Guillermo is the CEO of Ignite, a political leadership program for young women.
Nancy Pelosi's decision to step down from House leadership brings up strong feelings. But it also has a similar impact on generations of women from across the political spectrum. I run an organization that engages young women to embrace political ambition and run for political office. Many of us saw Speaker Pelosi's achievement and realized we could go further than we realized. It is hard to overstate the impact that her career has had on our collective ambitions.
Pelosi has addressed hundreds of young women at Ignite events. She is always generous with her time. She takes a deep, personal interest in the future careers of young women she meets. Since she announced her decision not to run for a leadership position, I've heard from dozens of these young women across the political spectrum.
They have sent me photographs of them standing with Pelosi at Ignite events. They've told me, "This is the moment I realized I could run for office." Her interest in their ambitions is what convinced them that they, too, had the potential to lead. In the recent midterm elections, several Ignite alumni ran for office and won. Many of them told me that seeing Pelosi’ impact and leadership influenced their own journey in deciding to run.
This is 2022, but women still face tremendous barriers to pursuing a political career. Ten percent of senators are named Jon or John. Fewer than 30 percent of lawmakers are women. People ask men, meanwhile, far more often to run for office than they do women. And when they do ask women to run, it takes a lot more to persuade them than it does young men. Against that backdrop, Pelosi's career is all the more remarkable. She is still often pictured as the only woman in rooms full of men. She was elected the first female speaker of the House in 2007. At that point she became the highest-ranking woman in U.S. history. That achievement stood until the swearing-in of Vice President Kamala Harris in 2021.
Pelosi helped usher through reforms to our health care laws. She helped repeal military policies barring LGBTQ+ from serving. She supported same-sex marriage. She has been unafraid to stand up to China on its human rights record. These are generational issues. They have shifted global culture. They have enjoyed bipartisan support.
Several of Pelosi's staff cried as they applauded her when she walked from the floor. In politics, tears are a rarity. Such open displays of emotion aren't strategic. But the significance of Pelosi's decision cut through that. I also admired her choice to wear a white suit, speaking to the legacy of the women's suffrage movement. Let's not forget that women only got the vote in this country in 1919. That's just 21 years before Pelosi was born.
It means a lot, too, that Pelosi spoke about it being time for "a new generation to lead." The 2022 election was a “youth wave,” with near-historic numbers of young people turning out to vote. Young people turned out at their highest rates in states with razor-thin margins. Gen Z and millennials are on their way to becoming part of the largest voting bloc. They care about reproductive justice, mental health, student loans and more. Candidates who want to win need to speak to the issues young voters are passionate about. It is reassuring to see Pelosi recognizing that a new generation is ready to carry the torch.
We also should not dismiss that Pelosi's decision comes less than a month after a break-in at her home. The man has told investigators he intended to break her kneecaps. She has told the press that the attack – in which her husband was badly harmed – is a factor in her decision. We need to reflect on how our society has emboldened this kind of violence. We need to speak more about the barriers powerful women face and we need to pay vocal tribute to their courage in breaking through them.
In the meantime thank you, Nancy Pelosi, for the changes you have made possible.



















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.