The future of free markets in the United States is in danger, as support for capitalism among younger generations has fallen to an all-time low. According to a poll conducted by the Cato Institute in 2025, 62% of Americans aged 18 to 29 say they hold a “favorable view” of socialism. Perhaps even more troubling, 34% of young Americans say they hold a “favorable view” of communism.

This is a stark contrast from previous generations. Baby Boomers overwhelmingly hold a positive view of capitalism at 68%. Only 32% of our elder generation holds a positive view of socialism.

Many older Americans are baffled by the fact that so many Gen Zers could favor a system that has failed so horribly in the past. Baby Boomers and Gen X grew up during the Cold War, when socialist and communist ideologies spread across Eastern Europe and Asia. They witnessed, in real time, the authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and economic stagnation stemming from socialist policies that plagued entire countries.

When the Soviet Union fell on December 26, 1991, many thought that would be the end of the support for socialism and that free-market capitalism would dominate the Western Hemisphere for eternity.

However, the rising support for socialism among young Americans, the recent election of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani in America’s biggest city, and the Democratic Party’s gradual embrace of policies once considered fringe, proved that hopeful sentiment wrong.

So, what happened? Why are the youngest Americans so pessimistic about their economic future and demand an overhaul of our free-market system?

Many older generations gripe that the reason why so many Gen Z are rallying against the capitalist system is due to a newfound sense of laziness and distaste for those who work harder than they do.

Ludwig Von Mises, a famous free-marketer and Austrian School economist, articulated this view in his book The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality.

Capitalism, he says, is a system in which everyone is given the opportunity to achieve the most desirable positions in society. However, these positions and wealth can only be attained by a few.

According to Mises:

“​​What makes many feel unhappy under capitalism is the fact that capitalism grants to each the opportunity to attain the most desirable positions which, of course, can only be attained by a few. Whatever a man may have gained for himself, it is mostly a mere fraction of what his ambition has impelled him to win. There are always before his eyes people who have succeeded where he failed.”

The result is that people feel dissatisfied as they see people who have worked hard and attained the things they wished for themselves. This feeling of resentment leads people to cast blame on the system rather than take responsibility for the way their life has turned out.

While this explains why some socialists have a distaste for capitalism, it certainly does not explain the bulk of people who are going further and further left. Nor does it help to explain why there has been a recent uptick for socialism in the last decade, as it is unreasonable to believe that an entire young generation has a newfound sense of laziness and jealousy.

The Gen Z socialists are right about one thing: our “free-market” economy is not doing well, especially when compared to previous generations.

Gen Z grew up during an interesting economic time, with some of their first memories of economic impact coming from the Great Recession, where they saw parents lose their jobs and their homes and struggle to afford basic necessities in a stagnant economy.

Then, as many Gen Z were finishing their education and beginning to look for full-time jobs, the Covid-19 pandemic hit, halting the economy to a stop.

The Covid economy was first marred by rapid job loss, then historically high inflation, followed by surging home prices.

The post-Covid housing market has made the dream of owning a home unattainable for many young Americans. In 1985, the median home price was $84,300, which was 3.5 times the median income at the time. In 2023, the average home price was $428,600, which is 5.3 times the median income.

There has been a growing sentiment that earnings have been stagnating. One commonly cited statistic is that real wages have only grown by 0.7% since 1973. CEO pay has also undoubtedly outpaced worker wage growth, with top CEOs now making 281 times the amount of an average worker.

However, while many members of Gen Z are correct that there is a sickness in our economy, they are misdiagnosing the disease and are attempting to prescribe a dangerous treatment.

Many ascribe the perils discussed above as being by-products of an overly-free capitalist market. Gen Z socialists say wages are stagnating and CEO pay is increasing as a result of a corporate oligarchy wielding power over workers, which free-market capitalism has bred and allowed to continuously grow.

Therefore, they say, the only solution is embracing a democratic-socialist system where aggressive wealth redistribution, emboldening the welfare state, and implementing extensive regulation can keep greedy corporations and the billionaire class in check.

However, this is not the case. The actual culprit behind the lagging economy is not an overgrowth of the free market, but rather an encroachment of government power and regulation.

The reason why home prices are more than 5 times the median income is almost entirely the result of money that was artificially pumped into the economy during the Covid-19 pandemic. From February of 2020 to February of 2022, the U.S. money supply increased by an unprecedented 40.4%. This, coupled with the Federal Reserve’s choice to bring mortgage rates to an all-time low, caused housing prices to soar 54.9% between 2020 and 2025.

Additionally, heavy government regulation on the housing sector left builders unable to keep the housing supply up with demand, further pushing prices up.

This stimulus check that drastically increased the money supply during Covid is also the reason why we haven’t seen any gains in terms of real wages since the start of the pandemic. Inflation ticked up to a 40-year high, climbing to over 8%.

Data from a non-partisan organization, the Hamilton Project, has found that real wage growth since 2020 has been flat due to high inflation eating up nominal wage gains. Furthermore, the lowest levels of wage growth occurred in low- to middle-income jobs.

Regulatory capture is also driving market consolidation and increased corporate power as large corporations have successfully lobbied and influenced government officials to shape regulations in their favor. This tends to hurt small businesses and reduce competition by creating large regulatory barriers that only large incumbent corporations can overcome.

Again, this is not the result of the free market at work but rather crony capitalism, which is a direct result of the government becoming even more intertwined with our economic system.

Many progressives also tend to overstate the degree of economic stagnation or the issues that come with rising inequality.

For instance, the statistic that real wages have only grown by 0.7% since 1973 is misleading. 1973 was a previous peak for real wages, a bit of an anomaly, so to speak. This statistic also uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust nominal wage growth and put it into real terms. As a report from the American Enterprise Institute points out, using 1973 as a base year and CPI to measure real wages greatly underestimates real wage growth.

If you use 1990 as the base year, which was another business cycle peak, and use Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) as the price index, real wages grew by 39% from 1990 to 2022.

Rising economic inequality is also often miscategorized and overstated. An article written by Senior Fellow Scott Winship points out that there are many issues with how think tanks calculate income inequality, such as the fact that they don’t take into account non-wage employee benefits or non-wage government benefits.

The Gini Coefficient (produced by the Congressional Budget Office), Winship argues, is a much better measure of income inequality, as it takes more factors into account. The Gini coefficient has only risen from 0.41 in 1989 to 0.43 in 2017. The Gini coefficient is 0 when everyone has the same income and is 1 when a single family has all of the income in a country.

Most of the growth in income inequality post-WWII actually occurred in the 1980s. Recent data has suggested that income inequality peaked in 2021 and has been dropping ever since.

Additionally, a piece on income inequality from the Hoover Institution points out that income inequality is not what we should be most concerned about. Rather, we should be looking at how many people are able to make their way out of poverty and have a good standard of living. According to the report, worldwide extreme poverty has fallen significantly in the past couple of decades, reaching an all-time low of under a billion people.

Moreover, the wealth that we are seeing concentrated among those in the top 1% is mainly driven by technological innovation. That technological innovation, which has flourished in the United States’ free-market system, has also translated to unprecedented growth within America’s middle class.

Winship’s article also highlights the massive growth that the middle and even lower classes have encountered in recent decades. “It is not the case that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer, contrary to the ‘falling behind’ rhetoric,” he says.

The Covid-19 pandemic also left a lot of people in isolation, closed-off from outside human interaction and experiences. Many began to fill the void by scrolling on social media for hours on end.

While social lockdowns removed people from real-world conversation and political discourse, the social media algorithm was pushing out flashy political content from creators who had little credibility but a huge incentive to gain virality.

Much of the political content on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram was intentionally inflammatory, expressing radical views from both the left and the right. The more users engaged with this kind of content, the more the algorithms continued feeding it to them.

Being isolated from their classmates, neighbors, and community members, many members of Gen Z forgot what political views and conversations looked like in real life and became consumed by the political jungle on social media.

As a result, these online platforms began to normalize radical views, such as support for tearing down capitalism, and were rarely ever challenged due to the lack of face-to-face conversations.

This was especially problematic since social media quickly became the main source of news for many Gen Zers. The Genesis 2021 report showed that cellphone and social media usage surged during the pandemic, with 46% of adolescents saying they used their phone more than three hours a day, with 62% of this usage going to just TikTok. Additionally, 50% of Gen Z used social media networks as their daily news source as of 2022.

This only further fueled the echo chamber effect. Many young Americans were being presented with radical and sometimes even non-factual content that was being packaged up as “news.” With little outside influence, many turned towards socialism, thinking it was a legitimate and necessary step towards solving our nation’s economic and social perils.

Lastly, another reason why support for socialism may be rising among Gen Z has to do with their changing definition of it, or at least of what they think socialism could be.

This could help explain why a poll from 2019 done by Gallup found that while 49% of millennials and Gen Z had a favorable view of socialism, 83% still had a positive view of ”free enterprise.”

When many Gen Z say they advocate for socialism, they do not necessarily mean securing the means of production and having a centrally-controlled economy like in the Soviet Union. Rather, they just want things like higher taxes on the wealthy, universal health care, and universal childcare, among other things.

To them, “socialism” more commonly means the democratic-socialist policies commonly associated with Scandinavian-style welfare states than traditional Marxist theory.

Samuel J. Abrams, another senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, points this out in his op-ed titled Capitalism Isn’t the Enemy—What Young Voters Really Want. This can be seen with the many democratic-socialist politicians that Gen Z is rallying behind, such as Zohran Mamdani and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Neither ran on the platform to have an economy entirely controlled by a central, authoritarian government. Rather, they mainly advocate for things such as free health care, lower prices, and higher wages.

However, it is important to note that politicians like Mamdani and AOC have also advocated for more explicit socialist policies, such as government-run grocery stores and price controls, which can quickly lead to serious economic problems.

Venezuela is a prime example of this, where government overreach, corruption, and central planning all contributed to the rapid downfall of a once prosperous Latin American country.

Part of Gen Z’s shift in attitudes may stem from the fact that they are decades removed from the worst horrors of socialism, where the older generations watched the economic system play out in full scale during the Cold War.

Gen Z is too young to have been alive to witness the devastating effects of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc’s eventual collapse. They only read about it in school, where even then it is inadequately taught.

The reality is that preserving personal freedom and democratic institutions is very difficult when a government is allowed to endlessly expand its power in the name of economic justice and equality.

Additionally, “well-intended” policies that focus on government-run enterprises, central planning, and aggressive wealth redistribution can quickly slide into an all-out-socialist economic system like in the Soviet Union. Many of the “democratic socialists” of Generation Z have yet to learn that.

The growing support for socialism among Gen Z in the United States did not come out of nowhere, nor did it simply come from a sudden change in mindset. It was the result of changing economic conditions, social media radicalization, and a new attempt to package up socialist ideas as being compatible with a free and prosperous society.

Many young Americans feel pessimistic about their ability to achieve the same American dream that was promised to previous generations and are turning to socialism to address rising costs and inequality.

Gen Z needs to be better educated about the historic failures of socialism. We need to make sure that the future leaders of the world are willing to embrace the economic system that has brought more wealth and prosperity to this world than any other economic system in human history.

In order to restore Gen Z’s faith in free markets, we must ensure that every young American understands that the current economic issues that we face today are not driven by capitalism, but rather government overreach in the form of corruption, mismanagement, inflation, and crony capitalism.

In other words, they need to understand that the blame assigned to capitalism really belongs to the growth of socialism.

This article was originally published by the MacIver Institute.

Stephen Macedo, a professor of politics at Princeton University, spoke about his newest co-authored book, “In COVID’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us,” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on May 4 in a lecture hosted by the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy. Macedo discussed the policies surrounding COVID-19 and how they reflected institutional dysfunction in the United States during the pandemic.

Macedo began by recalling early events of the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 and the fears felt by many. He explained the need for an “honest and critical” assessment of the policy decisions that were made. He referenced uncertainties and fears that contributed to the urgency early in the pandemic, many stemming from overwhelmed hospitals and climbing mortality rates.

According to Macedo, there were decades of pre-COVID pandemic planning studies conducted on the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as border closures, mask mandates and school closures. Macedo cited one particular study from the World Health Organization (WHO) from November 2019 that emphasized the low quality of evidence and effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

“Some measures were not recommended in any circumstances, including the most severe pandemic, and those measures included contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening, and border closures, things we all did with short order under COVID,” Macedo said.

Macedo also referenced additional pre-pandemic research from institutions such as Johns Hopkins University and the United Kingdom, which also warned about the limited evidence surrounding non-pharmaceutical interventions.

“It almost certainly will not be possible to contain or eradicate a new virus in its country of origin or on arrival to the UK. The expectation must be that the virus will inevitably spread, and that any local measures taken to disrupt or produce the spread are likely to have very limited or partial success at a national level, and cannot be relied upon even as a way to buy time,” Macedo said, citing a UK study from 2011.

Policymakers failed to acknowledge the lack of scientific evidence available, according to Macedo. He noted that billions of people were subjected to lockdowns within a matter of weeks, a response he argued was unprecedented given the lack of evidence backing these measures.

“By early April 2020, half the world’s population, 3.9 billion people, were living under some form of lockdown,” Macedo said.

Macedo also pointed out the role of political polarization in shaping the pandemic policies in the United States. He explained that Democratic states implemented stricter and longer restrictions during the pandemic, while Republican states were more likely to lift restrictions earlier. He suggested that these differences weren’t linked to measurable public health outcomes, but rather reflected broader political divides that influenced decision-making.

Macedo also argued that “truth-seeking” institutions, including science, journalism and universities, did not appropriately consider dissenting perspectives during the pandemic. He described this as a failure within these institutions, as differing viewpoints were often discredited or dismissed.

“Under the influence of polarization and politicization, we argued that disagreement was prematurely moralized and dissent was treated intolerantly,” Macedo said. He believed these institutions need to prioritize viewpoint diversity moving forward.

Macedo also highlighted the negative effects of pandemic policies in early education, noting “unprecedented drops in student learning in both reading and math, reversing roughly two decades of progress.” He also argued that prolonged school closures during the pandemic contributed to a loss of trust in educational institutions, pointing to the increase in school choice programs in Republican states.

“Chronic absenteeism rates doubled, now at one third of K-12 students nationwide, and losses greater in high-poverty districts, and for black and Hispanic students,” Macedo said.

Subscribe now

Beyond early education, there have been depressed rates of church attendance and volunteering, depopulation in business districts and large drops in mass transportation use, according to Macedo. He also noted negative effects on our social fabric, including increased mental health consequences and loneliness, especially in places with stricter lockdowns. Macedo said these outcomes make up a set of social costs that weren’t considered in early pandemic decisions.

Macedo concluded his lecture by emphasizing the importance of reflection moving forward, asserting the need for more openness, humility and tolerance of differing viewpoints in policy and public discourse.

Rev. Patrick Gilger, an assistant professor of sociology at Loyola University Chicago, gave a lecture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School on April 6 about the “Birth of the Modern Catholic Self” and the role the Jesuit order played in bridging the divide between secular and spiritual concerns.

Gilger began his talk by discussing his first encounter with Jesuits when he was 17 years old at Creighton University, and at the time, he was not Catholic. “These people on campus, my fellow students, weren’t faking it or being posers,” Gilger said. “They were real people … with a combination of integrity and authenticity.” He describes the Jesuits he met as having a holy sense of competition. They were “integrated people living in a disintegrated world” through “spiritual direction and spiritual exercises.”

When Gilger first arrived at Creighton, he did not know how to pray, but he got the chance to learn. “At first I felt silly sitting there trying to talk to what felt like nothing,” he said. While in novitiate - the training to enter the religious order - Gilger and his fellow brothers learned Ignatian spiritual exercises that were written by St. Ignatius of Loyola, and he gave specific instructions for talking directly with God. These exercises taught them to live and see the events of the gospel through imagination and prayer. Over time, Gilger came to appreciate prayer, and under the influence of the Jesuits, he became a novice after four years.

“What is spirituality?” Gilger asked. He explained that it is “a style of life in the world built upon organizing thoughts, behaviors, producing experience based on the trinity resurrection, orienting us to achieving certain goods.”

Gilger built on this definition by discussing the great spiritualities, especially to the five main orders: Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits (Ignatians), Carmelites, and Dominicans. The spiritualities are “the infinite coming into relation with the finite” because humans cannot fully grasp God’s message.

All of the big five spiritualities would emerge at different times. The Benedictines emerged during the adoption of Christianity in Rome, the Franciscans during the growth of European markets, and the Jesuits and Carmelites during the democratization of information. This was near the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and the general religious revolution.

Gilger explains that the Ignatian spirituality came to be “God’s gift and answer to the question of modernity.” It gave a way to build a modern self while still being Catholic, which was the central dilemma during that time.

There were four main revolutions that Gilger discussed. The first was the religious revolution, which led to the privatization of religion. The second is the scientific revolution, which introduced new various ways of thinking and the democratization of knowledge. The third is the Industrial Revolution, which led to capitalism and made people even more restless and anxious about the world around them. Lastly, the political revolution split the Church and state, leading to the rise of democracy and the changing experience of the modern world.

All of these revolutions made people more individualistic and led them to dream of building and controlling the world, according to Gilger. These movements fundamentally transitioned people from a “porous self” to a “buffered self,” which are philosophical states coined by philosopher Charles Taylor.

A porous self is “open to spirits, superstitions, enchanted forests, and fairy tales,” and it seeks spiritual protection through the Church or other religious methods. The buffered self is in control of their own life and shielded from the spiritual world. Gilger explains that we are now buffered selves because the world is now, as Gilger said, “disenchanted”.

Both Ignatius and Gilger believed that there can be an “individual and traditional” Catholic. The modern Catholic self shares similarities, but it does not consider itself autonomous. It is aware of a lack of action and of the collaboration required with the spirits moving through it. Ignatius was crucial in forming a faithful modern Catholic self, and he refined the spiritual directions and exercises to be suitable for a modern world so humans could be “imitating the conduct of the master.”

During the time Ignatius was writing, many spiritual directors were spreading new ideas beyond the monasteries to people in the cities. Ignatius worked to systemize what was already established by taking classes and reading books under the guidance of a spiritual director, while also tailoring it to the person undergoing the exercise.

Gilger explained how Ignatius helped make the exercises accessible outside of hierarchy, but he also had to deal with many new problems in the modern world. He said Ignatius “made the process of the spiritual exercises, now a triadic relationship between God, the director, and the directed, thereby strengthening the exercise and the effect. The director is not just controlling experiences, but they are to be adapted to the person and the moment.”

Gilger explained that around the time of Vatican II, the Spiritual Exercises in the modern Catholic Church were done in groups rather than individually. After that, the exercises began to address people’s specific desires and became more of a self-help manual, not the radical change it had been before.

Now, people are seeking stable ground, avoiding conflict, and offering critiques of order and agency. Gilger says this was resolved by Ignatius long before these modern problems emerged, and now the problem is the divides in the internal structure of Roman Catholicism. He believed both worlds are needed to be a modern Catholic self.

Gilger concluded by saying that directors should act like a pointer on the balance when the directee communes with the Holy Spirit. He told the audience to “act against temptations, to break the balance” and “be unafraid of what we will find.”

This article was originally published by the MacIver Institute.

INTRODUCTION

In January of 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to restrict federal funding from being used to support gender transitions for individuals under 19. It mandated that federal funding not be used for puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or surgeries, and instructed federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to deny coverage for these interventions.

The order also directed federal agencies to make sure that hospitals receiving federal funds were not using those resources to do gender-transitioning procedures on minors.

In response to this executive order, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, along with 14 other state attorneys general, signed onto a multi-state lawsuit challenging the policy.

But this is just one of over 40 lawsuits that Kaul has signed onto on behalf of Wisconsin since the beginning of Trump’s second term.

As these lawsuits continue to grow in number, so do questions about the scope of the attorney general’s power and whether this level of involvement in national political battles is what the state office was intended for.

THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & JOSH KAUL

The Wisconsin Attorney General’s role is to be the chief legal officer of the state. While the position was created in the Wisconsin State Constitution of 1848, the duties of the role are outlined in Wisconsin Statute § 165.25.

They appear before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, handle litigation for state agencies, and take part in other legal actions at the direction of the governor or legislature. The office also functions as legal counsel to state officials and provides guidance to district attorneys.

The attorney general serves for four years and is not subject to term limits. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul was originally elected in 2018, again in 2022, and will seek re-election against Republican candidate Eric Toney this fall.

Aside from the political lawsuits, Kaul’s tenure has not been without controversy.

In 2025, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Reporter Daniel Bice broke that Kaul had hired a new special assistant attorney role for environmental litigation whose salary is paid by the State Energy Environment and Impact Center at New York university law school. Controversially, the center was funded by Michael Bloomberg.

As MacIver’s Senior Fellow William Osmulski put it, “The State of Wisconsin got the lawyer for free. In exchange, SEIC got to use the authority of Wisconsin’s Attorney General to fight climate change. A quid pro quo.”

Taken together, these developments and the volume of lawsuits targeting a Republican federal administration have prompted concerns that the office is being used for political purposes.

In previous attempts to reign in the power of the attorney general, Wisconsin Act 369 was passed in 2017. Among other things, this legislation dictates that when the DOJ wants to discontinue or compromise a civil action, they must get approval from a state intervenor or the Joint Committee on Finance. It also requires that DOJ settlement funds are deposited into the general fund. This limited the attorney general’s ability to withdraw Wisconsin from lawsuits and increased legislative oversight.

While Kaul may not have been able to unilaterally withdraw Wisconsin from lawsuits filed by the previous conservative attorney general, it has not prevented him from signing onto a plethora of multi-state lawsuits against the current federal administration.

MULTI-STATE LAWSUITS

A multi-state lawsuit is any coordinated litigation between two or more attorneys general against the same defendant––typically the federal government and its agencies––over policies, regulations, or executive orders in federal district court.

It is not unprecedented for attorneys general of one party to co-litigate or sign onto lawsuits against the federal administration of the opposing party, but this tool has been used with increasing frequency since Trump’s first term.

In most of the coalitions that form these multi-state lawsuits, a few anchor states do the heavy lifting. These states usually draft the litigation, represent the coalition of states, and file the initial complaint. Often, the litigation is co-drafted by two or more states.

Democratic attorneys general in states like California and New York have been some of the most active in filing lawsuits against the Trump administration, with other major contributors including the AGs of Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington.

The Badger State, on the other hand, appears to take a more passive role. While Wisconsin filed a petition against the Environmental Protection Agency in 2025, in most other cases, the state joins as a sign-on plaintiff rather than serving as a lead plaintiff.

States do this because when multiple states join together, it strengthens and legitimizes their claim. It also increases the likelihood that a federal judge will issue a nationwide injunction, whether preliminary or permanent, preventing the federal government from enforcing a regulation or policy across the country.

To establish standing, plaintiff states must provide specific claims showing how the federal action harms their state. This is supposed to be evidence that the action harms residents, conflicts with state law, increases costs for the state, or exceeds federal authority, to name just a few examples.

It is difficult to know exactly how much Wisconsin taxpayers are spending on these lawsuits against the federal government. Wisconsin’s state budget and Department of Justice appropriations do not specify how much funding is allocated to individual cases. As a result, the public, which elects the attorney general, is left unaware of how much staff time and taxpayer money is being spent on research, filings, and coordination with other states in these lawsuits.

This raises an important question: if Wisconsin is repeatedly joining national litigation, what exactly is the state fighting for? Take a look at some of the major lawsuits Josh Kaul has signed-on to:

Birthright citizenship executive order— Kaul joined a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to certain children born in the United States.

Blocking Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood— Kaul joined litigation opposing a federal provision cutting off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

Restriction of Medicare and Medicaid for Transgender Interventions on Kids— Kaul participated in a lawsuit challenging an HHS declaration and related proposed rules aimed at limiting federal money on transgender interventions.

$100,000 H-1B visa fee— In another case, Kaul joined a coalition contesting a new $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions.

Freeze of federal education grant funding— Kaul also joined a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to freeze various education grants.

Firings of federal probationary employees— Kaul joined a challenge to the administration’s termination of many federal probationary employees.

Dismantling of the Department of Education— Kaul participated in litigation opposing the administration’s effort to cut the Department of Education’s workforce to shut down the agency.

Dismantling of AmeriCorps— Kaul joined a lawsuit challenging the administration’s effort to scale back AmeriCorps.

SO… CAN HE DO THIS?

Short answer, yes. The authority to sue the federal government on behalf of Wisconsin comes from state law and legal precedent. The better question is whether he should be doing it.

In some cases, conservatives also sue the federal government to protect state sovereignty and individual liberty when they believe federal actions infringe on them. Lawsuits themselves are not unusual in recent years. What matters is whether they are being used to defend legitimate state interests or are primarily driven by ideology and the goal of obstructing federal policy. These cases cost taxpayers money and can divert time and resources away from state matters.

Kaul’s claim of protecting Wisconsin interests is doubtful given he participated in all of two lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency during the Biden administration, despite federal policies, such as vaccine mandates, that many conservatives argued challenged state authority and individual liberty. Today, when Kaul signs onto new lawsuits against the Trump administration, he often announces them jointly with Governor Tony Evers, reflecting his political and policy alignment.

Time spent suing the Trump administration is time not spent on crime-related legal support, protecting Wisconsin consumers, enforcing laws against public corruption, and other state-level legal priorities that directly and immediately affect Wisconsin residents.

The question is not whether the attorney general can sue––he can. The question is when should he? And at what cost? That is what voters deserve to know, because DOJ leadership is elected and funded by Wisconsin taxpayers. Those taxpayers will decide their next attorney general this November.

Subscribe now

Parishes across the country are experiencing a large increase in young adults converting to both Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. This trend has been seen in Madison, as Saint Paul’s Catholic Student Center and nearby Orthodox parishes have reported recent surges in conversions.

While some profess that this is a sign of a “religious comeback” in America, others are skeptical about how strong this religious wave really is. To get a better sense of the increasing number of converts to Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity in Wisconsin’s second-largest city, perspectives and data from both religious communities must be taken into account.

The Madison Federalist interviewed the staff involved in the Order of Christian Initiation of Adults (OCIA) program at Saint Paul’s, located near the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s campus. Saint Paul’s serves both students at UW-Madison and other young professionals in the area, so the staff said the number of people in their OCIA program has greatly grown over the last few years.

In the past, Saint Paul’s confirmed around 10 to 29 people into the Catholic Church every year. This year, they reported over 100 confirmations. The OCIA program has been breaking new records in confirmations every year since 2023. In 2025, they recorded more than 80 confirmations, and in 2024, more than 70.

Saint Paul’s staff explained that a large reason behind the increased confirmation numbers is that “it really comes down to travel sports.” Due to the increase in travel sports participation, they reported that around half of those confirmed each year were raised Catholic, but delayed their confirmation. The other half of the people in the OCIA confirmation program are converts to Catholicism. Around half of these converts are typically coming from a Protestant background, with the exception of a few converting from Orthodox Christianity. The other half of converts are those coming from non-Christian backgrounds, which have included individuals raised atheist, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim.

Many young adults in their program express a yearning for community and structure in their lives. The staff described this as a sign of the “loneliness epidemic” often experienced by Gen Z. While the staff said they have been noticing more young men becoming interested in Catholicism, conversions have generally been evenly split between the sexes. A staff member also pointed out that most female converts come from another faith. Another common theme among all of their converts is that they are “looking for something beautiful and true.”

While they are seeing an increase in people interested in the Catholic faith and the Church’s history, they are skeptical that increased confirmation numbers are a sign of a comeback of traditional Christianity, because many data points do not take into account the number of people disengaging with the faith each year.

The staff said they believe the “Catholic comeback in America” is “overstated,” especially due to the high number of people who left the faith during the COVID-19 era. Despite people leaving Catholicism, they hope to finally see more people coming into the church, which used to be scarce. From their experiences, converts are less likely to leave the Church in the future than those raised in the faith.

The staff members also believe that many people are being drawn to Catholicism from popular conservatives in public and media discourse, most notably Vice President JD Vance. In addition, they consider social media content — ranging from apologetics to Catholic influencers — to be a large factor that is drawing young people into the Church.

There are three Orthodox churches currently located in Madison. Fr. Gregory Jensen at Ss Cyril & Methodius Orthodox Church, located south of UW-Madison’s campus, reached out with an article he had previously written about young adult conversions, particularly concerning young men.

Jensen’s article, “Men Flocking to Orthodoxy: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” was published last year, and he said that there is not “enough data to support the idea that this is a mass movement.” The Orthodox Church in America largely serves immigrant communities and their children and will likely remain as a small fraction of the population.

Despite his claim, he wrote that there is increasing interest in liturgical tradition among young people, particularly young men, who have primarily not been raised Orthodox Christian. For those drawn to the Orthodox Church, he rejects the idea that it is the “masculine church,” as many women during the Soviet Union remained steadfast in their faith during a time of persecution.

Fr. John Chagnon at St. Ignatius of Antioch Orthodox Christian Church paints a slightly different picture. “We too have experienced the surge of young people, but also others coming in,” Chagnon said.

Significant portions of his congregation consist of former evangelical protestants and former atheists. He said that he used to be an Anglican pastor before converting to Orthodox Christianity. While most of their converts come from a protestant background, there have been a few converts from Catholicism over the years.

The number of converts flocking to St. Ignatius has been interesting to him since the church does not partake in “sheep stealing.” They only provide an option to those who seek them out. Additionally, teens as young as 15 and 16 years old have shown interest in conversion, whereas most converts are between the ages of 18 and 35.

Chagnon said that he prefers to take a more individualized approach for each convert, so chrismation and baptism dates can vary. This month, they will have around 15 to 20 people entering the Orthodox Christian faith.

The church has seen some young women converting to the faith, but the majority of their converts have been young men, especially those who are single. “Some of the young guys coming in have been so into their video and digital world – that it is hard for them to have actual relationships [with others],” Chagnon said.

He believes many of their converts come to them due to experiences with the Orthodox faith online, which can be both good and bad. Their young adult converts have reported a feeling of “emptiness” without a faith that adheres to tradition, instead of trying to appeal to current culture.

“Tradition is not the worshipping of ashes, but the passing on of fire,” and people are drawn to the “steadiness of the Orthodox Church,” Chagnon said. While Orthodox Christians are currently still a sliver of Wisconsin’s population, there is growing optimism about the future of the Orthodox Church in the state.

While it may be too early for some to describe this as a true religious revival, there are certainly shifts happening among young people in our society. Despite those raised in the Catholic or Orthodox faith slowly disengaging with traditional Christianity each year, Chagnon believes that the COVID-19 pandemic was a strong reminder of our own mortality, and it likely led more people to search for a deeper meaning in their lives.

Subscribe now

Conservative journalist and activist Christopher Rufo believes higher education may be changing for the better. “I know for a fact that we are in a better place than we were five years ago,” he told The Madison Federalist. “But the question is really: Are they sufficient structural changes long-term? The answer to that is obviously no, so we will have to do much more moving forward.”

Rufo gained national prominence for his reporting on critical race theory and DEI in governmental institutions, especially universities and public schools. Rufo has been instrumental in reshaping how the right approaches higher education reform, including advising Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He is currently a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Rufo sat down with The Federalist for an exclusive interview before speaking at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on April 22. He was hosted by the Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership and the Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy in an event titled “Making Universities Great Again.”

According to Rufo, higher education is facing a crisis of its own making, and conservatives in government should not shy away from using their power to fix it. “A lot of these institutions that have been fattening themselves in ideology and in politics are going to be put on a crash diet. They won’t be able to do what they’ve been doing moving forward,” he said. “And I think ultimately that’s what it’s going to take for these institutions to actually have a moment of seriousness.”

“Universities have essentially been printing taxpayer dollars for a half century, with no limitations. That can’t go on forever,” Rufo said. He believes federal and state governments are in a unique position to make change because “student demographics [will] start tipping and declining” in the coming years. As the percentage of the U.S. population aged 18-22 decreases, colleges will need to compete for students like never before. “I think you’re going to see a lot of people get much smarter in a much faster fashion than we’ve seen so far.”

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

While the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Division of Diversity, Equity, and Educational Achievement was closed in 2025, most of its employees were retained, and many departments continued to list DEI as a priority on their websites. An art exhibit sponsored by the Office of Multicultural Arts Initiatives – which still claims to be part of the defunct central DEI office on its website – took down a flier advertising Rufo’s event and claimed it marked “the active presence of reactionary discourse on campus.”

According to Rufo, the continued presence of DEI on college campuses is widespread. He pointed to the New College of Florida, where he was a trustee, as the model for change. “We just fired everyone and said the DEI office is gone and all the employees are gone. That’s what you ultimately have to do.” Rufo said reform takes “decisive leadership.”

He believes conservatives “decisively won the debate in the realm of public opinion,” and even many within the university system recognize that DEI went too far. “When people are running away from their own ideas, when they’re trying to hide their own actions, and when they are denying their own previously stated beliefs, that shows you that public opinion has shifted dramatically against them.”

“The question is for legislators and administrators to translate public opinion into an administrative reality.” However, he wondered whether “toughness even exists in academia.” He believes that the university “chancellors, presidents, provosts” have largely been unable to drive meaningful change, so “political leaders” must fill the leadership void.

STATE-LEVEL SOLUTIONS

The Thompson Center conducted a recent survey about faculty political ideology, which found that the overwhelming majority of UW-Madison professors identify as progressive. According to the survey, nearly one-third of faculty said they would be less likely to support hiring a candidate with conservative views on abortion or immigration.

In states such as Texas, North Carolina and Ohio, state legislatures have addressed the viewpoint discrimination problem by creating civics education schools. At the Arizona State University and Florida State University, their respective civics school directors are former members of the UW-Madison political science faculty. Rufo believes the civic school model is “great,” but “there’s limitations of it.”

“One thing I’ve learned is that some of these centers are run better than others, without naming names,” he said. “Leadership is hard because you’re entering a larger institution that is generally hostile, and then you are also trying to manage and protect yourself and protect your scholars and create something under challenging conditions.”

“The key benefit for the civic schools is that you have a clear administrative unit that can do hiring, that can do course offering, and that can, in some cases, [offer] majors, and in fewer, but increasing number, of cases, train graduate students.”

To Rufo, their most important aspect is the creation of “a faculty pipeline” for right-leaning academics. “For many years, even Ivy League, conservative faculty members were telling their graduate students or their potential graduate students, ‘Don’t do this, because on the other side of your PhD, no matter how good your scholarship is, it’s a very brutal hiring environment.’”

Now, the faculty at civics institutes say they have a new problem: “We have a huge supply of positions open, and we’re struggling to hire.” Rufo believes the “pipeline problem” can be partially addressed by civics schools themselves as they begin to produce more graduates.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Rufo believes the Trump administration’s efforts to reform higher education “have stalled” since Elon Musk “left the administration.” Since that point, “I wouldn’t say that they’ve taken a heavy hand ... I would say the opposite.”

“I realized, having worked with the various agencies, on education, on civil rights law, on federal grant making, on DEI, those were issues that were kind of de facto delegated to Elon,” he told The Federalist. “The problem is that after Elon left the administration, a lot of the progress on the basket of issues that might be associated with anti-woke politics just kind of stopped.”

“That doesn’t mean there aren’t good people. There are many good people at the Department of Education, at the Department of Justice, at the White House Domestic Policy Council, at HHS, all these various agencies, they’re good people,” Rufo said. However, “Having Elon on the team, driving managerial disruption is much better than not having Elon on the team and having salaried functionaries trying to kick the machine into gear. They just can’t do it.”

STUDENT JOURNALISM

Rufo believes that student journalists can play a major role in exposing discriminatory practices in higher education. “The immediate cause is shedding light on what is happening around you for the people that live, work, and play around you,” he said. Because of this, journalists provide an important “service to the public, at least within your domain.”

He also views college newspapers as an important talent pipeline, as “the talent and instinct and craft” developed on campus “might be put to service on a larger playing field in the future.”

“All of these conservative-leaning student papers around the country seem to be magnets for not only talent, but a particular kind of talent,” Rufo said. “That demands a higher level of courage than your peers and competitors. And that’s something that holds true on the big stage.”

Subscribe now

The latest edition of THE MADISON FEDERALIST is available today! Featuring an exclusive interview with former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, cutting-edge investigative journalism, and bold commentary, this is our best issue yet.

It is now available on newspaper racks around campus. If you can’t find one, fill out this form:

Print Edition Request

NEWS:

“Activist Art” Exhibit in Education Building Includes Depiction of Severed Trump Head

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff: UW-Madison ‘Can Do Better’ on Free Speech

UW System President Jay Rothman Fired by Board of Regents

COMMENTARY:

Chancellor Mnookin’s Stable Leadership Will Be Missed

Survey Finds Overwhelming Ideological Imbalance Among UW-Madison Faculty

David Keene, Conservative Visionary and UW Alum, Leaves Powerful Legacy

Write For Us!

An art exhibit hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Office of Multicultural Arts Initiatives (OMAI) includes pieces that depict Bucky Badger wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit, former Chancellor Rebecca Blank carrying a noose, and a man holding Donald Trump’s severed head with the White House burning in the background.

Alongside Da Hoodzeum, the OMAI presented a pop-up called In Direct Action: A Decade of Activist Art at UW-Madison, which is hosted at the School of Education Gallery. It began on April 5 and ends on April 24.

The “In Direct Action” exhibit features art created from activism and political movements over the past 10 years at UW-Madison. The exhibition contains walls of political t-shirts, sweatshirts and student artwork, such as posters and signs that were used in various protests. In addition to the student work, there are displays of historical relics - newspapers, flyers and everyday objects - from the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army.

The gallery also includes a flier for an upcoming campus event featuring conservative activist Christopher Rufo. The event will be hosted by the Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership and the Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy (CROWE), where Rufo will discuss higher education reform on April 22. However, the exhibit says the flier is included because it marks “the active presence of reactionary discourse on campus.”

CROWE director Ananth Seshadri gave a statement to The Madison Federalist via email. “I strongly support the university’s role in hosting student-created art and historical artifacts, even when the content is provocative or controversial,” he said. “Free expression is foundational to a university.”

However, he felt that “true dialogue requires openness to counterarguments,” and “exhibits like these feel more like ideological reinforcement than an invitation to debate.”

The exhibit features a large cardboard caricature of former Chancellor Blank holding a noose with the caption “MAKE UW GREAT AGAIN.” Seshadri believes this is “profoundly distasteful, especially following her recent passing.” The use of this imagery “as protest art is a striking illustration of selective outrage.”

Even though Seshadri found the caricature “misguided,” it is protected by free speech, which Chancellor Blank heavily defended. “True commitment to free expression requires consistently defending even speech we find deeply objectionable,” he said.

Seshadri believes this exhibit “risks deeper division.” One of the pieces of clothing that was displayed read “All white people are racist.” This message “promotes a sweeping racial generalization that is not supported by evidence and substitutes collective racial guilt for individual accountability.”

He also believes the controversial exhibit is a sign that, “We need to get back to basics – excellence grounded by sifting and winnowing.”

Rufo tweeted in response to the Federalist’s reporting, “This is insane, left-wing activists at the University of Wisconsin are calling for assassinations.” He called for a strong security presence at his speech.

The OMAI “integrates traditional academics and cutting edge arts activism” and “empowers transnational leaders with new tools for inclusive community building.” It was a unit of the Division of Diversity, Equity, and Educational Achievement until the DDEEA was dissolved last year. Many former DDEEA staffers were retained by the university and kept their job titles, including in the OMAI.

The gallery description recognized the controversial nature of some of the pieces. It said, “You may question what belongs in a museum, what counts as history, what feels ‘appropriate.’ But ask yourself: Why does this disturb you– while monuments to slavery, colonialism, and state violence remain normalized? Why does this feel out of place—but Abraham Lincoln standing atop Bascom Hill does not?”

The Lincoln statue has faced criticism and calls for removal from left-wing activists in the past. A 2023 editorial from The Badger Herald suggested the statue was “racist memorabilia” and that “unfettered admiration of Lincoln is disappointing.” Before that, in 2020, calls for the statue’s removal grew so loud that then-Chancellor Blank released a statement defending its continued presence.

According to a video by The Badger Herald, Da Hoodzeum is a pop-up museum based in Wisconsin that centers on Black history and cultural movements. The pop-up was founded by activist Mike Davis, and it is “a home for over 4,000 artifacts” dating back to the 1800s to the present.

University spokesman John Lucas, said the Da Hoodzeum exhibit does not represent the views of UW-Madison or the School of Education, but they “support free expression, including conversations about difficult, complex, and sometimes polarizing issues.”

“While some of the imagery may portray violent themes, UW-Madison condemns acts of violence of any kind,” Lucas said.

The exhibit has not received any university funding, and Lucas is not aware of any complaints or reactions to the exhibit.

The OAMI did not return a request for comment from The Federalist.

Subscribe now

Professor Nicholas Eastman, a lay Dominican, gave a lecture on March 23 about the life of Father Vincent McNabb and the Catholic Land Movement as part of the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy’s Order and Influence series.

Eastman began his talk by discussing the end of McNabb’s life, explaining that on the day he died, he summoned a friar to make arrangements for his funeral. He emphasized that he did not want a brass coffin but rather an ordinary wooden box like he slept on every day. McNabb spent 25 years preaching at Hyde Park Marble Arch, and is sometimes called “the Gandhi of Kentish Town.”

Nearly all of London was familiar with him, and every lecture began with him wearing the same uniform with his strong and eccentric personality. McNabb also gave intricate instructions for after his funeral to ensure he will be preaching even after death.

He was born in 1868 in County Down, Ireland, and his family moved to Newcastle when he was 14. McNabb then joined the Dominican order during a time of renewal for the church in England.

There were many historic events, such as Bede Jarrett’s opening of the Blackfriars Dominican priory in Oxford in 1921, and Pope Leo XIII’s release of Aeterni Patris in 1879 and Rerum Novarum in 1891. Eastman continued by explaining that McNabb entered the order in 1885, earned his lector in sacred theology at the University of Louvain in 1894, and completed his STM in Rome in 1916.

Eastman discussed the significance of Rerum Novarum, explaining that it marked the launch of modern Catholic Social teaching. It rejected socialism and communism, enshrined the natural right to property, and advocated for a return to family and land. Sometimes called the workers’ charter by those of the time, it was profoundly influential on McNabb. He would frequently cite it in his speeches to the people of London.

For McNabb, industrialization, urbanization, and capitalism were contrary to the Gospel. He believed family was above the state, and the right to private property was rooted in providing for the family, which included growing or raising food.

“All men have the right to some property,” McNabb said. The earthly life of Jesus is important for understanding how we should act or strive for in our lives. The small town of Nazareth was his home, where Jesus began his ministry, not an important city like Rome or Alexandria. This shows that there is some virtue in living and existing in a small rural community.

The message of God is best understood by those who live in such environments. For McNabb, only a small community offers the possibility of real family life, saying, “The desire for home and family is written on the human heart.”

Eastman explained how McNabb stressed the distinction between things and tokens. Things are made of the land, and they do not lead to infinite desires. In contrast, tokens are more abstract and lead to infinite desire. Eastman used the example of Jesus multiplying the fish and loaves. The people had their fill of food, and there were even leftovers, explaining how the story would not have been the same if Jesus had begun to multiply money, in which case the people would have been greedy and never satisfied.

Eastman explained the distinction between things and tokens that McNabb emphasized. McNabb called for the economics of poverty, effectively to consume as little real wealth as possible and to produce as much as possible of real worth; both of these, he argued, are cultivated by family living and working on the land.

He also argued that the gospel was against big farming and herding, as shown in the parable of the rich man and the possessed swine herd. Eastman then continued explaining how Luke 12:21 is a great example of this. The core of McNabb’s argument was “to save civilization, by urban exodus and return to agrarianism, and back to the land.”

McNabb believed the best way to preserve a moral civilization was by turning away from the modern urbanized world and returning to the more agrarian and rural lifestyle of their ancestors. Eastman explained that an example of this was in Ditchling, Sussex, which was like Nazareth to McNabb. In this place, many third-order Dominicans set up a little village and tried their best to live off the land in an ever-changing world.

McNabb would even serve as a spiritual advisor of sorts to their small group for a time. McNabb saw the movement’s failure before passing away in 1943. The world was in the midst of war, and the tides of urbanization and industrialization had become established as the future. Eastman continued, explaining that McNabb “was not stupid” and “he understood practically that the tide had not turned.”

He saw that he had not changed minds, but he still fought for the ideals of the Catholic Land Movement until the end of his days. Despite having papal and ecclesiastical support, the movement lacked sufficient material support and was too opposed to the societal trends of the time, and it ultimately failed.

Subscribe now

Eastman concluded his talk by discussing the Catholic Land Movement in America today. He explained that, in some ways, there is now a resurgent interest in the movement in the U.S., with approval from Pope Leo XIV and Archbishop Grob. He explained that now more than ever, the relevance of choosing Nazareth or social chaos is more frank than ever.

He argued, however, that despite efforts and some support, “there are still many barriers, including a lack of material support from the hierarchy and laity.” This is alongside other barriers, such as insurance and legal barriers, and the cost of land. Eastman concluded by saying that the movement today faces “new challenges and old problems, however, now it may yet find success.”

Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin will leave the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the end of the spring semester to become president of Columbia University. Her time in office was not defined by dramatic reform, but rather, a series of measured decisions and political compromises that reflected the difficulty of leading a major public university in a deeply divided era.

Mnookin assumed the chancellorship in August of 2022 during a phase of mounting pressure on public universities. Amid political scrutiny, cultural division, and financial uncertainty, the role did not demand bold reinvention but rather careful navigation. Despite frequent (and often unfair) criticism from both progressives and conservatives, Mnookin provided a degree of stability that may only be fully appreciated in her absence.

Her tenure became most visible during the 2023 funding standoff with Wisconsin legislative Republicans. The eventual deal, which tied new funding to restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, was immediately controversial. The university agreed to restructure certain DEI positions and redirect resources toward other priorities, including faculty hiring and high-demand academic programs.

For critics on the left, the agreement represented a capitulation that weakened the university’s commitment to diversity efforts. For conservatives, the deal still did not go far enough. For others, it was a necessary compromise to break a political deadlock and secure funding without inviting deeper legislative intrusion into university affairs. Mnookin defended the deal as pragmatic, and whether it is seen as a concession or a strategy largely depends on how the role of a public university in a divided state is viewed.

A similar pattern emerged in her handling of campus protests, particularly during the wave of demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas war in 2024. As encampments and protests unfolded at UW-Madison, university administration again faced criticism from all sides. Some argued Mnookin allowed disruptions to go on too long, while others believed the university acted too forcefully. However, the fact that her response was not fully satisfying to anyone reflected a leadership style that often aimed for balance, even at the cost of decisiveness.

Mnookin also made an effort, at least in principle, to address concerns about intellectual diversity in recent months. She supported free expression initiatives and welcomed a broader range of speakers to campus. While these efforts did not fundamentally reshape the university’s intellectual climate, they signaled awareness of the issues, something not all university leaders have been willing to acknowledge. The Wisconsin Exchange may end up being her most impactful legacy on campus, as long as support for the initiative continues.

Mnookin’s character also distinguished her in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. While many in academia– including at our own university– failed to grapple with the seriousness of his murder, she was not afraid to say his name. “What happened to Charlie Kirk was a tragedy. [...] College campuses should be one of the places within society where ideas are explored and bump up against each other,” she said. Condemning political violence may not be radical, but in the current context of higher education, it is.

Beyond these flashpoints, her time as chancellor was marked by continuity and a comfortable rise in rankings. UW-Madison remained academically strong, continued investing in research and STEM fields, and avoided the kinds of institutional crises that have defined leadership at other universities. In a moment when higher education has often lurched from controversy to controversy, Mnookin’s stable leadership carries its own weight.

Subscribe now

Perhaps the clearest way to understand Mnookin’s legacy was that she was not a transformative figure, but she was far from a disastrous one. She made compromises that frustrated many, avoided fights others wanted her to take, and rarely governed in a way that inspired strong enthusiasm. But she also kept the university functioning, intact and largely out of the national spotlight. In today’s environment, that may be more significant than it sounds.

Mnookin’s time at UW-Madison was not without flaws, but it was far from a failure. As the university transitions to new leadership, her reliable, cautious approach will be missed once it is gone. Meanwhile, Columbia will benefit from her steady hand.

Congressman Tony Wied was hosted by the College Republicans of the University of Wisconsin-Madison on March 6 to discuss current events and campus issues.

Wied emphasized how brave it is for college students to be outwardly conservative at UW-Madison. “I think we’re obviously in the minority here in the school,” he said. “It’s really important at your age, of course, that you are interested.”

Wied is fairly new to politics and has represented Wisconsin’s 8th district since November 2024. He discussed his experience campaigning and getting used to the political climate of Wisconsin. He was not originally a politician, but he has long been interested in politics. He said his primary election was “very difficult,” noting he was not used to the negative ads running against him on TV. Despite this, Wied won both the primary and general election.

Wied is originally from Green Bay, Wisconsin and is a graduate of St. Norbert College. He owned a chain of gas stations in northeastern Wisconsin, but he sold them and pursued politics.

As a member of Congress, “Every day is kind of different, but it’s actually a lot of fun,” Wied said. “I’m basically touring the district.” He said one day he would be in Appleton, and the next day he is at hospitals, schools or businesses to meet with many different types of people.

After Wied spoke on his background and personal experience, he took questions from UW-Madison students on various topics.

The War in Iran

Wied was supportive of the Trump administration’s approach to Iran, and he believed this “very decisive action” was needed and the best way to keep our country safe. “There is no question that Iran has been a problem for a long time,” he said. “It’s been around 47 years since the Mullahs took over, and they’ve been a state sponsor of terror for a long time.”

“There’s been a lot of war, and I think people are fatigued with it,” he said. “The president is not interested in forever wars, either.”

Wied said his “hope is that it’s over sooner than later.”

Social Issues

Wied ran his first race against OB-GYN Kristin Lyerly, who specializes in abortion. He said that Lyerly tried very hard to portray him as anti-abortion in an attempt to win the election, but it didn’t help her beat Wied. “I’m very much pro life,” Wied said. “I think having children is the greatest joy in my life.” However, he said that he is “not going to make that decision” because abortion “is a state issue.”

The other major social issue he discussed was LGBT rights. “I don’t believe that a man should go into a girl’s bathroom, and I don’t think that boys should play in girl sports,” Wied said. “I have friends that are gay … I think there’s absolutely no problem with that. People are people, and you should love everybody.”

“It doesn’t matter if you’re male, female, what God you believe in, what your ethnicity is,” he said. “I think it’s character, and so I think that’s important that we talk about that too.”

Immigration

The open border was a “clear problem during the Biden administration” according to Wied. He said that millions of people came across the border in four years, but within a year of Trump’s administration, the problem is nearly solved.

“I think the border was the biggest issue in the election in ’24,” Wied said. “That got more people to vote.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement are now apprehending illegal immigrants and focusing on those that were committing crimes. Wied said that the Obama administration also used ICE and deported millions of people without incidents or protests.

“What happened in Minnesota, obviously, was a big deal,” he said. Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have both criticized ICE, which added to the polarization. “We had all of the protests and people all around as they were doing their missions, where normally local police kind of helps with that,” Wied said. “They provide crowd control, but there normally isn’t an incident.”

“It was definitely, I think, caused a lot by the politicians, and it is a very political issue,” he said.

Affordability and Cost of Living

Wied said affordability is currently the number one issue for the upcoming midterm elections. “Ultimately, the reason we have rising prices and the reason that we have inflation at all, like what we’ve had, is because we spend more than we bring in,” he said.

“I think we should have a balanced budget amendment,” he said. However, “it’s going to be very difficult.”

The U.S. hasn’t had a balanced budget since the Clinton administration, and around 70 percent of government spending is on welfare programs, like Medicaid. “That’s very scary, so that’s unsustainable,” Wied said.

Republicans had a “great tax policy this year,” which “puts more money back into people’s pockets.” People are receiving tax returns now because of No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime and the child taxpayer credit. Because of this, people are getting “thousands of dollars more of refunds, and you’re not withholding as much on your payroll this year.”

“It’s really difficult to drive costs down” and “bring deflation.” Wied said this difficulty is due to the “disastrous policies for the last four years under the Biden administration.”

Polarization

Lastly, Wied discussed polarization and how he handles differing political opinions. He believes that “Trump derangement syndrome is real” and “it’s never really the policy.” Democrats “just don’t like him, and just don’t like his approach.”

“I think people want more bipartisanship. They want us working together more, but no matter what we bring up right now, on the Democrat side, they’re just against it.”

Despite political differences, Wied said he has a lot of friends on the Democrat side in Congress. “I think it’s better to have really good relationships with people, but if you’re arguing, it should just be on the policy.”

Wied worked with Tammy Baldwin on a community funding project for the Green Bay Fire Station. “Neither of us agree on anything, but we agree on this,” he said. He emphasized the importance of “continuing to reach across the aisle on issues that matter to the public.”

Subscribe now

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents unanimously voted to fire Jay Rothman from his position as UW president on Tuesday, April 7.

This decision followed a closed-door meeting with the Board earlier in the day. Rothman was asked last week to either resign or be fired, which he believed was not in the best interest of the UW System. He said the regents never gave a clear reason why he should leave.

Rothman began his tenure as the ninth president of the UW System in 2022. In that position, he oversaw 13 public universities across Wisconsin. The UW System serves 164,600 students and awards nearly 37,000 degrees each year.

“He worked hard to bring the best to the campuses, students, faculty, and staff,” the Board of Regents said in a statement following the firing. “Despite these accomplishments, based on the annual performance review and subsequent discussions, the Board has lost confidence in President Rothman’s ability to lead the UWs moving forward.”

A separate statement challenged Rothman’s claims that the removal was sudden and without clear cause. “President Rothman was not without notice, nor was this process sudden. The Board has engaged with President Rothman in good-faith discussions over the past several months,” the statement said. “At a time of profound change in higher education, this decision is about the future. The Universities of Wisconsin must be led with a clear vision that both protects and strengthens our flagship.”

Rothman’s firing has left Republican lawmakers furious. State Rep. Dave Murphy responded before the Board’s decision and said the “lack of transparency is unacceptable.”

“The Board owes Wisconsin taxpayers, students, and families a full explanation,” Murphy said.

Republican State Sen. Patrick Testin released a statement on X. “Make no mistake about it, the firing of UW President Rothman is a blatant partisan hatchet job,” he said. Rothman’s firing was him being “punished for not being liberal enough.”

Republican State Sen. Rob Hutton also responded in a statement, saying the Board of Regents were “distracted by politics and unable to concentrate on addressing the big picture challenges.”

“Instead of focusing on major structural and curriculum reforms throughout the entire system, the Regents seem determined to stray into backroom maneuvering that further diminishes the reputation of the UW brand,” Hutton said.

Governor Tony Evers, who previously served on the board, did not take a position. “It’s their call,” he said.

Chris Patton, the vice president for university relations, will temporarily serve as acting executive-in-charge. The Board of Regents said it has “immediately moved forward in its work to identify the successor.”

Rothman’s exit comes just months after University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin was announced as the next president of Columbia University.

Subscribe now

Last month, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the La Follette School of Public Affairs hosted Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), as part of the recently-launched Wisconsin Exchange. In a conversation titled “For Me, but Not for Thee: Free Expression in Higher Education,” Lukianoff joined Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin to examine the changing role of universities amid a challenging campus climate.

FIRE has become a leading watchdog for free speech on college campuses, tracking policies and incidents nationwide to ensure students and faculty can express controversial ideas without fear of censorship.

Partisan politics have increasingly infiltrated higher education. Both students and faculty often struggle to engage meaningfully and constructively with those holding differing political or ideological viewpoints. The Wisconsin Exchange program aims to counteract this trend by fostering dialogue among students of diverse identities and political backgrounds, promoting civil debate as a shared and necessary value.

Lukianoff’s commitment to free speech comes from familial experience. His father grew up under authoritarian rule in Yugoslavia and witnessed censorship firsthand.

Joining FIRE allowed Lukianoff to protect free speech more broadly, producing nonpartisan evaluations of institutional policies and actions.

Lukianoff opened with what he called his “elevator pitch” and declared that free speech is essential on campus. He argued that limiting civil discourse is not only a constitutional violation, but a practice that chills intellectual exchange.

He took an epistemic approach and explained that knowledge grows not only by discovering what is true, but also by being proven wrong. Exposure to differing opinions is essential for intellectual growth. “You have ideas in your head, you have inclinations, you have opinions, you have aversions; this is some of the most important data, some of the most important information in the world,” he said, emphasizing that growth and development can only emerge in the practice of dissent. On college campuses, this means engaging with uncomfortable ideas - not avoiding them - is essential to intellectual and personal growth.

He warned against seeing free speech as a one-way street. “It seems really tempting to want to punish the bad opinions or ignorant opinions of your enemy. But that’s a tool that works like poison gas. You think you’re destroying your enemy with it, but then the wind changes direction and it blows back on you.” He stressed that defending free expression requires defending the speech of all - even those with whom one disagrees.

Lukianoff acknowledged that FIRE has faced pushback from both sides of the political aisle. “It’s harder to find the people who just get it in their bones, who get it as a principle, and that just takes a lot more work,” he said. “It used to be that we would see more threats to free speech coming from the left, although plenty from the right. But it’s really been completely lopsided in the past year. The situation fundamentally changed.”

He also critiqued attempts to re-institutionalize campuses, noting that coercive faculty and excessive political homogeneity stifle intellectual diversity. Coupled with rising social media use and algorithm-driven platforms, society has become increasingly consumer-driven, a phenomenon that trickles down into individual expression. “We should be experimenting with different models of social media that create better environments for dissent,” Lukianoff said. “Social media for truth seeking… it may sound unrealistic, but it can be done.”

Echo chambers and algorithmic platforms create short-term social pressures, increasing self censorship among students fearful of social consequences. This dynamic, combined with institutional pressures and lingering campus restrictions, helps explain why UW-Madison, despite a 126-spot improvement in FIRE’s College Free Speech Ranking, still received an “F” for overall free speech. Surveys, policy analysis and documented interactions revealed that students continue to feel discomfort expressing their views. Mnookin expressed concern over the evaluation, but Lukianoff remained firm: “You still have 40 percent of your students saying that violence can be okay in some circumstances in response to speech. And you can do better. ”

Looking forward, Lukianoff emphasized that fostering free expression on campus requires more than policy changes or rankings - it requires cultivating a culture of intellectual curiosity, courage, and engagement. UW-Madison has begun taking steps to build this kind of community, striving to encourage robust debate rather than suppress it. As Lukianoff reminded listeners, the protection of free speech is not just a legal or institutional responsibility - it is a commitment to the core principles of democracy itself. Only by defending the right to dissent, welcoming differing viewpoints and fostering an environment where ideas can clash without fear can universities truly live up to the Wisconsin Idea of “fearless sifting and winnowing.”

For students and faculty alike, the challenge is clear: embrace debate, defend dissent and ensure the campus remains a place where ideas can collide without fear.

Conservative icon and University of Wisconsin-Madison alumnus David Keene passed away on March 8, 2026, leaving behind a remarkable legacy on campus and within the conservative movement.

Keene was born on May 20, 1945 in Rockford, Illinois and grew up in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. In high school, Keene became a conservative after being given a copy of The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek. He later went on to attend UW-Madison as a political science major before graduating law school at the same institution.

During his undergraduate years, Keene started a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom– a conservative organization founded at the home of William F. Buckley Jr. in 1960.

Later, Keene served as YAF’s national chairman, helping Buckley promote the organization, expand its popularity, and gain influence nationwide. As a Wisconsin alumnus, Keene’s efforts greatly impacted and improved opportunities for conservative college students, and he left a large impact on UW-Madison through his involvement in grassroots organizations.

Throughout his illustrious career, Keene worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Senator James Buckley. Keene was also a prominent conservative political activist and lobbyist, serving as chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU) from 1984 to 2011 and president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) from 2011 to 2013.

In addition to promoting conservatism on college campuses, Keene was a major force behind the liberty movement through his involvement with the ACU and NRA. Keene expanded his political career to be one of the prominent promoters of modern conservatism and libertarianism. He promoted individual freedom and limited government involvement in both the economy and individuals’ lives through his organizations.

Conservative fiscal ideology and libertarian principles promoted by Keene gained major government backing throughout the late 20th and early 21st century. Through his work on the campaign and as chair of the ACU, Keene helped secure 12 years of conservative control in the federal government under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Both were strong promoters of free speech, laissez faire economics, and tough on crime rhetoric, all of which Keene stood for.

Later conservative victories in the 21st century were also driven by Keene’s advocacy in groups such as the NRA, leading to huge libertarian wins for gun rights at the Supreme Court and in popular culture.

Among his many accolades, he was known for being an editor and columnist in The Washington Times. He wrote in the opinion section while being a staunch advocate for individual liberties and second amendment rights, and he was especially known for challenging progressive views on gun control.

Stephen Dinan, a journalist with The Washington Times, wrote in Keene’s tribute that he was a “towering figure in the growth of the modern conservative movement who was equally comfortable in the weeds of grassroots politics and in the corridors of power in Washington.”

Keene’s legacy continues to live on through UW-Madison’s YAF chapter, which actively works to discuss and promote conservative values. YAF’s national organization awarded Keene the Legends of YAF Distinguished Alumni Award in 2017 for his “lifelong commitment to freedom.”

YAF released a statement praising Keene, saying that his “dedication to advancing conservative ideas and encouraging young people to stand boldly for their beliefs leaves a lasting legacy.”

The Right Honourable Boris Johnson, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2019 to 2022, spoke to The Madison Federalist in an exclusive interview before his March 23 speech at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Johnson said he viewed “division” as the greatest threat the West faces. “I think it’s obvious to me that there’s a group of countries that include Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, that are hungry to displace the United States as the hegemonic power in the world,” he said. “Everybody in the West needs to understand that and prevent it from happening.”

He was skeptical of the United States and Israel’s recent military actions in Iran but said “it’s too early to say” how the situation will resolve.

He said they are “not necessarily what I would have advocated from what I see at the moment, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that good can’t come out of it.”

“Clearly, there’s a lot of people who are very worried about the effect it’s having on the world economy, and they include me,” he said. “Inflation is up, interest rates are up, millions of ordinary people face being impoverished because of a war whose objectives are unclear and whose exit strategy is unknown. That’s the problem.”

“I think that it was always predictable and indeed predicted that Iran would respond to being bombed by closing the Strait of Hormuz. So I didn’t quite understand why President Trump said that nobody talked about what was going to happen.”

However, he emphasized that the Iranian regime is run by “very bad guys” who “do terrible things.”

“If this leads to change in Iran, which it might well do, then that would be a good thing,” Johnson said.

He is concerned about the students and young people who “get out and demonstrate in favor of Hamas” or “the Ayatollahs.” Johnson said Western nations cannot survive “if we don’t know ourselves.”

“I think young people should look at how young people behave in the autocracies. What do they want? They want to come here. They want to come to the University of Wisconsin, Madison. They’re looking at us on the internet with real envy.”

Johnson also discussed artificial intelligence, which is one of his favorite topics. “I love it. I think it’s great. It’s a great tool. I think it’s a brilliant adventure,” Johnson said. “There are lots of functions where we just don’t have enough pairs of hands,” so AI can be used to solve many problems.

Subscribe now

Johnson was surprised, and disappointed, to learn that students often use AI to cheat on assignments. “Do they? The rotters!,” he said. “Academics will have to find alternative means of discriminating between candidates and other ways of assessing intellectual progress, because, clearly, you can just produce a computerized essay that’s indistinguishable from what was previously thought to be a standard essay.” He believes professors will “have to find a new way of determining the originality of thought and memory and learning.”

Johnson viewed concerns about workers being replaced by AI as overstated. He said Europe and the United States have an “aging population” so artificial intelligence could help boost a shrinking workforce.

Johnson was hosted at UW-Madison by Young Americans for Freedom and the Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of its author. All University of Wisconsin-Madison students and faculty are welcome to submit op-eds or pitches to madisonfederalist@gmail.com.

I am a man who loves other men. I believe everyone should be accepting of who they are and who others are, which is why it pains me to see the continued existence of conversion therapy in our society. Conversion therapy is a stain on the history of American healthcare, and states have an important role in prohibiting it. That is precisely why the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar deserves a more careful reading than it has received. The ruling has been enveloped in a whirlwind of misunderstanding and misinformation regarding its actual content.

Many have alleged that the Court ruled that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy was unconstitutional, or that it ruled that states do not have any power to ban conversion therapy. The reality is far more mundane—and far more nuanced.

The Supreme Court did not decide whether Colorado’s law is constitutional. The majority in Salazar ruled only that the lower Court of Appeals had applied the wrong legal test and ordered that the case be reargued. In the opinion of the Court, Justice Gorsuch writes, “The judgment of the Tenth Circuit is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” In plain terms, the Court overturned the lower court’s reasoning and instructed it to try again using the correct standard. Constitutional law depends on rulings like these, ensuring the correct standard is applied to balance the interests of states and the rights of citizens of the United States.

The obvious question, then, is what standard the Court required. The answer, strict scrutiny, is the most demanding form of constitutional review we have. There are several levels of scrutiny federal courts use in evaluating the constitutionality of legislation, with strict scrutiny being the most demanding, and rational basis review the most lenient. Strict scrutiny requires Colorado to prove that it had a “compelling governmental interest” in passing this law, that the law was “narrowly tailored” in its scope, and that it was the “least restrictive means” the state could have used to achieve its goal. The Court did not rule on whether the law would pass strict scrutiny; that question remains open.

The Tenth Circuit originally upheld the law using rational basis review, reasoning that it interpreted the Colorado law as “regulating professional conduct and… regulat[ing] speech only incidentally.” That distinction matters. Laws that merely touch on speech indirectly are given broad deference, but laws that regulate speech on the basis of content or viewpoint trigger the Constitution’s highest level of protection.

The Supreme Court found that Colorado’s law crosses that line. As Justice Gorsuch explains, “Colorado’s law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech. It goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express.” The law itself prohibits “any practice or treatment by a licensee… that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” The key point of contention in this case is the prohibition of “any practice or treatment,” which, in the case of Ms. Chiles (the therapist suing the state of Colorado), includes the things she says to her patients.

Citing the language of the Colorado law, the Court further elaborates that “Ms. Chiles may express ‘[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for the facilitation of . . . identity exploration.’... But if a gay or transgender client seeks her counsel in the hope of changing his sexual orientation or gender identity, Ms. Chiles cannot provide it.” The argument is a straightforward one: Ms. Chiles is not only limited in what she can say, but she is also required to only express a certain viewpoint on a client’s identity regardless of the client’s desires.

Even if a client who suffers from gender dysphoria seeks assistance in conforming with their biological sex, therapists cannot offer such counseling. No matter what, the state of Colorado requires that therapists advance an affirming viewpoint in their conversations with patients. A law that permits one side of a conversation while prohibiting the other is not merely regulating conduct; it is regulating viewpoints. Because of this distinction between censoring one viewpoint and compelling another, a higher standard of review must be used. That does not mean the Court has ruled on whether this legislation is constitutional; that is for the lower court to decide.

If this law is deemed unconstitutional, it will be only on very narrow grounds. The question at hand in Chiles v. Salazar is not whether a state can ban conversion therapy altogether, but whether the state has a compelling interest in regulating “talk therapy” aimed at changing a client’s sexuality, and whether the current means Colorado has used to meet these interests are not more restrictive than what’s needed. Ultimately, that question will be up to the lower courts. “The question before us is a narrow one,” Gorsuch writes “[Ms. Chiles] does not take issue with the State’s effort to prohibit what she herself calls ‘long-abandoned, aversive’ physical interventions.” The opinion of the Court even suggests that Colorado has the right to ban “conduct—such as aversive physical interventions,” because such interventions are considered conduct rather than speech, with the former having much fewer constitutional protections than the latter.

Subscribe now

Nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar determines that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy is unconstitutional or guarantees that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals will determine it to be unconstitutional when the case is reargued, but that is not the point. The Supreme Court did not endorse conversion therapy, nor did it strip states of their authority to regulate it. It simply reaffirmed the longstanding principle that when the government regulates speech on the basis of viewpoint—no matter how misguided that viewpoint—it must meet the Constitution’s highest standard.

This satire article was published for April Fool’s Day.

The new franchise will replace the recently-closed Stop and Shop, and is expected to be one of the chain’s most profitable locations according to internal estimates.

Craig Culver said that the company hopes this will assist the chain in its new initiative to expand to California. Citing the large number of students from the state, he said that the company is betting on them returning home after graduation and taking their love of cheese curds with them.

Currently, most out-of-state students do not experience eating at a Culver’s during their time on campus. With the most accessible Culver’s to campus being near the West Towne Mall, most students simply do not make the effort to take the bus trip while they are here.

Culver also noted the importance of Culver’s as a state symbol “Frankly, the Culver’s brand is so associated with Wisconsin that it’s ridiculous it’s taken us this long to establish a branch so close to our flagship university.” Kwik Trip, another franchise heavily ingrained in the state’s identity, opened its campus location over a decade ago in 2014.

The Madison Federalist recommends that readers check the date before telling their friends about this news.

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

‘Trad Cath’ Group Proposes Adding ‘Giant Spikes’ to Newman Center

The Madison Federalist Reaches Nearly Nineteen Readers

Badger Herald to Merge with Sex Out Loud

This satire article was published for April Fool’s Day.

A group of traditionalist students concerned that UW-Madison’s Newman Center is “not based enough” is working on convincing the diocese to add massive iron spikes to its chapel.

The all-male group “Knights of Saint Dominic” presented the controversial proposal in a meeting with the St. Paul’s board of directors last week. The six-foot spikes would be directed toward parishioners on the bottom floor “in order to further convey God’s power and authority.” Additional spikes will be placed directly above the pews in the top balconies and over the confession line benches on the bottom floor “to communicate the omnipresence of God.”

When asked if he believed the spikes were necessary, parishioner Giorgio Jackson said “While it is not technically necessary according to canon law, Mass with spikes is clearly a superior form. Spikes get people more engaged with the liturgy, like using incense or Latin. There is no better way to get people listening to a homily than the image of a giant Jesus-spike shooting out of the wall and impaling them for their sins. We can clearly see from the internet that people do not want lukewarm Christianity: On fire Christianity means Latin, incense, and big spikes hanging over people’s heads in Church.”

Parishioner Dwight Hershey, in response to those worried that spikes would make some people wary of coming to church, said, “If they’re really so put off by a few spikes in the Chapel that they stop going to Mass, they were probably never going to be involved here in the first place.” Hershey, who first encountered Catholicism via Instagram Reels four months ago, identified himself as a “Based Traditionalist Catholic.” He said, “The spikes remind me of all those pointy bits on the Jerusalem Cross, which is based because the Jerusalem Cross is about crusaders and killing heathens. That’s what Christianity is all about, fighting with everyone around you that you disagree with.”

A UW art student who is not Catholic drew the blueprints. Responding to The Madison Federalist in an email, she said she jumped at the opportunity, and plans to use the piece, titled “Guilt”, as her honor’s thesis.

When asked about the thought process behind the spikes, a spokesman for the Knights responded: “They’re supposed to make you scared. People aren’t scared enough of God. We tried to tell people that Jesus loved them in the seventies, and look how that turned out! They all left because they thought that meant God loves them when they sin, or worse, when they don’t go to Church! That’s how we got empty parishes, and heresies. Scaring people is the only way to bring them back. We need churches full of people who are too scared to leave.”

However, many parishioners have expressed skepticism toward the proposal. “I’ve never seen any of these people before,” said the front desk receptionist. The Knights have approximately a dozen members, but a petition against the proposal has gathered 900 signatures.

This article is entirely satirical.

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

ASM Passes Resolution to Dissolve Board of Regents

Bucky Badger “Too Turnt” to Fulfill Make-A-Wish Obligations

Daily Cardinal to Merge with Sex Out Loud

The Associated Students of Madison passed a controversial resolution prohibiting the organization from “doing business in any way with companies complicit in apartheid and genocide, including Israel’s genocide of Gaza” and calling for the UW System to do the same. It has sparked condemnation from Jewish students, UW Hillel, and UW-Madison itself.

On Wednesday, March 25, the ASM voted 15-5-3 on a resolution that calls for divestment from companies that engage in “discriminatory practices such as apartheid, genocide, and militarized violence.” It accuses Israel of “genocide” and “maintaining a system of apartheid,” but does not reference any violence by Hamas or the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Other states or organizations called out in the resolution include the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan and the United Arab Emirates. Israel was referenced 15 times in the resolution, which is more than any other states. Iran and Venezuela are mentioned in the resolution, but only to criticize the United States’ “unprovoked” military action that removed their respective dictators from power.

Speaking at Wednesday’s meeting, Jewish UW student Ariav Hayempour said “The bill proposed will hurt Jews and Israelis of all identities on this campus.” He said, “A lot of antisemitism is excused because it’s shrouded in language related to Israel. When the Jewish community tells you what you’re doing will hurt me and is hurting me, we’re met with a shrug in silence.”

Hayempour asked, “How can one claim to believe in inclusion and equality, but selectively pick which groups deserve that?”

After Hayempour concluded, a large group of Jewish students applauded his speech and walked out of the room together. Reuven Weinstein, a UW-Madison student, told The Federalist, “We reconvened at the Hillel on campus for dinner and enjoyed the beautiful weather rather than sitting in a stuffy room for hours listening to accusations and attacks from strangers and so-called friends alike,” he said. “As Jews, we are not strangers to hatred, but we rise above it and fight back by speaking up for ourselves, not putting up with hate, and living our lives freely and without fear.”

During open debate between ASM representatives, Michael Harry noted that China and its treatment of the Uyghurs was not mentioned once in the resolution. Elizabeth Anderson felt that the resolution contained unnecessarily controversial language. Jianda Ni said the university should adopt more morally responsible investment practices, but that the resolution’s focus on Israel could increase the risk of harm for Jewish students.

At the previous week’s ASM meeting, a message from ASM representative Gabo Ochoa-Samoff that read “”the proportion of zios rises as the speakers list goes on” was leaked from a group chat. Multiple speakers condemned Samoff for using the term, and he apologized during open debate, noting that he is Jewish.

ASM representative Amitabha Shatdal proposed an amendment that would have struck references to specific countries in the resolution. ASM chair Landis Varughese did not allow the amendment to go to a vote because he felt it was too substantial. Shatdal said, “This kind of action on the behalf of our chair does not seem becoming of an impartial representative.” Varughese pushed back, saying, “You guys can overrule what I do via two thirds [vote.]”

The resolution, which cites links from Qatari media organization Al Jazeera and multiple left-wing interest groups, was endorsed by organizations including BLK Power Coalition, Students for a Democratic Society, and Mecha de Teejop. Sex Out Loud endorsed the resolution and said, “As a sex-positive student organization, we know that we cannot truly celebrate autonomy, empowerment, and equity until the liberation of all people is achieved.”

The resolution also criticized UW System index funds for including corporations that “contract with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to develop data systems, surveillance, and policing tools used in immigration enforcement and deportation operations.”

After the resolution passed via a roll call vote, the room erupted with cheers. UW-Madison released a statement shortly after and said it was disappointed that ASM “passed a resolution on Wednesday that issued a number of flawed, unrelated and illegal demands.”

READ MORE FROM THE MADISON FEDERALIST:

UW-Madison Professor Defends Iranian Bombings of American Service Members, Congratulates Khamenei on “Martyrdom”

UW Grants Housing Accommodation to Jewish Student After Legal Threat

As Antisemitism Rises, New Campaign Confronts Hate On Campus

“Wisconsin state law prohibits state and local government agencies from adopting their own rules or policies that would involve them in a boycott of Israel,” the statement said. “Despite the fact that ASM leadership was counseled by university attorneys on the clear illegality of that specific part of the resolution, ASM Student Council nonetheless voted to pass it.”

At the previous ASM meeting, UW-Madison Dean of Students Christina Olstad informed the ASM that the university viewed the resolution as in violation of Wisconsin state statute 20.931, which prevents state agencies from boycotting Israel.

ASM representative Roman Fritz contended that the resolution was not illegal. He read a statement from attorney Oren Jakobson that said, “Refusing to deal with or terminating business relations with any nations, organization, business, or person practicing or condoning through its actions discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, creed or sex is at times lawfully mandated – see Wisconsin Statute 36.29(1) – and at all times lawful.”

In an emailed statement to The Madison Federalist, UW Hillel director of community relations Aaron Seligman said the organization is “deeply disappointed that ASM voted to pass the antisemitic BDS resolution.” He continued, “BDS campaigns are not constructive policy discussions. They are efforts to normalize antisemitism and target Jewish students. We will continue to support a thriving Jewish community at UW-Madison.”

Professor Chad Goldberg told The Federalist that he was grateful for the university’s “unequivocal statement condemning antisemitism.” He is proud “of the Jewish student leaders who organized, showed up to the ASM meeting, and spoke out with clarity and courage.” Goldberg, who serves on the board of directors at UW Hillel, said he fully endorsed the organization’s statement.

“I do not believe this resolution reflects the views of the majority of students at University of Wisconsin–Madison,” said Sophie Genshaft, the president of Hillel’s student organization on campus. She told The Federalist, “Student government is meant to address issues that directly impact student life, and this resolution instead takes a stance on a complex international issue that many students neither feel represented by nor asked about. It’s a misalignment of priorities and does not accurately capture the full range of student perspectives on this campus.”

While some of those who spoke at the ASM meeting in favor of the resolution identified themselves as Jewish, Genshaft said the response “has been one of deep frustration and concern” across the Jewish community. “This resolution has made many Jewish students feel singled out and uncomfortable on their own campus. While individuals may hold a range of views on Israel, what is unifying right now is a clear need to stand together for freedom, democracy and also against the growing normalization of antisemitism.”

Jewish students also started a petition that has gathered nearly 400 signatures to condemn the resolution.

Ian Braun, a Jewish freshman, told The Federalist that some who support the resolution “genuinely believe in the things that this bill says and will do,” but “antisemitism is a factor.” Erika Klein, another Jewish student, believed the ASM is “compromising the safety” of Jewish students on campus and argued that BDS resolutions are correlated with spikes in antisemitism.

The university said “resolutions that call for actions that would violate the law do not warrant further engagement.” It noted that ASM resolutions do not set policy for UW-Madison, the Board of Regents, or the Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association.

As we approach the semiquincentennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I find it necessary to examine the many ways that we have strayed from the original “American Experiment” that our Founding Fathers intended.

In comparing modern politics to those of our founding, we have seen a much more democratized government, rather than the compound republic that was our intended purpose. The average empire survives for 250 years, and we are now three months away from that critical tipping point for the nation. In order to maintain American dominance around the globe, we must analyze our present system compared to the original that was created to last ad infinitum.

An unwavering national spirit, opposition to tyranny in its many forms and a passionate desire to improve the lives of the citizenry have consistently been the chief objectives of our leaders, even when strong policy disagreements have led to a ferocious polarization of the people. Intense, fundamental and philosophical feuds have been constant throughout the relatively short life of the United States, so when an overwhelming consensus is found in our accomplished past, it becomes incumbent upon us to understand the political philosophy and to examine our reasonings for altering that system of governance.

In short, Federalism is the idea that Federal and State governments enter into an agreement of shared powers to promote the safety and general welfare of the people. James Madison describes this agreement in Federalist No. 45 as, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

This concept allowed for the passing of the United States Constitution under the Connecticut Compromise that gave us the House of Representatives being proportional to population and the Senate equally representing the states. This allowed for the people to hold the power of the purse in the House, while the states could debate laws in the Senate. The Senate has been famously dubbed as the “cooling saucer” meant to cool the “hot tea” legislation passed in the House and thoroughly examine the ramifications of the proposed bills.

The Senate is an essential aspect to the idea of Federalism, and it is also the primary example of how we have strayed from that grand philosophy.

In 1913, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, altering Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution changing “The Senate of the United States shall be … chosen by the Legislature thereof” to “elected by the people thereof,” completely altering the structure of the United States government. This allows United States Senators to be elected by popular vote, rather than the original system of being appointed by the state legislators.

I see the 17th Amendment as not only diametrically opposed to our system of governance, but the point where the Senate completely lost its original purpose. State legislatures are elected by their constituents and are held responsible in their own respective elections, so it becomes the duty of the people in that state to elect representatives that will appoint Senators to represent their state’s interests.

By turning Senate elections to a popular vote, it diminishes the nonhereditary, yet aristocratic foundation of the Senate and transforms who the Senators represent, which becomes the people rather than the state. With this new system, we have seen nationalized corruption in campaign donations, propaganda that makes people vote against their interests and a Senate that has become a smaller House of Representatives. Then, there is James Madison’s vision in Federalist No. 10 and those “who possess the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and established characters.”

Of course, many would suggest that this idea of a respected, intelligent and virtuous Senate is an unreasonable demand on the basis of understanding basic human nature. However, when this corruption is seen by the people, they would be far more motivated to spark local and statewide change in their representatives that would appoint their Senator, rather than focus on one national race and forget about the importance and power in local elections.

It may seem that corruption is inevitable because it was the leading factor in the passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment. However, in the former system, corruption was far more visible and localized, so it can be quashed much easier. But now the monster of corruption has been nationalized, with Senators being at the mercy of large campaign financiers and taking bribes from foreign nations, with former Senator Bob Menendez being a prime example of blatant corruption in our modern system. This has taken power from the states and has become so embedded in our political system that it is becoming nearly impossible to reform.

The Federalist system was intended to protect the mutual relationship between the federal and state governments, to protect the people from a tyrannical government overreach, and also to limit the well known defects in democracy. Creating that balance is an impossible task, and it is no surprise that it degenerates into either an authoritarian state or shifts towards a direct democracy.

Subscribe now

We are slowly becoming a direct democracy, and that is horrifying. Alexander Hamilton spoke of this at the New York Ratifying Convention when he said, “It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this.”

The Founding Fathers knew of the grand failures of the Ancient Greek states, and our intense partisan divide, grand corruption in the highest halls of power, and an uninformed electorate constantly voting for the “lesser of two evils” is a horrific example of the failures in our governmental shifts. This is why it is so necessary to examine political systems and seek a return to Federalism and our nation’s grand purpose.