MK3 BLOG

By MK3 — Margin of the Law

The connection between the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), 9/11, and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is one of the most significant and controversial narratives in modern history. It represents the culmination of a decades-long neoconservative strategy that found its pretext and opportunity in a national tragedy.-MK3

The Cold War’s end in 1991 left the United States as the sole superpower on a planet suddenly without balance. The Soviet Union collapsed, China had not yet risen, and Washington found itself standing atop a global system it had long sought to contain. The question among policymakers wasn’t whether America should lead—but how far that leadership should extend, and by what means it should be maintained.

What emerged from this moment was not an accident of history. It was the product of a distinct ideology—American primacy, engineered in policy think-tanks and later written into the blueprints of war.

 II. The Blueprint: The 1992 “Wolfowitz Doctrine”

In 1992, a classified Pentagon document called the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) leaked to the New York Times. Drafted under Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and authored largely by Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Zalmay Khalilzad, it declared that America’s goal should be to prevent the rise of any future rival power—militarily, politically, or economically.

Its core message was blunt:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.”

The doctrine called for unilateral action when necessary, preemptive strikes to neutralize threats before they formed, and a forward military presence across the globe to preserve U.S. supremacy.

Critics compared it to a manifesto for empire. The backlash forced the White House to tone it down publicly, but the strategic DNA remained. The Wolfowitz Doctrine was the embryo of what would later be called the Bush Doctrine.

 III. The Engine Room: PNAC and the Return of the Hawks

In 1997, a group of defense intellectuals—many of them veterans of the Cheney-Wolfowitz network—founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Its Statement of Principles, signed by future Bush administration heavyweights—Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad—argued for nothing less than a military and moral renewal of American global dominance.

PNAC’s key pillars:

• Dramatically increased defense spending
• Willingness to act unilaterally
• Preemptive strikes against emerging threats
• Regime change in Iraq

In 1998, PNAC sent an open letter to President Clinton demanding the removal of Saddam Hussein. Two years later, its 90-page report, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, laid out a plan for transforming the U.S. military and reshaping the Middle East. One line would become infamous:

“Further, the process of transformation... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

That sentence now seen as prophecy, was a statement of political realism: major changes often require major shocks.

 IV. The Catalyst: 9/11

On September 11, 2001, that catalytic event arrived.

Within weeks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), granting the president near-blanket authority to pursue those responsible for the attacks “and associated forces.” The War on Terror was born—an open-ended campaign with no geographic or temporal limit.

Afghanistan was first. The Taliban fell quickly, but the mission expanded into a two-decade nation-building project that ultimately collapsed back into Taliban control in 2021.

Then came Iraq. Almost immediately after 9/11, several PNAC alumni within the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein posed a renewed threat—through weapons of mass destruction, ties to terrorism, and defiance of the United Nations.

The 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly announced the doctrine of preemptive war—a direct descendant of Wolfowitz’s 1992 framework. The ground had been prepared long before the towers fell.

 V. The Invasion of Iraq: 2003

On March 19, 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq. The stated reasons: to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, end Saddam’s support for terrorism, and spread democracy through the Middle East.

But the WMDs were never found.

The 9/11 Commission later confirmed no operational link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

The supposed intelligence turned out to be cherry-picked, coerced, or outright wrong.

The occupation dissolved Iraq’s army, dismantled its state institutions, and set off a sectarian insurgency that bled the region for years. Out of that chaos emerged al-Qaeda in Iraq, which evolved into the Islamic State (ISIS).

 VI. Afghanistan and the Long War

Afghanistan became the proving ground for counterinsurgency theory and drone warfare. Each administration rebranded the mission—nation-building, counterterrorism, regional stabilization—but none achieved lasting victory.

By the time of the 2021 withdrawal, the Taliban controlled more territory than it had in 2001. Twenty years, hundreds of thousands of deaths, trillions of dollars, and the geopolitical map looked eerily unchanged.

 VII. The Continuity of Doctrine

The connection between the Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC, 9/11, and the Iraq–Afghanistan wars isn’t conspiracy—it’s continuity.

• The Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992) sketched the theory: American primacy, preemption, unilateralism.
• PNAC (1997–2001) became the political vehicle that sold it.
• 9/11 (2001) provided the emergency that made it actionable.
• Iraq and Afghanistan (2001–2021) became its full-scale field tests.

The personnel, documents, and decisions overlap almost perfectly. What began as a theory of dominance became two decades of policy.

 VIII. Consequences: The Price of Primacy

1. Human and Financial Cost

According to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, the post-9/11 conflicts have cost the U.S. roughly $8 trillion and resulted in over 900,000 deaths worldwide, including soldiers, contractors, and civilians.

2. Strategic Blowback

Instead of securing the Middle East, the wars destabilized it. Iran expanded its influence, al-Qaeda mutated, and ISIS rose from the ruins.

3. Domestic Power Shift

The War on Terror justified vast expansions of executive authority, mass surveillance, and militarized policing at home. The 2001 AUMF remains active today—used by presidents of both parties to justify actions in at least 22 countries.

4. Erosion of Credibility

When the U.S. failed to find WMDs, its global reputation cratered. Allies questioned American intelligence; adversaries exploited the credibility gap. “Preemption” quietly gave way to “strategic patience.”

 IX. Historical Legacy

The early 21st century may well be remembered as the era when an idea became an empire’s reflex—when the pursuit of permanent dominance replaced containment or diplomacy as America’s default posture.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine envisioned a world permanently structured around U.S. military superiority. PNAC evangelized that vision. 9/11 unlocked it. Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated its limits.

The global consequences continue to ripple: fractured states, displaced millions, emboldened rivals, and a United States wrestling with the weight of its own ambitions.

 X. Epilogue: Lessons in Hegemony

The lesson isn’t that a hidden cabal plotted endless war. It’s that policy inertia and ideological certainty can create the same outcome—without conspiracy, just conviction. When a state begins to see preemption as defense and dominance as stability, perpetual war becomes self-justifying.

Every empire eventually learns that military supremacy cannot substitute for legitimacy.

Whether the United States learns that in time is the next chapter of the story.

Part 2 of this piece is about:

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (born December 22, 1943) is an American political scientist and diplomat who served as the 10th President of the World Bank, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, and dean of Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

MK3|MK3Blog|Oct. 21, 2025

Below are two articles from Armstrong Economics. I did this as a way to put all the information in one spot and I’ll be updating this several times before it’s completed.—MK3

Health care spending has been at the forefront of the Democrats’ tantrum that led to the government shutdown. Where else do they plan to send tax dollars? The continuing resolution to keep the government open for another six months has a few stipulations that should raise questions.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is to receive nearly half a billion dollars. The initial budget proposal presented by the Democrats included over $1.1 BILLION in taxpayer aid to broadcasting platforms like PBS and NPR.

Congress is on a perpetual vacation funded by the people. The people are demanding that these public servants work, and the Democrats believe that they deserve a $157 million raise for underperforming. All members of Congress are to be appointed personal security and residential security system. They are also requesting $10 million in security to the state office. Yet, the average American is forced to live in or near crime-ridden cities that these people insist are safe. Crime is a byproduct of MAGA rage, apparently, and only the politicians deserve to feel safe in America.

Dead Congressmen deserve a death gratuity, since they’re working equally as hard as their living peers. The temporary resolution includes a $174,000 payout to the families of Raul Grijalva (AZ), Gerald Connolly (VA), and Sylvester Turner (TX).

Here’s a kicker—the neocons are inserting their agenda within this bill and demanding that the US government allot $437 million to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Countless aid has been sent to Ukraine, but the US government cannot operate unless we send another half-billion-dollar package.

Why should Americans be forced to spend on these extremely biased stipulations that do not benefit the people in any way?

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/americas-current-economy/the-pieces-of-the-resolution-the-democrats-dont-want-you-to-see/

Democrats Demand $5 Billion in Foreign Spending to Reopen Government

The provisions placed by the Democrats are utterly absurd. The headlines discuss the issue of health care without mentioning the endless demands they’ve made that in no way benefit America or the American people. Half of our elected representatives are refusing to reopen the government unless the GOP agrees to send $5 billion in taxpayer funds to foreign nations.

What will these foreign nations do with our $5 billion in aid so crucial that the US government cannot effectively operate without it? Naturally, the majority of the package ($1.8 billion) will be funneled through USAID into NGOs that line politicians’ pockets. The organization will also require an additional $200 for administration costs.

Global Health and PEPFAR-linked Programs requires $900 million to fund globalist disease-based control through shady NGOs, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF. Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (International Disaster Assistance) to the tune of $850 million must be sent to places like Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. Peacekeeping and Security Support will require $700 million and will be spent on FAILED missions in Haiti, Lebanon, and Mali, among others.

Forget America’s economy—the Democrats wants to provide $600 million to the Economic Support Fund (ESF) & Democracy Initiatives. The money will go toward anti-corruption measure, ironically, and governance and freedom programs throughout Eastern Europe and Latin America. Since the debt ceiling is of no concern, the Democrats want to spend another $440 to global organizations like FAO, UNDP, and the International Development Association.

The situation becomes stranger when you look at the details. Honduras apparently needs $25 million in aid immediately for “climate resiliency.” The Balkans require $5 million LGBTQ democracy grants. There is a plan to send $2 million to support Democratic feminist principles in Africa. Again, half of America’s elected officials believe the government simply cannot operate without this funding.

The Democrats cannot fathom why Republicans are not willing to spend an additional $1.5 TRILLION. That’s adding 25% of all federal spending on top of the current budget. Yet, these politicians grab their microphones and cry that the GOP wants to prevent “middle-class folk” from achieving the American dream. These people have destroyed the middle class and are intent on destroying the US economy because their actions only benefit their wallets rather than the people.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/democrats-demand-5-billion-in-foreign-spending-to-reopen-government/

MK3|MK3Blog|Oct. 20, 2025

“We are not such asses as to let them ride us as they please.”

That was the fiery attitude of a 19-year-old Alexander Hamilton in 1774 – and it perfectly explained the principle behind the economic shutdown the colonies were implementing in response to the Coercive Acts: they refused to be bullied into submission.

Today, a “shutdown” is a political game designed to manipulate the people. But the original American shutdown was a weapon of revolution.

This is the story of the Continental Association.

COORDINATED ECONOMIC SHUTDOWN

On October 20th, 1774, the First Continental Congress made it official when they passed the Continental Association, long considered the first of the founding four documents along with the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution for these United States.

The document’s opening line wasn’t a polite request; it was a diagnosis of the threat.

“To obtain Redress of these Grievances, which threaten Destruction to the Lives, Liberty, and Property, of his Majesty’s Subjects in North America”

And then, the prescription: a muilti-part plan of economic warfare, which they considered their only “peaceable” option.

“we are of Opinion that a Non-importation, Non-consumption, and Non-exportation Agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual, and peaceable Measure; and therefore we do, for ourselves and the Inhabitants of the several Colonies whom we represent, firmly agree and associate, under the sacred Ties of Virtue, Honour, and Love of our Country.”

This agreement created a four-pronged attack designed to cripple the vaunted British economic system.

1. Non-Importation

They started with a total ban on British imports. The Association’s language was clear: if a product came from or even just passed through Great Britain or Ireland, it was prohibited.

“That from and after the first Day of December next we will not import into British America, from Great Britain or Ireland, any Goods, Wares, or Merchandise whatsoever, or from any other Place, any such Goods, Wares, or Merchandise, as shall have been exported from Great Britain or Ireland.”

And that was just the headline. The full text was a hit list including East India tea and indigo, molasses, coffee and more from the Caribbean, and wines from Madeira and the Western Islands.

Alexander Hamilton – the good one we should’ve gotten years later – explained the choice: boycott or war.

“This being the case, we can have no resource but in a restriction of our trade, or in a resistance vi & armis. It is impossible to conceive any other alternative. Our congress, therefore, have imposed what restraint they thought necessary. Those, who condemn or clamour against it, do nothing more, nor less, than advise us to be slaves.”

2. Non-Consumption

The second prong took the boycott from the ports to the people. It wasn’t enough to simply turn down British goods from arriving; colonists had to stop buying and using the goods that had already arrived.

The agreement first took aim at tea, the most politically charged product of all.

“From this Day, we will not purchase or use any Tea imported on Account of the East India Company, or any on which a Duty hath been or shall be paid; and, from and after the first Day of March next, we will not purchase or use any East India Tea whatever.”

Then, it expanded this boycott to include every single product on the non-importation list.

“Nor will we, nor shall any Person for or under us, purchase or use any of those Goods, Wares, or Merchandise, we have agreed not to import.”

3. Frugality and Industry

The Association wasn’t just about boycotting. The third prong was about replacing British goods and culture with American alternatives.

“We will, in our several Stations, encourage Frugality Economy, and Industry; and promote Agriculture, Arts, and the Manufactures of this Country, especially that of Wool.”

This real AMERICA FIRST shutdown was much more than just trade policy; it was a cultural rebellion. They also chose to starve out British culture, cutting off the expensive, extravagant habits that drained colonial wealth and establish a leaner, more virtuous way of life that could survive the coming siege.

“And will discountenance and discourage every Species of Extravagance and Dissipation, especially all Horse-racing, and all Kinds of Gaming, Cock-fighting, Exhibitions of Shows, Plays, and other expensive Diversions and Entertainments.”

The strategy even extended to funerals.

“None of us, or any of our Families, will go into any farther Mourning Dress than a black Crape or Riband on the Arm or Hat for Gentlemen, and a black Riband and Necklace for Ladies, and we will discontinue the giving of Gloves and Scarfs at Funerals.”

4. Export Ban

The final prong was the colonists’ ultimate threat: a total export ban. They put the ban on a timer, giving London a deadline of September 10, 1775, to repeal not just the Coercive Acts, but a whole decade’s worth of unconstitutional taxes and statutes.

“The said Acts, and Parts of Acts of the British Parliament herein after mentioned, are not repealed, we will not, directly or indirectly, export any Merchandise, or Commodity whatsoever, to Great Britain, Ireland, or the West Indies, except Rice, to Europe.”

The single exception for rice was no accident. It was a calculated political compromise pushed by South Carolina’s pragmatic delegates, led by John Rutledge. The move was so contentious it was fiercely opposed by their own more radical colleague, Christopher Gadsden, who demanded shared sacrifice. But rice was an economic lifeline for South Carolina and Georgia. Without that carve-out, the powerful planters would have walked away, and the united colonial front would have collapsed before it began.

A UNANIMOUS VOTE

The groundwork for the Association was laid weeks earlier, on September 16, 1774. That day, an express rider from Boston named Paul Revere galloped down 2nd Street in Philadelphia carrying the Suffolk Resolves from Massachusetts. The document was a blueprint for resistance: noncompliance with the Coercive Acts, defiance of British courts, sheriffs refusing to enforce British laws, and outright tax resistance.

The Resolves also proposed the strategy that would unite the colonies: a widespread boycott of British goods to retaliate for the shutdown of Boston’s port.

And the very next day, Congress unanimously approved the resolves in its first official act.

Ten days later, as recorded by John Adams in his notes of the debates, Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee moved to turn that endorsement into action.

“Mr. Lee made a Mo[tion] for a Non Importation.”

The blueprint for this motion was the Virginia Association of 1769, a boycott drafted by George Mason and introduced by George Washington. It was passed after Virginia’s royal governor dissolved the House of Burgesses, forcing the members to defiantly regroup and push forward without royal permission.

Mike Maharrey identified this move as the key shift from operating within the British system to creating an independent one:

“By regrouping outside official channels, the Burgesses took a revolutionary step – organizing independent political action without royal approval. This laid the groundwork for self-government.”

JUSTIFY A REVOLUTION

Virginia wasn’t the only assembly shut down by the British. They repeatedly used government shutdowns as a political weapon to punish the people and manipulate them into compliance, including New York and South Carolina.

But with the Coercive Acts, they went for the kill shot. Under the Massachusetts Government Act of 1774, they outlawed all meetings without approval from the crown.

“No meeting shall be called by the select men, or at the request of any number of freeholders of any township, district, or precinct, without the leave of the governor, or, in his absence, of the lieutenant-governor, in writing, expressing the special business of the said meeting, first had and obtained.”

John Adams said this ALONE justified revolution..

“A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution—to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.”

The First Continental Congress debated for weeks, but the question wasn’t over whether to resist, buthow. For weeks, the delegates argued logistics: when the boycott should start, what it should include, and whether to ban exports.

By October 14, they had the primary framework set, and shifted to pass the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. This was a full list of grievances, the specific British acts that needed to be repealed, a declaration of rights, and a plan of action, promising to follow up with a “non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation association.”

For Alexander Hamilton, the choice was simple. The temporary cost of a commercial shutdown was nothing compared to the permanent cost of living under despotism. He argued that anyone who couldn’t see that was either a moral coward or a fool.

“No person, that is not lost to every generous feeling of humanity, or that is not stupidly blind to his own interest, could bear to offer himself and posterity as victims at the shrine of despotism, in preference to enduring the short lived inconveniencies that may result from an abridgment, or even entire suspension of commerce.”

ENFORCEMENT

But without enforcement, a declaration is just words on paper. To give the Association teeth, Congress included a revolutionary enforcement system.

“That a Committee be chosen in every County, City, and Town, by those who are qualified to vote for representatives in the Legislature, whose Business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all Persons touching this Association.”

When a violation was confirmed, the committee’s power was in public shaming. They were instructed to:

“Cause the truth of the case to be published in the Gazette, to the End that all such foes to the rights of British America may be publickly known and universally contemned as the Enemies of American Liberty.”

Once a person was publicly named, the community’s role was to completely ostracize them.

“And thenceforth we respectively will break off all Dealings with him, or her.”

To show the seriousness of their unity, Article 14 applied the same approach to any non-compliant colony:

“And we do farther agr[ee and resolve, that we will have] no Trade, Commerce, Dealings, o[r intercourse whatsoever, with any] Colony or Province in North Ame[rica, which shall not accede to, or] which shall hereafter violate, thi[s association, but will hold them as] unworthy of the Rights of Free[men, and as inimical to the liberties of] their Country.”

UNION ESTABLISHED

All twelve colonies present voted to pass the Association. Georgia, which had not sent delegates, joined the following year.

This was the moment the American union was truly born. For the first time, all thirteen colonies formally agreed to a single, coordinated, and enforceable policy against Britain.

Nearly a century later, Abraham Lincoln made this same connection: the union started with the Association. But the irony with his observation is thick, because he was making this case to argue against secession in a country birthed in secession.

“The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.”

MAJOR IMPACT

According to historian T.H. Breen, the Association didn’t just create a union on paper; it sparked a revolutionary takeover of government from the ground up.

“During the months following the announcement of the Association, in October 1774, the insurgency gathered momentum. Indeed, no sooner had the Continental Congress authorized this infrastructure for enforcing a commercial boycott than hundreds of committees throughout America seized control of local government, quickly becoming the face of revolution.”

These new local committees had one primary mission: enforce the boycott. As historian Alan Taylor documents, the economic impact was immediate and devastating to British merchants. In just a few months, imports from Britain collapsed by over 85 percent.

“The committees proved remarkably effective, for the value of British imports plum­meted from about £3,000,000 in 1774 to just £220JJ000 during the first six months of 1775.”

This economic pain sparked fury from British loyalists. The Rev. Samuel Seabury, writing as “A Farmer,” voiced the establishment’s outrage and condescension.

“Can we think to threaten, and bully, and frighten the supreme government of the nation into a compliance with our demands? Can we expect to force a submission to our peevish and petulant humours, by exciting clamors and riots in England? We ought to know the temper and spirit, the power and strength of the nation better.”

Alexander Hamilton issued a blistering, point-by-point response to Seabury. First, he flatly rejected the loyalist’s condescending caricature of the colonists as childish bullies.

“No, gentle Sir. We neither desire, nor endeavour to threaten, bully, or frighten any persons into a compliance with our demands. We have no peevish and petulant humours to be submitted to.”

Hamilton continued with one of the best quotes of the entire Revolution.

“All we aim at, is to convince your high and mighty masters, the ministry, that we are not such asses as to let them ride us as they please.”

He concluded with a defiant promise, declaring that the colonists knew the value of liberty and would not surrender it without a fight – an attitude that’s seriously lacking today.

“We are determined to shew them, that we know the value of freedom; nor shall their rapacity extort, that inestimable jewel from us, without a manly and virtuous struggle.” 

Source: The Tenth Amendment Center

MK3|MK3Blog|Oct. 20, 2025

Source:Geller Report. 

While Trump’s GOP is working furiously to increase American wealth and reduce our unsustainable debt, the Democrats are holding the country hostage for trillions for corrupt programs and money laundering ops.

And why isn’t this front page news across the land?

Sickening.

Key details on the September 2025 budget

• The U.S. Treasury reported a $198 billion budget surplus for the month of September, the largest on record for that month.September is often a surplus month due to quarterly corporate and individual tax payments.
• The surplus was primarily driven by two factors:
• A record increase in customs duties from new tariffs imposed by the administration.
• A significant reduction in Department of Education outlays, primarily due to changes to the federal student loan program mandated in a spending bill passed in July 2025.

Monthly surplus vs. annual deficit

While the September surplus was substantial, it does not represent the federal government’s overall financial health for the year.

• Monthly surplus: In September 2025, the government took in more money ($544 billion) than it spent ($346 billion).
• Annual deficit: For the entire 2025 fiscal year, the U.S. still ran a deficit of $1.775 trillion, though this was a slight decrease from the prior year.
• Unsustainable trajectory: Despite the trimmed annual deficit, analysts warn that the government remains on an “unsustainable path,” driven by continued increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt, which hit a record $1.22 trillion in fiscal year 2025.

MK3|MK3Blog|Oct. 01, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark case rolling back federal environmental protections, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion for Indiana v. EPA (2024) that ruled the Environmental Protection Agency as unconstitutional, as it didn’t exist in its current state nor did it have a direct precursor at the country’s founding in 1776. The EPA was created under President Nixon during a period of heightened scrutiny for the deleterious effects 20th-century industrial development was having on American waterways and air. Since then, the agency has been tasked with making sure the environmental rights of Americans are protected through the adoption of emissions and contamination standards. 

The case Indiana v. EPA centered on a recent rule proposed by the EPA under President Biden, known as the Good Neighbor Rule, which required states that were upwind of other states to adopt tighter emissions regulations for energy drilling and production to protect downwind states. Several states sued over the legitimacy of the rule, which were all consolidated under Indiana’s case to SCOTUS. Although legal experts largely predicted that the Court, which has been increasingly skeptical of environmental protections in the past decade, would rule against the EPA, few expected the Court to go one step further and disabuse the entire agency altogether. Leading the 6-3 majority on ideological lines, Justice Alito wrote that “it was high time that this Court stop stepping around the EPA with piecemeal rollbacks and address the agency as a whole altogether.” 

The opinion went on to reflect on the historical tradition of the country, pointing out how none of the Federalist Papers made any mention of the Founding Fathers wanting the government “to halt the development of industry with burdensome regulation,” and that therefore, there was no legitimate authority Congress exercised when it created the organization with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. At press time, Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion clarifying that the Indiana v. EPA opinion was “highly specialized to this case…and should not be taken as a binding legal precedent with regards to other federal agencies.” 

Source: Substack