To endorse, or not to endorse, that is the question for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) as New York City and the nation wait to see if this top Democrat will throw his backing behind socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.

According to Zany Zohran’s backers, this should be a no-brainer. After all, Mamdani won the primary fair and square, but given his far-left proposals like city-owned grocery stores, free buses, and replacing cops with social workers. Jeffries is rightfully wary.

This week, would-be Mayor Mamdani ran away to Uganda to let the heat die down over a guy who once said the state should control the means of production potentially governing Wall Street.

This Africa adventure gives Jeffries a little more time to decide whether to endorse, but not much. The moment is still coming.

What makes this choice so hard for Jeffries is that he knows better than anyone just how dangerous these Democratic Socialists can be. In fact, it’s the whole reason he is now in line for the speakership should Democrats retake the House.

In 2019 Jeffries replaced another New Yorker named Joe Crowley as chair of the Democratic Caucus in the House. The coveted spot in leadership was available because Crowley had suffered a shocking primary defeat at the hands of whom? A bartender named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In spite of the fact that AOC opened the door to power for Jeffries, he is actually much more of a Crowley than a Cortez. He might be the poster child for the old-school Democrat machine politician.

Jeffries was born and raised in Brooklyn, state college undergrad, masters in public policy from Georgetown, law degree from NYU, clerked with a federal judge, a decade of private practice, two years in the state assembly and now, Congress. That is how it used to be done.

Now, Hakeem Jeffries’ party is being overrun with theater kids who skirt through college and whose political training comes almost exclusively from far-left activist organizations and Marxist tracts, and they want him to sign off on it.

The political reality for Jeffries is that if he endorses Zohran, then this 33-year-old, who can be credibly called a communist, will be hung like a millstone around the neck of every Democrat running for the House.

Even moderate House Democrats who try to distance themselves from Mamdani and his parade of pathetic and stale socialist programs will be sharply and publicly reminded that the guy they want to make Speaker of the House endorsed a communist.

Nowhere is this more true than close to home in the suburban New York districts that Republicans swept in 2024 to keep their slim House majority. There is no path back to power that doesn’t flow through Long Island and Westchester.

Republican House candidates like incumbents Mike Lawler and Nick LaLota will absolutely make Mamdani a focal point of their campaigns, no matter who their actual opponents are.

There is no easy way out of this predicament for Jeffries. Either he refuses to endorse Mamdani, and sets off an angry civil war in his party, or he does endorse him, and watches Democrats’ chances to win the House and make him speaker diminish greatly.

For any party leader, herding the cats is a great challenge. It was for Nancy Pelosi, and it is for Jeffries. But the Mamdani question is bigger than managing normal ideological differences. Jeffries has to decide if he will, for the first time, usher actual communists into the Democrats’ tent.

Most of us were born at a time when Democrats still proudly called themselves the party of Jefferson and Jackson. Today, it is starting to look more like the party of Marx and Guevara. Can Hakeem Jeffries hit the brakes? Don’t count on it.

My sources in Gotham, in both parties, the ones I trust the most, all think Jeffries will eventually, as quietly as possible, give his support to Mamdani. I’m not completely convinced, but it is the path of least resistance, which is a siren call for most politicians.

When and if Jeffries makes this cowardly choice, Republicans must be prepared to explain, quite clearly, to Americans that one of their major political parties, its oldest, in fact, has come to embrace communism.

For Hakeem Jeffries this is an existential choice, not just for his political future, but the future of his political party, and of our nation itself.

The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to fire numerous Democrat-appointed members of independent agencies, but one case still moving through the legal system carries the greatest implications yet for a president’s authority to do that.

In Slaughter v. Trump, a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission has vowed to fight what she calls her ‘illegal firing,’ setting up a possible scenario in which the case lands before the Supreme Court.

The case would pose the most direct question yet to the justices about where they stand on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the nearly century-old decision regarding a president’s power over independent regulatory agencies.

John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital he thinks the high court is likely to side with the president if and when the case arrives there.

‘I think it’s unlikely that Humphrey’s Executor survives the Supreme Court, at least in its current form,’ Shu said, adding he anticipates the landmark decision will be overturned or ‘severely narrowed.’

What is Humphrey’s Executor?

Humphrey’s Executor centered on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to fire an FTC commissioner with whom he disagreed politically. The case marked the first instance of the Supreme Court limiting a president’s removal power by ruling that Roosevelt overstepped his authority. The court found that presidents could not dismiss FTC commissioners without a reason, such as malfeasance, before their seven-year terms ended, as outlined by Congress in the FTC Act.

However, the FTC’s functions, which largely center on combating anticompetitive business practices, have expanded in the 90 years since Humphrey’s Executor.

‘The Federal Trade Commission of 1935 is a lot different than the Federal Trade Commission today,’ Shu said.

He noted that today’s FTC can open investigations, issue subpoenas, bring lawsuits, impose financial penalties and more. The FTC now has executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, Shu said.

SCOTUS greenlights other firings

If the Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily allow two labor board members’ firings is any indication, the high court stands ready to make the FTC less independent and more accountable to Trump.

In a 6-3 order, the Supreme Court cited the ‘considerable executive power’ that the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board have, saying a president ‘may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.’

The order did not mention Humphrey’s Executor, but that and other moves indicate the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the 90-year-old ruling and is open to reversing it.

The case of Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya gets closest to the heart of Humphrey’s Executor.

Where does Slaughter’s case stand?

Slaughter enjoyed a short-lived victory when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., found that Trump violated the Constitution and ruled in her favor on July 17.

She was able to return to the FTC for a few days, but the Trump administration appealed the decision and, on July 21, the appellate court paused the lower court judge’s ruling.

Judge Loren AliKhan had said in her summary judgment that Slaughter’s case was almost identical to William Humphrey’s.

‘It is not the role of this court to decide the correctness, prudence, or wisdom of the Supreme Court’s decisions—even one from ninety years ago,’ AliKhan, a Biden appointee, wrote. ‘Whatever the Humphrey’s Executor Court may have thought at the time of that decision, this court will not second-guess it now.’

The lawsuit arose from Trump firing Slaughter and Bedoya, the two Democratic-appointed members of the five-member commission. They alleged that Trump defied Humphrey’s Executor by firing them in March without cause in a letter that ‘nearly word-for-word’ mirrored the one Roosevelt sent a century ago.

Bedoya has since resigned, but Slaughter is not backing down from a legal fight in which Trump appears to have the upper hand.

‘Like dozens of other federal agencies, the Federal Trade Commission has been protected from presidential politics for nearly a century,’ Slaughter said in a statement after she was re-fired. ‘I’ll continue to fight my illegal firing and see this case through, because part of why Congress created independent agencies is to ensure transparency and accountability.’

Now a three-judge panel comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee is considering a longer-term pause and asked for court filings to be submitted by July 29, meaning the judges could issue their decision soon thereafter.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a slew of documents this month, revealing that Obama administration officials ‘manufactured’ intelligence to push the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Here’s a look at the newly declassified records:

Declassified Presidential Daily Brief

Documents revealed that in the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia was ‘probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means.’

One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated, ‘Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.’

Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016.

‘We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure,’ the Presidential Daily Brief stated. ‘Russian Government-affiliated actors most likely compromised an Illinois voter registration database and unsuccessfully attempted the same in other states.’

But the brief stated that it was ‘highly unlikely’ the effort ‘would have resulted in altering any state’s official vote result.’

‘Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes,’ it stated. 

The brief noted that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed that any Russian activities ‘probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates.’

The brief stated that cyber criminals ‘tried to steal data and to interrupt election processes by targeting election infrastructure, but these actions did not achieve a notable disruptive effect.’

Fox News Digital obtained declassified, but redacted, communications from the FBI in the Presidential Daily Brief, stating that it ‘should not go forward until the FBI’ had shared its ‘concerns.’

Those communications revealed that the FBI drafted a ‘dissent’ to the original Presidential Daily Brief. 

The communications revealed that the brief was expected to be published Dec. 9, 2016, the following day, but later communications revealed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ‘based on some new guidance,’ decided to ‘push back publication’ of the Presidential Daily Brief. 

‘It will not run tomorrow and is not likely to run until next week,’ wrote the deputy director of the Presidential Daily Brief at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, whose name is redacted. 

The following day, Dec. 9, 2016, a meeting convened in the White House Situation Room, with the subject line starting: ‘Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic (REDACTED.)’

The meeting included top officials in the National Security Council, Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others, to discuss Russia.

The declassified meeting record, obtained by Fox News Digital, revealed that principals ‘agreed to recommend sanctioning of certain members of the Russian military intelligence and foreign intelligence chains of command responsible for cyber operations as a response to cyber activity that attempted to influence or interfere with U.S. elections, if such activity meets the requirements’ from an executive order that demanded the blocking of property belonging to people engaged in cyber activities.

After the meeting, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Clapper’s executive assistant emailed intelligence community leaders tasking them to create a new intelligence community assessment ‘per the president’s request’ that detailed the ‘tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.’

‘ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS,’ the record states.

Later, Obama officials ‘leaked false statements to media outlets’ claiming that ‘Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.’

By Jan. 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ‘directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.’ 

Intelligence officials told Fox News Digital that the ICA was ‘politicized’ because it ‘suppressed intelligence from before and after the election showing Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the 2016 election.’ 

Officials also said it deceived the American public ‘by claiming the IC made no assessment on the ‘impact’ of Russian activities,’ when the intelligence community ‘did, in fact, assess for impact.’ 

‘The unpublished December PDB stated clearly that Russia ‘did not impact’ the election through cyber hacks on the election,’ an official told Fox News Digital.

The official also said the ICA had assessed that ‘Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC,’ while ‘failing to mention that FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution.’ 

Officials said the intelligence was ‘politicized’ and then ‘used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more.’

Declassified House Intelligence Committee Report

A report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2020 said the intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the ‘unusual’ direction of then-President Barack Obama, published ‘potentially biased’ or ‘implausible’ intelligence suggesting otherwise.

The report, based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.

The report has never before been released to the public and instead has remained highly classified within the intelligence community.

Fox News Digital obtained the ‘fully-sourced limited-access investigation report that was drafted and stored in a limited-access vault at CIA Headquarters.’ The report includes some redactions.

The committee focused on the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, in which then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier despite knowing it was based largely on ‘internet rumor,’ as Fox News Digital previously reported.

According to the report, the ICA was a ‘high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter.’

‘Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA,’ the report states. ‘The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions.’

The committee found that the five CIA analysts and drafter ‘rushed’ the ICA’s production ‘in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn-in.’

‘Hurried coordination and limited access to the draft reduced opportunities for the IC to discover misquoting of sources and other tradecraft concerns,’ the report states.

The report states that Brennan ‘ordered the post-election publication of 15 reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, three of which were substandard — containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible — and those became foundational sources for the ICA judgements that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.’

‘The ICA misrepresented these reports as reliable, without mentioning their significant underlying flaws,’ the committee found.

‘One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win,’ the report states, adding that the ICA ‘ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged — and in some cases undermined — judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.’

The report also states that the ICA ‘failed to consider plausible alternative explanations of Putin’s intentions indicated by reliable intelligence and observed Russian actions.’

The committee also found that two senior CIA officers warned Brennan that ‘we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.’

Despite those warnings, the Obama administration moved to publish the ICA.

The ICA ‘did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.’

The ICA, according to the report, excluded ‘significant intelligence’ and ‘ignored or selectively quoted’ reliable intelligence in an effort to push the Russia narrative.

The report also includes intelligence from a longtime Putin confidant who explained to investigators that ‘Putin told him he did not care who won the election,’ and that Putin ‘had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates.’

The report also states that the ICA omitted context showing that the claim that Putin preferred Trump was ‘implausible —if not ridiculous.’

The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence that showed that Russia was actually planning for a Hillary Clinton victory because ‘they knew where (she) stood’ and believed Russia ‘could work with her.’

The committee also noted that the ICA ‘did not address why Putin chose not to leak more discrediting material on Clinton, even as polls tightened in the final weeks of the election.’

The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence showing that Putin was ‘not only demonstrating a clear lack of concern for Trump’s election fate,’ but also indicated ‘that he preferred to see Secretary Clinton elected, knowing she would be a more vulnerable President.’

Declassified Hillary Clinton section of House Intelligence Committee Report

One section of the declassified House Intelligence Committee report states that the material in Putin’s possession included Russian intelligence on Democratic National Committee information allegedly showing that senior Democratic leaders found Clinton’s health to be ‘extraordinarily alarming.’ 

‘As of September 2016, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service had DNC information that President Obama and Party leaders found the state of Secretary Clinton’s health to be ‘extraordinarily alarming,’ and felt it could have ‘serious negative impact’ on her election prospects,’ the report states. ‘Her health information was being kept in ‘strictest secrecy’ and even close advisors were not being fully informed.’ 

The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service also allegedly had DNC communications that showed that ‘Clinton was suffering from ‘intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.” 

‘Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of ‘heavy tranquilizers’ and while afraid of losing, she remained ‘obsessed with a thirst for power,’’ the report states.

The Russians also allegedly had information that Clinton ‘suffered from ‘Type 2 diabetes, Ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.’’

The Russians also allegedly possessed a ‘campaign email discussing a plan approved by Secretary Clinton to link Putin and Russian hackers to candidate Trump in order to ‘distract the American public’ from the Clinton email server scandal.’ 

Gabbard, during the White House press briefing Wednesday, said there were ‘high-level DNC emails that detailed evidence of Hillary’s, quote, psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerfulness, and that then-Secretary Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers.’ 

A tranquilizer is a drug used to reduce mental disturbance, such as anxiety and tension. Tranquilizers are typically prescribed to individuals suffering from anxiety, sleep disturbances and related conditions affecting their mental and physical health. 

A Clinton aide dismissed the claims as ‘ridiculous.’ 

Neither Clinton nor Obama responded to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment. 

President Donald Trump arrived in Scotland late Friday for a working trip where he is expected to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer amid ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and the U.K., as well as visit several of his properties there. 

‘We’re meeting with the prime minister tonight,’ Trump told reporters Friday before departing for Scotland. ‘We’re going to be talking about the trade deal that we made, and maybe even improve it.’

‘We want to talk about certain aspects, which is going to be good for both countries,’ Trump said. ‘More fine-tuning. Also, we’re going to do a little celebrating together, because, you know, we got along very well. U.K.’s been trying to make a deal with us for like, 12 years, and haven’t been able to do it. We got it done, and he’s doing a very good job, this prime minister. Good guy.’

In May, the U.S. and the U.K. announced the two countries had agreed to a major trade deal, which marked the first historic trade negotiation signed following Liberation Day, when Trump announced widespread tariffs for multiple countries April 2 at a range of rates.

Trump, who is slated to remain in Scotland until Tuesday, is also scheduled to visit his golf courses in Turnberry and Aberdeen while abroad. 

Here’s also what happened this week:

Federal Reserve visit 

Trump visited the Federal Reserve headquarters Thursday, as he has ramped up digs at Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. 

Trump accompanied other administration officials for a tour of the headquarters, following $2.5 billion in renovations to the building. The massive project has attracted scrutiny from lawmakers and members of the Trump administration, including the president, who suggested the huge renovation could amount to a fireable offense. 

‘I think he’s terrible … I didn’t see him as a guy that needed a palace to live in,’ Trump said July 16. ‘But the one thing I would have never guessed is that he would be spending two and a half billion dollars to build a little extension onto the Fed.’

On Thursday, the two briefly sparred over the cost of the renovation, but Trump told reporters afterward that the two had a ‘good meeting’ and that there was ‘no tension.’ Trump also shut down speculation he might oust Powell, claiming such a move would be unnecessary. 

The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, oversees the nation’s monetary policy and regulates financial institutions. 

Trump historically has railed against Powell, calling him names like ‘numskull’ and ‘too late.’ Likewise, Trump has expressed ire toward Powell for ignoring requests to lower interest rates. 

‘Well, I’d love him to lower interest rates, but other than that, what can I tell you?’ Trump said Thursday. 

Trump signed into law Thursday his roughly $9 billion rescissions package to claw back already approved federal funds for foreign aid and public broadcasting. 

The rescissions measure revoked nearly $8 billion in funding Congress already approved for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a formerly independent agency that provided impoverished countries aid and offered development assistance.

The rescissions package also rescinds more than $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides federal funding for NPR and PBS.

Donald Trump did better with American young people last fall than any Republican candidate in decades. He won men under 30, won men of college age, and even won the youth vote in the swing state of Michigan. American young people were widely assumed to be uniformly liberal, and expected to remain so forever and ever. But the reality was anything but. I saw this trend playing out in real time as I toured the country speaking on college campuses to crowds of three, four, and even five thousand strong.  Young Americans were not happy with Joe Biden’s America or Kamala Harris’ vows to continue it, and they were ready to return to the president they associated with a more prosperous pre-COVID time.

It was a big win. But it was also impermanent. It could be a one-off. It could easily be explained by the aftermath of COVID or the incredible political charisma of Donald Trump himself. The youth vote of 2024 wasn’t so much a win as it was an opportunity: A clear demonstration that conservatives actually can compete to win the votes of American young people, rather than writing them off. 

The challenge for Republicans now is seizing this Gen Z opportunity. Because Gen Z won’t become lifelong conservatives thanks to a good campaign or slick online memes. They’ll only become lifelong supporters if we’re able to deliver for them on the big issues that matter.

Experts expend a lot of effort and ink explaining what Gen Z ‘wants.’ But between my campus visits and my work running Turning Point USA, I talk to as many Gen Z’ers as anyone in the country. They want basic economic success and security like the generations before them. They want a home, they want a family, they want to feel like they are building something and that they are a part of something. 

And right now, on that front, Gen Z has a lot of problems. Economically, things are dire. In 1984, the median American home cost about three and a half times the median income in America. Today, the median house costs almost six times the median income. Rent isn’t much better, and has risen more than 50% in real terms since the 1970s. 

In 1980, tuition at the average public college was about $2,800 in today’s dollars. Today it’s around $10,000, and, unsurprisingly, that means the average college student leaves school with a debt burden that previously could have bought them a car, provided the down payment on a house, or helped them start a family. 

Financially, young people aren’t just facing more expensive necessities, but also a more predatory economic reality. Millions of Gen Zers are buying everything from concert tickets to groceries to Chipotle burritos through buy now, pay later (BNPL) setups from companies like Klarna and Affirm. Some polls indicate Gen Z prefers BNPL to traditional credit cards. Taking on debt for purchases may make sense when buying a house or a car, but once a person is paying for their groceries with 4 monthly payments at 10% interest, something has gone awry. 

Of course, America hasn’t become a poor nation. In fact, we’re as spectacularly wealthy as ever. Yet this wealth doesn’t reach young Americans (unless it’s by way of inheritance). Instead, over and over, policy decisions have ensured that elderly Americans grow wealthier and wealthier. Never in American history has so much wealth been concentrated in those who are already retired from the labor force. This reality became even more pronounced during COVID and the rampant inflation that followed. Older Americans with equities and assets in their portfolio saw their net worth skyrocket, while younger Americans just saw those assets become even more unaffordable.

It wasn’t always like this. When the baby boomers of today were growing up, government policy routinely favored young people. Jobs were easier to get, with far fewer credentialing hurdles. Houses were built far faster. Wages were higher instead of being suppressed through sky-high legal and illegal immigration. Today, though, America is a country built for those who are already owners, and those too young to buy are finding themselves stuck becoming borrowers and renters. The median age of first-time home buyers is now pushing 40, about a decade higher than the 1980s when the average age was just 29!

This isn’t because Gen Z is lazy — a common retort I hear — it’s because they are contending with structural disadvantages older Americans didn’t experience. If this continues, something will break, and young people will lead the way in breaking it. 

Zohran Mamdani has become a celebrity for Gen Z with his slick promises of a New York City rent freeze, state-owned grocery stores, and free daycare as stepping stones to eventually seizing the means of production. Mamdani’s political surge is not a passing fad or pure TV news fodder. 

It should be a giant flashing red alarm. There are millions of Americans who feel cut off from any meaningful economic progress or stability. Eventually, if they can’t obtain prosperity the old-fashioned way, they will simply try to vote themselves prosperity, and there will be plenty of demagogues promising this can be done easily by simply expropriating those with more than them.

Most of Gen Z is ideologically fluid. They’re happy to give Republicans a shot, then turn around and elect a Marxist two years later.

America will have a reordering of its economy. The only question is what that reordering will look like. There are two paths before us. We will either have stabilizing reforms like those of Theodore Roosevelt a century ago and those espoused by nationalist, populist conservatives, or we will have revolutionary, destructive ‘reforms’ like those that have already ruined once-prosperous countries like Cuba or Venezuela. If we succeed in the next three years, or if we fail, will determine which.