On this week’s episode, Nile Gardiner joins as we look at the British monarchy and ask the question — should Americans care about the royal family? We discuss the reign of Elizabeth II and how a continually strong monarchy under King Charles may be helpful to American national security. We also dissect Prince Harry and Meghan’s victimhood narrative and how the trend of demonizing tradition is pervasive and damaging to society.

Nile Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, and a leading authority on Brexit. Before joining Heritage, Dr. Gardiner served as a foreign policy aide to Lady Thatcher in her private office in London. He is a prominent expert on U.S.-British relations, U.S. foreign policy, and the transatlantic alliance and has testified several times before Congress on foreign policy issues. Finally, he frequently provides analysis of global events for U.S. and international television networks.


Beverly Hallberg:

And welcome to She Thinks, a podcast where you’re allowed to think for yourself. I’m your host, Beverly Hallberg, and on today’s episode we look at the British monarchy and ask the ever-important question, should Americans care about the royal family?

We’re going to discuss a little bit about the reign of Elizabeth II and how a continual strong monarchy under King Charles may be helpful to American national security. And of course we’d be remiss if we didn’t dissect Prince Harry and Meghan just a little bit. We’re going to look at their victim narrative and how the trend of demonizing tradition is pervasive and damaging to society.

And joining us to break it all down is Nile Gardiner. He is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation and a leading authority on Brexit. Before joining Heritage, Dr. Gardiner served as a foreign policy aide to Lady Thatcher in her private office in London. He is a prominent expert on US-British relations, US foreign policy, and the transatlantic alliance, and he has testified several times before Congress on foreign policy issues. Finally, he may be a familiar face because he frequently provides analysis of global events for US and international television networks.

Nile, it is a pleasure to have you on She Thinks.

Nile Gardiner:

It’s great to be here. Thank you very much, Beverly.

Beverly Hallberg:

First of all, we know each other. We’ve known each other for a while, but I have been following you very closely on Twitter and on TV as the whole Prince Harry and Meghan saga has unfolded before all our eyes, whether or not we wanted to see it. We are going to touch on them later in the episode today. But I wanted to start and just focus on the British monarchy itself.

I have found it to be a really interesting time, how many people are invested in learning more about the royal family. Personally, I’ve never been that invested until this whole saga continued as of late, all the drama. And so I thought it’d be important for us as Americans that broke away from the Brits years ago, talk about the British monarchy and whether or not there is value in us wanting it to be strong. So just the basic broad question that you can take it where you want it, should Americans care about the monarchy?

Nile Gardiner:

Well, now, so that’s a great question, Beverly. And certainly in my view, Americans should care about the British monarchy and opinion polls show that actually the British monarchy is in fact rather popular actually with the American public and the late queen, for example, was an extraordinarily popular figure here in the United States.

In fact, I think her approval ratings over the course of many decades polled by Gallup was generally around 70% or higher. And she was even more popular than Barack Obama when he was President of the United States as an example. And she has been consistently popular, I think more popular than the vast majority of US presidents.

And so I think Americans do care about the British monarchy. And the reason why is that the monarchy really represents, I think, tradition. It represents heritage. It represents I think in many ways the US-UK’s special relationship, the beating heart of the free world. And so a strong British monarchy I think is good for America.

And the vast majority of Americans, I think really do have a positive view overall of the British monarchy. And as I mentioned, the late queen was a hugely popular figure for the American people. And when she passed away, of course there was a great amount of mourning among the American people. Flags were flown at half-mast across the United States and tens of millions of people actually watched the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II on US TV. And so this was a big event for the American people.

And it demonstrates, I think the tremendous affinity that many Americans have with Great Britain, with the British people. And the queen, I think was a dearly loved leader on both sides of the Atlantic actually, and that says a great deal about the strength of the ties that bind the United States and the United Kingdom.

Beverly Hallberg:

One of the things I thought was so fascinating when she did pass and all of the tributes to her was seen, those photos of her with all the past US presidents, how many of them she outlived, obviously her very long reign was just astonishing to see. And something that I think epitomizes her reign is this word, duty. She had a duty, she felt that it was what she was called to do. And I think many of us admire that.

And I think what’s been surprising just by her grandson attacking the family, attacking her by default, even if he doesn’t attack her directly, is here is this female, this young female from decades ago that was able to do this. There’s also, of course, been female prime ministers in Britain.

And so if we want to talk about victim status, women often didn’t hold these types of offices, and I actually think England or the UK has been leading the way for women to be leaders. And that’s why I find some of the attacks really so ironic and hypocritical.

Nile Gardiner:

Yeah, that’s an excellent point here. And it is worth noting of course that the United Kingdom has already had three women prime ministers starting with Margaret Thatcher, then later Theresa May, and then of course Liz Truss. And so the UK has led the way in many ways in terms of leadership by strong conservative women.

And you mentioned the relentless attacks from Prince Harry that we’ve seen against the British monarchy. I think there’s been a tremendous backlash against both Harry and Meghan on both sides of the Atlantic, and both figures have plummeted in terms of overall popularity in the UK, but also here in the United States.

And I think the campaign, the nefarious and vicious campaign against the monarchy waged by Harry and Meghan has been a big flop. It’s been a big disaster really and on both sides of the Atlantic. I think the American and British people are united actually in rejecting the nastiness from the Harry and Meghan camp. And I do think that it’s a very destructive agenda that they have put forward.

And I think the monarchy remains of course, extremely, extremely strong. And Queen Elizabeth was an absolutely phenomenal leader over the course of many, many decades, the longest serving monarch. And she was somebody who really exemplified the spirit of the British nation. And I think that Americans tremendously respect that actually.

And I think Americans are overwhelmingly rejecting the negative message coming from Harry and Meghan, that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, they are now pariahs in the UK and increasingly unpopular in America as well.

Beverly Hallberg:

And I want to unpack one of the accusations made against Queen Elizabeth II, it’s something that we heard leading up into her death and then her death itself. And that is of course attaching her to the British Empire and this word colonization, which is talked about in very negative terms. Can you talk about not just her reign within Britain itself, but also all the different countries and territories across the world and how one should view her time running this empire?

Nile Gardiner:

Well, Queen Elizabeth II, of course was absolutely instrumental in terms of the establishment of what is known today as the Commonwealth of Nations, which has 56 countries. Most of them are former parts of the British Empire. A few countries are not, but most have a historic connection to the United Kingdom. And the queen’s role was absolutely pivotal in terms of making the Commonwealth of Nations formally the British Commonwealth, a tremendous force on the world stage. In fact, there are over 2 billion people who live within the Commonwealth. That of course includes India as well, but also includes countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

And the fact that the Commonwealth is so strong today is a testament not only to the queen’s tremendous leadership, but also to the great affinity that these countries still have with the United Kingdom. And the British Empire, in my view, which led to the Commonwealth of Nations today, was overall a great force for good on the world stage. And I think that the British legacy across the world has been overall a very, very positive one.

And you do see the woke left here in the United States, but also in Britain and in many parts of the world attacking the British legacy. They attack the British Empire, of course, on multiple fronts. But the British Empire ultimately has resulted today in this tremendously successful group of nations known as the Commonwealth of Nations. The queen of course played a lead role in the establishment of that.

But the monarchy really in essence represents history, tradition, but also British leadership as well on the world stage. And it is significant that those who are attacking the monarchy, especially on the left in the United States, are those who like to attack tradition, history. They often have a deeply both anti-British and anti-American approach as well.

And at the end of the day, the United States and the United Kingdom are united through their common heritage and history. The United States of course rightly fought a war of independence, which … Well, the American people fought a war of independence resulting in the United States of America and that of course has been a great development for the world.

The United States leads the free world today, and Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States. And so the US and British people are united together and we have a common history and heritage and culture. That is something to be tremendously celebrated.

And I think it’s significant that the woke left are strongly targeting the British monarchy today because they know it does represent, I think all of the values, the tradition, the history that they oppose and they despise. But the monarchy is actually growing stronger today than it ever has been, and I think the woke campaign is not succeeding in any way.

Beverly Hallberg:

So let me talk a little bit about the woke campaign. What is it about tradition that is so threatening to that agenda?

Nile Gardiner:

Yeah, that’s a really good question. I think the British monarchy represents, in essence continuity. It represents traditional values. It is, I think one of the most important institutions in the Western World. And I think that the British monarchy represents, I think, the tremendous history of Great Britain as a world-leading nation.

And so the left absolutely hates that, just as they hate the idea of America leading in the world today. And so the woke left try to tear down both Great Britain and the United States, and they see certainly the British monarchy … Excuse me … as a big part of their target list actually. And so I think it’s very important that we do defeat the nefarious agenda of the woke left.

Beverly Hallberg:

And let’s now move a little bit to Prince Harry and Meghan, and you’ve mentioned them already. One place I want to start because of course I have watched their documentary. I’ve not read the book or listened to the audiobook. I’ve heard enough excerpts and seen enough excerpts to not want to read his book. But I found it fascinating during the documentary that they talked about Brexit throughout it, and you were somebody who was leading the charge on Brexit. What did you make of that connection? Why are they making it? It’s not a correct connection, but can you just expand on that just a little bit?

Nile Gardiner:

Yes. As you point out, Beverly, I was a big supporter of Brexit and I worked for Lady Thatcher who in many ways I think was the first Brexiteer. In fact, her 2002 book “Statecraft” laid the foundations of Brexit and she was the first British leader to call for the UK to think about leaving the EU. And that was actually 14 years ahead of the Brexit referendum in 2016.

Now, Meghan and Harry, of course, have launched multiple attacks on Britain, but one of the areas that Harry has focused on has been Brexit. And clearly Harry is not a fan of Brexit. After all, I would describe Prince Harry as a quintessential left wing, woke globalist in his overall outlook. And so Brexit is all about sovereignty and self-determination. And Brexit of course had been strongly driven by British conservatives.

And so Brexit stands for, I think in many ways what Harry does not believe in. And Harry is somebody who I think advances, as Meghan does, a very left wing ideological agenda actually. So Brexit is clearly not his cup of tea. And I would add that Harry and Meghan and are increasingly political figures. They’re political activists. They give political style speeches. They make political points.

And so their campaign against the British monarchy is not just out of sheer spite, but it’s also I think a result of a political agenda here. They are both left wing woke ideologues in many ways, and Brexit of course is the antithesis of what they believe in. I should add as well that Brexit is the democratic will of the British people. The British people voted in 2016 to leave the EU and Prince Harry should respect that democratic decision.

But undoubtedly, Harry has a political agenda, as does Meghan as well. They should be viewed as political figures who are using as well their royal titles, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for political purposes and also to personally enrich themselves as well. I mean this is all about making money also for Harry and Meghan.

Beverly Hallberg:

And there’s a moneymaking venture that Prince Harry does have that’s newer. I think it’s on Monday that it is released, but he’s going to be doing a live webcast of him getting therapy and talking through his mental illness, which you can pay for if you want to see. And that is odd on so many different levels. I don’t think it’s healthy for him. I don’t think it’s healthy for other people. It’s not something that you should be selling.

But I’m curious why there seemed to be such change in public opinion on him when the book came out. So I think when the documentary came out, there were enough people who viewed that positively, but the book seemed to tip the scales. What was it about his book “Spare” that seemed to really plummet their approval ratings?

Nile Gardiner:

Yeah, I think in addition to “Spare,” of course, the Netflix documentary that Harry and Meghan launched back in November, which they were reportedly paid upwards of $100 million for, actually, I think this was also a key catalyst in terms of turning the public against them because the Netflix documentary was not only incredibly boring and remarkably dull, but it was also a direct attack on Harry’s own family. It was nasty stuff actually. And that followed on from the Oprah Winfrey interview as well, which was also unpleasant and nasty.

And then you had Harry’s book, “Spare,” which came out early this year. And reportedly Harry’s been paid $20 million as part of a bigger book deal, which may include Meghan possibly writing a book as well. And Harry, I think really upset the British public because it was just a litany of attacks upon his own family.

No one was spared of criticism in Harry’s book. From the king through to Kate Middleton, through to Prince William, Camilla, of course, everybody gets targeted by Harry in this book. It’s a very nasty piece of work. And in my view, it’s full of salacious lies and disinformation, which of course have been strongly refuted by the royal family. I think it’s one of the most deeply unpleasant books of the modern era really. It’s also, I have to say, very badly written, and it is full of, I think vicious lies, frankly is what it is.

And so the British public don’t like these sorts of nefarious attacks upon the royals, and so they’ve turned hugely against Harry. And in the United States as well, I think Harry’s approval rating’s fallen by 48 percentage points since the publication of the book, Meghan’s has gone down by 40%, but she was already at a very low level.

And so I have to say that Harry’s made a lot of money out of this book, but his reputation has absolutely plummeted. And on both sides of the Atlantic, I think there’s been a huge reaction against this. And Harry just comes across as a very narcissistic, unpleasant character actually. And Harry used to be a very popular figure in the UK, hugely popular.

And now I think if Harry and Meghan showed up at the coronation on May 6th, they would probably be booed actually by a lot of the public. So it’s not clear whether they will be attending, but if they do attend, they will probably receive a very negative reception on the streets.

Beverly Hallberg:

It’s really been astonishing to see how they have let all of this unfold. I think that there is an inherent wrong that we all see when one attacks one’s family so publicly and they don’t have a chance to defend themselves. People could say, “Sure, the royal family could defend themselves,” but personally I think their silence has been speaking volumes. So I think they’ve handled this correctly. But I think all of us could look at family squabbles that we’ve had, we know it’s there, and there’s just something inherently wrong about selling those stories to your family members.

But there’s another side to this as well, that I’ve continued to think about this attack against the monarchy itself, and really it’s twofold. It’s his personal grievance against his family and then what he views as the firm, the institution that he has an issue with. But the British people like the monarchy. This is something they want. So he’s attacking the British people as well.

And I was even thinking about this from an economic standpoint, and this is my question to you, if by chance the British monarchy went away, let’s say it became deeply unpopular, I don’t think this is going to happen, but what would that do to tourism? What would that do to the economy? What would that do to the British people financially if the monarchy went away? Now I know taxes do go to them, but there’s so much built on tourism around the monarchy, correct?

Nile Gardiner:

Yeah, that’s a very interesting question. Firstly, the monarchy I think will be with us for a very long time, hundreds and hundreds of years I think more at least, and I think possibly even thousands. I mean, who knows what the future of the monarchy will be. But I think that the royal monarchy will be the heart of the United Kingdom for many centuries to come.

I would say that if the monarchy were to be removed, and if for example, you had some far left wing British government that decided to try and bring down the monarchy, for example, you couldn’t rule that out in the future, actually, frankly, but if you had that kind of scenario, I think it would be disastrous for the British economy if the royal family were ever to be removed. After all the royal family brings in through tourism, as you pointed out, vast sums of money for the British economy. Potentially if not hundreds of millions, even billions of pounds actually fall for the United Kingdom in terms of revenue.

And the royal family is part and parcel of the British identity. If you remove the royal family, I think it fundamentally undermines what Britain is. And I think that’s a big disincentive for many people to visit the United Kingdom. So they draw in actually in terms of money raised through visitors to the United Kingdom far more than they receive in taxpayer money. And in fact, I would say the royal family really adds tremendously to the British economy in every respect.

And so I don’t believe the royal family will be threatened at all in the next few decades or even the next few centuries actually. Well, I think the British monarchy is here to stay. There are figures on the left, of course in the UK who want to get rid of the monarchy, but they’re a small minority and opinion poll shows that the royal family’s supported by over 70% of the British population. That hasn’t really changed much over the course of many, many decades. And so the anti-monarchy side has not actually grown in strength at all over the course of the last half century.

Beverly Hallberg:

Where do you think the saga with Harry and Meghan goes from here? I mean, I have a prediction that … First of all, I was semi-surprised about the invitation for them to come to the coronation, but then thinking back on it, it actually looks very gracious on behalf of the king. And like you said, if they do show up, the public will boo them. So they can’t claim that they’re being excluded and now it’s up to them about whether or not they want to face that. So I actually think that that was a brilliant strategic move. What do you think Harry and Meghan’s next move is?

My calculation is she’s looked at what this book has done, what it’s done to their popularity, and she doesn’t write a book anytime soon, that maybe they lay low for a while and some of their plans to roll out the next iteration of grievance may stop for the time being. But any thoughts on that?

Nile Gardiner:

Yeah, great questions really. I think firstly, in terms of the invitation to attend the coronation, King Charles as a father naturally wanted to include his son, Harry, in the coronation. That’s the king’s decision. I think there are certain risks involved in that, not least that if Harry and Meghan attend, they will seek to turn it into series two of their Netflix documentary, and they may seek to really gain a lot of additional coverage and publicity, they will use the coronation for their own ends.

So there are risks here, but certainly King Charles is a big-hearted person and he wanted to include certainly his son in the coronation. So I believe they have been invited to the coronation. They have not yet responded, and certainly, if they don’t attend the coronation, I think that probably would be for the best, I think for everyone concerned here if they don’t attend. But we’ll have to see what actually happens.

It’s significant that actually Meghan has kept a very low profile since the publication of “Spare,” and I think a key reason for that is that “Spare” has been a massive PR disaster for Harry, and Harry has become a very, very disliked figure as a result. So I think Meghan is trying to avoid some of the fallout from that, which is why she’s not out there on the book tour and everything, and she’s been very quiet.

Now, having said that, of course, the South Park parody, which targeted Harry and Meghan, while not naming them specifically, but everyone knows who they’re targeting, that I think has been devastatingly damaging to both Harry and Meghan, and that has really hurt their image and has turned them into figures of fun and mockery.

As for what they’re going to do next, I expect that Meghan is no doubt planning to write her own memoirs. Of course, she hasn’t achieved very much, but she will still be undoubtedly seeking to publish her own memoir, and despite a track record of basically achieving absolutely nothing. So she is somebody who will always seek the limelight. Harry and Meghan are immensely narcissistic individuals, and so I’m sure she’ll be back on TV screens quite soon.

And certainly my concern is that they will try and use the coronation as a big publicity exercise. They are constantly trying to present themselves as victims of the monarchy, victims of the British press, victims of the British people. And they’ll probably start whingeing about Americans not liking them next. I suspect they’re going to start claiming they were victims of the American media and the American people as well.

And so there is no end to the victimhood, the victim mentality of these two individuals. So I think we can expect them to be back in a major way on television screens jointly after a few months, and maybe they’re planning another Oprah interview or another Netflix documentary, but they’ll be never far away from the limelight.

But they’ve taken a big hit recently with the backlash against “Spare” and the South Park episode, which I watched in its entirety. It’s devastating and it’s devastating because it’s actually very accurate in terms of portraying the narcissism and the constant whining of Meghan and Harry. So it’s actually devastatingly good in terms of its-

Beverly Hallberg:

And I think it actually did capture my mentality as well, which was there is a scene talking about saying, “Just stop talking about them.” And he’s like, “I can’t. I can’t. They’re everywhere,” which is where I am on this.

But I do think that there is a larger reason why I’ve been fascinated with this, not because of the royal family, and of course that’s an added element, but it’s where do we go as a society with the victimhood mentality? Are people going to adhere to it and look at them and see them as perpetual victims? Or is there a point where people say, “Come on, be an overcomer. Even if you think you’ve been wronged, get up.” So to me, it’s been interesting because where are young people going to fall on this idea that there are grievances wherever we go? And so I think that still remains to be seen, and that’s a reason to follow up.

But my final question for you is looking forward to this coronation, I believe it’s May 6th, is when the coronation is. What does King Charles need to do as king? What are you hoping? I know that he is definitely a little bit too closely attached to the green agenda for my liking, but what can we expect from him?

Nile Gardiner:

Yeah, that is a very interesting point because Charles is very different to his mother, and I think the late queen kept out of politics completely. Charles has a track record of comments on environmental issues. He’s spoken out on refugee immigration matters in the past when he was Prince Charles. And so he has to be very, very careful not to get involved in political matters because I think one of the reasons why the monarchy is so successful is that it’s kept out of politics altogether. And so Charles has to resist the temptation to weigh in on political matters because that will only, I think, undermine the monarchy rather than strengthen it.

And I think Camilla, the queen consort, who will actually officially become queen as well, she has a bit more leeway to weigh in on some matters. In fact, she has. She recently made remarks attacking the censorship of books. So Roald Dahl, a famous British author, has had his books edited and censored recently after a campaign on the left. And so Camilla actually spoke out against that.

And I think her intervention was good actually, in the sense that she has more leeway to speak on things. And she was basically just defending the principle of freedom of speech, which is sacrosanct in the United Kingdom. And so actually some of Camilla’s interventions have been very positive. I do think the king though, has to be very careful not to be speaking out on environmental issues, for example. This will only undermine his position.

I think the king is so far off to a strong start. He used to be far less popular than the queen, but I think he’s growing in popularity with the British public. There’s a lot of goodwill towards King Charles. And so I think that the coronation is very important symbolically for the king. And I think the British people have rallied around the king, and I expect he’ll be a strong and effective king.

He will be succeeded ultimately by Prince William, who I think will be a magnificent leader for the United Kingdom. I think William is somebody who has demonstrated a tremendous heart of service for the British people, and Kate has been absolutely wonderful as well.

So I think the future’s in very, very good hands, and I think it will be a successful reign for King Charles III. And I think that the future for the monarchy looks very bright with William and Kate, the Prince and Princess of Wales. I think they’ll be fantastic leaders for the United Kingdom. So I’m very positive and optimistic about the future of the monarchy.

Beverly Hallberg:

What about the titles for Harry, Meghan and also their children? What do you think of that?

Nile Gardiner:

That’s an important issue really, because Harry and Meghan still retain the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex, which I think is outrageous. They’re no longer working royals. They don’t contribute anything to the monarchy. They trade off their titles to generate their own personal wealth. They’re making a lot of money, frankly, off the fact that they are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. If they were not members of the royal family, I don’t think anyone would care what they have to say at all, really, and they would be individuals without any real status. And I would say no one would pay much attention to them if they were actually exiled from the royal family.

My advice for the royals has always been remove the titles of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They do not deserve to be carrying those titles. They do nothing for the royal family. They do everything they can to undermine the royal family, attack the royal family. So I do hope that their royal titles will be removed as swiftly as possible, but the king has not shown any inclination to do that. And so we’ll have to see what happens.

I think things will have to get a lot worse for the king to go down that path. But in my view, they are two immensely destructive, selfish, and narcissistic individuals who have an agenda, a political agenda, which is to undermine, even potentially try and destroy the monarchy while of course earning as much money as they possibly can from carrying those royal titles.

So have those titles taken away, deny them the air of publicity that they have as members of the royal family, and they will certainly, I think, fade away as figures of public attention. So I do hope that they lose those titles as soon as possible.

Beverly Hallberg:

Final question for you. Do the Brits blame Americans for Meghan?

Nile Gardiner:

Yeah, that’s a great question. I don’t think they do, actually. I don’t get any sense of that. And also, there’s a recognition in Britain that Meghan represents a certain kind of left wing liberal elite in the United States in terms of her overall approach and her views. And I think there’s an understanding that most Americans are actually fed up of Harry and Meghan. So I think the British people share the same sentiments as the American people. I don’t think this results in any anti-American sentiment in Britain as a result of Meghan’s-

Beverly Hallberg:

Perhaps it’s bringing us all together.

Nile Gardiner:

Actually, that’s a great point, Beverly, because I think that the British and American people are united in their rejection of the Harry-Meghan agenda. It’s brought the Americans and the Brits closer together, ironically. And I do think that Harry and Meghan are increasingly isolated in their mansion in Montecito. And they are celebrated by a small, narrow liberal elite in the United States and opinion polls show this.

The vast majority of Americans, I think, really have just had enough of Meghan and Harry, and they certainly think that Meghan does not speak for them. And if anything, their campaign of hate towards the royal family has brought the British and the American people closer together.

Beverly Hallberg:

Well, as we were talking about, I think it’s much more than what this means for this specific family, what it means for the monarchy, but it’s also what it represents about victim narrative.

Nile Gardiner:


Beverly Hallberg:

And also like you were saying, the elite and how they view other people and how they view their own grievances. So I think that’s why it’s an important story to follow. And my hope is that Western countries do reject this mentality and do ridicule people rightly for this mentality and let people focus on overcoming whatever they view as a past harm against them, and that’s the best way to proceed.

So Nile Gardiner, like I said, it’s been wonderful to follow you on Twitter during this whole season of Harry and Meghan, and thank you for coming on and telling us a little bit more about the monarchy and why Americans should care about why it matters to national security. We so appreciate it. Nile Gardiner with the Heritage Foundation-

Nile Gardiner:

My pleasure.

Beverly Hallberg:

… thank you so much.

Nile Gardiner:

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Beverly Hallberg:

And thank you all for joining us. Before you go, Independent Women’s Forum does want you to know that we rely on the generosity of supporters like you. An investment in IWF fuels our efforts to enhance freedom, opportunity, and wellbeing for all Americans. So please consider making a small donation to IWF by visiting iwf.org/donate. That’s iwf.org/donate.

Last, if you enjoyed this episode of She Thinks, do leave us a rating or a review. It does help, and we’d love it if you shared this episode so your friends can know where they can find more She Thinks. From all of us here at Independent Women’s Forum, thanks for watching.