Liberty Takes Effort: 2025

From Strategy to Enforcement: What the U.S. Is Doing in the Caribbean

This is Part II of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part I established why the Western Hemisphere became a U.S. national security priority. Part III examines the removal of Nicolas Maduro and its implications for the future of Venezuela.

The current U.S. military presence in the Caribbean cannot be understood in isolation. What some observers perceive as a sudden escalation is, in fact, the operational expression of a strategic shift articulated years ago and formalized in the 2025 National Security Strategy.

From Policy to Force Posture

Operation Southern Spear is the most visible manifestation of this change. Announced shortly after President Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, Southern Spear is led by U.S. Southern Command and the Navy’s Fourth Fleet. While it builds on earlier counter-drug and maritime security efforts, including experimentation with manned and unmanned systems, it has undergone a significant expansion in scope, persistence, and enforcement authority over the past six months.

What the Force Is—and Is Not

The U.S. has now assembled a substantial joint force under Joint Task Force Southern Spear: a carrier strike group, an amphibious ready group with a Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked, supporting surface combatants, special operations elements, and forward-deployed airpower operating from Puerto Rico and regional bases.

This is not an invasion force. It is a control force—designed to deny freedom of movement, disrupt logistics, impose costs, and shape outcomes without occupying territory.

The force posture makes little sense if viewed solely as a tool to pressure Maduro. It makes far more sense as a layered contingency force. Special operations elements in Puerto Rico provide proximity and support for intelligence-driven or covert actions. The Marine Expeditionary Unit (2000 Marines) embarked aboard USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and two other amphibious ships offers a scalable rapid-response capability—to reinforce special forces, secure key nodes, or extract personnel if conditions deteriorate. The airwing aboard USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), F-35s in Puerto Rico, and the many missiles aboard cruisers and destroyers in the region can conduct targeted attacks on critical institutions and choke points and establish air superiority over the country to permit unfettered action. Logistics, intelligence, mid-air refueling, and air reconnaissance aircraft flying from the U.S. can support a wide range of requirements.

In other words, planners appear to be preparing not only for regime exit but also for the dangerous period immediately after.

Why Venezuela Sits at the Center

Under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has evolved from a failing petro-state into a permissive hub for transnational crime and narco-terrorism. Senior regime and military figures have been implicated in facilitating cocaine trafficking from Colombia through Venezuelan ports and airspace, often in coordination with FARC dissidents and other extremist networks. Unlike Mexico, where the U.S. can still exert leverage through trade, border enforcement, and bilateral pressure, Caracas offers no meaningful cooperation.

That makes Venezuela uniquely vulnerable to unilateral interdiction. From the administration’s perspective, choking off this permissive transit zone strikes at the upstream source of a drug supply chain that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Venezuela was also the single largest driver of destabilizing migration in the hemisphere until flows were curtailed by the Trump administration. More than seven million Venezuelans have fled since 2014, creating ripple effects across Colombia, Panama, Central America, and ultimately the U.S. southern border. The administration views this not merely as a humanitarian collapse but as exported instability. A legitimate government in Caracas offers the only plausible path to reversing that pressure over time.

Finally, Venezuela sits at the crossroads of energy and great-power competition. It holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, yet its production funds anti-U.S. activity through discounted sales to China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba via a global shadow fleet. Targeting Venezuelan oil exports simultaneously deprives the regime of revenue, disrupts sanctions-evasion networks worldwide, and weakens external powers’ footholds in the hemisphere—without direct confrontation.

Southern Spear: Slow and Steady Escalation

Initial actions under Southern Spear focused on drug-trafficking vessels, drawing predictable media attention. But the more consequential steps have targeted regime finance. Venezuela is a petro-state. Oil accounts for the overwhelming majority of its export revenue. The seizure of shadow-fleet tankers and the declaration of a blockade on sanctioned oil traffic strike directly at the regime’s economic lifeline.

Importantly, the use of force did not come first. It followed nearly eight years of escalating non-kinetic pressure: financial sanctions, diplomatic isolation, legal designations, travel restrictions, and economic penalties. Those measures failed to alter the regime's behavior in Venezuela or meaningfully disrupt transnational trafficking networks. Only after those tools were exhausted did the United States resort to limited kinetic action at sea.

That sequencing matters. It is the difference between improvisation and strategy.

This pressure extends far beyond Venezuela. For decades, sanctioned states and criminal networks—from Iran and Russia to transnational traffickers—have relied on aging vessels, false flags, spoofed tracking systems, and ship-to-ship transfers to move illicit cargo. That system survives only when enforcement is theoretical. Once interdiction becomes real, the economics collapse. Insurance dries up. Ports close. Crews reassess risk. What was once a workaround becomes a liability.

This is why Southern Spear represents more than counter-drug enforcement or regime change in Venezuela. It also signals that sanctions evasion will no longer be treated as a tolerable cost of doing business.

Cuba, in particular, is feeling the pain of oil disruption. Its economy is already collapsing, and its oil supplier, Venezuela, has had to reduce exports, creating an economic and, soon, humanitarian crisis on the island. If the U.S. strategy in Venezuela is successful, it will create a crisis for Cuba’s leaders.

Possible Outcomes

The range of plausible outcomes is narrower than critics suggest but broader than supporters often acknowledge. As the nearby table shows, success is not assured, and several outcomes are possible. Notably absent is a large-scale U.S. invasion. The force posture does not support it, and the strategy does not require it. There is real risk here. Maduro survived Trump's maximum pressure during Trump's first term and his personality and actions suggest he may be willing to risk his life to remain in the country. He is counting on the lack of U.S. will and the disruptive nature of the U.S. political system, and the support of his allies to help him ride out Southern Spear.

The Aftermath Question

What follows Maduro matters as much as how he leaves.

The administration has publicly signaled support for a civilian-led transition consistent with Venezuela’s last legitimate electoral outcome in 2024. Installing Edmundo González as president, backed by a broad opposition coalition, would offer the strongest claim to legitimacy and the best chance to reverse migration flows and attract international support.

That said, no serious planner assumes a frictionless transition. Elements of the Venezuelan military will inevitably play a role. The real question is whether they will act as guarantors of a civilian transition—or as a self-interested junta.

The U.S. force posture suggests that planners are acutely aware of this risk. The ability to suppress armed spoilers, secure critical infrastructure, and prevent rapid fragmentation may determine whether Venezuela experiences a reset or a relapse.

What Comes Next—and Why It Matters

I have tried throughout this piece to explain what is unfolding, not to predict how it will end. That restraint is deliberate. Anyone claiming certainty about the outcome, whether confident of success or failure, overstates what can be known at this stage.

What can be said is that the United States has made a serious strategic wager. This is not a symbolic deployment or a messaging exercise. It is an attempt to apply sustained pressure—economic, maritime, intelligence, and limited military force on a criminalized regime with the intent of replacing it, while deliberately avoiding large-scale war or occupation. That approach carries real risk. It could succeed quickly, producing an orderly transition and regional stabilization. It could stall, hardening resistance and testing U.S. resolve. Or it could fracture unpredictably, creating second-order effects that no one fully controls.

That uncertainty is precisely why this moment calls for more than partisan reflexes. The American people should understand the strategy being pursued before taking sides for or against it. Congress should debate the strategy’s merits, risks, and alternatives—not posture over isolated tactical incidents after decisions have already been made. And the media should devote sustained resources to understanding and explaining what is likely to unfold in the coming weeks, not merely reacting to the most dramatic images or sound bites.

Events in the Caribbean are moving faster now. The positioning of special forces in Puerto Rico and President Trump’s acknowledgment of at least one probable covert attack by CIA on land are evidence of that. The window for meaningful public understanding is narrowing. Whatever one’s view of the administration or its policies, this is a consequential moment in U.S. foreign and security policy. It deserves attention commensurate with the stakes—not later, after outcomes are fixed, but now, while they are still being shaped.

Read Part 1: America's Neighborhood: Why the Western Hemisphere Is Now a U.S. National Security Priority to understand better how Operation Southern Spear fits into the broader National Security Strategy.

------

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

America's Neighborhood: Why the Western Hemisphere Is Now a U.S. National Security Priority

This is Part I of a three-part series examining the Trump Administration's Venezuela strategy. Part II explains how that strategy translated into Operation Southern Spear and the military force posture now in the Caribbean. Part III describes the issues of power transition following the removal of Nicolas Maduro from power.

For decades, U.S. national security strategy treated the Western Hemisphere as largely settled terrain. Serious threats were assumed to lie elsewhere—in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia. Problems closer to home were treated as diplomatic, economic, or law-enforcement matters rather than core security concerns.

That assumption no longer holds.

The Trump Administration's 2025 National Security Strategy marks a clear reprioritization. The Western Hemisphere is now described as America's near strategic environment—a region where instability directly affects U.S. security, public health, and geopolitical influence. Migration, drug trafficking, transnational crime, and foreign state penetration are no longer treated as secondary issues. They are treated as strategic threats.

The Evolution of a Strategy

This shift didn't emerge suddenly. It began during President Trump's first term, when senior officials openly revived the Monroe Doctrine as a statement of hemispheric responsibility, warned against the expansion of Chinese and Russian influence, recognized Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate leader, and imposed unprecedented economic pressure on the Maduro regime. What changed over time wasn't the diagnosis but the willingness to enforce consequences.

During the years between Trump's administrations, the underlying problems intensified. Drug overdoses surged. Migration pressures mounted. Criminal networks became more deeply integrated with state actors. Foreign powers expanded their footholds in weak and corrupt states. By the time Trump returned to office, the costs of treating the hemisphere as a secondary concern were no longer abstract.

Why Now? The Numbers Tell the Story

The scale of the drug crisis alone explains the strategic shift. Among Americans ages 25–34, drug overdoses have become the leading cause of death—surpassing heart disease, cancer, suicide, and homicide.

Put this in perspective: a comparable number of Americans have died from overdoses in just the past five years as U.S. military casualties in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the War on Terror combined.

This is why the administration has reframed drug trafficking as a national security threat rather than a purely public-health or law-enforcement issue. Organized, transnational criminal systems are inflicting mass casualties on the United States. Treating that reality as peripheral is no longer defensible.

Venezuela: Where All the Problems Converge

Within this framework, Venezuela occupies a central position. It's not the only source of drugs, migration, or instability, but it's where these challenges converge most efficiently. Under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has become a permissive hub for narcotics trafficking, a primary driver of regional migration, a petro-state dependent on sanctions evasion, and a platform for Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Cuban influence. Pressure applied there affects multiple U.S. priorities simultaneously.

If this strategic reorientation endures across administrations, it could coincide with a rare alignment of leadership in the region. Countries such as El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, and Honduras are experimenting—each in its own way—with departures from failed orthodoxies. Combined with sustained U.S. engagement focused on security and enforcement rather than ideology, the result could be a generational transformation of the hemisphere.

Winners and Losers: The Strategic Reshuffling

This shift carries consequences for allies and partners. Strategy is inherently about prioritization, and prioritization produces winners and losers.

Canada faces a difficult recalibration. Some argue it should diversify its trade and diplomatic relationships, including with China. Others warn that doing so would directly conflict with U.S. strategic objectives. Geography and economics leave Canada deeply linked to a neighbor moving in a new direction.

Europe is clearly less important relative to other regions under the new NSS. Elements of the Trump Administration argue that Europe has enjoyed a strategic free ride for decades and must now assume greater responsibility—not only for its defense but also for preserving social and cultural cohesion strained by misguided immigration policies.

In the Middle East, the administration remains committed to advancing the Abraham Accords, reducing Iranian influence, and promoting peaceful coexistence and economic integration among regional partners. In Africa, the emphasis is shifting away from open-ended aid toward investment, opportunity, and mutually beneficial economic engagement.

The United States isn't abandoning Europe, the Middle East, or Africa. But its approach to those regions and the resources devoted to them will be reduced relative to those for the Western Hemisphere.

The Bigger Question: Spheres of Influence?

A larger, unresolved question looms: how will China, Russia, and others interpret this shift? Will they view it as a retreat from global leadership and a tacit division of the world into spheres of influence? If the U.S. can declare an entire hemisphere its sphere of influence, can China do the same? Some believe this is precisely what President Trump intends, but there is no definitive evidence of that. But if such a system emerges, intentionally or otherwise, it would mark a fundamental change in the post-Cold War international order.

Pentagon Restructuring: Strategy Meets Structure

This reprioritization is already evident within the Pentagon. The Department of War is restructuring the combatant command system, reportedly reducing the number of commands from eleven to eight. Plans include consolidating U.S. European, Central, and Africa Commands into a new International Command and unifying Northern and Southern Commands into a single Americas Command. The result would be fewer four-star headquarters and a force posture more closely aligned with hemispheric priorities.

What Matters: Strategy, Not Tactics

Whether this strategy succeeds will depend on execution and endurance across administrations. But the strategic diagnosis is hard to dispute. The United States is no longer insulated from instability in its own hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is no longer optional terrain. It is strategic ground.

Predictably, much media and congressional attention has focused on tactical events—most notably the killing of two men aboard a drug-running vessel. The use of lethal force warrants review, and there are established military mechanisms to conduct it. But these incidents shouldn't eclipse the larger issue: a historic shift in national strategy.

That shift should be front and center in public debate. Instead, it's often overshadowed by sensational imagery and partisan reflexes. Congress, in particular, has largely abdicated its role in shaping strategy, instead serving as a rubber stamp for whichever political team is in power.

Some in Congress now object on constitutional grounds, citing Congress's authority to declare war. In theory, they're correct. In practice, Congress has long since surrendered that role, allowing presidents of both parties to conduct military operations worldwide with tacit consent. If Congress wishes to reclaim its authority, it should debate the strategy—approve it, reject it, or amend it—not feign outrage over enforcement actions to score political points.

The Debate We Should Be Having

This is a major shift in American national security strategy. Citizens and their representatives should debate it seriously—not the tactics, but the strategy itself. The first step in that process is understanding what is happening.

I hope this post contributes, in a small way, to that effort.

Read Part II, From Strategy to Enforcement: What the U.S. Is Doing in the Caribbean where I examine how this strategic shift is now being translated into concrete military and enforcement actions in the Caribbean.

------

Trump Accounts: What Families Need to Know Before 2026

The creation of Trump Accounts could be one of the most significant changes to American family finances in a generation. Starting in 2026, every parent and guardian of a child under 18 will be able to open a federally approved, tax-advantaged investment account designed to provide lifelong financial security for their child.

The idea is simple but revolutionary: a universal savings account for children, in some cases partly funded by public or charitable donations, invested exclusively in low-cost U.S. stock market index funds, and kept locked until adulthood. Parents cannot use these accounts for toys, vacations, or emergencies. These accounts aim to create a solid foundation for long-term financial stability and retirement security.

Since these accounts will be activated during the 2025 tax filing cycle, families should familiarize themselves with the rules now, well before the first IRS forms are available in mid-2026.

This guide explains what Trump Accounts are, how they differ from 529 plans and custodial accounts, what families will need to do in 2026, and—crucially—why these accounts can be confidently used as a permanent part of the tax code.

Courts in the Crossfire: How Injunctions and Venue Games Are Damaging the Judiciary

On October 27, 2025, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked Executive Order 14248, which required proof of citizenship for voter registration on federal forms. The executive order goal was straightforward: ensure that only citizens vote, as mandated by federal law. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the President “lacks authority” to alter election procedures under the Elections Clause.

That ruling conflates two very different constitutional areas. The Elections Clause that she relies on governs how elections are conducted—such as polling hours and ballots—not who is eligible to vote. Citizenship is a legal qualification, and the President’s duty under the Take Care Clause is to enforce those laws faithfully. Cases like Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013) confirm that federal authorities can require proof of eligibility. Under the Youngstown framework, a 1952 Supreme Court test that defines the limits of presidential power, this order clearly falls within the category in which the President acts with congressional approval. The National Voter Registration Act allows the Election Assistance Commission to require information “necessary” to determine eligibility. This isn’t executive overreach; it’s the proper execution of the law.

Sober Awakening: Faith's Quiet Revolution

A Wedding Without Wine

Last month, I attended the wedding of a young couple, only twenty-two years old. It was one of the most touching ceremonies I’ve ever seen: love, faith, and reverence filled the hall. Every detail, from the prayers to the communion hymns, moved those in attendance.

At the reception, no alcohol was served—but the dance floor was packed. Laughter, rhythm, and joy filled the night. These were twenty- and thirty-somethings—faithful, confident, and completely comfortable in their sobriety. It wasn’t deprivation; it was joy rooted in faith, the kind that sees no need to dull the senses or cloud the moment.

That evening was symbolic of a quiet revolution that is underway. After generations of associating alcohol with adulthood and success, America is shifting away from that view. Gallup reports that only about 54% of adults now drink, down from two-thirds just a few years ago. This isn’t due to policy—it’s personal. A change of heart, and young people are leading the change.

Vindicated: Trump’s Bold Plan Ignites the Middle East’s Long-Awaited Dawn

Nearly two years ago, in the shadow of Hamas’s barbaric October 7, 2023, assault, I wrote about the unexpected opportunity emerging from that horror. Then, in June of this year, I described a turning point, Israel’s decisive actions against Iran and its proxies that I believed would realign the region. Those posts, offered a prediction: that Iran’s overreach would ultimately collapse its influence, strengthen the Abraham Accords, and open a path toward durable regional peace. What then was hope and optimism is now becoming history and I am profoundly grateful.

The Plan That Changed the Game

President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the Gaza War has redefined Middle East diplomacy. Its first phase, securing the release of hostages, a ceasefire, and initial withdrawal, and release of some Israeli held prisoners, has been signed by both Israel and Hamas, with implementation imminent.

From Riyadh to Islamabad, world leaders have hailed Trump’s blueprint as a “bold vision for peace,” combining humanitarian relief, demilitarization, and post-war governance.

This isn’t a symbolic gesture, it’s a structural shift. Hamas is militarily broken, Iran’s proxies are neutralized, Iran is on its heals, and the Abraham Accords are expanding. The cycle of perpetual war is giving way to a framework of mutual security and economic growth.

Trump’s success in the Middle East stems not only from strength, but from fairness. He is trusted precisely because he has acted as a credible, even-handed broker, something few American presidents have achieved. Israel remains America’s steadfast ally, but Trump made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that there would be no annexation of the West Bank, preserving space for Palestinian self-governance. When Israeli operatives overstepped in their failed strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Trump insisted Netanyahu issue a formal apology to Qatar, signaling that even allies must respect the rules of peace. That balance, firm loyalty to Israel paired with accountability and respect for Arab sovereignty, has earned him rare trust across the region. Leaders from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Egypt view Trump as a negotiator who honors strength, keeps his word, and delivers results.

From Despair to Leverage

An Open Letter on the Dignity Act of 2025: A Bipartisan Start

To Representatives María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), and all Americans:

In a time of partisan deadlock, your Dignity Act of 2025 (H.R. 4393) shows promise through bipartisan backing, including eleven Republicans and eleven Democrats. However, it risks failure because it repeats previous mistakes. As a commentator who recently completed a four-part series on immigration reform, I recommend that you focus on framing your bill strategically, prioritizing overhaul of the 1965 Immigration Act, and enforcement and reform of immigration related policies before legalization.

Where the Act Gets It Right

Your bill’s enforcement measures are robust. A $46.5 billion investment in barriers, technology, and ports of entry, along with 24/7 aerial surveillance and harsher penalties for smugglers and repeat offenders, demonstrates genuine seriousness. The phased rollout of mandatory E-Verify is vital. These measures echo my call for “relentless enforcement” at the border and in the interior as the non-negotiable precondition for any agreement.

Your asylum reforms are equally important. Humanitarian camps to process claims within 60 days, penalties for fraud, and regional processing centers abroad are practical steps to prevent abuse of the asylum system. If executed correctly, as part of broader reforms, these changes could help close the “catch and release” loophole and restore trust in our asylum laws.

I also see value in the Dignity Act’s restitution requirements. Requiring undocumented immigrants to pay $7,000 over seven years, undergo biometrics, check in regularly, and remain ineligible for federal benefits acknowledges that legalization must be earned, not handed out. These elements closely align with the Temporary Guest Resident and Special Legal Permanent Resident models I have proposed.

Gerrymandering: The One Thing Democrats and Republicans Agree On

Gerrymandering is once again in the news. I first wrote about it in 2019, but since then what was once an occasional tactic has turned into a high-stakes battleground in the fight for power. In this post, I suggest one way to control the worst gerrymanders — by empowering federal courts to strike down maps that are grossly disproportionate.

In Texas, Republicans redrew maps to improve their chances in 2026, prompting Democrats to denounce the move as an attack on democracy. Meanwhile, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom aims to expand a heavily Democratic-leaning delegation, where a 22.3% distortion favoring Democrats, combined with the state’s 52-seat delegation, creates one of the most significant imbalances in the nation.

Gerrymandering has been a feature of American politics since the founding of the Republic and has long been a staple of the country's political landscape. In recent decades, however, the practice has become more advanced, more coordinated nationwide, and more central to partisan conflicts. Additionally, technology enables precise manipulation, and national leaders are now investing directly in state-level races.

Immigration Reform Part 4: From Strategy to Action

For decades, Washington has traded promises of border security “tomorrow” for leniency “today.” In Reagan’s 1986 Act, legalization proceeded, but enforcement never followed. Americans now understand that promises alone do not secure borders—only laws, resources, and tangible results do. This plan changes that history by first rebuilding laws, institutions, and enforcement, while registering illegal immigrants only after legislative changes are put in place. Legalization will only begin once the new system has demonstrated its effectiveness.

A Demographic Reality We Can’t Ignore

America faces a fertility crisis. Our fertility rate, at 1.6 compared to the 2.1 needed for stability, risks a 25% population decline by 2085, resulting in a drop from 334 million to 251 million. This would shrink the workforce and decrease economic output. Unless fertility rates rise significantly, immigration will be the most effective way to stabilize the population, requiring 2.5–3 million legal immigrants annually.

But immigration alone is not a solution. The economy of the 21st century will be shaped by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence, which will boost productivity and decrease the need for certain types of labor while increasing demand for others. This means immigration must be managed carefully, not just in terms of volume, but also in terms of composition, balancing birth rates, economic needs, and technological progress. When done correctly, immigration can offer both stability and flexibility during times of demographic decline and rapid change.

Immigration Reform Part 3: The Strategic Imperitive

In Part 2 of this four-part series, we looked at how decades of broken promises, political gamesmanship, and misplaced compassion pushed America’s immigration system to the brink. But simply pointing out failures isn’t enough. If we want to restore order, public trust, and fairness, we must go beyond slogans and quick fixes. We need a strategy, a clear and practical framework that explains not just how we handle immigration, but why.

This strategy must support America’s security, economic, and cultural interests while allowing room for responsible compassion. Only then can we provide a humane and disciplined path forward that gains the confidence of the American people.

Tactics Are Not Strategy

The Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz said war is “politics by other means.” Tactics, he argued, are useless without a clear purpose. Immigration policy is no different. Deportations, walls, visa limits, or legalization are tools, not solutions.

Some advocate for mass deportation as the answer. Others support open borders, citing compassion as their reason. Both overlook the main issue: what kind of society are we building, and how does immigration help us get there? Open-border advocates argue that compassion and global humanitarian duties take precedence over national interests, but no country can thrive with unlimited generosity. Mass deportation alone ignores the need for legal paths and economic factors. Without a shared vision based on our nation’s needs, economic growth, cultural unity, and security, we end up with reactive enforcement, unpredictable policies, and a growing gap between what the public expects and what the system actually delivers.

How Immigration Policy Lost Its Way

The United States is an idea built on liberty, responsibility, and unity. However, recent immigration policies have shifted away from these principles, often driven by sentiment, corporate interests, or political gain. Corporate lobbies push for cheap labor. Activists promote demographic change. Politicians modify rules to sway elections. What’s missing is a plan to align immigration policies with America’s long-term interests.

A firm immigration policy starts with clear questions: Who can support our economic interests? How do we bring them in legally and sustainably? How do we ensure they assimilate and follow our laws? These questions focus on the nation’s interests rather than short-term gestures or ideological victories.

Progressives often quote the Statue of Liberty’s poem, “Give me your tired, your poor…,” as if it’s law. But the Statue, a gift from France, celebrated liberty, not open borders. Emma Lazarus’s poem was a later addition, expressing sentiment rather than a strategy.

Historically, immigration met America’s needs. In the 19th century, immigrants were pioneers settling the frontier to support the nation’s expansion. During industrialization, another wave of immigrants contributed to the growth of factories and the economy. Most came from Europe, sharing cultural roots that eased assimilation. They worked to adopt American values despite facing challenges like discrimination.

Immigration Reform Part 2: Why We Keep Failing—and What It Will Take to Succeed

A bipartisan opportunity for meaningful immigration reform may finally be on the horizon, but only if both sides are willing to reflect on how we arrived at this point. This post continues from Part 1 by exploring the political, legal, and cultural choices, on both the left and the right, that have contributed to today’s immigration crisis. For decades, partisan agendas, broken promises, and misplaced priorities have shaped a system that pleases no one and fails everyone. While millions remain in legal limbo and needed systemic change is ignored, political leaders cling to slogans instead of solutions. By tracing the history of immigration policy from the 1986 amnesty to today’s dysfunction, we can begin to understand why real reform has been so challenging and what kind of consensus will be necessary to move forward.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, a comprehensive law that provided legal status and a path to citizenship for nearly 3 million illegal immigrants. It was a significant compromise: amnesty in exchange for more vigorous border enforcement. However, only part of that agreement was fulfilled. Legalization occurred, but enforcement did not.

President Ronald Reagan signing the Immigration Reformand Control Act, 1986. He said during his comments: "Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our effort to humanely regain control of our border and to thereby preserve the value of the most sacred possession of our people, American citizenship."

That broken promise shaped the decades that followed. It hardened Republican skepticism, encouraged more illegal migration, and eroded public trust in the government’s ability to manage immigration. Nearly 40 years later, the failure of that deal still casts a long shadow over every attempt at reform.

Immigration Reform Part 1: Necessary and Possible

The immigration issues facing the United States are vast. President Donald Trump might be the only president since Ronald Reagan with both the opportunity and the political will to tackle them thoroughly. However, achieving this will require something rare in today's political climate: both sides of the aisle opening their eyes and reaching a compromise to develop a comprehensive immigration plan.

Trump is not a traditional conservative. Nor is he a doctrinaire populist. He is a pragmatist, a president whose instinct is to solve problems rather than adhere to dogma. That is why he can pivot, adjust, and make deals in ways that confound both his enemies and his allies.

Already, there is grumbling within his coalition that he might shift from a “deport everyone” stance toward a solution that includes some form of legalization for people illegally in the United States who meet specific criteria. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, recently warned his followers that wealthy donors and political insiders are pressuring Trump to ease off mass deportation rhetoric.

Social Security Taxes to Decrease for Some Seniors

A retired teacher in Ohio with a modest pension and Social Security benefits could save $800 annually under a quiet provision tucked into the recently passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill. This targeted tax break for middle-income seniors deserves attention, both for what it accomplishes and what it represents.

Currently, Social Security benefits become taxable once a retiree's 'combined income,' Social Security plus other income, exceeds $25,000 for singles or $32,000 for couples. This creates a tax trap: a retiree who withdraws an extra $1,000 from their 401(k) might see $850 of their Social Security benefits become taxable too, effectively facing tax on $1,850 of income from a $1,000 withdrawal.

While some Republicans pushed to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security altogether, the final bill didn’t go nearly that far. Instead, it creates a new deduction of $6,000 for single seniors and $12,000 for married couples, aimed at Americans over the age of 65. The White House says this will effectively eliminate taxes on Social Security income for 88% of seniors. That number may be optimistic, but the basic design makes sense, and is largely accurate.

The poorest seniors already pay no federal tax on their benefits, and Social Security benefits are not taxable at their income level. So, this new deduction isn’t for them; it’s aimed at those who worked, saved modestly, and now face taxes on their benefits because they have a small pension, or modest 401(k) withdrawals, or some investment income. For these people, the tax system can be a trap, where every dollar withdrawn from savings makes more of their Social Security taxable. This bill offers real relief to those caught in that squeeze.

The deduction phases out for singles earning over $75,000 and couples over $150,000, which is a reasonable cap. It keeps the benefit focused where it arguably belongs, on working- and middle-class retirees, rather than extending it to the wealthy or the very poor, who either don’t need it or already receive full exclusion. Importantly, the deduction stacks on top of the standard deduction, simplifying taxes rather than complicating them.

Also worth noting: The bill's age restriction creates an unfortunate gap: disabled Americans under 65 receiving Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits face the same tax trap as seniors but receive no relief. A 45-year-old disabled individual with modest retirement savings receives no deduction, whereas a 65-year-old with the same income does. This omission likely reflects political calculation rather than policy logic.

Like many tax changes, this one “sunsets” in 2028, a transparent budget gimmick designed to minimize its official cost. However, once a benefit like this is in place, it becomes difficult to remove. It will almost certainly be renewed, if not made permanent.

This measure falls far short of eliminating all income tax on Social Security income as President Trump had promised. In this case, Congress played its role in addressing his concern without incurring unsustainable debt. A complete repeal of Social Security taxation would cost far more, roughly $1.4 trillion over 10 years, versus approximately $66 billion for this deduction. This provision is a targeted and modest modification to the law to help middle-class seniors while keeping the impact on the deficit relatively low.

This brings me to an uncomfortable truth: as someone who may benefit from this provision, I find myself torn between appreciating targeted relief for middle-class retirees and worrying about our broader fiscal trajectory. The federal deficit is no abstraction; it’s a growing threat. This measure may be modest, but it reflects a dangerous pattern. These kinds of “vote sweeteners” are how legislation gets passed—pile up enough goodies for enough constituencies, and you’ve got the votes. But taken together, they’re not harmless. Combine this with other giveaways like the expanded State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, expected to cost $200 billion and disproportionately benefiting the wealthy in high-tax blue states, and it’s clear we’re trading long-term stability for short-term politics.

This Social Security tax break, like many others, is aimed at seniors, a reliable voting bloc politicians love to please. But the debt it adds to will not be paid by seniors. Our children and grandchildren will pay it. I would willingly forego this benefit if it meant Congress would finally act with the seriousness our fiscal reality demands. The real test isn't whether this particular provision makes sense—it does. The test is whether we can summon the political will to address the larger fiscal challenges while still protecting those who need help most.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.