Capitalism is the purest expression of human liberty. It rewards individuals for creating value, not through coercion or control, but through voluntary exchange. In a capitalist system, people are free to choose their work, pursue their passions, build businesses, and chart their own path in life. That freedom to choose, to rise or fall based on merit and effort, is the most authentic form of liberty. Socialism, by contrast, has failed everywhere it has been tried. The foundational ideas Karl Marx proposed, such as the abolition of private property, collective ownership of the means of production, production for use rather than profit, and the eventual disappearance of the state, are not just impractical, they are delusional. These ideas have led to authoritarian regimes, economic collapse, and the deaths of tens of millions of people under systems that promised equality but delivered oppression, poverty, and violence. What people need is not a government that controls the economy, but a government that protects the rights of citizens to keep what they’ve earned. Capitalism, as the economic engine of the United States, has unleashed more prosperity, innovation, and human advancement than any system in history. It has powered the American spirit and elevated the standard of living for millions. Capitalism is not only a system of economic freedom, it is the precondition for prosperity itself. In a truly free market, you can’t make money by serving yourself, you can only succeed by doing something for others. Every dollar earned in a free market represents a trade in which someone else saw more value in what you offered than in the money they spent. Profit is not a dirty word, it is proof that value was created. The further we drift from these principles, the more we lose sight of what makes America extraordinary. Capitalism is not perfect, but it remains the greatest engine of human progress ever conceived and the most moral because it is based on freedom, choice, and mutual benefit.

We do not generally believe that the state should engage in execution as a form of punishment. We recognize that our legal system is not infallible and can lead to false conviction. Programs such as the Innocence Project have exposed the potential for wrongful conviction by using advancements in technology to exonerate prisoners previously sentenced to death. We believe that the executing a person is inconsistent with our Constitutional values prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment and commitment to human rights. Our justice system should not only reflect strength, but also wisdom and restraint. While serious crimes must be met with serious consequences, we seek a justice system grounded in the principle that true strength is found in upholding life. We support punishments that protect the public and uphold accountability, while embodying the higher values that define a just and civil society. Moreover, the U.S. is increasingly isolated on this issue, only a shrinking number of countries still carry out capital punishment, among them China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Yemen. In contrast, nearly every member of the European Union, with the exception of Belarus, has abolished the death penalty in all circumstances. Bearing this in mind highlights that choosing to abolish execution would bring the United States into alignment with the majority of democratic nations who regard such irreversible punishment as inconsistent with modern norms of justice.

We believe environmental stewardship is a core conservative value, one rooted in foresight and protecting our nation for future generations. We believe the scientific evidence demonstrates that human activity is contributing to the accelerated pace of rising global temperatures and welcome thoughtful debate on the scope, strategy, and economics of addressing the problem. We support a practical, innovation-driven approach. As just 5% of the world’s population, the United States cannot go it alone. We must lead global initiatives and embed environmental priorities into our foreign policy, including through strategic treaties and trade agreements that level the playing field for American companies and workers. We also believe energy independence is a national security imperative and advancing clean energy renewables, nuclear power, fusion energy, and carbon capture technologies strengthens our position in a changing world. We acknowledge the environmental impacts of nuclear waste and battery production and call for continued innovation to solve these challenges responsibly. We embrace an all-of-the-above energy strategy that prioritizes clean air, strong economic growth, and American leadership in the global transition to sustainable energy.

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, an approach that comes with immense social and economic costs. We believe it is time to reexamine and modernize our justice system to reflect both fairness and effectiveness. This includes reforming mandatory minimum sentencing, reassessing penalties for non-violent offenses, and expanding access to drug treatment and mental health services. We support smart policing practices that build community trust, modernized criminal record systems that allow for rehabilitation and reintegration, and data-driven approaches to reduce recidivism. Justice should be tough, but also focused on outcomes that strengthen society, restore dignity, and increase public safety.

We believe education is one of the most vital long-term investments a nation can make in its people, economy, and future. We are committed to ensuring every American has access to a high-quality education, one that prepares students not just for jobs, but for citizenship, leadership, and innovation. We believe the rising costs of both K–12 and higher education demand bold, practical reforms. From student debt to outdated public school funding formulas, we support targeting inefficiencies and encouraging innovation in how education is delivered and financed. We are not afraid to rethink the traditional public-school model. We support school choice, charter schools, and other alternative educational pathways that empower families to choose the best environment for their children, regardless of zip code. We also believe that civics, financial literacy, and workforce development should be core components of modern education. Preparing students to succeed in a rapidly evolving world, including through vocational and technical training is essential for maintaining American competitiveness and opportunity.

Federal legislation supporting equal pay is already in place through the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws require that men and women receive equal pay for equal work within the same workplace and prohibit discrimination in hiring, promotion, and termination on the basis of sex. We believe this legal framework appropriately addresses the issue. While commonly cited statistics suggest that women earn approximately 74% of what men earn, this figure can be misleading if not fully contextualized. When factors such as hours worked, occupational choices, and seniority are considered, the wage gap narrows significantly. We strongly affirm that women’s success is essential to America’s success. Women have made tremendous progress across multiple sectors and are now earning the majority of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that many women choose to take on primary caregiving roles, particularly in raising children, choices that may impact career trajectories. These decisions deserve recognition and respect. However, we believe that workplace policies should remain focused on fairness and merit, rather than attempting to equalize outcomes through generalized adjustments that may not reflect individual choices or contributions.

We support the overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicating that life on earth changes over time. We do not believe that the theory of divine creation, or any other such religious doctrine, has an appropriate place in public school curriculums.

We believe that equal rights under the law must apply to all Americans. Granting gay Americans the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by others, such as the right to marry, serve openly in the military, adopt children, and live free from discrimination, does not weaken our society, it strengthens it. Supporting these rights is not only the principled and constitutional thing to do, it’s a reflection of our commitment to liberty, dignity, and personal freedom. A free society thrives when all its citizens are empowered to contribute without fear or exclusion.

We strongly support the Second Amendment and affirm the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, while at the same time acknowledging that Second Amendment rights are not absolute and do not provide an unrestricted right to possess any weapon. The right to own firearms is a pillar of American liberty that serves legitimate and vital purposes including self-defense, hunting, and recreation. It also continues to serve as a final safeguard against excessive government power. History shows that oppressive regimes from Nazi Germany to modern-day dictatorships often begin by disarming their populations to eliminate resistance. The United States already has a robust legal framework regulating firearms, grounded in both legislation and constitutional law. Key federal laws include the National Firearms Act (1934), which restricts automatic weapons and certain high-powered firearms; the Gun Control Act (1968), which established licensing and prohibited certain individuals from gun ownership; and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), which created federal background checks for firearm purchases from licensed dealers. The Supreme Court has also played a critical role in shaping the boundaries of gun rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court affirmed an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The United States is a nation of laws formed through the will of our people. Those laws must guide our approach to immigration. We do not support unfettered immigration that violates U.S. law. There is no sovereign nation in the world where individuals may unilaterally enter and remain without express permission from the government. If a U.S. citizen were found to be in violation of another country’s immigration laws, common sense dictates that they would be required to leave. The same standard of law and fairness should apply to foreign citizens within the United States. Additionally, the length of time an individual has violated US immigration law should not increase their claim to U.S. citizenship. We honor America’s heritage as a nation of immigrants and feel sympathy for those seeking a better life, but our policies must balance compassion with fairness to the American people. Demand to live in the U.S. far exceeds the number of immigration slots permitted by law and it is unfair to those who follow legal processes to allow others to bypass the line. We believe border security is a core responsibility of the federal government and that physical barriers to entry should be maintained and enhanced with modern detection and enforcement technologies. We support policies such as Remain in Mexico, which require asylum seekers to remain in neighboring countries while their claims are processed. This reduces incentives and encourages cooperation with regional governments to address migration in a coordinated fashion.

The rise of 24-hour commercial media driven by openly partisan networks has created a profound shift in American culture and one with serious consequences for our democracy. For the first time in our history, entire media ecosystems are built to profit from polarization, thriving on exaggeration, outrage, and one-sided storytelling that deepens division rather than informs debate. We believe it is time to confront this trend. A healthy democracy requires a well-informed public, and that depends on a media landscape that values accuracy, balance, and integrity over clicks and ratings. We support efforts to raise public awareness about media bias and encourage a return to objective journalism where facts matter more than spin, and truth takes precedence over tribalism. We also believe it is essential for citizens to diversify their information diet, seeking insight not only from television and internet, but from newspapers, periodicals, books, think tanks, and documentaries. A broader perspective makes for a more informed electorate. In addition, the spread of misinformation on social media, some by foreign adversaries, has fueled conspiracy theories and distorted worldviews, creating echo chambers that disconnect individuals from reality and from one another. We support greater media literacy and responsible engagement to help citizens navigate these platforms thoughtfully. A stronger, more united America starts with a more honest conversation. That begins by holding our media, and ourselves, to a higher standard.

We stand firmly in support of the men and women of law enforcement. As true public servants, police officers run toward danger while others run away. They are the first people we call in moments of crisis and are the everyday heroes who keep our communities safe. No profession is immune from bad actors, just as there are flawed doctors, lawyers, and teachers, there are also bad police officers, however, we proudly acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of police officers serve with professionalism, courage, and integrity. We reject calls to defund the police, such proposals undermine public safety and demoralize those who put their lives on the line daily. The communities most in need of police officers do not want to reduce them. Instead, we support continued investments in policing that promote transparency and accountability, such as the widespread use of body cameras and heightened training standards. Police departments across the country have embraced these changes and demonstrated a genuine commitment to continual improvement. We believe that police officers, as public servants, remain accountable to the communities they serve. No life should ever be unjustly lost in the course of law enforcement, so we support expanded use of non-lethal armaments and de-escalation tactics. We caution against political narratives that distort the broader reality of policing in America. Less than 100 unarmed Americans are fatally shot by police each year among a population of over 340 million, facts that deserve more honest discussion and reflection. We support community policing models, data-driven strategies to reduce crime and recidivism, and the teaching of respectful, constitutionally grounded interactions with law enforcement. Building a safer, more just society requires both trust in law enforcement and the shared responsibility of every citizen to uphold the law and respect those who enforce it.

We believe privacy is a foundational element of personal liberty and human dignity. The ability to think, create, explore, and dissent without scrutiny is essential to being a free person. The private realm is where individuals cultivate identity, form beliefs, and live without fear of judgment or interference. We are equally committed to transparency and accountability in government, especially when it comes to intelligence and surveillance. History offers sobering reminders of the dangers that arise when government is allowed to operate in secrecy without sufficient oversight. The unchecked expansion of surveillance powers, however well-intentioned, threatens the very liberties it claims to protect. That is why we support stronger legislative and judicial oversight of clandestine intelligence activities. National security is critical, but it must always be balanced against constitutional rights and public accountability. We believe our intelligence agencies must operate in a way that respects civil liberties and reflects the informed consent of a free people. We believe privacy must extend fully into the digital realm, where vast amounts of personal data are generated, tracked, and stored, often without clear consent or accountability. In a world where algorithms and platforms increasingly mediate our lives, digital privacy is no less essential than physical privacy. We also believe it is time for a national conversation about the scope and limits of surveillance, as we now live in a near constant state of observation, not only by government, but also by private corporations and fellow citizens. The line between public safety and personal intrusion is becoming dangerously blurred. A society that values freedom must never forget that privacy is a condition of it.

We believe in the dignity, worth, and full potential of every American, regardless of race. We are proud of our country’s progress and remain committed to the ongoing work of building a nation where liberty and opportunity are available to all. While racism still exists and must always be opposed, we reject cultural narratives that claim systemic racism as a defining feature of American life today. These narratives are often shaped by institutions and individuals who profit from division and grievance, rather than unity and progress. We believe the United States today is a diverse, multi-ethnic society where the vast majority of Americans live, work, and relate to each other in peace. Our Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens, and we believe those protections are real and meaningful. The racial progress made in this country is undeniable. Minorities today occupy leadership roles in every industry, hold elected office, and are achieving at the highest levels of education and income. That success is proof that the American Dream is real and open to all. We reject the idea that America has not sufficiently addressed its past. The legacy of slavery and racial injustice has been widely discussed and acknowledged through public education, national memorials, legislation, and decades of dialogue. Our national story is not one of oppression, it is one of overcoming. It is time to move forward, together. We want to help struggling Americans not because of their race, but because they are our fellow citizens. We are committed to expanding opportunity, breaking cycles of poverty, and encouraging self-reliance. The path to success involves hard work, perseverance, accountability, education, and character. These values apply to everyone.

We believe that women’s reproductive rights are fundamental rights requiring constitutional protection. We are committed to protecting these rights, advancing access to contraception and maternal health care, and ensuring that Americans can make these deeply personal decisions in consultation with their families, their doctors, and their conscience, not under threat of government intervention. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned the long-standing precedent in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which recognized a woman’s right to make decisions regarding pregnancy, particularly prior to fetal viability, under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Women's right to make decisions about pregnancy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive health fall squarely within the scope of the US Constitution, as do questions concerning the point at which the right to life vests. Life and liberty are not powers granted by the state, they are pre-political rights that government is obligated to protect. The Dobbs decision, which delegated a deeply personal and national issue to state constitutions did not eliminate judicial overreach as claimed by the Court, it merely shifted the battleground, creating a patchwork of laws that vary dramatically across the country. This ruling, made by the same justices who often speak most forcefully against judicial activism, appears instead to reflect a desire to advance personal or ideological preferences under the guise of restraint. We support restoring the Roe and Casey standards as a constitutionally grounded compromise that respects both individual rights and legitimate state interests. We believe this framework, though imperfect, recognized the moral complexity of the issue while preserving a woman’s right to privacy, autonomy, and dignity. We also believe that the extreme politicization of reproductive rights has excluded many Americans from the Republican Party, particularly women who view reproductive freedom as a core issue of equality and self-determination.

We support the 22nd Amendment’s limit on presidential terms as a vital check on executive power and a necessary safeguard against autocracy, ensuring a healthy rotation of national leadership. However, we oppose broader term limits for Congress. While frustration with career politicians is understandable, imposing term limits on legislators restricts voter choice, removes experienced leaders, and increases the influence of unelected actors such as lobbyists, bureaucrats, and long-term staff. Legislation is complex and experience matters. Just as it often takes a decade or more to master any profession, becoming an effective federal lawmaker requires time to build expertise, relationships, and a deep understanding of the legislative process. Forcibly retiring capable representatives risks draining Congress of institutional knowledge and practical skill. In truth, term limits already exist through regular elections, which House members face every two years. If anything, we should consider expanding House terms to four years to reduce the cycle of perpetual campaigning and allow for more thoughtful governance. While incumbency does carry visibility, challengers often benefit from campaigning full-time and a growing appetite for fresh perspectives. Currently, the average House tenure is about nine years, demonstrating that meaningful turnover already occurs. Public service should reward effectiveness, not penalize longevity. True accountability comes from the ballot box, not arbitrary caps on service. Instead of limiting terms, we should empower voters through fair elections, transparent campaigns, and structural reforms that strengthen democracy from the ground up. A thriving democracy is one in which voters, not term limits, decide when it’s time for new leadership.

As moderate conservatives, we view ourselves as distinct from both the MAGA movement and evangelical wing of the Republican Party, though we strive to approach these fellow conservatives with respect and understanding. While our perspectives differ at times, we often share more common ground with them on America’s future and values than with the political left. We recognize Donald Trump as the rightful winner of the 2024 election and legitimate President of the United States. We hope for his success and will work toward progress where common ground exists. The moderate conservative movement is focused on long-term principles, not personalities. Many of our members find his rhetoric distasteful and prefer leaders who demonstrate greater integrity. While we recognize in him certain tendencies that resemble the behavior of an autocrat, we also believe America’s institutional framework is strong and capable of safeguarding our democracy. We aim to call fair balls and strikes with the administration, giving credit when due and speaking clearly when we disagree. Any critically thinking person should find points of both agreement and disagreement with an administration, regardless of party. With President Trump, we agree on issues such as; his effort to strengthen border security and other aspects of his immigration policy | his first term proposal to raise the minimum age for purchasing certain firearms | his role in brokering the Abraham Accords | his general disposition against foreign wars | his decision to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons following the breakdown of negotiations with Russia | his coordination with Israel in responding to Iranian nuclear threats | his opposition to DEI mandates in federal policy | his willingness to increase the cost of doing business with adversaries such as China | the establishment of DOGE.

We recognize the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) as forward-thinking and worthy of serious discussion, particularly as automation, AI, and other advanced technologies continue to reshape the modern economy. We believe that in the future, the American economy may well have the capacity to provide such a benefit in a sustainable way. However, now is not that time. The federal government is currently facing serious fiscal challenges, with record deficits and an unsustainable national debt. Implementing UBI at this time would require a level of spending that our country simply cannot afford without risking long-term economic instability. We are also concerned that a guaranteed income, regardless of work, could erode one of the most powerful forces for personal and national prosperity, the motivation to work. Earning a living through meaningful, productive labor is not just economically valuable, it is also socially and psychologically vital for individuals and families. We generally support policies that uplift people through work, opportunity, and personal responsibility, not dependency. That said, we remain open to a future that may make UBI more viable so long as it strengthen rather than weaken the foundations of American resilience, productivity, and self-reliance.

We are blessed to live in the United States, a nation built on freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. China, by contrast, stands as our primary global adversary, not only because of its immense economic and military power, but because its authoritarian system is fundamentally at odds with our values. Beijing’s record of human rights abuses, from censorship and political imprisonment to the suppression of religious freedom and ethnic minorities, reveals a government that denies its people the basic rights we consider essential. The central challenge before us and our allies is to outcompete China where it matters most. The contest will be decided in frontier technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, robotics, automation, and space. Our goal is to ensure that free societies, not authoritarian regimes, set the rules of the future. China is a rising but lonely power, widely distrusted across the globe. If, one day, its people were able to transition toward democracy and join the ranks of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and other free nations, the impact would be transformative. Authoritarian influence across Southeast Asia and Africa would collapse, opening the door to democracy for billions more people. Until that day, America must remain vigilant and united with our allies. We must compete with strength and integrity, guided not by fear or partisanship but by the conviction that freedom is worth defending, and that history, in the end, favors liberty over tyranny.

The United States maintains the most powerful and advanced military force in history, a position that brings with it not only strength, but also the solemn responsibility to lead, protect, and uphold global democratic values. We believe that sustaining our military superiority is essential to safeguarding national interests, deterring aggression, and preserving peace through strength. We recognize that military power is closely tied to economic vitality and that every dollar spent on defense must be accountable, efficient, and aligned with strategic priorities. Defense spending should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other area of government, with a focus on eliminating waste and maximizing impact.

The U.S. Constitution forbids states from imposing tariffs on one another, creating a common market that ensures the nation functions as a unified economic union. Allowing states to erect economic barriers would be disastrous. If the governor of one state tried to block goods from another state to “save jobs,” we would rightly call it self-defeating. What’s true within our union is also true globally, however, not all trading partners are equal. Many nations do not share our values and some are actively engaged in hostile activities against the United States. We believe democracy is a force for peace and that American trade policy should align itself with promoting freedom. While free trade and economic openness with developing nations can sometimes foster political reforms, it doesn't always. U.S. trade policy should therefore be structured to encourage political reforms where possible, while imposing stricter limits on regimes that act as adversaries. Our approach aligns trade policy with our democratic values, accounting for each country’s specific risks. China, Cuba, and North Korea each pose different threats and should face different business costs based on their power, influence, and intentions. This requires moving beyond the current framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Economically speaking, the benefits of free trade are so consistent, measurable, and widely proven that they amount to economic law. It’s common sense that when countries specialize, innovate, and produce what they do best, everyone benefits.

We offer our general support for Israel as a vital economic, military, and diplomatic partner. Israel plays a strategic role in a region dominated by autocratic regimes often hostile to Western values, and its cooperation with the United States, such as coordinated efforts to monitor and counter Iran’s nuclear weapons program, demonstrates its importance to regional security and U.S. foreign policy. While Israel, like all nations, has a complex history shaped by conflict, displacement, and compromise, it has developed into a functioning democracy in a volatile region and serves as a cornerstone of stability for Western-aligned interests. No nation was formed with an unblemished history, particularly those in the Middle East, which during the same period were established through complex processes involving conquest, colonial influence, displacement, and political compromise.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remains the cornerstone of transatlantic security and one of the most successful military alliances in human history. The Alliance embodies the transatlantic link by which the security of North America and Europe are permanently tied together. NATO safeguards the Allies’ shared values of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. Its charter requires that members maintain democratic institutions and respect the peaceful resolution of disputes, a threshold that has ensured the Alliance remains not merely a military coalition, but a community of free nations. Today, the world faces an era of renewed great-power competition. The military, economic, and technological capabilities of our adversaries have reached levels never seen before. The West has never confronted such a formidable coalition of autocratic powers at once. History demonstrates that centralized power is inherently imperialistic; unchecked, it seeks to expand its influence by force or coercion. The United States remains the leader of the free world, but no nation on earth today, can singlehandedly deter the combined strength of our autocratic adversaries. NATO amplifies our strength through unity. Collective defense under Article 5 ensures that an attack on one is an attack on all, deterring aggression through shared resolve.

Few issues bear greater weight on the future of humanity than the threat of nuclear war. The ability of human beings to erase themselves from existence rivals the most catastrophic natural events imaginable, from a meteor strike to a global pandemic. And yet, for an issue that defines the human condition itself, nuclear weapons policy is rarely discussed in our modern political environment. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, nations have struggled to reconcile deterrence with disarmament. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 laid the foundation for global restraint, limiting the spread of nuclear weapons while committing nuclear-armed states to pursue eventual disarmament. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and II) of the 1970s, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987, and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and II) of the 1990s collectively reduced nuclear arsenals and slowed the arms race that had defined the Cold War. Yet in the past two decades, this architecture of restraint has weakened. The United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 under President George W. Bush to develop defensive missile systems, a move that shielded against attack, but also spurred adversaries to expand their offensive capabilities. The INF Treaty has since collapsed, and the New START Treaty, which remains the last major arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, is set to expire in 2026 without clear prospects for renewal.

The United States has always stood with those who defend liberty against tyranny. Ukraine’s struggle today is not only a regional conflict, but a defining moment in the global contest between democracy and autocracy. The outcome of this war will shape the balance of power, the future of freedom in Europe, and the credibility of the Western alliance for decades to come. To understand the conflict we must review history. On August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared independence following a failed coup against Mikhail Gorbachev by communist hardliners who sought to reverse Gorbachev’s liberal reforms of perestroika and glasnost. Ukraine’s parliament, fearing regression and finished with Moscow’s authority after decades under Soviet rule, sought sovereignty, self-determination, democratic governance, and eventual integration with the West. The Ukrainian people overwhelmingly embraced independence and democratic reforms. In a December 1, 1991 national referendum over 92% of Ukrainians, with majorities in every region including Crimea, voted to affirm their independence. By December 26, 1991, the USSR had formally dissolved and Ukraine became internationally recognized as a sovereign state. Ukraine’s desire to seek western security began with Russia’s interventions in Transnistria (1992) and Chechnya (1994). In 1994, Ukraine joined the Budapest Memorandum, surrendering its inherited Soviet nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world, in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. guaranteeing its borders and sovereignty. In 2004–2005, the Orange Revolution occurred, in which pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych ran against pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko. The pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned during the campaign disfiguring him but not stopping him from continuing his candidacy. Pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych was ultimately declared the winner, however, widespread allegations of election fraud, including ballot stuffing, ballot tampering, voter intimidation, and falsified results, caused massive protests. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets all wearing orange, the color of Victor Yushchenko’s campaign. The Ukrainian Supreme Court invalidated the election and ordered a new runoff. During the new runoff, the US and EU provided technical election assistance, including election observers and funding for civil society organizations promoting fair elections. With new election protocols in place, Yushchenko won the election decisively. He became President in January 2005, marking a shift toward pro-Western policy, including closer ties with the US and the EU. Thereafter, Ukraine, along with Georgia, who declared independence on April 9, 1991 and fought separatist wars in Abkhazia and South Ossetia against Russian backed separatists, and whose 2003 Rose Revolution brought reformist leadership under Mikheil Saakashvili that oriented Georgia firmly toward the west, both began pursing NATO cooperation more openly. In 2008, at the Bucharest Summit, both Ukraine and Georgia requested Membership Action Plans. While the U.S. supported their bids, France and Germany blocked formal approval citing caution about antagonizing Moscow, though the summit declared, “Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO.” Moscow viewed this as a direct threat and within 6 months invaded Georgia. Six years later, it annexed Crimea and entered eastern Ukraine. While we acknowledge that Russia perceives NATO expansion near its borders as a strategic threat and affirm that NATO should remain deliberate and restrained in its enlargement, the truth is more simple, that Ukraine and Georgia sought NATO membership not because NATO sought to expand, but because they feared Russian aggression and saw integration with the West as a pathway to democracy, modernization, and security. NATO is not a threat to Russia, it is a threat to Vladimir Putin’s dictatorship. Democracy, rule of law, and individual liberty are inherently dangerous to regimes built on repression and corruption.