Politics
Opinion: Conservatives like me fear Trump will break through guardrails that restrained him last time
President-elect Trump’s imminent return to the White House sparks a pressing question: Can the guardrails of American democracy survive another four years of the only U.S. president who sought to undermine the peaceful transfer of power?
Many of us on the center-right are worried the answer will be “no.” After all, conservatism, at its core, is about conserving the institutions, traditions and hard-won lessons of history.
The guardrails face a tougher test with Trump’s second term. In 2016, his inexperience and the presence of structural safeguards and institutionalists — military officers, establishment Republicans and professional bureaucrats — helped check his worst impulses. In 2025, Trump and his allies are better equipped to evade resistance. He has vowed to purge dissenters and surround himself with loyalists who have learned how to manipulate the levers of power.
As author and former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum warned (alluding to the movie “Jurassic Park”), “This time, the Velociraptors have figured out how to work the doorknobs.” Trump’s proposed Cabinet picks underscore this shift: Kash Patel, who has openly outlined an enemies list in his book “Government Gangsters,” is slated to head the FBI, while former “Fox News Weekend” co-host Pete Hegseth, a staunch ally, is poised to lead the Department of Defense. These appointments signal a deliberate strategy to consolidate power and weaken institutional checks.
Meanwhile, as Trump returns to power, he is now backed by a Republican Party reshaped in his image. Critics like former Rep. Liz Cheney and former Sen. Mitt Romney have been pushed out (the former lost a primary, the latter retired). Figures such as Sen. Mitch McConnell are too diminished to offer meaningful resistance. Former establishment Republicans, like Rep. Elise Stefanik, have fully embraced the MAGA agenda, completing the party’s transformation into a vehicle for Trump’s ambitions.
Outside of politics, the media and major institutions are also faltering as counterweights. Some, unable to stop Trump in the past, are now accommodating him. Settlements like ABC News’ payment to resolve Trump-related defamation claims risk chilling critical reporting (host George Stephanopoulos erroneously said Trump was found liable for rape because he forced himself on writer E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room in 1996, but under New York law the term for Trump’s offense is “sexual abuse”). Social media platforms like Meta seem to be aligning their policies with Trump’s base, for instance by eliminating a fact-checking system that was instituted after Facebook was used to boost the Trump campaign in 2016.
The courts have long served as a vital bulwark of democracy, but questions remain about how long that role can endure. The actions of Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whose rulings and maneuverings in the classified documents case appear to favor Trump, raise concerns about judicial impartiality. Further amplifying these worries are recent examples of potential conflicts of interest involving Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as well as controversies surrounding their spouses’ political activities.
President Biden has touted his judicial appointees as defenders of the rule of law, and in a recent ceremony, he boasted: “These judges also are a vital check on the excesses of — of other branches of government, including Congress and the executive branch when they overreach and run afoul of the constitutional and institutional safeguards.” Time will tell how effective Biden’s appointees will be at holding the executive branch accountable.
The risks are clear: intimidation and co-option of dissenters, consolidation of power within law enforcement and the military, and systematic weakening of democratic foundations.
Some will dismiss these concerns as hysteria. But conservatives are supposed to sound the alarm when traditional institutions are threatened. Not long ago, for example, many conservatives worried that liberal “social engineering” policies like redefining the institution of marriage or allowing women to serve in combat roles might begin to erode America’s foundational structures.
It is ironic that many of the same conservatives have little concern about preserving fundamental principles like the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power.
So what should those of us who are concerned about Trump’s strongman tendencies do?
First, reject hysteria — rhetorical warnings about “fascism” have proven ineffective at swaying voters, at least so far. We shouldn’t so easily take the bait when Trump trolls us, for example, by saying he wants to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.”
But complacency is equally dangerous. Trump’s return offers an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to democracy and push back against his most harmful impulses. To do so is not to be hysterical, but to be interested in preserving the “last best hope of Earth,” as Abraham Lincoln put it.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine” held that even a 1% chance of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon warranted treating that existential threat as a certainty. By that logic, the slim possibility of Trump finding a way to remain in office beyond 2028 demands serious attention.
This isn’t a perfect analogy, nor is it a call for panic or extreme measures. Rather, it’s a call for sobriety and vigilance — particularly given Trump’s ongoing efforts to erode the norms and institutions that have safeguarded our democracy.
As Ronald Reagan warned, “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Today, those words resonate as both a reminder and a warning. It’s up to us to protect the democratic institutions that safeguard our liberty — for this generation and the next.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
SAN FRANCISCO — With the California governor’s race quickly approaching, six candidates will face off Wednesday evening in the first debate since former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race in the aftermath of sexual assault and misconduct allegations.
The debate takes place at a critical moment in the turbulent contest to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. Ballots will start landing in Californians’ mailboxes in less than two weeks, and voters are split by a crowded field of eight prominent candidates. The debate also takes place after former state Controller Betty Yee ended her campaign because of a lack of resources and support in the polls.
Two Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton — and four Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer, former Biden administration Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan — will take the stage at Nexstar’s KRON4 studios in San Francisco. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, both Democrats, were not invited to participate because of their low polling numbers.
As the candidates strive to distinguish themselves in a crowded field, the debate could include fiery exchanges about the role of money in politics and potential heightened attacks on Becerra, who has surged in the polls since Swalwell dropped out. With the debate taking place on Earth Day, environmental issues are also likely to be raised.
The Wednesday night gathering is the first televised debate in the gubernatorial contest since early February. Last month, USC canceled a debate hours before it was set to begin over mounting criticism that its criteria excluded all major candidates of color.
The 7 p.m. debate is hosted by Nexstar and will be moderated by KTXL FOX40 anchor Nikki Laurenzo and KTLA anchor Frank Buckley. It can be viewed on KRON4 (San Francisco), KTLA5 (Los Angeles), KSWB/KUSI (San Diego), KTXL (Sacramento), KGET (Bakersfield) and KSEE (Fresno). NewsNation will also air the debate.
new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
By Shawn Paik
April 22, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.
Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.
WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?
Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.
She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.
“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”
She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.
The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.
WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?
Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.
Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.
Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?
Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.
Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.
Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?
Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.
Warren: I’ll take that as a no.
In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.
She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.
THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO
Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.
Warren: I’m asking a factual question.
Warsh: This body certified the election.
Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?
Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.
Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.
Warren: Just one place where you disagree.
Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.
Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.
-
Lifestyle24 seconds agoShe built a following of plus-size customers. Why is she closing her L.A. resale shop?
-
Politics7 minutes ago
As primary election nears, top candidates for California governor debate tonight
-
Science12 minutes ago44% of Americans breathe dangerously polluted air. In California, it’s 82%
-
Sports18 minutes agoKings’ close playoff losses to Avalanche stoke confidence and frustration
-
World31 minutes ago‘Blockade and threats’: Iran blames US siege of ports for stalled talks
-
News1 hour agoPentagon says Navy secretary is leaving, the latest departure of a top defense leader
-
New York3 hours agoGunman Who Killed Baby in Brooklyn Was Targeting Her Father, Police Say
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoHow these Detroit farmers are fighting for neighborhood food security