THe Strategic Audit

08/23/2026

"The Fiscal Shell Game: Part 2
Who Does America Owe Nearly $40 Trillion To?

If you listen to American politics long enough, you will eventually hear some version of the same warning: the United States is almost $40 trillion in debt, foreigners are financing our government, and someday countries like China may decide they want their money back.

It is an effective story because it sounds familiar. Most of us know what it means to owe money. You borrow from a bank, the bank expects repayment, and if things go badly enough the lender can come after your assets.

That mental picture gets imported into discussions of the national debt.

It is also badly misleading.

The federal debt is not one enormous loan from some mysterious creditor. It is the combined value of millions of Treasury securities held by investors, financial institutions, retirement systems, government trust funds, foreign investors, and the Federal Reserve.

To understand what the national debt actually means, it helps to start with a surprisingly simple question:

Who owns it?

First, there are really two kinds of federal debt
When people hear that the national debt is approaching $40 trillion, they are hearing the figure the Treasury calls Total Public Debt Outstanding.

As of June 17, 2026, that figure was about $39.3 trillion. But that number includes two different categories of debt: debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings.

Debt held by the public includes Treasury securities held by individuals, banks, mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, corporations, state and local governments, the Federal Reserve, and foreign investors and governments.

The other category, intragovernmental debt, is money one part of the federal government owes to another part. Government trust funds and other federal accounts hold special Treasury securities because they have accumulated surpluses that are invested in federal obligations. Treasury itself defines these holdings as Government Account Series securities held by federal trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds.

That distinction already complicates the familiar image of the national debt.

Part of what we call “America’s debt” is money the federal government owes to investors outside the government.

Another part is effectively an obligation recorded between different parts of the federal government itself.

Those obligations are real. They should not simply be erased from the books. But neither category resembles a family borrowing $39 trillion from a bank."
Link to the full article in the comments. Subscribe, it's FREE!!

08/21/2026

"Why Doesn't America Work the Way Most of Us Think It Should? PART 2
Why Fear Changes Politics

I. The Instinct for Order
When a building catches fire, nobody calls a committee meeting to debate building codes. People look for a clear exit, a direct command, and someone who appears to know what to do. Emergencies change the way people think. When life feels stable and predictable, there is more room for openness, experimentation, disagreement, and patience. But when the ground starts to shift—when jobs feel insecure, social norms seem to change quickly, institutions appear ineffective, and the future becomes difficult to predict—people often begin to value different things. Under conditions of perceived threat, priorities can change:

Order Over Freedom: Rights and procedures may begin to feel secondary to restoring safety.

Conformity Over Diversity: Dissent and difference can start to look less like healthy pluralism and more like signs that the group is coming apart.

Punishment Over Rehabilitation: Harsh consequences can become reassuring because they signal that rules still exist and someone is willing to enforce them.

Strong Leadership Over Institutional Process: Checks, balances, negotiation, and compromise can look frustratingly slow compared with a leader who promises immediate action.

This does not mean that fear automatically turns people into authoritarians. People respond to insecurity in very different ways. Some become more cooperative. Some become more politically active. Some become more committed to equality or mutual aid. But sustained perceptions of danger, instability, and disorder can make authority, conformity, punishment, and decisive leadership more appealing. And that matters enormously in a democracy."

Link to the full article in the comments. Subscribe, it's FREE!

08/21/2026

As we approach the November midterms, I hope you will take time to read these important articles.
This page is meant to inform. To take complex ideas and policy, and break it down into understandable pieces.

"The Fiscal Shell Game: Part 1
Why the National Debt Panic Is Political Theater

Every few budget cycles, Washington puts on the same show. The national debt is suddenly a crisis. Politicians warn that the country is “living beyond its means,” cable news fills the screen with giant numbers, and editorial boards invoke our children and grandchildren. Before long, someone compares the federal budget to a family sitting around the kitchen table deciding what it can afford.

Then comes the question that is supposed to settle the argument: How are we going to pay for it?

We hear that question constantly when the subject is healthcare, housing, education, infrastructure, climate investment, childcare, or poverty reduction. It tends to become much less urgent when Congress is cutting taxes, expanding military spending, rescuing financial markets, or responding to an emergency.

That inconsistency matters because the national debt debate is not only about accounting. It is also about what government is allowed to do. And much of that debate begins with a metaphor that does not actually describe how the federal government works.

The household analogy
For an ordinary household, the basic rules are pretty clear. We have to obtain money before we can spend it. We earn wages, receive income, draw down savings, sell something, or borrow. If we consistently spend more than we bring in and eventually run out of credit, we have a problem.

Businesses work under similar constraints. So do cities and states.

The federal government is different in one very important respect: the United States issues the currency in which its debts are denominated. Households, businesses, and state governments are users of dollars. The federal government sits inside the system that creates and issues them.

That distinction does not mean government spending is unlimited. It means the federal government does not face the same kind of financial constraint that a household does. A family can literally run out of dollars. The federal government cannot run out of dollars in the same way.

What it can run out of is people, materials, energy, time, and productive capacity.

That is the more important distinction."

Link to the full article in the comments. Subscribe, It's FREE!!

08/20/2026

"Throughout this series, I want to examine American politics through four recurring questions.

What are we seeing?
What political behaviors, cultural movements, and institutional changes are shaping American life?

Why does it happen?
What psychological, economic, social, and historical forces help explain these patterns?

Who benefits from it?
Who gains political, economic, or social power when fear, distrust, hierarchy, and division increase?

What would actually change it?
What reforms could reduce the conditions that make democratic government vulnerable in the first place?

That last question is where this series ultimately has to go. Because if insecurity makes democracy more fragile, then defending democracy cannot consist only of telling people to vote or to place greater faith in institutions they already believe have failed them. Voting matters enormously, but democracy also depends on whether people have meaningful control over their lives between elections. Economic security, strong public education, labor power, accessible healthcare, stable housing, civic institutions, fair elections, and responsive government all shape the conditions under which democratic citizenship becomes possible—not simply because they are desirable policies, but because they affect whether people have the security and power needed to participate. A person who is constantly afraid of losing housing, employment, healthcare, or social standing experiences politics differently from someone who feels secure enough to tolerate uncertainty and disagreement.
Security is therefore not separate from democracy. It may be one of its prerequisites."

Link to Full Article in the comments. Subscribe, it's FREE!

07/27/2026

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR STAY

The President Possesses No Constitutional Authority to Transform Federal Administrative Power Into a National Election-Regulation Authority
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Amicus submits this brief because the question presented is not merely whether a particular election-security policy is desirable. The question is whether the Constitution permits a President to assume powers deliberately divided among Congress and the States.

The Executive Order at issue represents a fundamental alteration of the constitutional balance between federal and state authority by attempting to convert federal administrative agencies—particularly the United States Postal Service—into regulators of state election procedures.

The Court should reject this unprecedented assertion of executive power.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The President’s argument rests upon a constitutional inversion.

The Executive Branch argues:

The President supervises federal agencies.

USPS is a federal agency.

Election integrity is a legitimate federal interest.

Therefore, the President may direct federal agencies to impose conditions affecting state election administration.

Each premise may contain an element of truth. The conclusion does not follow.

The Constitution does not grant the President general authority over elections. It does not authorize the Executive Branch to determine voter eligibility. It does not permit federal agencies to condition access to state-created election procedures upon presidentially created requirements.

The President’s constitutional duty is to execute laws enacted by Congress—not to create election laws where Congress has declined to act.

The Executive Order therefore represents not faithful ex*****on of federal law, but an attempt to exercise legislative authority without legislative authorization.

Read the Full Brief Here https://open.substack.com/pub/thestrategicaudit/p/in-the-supreme-court-of-the-united?r=c8pb&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

07/27/2026

The Debt of History and the Real Boundary of Antisemitism
The Sacrifices That Built Modern Human Rights

"The global debate surrounding the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and the broader ideology of political Zionism has reached a critical breaking point. Yet, all too often, legitimate political critique, human rights advocacy, and opposition to state violence are dismissed with a single, weaponized label: antisemitism.

To understand why this label is being so dangerously diluted, we have to look back at the historical foundation of the modern international order. The State of Israel was established following the absolute devastation of World War II—a global conflict fought to crush fascist regimes that had unleashed unprecedented horror upon humanity.

In that war, the world paid a staggering price in human life:

The United States suffered over 400,000 military deaths.

The United Kingdom lost around 450,000 military personnel.

The Soviet Union bore a crushing loss of approximately 8.7 million military deaths, alongside millions of civilians.

Allies like Canada, Australia, Poland, France, and countless others lost hundreds of thousands more.

In total, over 15 million Allied military personnel gave their lives fighting totalitarianism. Within the concentration camps and killing fields of Europe, 11 million people were systematically murdered—including 6 million Jews, alongside millions of Romani people, disabled individuals, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish citizens, and political dissidents.

Out of that catastrophic sacrifice, the international community built a global consensus around human rights and international law—a framework designed to ensure that no government, anywhere, could operate above accountability or inflict unfettered state violence on a civilian population."

https://open.substack.com/pub/thestrategicaudit/p/the-debt-of-history-and-the-real?r=c8pb&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

07/24/2026

https://open.substack.com/pub/steadystate1/p/the-steady-state-files-amicus-brief-83d?r=c8pb&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

The Steady State filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. District Court in the case of former CIA Director John Brennan.

07/24/2026

An important read.

A plea to Americans to defend those who administer our elections, and to the nation’s military leaders to preserve the constitutional boundary between the armed forces and partisan politics.

07/23/2026

We don't have to talk nice about dead policitians.

TikTok | Make Your Day

07/23/2026

AIPAC, Friend or Foe?

TikTok | Make Your Day