SEE ALSO: Opinion: Tablet Magazine Gets Christian Theology Completely Wrong

Comey Indictment Is Obviously Very Good

Quousque tandem abutere, Iacobe Comei, patientia nostra? It's a little bit incomprehensible to see, in 2025, conservatives wringing their hands over the indictment of one of the most nefarious figures in recent years, a figure who has become synonymous with the use of government power and abuse of the law to attack political enemies.

Recent charges against former FBI Director James Comey—for allegedly making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding—mark a critical moment in the effort to restore the rule of law to Washington.

The fundamental fact is this: Comey played a central role in the Crossfire Hurricane and Russiagate investigations, procedures that we now know for a fact through the release of documents to have been partisan attack jobs designed to delegitimize the election of President Trump in 2016, sabotage his administration, and potentially impeach him and send him to prison. This is a much grosser abuse of power than anything that was alleged during Watergate.

One of the hallmarks of the Biden administration was an unprecedented use of prosecutions for political purposes, in ways that went far beyond precedent. Consider first the unprecedented pursuit of a former president by his successor’s DOJ. Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Donald Trump both for his official acts surrounding the 2020 election and for retention of classified documents after leaving office. Historically, former presidents have enjoyed deference from their successors—even when serious allegations were present. Biden’s DOJ discarded that restraint, pressing charges that the Supreme Court itself later held were, in part, constitutionally immune. The classified documents case, meanwhile, collapsed in court, showing that the charges were advanced primarily to hamstring Trump politically rather than to serve a legitimate enforcement purpose.

But Trump was not the only target. The prosecutions of Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, both for contempt of Congress tied to the January 6 Committee, illustrate another break from tradition. Historically, Congress and the executive have clashed over subpoenas, but such disputes have typically been resolved through negotiation or political remedies, not criminal punishment. Navarro and Bannon's assertion of executive privilege to refuse to testify before the committee (which was itself just an act of political theater) was completely within precedent. By referring close presidential advisers for prosecution, and by having the DOJ aggressively follow through, the Biden administration weaponized contempt statutes in a way not seen before. The same pattern emerged in the FACE Act prosecutions, which the DOJ deployed heavily against pro-life activists, sometimes for peaceful sit-ins, while largely ignoring the dozens of firebombings and vandalism attacks on crisis pregnancy centers. And the Mackey “meme” case—criminalizing a Twitter joke from 2016—showed how Biden’s DOJ was willing to stretch conspiracy law into the realm of online speech, until a federal appeals court finally threw out the conviction.

The point is not vengeance. The point is accountability and deterrence.

If you want to see a future where political prosecutions end, it has to be made clear that future Republican administrations will pay back Democrats in the same coin. Otherwise it will never end.

Comey is as good a place to start as any. Recall that this person tried to incite an assassination attempt against the President with his infamous "86 47" post; a post which was already unconscionable after multiple assassination attempts against President Trump but now appear particularly unconscionable in the wake of the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Prosecuting him for lying to Congress serves another good purpose. Lying to Congress is a crime on the books, but in practice, enforcement has been weak to nonexistent at the highest levels. The law on false statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1001 and related statutes) exists precisely to protect legislative oversight. Prosecuting an FBI Director for lying to Congress, not about technical detail, but about fundamental facts regarding his involvement in a political hack job against a presidential candidate, is indeed a wonderful precedent to set.

Policy News You Need To Know

#Chyna #Innovation — A new report from Andreessen Horowitz partners Martin Casado and Anne Neuberger delivers a stark warning that should alarm every conservative policymaker: America is on the verge of catastrophically losing the robotics race to China, and with it, control over the physical manifestation of artificial intelligence that will define both economic competitiveness and national security for decades. While we've maintained an edge in AI software and large language models, China has quietly achieved dominance in robotics hardware. They have surpassed the US, Japan, and Germany in robot density, built complete domestic supply chains in manufacturing hubs like Shenzhen, and are now producing advanced humanoid robots for under $6,000 while our regulatory state suffocates innovation with what the authors aptly call a "permission-first" regime that makes automation nearly impossible to deploy. The bitter irony here is that China has beaten us at our own game: they have created the dynamic, open, competitive market for robotics innovation while we've shackled our entrepreneurs with endless permits, union agreements that block port automation, and new AI regulations that treat innovation as a threat rather than an opportunity. The authors' prescription is clear and urgent: we must immediately shift to permissionless innovation, coordinate with allies like Japan, Germany, and South Korea to build a defensible supply chain before their companies are wholly displaced by Chinese competitors, and recognize that the same playbook China used to dominate solar panels and 5G is now being deployed in robotics. This time, the stakes include not just economic prosperity but the hard power applications that will determine military superiority in an AI-driven future.

#RuleOfLaw — Devlin Barrett at the NYT reports that a senior Justice Department official has directed multiple US attorneys’ offices to prepare investigative plans targeting George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, with potential charges ranging from racketeering and wire fraud to material support for terrorism. This is a welcome development: Soros has long used his immense wealth to bankroll progressive movements that undermine law and order, destabilize communities, and tilt the political system through aggressive funding of left-wing activism. The directive, prompted in part by findings from watchdog groups that Soros-linked funding has flowed to organizations tied to extremist violence, reflects a long-overdue willingness to confront the shadowy financial networks that have emboldened civil unrest and weakened America’s institutions. An investigation into Soros’s network would not only shine light on the scale of his influence but could also deter similar unaccountable interference in US politics going forward.

#RuleOfLaw #ForeignInfluence — Speaking of Soros… Heritage's Brent D. Sadler, Hans von Spakovsky, and Mike Gonzalez are in The Federalist today, making a compelling case for extending foreign agent registration requirements to protest organizations receiving overseas funding. Their proposal addresses a genuine gap in current law: while foreign nationals are prohibited from financing US elections and must register under FARA when lobbying, they can currently fund protest activities with minimal disclosure. The authors document concerning examples, including reported Hamas funding of campus protests and Chinese financing of groups like Code Pink that have disrupted Congressional hearings. Their suggested framework—requiring organizations that provide paid protesters to disclose foreign funding through either DOJ registration modeled on FARA, state business licensing, or local protest permits—strikes a reasonable balance.

#RuleOfLaw — Speaking of, interesting report in Politico: Justice Amy Coney Barrett herself has recently acknowledged that threats against judges and their families are now influencing how members of the Court approach their duties. She has said "that one reason she chooses not to explain why she recuses herself from cases for ethics reasons is because her friends or family could face unwanted public attention, threats or worse." Barrett mentioned "that members of her family had pizzas delivered to them that they had not ordered. Authorities interpreted the pizza orders as a threatening signal that someone hostile to Barrett knew where her family members lived. Around the same time, law enforcement also received an emailed bomb threat against Barrett’s sister who lives in Charleston, South Carolina. Other judges handling prominent cases also received pizza orders." These incidents, together with other recent incidents of left-wing political violence, point to something larger: a breakdown of the rule of law if political violence becomes normalized and its financial enablers are left unchecked. Soros’s vast funding of radical groups, coupled with the surge in intimidation and outright attacks on conservative leaders, underscores why a vigorous, whole-of-government response is not optional but essential.

#Healthcare — The CEA released a report highlighting the expansion of Health Savings Account (HSA) eligibility under the OBBBA. The provision reclassifies bronze and catastrophic ACA marketplace plans to qualify for HSA contributions, a move expected to make 10 million more Americans eligible for HSAs. The HSA expansion represents a longstanding conservative priority to increase consumer-driven healthcare options, as these accounts allow individuals to save pre-tax dollars for medical expenses while maintaining higher-deductible insurance plans that typically carry lower premiums. Notably, the report points to bipartisan support for HSA eligibility expansion in recent years, with twelve House Democrats voting for similar legislation in 2018, suggesting this could be an area of potential compromise even as broader healthcare funding battles intensify. The timing of this announcement appears strategic, providing the administration with a market-oriented healthcare achievement to highlight during the shutdown fight. (The Hill)

#Chyna — Speaking of Chyna, the FCC denied recognition to four additional Chinese-controlled testing laboratories that certify electronics for the U.S. market, bringing the total to 15 labs that have been blocked or withdrawn from the certification process this month. Chairman Brendan Carr, who has been leading the charge on this critical national security issue, tweeted that foreign adversary governments "should not own and control the labs that test the devices the FCC certifies as safe for the U.S. market," marking a significant shift in how we approach technology security infrastructure. This unanimous Commission action, following May's "Bad Labs" Report & Order, represents a crucial piece of the broader conservative agenda to decouple from Chinese influence in our tech ecosystem. These labs were essentially gatekeepers that could have allowed compromised devices into American homes and businesses.

#LawAndOrder — Paul Webster and Devon Kurtz of the Cicero Institute have written a good article in City Journal defending the Trump administration's EO on homelessness. The order prioritizes funding for jurisdictions that enforce anti-camping ordinances and drug laws while expanding involuntary treatment options for addiction and mental illness. Predictable legal challenges have emerged from entrenched interests like the National Alliance to End Homelessness, and a Rhode Island federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order. The authors frame the EO as anopportunity for communities to experiment with comprehensive approaches that combine enforcement, treatment, and shelter, moving beyond the ideological rigidity that has characterized federal homelessness policy for too long. Even some progressive advocates like Lisa Daugaard acknowledge the need for compromise, recognizing that reflexive opposition to any enforcement measures has eroded public support and hindered effective solutions.

#Immigration — Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced a plan today to prevent illegal aliens from driving commercial trucks in the United States. “The process for issuing [commercial driver’s licenses] is absolutely 100% broken,” Duffy said at a press conference, according to a report in The Daily Signal. “It has become a threat to public safety, and it is a national emergency that requires action right now.” Following a fatal Florida crash involving an illegal alien truck driver who couldn't understand street signs—and nevertheless held a California-issued CDL—the DOT's audit revealed that over 25% of California's non-domiciled CDLs were improperly issued, with some extending years beyond the holders' legal documentation. The new requirements mandating employment-based visas and federal immigration status verification through the SAVE system, backed by the threat of withholding federal highway funds, provide the enforcement mechanism that's been missing from our commercial transportation safety framework.

#DrugPricing — The American Action Forum's Michael Baker has written a sharp critique today warning that the admin's "Most Favored Nation" drug pricing policy, which would require pharmaceutical companies to charge US patients the same prices as the country with the lowest price for the same drug, could trigger what he calls the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" for American pharmaceutical innovation. He argues that implementing MFN pricing through various enforcement mechanisms (including CMMI rulemaking, Section 804 importation waivers, antitrust actions, export restrictions, and threats of license revocation) would essentially impose price controls that could slash global R&D spending by up to $2 trillion over the next two decades, resulting in 167-342 fewer new drug approvals and undermining America's position as the global leader in pharmaceutical innovation, where we currently originate roughly 90% of all new medicines worldwide and see 96% of new cancer drugs available within six months of FDA approval compared to just 56% in Canada. Of course, the administration sees this very differently—Secretary Lutnick and his team argue these measures will finally deliver relief to American patients who have been subsidizing lower drug prices for the rest of the world, and polling consistently shows pharmaceutical pricing reform remains one of the president's most popular initiatives across party lines, with even skeptical Republicans acknowledging their constituents are demanding action on drug costs.

Friday Essays

At First Things, the great Rusty Reno has written an appreciation of an intellectual figure he calls, so very rightly, "essential": Saint John Henry Newman. "His central insight concerns the divine gift of concrete and substantive things, natural and supernatural. Their 'weight' gives them staying power in the face of human pride and willfulness. And, furthermore, the 'weight' of things, their plenitude of reality, casts a spell over us. For to be human is to seek to dwell in the light of what is real rather than prowling about in the shadowlands of ideas, theories, and syllogisms—'paper logic,' as Newman puts it."

Also at First Things, the Protestant theologian Peter Leithart has written a review of the new book by Philip Pilkington, "The Collapse of Global Liberalism: And the Emergence of the Post Liberal World Order." The book appears to be a tour de force, a strategic evaluation of changes to the world order driven by factors ranging from China, trade, military technology, and religion. But it also includes what Leithart calls a "a Hegel-sized thesis": that ideas are the true drivers of history. Pilkington indicts liberalism as an idea and a theology, and sketches out his view of a post-liberal world.

The great Yuval Levin, a great friend of the Sphere, has produced a contribution to a series by the Free Press titled "Repairing America After the Murder of Charlie Kirk." A weighty topic indeed. "Americans are divided, but not in the way most people imagine," Levin writes. "When we say we are divided, we often mean that we disagree too much and have too little in common. In reality, Americans don’t disagree nearly enough. Even most politically engaged people don’t actually spend much time in active disagreement with people who have different views. We spend most of our time cocooned away with people we agree with, talking about those terrible people on the other side, but rarely actually talk to those people." In other words, "Breaking through our divisions and lowering the temperature of our politics therefore doesn’t call for less disagreement and argument but for more." Yes, quite. But what if one side just shoots the people who are trying to have an argument?

John Psmith, the pseudonymous half of a husband-and-wife team of excellent book reviewers, has written another masterpiece, this time about a book and a person we had never heard of, but now want to know everything about: Niccolao Manucci, a Venetian teenager from the 17th century who stowed away on an ocean-going vessel and had a lifetime of adventures in India and other countries. It's impossible to do it justice, go read the review.

At Modern Age, Henry Regnery writes a review of the seventh volume(!) of Martin Gilbert's "massive, carefully documented" biography of Winston Churchill. This "gives the reader an almost day-by-day account of Churchill’s decisions and actions in World War II." Self-recommending.