America is on track to become a “net mortality society,” where deaths outnumber births. As births plummet to almost 25% below replacement, the United States faces a future with a shrinking population, and the consequences extend far beyond the American family. Nicholas Eberstadt argues that falling birth rates reflect a deeper cultural shift away from marriage, family, and the institutions that have long sustained prosperous societies, raising difficult questions about economic growth, immigration, Social Security, and America’s future. He examines the consequences of the men-without-work problem in the wake of the COVID pandemic, the role of AI in shaping immigrants’ job opportunities, and how socialism’s growing popularity in America affects the labor market. Combined with fertility rates collapsing across the developed world and loneliness reaching unprecedented levels, can America capitalize on our advantages in a way that China can’t? Or are we bound to the same fate as other countries like Poland or Japan? Can public policy reverse these trends, or is this ultimately a crisis of meaning and norms rather than economics? Ultimately, what happens when societies stop replacing themselves…
Nicholas Eberstadt holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and is a senior adviser to the National Bureau of Asian Research. He has written numerous books and monographs, including His many books and monographs include Men Without Work: Post-Pandemic Edition (2022); Russia’s Peacetime Demographic Crisis: Dimensions, Causes, Implications (2010). He has offered invited testimony before Congress on numerous occasions and has served as consultant or adviser for a variety of units in the US government. In 2020, he received the Irving Kristol Award, AEI’s highest honor.
On this episode of WTH Live! Stephen Hadley, Robert O’Brien, and Michèle Flournoy join Marc on the Aspen Security Forum stage to discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of Trump’s foreign policy scorecard. In a frank and bipartisan discussion on what should come next, especially in Ukraine, Iran, and Venezuela, and what the Trump Doctrine has evolved to represent, Marc asks the panelists to fairly reflect on the second Trump Administration. The resolution of the conflicts above hinge on intentional American leadership and clear-eyed peace through strength. So where are we now, and where do we have to go?
Stephen J. Hadley, 20th U.S. National Security Advisor; Founding Principal, Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel LLC.
Robert O’Brien, 27th U.S. National Security Advisor; Chairman, American Global Strategies.
Michèle Flournoy, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Co-Founder and Managing Partner, WestExec Advisors.
Donald Trump’s on again off again deal making with the Iranians has hit another flashpoint this week as exchanges of fire on commercial shipping and US military bases in the region stymied negotiations before their 60 day deadline. Although large-scale combat has subsided, the conflict between the United States and Iran is far from over. Nick Carl argues that Tehran has emerged from the war with a new strategic objective: establishing de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz and using it as a tool of coercion against the international community after its traditional sources of deterrence fell short. He also examines the regime’s evolving leadership following Ali Khamenei’s death, the continued discontent between Iran’s rulers and its people, and why Tehran believes it can outlast the United States politically despite suffering major military setbacks. While conventional wisdom suggests Iranian weakness (as discussed in our many conversations with General Jack Keane), Tehran is nonetheless negotiating from a position of confidence. Is the United States remains committed to denying Iran control of the Strait? Can diplomacy succeed without rewarding Iranian aggression? And ultimately, who has the greater will to persist? Will President Trump accept a bad agreement or abandon his deal making desires in pursuit of a more decisive outcome?
Nicholas Carl is the Assistant Director for the Critical Threats Project and a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Carl is the author of reports, analyses, and maps covering Iran’s regional strategy and nuclear program, military structure, and politics. His commentary and maps have been featured in a variety of media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times.
As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, fundamental questions about the Constitution and the balance of power are once again at the center of American politics. John Yoo joins to examine the Supreme Court’s landmark term, arguing that its recent decisions have restored presidential authority over the administrative state, clarified the constitutional limits of independent agencies, and reaffirmed birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment while leaving broader immigration policy in Congress’s hands, as the Constitution intended. From executive power and the civil service to court packing, the filibuster, and the separation of powers, John explains whether the Court is actually reshaping American government and executive power or restoring an originalist vision of the Constitution. As calls to restructure the Court grow louder, are America’s constitutional guardrails strong enough to withstand the political battles ahead? And once again, we ask if Congress will do its job in weighing its own responsibilities in the system of checks and balances?
John Yoo is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Yoo has served in all three branches of government. He was an official in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism issues after the 9/11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. He has been a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and federal appeals Judge Laurence Silberman. Professor Yoo has published almost 100 scholarly articles on subjects including national security, constitutional law, international law, and the Supreme Court. He also regularly contributes to the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and National Review, among others. Professor Yoo’s latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court.
President Trump has publicly speculated that resuming military operations against Iran could trigger an economic catastrophe, warning of soaring gas prices and even a global depression. It is rumored that senior officials within the administration are driving this narrative in an effort to steer Trump away from finishing the conflict, as fears of Iranian long term impact on global oil markets appear to be exaggerated. Economist Glenn Hubbard argues that while energy markets and inflation deserve consideration, the role of economists is to analyze tradeoffs and identify ways to mitigate the economic costs of national security decisions; to inform policy, not determine it. On balance, he contends that the long-term costs of failed deterrence outweigh the short-term economic risks. So, as the administration weighs whether to return to combat or settle for an unacceptable status quo, is the greater economic and national security risk resuming the fight or leaving Iran’s threats unresolved? And what price does America pay for failing to finish the job?
Glenn Hubbard is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his work is focused on a wide range of economic issues including health care; poverty; public, corporate, and international finance; and financial markets and institutions. A former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers at the White House, Dr. Hubbard concurrently serves as dean emeritus and Russell L. Carson Professor of Economics and Finance at Columbia Business School. He has also served as a deputy assistant secretary at the US Treasury Department and as a consultant to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, among other positions.
Over the weekend, the United States signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran to begin negotiations on a nuclear deal. To understand what a good deal would entail, it is important to assess the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program following Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury, as well as the timeline on which Tehran could produce a weapon despite these setbacks. David Albright argues that securing Tehran’s admission of the program’s existence and permitting on-the-ground IAEA inspections should be among the top priorities. A weak agreement lacking robust verification measures and proper extraction of nuclear materials could ultimately strengthen Iran, given the potential influx of fungible cash and the absence of sanctions that have allegedly circled discussions. In that case, is no deal better than a bad deal? What will it take to disarm the nuclear threat?
David Albright is the founder and President of the non-profit Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C. He has written numerous assessments on secret nuclear weapons programs throughout the world has authored or co-authored nine books and briefed policymakers on non-proliferation policy making. Albright cooperated with the IAEA Action Team analyzing Iraqi documents and was the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program. Previously, Albright was a member of the Health Advisory Panel in his capacity as a physicist and was appointed to the Department of Energy Openness Advisory Panel. He is currently an American Physical Society (APS) Fellow and the 2006 recipient of the APS’s Joseph A. Burton Forum Award.
While the world’s attention has been fixed on the war in Iran, the battlefield in Ukraine has largely shifted in Kyiv’s favor. ISW’s George Barros joins us to explain how Ukrainian innovations in drone warfare, logistics, and battlefield technology have slowed Russia’s advance, increased Russian casualties, and created new opportunities for Ukrainian counterattacks. These developments are especially meaningful for future peace negotiations, as Russia’s strategy is showing signs of severe strain. Putin’s wartime claims and demands have become even more ridiculous as Ukraine strikes deeper into Russian territory. Ukraine’s wartime innovations are already helping protect American forces around the world as they reshape the future of warfare in real time. Free democracies like Ukraine tend to outpace their adversaries in innovation, and the United States should do more to friend-shore critical industries and pursue military industrial cooperation to our mutual benefit.
George Barros is the Director of Innovation and Open Source Tradecraft at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), previously led ISW’s Russia Team and founded ISW GEOINT Team and has served as a policy advisor on Ukraine and Russia for a U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee member. His analyses and interviews have appeared in outlets including The Hill, Washington Post, BBC, Reuters, Voice of America, and more.
In his relentless pursuit of a deal with Iran, Donald Trump has now returned to military escalation, resuming combat operations and warning that the United States will seize Iran’s key oil export hub on Kharg Island. This so-called moderate ceasefire signals a renewed campaign of punishing strikes on Iran until it agrees to terms set by the administration’s negotiating team. As Miad explains, however, Iran’s hardline is not the “leverage” Tehran believes it to be, because Iran ultimately must reopen the Strait of Hormuz for its own economic survival. But at this moment, Donald Trump has no viable partner for peace, and Iran will likely never offer such an option. As Marc and Dany point out, there is no Iranian Delcy Rodríguez, and these kinds of arrangements have expiration dates, particularly as 2028 approaches. As long as the sole measure of success in Iran is a negotiated deal, the Iranians hold the power to decide whether victory is possible. It is up to Trump to decide whether that’s acceptable.
Miad Maleki is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), former senior U.S. sanctions strategist and national security leader, and former associate director for the Treasury’s Office of Global Targeting at the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Miad played a central role in marshalling the Treasury Department’s sanctions campaigns against the Iranian regime and its proxy groups: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi Shiite militias, and the Houthis. He is also a U.S. Air Force Veteran.
The United States has poured billions into the United Nations to fund relief works, but not all that money goes where you might think. Years of impunity have allowed murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud to flourish in the UN system, yet the UN Secretary General and his team have stonewalled investigations, invoked “privileges and immunities” to shield employees, and protected the worst of the worst. And then there’s UNRWA, where investigations report as many as 1,500 employees are members of Hamas, some of whom participated directly in the October 7th attacks on Israel. The USAID Inspector General, operating independently from the State Department, is digging into the corruption and fraud buried inside the UN system and within its ranks. In a break from our usual call for Congress to do its job, we’re giving credit where it’s due: Members are shining a light on this issue but while Congress requires vetting when writing checks to these agencies, legal requirements are regularly ignored by both Republicans and Democrats in the Executive Branch. The UN’s broad “privileges and immunities” have become a cover for taxpayer funded grift and a shield for inexcusable crimes. What can be done to support these investigations? And why continue funding UN agencies with a proven record of violating American law and American national security?
Adam Kaplan is the acting Associate Deputy Inspector General at the U.S. Agency for International Development. He works with senior administration officials and Congress to ensure effective oversight of U.S.-funded foreign assistance, with a focus on preventing fraud, corruption, and diversion of humanitarian aid by terrorist organizations. Specializing in oversight of billions of dollars in foreign assistance to Gaza and Ukraine, Adam works with U.S., bilateral, and multilateral agencies to ensure that OIG’s criminal investigators have access to information necessary to conduct their criminal, civil, and administrative investigative work. Prior to this role, Adam served as OIG’s deputy general counsel, supporting criminal investigators and the Department of Justice on criminal investigations, False Claims Act cases, and suspension/debarment actions.
With the 2030 Census fast approaching, battles over redistricting and congressional apportionment continue to take shape. As population shifts continue, driven by migration from blue states to red states and the influx of illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities, both parties are looking to secure a larger share of political representation in the decade ahead. At the center of the debate is the Democratic Party’s reliance on a strict, constructivist reading of Article I’s “Free Persons Clause” to justify counting illegal immigrants in reapportionment and redistricting. Critics argue that the lack of legal basis hinder our ability to police the practice and contend that the voting power of American citizens are effectively diluted. Howard proposes an alternative approach: a citizenship initiative focused on those here legally and eligible to naturalize, rather than creating what he describes as modern-day “rotten boroughs”, districts with inflated populations but disproportionate influence in federal elections. Would the Democratic Party support such an effort? Or will they continue to double down on their outrageously unpopular embrace of high illegal immigration?
Howard Husock is a senior fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on municipal government, urban housing policy, civil society, and philanthropy. Before joining AEI, Mr. Husock was vice president for research and publications at the Manhattan Institute. He has also been a director of case studies in public policy and management at the Harvard Kennedy School, a member of the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and a journalist and Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker.