Authored by David Stewart via RealClearDefense,

Ken Burns’ documentary on the American Revolution has generated much commentary, some supportive and some critical. Across social media, complaints abound that he paid too much, or too little, attention to the traditional Founding Fathers—Washington, Hamilton, Monroe, Jefferson. Critics pillory him for overemphasizing one specific type of history—military, political, economic, or social—while minimizing or ignoring the other types. In nearly every interview, Ken Burns repeatedly asserts that he sought to complicate the traditional narrative about the Revolution, to insert more nuance into the conversation, and these various criticisms from across the ideological spectrum might seem to suggest he has done so.

The major flaw in the documentary, however, is not that he presented the Founders in the wrong light nor that he complicated the traditional story. Rather, in his attempt to invoke a more nuanced narrative, Burns in fact obscured the most important elements of that narrative.

Some conservative commentators object, for example, to the documentary discussing Major-General Horatio Gates’ actions after the Battle of Camden. In August 1780, Gates’ 4.000-man American army suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Lieutenant-General Cornwallis’ 2.000 British in the South Carolina midlands. In the waning moments of the battle, Gates abandoned his army, riding almost 200 miles before stopping near Durham, North Carolina. Does this make Gates look bad? Yes; deservedly so. Is it the whole story, or even the most important element? Not at all.

Congress quickly replaced Gates, appointing Major-General Nathanael Greene to command the Southern Department. He inherited a remnant army of fewer than 2.000 soldiers—isolated, defeated, and out of supply. Over the next several months, Greene doubled the size of his army as he slowly withdrew northward, drawing Cornwallis after him. As they moved north, the Americans fought a series of skirmishes and battles, losing almost every encounter—a process of strategic retreats Greene famously summarized as “we get beat, rise, and fight again.” But in this series of defeats, the Americans drew Cornwallis far beyond his supply lines, leading him to abandon the Carolinas completely and to march on Yorktown.

Notably, Greene had far more men in his army by the Fall of 1781 than he had inherited a year earlier. This strongly suggests some important values drove those American soldiers, that they fought for more than money. They did not endure a year of hard marching, a string of tactical defeats, constant food shortages, chronic undersupply, and hundreds of casualties in the hope that this feeble army or a fragile government would someday reward them with land or cash. Those men believed in some higher cause, fought for principles. This is the story Burns’ documentary should emphasize—the context that frames Gates’ cowardice.

The soldiers at Valley Forge spoke a variety of languages—that’s interesting. But why did they suffer through that winter? Why did men dive repeatedly into a frozen Hudson River in January 1776? Why did soldiers volunteer to lead a forlorn hope at Stony Point? Why did three hundred Maryland riflemen choose to die rather than retreat during as the American army crumbled in the Battle of Brooklyn? We can all easily understand why men lie, embezzle, flee, or compromise their principles. It is heroism and self-sacrifice that demand explanation, and Burns’ documentary deserves criticism for failing to explain the extraordinary.

As a trained military historian, I’ve limited my comments to military history. Other scholars, far more qualified than I, have suggested similar reservations about the documentary’s discussions of Native Americans, Blacks, women, political thought, and economic history.

Ken Burns did not make General Gates look bad—Gates did that himself. My objection is that Burns, rather than nuancing or complicating the story of the Revolution, simply marginalized one set of much-discussed actors and substituted a new set, and thereby missed the real story.

David Stewart is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and a founding faculty member of the college’s Center for Military History and Grand Strategy.

More major Pentagon reshuffling is coming down the line, driven by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, but this time it’s being reported this will involve far more than just staffing and personnel changes – it will impact the entire US global command and headquarters structure.

Washington Post reports this week that the Pentagon is drafting a sweeping overhaul of American military command structures that would downgrade several major headquarters and reshape the balance of influence among senior generals.

via Associated Press

The plan is reportedly being driven in large part by Hegseth’s pledge to “break the status quo” and reduce the number of four-star generals across the armed forces, sources quoted in WaPo say. He’s also long been talking about purging the ‘woke agenda’ from within military ranks.

The restructuring would diminish the standing of US Central Command, US European Command, and US Africa Command by bringing these theatres under a newly created entity called US International Command.

Also of note will be the creation of an “Americom,” according to the report. Currently it is US Southern Command and US Northern Command which are responsible for military operations across the Western Hemisphere, but now these will be placed under the US Americas Command.

“To ensure that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come, our country needs a coherent, focused strategy for how we interact with the world … The US must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity,” the strategy says, based on the report. 

According to another interesting note in the WaPo report:

“Pentagon officials also discussed creating a US Arctic Command that would report to Americom, but that idea appears to have been abandoned.”

This comes on the heels of the recently published new National Security Strategy issued by the White House.

Within the 33-page national security document is the laying out of a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: “The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity — a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region,” the document states.

“The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence — from control of military installations, ports, and key infrastructure to the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined,” it adds.

One thing the potential revamping of conventional global command sectors does is to provide a more centralized structure under Pentagon top leadership, and it seems this is what Hegseth is aiming for.

Authored by Steve Cortes via RealClearPolitics,

Catholics have been some of Trump’s most important voters. But right now, 55% of Catholics give Trump a D or F grade on handling inflation. Affordability is the central issue for most Americans, especially swing voters. Patriotic middle-class Catholic families feel the squeeze, so this new populist coalition is being tested.

Back in 2016 Trump won the Catholic vote by 8 points, but in 2020 he split the Catholic vote nationally with Biden. Last November, Trump surged to a 12-point win among the faithful in 2024. That massive shift within the largest denomination in America drove the popular vote victory.

Now, this determinative group of voters watches closely, increasingly disenchanted with the state of the economy. So, we commissioned a survey of 1,483 registered voters in Wisconsin, the consummate swing state and one of the most Catholic states in America.

Overall, the Wisconsin economic outlook is grim. When asked to give a letter grade on Trump and the economy, here is the Badger State breakdown:

A – 10%

B – 18%

C – 17%

D – 19%

F – 33%

On inflation specifically, Midwest women deliver some harsh marks, with only 6% giving an A vs. 45% an F grade. Those grades are notable because women are disproportionately the CFOs and shoppers in households.  

Trump’s job approval in Wisconsin is -11% net: 41% approve vs. 52% disapprove. Trump remains very popular among Republicans, with 82% approval, but sinks to only 28% approval among independents. For Wisconsin Catholics, Trump remains more popular at only -4% net, with 45% job approval vs. 49% disapproval.

So … what can be done?

There are fixes, both in policy and in framing/messaging, beginning with blunt honesty with the American people, from Wisconsin Catholics to California agnostics. Recognize and acknowledge the very real angst out there.

The pain of cumulative inflation for five years takes a material toll on both the psyche and the bank accounts of hard-working Americans. The pain is especially acute for the masses of modest earners who have not enjoyed the benefits of asset inflation via stocks and real estate. Culturally, Catholics embrace a very middle-class mindset, even those who have achieved material financial success. They still identify with the mores and habits of their Irish, Mexican, and Italian grandparents.

So, empathy is crucial. Many on the right routinely – and understandably – mock Bill Clinton for his insincere “I feel your pain” tagline, but guess what? It is effective in politics. People need to believe that their leaders care.

So, here are the three points:

Level with people and show authentic concern. Communicate clearly that the present angst is real and justified, after years of economic hardship for regular citizens.
Detail the current positive trajectory of some key metrics, backed by data and evidence. President Trump and other Republicans can rightly claim serious early progress, using real world numbers.

–Real Wages jump higher, meaning pay adjusted for inflation.

–Residential rents finally trend lower.

–National gasoline prices dipped below $3/gallon for the first time in four years.

Accelerate these wins! How? Continue to negotiate for the best possible trade deals for America. Continue to attract massive flows of foreign capital into America. And keep pushing to get illegal aliens out of America, raising wages for citizens and easing the pressure on the scarce supply of housing.

Taken together, these strategies will work for all Americans, including the crucial Catholic population. Catholics are not locked-in partisans. They are practical and patriotic. Appeal to their common sense and persuade them of the efficacy of the plan, from the businessman leader who created the amazing first Trump Boom during the first term into 2019.

The faithful rallied big to Trump in 2024. They now have valid concerns. Repay their loyalty with honest, clear messaging … confirmed by tangible kitchen-table results. Then, Trump and his allies can once again earn robust Catholic support for the 2026 midterms, and beyond.

Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, and a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.

Trump chief of staff Susie Wiles said the following as part of the controversial Vanity Fair interview in reference to Venezuela policy: “If he were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then (we’d need) Congress.”

But only last month when President Trump was asked about this issue, he said, “We don’t have to get their approval. But I think letting them know is good.”

All of this could come to a head if enough Congressional leaders, especially on the Republican side, decide to grow a spine and stand up to the White House’s foreign policy adventurism down south – which polls show is not supported by most Americans.

The House is expected to vote Thursday on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution. It aims to halt any potential attack on Venezuela after Trump has threatened that the US military hitting land targets would happen ‘soon’.

AFP via Getty Images

Introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the bipartisan bill has 31 co-sponsors, including three Republicans: Reps. Thomas Massie (KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), and Don Bacon (NE).

Massie has of course been at the forefront of Trump criticisms, and he’s again helping lead the charge on Venezuela pushback, amid the huge American presence in the southern Caribbean.

“The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States,” Massie said in a statement upon the bill being introduced. ‘

“Congress has the sole power to declare war against Venezuela. Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.” This viewpoint is precisely what Wiles has voiced in her comments to Vanity Fair.

According to a brief summary of the Trump admin’s rationale: 

A central legal question is whether the administration can treat anti-cartel maritime strikes as a form of armed conflict falling within the President’s independent Article II power or within some existing statutory authorization.

CRS reports the Trump administration has asserted drug trafficking and terrorism “involving or associated with Maduro” threaten U.S. national security, and that it reportedly told Congress U.S. forces are in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels – an assertion that other experts and government lawyers reportedly questioned. This framing signals the administration’s likely legal posture without requiring anyone outside government to guess at classified briefings.

Also, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) is simultaneously seeking to reign in the drone strikes on alleged drug boats with his own war powers legislation. No Republicans have signed on to his initiative.

Recently, the President announced land strikes against Venezuela. No U.S. President is authorized to commit acts of war in a sovereign country without authorization from Congress. I cosponsored this War Powers Resolution to force Congress to vote “for or against” this action. pic.twitter.com/GfIaeQUiny

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 13, 2025

He said: “the Trump Administration has not provided a credible rationale for its 21 unauthorized military strikes on vessels in the Western Hemisphere, which have resulted in the extrajudicial killings of dozens of individuals.”

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics,

Legally armed civilians, we’re told, pose a major danger. They shoot innocent bystanders, justifiably kill others whenever they personally believe “force is reasonably necessary,” and rely on racist self-defense laws.

At least these concerns are the case in several recent news articles in the Wall Street Journal. On Monday, with the story on the front page of the Journal, reporter Mark Maremont continued his attacks on people legally carrying concealed handguns. His article presents four stories from 2021 to the present where citizens who used a gun in self-defense accidentally shot a bystander.

But with more than 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year, almost 21 million permit holders, and 29 constitutional-carry states where a permit to carry isn’t necessary, four cases over four years offers little perspective.

Even worse, only two of the four cases even involve people who were legally carrying concealed handguns in public (one case each from Massachusetts and Michigan). In the Ohio case, the convenience store employee had the gun at her workplace, so concealed-carry laws didn’t apply. In the California case, the state required a permit, but there is no evidence that the individual had a permit.

The Wall Street Journal article warns about the dangers of constitutional carry (what it calls “permitless carry”) and quotes gun-control advocates claiming that “When untrained or panicked shooters miss their target, it’s children, neighbors and bystanders who pay the price.” Yet, not a single one of the article’s examples involved constitutional carry.

To examine the issue more directly, the Crime Prevention Research Center, which I head, used ChatGPT and Grok to search news reports and compile a list of cases from the past decade in which concealed-carry permit holders accidentally shot an innocent bystander. Since 2016, we have also collected cases where people legally carrying guns in public have used them to stop crimes and we have reviewed those cases. All together there were four cases from 2016 through nearly all of 2025. One listed incident involved a security guard, who arguably should not be counted.

From 2016 to 2025, including the security-guard case, permit holders accidentally shot five bystanders – two killed and three wounded. Excluding the security guard, permit holders shot three bystanders – two killed and one wounded.

But the issue isn’t one of perfection. The question is: What is the alternative?

We then did the same review of police incidents from 2016 to 2025 and found 20 cases in which officers accidentally shot a total of 28 bystanders: six killed and 22 wounded. In one case, an officer wounded six people; in another, three officers wounded three people. Some news stories do not make clear whether the criminal or the police shot the bystander, so these numbers may understate the total number of bystanders shot by police.

Overall, police accidentally wounded 5.6 times as many bystanders as civilians (including the security-guard case), killed three times as many, and wounded seven times as many. Excluding the security guard, police shot seven times more bystanders, killed three times more, and wounded 22 times more. Without the security guard case, bystanders were seven times more likely to be accidentally shot by police than by civilians.

Other research using the FBI’s active-shooter definition confirms this pattern. We looked at cases from 2014 to 2024 – cases where individuals actively attempt to kill people in a public area and excluding shootings tied to other crimes – showing that armed civilians consistently act safely and effectively. They stopped over half of the attacks in places where they could legally carry, more frequently than police.

Police are extremely important in stopping crime, and research shows they are the single most important factor. But their uniforms make them operate at a real tactical disadvantage in stopping these shootings. Attackers can wait for officers to leave, strike elsewhere, or shoot them first. As a result, police were killed at eleven times the rate of intervening civilians and accidentally killed civilians or fellow officers five times – or five times more than civilians accidentally shot bystanders.

Attackers don’t just avoid police officers – they risk encountering far fewer of them than permit holders. In 2020, the U.S. had roughly 671,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers, and typically fewer than 240,000 were on duty at any given time, amounting to less than 0.1% of the population. By contrast, almost 21 million adults held concealed-carry permits, representing about 7.8% of the adult population.

Permit holders are also extremely law-abiding, losing their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates of thousandths or tens of thousandths of 1 percentage point. Police rarely commit crimes, but concealed handgun permit holders are even more law-abiding, facing a conviction rate for firearms offenses that is just 1/12th the rate of police convictions.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the only recent problem with the Wall Street Journal news articles. Another long article co-authored by Maremont at the end of October warns that justifiable homicides increased after Stand Your Ground laws made it easier for people to defend themselves. What the article ignores is that while justifiable self defense killings rose, in the first five years after Stand Your Ground laws are adopted, murder rates fell on average by more than 8%.

The article misstates the legal principal that governs what is justifiable self-defense. It claims that anyone can shoot another person by simply claiming they thought force was “reasonably necessary.” But that isn’t the standard. The law requires that a reasonable third party believe the defendant faced a serious risk of injury or death from the attack.

But the fact that there were fewer murders and more self-defense uses is exactly what the proponents of Stand Your Ground would predict. On top of that, yet another Journal piece attacked these laws as racist because “Nationwide, Black men and boys account for almost two-thirds of the victims in civilian justifiable homicides, according to the Journal analysis of FBI data from 2019 to 2024.” Yet, the Journal ignores past research showing that blacks, who are the most likely victims of violent crime, are also by far the most likely to use Stand Your Ground laws as a legal defense. It is also important to note that about 90% of murders of blacks are committed by other blacks.

The Wall Street Journal alarms readers by focusing on anecdotes, yet it ignores extensive evidence showing that armed civilians pose little risk – and far less risk to bystanders than police. Permit holders regularly stop crimes and active shooters with minimal collateral harm. Stand Your Ground laws are not racist nor do they cause excessive violence; instead, they have reduced murder rates and empowered vulnerable communities – especially black victims – to defend themselves legally. By prioritizing sensational stories over solid data, such news stories ultimately undermine public safety.

John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.