Michael Goolsby

Control of the polar regions is critical to satellite communications, global data infrastructure and national defense. President Trump should declare sovereignty over Marie Byrd Land — an *unclaimed* ~620,000 square miles — to deny China and Russia a strategic foothold before it’s too late. The U.S. discovered it and has long reserved the right to claim it under the Antarctic Treaty. Unlike Greenland, it overlaps with no existing claims — and it’s free. 1/

@elonmusk Reading Durant's The Story of Civilization is far more comprehensive and valuable than earning a modern university degree in philosophy, history or literature today.

Read The Story of Civilization by Durant

"The poles are the global chokepoints of satellite communications." "The great infrastructure competition of the 21st century will be fought over low-earth-orbit communications networks, the constellation of satellites that will carry the world’s most sensitive data, military communications, and economic traffic. Those networks require polar coverage. The physics is simple: polar orbits deliver global reach, and the ground infrastructure at high latitudes controls latency, resilience, and network security. The northern approaches, Greenland, Iceland, and Svalbard, have been contested and militarized for decades. The southern pole has barely registered." 👇

Control of the polar regions is critical to satellite communications, global data infrastructure and national defense. President Trump should declare sovereignty over Marie Byrd Land — an *unclaimed* ~620,000 square miles — to deny China and Russia a strategic foothold before it’s too late. The U.S. discovered it and has long reserved the right to claim it under the Antarctic Treaty. Unlike Greenland, it overlaps with no existing claims — and it’s free. 1/

Today’s D.C. Circuit stay allowing the government to designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk is a resounding victory for military readiness. Our position has been clear from the start — our military needs full access to Anthropic’s models if its technology is integrated into our sensitive systems. Military authority and operational control belong to the Commander-in-Chief and Department of War, not a tech company.

@basedamericana 💯

Many of you still don’t grasp what it took for Trump to return, run again, and win, or how different this country’s course is now from the path it was on under Biden and Kamala. Faults and all, he stands as the most consequential president of the modern era. He pulled America back from the brink, and too many of you take that for granted.

@HarmeetKDhillon @jefe_viejo 😂

BREAKING!!! She had a great time and she got this dress on sale! Sources say she made new friends!

x.com/Defence_Index/… 🚨🇺🇲🇰🇵 North Korea Recalculates Power As Iran Burns BREAKING: North Korea quietly distances from Iran amid war, signaling a strategic pivot toward the U.S. ▫️ No military support ▫️ No condolences ▫️ Silence on leadership Kim Jong Un: “There is no reason we cannot have good relations with the United States.” 🇺🇲Watch the shift carefully.🇺🇲

So trash talking next to the Easter Bunny opened the Straits. Wonders never cease.

🚨 President Donald J. Trump makes a statement on Iran:

U.S. and Arab officials say talks are now centering around getting a deadline extension, not a deal. That could change as about four hours remain for a potential breakthrough, the officials noted. -WSJ

Americans are suffering. It is way too expensive just to live for most families. Our cities aren’t safe. Our country is being transformed every day by foreign migration. Our elections aren’t secure. The SAVE act was not passed and won’t be passed. It’s time to end this war in Iran and focus on our country, our people, our future. Far too much of Trump’s second term has been spent on foreign adventures. It has to end. Turn the attention back home.

This is why Americans are the deadliest fighters on earth. I met a priest yesterday who just got accepted to chaplain school in Newport. I asked him the obvious question: Marines or Navy? Navy, he said. His face fell a little. He told me he could never be a Marine because every Marine is a rifleman, and as a priest he can’t carry a weapon. He’s hoping to get assigned to a Marine unit anyway. All chaplains are Navy officers, so that’s the only door in. I laughed. I feel a little bad about that. Then I explained to him what “Devil Doc” means. The Marine Corps doesn’t have medics. They use Navy Corpsmen. I told him: when you get out to the fleet, find a Marine sergeant with a couple of Purple Hearts and tell him Devil Docs “aren’t real Marines.” Be prepared to duck. Marines are violently particular about who gets to wear their uniform. Navy Corpsmen and Navy chaplains who have eaten dirt alongside them in combat qualify. Full stop. My dad was Air Force. Not even Navy. I remember going to VFW halls with him as a kid. Someone would ask him what service, he’d say Air Force, and the room would chuckle a little. Then they’d find out he was a medic, and the air in the room changed. Something close to reverence. Dad hated being honored. He had one line he used to deflect it: “I didn’t do much. Save your praise for my cousin the PJ.” That always broke the ice. PJs are the Air Force special operators who go into hell to pull downed pilots out. They will take casualties and are prepared to die to rescue a single pilot or crewman. The math doesn’t math out. Why would any combat force take multiple casualties to rescue one air force jet jockey? What the padre is about to learn is that the military has a hierarchy that has nothing to do with rank, and nothing to do with the service stitched on your chest. Have you deployed? Have you seen combat? In every firefight there are men who move toward the guns and men who hang back. And when the guy at the tip of the spear is pinned down, bleeding, with rounds cracking past his head, there is exactly one word he screams into the radio. “Medic.” Here is the catch, and it is the whole reason America fights the way America fights. That Marine is willing to push forward into fire BECAUSE he knows the Corpsman is coming. He knows the medevac birds will land in the hot LZ. He knows the Devil Doc will drag him out by his plate carrier if it comes to that. And, if the medic can’t help, if he has what Dad called “injuries incompatible with life,” he knows that chaplain will crawl on his belly to administer last rights and deliver him to heaven. The F-15 pilot punching out over enemy territory knows the same thing. He knows the PJs will move heaven and earth to reach him, and turn whatever is shooting at him into a smoking crater of hell on earth on the way in. This is the quiet math underneath American violence. Our warriors are the fiercest on earth not because they are more aggressive, not just because they are better trained, or better equipped, though they are all of those things. They are the fiercest because they know, in their bones, that when they key the mic and call for help, help is coming in hot. Take that away, and you don’t have the U.S. military anymore. You have a security force.

The next steps in the U.S. military campaign against Iran will commit nearly its entire inventory of stealthy JASSM-ER cruise missiles, drawing them from stockpiles devoted to other regions — including the Indo-Pacific. ebx.sh/QYbx1E

Sadly, I’ve seen this play out many, many times: someone in Bill's position, rightly fired up on principle — often encouraged by sycophantic counsel — litigates for years at enormous cost, in every sense, only to settle on the eve of trial for an outcome that could have been reached near the start. If a lawsuit is truly imminent because the other side refuses to engage seriously on the facts, the law, and potential liability, then going public as part of a negotiation and PR strategy can make sense. But if your own lawyers haven’t made that effort — to spell-out to the other side the known facts, the law, and the potential liability and damages — you should replace them. Prayers for your daughter.

@MorEdge_Insight @X All fair points.

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

Scoop: Trump is likely to make leadership changes involving two more top roles at the Justice Department, per sources. The changes likely will affect Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division -- a promotion for @HarmeetKDhillon -- as well as Stanley Woodward, the No. 3 official at DOJ -- a demotion for him, sources told @SarahNLynch and me. cbsnews.com/news/white-hou…

Officially credentialed Pentagon press corps as of today, alongside my interpreter @DataInterpretr. First Deaf journalist to hold the badge. Thank you @JoelValdezDOW for moving mountains to make this unique arrangement possible. Naturally, the legacy media is invited to congratulate the Department of War on their commitment to press corps inclusiveness. This wouldn't have been possible without you. Every $3 subscription and every engagement opened this door. Now I'm going to use it. Military institutional capture research starts today.

@DataRepublican @GarettChurchill @DataInterpretr @JoelValdezDOW Congratulations! 🔥

Hello Punchbowl News, The central finding: "Most K Street leaders (88%) say the Trump administration's approach to immigration enforcement will harm Republicans in the midterms." Eighty-eight percent of K Street leaders. Let me introduce you to Main Street. McLaughlin & Associates conducted a national survey of 2,000 likely voters between February 27 and March 3, 2026 — the same window as your K Street poll. Here is what actual Americans said: 🔹 Seventy-two percent say addressing illegal immigration is an important priority. 🔹 Eighty-two percent agree immigration policy should serve the interests of American citizens, including 71% of Democrats and 81% of independents. 🔹 Seventy-eight percent agree immigration to the United States is a privilege and not a right, including 60% of Democrats and 70% of Hispanics. 🔹 Seventy-six percent agree the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens, including 57% of Democrats and 72% of Hispanics. 🔹 Two-thirds support deporting migrants who enter the country illegally, including 62% of independents and 59% of Hispanics. Your 88% says immigration enforcement hurts Republicans. America's 72% says it's an important priority. Your 88% says the GOP is in danger. America's 66% says deport them. Your K Street leaders are not predicting the midterms. They're telling you what they want, and you're publishing it as news. Now let's talk about who's in the room. Your article identifies the survey partner as "independent public affairs firm, LSG," hyperlinked to teamlsg[.]com... which redirects to locuststreet[.]com, the Locust Street Group. LSG is a Washington, D.C. public affairs firm whose website describes its services as "integrated strategic communications and public affairs campaigns." That is not an independent research firm. That is a lobbying and public affairs shop with registered LDA filings, running legislative campaigns for corporate clients who need things from Congress. And you called them "independent" in the same sentence where you presented their survey of K Street lobbyists as a news finding about American politics. You surveyed the lobbying industry, in partnership with a lobbying firm, many of whose partners also sponsored Punchbowl, and reported the result as though it were a measure of political reality. Eighty-eight percent of K Street wants immigration enforcement to stop. That is an interest declaration from the people who profit from the status quo, laundered through a press credential. About that credential. Senate Standing Rule VI governs the congressional press galleries. The rules require that credentialed members are "(a) not engaged in paid publicity or promotion work" and "(b) not engaged in any lobbying activity and will not become so engaged while a member of the gallery." Your 2026 sales deck offers corporations $300,000 for custom content "mutually agreed upon" between sponsor and outlet. It prices "Fly Out Day" lawmaker appearances at $75,000 to $100,000 a month. It sells newsletter sponsorships at $225,000 per week. Goldman Sachs, PhRMA, ExxonMobil, Meta, JPMorgan, Blackstone, and the American Investment Council (all documented sponsors) are not buying journalism. You are conducting paid publicity for corporate clients under a credential whose rules explicitly prohibit paid publicity. No wonder why John Thune felt comfortable passing a bill at 2 AM that defunded immigration enforcement while 76% of the country, including 57% of Democrats, agrees the government's first duty is to protect American citizens. He didn't need to read the polls. He read Punchbowl. The Standing Committee of Correspondents should review whether Punchbowl News meets the requirements for congressional press gallery credentials. If "mutually agreed upon" content for $300,000, lawmaker appearances priced at $100,000 a month, and surveys conducted in partnership with a registered lobbying firm do not constitute "paid publicity" or "lobbying activity" under Rule VI... then the rule has no meaning, and the press gallery is just another K Street address with better hallway access. You are the story, Punchbowl News.

This story is completely insane. If even half of it is true, it would mean highly sophisticated hostile operatives, most likely from China, are operating inside the United States, spying on and disrupting activities at an Air Force base. Even worse, the report suggests that all the drones got away, which means they pulled it off without leaving a trace.