Has the policy of striking Caribbean drug boats been a good one?
R. This was no everyday fishing trip or an episode of Gilligan’s Island – these were armed, evasive vessels acting like criminals on the run, and U.S. military and intelligence officials judged them to be a direct narcotics threat to our country. The administration says the strikes targeted narco-terrorist logistics – interdiction aimed at stopping fentanyl and other deadly drugs before they reach American streets. Critics (and hostile regimes) will scream about sovereignty; rights groups rightly demand legal memos – and those questions deserve answers – but I’ll take our intelligence community’s assessment over Maduro or Petro every time. If Washington is going to use lethal force, it must be transparent and lawful – but we should not reflexively hand moral cover to the cartels or their state patrons.
L. The President’s reckless actions in the Caribbean have serious ramifications for international politics. If our goal is to stop the flow of drugs across our borders, attacking civilians and depriving them of due process is not the way to do so. If peace through strength is the goal of the administration, as this President has made clear, they must act with the capacity to understand the short- and long-term effects of these actions. Even if the extrajudicial killings resulting from these strikes make us safer in the short-term, which is not a given, they jeopardize our long-term regional interests and undermine regional stability.
Does the Supreme Court have too much power?
R. The Supreme Court doesn’t have too much power – it only appears that way when it strays from its constitutional role. The Founders designed the Court as the least powerful branch, meant to interpret law, not create it. But when justices legislate from the bench, they undermine both Congress and the Constitution itself. I support overturning poorly reasoned precedents when necessary, although that must also be done with prudence and fidelity to the original intent of the framers. Judicial restraint, not judicial activism, is what preserves the balance our Republic depends on.
L. The Supreme Court does not have too much power, rather, it fills the vacuum left by congressional abdication. The Court acts much like a soccer goalie– while it is a vital part of the team; its involvement in the game of politics relies on the actions of the other team members: Congress and the Executive Branch. Over the course of American history, Congress has given more power to the President, with budgetary authority and military powers being the most prominent examples. They can, and must, reclaim this authority to protect against this ever-growing imperial presidency both parties take advantage of.
This question gets at an important trend many have noticed– the three coequal branches of government look to be falling out of equilibrium. Judicial overreach is not at fault, rather, blame should be placed on congressional abdication and presidential usurpation. This President and his administration are not the first to discover these loopholes, but they are the first to abuse them to this level. This should concern everyone who believes in rule of law and the experiment that is American democracy.
Should colleges accept Trump’s funding deal?
R. While I support President Trump’s proposed funding deal in principle, it opens a dangerous can of worms that conservatives should not ignore. Federal dollars always come with strings attached, and higher education’s growing dependence on Washington risks turning intellectual freedom into political obedience. Colleges – especially Catholic institutions like Saint Anselm, rooted in Benedictine traditions and the liberal arts – must tread carefully when accepting funding of any kind. In today’s volatile political climate, backing the deal might offer short-term gains for Republicans. Still, long-term, it threatens the independence that makes our colleges true centers of truth and inquiry. Education should be shaped by conscience and conviction, not by whoever writes the next check in D.C.
L. No college or university should accept Trump’s funding deal. The administration’s attempt to extort and compel certain policies from colleges and universities is textbook viewpoint discrimination. The President’s plan does not combat the “bias” he alleges. If anything, his proposal only exacerbates it.
Conservatives spent years decrying “bias” in higher education and now are celebrating attacks on academic freedom in the name of so-called fairness. Make no mistake, these proposals compel speech from these private institutions and infringe on the rights of students and professors. No institution should accept this deal.