• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Check out Brent’s substack on AI and the workforce, The Daily Scrape.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

María Carina Machado gives President Donald Trump her Nobel Peace Prize medal, Thursday, January 15, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

While recently co-hosting the Reagan Caucus podcast, an important item that we touched on was the lack of any consistent foreign policy doctrine at least going back to 2009. And while neither myself, John, nor Mike Nelson talked a whole lot about Venezuela in that episode, the policy of the Trump administration towards Venezuela really compounds the point.

Now, before I jump into the criticisms, I’ll be the first to admit that there are a lot of things President Trump has done in terms of foreign policy that I agree with. Mike, for example, did a good job pointing out that in the early years of the first Trump term, American foreign policy moved fast and acted decisively against ISIS in Syria. Operation Inherent Resolve completely destroyed the attempted Islamist caliphate who, under President Obama, had seized land on a scale rivaling established Middle Eastern countries and sent both Iranian and Iraqi forces (the latter equipped with U.S. provided vehicles, weaponry, etc.) running for the hills.

Under the direction of “Mad Dog” Mattis, with the approval of President Trump, an American-led intervention partnered with key allies on the ground (most notably the Kurds) was able to defeat ISIS. Operation Inherent Resolve should be the poster child for how America exercises her power, establishes deterrence, defeats her enemies, and keeps faith with her allies. And Donald Trump, as the President, deserves full credit for doing what President Obama was either unwilling or unable to do.

If all foreign policy efforts under President Trump looked like Inherent Resolve, I would be a very happy Reaganite. But...they don’t. And while I’ve done what I think is a pretty fair job of calling the balls and strikes, there comes a point where you must consider more than just calling balls and strikes, especially when it comes to something as important as foreign policy.

And this gets to the heart of the problem: this president has no consistent foreign policy doctrine. This foreign policy has no clothes. Virtually everything we hear from this administration is pretext rather than part of an internally consistent doctrine, and virtually all we hear from the defenders of this administration are justifications that change from one day to the next.

Even the vaunted “Donroe” doctrine fails to maintain any consistency. We have heard nearly a half dozen different explanations for why we launched the operation in Venezuela, and yet every explanation eventually fails because what we’re doing on a given day betrays the previous ones.

Did we invade Venezuela to stop drug trafficking? Did we invade Venezuela to arrest a criminal? Did we invade Venezuela to guarantee free and fair elections? Did we invade Venezuela because we’re the bigger country and we just want their oil? It’s not entirely clear what the answer is, because we have heard explanations coming from this administration that have more or less touched on each of these justifications, and yet the administration constantly engages in actions that undermine every possible reason.

Venezuelan drug trafficking has not ended. In fact, it continues nearly unchanged under Delcy Rodríguez, whose state-sanctioned criminal enterprises look virtually the same as they looked under Nicolás Maduro. The justification for snatching Maduro was that he was a criminal, and yet we are officially looking the other way as Delcy continues to do exactly what we supposedly arrested Maduro for doing.

And the same inconsistency exists when it comes to the supposed goal of ensuring free and fair elections in Venezuela. The Venezuelan people are just as far from getting a legitimate and democratically elected government as they were before Maduro was captured. They are arguably further because, since Maduro’s capture, the Trump administration has consistently undermined the opposition while further entrenching the current regime. I mean, whatever happened to María Carina Machado? Even after she prostrated herself and gave President Trump her Nobel Peace Prize, this administration has more or less dismissed her and her movement as unimportant. All while making deals with the existing regime that span years; this suggests that as long as Delcy plays ball with what Donald Trump actually cares about, she can expect to maintain power for as long as she wants.

So, what is the “Donroe Doctrine” other than imperialism over banana republics?

Now, I’m more than ready to confess that I may be wrong, and I’m sure that’s not how Marco Rubio would characterize his honest efforts to expand freedom in Latin America. But this only reinforces my point. We don’t know. The administration doesn’t seem to have a clear doctrine we can rely on or even know. And, as has often been reported about Donald Trump since the early years of his first term, he has the tendency to make knee-jerk decisions based on whoever talked to him last, or whoever can paint their priority in a way that gets an emotional outburst from the President. Perhaps that’s why one day, Marco’s winning the argument and America cares about the Venezuelan people and their plight; then the next, it’s Vance who wants us to stop doing anything altogether; and the next, Trump’s pure id takes over, and we’re seizing oil.

And that’s the real problem. Not just that there is no consistent foreign policy doctrine under this administration, but that instead of at least having those debates out in the open, so many publications, outlets, and talking heads think their job is to talk about the elegance of the garments the Trump administration is wearing when, in reality, this administration is stark naked.

Share

On the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on our nation, we remember the victims of that terrible day. 2,977 innocent lives were taken that morning — office workers, flight passengers, first responders, and bystanders from every walk of life.

May their lasting memory strengthen our resolve, and remind us of how we united as a country in the face of adversity, mourned our losses as one, and stood proudly together as Americans.

We will never forget.

Check out Mike’s columns at The Dispatch and The Atlantic.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Check out Bobby’s columns at The Dispatch and National Review.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Check out David’s recent NYT piece on JD Vance.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Read Jay’s writing at Onward and Upward.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Read Scott’s writing at The Unfinished Republic.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Hi everyone.

We at Reagan Caucus Action wanted to share some unfortunate news, and ask for your help, regarding one of our friends (and favorite podcast guests): of the Washington Examiner.

The situation is best presented in Kimberly’s own words:

On Saturday, July 18, our lives changed in an instant.

My husband, Ryan Ross, suffered a massive heart attack at home and was rushed to our local hospital. Because of the severity of his condition, he was airlifted to a cardiac intensive care unit where an incredible team of physicians saved his life.

Ryan underwent emergency surgery, during which doctors implanted an Impella heart pump to support his heart while it recovered. He also received two coronary stents to restore blood flow. Over the following days, his medical team gradually reduced his support from the Impella as his heart began taking over on its own.

On Wednesday, July 22, Ryan successfully underwent surgery to have the Impella removed, a major milestone in his recovery.

But the journey is not over.

Ryan remains in the ICU as the doctors work to safely awake him from sedation and remove his breathing tube. While we’re encouraged by each step forward, recovery from such a serious cardiac event is expected to be long and challenging.

Ryan is a husband of nearly 18 years, a father to two boys, 10 and 5, a son, brother, son-in-law, friend, professor, and musician.

We’re creating this fundraiser to help offset the overwhelming financial impact of this medical emergency including hospital and specialist bills, surgery, cardiac care, rehab, medications, travel expenses, and lost income.

Most of all, we ask for your prayers. We are deeply grateful for the extraordinary medical team caring for Ryan and for every message, prayer, meal, and act of kindness we’ve received. Your support means the world.

Thank you for standing with our family.

Kimberly’s a great person with a lovely family. If you feel moved and are in a position to help, any contribution—large or small—would be deeply appreciated by her family (and us).

We thank you for your time and consideration.

Help the Ross Family

A bright young conservative explores how conservatism is understood today. The version below is adapted from the original on his Substack.

The words conservatism and conservative can have many different meanings depending on who you talk to, or better yet, when you talk them. This is the case for my own grandpa, a lifelong Republican voter. He would call himself a conservative both when voting for Ronald Reagan and when voting for Donald Trump. If asked, he would also say both of those men are great presidents and great conservatives. If you know anything about the presidencies of those two men, you would know that they differ widely in both policy and rhetoric. How, then, can they be of the same ideology? As I see it, there are three options: first, conservatism is an evolving ideology whose core principles have changed over time; second, neither Reagan nor Trump is conservative; or third, either Reagan’s conservatism or Trump’s conservatism represents the true meaning of the term, but not both. This article examines conservatism as an ideology and also as a political attitude, in order to determine which definition is correct.

The first possible answer to our question does contain truth. Conservatism has changed over time; but has it changed this much in the thirty years between Reagan and Trump? First, let’s go back to the founding of conservatism, which is largely attributed to the Anglo-Irish politician and philosopher Edmund Burke. Conservatism, as Burke envisioned it, embraced gradual and ordered change toward greater liberty, reflecting the classical understanding of liberalism. Burke supported reforms that strengthened property rights, representative government, free trade, the abolition of slavery, and many other principles associated with the classical liberal tradition. Burke, notably, sympathized with the Americans, as they were not trying to completely overhaul society but to reform it. Because of Burke’s support of gradual reform and support of many political and economic liberal policies, many historians today refer to him as a liberal-conservative. This liberal-conservative ideology has been popular in the Anglosphere ever since. Moreover, it has been the dominant right-wing ideology for most of recent history. But conservative thought has gone through periods of change in these countries, too. The United States’ Republican Party, for example, has repeatedly shifted between protectionist and isolationist tendencies and a more Burkean form of conservatism. This phenomenon helps explain why contradicting policies and historical people are both labeled conservative.

Many people equate being a Republican with being a conservative, but this is not always the case. Taking Burke’s definition of conservatism, there was nothing conservative about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a bill passed by Republicans in Congress in 1930 and signed into law by Republican President Herbert Hoover. On a similar note, there is nothing conservative about the unconstitutional tariffs currently being thrown around by the Trump administration. One does not have to align totally with Burke’s ideas to enjoy the privilege of being called a conservative, but there must be a clear alignment. When the Republican Party has departed from its historical stances, it has been during times when other ideologies have gained influence in the party. Today, right-wing populism and nationalism play a far greater role than they did during the Reagan era. The point is that conservatism itself has not changed so dramatically since the 1980s; rather, the Republican Party has repeatedly absorbed and emphasized different ideological currents throughout its history.

When I first brought up Burke, notice I said that the founding of conservatism is “largely attributed to Edmund Burke.” It is important, I feel, to also mention Joseph de Maistre, another figure credited with the founding of conservatism. Joseph de Maistre was a Sardinian political philosopher, who occupies a more royalist and anti-liberal part of conservatism. This shows that the meaning of conservatism was debatable at its very founding. While de Maistre was said to have held a high opinion of Burke, the two did hold contrasting views on many important aspects of society. Some may believe that the confusion we see today about the meaning of the word conservative comes from this early contrast between the ideology’s two founders. But I highly doubt it, mainly because most people do not even know of these two men. Only political nerds such as myself actually bother to learn these things. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say the issue boils down to this contrast between Burke and de Maistre. If that were the case, I would argue that Burke’s vision of conservatism is the correct interpretation, especially in American politics and politics in the Anglosphere.

As for those who do know of Burke and de Maistre, the ones who hold views more similar to de Maistre’s and call themselves conservatives are wrong, in my opinion. These people, who now often call themselves postliberals, do not even necessarily agree much with de Maistre. Despite being rather reactionary (ahem, not conservative), de Maistre was actually rather friendly towards a more liberal political economy. Yet today, we see most postliberals in favor of economic nationalism to “promote the common good” (see self-proclaimed postliberal JD Vance’s recent negative comments on Milton Friedman). But, again, most people do not know the names Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre, so this cannot be the main issue. We do not see Donald Trump quoting Joseph de Maistre. But this contrast between the philosophies of the founders of conservatism leads us to the next possible answers to the question “what is conservatism?” Perhaps neither Reagan nor Trump is conservative according to either of the two intellectual interpretations of the word. Or, maybe one is, and one isn’t.

By Burke’s definition, Trump is no conservative. He has been extremely critical and oppositional to liberal economics, which, as mentioned, was supported by Burke. Trump is also not so friendly towards modern liberal democracy, especially in his second term. He has lost many Supreme Court cases since taking office again because he has no respect for the separation of powers, choosing instead to legislate by executive order. He has no respect for the rule of law either; he has been involved in crypto scams and has been pardoning criminals left and right for no apparent reason.

Even using de Maistre’s concept of conservatism, Trump still cannot be considered a conservative. Trump eludes classification. Since he was not in politics before running for President, he has treated his political career as a business venture more than anything. His actions often contradict his words. He does what he thinks will be popular and what the last person who approached him with flattery told him he should do. This has led to many contradictions in Trump’s policy (wavering support for Ukraine, tariffs being imposed and then removed, “unconditional surrender” in Iran to a terribly negotiated peace, etc.). He can best be labelled as a right-wing populist.

Yet many of Trump’s political allies and members of his current administration do belong in this de Maistre category. Plenty of his supporters wish he would be President for life. Official White House social media accounts post reactionary images of 1950s America as something to reminisce over and return to. And of course we can’t forget that his Vice President, JD Vance, is a self-proclaimed postliberal. Unfortunately, since these people are all members of the Republican Party, they are all labelled “conservative” despite their opposition to so many conservative values that both Burke and de Maistre supported.

On the other hand, it is much easier to categorize and label Ronald Reagan. He supported liberal economics, liberal democracy, rule of law, and was a social conservative. He fits pretty neatly into Burkean conservatism and does not fit neatly into de Maistre’s more reactionary conservatism.

At this point it is useful to distinguish between political attitudes and political ideologies. Throughout this article, I have discussed conservatism as an ideology, not as a political attitude. As an attitude, conservatism means preserving an existing political order, so its content necessarily depends on the society in question. In the United States, that means conserving a constitutional order founded on classical liberal principles. America's founding documents, including the Constitution, reflect that liberal tradition.

The distinction between political attitudes and political ideologies also clarifies the central question of this essay. To be an ideological conservative, one must either follow the ideas of Edmund Burke or Joseph de Maistre. Although both are often described as conservative thinkers, they represent fundamentally different conceptions of conservatism. Burke defended the preservation of inherited institutions while accepting gradual reform when it strengthened liberty and social order. De Maistre, by contrast, sought the restoration of an earlier political and religious order. If conservatism is understood as an ideology rather than merely a disposition to preserve the status quo, Burke's vision offers the more coherent definition. By that standard, Ronald Reagan fits comfortably within the Burkean tradition, whereas Donald Trump does not.

Make sure you check out the Giving Ventures podcast, hosted by Peter.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

Editor’s note: There were some audio difficulties in the recording of this episode. Apologies.

• Listen to the podcast on Spotify.

• Listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Donate to Reagan Caucus Action

Share

We here at Reagan Caucus Action were saddened to hear about the unexpected passing of Senator Lindsey Graham. RIP.

Our condolences go out to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Share