CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

There are still some Trump supporters out there who continue to bill the Trump administration as some kind of great victory for the forces of populism against the “deep state.” A year into the second Trump administration, it is clear this is not a serious position. The populism of the Trump campaign has clearly failed and what we ended up with instead is a continuation and strengthening of the status quo. Over the next three years of this second Trump term, the welfare-warfare state will only get larger. Trump now actively pushes to strengthen the surveillance state, and to massively increase overall defense spending. He points to some miniscule trimming around the edges of the welfare state while overall spending continues to rise and federal deficits are near all-time highs. In turn, these huge deficits will require central-bank intervention to partly monetize the debt, pushing up price inflation. 

Far from being some sort of shock to the system in Washington, Trump is governing largely like a business-as-usual Republican. In other words, it should be abundantly obvious by now that there is not going to be anything coming out of this administration that will endanger the governing elites or their institutions which retain a firm grip on Washington institutions and the special interests that drive policy. 

This is apparently the best that the “militant” populists could come up with: yet another milquetoast republican administration that will ensure the gravy train continues for politically favored allies. This administration is basically just a Marco Rubio administration with some “mean tweets” thrown in for color. 

The populist “victory” of the Trump administration is perhaps the best evidence yet that a strategy of “vote harder” is simply not going to lead to any significant change of any kind. After all, the media, academia, and even the GOP’s old guard fought tooth and nail to keep Trump out of the White House. And in the end, it was much ado about nothing. Now, just imagine if someone ran for the presidency who actually opposed the regime’s power on principle. That person would simply not be allowed to get the nomination, let alone win. 

So, there won’t be any viable candidates who will actually tear down the federal state through legal or constitutional means. That will not be permitted via any federal election. The logic of the welfare state, moreover, ensures that no candidate can hope to get elected while also favoring significant cuts to defense spending, old-age pensions, or any of the beloved federal programs that support millions of Americans on the dole, such as pensioners and government contractors. 

The only way significant change comes to this tightly constructed system of patrons and clients will be via a significant crisis that disrupts standards of living. This must be severe enough that it shakes the population’s faith in the regime to the point that people actually begin to question the state’s legitimacy. Only when real economic pain is felt will there be any real change. So long as the most of the population feels comfortable enough with an ample supply of Doordash and pornography and reality TV, the system will be deemed to be working “well enough.” 

Eventually, however, the ruling elite, through either miscalculation or laziness or complacency, will no longer be able to deliver on its promises to guarantee ease, safety, and “free” goods and services for a growing population on the dole. Once the elites become unable to buy compliance from the population, the regime will turn to brute force. This, however, can only last as long as the ruling elites are able to draw upon loyal personnel in large enough numbers as to be able to force obedience from the general population. This is easier said than done, especially in a period of economic stagnation or decline. The Soviet Union is a key example. In 1989, when the Soviet Government was crumbling, the Soviet Regime still commanded six million personnel in military uniform. But when the regime tried to shore up control, that enormous military proved to be largely AWOL and of little use. 

But then what? Once the ruling elite and its regime cease to be seen as legitimate, and once the usual methods of control fail, what is the next step? Unfortunately, the next step is usually to simply replace the outgoing group of governing elites with a new group. This is the usual progression of events. Uprisings turn into civil wars and civil wars turn into contests over who will control the state’s enormous apparatus of coercion. The French revolution is perhaps the quintessential cautionary tale here. The revolutionaries won with lavish promises of freedom and “rule by the people.” Yet, there is no such thing as rule “by the people,” and there never has been. Any polity that is more complex than a tribal village ultimately ends up with the civil government in the hands of a relatively small elite.

What usually happens is this: the state and most of its powers endure, but under new management. As the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto put it: “The revolution at the end of the eighteenth century led merely to the bourgeoisie taking the place of the old elite.”  Pareto further notes that in the wake of a revolution, the population discovers “they have merely exchanged yokes.”

This will be the ultimate end game of every scheme hatched by those who imagine themselves to be anti-regime radicals, but who ultimately want nothing more than to keep the state fully in tact and use it to their own ends. And make no mistake, the power will be used to benefit the small new class of governing elites, at the expense of the ordinary taxpayers. Whatever rhetoric may be used about serving “the people” will be nothing more than window dressing designed to trick unsophisticated non-elites into supporting the new regime. 

Whether from the Left or the Right, this type of centralist “revolutions” will provide no escape from the endless cycle of replacing one set of elites with another, and which characterizes much of human history which is, Pareto writes, “a graveyard of aristocracies.” Again and again, we find that the “liberators” are doing little more than replacing the people’s current yoke with a slightly different one.

Consequently, the only hope in providing any truly limiting factors on state power will be the dismemberment of the state into smaller and weaker pieces. It will be necessary to check power with power through true decentralization. This is why the Soviet state never re-emerged under a new name with similar prerogatives. Thanks largely to the centrifugal forces of latent nationalism within the various republics of the Soviet Union, the new Russian elite that replaced the old Soviet elite was unable to maintain the “union.” The result has been greatly beneficial to many of the former Soviet republics—especially the Baltic states—and to the old states of the Warsaw Pact which were informally under the boot of the Soviet regime.   In other words, the dismemberment of the Soviet State, through a variety of de jure and de facto secession movements, accomplished what would not have been through simply placing a new elite atop the Soviet state. 

Similarly, the American revolution, which was primarily a movement to secede from the British state, created a highly decentralized new “state” which possessed few of the powers of the old regime.

We can conclude that any American who actually values human freedom—and its necessary antecedent, the weakening of the central state—will desire a similar dismemberment of the United States. After all, as the French revolution showed us, it is not enough to simply transfer the regime from the hands of one elite to another. Rather, radical decentralization, via secession and other means, will have to take place in order to create new power centers and new elites that can push back against the established elites and power centers of the rump state. Only when power is allowed to check power will there be any meaningful institutional limits on state power. 

Yet, for the foreseeable future, we are likely to hear over and over again that the only acceptable “strategy” is to embrace elections and party politics. This is the “vote harder” argument. The usual “reformers” prefer this because voting, from the perspective of the regime, is harmless and quite ineffective in mounting any sort of meaningful opposition to the core powers and institutions of the state and its elites. Moreover, even in the highly unlikely event that elections were able to bring about any significant replacement of the current elite, this would only leave the current centralized state and its institutions intact, with only a change in those who control the means of exploitation.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

A few short weeks ago House Democrats were riding high. They had spent tens of millions to win a Virginia referendum that promised up to four new seats. President Trump was struggling in the polls. The path to a House majority looked plausible.

Yet in the span of roughly two weeks, a combination of aggressive Republican redistricting and a pivotal Supreme Court decision has dramatically altered the battlefield. What was once a Democratic advantage has become a steep uphill climb. Republicans are now positioned to gain as many as 10 to 14 seats through map changes alone - enough to transform a narrow 217–212 majority into something much more durable.

Supreme Spark

The turning point was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. The decision effectively curtailed the use of race in drawing congressional districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. For Democrats, who had long relied on VRA protections to create majority-minority districts in the South, the ruling was a gut punch. For Republicans, it was an opening.

Southern states with Republican trifectas moved with remarkable speed. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a map that could eliminate four Democratic seats. Alabama called a special session to redraw its map with the goal of flipping two Democratic districts and giving the GOP all seven seats. Tennessee targeted the lone Democratic stronghold in Memphis. Louisiana, South Carolina, and even Mississippi began exploring ways to eliminate their remaining Democratic representatives.

Republican Redistricting Surge

Here’s a clear breakdown of the Republican-led redistricting efforts and their potential impact:

Here's the updated version with black text in the header (since the black background is being locked out):

Total Potential Republican Gains: 10–14 seats

Democrats have tried to mount a counteroffensive in states where they still hold power, but their efforts have been more limited and face greater legal headwinds. In California, voters approved Proposition 50 last year, a Democratic-drawn map designed to net the party five additional seats - though the map is now under legal challenge following the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision. Virginia appeared to deliver one of Democrats’ biggest victories when voters approved a redistricting referendum on April 21 that could give the party as many as four new seats - potentially 10 of the state’s 11 districts. However, that victory is now in serious jeopardy after a Virginia judge ruled the referendum invalid just one day later, nullifying the results. Efforts in New York to flip the state’s lone Republican seat were blocked by the Supreme Court, while proposed maps in Maryland and Illinois have either been rejected by Democratic lawmakers or paused over legal concerns. Utah remains a rare bright spot for Democrats, where a court-imposed map could add one seat. Overall, Democratic gains have proven far more fragile and uncertain than the aggressive Republican advances in the South.

Democratic Counter-Moves

Democrats have not been passive. They’ve pursued their own aggressive strategies where they hold power:

Bottom Line

Republicans currently hold a clear structural advantage, especially across the South, where they control the process in multiple states, while Democratic gains are more limited and face greater legal uncertainty (particularly in Virginia and California). Virginia remains the single biggest near-term variable for Democrats. If the court overturns the referendum, their path to a House majority becomes significantly harder.

A potential 10-to-14 seat Republican gain would be significant. In a chamber this closely divided, it could mean the difference between a fragile majority and comfortable control heading into 2028.

Yet, the devil is in the details (including election-related malarkey). Even the most skillfully drawn maps can be overwhelmed by national political tides. If the economy weakens, if President Trump’s approval ratings remain low, or if a major scandal erupts, some of these newly Republican-leaning districts could still flip. Conversely, a strong Republican environment would amplify the advantages of these new maps.

So for now, the momentum belongs to Republicans, but the situation remains fluid. Multiple maps face lawsuits, Virginia’s fate is uncertain, and candidate recruitment and national conditions could still reshape the battlefield.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

For the past century, the agendas of the Democratic Party were predictable. They professed concern for working Americans and supported blue-collar unions.

Unemployment insurance, a 40-hour work week, disability insurance, and Social Security were their trademarks—often rapidly achieved by growing government bureaucracies and continually raising taxes. Still, many Democrats were socially conservative.

By the 1970s, Democrats still deplored antisemitism. Party officials had rejected their own segregationists to champion civil rights.

Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy all supported strong defense and military deterrence.

All that is now passé.

The only vestigial Democrat left in Congress is Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, himself roundly despised by Democrat leaders.

Today, supporting Israel and calling for campuses to stop their institutionalized antisemitism is Democratic political suicide.

Forty years ago, any Democrat with a Nazi tattoo was political toast; today, he can become the party’s nominee for the Maine Senate race.

So, the current Democrat Party is no longer truly democratic at all. Its new spirit and methods resemble the radical Jacobin Party of the French Revolution. Today, Democrats claim that if any opponent gives a Roman salute, he is a Nazi—while insisting that one of their own with a Nazi tattoo is not.

Jacobinism rejects Martin Luther King Jr.’s emphasis on the “content of . . . character.” It instead prefers fixating on “the color of . . . skin.”

It aims to divide the nation arbitrarily between the noble oppressed and the toxic oppressors.

So these new Jacobins have institutionalized racially separate college dorms and graduation ceremonies, along with hiring and promoting on the basis of race.

The new Jacobins destroyed the southern border and welcomed in 10–12 million illegal aliens, seen as a future proletariat constituency. Today’s Jacobins would now ridicule Bill Clinton’s 1990s calls for secure borders and an end to illegal immigration as “fascist” and “racist.”

The most recent nihilist developments in American society can be attributed to these Jacobin “Democrats”: biological men competing in women’s sports; critical legal theory that normalizes cashless bail; race-based reparations; violent felons arrested and back on the street hours later; radical abortion on demand until birth; attacks on the concept of the cultural “melting pot”; and opposition to organized Christianity.

These agendas lack broad majority support. So street theater and violence focus on Tesla dealerships, ICE officers, conservative campus speakers, and, at times, any journalists covering the unrest.

Jacobins make excuses for pro-Hamas campus violence, which often targets Jewish students. The often violent and corrupt Black Lives Matter movement was a Jacobin ancillary.

Free speech is labeled “disinformation” and “misinformation”—synonyms for not toeing the Jacobin Party line. Until recent pushbacks, near-religious radical green agendas warred against fossil fuels and cost the working classes billions of dollars for sky-high fuel and electricity costs.

Like the Robespierre brothers of old, the most radical Jacobins are so often to be found among the wealthiest and most privileged Americans. Radical New York mayor Zohran Mamdani grew up as a rich Ugandan. Radical, self-described communist Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner attended one of the most elite and expensive prep schools in the United States.

When avowed socialists Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders barnstormed the country, they did so via private jets.

Radical “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar cannot decide whether she is worth $30 million or nothing. Hard-left California billionaire, gubernatorial candidate, and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer is a billionaire who jump-started his fortune by investing in coal plants overseas and offshoring profits to avoid taxes.

At least 10 states are drafting laws to tax the net worth, as well as the income, of “billionaires and millionaires,” apparently for their “social” crimes. Mayor Mamdani taps on the window of philanthropist Ken Griffin as a warning to get out of town. The mayor of Seattle scoffs at the rich leaving her state with their billions due to new punitive taxes, offering a sarcastic “bye.”

In the old days, Democrats were embarrassed by their radicals and distanced themselves from the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers. Today, left-wing bomb throwers are the Democrat Party.

Hasan Piker, another multimillionaire, $200,000 Porsche-driving communist, has openly supported “social murder.”

So Piker praised Luigi Mangione’s targeted murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Meanwhile, Jacobins on social media expressed disappointment that all three assassination attempts on Donald Trump failed. The arsonist who burned down Pacific Palisades was a Mangione acolyte and saw his destruction as a revolutionary act, perhaps a form of mass “social murder.”

Jacobin politicians call for Trump to be “eliminated,” label him as a “fascist,” and call for “any means necessary” to end his presidency.

The aim is to lower the social and psychological barrier to violence.

The Jacobin Democrats of today are systematically destroying the legacy of the Democratic Party. And why not?

Their model is not the American Founding, but the radical mandated equality—and violence—of the French Revolution.

Layoffs are spreading across crypto and fintech — and executives increasingly say AI is part of the reason, according to Bloomberg.

Coinbase, PayPal, Gemini, and Crypto.com have all recently cut jobs while emphasizing efficiency and automation. On Tuesday, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong framed the shift in stark terms, warning that “the biggest risk now is not taking action” as the company tries to become “lean, fast, and AI-native.”

Bloomberg writes that the trend gained momentum after Block, Inc. — the parent company of Square, Inc. and Cash App — announced major cuts earlier this year and pointed to AI as part of a broader restructuring effort. Since then, more firms have adopted similar language, pitching layoffs as preparation for an AI-powered future.

Critics aren’t fully convinced. Many of these companies are also facing more immediate business pressures: crypto trading activity has cooled, digital asset prices remain below their recent highs, and payments companies are navigating slower growth and tighter competition. Some firms have additional internal challenges — Block, Inc. expanded aggressively during the pandemic-era boom, while PayPal is still working through a broader turnaround under new leadership.

That has fueled accusations of “AI washing,” where companies use artificial intelligence as a cleaner explanation for layoffs tied to weaker demand or overhiring. John Todaro of Needham & Company questioned how much of the narrative is real: “Whenever I see these layoffs and AI is part of the reason, I step back and ask, do we see this from companies where the market is super hot?” He added: “I am not sure I buy that AI angle.”

Others say both things can be true. Raman Shalupau, founder of CryptoJobsList, estimated that current cuts are “probably an 80/20 split across the industry right now between real AI efficiency gains versus trimming down from the last bull run.”

Even when companies aren’t cutting headcount, they’re reshaping jobs around automation. Coinbase has been flattening management layers and asking leaders to operate more like “player-coaches,” while 0G Labs said it reduced staff by 25% after internal AI tools significantly improved productivity.

The bigger question is whether this marks a permanent shift in how crypto and fintech firms operate — or whether AI has simply become the latest justification for cost-cutting during a tougher market cycle. For now, both explanations appear to be driving decisions.