In a rare public address on April 16, 2026, at the University of Texas at Austin, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a powerful and unflinching warning. Speaking ahead of the nation's 250th anniversary (the semiquincentennial of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026), Thomas argued that progressivism represents a fundamental threat to the United States — not merely a competing policy preference, but an ideology fundamentally opposed to the core premises of the American founding. Thomas urged Americans not to be passive spectators but to actively defend the Declaration's ideals with the same courage shown by its signers. He described the Declaration as "the most important act of American history, the foundation of our Constitution, and… the sheet anchor of our republic," echoing Abraham Lincoln.
Thomas's Core Argument Justice Thomas traces the rise of progressivism to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson in the 1910s. He contends that it was the first major political movement since the founding — apart from pro-slavery forces before the Civil War — to explicitly reject the Declaration of Independence's central claims: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Key quotes from the speech make the point sharply: "Since Wilson's presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life… It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the declaration, because it is opposed to those principles. It is not possible for the two to coexist forever." "Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government." "It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights."
In Thomas's view, progressivism inverts the founding vision. Where the Founders saw rights as pre-political, natural, and God-given — limits on government power — progressives locate rights and dignity in the state itself. This shifts power toward experts, bureaucrats, and an administrative apparatus that treats citizens as subjects to be managed rather than sovereign individuals whose liberties must be protected. Thomas contrasts this with originalism: a judicial philosophy that interprets the Constitution according to its original public meaning and the natural rights framework of the Declaration. He implicitly critiques "living constitutionalism," which allows evolving judicial interpretations that often expand government authority in the name of "progress." The Historical Warning Thomas does not stop at abstract philosophy. He links progressivism to the bloodiest century in human history. He notes that many early progressives expressed admiration for the regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao — all of which rejected natural rights in favour of collective state power and expert planning. These systems, he argues, were "intertwined with the rise of progressivism and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our declaration are based."
Domestically, Thomas points to concrete early examples under Wilson: the defence of Plessy v. Ferguson (racial segregation), the resegregation of the federal workforce, and the beginning of government-backed eugenics programs involving forced sterilisation of those deemed "unfit." The pattern is clear: when rights derive from government rather than a higher source, the state can redefine, grant, or revoke them at will — often in the name of science, equity, or social improvement. This mindset erodes limited government, individual liberty, and democratic accountability. Supporting Thomas's Critique Thomas's argument is persuasive because it aligns with observable trends. Modern progressivism has indeed expanded the administrative state, with unelected agencies issuing regulations that function as de facto law. It has promoted identity-based policies that treat individuals not as equals under natural rights but as members of competing groups whose outcomes must be equalised by government action. Speech codes on campuses, corporate DEI mandates, and efforts to reframe American history primarily through lenses of oppression all reflect a discomfort with the Declaration's universalist claims.
The shift from God-given or natural rights to government-granted "rights" (to healthcare, housing, education, or emotional safety) creates exactly the "subservience" Thomas describes. Citizens become dependent clients of the state rather than free agents. This undermines self-reliance, family structures, and civil society — the mediating institutions that the Founders believed essential to a free republic. Moreover, progressivism's historical track record abroad should give pause. While contemporary progressives reject any direct lineage to 20th-century totalitarianism, the underlying philosophical move — elevating expert knowledge and collective goals above individual natural rights — has repeatedly justified authoritarian excesses. Thomas is right to highlight this continuity of ideas, even if the manifestations differ in degree. In the American context, the tension is increasingly visible in battles over free speech, religious liberty, gun rights, and federalism. When progressive priorities clash with constitutional text or original meaning, the impulse is often to reinterpret or bypass the Constitution rather than amend it through proper democratic processes. A Call to Vigilance Justice Thomas's speech is not partisan ranting; it is a sober philosophical diagnosis from one of the Court's most consistent originalists. As America approaches its 250th birthday, he reminds us that founding principles are not self-sustaining. They require active defence against ideologies that view them as outdated obstacles to "progress."
Thomas leaves open whether limited government and individual rights "will endure." That uncertainty is a challenge to every generation, especially today's. The evidence of progressivism's inroads — from regulatory overreach and declining trust in institutions to cultural attacks on national cohesion — suggests his warning is timely. Reconciling with the Declaration's vision of natural rights does not mean rejecting all reform. It means ensuring that reform remains anchored in the transcendent principles that made the American experiment exceptional in the first place. If Thomas is correct — and the historical and philosophical record strongly suggests he is — then progressivism is not a harmless evolution of liberalism. It is a rival philosophy that cannot indefinitely coexist with the American republic as founded. The choice, as he implies, is to recommit to the Declaration's ideals or watch them erode further. Americans would do well to heed the justice's call and refuse to be passive spectators in that contest. All of these points apply across the West, including Australia, which trails behind America in the progressive attack upon all that is good and right.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/4531684/clarence-thomas-progressivism-threat-to-us/