Yet, this failure presents an opportunity to rebuild. MAGA, for all its flaws, has shown that the spirit of liberty, skepticism of centralized authority, disdain for bloated bureaucracy, and a belief in economic dynamism still resonate deeply with millions of Americans. Libertarian ideas do fairly well, so long as they’re not advanced by libertarians themselves. I was able to win my county election for a GOP Trump delegate seat, simply by running as a concerned local citizen and landowner.
Libertarian principles have gained new momentum in efforts like DOGE (Decentralization of Government Entities), spearheaded by figures like Vivek and Elon Musk. Their work aims to reshape the government by recommending structural reforms, including dismantling outdated agencies. The involvement of Ron Paul as an advisor to this initiative has inspired confidence that the MAGA movement is fertile ground for those dedicated to shrinking the administrative state. Paul may finally get his comeuppance on his old enemy: the State.
As Ramaswamy put it in his speech to the National Conservatism conference, “[Donald Trump] didn’t just blindly parrot the party’s historical orthodoxy… he offered an entirely new worldview… one that shattered the historical neoliberal consensus to its core.” This critique of the old orthodoxy on trade, immigration, and the regulatory state created the conditions for a political realignment.
Libertarian Nationalism builds on this shift, reclaiming libertarian principles and combining them with the pragmatic realities of governance and national identity. It rejects the pacifism, hyper-individualism, and cultural hedonism that have weakened old-school libertarianism. Instead, it offers a vision of liberty grounded in pride, strength, and the preservation of American values.
What Libertarian Nationalism is (and is not)
To understand Libertarian Nationalism, it is first necessary to clarify what it is not. We must “declare war” on our enemies, not because we desire war, but because to define what we are not, and what we are against, is to better understand who we are, and what we stand for.
The libertarian tradition is as fragmented as it is storied, and while it has produced many bold ideas, it has also splintered into schools of thought that are impractical, inconsistent, or outright self-destructive in the modern world. Libertarian Nationalism seeks to build upon the core principles of liberty while addressing the shortcomings of other libertarian philosophies and their failure to grapple with the realities of governance, geopolitics, and national identity. Up to this point, there have widely been accepted to be approximately 10 different schools of thought within libertarianism, all claiming to be the “one true” faith, and deriding the other schools as heretics and non-believers. They truly are the “chirping sectaries,” as Russell Kirk famously described.
It is time for a new idea: Libertarian Nationalism.
Libertarian Nationalism rejects anarcho-capitalism outright. The idea of a stateless society may appeal to theorists, but it’s a fantasy that ignores basic human nature. A nation without a government capable of defending liberty and enforcing laws is not free. Are we to have no prisons? No laws to protect children from exploitation? No standing national army to repel invasion? This is anarchy, not liberty, and Libertarian Nationalism will have none of it.
Still, there’s room for those who want to live apart. Anarcho-capitalists should have the freedom to create off-grid enclaves, much like the Amish. So long as these communities sustain themselves without exploiting national infrastructure, they should remain free from taxation and interference. The mountains and wilderness in the United States’ holdings are vast and many of them unconquered. Let the anarchists, religious separatists, and communes have their place but ensure to the greatest extent possible they will not be free riders. True liberty allows space for such experiments, but freedom without responsibility has no place here.
Libertarian Nationalism also discards the pacifist streak in traditional libertarianism, particularly its rigid attachment to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). While the NAP has noble intentions, it collapses in practice. Its absolutism paralyzes decision-making and leaves individuals and nations defenseless in the face of real-world threats. The NAP insists on moral purity, even as events demand action.
Libertarians who cling to the NAP often oppose American interventionism on principle, equating all uses of force with aggression. This philosophy leads to absurd conclusions, such as sympathizing with Osama Bin Laden and Hamas, or condemning all defensive wars as immoral. Ask an anarcho-capitalist what was the last war that was remotely justified? If they say none, at least they’re consistent. If they say the American Revolution, then they’re probably just a Libertarian Nationalist who may be too afraid to admit that the United States is a prized jewel of liberty thanks to our Declaration of Independence and national Constitution. These are the cowards whose moral virtue signaling on war and defense led them to the conclusion that they would purge anarcho-capitalist Walter Block for his defense of Israel, before they themselves supported Trump the week before the election.
Libertarian Nationalists reject this moral cowardice.
We proudly morally support civilized nations defending themselves against barbarism, just as we defend American pioneers who braved the wilderness during Manifest Destiny.
Libertarian Nationalism grounds its foreign policy in realism, strength, and moral clarity, as exemplified by the staunch realist stances of figures like Javier Milei. Milei’s libertarian nationalism made him the president of Argentina, the 8th largest nation in the world. His potent mix of economics and philosophy, combined with nationalist impulses became a powerful electoral brew. And while many libertarians in his country stood in his way, he succeeded in advancing libertarianism in spite of the efforts of what the Argentines call “cafe liberals, or libertarados,” who preach high ideals but do nothing to advance those ideals. Murray Rothbard called them “Luftmenschen,” in his time.
We must not allow communists, socialists, liberal democrats, fascists, or hyper-collectivists to be the only voices at the negotiating tables during inevitable conflicts that will arise. The NAP’s rigidity leaves nations vulnerable to existential threats and fails to account for the necessity of preemptive action in defense of liberty. We must be proactive, not reactive to the threats we face now, and those coming in the future. The United States must preserve a powerful military and ensure a lawful and constitutional national defense.
Rejecting Hedonism
Libertarian Nationalism opposes the cultural hedonism that has taken root in modern libertarianism. Issues like gay marriage have been settled, and equality under the law has been achieved. Yet some libertarians continue to pour energy into fringe cultural battles, chasing causes that no longer advance liberty. The freedom of consenting adults to do as they please has been protected and is under no threat from a Trump administration. Abortion is a state issue now. Marijuana is reasonably available for those who seek it. It’s time to move on. What’s worse is that some libertarians have concluded that self ownership extends to giving minors the ability to consent to sexual intercourse with adults, mutilate their genitals, or be free to access hard drugs. Libertarians being outed as pedophiles is an open secret in the movement. These must be dealt with harshly by the criminal justice system.
Libertarian Nationalists reject the mission creep of NGOs and activists who, having achieved their goals, manufacture new grievances to justify their existence. Fundraisers whose main mission have been completed long ago still torture us with requests to pad their lucrative salaries, to bankroll their expensive dinners at wine bars in Lafayette Square. A nation’s strength doesn’t come from fringe causes—it comes from strong families, vibrant communities, and shared culture. Libertarian Nationalism prioritizes these over endless hedonistic activism for fringe causes.
Ethnic and Religious Pluralism
Libertarian Nationalism focuses instead on the preservation of liberty and the protection of cultural cohesion, recognizing that a nation’s strength lies in its shared identity and values. Those values must be clear, but broad enough to account for the differences of lifestyles, cultures, and traditions celebrated from the Aleutian islands to Key West.
It ought to be pro-family, while not being explicitly pro or anti-religion. It rejects a nationalism that would exclude someone like Vivek Ramaswamy, who is an American in every way, from becoming president merely for the fact that he is a Hindu. The Constitution of the United States should be the test for presidential fitness, not particular faith or lack thereof. Thus Libertarian Nationalism is distinct from other forms of American nationalism such as that of Ann Coulter who would never vote for Ramaswamy because of his ethnic and religious identity.
Trump himself may be a good example. He claims Christianity but refuses to engage in any form of theological debate or answer questions related to the inner workings of his own faith. He is something of a Man for All Seasons, only Trump refuses to engage in theological debates which attempt to pin down his views in contrast to Thomas More. Trump asks no one about their religious affiliations, and he does not discuss his. The first official coin authorized in 1787 was Benjamin Franklin’s “Fugio” cent which read “mind your business.” Solid advice, and an excellent example from the incoming Commander in Chief.
Trade and the National Interest
The neoliberal consensus has dominated U.S. trade policy for decades, prioritizing global economic growth over national sovereignty and national security. As Ramaswamy explained at the National Conservatism conference, this approach treated international trade as a tool for spreading democracy through “Democratic capitalism.” But in practice, it made the U.S. economically dependent on adversaries like China for materials and pharmaceuticals critical to our national survival, while undermining American workers and industries.
Libertarian Nationalism rejects this paradigm. Trade policy should maximize GDP yes, but it should also balance economic independence, national security, and the well-being of American workers. Decoupling from China in critical industries like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors is essential, as is fostering trade with more trusted allies. Libertarian Nationalism diverges from national protectionism, focusing instead on dismantling the regulatory state that has driven up costs for American manufacturers. Fix the problem at its root, while working through diplomatic channels to divest from China, and bring trade relationships to friendlier nations like India, and Argentina. America’s future is stronger with a western hemisphere that relies very little on the east. Sending American dollars to China has not had the hoped-for effect of galvanizing opposition to communism, it has instead financed it, and led to brutal outcomes for their domestic workers, ethnic minorities such as the Uyghurs, and Hong Kong.
A Nation, not an Economic Zone
Immigration policy under the neoliberal framework treated immigrants as economic inputs rather than as future citizens of a nation. Libertarian Nationalism rejects this purely economic view, instead emphasizing the importance of shared values, cultural integration, and loyalty to the United States.
The ongoing immigration crisis highlights the urgent need for a coherent, principled approach to border security and national sovereignty.
As Elon Musk recently warned, “Dams are bursting all over the country… America is only 4% of Earth’s population. If only 1% of the rest of Earth moves here, that would crush all essential services.” His remarks came in response to a report that Sen. Laphonza Butler, D-Calif., is requesting federal funds to accommodate a shelter in San Diego facing the release of 800 to 1,000 migrants daily. Musk’s blunt assessment, “The flood of illegals is crushing the country!” underscores the unsustainable burden placed on America’s infrastructure, economy, and communities by mass, unchecked migration. Libertarian Nationalism recognizes that a nation cannot function without borders and asserts that immigration policy must prioritize the well-being of American citizens, protect essential services, and uphold the rule of law. Entering the United States is not a right, it is a privilege that must serve the interests of the nation as a whole.
As Ramaswamy noted, “The United States is not just an economic zone. It is a nation bound by a common set of civic ideals.” This vision requires reforming immigration policy to prioritize merit, cultural assimilation, and national security. Practical measures include heightened civics exams, the elimination of dual citizenship, and the adoption of English as the national language. Immigration is not a right but a privilege, and those who seek it must share in the responsibility of upholding America’s values. No one has a right to come to the United States to undermine our values of individual liberty, justice, and limited government.
If not the NAP, then what?
At the core of Libertarian Nationalism lies a clear rejection of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), a doctrine often treated as sacred within libertarian circles. While the NAP aspires to be a clean, consistent philosophy for navigating interpersonal and international relations, in practice it has proven to be a fundamentally flawed and parasitic framework that undermines the very liberty it claims to protect. Its rigid and abstract nature leads to twisted views and compounding errors when applied consistently, especially in the realm of foreign policy. A nation guided by the NAP would not only be morally and strategically paralyzed, it would also actively erode the foundational principles of property rights, sovereignty, and justice.
The NAP holds that the initiation of force is inherently immoral, regardless of circumstances. This absolutism may seem noble at first glance, but it quickly collapses under the weight of reality. Human behavior, property disputes, and geopolitics are too messy and complex for an unyielding framework like the NAP to produce sound decisions. By applying a purely theoretical principle to real-world situations, libertarians adhering to the NAP inevitably compound their errors because while, yes, they are philosophically consistent… they are consistently wrong.
Nowhere is this failure more evident than in foreign policy. For example, strict adherence to the NAP leads many libertarians to oppose America’s historical westward expansion during the era of Manifest Destiny, branding it as an act of aggression against Native American tribes. Yet, this perspective ignores the broader moral context: the American pioneers braved the wilderness and advanced civilization across the continent, often at the edge of the tomahawk. Losers always pay in war. That will never change. Libertarian Nationalists proudly defend the American settlers who established law, property rights, and prosperity where none previously existed. We reject the idea that progress must apologize for itself simply because it displaced less developed or hostile cultures.
This same principle applies to modern conflicts, such as Israel’s fight against Hamas and Hezbollah. The NAP often leads libertarians to absurd conclusions, equating defensive actions taken by Israel with aggression because they may require the initiation of force. Ayn Rand famously rebuked this moral equivalence, stating: “When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”
Libertarian Nationalism embraces this moral clarity. It refuses to apologize for supporting civilizations like the United States or Israel in their battles against forces of barbarism and tyranny. A consistent NAP-based philosophy, by contrast, would leave civilized nations defenseless, unable to act preemptively against existential threats or to secure their citizens’ lives and property.
Beyond its foreign policy failures, the NAP undermines the very property rights it claims to protect. Property rights are inherently proactive, requiring clear rules, enforcement mechanisms, and the resolution of disputes, all of which necessitate the use of force in some capacity. The NAP’s prohibition on initiating force creates a paradox: it assumes property rights are self-enforcing and that disputes can always be resolved voluntarily, yet in practice, this is never the case.
Consider a scenario in which a person fleeing a hurricane seeks safe harbor on a private dock to save their life. Under a strict interpretation of the NAP, the individual’s action would be considered a violation of property rights, as they are using another person’s dock without prior consent. While most would recognize the moral and practical necessity of allowing someone to take shelter in such a dire situation, the NAP’s rigidity offers no such flexibility. Worse still, it would potentially prohibit the dock owner from removing the person after the storm, as doing so might involve the initiation of force: a squatter’s utopia.
This absurd outcome highlights the NAP’s inability to handle real-world complexities. While common law and property rights would allow the person to seek temporary refuge during the emergency (and likely hold them responsible for any damages caused), the NAP offers no framework for balancing competing rights or resolving disputes. Instead, it creates moral paralysis, privileging abstract principles over the realities of human behavior and the necessity of maintaining order.
This absurdity demonstrates how the NAP is not a protector of property rights but a parasite that feeds off their existence while rendering them unenforceable. A framework that cannot consistently defend property rights is not only impractical but actively harmful to liberty. The NAP implies that something is being aggressed upon: private property. Therefore, without private property, the NAP cannot exist and is parasitic on the underlying ideal. It also flies in the face of reality. Human interactions cannot be broken down and oversimplified into simply “who is the aggressor” and “who is the victim.”
In place of the NAP, Libertarian Nationalism adopts a framework rooted in common law and private property rights, a system that has stood the test of time as the bedrock of liberty. Unlike the NAP, common law is grounded in practical experience and evolved through centuries of resolving disputes, balancing individual freedom with social order. It recognizes that the enforcement of property rights and the maintenance of justice require the legitimate use of force, whether through law enforcement, courts, or defense against external threats.
By basing its philosophy on common law, Libertarian Nationalism provides a flexible, context-aware framework for addressing the complexities of governance. Disputes over property, for instance, are resolved through clear legal precedents and due process rather than theoretical abstractions. This ensures that liberty is protected within a system of rules that prioritize fairness, accountability, and justice.
Moreover, common law and property rights naturally extend beyond national borders, offering a coherent moral framework for foreign policy. Nations, like individuals, have the right to defend their sovereignty and their property. This includes taking preemptive action when threats arise, whether against terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah or adversaries like China who seek to undermine American interests. By rejecting the NAP’s moral absolutism, Libertarian Nationalism embraces the reality that force, when used justly and proportionally, is an essential tool for safeguarding liberty and civilization.
Civilization Over Barbarism: No Apologies
Libertarian Nationalism refuses to apologize for supporting progress, civilization, and the defense of property rights. Just as we stand unapologetically with American pioneers who forged a new nation during Manifest Destiny, so too do we stand with Israel in its fight against barbarism. These are not acts of aggression but acts of moral and practical necessity to secure life, liberty, and prosperity.
It is absolutely the case that interventionist foreign policy and fruitless efforts to “make the world safe for democracy” have been utopian and wrong-headed as well. Two things can be true at once. The United States has a bad habit of making enemies, arming those enemies, and seeing those arms used against us in the end. But it is incredibly wrong-headed, foolish, dangerous, and naive to assume that simply leaving others alone would mean that other nations and terror groups would not seek to interfere with our liberties or democratic processes.
Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all knew this, since Jefferson raised the Navy and the Marines to send to the shores of Tripoli, in order to subdue Mohammedan pirates and terrorists who were pressing white Europeans into slavery. We must be ready to defend our people and our civilization with the force required up to and including nuclear deterrence. Without national power, we cannot protect our people.
The NAP, in contrast, forces its adherents to retreat into moral cowardice, wringing their hands over the supposed immorality of defending property, enforcing laws, or protecting civilization. Libertarian Nationalism rejects this cowardice. We affirm that liberty must be defended actively, not passively, and that the principles of common law and property rights provide a stronger, more practical foundation for libertarianism than the empty idealism of the NAP.
In a world where liberty is constantly under attack, from barbarism abroad to lawlessness at home, only a philosophy rooted in strength and realism can preserve and advance the cause of freedom. Idealism must be tempered with pragmatism. Libertarian Nationalism is that philosophy.
Rejecting Cultural Nihilism
Modern libertarianism has been infected by cultural nihilism and has been overrun by leftist orthodoxy, indistinct from the communist Howard Zinn’s school of history, which portrays America as irredeemably oppressive. This mindset, which has infected both right and left libertarians, has led to the destruction of monuments, the renaming of military bases, simping for dictators and terrorists, and the erasure of national symbols. Modern American libertarianism is nearly indistinguishable from Zinn’s: painting the United States as the greatest force for evil in the world, and Israel by proxy, purging those like Walter Block and even Javier Milei from our ranks for their willingness to accept these foreign policy realities.
Libertarian Nationalism stands firmly against this trend both within libertarianism and sympathetic leftists in the greater United States. We call for the restoration of every vandalized statue and the preservation of military base names honoring Confederate generals, not to celebrate their actions, but to acknowledge the complexity of America’s history. We seek not to whitewash, but to face the truth no matter how painful it may be for majority or minority groups.
Libertarian Nationalists unapologetically stand with those who defend civilization against tyranny, even if their actions are imperfect. History is not a tale of saints and sinners, but of men and women making choices in complex and often desperate circumstances. The ability to discern between flawed defenders of liberty and agents of barbarism is a hallmark of mature political philosophy, one that Libertarian Nationalism embraces and cultural nihilism denies. Whataboutism is for propagandists and fools.
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson
The cultural nihilism infecting modern libertarianism is not limited to historical revisionism. It extends to a rejection of key elements of America’s own foundation, particularly the contributions of Alexander Hamilton. While we Libertarian Nationalists are far more Jeffersonian in our ideals, favoring individual liberty, local governance, and minimal interference in private life, we recognize that Hamilton’s vision of a strong, unitary government has been essential to the success of Jefferson’s dream of an “Empire of Liberty.”
Hamilton’s ideals, as articulated in the Federalist Papers, provided the structural foundation for a centralized government capable of uniting the states and projecting power abroad when necessary. This unity has been indispensable to America’s ability to secure liberty at home and win wars. Without Hamilton’s contributions, the disjointed and vulnerable confederation of states envisioned under the Articles of Confederation would have been incapable of withstanding external threats or governing effectively. Jefferson’s vision of an “Empire of Liberty” depended on the framework that Hamilton built.
The rise of secessionist rhetoric in some right-libertarian spheres represents a direct threat to both Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideals. Secessionism, far from promoting liberty, would fracture the nation, leaving states vulnerable to external threats and economic instability. Jefferson himself rejected the idea of a fragmented America, advocating instead for the westward expansion of a united republic that could extend liberty across the continent.
In Federalist No. 6, Alexander Hamilton warned that if the states were to separate, they would be more prone to conflict and war, driven by competing interests and the loss of a shared national identity. He wrote:
"Neighboring states, acting and governed by the passions and interests of men, would be in a constant state of either the actual exercise or the imminent danger of war with each other. The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. Some of them have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the desire of preeminence and dominion… the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety."
Hamilton recognized that shared identity and unity were essential for preventing such divisions. Thus Hamiltonianism sought to PREVENT war through unity. A fragmented America, he argued, would devolve into rivalry, undermining both liberty and security. The creation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause itself was meant to protect states from laying tariffs on one another, as it was understood not to regulate commerce but to keep it “regular.”
Libertarian Nationalism draws on this wisdom, rejecting secessionist impulses and emphasizing the importance of national unity in protecting the ideals of freedom and self-determination. A strong union ensures that Americans are bound by a shared purpose and principles, reducing the risk of petty conflicts that would erode the fabric of liberty itself. We may see issues with California’s rampant leftism, but the loss of that state would be an unbelievable economic loss and create a powerful rival to the United States. It would also mean a loss of the right to travel to that region, breaking apart families and separating us into more national identities, leaving us fractured and even weaker.
Libertarian Nationalism does not seek to encourage the creation of more nations through division, but a stronger United States through the addition… of more states to the Union. Certainly it would be an improvement for northern California to break away from the south and form another Republican state of Jefferson, but we must think even bigger. We should be aspirational, expansionist, and colonialist to ensure the spread of our ideals.
Libertarian Nationalism would seek to add Cuba, Alberta, even Greenland as the 51st, 52nd, and 53rd states. And the lands within our current and future states must be made available for privatization and development. And we must seek to build an ideological vanguard which would send our philosophical adherents to the Moon and to Mars when such conditions shall allow. We must colonize our ideals, as we seek to colonize other planets. Manifest Destiny, 21st century-style.
Libertarian Nationalism echoes Jefferson’s rejection of secessionism and his belief in a strong, united America. As Jefferson wrote, “We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed.” Liberty requires strength, and strength requires unity. A fractured America would betray Jefferson’s vision, undermining our ability to defend liberty and prosperity both at home and abroad. Jefferson preferred nullification to secession. Libertarian Nationalism prefers the same.
Refusing to Apologize for Civilization
Libertarian Nationalism unapologetically embraces the idea of civilization. We recognize that America’s strength lies in its ability to advance liberty, commerce, and justice, often in the face of opposition from forces of barbarism and tyranny. Just as we defend the American pioneers who braved the wilderness during Manifest Destiny, we also defend the principles that allow America to remain a beacon of liberty in the modern world. This is not a naive patriotism, it is a recognition that America’s flaws do not negate its extraordinary contributions to human progress.
Libertarian Nationalism rejects the cultural nihilism that seeks to rewrite America’s history as one of unrelenting oppression. We reject the revisionist libertarianism that undermines great figures who built Western Civilization, despite their flaws. Instead, we affirm that liberty requires strength, that unity is the foundation of prosperity, and that America’s role in advancing civilization is something to celebrate, not apologize for.
Libertarian Nationalism seeks to unite Americans around their shared heritage, emphasizing that our flaws do not outweigh our achievements. We are pro-Western civilization, and will seek to advance these ideas here, and beyond. We will safeguard American ideals, never apologize for them, and lead the way into a safer, freer, and more prosperous future for ourselves, our allies, and our posterity.
Restoring a Lean, Accountable Government
Libertarian Nationalism is not merely a philosophy of opposition. It is not just against the administrative state, or against the pacifism and impracticality of other libertarian schools of thought. It is fundamentally for something greater: the realization of the Founders’ vision of a free republic governed by and accountable to its people. At its heart, Libertarian Nationalism stands for a government that defends liberty, enforces justice, and empowers individuals, not unelected bureaucracies.
The Founders believed in a system where elected representatives write the laws and where executive officials act only within the bounds of their constitutional authority. Today, however, most legal edicts are not statutes debated and passed by Congress but rules and regulations created by unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies. Thousands of these regulations are imposed every year, strangling businesses, stifling innovation, and burdening the lives of ordinary citizens. Even more troubling, decisions on enforcement, spending, and governance are made by an entrenched civil service insulated by protections that make them nearly immune to accountability. This system is not only antidemocratic, it is a betrayal of the Founders’ ideals.
Libertarian Nationalism envisions a dramatic course correction to restore this balance. We are for a government that is lean, accountable, and bound by the Constitution. This is not an abstract principle. It is a call to action to rein in the administrative state and return power to the people through concrete reforms.
The regulatory state’s vast power rests on rules and edicts that are increasingly untethered from congressional authority. Recent Supreme Court decisions, West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), provide a powerful tool to reverse this overreach. These rulings affirm that federal agencies cannot impose major regulations without explicit authorization from Congress and reject the notion that agencies can interpret their own authority as they see fit.
Libertarian Nationalism embraces these rulings as the foundation for reform. A Libertarian Nationalist administration would identify regulations that exceed congressional mandates and pause their enforcement through executive action, beginning the process of rescission. This is not “executive overreach” but a restoration of constitutional order, correcting decades of bureaucratic lawmaking that bypassed Congress. Rolling back these regulations would liberate individuals and businesses from arbitrary and illegitimate rules, unleashing economic growth and restoring the rule of law. There is no path to solving the national debt crisis that does not involve massive growth, and that can be unlocked in part by removing bureaucratic interference with American dynamism.
Fewer regulations mean fewer bureaucrats. Libertarian Nationalism is committed to streamlining federal agencies to ensure they operate within their constitutionally defined roles. Every agency would be evaluated to determine the minimum personnel required to perform its legally mandated duties, eliminating redundant or unnecessary positions.
Those whose roles are no longer needed will be treated with respect, offered voluntary severance packages, and incentivized to transition into the private sector. For those resistant to change, civil-service protections won’t shield entire bureaucracies from necessary reform. Existing laws allow for "reductions in force," and executive authority can be used to relocate federal agencies outside Washington, D.C., or require in-person attendance to encourage voluntary departures. A leaner federal government is more accountable to the people it serves. “That government is best, which governs least.”
Libertarian Nationalism also takes aim at the rampant waste and unauthorized spending that have come to define the federal government. Over $500 billion in annual expenditures are unauthorized by Congress or misused for purposes Congress never intended, including grants to progressive organizations like Planned Parenthood, billions for international organizations, and subsidies for programs like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Libertarian Nationalism would end these abuses immediately, redirecting taxpayer dollars toward reducing the deficit and strengthening the nation’s core priorities.
The federal government’s procurement system is equally broken, with untold billions wasted through unexamined contracts. Large-scale audits and temporary suspensions of payments would yield significant savings, while agencies like the Pentagon, failing their seventh consecutive audit, would be held to higher standards of accountability.
These measures reflect Libertarian Nationalism’s broader philosophy: the government’s job is not to micromanage society but to defend liberty and ensure efficient use of resources. Every dollar spent without purpose is a theft from taxpayers.
The reduction of the administrative state is only a step toward reclaiming America’s founding principles. Libertarian Nationalism seeks not only to pare back government but to leave a lasting legacy of constitutional governance. The goal is clear: by July 4, 2026, the nation’s 250th anniversary, we should have a leaner government, freed from the Leviathan of unelected bureaucracies. If DOGE succeeds in its mission, then that would stand as a testament to the enduring strength of the American experiment and be a success of which Libertarian Nationalism could even take some credit.
This is what Libertarian Nationalism stands for then: a republic that empowers its people, respects their rights, cultural cohesion under set values, encouragement of intact families, national security aimed at her enemies, not her people… and operates within the limits set by the Constitution. It is a vision of liberty restored, a government that works for its citizens, not against them.
The Birth of a New Libertarianism
The hard truth is this: in Donald Trump’s first administration, not a single identifiable libertarian was named to his cabinet. Why? Because American libertarians, as they currently exist, lack the qualifications, the merit, and the character required to take responsibility for leading a nation. It is not enough to sit in think tanks or lecture halls, waxing poetic about principles while avoiding the compromises and responsibilities that leadership demands (all while collecting lucrative checks from donors). This is why libertarianism has been bypassed, not because its principles are wrong, but because its adherents have failed to earn the trust and respect needed to enact those principles in the real world.
It is time for libertarianism to rise from the sidelines and step into the arena. For too long, libertarianism in America has languished in irrelevance, content to argue in purist echo chambers while abdicating the hard work of governance to others. For too long, a political party bearing the name Libertarian has destroyed any goodwill the American people had by foisting inarticulate and morally dubious candidates on their ballots, expecting to earn votes by virtue of simply existing outside the two party paradigm.
“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”
— Frédéric Bastiat
The 21st century has made it clear: a libertarianism that refuses to adapt to the realities of power and the demands of national leadership will continue to fade into obscurity. If we do not take this moment to forge a new path, a Libertarian Nationalism that respects America’s traditions while pointing a bold way forward, then libertarianism will die as a footnote in history.
But this moment offers an opportunity. Libertarian Nationalism can rise to fill the vacuum left by ineffective leaders of the past. We can learn from leaders of today like Javier Milei in Argentina, who stayed true to his principles while stepping into the political arena and moving the ball down the field. Milei understood that liberty is not advanced through purity or inaction but through courageous engagement with the messy, often compromising realities of politics. As Otto von Bismarck famously said, "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the next best." Libertarian Nationalists must embrace this philosophy, understanding that politics is not about achieving utopia but about advancing liberty one tangible step at a time.
This call for Libertarian Nationalism is a call to organize, to build institutions, and to find the leaders who will take this vision forward. For decades, libertarianism has failed to cultivate individuals capable of stepping into national leadership roles. That failure ends now. Libertarian Nationalism will seek out the thinkers, organizers, and doers who are willing to take responsibility, who are willing to stand in the breach and govern, not just in theory, but in practice. We must find the individuals who can bring these ideas to life and give them the tools they need to succeed.
This movement will not be built in isolation. Libertarian Nationalists will learn from the successes of leaders like Milei and movements like MAGA and America First, incorporating their pragmatism and energy without losing sight of our foundational principles. We will grow the movement not by retreating into ideological purity but by demonstrating the merit and strength of our ideas through action. The next generation of libertarian leaders will not be armchair philosophers; they will be statesmen and reformers who understand that liberty must be defended aggressively, and not merely imagined.
Libertarian Nationalism is not a rejection of America’s past, it is its logical continuation. It draws deeply from the traditions of the Founders, who fought not for abstract ideals but for a practical, ordered liberty that could thrive in the real world. It is Jefferson’s vision of an “Empire of Liberty,” combined with Hamilton’s insistence on the strength and unity necessary to sustain it. It is a libertarianism rooted in America’s soil, one that understands that the preservation of liberty requires the strength to defend it and the courage to lead.
This is not a radical departure, it is a homecoming. Libertarian Nationalism offers a way for Americans to reclaim the values of self-governance, free enterprise, and individual responsibility that built this nation. It is a libertarianism that Americans will recognize, one that speaks to their traditions and aspirations, but it also points forward, offering a new vision of liberty that is equal to the challenges of the 21st century.
We have an opportunity to take our principles off the bookshelf and into the halls of power, to shape the future rather than merely critique the present. The question is whether we have the courage to seize it. Will we rise to the occasion, or will we retreat into irrelevance, content to watch from the sidelines as others shape the world? Will we support Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk’s vision and use this manifesto in order to bring change within the Republican Party? Will we follow the example of Javier Milei of Argentina and change the world? Or will we be nothing more than “cafe libertarians?”
Here is where I plant my flag for my fellow libertarians: step into the arena, or step aside. Libertarian Nationalism offers a way to build a movement that is not afraid to get its hands dirty, to make necessary compromises, and to take the responsibility of transforming our country away from leftism, fascism, and socialism. It offers a way to unite the ideals of liberty with the demands of leadership. It offers a way to reclaim the Founders’ complete vision, and renew America’s promise.
Let this be the beginning, not just of a new chapter in libertarianism, but of a new American movement. The work will not be easy. It will test our resolve and challenge our principles. But the prize is worth it: a nation where liberty is defended, where the government serves the people, and where America once again shines as a beacon of freedom for the world.
The time to act is now. The arena awaits.
