Walking through the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., you’ll find a hallway lined with candid photographs of former U.S. presidents. These images capture everything from tense negotiations with Nikita Khrushchev to the Watergate hearings, and even lighter moments, like the “Gipper” singing in the rain.

These snapshots, taken by photographers and club members, represent both the triumphs and the darkest hours of our nation’s history. They recall an era when journalists dedicated countless hours to deep-dive investigations because the truth actually mattered. Back then, reporters were willing to risk their reputations, careers, and sometimes even their lives to get the story right. Today, that level of grit is rare in mainstream media. Instead, we usually get politically charged narratives dictated by editors who serve liberal agendas.

I recently attended The College Fix gala at the Press Club. It’s an organization with an important mission: training the next generation of free-thinking journalists. Their student reporters are active at universities across the country, breaking news and covering stories the mainstream media completely ignores. Many of these fellows go on to secure internships at major outlets nationwide, both mainstream and conservative. Seeing a ballroom packed with these bright young reporters was a powerful reminder that real journalism isn’t dead yet.

Their introductory video featured a line that really stuck with me: “Before there was Substack, free-press journalists had pamphlets.” While the major newspapers of the colonial era remained loyal to the English Crown, Thomas Paine used his pamphlet, Common Sense, to make the radical case for independence. We often forget that the revolutionaries we celebrate today, including Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and Hamilton, were once considered radicals. They used the power of the pen to challenge the status quo long before a formal free press even existed.

The authors of the Constitution valued free speech so highly that they put it right at the top in the First Amendment. Yet, 250 years later, those protections are under threat. You don’t have to look far for proof. Just last week, the Carolina Journal reported they are still being denied membership in the NC Capitol Press Corps because of their affiliation with the John Locke Foundation, even though other affiliated groups, like NC Newsline, are allowed in. Furthermore, ABC and CBS recently refused to air a speech by Donald Trump during primetime. Globally, we see journalists jailed for reporting on corruption and private citizens imprisoned just for their social posts. It feels like the “free world” is becoming less free, and I worry that our appetite for free speech is waning.

Ann Widdecombe, a former British Conservative Member of Parliament who was recently murdered, hit the nail on the head when she said: “Nobody has the right to live their lives being protected from offense or from insult or from hurt feelings. It is an occupational hazard of living in society.” I believe what is often framed as concern for others’ feelings is actually just an excuse to exert government control and silence dissent, the primary tools of any authoritarian regime.

Many people are starting to wonder if Americans could eventually be jailed for free speech. We live in the greatest country on earth because we have freedom of conscience; we are free to think for ourselves, independent of the government. Our Constitution was specifically designed to be challenged through checks and balances, and if our rights are infringed, we can petition the courts. While we are a litigious nation, that legal system is exactly what keeps tyranny at bay.

Today, we see a growing appeal for expanded government control on both ends of the political spectrum. We reached this point partly because a biased press has driven anti-capitalist narratives, but we can save our country through a truly free press. The same drive that led the Founders to rebel against tyranny must now drive us to protect free speech at home and abroad. The question is: can we keep it?

I believe we can, and we must. This happens through the power of citizen journalism. We see it when ordinary people start Substacks to blog about injustices in their schools and communities. We see it when journalists move beyond a quick tweet to truly investigate a story, the kind of work Bob Woodward would approve of. And we see it through organizations like The College Fix, which continues to train reporters who cherish liberty and fight for the truth.

I would like to see even more groups training not just students, but all conservatives, including parents, activists, and volunteers, to write about corruption in their own backyards and report the local news that mainstream media ignores. The Leadership Institute offers excellent training opportunities in writing. Those who love liberty and capitalism can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines while a socialist agenda is pushed. We need more citizen journalists in our nation and right here in Wilmington. I encourage you to start writing for The Wilmington Standard. If you see something happening in your community, write about it. As that video at the gala stated: “A free press helped build this nation; a biased press threatens it.” We hold the power in our hands to combat that threat.

Last Friday, many Wilmington classrooms sat empty as teachers headed to Raleigh. While the headlines focused on educational “funding gaps,” the real story is about a refusal to accept the North Carolina Supreme Court’s recent Leandro decision and a desire to push a litany of union-backed policies in our state.

The End of a 32-Year Education Battle

For decades, the Leandro case was used as a judicial workaround to the North Carolina Constitution. The North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) and activist groups hoped a judge would force the state to spend billions, bypassing the legislative branch entirely.

This legal saga began in 1994, when five low-wealth school districts and families sued the state over funding. In 1997, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the right to a “sound basic education.” By 2004, the Court focused on at-risk students in Hoke County. However, between 2017 and 2023, the trial court expanded its reach, attempting to implement a “Comprehensive Remedial Plan” (the WestEd plan) for the entire state. What began as a challenge regarding specific district needs morphed into a massive, statewide spending mandate.

On April 2, 2026, the N.C. Supreme Court brought the drawn-out battle to a definitive end. In a 4-3 opinion, the Court ruled that the power to tax and spend is an authority vested solely with the General Assembly. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice, affirming that the judiciary is not—and should not be—an expert in education policy.

Chief Justice Newby’s opinion highlighted a critical error in the lower court’s handling: the 1994 lawsuit was an “as-applied” challenge, meant to address specific students in specific counties. Over time, the trial court improperly treated it as a “facial” challenge to the entire state system, despite the plaintiffs never properly amending their pleadings to make such a massive, statewide claim.

Federal Precedent Against Leandro

The N.C. Supreme Court’s decision isn’t a political win; it is a return to bedrock precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court over 50 years ago in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973).

In Rodriguez, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that education is not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and warned that judges lack the “specialized knowledge and experience” to oversee local tax systems and school budgets. The Court upheld that the San Antonio Independent School District’s financing system- based on local property taxes- was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The 2026 NC decision mirrors this logic: judges are not school board members, and they certainly aren’t tax collectors. As Justice Powell noted then, and as our state court affirms now, “The heavy lift of education reform belongs to those who answer to the taxpayers, not those who wear black robes.”

Furthermore, in the 2009 case Horne v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court criticized lower courts for maintaining school-funding injunctions long after original conditions had changed. Justice Alito emphasized that courts must be “sensitive to the state’s interest” in managing its own institutions. NC’s economy and school system have been transformed since 1994; Horne provided the legal framework for our courts to finally step back and let elected leaders drive policy.

The NCAE’s Socialist Laundry List

The activists who protested in Raleigh claim their walkout was “for the children.” In reality, they are protesting the Constitution and pushing a radical agenda that would strip power from parents and hand it to unions like the NCAE.

The NCAE’s platform goes far beyond the classroom. They are seeking to bypass constitutional legislative authority in favor of their own political interests. Consider their socialist laundry list, which seeks to throw taxpayer money at the wall without regard for local district needs:

• Massive Spending: Demanding \$20,000 per student by 2030 and a 25% across-the-board raise for all employees, regardless of performance or local tax base.

• Economic Hostility: Eliminating corporate tax incentives that bring jobs to NC, ending Opportunity Scholarships for families, and “fixing” the tax system—a smoke screen for massive tax hikes.

• Political Power Grabs: Forcing a lift on the ban on collective bargaining for public workers and demanding “fair maps” to benefit their preferred candidates.

These blanket policies would bankrupt school districts, tank our state’s economy, and end North Carolina’s status as a top state for business.

Conclusion: Funding Students, Not Politics

We all want our students to have access to a high-quality education. To suggest that the General Assembly doesn’t want to fund schools is disingenuous. The legislature is currently advocating for sustainable teacher raises, fighting for parental rights, and providing students with the choice to attend schools that best fit their needs.

While the legislature works on a transparent education budget, radicals want funding decisions made behind closed doors by unelected union leaders and judges. We see this local radicalism in New Hanover County as well, where board members like Judy Justice have encouraged teachers to be political and walk out on their students.

The framers of our state knew that funding and budget decisions are best made by elected leaders, and it is time to fund students, not union-backed sit-ins.

The Two-Vote Upset

In North Carolina, we take pork BBQ, college basketball, and elections very seriously. We fight over Eastern versus Western style and NC State versus UNC, and last week we witnessed a historic upset fit for the Dean Dome—the rivals: Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page.

For 16 years, Berger has steered the state’s legislative agenda with a firm grip. However, the March 3 primary results delivered a shockwave. Sheriff Page led the incumbent by a mere two votes on election night. Like most great rivalry games, this one is still in overtime. Since election night, the gap has widened; after counting provisional ballots and the official election canvass this past Friday, Page’s lead has grown to 23 votes, with the final count being Page 13,136 and Berger 13,113.

The Drama Intensifies

The past two weeks following the election have been a political nail-biter in NCPol. We’re already seeing the drama unfold:

• Former State Senator Bob Rucho, a staunch Berger ally, resigned from the State Board of Elections. His departure followed revelations of prohibited political contributions and public support for Berger while serving on the board.

• State Auditor Dave Boliek, who holds the power to appoint SBOE members under a new 2024 law, has faced calls to recuse himself. Page’s camp argues that Boliek’s vocal support for Berger is a massive conflict of interest. Boliek’s team maintains that the Auditor’s office cannot sway the election results.

What Happens Next?

Don’t expect a concession speech anytime soon. Over $10 million was spent to keep Berger in office. Some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the state have a vested interest in keeping the current Pro Tem, and the campaign will certainly explore every legal avenue.

With a margin of one percent, expect Berger to call for a recount this week. Though recounts rarely change the final vote tally. Both candidates have announced legal defense funds, preparing for what could be a long and expensive legal battle. Much like the Jefferson Griffin vs. Allison Riggs race of 2024, this could land in the NC State Supreme Court—where Berger’s son sits as an Associate Justice. Could Justice Berger be the deciding opinion to defend his father?

A Power Vacuum in Raleigh?

I understand the frustrations many in the Republican party feel about his leadership. While I’ve had my fair share of disagreements with his tactics, his impact is undeniable. No other politician in my lifetime has had such a profound effect on our state government and the NC Republican Party. If Berger keeps his seat for another term, he will have served longer than his former Democrat counterpart, the late Senator Marc Basnight.

Berger was the architect of the Republican majority through redistricting. There are many Republicans in office today thanks to his redrawn district maps. On the other hand, there are quite a few elected officials who have been ousted because of him as well. He steered a massive power shift, stripping authority from the Executive branch and vesting it in the General Assembly. Today, North Carolina has one of the most powerful legislatures in the nation. If Berger is ousted, the Senate faces a total paradigm shift. He didn’t just lead the Senate; he drove the agenda and suppressed opposition.

Who fills those shoes? Let’s look at his top lieutenants—names that should be familiar to you in Eastern North Carolina:

• Senator Bill Rabon (Rules Chair): As Berger’s gatekeeper of every bill, his influence is massive. While a top contender to be next in line, Rabon has hinted at retirement for several years. Berger’s departure could be the final nod.

• Senator Brent Jackson (Budget/Ag Chair): A key budget writer with massive influence over appropriations. Though loyal to Berger and well-liked, there are also whispers regarding his potential retirement.

• Senator Michael Lee: As Majority Leader and a top budget writer, Lee is a natural choice for Pro Tem. He’s been a prolific fundraiser for the caucus and a sharp legislator, not to mention fiercely loyal to Berger. However, the caucus typically prefers leadership from “safe” districts. While Lee’s district, NC-7, has become more reliably Republican, it remains a purple battleground.

• Other top contenders for Pro Tem and leadership positions in the Senate include Senators Ralph Hise, Amy Galey, Dan Craven, Buck Newton, Jim Perry, Todd Johnson, and Carl Ford. You’ve probably heard of Amy Galey’s name recently, as she was the senator who went to Sam Page’s house last month, begging the Sheriff to drop out of the race.

This shift in leadership will also cause a shake-up for Raleigh lobbyists. Berger has been a reliable friend for some of the largest special interest groups in the state- groups that have paid top dollar to former Berger staffers to lobby on their behalf. Depending on how the Senate stands after November, companies may hire new lobbyists, and former Berger associates may be looking for new jobs. For Democrats, a Senate shakeup could provide an opening to pick up a few seats in November, even if the GOP majority remains firm.

I wrote about this a few weeks ago with the Texas special election, but we’re already seeing Democrats flip state seats since Trump was elected. Over the past 14 months, Democrats have flipped a total of 28 Republican held seats in state legislatures around the country. These wins have even come in deep red states, including Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. With Berger out of the top seat and the Senate caucus coffers depleted, Democrats are primed to pick up seats.

The Power of the Grassroots

Page supporters and Berger haters shouldn’t light their victory cigars just yet; with a 23-vote lead, supporters should expect a drawn-out legal battle, like the Griffin race. But if Page does head to Raleigh, he faces an uphill battle as a freshman member who will garner both resentment and praise from his new Senate colleagues. He will have to learn the ropes quickly and deal with being under an intense microscope from Berger loyalists working to make sure he is only a one-term senator. On the other hand, Page will enter the General Assembly with more statewide name ID and as a hero among grassroots Republicans. This is the guy who went to battle with nothing but a slingshot and a stone and took out the largest giant in the state. Page has the momentum to be a firebrand in the Senate and be the standard-bearer for the freedom caucus movement, but unlike in the House, there has been little appetite for firebrands in the Senate.

This race is a glaring reminder that runs contrary to the advice of many consultants- you cannot outspend a disgruntled base. The friction over casino legislation and the shrimp trawler ban exposed a gap between Raleigh special interests and the frustrated voters. The millions spent on direct mail and digital ads backfired on voters who already knew Page and Berger well. This should be a lesson to all legislators who enjoy the fruits of special interests- the campaign money may be great, but it doesn’t matter if you lose the support of your constituents. After all, special interests don’t vote, no matter how big they are. Page ran a David vs. Goliath story—and North Carolinians always love an underdog.

For those of us from the East Coast to the Midwest, it’s been a blistering winter. While a groundhog’s shadow may foretell six more weeks of cold, the recent results of a Texas Senate race last week predict a much longer winter for Republicans.

The results of the special election in Texas Senate District 9 aren’t just a local headline; they are an alarm for every Republican candidate from Florida to California. In a district that President Trump carried by 17 points in 2024, a Democratic union leader, Taylor Rehmet, didn’t just clinch the seat—he dominated with 57.2% of the vote.

A 31-Point Swing Should Terrify Republicans

The math in SD-9 is brutal. Republicans went from a 17-point victory in 2024 to a 14-point loss in January 2026. That is a 31-point swing in just over a year.

If the Left can flip a deep-red stronghold in the heart of Tarrant County, then every likely-Republican and “swing” seat in Congress is on the table. The Democrats aren’t just coming for the swing districts; they are coming for the base.

The GOP outspent the Democrats in this race by nearly 10-to-1. Leigh Wambsganss had the backing of the White House, the Lieutenant Governor, and the RNC. Wambsganss had the money, the ads, and the infrastructure to pull off a win, reporting a staggering $736,000 in expenditures compared to Rehmet’s roughly $70,000.

The Moderate Smokescreen

But money doesn’t vote. What Rehmet did was take a page from the Roy Cooper and Abigail Spanberger model—positioning himself as a pragmatic leader while masking a radical liberal agenda. He had a platform focused on traditional Conservative kitchen-table issues like affordability and the economy. If you didn’t see “union president” splashed on his website, you may even think he was a Republican. Like Rehmet, Democrats are masquerading as moderates, appealing to unaffiliated voters. Republicans need to remind voters that there are no more moderate Democrats running for office; there are only radical wolves in sheep’s clothing.

This moderate, kitchen table strategy is particularly effective in SD-9. Take a look at the makeup of Texas SD-9: White (non-Hispanic) 43%, Hispanic 35%, Black 14%, and Asian 7.5%.

It wasn’t turnout alone that caused the shift. Republicans had a 51% turnout to Democrats 35%. Almost all Independents, though, voted Democrat. The Left is successfully peeling away margins in these growing suburban communities. We can no longer rely on “base turnout” alone when the base itself is being redefined by demographic shifts. Why the shift? Among the reasons were optics. SD-9 is made up of working class and middle class voters. Aside from his union background, Rehmet looked like a Trump, populist candidate. He campaigned on affordability, the economy, and jobs. The Republican candidate, Wambsganss, was from an affluent area and focused on a broader platform, social issues, and seemed out of touch with the voters. This was a great textbook reason why it’s important for candidates to fit the background of the electorate.

What Does This Mean Nationally?

The national effects of this loss cannot be overstated. Republicans have a House majority by one seat, with Republicans holding only 218 seats to the Democrats’ 214. While 80% of districts are functionally “safe,” the battleground is shrinking to approximately 42 true toss-up races. Losing the Republican majority in Congress would bring the Trump train to a screeching halt.

The loss of even a few seats in November would:

• Kill the President’s Agenda: Tax cuts, border security, and deregulation will vanish.

• Launch Endless Investigations: A Democrat-led House and Senate will spend the next two years on subpoenas and impeachments instead of solutions.

• Stall Confirmations: Last year, Senate Democrats and a few Republicans pushed to stall almost 200 Trump appointees. If majorities flip, judicial and other appointments will continue to be stalled.

The Senate map is mathematically favorable to Republicans (defending 20 seats vs. 13 for Democrats), but “safety” is an illusion. The “Big Four” to watch are Maine, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina. With high-profile retirements—like Thom Tillis in NC and Gary Peters in MI—and shifting demographics, the GOP will need to lean heavily into high-integrity donor acquisition. We are moving toward a cycle where off-year giving will reach presidential-year levels. Republicans will need every bit to combat the Soros-funded narratives from the left.

Republicans Must Wake Up

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick called this a “wake-up call,” for Republicans. The Democrats are already using this victory and Gov. Spanberger’s victory in Virginia as proof that kitchen table issues work. They see blood in the water and are using our own playbook against us.

What can we do to ensure Republican victories in 2026 and beyond?

1. Better candidates. While too late this cycle, we need to recruit candidates that represent the makeup of the districts they serve. We need true representatives of the people, not DC special interests. However, we need grassroots candidates that understand all aspects of running for office and are properly vetted. Candidates need to focus on kitchen table issues that affect the lives of voters, not culture wars.

2. Invest in data. Republicans need to invest in their data, their mail, and their donor relationships now. Campaigns need to know who their voters are, what motivates them, and target them with relevant messaging not generic blanket platitudes. Spring and summer need to be focused on fundraising both high dollar donors and smaller grassroots donors.

3. Combat the Democrats “Moderate” narrative. The Democrats have proven that a motivated ground game and a “moderate” facade can overcome a 10-to-1 spending disadvantage. This will push more independents to vote Democrat.

4. Get out and vote. Too many Republicans will either stay at home because Trump isn’t on the ballot or because they don’t like the Republican candidate. Either reason is bad. As mentioned above, Democrats are making a case that their moderate voice is better than Republicans. The message is to appeal to independent voters and disgruntled Republicans. If Republicans need a reminder of why this is flawed, then look no further to Governor Spanberger’s election in Virginia. Within her first month, she has undone a stack of Younkin policies and already has new voting maps that give Democrats a 10-1 majority in Congress.

We have ten months until the midterms. We cannot afford to sleep at the wheel. We cannot assume that Trump’s 2024 coattails will carry us through 2026. If we take anything for granted, we will lose Congress and the White House. If we don’t turn out, we are in for a very long winter.

If there is one issue that Republicans and Democrats can agree on is that housing costs are out of control in North Carolina cities. Housing affordability, for both renters and homeowners, has far surpassed median incomes, with 28% of North Carolinian renters/homeowners being cost-burdened. In New Hanover alone, it’s 34% of households.

This spike in housing costs is partly due to the COVID-era bottleneck and supply chain shortage. Less supply, coupled with expensive materials, created the perfect storm that we face today. By 2029, NC will face a supply gap of 765,000 units.

Builders, ready to meet the demand, often face roadblocks with planning and zoning ordinances, local government officials resistant to growth, and NIMBY neighbors who fight new projects.

So what’s the solution? A bill written by home builders, for home builders. House Bill 765, known as the “Save the American Dream Act,” sponsored by Forsyth area home builder Representative Jeff Zenger, seeks to give more power to home builders and property owners, while stripping a lot of planning and zoning authority away from local elected and appointed governing boards. Supporters of the bill cite that the proposed changes to the General Statutes would increase housing supply and lower costs for homeowners and renters.

As a 34-year-old professional currently priced out of the home ownership market, I understand the affordability struggles many people face living in a North Carolina city like Wilmington. I chose to live in the city limits because I didn’t want a long commute from Brunswick or Pender County. I love being near everything. While I don’t expect to find a sprawling single-family home with a big backyard like I could find in a suburban or rural area, there should be availability of condos, townhomes, or even smaller single-family homes. But in Wilmington, middle market housing availability is limited, and you’re paying well over market as a homebuyer or renter.

A teacher or a first responder making $50,000 a year should be able to find a rental for under 30% of their income, or about $1,250 a month. Yet, it’s almost impossible to even find a one-bedroom studio in Wilmington that’s within budget. Residents and elected leaders have favored less dense, single-family neighborhoods over dense single-family, multi-family, or mixed-use development within many of our cities, including Wilmington. That point of view is not sustainable in our small, landlocked city if we want to have a vibrant place where people of all ages and income levels can live and work. Contrary to popular belief, increasing the housing supply in our cities will bring costs down. It’s basic economics.

While HB 765 largely focuses on residential development, the bill would make it easier for larger cities of 125,000 population or more, including Raleigh, Charlotte, Greensboro, Durham, Winston-Salem, Fayetteville, Cary, and Wilmington (although Wilmington is just over the 123,000 mark), to build tiny homes (600 square feet) and one additional accessory dwelling unit (ADU).

The bill would do away with requirements to build a certain number of parking spaces. This means that cities like Wilmington can become more dense and allow for more walkable communities, alleviating traffic congestion. Builders would also have more latitude with residential building design, sidewalks, plant borders, and a housing development’s interior or driveways.

Additionally, the bill scales back a controversial law passed last year to limit down-zoning. Down-zoning is the rezoning of land, typically over the objection of the landowner, to a less intensive use. This type of zoning usually decreases the worth of the land. This bill allows the building by right of at least four homes per acre in residential zones statewide. This type of permitted use is important in cities to allow for more properties to be constructed. However, I do not think this should apply to rural counties with populations under 50,000.

As someone who has previously served as a planning board member and now as a board of adjustment member, I understand the objections to HB 765. Currently, if a builder or property owner wants to appeal a rezoning or variance decision, they can do so in district court. Any liability falls on the municipal or county government and not individual officials. However, this bill would allow builders, property owners, or related organizations to sue individual lawmakers and board appointees directly for civil damages from a decision.

It also bars an official from voting on any land use decision where there is a conflict of interest or even a preconceived bias towards the decision. A member would also have to abstain from voting if any ex-parte information is obtained outside of the initial application for consideration. Opponents to this bill question if this is even legal to enforce.

These provisions put enormous pressure on elected and appointed officials. The General Statues already state that an official should recuse themselves from any vote if they have a direct conflict of interest or seek to profit off of an application. Additionally, people assume that planning board or board of adjustment members can make decisions based on their personal opinion. That’s not our job.

Our job is to follow what’s in the land use plan and operate within the existing ordinances. We have a strict criterion that we use to make decisions, and we must document why those decisions were made. Serving on county and municipal boards is a rewarding opportunity to serve our communities, and this bill would deter people from wanting to serve, especially if they have to fear being sued for their decision.

Another provision that would complicate permitting is around water and sewer. First, when determining planning jurisdiction for the application, the municipal or county government that provides water and sewer, by default, gets jurisdiction over the zoned property. A builder or developer can elect to provide their own water system; however, if the builder requests water access, then the municipal or county government must provide those services. This would increase costs to utility ratepayers and strain our public utilities even more.

Ultimately, as a free-market conservative, I believe that the solution to our housing crisis isn’t more government intervention; it’s less. Many NC municipalities have passed resolutions decrying this Bill, because of some of the provisions that I mentioned above, and because it limits local government’s authority around development. But is that a bad thing? As this bill makes its way through the General Assembly, we will see if it gains enough support in the House and Senate. While it’s a long way from becoming law, I hope that municipalities and counties will see this as a wake-up call to reform their planning and zoning standards so that we can make North Carolina a desirable and affordable place to live for generations to come.

While we celebrated Jesus’s resurrection last week, we should reflect on what that means. The resurrection allows us to have a new life. A second chance to live out our purpose. The Bible has 171 references to the word “new.” It often symbolizes renewal, transformation, and the promise of a fresh start.

Ephesians 4:22-24 tells us “to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”

Ephesians 4:23 isn’t talking about a once-in-a-lifetime renewal but a constant, daily renewal of our mind and spirit.

God knows that we all fall short of the law. It was the significance of the death and resurrection of His son. We can rejoice in knowing that we now have an advocate, the Holy Spirit, to help us in this renewal and conversion from our old life to a new one.

In our conversion, old cravings are replaced with new ones. Conversion creates affections for God and desires to be godly. It’s the beginning of God-pleasing, Spirit-generated lasting change. Once we shed our old selves, we should not look back.

As Isaiah 43:18-19 tells us, “Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.” Through the resurrection, we are offered a way out of the wilderness and given a drink of water in the desert through the Holy Spirit.

What are we to do with our new selves? Look to what’s in front of us and walk out our calling. While we have lofty goals and dreams, our calling begins with the people and situations that are around us. Big dreams start with the first step- there’s no elevator to the mountaintop.

Make no mistake. God places desires in our hearts. He places us with lofty ambitions that, if used according to our calling, can fuel our journey. He leads us through our own desires if we allow Him to direct our path.

Our walk and constant renewal of the Holy Spirit allow us to respond to the call. Our ambition and burning desires begin to align with the Father’s call. Our rebirth allows us to become one with our upward calling, and the work that makes us come alive will also be pleasing to our Father.

I’ve spent so much time questioning and wondering what I should be doing in my career. I assumed that my desires and ambitions were contrary to God’s will. This thinking led me to believe that I needed to shut out my ambition and instead do work that I thought would be pleasing to God, according to the world.

Civil rights leader and theologian Howard Thurman said it best, “Don’t ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who come alive.”

God wants us to enjoy our work and continue to do not only what we’re good at, but what motivates us to get out of bed every day. Whatever we do, we do it for the Father’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).

I’ve struggled with my own renewal and calling. Being pulled by what I should do versus what I want to do. Yet I’m reminded each day to keep pressing towards the upward goal and getting to know Christ better, as Paul wrote in Philippians 3:10-14.

“I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.”

This season, we see uncertainty, death, and destruction all around us. Yet we also see new life and renewal. Let’s take the opportunity we have from the resurrection for our own rebirth and daily renewal through our relationship with the Holy Spirit. With our fresh start, we can begin to live lives filled with purpose and meaning.

This past month has certainly been March Madness at the North Carolina General Assembly. Our legislators have been busy introducing hundreds of new bills that, if signed into law, can have a huge impact on our region and state. The reason March is so busy is because March 25 was the Senate’s bill filing deadline, and April 3 is the House bill filing deadline. May 8th is the bill crossover deadline, meaning that a bill must “cross over” to the other chamber to be considered in that legislative session. Here’s a chart from the NCGA that breaks down the legislative process. Yes, the whole process will make you dizzy. You can see that once a bill is introduced by a member, the work happens in the committees, where bills are debated, amended, or tabled. With Republicans just one vote shy of a supermajority in the House (71 to 48) and a supermajority in the Senate (30 to 20), Republicans will need to flip one Democrat vote or work with Governor Stein for their bills to become law. 

While this list doesn’t even scratch the surface, let’s take a look at some of the good, bad, and controversial bills that I’ve been following this past month. 

The Good 

NC REINS ACT: House Bill 402 (SB 290)

The REINS is one of several bills filed that are aimed at deregulation and government accountability. The REINS Act requires state agencies that seek to impose a regulation that would impact consumers or businesses over $1 million annually or if the proposed rule gets 10 stakeholder objections, then the proposed regulation would have additional review by the General Assembly to see if the regulation would be necessary or duplicate existing policy. The REINS Act has already been proposed in other states and Congress. This bill would allow more public scrutiny of policies that put limits on business owners and free market competition, like CON laws. 

The DAVE Act: SB 474 

Named after State Auditor Dave Boliek, the Dave Act or the Division of Accountability, Value, and Efficiency within the Office of the State Auditor would require each state agency to report to the Division on how it spends public funds and, second, to report on vacant positions that have stayed vacant for over six months. This Act, modeled after the Federal DOGE, seeks to hold agencies accountable for their spending and to eliminate any redundancy in spending. This would seem like something the auditor’s office would do anyway, but it codifies this into law. There is statewide favorability for this in NC. 

Repeal Certificate of Need Laws: SB 370  

This is another bill aimed at accountability and deregulating the state government. I wrote an op-ed previously about CON. Certificate of Need Laws determine what healthcare facilities can open in the state. For example, if a business wanted to open up an outpatient surgery center or a cardiac catheterization lab they would first have to submit an application to the state CON governing authority. This committee would determine if there is a need for that service and if the existing services can meet the needs of the area. This presents several problems. First, the oversight board is made up of appointed, unelected citizens. These appointees do not have to submit financial disclosures or conflict of interest statements as required by other state boards. Second, current CON laws unfairly favor the large corporate health systems in the state. As we’ve seen, this stifles competition and drives up patient healthcare costs. Patients should have the freedom to shop around for their healthcare. The NCHA and healthcare lobby are going to fight hard to defeat this in committee. They argue that repealing CON would allow for more for-profit companies to take advantage of patients, and it would also hurt health systems that provide services, often uncompensated, in rural areas. 

APRN Definitions: HB 514/ SB 537 

This is another healthcare-related bill. Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) are licensed nurses with master’s and doctoral-level degrees. These APRNs work alongside physicians in clinics and hospital settings. This bill would expand and further define their scope of practice, allowing APRNs to see patients and have full practice authority. This is especially important in rural areas where primary care doctors are limited. It will also lower costs for patients. More than likely, you’ve been seen by an APRN and not even know it. The physician lobby is fighting this one hard. 

Lower Healthcare Costs: SB 316 

This is another healthcare bill aimed at providing more transparency to patients. It essentially adds to a patient’s “bill of rights.” First, it requires hospitals and medical facilities to disclose their facility prices and fees as well as disclose to patients before treatment whether a provider or service is covered in their insurance network. This bill also has a provision to repeal the CON review for rehabilitation services. Hospitals and healthcare networks say that the added reporting will raise the costs of care. So expect pushback from the healthcare and insurance lobby. Unlike full CON repeal, I’m more confident about this one.  

2025 Water Safety Act: SB 666  & PFAS Pollution and Polluter Liability: HB 569 

If you’re in Southeastern NC, water pollution has been on everyone’s mind since 2017 when Chemours got caught dumping GenX and forever chemicals into the Cape Fear River. Even today, we’re still recovering from the effects. I also wrote more in this issue. SB 666, the 2025 Water Safety Act, seeks to establish state standards for dumping and establish safe maximum levels for drinking water. This bill also allocates more funding for PFAS research through the NC Collaboratory. HB 569 focuses more on holding water polluters accountable for mitigation and cleanup costs instead of putting the cost burden on ratepayers. Both of these bills are critical to setting enforceable standards for safe drinking water and dumping, along with having an avenue for recourse if companies don’t comply. However, we can expect the NC Manufacturing Alliance, NC Chamber, Chemours/DuPont, and other manufacturing groups to fight these bills, but I’m hopeful a (nontoxic) middle ground can be found. 

City of Wilmington/Property Conveyances: SB 203 

This bill would authorize the City of Wilmington to sell real property through private negotiation without the need to comply with additional rules. The City Council can still choose to go through a public bidding process for selling property, however, this gives the Council an option to move quickly on selling property, which can entice buyers and save the City time. Other cities like Raleigh, Cary, and High Point have passed similar measures, which have helped them sell off surplus property. 

Protecting Our Community Act: SB 265 

There have been a series of cannabis and hemp bills introduced. Previous efforts to pass a medicinal cannabis bill passed the Senate but didn’t make it out of the House last session. A recent Meredith Poll found that 7 in 10 North Carolinians support medical marijuana legalization.  The first I’ll point out is HB 413. This bill is for full legalization of cannabis, very similar to DC’s legalization. While I agree that regulating the sale and distribution of cannabis like alcohol will put a pin in the illicit market, the legislation is too much, too soon. North Carolina is in a prime position to learn from the mistakes of states like Colorado and California. This is why SB 265 is better positioned to move through. The Protecting Our Community Act is about consumer protection. It places guardrails and testing requirements for Hemp-derived consumable products so that products on shelves are safe. The bill also bans consumable products from school grounds. This bill lays the groundwork for a strong and sustainable Hemp industry in NC. I’m told there is bipartisan support in the House and Senate for SB 265. 

The Bad 

Energy Security and Affordability Act: SB 261 

SB 261 has two main objectives. First, it reverses Duke Energy’s carbon emission reduction goals. These carbon reduction goals would raise consumer rates even more if implemented. It’s good that these goals are being adjusted. However, the second part of this bill would allow Duke Energy to ask the NC Utilities Commission to start charging customers higher rates to offset costs for power plants before they are even built. Georgia and South Carolina already allow utility companies to do this, resulting in nuclear plants that far surpassed original cost estimates. In South Carolina, their nuclear plant was never finished, leaving power customers with a $9 billion loss. I realize this bill has overwhelming support in the Senate, but NC power customers shouldn’t be on the hook for a power plant that isn’t even built yet. 

Economic Security Act: HB 339

This bill is a small business killer. It proposes an increase of the state minimum wage to $22 per hour and also calls for an increase in employment benefits. It’s clear that the cost of living in Wilmington and other areas of the state are much higher than someone making $7.25 can afford, yet putting the pressure on business owners to pay more will kill the Main Street economy. This is a terrible bill; just read it for yourself. 

In-State Tuition Equity: SB 691 

This is another asinine bill that would do more harm than good. It allows illegal immigrants (without lawful status) to receive in-state tuition at UNC system schools and our community colleges. It should be common sense that if you don’t have legal residence in this state, you shouldn’t qualify for resident tuition. 

The Controversial 

Women’s Safety and Protection Act: SB 516 

This bill has already been compared with NC’s infamous Bathroom Bill: HB2, which garnered national attention, caused a boycott from businesses, and thwarted Governor Pat McCrory’s reelection bid. SB 516 itself seems like a no-brainer. A Pew Research Center poll shows that over 66% of Americans support some restrictions on trans people according to their sex at birth when it comes to using bathrooms and participating in sports. While I see the merits in this bill, it’s sure to cause public outrage like HB2 did years ago. 

Freedom to Carry NC: SB 50

SB 50 would allow for the concealed carrying of a firearm without a permit. Advocates say this does away with unnecessary fees and costs of carrying a firearm. Also, they believe this is covered as a second amendment protection. This is a good bill and one gun rights advocates have been pushing for a long time. However, opponents to the bill question the safety of the measure since individuals would no longer need a background check through the Sheriff’s office, and they would no longer need eight hours of required firearms safety training. If it passes, NC would become the 30th state that allows constitutional carry. 

Cell Phone Free Education: HB 87 

This bill seems like another no-brainer. This instructs public school districts to adopt cell-phone free policies in classrooms. No one would doubt that cell phone use, especially among school-aged children, has gotten out of hand. But it leaves many questions unanswered, including how these policies will be enforced. Will each district have different criteria and exceptions? What happens when parents start complaining when their children get in trouble with a cell phone in class? If this bill passes, school districts will have to figure out an ideal model for implementation that helps improve learning outcomes, not create an even bigger distraction in the classroom. 

Gambling Losses Tax Deduction: HB 14

Who doesn’t like tax deductions? With a growing number of support for casinos in the state, we once again see another casino related bill. While it seems like a great idea to be able to deduct gambling losses on your tax returns, I fear this will encourage unhealthy gambling. Sure, the government shouldn’t restrict what people do with their money, however, the government should also promote responsible citizenship.   

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

The headlines read like a line from Minority Report or The Manchurian Candidate. “A.I. Deal May Put Foreign Military Surveillance in Schools.” Or “NHCS Fast Tracking Surveillance on Children with France’s Foreign Intelligence Contractor.” 

These are just a few far-reaching narratives being spun before the New Hanover County Board of Education votes on whether to approve the AI pilot program this week. Which makes you wonder? First, why is there a sudden interest in this pilot program that was proposed by the General Assembly in 2023, and second, why are there so many false claims against the proposed contractor? Is this apparent disinformation campaign launched out of a genuine concern for student data privacy or is there an ulterior agenda to create political subterfuge among the school board in advance of 2026? 

Let’s clear up the common misnomers around this Bill. 

This is called a pilot program for a reason.

It is a two-year temporary test to see if this AI technology can enhance school safety, speed up emergency response time, and prevent violent situations from occurring using detection systems already in place like video surveillance. While this technology has been implemented in higher education spaces and large events like the Paris Olympics, its use in K-12 is limited, and the first time Eviden is implementing this technology. 

No, Eviden is not spying for the French Government.

This is a completely outlandish notion. While the parent company Atos is a French company with French government defense contracts, this is a completely separate group and no foreign government is going to have access to the school system’s data. It’s like saying you refuse to fly on a Boeing airplane because they have contracts in 150 counties. Furthermore, Eviden has stated that the data obtained would be stored on local servers within the schools, and not stored on the cloud. This is also attributed to the high costs of implementing the program. That brings me to my next point. 

No, they are not tracking individuals with facial recognition.

Eviden and Sen. Steve Jarvis (one of the lead authors of the Senate Bill) have explicitly stated that the program will not be tracking individuals or through facial recognition. The program would monitor school cameras and would however track things like if someone is holding a firearm. In a Carolina Journal article, Sen. Jarvis stated, “Facial recognition is not being used. It could be used according to the Parents Bill of Rights – there is an exception for safety, but Davidson County has chosen not to use the facial recognition. Even if you did use it all, all of the data is being housed on the server in the school. No data is going outside of the school, and after so many hours, just like the video feed currently is, it would automatically override.” In an article published by WECT on Jan 30th, an Eviden spokesperson noted the same thing. “The pilot program does not include facial tracking or facial recognition. Our experts are clear about this at the public meetings.” The spokesperson noted the features that would be deployed during the pilot system would include: real-time visible weapons detection, perimeter intrusion detection, smoke/fire detection, suspicious physical interaction (e.g., fighting, loitering), and mass group movement. 

No, this program was not funded by The Disaster Recovery Act of 2024.

The pilot program was in the 2023 budget as HB 259 and SL 2023- 134. You can see the bill changes in SB 382, page 107. I’m including the screenshot for reference. 

No Eviden will not have carte blanche to do whatever it wants to.

Eviden will have to abide by the scope of work outlined by the NHC Board of Education. Additionally, as outlined in the bill, this program ultimately reports to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee (JLOC). If Eviden breaches the scope of work, the contract can be terminated. 

Eviden is a legitimate company.

There are questions that Eviden isn’t legitimate or that its parent company is in default. During a discussion of the pilot program, the Senate Education Committee vetted the company along with other proposed contractors including reviewing their current financial statements. It was also stated that Eviden, a Texas based company, is seperating from its parent company. 

Mia Budd is not the lobbyist for Eviden.

There has been speculation that Eviden is being pushed in Raleigh because one of their employees, Mia Budd is related (by marriage) to US Senator Ted Budd. First, Mia Budd is not a registered lobbyist for Eviden or any NC company. Second, Eviden is a legally registered company with the NC Secretary of State’s office. It has been falsely reported that Eviden is not registered to lobby and it is illegally lobbying as an international corporation. This is completely inaccurate. Eviden is registered as a Principal for 2025 and has their registered lobbyists listed. It’s all public information. 

A valid question to ask though, is why was Eviden the only vendor chosen?

A revision in SB 382, as shown above, stipulates that Davidson County and New Hanover County would have to use the same AI company for the pilot program. Davidson Board of Education took action first because New Hanover County was in the middle of a Superintendent search so they got first dibs to choose. However, at a January 27th meeting of the Davidson County Commissioners, the Board Chair Todd Yates asked Superintendent  Dr. Gregg Slate why wasn’t an RFQ done to choose from multiple AI vendors.  Dr. Yates’s response noted around the 1 hour 15 mark was that the state legislature (Sen. Jarvis in particular) recommended they go with Eviden. Why would the General Assembly push one particular AI company rather than leave this up to the local school districts to decide? 

But Why All The Misinformation In The First Place?

Now that we’ve cleared up some disinformation about the pilot program, let’s get to the bottom of why these false articles were published in the first place. First the source of this disinformation locally is from the Cape Fear Beacon, under the pseudonym John McClane. As originally reported by WHQR, Peter La Fond is responsible for the site’s content. Not only were there at least four articles published with disinformation on the program, but one podcast used AI software to create voiceovers. A touch ironic. Mr. La Fond has used his platform to repeatedly go after Conservative School Board Members Pete Wildeboer, Pat Bradford, and Josie Barnhart. 

Soon after these posts were published, local “activist” Diane Zaryki who also advertises on Mr. La Fond’s Beacon, sent a series of emails threatening to “write a resolution to censure any Republican that votes in favor of AI in our schools.” I’m including that email below. 

First, what part of the Board’s vote to approve an AI pilot program to make our schools safer, goes against the GOP Plan of Organization or goes against the GOP Platform? Let’s remember this AI pilot program was already voted on and funded by our NC Republican House and Senate. Does Ms. Zaryki and Mr. La Fond plan to censure the entire Republican General Assembly? 

Even if a resolution is presented at district and state conventions, I’m sure it will be quickly ruled out of order. There are some valid questions around this AI pilot program and the New Hanover and Davidson County School Boards understand that. But the decision that the New Hanover County Board of Education makes today will be in the name of making our schools and students safer. We shouldn’t let disinformation campaigns and political subterfuge get in the way. Finally, to the bad actors who keep pushing these false narratives, well, in the words of John McClane, “yippee-ki-yay…” 

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

I’m writing this sitting at Wrightsville Beach and I’m reminded why our beaches are the envy of the East Coast. But it also reminded me of a pending study someone mentioned which has found potentially dangerous levels of PFAS and forever chemicals in seafoam along our coastline. If this study is true, it poses a significant threat to our beaches. Since 2017, our region has been dealing with the effects of when Chemours/DuPont’s Fayetteville Plant were knowingly dumping toxic PFAS chemicals into the Cape Fear River. If high levels of PFAS are found in the seafoam, we will have more problems. 

PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) or what’s known as forever chemicals are substances used in the manufacturing of teflon, non-stick coatings, fire fighting foams, and other daily applications. These substances are part of a family of 15,000 chemicals that break down slowly in the environment. Research on PFAS exposure suggests that these chemicals lower immune function and increase the risk of cancer and childhood obesity, among other negative health effects.

Every business owner, ratepayer, and resident in our region has felt the effects of Chemours actions and we’ve paid for it too. One specialized filter alone costs a typical restaurant, bar, or cafe at least $30,000. For many small business owners, that is a make or break expense. Business owners and ratepayers have paid millions to clean up our water supply, including $43 million on a project to add eight granular activated carbon (GAC) filters at Cape Fear Public Utility Authority’s (CFPUA) Sweeney Water Treatment Plant. So far, Chemours/DuPont only had to pay a few million dollars in fines. 

Controlling water pollution and protecting our drinking sources should be a non-partisan issue, yet the state and federal government seems to skirt away from actually addressing the issues of setting toxic chemical discharge guidelines and making polluters pay to clean up their mess. When lawmakers were asked about PFAS and Gen X their response generally was, “There’s still a lot we don’t know about these chemicals.” One former Cumberland County Commissioner went so far as to say that “Gen X may be good for you”. 

Early February of this year, the Federal Government withdrew its EPA drinking water standards for six forever chemicals. These standards would put discharge limits for PFAS manufactures. Now the EPA will have to review and resubmit these standards. This leaves it up to NC to enact state standards. Unfortunately, the state’s latest plan does nothing to stop toxic dumping of PFAS chemicals into the drinking water. The proposed rule would require companies to test for PFAS pollution and submit voluntary plans to reduce it — but sets no limits and imposes no penalties, even if dangerous contamination is found.

Last year the Cape Fear Business Alliance was the only pro-business group that supported HB 864, legislation that would hold polluters who knowingly dump dangerous chemicals into our water liable for all cleanup costs. The bill, sponsored by Republican Representatives Ted Davis, Frank Iler, and co-sponsored by Rep. Charlie Miller was criticized by the NC Chamber of Commerce, the NC Manufacturing Alliance, and Chemours as being anti-business. This bill, along with others like it, never made it out of committee.

I believe in free markets and eliminating regulations that burden business owners with unnecessary expenses. We need to do everything we can to make our state and region the number one place to do business. But when a major corporation that isn’t even located in our region, knowingly pollutes our drinking water and tries to get off scot-free,  I have a problem with that. Every resident in Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender County should also have a problem with this. 

The right solution is for Chemours and other polluters to reimburse CFPUA, ratepayers, and business owners for the costs of filtering the water and clean up. We also need clear dumping thresholds and severe penalties in place to make sure this never happens again. Otherwise corporate manufacturers will continue to dump toxic substances into our water because paying a few million-dollar fines is cheaper than actual containment. If the pollution continues, we will find more people in our region getting sick, our tourist industry will take a hit, and fewer people will want to move to our beautiful coastline. 

For too long liberals have controlled the conversation around conservation policy. Far-left environmental groups have pushed policies that include more regulation, more government control, and tend to ignore economic impacts. In a red state, like NC, they might as well talk to a brick wall. For the sake of clean water, it’s time for conservatives to believe in conservation again. We need to embrace the principals of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt who believed in protecting the environment, believed that the coal miner’s son and the banker’s son should have the same shot at life, and that true capitalism was where businesses played by the rules and competed fairly. 

Once again, conservative Republicans need to return to the party of main street. The party of fighting corruption, crony capitalism, and special interests that benefits the top corporations while unfairly hurting small businesses. We must fight together, especially on water pollution. 

This week, I’m meeting with business leaders in the region who are fed up with the inaction of the government’s response to water pollution. They have felt the costs in both spending money to filter water for their customers and the personal costs of having family members get sick and, in some cases, develop cancer from PFAS. I encourage every business owner, conservative, and resident to stand up for our community. Because our unified voice cannot be ignored. 

While the Chamber and other powerful groups advocate for Chemours and corporate special interests in Raleigh, I pledge to fight for the business owners here locally because our small businesses matter. Our beaches matter. Our health matters. The Cape Fear Region matters. That’s something worth fighting for. 

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

While only 214 delegates attended the New Hanover County Convention, it was no less electrifying. It was good to see friends and rivals alike, along with political enemies who became friends again. It was also promising to see new blood vying for local and county positions here in New Hanover and in Pender. Yet it was clear that the room was divided like a typical Sunday at a Southern Baptist Church just before the congregation splits to form a new church—an atmosphere indicative of the past several years. 

First, hats off to Nevin Carr and his team. The work of a few individuals has carried the party for the past two years. Even amidst the turmoil, Nevin and the core volunteers stayed committed and continued the work, leading to victories in a purple county. 

Second, congratulations to John Hinnant and his newly minted team. It was clear that the GOP delegates wanted a familiar face at the helm, and John Hinnant and his team are no strangers to the county party. After all, Hinnant is the name we know. The name we’ve seen on the ballot, at the polls, knocking on doors, making calls, and in the trenches with volunteers. The role of party chair is not easy. It is a thankless job requiring a behind-the-scenes operator with the political prowess of an elected official. As chair, you juggle expectations of politicians, of state leadership, of your volunteers, and of the GOP voters. I wish John and the new GOP leadership team well. They have a lot of work to do to keep the proverbial congregation together in the big revival tent. 

Yet the brief moment of optimism from the slate election quickly faded when the motion to condemn…er…disapprove the actions of School Board Chair Melissa Mason was introduced. I’ve already written about Mrs. Mason’s actions. The motion began with the usual party disruptors disputing the motion word count, debating parliamentary procedure, and other fillibuster-esque points. Some people love to hear themselves talk.  

Then finally the actual motion was presented. I applaud Mrs. Mason for rising to speak in her own defense instead of a surrogate speaking on her behalf. I anticipated an explanation. After all delegates and voters in that room deserved to know why appointing Mr. Merrick and Mrs. Justice to committee chair positions was a good idea and not a compromise of our conservative values. After all, Mrs. Mason holds her fellow board members to the same high conservative standard. 

Instead of clearing the air, Mrs. Mason’s speech was an angry tirade that consisted of isolating herself even more from fellow conservative board members by attacking them, justifying her lone votes on many board issues, and saying that she had no intention of backing down or resigning (no one asked her to resign in the first place). However, the comment that was the loudest in the room was Mrs. Mason saying that committees don’t matter. That should be a blow to every current and former school board member who spent countless hours working on policy and curriculum changes in committee. The work is done in committees and Mr. Merrick and Mrs. Justice know that. Otherwise, why ask to be a committee chair in the first place? 

While I agree with others who spoke that the motion itself could have been better drafted, it served its purpose to bring everything out in the open. It allowed Mrs. Mason to comment publicly about her decisions. It also gave us a clear indication that it’s time for a change on the school board in 2026. I’m looking forward to having at least one new person rise to the occasion in the primary. 

As for the party, if we can’t come together to put in the work to register Republicans and get Republicans elected, then detractors need to leave and form an independent club. Remember, it only takes one gallon of salt water to contaminate millions of gallons of fresh water. We can’t afford to pollute our party anymore. 

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

Last week, New Hanover County Commissioner Dane Scalise came under fire for his call to defund the County’s Office of Diversity and Equity. In comments he made to Port City Daily, Scalise said it’s a matter of government efficiency, not ideology. 

“I aim to streamline government, not fund ideology,” Scalise said. “My focus has been and will remain on providing excellent core services to all our citizens. DEI is a costly distraction away from that focus.”

A costly distraction to the tune of $600,000 a year, most of which funds five county employees including a chief diversity officer, the 13th highest-paid employee with a salary of $170,000. To put this in perspective this salary surpassed what the chief deputy, emergency management director, and fire chief made. After salaries, only $68,819 goes towards programs and operating expenses. It makes you wonder what exactly does this department do, other than fund more staff? 

Formed in 2020, New Hanover County’s Office of Diversity and Equity was part of nationwide reverberations in the wake of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and a push by the Biden Administration. It was a way for college campuses, corporations, and governments to virtue signal to minority and underserved groups. Everywhere the phrases “systemic racism,” “marginally oppressed,” “inclusive spaces,” and “equity” replaced equal opportunity and diversity. 

DEI programs have very little to do with diversity and equality but promote affirmative action. It instructs that workplaces should select more minorities not based on merit, but because of their racial and gender identity. The Supreme Court ruled this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and workplace claims are on the rise. If that’s not bad enough, DEI programs are a gateway to introduce Critical Race Theory (CRT), a divisive theory that teaches systemic racism still exists through deep-rooted systems embedded in society to continue the oppression of minorities by white majorities. For those pushing the DEI/CRT agenda, the outcome is not equality or diversity, but reverse discrimination and oppression. 

In other parts of the world like South Africa, we see the most extreme effects of DEI/CRT through the redistribution of wealth and property. Since the ending of apartheid, the ruling political party in South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) instituted a policy to buy up land from willing white farmers and redistribute it to Black farmers. Just a few weeks ago the government began seizing land by force from white farmers without compensation. The ANC is doing this to “right the wrongs of the country’s colonial past.” I know several Afrikaners who have come to the United States and are trying to move their families here because the violence against white South Africans has worsened. 

DEI/CRT initiatives seek to shine the light on our country’s dark past, not to make society more just, but to fuel hatred and division based on race, and to perpetuate a dangerous, Marxist political agenda. This is not what our national or local government should be funding and we need to close the door now before it’s too late. 

If you look at the department’s 2023 assessment, New Hanover County’s Office of Diversity and Equity is pushing this racially charged political agenda by conducting thousands of DEI trainings per year for staff and residents. Additionally, the Office has duplicated the efforts of HR by rewriting job descriptions to be more “inclusive,” shifting the focus from hiring based on merit and qualifications to hiring based on affirmative action. The other initiatives, including the failed Port City United, revolve around work other government agencies and non-profits are already working on, like affordable housing and broadband access. Other than DEI training, it’s unclear as to what the DE Office does or how effective it is. 

There is a lot of work that needs to be done in New Hanover County to help minority and underserved populations. But the root problem is not in “systemic racism” but income disparities that can affect anyone, regardless of race. We must continue to build affordable housing for working families, improve our schools, and offer more after-school programs in distressed areas. We need to provide more workforce training programs that help underserved communities become gainfully employed, and we need to offer more minorities access to entrepreneurship programs and access to startup capital or grants to fund their businesses. 

New Hanover County is fortunate to have many nonprofits working daily to balance the scales in our communities. We must empower these organizations and get the government out of the way. We should strive for tangible solutions rather than create division through lofty DEI indoctrination. 

Like the disastrous Port City United, it’s time for county commissioners to eliminate the Office of Diversity and Equity from the budget. I hope the other commissioners will join Dane Scalise in being better stewards of our tax dollars. 

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

The government’s actions during the COVID pandemic are another example of how too much government regulation is bad for small businesses. The federal Paycheck Protection Program saw massive fraud cases. Many small businesses were excluded from these forgivable loans, while large corporations were awarded millions in taxpayer dollars. Government-mandated shutdowns allowed large “essential” retailers to stay open while small businesses shut down. Social distancing restrictions prevented small shops from having customers in their stores, but big box stores still made hefty profits. 

Since the pandemic, if you’re a business owner, you’re probably still feeling the pressure. Small businesses everywhere are on the brink of closure due to rising rent, continued inflation, lack of access to capital, and supply chain shortages. They can’t find good employees, and they’re losing foot traffic. Stricter regulations are making it more expensive to stay open. We must change the tide because our small business economy is too big to fail. Small businesses with employees comprise 94% of all companies in Congressional District Seven. There are almost 19,000 businesses in the Cape Fear Region alone, which includes New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender Counties. 

With a million things to worry about, politics is probably the last thing on your mind as a small business owner. However, the pandemic made it abundantly clear that we can’t afford to ignore our politicians and the decisions that they make. We need to become watchdogs and build coalitions to fight for legislation and regulations that protect small businesses. The good news is that we don’t have to fight alone. Here are seven ways your small business can have a big voice in government. 

1. Join one or more trade groups and business associations. These local organizations serve as our bridge to local and state government. These organizations vary in the scope of what they offer. Some associations are more networking-heavy, while others are focused on advocacy. Join groups that align with your interests, fit your budget, and are small business-focused. The Cape Fear Business Alliance (CFBA) offers members a balance of advocacy efforts, community networking, and education. 

2. Know the difference between municipal, county, and state governments. If your business is in the town or city limits you may work with the City Hall for permitting, zoning, local tax, and ordinance issues. County government deals with water, sewer, county taxes, permitting (if you’re outside city limits), deeds, court issues, and more. State government deals with legislation, state regulatory issues (if your business products or services are regulated), intrastate commerce, business formation, filing, and labor issues, just to name a few. Navigating state legislative and regulatory agencies can be cumbersome so the CFBA has a contract lobbyist to help small business owners with specific legislative or regulatory issues. Many trade associations have similar resources. 

3. Watch what your elected officials are voting on. You don’t have time to watch every city council or board meeting. Subscribe to a trade association email for updates on important votes and proposed legislation. Government websites also have email updates and previous meeting minutes posted. Local TV, print, and digital news will also publish stories about what goes on at municipal and county meetings. Get news from multiple sources since each news outlet will likely have a different spin on the same story. At the CFBA, we send out action alerts and legislative updates on what major local and state policies will affect small businesses. 

4. Get to know your elected officials. Politicians meet with policy staff and lobbyists every day. However, they always want to hear from small business owners in their district. Our municipal, county, and state representatives are our neighbors and are relatively accessible. They want to know what issues are impacting you the most. While policy-makers often rely on data and precedent in their decision-making, nothing beats the power of personal anecdotes from business owners. In the Cape Fear Region, we are fortunate to have powerful NC House and Senate members who chair key committees including appropriations, budget, and rules. Learn who sits on what committee since all proposed legislation is referred to a committee for hearings and bill markups. The CFBA for example hosts policy roundtables so business owners can meet their elected officials and learn more about new and proposed legislation. 

5. Meet the candidates running for office. There are always elections. Many municipal elections happen in odd-numbered years while mid-term and general elections are in even number years. County board elections occur every four years. NC House and Senate members are elected every two years. While more attention is paid to presidential and congressional races, our local and state leaders have much more of a direct impact on your business. Get to know a candidate’s background, and why they’re running, ask about their core issues or priorities once elected, and ask whether they are pro-business. If they are running for reelection, check their legislative scorecard. NCFREE publishes a business scorecard for every state legislator. Get your employees involved in the election process as well. Hold a voter registration drive at your office and post voting information, including polling locations and dates. This doesn’t have to be partisan, the key is that you can make an informed decision at the voting booth. 

6. Serve on a Board. Serving on a municipal, county, or state board is the best non-elected experience. Not only do you get to learn the inner workings of government, but you also meet lots of people. Some boards are advisory while others are quasi-judicial, meaning the rulings can be challenged in court. State board seats tend to be harder to get and require travel to Raleigh, however municipal and county boards often have ongoing vacancies and only require local travel to meetings, typically once a month. The city council and county commissioners appoint people to these boards.   

7. Propose a new law. How often have you said, “There ought to be a law?” Advocacy is about fighting for or against policy and the pinnacle of that process is to see your idea become law. If you have a situation at your business where there’s no apparent government solution, or the current law is restrictive, then it may be time to propose a new law or a policy change. It may even be a municipal ordinance. The policymaking process can include writing a letter to elected officials, speaking at a council or board meeting, proposing a draft bill to a legislator, and even providing testimony at a legislative committee hearing. This isn’t always easy and may take time (especially state legislation), but the outcome can help you and other business owners. Trade groups and associations, including the CFBA, will rally their members behind or against a bill or policy. There’s power in numbers! 

Advocacy is a secret weapon for any small business that doesn’t have to cost a lot of time or money but can yield positive results. The Cape Fear Business Alliance was formed because several business owners were fed up with government overreach during the pandemic, so they created a local network of other business owners who started paying attention to what our elected officials were voting on and made sure we elected candidates who believed in free markets, fewer regulations, lower taxes, and a government that supports small businesses. 

If you’re a business owner, an entrepreneur, or just passionate about supporting our small business community, then I invite you to join us. Learn more on our website and attend our next meeting. This is a great way to expand your business network and get involved in the local political process. It’s time for small business owners to start looking out for each other, hold our elected leaders accountable, and work to make the Cape Fear Region the best in the state for small businesses. 

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

Through volunteer and campaign work I’ve been involved in many county Republican parties from Harnett and Johnston counties, where everyone is a Republican, to Arlington County, Virginia where I was one of ten Republicans. Now I find myself in the purplest of purple New Hanover County, where party affiliation is equally split between Democrats, Republicans, and Unaffiliated voters. I’ve seen very effective county Republican parties that have an outpouring of volunteers who can readily mobilize, to small parties who are begging for volunteers. 

A County GOP should have two primary goals- to get Republicans elected and to get Republicans to vote. Everything should support these two goals. Party organizations get caught up in plans of organization, procedures, titles, egos, money, and who is in charge of what. This infighting leads to countless wasted meetings, disgruntled volunteers, and candidates left up the creek without a paddle.

This dysfunction results in low party turnout in elections, lost elections, and voters becoming unaffiliated. What’s left are the same people running county GOPs and committing the same sins each election cycle. While these party elites constantly run these organizations the same way and push out dedicated volunteers and voters, it’s created a dichotomy of the party versus the people. However, if county parties can keep focused on the two action-oriented goals, elect Republicans and drive Republican voters to vote, there is still hope. 

The future of the Republican party and achieving more local Republican victories does not lie within the organization itself but in a decentralized model. It’s time for the party to go from adopting a plan of organization to adopting a plan of action. It’s time that more disgruntled conservatives build independent grassroots organizations with the same goals of getting Republicans elected and getting Republicans to vote in elections. While the proverbial country club GOP has typically looked down on what they call “nonaffiliated” or “nonfederated” clubs it’s time to embrace these clubs, if they are truly working to elect conservatives and mobilize voters. 

These action clubs can be based on affinity or issues (e.g., hunters, pro 2A, pro-business, parents, education, geography). Like-minded individuals mobilize volunteers, raise money, and recruit and support candidates. Clubs can operate with much more latitude because they are not bound by the rules of a state and national parent organization like the GOP. These organizations have different identities and objectives, but the goals remain the same. 

Democrats have done this well, particularly in urban areas. The county Democratic party has smaller non-affiliated groups fighting for particular issues that mobilize grassroots volunteers and activities. These clubs/organizations operate outside of the Democratic party and they still have plenty of infighting, but they have the same goals—to elect Democrats and get them to the polls. Locally, it works.

I get it—this is easier said than done for Republicans. In New Hanover, we have several independent conservative groups that I’ve often criticized and disagreed with. However, I still believe they can serve a valuable purpose in mobilizing grassroots volunteers. These groups and the county GOP spend too much time fighting and splitting each other. As a result, volunteers are lost, and good candidates get caught in the crosshairs during the primary.

Independent clubs can get involved in primaries and support candidates where the party cannot. These clubs should clearly distinguish themselves so they are not confused as being part of the GOP. Finally, clubs need to stick to the issues, not personal attacks. I’ll be the first to confess that as a campaign strategist, I’ve broken Reagan’s 11th Commandment enough times to land in political purgatory. While we have tendencies to let personal or philosophical convictions drive our emotions, as representatives of political organizations, we must strive daily to hold ourselves to higher standards, whether we represent the party or another organization. There is a balance between supporting a candidate and outright slandering their opponents. Clubs must find this balance. I digress. 

So what can the party do? It begins with electing party leaders who are committed to building a party that has candidate support and voter mobilization as its core goals. Second, we need party leaders who acknowledge and utilize outside clubs to support these goals. That doesn’t mean absorbing or aligning clubs to work under the GOP, but rather to work in parallel with the party’s efforts. 

Sandy Joiner and her One Wake slate seeking to run the Wake GOP, understand all too well the importance of independent clubs. Wake County has well over 20 affiliated and unaffiliated Republican organizations. Wake GOP leadership has either shunned or tried to assimilate these clubs under the party. Joiner and her slate seek to include these clubs in county party efforts and let these clubs run independently. Their motto is simple, “working together, we win.” I hope the party slates this year in New Hanover and other counties take note and follow One Wake’s lead. If we do this, then we can create a party for all conservatives and we will win local elections.  

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.  

You hear it everywhere around Wilmington– from Carolina Beach to Southport, even up in Hampstead – people are saying, “We need to stop building!” They’re frustrated. Traffic’s a nightmare, the roads are crumbling, schools are bursting at the seams, green spaces are disappearing, and property taxes are sky-high. It’s a long list of complaints.

Just last week, dozens of people showed up at the New Hanover County Commissioner meeting to fight against a proposed development in Sledge Forest. They’re talking about building up to 4,000 homes on this huge piece of land in Castle Hayne. Their biggest worries are flooding, hurting the wetlands, the possibility of groundwater pollution from the GE plant, and even more traffic on Castle Hayne Road.

And this isn’t the first time, right? We’ve seen this fight play out again and again. People keep bringing up the same concerns. A lot of residents are just saying, “Enough is enough! We need to stop all this building and development.” But is that the answer?

Think about it. Wilmington has always been a popular place – for tourists, businesses, and people looking to settle down. It’s one of the most populated counties in North Carolina, even though it’s the second smallest county in the state. Recently, Wilmington was ranked as the top place people are moving to. Why? Well, compared to other coastal areas, like those on the west coast or up north, it’s still relatively affordable. And then, when the pandemic hit, a lot of companies let their employees work from home. People started leaving the big cities and looking for bigger houses in places like Wilmington. On top of that, building pretty much came to a standstill for a couple of years during the pandemic. So, now we’re seeing a surge in construction as builders try to catch up with the demand.

A 2022 study showed that we need to build over 12,000 new rental units and another 16,000 homes for sale just to keep up with the expected growth in the next ten years. What happens if we suddenly stop building? The demand won’t disappear. It’s basic economics: when demand is high and supply is low, prices go up. Right now, our vacancy rate for housing is super low, somewhere between 1% and 2%. This means that wealthy people and retirees will still be able to move here, but younger families, teachers, first responders – they’ll get priced out of the market. We’re already seeing this happen. And let’s not forget businesses. They need places for their employees to live, so if there aren’t enough homes available, they might think twice about coming here. We’re talking about an aging community with fewer young people and a struggling economy in the future.

Instead of completely shutting down all development, we need to find a better way to manage growth.

We need a plan – a real plan – worked out between New Hanover, Pender, and Brunswick counties. This plan should allow for different types of housing. We need more apartments and condos in the city and denser areas, while still having space for single-family homes in the suburbs and rural areas. We also need to plan for more mixed-use walkable communities with grocery stores, parks, and sidewalks. And we have to consider how we’ll improve things like roads, water and sewer systems, and other essential services.

Here’s the thing: more single-family homes mean lower taxes for everyone, but it also brings in more tax revenue for the things we need.

We need to work together. Government agencies, non-profits, and developers need to team up to create more affordable housing options. We can offer incentives to developers, like tax breaks or allowing them to build more units if they include affordable housing in their projects. We need to take a good look at our zoning rules to allow for more diverse housing options, like duplexes and triplexes. And we need to invest in infrastructure that supports affordable housing – things like public transportation and better access to essential services.

Wilmington and New Hanover County need more areas where you can live, work, and play all in one place. We need better public transportation so people don’t have to rely on cars all the time. There is no reason why someone living in Wilmington’s city limits should not be able to walk or access a bus to get groceries or access essential services. 

We need to encourage the building of more rental units. This will increase the supply of housing and bring down costs, especially rent. Look at Austin, Texas – they allowed for more apartment construction, and their rents went down by 4% year over year.

We need to understand what truly makes housing “affordable.” It’s not just about government-subsidized housing. Affordable housing means that you’re spending less than 30% of your income on rent or your mortgage. In Wilmington, someone making $100,000 a year might still struggle to find an affordable place to live if the average home price is $450,000. We need to incentivize more affordable housing options in both new and existing communities so that teachers, first responders, and other essential workers can afford to live near where they work. But we need to make sure that a significant portion of every new development, more than just 10%, is dedicated to workforce housing.

For too long, Wilmington’s economy has relied heavily on tourism and service jobs. These jobs don’t pay enough to keep up with the rising cost of living. We need to attract more high-paying jobs in areas like finance and technology. We also need to support good-paying skilled trades like HVAC, electrical, and plumbing. Having more housing options will also help small businesses grow and hire more people.

The bottom line is, we don’t need to completely stop all growth. We need to focus on smart growth using laissez-faire policies. This means things like:

• Reducing restrictions on development: We need to make it easier to get permits issued promptly and not let bureaucratic red tape slow things down.

• Respecting property rights: Property owners should have more freedom to decide what to do with their land.

• Keeping a free market economy for housing: While the government shouldn’t interfere too much in the housing market, we need to prevent things like price-fixing and limit the amount of housing that large corporations can buy up. This will help more middle-class individuals afford their first home. 

Finally, we need to make sure that our local governments are using our tax dollars wisely. We must invest in things that truly matter – infrastructure, public safety, and our schools. The solution isn’t to stop building but to work together to make a plan that provides sensible, sustainable growth in the Cape Fear Region for years to come. 

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

Last week a petition was created to censure NHC School Board Member Melissa Mason after Mason made some questionable committee chair assignments.  

The petition states that despite campaign promises to advance conservative values, protect parental rights, and remove CRT, SEL, and EDI policies from the school curriculum, Mason has failed in these promises, in part, by appointing board members with extreme liberal views to “positions of influence.” 

This petition refers to Mason’s appointment of Judy Justice as chair of the Curriculum Committee and Tim Merrick as chair of the Title IX Committee, two very influential committees on the Board of Education. Both Justice and Merrick take radically liberal views on educational issues, including support for CRT, SEL, EDI, and other woke policies. 

After the petition gathers signatures, it will be presented to the New Hanover County GOP where it’s recommended that the Executive Committee formally censure Mason for actions contrary to the party values and her inability to deliver on her commitments. 

It’s no secret that candidates don’t live up to their campaign promises once they are in office. If this alone was grounds for censure then most of our politicians would be censured by their party. Also, any governing body or board must work together to pass meaningful legislation, although Republicans enjoy a 5-2 majority on the Board of Education. 

What strikes me most about this is the sheer hypocrisy of Mason and her closest supporters. They have readily attacked other candidates and fellow Republican board members for “not being conservative enough,” yet Mason did a 180 and selected radically liberal and vitriolic members to chair key committees. I also find it odd that Mason selected newly elected School Board Member David Perry to chair the Policy Committee when Pete Wildeboer has two years of experience being board chair, two years on the policy committee, and 34 years in education. It makes me ask the question why? 

One reason I have heard is that Mason agreed to appoint Justice and Merrick as committee chairs in exchange for their vote to make Mason chair of the Board. This quid-pro-quo certainty makes sense considering Mason is the only Republican member that both Justice and Merrick voted for. If true, this isn’t illegal but it should make Republicans wonder, if Melissa Mason is willing to compromise her conservative values for power, does she have your children’s best interests at heart? 

On the other hand, this could all be a coincidence. However, after ten years of being involved in campaigns, I’ve learned that there are rarely coincidences in politics. 

Ultimately, I think conservatives in New Hanover are owed an explanation as to why Mason made these radical chair appointments. If any candidate and elected official is going to be the standard bearer of being the “most conservative” then they better live up to the standard. 

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

In October 2024, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled unanimously to send a lawsuit challenging the state’s CON law back to a lower court. This ruling was the result of an original suit in 2020 by New Bern Ophthalmologist Dr. Jay Singleton, who claimed that the Certificate of Need (CON) law, which requires healthcare providers to get permission from the state before adding services or building new facilities, prevented him from adding an operating room space to his clinic, which would have greatly reduced the costs of patient procedures. Instead, Singleton is forced to perform surgeries at the nearby hospital which are three times the costs to patients and adds additional travel for his patients. He believes the enacted CON law violates Article 1, Sections 32 and 34, the emoluments and monopolies clauses, in the North Carolina State Constitution. The October ruling returns the case to trial court to determine if the state’s CON law violates the NC Constitution. 

 Locally, the NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), under CON law, determined that the New Hanover County area only needed one cardiac catheterization facility. Novant and Wilmington Health had to compete for the CON. Of course, the much larger Novant was awarded the certificate because of its geographic access, scope of services, and higher number of Medicaid patients. Even though in their applications, Novant average net revenue per procedure would be $9,791 versus Wilmington Health, who would only make $3,215. This suggests that Wilmington Health may have been cheaper for patients. However, CON isn’t designed to award healthcare facilities CON based on costs to patients, but rather on the size of the facility. Under CON laws, the bigger guys always win, and Novant is a mammoth. 

 A 2022 study found that Novant Health had 96% of the market share in the Wilmington Metropolitan Area. This makes it impossible for private or physician-owned practices to compete. Novant and other major health systems like Atrium, UNC Health, and Duke Health refer to the huge amounts of Medicaid, Medicare, and uncompensated care incurred daily. Yet, in April 2024, Port City Daily reviewed Novant’s 2022 financial records and found they invested $525 million in revenues in the Caribbean and Central America. I’d say that the nonprofit giant isn’t doing bad at all. 

 North Carolina is one of 35 states with CON laws that control the planning and construction of new healthcare services and facilities. According to the North Carolina Healthcare Association (NCHA), the top advocacy group for hospitals, the goal of CON is to equitably distribute healthcare services across the state while ensuring quality services. This guarantees access to care for medically underserved populations and prevents oversupply that leads to increased costs to patients. The NCHA further argues that hospitals do not operate in a traditional free market environment. Hospitals have a moral and legal obligation to care for all patients regardless of their ability to pay. NCHA notes that payments for healthcare services vary widely based on services and payors. Hospitals rely on procedures like elective surgeries and high-end imaging to compensate for losses from acute care services. 

 Furthermore, according to the NCHA, repealing CON would clear the way for “niche healthcare businesses” that offer services with profitability as their top priority rather than community needs. They further state that “CON law amendments could threaten the survival of community hospitals if the regulations are not implemented carefully.” 

 There are four key issues with CON in North Carolina and why it’s harming, not helping, patients and providers: 

1. CON is determined by a 24-member State Health Coordinating Council (SHCC) with large oversight. The governor-appointed SHCC implements the State Medical Facilities Plan, which determines the need and number of all health services, health service facilities, inpatient beds, dialysis stations, operating rooms, and home health offices. Any proposal that does not fit into this plan is rejected. This presents a huge government-imposed market barrier. This unelected board has no legislative oversight and rulings are not subject to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Furthermore, the council members are not required to submit a conflict of interest statement or economic disclosures as other state boards are required to do. Many of these Board members are practicing physicians or have competing interests in other healthcare businesses. 

2. CON does not evenly spread out healthcare services. One of the top arguments is that CON protects health equity and the even distribution of healthcare services. North Carolinians know that healthcare access is anything but “equitable.” Since 2006, 12 NC rural hospitals have closed and more are at risk of closing. Rural community hospitals face several inevitable situations. First, smaller, independent hospitals close because they lack the negotiating power with suppliers and insurance payors. They also have high rates of uncompensated care without specialty care service lines or a better payor mix to offset the costs. The second situation is rural community hospitals are bought by larger health systems that consolidate services to streamline costs, allowing the rural hospitals to provide emergency and some acute care services while transferring patients to larger, urban facilities for specialized services or serious trauma. This allows larger health systems to enjoy market dominance in rural areas and control the number of licensed beds under CON. 

3. CON law does not lead to lower patient costs.  In theory, CON puts government-controlled monopolies in place on healthcare supply to lower patient costs, and medical providers use profits to recoup expenses from poor and uninsured patients while continuing to offer specialty services in underserved areas. However, there is very little data to back this up. Research has shown that CON has resulted in approximately 12,900 fewer beds, 49 fewer hospitals offering MRI services, and 67 fewer hospitals offering computed tomography (CT) scans, according to a report by the Mercatus Center. Rather than lowering costs, a review of CON programs found that patient costs increased by 5%. Without competitors, large providers can charge higher prices. 

4. Despite the costs of uncompensated care, hospitals still enjoy record-breaking profits. While hospitals continue to tout the high costs of uncompensated care, even during the pandemic the top hospital systems in the state made hefty profits, even as several systems are considered “non-profit.” The top seven health systems in NC- Duke Health, UNC Health, Novant Health, Atrium Health, WakeMed, Vidant Health, and Cone Health — reported $5.2 billion in net profits in 2021. Novant Health alone saw a profit of $382 million in 2020, despite reporting a decline in patient revenue. 

 Despite CON reforms last year through the passage of Medicaid expansion, CON needs to be fully repealed. The CON law has only made it easier for the state’s largest healthcare systems to play monopoly by buying distressed healthcare facilities and cornering the market in each county. This blatant monopoly has been called out by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who, back in January 2024, sued to block Novant’s acquisition of two hospitals citing that the sale would limit competition and increase consumer costs. 

 Free market competition drives innovation, lowers costs, and gives consumers the power to choose. It’s what makes our nation great. The healthcare industry is no exception. I’ve spoken with private practice providers who have told me their patient care costs are a fraction of larger systems because they can shop around for medical supplies and don’t have to negotiate with health insurers on what they charge for services. Many of these private practitioners charge on a sliding scale based on income. Yet because of CON, larger competitors are pushing smaller providers out of business or forcing them to sell their practices. 

Consumers and private practice providers must pressure NC’s legislators to repeal the CON law. Unfortunately, this will not be easy. The government regulations and those massive corporations enjoying the benefits of regulation do not want change. As economist F.A. Hayek noted in The Road to Serfdom, “Where the power which ought to check and control monopoly becomes interested in sheltering and defending its appointees, where for the government to remedy an abuse is to admit responsibility for it, and where criticism of the actions of monopoly means criticism of the government, there is little hope of monopoly becoming the servant of the community.”

Originally published in The Wilmington Conservative.

President Trump has wasted no time putting out a slate of star-studded and previous administration officials as cabinet nominees. With narrow GOP majorities in Congress, we’re already seeing Trump’s influence tested by strong-arming vulnerable GOP senators in Senate confirmations and his list of demands in the Continuing Resolution this week to avoid a government shutdown. 

The real test is how Trump’s new Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, a seasoned campaign tactician, will navigate the Administration and Congress. Wiles ran a tight ship behind the scenes managing the Trump campaign and guarding access to the President. Will she be able to push Trump’s agenda in Congress and control access to Trump when outside forces like Elon Musk are already influencing the policy agenda? 

We can expect a Trump 2.0 to move much faster than in his first term with an even bigger agenda that includes “the largest deportation of immigrants in American history”, new tariffs on imports, a freeze on EPA climate regulations, reshaping federal health agencies, and massive cuts in the department of education. He also wants to make upwards of 50,000 career civil service employees political appointees. Most of these actions Trump can take through executive orders and without congressional approval. However, if he plans to reshape the ACA and push tax cuts, he will need support on Capitol Hill. 

Congress also has a lot of work to do in the next 100 days. Many items on Trump’s punch list will be in the budget reconciliation package that Congress is expected to release as early as February 2025. We can expect Vice President Vance to be very hands-on in pushing the Trump agenda in Congress, already being dubbed as the “attack dog.” With Vance, we should also expect legislation around fintech, cryptocurrency, and support for opioid treatment. 

So what does a Trump 2.0 presidency mean for Wilmingtonians and North Carolinians? Once the CR is passed some of the top provisions included extending the Farm Bill by one year, $100 billion in disaster relief funding, and $10 billion in banking relief funding for rural farmers. We should see tax cuts, deflation, and deregulation next year however import tariffs can make the prices of consumer goods rise. While it’s unclear how these proposed tariffs and international policy play out, the next four years should provide relief for taxpayers and business owners. Donald Trump has full control and the ball is in the GOP’s court for at least the next two years. It’s their time to remind us again that conservative policies are good for the nation. 

Originally posted in The Wilmington Conservative.