Excluding MTF Transgender Athletes From Women’s Sports Protects Women’s Sports and Freedom of Association

The debate over transgender athletes in women's sports has come to the forefront of the culture wars in the United States, sitting at a peculiar intersection of fairness, biology, identity, and law. Supporters of allowing male-to-female (MTF) transgender athletes to compete in women's sports frame the issue as one of inclusion and fairness to transgender people. For supporters, exclusion is seen as unfair, stigmatizing, and for some, a form of bigotry. Opponents argue that women's sports exist to offset the biological differences between the two sexes, and that inclusion of MTF athletes in women's sports undermines the fairness and purpose of sex-segregated competition. A recent Gallup poll shows that 69 percent of Americans believe that transgender athletes should only play on sports teams that match their biological sex.

The question of which version of fairness should prevail is no longer an abstraction or one confined to an isolated incident here or there. Last week, the Supreme Court heard two cases on the matter: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. These cases are important because they touch upon how competing priorities are balanced in public institutions. While women's sports began in the late 19th century, they were enshrined in law with Title IX, which is a U.S. law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding, including athletics. 

Since these cases involve public schools, any eligibility rules are going to be framed in terms of government power, as well as taking a side on a culture war issue. The laws prohibiting MTF transgender athletes from participating in public school athletics are the legal question at hand for the Supreme Court. I want to look at this issue more generally of whether MTF transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in women's sports from a lens of freedom and fairness. 

Why This Is Not a Ban

First, I want to point out that excluding MTF transgender athletes from playing in women's sports is not a ban. From a public policy standpoint, a ban prohibits someone from participating in an activity altogether. An eligibility rule, by contrast, defines who qualifies for a particular category while leaving open other avenues for participation. As we will see later, there is a reason why women's sports impose eligibility criteria. 

MTF transgender athletes are not prohibited from competing or participating in sports altogether. There are alternatives available. They are still free to participate in men's sports, co-ed leagues, or recreational leagues, as well as in private clubs or leagues that allow them access. This policy is context-specific, proportional, and based on relevant characteristics, making it a case of principled exclusion rather than oppression. 

Importantly, this discussion is about structures and rules, not the worth of any individual. Transgender people should be treated with dignity, just like everyone else. At the same time, biological women should also be treated with dignity, which is why they should be allowed to compete on a fair and level playing field, even if that means excluding MTF transgender athletes. 

Freedom of Association, Positive Discrimination, and Why Exclusion Happens Daily without Malice

When we hear words like "discrimination" and "exclusion," they are framed in a negative context and are often seen as something that we should not do. Freedom of association is an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and also determines who we spend our time with. For freedom of association to work, you need positive discrimination.

The fact of the matter is that we accept positive discrimination as a normal and daily part of life, even without realizing it or viewing it as malicious. We naturally prioritize our loved ones, whether it is family or friends, over strangers when it comes to our time, resources, and attention. We choose whom to befriend, whom to date, whom to hire (if you run a business or are a hiring manager), and whom to help, all at the exclusion of others. Here are a few examples of when that discrimination comes into play in real life: 

• Religious institutions typically define participation or membership based on religious identity. It is not a denial of religious freedom of non-practitioners of a given religion, but protecting the associational and spiritual integrity of the community. 
• Ethnic clubs, heritage societies, and cultural centers often limit membership to members of the in-group. Since the goals of such organizations are cultural preservation, support networks, and shared experience, inclusion of outsiders can undermine the purpose that the group is meant to provide. 
• Professional associations and fraternities/sororities define membership based on criteria, whether it is profession, skill, or gender. The exclusion protects the purpose and experience for intended members.
• With charitable giving, you give to a cause that means something to you. By extension, you choose to not give to other causes, i.e., you exclude other charities from your giving. Being forced to give to all causes equally would violate your freedom to direct your resources as you wish. 
• LGBT centers exist to provide community and safety for a marginalized group. Allowing people outside of that demographic dilutes the space's purpose and its sense of security. 
• Employers select employees based on skills, experience, and cultural fit. An employer is not obligated to hire anyone who submits a job application. 
• In romantic relations, you choose someone you're attracted to and whose values, interests, and/or personality align with yours. You cannot coerce romance without destroying the meaning of romance and what makes it so special. This is why I took such an issue with the argument of "not dating a trans person is transphobic." A similar argument can also be made with friendship and why you cannot be forced to be friends with just anybody. 

Why Women's Sports Exist and Why Biology Isn't Optional

Women's sports are not an exception to this rule when it comes to freedom of association or positive discrimination. They operate on the same principle. I brought this up in my 2019 analysis of MTF transgender athletes in women's sports, but it merits repeating. Women's sports exist because in most sports, biological differences matter. 

It does not matter what type of cosmetic surgery one undergoes, how many hormones are taken, what government paperwork is altered, or how one decides to live their life. Biological reality does not disappear through identification or medical intervention. Gender identity is a societal construct, but biological sex (or simply sex) is not. Male-to-female transgender individuals remain biologically male, even after transition, and no amount of identifying otherwise changes that reality. Another way to frame this is that MTF transgender individuals are a subset of men, in spite of their best efforts. 

This should be an obvious observation of reality because MTF transgender individuals transitioning does not erase the biological advantages they incurred. The physical differences between men and women were apparent in the caveman days, but now we have the ability to measure them more precisely. As I brought up in 2019, men have greater lean body mass, larger hearts, higher cardiac outputs, larger hemoglobin mass, larger VO2 max, greater glycogen utilization, and higher anaerobic capacity. The Journal of Applied Physiology acknowledged biological realities in a study last year (Joyner et al., 2025; see infographic below). Another study, this one from Sports Medicine, shows how testosterone suppression for MTF transgender athletes has minimal effect and how the other advantages are still maintained (Hilton and Lundberg, 2021). 

I am not here to rattle off the entire evidence base on the topic, but I do want to make an observation. If there were no biological difference, there would be a more symmetrical effect observed in men's sports and women's sports. The truth is that an FTM transgender individual, which de facto is a subset of women, entering men's sports is not controversial because odds are that said athlete will not have a distinct biological advantage over men. 

Why Women's Sports Are a Protected Space

Women's sports exist precisely because biological and physiological differences between men and women matter. Without a protected space, women would be crowded out of meaningful sports participation, not by malice, but by reality. Open competition would systematically favor male physiology, leaving women with fewer opportunities to compete, succeed, and develop as athletes.

Women's sports exist to prevent that outcome. Women's sports are not some arbitrary carve-out, but a deliberate response to biological inequality. Excluding MTF transgender athletes is not a moral condemnation of transgender individuals or an act of cruelty for its own sake. It is an acknowledgment that not every space can serve every individual. When women's sports are no longer permitted to draw sex-based boundaries, it ends up undermining and eroding the very purpose that such a space was created for women in the first place. 

When Ideology Collides with Biological Reality

Women's sports is arguably the clearest example of where gender identity theory collides with biological reality. In many policy debates, whether trans women are women or not comes off as abstract. With athletics, it is observable and immediately apparent that they are not truly women. That clarity creates discomfort and cognitive dissonance for those who falsely believe that trans women are women, making it difficult to rationalize it away. For those who treat gender identity as fully substitutable for biological sex, this fight is more than being about athletic competitions or whether transgender people deserve dignity. Conceding limits in athletics and acknowledging biological reality would mean acknowledging the absurdity of the entire gender identity framework, particularly that gender identity overrides biological sex. Rather than lose face, activists and politicians continue to double down, even at the expense of their own credibility since it is the path of least resistance.

The Stakes for Sex-Based Rights

Letting gender ideology win this battle is more than about women's sports. Last August, I brought up how kowtowing to gender identity creates conceptual and legal incoherence. If sex is no longer an objective category, then any institution or rights organized around biological sex becomes indefensible. When sex is treated as a feeling rather than a fact, many aspects of women's rights and gay rights become negotiable, whether that is women's sports or same-sex marriage. Women's sports are a clear casualty of such an approach, as is illustrated by the 2024 United Nations report that estimated that female athletes have lost over 890 medals to transgender athletes. 

The moment that biological sex is replaced by the subjective self-identity that is gender identity is the moment that sex-based protections and spaces collapse. The question before the Supreme Court is not whether transgender people should be treated with dignity (to reiterate, they should), but whether sex-based rights are allowed to remain real. If biological sex is optional, women's sports and any other sex-based space or rights are also optional. As such, I hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of women's sports over gender ideology.

$2,500 Marriage Incentive Payment: The Government Shouldn’t Play Matchmaker by Subsidizing Love

Frank Sinatra once sang that love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. That is not the case anymore, if it ever was in the first place. The median age of marriage has been on the rise for decades while marriage rates are on the decline. Fewer than 50 percent of households are married couples, which is a shift from the 66 percent in the 1970s.These marriage trends are precipitating a debate among policymakers and think tanks about how or whether the government should respond. 

Government as Cupid

One recent proposal came from the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation in its new report Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years. Among the ideas presented in this report was creating a Newlywed Early Starters Trust (NEST) account. This federal program would give couples a $2,500 incentive payment upon marrying by a target age, paid into a special long-term investment account designed to grow over time. While the NEST accounts are justified as a means of encouraging marriage and asset accumulation, they reflect an underlying confidence in social engineering in which the government can steer private choices using financial incentives. 

The Price of Love: Ethics in Subsidized Marriage

Framed this way, Heritage's proposal raises a deep concern. Marriage is not like purchasing a car, selecting a vacation destination, or opting into a retirement account. By tying marriage to a NEST account, it risks reducing an intimate human relationship to a transaction for government benefits. Even if marriage had transactional components in the past (e.g., dowries, uniting families or territories), those were not centralized state efforts to steer personal behavior through financial incentives. The fact that marriage has evolved into a voluntary and personal commitment is exactly what makes the NEST account an ethically fraught idea. It treats relationships as policy levers rather than autonomous human choices while it commodifies intimacy and undermines the intrinsic value that gives marriage its social, emotional, and moral significance. 

Why Cash Can't Buy Commitment

It is not simply the ethics that are problematic. While Heritage proposes a $2,500 policy lever to encourage marriage, research suggests that financial incentives of this level are unlikely to produce lasting change. For example, a change in tax incentives has been shown to influence the timing of when someone got married, but it did not affect whether someone got married in the first place. Welfare evidence has also shown that altering benefit structures can encourage married couples to stay, but does little to help the decision of whether single parents decide to marry. 

When Prices Rise, Vows Wait

Meanwhile, structural economic barriers play a much larger role in delaying or discouraging marriage. A 2025 study from South Korea shows that rising house prices reduce marriage rates and delays marriage (La, 2025). Another study of 35 Chinese cities shows how economic restraints delay marriage (Song et al., 2024). Evidence from Obamacare Medicaid expansion (Chatterjee, 2021) shows that when a real economic benefit to marriage (in this case, health insurance) was available outside of marriage, low-educated, non-elderly adults were 6.9 percent less likely to marry. This decline was 11.9 percent for women. This is meant to show that a $2,500 NEST account will not meaningfully alter the deep tradeoffs that couples face with respect to marriage. It might nudge some couples to tie the knot sooner, but financial stability, long-term compatibility, and relationship readiness will play much larger roles in a couple's decision to marry. 

Marriage Cannot Be Bought, Only Chosen

We live in a more individualistic society that prioritizes career or personal development. There is greater acceptance of cohabitation without marriage, not to mention changing norms about gender equality or household roles. Combined with the financial barriers young couples face, a $2,500 NEST account becomes a dubious way to spur marriage rates. None of this means a hostility toward marriage itself. I would like to be married one day. I can believe marriage is valuable while still rejecting the idea that it should be subsidized, engineered, or optimized by government policy. Marriage simply cannot be bought off. Modest financial incentives like the NEST account do not address the core issues behind lower marriage rates while risking the trivialization of what ought to remain a freely chosen and deeply meaningful institution. 

Maduro’s Capture: Justice for Venezuela or a Precedent We Should Fear?

A little over a week ago, the Trump administration sent shockwaves throughout the world with the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia. The Maduros are facing charges of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. I could question Trump's rationale for it. After all, there are multiple countries that have had unfair elections, leaders tied to drug trafficking, and/or could be construed as a threat to U.S. national security. On the flip side, I could bring up how using military force abroad without a formal declaration of war is anything but unique to Trump and actually dates back to Thomas Jefferson. Today I do not want to get into whether this capture was legal or if Trump did it for the oil. The question I hope to answer is whether this is a rare example of limited and liberty-advancing force or if this move is something that should have us worried. 

Years of Socialist Tyranny

One thing I noticed is that Venezuelans across the world were cheering the capture, including Buenos Aires, Lima, Madrid, and Miami. Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, turned one of the richest countries in Latin America into a bona fide basket case. About half of Venezuelans live in poverty due to the hyperinflation. The corruption is so bad that it is ranked by Transparency International as the 3rd most corrupt country on the planet. Let's say the vast majority of Venezuelans were not feeling the warmth of collectivism. The repression under Maduro got so dire that it created about 8 million Venezuelan refugees. Maduro was an oppressive tyrant and an hijo de puta that caused human suffering. His removal is reason for Venezuelans worldwide to celebrate. 

Historical Precedent for Limited Military Intervention

While this seems like a victory for liberty, the broader implications of this capture need to be taken into account. As I brought up in the intro, this is hardly the first time this has happened where a president took a limited, targeted military or covert action without congressional approval. Truman did it with the Korean War, Kennedy with the Cuban missile crisis, Reagan with Grenada, Bush Sr. with Panama, Obama with Libya, and Trump last year with Iran. 

I would also point out that, as anti-war as I am generally, not all uses of war are morally equivalent in terms of magnitude. A targeted intervention that seeks to end suffering and restore human rights could be justified, but it would have to be limited and proportional. If Trump's attack on Venezuela is a one-off and truly surgical, one could argue that this a military equivalent of limited government that could help avoid a much larger military intervention. 

Potential for Mission Creep

Putting aside the grey area with congressional authority or the War Powers Resolution, I have to question what will happen next in Venezuela. The interim leader of Venezuela is Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro's Vice President. If the military and security infrastructures stay intact, this will be a pyrrhic victory in which the old regime under slightly different management remains, which does nothing good for Venezuela in the grand scheme of things. 

Alternatively, Trump said to reporters last Wednesday that the U.S. could end up running Venezuela for years, which has the potential to be an imperial overreach that undermines democracy and international law. Mission creep in this case could result in the U.S. becoming responsible for managing Venezuela's political transition, economic recovery, or security. If that is the case, it risks the United States repeating the mistakes of Vietnam or of Afghanistan, especially if militias or pro-Maduro factions resist. 

The U.S.' Track Record on Regime Change in Latin America

It is not as though the United States has the best history on regime change in Latin America. In 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala, which ushered in a dictatorship and a civil war. The CIA toppled Salvador Allende in Chile and ended up with the dictator Augusto Pinochet. The U.S. supporting the Contra rebels in their fight against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua led to civil war. Given the U.S.' unfortunate history with meddling in Latin America, removing Maduro could be another quagmire that makes the situation worse for years to come.

Upsetting International Order

The capture of Maduro raises profound questions about the international legal order and respect for sovereignty. Under the UN Charter, the use of force is prohibited, except in cases of self-defense. This norm exists to promote diplomatic conflict resolution, maintain peace, and preserve state sovereignty. By unilaterally removing a foreign leader, it creates a disturbing precedent in which a state could justify intervention in another country's affairs under the guise of law enforcement. 

Nations like Russia or China could follow suit, turn international affairs into a free-for-all, and have military force become the go-to for settling disputes instead of diplomacy or international law. I am not here to say international law is perfect. I was questioning the efficacy of international law last week. Even in spite of imperfect international norms, breaking them without a better framework makes the world less predictable and stable. It would be a return to imperialist norms in which powerful nations felt entitled to intervene in weaker states without impunity. 

Wrestling with Venezuela's Regime Change

Capturing Maduro and ousting him from his rule in Venezuela is an important milestone. Liberty may have gained a symbolic victory in Venezuela, but the next step is about who governs Venezuela, how Venezuela is governed, and whether the lives of Venezuelans are improved as a result. Without a credible, internally driven transition, Venezuela risks continued instability under different management. Whether Venezuela emerges freer, stabler, and self-deeming remains the real test and is far from finished. 

Government Making Appliances Costlier and Crummier in the Name of Going Green

Prior to the 20th century, families commonly used washboards to wash clothes, cooked over a coal- or wood-fired stove, and had to rely on iceboxes for food storage. Inventions like the refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, microwave, and washing machine became signs of human progress. What was once grueling, manual labor became much more manageable. These appliances saved people time, helped improve health and hygiene, and raised the standard of living for millions. It was only a matter of time before government regulations began to stifle progress for appliances. 

A recent report authored by Senior Fellow Ben Lieberman from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), entitled Free the Appliances, provides a compelling examination of how these regulations evolved from responses to the oil crises in the 1970s into the cumbersome regulatory framework that they are today. As we will see shortly, this CEI report details how these appliance efficiency standards have become a nightmare for the everyday American. 

CEI emphasizes how this regulatory framework expanded far beyond its initial energy-saving intentions, evolving into a broad set of environmental mandates that prioritize climate goals over consumer interest and practical appliance performance. I have covered two such instances previously here on Libertarian Jew, both of which were from the Biden administration in 2023.

A proposed gas stove ban would have limited consumer choice, imposed unnecessary restrictions on appliances that are efficient and cost-effective, and undermined individual freedom by dictating what homeowners could use in their own kitchens. Biden's water heater standards are similarly perturbing. They raise upfront costs significantly for consumers, especially lower-income households. Meanwhile, these standards offer minimal energy savings and do not provide a fair return on investment (ROI). While these are some of the more high-profile instances, CEI covers other instances in which consumers have been subjected to the unintended consequences of these appliance efficiency standards:

• Dishwashers: To comply with water-use restrictions, manufacturers compensate by increasing the cycle time. This regulation costs consumers more than $8 million a year while providing an annual energy savings of $17. Meanwhile, the standards result in about an extra hour per load while compromising the wash quality.
• Refrigerators: Since DOE regulations began, the average life of a refrigerator went from 19 years to 12 years, mainly due to the energy-saving features.
• Furnaces: Because of these standards, the average furnace costs an extra $1,500-$3,000. The DOE calculates a lifetime energy savings of up to $1,635 over 21 years. The issue there is the average furnace lasts 15-20 years. Saving money over a lifetime is far from certain. Even if those savings materialized, the high upfront costs can strain household or business budgets before those savings are realized. 
• Air Conditioners: Trying to recoup the loss of upfront costs for efficiency standards on air conditioners is even worse than with furnaces. A compliant air conditioner unit costs $1,500-$5,000 more on average. For hot/humid areas like the Southeast, the DOE calculates a savings of $1,853 for an ENERGY STAR unit and up to $6,724 in the best-case scenario. The problem is that the calculation is for 18 years, but the average A/C unit lasts 10-15 years. In the Southeast, it is theoretically possible, but far from guaranteed, to get your money back in the long-run. For the rest of the United States, don't count on that net cost to be in your favor.  
• LED Lightbulbs: In 2024, DOE regulations increased efficiency requirements for LED and general service lamps. This is phasing out many current bulbs (e.g., incandescent) and forcing customers to purchase higher-cost alternatives. According to the DOE, the requirements will increase the average price of an LED bulb from $2.98 to $5.68 (p. 5-33). In turn, this can reduce product choice, cause compatibility issues, and disrupt the lightbulb market. 

Conclusion: The High Cost of Feel-Good Environmentalism

In summation, these appliance efficiency standards are a class example of feel-good environmentalism in which politicians and regulators feel virtuous but do little good for consumers or the environment. Whether it's a $5 LED lightbulb or an extra $3,000 for a furnace, these costs are significant and often fail to materialize in a meaningful way. Far from empowering the average American with choices or savings, these regulations are a way to check of a feel-good box while ignoring real-life consequences. 

Moreover, these regulations can compromise quality, whether it is refrigerators that wear out faster or dishwashers that take longer to clean. The promise of a greener future comes at the expense of functionality and consumer choice. Consumers are forced to trade off reliability and performance for regulatory mandates that cannot guarantee significant savings in the long run. 

As I have brought up with plastic straw bans and recycling, these efficiency standards are little more than environmental brownie points created to support a certain moral high horse. If all countries opted to adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement, it would have only reduced global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius. This is my way of saying that every American adhering to these efficiency standards would do nothing of statistical significance to slow down increasing global temperatures. If overpriced appliances is all consumers get out of these regulations, then the only thing "green" happening is the money going out of our wallets as we pay more for these half-baked regulations. 

Israel Recognizing Somaliland and the Awkward Truth About Secession

For most of the world, Somaliland is not even a blip on the radar when it comes to international politics. Formerly a British protectorate, Somaliland voluntarily united with Italian Somaliland in 1960 to form what is known as Somalia. But after years of dictatorship and civil war, Somaliland declared independence in 1991. Out of the wreckage of Somalia's collapse emerged the semi-free, democratic, mostly peaceful nation of Somaliland. It has held elections, collected taxes, and policed its borders. In spite of governing itself for over three decades, the international community has largely pretended that Somaliland is not a real state. 

Israel changed that equation a little over a week ago by recognizing Somaliland. By becoming the first country to acknowledge the nation, Israel took a step that other countries have avoided for years. To be perfectly clear, Israel is not doing this out of the kindness of its heart. It is a geopolitical move in which two rational actors voluntarily enter diplomatic relations. 

Why Recognition Benefits Both Parties

Somaliland sits on the Gulf of Aden, which would give Israel better access to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. This is more useful given that Yemen lies along the Gulf, which would help Israel with maritime security and intelligence gathering. Generally speaking, Israel's diversification of its diplomatic and economic relations has been a part of its international policy. I pointed it out in 2017 with Israel and India, and I would point out that the Abraham Accords are another example of that. 

Israel is not the only one that stands to benefit. For Somaliland to receive recognition from even one state can break the years of diplomatic isolation that has plagued Somaliland. This recognition and subsequent recognition from other nations could improve foreign investment and trade relations, all of which can integrate Somaliland into the global economy and the diplomatic community. This recognition is another reminder that Jews and Muslims can indeed get along, but I will set that aside for the moment. 

The Objections: Borders, Precedent, and Institutional Norms

Mutual benefit is a feature of sound foreign policy, but that did not stop critics from coming out: 

• Somalia believes it is aggression and a violation of their sovereignty. Its claim has nothing to do with governance, consent, or control. It is solely based on legal continuity, not the reality of Somaliland's governance, which I will cover more momentarily. 
• The African Union objects because the borders at the time of independence should be preserved. This is in spite of the fact that Somaliland's borders are by and large the same as they were when it was a British protectorate prior to its unification in 1960. 
• China is upset for two reasons. One is that it has significant investments in the region, and does not want to risk losing money. The second is that it could set precedent or inspire Taiwan or Tibet. 
• The United Nations is less than thrilled because Israel and Somaliland bypassed their institutional norms. I can hardly blame Israel for not wanting to deal with the UN given its long-standing bias. And it is not exactly as if the UN has been there for Somaliland in terms of security or development. This recognition undermines the UN's institutional legitimacy while exposing its limitations. 

Debunking the Criticisms 

When you scrutinize these arguments, they strain credulity. Somaliland has not engaged in war since its independence in 1991, which minimizes the "regional instability" argument. As for the "borders are sacrosanct" argument, critics worry that Somaliland sets precedent other entities to want to secede, such as Scotland, Quebec, or Catalonia. Yet the world accepted the unilateral secessions of Bangladesh, South Sudan, and Kosovo without the outcry that is going on with Somaliland. And yet none of those secessions led to a secession domino effect. 

Somaliland Meets the Montevideo Convention

The reality is that Somaliland has functioned peacefully and autonomously from Somalia for over three decades. When I discussed other countries recognizing Palestinian statehood last September, I brought up the Montevideo Convention, which is the most widely used definition in international law to define a state. To be intellectually consistent, I will use those four criteria: 

Defined territory - Somaliland has a clearly defined territorial claim that corresponds almost identically to the borders of the former British Somaliland Protectorate.

Permanent population - Somaliland has a permanent population over 6 million people who have resided there on a long-term basis.

Capacity to conduct diplomatic relations - Somaliland has maintained informal diplomatic relations with other countries, hosts representative offices, and engages with international organizations. Israel's recognition of Somaliland strengthens the argument for its capacity. 

Single functioning government - Somaliland has had a single functioning government since 1991. It operates under a constitution approved by referendum, holds regular elections, has functioning courts, collects taxes, and maintains overall good control over its borders. This governance has been internal and self-sustaining, and has not needed foreign peacekeepers or international administration.  

Political Reality Trumps Abstract Norms

Ultimately, the objections to recognition are about maintaining territorial claims, avoiding precedent, and defending institutional authority, not about the people or their political reality. Somaliland has existed peacefully and autonomously for over three decades. To deny recognition in the name of abstract principles or potential "inspirations" for other secessions is to ignore the empirical reality on the ground. Pragmatic recognition, as Israel has undertaken, acknowledges what Somalilanders have built: a stable, self-governing polity whose place in the international system is long overdue. Refusing recognition to preserve theoretical rules that are outliving their usefulness is merely authoritarianism disguised as diplomacy. If countries want to operate in the empirical state of what is going on in Africa in 2026, they ought to recognize Somaliland, engage constructively, and let political reality guide diplomacy, instead of clinging onto delusions of what borders should be like.

From DEI to DNA: "Heritage Americans" and the Rise of Right-Wing Identity Politics

For years, the concept of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI, has merited a ton of ire. It is a pseudo-moral position that reduces people to skin color and gender while treating ancestry like a social credit score. I have no love for DEI. I analyzed a study showing how DEI increases racial tension, hostility, and authoritarian tendencies. In pursuit of DEI, much of the political Left has abandoned colorblindness, embraced the dubious Critical Race Theory, and obsessed over race to the point where "anti-racism" has become a form of racism that has set U.S. racial relations back at least 65 years. DEI is illiberal, racist, and fundamentally at odds with a democratic, pluralistic society that values freedom. On this point, those on the Right were correct, particularly Matt Walsh with his documentary Am I Racist? (see my two-parter on his documentary here and here).

In a twist of irony, those on the Far Right have decided that the issue with DEI was not identity politics itself, but the "wrong identities." They fell in love with the idea, rebranded it as "Heritage American," and declared themselves the most oppressed people in a society where they have historically dominated. For those who do not know, a "Heritage American" is someone on the Far Right that defines being "authentically American" based on ancestry (typically privileging older Anglo-Protestant lineages), rather than civic allegiance or shared political ideals. This term functions as a gatekeeping tool, signaling who "counts" as genuinely American while excluding immigrants, people of color, and others whose families arrived to the United States more recently. 

Tucker Carlson has engaged with guests on Heritage Americans on his show, thereby giving the idea more traction in mainstream conservative circles beyond the fringe. I saw political commentator Brad Polumbo broadcast an episode on Nick Fuentes deriding Vivek Ramaswamy for his ancestry (and doing so in light of Ramaswamy's gubernatorial race in Ohio), which is what prompted me to write this piece. As a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, whose ancestors actually fought in the American Revolution, I find the concept of "Heritage American" to be as ridiculous as it is un-American. 

Virtue Signaling: Gender & Race versus Genealogy 

As Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in his piece on Heritage Americans, many political organizations on the Far Left tore themselves apart by arguing who had greater victimhood status. On the Far Left, status is measured by how much oppression you can cite, document, or perform. On the Far Right, the same obsession with identity politics plays out. Instead of who is more oppressed, the Far Right measures "authenticity" by ancestry, colonial participation, and military lineage. Much like the DEI crowd argued over whose experience is more valid, Heritage Americans argue over whose family tree lends them the most credibility. 

It gets at a delicious irony, and not simply because both the Heritage Americans and the DEI crowd have the same collectivist mindset in which special privileges are based on inherited characteristics. The same people who had been wagging their finger at transgender people or nonbinary people for "playing dress-up" now indulge in historical cosplay. Instead of gender-reassignment surgery or preferred pronouns, the Heritage American props are great-great-great-great grandfathers, colonial muskets, and Civil War enlistment records. Whether in victimhood points or ancestry points, they are both forms of virtue-signaling theatrics that try to prove who matters the most. 

American Identity Is Built on a Creed, Not Bloodline

In Europe, standing and socioeconomic status in society were based on one's family tree. Now some Far Right-wingers want to impose European-style ancestry tests into U.S. patriotism, one that would have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves. The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of ideas and individualism, not a lineage fan club.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." The American Dream is not mean for those who had a better pedigree, but all individuals. The Constitution says "We, the people," not "we, the people with older birth certificates." The American government is grounded in a universal political collective, not a bloodline group. The phrase E pluribus unum has been part of the U.S. seal since 1782. The phrase in Latin means "from many, one," not "from many, but we really only mean those whose ancestors have been here long enough." 

My ancestors enlisted in the Continental Army to do battle against the British Empire that was oppressing them. They fought and died for a country where citizens can be united by liberty, equality, and rule of law, where citizens are judged by the commitment to these principles instead of bloodline, genealogy, or ancestry. Apparently, the notion that American identity is civic (and not genealogical) has been conveniently overlooked in the Heritage Americans' version of "history."

Americans Speak: Principles Over Pedigree

It is not only the Founding Fathers who held the view that American identity is not based on heritage. As a recent YouGov poll asking about "what makes someone American," look at the results below to see what ranks at the top and what is at the bottom. Having many generations of American ancestors and having American parents are towards the bottom of the list. At the top of the ranking are obeying U.S. laws, supporting the U.S. Constitution, and believing in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In other words, American identity for the vast majority of Americans is creedal. 

Postscript: Patriotism Is Not Hereditary

At its core, American identity was never meant to be a family tree competition. America is neither a race nor a bloodline. The fact that American identity is based on liberty, equality, and rule of law instead of the European notion of genealogy is one of the major facets that makes America exceptional. E pluribus unum was not a slogan for those with the proper pedigree. It was for any citizen willing to uphold those ideals. This creed is what allowed the United States to thrive, to welcome immigrants, and adapt across cultures over time, making it unique in human history. To quote Capitalism Magazine, "Those who don't understand this don't understand America, regardless of how many generations their families have been here."

Heritage Americans may have a fantasy about fighting in the American Revolution or a nostalgia for "a better time," but none of that changes the fact that the strength of the United States has been civic, not genealogical. Even if a small minority believes in this genealogical gatekeeping, it risks shaping public policy in ways that ignore the civic principles that define what the United States of America has been throughout its history. The fact that Ramaswamy had to repudiate the idea at a Turning Point USA's America Fest, an event full of conservative activists and leaders of all places, late last year says that the Right itself is at a turning point. Will the political Right head in a direction where being American is treated as an ethnic identity or one based on the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? 

I want America to remain a nation of ideals and a creed, not a reenactment of a colonial family reunion. Patriotism is not inherited, and the notion that one can be an American either through being born in the United States or through a naturalization process helps make the United States a shining city on a hill. While some might clutch muskets in one hand and pearls in the other, the vast majority of Americans understand that being American is not about where your ancestors are from, but the principles you embrace.