Freedom Conservatism

John Tillman is CEO of the American Culture Project, chairman of Illinois Policy and a Freedom Conservatism signatory. In a recent National Review piece, Tillman argued that Republican lawmakers seeking to strengthen labor unions aren’t just making a policy mistake. They’re making a political mistake. Donald Trump appealed to working-class voters by promising “a new era of optimism and opportunity,” he wrote. Trump delivered during his first term, and his second-term agenda of “permanent tax cuts and a smaller regulatory state are designed to deliver even greater benefits, though tariffs may complicate things.” Tillman explained that the president also “spoke to the working class’s nationalism and patriotism — values that Democrats abandoned long ago. He clearly aligns with working Americans’ values by opposing things like biological boys who claim to be girls competing in girls’ sports and racial discrimination in the name of ‘equity.‘” Rather than using government power to prop up unions, he concluded, Republicans should champion freedom and growth. “Workers want to take their future into their own hands — a future of the opportunity, prosperity, and patriotism that unions consistently oppose.”

Russ Greene is a senior fellow for economic progress at Stand Together and former director of government relations and research at CrossFit, Inc. He’s also a Freedom Conservatism signatory. In a recent essay for The Free Press, Greene explained the role that monetary policy played in the rise and fall of woke politics. “Companies started backtracking on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and on environmental, social, and governance–based (ESG) initiatives even before it was clear Trump would be last year’s Republican nominee,” he wrote. Citing economic research, Greene argued that ESG investing was at least in part an “artifact” of zero interest rate policy. “When money is free, crazy ideas get funded,” he wrote. “When money has a price, funders and investors want to see a direct link to value. That means ideological pet projects are the first to go.” Easy money didn’t just boost the gain on crazy ideas from the Left. “On the Right, the zero interest-rate policy era featured years of heady talk about industrial policy and wielding the power of the administrative state,” Greene stated. “The era of limited government had ended, Reaganism was passé, and we were all social democrats now, those on the New Right said.” They were mistaken. “CEOs and politicians who continue to act like money is free will pay a steep price,” he concluded.

Karl Beckstein is a conservative activist in Raleigh, North Carolina who attended the Freedom Conservatism Conference on Feb. 24 at the National Press Club. “What attracts me to Freedom Conservatism is its consistency with the ideals of America’s founding,” Beckstein explained in a recent Carolina Journal column. “As an evangelical Christian, my worldview is shaped by the belief that all people are made in the image of God — the imago Dei — and endowed with inherent dignity and purpose,” he wrote. “This conviction aligns with the Declaration of Independence’s affirmation that ‘all men are created equal,’ which informs the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. “At the Freedom Conservatism Conference, I found high esteem for founding principles.” he continued. “The dignity of the individual informed economic policies that encouraged innovation and entrepreneurship, while expanding opportunity for the poor. The skepticism of big government shaped strategies to reduce the size and scope of government, including balancing the budget and reforming entitlements. “This wariness of government leads Freedom Conservatives to empower civil society — the family, churches, businesses, and civil organization — to take the lead in solving our country’s problems. “Freedom Conservatives and National Conservatives agree on much — from cutting government spending to securing our border and stopping illegal immigration. Conservatives of all stripes, including those who don’t align strictly with either camp, will need to work together to address these challenges. “However, in the years ahead, the competition between Freedom and National Conservatives will play a pivotal role in shaping our governing vision.”

Sam Raus is a Tech and Consumer Freedom fellow with Young Voices and a Freedom Conservatism signatory. In his piece about #FreeCon 2025, published by RealClearPolitics, Raus praised the range of voices presented throughout the daylong conference, writing that it “captured the very essence of political coalition-building and independent thinking on the Right.” With voters decisively rejecting progressive governance during last fall’s election, now is the time for American conservatism to broaden its message, he argued. “Whether it was the Black Lives Matter riots, the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, the girls’ sports issue, the education system, or numerous other instances of ideological overreach by the Left, cultural attitudes against censorship and intellectual orthodoxy ultimately drew countless Americans into the conservative fold who otherwise might never have considered it their political home,” he wrote. “Now the Right holds the opportunity to build the majority it needs to win.” The essence of Freedom Conservatism “isn’t lockstep agreement,” Raus continued, “but rather a shared commitment to individual liberty, economic opportunity, and the freedom to speak without fear of cancellation. “Reagan’s success was one of a big tent — not an echo chamber. Working-class and anti-communist Democrats backed the Republican nominee for the first time ever in 1980 because of his embrace of the messy process of coalition-building. “If conservatives work through their differences, they might just stand athwart history yelling, ‘Welcome aboard!’”

David B. McGarry is research director at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance and a Freedom Conservatism signatory. In a recent piece for Fusion, he rejected claims that the #FreeCon policy mix of free markets, fiscal responsibility, peace through strength, and the rule of law can no longer meet the country’s needs. For starters, Freedom Conservatism “is quintessentially, unapologetically, uniquely American,” he wrote. “Even as American government has evolved from the system prescribed by the Constitution, certain assumptions about the nature of man and justice still obtain among the American people, hardwired into our habits, worldviews, and sympathies. “Most Americans have not read John Locke or The Federalist, but we remain a ‘classically liberal’ people insofar as we tend to be skeptical of centralized power, are disposed to believe individuals should generally be left free to conduct their own lives and finances, and regard the United States as a successful alternative to European models of state and society. “The fact that some antagonists cannot see that Freedom Conservatism — aside from its philosophical merits — deserves consideration because it fits the character, history, and traditions of the American people calls into question their judgment on political matters, generally.” McGarry cheered the announcement at FreeCon 2025 that follow-up events would be held outside the nation’s capital. “Restoring constitutional balance means not just reforming the federal government, but returning many of its accumulated powers to the states.” “Better yet,” he continued, “are private associations and institutions of civil society, especially the church and the family. As the government — and especially the federal government — cannot coerce virtue, it also cannot coerce happiness.”

At Law & Liberty, Freedom Conservatism signatory James Capretta argued that for Congress to make any meaningful progress toward fiscal balance, it will have to change the way it budgets. “After years of neglect, the U.S. does not have much time for further procrastination,” wrote Capretta, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has served as associate director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget as well as a budget analyst on Capitol Hill. “Staying on the current trajectory will steadily reduce the U.S. economy’s strength and resilience. Those who are committed to avoiding such self-inflicted harm should be prepared to act decisively when the political window opens, as it will at some point, to break from current trends.” #FreeCon

In USA TODAY, Freedom Conservatism signatory F. Vincent Vernuccio related the efforts of labor unions to block federal employees from accepting the Trump administration’s buyout offer. “Imagine you’re a 60-something federal worker who long planned for your career to end soon,” wrote Vernuccio, president of the Institute for the American Worker. “Why not take the buyout and retire early, with eight months' worth of extra cash?” Or “imagine you’re a 30- or 40-something government employee who’s looking for a career change. Getting eight months’ salary is the cushion you need to go out and find a better job, giving you financial security while you search. But the unions tried to stop you, too.” “This is only the latest reason to question how well federal collective bargaining works for federal employees.” #FreeCon

At American Institute for Economic Research - AIER’s Daily Economy, Freedom Conservatism signatory Iain Murray analyzed the Department of Government Efficiency’s war against the administrative state. “The speed and ferocity with which DOGE began its mission was like the vaunted ‘shock and awe’ campaign at the beginning of the Iraq War,” wrote Murray, vice president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. But much more will be required. “Congress will have to follow through and repeal laws, or future presidents will just reinstate regulatory programs. The dark matter of ‘guidance’ will have to be brought under control. A new vision for the shape and nature of the federal civil service will have to be developed and agreed upon. “Yet thanks to DOGE, for the first time, there is light at the end of the tunnel.”

Jack Butler is a #FreeCon signatory and submissions editor at National Review. After attending the Freedom Conservatism Conference on Feb. 24, he wrote that the event “dispelled my initial doubts about this project.” In his NRO essay, Butler argued that the speakers articulated not only what Freedom Conservatism is against but what it is for — beginning with freedom, of course, but also encompassing family formation, federalism, the rule of law, and a robust civil society that reflects the “moral dimension” of human flourishing. “Our constitutional architecture does not just leave space for the practice of religion,” he wrote, “it depends on such practice, and draws from America’s heritage thereof.” Butler praised the extent to which the event showed FreeCons engaging directly with current political issues and opportunities. “The attack on the bloated, centralized state that has marked the early portion of the second Trump administration is eminently compatible with, and enthusiastically cheered on by, Freedom Conservatism,” he wrote. “As is the possibility of a serious strengthening of state and local governments. It was refreshing to hear Tony Woodlief, of State Policy Network, state in a discussion of how best to restore federalism that ‘it’s possible states and localities actually do things better than the federal government.’ “FreeCons,” said Butler, “have a real answer to discontent about the size and scope of the state.” What comes next? He urged Freedom Conservatives to cultivate political champions for their cause and to build consensus on thorny issues such as immigration and foreign policy. “To trust the American people requires being inspired by them, and to inspire them in turn, for the sake of the noble yet difficult task of self-government,” he concluded. “This demands not just political suasion but moral exhortation.”

On the Fox News TV site, Freedom Conservatism signatory Gonzalo Schwarz praised the Trump administration’s efforts to remove government-imposed barriers to economic opportunity but argued that other obstacles lay beyond the capacity of DOGE or other federal initiatives to affect. “These barriers — such as broken family structures, mental health issues, substance abuse, chronic unemployment, or a lack of meaningful social relationships — are unlikely to be solved (at least not in the long term) by top-down policies or cookie-cutter government programs,” wrote Schwarz, president of the Archbridge Institute, along with coauthor Elizabeth McGuigan of Philanthropy Roundtable. “By fostering social capital and supporting charitable organizations, we can truly remove the barriers to upward mobility and create a brighter future for ourselves.” #FreeCon