🧵 1. The American people can’t pretend the European Union’s attempt to extort @elonmusk yesterday—threatening to punish him unless he canceled his plan to interview @realDonaldTrump on X—didn’t threaten to fundamentally change our relationship with longstanding European allies.
2. Fully 22 of the 27 countries that belong to the European Union also belong to NATO, meaning that they benefit from the U.S. security umbrella, and from our obligation under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to defend them if they’re attacked.
3. This works out well for Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.
4. It’s sometimes less of a good deal for the U.S., which has long shouldered a disproportionate share of Europe’s security burden.
5. Those same 22 countries dominate—and certainly have the power to restrain—the EU.
6. Those counties (which control the EU) tried to wield the EU’s regulatory power over a U.S. company to influence our presidential elections—based on the absurd contention that the EU had to act to protect EU citizens from misinformation.
7. They tried to help Kamala Harris by depriving Donald Trump of an opportunity offered to both Trump and Harris (but accepted by Trump and declined by Harris): a live interview with @elonmusk on X—one of the few channels of information in America that isn’t “all in” for Harris.
8. How can we ignore that 22 of our European allies, acting through the EU, are trying to interfere with and affect the outcome of our presidential elections?
9. When we put American blood and treasure on the line—as we do by honoring our NATO commitments—that should mean something. At a minimum, it should mean that they won’t extort U.S. companies to interfere with our presidential elections.
10. What do you think this should mean for the future of NATO, and U.S. involvement in it?
11. Our often-unreciprocated security assistance to these European allies makes it easier for them to do other things with their money—like funding extravagant welfare-state programs and the EU, which has now been weaponized against us to influence our presidential elections.
12. Europe had a good thing going—we pay for their security (far more of it than we should) so they can do whatever they want.
13. With the “whatever they want” approach culminating in what happened yesterday—with @ThierryBreton trying to extort @elonmusk to help Kamala Harris defeat Donald Trump—the EU has now offended at least half of American voters. (I hope it’s more than half, given that this should bother Democrats too).
@ThierryBreton @elonmusk 14. Imagine what would’ve happened if the EU had tried to do this four years ago to help Donald Trump and hurt Joe Biden. I know, it’d never happen that way, but imagine the outcry if it did. The media would be incensed and outraged over this. They’d have spoken of little else.
@ThierryBreton @elonmusk 15. And yet what is the MSM saying about this? Basically nothing.
@ThierryBreton @elonmusk 16. This is a good time for Americans—despite what they’re hearing, or not hearing, from the media (and regardless of their political ideology)—to stop and think about what this outrageous act by the EU should mean for America and her interests in Europe.
@ThierryBreton @elonmusk 17. If the EU’s attempt to extort a U.S. company in an obvious effort to influence the U.S. presidential election isn’t cause for U.S. to re-evaluate our relationship with our European allies, I don’t know what is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
17. Republicans in Congress therefore need to take a stand—holding hostage something Democrats care about by attaching the REINS Act to that thing
18. To that end, Republicans should attach the REINS Act to any bill to increase the debt ceiling, forcing true compromise in an area where it’s badly needed—here, restoring separation of powers through the REINS Act
19. The REINS Act would force a restoration of the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution, by returning the lawmaking power to the legislative branch
2. On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded federal authority under the (previously narrow) Commerce Clause—severely undermining federalism—in response to FDR’s extortionate threat to pack the Supreme Court
3. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., the Supreme Court—for the first time in history, and contrary to the text and original understanding of the Constitution—held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce encompasses purely local, intrastate, economic activity so long as it has a sufficient *effect* on commerce between the states
🧵 1. The Fourth Turning in 2025: Trump’s Vision as America’s Next Great Shift
In 1997, historians William Strauss and Neil Howe published *The Fourth Turning*, a provocative work arguing that history unfolds in cycles—roughly 80-to-100-year “saecula”—each divided into four generational “turnings”: High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. These phases repeat in a predictable rhythm, shaped by generational archetypes and societal moods.
The Fourth Turning, the final stage, is a winter of upheaval during which older institutions collapse and a new order rises. In 2025, with Donald Trump newly re-elected and backed by a Republican-controlled Congress, the United States may be entering this transformative phase.Â
If we trace prior turnings to the American Revolution (1776), the Civil War (1861), and the constitutional culmination point of the New Deal Era (1937), Trump’s agenda—particularly his push to restore federalism and separation of powers—could catalyze the next seismic shift in American history.
2. The Theory of the Fourth Turning
Strauss and Howe liken a saeculum to the seasons: a High is a spring of unity and growth (post-World War II America), an Awakening is a summer of individualism and rebellion (the 1960s counterculture), an Unraveling is an autumn of cynicism and decay (the 1980s–2000s), and a Crisis is a winter of destruction and renewal. America’s past Crises—the Revolution, Civil War, and Depression-to-WWII era—were existential challenges that reshaped the nation over decades. The Revolution birthed a republic, the Civil War redefined it, and the New Deal era forged the modern federal regulatory system.
The last turn-inducing Crisis arguably began with the 1929 stock market crash, deepened through the Great Depression, reached its culmination point in 1937 when the Supreme Court loosened key constitutional restraints to unlock FDR’s New Deal ambitions,and evolved with the onset of World War II, resolving in 1945 with victory and the American Century’s dawn—a new High.Â
Counting forward, some have argued that the next (current) Crisis began to emerge between 2005 and 2015, a timeline aligning with the 2008 financial collapse, rising polarization, and global instability. Now, in 2025, we’re entrenched in this winter phase, grappling with economic fragility, cultural divides, and a strained world order. Could Trump’s presidency be its fulcrum?
3. Trump’s 2025 Agenda as a Fourth Turning Catalyst
Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 carries a mandate for bold change. His campaign vowed to dismantle the “Deep State” (entrenched bureaucratic power), reassert American sovereignty, and reverse decades of globalization. Policies targeting border security, federal deregulation, and reduced reliance on international alliances signal a break from the post-World War II consensus—the order built during the last turning’s resolution. If Strauss and Howe are correct, a Crisis demands a reckoning with failing institutions, and Trump’s vision fits that mold.
A key pillar of his agenda could (and ideally should) directly influence this Fourth Turning: restoring the Constitution’s core “structural” protections, federalism and separation of powers, starting with the passage of the REINS Act. This legislation, long championed by conservatives, would require congressional approval for major federal regulations, curbing unelected agencies’ overreach and rebalancing power between the three branches of the federal government and the states. Such a move would echo the constitutional focus of past turnings, dismantling the centralized bureaucracy that has grown since 1937 and setting the stage for a renewed American framework.
Historical parallels abound. In 1776, the Revolution severed colonial ties to Britain, birthing a nation through war and the Constitution. In 1861, the Civil War erupted over slavery, tearing the country apart before Lincoln’s leadership restored it. By 1929, the Great Depression spurred desperate Americans to accept FDR’s New Deal, vastly expanding federal authority starting in 1937.Â
Each Crisis destroyed the old order—monarchy, slavery, and strict constitutional limits—and forced a new paradigm. Trump’s 2025 vision, bolstered by measures like the REINS Act, could be this era’s wrecking ball, targeting a sclerotic, elitist order that Americans increasingly resent.
🧵1. Senator Schiff just demanded that Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should immediately join Democrats in asking for the release of Kash Patel’s grand jury testimony transcripts
2. Chairman Grassley declined, correctly noting that this isn’t something we ordinarily do, and that we’d need to have a good reason to attempt
3. Schiff seemed to think this was such an obvious move that no one should question the wisdom behind it—and that Grassley should immediately agree to it without giving it another thought or conferring with the Committee
🧵 1/ What Are Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And How Could They Be Used To Weaken Drug Cartels? 🚨
2/ Letters of marque and reprisal are government-issued commissions that authorize private citizens (privateers) to perform acts that would otherwise be considered piracy, like attacking enemy ships during wartime
Privateers are rewarded with a cut of the loot they “bring home”
3/ Legal Basis in the U.S.
The U.S. Constitution authorizes these commissions in Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal”
While Congress hasn’t issued one in over a century, the authority to do so still exists
🧵1. The God-given right to bear arms is nearly as ancient as efforts to restrict it are predictable.
2.Efforts to restrict the right to bear arms inevitably grant government—and those whose interests align with the regime in power—a monopoly on the use of guns.
2.Efforts to restrict the right to bear arms inevitably grant government—and those whose interests align with the regime in power—a monopoly on the use of guns.