Today’s military intervention in Venezuela is just the latest chapter in the history of United States imperialism. In over two centuries of existence, the United States (US) has carried out a plethora of foreign interventions —including invasions, coups, and covert operations —across nearly every region of the world.

History does not support the US's self-image as a promoter of peace and democracy. As an International Relations scholar, it is baffling to me that, to this day, numerous observers still speak of the US as a guardian of global security, despite its extensive record of unilateral action and strong preference for using military force to prompt regime change. The invasion of Venezuela perfectly illustrates this contradiction.

There is no doubt that Nicolás Maduro's government has committed serious human rights abuses and presided over systematic corruption and plundering of Venezuela’s resources for their advantage. Maduro presided over an increasingly authoritarian and corrupt government which disenfranchised, repressed, and forced millions of Venezuelans to flee their own country.

Yet, the invasion of a sovereign country –that is indeed the definition of the military action that took place today– to remove a head of state, is a blatant violation of whatever little was left of the so-called “rule-based international order”. A decision made by a foreign leader, executed through a unilateral, extraterritorial operation, has nothing to do with the promotion of freedom and democracy for the Venezuelan people. Instead, it demonstrates that Washington DC is ready and willing to use military force to prompt regime change in Latin America –and elsewhere.

Yes, Venezuela ranks among the most corrupt countries in the world, and Maduro’s government used the state to enrich its insiders and silence critics. But if corruption and abuse of power are the measures by which foreign countries can authorize themselves to intervene militarily in another one, then powerful states such as China or Russia (sic) could claim the same right to “liberate” the US from its own flawed leaders —a prospect that the US and its global allies would surely reject, both promptly and emphatically.

If corruption and authoritarian tendencies are now a justification for foreign military intervention, the Trump administration should probably be concerned. The numerous conflicts of interest and cronyism that plague the current administration, the politicization of law enforcement and its repeated efforts to protect its global allies (even those with active arrest warrants by international courts), could soon put Trump at the same risk of being “captured” by a foreign country, and put on trial on foreign soil.

The core issue, then, is not whether Maduro deserved to be “captured”, but who has the legitimacy to decide what to do and by what means. When the US uses its overwhelming military and economic power to unilaterally choose which governments may stand and which must fall, it reinforces the imperial order, rather than international law, which it has created in the world. For many of us in Latin America and beyond, the intervention in Venezuela evokes painful memories of earlier episodes of US involvement in our region and deepens scepticism that such actions are ever aimed at fostering democracy. Most likely, this invasion will just become the next chapter in the 21st century-edition of the US imperialism book.

In the Spotlight is Youth Observer’s interview series highlighting extraordinary young innovators, trailblazers, and changemakers shaping the world’s future.

For this edition, Youth Observer’s Rehman Siddiq connected with Lucy Guo, who at 30 became the youngest self-made female billionaire, surpassing even Taylor Swift. From dropping out of Carnegie Mellon for the Thiel Fellowship, to co-founding Scale AI at 21, and now launching Passes, Guo has consistently taken bold leaps. In this conversation, she reflects on her upbringing, the challenges of being an Asian American woman in tech, her frugal lifestyle, her vision for AI, and why she’s determined to help creators turn audiences into empires.

At 30, you’ve become the youngest self-made female billionaire, surpassing Taylor Swift. How does it feel to achieve this milestone, and what does it mean to you personally?

Honestly, I don’t think about it that much–it doesn’t mean a whole lot to me on a day-to-day basis. I’ve always been interested in building products that could generate revenue, even from a young age, but becoming a billionaire was never an explicit goal. My reality hasn’t really changed–what truly drives me is the work itself. I wake up focused on how we can make Passes better and serve creators more effectively. If anything, this recognition only strengthens my commitment to helping creators build their own successful businesses. I do hope this shows other young women in not just tech, but any industry for that matter, that these paths are possible.

You started coding as a child and built bots for Neopets to earn money as a teen. What sparked your early passion for tech, and how did those experiences shape your entrepreneurial journey?

My parents are immigrants and really emphasized financial independence growing up, so I figured out how to make money at a young age–from selling Pokémon cards on the playground to building bots on Neopets and Runescape. Being raised in the Bay Area, I was surrounded by emerging technologies and entrepreneurial energy. Teaching myself to code and creating these virtual economies showed me I could build products that actually impact people. Those early experiences taught me to be resourceful and persistent–qualities that are exactly what founders and entrepreneurs need to see success.

Dropping out of Carnegie Mellon for the Thiel Fellowship was a bold move. What gave you the confidence to take that risk, and how did it influence your path to success?

I operate on conviction. When I deeply understand a problem and see a solution that others either don’t see or don’t feel compelled to act upon, staying put feels riskier than leaping. The Thiel Fellowship gave me the confidence to bet on myself rather than following the traditional path my parents may have envisioned. While I rejected the specific career path they wanted, I still embodied the work ethic they instilled in me. That decision taught me that sometimes the unconventional route is exactly what you need.

You co-founded Scale AI at 21, which now has a $25 billion valuation. What was the biggest challenge you faced in those early days, and how did you overcome it?

As more of these founder stories of younger entrepreneurs are being featured and more publicly received, this constant need to re-establish credibility has definitely improved. However, around the time I was working on Scale AI, this challenge was still very much something I faced, especially as a young Asian American woman in tech. I had to deal with people constantly telling me that I only won hackathons and landed jobs because I was a woman. But I found that the best response to that is to build something undeniably great. Results speak louder than anything else, so I’ve always focused on results in my own work and in how I manage my teams.

As a woman in tech, you’ve broken barriers in an industry where female founders receive just 2% of venture capital. What challenges have you faced, and how do you inspire other women to pursue tech entrepreneurship?

The most insidious barriers aren’t always the explicit biases–though those exist–but the subtle ones that make you question yourself. There are still rooms where I’m the only woman, and people will always have opinions about me. Another barrier I still deal with is people spreading false rumors purely out of envy. But I’ve learned that authentic representation isn’t just about having diverse faces–it’s about having diverse perspectives influencing decisions at every level. I try to be deliberate about opening doors and creating access to networks where many founders from underrepresented groups get stuck.

You’ve founded Passes, a platform empowering creators, with backing from figures like Shaquille O’Neal. What gap in the creator economy did you see, and how does Passes aim to fill it?

I saw creators in my direct circle of friends struggle with monetization. The big platforms were taking massive cuts, the tools were fragmented, and brand deals were inconsistent. While the creator economy was exploding, the infrastructure simply wasn’t keeping pace. Creators with millions of followers were cobbling together five different tools to run their businesses. Yet, there was still this massive gap between the work creators put into their craft and how they were being compensated for it. Passes is built on the principle that creators should own their audience and their revenue. We’re the first actual creator commerce platform—we’re not just trying to take a slice of the creator economy; we’re trying to expand it.

You’ve embraced the FIRE movement and live frugally, shopping at Shein and driving a Honda Civic despite your $1.3 billion net worth. How do you balance this mindset with your high-profile success?

Growing up in a frugal household where financial independence was emphasized shaped my relationship with money. Those immigrant values of being resourceful and not wasteful stick with you. My day-to-day reality hasn't changed much—I'm still focused on building and solving problems. The recognition comes with responsibility to use resources wisely and create impact that matters, not just accumulate for the sake of it.

Who have been your biggest inspirations, past or present, in shaping your approach to entrepreneurship and leadership, and how have they influenced your decisions?

My parents have been huge inspirations—watching them work within systems that weren't designed with them in mind, having to work twice as hard for the same recognition, gave me empathy for creators building businesses on platforms that aren't designed to help them succeed. That experience directly influences how we build Passes. I also surround myself with fellow founders and creatives who really live out their days to the fullest–doing things they love to do while challenging themselves with their career at the same time. Those who challenge conventional thinking and build from conviction inspire me to do the same and prove to me that my approach to entrepreneurship is the way to go.

What advice would you give to young entrepreneurs, especially female entrepreneurs, who are starting their own ventures and facing doubts or obstacles in male-dominated industries?

Your difference is your advantage. For so long, many of us were taught to downplay what makes us different—our cultural backgrounds, our perspectives—to assimilate. I did this too early in my career. But the perspectives you bring from navigating multiple cultures, from seeing systems others take for granted—these are superpowers in entrepreneurship. The world is unfair, and that’s not going to change overnight, so you have to fight and work harder to win. Develop unwavering belief in your vision because the world will test that belief constantly. And when you succeed, create space for others.

With your experience at Scale AI and beyond, where do you see the future of artificial intelligence heading? Should we be scared about its growth, and will it take away jobs or create new opportunities?

I think of AI as a copilot, not a replacement to humans. AI will complement human creativity. Imagine a world where AI can do 80% of the mundane tasks, and that extra 20% can be spent adding human touch, relationship building, and closing deals. That’s where we’re headed, even within the creator economy. The most successful creators will be those who learn to use AI to execute their vision faster and more efficiently. AI can help with production, but the creative vision, the personality, the connection—that needs human oversight. It will create new opportunities by amplifying what humans do best, so we really shouldn’t be scared about its growth.

Passes has faced legal challenges regarding content moderation. How are you addressing these issues, and what steps is Passes taking to ensure a safe platform for creators and users?

We take platform safety seriously at Passes and we’re continuously improving our content moderation systems. We’re building tools that protect both creators and users while maintaining a creator-first approach that makes Passes different. Safety and creator empowerment aren’t mutually exclusive—we can build the best platform with the best tools while ensuring responsible practices.

You’ve said you want to create “unicorn creators” through Passes. What’s your long-term vision for the creator economy, and how do you plan to help young creators achieve financial independence?

I want to turn our creators on Passes into billionaires—unicorn creators. We’ve already made many millionaires at Passes, and creators are buying their first homes, paying off student loans, retiring their parents, etc. More creators are building billion-dollar brands like Hailey Bieber’s Rhode and Logan Paul’s Prime, born and thriving purely from creator audiences. These creator-founded businesses have a significantly lower creator acquisition cost and AI is going to copilot this for creators even more. Again, I see AI becoming creators’ best copilot, helping them scale their time and grow income faster. The boundary between physical and digital experiences is blurring. Creators will design experiences that move seamlessly between online and offline. My vision is helping creators build sustainable businesses and reach their potential—turning audiences into empires.

In the Spotlight is Youth Observer’s signature interview series featuring extraordinary young leaders, changemakers, and visionaries. From politics to activism to entrepreneurship, we highlight bold voices shaping the future.

At 27, Bushra Amiwala has already made history as the youngest Muslim elected official in the United States. Now, she’s setting her sights on Congress — aiming to represent Illinois’s 9th District at a pivotal moment for the country. In this candid conversation, Bushra shares why she’s running, the values guiding her campaign, and her message for the next generation of leaders.

For those who don’t know you yet, who is Bushra Amiwala? How would you introduce yourself beyond your titles and résumé?

I am the 27-year-old daughter of Pakistani immigrants who has lived in Illinois’ 9th District my entire life. My message and vision for the country are rooted in that history. Like everyone in my generation, I've spent my entire adult life in Trump’s political environment. I am tired of it and want to bring a fresh perspective to my community and the country. Life needs to be more affordable, healthcare needs to be universal and neighborhoods need to be Trump-proofed.

You’ve already made history as the youngest Muslim elected official in the country. What motivated you to now run for Congress, and why now, in this moment?

My motivation to run is twofold: My platform will make life safer and more affordable for everyone in my district, and my experience has shown me that real leadership doesn’t wait its turn. Through serving on the Skokie School Board as the youngest Muslim elected official in the country, I learned that inaction and the status quo are choices made by ineffective leaders. However, complacency is not inevitable. We need candidates who have the vision to see what's next and the courage to push for change. So many Gen-Zers have grown cynical of politics and politicians, and fairly so, but I deeply believe that fearless leaders and bold policy will move this country forward. A culture of “wait your turn” and seniority has placed far too many of those status quo leaders at the top of the Democratic Party, and 2026 is the time to change that.

Jan Schakowsky, the longtime incumbent in Illinois’s 9th District, is not seeking re-election after serving for over two decades. With several candidates now jumping into the race, how optimistic are you about your chances, and what makes your campaign uniquely positioned to carry this seat forward?

I am very optimistic about our chances, but frankly I would be doing this even if I wasn’t. I am in the race because I have the best program for my district to thrive, and these changes cannot wait until it’s politically convenient. This seat has been held by the same congresswoman since before I was born, so there are a lot of candidates in the race who feel they have “waited their turn”. Many of them have had admirable careers in politics, but the challenges of 2026 and beyond are not the challenges of 2015. I am reflecting what I know my community wants in their representative: a leader who earns their vote with her vision for a safer, more affordable future, rather than representation that feels entitled to the seat because it's their turn.

You've raised over $250,000 already, without support from big-money lobbies or political insiders. What tips would you give to young people considering a run for office but lacking resources? Any marketing or outreach advice?

Raising money for a campaign is exciting, but it’s also grueling. I am proud of the $250,000 we have already raised, especially given how connected our donors are to the district I am running to represent. Before I give my tips, I want to say that part of what I want to do in Congress is change how elections work in this country. If we want our best leaders to serve us, we can’t ask them to spend the majority of their time each week asking for money. It’s a process that keeps young candidates out of races too, because they don’t have the right group chat of megadonors that their older, establishment opponents do. Now getting off my soapbox and answering the question, my main piece of advice is to keep faith in those around you. I didn’t grow up around any mega-donor group chats, but I continue to be inspired by how many people want to help me and believe in me. If what’s holding you back is “why would anyone support me?” then I’m here to encourage you to just ask. You will be shocked.

Are you borrowing any strategies from grassroots campaigns like AOC’s or Zohran Mamdani’s? What tactics or values are you carrying forward from those movements?

AOC and Zohran are incredibly inspiring. To me, they represent a shift in our politics away from what you say to me and towards what you do for me. Both AOC and Zohran felt like candidates that sprang to prominence from out of nowhere, but the early years they spent organizing for their beliefs gave them unique insight into what their communities needed—more insight than any focus group or poll could come up with. Their campaigns demonstrate that it is impossible to represent a community that you don’t love and aren’t a part of. So of course, I will be on TikTok now and then, looking for my Zohran-type moments. But really what I take from their movement is that, although I am a Gen-Z Muslim woman, my most important identity is a person who listens to and loves my community.

Since Zohran’s primary victory and amid growing Islamophobia and xenophobia, do you think your identity as a Muslim woman will be weaponized in this campaign? How do you plan to respond while staying focused on your message?

The question is framed in the most accurate way: my identity will be weaponized. It’s a low-ball attempt to otherize me and my campaign, which is ironic since I’m the only candidate in the field who has lived in this district my entire life. It’s also a shallow attempt to distract from my messaging. I’ll have to internally remind myself to bring the discussion back to my platform that will make life better for the residents of my district. That’s what voters want to hear about. Islamophobia and xenophobia are distractions from progress, and pretty lazy ones at that. But that doesn’t mean they’re not real; we have a responsibility to stand up to hate and division. The Islamophobia I will face is a small reflection of the day-to-day bigotry that too many of your readers, and my constituents, face. It is incumbent upon us to reject bigotry in all its forms. My campaign is unequivocal in its messaging that no one should feel unsafe or unwelcome in the place they call home.

In today’s political climate, conversations around Gaza, trans rights, and undocumented immigrants have become politically risky, even within the Democratic Party. If elected, how would you stand firm on these issues in Congress?

I’m proud to advocate for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, a stance I’ve maintained with 370+ other elected officials around the country. What’s happening in Gaza is unacceptable. Defenseless civilians—including 900,000 children—are dying of hunger. Meanwhile, our own tax dollars are funding the crisis by sending weapons to Israel. Voters following the news from Gaza are outraged, as they should be. And this is not just about one conflict. It’s about a broader commitment to upholding international law and protecting human dignity. In Congress, I’ll fight to uphold human rights abroad and at home. Not only have I rejected any type of AIPAC-affiliated funding, but I’ve rejected donors who give to organizations like AIPAC, too. My stance is a moral obligation, and it cannot be bought.

You’ve made faith a bridge rather than a barrier, hosting interfaith events and advocating for inclusive education laws. How does your personal identity shape your public leadership?

Building coalitions has always been the framework to enact positive, wide-scale change. Upon being elected to the board of education in 2019, a lot of parents shared concerns about their children’s dietary needs. This wasn’t just Muslim parents advocating for Halal food; it was also Jewish parents advocating for Kosher food, and Hindu parents advocating for vegetarian options. Inclusion isn’t just about representing the demographic I’m a part of; it means standing firm and showing up for all communities.

If elected to Congress, what would be your top three priorities in your first year, and why those specifically?

Education, economic justice and healthcare.

Education: We need to take 1% of our defense budget and reallocate it to schools nationwide. It may not sound like a radical change, but even increasing federal funding for education by 1% can save families thousands of dollars in property taxes, and afford us the quality schools our students deserve. My experience serving on my district’s school board has prepared me to serve all the students of IL-09.

Economic justice: I believe that economic inequality undermines our democracy. I will work to raise the minimum wage, protect the right to unionize and ensure that our economy works for everyone, not just the wealthy few. This means supporting small businesses to thrive in our communities and incentivizing them to stay by leveraging intergovernmental agreements between federal and municipal authorities.

Healthcare: Our country needs Medicare For All. Bernie Sanders put this solution on the map, and it is our generation's time to get it done. Our healthcare system is broken. Implementation will take time, so I will ensure that comprehensive mental healthcare is the first step in remaking our system. This includes proactive preventative check ups, reactive care, and covering the cost of medication.

Why should voters, especially young people, support you? What vision are you offering that they won’t get from a more traditional candidate?

Young voters should support me because I am going to fight to make their lives safer and more affordable. Every campaign will say something like that, so you all deserve more. Unlike traditional candidates, I have lived these problems. Politicians and pundits recite talking points about how young people face an affordability crisis or skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety. But they will only ever speak to us, not fight with us. I have seen ICE invade my community in Skokie, Illinois; I experienced the effects of social media as a kid and can see how much worse it is for kids today; and I have seen the prospect of buying a house fade away as I get squeezed financially. It scares me, frustrates me, and every so often challenges the hope I have. Supporting me means not giving up on that hope to do better. If you find yourself frustrated and scared at times by what's ahead, then let’s get in the game and fix it. We win elections now so we can change our future later.

You’ve come a long way since being a policy debate champ and college intern. What’s the most humbling or surprising lesson you’ve learned on your journey so far?

There are people who don’t play by the rules, and lean on disinformation and click bait. It is frustrating, but that will make it feel even sweeter when we win.

Lastly, what advice would you give to young people, especially first- or second-generation Americans, who feel powerless but want to make a difference?

We can win our way. There is no one to mimic and no talking point to memorize. We change the system by beating it in our own way. Focus on what inspires you, political or otherwise, and be great at it. Take pride in your work and don’t be afraid of taking on powers that don’t understand it. I’ll be cheering you on, and I hope you will be cheering for me too. If you want to help us out sign up at bushraforcongress.com.

Disclaimer: This interview is part of Youth Observer’s In the Spotlight series, which profiles inspiring young leaders from around the world. It is not a paid piece, nor does it constitute an endorsement of any political candidate or campaign by Youth Observer.

At just 18 years old, Jaylen Smith made history — becoming the youngest Black mayor in U.S. history after winning the 2022 mayoral race in Earle, Arkansas. While most high school graduates are focused on college or first jobs, Jaylen was stepping into city hall, determined to revitalize his community and lead with heart.

As part of our new “In the Spotlight” series, where we interview some of the most inspiring young voices from across the world — from youth leaders and activists to rising political changemakers — Jaylen spoke with Youth Observer about what pushed him to run, how he balances school with civic duty, and why this is only the beginning.

1. At 18, you became the youngest Black mayor in U.S. history. What inspired you to run for mayor of Earle, Arkansas, right out of high school?

Honestly, it came from a desire to see real change — and not just talk about it. I’ve always loved my community, but I saw needs being overlooked and potential going untapped. I knew if I waited for someone else to step up, we’d just keep getting more of the same. I believed in Earle, and I believed that young people like me could lead with fresh eyes and bold ideas.

2. You’ve said you wanted to “be the change” for Earle. What specific challenges, like the lack of a grocery store or public safety concerns, drove you to take on this role?

The biggest thing was access. We didn’t have a local grocery store. Our seniors and families had to travel miles just to get basic necessities. Public safety and infrastructure were other concerns — from street lighting to cleaning up abandoned properties. I wanted to tackle issues that directly impact quality of life. People deserve to live in a community they’re proud of.

3. How did your experience as student government president at Earle High School prepare you for the responsibilities of being a mayor?

Being student government president taught me how to listen, lead with integrity, and speak up — even when it’s uncomfortable. It showed me how to advocate for others, build consensus, and stay organized. I had to bring people together to get things done, and that’s the same energy I carry into city hall.

4. Some residents were skeptical about your age and lack of experience. How did you convince voters to trust you, and what advice do you have for young people facing similar doubts?

I didn’t try to act like I had all the answers — I showed that I was willing to work for them. I talked to people, knocked on doors, and asked questions. I listened before I led. Over time, people saw my heart and my hustle. For young people: your age doesn't disqualify you. If anything, it’s your strength. Believe in your calling — and be willing to prove it through action.

5. You’ve met key figures like Vice President Kamala Harris and other prominent leaders. Which leader, past or present, do you look up to the most, and how have they influenced your approach to leadership as mayor?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is one of my biggest inspirations. He led with purpose, grace, and courage, even in the face of doubt and danger. He didn’t wait until he had a title — he served from where he was. That mindset reminds me to lead with humility, focus on service, and never forget who I’m fighting for.

6. Can you walk us through what a mayor’s duties look like in a small town like Earle? What’s the most surprising or challenging part of your day-to-day responsibilities?

In a small town, you wear many hats. I’m in meetings about roads, budgets, community events, and even helping residents with personal concerns. Sometimes I’m cutting ribbons — other times, I’m cutting red tape. The most surprising part is how hands-on it is. The most challenging is making change with limited resources, but that’s also where creativity kicks in.

7. Balancing college at Arkansas State University Mid-South with mayoral duties must be intense. How do you manage your time, and what’s a typical day like for you?

Time management is everything. I wake up early, keep a strict calendar, and surround myself with a strong support team. A typical day might include class in the morning, meetings at city hall in the afternoon, and community calls in the evening. I’ve learned to prioritize what matters and give my full focus to the task in front of me.

8. You’ve prioritized revitalizing Earle’s economy and infrastructure, like bringing back a supermarket. What progress have you made, and what obstacles have you faced?

We’ve made real strides in cleaning up blighted areas and attracting investment interest. The process of bringing back a grocery store is ongoing, but I’m committed. The biggest obstacle is funding — small towns often get overlooked. But I’ve been working with state and federal partners to bring new opportunities to Earle. Progress may be slow, but it's steady.

9. As a member of Generation Z, how does your perspective differ from older leaders, and how does it help you address Earle’s challenges?

Gen Z brings a mindset of innovation, urgency, and inclusion. We’re not afraid to challenge the status quo. I use technology to communicate with residents, streamline city functions, and connect Earle with the wider world. I respect the wisdom of older generations, but I also believe it’s time for fresh ideas and bold solutions — that’s where my generation thrives.

10. You’ve spoken about inspiring other young people to get involved in their communities. What message would you share with our readers who want to make a difference but feel they’re “too young”?

You are not too young — you are right on time. If you see a need, you were probably meant to meet it. Your voice matters. Your ideas are valuable. Don’t wait for permission to lead. Start where you are, use what you have, and let your passion drive your purpose. Someone is waiting on your obedience.

11. You’ve attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors and met with other Arkansas mayors. What’s the most valuable lesson you’ve learned from other leaders?

The biggest lesson is this: every community, big or small, wants to be heard, seen, and invested in. I’ve learned the value of collaboration — that real progress happens when we share knowledge and support each other. I’ve also learned that transparency, communication, and consistency build trust. No matter the city size, leadership principles stay the same.

12. You’ve mentioned aspiring to become a prosecutor or even president one day. How does your current role as mayor shape your future ambitions, and what’s your next step?

Being mayor has shown me the power of local government to change lives — and it’s given me a clearer vision for long-term impact. I still plan to study law and advocate for justice. Whether that leads to the courtroom or the White House one day, I’ll always remember where I started. My next step is continuing to grow, serve, and prepare — because this is only the beginning.

Follow our "In the Spotlight" series for more interviews with youth leaders, trailblazing activists, and rising stars making their mark on the world just like Jaylen Smith.

Picture this: It’s 2008, and the world is a mess. Lehman Brothers collapses, wiping out the savings of millions who trusted banks to play fair. Homes are foreclosed, jobs vanish, and the global economy teeters on the brink. The culprits? Greedy bankers, spineless regulators, and a system rigged to favor the elite over the everyday person.

Out of this chaos, a mysterious figure named Satoshi Nakamoto drops a nine-page manifesto that says, in essence, “Forget the banks. Let’s create money that doesn’t need them.” Bitcoin is born. It becomes a beacon of hope for a decentralized, people-powered rebellion against the financial overlords.

I was a big believer in Bitcoin from the start, not because I wanted to get rich, but because I believed power should belong to the people, not a handful of billionaires or massive organizations controlling our destiny.

As of July 14, 2025, Bitcoin has soared to a record high of $120,000, with some analysts claiming it could climb past $150,000 in the coming months. And yet, who needs enemies when you are your own enemy? Time and again, greed has blinded people. Now, the same rebels who once championed Bitcoin are cheering as BlackRock and governments worldwide sink their claws into crypto, turning it into the very monster it was meant to destroy.

This is the great crypto betrayal, and it’s a recipe for disaster.

Read more

For decades, liberalism (in its original sense) has dominated the political and cultural consensus in America, promising liberty, tolerance, and individual rights. Though may factions have been borne from its beginnings, the principles have mostly stayed the same. Liberalism’s ideas won the Revolution, both World Wars, the Cold War, the Great Depression, and shaped our institutions, molding the society most young people inherited. But beneath the victories and the rhetoric lies a growing void: a nation fraying at the seams, where millions — especially the young — are disconnected, distrustful, and deeply alone.

This isn’t just a failure of technology or social media. It’s a deeper, more personal betrayal. It’s what happens when you tell a generation that freedom and happiness is a solo project. Liberalism told us to be ourselves, to chart our own paths, to escape constraint — but it rarely asked what we owed one another in the process. This promise of freedom became, for many, a slow unraveling of solidarity, where the only constant is choice, and the only destination is isolation. The pursuit of unrestrained individualism creates a social desert, one where obligations to others feel like burdens rather than bonds.

This is the paradox of our politics: even as we win more rights and freedoms, we lose the sense of solidarity that once bound people together. And in that vacuum, apathy, extremism, and despair fester. For many working- and middle-class Americans, this freedom feels less like empowerment and more like abandonment.

The Symptoms: Loneliness, Distrust, and the Collapse of Belonging

Millennials and Gen Z are the most connected generations in history, but we are also the loneliest. Rates of depression, anxiety, and isolation have exploded over the past two decades. Trust in institutions has cratered. Participation in traditional forms of community — churches, unions, civic groups — continues to decline. Politics, instead of offering collective purpose, often feels like a never-ending spectacle of outrage, cable news theatrics, and algorithmically-amplified conflict. Rage bait.

We watch politicians posture on social media to score points and provoke reactions. Campaigns are run like influencer brands. Governing is replaced by grievance. It’s not about building something together — it’s about winning the next viral moment, getting the next big donor, winning the next election. For those looking for real connection or community, it feels hollow, sometimes even hostile. We scroll endlessly, but rarely feel seen. We speak constantly, but rarely feel heard.

Much of this is blamed on technology, and not without reason. In an era where social media is now the number one outlet people go to for news, entertainment, learning, and friendship, it’s easy to see why the decline in third spaces has been happening in the first place. What’s possibly more alarming is the increasing reliance on AI — mostly ChatGPT — for nearly every aspect of daily life: processing information, writing emails, getting opinions on a type of food, balancing a ledger, companionship, even therapy. The problem is certainly exacerbated with technology, but it’s not the underlying cause.

The deeper culprit is cultural: we are raised in a system that prizes self-fulfillment and personal profit over shared responsibility. We were told to follow our dreams, but rarely to invest in our neighborhoods. We were taught to distrust authority, but not to build alternatives. The result is a generation caught between hyper-individualism and a gnawing desire for connection — even if they don’t realize it. This began to happen all around the same time period across many liberal democratic countries, and this new liberalism — or neoliberalism — still shapes the way that modern center-right parties and most voters think and feel in the Western world about society. It’s a system built on not just life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or as John Locke put it, '“pursuit of property”), but the maximization of each — for better or worse.

Neoliberalism in particular reframed every aspect of life as a matter of personal choice — education, health care, even relationships. The story we’ve been sold was that if you work hard and make the right choices, you’ll inevitably succeed. It’s the “American Dream” (TM). If you don’t, that’s on you. In a ideologically ascetic conservative world (where you aren’t worth your salt unless you can pull yourselves up by your bootstraps) this is a rampant sentiment. Loneliness became a private failing, not a public concern. The communal has turned transactional. The neighbor became a competitor. And when everything is optional and nothing is sacred, alienation becomes the default setting.

Ask any working-class parent trying to raise a kid on two jobs and no daycare, or any young adult drowning in student debt with no path to home ownership. The message to them — and the rest of us — is clear: you're on your own. Abandonment dressed up in the language of choice.

The Roots: How “Liberalism” Got Us Here

Classical liberalism was born as a rebellion against hierarchy, monarchy, and religious dogma. It was an engine of emancipation. But it also laid the groundwork for a society of individuals rather than communities. The 20th-century turn toward neoliberalism only accelerated this: markets over morals, choice over cohesion, the consumer over the citizen. What began as liberation gradually morphed into fragmentation.

Neoliberalism didn't just deregulate markets — it deregulated social bonds. The idea of society as a collective endeavor gave way to the ideal of the self-made individual. Public institutions were hollowed out. Solidarity was rebranded as inefficiency. Even progressive liberalism, with its emphasis on rights and inclusion, has often failed to offer a thick sense of belonging. While it has expanded legal protections and amplified historically marginalized voices, it frequently stops just short of fostering durable communal bonds or shared purpose.

Many progressive victories feel procedural or symbolic, not transformative or truly revolutionary. Movements like Occupy Wall Street or the Sanders campaigns hinted at a more solidarity-based politics, but lacked the institutional staying power to sustain that vision. More recently the “No Kings” protests, while extremely visible and successful in their presence, did not actually accomplish anything aside from that visibility.

In practice, progressive liberalism often mirrors the same atomizing tendencies as its neoliberal cousins — prioritizing expressive individualism and cultural visibility over embeddedness, responsibility, and relational depth. The result is a politics that can win headlines, but struggles to make real systemic change. Identity becomes a personal brand, both for activists and politicians. In this framework, solidarity is fragile, because it relies on agreement rather than if the shared struggle is worth it.

The net result is a civic vacuum, where common life is thin and contested. We are freer than ever to be ourselves, but less sure than ever of who "we" are. In this lonely order, belonging is scarce, and politics becomes a search for meaning as much as a contest for power, a search that many people will find that political candidates, campaigns, and movements are ill-equipped to fulfill.

And that vacuum doesn’t just hurt our politics, it shapes our economy. Workers are treated like gig-based commodities, when they should be treated like community members — because they are. Young people are told to adapt to the current instability of our society rather than fight for stability, and those who can’t keep up with the churn are blamed for their own struggle. This is liberalism without a net, a freedom that assumes you’ll never fall as long as you keep your nose on the grindstone, and never look up and see the reality of your material surroundings.

The Response: Toward a Politics of Belonging

If (neo)liberalism made us lonely, the left could now make us whole, whereas a shift to the right would simply exacerbate the problems we have now. Conservatism traffics in nostalgia and hierarchy. Its answer to alienation is submission: to patriarchal families, racial exclusion, or nationalist myth. And of course, these are different levels of “conservatism”, but they exist all the same). It offers the illusion of community without any of the liberation.

The left wing’s task isn’t to retreat to the past, but instead to chart a future rooted in shared power. That doesn’t mean abandoning freedom. It means reimagining it as power with others beyond the bounds of individualism. In a neoliberal age that told us self-reliance was enough, this kind of freedom insists that dignity comes not from detachment, but from relationship. Real freedom is not solitary. It’s shared. It’s found not in the absence of obligation, but in the presence of mutual care. It means building institutions that people don’t just vote for, but live in. It means fighting for material security and social solidarity, not through charity or coercion, but through democracy.

If you do not believe this to be true, and yet hail the glorious deeds of America’s founding fathers, then you have missed the very essence of their success in revolution. It’s actually quite simple:

A post-liberal left must reassert the value of commitment to each other. That commitment needs to be rooted in a recognition that the neoliberal project hollowed out our lives from top to bottom (though the “top” seems to fairing just fine… I wonder why). Neoliberalism sold us autonomy as self-reliance and turned social bonds into market exchanges. Now we’re left with a society of consumers, not citizens — freedom without fellowship.

We need a politics that doesn’t just protect individual rights but actively reconstructs the social fabric neoliberalism unraveled, one that replaces market logic with civic care and recognizes that real freedom requires a sense of belonging, not just the absence of restraint. This might look like local mutual aid networks, democratic unions, housing co-ops, or multiracial parties rooted in place. It means telling stories that bind us together, not just set us apart — and living lives that remind us we’re not alone.

Take for example the Chicago Teachers Union, which built a broad multiracial coalition by anchoring labor demands in neighborhood needs like affordable housing, wraparound services, and safe transit. Or look to Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi, a Black-led grassroots network that blends community land trusts with worker cooperatives and political education. These could be our models of belonging.

Call it socialism, communism, co-ops, community organizing, whatever floats your boat. Neoliberalism left us with choice without community, autonomy without anchor. Rebuilding belonging will require rejecting the idea that every social tie is a form of constraint. The liberal project gave us many of the tools we now wield. But if we want to build something that lasts — something that heals our isolation and empowers our generation — we will need to move beyond it.

Not just more freedom, more belonging.

The recent “protests” which took place in Mexico City this week, purportedly against gentrification and the irregular immigration of foreign-born “digital nomads”, are the latest expression of xenophobia and hate which have both taken over the world –and which have now spread to Mexico in full force.

Peaceful protest or an expression of hate?

As it usually occurs in our country, a “protest” which started peacefully, quickly turned into acts of violence. Passers-by and owners of local business witnessed how groups of thugs harassed locals and foreigners and destroyed private property. These included damaging public and private infrastructure, such as graffitiing of cars, buildings, and Metro carriages, damaging bus shelters, and destroying the facades of businesses –using bricks, rocks, and explosives which were thrown at the storefronts while their customers and personnel were inside. Just to loot them afterwards.

How did they justify it?

Some commentators attempt to justify this violence as a result of the underlying frustration of some inhabitants of Mexico City who have experienced a rising cost of living, purportedly resulting from the influx of wealthy foreigners from the Global North, mainly from the United States. Allegedly, this has led some residents and businesses of Mexico City’s central neighbourhoods to be displaced to the peripheries. It is often argued that the arrival of newcomers to Mexico, has resulted in the increase in rents and living costs in the downtowns, which locals are unable to match due to our country’s comparatively lower salaries, as well as an increase in prices of groceries and services –given the presence of a more affluent population in their local areas.

This phenomenon, referred to as gentrification, is well known abroad, but relatively newer to Mexico, which only experienced it more widely in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis when the influx of higher-income residents to Mexico City and other touristic cities, first led to increased rents, and then resulted in the displacement of existing, lower-income residents. According to some critics, this phenomenon has led to even broader changes to the former “character” of these areas, namely the appearance of services in the English language, and the tropicalization of some products aimed at the new clientele –including the claim that Mexicans sauces are not as spicy as they used to be due to the presence of foreigners.

From catch-all concerns to unjustifiable violence

Such concerns, however, do not justify acts of violence against individuals and businesses –even less so of the xenophobic and hateful kind that occurred this week. Even more unjustifiable is the harassment of passers-by and tourists, and the display of xenophobic and hateful slogans, that were visible in the “march against gentrification”.

These included everything from: “get out, gringo!” and “Mexico for the Mexicans” much in the style of the nativist discourse that Donald Trump has managed to spread to other countries. To even more dangerous ones, such as “go home, puto!” (faggot); “learn Spanish, you dog”; “make pozole out of a gringo” –implying the killing of people from the United States to be used as substitute for animal meat in a popular Mexican dish; and “make ‘hood and kill a gringo” –directly calling to kill US nationals to assert one’s identity and sense of belonging. Or the outright call to “kill a gringo”.

Some media commentators and members of the public claim that these xenophobic and hateful slogans are the direct result of the anger and frustration about the regular and irregular immigration of foreigners into Mexico, which has out-priced locals in tourism-intensive areas, and obliged them to leave for other ones, usually outside the city centres. Using this supposedly underlying discontent as a justification to attack people and businesses is, however, unacceptable.

We have now become the haters

It is surprising that some commentators, some of whom include Mexicans living abroad, think that this violence is somehow justifiable as an expression of social discontent. If they abhor verbal and physical attacks against Mexicans working and living in the United States, they should also be abhorred at groups of Mexicans abusing or intimidating foreigners. Mexicans are quickly to criticize the government and people of the United States, for mistreating our fellow nationals, discriminating against them, and exerting acts of verbal and physical abuse against Mexicans, including deporting people who are working and living there –oftentimes, without the legal right to do so. Yet, when it comes to ourselves, we fail to look in the mirror and see that we are now behaving in the exact same way which we so often criticized.

As César Cravioto, Mexico City’s Secretary of Government, stated: “this city is a city of migrants. [This protest] was not against gentrification. There were horrible expressions against people who already live in or spend time in the city. And we also disagree with any protest affecting third parties. There are always ways to take a seat at the table, to listen to and debate public policy. We do not accept this type of [violent] protests”. On the opposite, it undermines otherwise legitimate social claims about very complex problems –and just shows how misdirected many of them are.

If Mexicans are angry at the rising cost of living, the protests should be held in front of the National Palace, at the Plaza de la Constitución, calling for swift government action against inflation, the setting of fair wages, to mobilize the authorities to better manage Mexico’s economy.

If Mexicans are angry at the hoarding of real estate, their anger should be directed at the Secretariat of Public Security, to demand swift action against the organized crime syndicates, which forcibly evict people from their homes, to take over their properties. It is the Cartél Inmobiliario (the Real Estate Cartel), and not the “digital nomads”, who violated laws to enable developers to displace locals, build more households than those legally permitted, and to change land use from residential to commercial, at the detriment of the public.

If some Mexicans are angry at people not speaking the local language while in Mexico, why are they (we) not speaking one of the 68 languages indigenous to our country? Spanish might be widely spoken in our country now, but it is as much of a foreign language as English is. A fact which the protesters conveniently forget.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt…

In their defence, these protesters might not have been the ones which conducted these violent acts. Historically, in Mexico, interest groups which aim at slanting social movements have sent provocateurs to infiltrate peaceful marches or protests, to turn public opinion against them and invalidate their legitimate claims. The violent acts which took place in Mexico City might as well be an instance of such a practice.

Some examples: a video taken during the recent protests, shows a person off-camera using a loudspeaker to make a call for “no violence”. The call falls in deaf ears, and a group of thugs starts attacking a shop’s windows. Another video shows a thug breaking a bank’s windows, while a staff member watches helplessly from behind the counter. Yet another shows masked thugs destroying a restaurant’s entrance, while terrified customers take refuge inside. The same video shows the same people turn into looters just moments later.

Unsurprisingly, the same thug in the two videos referred above, is the same one shown in a photo from a violent protest which took place in 2013 (!) against a proposed education reform. It is evident that some of these individuals have made of violent crime their business. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that powerful interest groups may be interested in delegitimising the concerns on rising living costs and low salaries that many inhabitants of Mexico City and other touristic cities in Mexico denounce. And that a criminal group (or groups) used violence to disrupt this protest.

…does not entail forgiving hateful discourse.

Yet, claiming that the xenophobic and hateful language used throughout the protest was somehow justified and forgivable is mistaken. Those who claim that this was a legitimate expression of dissent from “the people” should consider whether they would be ok with finding themselves or their properties unduly subjected to violence, based on someone else’s misdirected anger caused by diffuse socioeconomic concerns –over which they had no decision-making power or control. They should also consider whether they would be ok with someone targeting them when they become the minority –either socially, economically, or linguistically.

Clearly, they have forgotten about the saying which was so popular elsewhere in Mexico after so many Mexico-City dwellers emigrated to other cities and states, following the earthquake of 1985: “Haz patria, ¡mata un chilango!" (build the motherland, kill a Mexico City dweller!).

At the time, some locals in other Mexican states were quick to spread hate against those people coming from the recently-devastated capital city, to denounce supposed socioeconomic changes to their communities, and call for the expulsion –or outright murder, of the newcomers.

It was this kind of hateful calls which, in 1987, resulted in the death of Juan Israel Bucio Venegas, a Mexico City-born, 11-year old, who had moved to Hermosillo, the capital of the northern state of Sonora, with his parents. “Guacho, get away from here! Guacho, die!”, two kids yelled at him, as they beat him to death. The justification? Being a “guacho”, i.e. someone who came to Sonora from the central or southern Mexican states and who should be expelled from the community, at any cost.

“Make ‘hood and kill a gringo” is just the modern version of the same old hate that killed Juan Israel.

The youth vote has long been a cornerstone of Democratic optimism. But that foundational assumption is showing serious cracks. The biggest one? A gender divide so wide it might soon split the youth vote in half.

In recent cycles, young women (ages 18–29) have become a political force unto themselves, supporting Democratic candidates by wide margins. But young men? In 2020, they only gave Biden a slim majority. In 2024, some polls showed Trump outright winning Gen Z men, especially among white men. That’s not just a red flag — it’s a generational realignment.

The Gender Gap That Could Break the Youth Vote

In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a notable gender divide emerged among young voters. Men aged 18-29 showed increased support for Donald Trump, while women in the same age group predominantly favored Kamala Harris. This pattern reflects a broader trend where young men are gravitating toward conservative candidates, whereas young women are aligning more with progressive figures.

Historically, young women have participated in elections at higher rates than their male counterparts. For instance, in the 2018 midterm elections, 34% of young women (ages 18-24) voted compared to 30% of young men. This higher engagement among young women is linked to their active involvement in social movements and activism, but it can also be explained by external factors we’ll cover later.

The youth gender gap is no longer a blip — it’s a widening canyon. In 2020, young women (18–29) voted for Biden by a margin of 35+ points. Young men? Only by 13 points, and that dropped even further in 2024. It’s not just white men either — young Black and Latino men also showed noticeable shifts to the right.

Young women are mobilizing around issues like reproductive rights, climate change, gun reform, and LGBTQ+ equality. They see systemic inequality not as a debate topic but as a lived reality. Post-Dobbs, many are animated by a sense of existential threat. Their politics are not just values-based; they're survival-based.

Meanwhile, for many young men, the left is failing to offer a compelling narrative. Influenced by online personalities like Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, and Jordan Peterson, they’re drawn to messages of self-reliance, anti-"wokeness," and a nostalgic vision of masculinity. The right provides these men not just with ideas but with identity, aesthetic, and community, but with phantasms to blame in the form of Democrats, liberals, immigrants, woke ideology, and — most notably — women. The left, often intentionally, vacates that space in favor of a less toxic rhetoric, but the lack of pushback in these spaces allows for far more radical ideas to permeate in each.

Culture Wars, Meme Wars, and the War for Young Men

The digital landscape plays a nigh-inescapable role in shaping the political inclinations of young men. Influential figures such as Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and Adin Ross have garnered substantial followings among Gen Z males, often promoting narratives that resonate with extreme conservative ideologies. These personalities have utilized platforms like YouTube and TikTok to disseminate content that critiques progressive movements, influencing young male audiences toward right-leaning perspectives.

Conversely, young women have been mobilized by issues directly impacting their rights and futures. The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade galvanized many young women to engage politically, emphasizing reproductive rights and gender equality. This surge in activism facilitated by online communities and social media platforms fosters collective action and awareness among young women in an online ecosystem that right-wing young men live in complete ignorance of. While this does not necessarily mean that left-wing or progressive action is solely the realm of young women, they are at the forefront of these fights. As a result, the right uses this trend to tap into gender insecurities among young men by targeting women as wokescolds, SJW’s, and Karens — sometimes accurately.

The right speaks to young men in the language of humor, culture, and vibes. Their content is aspirational and entertaining, often grievance-filled with a tinge of hope for something more idealistic. The left, meanwhile, often communicates through earnest advocacy or academic jargon, spawning such ridicule as “the left can’t meme” type criticisms. While left-wing commentary online often spans paragraphs (and I’m not too proud to admit I’m literally doing this right this second), laconic critical irony dots the landscape of the right-wing conservative online space. In a media environment driven by algorithms and attention, that difference matters. Young men aren’t necessarily rejecting progressive policy. They’re rejecting the tone, the packaging, and the alienation they feel from being cast as problems rather than as partners.

As I’ve touched on briefly before, progressives have not yet figured out how to talk to men in a way that is inclusive, affirming, and non-punitive. But it’s possible. Labor organizing is one path forward. The resurgence of union activity at Amazon, Starbucks, and college campuses is being led by young men and women, side by side. Shared struggle is a powerful unifier.

There’s also a forgotten wellspring of progressive masculinity — veterans, tradesmen, first responders, laborers. These aren’t fringe cases. They’re models for what a healthy left-wing masculinity could look like: tough, selfless, rooted in service, and resilient against the populist mix of memes and misogyny. Eventually young men will grow up, and there needs to be a soft landing for them after the Andrew Tate era.

Share The Youth Observer

Why the Left is Losing — and How It Can Fight Back

The divergence in policy priorities between young men and women is evident in their responses to key issues. Young women have shown strong support for reproductive freedoms, viewing them as fundamental rights. In contrast, some young men, influenced by conservative discourse, exhibit ambivalence or opposition to these rights.

While both genders express anxiety over economic stability, young men are more likely to attribute economic challenges to immigration and globalization, aligning with nationalist rhetoric. Young women, however, often emphasize systemic inequalities and advocate for progressive economic reforms.

Surveys indicate that young women are more inclined to prioritize climate action, participating actively in environmental movements. Young men, although concerned, may place greater emphasis on economic growth and express skepticism about certain environmental policies.

If you are currently telling one of these groups in your head that they’re wrong for their stances, take a moment to step outside of your own perception. That’s how we start to reach these groups, by meeting people where they are, both literally and mentally.

So, here’s my unsolicited advice for Democrats, liberals, leftists and progressives going forward:

Don’t take young women for granted.

Their turnout can't be assumed, and their enthusiasm can’t be endlessly drawn upon without reciprocation. When their issues are dismissed or sidelined, young women notice — and disengage. Protecting abortion rights, addressing sexual violence, and affirming gender equity must remain front and center, not just during campaign season but in governance. Backing away from these policies will only signal to the wider base that your support of these positions was either performative or exploitative, and there are many on both sides of the political and gender aisle that already believe this to be the case.

Stop scolding young men. Start building identity based on community, solidarity, and dignity.

Shaming isn’t strategy. The fact that a term like “wokescolds” exists at all is indicative of the pushback to this approach. Young men aren’t a monolith of reactionaries-in-waiting — they’re often just disconnected. Offer them belonging instead of blame. Rebuild a positive vision of manhood rooted in care, cooperation, and contribution — not just critique.

Invest in voices who speak to young men where they are, not where we wish they were.

This means meeting them in the content ecosystems they already inhabit — YouTube, Twitch, Discord, TikTok — and doing so with authenticity, not condescension. Elevate creators who model pro-social masculinity, challenge toxic narratives, and build cultural cachet without losing moral clarity. Conservatives’ youth advantage with men is real but brittle. It rests on grievance, not governance, and their gains with men are often offset by catastrophic losses with young women.

As a young man myself, I’ve seen firsthand the attempts to engage from both sides. I’ve seen the anxieties of men who desperately want to be seen as independent and strong, only to slowly cripple themselves emotionally in the process. I’ve personally helped more young men with suicidal ideations than I ever thought I would. And my experience is not unique.

Addressing the concerns of young men requires engaging with their economic anxieties, their mental states, and their perceptions of social change without alienating their progressive base. It requires setting aside the preconceptions of male privilege, and acknowledging that toxic masculinity and patriarchy is harming these young men as well. Some prominent politicos and politicians like 2024 VP nominee Tim Walz have already been able to do this pretty effectively, and while it does incur some ridicule from the other side, persistence is the key.

This Is the Fight of the Next Decade

To move the needle with young men, Democrats and liberals need to fund creators who are building alternative, pro-social narratives that speak directly to their experiences and values. Hire young male organizers with real-life credibility — especially those with backgrounds in labor, military service, or the trades. Partner with Twitch streamers, Discord groups, and meme accounts to co-create culturally fluent campaigns, not — and I can’t stress this enough — not just to ask for fundraising money and recruit volunteers. We need to rethink not just our messaging, but the entire visual language we use to communicate progressive values in a way that is authentic, aspirational, and masculine without falling into reactionary tropes.

No one goes from being the scrawny kid to the yoked Chad overnight (at least not without a montage of some sort). The GOP's appeal to young men is bolstered by aligning with influencers who resonate with this demographic by catering to the lowest possible common denominator. However, to broaden their coalition, Republicans may need to moderate stances on issues important to young women and adopt more inclusive rhetoric, and that may not be something they will be willing or able to do in the next decade.

Understanding and addressing the distinct motivations and concerns of young men and women is imperative for political parties aiming to build robust, future-oriented coalitions. The gender gap in the youth vote isn’t just a polling quirk of an unusual election outcome — it’s the front line of a generational and ideological battle that will shape American politics for decades to come. If progressives want to win the future, they can’t afford to speak to only half of it.

I’ve written at length here about young men and the approaches to reaching them, and this is not to discount or exclude young women from the conversation. Young women are already leading. The question now is whether young men will join them — or be left behind by a movement that never learned how to speak to them. That requires more than new slogans and logos. It demands new strategies, new messengers, and a willingness to meet young men where they are, not just where we hope they will end up.

There’s still time to close the gap. But time alone won’t do it. The side that figures out how to build solidarity across the gender divide — not just in policy, but in culture and community — will own the next generation.

Adrian Brakeley is the President of the Young Democrats of Johnston County, NC and a Contributor at The Youth Observer.

Since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, his administration has been mired in scandals that Democrats could wield to hold power accountable and rally their base. Yet, they keep forgetting. Signal Gate, the mishandled Russia/Ukraine ceasefire promise, the Reagan National Airport collision, the Student and Legal Resident Disappearances, the unreleased Epstein Files, the Tariff Saga, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) controversy—where unelected billionaire Elon Musk is slashing vital federal departments—have all faded from Democratic focus too soon. Even when they fought hard, as with DOGE, they’ve let it slip away. Now, they’re fixated on the Tariff Saga, a ripe target they’ll likely drop in days, just as they’ve done before. This amnesia isn’t just a tactical error; it’s a betrayal of voters who want a party that fights with memory and purpose. If Democrats hope to rebuild trust and momentum, they must stop letting these 2025 controversies fade and start building a sustained case against an administration that thrives on chaos.

Signal Gate: A Security Fiasco Forgotten

Signal Gate, erupting in March 2025, was a scandal Democrats should’ve ridden for months. Top Trump officials—Vice President JD Vance, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—discussed airstrike plans against Houthi rebels in Yemen on a Signal group chat, accidentally including The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. This wasn’t a minor slip; it was a national security breach exposing reckless handling of sensitive information.

Democrats jumped initially, with senators grilling officials over the hypocrisy of a team that once raged over Hillary Clinton’s emails. But the fury faded. By April, they’d shifted to trade and immigration battles, letting Signal Gate vanish. The breach sparked lawsuits alleging federal record-keeping violations, yet Democrats didn’t push for probes into communication protocols or tougher security laws. Forgetting it gave Trump a free pass to dismiss it as a glitch.

Russia/Ukraine Ceasefire: A Broken Promise Dropped

The Russia/Ukraine ceasefire failure is a glaring case of Democratic amnesia. Trump vowed in January 2025 to secure a ceasefire “in 24 hours,” announcing a tentative deal. It collapsed fast. By April, officials admitted a full ceasefire was unlikely, with Russia escalating attacks. In a February 2025 Oval Office meeting, Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling him “ungrateful” and accusing him of “gambling with World War III” for rejecting Trump’s terms, humiliating Zelenskyy on live TV. Trump then praised Vladimir Putin as a “strong leader” working for peace, a stark contrast that stunned observers.

Democrats could’ve slammed Trump for undermining an ally while boosting Putin, or pressed for stronger Ukraine aid amid delays in authorized funding. Instead, they issued tepid statements and pivoted to domestic issues. By April, the fiasco was old news. Trump’s tilt toward Putin and attack on Zelenskyy were diplomatic blunders Democrats could’ve used to rally voters around allyship and credibility. Forgetting it let Trump dodge scrutiny while Ukraine suffered.

Reagan Airport Collision: A Tragedy Abandoned

The midair collision near Reagan National Airport on January 29, 2025, is another scandal Democrats let fade. An American Airlines jet crashed into a U.S. Army Black Hawk, killing all 67 aboard. The deadliest U.S. aviation disaster since 2001, it sparked outrage over air traffic control and oversight.

Reports revealed one controller was juggling planes and helicopters amid staffing shortages, with prior near-misses ignored. The NTSB’s March 2025 report flagged “intolerable risks” in Reagan’s airspace. Democrats could’ve demanded FAA probes or route restrictions, especially after Senator Tim Kaine warned of such a crash. But by March, they were mired in trade disputes, leaving the issue unanswered. The crash exposed a hub handling over 800 daily flights, yet Democrats’ silence let conspiracies flourish, abandoning victims’ families and voters seeking accountability.

Epstein Files: A Broken Promise Buried

The Epstein Files, promised for release in 2025, are another dropped scandal. Trump pledged to unseal them, a promise echoed post-inauguration. By April, they remained locked, with “national security concerns” cited.

Democrats could’ve hammered this as a transparency failure, resonating with voters craving accountability. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse argued the delay erodes trust, but the effort faded by April. The non-release fuels suspicions, yet Democrats let it slip, ceding the narrative to conspiracies and excusing a broken pledge.

Tariff Saga: The Latest Fight They’ll Forget

Democrats are now consumed by the Tariff Saga, sparked by Trump’s April 9, 2025, announcement pausing tariffs for 90 days on all countries except China, hit with a 125% hike. The S&P 500 soared 9.5%, but Trump’s video boasting his friends made big money raised questions about prior knowledge. Senator Elizabeth Warren led calls for probes into potential profiteering.

Suspicious stock trades spiked beforehand, yet history suggests Democrats will drop it soon, distracted by the next crisis. This could expose unethical behavior, but forgetting it lets the administration evade scrutiny, deepening voter doubts about Democratic resolve.

DOGE Controversy: An Unelected Power Grab Forgotten

The DOGE controversy, unfolding throughout 2025, is a scandal Democrats fought hard against—then forgot. Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire tapped by Trump to head the Department of Government Efficiency, has slashed vital departments like USAID, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Health and Human Services, laying off thousands. By April, DOGE had frozen Medicaid payments and cut Social Security staff, claiming to eliminate waste. Critics highlight Musk’s lack of electoral mandate and conflicts of interest—his SpaceX holds billions in federal contracts—arguing he’s dismantling critical services for vulnerable Americans.

Democrats initially resisted fiercely. In February 2025, congressional leaders held hearings, subpoenaed Musk, and rallied against cuts that gutted foreign aid and consumer protections. But by April, their focus had shifted to newer fights like the Tariff Saga, letting DOGE’s overreach fade from view. This unelected power grab could’ve been a rallying cry against elitism, yet their amnesia risks normalizing Musk’s unchecked influence, missing a chance to hold the administration accountable for outsourcing governance to a billionaire.

Why Amnesia Hurts—and How to Fix It

The pattern is maddening: Democrats seize a 2025 scandal—Signal Gate, the Reagan crash, the ceasefire failure, the disappearances, the Epstein Files, the Tariff Saga, DOGE—make noise, then let it fade. Even when they fought, as with DOGE, they’ve forgotten too soon. This isn’t just poor strategy; it’s a disconnect from their base. Voters want consistency, not a carousel of outrage. Forgetting these issues signals they’re not serious, eroding trust among supporters who demand follow-through.

Polls show Democratic voters feeling out of touch—a sentiment this amnesia worsens. Dropping scandals lets the administration reshape the narrative, banking on short memories. Democrats need a memory bank—a war room to keep these issues alive through hearings, ads, or grassroots campaigns. They must tie them to a story of failure: Signal Gate shows recklessness, DOGE reveals elitism, the ceasefire exposes misplaced priorities. Town halls, podcasts, and forums can sustain engagement. They must pick battles and stick with them—commitment builds trust; distraction destroys it.

The Path Forward

Since Trump took office in 2025, scandals like Signal Gate, the Russia/Ukraine ceasefire failure, the Reagan Airport collision, the Student and Legal Resident Disappearances, the unreleased Epstein Files, the Tariff Saga, and the DOGE controversy have offered Democrats chances to hold power accountable and rally their base. Yet, they keep forgetting, chasing new fights before old ones land—even after battling over DOGE. This isn’t just losing battles; it’s losing voters.

It’s time to remember. Democrats must build on these 2025 controversies, not abandon them for the next headline. Their supporters deserve a party that fights with purpose, not one that forgets why it’s fighting. The stakes are too high for anything less.

Links for Further Reading:

• The Guardian on Signal Gate: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/25/democrats-signal-group-chat-leak

• Washington Post on Signal Gate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/03/27/signal-gate-lawsuits-records-act

• Reuters on Russia/Ukraine Ceasefire: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-officials-eye-longer-road-ukraine-peace-frustration-mounts-2025-04-01/

• NBC News on Russia/Ukraine Ceasefire: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-zelenskyy-oval-office-meeting-2025-03-01

• CNN on Reagan Airport Collision: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/30/us/reagan-national-airport-crash-helicopter-near-misses

• New York Times on Reagan Airport Collision: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/helicopter-crash-reagan-national-airport.html

• Washington Post on Student Disappearances: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/02/10/students-residents-missing-ice/

• The Hill on Student Disappearances: https://thehill.com/policy/immigration/2025/02/15/aoc-demands-answers-missing-students/

• Newsweek on Epstein Files: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-epstein-files-delay-2025-03-05

• CNN on Epstein Files: https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/10/politics/whitehouse-epstein-files-delay

• CNN on Tariff Saga: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/09/business/trump-tariff-pause-announcement

• Washington Post on Tariff Saga: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/04/09/trump-tariff-pause-markets

• ABC News on DOGE: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/agencies-elon-musk-doge-dismantle-2025-02-27

• NPR on DOGE: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/03/elon-musk-doge-legal-questions

Despite the low approval ratings of Republicans, the Democratic Party is at their lowest approval rating in decades. Despite the intensity of the fearmongering campaign, the Democrats have been at war with themselves while the Republicans wage war against American democracy. Americans have derided the Democrats for engaging in no perceived action to counter the onslaught of destructive executive orders from Trump. For a party that campaigned in 2024 that the election of Trump would bring about the end of democratic institutions in America, their business-as-usual approach in 2025 has generated fury from their electorate. Recently, Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer has made himself the biggest target of Democratic discontent.

Subscribe now

After initially announcing he and other Democrats would vote to block a spending bill in the Senate, which would have forced a government shutdown, Schumer caved last minute and announced his support of the measure. While the Democrats lack a majority in the Senate, 60 Senators are required to vote in favour of a funding bill. Schumer’s support of providing further funding to the Trump administration was criticised across the board; by progressives such as Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and traditionalist Nancy Pelosi. Schumer’s actions to enable the Trump administration were not only a gross political calculation, it was a cowardly betrayal of the country in opposing Trump’s authoritarian takeover. Despite his insistence otherwise, a new leader is needed for Senate Democrats.

The Democrats have long struggled to introduce new leaders to the party. The Senate is no different, as the gerontocracy clings to power at the expense of new faces with brighter ideas. It is clear that if the Democrats want to resist Trump, they will need leaders more in touch with public outage in order to be successful. If there is a leadership change, here’s who could end up succeeding Schumer:

Cory Booker (New Jersey)

A recent Democratic dynamo, Booker received praise for his record-breaking 25-hour marathon speech opposing the Trump administration. Compared to Schumer’s insistence on TV, Booker is a social media magnate with in more in-touch online presence than the current leader. While the Senate leader is nowhere near as strong of a presence as the president, Booker can potentially bring a much-needed face to the Democrat’s opposition since their historic loss in 2024. However, Booker’s personability may be better served for another high office.

Booker himself had notoriety from his presidential campaign in 2020. The steam he’s received from the marathon speech has raised questions about his viability for a 2028 campaign. The symbolism of Booker toppling the record set by an avowed segregationist for the longest speech in the Senate may be an asset if he were to consider running for president in 2028.

Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)

The No. 3 Democrat in the line of leadership, Klobuchar lacks the pathos of Booker but brings more experience to the table. Of the modern liberal variety, Klobuchar has cultivated a legacy as one of the most effective legislators in Congress. In 2016, she passed more laws than any other members of Congress and has chaired the Democratic Steering Committee since 2015, communicating directly with local activists across the U.S.

Her legislative effectiveness and leadership experiences are two qualities that would be huge assets to her if she were to challenge Trump from the Senate leadership. Her proactive legislating and leadership positions within the party have certainly given her one of the best resumes of anyone on this list.

Chris Murphy (Connecticut)

A favourite of progressives, Murphy has been one of the most vocal opponents of Donald Trump. One of the more compelling political journeys, Murphy’s tenure in the Senate has been defined by the horrific 2012 Sandy Hook massacre that 20 school children under six years old and six staff members. Engaging in a 16-hour filibuster in favour of gun control in 2016, Murphy has been a loud and effective voice in holding the Democrats to their commitments against the American gun epidemic.

Murphy has recently been seen as one of the most prominent opponents to the Trump administration and critics of Democratic indifference. The 51-year-old from Connecticut, like Booker, has cultivated a strong social media presence for his speeches in opposition.

Brian Schatz (Hawaii)

The Deputy Whip of the Democrats is one of the comparably one of the younger leaders in the Democratic Senate. The 52-year-old of the Aloha State has historically been one of the more popular members of the Senate. A low-profile progressive, Schatz has been credited as influential behind the scenes for promoting more progressive policies among his colleagues. Bringing a diverse focus to Congress, Schatz has promoted telehealth, paid family leave for federal workers, and raised the smoking age to 21. Schatz’s cautious progressivism and creative policymaking can provide a fresh line of direction to counter the Trump administration’s policies.

However, Schatz voted for the budget bill that averted the government shutdown. Depending on whether Schumer is forced to step down because of his support, that vote may also prove fatal to any high aspirations Schatz has in the chamber.

Chris Van Hollen (Maryland)

While less known nationally, Van Hollen has been one of the leading critics of Israel’s genocide against Palestine. Criticising both the Biden and Trump administrations on their support of Israel restricting humanitarian aid into Gaza, Van Hollen’s consistent opposition on this issue is fairly unique from even progressive Senators. While the Marylander may struggle to relate this issue to the pro-Israeli lobby that several Democratic Senators are behold to, the increasingly critical views Americans have of Israel’s genocide in Gaza may see Van Hollen’s name receive elevation.

Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)

A climate hawk, the Rhode Island Senator has been one of the leading activists to address environmental issues facing the U.S. Whitehouse, Chair of the Budget Committee, has spoken about Climate Change in the Senate every week since 2012, celebrating his 250th speech in 2019. A reformer, Whitehouse has called for greater restrictions on the power of Senate Party leaders from serving both as committee chairs in internal party positions. Previously considered a potential Supreme Court nominee by Barack Obama after the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, Whitehouse is certainly respected enough by his colleagues to reach higher office.

However, Whitehouse has received frequent criticism for insider trading and violating the STOCK Act. While one of many members of Congress to engage in insider trading, it certainly would not help Congress’ dismal approval if the majority leader would receive a mandate with such behaviour.

Secessionist Crisis

The Senate has an internal democracy, so the next leader of the Democrats will not be decided by the public but by the Senators themselves. The upper chamber is increasingly distant and unrepresentative of the wider American population and it is no guarantee that the next Democratic leader will change that trajectory. However, it is clear that the Democratic opposition to the Trump administration is in dire need of fresh faces and must move on from their internal divisions and mount collective opposition. The silence many Democratic Senators have expressed towards Schumer is almost a confirmation that the upper chamber may require more than a fresh new face to provide a much-needed check on executive power.

For decades, American politics has been dominated by older leaders. From the presidency, Congress, and even state legislatures, the halls of power have often reflected a generational gap that leaves younger voices unheard. But a new wave of leadership is emerging, signaling that the age of gerontocracy may finally be giving way to a more representative, youthful political landscape.

Young people have long been at the forefront of political activism, pushing for climate action, gun reform, reproductive rights, and economic justice. Yet, when it comes to actual representation in government, the numbers have remained starkly disproportionate. The average age of Congress hovers just under 60, while the country’s median age is nearly 40, and due to get older as people continue to live longer. For years, experience was equated with age, but a growing number of young leaders are proving that lived experience and passion can be just as powerful.

We tend to think of young people in politics in the same vein as the enigmatic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who at 35 years old is still one of the most influential and powerful voices on the left-wing of American politics since her election in 2018. But what we tend to see less of is people in the party structures, the general assemblies, the local municipal governments, etc. Long have all of these areas been dominated by the Silent and Boomer generations, and only recently has Gen X started to gain a real foothold of power.

There are many reasons why Americans everywhere are fed up with the age-advanced having a stranglehold on the reins of power in this nation. We have seen time and again the inability of our elder elected leaders grasping current-day concerns of the younger generations, while at the same time complaining about younger generations (but, that’s a tale as old as time). As more Congressmembers show their age, calls for age limits, term limits, and senility tests abound. Many of my peers will express a sentiment akin to, “they’re too entrenched, and therefore we need systemic change to elect more young people.”

But I — and others I will highlight below — hold a different view: why wait?

Challenging the Status Quo

You don’t have to look much further than the heads of the Democratic Party to see younger faces emerging. At just 25 years old, Anderson Clayton made headlines as the youngest state party chair in the nation when she assumed leadership of the North Carolina Democratic Party in 2022. Her victory wasn’t just symbolic; it marked a conscious rejection of traditional political hierarchies. Clayton ran on a platform that prioritized rural outreach, recognizing that the party’s neglect of these communities had left many voters disillusioned, and combined it with a personality of restless energy.

Instead of relying on top-down strategies, Clayton took to the ground, launching a “30 campuses in 30 days” tour to engage young voters. Her leadership serves as a case study in how younger perspectives can reinvigorate state parties and address voter apathy. While Democrats faced tough challenges in 2024, Clayton's grassroots approach began laying the foundation for long-term gains. She recently won re-election to her position in a landslide, and her infectious energy seems to be pumping the blood of tar heel (that’s an old term for North Carolinians) Democrats to push them past the disappointment of losing their increasingly purple state to Donald Trump by 4 points. Her next challenge will be rallying voters for a contentious Senate election in 2026.

Another example: in February, 24-year-old David Hogg shocked many in the establishment with his rise to leadership as the newly elected Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party. After surviving the Parkland school shooting in 2018, Hogg became one of the most prominent advocates for gun reform. His work with March for Our Lives galvanized a generation of young voters and forced lawmakers to confront the gun violence epidemic.

Though some in the Democratic establishment felt he was too bullish on gun legislation and too focused on youth advocacy, his presence in leadership is a testament to the power of activism translating into institutional change, and reflects a growing recognition that those directly affected by policy decisions must have a seat at the table. Hogg's focus on increasing youth voter turnout and pushing for bold policy solutions stands in sharp contrast to the incrementalism often championed by older politicians.

And these two are merely the most prominent elected positions I can exhibit. In fact, recently in Texas, 35-year-old Kendall Scudder was elected as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party. There are also many influential young Democrats elected at the State and Federal level that under-40 progressives who want to run for office should model themselves after: Maxwell Frost (28) from Florida, James Talarico (35) from Texas, or Nabeela Syed (25) from Illinois, many of whom have been supported by organizations like Run For Something.

There’s no shortage of young progressives and liberals, but for every action there is an equal yet opposite reaction. Republican counterparts are also asserting their influence, and an increasing population of young conservatives are making waves in American politics.

Subscribe now

Young Conservatives on the Rise

Not to be outdone, young leaders are also gaining traction on the right. For every young Democrat running and building prominence, there’s a young Republican doing the same — if not more. Figures like Madison Cawthorn and Bo Hines (both currently 29) in North Carolina both ran for Congress as soon as they were eligible. John Wahl of Alabama was elected chair of the Alabama Republican Party at 35 years old in 2021 and now serves as the Vice Chair of the RNC. These and many other young conservatives exemplify a new wave of leadership that has been buoyed by the Trump and MAGA base as they attempt to woo more young voters (especially men) to their side. Many of these leaders focus on championing small government policies, economic growth, and issues that resonate with younger conservative voters, such as parental rights, culture change, and Second Amendment advocacy.

Organizations like Turning Point USA — headed by Charlie Kirk (31), pictured above — Run GenZ and the Young Republican National Federation are actively cultivating young conservative candidates. This marks a significant challenge to their Democratic counterparts, as their rise underscores a broader shift towards an emerging generation in politics.

This is combined with a revolution in how young people consume political and news content, which is overwhelmingly on social media and through online mediums rather than traditional television mass media. Not to mention most of the voices on the right who are by far the most influential are not politicians, but instead podcasters, Youtubers, Twitch streamers and TikTok influencers. The same could be said for the left, but not nearly to the same extent that the conservative base has built online.

After the 2024 election loss, Democrats reeled at the possibility that these online platforms and the lack of an overwhelming liberal presence is something they need to make up for in the coming years. But as Hasan Piker (33), a prominent left-wing Twitch streamer, advised in the aftermath, “You can’t podcast your way out of this problem.”

Democrats have typically (at least in recent memory) won the youth vote handily. Though Kamala Harris still won the youth vote in 2024, Republicans have moved the needle to the right and are winning Gen Z young men while continuing to widen their youth base of support. As Charlie Kirk himself put it (on Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom’s podcast, of all places),

“One of the things we saw that the Democrats completely ignored — and your side was basically not acknowledging what was happening — was the crisis that young people were experiencing... And the message that was being fed to young people was ‘lower your expectations’… And we saw this as an opportunity, especially with young men.”

Just last week Gov. Gavin Newsom said that the Democratic brand is toxic. If conservatives like Kirk do indeed have their fingers on the pulse of the young voter, Democrats, liberals, leftists and progressives have the task set before them of how to combat this shift.

The Case for Youth Representation — regardless of party

The rise of leaders like Clayton, Hogg, Scudder, and their conservative peers challenges the entrenched belief that age is synonymous with competence. Younger leaders often bring urgency, innovation, and a willingness to confront issues that older politicians have sidestepped. They also represent the lived experiences of younger constituents who face economic instability, climate anxiety, and the repercussions of political inaction.

Moreover, research shows that younger politicians tend to prioritize policies that address long-term challenges rather than short-term gains. With growing disillusionment among young voters, seeing their peers in positions of power can inspire greater civic engagement and restore faith in the political process.

While the age of gerontocracy may not be over quite yet, its grip on American politics is loosening. The growing prominence of young leaders across the spectrum is a reflection of changing attitudes about who is qualified to lead. But this shift won’t happen automatically. It requires continued efforts to support young candidates, remove systemic barriers to entry, and ensure that government truly reflects the diversity of its people.

The question is no longer whether young people are ready to lead, and the political landscape will be better for it. The question is whether the political establishment is ready to make room for them, or if they will have a struggle on their hands. As other young leaders show, the future of leadership isn’t something to wait for — it’s already here.

Adrian Brakeley is the President of the Young Democrats of Johnston County, NC and a Contributor at The Youth Observer.

As a man, I’ll admit this with all honesty — the world would be a better, more peaceful, and more balanced place if we had more women in positions of leadership. And if you think I’m exaggerating, just look at what happened on February 28, 2025.

The heated exchange between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wasn’t just another political spat — it was a masterclass in ego-driven leadership gone wrong. What was supposed to be a discussion about support for Ukraine turned into a public war of words, with Trump and his VP JD Vance chastising Zelenskyy like they were on some reality TV show. Instead of diplomacy, we got drama. Instead of collaboration, we got conflict.

And that’s exactly my point.

For too long, the world has been dominated by this kind of leadership — chest-thumping, ego-fueled, and obsessed with power plays. But if we want a future defined by progress, peace, and prosperity, we need something different. We need more women in charge.

Here’s why.

Women Lead with Empathy — And Empathy Is Power

One of the most underrated and powerful leadership traits is empathy. Not the “soft” kind of empathy that people mistakenly associate with weakness — I’m talking about the kind of empathy that builds trust, strengthens teams, and drives results.

When women lead, they listen. They understand the importance of putting themselves in others’ shoes before making decisions. And that’s not just a feel-good quality — it’s a strategic advantage.

Take Jacinda Ardern, for example. During her time as New Zealand’s Prime Minister, she handled crisis after crisis — from the Christchurch mosque shootings to the COVID-19 pandemic — with compassion and clarity. She listened to experts, connected with her people, and made decisions rooted in both logic and empathy. And guess what? It worked.

Compare that to the Trump-Zelenskyy fiasco, where personal pride overshadowed global priorities. Imagine how different that conversation would’ve been with a leader focused on understanding instead of dominating.

Collaboration Over Competition

One of the biggest problems with traditional male-dominated leadership is the obsession with competition. It’s always about who’s the toughest, who’s the loudest, who “wins.” But real leadership isn’t about winning — it’s about creating wins for everyone.

Women excel at collaboration. They understand that the best solutions come when diverse voices are heard and collective effort is valued. In business, teams led by women consistently outperform their competitors because they foster environments of respect, innovation, and shared success.

During the COVID-19 crisis, countries led by women — like Finland’s Sanna Marin and Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen — stood out for their effective, coordinated responses. They didn’t waste time on political posturing or ego battles. They focused on solutions, and their people benefited.

Less Ego, More Humility

Let’s call it what it is: fragile male egos have been responsible for some of the world’s biggest disasters. Wars, economic crashes, and diplomatic failures often have one thing in common — leaders who see admitting fault as a weakness and doubling down on bad decisions as strength.

Women leaders bring a different kind of strength — the kind rooted in humility. They’re more willing to admit when they’re wrong, seek advice when they don’t have all the answers, and change course when needed. That’s not weakness — that’s wisdom.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberia’s first female president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, embodied this kind of leadership. She inherited a country devastated by civil war and focused on reconciliation and rebuilding — not by pretending to have all the answers, but by listening, learning, and leading with humility.

Balancing Power and Care

Leadership requires a balance of strength and compassion — and women are masters of that balance. They know when to be tough and when to be kind. They understand that making hard decisions doesn’t mean losing sight of humanity.

This balance is exactly what’s missing from many of today’s global leaders. The Trump-Zelenskyy clash wasn’t just embarrassing — it was a reminder of how much damage unchecked ego and power can do. Imagine if that same conversation had been led with care and collaboration instead of arrogance and aggression.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

If you think this is just my opinion, let’s talk facts:

• Peace and Stability: When women are involved in peace negotiations, agreements are 35% more likely to last at least 15 years.

• Economic Growth: Countries with higher levels of gender equality tend to have stronger, more stable economies.

• Business Performance: Companies with more women in leadership are 21% more likely to outperform their competitors.

The data is clear — when women lead, everyone wins.

This Isn’t About Men vs. Women — It’s About Balance

I’m not saying men shouldn’t lead. I’m saying leadership shouldn’t be a boys’ club. For too long, we’ve been running the world on an imbalance — too much aggression, not enough empathy; too much competition, not enough collaboration.

We don’t need fewer male leaders — we need more diverse ones. We need more women in positions of power, bringing the balance and wisdom that’s been missing for far too long.

So What Can We Do?

If we want to see more women in leadership, we need to take action:

• Support Women in Your Organization: Mentor them, promote them, and give them the opportunities they deserve.

• Challenge Gender Bias: Speak up when you see unfair treatment or stereotypes holding women back.

• Vote for Women: If we want more women in political leadership, we need to support them at the ballot box.

• Teach the Next Generation: Raise your kids to believe leadership isn’t about gender — it’s about character and capability.

The Future Is Balanced

The Trump-Zelenskyy debacle was a wake-up call. It reminded us how far we still have to go — and how desperately we need a different kind of leadership. A leadership that values wisdom over ego, collaboration over conflict, and empathy over aggression.

Women bring those qualities to the table. And if we want a world that’s more peaceful, more prosperous, and more just — it’s time to start giving them more seats at that table