Wednesday, February 25, 2026

To the Left, the ‘Blue State Model’ Is About Much More Than Economics

By Noah Rothman

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

 

It’s too nascent to call it a paradigm shift, but the intellectual trends on the elite center-left that Jim chronicled this morning are certainly gratifying. If the New York Times opinion pages and longtime CNN analyst Fareed Zakaria have summoned the courage to identify the crippling failures of governance attributable to the “blue state model,” you can bet they’re speaking for many more who have reached the same conclusion but lack the courage to give voice to it.

 

The audience that would benefit most from this challenge to their ideological preconceptions and policy preferences is, however, unlikely to encounter these arguments. They’re too busy arguing with one another over the relative virtue of letting homeless people defecate in the subways.

 

Dismiss it as an “extremely online” conversation if you like, but the veil that separates our shared reality from the internet’s bedlam is thinner these days. There is something revealing about a discourse in which anything short of toleration for the incontinent unhoused is tantamount to fascism. Ideology is the wrong word for it. Pathology might be more on the nose. But those who are willing to concede that they regard crime as “morally uninteresting” and “excuse” those who commit “theft, violence, etc.” deserve some grudging respect for having the gumption to be as antisocial as they want to be.

 

Moreover, the radical outlook these activists espouse does not depart wildly from the logic that is routinely expressed by the Democratic Party’s leading lights.

 

As I wrote a little over a year ago: “Democratic elected officials at the highest levels of local, state, and federal government excel when they are tasked only with waxing grandiloquent about the metaphysical ills that plague American society. That is their core competency.” It should not surprise anyone that this dynamic has given way to maladministration. Often, the banal demands associated with properly governing a municipality conflict with the priorities of a philosopher who has set out to balance history’s karmic scales.

 

The impetus for that piece was the comprehensive failures at every level of government that produced last January’s historically destructive wildfires in California. Indeed, the same impediments that contributed to that conflagration are now at work thwarting reconstruction. But you don’t need to dive deep into the archives for evidence of progressivism’s myopia. It is apparent in the way the Democratic Party as an institution responded to Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard forces to Washington, D.C., to combat rampant crime by demanding statehood for the district and agonizing over the fate that was about to befall its “homeless encampments.” It’s apparent in New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to encroach on the right of the homeless to roust them even amid a life-threatening cold snap — a position he only revised 19 fatalities later.

 

For the activist class and, perhaps, the institutional stewards beholden to them, quality of life is a concern exclusive to the contemptibly bourgeois. The far left does not understand why its preservation is vital, and they regard those who do as slaves to the pernicious influence of capital. That brings us back to Jim’s item: A certain sort of progressive activist seems to neither understand nor care to understand how money is made.

 

America’s cuddliest socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders, recently provided us with a glimpse at the abject ignorance of which progressives seem so protective:

 

 

Why does America have so many successful businesses? Sanders does not seem to know. He knows American entrepreneurs and industrialists are “smart” and have been “incentivized” by . . . something. But he could not or would not articulate a theory that explains American productivity. Maybe he doesn’t have one. That would not be surprising given the time the senator devotes to grasping onto the latest populist fad so long as that fad frustrates anyone in America who sets out to build, create, develop, cultivate, and deploy.

 

Mamdani’s acolytes and supporters are illustrative of the progressive contempt for the conditions that lead to material prosperity. He appoints officials who cannot conceive of an environment typified by development. In their minds, property is finite and its owners and developers are exploitative. Therefore, the country would be better off if private property were illegal. And if the productive residents of locales such as California and NYC tire of their persecution and seek friendlier climes, their progressive overlords are hard at work thinking up ways in which those refugees can be soaked from afar. With a little more time and industry, the progressive left may invent the Berlin Wall.

 

All of this seems like more cognitive work than is called for. It’s certainly more taxing than returning to the tried-and-true formulas that transform municipalities into desirable destinations to put down roots, raise families, and create profitable enterprises. For a certain sort of activist, though, that would be to abandon the whole suite of progressive shibboleths.

 

If they turn their backs on the public-sector unions, they’ve abandoned organized labor for the rapacious managerial class. If they police quality-of-life crimes, they’re conceding that quality-of-life crimes are a choice rather than the mechanical byproduct of societal inequities, the victims of which sometimes engage in what the statutes brand “crimes” but only out of pure necessity. If they pursue the kind of favorable tax climate that prevails in the states that are draining the coasts of their tax base, they’ve surrendered to the facts of capitalist life that they’ve spent their whole adult lives rebelling against.

 

The debate over the “blue state model,” feces and all, is not a debate over public policy but the very political identities of the model’s believers. Thus, the model will persist, even as an objective failure.

How Anti-Zionists’ Knowledge Deficit Shapes the Gaza Debate

By Seth Mandel

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

 

Buried deep within a Haaretz article about the EU’s anti-Semitism coordinator is an implicit threat of moral blackmail that explains much of the anti-Israel discourse today.

 

The article is a hit piece on Katharina von Schnurbein, the head of the EU’s office of the European Coordinator for Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life. Von Schnurbein is the rare EU official who stands again the otherwise nonstop flood of single-minded Israel condemnation from the union’s officials. Haaretz, and the sources who spoke to the paper for the piece, are putting a bureaucratic target on her back in the hopes that she will be reined in.

 

Von Schnurbein knows that certain criticism of Israel, even when it ostensibly addresses policy, can bleed into anti-Semitic tropes or collective blame. She is therefore a moderating force, but the EU establishment (and Haaretz, apparently) sees her as a threat. Supra-national bodies like the EU and UN thought they had figured out a clever way to lob blood libels at the Jewish state without taking responsibility for them: They would support a network of NGOs and pressure groups who would claim expertise and let those groups, behind a veneer of objectivity, make the harshest accusations.

 

Von Schnurbein undermines this system of criticism-by-catspaw. And former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell used the Haaretz article to make that clear:

 

“In an interview with Haaretz, Borrell warned over ‘inflationary misuse’ of accusations of antisemitism against Israel’s critics.

 

“The Catalonian former chief EU diplomat added that labeling the institutions mandated to uphold international law — including the UN, the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice — as ‘antisemitic’ implies that, by opposing crimes against humanity, you oppose Jews. ‘That is playing into the hands of Jew-haters,’ he says.”

 

And that’s the scam underlying the entire narrative of the Gaza war: Jews cannot defend themselves against spurious accusations of blood-lust because then they’ll be confirming for the world that “Jews” and “crimes against humanity” are synonymous. You see, even in trying to bat away claims of anti-Semitism, these officials cannot help but express anti-Semitic tropes.

 

This is called blackmail. Jews must either accept the libelous denunciations of those who seek their destruction or they will trigger an escalating campaign of libelous denunciations.

 

The tactic of fabricating authority and then appealing to that authority can backfire, however. It has deprived the anti-Israel crowd of their critical-thinking skills, or erased whatever critical-thinking skills they once had.

 

You see this play out daily. Yesterday, for example, Spectator editor Michael Gove debated the “genocide” lie on social media with Green Party head Zack Polanski. Polanski accused Israel of genocide, and Gove responded, correctly, that “Rwanda was a genocide. The Shoah was a genocide. Equating Israel with the Interahamwe or SS is just wicked.”

 

And what was Polanski’s response? “Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Save the Children, the UN, International Association of Genocide Scholars, B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council, Islamic Relief – all say, it’s a genocide.”

 

This is the issue in a nutshell. Gove mentions actual points of history, and Polanski says well these pro-Palestinian pressure groups said so. What’s more, Amnesty International’s attempt to accuse Israel of genocide was very famously a complete disaster for the organization’s credibility.

 

The definition of “genocide” is quite specific; it requires establishing intent and that genocide be the only plausible explanation for a government’s actions. In its report, Amnesty wrote of that definition: “Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.”

 

Amnesty, then, was openly admitting that according to the accepted definition of genocide, Israel could not be found guilty. So the organization changed the definition, specifically for the Jewish state. Thus Amnesty accused Israel of something, but it wasn’t “genocide.”

 

Amnesty was relying on its supporters and financial backers to not know the law or the history. It understands that people like Michael Gove, who know a thing or two about the issue, aren’t its audience. It must count on Zack Polanski and his type—activists who must rely exclusively on “somebody told me” arguments.

 

Amnesty and its ilk must, that is, account for the knowledge gap between Israel’s defenders and the anti-Zionists, who are punching above their intellectual weight class.

 

Here’s another example. I wrote last week about Hamas’s own latest fatality statistics in Gaza. The pro-Israel side understands that the topline number of war dead given by Hamas is just a starting point—that it includes combatants, natural deaths, Hamas-caused deaths of Palestinians, etc. But in order to understand what the Hamas report actually says, you have to know these things, and you have to have the means to calculate the various subcategories. The result is that Israel’s defenders must master the data and develop actual expertise on what happens in a warzone. Israel’s accusers are entirely unable to navigate this terrain, and they aren’t expected to. They are merely expected to parrot what Hamas wants them to say and sneer that to challenge their errors is itself tantamount to a war crime.

 

It would be much better for the anti-Zionists personally to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to thoughtfully and knowledgeably engage on this subject. They just wouldn’t be anti-Zionists anymore.

War With Iran? Not Without Congress.

By Jonah Goldberg

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

 

I might as well say it clearly: I’m for regime change in Iran.

 

The Islamic fanatics who have been running Iran since 1979 are murderers, torturers, and exporters of terrorism. They are despised, or at least unwanted, by most Iranians, and the Iranians who get caught expressing their opinions in this regard end up jailed, tortured, murdered—or all three. Also, the regime has been an avowed and declared enemy of the United States for decades.

 

That checks a lot of boxes for me.

 

There are only really two major boxes left unchecked, as the Trump administration continues to amass in the region the largest concentration of American military power since the Iraq war.

 

The first: Does the administration have a workable plan? In other words, can it succeed in attaining military victory and securing the country afterward?

 

Nobody—at least nobody outside the administration—has any idea. That’s because if President Trump goes through with a full-scale attack, it will have been the single least-debated voluntary war in living memory, if not ever. The declaration of war on Japan, just one day after the Pearl Harbor attacks, was less debated, but for fairly obvious reasons.

 

The second box to check is related to the first: Congress has not had any hearings about going to war in Iran, never mind authorized a war. And we should be clear, Congress’ failure to greenlight a war doesn’t mean the president is free to launch one. It means, as a constitutional matter, a war would be illegal.

 

Think of it this way: If I don’t have your permission to enter your home and take what I want, we’re not in a gray area. The legal default setting is that you don’t have permission to rob a person unless expressly told otherwise.

 

But my point here is not to write the billionth column on Congress’ abdication of its constitutional role or to do my bit in the war on insomnia by offering yet another tedious discussion of the War Powers Act.

 

Rather, it’s to illustrate a different point: If you are in favor of the constitutional process only when you like the results, you aren’t actually in favor of the Constitution.

 

In the debates over Trump’s rogue presidency, defenders—including Trump himself—will often argue that X needed to be done as a way to sidestep the question of whether Trump had the authority to do X.

 

That’s how much of the debate over Trump’s tariffs, and the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn them, went. Trump says the tariffs are good and important, and therefore the court should allow them. When the justices didn’t have his back, Trump slandered the majority by saying they were “swayed by foreign interests.” He also said they were cowards, unpatriotic, dumb, etc.

 

This is the same president who said, “I have great respect for the Supreme Court” not that long ago. What he respects are enablers.

 

Indeed, I’ve long argued that Trump practices “critical Trump theory,” which holds that any individual or institution that inconveniences the president is objectively bad and malignly motivated. The evidence for hating Trump or being unpatriotic (the same thing in his mind) is not bending to his will.

 

This, too, is not a novel insight.

 

My point is that just because Trump—or any president—is pursuing a policy you support without respect to the rules, it will only be a matter of time before he, or the next president, will pursue policies you don’t support in the same manner.

 

In our system, it’s supposed to be hard, and in some cases impossible, for any one branch of government to do very big things without approval by, and cooperation with, at least one other branch.

 

The two examples mentioned here are among the most important and clear. Congress has the power to tax and to declare war, period (and, yes, tariffs are taxes). The president can’t do either without the permission of Congress. Conversely, the legislature has no ability to fight wars or collect taxes. That’s the executive’s job.

 

I thought—and continue to think—that Trump’s tariff policy is economic nonsense on stilts. So you might expect that I’d come out agreeing with the court’s decision. And I do.

 

But I also think it would be a boon to mankind, especially the Iranian and the American people, if we could get rid of the fanatical Iranian regime (at a tolerable cost in lives and treasure).

 

Even if we assume—and that is a huge if and an even bigger assumption—President Trump can do it right, I still think he can’t do it at all without Congress’ approval.

Patel’s Olympics Trip Highlights Trump Administration’s Brazen Indulgence

By Michael Warren

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

 

When I first saw the video Sunday of frequent podcast guest and noted hockey enthusiast Kash Patel (who moonlights as the director of the FBI) guzzling beer in the locker room of the United States men’s national hockey team to celebrate America’s gold medal win in Milan, I immediately thought of Jeff Neely.

 

Even political junkies from the Obama era will likely have forgotten that name. Perhaps more memorable is the image of a bare-chested and grinning Neely, sitting in a hotel room tub with two glasses of red wine perched on a tray and a high-rise view of Las Vegas out the window behind him. At the time the photo was taken in 2009, Neely was a regional commissioner and the acting regional administrator at the General Services Administration, the executive-branch agency that provides support products and services to every other federal department and agency. He and his wife, who was not a GSA employee, were enjoying this suite at the M Resort Spa Casino during a work trip to plan an upcoming conference.

 

The actual conference in 2010 was so expensive and elaborate that it prompted an internal watchdog investigation. Neely’s sumptuous soak was only one of dozens of outrageous expenses documented by the internal report and highlighted by Republicans in Congress after it was published in 2012. There were violations of the GSA’s contracting procedures, excessive spending on food (such as $31,000 on a “networking reception” that served expensive tiny sandwiches and 1,000 sushi rolls, at a total cost of well over $100 per person), questionable giveaways to conference attendees like commemorative coins, and over-the-top talent shows that went far afield of the business purpose of the conference.

 

That probe led to the resignation of the GSA administrator, multiple firings, and even a prison sentence for Neely, who pleaded guilty to making a false claim to the government for his reimbursement. And the embarrassing photo of a senior official from a backwater agency luxuriating on the taxpayers’ dime became a symbol of the excesses of the federal bureaucracy.

 

The jury’s still out, so to speak, on whether any such scrutiny or consequences will face Patel and other Trump administration officials who regularly stretch ethical or prudential boundaries when it comes to using federal resources for private ends. But the list of examples is long and growing longer.

 

Patel’s Italy trip is only the latest instance that raises questions about his blending of the professional and the personal. The official purpose for last week’s transatlantic jaunt is a little unclear. Patel was not a member of Team USA’s official government delegation to either the Olympics opening ceremony (led by Vice President J.D. Vance) in Milan two weeks ago nor to Sunday night’s closing ceremony (led by Education Secretary Linda McMahon). As his spokesman Ben Williamson has posted on social media, Patel had multiple public events and documented meetings, including a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Rome, a meeting with Italian national police officials, and a stop at the joint operations center in Milan where American law enforcement was helping provide security for the Olympics.

 

Yet it certainly seems that Patel, an amateur hockey player in his youth and a superfan of the sport, also traveled to Italy at taxpayer expense in order to watch Team USA’s gold-medal matchup against archrival Canada. In a video posted on social media, supplemented by photos he himself later posted on his personal account, Patel can be seen in the locker room after the 2-1 victory Sunday. The video shows him drinking beer, pounding a table in excitement, and singing a Toby Keith song with the team. At one point, a player places a gold medal around Patel’s neck.

 

This sort of indulgence by an elected official might be merely notable if it didn’t appear to be part of a pattern of Patel blurring the lines between FBI business and his private life. During last year’s government shutdown in October, for instance, an FBI plane carted Patel around on multiple personal trips, the Wall Street Journal first reported. He first flew to a wrestling event in Pennsylvania where his girlfriend, country music singer Alexis Wilkins, performed the national anthem. The next day, the plane traveled from Pennsylvania to Nashville, where Wilkins lives, before eventually flying to Texas, where Patel visited a hunting ranch owned by a Republican donor.

 

And a report from MS NOW in December alleged that FBI security detail assigned to protect Wilkins (already an abnormal use of resources) had been directed to drive “inebriated friends home after a night of partying” in Nashville. Williamson, the FBI spokesman, said those events were “made up and did not happen.”

 

Trump’s first term was rocked by relatively minor scandals of this sort. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price drew scrutiny for his frequent chartering of private jets for official government travel, and Scott Pruitt, Trump’s first Environmental Protection Agency administrator, faced criticism for his use of private jets and first-class travel, excessive spending on his office, abusing his security detail to break traffic laws, and several instances of favor-seeking for friends and family. Both Price and Pruitt eventually resigned their positions thanks in large part to the negative attention these scandals received from not only the media but from congressional Republicans.

 

The second Trump administration is different—not only for the brazenness with which many of its officials seemingly act without concern for even appearances of propriety but also for the lack of interest by congressional Republicans. Consider the string of controversies and problematic stories surrounding Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, from the petty (temporarily firing a pilot for not transferring a preferred blanket to a separate plane) to the more serious (plans for the department to acquire a luxury jet for the secretary’s official travel.)

 

Or how about Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer? She is being investigated by the department’s inspector general for misconduct involving a possible romantic relationship with a member of her security detail and abuse of her office. There are allegations Chavez-DeRemer’s staff was forced to “make up” official trips for the secretary to take so that she can visit family and friends, including multiple trips to—you guessed it—Las Vegas.

 

The GSA scandal is hardly the best analogy to Patel’s penchant for mixing business and pleasure. In fact, one of his predecessors in the job, William Sessions, faced an internal ethics investigation into his own use of an FBI plane for personal trips, with officials in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations admonishing him for poor judgment. Clinton eventually fired Sessions after he refused to resign.

 

If anyone is expecting Trump to make a similar judgment that Patel’s unprofessional use of his official position to augment his personal life is a fireable offense, don’t count on it. After all, when the president made his postgame call to the American hockey team to congratulate the players, it was Patel himself holding the phone.

Mexico’s Bold Strike Against Drug Cartels

By Gil Guerra

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

 

Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, popularly known as “El Mencho” and the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), was killed in an operation on Sunday conducted by Mexican security forces. Following the 2016 arrest and eventual extradition to the U.S. of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, El Mencho was the most wanted drug trafficker still operating freely in Mexico, with a $15 million U.S. bounty on his head. His death is being hailed in Washington and Mexico City as a landmark victory in the war against drug cartels.

 

While leaders in both countries have reason to celebrate, they also have reasons to fret. In addition to an ongoing wave of violence and disruption unleashed by CJNG in retaliation for El Mencho’s death, the two pillars of Mexico’s cartel duopoly—CJNG and the rival Sinaloa Cartel—are simultaneously leaderless for the first time in the modern drug war, with no clear historical model for what comes next.

 

Who was El Mencho?

 

Born in 1966 in the avocado country of Michoacán state’s Tierra Caliente, Oseguera dropped out of school after the fifth grade and illegally migrated to California in his teens. His first known brush with the law came in 1986, when he was arrested for possession of stolen property. After being deported from the U.S. following roughly three years in prison for other criminal charges, he took the unusual step of enrolling as a municipal police officer in rural Jalisco state. A TV Azteca assessment later concluded that he was endeavoring to learn the vulnerabilities of Mexican law enforcement from the inside out, knowledge that played a role in his remarkable success in evading capture once he returned to a life of crime.

 

Oseguera married into the González Valencia family, whose 15 siblings had been involved in marijuana and opium trafficking since the 1970s, and built CJNG into one of the most operationally versatile cartels Mexico had seen. The CJNG is known for combining organizational structuring with unfathomable barbarity: A raid on a crematorium in Teuchitlán in March 2025 uncovered a CJNG operation that lured recruits with job ads offering $200 to $600 a week and then put them through 30 days of combat and dismemberment training in a room called “La Carnicería,” or “the Butcher Shop.” Only 30 of 200 recruits are reported to have survived.

 

El Mencho was a central but shadowy presence in the CJNG. Every publicly circulated photograph of him was decades old, and he avoided cultivating the popular legend status of some other cartel figures glorified in narcocorridos, ballads about the exploits of drug smugglers. In past years, rivals scrawled messages claiming he had died of kidney failure; one faction split from CJNG in 2022 on the premise that he was already dead. By the time El Mencho died at the hands of Mexico’s armed forces, CJNG operated across 40 countries and nearly every U.S. state, and through roughly 90 sub-organizations.

 

Tracking a kingpin.

 

Four armed helicopters and two twin-engine planes descended on a ranch near Tapalpa at approximately 7:20 a.m. Sunday, where evidence of El Mencho’s presence had steadily grown recently. U.S. agencies had tracked medical equipment shipments to treat his chronic kidney failure into the Jalisco mountains; the presence of one of his girlfriends helped confirm his safehouse’s exact location.

 

The Mexican army engaged El Mencho’s guards in a firefight that lasted approximately three hours, leaving seven CJNG members, including the kingpin, dead. Two CJNG operatives were arrested, including Audias “El Jardinero” Flores-Silva, the cartel’s most powerful non-family operational leader, who oversaw methamphetamine production, cocaine transport, and weapons procurement. He carried a $5 million bounty from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and was considered a candidate to succeed El Mencho.

 

The army’s account of the operation warrants some scrutiny. Mexican and U.S. security sources have told journalists the decision that Mencho not be taken alive was made beforehand, but one of the biggest questions after El Mencho’s death is why Mexico’s government preferred a dead cartel leader to one who might talk.

 

Charitably, it would be reasonable to assume that the Mexican government determined that keeping him alive would risk a potential CJNG rescue operation or extended reprisals as a way of pressuring the government to release him. In 2020, the Mexican government released El Chapo’s son after determining that the price of keeping him in custody was too high, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum may have been hoping to avoid a similarly embarrassing incident.

 

Viewed more skeptically, the decision could be seen as an attempt to keep El Mencho from revealing dealings and connections between the CJNG and members of Sheinbaum’s political party, Morena.

 

Personal reasons may have also come into play. Omar García Harfuch, the security secretary who oversaw the operation, had reasons to prefer finality: In 2020, CJNG deployed 25 to 28 gunmen to assassinate him on a Mexico City boulevard with .50-caliber Barretts and fragmentation grenades, firing over 400 rounds and wounding him three times. In a show of defiance, García Harfuch tweeted from the hospital. Six years later he got the opportunity to return the favor, with more successful results.

 

Why did Mexico act now?

 

The El Mencho operation was almost certainly the product of a ratcheting pressure campaign from the U.S., which has been intensifying pressure on Mexico to take more aggressive action against cartel figures.

 

The opening salvo came on the first day of the second Trump administration. Executive Order 14157 designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

 

These steps were accompanied by a broad institutional reorientation toward fighting drug cartels. The FBI established a Counter Cartel Coordination Center (C4) to integrate its Criminal Investigation and Counterterrorism divisions, while its approximately 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces took on cartel-related responsibilities alongside their traditional caseload. FISA Section 702 surveillance, which Congress had already expanded to cover counternarcotics in April 2024, became fully applicable to designated cartel networks, meaning any information connected to the designated groups qualified as “foreign intelligence,” even beyond their narcotics activities. The National Counterterrorism Center also pivoted, adding more than 35,000 cartel-linked identities to the classified terrorist database and standing up a new Interagency Fusion Cell to feed intelligence directly to law enforcement in the field.

 

On February 1, President Trump signed 25 percent tariffs on most Mexican imports. A phone call between Trump and Sheinbaum resulted in a one-month delay on the tariffs and Mexico’s first security concession, in the form of sending 10,000 Mexican National Guard troops to the border. Later that month, Mexican officials transferred 29 cartel figures facing charges in Mexico to U.S. custody in a single day.

 

The dispute between the U.S. and Mexico over the administration’s desire for action and Mexican concerns over sovereignty reached a peak in early May when Sheinbaum confirmed that Trump had offered to have the U.S. military “take a leading role” in fighting cartels on Mexican soil. She publicly responded by saying, “Sovereignty cannot be sold,” and Trump shot back, telling reporters Sheinbaum was “so afraid of the cartels she can’t walk.”

 

Sheinbaum’s defiance masked continued concessions. In August, days after the New York Times reported that Trump had secretly signed a Pentagon directive authorizing the use of military force against cartels, Mexico transferred another 26 people to U.S. custody, including Abigael González Valencia, CJNG’s financial architect and El Mencho’s brother-in-law.

 

The most recent inflection point came on January 3, 2026, when U.S. forces entered Venezuela and captured President Nicolás Maduro, who was then arraigned in a Manhattan courtroom on drug charges. Buoyed by the successful capture of Maduro, Trump began raising the matter of American troop deployments in calls with Sheinbaum. Trump’s desire for unilateral American military action in Mexico grew even clearer—in an interview on Fox News five days later, he warned that “we’ve knocked out 97 percent of the drugs coming in by water, and we are going to start now hitting land.”

 

On January 15, the Pentagon launched the Joint Interagency Task Force-Counter Cartel in Tucson, Arizona, under Northern Command. The task force fused military intelligence, the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the DEA, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement into a single targeting operation modeled on the network-mapping methodology used against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Five days later, Mexico delivered a third mass transfer of 37 suspects, for a cumulative total of 92. On February 15, 19 members of SEAL Team 2 arrived at a Mexican naval facility in Campeche to help train Mexican counter-drug forces.

 

One week later, El Mencho was dead.

 

What does this mean for the cartels?

 

For most of the last decade and a half, Mexico’s drug trade has been dominated by a duopoly. In addition to El Mencho’s CJNG, Mexico’s cartel landscape has also been heavily influenced by the older and more established Sinaloa Cartel, which was built by figures like El Chapo Guzmán and Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada.

 

Between them, the two organizations controlled the vast majority of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine entering the United States. Their competition was brutal, but the duopoly formed two poles around which alliances, disputes, and territorial arrangements organized themselves.

 

That structure has been shaken by recent law enforcement action targeting the leadership of both cartels. The Sinaloa Cartel was hit first—in July 2024, El Chapo’s son Joaquín Guzmán López lured Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada to a meeting before incapacitating him and flying them both to U.S. custody in New Mexico on a private plane. This triggered a destructive internal war, pitting two Sinaloa Cartel factions against each other and leaving almost 2,000 dead and another 2,000 missing. U.S. courts gave El Mayo life without parole and hit him with $15 billion in forfeiture, one of the largest in DOJ history. As a result of El Mayo’s capture and the internal fighting, the Sinaloa Cartel is thought to have lost 30 of its 42 trafficking routes.

 

Only a few weeks before the Tapalpa raid, García Harfuch told reporters: “For many years, Mexico and the United States targeted only one drug trafficker. And what changed? Nothing.”

 

Every prior cartel disruption in modern Mexican history occurred with at least one top-tier organization intact, providing a grim but real anchor of stability. With El Mencho dead, that condition may no longer hold. CJNG’s own succession crisis is acute, but the picture is more complicated than a pending collapse. The retaliation waged by cartel members itself should give pause to anyone predicting a rapid disintegration or fragmentation: Road blockades from the U.S. border to Puebla and Oaxaca, coordinated across at least 15 states within hours, suggest a high degree of centralization and unit loyalty.

 

What comes next?

 

In the best-case scenario, the Mexican government will be able to leverage the unprecedented assistance and focus from the U.S. and permanently shatter the power structures of Mexico’s two largest cartels. In the worst-case scenario, the process of trying to accomplish this may result in a CJNG that is fragmented but not crushed, triggering a new wave of mass violence in Mexico as internal CJNG factions vie for control over the organization and dozens of regional criminal groups consolidate and fight among themselves in an attempt to capitalize on the weakness of the CJNG and the Sinaloa Cartel. The violence that comes from this fighting will be less viral than the initial CJNG retaliation—and harder to stop.

 

This summer’s World Cup will be the first major test of whether Mexico is capable of imposing a monopoly on violence within its borders. Estadio Akron, located in the same Zapopan municipality where cartel forces killed six National Guard troops on Sunday, is scheduled to host four group-stage matches this summer, including Mexico vs. South Korea on June 18. Soccer’s world governing body, FIFA, will undoubtedly be concerned about whether Jalisco remains a viable location for these matches, and the organization holds unilateral authority to relocate games at its discretion.

 

Before Sunday, CJNG’s monopoly in Jalisco actually simplified things for Mexican security planners, giving them one actor to deal with who was theoretically capable of enforcing a truce and who had economic incentives to keep Jalisco calm during the tournament. That logic died with El Mencho. Instead of needing to negotiate only with the CJNG, Mexican authorities may now face a dozen splinter groups, none of which has an incentive to keep the peace and several of which could be actively fighting each other for control.

 

For the United States, El Mencho’s death is a short-term political gift to the administration. President Trump enters Tuesday’s State of the Union address with a 39 percent approval rating, stinging from a partial Department of Homeland Security shutdown and a Supreme Court ruling that struck down one of his key tariff authorities. The death of El Mencho represents a win for Trump, and he will likely tout it alongside Mexico’s 92 extraditions, the maritime strikes off Venezuela, and declining fentanyl-related deaths.

 

Whether the discipline visible in Sunday’s CJNG retaliation translates into a coherent succession or the spectacular end of a chapter in Mexico’s long drug wars remains an open question. Given their competing domestic priorities, Sheinbaum and Trump may be hoping for different answers.

Would You Believe That Democrats Were Not Anti-Israel Enough in 2024?

By Noah Rothman

Monday, February 23, 2026

 

For some reason, Ken Martin, the Democratic National Committee chairman, concluded that he could simply bar the release of the party’s 2024 autopsy and it would stay buried forever. As it happens, a document drafted by committee and composed of research and interviews in which dozens participated cannot be kept so tightly under wraps.

 

On Monday, Americans were privy to some selective leaks from that closely guarded document, and those leaks just happen to support all the otherwise dubious claims of the Democratic Party’s activist class. According to the autopsy, the anti-Israel left is just as crucial to Democratic electoral prospects as the anti-Israel left always said of itself. Imagine that.

 

Activists with the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project told the DNC’s forensic electoral analysts that “the Biden-Harris administration’s support for Israel was a factor in the party’s losses because it drained support from some young people and progressives,” Axios reported. Furthermore, the Democratic Party secretly agreed with the activists, according to the IMEU. The “DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a ‘net-negative’ in the 2024 election,” IMEU Policy Project spokesman Hamid Bendaas said.

 

Axios independently verified that Democratic officials conducting the autopsy believed the issue harmed the party’s standing with some voters,” the report continued. Indeed, the figures within the Democratic firmament with whom Axios reporters spoke noted that the activists’ outlook aligns with Kamala Harris’s own view. She supposedly “pleaded” privately  with Joe Biden to express more skepticism toward Israel, and she believed that her campaign was hindered by the “perceived blank check” he handed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

Axios’s report implicitly supports the notion that Democrats are withholding their own autopsy to shield Israel and pro-Israel Democrats from criticism, or perhaps to shore up the eroding bipartisan consensus about the legitimacy of Israel’s defensive military priorities. It’s quite a scandal, you see.

 

But if persuadable voters were truly turned off by the Democratic Party’s alleged licentiousness toward Israel, those voters were not especially well-informed.

 

They somehow missed the trepidation with which the Democratic Party approached the anti-Israel demonstrators, who erupted in hostility toward the Jewish state in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 massacre. Biden did not address the widespread antisemitic incidences that accompanied those protests until six months into the movement’s campaign of harassment, intimidation, and violence.

 

Even as those protesters laid siege to the Democratic Party’s headquarters in an effort to get their hands on the party’s lawmakers (an event that “could have been much worse,” in Democratic Congressman Sean Casten’s estimation) and tore manically at the emergency fencing surrounding the party’s nominating convention, Biden went out of his way to concede that the demonstrators “have a point.” And the Biden administration acted on that point. It imposed a partial arms embargo on Israel, and it actively frustrated Israel’s plans to assault the Gazan city of Rafah — delaying the incursion that eventually resulted in the death of Hamas leader and 10/7 architect Yahya Sinwar.

 

For their parts, Harris and her vice-presidential pick, Tim Walz, were even more obsequious toward the anti-Israel elements in their party. The anti-Israel demonstrators were “showing exactly what the human emotion should be,” Harris said of the protesters that hounded her campaign. At least they were “civically engaged,” Walz added, endorsing their demands for a permanent cessation of hostilities that would leave Hamas in power in Gaza. As late as October 31, 2024, the Associated Press revealed that the Harris campaign still thought the protest movement could be a political force multiplier for Democrats if only she could “validate their concerns.” The effort to “validate” the protesters continued even after the Biden administration itself accused the movement of benefiting from Iranian financial support.

 

Even before votes in the 2024 election were cast and counted, interested parties on the left have retailed a blame-shifting narrative for the party’s impending loss, foisting it onto the shoulders of Israel and its supporters. The activist class is, in one former Harris staffer’s phrasing, a bunch of “clowns” — a collection of “deeply unserious people who want to shirk their responsibility” for the condition in which voters left the party in 2024.

 

Indeed, even left-of-center elections analysts have thrown cold water on the far-left’s self-flattering narratives. “For every voter angry over the Israeli strikes on Gaza, there may have been another ready to back Trump if Harris seemed too critical of Israel or too forgiving of Hamas,” read one such clear-eyed outlook from the Huffington Post’s Jonathan Cohn. “In addition, Democrats were already losing votes among socially conservative Arab Americans because of LGBTQ+ issues.”

 

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that Harris lost the presidency to a candidate who waged the most overtly pro-Israel political campaign Americans have ever seen because she wasn’t anti-Israel enough, but that’s the narrative that the activists are peddling. And if Ken Martin remains afraid of his own shadow, it’s the narrative that will further consume Democratic politics and be reflected in its candidate selections. That would serve the interests of many factions vying for control over the the Democratic Party’s hollowed-out husk, but it’s not clear that it would be in the interests of the party’s institutional stewards.

Trump’s Supersized State of the Union

National Review Online

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

 

The State of the Union address is one of the few opportunities the president of the United States has to command a TV audience of millions — hence the temptation to hold forth at length with strung-together applause lines.

 

And, like Mae West, President Trump can resist anything but temptation.

 

He spoke on Tuesday night for nearly two hours and made his case that we are, as he likes to say, the hottest country in the world, in a mostly upbeat presentation.

 

Trump has things to boast about. He closed the southern border. He hit the Iranian nuclear program. He has struck blows against DEI and contributed to the rollback of trans insanity. He has massively deregulated. He signed a tax bill that, despite some unfortunate gimmicks, makes permanent the tax cuts from his first term. Military recruitment is up and fentanyl-trafficking down.

 

The economy was a major focus of Trump’s speech. After discontent over the cost of living in 2024 helped return him to the White House, people are still discontented over the cost of living.

 

Trump made the case that things are headed in the right direction, and real wages have indeed been increasing. The problem is that talking people out of how they’re feeling about the economy tends to be very difficult for an elected official, and the inflation rate is, while down significantly, still too high.

 

The new initiatives the president advanced in his speech to address the cost of living are either insignificant or not going to pass Congress. It’d be great if Republicans could pass a consumer-oriented health-care reform, but that’s not in the offing.

 

The policy that he has unilateral control over — or purports to have unilateral control over — that most directly affects prices is tariffs. As he has made abundantly clear, though, he’s bent on maintaining them rather than giving way in light of last week’s Supreme Court decision and the evidence that they aren’t working as intended. In his speech, he took more swipes at the Court and repeated his pro-tariff catechism.

 

He excoriated illegal immigration and taunted Democrats for not standing up for the proposition that the first duty of the U.S. government is to protect U.S. citizens and not illegal aliens. This was just one instance of Trump needling the Democrats pretty effectively. (Judging by the occasional cutaway shots, Democrats spent much of the speech glaring.)

 

As a matter of performance, it often had the feel of a Trump rally inside the congressional chamber, with its over-the-top boastfulness, informal asides, dubious claims, pointed partisan jabs, and sheer length.

 

Ever the showman, he repeatedly recognized inspiring people in the balcony, from the gold medal–winning U.S. hockey team to a 100-year-old vet, and even bestowed honors on them in real time. Associating himself with these people and fondly relating their stories unquestionably helped his cause.

 

That said, these speeches matter much less than they used to. For all the sound and occasional fury, nothing from the address is likely to alter the trajectory of the midterms.