Over the last decade, China has carried out the largest illicit transfer of capital, innovation, data, and technology in human history. One of the most overlooked elements of this heist is the role of industrial espionage and the theft of corporate secrets. The government-backed intelligence apparatus designed to clone American technology has strengthened Chinese competition across all industries and, most notably, enabled advances in military hardware, microchips, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications. In his newest book, The Great Heist: China’s Epic Campaign to Steal America’s Secrets (Harper Collins, 2025), David Shedd, with Andrew Badger, exposes the CCP’s campaign and presents a counterstrategy informed by his distinguished career in intelligence. But what exactly are they stealing and how are they carrying it out? Why is the IC so silent on this? And why do we insist on bringing more Chinese nationals into our universities?

David Shedd is the former deputy director and acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). He also served as chief of staff for the director of national intelligence and National Security Council senior director and as special assistant to the president for intelligence under George W. Bush. He began his intelligence career in 1982 immediately after his studies at Geneva College and Georgetown University, and served nearly thirty-three years in a number of capacities in the DNI, National Security Council, CIA, and in U.S. embassies overseas. Since leaving the federal government, he has worked at The Heritage Foundation and as an adjunct professor and is currently working as an independent national security consultant.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

Find The Great Heist here.

Between the pardoned turkeys and those running loose on Capitol Hill, controversy over insubordination and sedition seem to be on the menu this holiday. The six Democrats who posted a video addressed to service members sowed chaos and confusion about the proper chain of command and lawful military orders. It is crucial to understand the constitutional framework that distinguish lawful military action, legislative and executive powers, crime, and war. In today’s politics, rhetoric can make it difficult to discern the line between war and crime. John Yoo reminds us that not everything that harms society constitutes a war or justifies the use of military tools. That being said, where is the line drawn, and who draws it? And what is the proper role for members of Congress?

John Yoo is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Yoo has served in all three branches of government. He was an official in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism issues after the 9/11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. He has been a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and federal appeals Judge Laurence Silberman. Professor Yoo has published almost 100 scholarly articles on subjects including national security, constitutional law, international law, and the Supreme Court. Professor Yoo’s latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.

For Donald Trump, China has served as a major justification for economic protectionism, highlighting our dependencies and need to onshore products with national security implications. But that’s the talk. The reality is more dismal: a less-than-hawkish trade deal this month, with tariffs that seem to isolate allies and, inversely, reshore production on China’s mainland. For Team Trump, three camps have merged into one contradictory mess within the administration. Members of these camps look to use tariffs as leverage for trade deals, as a source of revenue, and to protect domestic industry. No single tariff can achieve all three and brief, ambiguous trade deals do little to decouple with China, friend-shore, and rebuild American industry. Where do we go from here? How will these tariff camps shake out? And how can we improve our strategic approach to global trade and protect America from the very real China threat?

Scott Lincicome is the Vice President of General Economics the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. He writes on international and domestic economic issues, including international trade; subsidies and industrial policy; manufacturing and global supply chains; and economic dynamism. Lincicome also is a senior visiting lecturer at Duke University Law School, where he has taught a course on international trade law. Prior to joining Cato, Lincicome spent two decades practicing international trade law at White & Case LLP, where he litigated national and multilateral trade disputes. He also authors a column for The Dispatch entitled, Capitolism.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.