Today, Jim Mattis writes of a founding father who was driven by his ideals to fight for American independence, and by all accounts died before he could achieve even more good for his country. Tom Clark says the key to court reform is having Congress crank out more legislation. And Dan Berkenstock and coauthor Walter Manuel ask how the US will be able to ensure space remains neutral and navigable for all if China returns humans to the moon before we do.
USA @ 250
John Laurens, a Revolutionary figure better known to Broadway audiences than to the general public, embodied the courage and energy needed to bring a new nation into being, General Jim Mattis writes. Laurens’s short life included a key role on George Washington’s staff, where he used his diplomatic skill to secure funding to keep Congress and the army from collapsing, and the negotiation of the British surrender. Seeking out danger on the battlefield, Laurens fought in many of the key clashes: Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and others. Laurens, the son of a slave trader, also spoke out forcefully for emancipation, calling it hypocritical to fight for liberty while denying freedom to some. He even sought, unsuccessfully, to enlist black people in Washington’s army. Laurens died at twenty-seven, one of the last American officers to fall in the Revolution. Washington eulogized him: “He had not a fault. . . . He was excited by the purest motives.” Read more here.
Revitalizing American Institutions
On his Substack, Senior Fellow Tom Clark writes about how to reform US courts, and why much of the solution comes from Congress simply passing more law. He argues that debates over court reform focus too narrowly on the structure of the courts, such as the number of justices or term limits, while ignoring the substantive work each branch of government should perform. Citing the FTC's antitrust case against Meta that spanned four presidential terms, he points out the case languished because Congress has not passed substantive antitrust law in the previous fifty years, leaving courts to make economic policy they lack the tools to handle. He also cites the Lilly Ledbetter pay-discrimination case and says it is an example of legislative-judicial balance done right. The Supreme Court misread the statute, but Congress corrected it through legislation. Read more here.
Revitalizing History
Speaking to the Policy History Conference Plenary in North Carolina last month, Research Fellow Jennifer Burns argued that contrary to earlier pronouncements, the field of policy history is not dead, and is instead taking on new forms that respond to today’s policy challenges. She cited the renewed emphasis on government efficiency expressed through efforts such as DOGE, the “abundance movement” on the left, and a variety of new pushes to reinvigorate civics education and civic engagement across America as examples of new responses that look a lot like policy history. “This moment creates opportunity for an approach to history that is directly relevant to policy,” she writes. Read more here.
Space
Who will set the ground rules for use of space if the Chinese return humans to the moon’s surface before America does? That’s the question posed in a new paper by Distinguished Research Fellow Dan Berkenstock and Walter J. Manuel of the Stanford Space Rendezvous Laboratory. China is planning for its own human moon landing mission before 2030. Because existing space-use treaties are basically unenforceable and the US military lacks the ability to project power beyond Earth’s atmosphere, this scenario presents significant challenges. “Whichever country establishes a sustained lunar presence first will have outsized power to set the operating rules, claim the most strategically valuable sites, and potentially block competitors from accessing critical areas,” Berkenstock and Manuel write. Read more here.
Determining America’s Role in the World
As Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea work together to challenge the international order, the United States and other free societies must compete with diplomatic, military, and economic tools of statecraft. Sanctions can be an effective tool, but only when they are tied to realistic objectives, rigorously enforced, and integrated into a broader strategy, argues Senior Fellow H.R. McMaster in a new Policy Stories video. Sanctions often fail when they become performative, overly broad, poorly enforced, or detached from other elements of national power. Cases involving the Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, and other regimes show that effective sanctions require clear objectives, rigorous enforcement, humanitarian safeguards, flexibility, and timely action. Used well, they can help deter aggression, constrain hostile regimes, and support those advocating for freedom. Watch here.
Related Commentary