Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
In 1951 a 25-year-old Yale graduate published a 240-page polemic inveighing against his alma mater’s left-leaning bias. The book launched the career of William F. Buckley, the most influential conservative intellectual of the post-war era. Although Buckley managed to reshape the Republican Party, his war against academia proved less successful. Conservatives still haven’t given up on changing the academy. The most robust reform momentum now is building at public university systems. In Florida, in particular, a trio of Yale alumni have ambitious plans to change the future of higher education.
Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, who graduated from Yale in 2001, likes to say that his state is “where woke goes to die”. In universities he put in place a tenure-review process, which critics say weakened academic freedom, and he has used his appointment powers to influence institutions. At New College of Florida, a public liberal-arts college that had been a bastion of progressivism, he appointed new trustees who fired the president and replaced him with a former Republican lawmaker. Scores of faculty and students left.
New College, which had fewer than 700 students in the autumn of 2022, has drawn national attention. Yet much more consequential reforms are under way at the University of Florida (UF), the state’s flagship university and home to some 60,000 students. It ranks as one of the top public universities in America. It also offers an increasingly attractive bargain: undergraduate tuition and fees are only $6,380 this academic year for in-state students.
Ben Sasse, a former Republican senator who became UF’s president in February 2023, says that producing graduates who can thrive in a disruptive jobs market is at the heart of his mission. He still believes a fundamental part of this ought to be learning about the liberal arts. But, says Mr Sasse, who earned a doctorate in history at Yale, humanities faculties at most universities are not “sure what their purpose is right now”. A core curriculum is “incredibly important for an educated citizenry, but you have to be making a case that you’re speaking to things that are big and broad and meaningful and enduring.” He argues that this isn’t a right-wing project but a classically liberal one. And at the heart of it is UF’s new Hamilton Centre.
Authorised by the Florida legislature in 2022, the centre is a $30m wager on the appeal of Western civilisation. Mr Sasse has said that he intends Hamilton to become UF’s 17th college (joining existing ones such as those for business, engineering, law, medicine and pharmacy). Next year it will begin offering two majors: philosophy, politics, economics and law; and great books and ideas.
Will Inboden, Hamilton’s director, wants UF to have America’s top programme in Western civilisation. The centre already employs a dozen faculty members in a cramped space on UF’s sprawling campus, dominated by the Florida Gators’ football stadium. It is hiring dozens more and eventually will move to its own building. Mr Imboden says part of the strategy is to seek out faculty in fields neglected by modern humanities departments, such as military and diplomatic history. He also favours public-facing academics.
Sunshine statement
Mr Inboden and Mr Sasse, who attended graduate school at Yale together, both served in the administration of George W. Bush. But Mr Inboden argues that the Hamilton Centre is a “pre-political” project. “Students are pretty leery of being indoctrinated,” he says. “The answer to progressive indoctrination on campuses is not conservative counter-indoctrination.”
Jill Ingram, Hamilton’s director of undergraduate students, echoes the desire to avoid a reputation of being a politicised entity. “We’re interested in giving students the tools and the practice to think for themselves, but also to bring back an appreciation for the texts and the ideas that were involved in the founding of America.”
The centre has received a mixed reception on campus. One student recalls telling an adviser that she planned to apply for a fellowship through the centre: “She was, like, ‘Don’t apply for that. It’s a bunch of right-wing storm troopers.’” Yet many who take classes from Hamilton faculty aren’t even aware the centre exists as its own entity. Students associated with it come from a variety of political backgrounds.
Florida is not alone. Other states with new schools focusing on civic thought include Arizona, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. A Republican state legislature funded Arizona State University’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. When a Democrat, Katie Hobbs, became governor in 2023, it seemed its days might be numbered: Ms Hobbs labelled the school “libertarian” and proposed reallocating the funding. After some debate, however, Democrats backed down.
Places like the Hamilton Centre will face two related challenges. Finding faculty for a growing number of institutions could become harder in the years ahead. Harder still will be to avoid becoming conservative ghettos within their universities.
Ray Rodrigues, the chancellor of the State University System of Florida, says the goal is to offer better general-education courses to all. He and his colleagues also aspire to create scholars who will influence new generations: “If, at the end of the day, what we’re doing is merely trading conservative scholars from one institution to another, then we have failed.”■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.
Economics4 days ago
Economics5 days ago
Economics4 days ago
Finance6 days ago
Leaders6 days ago
Finance4 days ago
Economics6 days ago
Accounting4 days ago