Alabama has never built its future by standing still. From steel mills and shipyards to aerospace, automotive manufacturing and energy production, our state has a long record of turning natural strengths into economic growth. Today, we face another defining opportunity. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) offers Alabama a practical path to lead in energy innovation while protecting jobs, attracting new industry and strengthening America’s energy security.

CCS is not speculative technology. It is already operating across the United States and globally, with projects expanding rapidly. Heavy industries such as cement, steel, refining and advanced manufacturing cannot eliminate emissions through renewable energy alone. These sectors require high heat and continuous power that currently depend on traditional fuels. CCS provides a workable solution: capturing carbon dioxide at its source and safely storing it deep underground, allowing production to continue while emissions are responsibly managed.

Few states are better positioned than Alabama to seize this opportunity.

Our geology provides a strong foundation. Deep saline formations and depleted oil and gas reservoirs thousands of feet below drinking water sources offer secure storage potential. These formations are capped by impermeable rock layers that prevent upward movement, making them well suited for long-term containment.

Equally important is our workforce. Alabama has decades of experience in energy production, pipeline management and heavy industry. Our engineers, geologists and skilled tradespeople understand safety protocols, precision operations and long-term stewardship. CCS builds on capabilities we already possess rather than requiring us to start from scratch.

In 2024, Alabama lawmakers recognized this advantage and passed the Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Act. The law established a clear, science-based regulatory framework for permitting, operating and monitoring carbon storage facilities. By creating predictable rules and prioritizing safety, Alabama sent a strong signal to investors and manufacturers: this state is serious about innovation and ready for responsible development.

That clarity matters because competition is fierce. States such as Texas and Louisiana are aggressively pursuing CCS investment, integrating carbon management into their economic development strategies. Billions of dollars are flowing into projects nationwide. If Alabama hesitates, those investments—and the jobs that come with them—will land elsewhere.

These are not short-term gains. CCS facilities require engineers, technicians, construction crews, monitoring specialists and long-term operations staff. They support supply chains in manufacturing, transportation and equipment production. For rural communities in particular, carbon storage projects can bring sustained investment and stable employment.

CCS continues to receive bipartisan support because it reflects a practical reality: innovation often achieves more effective and sustainable results than mandates alone. The technology has been used safely for decades in industrial applications, including enhanced oil recovery. Storage sites are extensively studied before approval and continuously monitored afterward. Properly regulated, CCS provides a secure and proven method of managing emissions while maintaining affordable, reliable energy.

That reliability is critical. Electricity demand is rising due to advanced manufacturing, expanding technology use and population growth. Intermittent energy sources alone cannot meet around-the-clock needs. CCS allows the United States to continue using abundant domestic energy resources while improving environmental performance and reducing dependence on foreign imports.

The choice before Alabama is clear. We can lead, or we can watch others claim the benefits. The Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Act was an important first step, but continued commitment to science-based regulation and timely permitting will determine whether we fully capitalize on this opportunity.

Alabama has the geology, the workforce and the policy framework to become a national leader in carbon capture and storage. Embracing CCS is not about choosing between economic growth and environmental responsibility. It is about advancing both through innovation.

Opportunity is knocking once again. With decisive action, Alabama can answer—and lead.

Jon Barganier is President and CEO of Manufacture Alabama, the only trade association in the state dedicated exclusively to the competitive, legislative, regulatory and operational interests and needs of manufacturers and their partner industries and businesses.

Last week, during a “State of the Schools” event in North Alabama, leaders from Huntsville City, Madison City, and Madison County schools sounded a familiar but mathematically creative alarm.

They claimed that the expansion of the CHOOSE Act and universal school choice would “cost” their districts a combined $100 million. The $100 million figure is a phantom number designed to protect a monopoly, rather than a reflection of financial reality.

It is time to ground this conversation in facts. To characterize parental freedom as a cost to a bureaucracy is to fundamentally misunderstand whom education funding belongs to: it belongs to the children of Alabama, not the systems assigned to them by their zip code.

The claim that school choice is “draining” public education is impossible to reconcile with the actual state budget. For Fiscal Year 2026, the Alabama Legislature passed a record-shattering $12.2 billion total education funding package. This includes:

• $9.9 billion in the core Education Trust Fund (ETF) — a $560 million increase over last year.
• $419.7 million in supplemental spending for immediate needs like school safety and fleet renewal.
• $1.12 billion in the Advancement and Technology Fund for one-time facility improvements.

While school leaders decry a deficit, the state is actually flooding the system with more taxpayer dollars than ever before. Since 2016, ETF spending has grown by over 56%. If a system is struggling while sitting on a nearly $10 billion fund, the problem is not a lack of money, it is a lack of leadership.

A common misconception, often intentionally repeated, is that the CHOOSE Act takes money away from the existing K-12 Foundation Program. That is false. The $180 million allocated for the CHOOSE Act this year represents a mere 1.4% of the total $12.2 billion education package.

More importantly, this money is not pulled from teacher salaries or classrooms at all. So far, the CHOOSE Act has been funded by the Education Opportunities Reserve Fund, a separate savings account created specifically for transformative education initiatives.

The $100 million loss cited by local leaders assumes a mass exodus of students that simply isn’t happening. For the most part, these districts are essentially claiming they are losing money for students they were never actually educating.

Furthermore, when a public school student does leave for a private or homeschooling option, the local property tax revenue, which is substantial in high-growth areas like Madison County, stays with the local district. The public school retains the local funding but no longer has the expense of educating that child. On a per-pupil basis, the students who remain in public schools often end up with more funding, not less.

The most revealing part of this debate is what these complaining districts aren’t doing. Under the CHOOSE Act, public school systems are invited to register as Education Service Providers (ESPs). This would allow them to accept out-of-district students and retain the $7,000 ESA; they can also offer specialized labs and/or courses to homeschoolers in exchange for ESA funds. To date, the participation from these three districts as providers is zero. The truth is that local leaders in Huntsville/Madison and education leadership across the state have decided, or been directed, to view the CHOOSE Act as a threat rather than an opportunity to compete for and attract new students.

That is short sighted at best.

Huntsville, Alabama is a global hub for innovation. We don’t accept monopolies in our economy, so why should we accept monopolies for our children’s classrooms? Why aren’t leaders in Huntsville/Madison embracing education freedom and innovation? Those are the questions that need answering by district leadership.

The real issue we should all be discussing is the cost of a child stuck in a school that doesn’t work for them. The real cost is a child’s potential being lost in a fiscal turf war amongst adults who personally benefit from entrapping kids in a system that their parents want them out of.

As for Alabama Policy, we believe Alabama’s children are worth every single penny.

Stephanie Holden Smith is the President of the Alabama Policy Institute.

Good news continues to roll out of the Sunshine State.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently announced significant insurance rate relief for Florida homeowners and auto policy holders that will put money back into Floridians’ pocketbooks and ease the strain on small businesses’ balance sheets.

For years, insurance companies, particularly homeowners’, were leaving the state in droves and insurance premiums were increasing at unsustainable levels.  A huge cause of the crisis was driven by legal system abuse.

But Florida’s elected officials recognized they needed to act. And they did.

In 2023, the Governor and Florida’s legislative leaders passed a comprehensive reform package that addressed major drivers of insurance premiums, such as unfair attorneys’ fees, “phantom damages” for medical expenses, and modernization of Florida’s comparative fault statute, among other things.

The results speak for themselves.

Major auto insurers recently filed for premium reductions: State Farm (-10.1%), Florida Farm Bureau (-8.7%), AAA (-15%), Progressive (-8%) and USAA (-7%).

This comes on the heels of Progressive’s $1 billion in rebates to auto policy holders announced last fall and Uber also reported six percent lower fares due to lower insurance-related costs, saving riders tens of millions of dollars.

A recent study also found that because of Florida’s 2023 reforms, the state’s insurance costs are 14.5% lower, $4.2 billion was added in annual gross product, and over 29,000 jobs were created.

While Florida turned the corner, the warning signs are beginning to flash for Alabama.

On January 15, the Alabama Department of Insurance released their Alabama Liability Insurance Coverage Data Call report, analyzing the impact of liability insurance coverage on insurance claims costs. The results of the report suggest that Alabama’s insurance market is being strained by a sharp rise in litigation-driven claims.

Despite claim volumes staying essentially flat in Alabama from 2020–2024, liability claim severity jumped 59% and the average payout per claim rose 45%—far outpacing the 23% inflation rate, which includes rising healthcare costs, wages, and consumer goods.

Alabama is also seeing a surge in large claims: $1 million–plus claims have doubled, putting even more upward pressure on costs.

And 26% of legal claims stay open for more than two years, driving up legal fees, increasing unpredictability, and pressuring defendants to settle regardless of merit.

These are real costs that are now placed on real Alabamians and there are real, tangible impacts.

• Legal uncertainty drives prospective business away from our state.
• Rising premiums make auto insurance unaffordable and keep workers on the sidelines.
• Unaffordability discourages small business expansion and growth.

Alabama’s legislature and executive leadership have worked tirelessly to counter rising costs with our pro-growth achievements of The Game Plan, Working for Alabama, and Powering Growth because we know predictability and stability attract investment and competition, which drives prices down and fuels growth.

However, our hard work and the momentum we have built can be stopped or reversed if we do not also tackle legal system abuse.

And it is not just our neighbors in Florida getting ahead. Georgia passed significant legal reform in 2025. Louisiana and Oklahoma followed suit. In 2026, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Indiana are taking a serious look at addressing their civil justice issues and protecting hardworking families, businesses, and workers.

These are states Alabama directly competes with for projects, workers, and business – not just in college football.

We have worked too hard to have Alabama be at a competitive disadvantage.  We cannot afford to remain on a path increased unaffordability, limited growth, and higher costs for every family and employer.

If we do not move forward and address our legal system abuses head on, Alabama will be left behind.

Josh Carnley represents Alabama Senate District 31, which includes Coffee, Covington, Dale, and Pike counties. 

Last month, 232 athletes representing the United States traveled to Milan to compete in the 2026 Winter Olympics. Many of these Americans have spent their entire lives working toward one goal: winning a gold medal for their home country.

So, like many other Americans, I was shocked by U.S.-born skier Eileen Gu’s decision to turn her back on her home country and compete under the Chinese Communist Party flag.

I find it offensive and hypocritical that Gu gets to enjoy the rights and privileges of being a U.S. citizen while elevating the regime that denies the Chinese people those same rights every day.

My grandparents fought alongside General Chiang Kai-shek against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the Chinese Civil War. They stood against communism and were forced to flee their home country because of it.

After the war, they legally immigrated from Taiwan to the United States because they feared the CCP’s tyranny. When they came to this country, they took advantage of every opportunity this nation provided.

They worked hard, and they chased the American Dream. As a child, I was raised with that same work ethic and a deep sense of gratitude and love for America. This love for America, combined with a real-world understanding of the danger China poses, makes what Eileen Gu did even more insulting to me.

Gu has benefited from everything the United States has to offer, yet she chose to represent China in the Olympic Games. That decision has left many people confused, wondering why she would make that choice.

She obviously does not want to live in China. She lives in the United States and enjoys all the benefits it provides.

So, what explains it? The Beijing government sports bureau reportedly budgeted a combined $6.6 million for Gu and another U.S.-born athlete, Zhu Yi, to compete for China in the 2026 Olympics.

A few million dollars? Is that all it takes to ignore the countless human rights violations, murders, censorship, suppression of religion, genocide, and the threat the CCP poses to the United States?

If you do not love our country, then leave.

Eileen Gu should put her money where her mouth is and book a ticket to Beijing, but we all know that will not happen anytime soon.

Instead, she will continue reaping the benefits of being an American while waving the flag of one of the world’s most immoral and repressive regimes.

Every time Eileen Gu competes for China, her hypocrisy and lack of patriotism will be on full display. But that is the difference between them and us.

In China, an athlete would never be allowed to compete under another nation’s flag. Here, our citizens are free. They are protected by our Constitution, which allows them to choose their own path, even when others may disagree. That is the difference.

Derek Chen, a Vestavia Hills businessman and lawyer, is a Republican candidate for Alabama State Auditor. Born in the United States to legal immigrants from Taiwan, Chen is a long-time GOP activist and Donald Trump supporter.

When a woman hears the words, “You have breast cancer,” her world changes instantly.

In that moment, she is not thinking about insurance codes, provider networks, or reimbursement formulas. She is thinking about survival — about her children, about whether she will live to see her next birthday.

And yet, for too many women in Alabama, what comes after cancer surgery brings a second, unexpected battle, one not against disease, but against their own health insurance.

Federal law has long recognized that breast reconstruction after mastectomy is not cosmetic. It is part of cancer treatment. Congress made that clear in 1998 when it passed the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act, requiring health plans to cover breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

But in the years since, insurers have found ways to make that promise harder to keep.

Across Alabama, women have shared their stories with me — stories of delayed approvals, limited surgeon options, and administrative hurdles that left them confused, exhausted, and sometimes forced to travel out of state for care that should have been available at home.

These are not theoretical problems. They are happening to real patients in our communities. One Mobile plastic surgeon, Dr. Mark Stalder, told lawmakers he has watched insurers use financial and administrative barriers that effectively limit access to the full range of reconstruction options.

When qualified surgeons cannot participate in insurance networks or receive sustainable reimbursement, patients lose access, even though coverage technically exists on paper.

Some women have been told that the reconstructive surgeon and procedure they believe are the best option for them, available here in Alabama, were not covered under their insurance, and were instead directed to other providers or options. Others have faced so many administrative obstacles that they ultimately gave up on reconstruction altogether.

That gap between what is technically “covered” and what is truly accessible is the problem this legislation addresses.

The bill I have introduced does not create new benefits. It does not expand mandates. It simply ensures that the protections already guaranteed under federal law actually work for Alabama women in real life.

If a woman undergoes a mastectomy, she should be able to understand her reconstruction options, choose what is medically appropriate with her physician, and receive timely care without fighting her insurer every step of the way.

This is not a partisan issue. Cancer does not check party registration. The women who have come forward include Republicans, Democrats, and independents, mothers, teachers, business owners, and retirees. Their message has been consistent: the law says reconstruction is covered, but the system often makes it unattainable.

No patient recovering from cancer should have to navigate technical loopholes or insurance obstacles to restore her body and her sense of wholeness.

And, this healing does not affect women alone. I have heard from husbands across Alabama who want their wives to feel whole again after cancer — who see reconstruction not as vanity, but as part of restoring confidence, intimacy, and normalcy within a marriage that has already endured so much.

When a woman is denied that opportunity, the loss is felt by families, not just patients.

Breast reconstruction is not about appearance. It is about healing, physically and emotionally. It helps women move forward after one of the most difficult experiences of their lives.

Our responsibility as lawmakers is straightforward: when a law promises care, patients should be able to receive it.

Alabama women should not have to leave their state, delay treatment, or abandon medically appropriate options simply because of insurance barriers. They deserve clarity, access, and dignity in their recovery.

This legislation is about making sure that when cancer takes something from a woman, our health system does not take more.

State Rep. Jennifer Fidler represents House District 94 and is the sponsor of the Comprehensive Breast Reconstruction Coverage Act

Within hours of the U.S. unleashing hell on the Iranian regime in Operation Epic Fury, Democrats in Congress sprinted to their shopworn anti-war script: “Unilateral!” “Illegal!” “War of choice!” All while being careful to disclaim any sympathies for Iran, of course.

The risk of looking like an Iranian sympathizer in an election year probably explains why Democrats are focused on these legal arguments rather than the foreign policy itself:  “We’re not defending the Ayatollah, but this military strike violates international law!”

We can dispense with that myth right away.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville—hardly a fan of rudderless military interventionism—instinctively answered these bogus legal claims in expressing his cautious support for military action in Iran. Iran’s leaders, he warned, “are locked and loaded,” close to developing a nuclear weapon and reckless enough to use it.  “It’s going to be a very, very tough decision,” he told Newsmax last week. “But to me, we have no choice.”

Tuberville nailed the legal issue. The legality of the strike hinges on one principle: national preemptive self-defense.

Under the United Nations Charter, invading another country is illegal unless one of two exceptions applies: (1) The UN Security Council authorizes it, or (2) the nation acts in self-defense under Article 51.

Democrats in Congress seem to think we need the UN’s blessing or we have to wait for another 9-11 (or worse) before we can respond to a threat.  But Tuberville knows better.

The U.S. has long taken the position that national self-defense includes the right to strike first when American lives or American interests are at stake.  Moreover, as with individual self-defense, the threat need not be certain to occur. National preemptive self-defense is justified if the nation is under a reasonable fear that the threat will materialize if nothing is done to stop it.

Controversially, even within his own party, President Bush relied on this principle, now remembered as the “Bush Doctrine,” to justify the invasion of Iraq on the reasonable fear that Iraq was hiding WMD and, in the wake of 9-11, was prepared to use it. Bush made it known that when a threat rises to a certain level, the U.S. will act alone if necessary to protect its national security—even without explicit authorization from the UN Security Council.

In other words, America First.

Critics still argue the Iraq invasion lacked proper legal authorization. But the Bush Administration invoked—accurately—the preexisting UN resolutions against Iraq and the right of national self-defense. Reasonable people can debate (and still do) the wisdom of the Iraq War, but the fact that U.S. intelligence turned out to be wrong about WMD in Iraq does not retroactively invalidate the legal justification.

Presidents must make decisions about defending America based on the information they have at the time, not what hindsight reveals.

Fast-forward to today. What would history say if the president failed to prevent a nuclear attack when he could have neutralized the threat in advance?

Iran’s nuclear program is accelerating. Current monitoring suggests Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in a week or two if it chooses to turbocharge enrichment. That shrinking breakout timeline is not hypothetical—it is the very situation preemptive self-defense was designed for.

Tuberville wasn’t exaggerating when he said we “have no choice.”

Under the doctrine of national preemptive self-defense, a president cannot wait until a missile launch or a radioactive plume proves the threat was real. When a hostile regime is preparing to inflict mass casualties on Americans, the Commander-in-Chief has both the authority and the obligation to act.

Of course America cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. But neither can it bury its head in the sand and hope threats to American interests and security suddenly abandon their ambitions. The sober reality is that American security sometimes requires decisive action abroad without waiting for an international permission slip.

Tuberville understands that this weekend’s strike is not some unprecedented legal gamble. It is a continuation of a long-standing national security doctrine—one rooted in self-defense and shaped over decades by presidents who understood that threats must be confronted before they metastasize.

In an unstable world, national self-defense isn’t meddlesome interventionism at all. It is, by definition, America First.

Bryan Taylor is a retired Army judge advocate, an Iraq War veteran, and a distinguished fellow of the Alabama Policy Institute. He is also a former Alabama State Senator and former counsel to two Alabama governors.

In 1426 – exactly 600 years ago- a small contingent of fewer than 600 English soldiers found themselves surrounded behind the walls of the village of Saint-James-de-Beuvron by more than 16,000 French troops led by Arthur de Richemont, the Constable of France.

It should have been a brief siege and a massacre.

But it wasn’t.

England held vast territories in France, yet its authority was tenuous. Alliances shifted constantly. Brittany, a territory of strategic importance, had switched sides from England to France; its loyalty determined England’s security in northern France.

The King sent Sir Thomas Rempston to Brittany with a small force to apply pressure and remind the Breton’s of England’s reach. It was partially a raid, but also a political signal.

France organized a massive army to expel the English presence when they had withdrawn to the village of Saint-James.

Here the English would take their stand.

To send a message, the French summarily executed English defenders in a nearby village. So, when the massive French army, 25 times the size of the English garrison, surrounded the village, the English had no allusion of the consequences of defeat.

Yet medieval warfare was not decided by numbers alone. It was decided by cohesion, leadership, terrain, and morale:  the will to stand fast when retreating would be easier.

The English commander knew that if his small force broke, Brittany would fall fully into French hands, and England’s position in the region would collapse. But if they held, the impact would ripple far and wide.

Great military victories often hinge on leadership under pressure. Rempston’s decision was simple but profound: fortify, discipline, and endure.

He knew it would be suicide to attempt open battle, so he turned the village into a defensive porcupine. Barricades were strengthened. Positions were assigned, and every soldier understood his role.

These English soldiers were seasoned veterans. They had seen French armies break before disciplined resistance. They trusted their commander, and, most importantly they trusted each other.

Outside the walls, French artillery began bombarding the defenses. The siege stretched from late February 1426 into early March. Stones battered walls. Breaches appeared. Pressure mounted.

But the English line held.

With no surrender, the French decided to attack directly. Thousands pressed against breaches in the walls. The assault seemed overwhelming, but the English held.

They did not abandon their positions and rush forward toward the French. They held the French in confined spaces where numbers mattered less. Every narrow street became a killing ground.

After several days of stalemate, the French misidentified a small English detachment as fresh English reinforcements and panicked.
Confusion multiplied as rumors of English reinforcements raced through the ranks; a sense of certain victory evaporated. The massive French army began to lose cohesion.

The English sensed this change and surged forward to engage the confused enemy. The French assault melted into disorder as confidence became fear. Soon the line buckled, and the French began to flee. When morale faltered, recovery became impossible, and the retreat became a stampede.

Against all odds the English succeeded.

The Battle of Saint-James was not won by miracle or accident: it was won by leadership, discipline, and morale. Those were the necessary ingredients for a smaller force to defeat a larger one. The Battle of Saint-James demonstrates a timeless principle applicable in many things: power and success are more than numbers. The human element is critical; when there is a will to achieve, encouraged by strong leadership and the discipline to obtain a common goal, victory results.

The contrary is also true. The beginning of defeat occurs when leadership melts to skepticism, anxiety becomes fear, and confidence fades. Once morale drops, the possibilities for success does too.

With the French routed, English reinforcements arrived and advanced to assert control over more of Brittany. The Britton Duke was so shaken by the defeat of his massive army that he agreed to a truce. At that point, diplomacy shifted, and England’s position in the region stabilized.

Word of the triumph became known throughout France and in England. Once again, English arms had defied the odds. Once again, discipline had humbled superiority in numbers. In a war defined by fragile alliances and psychological contests as much as by territory, perception mattered.

The Battle of Saint-James became proof that English could not be easily crushed, developing a myth that English soldiers were superhuman and capable of miraculous achievements. Joan of Arc would challenge this assumption later.

Like David, Rempston did not defeat Goliath with brute strength. He defeated him by refusing to fight on the giant’s terms and trusting in his disciplined training and not giving counsel to his fears. By standing firm and waiting, the English troops were ready to act when the French become most vulnerable.

The French army was the giant, but giants often fall not because they are weak, but because from overconfidence, they underestimate smaller, disciplined opponents.

Though Saint-James did not decide the Hundred Years’ War, it offers enduring lessons. Discipline sustains courage when numbers intimidate. Leadership under siege defines outcomes. Resilience can outweigh manpower.

The battle reminds us that success in the crucible of conflict is often based on confidence, unity, and resolve. Resources are always limited; to prevail, the side best able to use its scarce resources most effectively wins the day. The resource of human capital and the will to succeed can never be underestimated or overstated.

On a cold March day in 1426, 600 stood against an army and did not yield. They held their ground. They trusted their commander. They kept their formation when the enemy pressed in, and then they advanced.

History often celebrates the largest battles and the grandest campaigns, yet sometimes the most powerful stories are found where courage outweighs calculation, where discipline defeats mass, and where resolve ultimately breaks an army.

For strength is not measured in numbers, but in the will to stand fast when all logic says to flee.

Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com.

The older I get, the more I believe that wisdom isn’t just about adding; it’s about subtracting. It’s about letting go. Letting go of things that once seemed so important. Things you spent years pursuing. And that’s the irony: when you stop clinging to things, life often gets richer, deeper. Because the life you envisioned isn’t the life you want. It’s humbling to admit you no longer want it.

There’s a quiet grief in that realization. You mourn the energy you spent. The identity you wrapped around it. But there’s freedom there too. A lightness. As if you’ve been dragging something heavy for so long you forgot what it felt like to walk without it. Nobody really teaches you the discernment of letting go. Nobody tells you that sometimes the smartest thing you can do is just walk away.

Letting go feels counterintuitive. It feels like failure. But is it? Life seems to have seasons. Spring and summer are for growth. Fall and winter are for pruning. What if winter is the most instructive season—not the end of something, but the beginning of something new? A reset. A necessary pause. After all, we need winter to get to spring.

As William Bridges points out in his timeless book Transitions, every transition starts with an ending. You must first let go of the old before a genuine new beginning is possible. Resisting endings keeps you stuck and makes the whole transition longer and more painful. Winter is nature’s way of cutting back what’s no longer needed, preparing for the growth that is surely coming.

The tricky part is that growth and decay can look and feel identical. Both are uncomfortable. Both are uncertain. You must risk one to experience the other. Pruning is rarely dramatic. It’s quiet. It happens in the margins—not in the things you start doing, but in the things you stop doing. No one applauds what you release. There’s no ribbon-cutting ceremony. But your life feels simpler. Less heavy.

Endings involve disengagement from people and places, dismantling old structures, disconnecting from who you used to be, and feeling disenchanted with what once made sense. Processing this grief is healthy, not a sign of weakness. And maybe the measure of a life well-lived isn’t how tightly you held on—but how gracefully you let go. Here are a few examples of things you can prune away, if you need a nudge:

   1. The Need for Approval: In our 20s, we want everyone to like us. In our 30s, we realize not everyone does. By our 40s, we stop caring. By our 50s, we wonder why we ever did. Maturity is, in part, the slow erosion of needing applause. Letting go of approval is one of the earliest—and most liberating—forms of growth. (Example: Scrolling social media first thing every morning to see who noticed you.)

   2. The Desire to Win Every Battle: Eventually, you realize being right isn’t as important as being kind. Most conflicts are smaller than they feel. And most victories cost more than they’re worth. Letting go of the need to win—in arguments, careers, or relationships—signals emotional security. (Example: Asking someone, “Help me understand how you got there,” instead of arguing the counterpoint.)

   3. The Endless Comparison Game: The day you stop comparing your journey to someone else’s is the day you finally start living your own. Comparison shrinks your life to someone else’s outline. (Example: A six-figure job that requires 70-hour weeks to afford things you don’t really care about anymore.)

   4. The Need for Constant Motion: When you’re young, stillness feels like death. Later, you realize it’s life. Rest isn’t laziness. Quiet isn’t emptiness. Presence—not productivity—is the real success. Busy is often just a socially acceptable form of avoidance.(Example: Taking a Saturday afternoon nap instead of tackling another project.)

   5. The Story You Keep Telling About Yourself: At some point, you realize you’re not obligated to keep being who you were. You’re allowed to outgrow old narratives. Letting go of that story might be the hardest pruning of all, because it requires admitting you’ve changed. And that’s not weakness. That’s growth. (Example: “That’s just how I am,” which quietly becomes the most limiting statement of all.)

Maybe the art of aging well is learning what to carry and what to set down. Not everything deserves unending loyalty. Some things just weren’t meant for you long term. They were stepping stones. They were the scaffolding, not the structure.

If you find yourself in a season of pruning right now, don’t rush it or fight it. Trust that the quiet work being done beneath the surface is preparing you for whatever comes next.

I want to hear from you. What are you pruning today? Email me at t@tomgreene.com I promise you’ll hear back from me cause, you know, I’m a real person.

Tom Greene is a writer living in Atlanta, Georgia with his wife and loyal wiener dog, Maggie. His writing can be found at www.tomgreene.com. He can be reached at t@tomgreene.com

Declining population or depopulation has emerged after years of warnings about overpopulation. While biologists see benefits from depopulation, some economists fear reduced investment, slower economic growth, and stress to social assistance systems. Is depopulation a cause for alarm?

The demographic “transition” refers to a decline in death rates leading to significant population growth and then a decline in birth rates. Western European nations experienced a decline in fertility to around replacement level over 80 years. The
transition has diffused and accelerated, now occurring in less than twenty years.

Prosperity drives the transition. Improved nutrition and medicine reduce deaths, particularly among infants and children. Prosperous parents have fewer children when most reach adulthood and invest more time and money in each child.

The transition has occurred across cultures, including some where women lack full rights and began before modern feminism or birth control. Western Europe, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and China are all well below the replacement fertility level.

Falling birthrates took experts by surprise. Only in 2022 did the United Nations begin projecting global population to peak during the 21st Century. Population change provides another example of the limits of expertise.

Policy can reduce birth rates as China’s disastrous one child rule demonstrates. But once people decide they do not want children, government policies seem unable to change minds.

Will depopulation wreck the economy? I see no cause for panic.

A market economy has no fixed number of jobs. Enough jobs were created that the U.S. unemployment rate was four percent in 1970 and 2025 even with 70 percent population growth. An economy should be able to scale down.

A shrinking workforce may cause shortages in some occupations; imagine many dentists retiring within a few years. But salaries will adjust to address shortages in specific fields.

Less total human ingenuity could reduce growth. Economist Julian Simon recognized how humans are the ultimate resource. A smaller human population may mean fewer brilliant new ideas.

But poverty has kept many humans from achieving their potential. Extreme poverty has fallen rapidly since 1990. With continued economic development, the global talent capable of generating brilliant new ideas should not decline soon.

Declining populations threaten retirement systems, particularly Social Security. But retirement saving and planning are individual actions. Sufficient saving during working years allows a comfortable retirement regardless of population change.

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go transfer system, never accumulating assets like a genuine pension system. It flourished for decades with more Americans paying in than drawing benefits. Constitutional constraints on government’s economic powers are needed to check such frauds by elected officials.

Some claim that mass immigration is needed to prevent a declining workforce and save Social Security. Since I do not see a potential catastrophe, I am unconvinced.

Talented, ambitious, hard-working individuals, not government, create prosperity. Historically America’s immigration policy enticed such individuals move here and they helped our nation thrive. But immigration based on welfare benefits for unvetted new arrivals does not build prosperity.

Depopulation could produce benefits. Infrastructure and the built environment will have excess capacity. More capital per worker should boost labor productivity and real wages.

Nobel Prize winners Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson examined how the Black Death affected Europe. The plague killed between a quarter and half of Europe’s population within a few years. Under the feudal system, peasants had to work a lord’s land and were serfs, not far removed from slaves.

Too few peasants remained to cultivate all the land. In Western Europe and Britain, nobles competed to attract enough people to grow crops, effectively ending serfdom. But in Eastern Europe, nobles consolidated control over land and tightened controls on serfs.

The decision to have children is one of life’s most important; free people must be allowed to decide this for themselves. The resulting population change should not even be a policy issue. Declining population growth will pose challenges, as life always does, but not ones necessitating surrendering a fundamental human right to government.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

Folks, we are in for a doozy of a political year in the Heart of Dixie. We have a rare open U.S. Senate race.

A senate seat does not come open every year. It was expected, this time last year, that our first term Senator Tommy Tuberville would run for a second six-year term in 2026. However, Tuberville’s decision to leave the U.S. Senate to run for Governor, left the barn door open for our second U.S. Senate seat.

The seat will be filled by a Republican. We are a solidly Republican State. Therefore, the GOP Primary on May 19 will be our election.

As the barn door closed for qualifying three weeks ago, the field, as expected, yielded five combatants: Alabama two term Attorney General Steve Marshall, South Alabama Congressman Barry Moore, Navy Seal Jared Hudson, Trump and Tuberville staffer Morgan Murphy, and Lineville businessman Rodney Walker.

There are two distinctive roles that a U.S. Senator takes. One is to be an ideologue. Another is to be an effective facilitator and advocate and bring home the bacon for their state. Fortunately, for Alabama’s sake, we had a facilitator and extremely effective U.S. Senator for 36 years in Senator Richard Shelby. It is because of Senator Shelby that UAB, Huntsville, and Mobile have become the beacons of economic growth and prosperity for our state.

For decades, we had a tandem in the Senate that were the ultimate gentlemen, powerful, facilitator senators in America. This duo of Lister Hill and John Sparkman were two of our greatest Senators in Alabama history. Senator Shelby joined them in rounding out our three greatest Senators. Shelby probably eclipsed the magnificent Hill and Sparkman.

John Sparkman was the Father of Huntsville’s Redstone Arsenal. Lister Hill was the Father of the UAB Medical Center. Richard Shelby became the grandfather of these two Alabama economic gems. Shelby took Huntsville and UAB to unimaginable plateaus that Hill and Sparkman could not even imagine.

For almost two decades, we had a two-man tag team of effective statesmen, respected and feared U.S. Senators in Richard Shelby, and the amicable, colorful, witty, and quietly powerful Senator Judge Howell Heflin. Fortunately, for Alabama’s sake, Shelby mentored and facilitated the election of his successor Katie Britt.

Senator Katie Boyd Britt has the makings of being one of the greatest U.S. Senators in Alabama history. She will join Shelby, Hill, and Sparkman in the annals of effectiveness. In fact, she has gotten off to a faster start than all three combined. She got there at a much earlier age and attained committee assignments never seen by any freshman senator in Alabama nor American history. It is unheard of for any state to have any of their senators on Appropriations, Rules, Banking, and Judiciary, much less a freshman senator.

At the beginning of the race, it looked like a two-man contest between Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and Second District Congressman Barry Moore. However, with the endorsement of Congressman Barry Moore by President Donald Trump, coupled with Moore receiving the endorsement and total support of the deep pocketed, dark money, right-wing, Republican Club for Growth, this tandem makes Moore a prohibitive favorite.

Prior to Trump’s entry, it was developing as possibly an interesting contest for the open seat. Attorney General Steve Marshall was poised to give Moore a good race. He has been elected twice statewide and has some base of support. The three unknowns, Jared Hudson, Morgan Murphy, and Rodney Walker, are running spirited campaigns.

The Daddy Warbucks Club for Growth endorsement of Moore is important because the key to any senate primary election is who has the most campaign money to spend. Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Money buys media. Media appearances equate into votes.

It is a given that whichever of these five GOP candidates wins, Katie Britt will be joined by an ideologue.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at steve@steveflowers.us.

A country being disrupted through its agricultural system isn’t the plot of a dystopian movie. It’s the potential reality we currently face.

The risk of widespread food shortages, bioterrorism operations targeting U.S. farmland, or espionage efforts aimed at military installations could spell disaster.

Nevertheless, tens of millions of acres of American land are currently owned by foreigners with zero allegiance to our nation.

The Trump Administration, understanding these vulnerabilities, has taken concerted efforts to insulate our nation from such grave threats at a time of rising great power competition.

Last Wednesday, Secretary Brooke Rollins, head of the Department of Agriculture, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, to further implement the National Farm Security Action Plan, announced in July 2025.

This welcome relief for American farmers and national security experts illustrates a renewed dedication to the agriculture industry, protecting our land and citizens from ag-terrorism or bioterrorism inflicted by adversaries.

As Secretary Hegseth noted Wednesday, “shortly after 9/11, U.S. forces in Afghanistan uncovered Al-Qaida training manuals that specifically targeted America’s agriculture for attack…we’re not dealing with hypotheticals here.”

As of December 2024, nearly 46 million acres of U.S. agricultural land are owned by foreign entities, encompassing 3.6% of all privately held agricultural land and 2% of total U.S. land.

More than one million acres of farmland are owned by foreign entities in Alabama alone. Alabama leaders understood this issue before many took notice, passing laws in recent years that restricted or reviewed land purchases by entities linked to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

The laws do not automatically force the sale of existing ownerships, but they tighten future acquisitions and state oversight. Elected officials around the country can learn from these initiatives as states continue to grapple with this issue.

A 2023 Wall Street Journal exposé documented Chinese intruders trying to breach military facilities more than 100 times since 2000. Under the guise of farming, foreign agents have installed reconnaissance sites near military bases that surveil troop movements.

Lawmakers have a responsibility to protect land from abuse since 85% of America’s food and beverage is produced domestically. But meaningful change has been lackluster despite such attention.

I’m proud to have the endorsement of the Alabama Farmers Federation who knows how seriously I intend to advocate for this issue.

For too long, Congress has sat idly by as small and mid-sized operations have been squeezed out by corporate consolidation and foreign individuals have swallowed up chunks of farmland.

Alabamians, like all Americans, deserve family farms that can flourish, products that won’t be undercut by conglomerates or overseas providers, and the comfort of knowing their land is not being used to undermine U.S. national security.

Enacted in 1978, the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) hoped to address these concerns, requiring foreign persons who hold interests in agricultural land to report transactions to the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Secretary was directed to produce reports determining the effects these transactions have on family farms and rural communities. But the continued purchase of land, especially around military sites, have called into question the effectiveness of the 1978 law.

Although entities have had to report their holdings, AFIDA has not spurred background checks or investigations into potential threats. Additionally, reporting can be inconsistent since only the “primary investor” (the foreign person listed on the land title) is listed on AFIDA reporting. Therefore, countries such as China are believed to be underreported.

The NFSAP seeks to strengthen enforcement of the AFIDA, making clear that foreign-based land owners will no longer be allowed to operate unchecked. The action plan will enhance land security by identifying certain foreign ownerships as potential national security threats, increase transparency through reporting, and penalize inaccurate reporting.

Additionally, the plan seeks legislative efforts to restrict purchases by foreign adversaries and end or cancel agreements with foreign entities or researchers that are considered national security risks. Collaboration with the Department of the Treasury also ensures agricultural land sales, biotechnology deals and agriculture industry investments are screened for security risks.

Americans deserve peace of mind that the very land they walk on remains safe and is operated by those who are loyal and accountable to the United States government.

This critical infrastructure was foundational in creating the powerhouse we are today and is an essential pillar to continued American abundance and prosperity.

Foreign investors, especially those who are anti-American, should not be able to freely own and operate American farmland without oversight. The threat posed to our citizens, farmers, and state economies is too great. Under the NFSAP, these operations will be uncovered and prevented from taking root. As Senator, I will prioritize strengthening these regulations on an ongoing basis to adapt to new and emerging threats.

The 600,000 citizens of Alabama who work directly or indirectly with the agricultural industry generate over $70 billion in economic activity, providing funds that buttress healthcare, schools, law enforcement, and other public services.

Other states see similar impacts from farming. The catastrophic knock-on effects that an attack on our land would induce—not just for farmers in certain states, but for all Americans—are more than worthy of the renewed attention from the federal government.

In the words of Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, “Farm security is national security. When our farmland is threatened, the welfare of our entire Nation is put on the line.”

This is a harsh reality, but with a pro-agriculture White House and supportive lawmakers, we can protect America’s precious farmland.

Steve Marshall has served as Alabama Attorney General since 2017 and is a Republican candidate U.S. Senate in 2026. 

Last week, Alabama families received long-overdue good news. Governor Kay Ivey signed HB161, the App Store Accountability Act, into law, making our state a national leader in protecting children online and restoring parental authority in the digital age.

For years, parents have done everything we can to raise responsible, thoughtful children. We set curfews. We know our kids’ friends. We monitor what they watch on television. But when it comes to smartphones and app stores, many parents have felt locked out of the decision-making process.

That changes now. The App Store Accountability Act requires app stores to verify users’ ages, link minor accounts to parent accounts, and obtain parental approval before children and teens can download new apps.

In practical terms, it creates a simple, centralized system where parents can approve or deny app downloads without having to chase down permissions across dozens of individual platforms.

As a mom and leader with Moms for Liberty in Madison County, I regularly hear from parents who feel overwhelmed by the pace of technology. Apps today are not neutral tools.

Many are built with addictive algorithms, expose children to explicit content, or open doors to online predators. Parents know this. We see the effects in our homes and schools.

Until now, app stores have operated as gatekeepers without sharing responsibility. They profit from downloads while parents shoulder the consequences. The new law simply ensures that before a minor downloads an app, a parent is notified and given the opportunity to say yes or no.

That is not radical. That is common sense.

Importantly, this law respects the fundamental principle that parents, not tech corporations and not bureaucrats, are best positioned to decide what their children are ready to handle. Alabama’s legislature deserves tremendous credit for advancing this bill with overwhelming support.

And Governor Ivey deserves thanks for signing it into law and standing firmly with families. Our state has now sent a clear message: Parents matter. Our voices matter. Our authority matters. The digital world is evolving quickly. Technology will continue to change.

But one constant should be that families, not corporations, are empowered to guide children’s development. With the App Store Accountability Act now law, Alabama has taken a meaningful step toward restoring balance and putting parents back in the driver’s seat.

Other states, and Congress, should take note. Because protecting children online should never be a partisan issue. It should be a parenting issue.

Emily Jones is a mom from Jackson County running for the State Board of Education and advocating for Alabama families. 

Data centers power much of what we now consider part of daily life: emergency response systems, bank transactions, healthcare records and the cloud-based software businesses rely on.

They’re here to stay and they can play an important role in Alabama’s future. But if we’re going to be a positive force in this digital revolution, we’ve got to step up and compete in a fast-moving national race.

As chairman of the board of Associated Builders and Contractors of Alabama, I have witnessed firsthand how data centers help drive strategic infrastructure projects in our local communities.

They can catalyze backbone infrastructure and support targeted transportation improvements tied to growth. We can pursue these opportunities while also addressing concerns.

We should also acknowledge a simple reality: Alabama isn’t yet counted among the nation’s largest, established data center clusters—places like Northern Virginia, Dallas, Chicago, Phoenix and Atlanta that are frequently cited as major hubs. These business opportunities have landed in other states, but they don’t have to.

We can grow this sector with discipline while protecting communities as we compete.

What’s driving this moment? Data center growth is being accelerated by cloud services and artificial intelligence. Already, in 2023 data centers accounted for roughly 4.4% of the nation’s electricity use.

U.S. Department of Energy projections suggest that figure could rise to between 6.7 and 12% by 2028. That growth has prompted debate about grid capacity and cost—but it also signals a once-in-a-generation opportunity for states prepared to plan wisely.

Data centers are becoming a new kind of utility. They provide essential capacity that businesses, hospitals, schools and public safety systems run on.

We’ve got to plan for these large computing loads and the infrastructure to support them. When that capacity is constrained, it affects everything from business continuity to emergency response. Alabama shouldn’t sit on the sidelines while other states build the backbone of the next economy.

That means leading responsibly. Alabama must approach growth with a commitment to consumer protection, reliable service and long-term resource planning that safeguards ratepayers and communities alike. Planned growth ensures that economic development doesn’t come at the expense of residents, but instead benefits them.

Thoughtful coordination with utilities can ensure expansion strengthens the grid without placing unintended burdens on its users. Clear, consistent standards and predictable permitting processes give companies the certainty they need to invest at scale.

Sustainability must be part of that framework. That’s why Alabama should set clear expectations that projects use water-efficient designs, prioritize non-potable water where available, and provide transparency around anticipated water use along with local contingency plans.

We’re already seeing success with liquid-to-chip cooling, a closed-loop system designed to reduce water use. Clear standards don’t hinder growth; they provide clarity that attracts responsible, long-term investment.

Many have worked hard to create a business-friendly climate in our state,and maintaining momentum requires strong corporate citizenship and local partnership.

We’re already seeing investment: Google reports more than $1 billion invested in Alabama since the Jackson County data center was built. That’s a real demonstration of confidence in our business climate. The company also reports that its Grow with Google program has helped skill more than 137,000 Alabama workers and job seekers through digital-skills training partnerships. Those efforts can expand as Alabama’s tech economy grows.

Those investments are part of a broader trend. The Alabama Department of Commerce reports tech-sector output has surged 50% since 2018 and is projected to reach 5.3% of Alabama GDP by 2030. These projects generate substantial tax revenues for schools, roads and public services.

For instance, Meta’s Montgomery expansion is projected to yield $224 million in state taxes and $382 million in payroll over 30 years, according to state economic development projections.

This growth supports real, meaningful jobs for Alabamians. Like past technological innovations, AI will change some jobs as it continues to develop, but it will also create new opportunities. Data center campuses offer permanent on-site roles in operations, security, facilities management and more—positions that can number in the dozens depending on facility size.

They also support a broader ecosystem of long-term contractor, maintenance, security, logistics and equipment-support work. Construction alone employs thousands of workers, and those construction jobs matter.

They translate directly into paychecks for Alabama craft professionals and demand for Alabama suppliers. In a state with a deep bench of nationally recognized contractors, we understand the importance of these opportunities.

Data centers can serve as a foundation of the modern technology economy and catalysts for Alabama’s economic success for decades to come. Let’s embrace the future, secure jobs, generate revenue, drive innovation and ensure that this responsible growth is beneficial for all Alabamians.

With the right framework, Alabama can continue attracting transformative investment while protecting the interests of its residents.

Alabamians should be at the forefront of writing our nation’s next chapter.

Ed Hauser is the board chairman of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Alabama and a senior vice president at Birmingham-based Brasfield & Gorrie. 

The Alabama Republican Party has one fundamental responsibility: to elect Republicans and protect the conservative majority that keeps our state strong, secure, and growing.

That responsibility requires more than campaign signs and slogans. It requires standards. It requires structure. And it requires the courage to enforce the rules fairly and consistently — even when doing so is unpopular.

Recently, there has been noise and misinformation surrounding the Party’s ballot access decisions. Some individuals who were denied access to run as Republicans are now publicly attacking the process itself. Let me be clear: these decisions were not personal, political, or arbitrary. They were made according to written rules adopted and affirmed by more than 400 members of the Alabama Republican Party State Executive Committee.

Those rules were not created overnight. They were debated, amended, and approved by elected representatives of Republican voters from every corner of our state.

Here is the simple truth:

If someone has recently voted in or run in another political party’s primary, or has funded or publicly supported another political party or its candidates, our rules say they cannot simply walk into a Republican primary and claim our label.

If someone loses a Republican primary and then runs against the Republican nominee in the same election cycle as a Democrat or Independent, our rules say they cannot later return and run as a Republican again.

And if someone wishes to switch parties, there is a clearly defined process to do so — but it must be completed before qualifying to run.

These are not complicated concepts. They are common-sense protections designed to preserve the integrity of our primary process and protect Republican voters.

It is also important for the public to understand who enforces these rules.

Members of the Alabama Republican Party’s State Executive Committee and County Executive Committees are elected by Republican primary voters every four years. These grassroots leaders — chosen directly by Republican voters — then elect the members of the Steering Committee to represent them and uphold the rules they themselves wrote and approved.

In other words, this process is not controlled by one person. It is governed by a representative body of Republicans that are elected by Republicans.

And just as there is a process to enforce our rules, there is also a process to amend them. Any member of the State Executive Committee may propose changes, and those proposals are debated and voted on by that same representative body. If someone believes the rules should be different, the proper course of action is to work through the established process — not to attack the integrity of the system when the rules are applied consistently.

Our Steering Committee carefully reviewed each ballot access case individually and consistently. While these decisions are never easy, they followed the process exactly as laid out in the Party’s rules. Those rules exist to protect Republican voters — not to protect political insiders or personal relationships.

I understand that emotions can run high when friends or allies are affected. But leadership requires upholding the standards of the Party even when it is uncomfortable.

The Alabama Republican Party does not exist to serve individual ambitions. It exists to serve Republican voters and to advance conservative principles.

The rules matter. Integrity matters. And protecting the Republican primary process matters.

That is the job. And we will continue to do it.

Joan Reynolds is the Acting Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party and founder of the Alabama Mighty Strike Force, one of the largest Republican grassroots canvassing organizations in the country. She currently serves as Chairman of the Shelby County GOP and previously served as Chairman of the Butler County GOP.

Barry Moore represents Alabama’s 1st Congressional District and is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2026. Scott Byrd serves as the Sheriff of Coffee County, Alabama. He’s been a law enforcement professional for more than two decades and was Rep. Moore’s guest to the 2026 State of the Union address. 

In Coffee County and across Alabama, we’ve seen firsthand what long hours and hard work looks like. Law enforcement isn’t a 9-to-5 job. It’s nights, weekends, holidays, and emergency calls that can’t wait.

That’s why we are proud to see President Donald Trump’s no federal tax on overtime policy now in effect — and already making a difference for the men and women who wear the badge.

At the Coffee County Sheriff’s Office, deputies routinely step up when duty calls. They respond to severe weather, drug activity, violent crime, and the everyday needs of a growing community.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a holiday, extra hours, or extra shifts. This dedication means time away from their families. They deserve to be compensated fairly for that sacrifice.

Now, thanks to President Trump’s no tax on overtime policy, they get to keep more of what they earn.

The policy is simple – if you work more, you take home more. 

For deputies in Coffee County, and across the nation, that means every extra shift is a chance to bring more income to their family. It’s not a new government program or another layer of bureaucracy. It’s common sense – rewarding work instead of taxing it.

This policy also helps with recruitment and retention. Law enforcement agencies across Alabama are constantly in need of qualified officers.

When deputies know their overtime pay won’t be diminished by federal taxes, it makes those extra shifts more worthwhile. President Trump’s policy strengthens our ability to keep experienced officers on the job and attract new ones who want to serve.

Backing the blue requires more than words. It requires action that supports the men, women and families behind the badge.

President Trump’s no tax on overtime does just that. It recognizes sacrifice, rewards hard work, and ensures that when our law enforcement officers put in the extra hours to protect our communities, they see a benefit at home, too.

President Trump continues to demonstrate his commitment to law enforcement and working Americans, as he highlighted in this week’s State of the Union Address. We proudly stand behind him.

Together, we are dedicated to ensuring that Alabama’s law enforcement officers are supported, valued, and able to keep more of what they earn while protecting the communities we call home.

When most people picture the Port, they see ships along the waterfront and cranes rising over the skyline in Mobile. What they may not see is the bigger picture: the Alabama Port Authority connects all 67 counties in our state to the world through a vast network of infrastructure and supply chain assets.

“Delivering for Alabama” is more than a tagline. It is our mission.

Alabama’s only deep-water seaport is not simply a coastal asset. It is a statewide economic engine. And this week, we rolled out some new changes to strengthen this reality.

For decades, the Port of Mobile has been recognized as one of Alabama’s most powerful economic drivers. It will always remain our flagship gateway to global trade. But the system we operate today extends far beyond the waterfront. Through rail corridors, inland waterways, interstate highways, airports, and intermodal facilities, Alabama’s port network supports communities and industries across the entire state.

As our reach has grown, it has become essential that we reflect that broader responsibility.

To some, a brand update may seem cosmetic. For us, it represents clarity — about who we are and who we serve. The Alabama Port Authority exists to drive economic growth, connect global commerce, and strengthen communities across this state. Our refreshed identity makes that mission unmistakable.

Anchored by a new “A” icon, the updated brand symbolizes Alabama itself — stewardship, unity, and a commitment to serve the entire state. It reinforces that our responsibility is not limited to one city or one region. It is shared by every community that depends on reliable infrastructure to compete and grow.

Modern economic development depends on connectivity. Companies invest where they can move goods efficiently. Communities prosper when they have dependable access to markets. States succeed when their logistics systems are integrated, resilient, and forward-looking.

To better communicate how Alabama’s port, rail, roadway, waterway, and air connections work together, we introduced Mobile America Express, or MAX. This service platform organizes our multimodal strengths into a unified system that connects the Gulf Coast to the heart of America.

MAX is not a new direction. It is a clearer expression of what already exists — a coordinated network that links the Port of Mobile to inland Alabama and beyond. It highlights how our infrastructure works together to create opportunity statewide.

That opportunity is tangible.

Farmers in the Black Belt rely on export access to compete in global markets. Manufacturers in North Alabama depend on efficient supply chains. Steel producers in Birmingham, timber operations in Southwest Alabama, and distribution centers in Central Alabama all benefit from reliable connections to customers across the country and around the world.

When Alabama businesses can reach global markets, they grow. When rural producers can export efficiently, local economies strengthen. When advanced manufacturers have dependable logistics, they expand here rather than elsewhere.

Our vision is to position Alabama as a leader in global commerce by building the most efficient, innovative, and sustainable port ecosystem in the nation. Achieving that vision requires continued investment in infrastructure — and clarity in how we present our unified system to the world.

The refreshed brand ensures that when people hear “Alabama Port Authority,” they understand it represents a statewide network working on behalf of every Alabamian.

Delivering for Alabama means delivering opportunity — from the Gulf Coast to the Tennessee Valley and everywhere in between. It means ensuring that no matter where you live, your community is connected to the global economy.

Doug Otto is the Director and CEO of Alabama Port Authority.

Americans across the country are preparing for tax season as W-2s make their way to everyone’s mailboxes. People often compare filling out their tax forms to learning a new language because of how stressful and confusing it can be.

However, this year, I’m proud to say that Alabamians will be bringing home more money than ever thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts — formerly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill.

From Marshall to Baldwin County, Alabamians in EVERY county will get to keep more of their hard-earned money this year.

We have finally done something about the affordability crisis Americans are facing rather than spewing talking points in the face of working-class Americans who are looking for answers.

On July 4, 2025, President Trump gave our nation’s birthday yet another reason to be celebrated when he signed into law the most historic tax cuts of my lifetime.

Thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts, the average American will see a $3,752 tax cut in 2026, combining to a total of $50 billion more in tax returns this year.

We not only prevented the largest tax hike in history, but we cemented into law CRITICAL pro-growth tax provisions that are already delivering for Alabamians.

For the first time in decades, forgotten Americans have been remembered. Blue-collar workers, who make our country go round, are finally getting the recognition they deserve. Nearly 50% of Alabamians will benefit from this bill — especially our seniors and service industry workers.

One of the provisions I’m most proud of is No Tax on Overtime, which I was proud to lead in the U.S. Senate. Thousands of Alabamians put in well over 40 hours a week so they can save for retirement, put their kids through college, and keep our state running. The idea that these extra hours would be punished in their tax filings is a disgrace to the American dream of hard work and achievement.

Thankfully, paying taxes on overtime is now a thing of the past. Removing taxes on overtime pay is also a huge win for our brave law enforcement officers who often serve long hours keeping us safe.

Now more than ever, we need to empower those who are putting themselves in harm’s way to protect our communities.

Police, construction workers, truck drivers, first responders, and many more will see the fruit of their labor in a new way come April. It is past time that their hard-earned time and money should be felt in their wallets.

No Tax on Tips is another example of keeping hard-earned money in taxpayers’ accounts instead of giving our bloated government more money to waste.

We expect the best hospitality and service from many workers who are in customer-oriented roles. When customers tip them, we have been falsely led to believe the whole amount will be kept by the employee we are gifting a tip to. I’d like to think giving a tip would mean something to the worker — a tangible expression of gratitude from their customer.

Unfortunately, those tips have been taxed, and those workers haven’t been rewarded the whole amount they are given. The Fed has long been scamming the service industry, but not anymore.

Now, regularly tipped workers can claim up to $25,000 for deductions. This is huge win for the people who we trust to meet the everyday needs so many of us take for granted.

Nearly 143,000 Alabamians received Social Security checks in 2024. Seniors work the majority of their adult lives so that they can retire comfortably.

But, since the 80s, the government has been double taxing these benefits. We spend our entire adult lives paying taxes on the income we earn during of our careers, and up until now, retirees have been taxed AGAIN on their Social Security benefits.

Not only do these historical tax cuts end that practice, but my bill, the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act, would do so too. Our seniors shouldn’t have to get to the end of their careers and then get hit with yet another tax. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership with the Working Families Tax Cuts, we are finally putting American taxpayers FIRST.

The No Tax on Social Security provision is a rare and welcome victory for adults 65 and older who should rightfully reap the reward of their years of labor.

The great Charlie Kirk famously charged Americans to, “get married and have kids,” any chance he could. America is staring a population decline dead in the face as a result of the affordability crisis that has gone unaddressed for TOO LONG. Too many people tell me they feel that their work is for nothing.

Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of how we’ve used our own government to destroy the American Dream. It is the least we can do to honor Charlie’s legacy by making the American Dream within reach to anyone who wants it.

The Working Families Tax Cuts gives Americans the chance to take their lives back into their own hands and feel like their work is NOT in vain.

Whether it is through Trump Accounts, empowering small businesses by job creation and tax deduction, direct tax-free K-12 education scholarships, ridding fraud from the health care system, defunding large abortion providers, empowering law enforcement and securing our border, or eliminating costly regulations on automakers and farmers, EVERY working family will have new avenues to SAVE their money and THRIVE.

Tax season should be a stepping stool into helping Alabama’s working families plan their future, and these tax cuts will do just that.

U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees. He is also a candidate for Governor of Alabama in 2026.

Alabama families understand something that too many in Washington refuse to admit – if we don’t have secure elections, we don’t have a secure Republic.

This is why the SAVE America Act is so urgently needed, and why it builds on the commonsense principles in the SAVE Act.

The SAVE Act focused on the straightforward, foundational truth that only American citizens should vote in American elections. It requires proof of citizenship to register and directs states to clean up voter rolls. That’s not controversial here in Alabama, it’s common sense. Voting in U.S. elections is a sacred right. It should only belong to U.S. citizens.

The SAVE America Act takes that same principle and strengthens it. Under the Biden Administration, millions of illegal aliens crossed our southern border, and many blue states issued driver’s licenses and other government benefits to those illegals. This created loopholes that we cannot afford to have in our electoral system. The SAVE America Act closes those loopholes. It ensures federal agencies are working with states to verify citizenship, strengthens safeguards against improper registration, and restores confidence that our elections are conducted lawfully.

Democrats in Washington act like asking for proof of citizenship is extreme – it isn’t. We all need identification to board a plane, open a bank account, or even buy certain medications. Requiring proof of citizenship to vote in a federal election is the bare minimum we should expect.

American citizens deserve to know that their vote won’t be diluted or canceled out by someone who is here illegally. The SAVE America Act affirms that our elections are for Americans alone. It protects the integrity of our ballot box just as the SAVE Act sought to do, with even stronger enforcement and clearer accountability.

At the end of the day, this legislation has nothing to do with politics. It’s about preserving trust in our system of government. Without trust in our elections, everything else unravels.

The SAVE America Act protects the voice of every lawful voter and defends the foundation of our constitutional Republic.

The House has done its job and passed both pieces of legislation to secure our elections, now the Senate must act and pass the SAVE America Act.

What looked like an interesting and competitive U.S. Senate race in Alabama, changed January 18, almost exactly four months ahead of our May 19 Republican Primary election.

President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Congressman Barry Moore, coupled with the expected endorsement of Moore by the powerful and money laden “Club for Growth,” makes the Wiregrass Congressman the prohibitive favorite in this open Senate Seat race.

Moore, as a State Legislator, was one of the first public officials to endorse newly minted Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Moore, along with Senator Jeff Sessions, spoke on behalf of Trump at a campaign rally in Mobile in August of 2015. Trump was getting significant media attention but was still considered a longshot. That was 10 years ago, during that decade Moore has continued his stalwart, steady support for President Trump and his conservative agenda.

Ironically, the seat Moore is now seeking, is the seat formerly held by Jeff Sessions. Senator Sessions served 20 years in that seat and was consistently recognized as the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate. Moore will more than likely replicate that conservative mantra and label as Alabama’s junior Senator. He has an impeccable ultra conservative voting record during his six-year tenure in the U.S. House.

Barry Moore was born and raised in Coffee County, the same county as our Senior Senator Katie Britt. In fact, both grew up in Enterprise, and both graduated from Enterprise High School. Therefore, if Moore is elected, both of Alabama’s U.S. Senators will hail from the same hometown, Enterprise, which is a historic first. Although Moore will be our junior Senator, he is 15 years Katie Britt’s senior in age. Moore is 59. Katie is 44.

Moore was first elected to the Alabama House of Representatives in 2010 and was in the Alabama House for eight years through 2018. He had an unremarkable tenure. He, as always, had a consistent, right-wing voting record when he attended. He was a close ally of former speaker Mike Hubbard.

Moore was elected to the U.S. Congress from the old Second District in 2020. He beat a favored, well-heeled Dothan businessman, probably because his opponent was perceived as a rich “country clubber” with an air of privilege. Moore came across as a regular farm born, Wiregrass, “aw-shucks,” plain spoken, true Trump conservative, good ole boy, and won an upset victory. Moore won an easy reelection victory in 2022.

In 2023, a federal court redrew Alabama’s congressional map to create a new Democratic minority district. This federal gerrymandering moved the white Republican voters in the Wiregrass into the same district with the First District, Baldwin/Mobile Republicans.

Moore became pitted against First District Republican, Jerry Carl. Moore, with the help of the “Club for Growth,” upset Carl. This Moore/Club for Growth coalition revealed how powerful and sophisticated a machine the national Club for Growth has become.

The Club for Growth has become the most powerful force in Republican Senatorial and Congressional races in Republican states in America. They are a quiet, dark money, Right Wing organization made up of the multimillionaire/billionaire contributors. They want very restrained government spending, and back very conservative-proven candidates, who have conservative credentials.

At one time, when the “Club” was becoming established as the behemoth in Republican politics, they and Trump were at odds on some races. However, they seemed to coalesce into one solidly aligned team last year, with the passage of the Trump proposed, One Big Beautiful Bill. The Club brought their congressmen, most of whom belong to the right-wing Freedom Caucus, into the fold, probably because the Daddy Warbucks Club for Growth rich guys were given a significant tax cut in the Bill.

President Donald Trump and the Club for Growth seem to be on the same team. This coalition marriage tandem of Donald Trump and Club for Growth will be difficult to overcome in any Republican State Republican Primary, especially in the Heart of Dixie.

My prediction is that with the Donald Trump and Club for Growth seal of approval, Barry Moore will be Alabama’s next junior U.S. Senator.

We will soon see.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at steve@steveflowers.us.

As a physician, my calling has always been to care for people whose lives and bodies are entrusted to me. As a Christian, my faith and personal relationship with Jesus teaches me that responsibility does not end when a person is inconvenient, unpopular, or out of sight.

Scripture is clear on this point: Hebrews 13:3 instructs us to “continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.” That is a clear and unwavering moral command, and as a State Senator, I take it seriously. When the State takes custody of a human being, it assumes a serious moral and legal responsibility.

Alabama’s prisons operate in our name. They are funded by taxpayers, governed by state authority, and entrusted with the lives of both incarcerated people and the officers who serve inside them. That reality demands more than good intentions. It requires clear lines of oversight, independent review, and the ability to identify and correct systemic failures before they become crises.

As Scripture tells us, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked (Luke 12:48).” The State is given much power by us, the taxpayer – it is high time we demand accountability in return.

For too long, oversight of our corrections system has been fragmented, informal, or housed too close to the very institutions it is meant to examine. That is not a criticism of individual employees; it is a recognition of a structural weakness. No system functions well when it is asked to police itself. Conservative governance has always understood this. Accountability protects institutions. It does not undermine them.

The legislation that I introduced, AL Senate Bill 316, is now under consideration in the State Senate. It takes a practical, measured step toward addressing this gap. If enacted, it would formalize and strengthen the existing oversight role within the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, expand its capacity, and give it clear authority to inspect facilities, review conditions of confinement, assess staffing and safety, and report findings publicly.

It would create a Corrections Oversight Board to ensure transparency and public input. It would move criminal investigations out of the Department of Corrections and into the State Bureau of Investigation, where independence is essential to credibility. And it would restore the use of special prosecutors in jurisdictions with major prison facilities to ensure cases originating inside prisons receive proper attention.

None of this is radical. It is orderly, sensible, conservative, and – most importantly – it reflects an understanding that oversight is about prevention, not just punishment.

As a doctor, I know that untreated problems rarely resolve themselves. Instead, they get worse. In correctional settings, the consequences of neglect show up in many forms: unsafe housing conditions, staffing shortages, failures in medical care, breakdowns in discipline, and preventable harm to both inmates and officers. Even basic issues, such as whether food is prepared safely or facilities are properly maintained, become indicators of whether a system is functioning as it should. These are not isolated complaints; they are signals of whether governance is working.

My faith does not allow me to ignore these signals. It asks me instead to take responsibility for the conditions created under our authority.

These demands for reform are also a matter of respect for correctional officers. Men and women who work in our prisons deserve safe workplaces, adequate staffing, and systems that respond when problems arise. Independent oversight protects them as much as anyone else. When failures are hidden or ignored, the burden falls first on those who show up every day to do demanding work under difficult circumstances.

Strong oversight also protects taxpayers. Alabama has paid a steep price in litigation, federal scrutiny, and emergency interventions when problems were allowed to fester. Transparent inspection, public reporting, and clear investigative authority are far less costly than crisis management after the fact.

Faith, good governance, and common sense point in the same direction. Power must be matched with responsibility, authority must be checked by accountability, and state institutions entrusted with human lives must be willing to be examined honestly.

This legislation does not solve every challenge facing Alabama’s prison system. But it establishes the structure needed to address those challenges responsibly. It strengthens oversight without weakening security. It formalizes roles that already exist while ensuring independence. And it signals that Alabama takes its responsibilities seriously.

Remembering those in prison does not mean lowering standards; it means upholding them. As Alabamians, as taxpayers, and as Christians, we should expect no less from the systems that operate in our name.

Larry Stutts is the Republican State Senator of District 6 in Alabama.

One of the most effective ways to improve public safety is to prevent crime from happening again.

At the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, that work begins with supervision and continues with substance abuse treatment, mental health services and job training.

These programs operate statewide, from our Day Reporting Centers to the 90-day residential Perry County PREP Center. And the goal is straightforward. We equip people leaving prison – or on probation – with the skills and support they need to succeed.

The PREP Center has quickly become a model for reentry success. Since opening in 2022, about 500 graduates have completed the program, and fewer than 1 percent have returned to prison. Alabama’s overall recidivism rate stands close to 30 percent, but we are trending lower every year as programming expands and partnerships grow stronger.

Employment proves to be one of the strongest predictors of long-term success after release. When individuals have stable work, they are far less likely to offend.

Every day, I witness people who once made poor choices now holding steady jobs, supporting their families and contributing positively to their communities.

Their transformation is not just a testament to personal responsibility and growth, but it emboldens the fact that good-paying jobs are key to keeping former felons out of prison. That is why job training has become a cornerstone of the Bureau’s reentry strategy. We focus on preparing individuals for high-demand, skilled careers that meet real workforce needs across Alabama.

The jobs we target strengthen Alabama’s workforce and support the state’s economy. Not only that, but these roles come with great benefits and offer good guideposts for those navigating life after prison.

Through partnerships with utility companies, leading high-tech manufacturers, agribusiness and other employers, our team has successfully placed program graduates in careers that move the needle.

Reentry program graduates are providing essential services, driving development, bolstering supply lines and upgrading infrastructure across the state. Soon, many graduates will be working to support the United States’ national defense industries and programs.

This recent development is one of the most promising opportunities ahead for the Bureau and those we serve. It stems from a partnership forged between the Bureau, the Alabama Community College System, Ingram State Technical College, the Alabama Department of Workforce and the Alabama Department of Commerce to prepare individuals for a variety of jobs that support the U.S. Navy’s effort to expand its fleet of submarines, ships and other marine defense vessels.

Thanks to funding from the Alabama Legislature, the Bureau will soon open a welding bay at the Perry County PREP Center. Modeled after welding sites used by Austal and other leading Alabama manufacturers, this training space will help prepare PREP graduates for real-world job conditions.

Their familiarity with layouts, tools and machines used on the Gulf Coast will enable them to be assets to these operators from their first day on the job.

If someone rebuilding their life can help build the ships and submarines that protect our freedom, then we are succeeding in the Bureau’s reentry mission. Progress like this is only possible through strong partnerships, and we are grateful to fellow state agencies like the Alabama Community College System, Ingram State Technical College, Alabama Department of Workforce, the Alabama Department of Commerce, the Alabama Department of Mental Health and many others.

However, the private sector’s willingness to work with us and tap into this growing network of highly trained, highly skilled individuals has been a true gamechanger.

Public safety remains the Bureau’s mission; and that goes hand-in-hand with successful reentry as one of the most important steps to building a safer Alabama. By continuing to invest in proven programs and partnerships, we will continue to see significant strides in enhancing reentry and reducing recidivism in our state.

I’ve known Derek Chen for more than a decade, and I can say without question that he’s one of the truest American patriots I’ve ever met. Back when we were both students at Hope College, a small conservative Christian college in West Michigan, Derek stood out as a real leader.

He was one of the youngest students on campus, but everyone from professors to business leaders to state politicians knew who he was. Derek was president of the Hope College Republicans and a respected conservative voice across Michigan. I worked right beside him as a fellow member and leader in that group, and also as his vice president in our fraternity at Hope College. Even then, Derek led with strength, faith, and conviction.

What impressed me most was Derek’s courage and loyalty when times got tough. In the dead of Michigan winter in 2015, during the early stages of the Trump campaign, I watched Derek walk through waist-high snow to knock on doors and put out yard signs for then-candidate Donald J. Trump.

He believed in the message of putting America First and wasn’t afraid to stand up for it. Derek got straight to work. When he wasn’t walking through the snow, he was driving his Ford F-150 around the state, rallying conservatives and building support for President Trump.

I’ve seen that same drive in every part of Derek’s life. He works hard, he’s genuine, and he always keeps his word. I know this because I’ve lived my own life by those same values. After college, I had the honor of representing our country as a member of the U.S. National Handball Team, training with Team USA at Auburn University (War Eagle!).

Today, I am a constitutional and federal attorney. I’ve spent my career defending the rights that make this nation strong. My younger brother now serves our nation as a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. My family believes deeply in faith, freedom, and service…and so does Derek.

Derek Chen has been a Trump supporter since day one of his campaign in 2015 and he remains loyal to the America First movement today. Over the years, he’s grown into an experienced,wise, and respected leader. Derek understands what it means to work for the people (not the politicians) and he’s exactly the kind of man Alabama needs as its next State Auditor. He’ll protect your tax dollars, fight for transparency, and make sure every penny is accounted for.

Derek Chen isn’t just smart and experienced; he’s someone who truly loves this country and his state of Alabama. I saw it when he was a student, and I see it now. Alabama deserves a leader like Derek: a man of faith, loyalty, and courage who will always put Alabama and America first.

Joe Williams is a constitutional attorney and former member of the U.S. National Handball Team, where he trained with Team USA at Auburn University. A graduate of Hope College, Williams has been active in conservative leadership and advocacy for more than a decade.

High school sports is experiencing record participation. It is also experiencing unprecedented pressure.

Across the country, young athletes are training earlier, competing year-round and navigating expectations shaped by a rapidly expanding youth sports economy. For many families, athletics now feel like increasingly high stakes.

High school sports operate differently — by design. They exist within schools, alongside classrooms, guided by the same educational mission. Participation is structured to support academic success and to teach intangibles like discipline, teamwork, resilience and responsibility. Rules around eligibility, seasons and competition are not barriers to ambition; they are safeguards for students.

As expectations around winning and advancement continue to rise, we at the AHSAA believe it is worth reaffirming the role that high school athletics play in education — and why that purpose matters.

Every high school athlete is a student first, and we see high school sports as a vital extension of the classroom. In “the last class of the day,” student-athletes develop character and integrity and learn life lessons they will carry with them long after their playing days are over.

Today’s high school student-athletes will be tomorrow’s leaders. So, while the goal of playing high school sports is to win, the true purpose is much greater — for students to learn and grow as people.

How? By keeping high school sports educational, competitively balanced and accessible for all students. Why? To ensure high school sports develop the whole person, not just the athlete.

Last summer, the New York Times published an article stating youth sports is now a $40 billion industry. Private lessons, club sports, travel teams and elite competitions are costly and wildly popular.

For many student-athletes, their sports experience is focused on becoming an elite athlete and landing a college scholarship.

But according to the NCAA, of the 8.2 million high school student-athletes in the U.S. (an all-time record), only 7% go on to play in college, and only 2% earn any type of scholarship.

Further, data from College Board’s “Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2025” report shows that the total published cost of attendance (tuition, fees, room and board) at four-year colleges now averages roughly $31,000 per year in-state and more than $50,000 per year out-of-state — underscoring why families feel intense pressure to secure athletic scholarships.

That’s why the purpose of high school sports must be so much more than winning, earning trophies or advancing to the next level.

Only a select few go on to play in college and even fewer get scholarships. But nearly all student-athletes benefit from participating in high school sports. They experience personal growth. They learn leadership skills. They build community and more. When athletics are education-based, students’ long-term development and well-being remain the top priority above all else.

With the guiding principle of students first, the NFHS and state high school associations like the AHSAA are committed to preserving the integrity, opportunity and educational alignment of high school sports for all student-athletes.

The purpose of high school sports—helping students learn and grow as people—is what we are here to protect and preserve for generations to come. And it is our honor to do so.

Heath Harmon serves as Executive Director of the Alabama High School Athletic Association. Dr. Karissa Niehoff is the Chief Executive Officer of the NFHS. Visit ProtectThePurpose.com to learn more.

Lynyrd Skynyrd expressed the mood of much of the country when it questioned the relevance of Watergate and the feigned outrage surrounding a third‑rate burglary that captured the nation’s attention.

More than half a century later- 54 years after the break‑in and 52 years after the release of Sweet Home Alabama – Watergate has become civic shorthand for presidential corruption. The burglary at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover‑up are treated as the original sin of modern American politics. Richard Nixon remains the only president to resign, and his legacy has been cabined into this single episode.

But history is rarely that tidy.

Measured not by symbolism but by consequence and moral weight, Nixon’s misconduct pales beside the actions of Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. It is not that Nixon was innocent or his actions justified, but that the American political memory is selective. Moral outrage is often relative. Far more consequential abuses of power have been normalized, excused, or even celebrated when carried out by presidents who were more charismatic or more popular.

If Watergate did not trouble disc jockeys in 1974, perhaps their collective conscience was simply focused elsewhere.

No war started or was prolonged because of Watergate. No ethnic group was imprisoned en masse. No constitutional order was permanently altered. Millions of lives were not placed at risk. Its victims – the integrity of an election, the rule of law, and public trust – were real and serious, but abstract when compared with the human costs of decisions made by other presidents who remain lionized.

Nixon’s greatest sin was secrecy paired with an inflated sense of presidential prerogative. His downfall came not because he was uniquely immoral, but because he was uniquely caught, and largely for actions other presidents had undertaken routinely, but more discreetly.

Franklin D. Roosevelt guided the nation through the Great Depression and World War II, expanded the federal government, and permanently reshaped the relationship between citizen and state.

He also presided over one of the most sweeping violations of civil liberties in American history.
Roosevelt authorized the forced relocation and incarceration of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans (two‑thirds of whom were U.S. citizens), without charges, trials, or evidence of disloyalty. Families lost homes, businesses, and dignity. No comparable act of collective punishment occurred under Nixon.

Following a series of adverse rulings, Roosevelt attempted to pack the Supreme Court by appointing justices who shared his ideological bent, an overt assault on judicial independence that would have permanently altered constitutional checks and balances.

These actions were deliberate, public, and widely defended at the time. History remembers Roosevelt kindly not because his actions were morally cleaner than Nixon’s, but because his outcomes were popular and his narrative victorious.

John F. Kennedy inherited the Cold War and came perilously close to ending the world, yet his presidency has been embalmed in romance and defined by words like Camelot, youth, and idealism. Beneath the glow, however, lay a recklessness that makes Nixon appear almost restrained.

The Bay of Pigs invasion was an ill‑conceived covert operation that humiliated the United States and strengthened Fidel Castro. The Cuban Missile Crisis was precipitated in part by earlier American provocations, including secret missile deployments in Turkey, belligerent military leadership, and repeated assassination attempts authorized by the Kennedy administration.

And Vietnam?

Kennedy expanded U.S. involvement there, laying the groundwork for the war that would consume Johnson’s presidency. His assassination spared him the accountability toward which his policies were careening.

On a personal level, Kennedy’s serial infidelities posed genuine national security risks. That Nixon’s taped profanity is considered more troubling than a president seducing staffers inside the White House reveals a peculiar moral calculus. Kennedy’s greatest protection was not innocence, but charm. History forgives what it finds attractive.

If Nixon resigned over a burglary, Lyndon Johnson presided over a deception whose consequences still haunt the nation.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which Johnson used to secure congressional authorization for massive escalation in Vietnam, was at best exaggerated and, at worst, fabricated. Johnson and his advisers knew the evidence was questionable. They proceeded anyway.

The result was a war that claimed more than 58,000 American lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian civilians. The public was systematically misled about the war’s progress, purpose, and prospects. Internal documents later revealed that Johnson privately doubted the war could be won even as he publicly insisted on escalation.

This was not a cover‑up to defeat political enemies. It was a cover‑up to sustain a war and satisfy a president’s ego.

Why does one crime dominate our moral imagination while the other is treated as tragic but understandable?

Nixon’s true offense was violating elite norms without elite permission. He distrusted institutions, despised the press, and treated politics as a blood sport. When he broke the rules, he did so clumsily and visibly, without a sympathetic national press to shield him.

Roosevelt broke norms and rewrote institutions with confidence and congressional backing. Kennedy broke rules privately while projecting virtue publicly. Johnson, who had his own internal taping system, bulldozed norms with political muscle.

Watergate is comforting because it reassures us that the system works: a bad man is exposed, accountability follows, and democracy is cleansed. The broader abuses of American power, such as wars of choice, mass surveillance, racialized policy, and executive malfeasance, are harder to confront because they implicate not just one man, but an entire political culture.

Watergate was a scandal about process, not suffering. About power games, not mass harm. About lies told to protect a presidency, not lies told to justify death on an industrial scale.

Internment camps, body counts, rape, and wars sold under false pretenses should trouble us more. The issue is not Nixon; it is what we are taught to notice.

For Presidents Day, we deserve an honest reckoning with the presidents we excuse and what our selective conscience reveals about our values and moral judgment of our leaders.

Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com.