I’ve had several people ask me over the last couple of days how National Review is going to respond to Tuesday’s election. Will our coverage change now that Trump is back in office instead of a would-be Kamala Harris administration?

My answer is that, fundamentally, it won’t. Sure, we’ll focus a little more on the Republicans now because they’ll be in power rather than the Biden-Harris Democrats who just got booted out. But I hope that every reader will be able to tell that our coverage will be the same at the core because our mission will be the same. And if you appreciate that mission and enjoy reading us, we hope you’ll consider a donation as part of our fall fundraiser.

National Review exists for two principal reasons. First, we are a forum for discussion, debate, and the sharpening of conservative ideas. Second, we’re going to tell you the truth as we see it, both collectively, as The Editors of National Review, and individually under our own names and bylines.

Around here we will frequently disagree, sometimes passionately — and that’s a good thing! Life is complicated. Every decision involves trade-offs and downsides. And the question of how to apply conservative principles to specific circumstances is not always obvious. Indeed, sometimes answering those types of questions is contentious and heated. But that’s how it ought to be: NR lives in the real world because conservatism is about living in the real world and dealing with life as it is rather than some utopian version of reality.

In the next few years, I can promise you that NR is going to be unapologetically pro-American as the Left throws a temper tantrum around the celebration of America’s semiquincentennial in 2026. I can promise you that we’re going to go hammer and tongs with Republicans who decide that, now that they’re back in power, they can return to spending taxpayers’ money like drunken sailors on a 72-hour liberty in Hong Kong. And I can promise you that we’re going to fight back against anyone and everyone who hopes to tear down our institutions, our constitutional norms, and our way of life.

Look, if someone wants to read, for example, entirely pro-Trump content online or entirely anti-Trump content, there are dozens of websites and magazines that exist for that purpose. But we’re not going to do that here because (a) there’s both positive and negative aspects to the president-elect and his agenda, as there would be for any new administration, and (b) we have writers on all sides of the question who are going to argue for their position.

At NR, we have writers who voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils, we have writers who voted for Trump enthusiastically, and we have writers who chose not to vote for either candidate. We’re conservatives. And that range of choices on Trump reflects the range of opinions of American conservatives as a whole. Around here, that’s exactly what we’re trying to represent because what we’re after are the best ideas about how best to preserve and defend American ordered liberty and our way of life under the U.S. Constitution.

It is our honor to fight these fights and have these arguments because we do it for America and for you, the citizens. It is, as Rich said the other day, what we exist to do. But we can’t do any of it without your help.

Let me be frank. NR doesn’t have a mega-billionaire benefactor or owner to pay the bills like the Washington Post has Jeff Bezos or the Atlantic has Laurene Powell Jobs. We never have and we never will — because we never want to put ourselves in the position in which we must march to the beat of a drummer who is not 100 percent committed to our principles.

So to keep us in the fight, I humbly ask that you consider giving any amount to our fall webathon, whether $100, $250, $500, or $1,000 or more.

National Review exists by and for our readers. If you’d be willing to pitch in generously, I would be personally very grateful. Thank you.