refer a friend

How to Win 2026

The 2026 midterms could be a defining moment for America. Follow Newt Gingrich and Gingrich 360’s latest columns and analysis on the ideas, policies, and strategies Republicans need to win the big arguments, grow the American majority, and deliver real results for the American people.

How to Win 2026 is part of a larger effort to identify the ideas, policies, and arguments that can create a lasting American majority.

Explore our latest columns, research, commentary, and analysis on the Republican Opportunity in 2026.

Republican Opportunity

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

Newt Gingrich and Annie Jacobsen examine the growing threat of biological warfare, lab accidents, genetic engineering, and America’s ability to respond to a catastrophic outbreak.

Subscribe now

Pulitzer Prize finalist and bestselling author Annie Jacobsen has spent years investigating the threats most capable of reshaping civilization. After examining nuclear war, she turned to a danger that senior national security officials repeatedly urged her to investigate next: biological catastrophe. In her new book, Biological War: A Scenario, Jacobsen explores how an engineered pathogen, a laboratory accident, or a deliberate biological attack could spread across a globally connected world faster than governments and public health systems can respond.

On Newt’s World, Newt Gingrich and Annie Jacobsen examine the history of biological weapons, the extraordinary advances in genetic engineering, the rapid expansion of high-containment laboratories, and the lessons America failed to fully absorb from COVID-19. Their conversation also raises a larger question about preparedness. Technology may now give us the ability to identify emerging threats in near real time, but bureaucratic systems can still move far more slowly. For Jacobsen, the answer is not panic. It is using what we know to put pressure on institutions to prepare before the next crisis arrives.

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

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

More Newt's World

Newt Gingrich

You spent years immersed in nuclear annihilation. Why did you decide biological warfare was the subject that had to come next?

Annie Jacobsen

When I was interviewing very high-level officials who deal with the nuclear threat, including presidential advisers, STRATCOM commanders, and former secretaries of defense, often toward the end of those interviews I would hear some variation of, “Annie, you should really look at bio next.”

It was said with a deeply disquieting, shark-in-the-water feeling that I could not ignore. When I began looking at the biological threat, I realized just how great it is.

Newt Gingrich

Nuclear war almost works as a scenario because it is mathematical. If there is a ballistic missile launch, you know where it came from and what is likely to happen next.

Does biological warfare break out of that logic and create a much more complex management challenge?

Annie Jacobsen

Precisely. Nuclear war is a system. You can track the hardware, the locations, and the sequence of events.

Biology, by its nature, is much more uncertain and complex. I began looking at declassified Pentagon war-game scenarios involving catastrophic biological incidents and unclassified pandemic-planning scenarios from public health officials.

I noticed something remarkable. No matter which pathogen was involved, there was always a point where the scenario stopped. That point was when anarchy broke out. It was essentially “game over.”

As a national security reporter, I thought: These people know what happens after anarchy breaks out. They are simply not telling us.

That is what I wanted to know.

Newt Gingrich

How much were you shaped or informed by the actual experience of COVID?

Annie Jacobsen

Most certainly. The long shadow of COVID underpins the narrative.

I use examples people can relate to, such as a superspreader event on a cruise ship, an adversarial government not being transparent with the United States, and an infection arriving in the country by airplane.

I hoped people would come away realizing COVID could have been an incredible cautionary tale from which government and society learned and became better prepared.

Unfortunately, I believe we are actually a more fractured society over COVID than we were when I began working on the book.

Newt Gingrich

You go back to 1971, when Paul Berg was putting together DNA from different viruses in a Stanford laboratory. Why did that experiment matter so much to the development of the potential danger of biological warfare?

Annie Jacobsen

That is really the origin story of genetic engineering.

One of the things I try to do as a journalist is take complex ideas and make them easy to understand. Genetic engineering, genetic modification, and gain-of-function research can sound incredibly complicated.

Paul Berg, who would later win the Nobel Prize, created what was essentially the first chimera pathogen by putting organisms together in a laboratory.

That was an early moment in genetic engineering. Today, we are far more advanced, with systems such as CRISPR.

Newt Gingrich

Can you describe CRISPR? It is one of the great breakthroughs that makes all of this dramatically easier and potentially more threatening.

Annie Jacobsen

Think of what Paul Berg was doing in 1971 as old-fashioned film editing. You have strips of film, scissors, and tape. You cut two pieces and put them together.

CRISPR is more like sitting at a modern computer and editing digital images with a few keystrokes. Something that was once extremely complicated can now be done much more quickly and precisely.

Newt Gingrich

The Soviet Union had an enormous biological warfare program during the latter stages of the Cold War. What did we learn about what they were trying to accomplish?

Annie Jacobsen

The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 outlawed biological weapons. The United States destroyed its arsenal.

The Soviet Union signed the treaty but secretly built a colossal biological weapons program.

We later learned from Soviet defectors that the goal was to develop the ability to kill tens or even hundreds of millions of people in America and the West while leaving the infrastructure intact.

Unlike nuclear war, which could leave a radioactive wasteland, biological warfare offered this horrific vision of killing the population while leaving the buildings standing.

Newt Gingrich

My understanding is that Russia and North Korea probably still operate biological weapons programs, while China and Iran remain serious concerns.

Annie Jacobsen

The U.S. State Department has stated that Russia and North Korea have active biological weapons programs and identified China and Iran as programs of concern.

But there is another important issue. The Biological Weapons Convention allows countries to maintain dangerous pathogens in laboratories if the research is being conducted for prophylactic purposes, such as developing medical countermeasures.

That creates a dangerous gray area. Countries around the world can conduct experiments on extremely dangerous pathogens, raising questions about whether some of that work could itself resemble biological weapons research.

Newt Gingrich

In your scenario, you do not begin with a terrorist attack. You begin with an accident at Russia’s Vector Institute in Siberia.

Why did you choose an accidental nightmare rather than a deliberate attack?

Annie Jacobsen

What astonished me was discovering that biological catastrophe planning often pairs the language “biological attack” with “biological incident.”

The consequences of a laboratory accident can be as calamitous as the consequences of a deliberate biological attack.

That is precisely why I began the scenario with a lab leak. Something gets out, it gets out fast, and almost immediately events begin moving beyond anyone’s control.

Newt Gingrich

One of the most disturbing parts of your scenario involves a pathogen engineered with a gene associated with euphoria. Why is that so important?

Annie Jacobsen

This is not something I invented for the book. It was explained to me by Dr. Henry Hein, a subject-matter expert on plague who worked at USAMRIID.

Scientists were aware of Soviet work involving a plague weapon engineered with a gene associated with euphoria.

Normally, a deadly pathogen can begin to burn itself out if infected people become so sick that they remain home or die quickly.

The malevolent idea was that an infected person might instead feel terrific, go out, socialize, and spread the disease to more people before becoming critically ill.

It is an example of using human behavior itself to increase transmission.

Newt Gingrich

You reported that one former Pentagon official said learning the details of the Soviet biological weapons program changed how he understood the word “evil.”

Why?

Annie Jacobsen

Pentagon officials do not casually use words like good and evil.

I think what disturbed him was the deliberate manipulation of a deadly pathogen to prey upon human nature and social behavior.

With many conventional weapons, military planners believe they can estimate the effects of a strike. Biological warfare is fundamentally different because once infection begins spreading, the consequences become deeply uncertain.

There is something particularly twisted about manipulating a pathogen so it exploits mankind’s instinct to socialize.

Newt Gingrich

One of the things your scenario demonstrates is the extraordinary speed at which an outbreak could now move around the planet.

Annie Jacobsen

When I was researching the Black Death, I came across an observation that plague moved across Europe at roughly the speed of human travel. In the 14th century, that might have been about a mile per day by ship or caravan.

Now consider modern travel. A person can cross the world in half a day.

That realization became an important part of my scenario. A scientist becomes infected after an accident at a laboratory in Siberia. He encounters a group of international hunters, and those people eventually travel to six of the seven continents.

It demonstrates how quickly an infectious disease can move in the modern world.

Newt Gingrich

There is also the problem of blowback. If a country deliberately released a biological weapon, it would have to worry about infecting its own population.

Annie Jacobsen

Exactly. Cold War biological warfare thinking assumed you might develop a vaccine, inoculate your own population, and then deploy a biological weapon against an enemy.

But as the world became increasingly interconnected, it became obvious how dangerous that assumption was. A biological weapon can come back to the country that released it.

That is one reason the danger of an accident is so important.

Before 9/11, there were two BSL-4 maximum-containment laboratories in the United States. Today, there are many more. Around the world, there are also numerous BSL-4 facilities and thousands of BSL-3 laboratories conducting research involving dangerous pathogens.

The question becomes: What happens if there is a lab leak?

Newt Gingrich

That scale is part of what makes your book so relevant. Sooner or later, somewhere, something could break down.

You also investigated the U.S. government’s planning for what happens if fear and civil unrest begin to overwhelm society. Were you surprised by what you found?

Annie Jacobsen

I was shocked.

I kept wondering why biological catastrophe and pandemic scenarios ended when anarchy began.

Eventually, former FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate helped me understand that there is a classified continuity plan. The name itself is unclassified: the Devolution Plan.

There are individuals who have been selected and who have rehearsed for continuity-of-government scenarios.

The disturbing part is considering a system designed to preserve and reconstitute government after catastrophe while asking a fundamental question: What is the plan for the people?

That leads to two things I hope people consider. First, we need to address the risks associated with dangerous laboratories and potential lab leaks. Second, we need better planning for the population.

Newt Gingrich

You also make clear that there are technological breakthroughs that could dramatically improve public health’s ability to respond almost in real time. What did you learn about the positive side of technology?

Annie Jacobsen

Social media has demonstrated how quickly information can spread during fires, disasters, and other emergencies.

The World Health Organization also has an AI-based computational system in Germany examining enormous amounts of data about outbreaks around the world and trying to determine whether they are connected.

The challenge is the human component. Information can move extraordinarily fast technologically, but officials still have to decide how and when to communicate that information to the public.

There remains a lag between information reaching the top and officials deciding how to distribute it, in part because there is always concern about panic.

Newt Gingrich

That is fascinating because public health agencies are often classically bureaucratic.

We now have billions of smartphones around the world capable of being connected and, with AI, analyzed in virtually real time.

The gap between what we can do technologically and what we can do bureaucratically is getting larger. In the kind of scenario you describe, that gap could become a matter of life and death.

After immersing yourself in nuclear war and now biological catastrophe, are you ultimately an optimist or a pessimist about our ability to get through the next half century?

Annie Jacobsen

I am, by nature, an optimist.

I believe knowledge is power. The more you know, the more confident you can feel navigating the world.

The point of the book is not panic. It is pressure.

With information, something can be done. It is often a lack of information, ignorance, or an inability to face difficult realities that gets people into trouble.

I believe we absolutely can get through the next century.

Newt Gingrich

I think of myself as a strategic optimist but tactically very worried.

Your central point is exactly right. It does not have to be a biological war. With so many people conducting experiments in so many places and with different levels of capability, the possibility of something much worse than COVID breaking loose is very real.

That is why rethinking our entire public health system should be a very high priority.

Annie, thank you for joining me. Your new book, Biological War: A Scenario, is available now wherever books are sold. I think it is a real contribution to helping America understand what we have to do to remain safe, prosperous, and free.

Annie Jacobsen

Thank you so much for having me.

Refer a friend

About the Guest

Annie Jacobsen is a Pulitzer Prize finalist, investigative journalist, and New York Times bestselling author whose work explores national security, intelligence, warfare, and government secrecy. Her books include Nuclear War: A Scenario, Area 51, Operation Paperclip, The Pentagon’s Brain, First Platoon, Surprise, Kill, Vanish, and Phenomena. Her latest book, Biological War: A Scenario, examines the consequences of a catastrophic biological incident and the systems designed to respond to it.

More Newt's World

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

The last week has been amazingly hectic. One week ago, I was in Rome, Italy and flew straight to Dallas, Texas for the first-ever Republican midterm convention. I think the idea of a midterm convention was a good one. It emphasizes that these are team elections. Our commonsense, free enterprise conservatives are one team, and the big government socialists are the other team.

A major step in identifying the two teams is having a convention like this. Having a video appearance by Democratic U.S. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was also perfect.

Read more

Newt Gingrich and pollster Rich Baris examine what the data reveals about Generation Z, economic frustration, socialism, and the political battle to reach young Americans.

Subscribe now

For years, political analysts have tried to determine whether younger Americans are becoming more liberal or more conservative. Rich Baris believes they are asking the wrong question. His polling suggests a generation increasingly skeptical of political labels, distrustful of institutions, and frustrated by an economic system they believe makes it harder to get ahead. With home prices and rents dramatically outpacing gains in real earnings, Baris argues that the economic experience of younger Americans is fundamentally shaping their political worldview.

On this episode of Newt’s World, Newt Gingrich talks with Rich Baris, director of Big Data Poll and co-author of Burn It Down: What the Polls Say Young Americans Really Want, about what that frustration could mean for the future of American politics. Their conversation explores the growing appeal of socialism among Democratic voters, Donald Trump’s success with younger voters, the danger of grievance-driven politics, and why Republicans may have to offer something more powerful than opposition to the left. Baris argues that the winning alternative is a politics centered on economic opportunity, national renewal, and a credible belief that Americans who work hard can still build a better life.

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

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

More Newt's World

Newt Gingrich

Rich, you and Josh open the book with an image you call “two movies on one screen,” the idea that Americans are living in radically different economic realities depending on when they were born. What exactly are these two movies, and why has the American experience become so different across generations?

Rich Baris

It comes down to life experience. People can be looking at the same thing and perceive completely different stories.

That chapter is an attempt to get both sides to understand why the other feels the way they do. Baby boomers had a very different economic experience and are now at a different place in their lives. Younger generations have experienced something radically different.

Millennials, for instance, entered adulthood around 9/11. Then, just as they began getting established in the workforce, the financial crisis happened. Many put their faith in Barack Obama and the promise of hope and change, but they became disappointed. Later, the economy began changing under President Trump, and then COVID hit.

Older generations were generally more secure in their economic position. Younger generations often feel as though they have repeatedly been pushed back to the starting line.

When we try to understand why people view the world differently, we often fail to take those experiences into account. We may be watching the same movie, but we are seeing it from completely different points of view.

Newt Gingrich

Historically, people accumulated wealth throughout their lives, so older people were always more likely to have money than younger people. Is the difference dramatically greater today?

Rich Baris

It is.

Younger people have to recognize that some generational wealth difference has always existed. But at the same time, the gap has widened significantly.

What it takes to own a house today is very different from what it took for previous generations. Younger generations are also carrying levels of debt we haven’t seen before.

It is important not to blame one generation for another generation’s circumstances. That isn’t productive, and it doesn’t help us find common ground.

The sooner we realize the problem isn’t between generations, but rather with aspects of the system itself, the sooner we can find areas where people agree and begin moving forward.

Newt Gingrich

You cite some staggering numbers. Since 2000, home prices have gone up 230 percent and rent 143 percent, while real weekly earnings have increased only around 13 percent. Given those facts, it’s not surprising people are angry.

Rich Baris

The numbers back up what younger generations are feeling.

They feel like they began from a different starting position. Before they even entered the workforce, many had already spent years digging a massive financial hole.

Then they hear people tell them, “You just have to work harder,” or criticize them for buying something like a $20 burrito instead of staying home and cooking.

What they’re trying to say is that their money simply doesn’t go as far as it did for previous generations. No matter how hard they work, it doesn’t have the same purchasing power.

The American work ethic is an important part of our identity and something we shouldn’t lose. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean their economic experience isn’t real.

Newt Gingrich

So there is a sense that no matter how hard you work, you’re not going to get ahead.

Rich Baris

Exactly.

That helps explain why younger Americans can become attracted to political messages that previously would have been considered radical.

After a while, if people feel like they’re beating their heads against the wall and not getting ahead, they begin looking for someone who at least speaks to their concerns.

Republicans have to be very careful about this. If younger voters feel like you’re not paying attention to their needs or grievances, they will start looking somewhere else.

Newt Gingrich

I recently received an email from somebody canvassing in Michigan. They were visiting mobile home communities that had been strongly pro-Trump and were startled to see signs for a radical Democrat.

The explanation seemed to be that this candidate was as angry about the status quo as Trump had been. Voters were looking for somebody who expressed their anger that the system isn’t working. I found that very sobering.

Rich Baris

That was part of Donald Trump’s political appeal that the political class had difficulty understanding.

They focused on his style and personality and missed the fact that he spoke directly to people’s needs and concerns.

There’s a great divide between the ruling class in Washington and the rest of the country. We’ve talked about it for years, but economic frustration is reaching a point where it is beginning to boil over.

Elections can serve as a way to depressurize society. But when election after election comes and people’s grievances still aren’t addressed, that pressure continues to build.

Ultimately, this comes down to the cost of living. Republicans need to focus on that like a laser beam.

For many voters, words such as “socialism” and “communism” simply aren’t as frightening as the prospect of being unable to meet their basic needs or build wealth.

Newt Gingrich

Some conservative analysts argue that younger Americans, particularly Generation Z, are more conservative than we think. Your polling doesn’t really show that. What’s the actual story?

Rich Baris

It doesn’t show that.

There are some encouraging signs for the right in areas such as religiosity and church attendance among portions of Generation Z. But the broader trend is different.

A growing number of younger voters identify themselves as moderates. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re moderate by traditional ideological standards.

It often means they reject labels and institutions. They don’t want to call themselves liberal because they associate that with Democrats and the left, and they don’t want to call themselves conservative because they associate that with Republicans and the right.

So they choose “moderate.”

But many of them still hold views that would traditionally be considered quite radical.

Newt Gingrich

There is also a growing sense that the country is unhappy and that, despite efforts to change things, we haven’t really turned a corner on that unhappiness. Does that fit what you’re seeing?

Rich Baris

It does.

I don’t think it’s fair to put everything on one person or one president. I think this is ultimately about the system itself.

Younger Americans wanted a radical change in the trajectory of society and government. Many put faith in institutions and then felt those institutions let them down.

Economics plays an enormous role. People are happier when they feel things are going well, when they can meet their needs, and when they believe the rules allow them to work hard and get ahead.

Money may not buy happiness, but it can remove the stress of constantly worrying about whether you can meet your basic needs.

Newt Gingrich

You and Josh coined the term “ledger politics” for one of the darker roads America could take, a politics built around keeping score of grievances. Walk us through that.

Rich Baris

The book essentially argues that there are two competing roads.

One is based on national renewal and economic prosperity, the idea that a rising tide can lift all boats.

The other is based on grievances.

When the promises of left-wing populism fail, somebody has to be blamed. You begin creating lists of grievances and identifying groups within society that supposedly caused your problems.

If you can’t meet your needs, it’s their fault. If trade policy isn’t benefiting you, it’s their fault. If there are racial tensions, it’s somebody else’s fault.

Those grievances accumulate, and eventually that becomes destabilizing for society.

The question is which road Americans will choose.

Newt Gingrich

One of the clearest examples right now is the growth of the Democratic Socialists of America. Bernie Sanders’ open advocacy of socialism has become dramatically more acceptable on the left.

What does your polling show?

Rich Baris

In 2020, before Super Tuesday, we asked Democratic primary voters whether they identified as Democratic socialists, traditional liberals, or socialists.

At the time, about 40 percent called themselves Democratic socialists.

As of roughly September 2026, the combined number identifying with some form of socialism is around two-thirds. Between 52 and 55 percent call themselves Democratic socialists, with another roughly 10 percent calling themselves socialists.

Traditional liberals are typically only around 12 to 15 percent.

That’s a huge transformation, and it raises an important question about the future of the Democratic Party.

Newt Gingrich

If the change is that significant, how do leaders such as Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Hakeem Jeffries in the House govern a party that has moved that far to the left?

Rich Baris

I’m not sure they can over the long term.

The Democratic establishment still has considerable power, and groups such as the DSA don’t yet have enough votes or financial resources to take over the party.

But little by little, over the next five to 10 years, I think the establishment wing is likely to lose that fight.

There are still major disagreements within the coalition, including economic policy and Israel, and those divisions involve significant donors and institutional power.

But ultimately, voters have a tendency to force political parties to respond to them. We saw that happen when Republican voters forced the party to accept Donald Trump.

If Democratic leaders don’t respond to what their voters want, their voters may eventually force the change as well.

Newt Gingrich

Socialism has historically produced disastrous results, yet it keeps returning as an attractive alternative. Why?

Rich Baris

There are several reasons.

First, the left has been very effective at rebranding it. “Democratic socialism” itself has been an enormously successful political rebrand.

Second, advocates can point toward European countries and argue that their systems work, without necessarily acknowledging the larger context surrounding those systems.

But the third reason may be the most important today.

People feel that government and institutions aren’t addressing their basic needs. When people are angry, dissatisfied, or desperate, political movements that promise to address those frustrations become much more attractive.

Younger generations also weren’t taught to fear socialism in the way previous generations were. They don’t automatically see the word as representing a catastrophic economic system.

Even when some understand the risks, their frustration with the current system can outweigh those concerns.

Newt Gingrich

Can the Democratic Socialists of America make the transition from a protest movement into a governing force inside the Democratic Party?

Rich Baris

Not in the immediate future.

The Democratic establishment still has too much power, and the DSA doesn’t yet have the financial resources it would need.

But over five to 10 years, I think it’s possible.

If the establishment repeatedly fails to deliver what these voters want, the voters themselves will eventually force the party to change.

Newt Gingrich

Looking at this year’s election, could anger over the cost of living overwhelm the traditional Republican argument against socialism?

If Republicans are talking about the dangers of socialism while Democrats are telling voters they shouldn’t have to pay so much for food, which argument wins?

Rich Baris

That may be the question of this election cycle.

You can’t reteach people an entire political philosophy in a few weeks. Republicans have to meet people’s needs.

Parents are worried about groceries, back-to-school supplies, clothing for their children, car payments, mortgages, and basic household bills.

It’s going to be very difficult to persuade somebody with an ideological argument when they’re worried about paying their bills.

Republicans have to speak directly to those needs. If they don’t, the anger could overwhelm them.

The larger ideological fight has to take place over the long term. Right now, voters need to hear how you’re going to improve their lives.

Newt Gingrich

You write that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. What is the current rhyme?

Rich Baris

Donald Trump was, in many ways, a reaction to Barack Obama.

Obama came into office promising hope, change, and a different path. When voters felt that promise wasn’t fulfilled, the country eventually turned to Donald Trump.

We could see the equivalent happen in the other direction.

If the right doesn’t rise to the occasion and address people’s needs, voters could eventually turn toward a much more radical left-wing figure.

Think about the voters who once supported Obama and later supported Trump. Iowa used to be difficult for Republicans. Ohio was once the quintessential battleground state. Donald Trump changed that political map.

The warning to Republicans is simple: Don’t assume the same kind of transformation couldn’t happen to you.

History rhymes.

Newt Gingrich

You also talk about “ladder politics.” What do you mean by that?

Rich Baris

At the core is the idea that political change happens as people move through a process.

One generation feels like it has gone through that political and economic maturation process and climbed the ladder.

Another feels like it can’t even get onto the first rung.

Until people believe they have an opportunity to climb that ladder, we’re going to continue seeing these dramatic political swings.

Newt Gingrich

You warn that Republicans aren’t going to be able to “out-resent” the left. What does that mean?

Rich Baris

People on the right generally want to live their lives in an environment where government works, the economy works, and they have an opportunity to succeed.

Resentment politics fits the worldview of the left differently. When the right tries to imitate it, it often becomes a process of purification through subtraction rather than coalition building.

The right can’t beat the left at its own game.

Newt Gingrich

Does the right, in that sense, have to offer hope where the left offers anger?

Rich Baris

Exactly.

The right is at its best when it is true to itself and looks toward national revival and lifting everybody up.

Donald Trump’s 2024 coalition was impressive among younger and nonwhite voters because that message felt authentic to them.

When I see a Republican increasing support in urban communities while still dominating rural areas, I don’t simply see it as a partisan shift. I see somebody finding greater consensus in society.

When there is more consensus and fewer enormous divides between rural and urban Americans, or Black, white, Hispanic, and Asian Americans, you create a more stable society.

That’s the opportunity for the right: offer something positive, believable, and unifying.

Newt Gingrich

Your new book, Burn It Down: What the Polls Say Young Americans Really Want, is an important book for understanding this particular moment in history and particularly important for Republicans trying to understand the challenges they face.

Rich, thank you for joining me.

Rich Baris

Thanks for having me, Mr. Speaker. It was an honor.

Refer a friend

About the Guest

Rich Baris is the director of Big Data Poll and host of Inside the Numbers with the People’s Pundit. He was the only national and state pollster to correctly forecast Donald Trump’s 306 electoral votes in 2016 and was recognized as one of the most accurate national pollsters of the 2024 election. His analysis has appeared in RealClearPolitics, Fox News, Newsmax, The Hill, Decision Desk HQ, and Real America’s Voice.

Baris is the co-author, with Joshua Lisec, of Burn It Down: What the Polls Say Young Americans Really Want, which examines polling and research on Generation Z, political identity, economic frustration, and the future of American politics. The book is scheduled for release September 22.

More Newt's World

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 Way to Lose” By Mark Steyn: On the 25th anniversary of 9/11, Mark Steyn revisits a column he wrote in 2002 warning that America and the West risked losing the broader conflict with radical Islam not on the battlefield, but culturally. Steyn argues that Western leaders and institutions were unwilling to clearly identify radical Islamism as the enemy, instead embracing a form of multiculturalism that emphasized tolerance, discouraged assigning blame, and often focused more heavily on perceived Western intolerance. He points to post-9/11 education, media, religious institutions, and President George W. Bush’s repeated insistence that “Islam is peace” as examples of what he considered a failure to make the moral and ideological case for the West. Steyn’s central argument is that military strength alone cannot win a long-term conflict if a civilization lacks confidence in its own values. Looking back 25 years later, he maintains that the warning was justified: Islamist movements may have been militarily weaker, but they possessed greater cultural confidence, while Western institutions increasingly struggled to defend their own civilization, liberal democracy, and rule of law.

Read more

Newt Gingrich and David Bahnsen Explore a Different Way to Think About Investing, Profits, and Long-Term Wealth.

Subscribe now

Markets reward innovation, but they can also reward speculation, herd behavior, and the temptation to chase whatever happens to be rising at the moment. In his new book, Profit From the Profit: The Past, Present, and Future of Dividend Growth Investing, David Bahnsen argues that investors should return to a more fundamental question: What does it actually mean to own a business?

On this episode of Newt’s World, Newt Gingrich talks with Bahnsen about the philosophy behind dividend growth investing, the lessons of the dot-com collapse, today’s artificial intelligence boom, and why even extraordinary companies can become poor investments when valuations become disconnected from reality. Their conversation moves beyond picking stocks to explore human nature, work, ownership, patience, and the remarkable ability of profitable businesses to create wealth over time.

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

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

More Newt's World

Newt Gingrich

You’ve been on the show twice before, but this is a brand-new book and essentially a sequel to The Case for Dividend Growth, which came out in 2019. What changed in the markets, in your thinking, or in your own experience that made you feel this argument needed to be revisited now?

David Bahnsen

My thinking and the philosophy behind what I believe did not change. But seven years of additional development in markets, the entire COVID moment, and the entire AI moment have all taken place since that book came out.

Good philosophies and good first principles require ongoing application and revisiting. That’s really why the sequel was written, to update the thesis and review it in the context of the world we live in now.

Newt Gingrich

You began investing in the second half of the 1990s, and you went into professional money management just as the tech bubble was imploding. What did that wild ride teach you?

David Bahnsen

It taught me that our profession was very attracted to selling what didn’t need to be sold. People presented the things people wanted to buy, and that was a great way to blow up a career, but it was also immoral.

If you’re going to take a fee to give advice, you had better believe in the advice you’re giving.

It taught me to avoid bubbles. It taught me to avoid the mania of the moment, even if it alienated me from people who wanted to participate in those things. It was my moral and professional duty to help them avoid it.

Newt Gingrich

You talk in the book about the difference between an investment strategy and an investment philosophy. What is the difference, and why does it matter?

David Bahnsen

Supply-side economics is a philosophy that believes in promoting incentives and removing disincentives to promote production in the economy. Reducing marginal tax rates is a strategy. It’s a way in which you apply the philosophy.

I view my philosophy as this: You create value in public equities by producing goods and services profitably. It is a byproduct of human action, and it is not zero-sum.

Dividend growth is the strategy. But I have to start with the first principles of where that strategy comes from.

The philosophy is that humankind is constantly capable of generating profits. That’s where dividends come from, and that’s where investor returns come from.

Newt Gingrich

Given your model, doesn’t it actually lead to an optimistic belief that there are always new ideas, new technologies, and new opportunities?

David Bahnsen

It very much does. That philosophy derives from my belief that human wants and needs are unlimited, and therefore the solutions to those wants and needs are unlimited.

I believe we’re made to constantly produce, innovate, and create. If someone wants to say that, after thousands of years, we’re now hitting the wall on human ingenuity, they’re welcome to say it. But I’ll take the other side of that bet all day.

Newt Gingrich

You say you don’t buy the stock to get the dividend. You buy the dividend to get the stock. What does that mean?

David Bahnsen

There are people who would interpret dividend growth investing as saying the benefit is simply the cash coming from a company.

What I’m saying is that behind the dividend is the source of the wealth. You own the company.

The dividend is not the ultimate purpose. The company is what you want, but the dividend is the fruit of it and the evidence of it.

You can’t get a repeatable, sustainable dividend without a great company behind it. What I want is to buy great companies. By limiting my search to the dividend, I’m looking for businesses capable of sustainably producing profits and returning capital to shareholders.

Newt Gingrich

Young investors are often told to take more risk and chase growth while they’re young, then worry about income and dividends when they’re approaching retirement. You argue that’s mathematically and historically flawed. Why?

David Bahnsen

A lot of it deals with human psychology and this notion that young people are going to time their entry well and time their exit well.

When something is still working, don’t you feel tempted to ride it out a little longer? Yet if something goes up dramatically and then falls 50%, you’ve given up an awful lot of that return very quickly.

History has not been kind to those who have played timing games with this stuff.

There are companies I’ve owned that are now paying me 30% per year on what I paid for the stock two decades ago. They weren’t high flyers. They were normal compounders operating in this wonderful U.S. economy.

I think that’s a great story for young people.

Newt Gingrich

You make the point that Cisco’s stock collapsed during the dot-com era even though the company continued earning a tremendous amount of money. What happened?

David Bahnsen

Cisco’s operating earnings only went down in the year 2000, and yet the stock went down 90%.

They were simply too expensive at the peak of 1999 and early 2000.

You can have a company bought at the wrong time that performs very well, yet based on your entry point, it becomes mathematically very difficult to make money.

Microsoft was essentially flat from 2000 to 2016 despite its dominance in enterprise software. Intel was flat. The NASDAQ was flat for 16 years.

And this was during one of the most innovative periods for technology in human history: the internet, cloud computing, and social media.

Entry price and valuation matter.

Newt Gingrich

You manage about 35 stocks. What does that discipline look like in practice?

David Bahnsen

It’s a very research-intensive, bottom-up approach.

You have to respond to what has happened in the news. During earnings season, companies release quarterly results and give forward guidance. There may be numerous analysts releasing research on these companies.

We have new money coming into our firm every day, so we’re continually deploying money into markets. At our size, we have to be meticulous about how we’re doing that.

Newt Gingrich

You close the book with a Charlie Munger line that the big money isn’t in the buying and selling. It’s in the waiting. What does that mean?

David Bahnsen

As an investor, you’re allowing markets to work. You’re allowing company management to work. You’re allowing market forces to play out.

Whether it’s McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, or smaller companies, you’re looking at human needs that aren’t going away.

The returns that can come from waiting for all of this to play out can be incredible.

You do not have to be Elon Musk to generate wealth. You can buy dividend growth companies and wait for markets to do what they do. It’s a beautiful thing.

Refer a friend

About the Guest

David Bahnsen is the founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group, a private wealth management firm managing billions of dollars in client capital. He previously served as a senior portfolio manager and managing director at Morgan Stanley. Bahnsen is a frequent financial media contributor, writes The Dividend Cafe, and hosts Capital Record for National Review.

His latest book, Profit From the Profit: The Past, Present, and Future of Dividend Growth Investing, builds on his earlier bestseller, The Case for Dividend Growth, and examines the philosophy and practice of owning profitable companies for long-term wealth creation.

More 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 and former Federal Reserve Bank President Thomas Hoenig examine how the national debt doubled in less than a decade and what it will take to change course.

Subscribe now

The federal debt has crossed $40 trillion, reaching a milestone few Americans could have imagined only a generation ago. Even more troubling is how quickly it happened. In this episode of Newt’s World, Newt Gingrich sits down with economist Thomas Hoenig, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and former vice chairman of the FDIC, to examine how decades of federal spending, borrowing, and extraordinarily easy monetary policy helped create the situation America faces today.

Hoenig argues that the problem goes far beyond a number on the federal balance sheet. As interest payments consume a growing share of federal resources, government borrowing competes with private investment, inflation threatens purchasing power, and future generations inherit the consequences of decisions made today. Yet the conversation is not simply a warning. Gingrich and Hoenig look to periods after World War II and during the balanced-budget years of the 1990s as evidence that America can change direction. The question is whether political leaders can build the public understanding and discipline necessary to do it before $40 trillion becomes $50 trillion.

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

Can America Balance the Budget Again?

This conversation is part of a much larger question about America’s fiscal future. Explore We Can Balance the Budget Again, a Gingrich 360 collection featuring Newt Gingrich’s conversations on balancing the federal budget, lessons from the balanced-budget years of the 1990s, and a practical budget workbook that lets you examine the choices Washington faces.

Explore We Can Balance the Budget Again →

Edited Transcript

This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

More Newt's World

Newt Gingrich

Last week, the federal government’s total debt crossed $40 trillion, a record that arrived months earlier than official forecasters expected and less than a decade after the number stood at $20 trillion.

Net interest on that debt is now running above $1 trillion a year, more than the federal government spends on national defense or Medicare. It shows up far beyond Washington’s ledger in mortgage rates, car loans, and the shrinking room Congress has to do much of anything else.

To explain how we got here, I’m joined by Thomas Hoenig, who spent 38 years at the Federal Reserve, including two decades as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and later served as vice chairman of the FDIC.

Tom, when you see the nation’s debt growing as rapidly as it has since 2010, how do you analyze that?

Thomas Hoenig

Unfortunately, I think part of it is the fact that Congress got used to the Federal Reserve accommodating it by suppressing interest rates for well over a decade, making the ability to borrow inexpensive.

When you can borrow without limit, increase entitlements and spending, and not feel the immediate consequences, you become used to that.

Following the Great Financial Crisis, we engaged in massive spending programs, and the Fed accommodated that with quantitative easing. Even as the economy recovered, the Fed continued buying tens of billions of dollars of Treasury debt and keeping rates very low.

Then COVID came, along with enormous spending programs. Even as the pandemic receded and the economy recovered, the Fed continued buying $120 billion of new debt every month.

The government could spend freely, and the Fed accommodated that.

Now Congress continues to spend well beyond what it brings in through revenue. We have $40 trillion in debt, and if we continue at this pace, we will have more than $50 trillion in five years.

We have to change our habits. We have to spend less, raise revenue somehow, or both.

Newt Gingrich

If the Fed had been more restrictive over the last 30 years and therefore forced Congress to pay more attention, would that have led to a series of recessions? What would the real-world economic impact have been?

Thomas Hoenig

I think a more cautious Federal Reserve would have produced better outcomes in the long run.

If the Fed had made it clear after the financial crisis that it was not going to continue monetizing the debt through large quantitative easing programs, it would have forced Congress to address its responsibilities.

Look at two periods when Congress stepped up. After World War II, the deficit and debt declined. Then from the mid-1990s to 2000, the debt declined again. The economy did well during both periods.

Real growth averaged around 4 percent, roughly double what we expect today if we get 2 percent.

After World War II, debt was around 120 percent of GDP, and we brought it down carefully. We could do it again.

Newt Gingrich

You get a crowding-out effect where the government is absorbing capital to sustain the debt that otherwise could have gone toward investment in new products and services. Is that a fair concern?

Thomas Hoenig

Yes. With the competition today for private capital, including AI investments and rebuilding manufacturing in this country, you have competition between the government and private sector.

If you don’t address the debt and deficit, crowding out has to take place, or you have massive inflation if the Fed monetizes that debt.

We have to think longer term and ask how we bring this debt under control in a sensible way over time. You don’t want to put the economy into a terrible crash, but you do have to act.

Newt Gingrich

I look back at the four balanced budgets we achieved in the 1990s. Alan Greenspan was actually testifying that they thought we could pay off the federal debt by 2009.

It’s difficult for me to understand how we went from that trajectory to such a dramatic shift toward fiscal irresponsibility.

Thomas Hoenig

We had a surplus, and then we decided to do more in terms of social programs. They may be well-intended, but they aren’t free.

You have to pay for them. You either raise taxes or borrow money. The choice was to borrow because the Fed enabled borrowing at very low rates.

Now we are beginning to see the consequences.

We keep doing things that put salve on the wound instead of healing the wound. We have to think differently.

Newt Gingrich

You’ve also raised questions about the decision more than half a century ago to go off the gold standard. Why does that moment still matter today?

Thomas Hoenig

We went off the gold standard while we were spending more than we were taking in. We had the Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Countries were redeeming their dollars for gold, and we feared running out of gold.

When we abandoned the gold standard, we gave up an external discipline on Congress, the administration, and the Federal Reserve.

We then gave the Federal Open Market Committee authority over how much money to create. That made monetary policy more vulnerable to political pressure.

Over time, that allowed debt monetization to grow, and it accelerated dramatically after the Great Financial Crisis through quantitative easing.

Newt Gingrich

In a democracy, isn’t the political bias almost always going to favor inflation rather than tightening the belt?

Thomas Hoenig

Absolutely. The nature of the political system is short-term.

We tell ourselves we’ll get through this period and take care of the problem later. But that period never comes because there is always another reason to spend.

If you reduce taxes, you have to make sure spending is in line with that. If you increase spending, you have to find the revenue.

Instead, the easy road is borrowing money and then printing money to fund it. Those short-term decisions lead to inflation and threaten long-term decline.

Newt Gingrich

You’ve pointed out that Japan’s debt is largely held internally, while the United States sells bonds around the world. Is that a significant difference?

Thomas Hoenig

Yes. Japan has large internal debt, but it also has a large external surplus.

The United States runs significant trade and current account deficits. We buy the rest of the world’s goods, and we depend on the rest of the world to buy our debt.

We are also the world’s reserve currency. That privilege can become a curse because it allows us to be irresponsible for longer periods of time.

Newt Gingrich

Is there a parallel between what we’re seeing and the gradual decline of the British pound?

Thomas Hoenig

In a sense, yes.

As Britain fought two world wars and its empire shrank, its ability to fund its debt and grow came under pressure. The United States became the dominant economic force, and the dollar became the dominant currency.

China is nowhere near ready to become the world’s reserve currency. It has capital controls and other limitations. But look at how far China has come industrially in one generation.

Don’t underestimate what could happen in the next generation. We should correct our own habits so the United States remains the natural economic leader of the world rather than undermining the value of our currency.

Newt Gingrich

At this level, the debt may not mean an immediate financial crisis, but it can steadily weaken the system.

Would your primary focus be to profoundly reform spending?

Thomas Hoenig

That’s the only solution.

It requires leadership in Congress, politics, and the Federal Reserve to explain the problem clearly and persistently to the American public.

We need to reform our spending. If we don’t, we will spend ourselves into a crisis.

I remember the Contract with America. Everyone knew about it. They understood it and knew where it was going. It was difficult, but it was accepted because it was explained.

When the American people understand the problem and the sacrifices required, they can accept reform. But it has to be shared sacrifice.

Newt Gingrich

That requires a serious national conversation about the mess we’re in. Before getting into every detail of how to solve it, we have to establish the principles for getting out of it and build a public consensus.

We have to have a conversation with ourselves as a people before we can expect politicians to take the steps they’re going to need to take.

Thomas Hoenig

I fully agree.

I can go almost anywhere in the country and convince people that we need to address the deficit. They agree until you mention something that affects them.

That’s because people think they have to sacrifice alone. They don’t.

We all have to participate. There has to be sacrifice on everyone’s part, and importantly, it has to include the spending side.

We have to establish our priorities, find compromises, and begin addressing our national problem.

Newt Gingrich

Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh has said restoring inflation to the Fed’s 2 percent target is among his highest priorities.

Is 2 percent the right target, or should zero inflation be the target?

Thomas Hoenig

Two percent inflation is not stable prices.

The law says the Federal Reserve should pursue stable prices. Two percent inflation systematically devalues your currency over time.

Zero inflation over time should be the goal. If you’re a little under for a while and a little over for a while, that’s perfectly okay.

Mild deflation can temporarily increase a wage earner’s purchasing power rather than producing a consistent decline in purchasing power.

If you get inflation to that level and bring the debt down, businesses have more confidence to invest. You can get better growth.

That’s part of why I think we saw roughly 4 percent growth during the latter part of the 1990s as the debt came down and we reached a surplus. It didn’t turn into a recession. It turned into growth.

Newt Gingrich

The debt is on a pace to reach roughly $50 trillion without a change, which means interest payments will continue rising.

Can we bend the curve before we reach $50 trillion, or will it take a major crisis?

Thomas Hoenig

I think we can bend the curve if Congress decides to do so.

If Congress, the administration, and the Federal Reserve decide to act, we can bend the curve.

One goal that has been discussed is getting the deficit down from 6 percent of GDP to 3 percent. If you can do that, I think you would do a great deal to get the growth rate above 2 percent and begin growing your way out.

You don’t have to do it overnight.

When things start going in the right direction, success can snowball. Right now, we’re snowballing toward $50 trillion in less than five years.

We need to bend the curve, and we can if we choose to do so.

Newt Gingrich

One thing you’ve inspired me to think more about is what all of this means for a 20-year-old.

The amount younger Americans are going to pay in interest on the debt during their lifetimes is part of the affordability problem. We need to help them understand the burden their elders have placed on them and why getting the budget under control matters.

Tom, thank you for joining me.

Thomas Hoenig

It’s the 20-year-olds who have to understand this and become part of the public that convinces Congress to correct its ways.

Thank you for having me. I’ve really enjoyed it.

Refer a friend

About the Guest

Thomas Hoenig spent 38 years at the Federal Reserve, serving as president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1991 to 2011 and as a member of the Federal Open Market Committee throughout his tenure. From 2012 to 2018, he served as vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, where he oversaw bank supervision, deposit insurance pricing, and financial stability.

Hoenig holds a Ph.D. in economics from Iowa State University and is a distinguished senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He also writes the FinRegRag newsletter on Substack.

More Newt's World

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

Democratic U.S. Sen. John Fetterman’s brief opening video message may have been the most historically significant event of the first evening of the GOP midterm convention.

Subscribe now

The Pennsylvania Senator’s hostility to the anti-Israel, anti-national security, anti-common sense elements that now dominate his party led him to contribute to this first-ever Republican event.

Fetterman’s talk was notable for three reasons.

First, he’s a Democrat from a key swing state who broke ranks with his own party — and spoke highly about and endorsed his Republican incumbent colleague Dave McCormick. Fetterman’s entire talk was only 64 seconds. It is worth watching.

The key moment was Fetterman’s explanation for why he was participating in the event and endorsing a Republican.

“Why am I here talking to you today? Because, well, I’m a commonsense Democrat. I’m always going to stand with America,” Fetterman said.

“I’m always going to reject the extremes, and socialism, and that anti-American way of life. Dave McCormick is the kind of senator that gets the job done. And he’s going to fight for Pennsylvania.”

Fetterman’s bold statement gives every Republican a Democrat he or she can quote to prove this rejection of socialism is not a solely partisan view. Furthermore, Fetterman’s embrace of Sen. McCormick is a good example of bipartisanship and the potential to build a new coalition around commonsense conservative values, free enterprise, and national security.

Fetterman’s appearance is part of a 42-year tradition which includes former Sen. Zell Miller, who endorsed President George W. Bush in 2004, and Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s endorsement of President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

All three explained their decisions to reject the Democrats and endorse Republicans as a belief that country and principle take precedence over party line loyalty.

Give a gift subscription

Ambassador Kirkpatrick was a brilliant intellectual who had been a major adviser to Sen. Hubert Humphrey. She was dismayed and then alienated by the anti-war Democrats, the weakness of President Jimmy Carter, and the inability of the left to oppose communism or understand how it threatened their lives. She emphasized in her convention speech that she was a lifelong Democrat and she would remain one. But first, she characterized the emerging party of former Vice President Walter Mondale as “San Francisco Democrats.” She went on in a powerful repetitive drumbeat of specific examples of the Democrats’ destructive behaviors and saying, “But then, they always blame America first.”

This notion of blaming America first became one of the definitive patterns of big government socialism and the radical left. You see it every day in Democratic rhetoric and analysis — including some Democrats who have blamed America’s own policies for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

I knew Miller since he was a young state senator in 1964. He was always a staunch conservative Democrat. He was deeply shaped by the Marine Corps and wrote a book: “Corps Values: Everything You Need to Know I Learned in the Marine Corps,” which published in 1996. As governor of Georgia, he lived in Atlanta. He told me once that he assumed I exaggerated about how bad the Senate Democrats were in Washington. After a couple of years in D.C., he invited me to breakfast to apologize. Miller had concluded the Democrats were actually worse than I had described.

He got so frustrated he wrote a book defining the limits of his commitment to the Democratic Party: “A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat.”

When Miller endorsed President Bush, he spent a large part of his speech emphasizing how far the Democrats had come from the strong national security positions of Presidents Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. In a theme that many Democrats have found useful, Miller asked: “What has happened to the Party I’ve spent my life working in?”

Miller took his party’s nominee and just went after him. Over more than two decades, he said, Sen. John Kerry had become “more wrong, more weak, and more wobbly.” Miller explained his own clear personal political structure. First came his family, then the United States and its security. Only after those were satisfied would Miller consider partisan issues.

The role of weakness in national security, confusion about who America’s friends and enemies are, and hostility toward the military and police forces we need to be safe all came together and drove these Democrats to endorse Republicans.

As people learn more about the big government socialists and their allies, there will be more Fettermans, Millers, and Kirkpatricks supporting the GOP as America’s party.

Refer a friend

How to Win 2026

The 2026 midterms could be a defining moment for America. Follow Newt Gingrich and Gingrich 360’s latest columns and analysis on the ideas, policies, and strategies Republicans need to win the big arguments, grow the American majority, and deliver real results for the American people.

How to Win 2026 is part of a larger effort to identify the ideas, policies, and arguments that can create a lasting American majority.

Explore our latest columns, research, commentary, and analysis on the Republican Opportunity in 2026.

Republican Opportunity

A Special Preorder Offer

Thinking about preordering America’s Golden Age? Now is a great time.

Through September 11, Barnes & Noble members can save 25% on preorders with code PREORDER25, including audiobooks and eBooks. Premium members receive an additional 10% off.

Preorder Now

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

Subscribe now

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich discusses the escalating U.S.-Canada trade dispute, President Donald Trump's efforts to ensure Canada cannot serve as a trans-shipment route for Chinese goods, and his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed at advancing negotiations to end the war in Ukraine on 'The Will Cain Show.'

Refer a friend

How to Win 2026

The 2026 midterms could be a defining moment for America. Follow Newt Gingrich and Gingrich 360’s latest columns and analysis on the ideas, policies, and strategies Republicans need to win the big arguments, grow the American majority, and deliver real results for the American people.

How to Win 2026 is part of a larger effort to identify the ideas, policies, and arguments that can create a lasting American majority.

Explore our latest columns, research, commentary, and analysis on the Republican Opportunity in 2026.

Republican Opportunity

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

Subscribe now

Voters face a monumental choice between traditional American free enterprise and big government socialism, Newt Gingrich warns Larry Kudlow. Speaking live from the GOP midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, Gingrich predicts a highly energized base of thousands of Republicans will spread across the nation to repudiate radical left-wing policies at the ballot box.

Refer a friend

How to Win 2026

The 2026 midterms could be a defining moment for America. Follow Newt Gingrich and Gingrich 360’s latest columns and analysis on the ideas, policies, and strategies Republicans need to win the big arguments, grow the American majority, and deliver real results for the American people.

How to Win 2026 is part of a larger effort to identify the ideas, policies, and arguments that can create a lasting American majority.

Explore our latest columns, research, commentary, and analysis on the Republican Opportunity in 2026.

Republican Opportunity

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