Democratic delegates approved the party's 2024 platform at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago yesterday, including sections lamenting the unfairness of marijuana convictions. However, the platform failed to explicitly call for legalizing or even decriminalizing the drug, a change from its position four years ago.

"No one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana," the final 2024 Democratic Party platform reads. "Sending people to prison for possession has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit. Those criminal records impose needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities, disproportionately affecting Black and brown people."

The platform praises President Joe Biden for his moves to reschedule marijuana and his "historic action to end this failed approach by pardoning people convicted federally for using or possessing marijuana." It also promises that Democrats "will take action to expunge federal marijuana-only convictions" and "combat drug trafficking and expand the use of drug courts, interventions, and diversion for people with substance use disorders."

Former Republican President Donald Trump's approach to criminal justice "could not be more different," the platform argues. "His Administration threatened federal prosecution for marijuana cases in states where marijuana was legal."

For opponents of drug prohibition, though, the platform is a step backward from the Democratic Party's 2020 platform, which said it was "past time to end the failed 'War on Drugs' which has imprisoned millions of Americans—disproportionately Black people and Latinos—and hasn't been effective in reducing drug use." That platform also said Democrats supported federal decriminalization and rescheduling of marijuana, and legalization of medical marijuana.

The Democratic Party's official position on marijuana prohibition continues to fall well short of its stated goal of ending the unfairness of the drug war. First, it conflates all recreational drug use with substance abuse and addiction, which is an atypical outcome. 

Second, the platform rests on the illogical notion that it shouldn't be a crime to possess and smoke marijuana, but it should remain illegal to sell it to others to smoke. (Notably, Biden's "historic" pardons for marijuana crimes excluded people convicted of growing or distributing the drug.)

Third, while drug courts and involuntary treatment are preferable alternatives to prison, they are still heavy-handed government interventions against adults for their personal choices. Drug courts and diversion programs operate under the threat of incarceration for noncompliance—the metaphorical iron fist in a velvet glove.

Even measures that the Democratic Party no longer explicitly supports in its platform—such as changes to Justice Department policy and decriminalization—would leave the federal prohibition of marijuana dormant but intact for future administrations to revive.

This has already happened. Former President Donald Trump's first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, rescinded President Barack Obama-era memos instructing U.S. Attorneys to take a hands-off approach to enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that legalized the drug.

Mass pardons and expungements are commendable initiatives, but those also don't address the underlying criminalization of marijuana. Neither does rescheduling.

The Democratic Party's position on pot is closer in spirit to creaky old Joe Biden, who could never quite give up his drug warrior ways, than the party's new leading candidates. As Reason's Jacob Sullum recently detailed, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz both support marijuana legalization, although Harris is a Johnny-come-lately to her position. She was laughing off questions about marijuana legalization in 2014, but by 2018 she had come around and cosponsored a bill in the Senate that would have repealed federal prohibition.

According to a Gallup poll published last November, a record 70 percent of Americans, including 87 percent of Democrats, favor legalization. If the Democratic Party's presidential ticket and nearly 90 percent of its voters think marijuana should be fully legalized, how long will it take the party to catch up?

The post The Democratic Party Platform Still Won't Commit to Legalizing Marijuana appeared first on Reason.com.

Happy Tuesday and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's stories include:

• A federal appeals court slaps down the federal government's odd argument that it doesn't have to compensate landlords for its eviction moratorium because the moratorium was illegal.
• Vice President Kamala Harris sets a first-term goal of building 3 million middle-class homes.
• A Michigan judge sides with property owners trying to build a "green cemetery."

But first, a look at an under-the-radar federal regulation change that might make it easier for builders to create more small multifamily "missing middle" homes.

Code Games

In his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy Joseph Schumpeter praised capitalist mass production for bringing almost every basic commodity, from food to clothing, within the affordable reach of the working man. The one exception he highlighted was housing, which he confidently predicted would soon see a similar collapse in prices due to mass-produced manufactured housing.

As it happens, manufactured housing production—which is built in factories and then shipped and installed on-site—peaked in the mid-1970s and has been limping along as a small share of overall home construction ever since.

Nevertheless, the dream that cheap, factory-built homes can deliver lower-cost housing has never died.

It's certainly alive and well in the current White House.

This past week, the Biden-Harris administration released a "fact sheet" of actions it was taking to lower housing costs. It included an in-progress regulatory change that would allow two-, three-, and four-unit homes to be built under the federal manufactured housing code set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

"The HUD Code creates economies of scale for manufacturers, resulting in significantly lower costs for buyers," says the White House in that fact sheet. Letting small multifamily housing be built under the HUD code will extend "the cost-saving benefits of manufactured housing to denser urban and suburban infill contexts," it says.

IRC, IBC, IDK

The proposed change comes at an interesting time for small multifamily housing construction.

Across the country, more and more states and localities are allowing more two-, three-, and four-unit homes to be built in formerly single-family-only areas.

That liberalization of the zoning code (which regulates what types of buildings can be built where) has set off a follow-on debate about which building code (which regulates construction standards) newly legal multiplexes should be regulated under.

Currently, the options are either the International Building Code (IBC) or the International Residential Code (IRC).

The IBC and IRC are model codes created by the non-profit International Code Council, which are then adopted (often with tweaks and changes) by states and localities.

The IBC typically covers apartment buildings of three or more units, while the IRC covers single-family homes. Neither is particularly well-suited for the regulation of smaller multi-family buildings that cities are now legalizing.

The IBC, for instance, requires expensive sprinkler systems that don't do much to improve fire safety in smaller buildings but can make their construction cost-prohibitive.

Zoning reformers have responded by trying to shift the regulation of smaller apartments into the IRC. But that raises its own problems, says Stephen Smith of the Center for Building in North America.

"It's a complicated thing to do because the IRC is not written for small multi-family. It's written for detached single-family," he says. "For traditional apartment buildings with a single entrance and stairs and halls and stuff, it's not really clear how the IRC would work with that."

The White House's proposed changes open the possibility of sidestepping this IRC-IBC dilemma entirely by letting builders of manufactured, multifamily housing opt into a single, national set of regulations.

A Floor or a Ceiling?

The question then is whether this will actually make life easier for builders.

The effect of HUD regulation on the production of single-family manufactured housing is a topic of intense debate.

Prior to the 1970s, manufactured housing was governed by a patchwork of state and local building codes. In 1974 Congress passed legislation that gives HUD the power to regulate manufactured housing.

Critics of HUD regulation argue that its initial implementation caused the steep decline in manufactured housing production in the 1970s.

In particular, they point to the HUD requirement that manufactured housing must sit on a steel chassis as a regulation that increases costs and decreases production.

Brian Potter, a senior fellow at the Institute for Progress and writer of the Construction Physics Substack, contrastingly argues that HUD regulation has actually helped keep the cost of building manufactured housing down.

The production of all housing, not just manufactured housing, plummeted in the 1970s, he notes. Since the 1970s, the costs of non-manufactured, site-built housing have skyrocketed while the costs of building manufactured housing have risen much less, he points out. Potter argues that the effect of the steel chassis requirement is also overstated.

To this day, manufactured housing is the cheapest type of housing to produce when comparing smaller manufactured housing units to smaller site-built single-family housing units. The HUD code has less expensive requirements and allows builders more flexibility in the construction of units.

"The most interesting and attractive thing about the HUD code is that HUD code homes tend to be much, much less expensive than single-family homes," says Potter.

The hope is that allowing newly legal duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes to be built under HUD standards would reduce costs compared to building them under IBC or IRC regulations.

Degrees of Change

While the HUD code has been in existence since the 1970s, its explicit exclusion of manufactured, multifamily housing is a relatively recent development. In 2014, HUD issued a memorandum saying that only single-family housing can be built under the department's manufactured housing standards.

In a 2022 public comment on the proposed updates, the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform argues that the 2014 memorandum was in error and that HUD actually has no regulatory authority to cap the number of units that can be built under the code.

According to the White House fact sheet, the Biden administration's proposed updates to the HUD code would once again allow up to four units of housing to be built under the code once again.

If the HUD code critics are correct, then this will make a minimal difference. Under this theory, builders would just have another cost-increasing building code to choose from. If folks like Potter are correct, however, this should allow builders to opt into less demanding regulations. We might therefore see an increase in the number of two-, three-, and four-unit homes built.

Building code liberalization will still only be effective in places where zoning code liberalization has already happened. Cities and states still have every power to zone out multifamily housing and ban the placement of manufactured housing.

Where cities have made those "missing middle" reforms, however, it's possible the White House's proposed regulatory changes will increase the production of manufactured, multifamily housing while policymakers figure out whether how to change the IBC or IRC to allow more site-built multiplexes.

If the CDC's Eviction Moratorium Was Illegal, Do the Feds Have To Pay for It?

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) banned residential evictions for non-payment of rent in 2020, property owners responded with a flurry of lawsuits, arguing that the federal government owed them compensation for what amounted to a physical taking of their property.

While those lawsuits were ongoing, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in August 2021 that the CDC moratorium was an illegal overstepping of the agency's authority.

This armed the federal government with an audacious response to all those property owners' claims for compensation: Because the CDC's eviction moratorium was illegal and lacked federal authorization, the federal government wasn't required to pay any compensation.

Incredibly, the Court of Federal Claims agreed with this argument—citing past cases that immunized the government from having to pay compensation for clearly illegal, unsanctioned acts of its agents—and dismissed a property owners' lawsuit in the case of Darby Development Co. v. United States.

But this past week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with property owners and reversed that dismal.

The appeals court ruled that the CDC eviction moratorium, while illegal, clearly did have the endorsement of both Congress and the executive branch.

"Taken to its logical conclusion, [the government's] position is that government agents can physically occupy private property for public use, resist for months the owner's legal attempts to make them leave, and then, when finally made to leave, say they need not pay for their stay because they had no business being there in the first place," wrote Judge Armando O. Bonilla in an opinion issued earlier this month.

The case is now remanded back to the federal claims court.

"The government should not be able to hide behind its own illegality to avoid paying damages for that very illegality," Greg Dolin, a senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance (which filed an amicus brief in the Darby case) told Reason.

Kamala Harris, Supply Sider?

In a speech this past Friday laying out her economic agenda, Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris criticized state and local restrictions on homebuilding for driving up prices.

"There's a serious housing shortage in many places.  It's too difficult to build, and it's driving prices up. As president, I will work in partnership with industry to build the housing we need, both to rent and to buy. We will take down barriers and cut red tape, including at the state and local levels," said Harris, promising to deliver 3 million units of housing that's affordable to middle-class families by the end of her first term.

It's always refreshing to hear a politician accurately diagnose the cause of America's high housing costs as a matter of restricted supply. It's even better when politicians promise to do something about those supply restrictions. Harris' remarks are rhetorically a lot better than the explicit NIMBYism coming from Republican presidential contender Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, Harris' actual housing policies, including downpayment subsidies and rent control, will only make the problem worse. Downpayment subsidies will drive up demand and prices while leaving supply restrictions in place. Rent control has a long, long record of reducing the quality and quantity of housing.

Harris' speech was also peppered with lines attacking institutional housing investors who are providing much-needed capital for housing production.

Town's Ban on 'Green Cemetery' Is Dead

If the government doesn't like your cemetery, can it just ban all cemeteries? The answer, at least in Michigan, is no, no it can't.

In the case of Quakenbush et al v. Brooks Township et al, a state circuit court judge sided with a married couple who'd sued their local government when it passed a ban on new cemeteries with an eye toward stopping their development of the state's first "conservation burial forest."

"We're excited and feel vindicated by this ruling. We are delighted that the judge understood that Brooks Township's ordinance violated our right to use our property," said Peter and Annica Quakenbush, the plaintiffs in the case. They were represented by the Institute for Justice.

Quick Links

• Jim Burling, the Pacific Legal Foundation's vice president of legal affairs, has a new book Nowhere to Live covering the legal history of zoning in America, the courts' acquiescence to this restriction on property rights, and all the attendant consequences of high housing costs and homelessness that have flowed from it.
• A new paper published on SSRN estimates that a 25 percent reduction in permitting times in Los Angeles leads to a 33 percent increase in housing production.
• Calmatters covers the killing, or severe injuring, of various bills introduced in the California Legislature this year that aimed to pair back the California Coastal Commission's powers to shoot down new housing production. Read Reason's past coverage of the Coastal Commission here and here.
• Hawaii has legalized accessory dwelling units statewide, but they haven't made building them easy.
• If you build it, prices drop.

*UPDATED* (and still true)

When you build "luxury" new apartments in big numbers, the influx of supply puts downward pressure on rents at all price points -- even in the lowest-priced Class C rentals. Here's evidence of that happening right now:

There are 21 U.S. markets where… pic.twitter.com/BF9GY0YiFY

— Jay Parsons (@jayparsons) August 13, 2024

The post Code Games appeared first on Reason.com.

Donald Trump oversaw some scary moments in international politics. The former president seriously escalated tensions with North Korea and Iran, leading to several war scares. But he pulled back from the brink, sometimes against the wishes of his more hawkish advisers. He avoided a direct U.S.-Iranian war and opened a direct line of communication with North Korea.

Democrats seem to wish he'd gone to war instead. The Democratic National Committee's 2024 platform, approved in a symbolic vote on Monday night, tries to outhawk Trump, denouncing his "fecklessness" on Iran and his "love letters" to North Korea. Although the platform condemns Trump for pulling out of diplomacy with Iran, it also attacks his decisions not to bomb Iran at several crucial points.

Ironically, the Democratic platform is not much different from Republicans' own attacks on the Biden administration. Each side accuses the other of weakness, and neither wants to take credit for diplomacy or own the compromises necessary to avoid war.

It's easy to forget now, but in 2017 the Korean peninsula had become a remarkably tense place. North Korea was testing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting U.S. soil. The U.S. military was massing forces in the region, and Trump was issuing threats.

Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, reportedly called for a military attack aimed at giving North Korea a "bloody nose." McMaster and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) publicly warned that war might be inevitable.

And then, in January 2018, a false alarm drove home the lesson that nuclear war is nothing to play around with. During a disaster preparedness drill, authorities in Hawaii accidentally sent an alert about an incoming ballistic missile. For more than half an hour, Hawaiians and tourists were convinced that they were going to die in a nuclear war.

A few months later, McMaster was out of the White House. Trump accepted an invitation to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in June 2018. Trump met Kim again in February 2019. Stepping over the North Korean–South Korean border in June 2019, Trump became the first U.S. president to visit North Korea.

The meetings failed to secure a permanent agreement—it didn't help that McMaster's replacement, John Bolton, publicly hinted that denuclearization would end in Kim's violent death—but they bought some crucial breathing room.

The Democrats' 2024 platform attacks the very idea of talks with North Korea. Trump's approach, the platform says, was "embarrassing the United States on the world stage including by flattering and legitimizing Kim Jong Un, exchanging 'love letters' with the North Korean dictator."

This isn't a break with past Democratic rhetoric. During the presidential debates in 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden said that Trump gave "North Korea everything they wanted, creating the legitimacy by having a meeting with Kim Jong Un." Another candidate, Kamala Harris, said that there are "no concessions to be made. He has traded a photo op for nothing."

If even talking to North Korea is a "concession," then it's hard to see what alternative Harris would accept, other than continuing to barrel towards nuclear war.

Iran, unlike North Korea, does not have nuclear weapons. In 2017, Trump tore up an international agreement that regulated Iranian nuclear activities, instead betting on a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to overthrow the Iranian government by cutting off its oil exports. Bolton later said in his memoir that "only regime change would ultimately prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons," and then–Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was obsessed with killing the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

The Iranian government did not react warmly to the maximum pressure campaign. Iranian forces encouraged rocket attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, and Iran is believed to be behind sabotage attacks on the international oil industry, including a September 2019 drone strike on Saudi oil infrastructure.

The U.S. military massed forces off the coast of Iran during this time. On June 19, 2019, Iran shot down an American surveillance drone. (The two countries disagree on whether the drone was in Iranian airspace.) Trump ordered a bombing raid on Iranian air defense batteries, then pulled back at the last minute, because killing Iranian troops was "not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone."

Although the Democratic platform calls maximum pressure a "reckless and short-sighted decision," it also attacks Trump for failing to hit Iran back at each of these points. "Trump's only response" to an Iraqi militia attack on the U.S. consulate in Basra "was to close our diplomatic facility," the Democrats complain, and "Trump failed to respond against Iran or its proxies" for the attack on Saudi oil facilities.

The platform is somewhat ambiguous on whether Trump should have bombed Iran in June 2019. "Trump responded by tweet and then abruptly called off any actual retaliation, causing confusion and concern among his own national security team," it says. Perhaps putting American lives at risk to avenge the honor of a robot would be too far even for the Biden team.

Maximum pressure reached its climax in January 2020, when Trump followed Pompeo's advice and ordered the military to assassinate Soleimani. Iran responded by launching 12 ballistic missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq, which injured Americans but did not kill anyone. Trump called it even, claiming that "Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned."

At the time, Democrats were highly critical of the decision to risk war by killing an Iranian officer. "Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox," Biden wrote right after Soleimani was assassinated. After the Iranian retaliation, Democrats immediately put forward a war powers resolution making it clear that the president does not have the authority to start a war with Iran.

The current Democratic platform takes a different tone. When "Iran, for the first and only time in its history, directly launched ballistic missiles against U.S. troops," the document declares disapprovingly, Trump "again took no action." The platform criticizes Trump for making light of U.S. troops' brain injuries without mentioning the assassination that prompted the Iranian attacks in the first place.

After all, it would be hard for Biden to criticize Trump for bringing America to the brink of war in the Middle East when he has done the same.

After four short years of a Democratic administration, the mood among Democratic leaders has gotten more hawkish, especially as the defense of Ukraine gives them a "good war" to rally behind. But that's not necessarily how the American people, including Democratic voters, feel. Direct talks with North Korea are still popular, and direct war with Iran is still unpopular. Republicans and independents are less likely to call themselves hawks than in 2014, and even Democratic voters are only one percentage point more likely to consider themselves hawkish than before.

There is a public appetite for diplomacy and deescalation. But party leaders don't seem to want to take the opportunity. They would prefer to fight over who can outhawk whom.

The post Democratic Platform Attacks Trump for Not Going to War appeared first on Reason.com.

Last week, the Biden administration announced that it would unveil a second attempt at issuing blanket student loan forgiveness within the next few months. The announcement comes more than a year after its first attempt was blocked by the Supreme Court.

"The Biden-Harris Administration made a commitment to deliver student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible," said Education Secretary Miguel Cardona in a statement last Wednesday. "And today, as we near the end of a lengthy rulemaking process, we're one step closer to keeping that promise."

The announcement builds on a release in April of draft rules that aim to enact student loan forgiveness primarily by expanding existing loan forgiveness programs. The Education Department says it has begun notifying borrowers about the coming rules and informing them about a deadline to opt out of forgiveness. 

The proposed rules target specific groups of borrowers, including borrowers who now owe more than they originally took out in loans due to accumulating interest, borrowers who have been in repayment for decades, and those who are eligible but not enrolled in existing forgiveness programs. Borrowers who enrolled in low-value degree programs, such as those that "failed to provide sufficient financial value, or that failed one of the Department's accountability standards for institutions" are also eligible for new forgiveness efforts. 

Last week's announcement also stated that those eligible would most likely receive forgiveness automatically, with no application or additional steps required.

If enacted, the rules could end up affecting even more borrowers than would have been affected by the Biden administration's first forgiveness plan. The Education Department predicts that if the proposed rules go into effect, the Biden administration would have made over 30 million borrowers eligible for forgiveness through its efforts over the last three years. In contrast, Biden's first attempt at blanket student loan forgiveness was predicted to impact just 27 million eligible borrowers.

"If finalized as proposed, these new rules would authorize relief for borrowers across the country who have struggled with the burden of student loan debt," reads last week's statement. "The Biden-Harris Administration has taken historic steps to reduce the burden of student debt and ensure that student loans are not a barrier to educational and economic opportunity for students and families."

The Education Department predicts that the finalized rules will be released sometime in the fall. However, with the election in November looming, it's doubtful whether the department can actually provide forgiveness before the end of Biden's term. And considering that legal challenges are almost certain to follow any attempt to enact large-scale loan forgiveness, it's unclear if there is any realistic chance that the Biden administration can enact this plan. At the moment, these latest efforts might be best thought of as a last-minute political stunt designed to energize young, college-educated voters rather than an earnest policy effort.

The post Biden Administration Says It Will Finalize Second Attempt at Blanket Student Loan Forgiveness This Fall appeared first on Reason.com.

This week has been especially chaotic for the Middle East. On Saturday, a Lebanese rocket killed 12 children and youth at a soccer game in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. (The victims were Syrian citizens with Israeli residency.) On Tuesday night, Israel took revenge for the rocket by killing Fuad Shukr, a commander in the pro-Iranian militia Hezbollah, along with two children.

A few hours later, a bomb killed Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas' political bureau and the lead negotiator with Israel, while he was visiting Tehran for the Iranian president's inauguration. Israel is widely believed to be the culprit. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah have both promised to take revenge.

The same night that Shukr and Haniyeh were killed, U.S. warplanes rained down fire on an Iraqi militia base, killing four pro-Iranian fighters. An anonymous U.S. official told reporters that the militiamen were launching an attack drone that "posed a threat" to U.S. and allied forces. It was not clear whether the Iraqi drone was really aimed at U.S. troops—or Israel.

Soon it may not matter. The Biden administration affirmed again on Wednesday that it will help defend Israel in case of a conflict with Lebanon or Iran, as it did during clashes this April. And the administration has hinted before that it will get involved directly if Israel faces military setbacks in Lebanon. Israeli leaders may have been betting on exactly that outcome.

Unnamed "sources in the security establishment" told The Jerusalem Post that they could have assassinated Haniyeh in Qatar, where he usually lives. Instead, those sources explained, "the choice to carry out the assassination in the heart of Tehran was precisely because Haniyeh was under Iranian security responsibility, which placed Iran at the heart of the world's focus as a host, director, and supplier of terrorism."

In other words, killing Haniyeh was possibly meant to turn the Israel-Hamas war into an international crisis involving Iran and Israel's allies.

Months before the October 2023 attacks, Israeli policy makers had gamed out an Israeli strike leading to a U.S.-Iranian war. The Institute for National Security Studies, a think tank close to the Israeli government, ran a simulation in July 2023 that was eerily similar to the current escalation. The scenario began with an Israeli assassination campaign in Tehran, which provoked Hezbollah and Iraqi militias into attacking Israel and ended with direct U.S. attacks on Iran.

"Former top political and military leaders from Israel, the United States and a number of European countries took part in the simulation," reported the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

For years before that, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders had been demanding U.S. support for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. It's not hard to understand why. Khamenei has called Israel a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised, and Israeli leaders have in turn said that Iran is the head of an evil octopus, which must be cut off.

The attacks on October 7, 2023, by Hamas seemed to confirm the Israeli perception. Whatever role Iran did or didn't have in planning the attacks—the U.S. government believes that Iranian leaders were just as surprised as everyone else—Iran's allies immediately jumped into the fray, attacking Israel in the name of the Palestinian cause.

And plenty of American politicians want conflict for their own reasons. Immediately after the October 7 attacks, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) had called for bombing Iran whether or not there was evidence that Iran was behind the attacks. On Wednesday, he claimed to have intelligence that "Iran will, in the coming weeks or months, possess a nuclear weapon" and introduced a bill calling for war with Iran.

A conflict with Iran also helps Netanyahu alleviate some of the domestic political pressure on him. Before the October 7 attacks, he was facing protests over his proposal to defang the Israeli Supreme Court. And instead of rallying Israelis around Netanyahu, the attacks galvanized opposition, as many Israelis blamed Netanyahu for the security lapse and the failure to rescue hostages.

This week, those tensions exploded into an outright mutiny. After months of international pressure regarding the treatment of inmates at the Sde Teiman prison, Israeli military police began a probe into one of the most egregious cases. Nine soldiers had allegedly raped a Palestinian prisoner so hard that he was sent to the hospital with a ruptured bowel, a severe injury to his anus, lung damage, and broken ribs.

Police detained some of the accused soldiers, and Israeli nationalists accused the government of betraying its troops. Nationalist rioters, including members of parliament, stormed both Sde Teiman and the Beit Lid military courts in support of the accused rapists. The army was forced to pull three battalions away from the Palestinian territories to guard the courthouse.

Killing Shukr and Haniyeh, then, was a good political bet for Netanyahu. At the very least, Netanyahu got to drown out headlines about the Sde Teiman riot with a dashing military victory. And if Iran hits back hard enough, then Israel may be able to get the world's superpower to fight Israel's greatest enemy.

But a full-on U.S.-Iran war would be a disaster for the region and for Americans. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie warned The New Yorker in December 2021 that Iran has missile "overmatch in the theatre—the ability to overwhelm" U.S. air defenses. American troops would face attacks in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and a few well-placed Iranian strikes on Tel Aviv or Abu Dhabi could do serious damage to the world economy.

It would be a disaster of the Biden administration's own making. Soon after the October 7 attacks, President Joe Biden embraced the "bear hug" theory of diplomacy. By giving Israel public reassurances and unlimited military support, the theory went, Biden would earn enough goodwill from Israelis to keep their war contained and eventually broker an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire.

Instead, the bear hug has turned out to be a sleepwalk. Netanyahu has taken U.S. support as a license to continue expanding the conflict. And the Biden administration seems to be at a loss for words about the latest escalation. Asked what impact the assassination of one side's chief negotiator would have on ceasefire negotiations, Secretary of State Antony Blinken played dumb.

"Well, I've seen the reports, and what I can tell you is this: First, this is something we were not aware of or involved in," Blinken told Channel News Asia. "It's very hard to speculate, and I've learned never to speculate, on the impact one event may have on something else. So I can't tell you what this means."

The post Will Biden Sleepwalk Into a War With Iran? appeared first on Reason.com.

Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was released from Russian captivity on Thursday as part of the largest prisoner swap between Russia and Western nations in decades. Gershkovich had been imprisoned for nearly 500 days and was recently sentenced to 16 years in a penal colony.

Gershkovich was arrested in March 2023 while on assignment in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Russian authorities claimed he was obtaining information for the CIA, though the allegations against Gershkovich are widely assumed to be false and have been denied strenuously by the Journal. 

Gershkovich was released around 11:20 a.m. Eastern time at an airport in Ankara, Turkey. Several other prisoners were also released, including Russia-critical journalists Alsu Kurmasheva and Vladimir Kara-Murza, and American former Marine Paul Whelan, who had been imprisoned since 2018. Russian hit man Vadim Krasikov, who was imprisoned in Germany after receiving a life sentence for killing a Chechen rebel, was released back to Russia as part of the deal.

In total, the swap involved two dozen prisoners from at least six countries, according to The Wall Street Journal.

"The exchange is emblematic of a new era of state-sponsored hostage-taking by autocratic governments seeking leverage over rivals. It was negotiated as tensions soared between Russia and the West over the war in Ukraine," the Journal reported on Thursday. "It also offers sobering evidence of the asymmetry between the U.S. and Russia in this new, piratical order. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin can order foreigners plucked from restaurants and hotels and given lengthy prison sentences on spurious charges—something an American leader can't do."

While this is the largest prisoner swap the U.S. has engaged in in recent years to free citizens imprisoned in Russia, it isn't its first. In December 2022, WNBA player Brittney Griner was released in a swap for notorious Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout after being held for almost nine months on drug charges. While securing the release of Griner, Gershkovich, and other American citizens from wrongful Russian captivity is vital, it may also work to incentivize Russian authorities to continue jailing Americans on false charges.

"The deal that secured their freedom was a feat of diplomacy," President Joe Biden said shortly after Thursday's prisoner swap. "Some of these women and men have been unjustly held for years. All have endured unimaginable suffering and uncertainty. Today, their agony is over….I will not stop working until every American wrongfully detained or held hostage around the world is reunited with their family."

The post <i>Wall Street Journal</i> Reporter Evan Gershkovich Released From Russian Captivity appeared first on Reason.com.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. won applause at the Libertarian National Convention by criticizing government lockdowns and deficit spending, and saying America shouldn't police the world.

It made me want to interview him. This month, I did.

He said intelligent things about America's growing debt:

"President Trump said that he was going to balance the budget and instead he (increased the debt more) than every president in United States history—$8 trillion. President Biden is on track now to beat him."

It's good to hear a candidate actually talk about our debt.

"When the debt is this large…you have to cut dramatically, and I'm going to do that," he says.

But looking at his campaign promises, I don't see it.

He promises "affordable" housing via a federal program backing 3 percent mortgages.

"Imagine that you had a rich uncle who was willing to cosign your mortgage!" gushes his campaign ad. "I'm going to make Uncle Sam that rich uncle!"

I point out that such giveaways won't reduce our debt.

"That's not a giveaway," Kennedy replies. "Every dollar that I spend as president is going to go toward building our economy."

That's big government nonsense, like his other claim: "Every million dollars we spend on child care creates 22 jobs!"

Give me a break.

When I pressed him about specific cuts, Kennedy says, "I'll cut the military in half…cut it to about $500 billion….We are not the policemen of the world."

"Stop giving any money to Ukraine?" I ask.

"Negotiate a peace," Kennedy replies. "Biden has never talked to Putin about this, and it's criminal."

He never answered whether he'd give money to Ukraine. He did answer about Israel.

"Yes, of course we should,"

"[Since] you don't want to cut this spending, what would you cut?"

"Israel spending is rather minor," he responds. "I'm going to pick the most wasteful programs, put them all in one bill, and send them to Congress with an up and down vote."

Of course, Congress would just vote it down.

Kennedy's proposed cuts would hardly slow down our path to bankruptcy. Especially since he also wants new spending that activists pretend will reduce climate change.

At a concert years ago, he smeared "crisis" skeptics like me, who believe we can adjust to climate change, screaming at the audience, "Next time you see John Stossel and [others]… these flat-earthers, these corporate toadies—lying to you. This is treason, and we need to start treating them now as traitors!"

Now, sitting with him, I ask, "You want to have me executed for treason?"

"That statement," he replies, "it's not a statement that I would make today….Climate is existential. I think it's human-caused climate change. But I don't insist other people believe that. I'm arguing for free markets and then the lowest cost providers should prevail in the marketplace….We should end all subsidies and let the market dictate."

That sounds good: "Let the market dictate."

But wait, Kennedy makes money from solar farms backed by government guaranteed loans. He "leaned on his contacts in the Obama administration to secure a $1.6 billion loan guarantee," wrote The New York Times.

"Why should you get a government subsidy?" I ask.

"If you're creating a new industry," he replies, "you're competing with the Chinese. You want the United States to own pieces of that industry."

I suppose that means his government would subsidize every industry leftists like.

Yet when a wind farm company proposed building one near his family's home, he opposed it.

"Seems hypocritical," I say.

"We're exterminating the right whale in the North Atlantic through these wind farms!" he replies.

I think he was more honest years ago, when he complained that "turbines…would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard… Nantucket….[They] will steal the stars and nighttime views."

Kennedy was once a Democrat, but now Democrats sue to keep him off ballots. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich calls him a "dangerous nutcase."

Kennedy complains that Reich won't debate him.

"Nobody will," he says. "They won't have me on any of their networks."

Well, obviously, I will.

I especially wanted to confront him about vaccines.

In a future column, Stossel TV will post more from our hourlong discussion.

COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post RFK Jr. Pays Lip Service to the Debt While Pushing Policies That Would Increase It appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden's new op-ed in The Washington Post makes the bold argument that, following a constitutional amendment to reverse a recent Supreme Court decision, Congress should pass both Supreme Court term limits and an ethics code to "restore the public's faith in the judicial system." According to Biden, the Court's "extreme" decisions and ethical crisis require immediate action.

Looking at the last Supreme Court term, none of this is true. The Court's opinions were nuanced and largely unanimous, and there are no credible allegations of vote-buying. If Biden wants to restore faith in the Court, he'd do better to highlight these nuances rather than using the Court as a political talking point.

At the outset, it's worth taking a bird's eye view of the Court. This term, the Court ruled unanimously in almost half (46 percent) of cases, which was similar to the year before (48 percent) and a significant uptick from the term before that (29 percent). Among the Court's unanimous or near-unanimous opinions were hot-button cases involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility for the presidency, access to the abortion drug mifepristone, the government's ability to dissuade companies from doing business with the National Rifle Association, regulation of social media companies, and the scope of the Second Amendment. Such consensus among the justices undercuts Biden's characterization of a rogue or extremist Court.

It's true that the Court is sometimes divided along partisan lines—and in many of those cases, the justices disagree vigorously. As Biden points out, Trump v. United States (regarding presidential immunity) and Dobbs v. Jackson (regarding abortion) represent two such cases. But just because these opinions were divisive doesn't make them radical.

For example, Biden chided the Court for imposing "virtually no limits on what a president can do" in the immunity case, but the Court maintained an ample sphere of liability for presidential acts. All nine justices agreed that presidents have absolutely no immunity for unofficial acts. While the majority ruled that absolute immunity applies to core, official acts, it emphasized that noncore duties are only presumptively immune.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Court made it too hard to rebut that presumption. But to make that call, we'll have to see how the standard plays out in practice. Trump's case, for example, will now go back down to the district court, which will determine which acts are official or unofficial, core or noncore, and whether the special prosecutor can surmount any presumption of immunity that applies. It makes little sense to say at this premature stage, as Biden does, that the only limits left on the president are "self-imposed."

Biden also criticizes the Court for "overturn[ing] settled legal precedents" like Roe v. Wade. But this is a critique with no substance. Precedent isn't an end in and of itself; prior cases should stand when they're correct and well-reasoned and fall when they're not. Some of the most important Supreme Court decisions in history "overturned settled precedent," including Brown v. Board of Education (overturning the separate but equal doctrine) and Gideon v. Wainwright (extending the right to counsel to felony defendants in state courts). Overturning precedent is part of a Supreme Court justice's job description. Without context, saying a judge overruled an earlier case is meaningless.

Biden's ethics accusations similarly lack substance. Though many have wrung their hands over Justice Clarence Thomas' friendship with businessman Harlan Crow, not one person—including Biden—has pointed to any specific instance where the justice supposedly traded his vote for a gift from his wealthy friend (and they ignore that Thomas voted against Crow's personal convictions in the abortion case). That's not surprising. Thomas is widely regarded as one of the most consistent justices on the Court who regularly writes separate opinions to explain his idiosyncratic views. Given that his views are so consistent, transparent, and well-known, it would be especially difficult for him to abandon them in exchange for a flight on a private jet. If anything, bribes are much more likely in the context of opaque decision making—as happens behind closed doors in the legislative and executive branches.

In at least some ways, the Court is showing more restraint than in prior years. It's taking fewer cases than ever (just 59 this year, compared to 82 a decade ago), it's finding reasons to sidestep thorny issues, and it's increasingly using judge-made legal doctrines to rule that the plaintiffs have no right to sue or that the case needs more time before the Court can step in. It also continues to produce interesting alignments between justices considered to be on opposite ideological spectrums. In a case involving the January 6 defendants, for example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted with "conservative" justices to throw out the convictions while Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with the "liberals" to affirm them.

In sum, the Supreme Court is not exactly a radical conservative monolith. This term, Court watchers actually observed strong disagreements among Republican-appointed justices. If Biden cares about bolstering the public's faith in the judiciary, he'd be wise to emphasize this nuance.

The post Biden's Supreme Court Reforms Are Unnecessary and Wrong appeared first on Reason.com.

In 2024, the federal budget deficit is estimated to reach nearly $2 trillion, according to new projections released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week. In February, the agency predicted that the deficit would only be $1.58 trillion. However, spending increases have caused the projected deficit to increase by $400 billion, a staggering 27 percent hike. 

According to the CBO, 80 percent of the spike in the deficit can be blamed on four sources of government spending.

The largest source, responsible for $145 billion of the increase, is changes to the federal student loan program that have resulted in massive waves of federal student loan forgiveness and increased forgiveness going forward.

Second, the CBO's report details how the costs for "deposit insurance have increased by about $70 billion because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is not recovering payments it made when resolving bank failures in 2023 and 2024 as quickly as CBO previously anticipated."

Third, an additional $60 billion in cost increases came from additional legislation. And lastly, $50 billion in increased spending came from higher-than-expected Medicaid costs.

The long-term outlook for the budget deficit has increased too. In February, the CBO estimated that in 2034, the deficit would climb to $2.5 trillion. Its latest estimate now places that number as over $2.8 trillion.

"For the 2025–2034 period, CBO now projects that if current laws generally remained unchanged, the cumulative deficit would be $22.1 trillion. That amount is $2.1 trillion (or 10 percent) more than the $20.0 trillion the agency projected this past February," reads the CBO's report. "Measured in relation to the size of the economy, federal debt at the end of 2034 is now projected to equal 122 percent of gross domestic product (GDP); in February, debt at the end of that year was projected to equal 116 percent of GDP."

If the deficit continues to increase as the CBO predicts, the outcome could be disastrous. 

"As debt grows unabated, there is the risk of a sudden loss of confidence in bond markets, with investors demanding much higher interest rates that could trigger a debt doom loop and broader fiscal crisis," Cato Institute researchers Romina Boccia and Dominik Lett warned this week. "Congress and the Biden administration should cut spending now while the economy is growing and conditions are favorable for deficit reduction, alleviating pressure on interest rates and the federal debt to grow, and before a fiscal crisis forces their hands."

The post Federal Budget Deficit Forecast Jumps $400 Billion, Fueled by Student Debt Forgiveness appeared first on Reason.com.

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Peter Suderman scrutinize President Joe Biden's executive order updating asylum restrictions at the U.S.-Mexico border in response to illegal border crossings.

01:32—Biden's new asylum restrictions

21:38—The prosecution of political opponents: former President Donald Trump, Hunter Biden, and Steve Bannon

33:25—Weekly Listener Question

39:56—No one is reading The Washington Post

48:09—This week's cultural recommendations

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Biden Announces Sweeping Asylum Restrictions at U.S.-Mexico Border" by Fiona Harrigan

"Biden's New Asylum Policy is Both Harmful and Illegal" by Ilya Somin

"Travel Ban, Redux" by Josh Blackman

"Immigration Fueled America's Stunning Cricket Upset Over Pakistan" by Eric Boehm

"Libertarian Candidate Chase Oliver Wants To Bring Back 'Ellis Island Style' Immigration Processing" by Fiona Harrigan

"Donald Trump and Hunter Biden Face the Illogical Consequences of an Arbitrary Gun Law" by Jacob Sullum

"Hunter Biden's Trial Highlights a Widely Flouted, Haphazardly Enforced, and Constitutionally Dubious Gun Law" by Jacob Sullum

"Hunter Biden's Multiplying Charges Exemplify a Profound Threat to Trial by Jury" by Jacob Sullum

"The Conviction Effect" by Liz Wolfe

"Laurence Tribe Bizarrely Claims Trump Won the 2016 Election by Falsifying Business Records in 2017" by Jacob Sullum

"A Jumble of Legal Theories Failed To Give Trump 'Fair Notice' of the New York Charges Against Him" by Jacob Sullum

"Does Donald Trump's Conviction in New York Make Us Banana Republicans?" by J.D. Tuccille

"The Myth of the Federal Private Nondelegation Doctrine, Part 1" by Sasha Volokh

"Federal Court Condemns Congress for Giving Unconstitutional Regulatory Powers to Amtrak" by Damon Root

"Make Amtrak Safer and Privatize It" by Ira Stoll

"Biden Threatens To Veto GOP Spending Bill That Would 'Cut' Amtrak Funding to Double Pre-Pandemic Levels" by Christian Britschgi

"This Company Is Running a High-Speed Train in Florida—Without Subsidies" by Natalie Dowzicky

"Do Not Under Any Circumstances Nationalize Greyhound" by Christian Britschgi

"With Ride or Die, the Bad Boys Movies Become Referendums on Masculinity" by Peter Suderman

"D.C. Water Spent Nearly $4,000 On Its Wendy the Water Drop Mascot" by Christian Britschgi

Upcoming Reason Events:

Reason Speakeasy: Corey DeAngelis on June 11 in New York City

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsor:

• We all carry around different stressors—big and small. When we keep them bottled up, it can start to affect us negatively. Therapy is a safe space to get things off your chest—and to figure out how to work through whatever's weighing you down. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online. Designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists any time for no additional charge. Get it off your chest, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/roundtable today to get 10 percent off your first month.

Audio production by Justin Zuckerman and John Carter

Assistant production by Luke Allen and Hunt Beaty

Music: "Angeline" by The Brothers Steve

• Producer: Hunt Beaty
• Video Editor: César Báez

The post Partisan Border Wars appeared first on Reason.com.

The creators behind BASEDPolitics are suing over a measure meant to either ban TikTok or force its divestiture.

President Joe Biden signed the (highly unconstitutional) bill in April, and it already faces several legal challenges, including one filed by TikTok and one filed by eight TikTok content creators. Like those efforts, the BASEDPolitics suit focuses on the law's affront to free speech.

"We wanted to file a lawsuit that was specifically focused on free speech and the First Amendment from the creators' perspective, rather than some of the other, business-related concerns in other lawsuits," Brad Polumbo of BASEDPolitics tells me. "We also wanted to emphasize the political speech aspect, rather than other creators who are more in the mold of everyday 'influencers,' and show that right-leaning/non-liberal voices are being impacted by this as well."

Polumbo hopes the lawsuit will "help Republicans and conservatives see why this ban is inconsistent with the free speech values they say they care about."

TikTok Ban: Not Just Bad for Lifestyle Influencers or Leftists

BASEDPolitics is a nonprofit media organization run by Polumbo, Hannah Cox, and Jack Hunter. Its goal is to introduce young people "to the ideas of free market capitalism and individual liberty."

TikTok helps them reach audiences they likely wouldn't reach on other platforms, says Cox. "Both Brad and I have large platforms across social media, but TikTok offers a unique audience that can't be found elsewhere," she tells me. "Most on TikTok loathe Meta and X, so if they weren't on TikTok it's unlikely they'd engage meaningfully elsewhere. Their algorithm is also more open, and it enables us to reach many people who would never encounter us otherwise."

There's a popular perception that TikTok either isn't a place for political speech or is an asset only for left-leaning political speakers. But the BASEDPolitics team hasn't found this to be true at all.

"Anyone who thinks TikTok is all just frivolous content is probably not a user," says Polumbo. "There's substantive conversation happening on there on every issue under the sun, from religion to dating to politics." And while "TikTok is dominated by left-leaning content," it's also "a much more politically diverse ecosystem than many might think."

Their suit focuses not just on how a ban would negatively affect BASEDPolitics but on its larger repurcussions for civil liberties.

"We felt the need to stand up as individuals who are using TikTok to effectively fight back against the government and educate others on the principles of free market capitalism, individual rights, and limited government," says Cox, who sees all sorts of "incredible work being done on TikTok—both politically and non politically."

"People are pushing back on war…they're questioning our monetary system, they're highlighting injustices carried out by our government," she says. "Outside of politics, TikTok is now the top search engine for young people. They're getting mental health resources from therapists, DIY help from retired grandpas, nutrition information they can't get from their health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The list is endless."

Propaganda Is Free Speech

BASEDPolitics is being represented by the Liberty Justice Center. The suit seeks a declaration that the anti-TikTok law—officially known as the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—is unconstitutional and a block on the U.S. Attorney General enforcing it.

The law makes it illegal for Americans to "access, maintain, or update" apps linked to "foreign adversaries," a category that the measure defines to include TikTok. TikTok will be banned if TikTok parent company ByteDance does not sell it by January 19, 2025. The law also allows the president to declare other apps off limits (or force their sale) if they're based out of any country declared a foreign adversary or if anyone based in these countries owns a fifth or more of the app.

"The Act violates the First Amendment because it bans all speech on TikTok—even though all, or nearly all, of that speech is constitutionally protected," the Liberty Justice Center states in a press release. "The lawsuit also argues that lawmakers' justifications for the ban—national security and protecting Americans from propaganda—cannot justify the infringement on users' First Amendment rights, because there is no evidence that TikTok threatens national security or that a complete ban is necessary to address whatever threat it might pose. Furthermore, the lawsuit argues, the First Amendment does not allow the government to suppress 'propaganda,' which is simply speech."

Cox elaborates on this point in a video about the lawsuit, noting that people act like TikTok is unique because it could be linked to the Chinese Communist Party. Yet "you have tons of state-owned media that is available in the U.S.," points out Cox, citing the BBC and Russia today as two examples.

In the U.S., we don't ban speech merely because another government—even one we find alarming—might endorse it. So even if some of the more speculative fears about China and TikTok are true, that should be no reason to ban it entirely.

Cox says this sort of thing is more befitting of "communist dystopias" such as North Korea.

There's been some (overhyped) concern about TikTok suppressing content that could offend Chinese authorities. But even if that's true, it wouldn't justify a ban either.

"As First Amendment supporters, we also support the legal right of TikTok as a private platform to ban or restrict whatever kinds of content it wants even if we personally resent their choices or think it's unfair," Polumbo adds.

Larger Anti-Speech and Anti-Tech Trends 

"If enacted, this would constitute one of the most egregious acts of censorship in modern American history," Cox and Polumbo write, placing the TikTok ban in the midst of larger anti-speech and anti-tech trends:

In the federal and state governments, both Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly anti-free speech in recent years. We've seen a plethora of bills that have sought to strip Americans and their businesses of their right to free expression, many of them presented as necessary to rein in "Big Tech." The TikTok ban is merely the latest iteration of this trend.

The truth is that government actors who want to preserve and expand their own power have a vital interest in taking over the tech industry. Of course the government has yet to see a thriving free market industry it doesn't want to get its hands on. But social media in particular poses a unique threat to the government—which has for decades been able to control the flow of information and the narrative on political issues via its cozy relationship with many in the mainstream media.

We've seen the Biden Administration seek to lasso social media in a similar fashion numerous times over the past couple of years thanks to the bombshell reports released under both the Twitter Files and the Facebook Files—not to mention the government-wide conspiracy to shadowban information on our own government's funding of the Wuhan lab….

The obvious point is that government officials do not want the American people to be able to freely share information, especially information that makes them look bad.

The bottom line, they suggest, is that "if they can control the flow of information, they can control you."

"Social media poses a unique threat to politicians and the government, and that's because for decades…the government could control the narrative, and they could control the narrative because they mostly control the mainstream media," says Cox in her video. "As social media has grown, they have lost more and more control of the narrative, because they are no longer the gatekeepers, and they don't control the gatekeepers anymore."

"Ultimately the war on Big Tech is a war on free speech and the government desperately trying to regain control of the narrative the [mainstream media] granted them for decades," she tells me.

The BASEDPolitics team also pushes back on the idea that this isn't really a ban because it gives ByteDance the option to sell. "In effect, the legislation is an outright ban on the app, because Bytedance, TikTok's parent company, is likely legally prohibited from selling the TikTok algorithm by China's export control laws," write Cox and Polumbo. "And, TikTok without its algorithm is not really TikTok at all."

You can read their full complaint here.

More Sex & Tech News

• Supreme Court decisions are coming soon—possibly this week—in two major cases concerning abortion. One of these cases prescriptions of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone amd another concerns a Biden administration declaration regarding abortions as emergency care.

• Kaytlin Bailey and Yasmin Vafa debate whether it's OK to pay for sex.

• Antitrust warriors come for AI: The Federal Trade Commission is subpoenaing Microsoft over its deal with the artificial intelligence startup Inflection. Meanwhile, the Justice Departments "is poised to investigate Nvidia and its leading position in supplying the high-end semiconductors underpinning AI computing," Politico reports.

• "When a new technology arises, it matters greatly whether technocrats align themselves with dynamists or with reactionaries," Virginia Postrel tells Miller's Book Review. "We were lucky in the 1990s that both political parties included people with positive views of the emerging internet, including people with a dynamist understanding of its potential. The opposite is true today. Reactionaries are in ascendance in both parties, and technocrats are listening to them. Plus there are always businesses seeking to use regulation to hinder their competitors. The result is that instead of regarding AI as an exciting potential tool for enhancing human creativity and fostering prosperity, our public discourse tends to frame it as at best a job-destroyer and at worst the Terminator."

• A federal judge has rejected North Carolina's attempt to mandate that abortion pills must be taken in a doctor's office and that their prescription requires an in-person followup visit 72 hours after the medication is taken. The ruling means that women "can again take the medicine mifepristone at home and can obtain the medication from a pharmacy or by mail," WUNC reports.

• "Because 'misinformation' is overwhelmingly identified by focusing on information that contradicts the consensus judgements of experts and elites within society's leading knowledge-generating institutions, the focus on misinformation ignores how such institutions can themselves be deeply dysfunctional and problematic," writes Dan Williams in a very good (and lengthy) post at Conspicuous Cognition. "This includes science, intelligence agencies, mainstream media, and so on."

Today's Image

The post 'If They Can Control the Flow of Information, They Can Control You': BASEDPolitics Sues To Stop TikTok Ban appeared first on Reason.com.

On March 14, 2024, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), a man who 13 months prior had vowed at Jerusalem's Yad Vashem World Holocaust Remembrance Center that "as long as Hashem breathes air into my lungs, the United States Senate will stand behind Israel with our fullest support," peered solemnly over his glasses into the Senate's C-SPAN cameras and informed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that it was time for him to go.

"The Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7," Schumer declared, referring to the shock Hamas massacre and mass kidnapping event just across the militarized border separating the Palestinian Gaza Strip from the Israeli envelope around it. "Nobody expects Prime Minister Netanyahu to do the things that must be done to break the cycle of violence, preserve Israel's credibility on the world stage, and work towards a two-state solution….At this critical juncture, I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel."

And if Netanyahu, in such an election, were to win enough votes to form another government, then continue prosecuting the war against Israel's attackers in ways Schumer doesn't approve?

"Then," the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in U.S. history warned, "the United States will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course."

It's an increasingly common refrain among American critics of Israeli policy, including many who are otherwise wary of Washington thumbing the scales on world affairs: The $3.8 billion that the U.S. gives each year should directly influence Israeli behavior—on war, on humanitarian assistance to Gaza, on settlements in the West Bank, even on proposed reforms to the judiciary branch—or be withdrawn.

"The Netanyahu government, or hopefully a new Israeli government, must understand that not one penny will be coming to Israel from the U.S. unless there is a fundamental change in their military and political positions," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) said last November, reiterating a critique he and several other candidates made when seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

President Joe Biden, a stalwart supporter of Israel throughout his half-century in public office, seemed this spring to be moving closer to Sanders' point of view. Three days before Schumer's well-telegraphed speech, Politico reported, based on "four U.S. officials with knowledge of internal administration thinking," that Biden "will consider conditioning military aid to Israel if the country moves forward with a large-scale invasion of Rafah."

The Rafah offensive was indeed tabled a few days later. But then, after the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on April 1 pulverized a World Central Kitchen aid convoy in Gaza, killing seven, Biden informed Netanyahu in a tense phone call that (in the words of a White House readout) Israel needed to "announce and implement a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers," or else, for the first time in a generation, the U.S. would hold up military aid.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) and three dozen other members of Congress sent a letter to the president April 5 urging him "to reconsider your recent decision to authorize the transfer of a new arms package to Israel, and to withhold this and any future offensive arms transfers until a full investigation into the airstrike is completed." NBC declared this a potential "turning point" in U.S.-Israeli relations.

But that turn lasted fewer than 10 days. On April 14, Iran fired more than 300 potentially lethal missiles and drones into Israel, marking the first time the Islamic republic had directly attacked the Jewish state, after decades of supporting proxy harassments from Hamas, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthis, and various armed factions in Syria and Iraq. Largely thanks to the technological and regional military agreements that the U.S. and Israel have jointly forged, virtually all of the projectiles that did not misfire were intercepted.

"Now is not the time to abandon our friends. The House must pass urgent national-security legislation for…Israel, as well as desperately needed humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza," Biden wrote in The Wall Street Journal three days later, in support of a supplemental $26.38 billion Israeli package. "I've been clear about my concerns over the safety of civilians in Gaza amid the war with Hamas, but this aid…is focused on Israel's long-term defensive needs to ensure it can maintain its military edge against Iran or any other adversary."

That same day, after months of delay, embattled House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.) announced that the aid bill would finally be introduced on the House floor. The only attached condition was imposed not on Israeli policy makers but on the controversial United Nations Relief and Works Agency operation in Gaza. So much for a turning point.

Yet the conversation about leverage is precisely the one America needs to be having while confronting yet another deadly and seemingly intractable standoff in the Middle East. A realistic contemplation of Washington's regional and global system of carrots and sticks, at a time when American imperial appetites are on the noticeable decline, might reveal some awkward if potentially game-changing truths. Beginning with: There are many on the pro-Israeli side who want the same policy result as Bernie Sanders, for precisely the opposite reasons.

End it, Don't Mend it

Three months before the October 7 massacre, the American Jewish publication Tablet published a provocative essay by Jacob Siegel and Liel Leibovitz bluntly headlined "End U.S. Aid to Israel."

The brief: "Israel ends up sacrificing far more value in return for the nearly $4 billion it annually receives from Washington. That's because nearly all military aid to Israel…consists of credits that go directly from the Pentagon to U.S. weapons manufacturers," they wrote. "In return, American payouts undermine Israel's domestic defense industry, weaken its economy, and compromise the country's autonomy—giving Washington veto power over everything from Israeli weapons sales to diplomatic and military strategy."

Critics of Israel, particularly in light of the subsequent war with Hamas, will surely blanch at the notion that Washington has anything like "veto power" over Tel Aviv. Yet America has nonetheless coordinated and consulted on policy far more closely with Israel, including during this conflict, than it has on, say, nearby NATO ally Turkey in its ongoing battles with Syrian Kurds. All at a time when the comparative purchasing power of America's Israeli aid has plummeted.

"The Israel of 2023," Siegel and Leibovitz observed, "is immeasurably wealthier and more powerful than the dusty socialist country of 40 years ago, where local electrical grids could be overloaded by American hair dryers." Boy howdy is it.

Israel now has a highergross domestic product (GDP) per capita than Japan and Italy, and is closing in fast on France and the United Kingdom. In 1981, as the hawkish former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams pointed out in Commentary last year, "the United States provided Israel with $4.5 billion in economic and military aid at a time when the entire GDP of the Jewish state was only $25.4 billion." Now? GDP is north of $500 billion.

Annual U.S. aid has gone from 17.7 percent of the Israeli economy to 0.7 percent; even with the big new cash infusion, that figure goes up this fiscal year to just 5.7 percent. And as Biden himself crassly observed when selling the supplemental, the strings attached include "send[ing] military equipment from our own stockpiles, then us[ing] the money authorized by Congress to replenish those stockpiles—by buying from American suppliers….[We're] help[ing] our friends while helping ourselves." So America is sending money that Israel no longer needs to lock in long-term contracts for the military-industrial complex. (The 10-year, $38-billion Memorandum of Understanding signed by President Barack Obama in 2018 allowed for Israel to spend about a quarter of the annual total on its own domestic defense production until this year, after which the percentage is to be ratcheted steadily down to zero.)

This close military partnership, which has been the basic bilateral setup since not long after the 1967 Six Day War, has produced benefits for both Washington and Jerusalem. Israel gets some of the world's most advanced defense tech, such as the Iron Dome and David's Sling missile-interception systems; the U.S. gets premium intelligence in a volatile region and a privileged seat at the table for making commerce-lubricating peace deals.

But it's also true those contracts could be freely entered into, without a cent of U.S. taxpayer money, just as both Sanders and anti-interventionist Republicans like Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) would prefer. What would happen to American influence then?

"Weaning Israel off of American assistance would have the added advantage of removing the issue of conditioning such aid or using it as leverage, ideas that sometimes surface when the United States and Israel differ on important policy issues, such as the peace process," former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin and former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt Daniel Kurtzer wrote four years ago in The National Interest.

In other words, say goodbye to Schumer's—and Biden's—serially insisted-upon "two-state solution," which has been a political non-starter in Israel especially since October 7. And don't be surprised if the country's regional Qualitative Military Edge, enshrined in U.S. law, would be deployed more freely in preemptively striking Iran's offensive capabilities, whether in missile production, nuclear development, or senior-level military planning.

So would cutting aid to Israel actually lead to more, not less war? Making predictions in the Middle East is a fool's errand. But one way to think through the scenario planning, and move faster toward a world where foreign policy commitments are more commensurate with the domestic public opinion of the countries involved, is to remember a factor that too often escapes attention: Israel is hardly the only country along the Arabian Peninsula to receive billions in American military aid.

What Leverage Bought

If the U.S. permanently cut off all aid tomorrow—and even if the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the infamous "Israel lobby," were suddenly to close up shop—the bonds of affection between the two countries would still remain strong. According to a Gallup poll, Israel has for the past quarter-century been among the leading countries toward which Americans have the most favorable opinion. Eighty-five percent of the world's Jewish population lives either in the U.S. or in Israel, in roughly equal numbers (the numerical capital of Jewry is not Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but New York City). There are some 200,000 dual citizens living in Israel; at least 33 were killed by Hamas on or after October 7, and five more were still believed to be held hostage as of May 1. Even as Americans—particularly Democrats, and the young—have soured on Israel's prosecution of the war, there remains between the countries a shared liberal democratic (and capitalistic) culture and decades' worth of human intercourse.

Now consider Saudi Arabia.

The country that has purchased more U.S. military equipment than any other—at $140 billion and counting—has been unpopular with the American public for the entire 21st century, and not only because it was home to most of the September 11 hijackers. The House of Saud's dictatorial monarchy routinely ranks near the bottom of global freedom indices, women only recently were granted the right to drive a car, and the regime infamously assassinated Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. Saudi Arabia has been a prime mover in the brutal, decade-long Yemeni civil war, a conflict that the United Nations estimates has led to nearly 400,000 deaths, most of them civilian.

Yet in the absence of any American sympathies at all, Riyadh has still been a key strategic partner with Washington for going on eight decades. Why? Oil production is certainly part of it, though Russia and Venezuela also have tons of the stuff. The truth is that the kingdom has been deft enough diplomatically, and flush enough with spendable petrodollars, to keep insinuating itself into whatever preoccupations the American empire has at the moment: the Cold War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, containing Iran, and doing the often messy work of behind-the-scenes negotiations on military logistics, CIA skulduggery, and peace deals.

It is in that latter category that the Saudis find themselves yet again the object of not-quite-requitable American desire, this time in the form of a tantalizing peace pact with Israel, one that could potentially dwarf in practical and symbolic significance the historic 2020 Abraham Accords between the Jewish state and Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. The Saudi asking price thus far? Just a military security guarantee, the likes of which America has only with Japan, South Korea, and the members of NATO.

Such are the realities of American leverage in the Middle East. Washington now includes among its major non-NATO allies Qatar (circa 2022, in exchange for help with U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan), Tunisia (2015, for its role in the Arab Spring), Morocco and Kuwait (2003, for assistance in the war on terror), Bahrain (2002, ditto), and more than a dozen other countries, including Israel and Egypt.

When states are both relatively poor and militarily insecure, as Israel was in the 1970s and Egypt remains to this day, the lure of access to the world's dominant military can persuade otherwise reluctant leaders to do things they and/or their populations would rather not. Like siting U.S. military bases, or taking the American side in a regional conflict—or recognizing Israel's right to exist.

Israel since its 1948 inception has been the single largest recipient of U.S. aid, at north of $300 billion in constant 2024 dollars. Clocking in at No. 2, with more than $150 billion, is Egypt. This American money bought the modern Middle East's most foundational peace treaty. That 1979 deal, brokered by President Jimmy Carter, not only formally ended the longtime antagonists' various wars; it marked the first time an Arab country formally accepted Israel's existence. For that move against the preponderance of his country's public opinion, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat paid two years later with his life.

Such are the inherent and ongoing tensions of bribing authoritarians to make unpopular deals, particularly in countries predisposed toward resenting Israelis and/or Americans. The basing of non-Muslim U.S. troops near Saudi Arabia's holy Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina was the original radicalizing complaint of Osama bin Laden. The Jordanian population, long encouraged to treat neighboring Israel as the enemy, was ill-prepared to accept King Hussein's 1994 signing of mutual recognition, nudged in part by President Bill Clinton's promise to forgive $700 million of the country's debt. A 2022 poll of the Hashemite kingdom by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found opposition to diplomatic recognition at a staggering 94 percent.

That number would almost certainly be lower if the Jordanian monarchy didn't choose to stoke anti-Israeli sentiment in public while cooperating privately to such a degree that the country shot down several Iranian missiles before they could even cross into Israeli airspace. King Abdullah II called for three noisy days of national mourning last October over the deadly explosion outside of Gaza's Al-Shifa Hospital even after Israel's involvement and the initial death toll had both been convincingly debunked. Queen Rania that same month told CNN that the world "silence" in the face of Israel's war was "deafening," and that "to many in our region, it makes the Western world complicit." The kingdom tamps down criticism of the normalization deal (which it still publicly defends) and prevents protesters from ransacking the Israeli embassy but otherwise keeps the rhetoric ratcheted.

A poor country with rampant unemployment, Jordan is a top-10 recipient of U.S. aid, and it relies heavily on Israel for trade and resource cooperation. Caught literally between Iran and Israel, home to a large and restive Palestinian population, beset by months of anti-Israel protests, the monarchy is increasingly fragile and constantly triangulating. If the U.S. were to suddenly pull the rug out from underneath Jordanian aid, some 6 percent of the country's GDP would go poof.

It is easy to look upon such realities as an excuse to keep perpetuating the American foreign policy status quo. If leverage in the authoritarian Arab neighborhood has bought peace deals with Israel, the reopening of the Suez Canal, and the forging of an anti-Iran axis in the Persian Gulf, why threaten to unravel these projects by beating a hasty retreat?

That question implies a far-too-rosy picture of the status quo, and it ignores the extent to which American public opinion deviates from the conventional wisdom in Washington.

Imperial Autopilot

The American-led world order, with its emphases on international cooperation, tariff reduction, and mutual military treaties, arose out of the ashes of World War II as a bulwark against communism. That comprehensible project, while the source of semi-constant controversy in implementation, was broadly popular in the United States; it was articulated regularly by every president from Harry Truman to George H.W. Bush. With the end of the Cold War, and the failure to secure an explicit postwar settlement, came the end of domestic support for America's starring global role.

What happens when institutions wheeze on long after their rationales have collapsed? Elite corruption and populist revolt.

Corruption doesn't necessarily have to mean self-enrichment, though surely the people near the top of the American foreign policy pyramid rarely have to scrounge up their next meal. It's more about the temptations of using America's unmatched power. In the immortal 1993 words of the United States' then-ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, spoken to the more restraint-oriented Colin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Albright's interventionist point of view ended up winning the battle for Clinton's foreign policy, and then Powell became the chief salesman for President George W. Bush's disastrous war of choice in Iraq.

Afghanistan was America's longest and least popular war, yet imperial autopilot, along with the fallacy of sunken costs, meant that it took more than two decades until Biden finally (and messily) ended it. NATO, and Washington's preeminence within it, is still the dominant military paradigm on the decidedly non-American continent of Europe, even with the open skepticism about the alliance expressed serially by the former and possibly future president Donald Trump.

America has already retreated under both Trump and Biden from its legacy role in reducing global tariffs, embracing instead the kind of made-in-America mercantilism that generations of their predecessors had mostly resisted. Wherever there is some 75-year-old, Washington-forged institution and commitments thereof, there is active domestic politics railing against it.

Washington's leading role in the Middle East is somewhat younger, at around a half-century, but similarly archaic. We no longer need to counter the Soviet Union, no longer depend on foreign oil, and no longer cling to the messianic delusion that liberal democracy in the region can be spread at the point of a gun. If you could somehow wipe the slate clean and craft a new U.S. approach to the Middle East that would better align with public opinion, what would that look like?

Almost certainly, the vast majority of foreign aid to this and other regions would vanish overnight. Nos. 3 through 10 on the 2022 aid-recipient list—Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan—would be cut off. But Nos. 1 and 2 might well remain.

The Intolerability of October 6

The Republicans who unsuccessfully opposed the $95 billion aid package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan were onto something, as have been such presidential candidates as Pat Buchanan, 1992 Clinton, and 2000 George W. Bush. Americans are generally weary of throwing billions abroad at problems that should be solved by someone else, particularly when there are unresolved problems galore at home.

But specifically, Americans favor helping with the defense of Ukraine (No. 1 on the 2022 aid recipient list), Israel (No. 2), and Taiwan. In the absence of a coherent and comprehensible strategy, one that reflects the more modest ambitions of voters, foreign policy remains subject to the temporal emotions and legacy attachments of the public. Jordan probably wouldn't win an up-or-down referendum on U.S. support; Israel almost certainly would. Both, however, could benefit from being cut off.

The Israeli case for independence is largely about latitude, but not only: Having to spend $3.8 billion a year rather than receive it means making some responsible choices about budget priorities. Authoritarian Arab governments, too, need to take, rather than continue to shirk, responsibility.

The horrors of October 7 revealed that the seemingly operable status quo of October 6 was in fact untenable. It was, and is, untenable for Israel to live next to neighbors, to the north and southwest, who regularly fire rockets into the country and sporadically dig tunnels to execute acts of terrorism. It's untenable for Gaza's residents to live under the dictatorial whims of a theocratic death cult that takes money from foreign governments not to build prosperity but to harass and murder Israelis. It's untenable for the region's autocrats to loudly pin the blame for their own heavy-handed misgovernance on American and Israeli scapegoats while quietly reaching out for assistance from Washington and Tel Aviv.

Qatar enjoys the status of being a major non-NATO ally with the U.S. while also financing and sheltering the leadership of Hamas. That too is untenable, and the designation should be withdrawn. Residents of the Palestinian West Bank live in a harassed and conflict-ridden uncertainty and emasculation, with second-class property rights and lousy government services. Untenable. Iran flexes its muscle to turn parts of Israel's neighbors into vassal states rather than fully fledged independent entities. None of this is tenable.

Meanwhile, the U.S. floats above the whole region, handing out aid and military contracts like a grand seigneur, hoping on Mondays to build peace, on Tuesdays to launch airstrikes, and on Wednesday try to tamp down the resulting messes from spreading into a regional war. It does deals with some of the most hideous regimes on earth while the captive populations seethe.

It is axiomatic, yet catastrophically underappreciated in Washington: Those with the most power will inevitably behave corruptly, and those without responsibility will inevitably behave irresponsibly. An Israel less tethered may feel less constrained, sure, but it may also find itself more isolated on the world stage, and therefore a tad more cautious. Arab leaders without the American security blanket may find themselves having to speak blunt truths to their populations, including about the true sources of their comparative lack of prosperity and freedom. And a United States less compromised by getting its thumbs in every pie will potentially have more, not less, moral standing in the world.

So cut off Israel. And Egypt, and Jordan, and Saudi Arabia as well. Let them bear the responsibility of their own actions, and the costs of their own security. It's time to consciously manage America's imperial drawdown, rather than careen between fading Atlanticism and resurgent populism. What's the point of having this superb military? To defend America.

The post What If the U.S. Cuts Off Aid to Israel? appeared first on Reason.com.

Released this morning: The jobs report, released at 8:30 this morning, shows that in May employers added 272,000 jobs, up from the monthly average of 242,000 that's persisted for the first half of the year and far more than most economists predicted.

In April, the unemployment rate was 3.9 percent—a bit higher than the 3.4 percent unemployment the year prior. In May, it slid up to 4 percent.

"The headline number is a source for celebration for President [Joe] Biden, who frequently points to the strong job market when making the case to voters that he has handled the economy well," summarizes The New York Times. But really, the picture is more complicated.

The economy is finally recovering from its recent high-inflation period, but the recovery has been slower than predicted and the Federal Reserve will probably not be inclined to lower rates anytime soon (which affects people's willingness to transact houses, for example). This new data probably won't change the Federal Reserve's behavior, so interest rates will remain high—a tough pill for Biden to swallow, as that may be one of the major factors leading to people's perception that the economy just isn't working for them.

Maybe Trump isn't so bad? Per The Washington Post, Donald Trump plans "to repeal parts of the 1974 law that restricts the president's authority to spend federal dollars without congressional approval" if he's elected to office a second time. He's claimed his Day 1 in office would include him telling every agency to find a "large chunk" of their budgets that can be cut, taking aim at international aid programs and environmental agencies in particular.

"What the Trump team is saying is alarming, unusual and really beyond the pale of anything we've seen," Eloise Pasachoff, a budget law expert at Georgetown, tells The Washington Post. But the national debt—which currently exceeds $34 trillion—is also alarming, unusual, and really beyond the pale of anything we've ever seen, so it's not clear what types of drastic measures ought to be taken to return spending to appropriate levels. For more on the national debt, check out this Just Asking Questions interview with Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who wears a debt clock lapel pin.

But the specific mechanism Trump plans to use may throw the balance between the legislative and executive branches out of whack. "I will use the president's long-recognized Impoundment Power to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," writes Trump on his campaign website. Impounding funds, which was banned by lawmakers when President Richard Nixon abused the process, is when a president refuses to dispense funds even after Congress has already appropriated them.

Many quoted by The Washington Post seem to believe this would be a massive constitutional crisis, and there's plenty of reason to be skeptical that Trump would actually cut the amount of spending he says. But it's interesting that Trump gets dinged for proposals like this one, while plenty of Joe Biden's spendiest programs (like student loan forgiveness, which has repeatedly been thwarted by the courts) are deemed totally acceptable.

Scenes from New York: "An investigation from the City's Department of Investigation found that around 1,200 NYPD officers cheated while taking their promotional exam, yet the cheating was apparently for naught, because it didn't meaningfully improve their test scores," reports Hell Gate. 

QUICK HITS

• "SpaceX received the go-ahead from US air safety regulators to launch its massive Starship rocket on a fourth major test flight, as the Elon Musk-led company works to make the vehicle operational and ready for regular trips to space," reports Bloomberg. "The Federal Aviation Administration granted SpaceX a launch license to move forward with the next test flight, the agency said in a statement on Tuesday." (UPDATE: The launch happened yesterday and was successful.)
• Canada's new Online Harms Act would "curtail people's liberty in order to stop future crimes they haven't yet committed," writes The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf. Take it from the man himself: "We need the ability to stop an anticipated hate crime from occurring," says Canada's attorney general.
• Hunter Biden's gun trial—where he's charged with lying about drug use to obtain a gun—is ongoing but looking especially messy as his sister-in-law/ex-girlfriend Hallie Biden testifies against him, talking about how she disposed of his gun in a grocery store garbage can.
• "Congestion pricing, a good idea, died because our government doesn't deserve the money," writes Josh Barro at Very Serious.
• "A widely held belief is that the Nordic countries are great bastions of rehabilitation: by focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment, they have managed to achieve remarkably low recidivism rates. Or so the story goes. This notion, however, is largely a myth," argues Patterns in Humanity.
• Briahna Joy Gray, who hosted Rising with Reason's own Robby Soave (and sometimes yours truly, when I would fill in for Soave), rolled her eyes at a source's account of her sister's October 7 rape and was promptly fired from the show.
• Joe Biden's executive order restricting asylum seekers is already having terrible consequences:

"They aren't all asylum seekers" totally misses the point. We don't want to send one person back to persecution or torture. If that requires letting in 10 or 100 who want to work, so what? My tax dollars shouldn't go to help any persecutors or torturers. https://t.co/hoh2MOyyz4

— David J. Bier (@David_J_Bier) June 6, 2024

• New Just Asking Questions with Mike Solana (an absolute must-follow):

The post The Economy Biden Wants appeared first on Reason.com.

In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included $7.5 billion to build 500,000 public charging stations for electric vehicles (E.V.s) across the country in an effort to boost a switch to the use of clean energy.

As Reason reported in December, not one charger funded by the program had yet come online. Now, six months later, the number of functional charging stations has ticked up to eight.

That news comes from an Autoweek article earlier this month. In March, The Washington Post reported that only seven were built; a charging station in Bradford, Vermont, opened in April, containing four E.V. fast chargers. Public chargers are either Level 2, which use alternating current electricity and take several hours to fully charge an all-electric vehicle from empty, or Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) superchargers, which use direct current and can charge in less than an hour.

Why so little progress? Alexander Laska of the center-left Third Way think tank told Autoweek's Jim Motavalli that the federal cash "comes with dozens of rules and requirements around everything from reliability to interoperability, to where stations can be located, to what certifications the workers installing the chargers need to have." Laska says the regulations "are largely a good thing—we want drivers to have a seamless, convenient, reliable charging experience—but navigating all of that does add to the timeline."

A spokesperson with the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, which administers $5 billion of the $7.5 billion total, further told Motavalli that the delay is because "we want to get it right."

Thankfully, federal grants aren't the only way to build out charging infrastructure.

"US drivers welcomed almost 1,100 new public, fast-charging stations in the second half of 2023, a 16% increase," Bloomberg's Kyle Stock reported in January. And not just in big cities or progressive enclaves: Deep-red Idaho "switched on 12 new [DCFCs] between July and December," while "Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee welcomed 56 new fast-charging stations in the second half of 2023, an infrastructure increase of one-third."

While Stock notes that $5 billion of federal money is expected to roll out soon, "the vast majority of chargers added in the US last year were bets by for-profit companies on the future of battery-powered driving."

The most prominent company by far is Tesla, whose network of Superchargers includes over 57,000 DCFC chargers around the world and generated an estimated $1.74 billion of revenue in 2023 alone. Just in the fourth quarter of 2023, the company built 357 new stations, accounting for 3,783 charging ports.

Around two-thirds of all public chargers in the U.S. are manufactured for Teslas, but the company has also expanded its network for its competitors to use: In the 2025 model year, most major automakers' E.V.s will use the same charge port as Teslas and be able to access the Supercharger network.

Rivian, a Tesla competitor, is also building out its own DCFC network: In February 2024, it counted 400 chargers in 67 locations, with plans to expand further, and just like with Tesla's Superchargers, Rivian plans to make its chargers accessible to other models.

In fairness, both Tesla and Rivian have benefited from government handouts: State and local governments in Georgia promised Rivian a raft of incentives worth up to $1.5 billion. And Tesla has received at least $2.8 billion in federal, state, and local subsidies over the years, despite CEO Elon Musk's professed distaste for government intervention in the economy. In fact, Politico found in February that Tesla was the single largest recipient of funds disbursed by the federal NEVI program, winning "almost 13 percent of all EV charging awards from the law, earning it a total of more than $17 million in infrastructure grants."

But those companies still provide the best template for expanding access to public chargers.

While proponents of the federal regulations may defend the amount of red tape involved in the federal program, with demands on where a charging station can be placed and the types of licenses people need to build one, the fact is that the private sector is already building out a nationwide E.V. charging network that will be available to most drivers.

The post $7.5 Billion in Government Cash Only Built 8 E.V. Chargers in 2.5 Years appeared first on Reason.com.

In Bradford v. U.S. Department of Labor, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected a challenge to a Labor Department rule requiring federal contractors, including some permittees, to pay their workers a $15 per hour minimum wage. The majority concluded that this requirement was authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA, sometimes referred to as the "Property Act" or the "Procurement Act"), which grants the President broad authority to impose requirements on federal contractors. The third judge, however, concluded that FPASA violates existing nondelegation doctrine precedent and is thus unconstitutional in a very interesting opinion. (The case is also interesting because the Supreme COurt has had very little to say about FPASA over the years.)

The majority opinion, by Judge Holmes and joined by Judge Ebel, summarizes the case:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Duke Bradford, Arkansas Valley Adventure (AVA), and the Colorado River Outfitters Association (CROA) appeal from the District of Colorado's order denying their motion to preliminarily enjoin a Department of Labor (DOL) rule requiring federal contractors to pay their employees a $15.00 minimum hourly wage. The DOL promulgated the rule pursuant to a directive in Executive Order (EO) 14,026, which President Biden issued on April 27, 2021. EO 14,026 imposed the minimum wage requirement on most federal contractors, and it rescinded an exemption for recreational services outfitters that operate pursuant to permits on federal lands, which President Trump had adopted in EO 13,838. President Biden issued EO 14,026 pursuant to his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act ("FPASA"), 40 U.S.C. §§ 101–1315, which authorizes the President to "prescribe policies and directives that the President considers necessary to carry out" FPASA and that are "consistent with" FPASA, 40 U.S.C. § 121(a). One purpose of FPASA is to "provide the Federal Government with an economical and efficient system for . . . [p]rocuring and supplying property and nonpersonal services." 40 U.S.C. § 101(1).

Appellants argue that the district court erred in concluding that FPASA authorizes the minimum wage rule as applied to recreational services permittees because the government does not procure any services from them or supply anything to them. They also argue that the DOL acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating the minimum wage rule without exempting recreational service permittees.

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we affirm. We first conclude that Appellants have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that the DOL's rule was issued without statutory authority. Specifically, the district court did not err in concluding that FPASA likely authorizes the minimum wage rule because the DOL's rule permissibly regulates the supply of nonpersonal services and advances the statutory objectives of economy and efficiency. Furthermore, we hold that Appellants have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that the DOL's rule is arbitrary and capricious. In sum, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Judge Allison Eid dissented, and not merely because the federal government sought to impose this minimum wage requirement on federal permittees who are not, in any traditional sense "federal contractors." Rather, she concluded that FPASA has a nondelegation problem. Her opinion begins:

Only Congress can wield legislative power. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1. Yet the law here, by lacking an intelligible principle, delegates just that to the President. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act ("FPASA") grants the President nearly unfettered power to create any policy he considers necessary to carry out nonpersonal services under the guise of economy and efficiency. In granting this power, Congress did not (1) require the President to conduct any preliminary factfinding or to respond to a specified situation. Nor did Congress (2) provide the President a standard that sufficiently guides his broad discretion. Accordingly, I would hold that the FPASA runs afoul of the nondelegation doctrine. Because the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.

As Judge Eid explains, the problem is not merely that FPASA appears to offer no intelligible principle to guide the executive branch's use of the delegated power, but also that there is no required process to help channel the exercise of the power. This makdes FPASA invalid under Panama Refining and Schechter Poultry (neither of which has ever been overruled) and, according to Judge Eid, distinguishes FPASA from other statutes upheld against nondelegation challenge.  From her opinion:

Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress must cabin its delegation of legislative authority to the President with an "intelligible principle." Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2129 (2019) (plurality) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has identified an intelligible principle as falling into either of the "two buckets" identified in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), and A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935): "(1) whether the Congress has required any finding by the President in the exercise of the authority, and (2) whether the Congress has set up a standard for the President's action." Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Su, 79 F.4th 755, 773 (6th Cir. 2023) (Nalbandian, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). . .

Under the first "bucket," a law must contain a situational or fact-finding requirement. Panama Refin., 293 U.S. at 415 (considering "whether the Congress has required any finding by the President in the exercise of the authority to enact the prohibition"). In many cases, the Supreme Court has upheld laws if executive action can only come about as a response to certain situations. . . .

Under the second, a law must contain "a standard" limiting executive discretion. Panama Refin., 293 U.S. at 415 (considering "whether the Congress has set up a standard for the President's action"). Some laws delegate to the executive the ability to "fill up the details" in "general provisions." Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1, 43 (1825). Even so, the Supreme Court has required that Congress provide a "sufficiently definite and precise" standard that can "enable Congress, the courts and the public to ascertain whether the [Executive official] . . . has conformed to those standards." Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 426 (1944); . . .. Only then could a court be confident of what "general policy" a delegee "must pursue" and the "boundaries of [his] authority." Gundy, 139 S. Ct. at 2129 (plurality) . . . Because if not—if "an absence of standards" makes it "impossible in a proper proceeding to ascertain whether the will of Congress has been obeyed"—a nondelegation violation occurs. Yakus, 321 U.S. at 426.

Such permissible, testable standards have taken the form of mandatory "factors" that the executive must conform to in acting. . . .

Lastly, the Supreme Court has noted that the more power a law delegates, the more the law must limit that delegation. Indeed, "the degree of agency discretion that is acceptable varies according to the scope of the power congressionally conferred." Whitman, 531 U.S. at 475; . . .

The bottom line is that courts must examine statutes for an intelligible principle. That is because a law delegating power must have one to withstand Article I. As aptly summarized from "over two centuries worth of caselaw," looking for an intelligible principle in turn "requires a court to analyze a statute for two things: (1) a fact-finding or situation that provokes executive action or (2) standards that sufficiently guide executive discretion—keeping in mind that the amount of detail governing executive discretion must correspond to the breadth of delegated power." Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, 79 F.4th at 776 (Nalbandian, J., dissenting) (cleaned up).

This is an interesting take on a very broad delegation of authority, the aggressive exercise of which has prompted significant litigation (as with the vaccine mandate requirements for federal contractors I discussed here and here).

I am not sure I am convinced by Judge Eid's analysis. Unlike in most cases in which nondelegation concerns are raised, the government here is imposing rules governing those who choose to contract with or engage with the federal government. Thus exercises of FPASA do not raise the same concerns as do regulations governing purely private conduct. Insofar as the regulation here raises such concerns by imposing requirement on those who cannot really be said to be federal contractors, or reaching operations that are unrelated to federal contracts, it would seem that FPASA is readily subject to a narrowing construction that would eliminate the constitutional concern (and which is arguably more consistent with the power Congress actually delegated. It would do no harm to FPASA's text to recognize that it only confers authority on the President to impose conditions that meaningfully relate to the efficiency and efficacy of the performance of federal functions, and not the authority to use federal contracts (or, in this case, permits) as a lever with which to reach private conduct more broadly.  That said, Judge Eid's opinion makes an interesting case, and one that I suspect may catch the attention of one or more of the justices.

The post Is the Federal Property & Administrative Services Act Unconstitutional? appeared first on Reason.com.

Following persistent technical issues with this year's updated, streamlined Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form, the Education Department has announced a $50 million program to help more students complete the form—next year.

The chunk of funding is aimed at "expand[ing] the availability of advisers, counselors, and coaches to support students and contributors through the FAFSA applications," according to a Monday press release.

"We are determined to close the FAFSA completion gap," Deputy Secretary of Education Cindy Marten said. "The funding we're announcing today will support states, districts, and community-based groups [to] build capacity and leverage their power to ensure that every student who needs help paying for college turns in their FAFSA form."

FAFSA is required for any college students seeking federal grants or loans. Most colleges also use the form to determine how much institutional financial aid to offer students. In a typical year, over 15 million students and their families fill out the FAFSA form. But as of late April, successful applications are down 24 percent this year due to ubiquitous technical bugs in the updated form.

This year's issues stem from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, which mandated that the Education Department release a simplified version of the FAFSA form. The updated form was released in December—more than two months later than the typical release date. Almost immediately, the form was plagued with errors and bugs that made it nearly impossible to complete for many students.

FAFSA's own website details many of the issues with the form since its release. While most can be fixed with complicated "workarounds," some kept affected students from filling out the form for months. In March, the Education Department even announced that they had incorrectly calculated the completed forms of 200,000 students, leading to some possibly receiving more generous financial aid offers than they were actually eligible for.

Instead of publicly committing to solving these issues for next year's form, the Education Department is attempting to ameliorate its mistakes by throwing money at the problem. Why make a better FAFSA when you can pay people to shepherd students and their families through an infuriatingly complex process?

According to USA Today, the Education Department usually releases a draft version of next year's FAFSA in February or March, but that hasn't happened yet—hardly a good sign for next year's form.

While it's unclear whether students will have a smoother FAFSA experience next year, at least they can say they've gotten an apology. 

"I apologize to the students and families that have had to deal with delays," Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said during a congressional hearing this week. "I know how frustrating that is."

The post The Government's Solution to FAFSA Chaos: Spend $50 Million More appeared first on Reason.com.

Better not read this post out loud to anyone—federal labor regulators might not like it.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stretched its speech-policing powers to new highs last week when an in-house administrative judge ruled that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy had violated federal labor law by expressing anti-unionization views during several televised interviews in recent years. Specifically, Judge Brian Gee dinged Jassy for suggesting that Amazon employees might be "better off" without a union and the layers of bureaucracy that come with it.

Jassy made those comments during an appearance on CNBC in 2022—during a segment in which he was discussing Amazon's response to ongoing unionization efforts at some warehouses. In the ruling, Gee highlighted similar comments that Jassy made during public forums hosted by The New York Times and Bloomberg.

The First Amendment protects Jassy's right to talk about those things and federal labor law allows employers to discuss unionization as long as they are not harassing or intimidating employees by doing so.

None of that seems to matter to the NLRB. In the ruling, Gee said Jassy had engaged in unlawful "coercive predictions about the effects of unionization" and ordered Amazon to post notices at its facilities reminding workers of their rights.

The punishment isn't really the point, however. Going after Jassy for remarks made in obviously public forums—comments that certainly were not meant to harass or intimidate current or would-be union members—is a signal that the NLRB sees virtually no limit to its powers to police executives' speech.

"Reasonable people may disagree about the line between permissible and impermissible speech" within the bounds of federal labor laws, said Edwin Egee, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, in a statement. "However, if Judge Gee's decision is left to stand, the effect would be to erase this line entirely. Employers would rightly wonder whether they can speak about unionization at all, despite their legally protected right to do so."

Gee's ruling in the Amazon case sits awkwardly alongside other recent rulings by the NLRB that gave wide leeway to employees' speech about similar topics. As the Washington Examiner noted, the NLRB in January forced Amazon to rehire an employee who had been sacked after directing an expletive-laden tirade at a fellow worker.

Meanwhile, some Google employees who were fired after protesting the company's contractual relationship with the state of Israel have filed a complaint with the NLRB asking to be reinstated. The former workers say they were unfairly terminated for engaging in speech that was "directly and explicitly connected to their terms and conditions of work," The Washington Post reported.

It's too soon to know how the NLRB will handle that case, but something has to give. It simply cannot be true that federal labor law permits employees to engage in any and all conduct without consequence, while simultaneously preventing CEOs and employers from speaking freely during media appearances and other public forums.

Federal bureaucrats don't have the authority to decide that all speech is either mandatory or forbidden—and whether they like it or not, the First Amendment applies even to the CEOs of successful businesses.

The post Labor Board Goes After Amazon CEO for Suggesting Workers Might Be 'Better Off' Without Unions appeared first on Reason.com.

The Department of Justice indicted the creators of an application that helps people spend their bitcoins anonymously. They're accused of "conspiracy to commit money laundering." Why "conspiracy to commit" as opposed to just "money laundering"?

Because they didn't hold anyone else's money or do anything illegal with it. They provided a privacy tool that may have enabled other people to do illegal things with their bitcoin. But that's not a crime, just as selling someone a kitchen knife isn't a crime. The case against the creators of Samourai Wallet is an assault on our civil liberties and First Amendment rights.

What this tool does is offer what's known as a "coinjoin," a method for anonymizing bitcoin transactions by mixing them with other transactions, as the project's founder, Keonne Rodriguez, explained to Reason in 2022: 

"I think the best analogy for it is like smelting gold," he said. "You take your Bitcoin, you add it into [the conjoin protocol] Whirlpool, and Whirlpool smelts it into new pieces that are not associated to the original piece."

Smelting bars of gold would make it harder for the government to track. But if someone eventually uses a piece of that gold for an illegal purchase, should the creator of the smelting furnace go to prison? This is what the government is arguing. 

Cash is the payment technology used most by criminals, but it also happens to be essential for preserving the financial privacy of law-abiding citizens, as Human Rights Foundation chief strategy officer Alex Gladstein told Reason:

"The ATM model, it gives people the option to have freedom money," says Gladstein. "Yes, the government will know all the ins and outs of what flows are coming in and out, but they won't know what you do with it when you leave. And that allows us to preserve the privacy of cash, which I think is essential for a democratic society." 

The government's decision to indict Rodriguez and his partner William Lonergan Hill is also an attack on free speech because all they did was write open-source code and make it widely available. 

"It is an issue of a chilling effect on free speech," attorney Jerry Brito, who heads up the cryptocurrency nonprofit Coin Center, told Reason after the U.S. Treasury went after the creators of another piece of anonymizing software. "So, basically, anybody who is in any way associated with this tool…a neutral tool that can be used for good or for ill, these people are now being basically deplatformed."

Are we willing to trade away our constitutional rights for the promise of security? For many in power, there seems to be no limit to what they want us to trade away.

In the '90s, the FBI tried to ban online encryption because criminals and terrorists might use it to have secret conversations. Had they succeeded, there would be no internet privacy. E-commerce, which relies on securely sending credit card information, might never have existed.

Today, Elizabeth Warren mobilizes her "anti-crypto army" to take down bitcoin by exaggerating its utility to Hamas. The Biden administration tried to permanently record all transactions over $600, and Warren hopes to implement a Central Bank Digital Currency, which would allow the government near-total surveillance of our financial lives.  

Remember when the Canadian government ordered banks to freeze money headed to the trucker protests? Central Bank Digital Currencies would make such efforts far easier.

"We come from first principles here in the global struggle for human rights," says Gladstein. "The most important thing is that it's confiscation resistant and censorship resistant and parallel, and can be done outside of the government's control." 

The most important thing about bitcoin, and money like it, isn't its price. It's the check it places on the government's ability to devalue, censor, and surviel our money. Creators of open-source tools like Samourai Wallet should be celebrated, not threatened with a quarter-century in a federal prison.

Music Credits: "Intercept," by BXBRDVJA via Artlist; "You Need It,' by Moon via Artlist. Photo Credits: Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom; Omar Ashtawy/APAImages / Polaris/Newscom; Paul Weaver/Sipa USA/Newscom; Envato Elements; Pexels; Emin Dzhafarov/Kommersant Photo / Polaris/Newscom; Anonymous / Universal Images Group/Newscom.

• Video Editor: Regan Taylor
• Audio Production: Ian Keyser

The post The Government Fears This Privacy Tool appeared first on Reason.com.

No more! Earlier this week, some 3,500 bombs that were meant to be delivered to Israel did not actually make it there. President Joe Biden, long a major arms supplier to Israel, decided that the best way to make his opposition to the Rafah invasion known would be to temporarily stem the flow of weapons.

Biden also "said on Wednesday that he would also block the delivery of artillery shells that could be fired into the urban neighborhoods of Rafah," per The New York Times. Note that the Biden administration is not pausing all arms shipments, but rather trying to exert specific pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to rethink the Rafah offensive.

"Israel…took control of the Gaza side of a key border crossing to Egypt on Tuesday, securing a strategic corridor as negotiators met in Cairo for talks on a truce and hostage releases," reported The Wall Street Journal. "The seizure of the crossing closed a critical gateway for humanitarian assistance for Palestinians, prompting the U.S. to renew calls to reopen the gate."

Bear in mind, also, that the Rafah invasion was not merely to attempt to starve the remaining Gazans in the region through blocking humanitarian aid; an estimated 5,000–8,000 Hamas fighters are believed to be hiding in that city in southern Gaza. The Israeli offensive, which has been smaller in scope than originally thought, aims to stamp them out. It remains to be seen whether the Biden administration exerting pressure in this way will affect Israeli military actions—or how the Rafah offensive is perceived on a national stage.

Many Republicans in Congress reacted unfavorably to this unilateral action by the Biden administration. "It wasn't the Israelis that started this conflict. And I'm just very concerned that we do not try to micromanage Israel's right to defend itself against the terrorist group backed by Iran," said Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine) at an Appropriations subcommittee hearing yesterday.

Of course, the Biden administration is really just interested in using leverage. Once a humanitarian plan for getting refugees safely out of Rafah is communicated by Israel, the White House says the weapons shipments will likely resume.

Climate Guy Gavin: California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who continues to very convincingly swear that he's not running for president, seems to be eyeing the climate-concerned demographic of voters.

All the way back in 2020, when the grid faced blackouts and the state was roiled by wildfires, Newsom pinned blame on climate change, and majorly misrepresented his prioritization of wildfire management strategies like controlled burns.

During a visit to China last year, Newsom made headlines over a glitzy new partnership between California and Shanghai, which Newsom's press office said are "teaming up to fight the climate crisis by cleaning up ports and reducing emissions from the transportation sector." (Whether this has any real effect on emissions coming out of Shanghai seems beside the point.) During an audience with Pope Francis scheduled for next week, Newsom is expected to emphasize how "global temperatures [are] hurtling towards alarming new heights." This is his talk track, possibly responding to the fact that a far greater percentage of California's likely voters tell pollsters that "stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost" compared with a decade ago.

"A key part of his strategy has been to ascribe high gas prices and utility bills to corporate greed and gouging while beating back proposals that he believes go too far like Proposition 30, which would have raised taxes on the rich in 2022 to funnel money to electric vehicles," reported Politico. Phrased differently: Newsom does not want to alienate his French Laundry dining companions, and other rich donors who may be considering fleeing the high-tax state, but is very much trying to position himself as someone who takes climate change seriously.

Something to watch in the event that Newsom gets elevated out of his Biden-surrogate position and into the presidential campaign spotlight at any point, whether by the cruel tricks of nature or simple patience.

Scenes from New York: 

Over the weekend, a cruise ship appears to have accidentally killed and dragged a 44-foot endangered Sei whale through the East River. Upon being discovered, the whale was towed to New Jersey for a necropsy.

More whales have been living in the waters surrounding New York City for the last few years—I saw whales from Queens' Rockaway Beach two days ago, which is not totally uncommon here—and meeting all kinds of disturbing fates as a result.

"The increase in beached whales could be an indication that the whale population as a whole is growing. Or, less optimistically, rising water temperatures could be changing the hunting and migration patterns of whales, pushing them into areas where they're more likely to become injured by human activity," reported Curbed last year.

QUICK HITS

• "Saudi authorities have permitted the use of lethal force to clear land for a futuristic desert city being built by dozens of Western companies," an ex–intelligence officer told the BBC.
• Do you feel the Burgumentum?
• It looks like Congress might take another stab at a border deal, sure to please no one.
• Sweetgreen is introducing beef to its menu. Some people are worried it won't hit its climate goals as a result.
• Lots of people are criticizing Ann Coulter's blatant bigotry toward Vivek Ramaswamy during a recent podcast appearance in which Coulter went on Ramaswamy's show. What they're missing, though, is that Coulter's entire argument is that "the core around which the nation's values are formed is the WASP" (wrong!) and that she thinks we need more selective criteria as to which immigrants we let in—ignoring the contradiction present where Ramaswamy himself fits the criteria she describes, yet is still discriminated against by Coulter.

.@AnnCoulter told me flat-out to my face that she couldn't vote for me "because you're an Indian," even though she agreed with me more than most other candidates. I disagree with her but respect she had the guts to speak her mind. It was a riveting hour. The TRUTH podcast is back https://t.co/neVjKSs6e9

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) May 8, 2024

• Pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton don't seem to grasp that their victimhood mentality is getting in the way of their message being taken seriously:

NEW: Pro-Palestine protester at Princeton says she is "literally shaking" because she is starving and "immunocompromised."

The woman accused the school of purposely "physically weakening" her and her peers.

"This is absolutely unfair. My peers and I, we are starving. We are… pic.twitter.com/54TL9lIKOV

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 8, 2024

The post Biden, the Arms Supplier appeared first on Reason.com.

American federalism is struggling. Federal rules are an overwhelming presence in every state government, and some states, due to their size or other leverage, can impose their own policies on much or all of the country. The problem has been made clearer by an under-the-radar plan to phase out diesel locomotives in California. If the federal government provides the state with a helping hand, it would bring nationwide repercussions for a vital, overlooked industry.

Various industry and advocacy groups are lining up against California's costly measure, calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny a waiver needed to fully implement it. In the past month, more than 30 leading conservative organizations and individuals, hundreds of state and local chambers of commerce, and the U.S. agricultural sector have pleaded with the EPA to help stop this piece of extremism from escaping one coastal state.

Railroads may not be something most Americans, whose attention is on their own cars and roads, think about often. But rail is the most basic infrastructure of interstate commerce, accounting for around 40 percent of long-distance ton-miles. It's also fairly clean, accounting for less than 1 percent of total U.S. emissions. Private companies, like Union Pacific in the West or CSX in the East, pay for their infrastructure and equipment. These facts haven't stopped the regulatory power grab.

Most importantly, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation would have all freight trains operate in zero-emission configuration by 2035. At the end of the decade, the state is mandating the retirement of diesel locomotives 23 years or older, despite typically useful lives of over 40 years. Starting in 2030, new passenger locomotives must operate with zero emissions, with new engines for long-haul freight trains following by 2035. It limits locomotive idling and increases reporting requirements.

Given the interstate nature of railway operations, California needs the EPA to grant a waiver. If the agency agrees, the policy will inevitably affect the entire continental United States.

The kicker is that no technology exists today to enable railroads to comply with California's diktat, rendering the whole exercise fanciful at best.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board explained last November that while Wabtec Corp. has introduced a pioneering advance in rail technology with the launch of the world's first battery-powered locomotive, the dream of a freight train fully powered by batteries remains elusive. The challenges of substituting diesel with batteries—primarily due to batteries' substantial weight and volume—make it an impractical solution for long-haul trains. Additionally, the risk of battery overheating and potential explosions, which can emit harmful gases, is a significant safety concern. As the editorial noted, "Even if the technology for zero-emission locomotives eventually arrives, railroads will have to test them over many years to guarantee their safety."

The cost-benefit analysis is woefully unfavorable to the forced displacement of diesel locomotives. To "help" the transition, beginning in 2026, CARB will force all railroads operating in California to deposit dollars into an escrow account managed by the state and frozen for the explicit pursuit of the green agenda. For large railroads, this figure will be a staggering $1.6 billion per year, whereas some smaller railroads will pay up to $5 million.

Many of these smaller companies have signaled that they will simply go out of business. For the large railroads, the requirement will lock up about 20 percent of annual spending, money typically used for maintenance and safety improvements.

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. emissions, yet railroads' contribution amounts to not much more than a rounding error. The industry cites its efficiency improvements over time, allowing railroads today to move a ton of freight more than 500 miles on a single gallon of diesel. Its expensive machines, which last between 30 to 50 years and are retrofitted throughout their life cycles, are about 75 percent more efficient than long-haul trucks that carry a comparative amount of freight.

As Patricia Patnode of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which signed the aforementioned letter to the EPA, recently remarked, "Rather than abolish diesel trains, CARB should stand in awe of these marvels of energy-efficient transportation."

President Joe Biden talks a lot about trains, but his actions since taking office have consistently punished the private companies we should value far more than state-supported Amtrak. In this case, EPA Administrator Michael Regan and the White House need not think too hard. They should wait for reality to catch up before imposing on the rest of us one state's demands and ambitions.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

The post How California's Ban on Diesel Locomotives Could Have Major National Repercussions appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden says, "I know how to make government work!"

You'd think he'd know. He's worked in government for 51 years.

But the truth is, no one can make government work.

Biden hasn't.

Look at the chaos at the border, our military's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the rising cost of living, our unsustainable record-high debt.

In my new video, economist Ed Stringham argues that no government can ever work well, because "even the best person can't implement change….The massive bureaucracy gets bigger and slower."

I learned that as a consumer reporter watching bureaucrats regulate business. Their rules usually made life worse for consumers.

Yet politicians want government to do more!

Remember the unveiling of Obamacare's website? Millions tried to sign up. The first day, only six got it to work.

Vice President Joe Biden made excuses: "Neither [Obama] and I are technology geeks."

Stringham points out, "If they can't design a basic simple website, how are they going to manage half the economy?"

While bureaucrats struggled with the Obamacare site, the private sector successfully created Uber and Lyft, platforms like iCloud, apps like Waze, smartwatches, etc.

The private sector creates things that work because it has to. If businesses don't serve customers well, they go out of business.

But government is a monopoly. It never goes out of business. With no competition, there's less pressure to improve.

Often good people join government. Some work as hard as workers in the private sector.

But not for long. Because the bureaucracy's incentives kill initiative.

If a government worker works hard, he might get a small raise. But he sits near others who earn the same pay and, thanks to archaic civil service rules, are unlikely to get fired even if they're late, lazy, or stupid.

Over time, that's demoralizing. Eventually government workers conclude, "Why try?"

In the private sector, workers must strive to make things better. If they don't, competitors will, and you might lose your job.

Governments never go out of business.

"Companies can only stay in business if they always keep their customer happy," Stringham points out. "Competition pushes us to be better. Government has no competition."

I push back.

"Politicians say, 'Voters can vote us out.'"

"With a free market," Stringham replies, "the consumer votes every single day with the dollar. Under politics, we have to wait four years."

It's another reason why, over time, government never works as well as the private sector.

Year after year, the Pentagon fails audits.

If a private company repeatedly does that, they get shut down. But government never gets shut down.

A Pentagon spokeswoman makes excuses: "We're working on improving our process. We certainly are learning each time."

They don't learn much. They still fail audits.

"It's like we're living in Groundhog Day," Stringham jokes.

When COVID-19 hit, politicians handed out almost $2 trillion in "rescue" funds. The Government Accountability Office says more than $100 billion were stolen.

"One woman bought a Bentley," laughs Stringham. "A father and son bought a luxury home."

At least Biden noticed the fraud. He announced, "We're going to make you pay back what you stole!

No. They will not. Biden's Fraud Enforcement Task Force has recovered only 1 percent of what was stolen.

Even without fraud, government makes money vanish. I've reported on my town's $2 million toilet in a park. When I confronted the parks commissioner, he said, "$2 million was a bargain! Today it would cost $3 million."

That's government work.

More recently, Biden proudly announced that government would create "500,000 [electric vehicle] charging stations."

After two years, they've built seven. Not 7,000. Just seven.

Over the same time, greedy, profit-seeking Amazon built 17,000.

"Privatize!" says Stringham. "Whenever we think something's important, question whether government should do it."

In Britain, government-owned Jaguar lost money year after year. Only when Britain sold the company to private investors did Jaguar start turning a profit selling cars people actually like.

When Sweden sold Absolut Vodka, the company increased its profits sixfold.

It's ridiculous for Biden to say, "I know how to make government work."

No one does.

Next week, this column takes on Donald Trump's promise: "We'll drain the Washington swamp!"

COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post No One Can Make Government Work appeared first on Reason.com.

The House of Representatives passed a $95 billion military spending package over the weekend, including $59 billion in weapons purchases in three separate bills. The aid package had been held up because some Republicans opposed more aid to Ukraine. Those concerns melted away after this month's Iranian-Israeli clashes.

The Senate already passed a similar $95 billion package two months ago, so the new House spending bills should pass the Senate and make it to President Joe Biden's desk quickly. The House package also includes a fourth "national security" bill with measures that the Senate has not voted on, including the forced sale of TikTok and new economic sanctions on Iran and Russia.

"Today, members of both parties in the House voted to advance our national security interests and send a clear message about the power of American leadership on the world stage," Biden declared in a statement after the legislation passed.

The White House advertised these bills as an aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and friendly nations in the Indo-Pacific region, such as Taiwan. But the bulk of the money will go directly into the American military-industrial complex. The package includes $29.5 billion to replenish stockpiles of American weapons given to Ukraine, Israel, and Indo-Pacific allies as well as another $29.5 billion for the development, production, and procurement of new weapons.

The wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have burned through stockpiles of American ammunition and missiles faster than they can be replaced, and American factories will have trouble keeping up even if more money is thrown at them.

Some non-American weapons manufacturers are also poised to rake in taxpayers' money from the aid package. The U.S. government will spend $5.2 billion on Israel's Iron Dome, Iron Beam, and David's Sling defense systems, produced by an Israeli company, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. And the Indo-Pacific bill loosens rules for spending Defense Production Act money on British and Australian companies. The United States, Britain, and Australia are working together on the AUKUS submarine project.

Supporters of the aid package have claimed that Ukraine and Israel are fighting so that American troops don't have to. But the bills themselves make it clear how much heavy lifting the U.S. military is already doing in these wars. They include $11.3 billion to support an American military buildup in Europe, and $2.4 billion for American military operations in the Middle East.

U.S. forces have bombed the Houthi movement that is threatening Israeli shipping in the Red Sea, shot down most of the Iranian missiles and drones en route to Israel, and flown surveillance drones over Gaza in order to provide intelligence to the Israeli army.

The United States is at risk of getting dragged further into these conflicts, as the Biden administration has been having trouble controlling its proxies. Israel bombed an Iranian consulate without consulting with Washington, leading to last week's Iranian-Israeli dustup. Meanwhile, Ukraine has refused U.S. calls to stop attacking inside Russian territory.

While pumping money into the wars, the package also provides aid to people that the wars have made homeless. The bills allot around $9 billion to refugee aid and other humanitarian relief, on the condition that none of the money is spent on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the Palestinian refugee organization that Israel has accused of supporting Hamas. (The agency, for its part, has accused Israel of torturing its employees into confessing alleged Hamas ties.)

And as usual, the spending package includes a hodgepodge of unrelated or only vaguely related items: $98 million for the Department of Energy to produce nuclear isotopes, $250 million for the World Bank's emergency response fund, $75 million for Middle Eastern border agencies fighting drug smuggling, and $390 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help nonprofit organizations defend their facilities from terrorism.

The legislative package was designed to prevent either Democratic or Republican dissidents from derailing it. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.) broke the aid package apart into three separate bills, then put them back together again after they passed. That way, votes against aid to Ukraine did not count against aid to Israel, and vice versa.

It was a compromise between the Biden administration, which wanted to send Ukraine and Israel aid together, and Republicans, who wanted to vote on aid to Israel separately. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and CIA Director Bill Burns have personally lobbied Johnson over the past two months, according to CNN, as Ukrainian troops have lost ground to Russia.

Johnson appealed heavily to conservative Christian feelings about Israel when trying to sell Republicans on the package. "Of course, for those of us who are believers, it's a Biblical admonition to stand with Israel," he told Newsmax on Friday.

The Ukraine-focused bill passed 311–112, with unanimous Democratic support and some Republican support. Many Democrats cheered and waved Ukrainian flags during the vote. Johnson snapped at them: "We should only wave one flag on the House floor, and I think we know which flag that is."

The Israel-focused bill passed 366–58, with the vote mixed across party lines. Although Democrats have led criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Republicans have traditionally taken a hawkish pro-Israel line, a few Republicans took a stand against spending taxpayers' money on the Israeli military.

"If Congress wants to send money to Israel, then we should defund the United Nations first," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.) said on social media. "I have concerns about all deficit spending when sending money to any country, even if that country is a great ally or under attack."

The libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who is now supporting an effort to oust Johnson, told Fox News that the military spending package was Johnson's "third betrayal" of his base, after helping pass an omnibus spending bill and reauthorize mass surveillance.

"He's the uniparty speaker now," Massie said.

The post Democrats and Republicans Unite To Give Weapons Manufacturers $59 Billion appeared first on Reason.com.

On Friday, the Biden administration unveiled final Title IX regulations, nearly two years after the administration proposed dramatic changes to how colleges handle sexual assault allegations. The new rules largely mirror proposed regulations released last year and will effectively reversing Trump-era due process reforms. 

According to the final regulations, accused students will lose their right to a guaranteed live hearing with the opportunity to have a representative cross-examine their accuser. This is accompanied by a return to the "single-investigator model," which allows a single administrator to investigate and decide the outcome of a case.

Further, under the new rules, most schools will be required to use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which directs administrators to find a student responsible if just 51 percent of the evidence points to their guilt. Schools are also no longer required to provide accused students with the full content of the evidence against them. Instead, universities are only bound to provide students with a description of the "relevant evidence," which may be provided "orally" rather than in writing. 

This is a stunning rollback of due process rights for accused students. Under the new regulations, a student can be found responsible for sexually assaulting a classmate because a single administrator believed there was a 51 percent chance he had committed the assault, and this conclusion can be reached without ever allowing the accused student to know the full evidence against him or providing a hearing during which he could defend himself.

The rules also represent a continuing partisan tension in education policy. Following President Barack Obama's 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter, which first mandated campus sexual assault tribunals, regulations have flip-flopped consistently along party lines. In 2020, the Trump administration introduced broad due process rights for accused students while prohibiting schools from taking many cases that occurred off-campus. Today's reforms mark the third major change to Title IX regulations in as many presidents.

"Justice is only possible when hearings are fair for everyone. So today's regulations mean one thing: America's college students are less likely to receive justice if they find themselves in a Title IX proceeding," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) said in a Friday statement. "When administrators investigate the most serious kinds of campus misconduct, colleges should use the time-tested tools that make finding the truth more likely. But the new regulations no longer require them to do so."

So far, the new rules have been met with widespread praise from victims' rights groups.

"Students who experience sexual violence or discrimination shouldn't have to weigh our safety against our ability to go to class or participate in campus life," said college student Emily Bach in a press release from Know Your IX, a campus sexual assault awareness group. "The Biden Administration's updated Title IX rule will make sure that students who experience harm can come forward and seek support without jeopardizing our ability to graduate on time or get a degree."

But contrary to what many victims' rights activists say, due process rights for accused students are essential, not contrary, in treating campus sexual assault as a pressing issue. College sexual assault victims should be taken seriously—but taking their accusations with the gravity they deserve also means providing those they accuse with the right to defend themselves in kind.

Even if Title IX hearings don't have the gravity of criminal proceedings, they have the potential to upend accused students' lives. Students have been expelled, had their degrees revoked, or even been deported after being found responsible for a Title IX violation. 

If we want university investigations into sexual assault allegations to maintain any sheen of legitimacy, we can't entrust the power to inflict such severe penalties to a single administrator working behind closed doors. Instead, we need a process that puts due process front and center—any other system quickly becomes shamefully untrustworthy.

The post New Title IX Rules Erase Campus Due Process Protections appeared first on Reason.com.

Feisty Joe: I am glad Joe Biden seemingly took a lot of Adderall before delivering his State of the Union address, since it made him look alive. The only downside was that the actual policies he talked up were all terrible.

Overall, the speech seemed like a campaign event in more ways than one. Biden repeatedly called out "my predecessor" without criticizing Trump by name, and brought up issues like January 6, as well as Republicans' inability to pass legislation. Biden said Trump's "bowing down" to Vladimir Putin is "outrageous," as well as "dangerous" and "unacceptable" (paired with a call for more Ukraine funding, natch). There was a fair amount of heckling in the chamber throughout, and Biden himself was feisty and confrontational. The decorum of previous addresses was conspicuously absent last night. (And Biden's opponent resorted to, uh, predictably juvenile artistic rebuttals.)

As for actual substance, Biden spent a fair chunk of time "proposing temporary tax credits of $400 a month to compensate for high mortgage rates and the end of title insurance fees for federally backed mortgages," per Reason's Christian Britschgi. The White House circulated more info about this plan, which would "increas[e] the number of tax credits available for low-income housing developers" and create "a $20 billion competitive grant program that would directly fund affordable apartments." All of these are odd, expensive fixes for the actual problem, which is low housing supply that could be fixed by zoning reform and reducing the political power of NIMBY activists.

Biden also devoted a few lines to making the wealthy pay their "fair share," specifically claiming that "working people who built this country pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do."

"Under current law, the payroll tax that funds Social Security is capped so that, for this year, only the first $168,600 in earnings are subject to it," writes Reason's Eric Boehm. "Raising that cap—or eliminating it—is frequently discussed as one possible solution to Social Security's approaching insolvency. That seems to be the idea that Biden was gesturing towards in his speech." But this solution, clothed in eat-the-rich rhetoric, would not come anywhere close to fixing the actual Social Security funding issues and would involve a massive tax increase on the many people who make more than $168,600 in earnings.

"Too many corporations raise prices to pad their profits charging more for less," said Biden at one point, referring to what he calls "shrinkflation" and calling out candy bars and bags of chips as an example of this. "The snack companies think you won't notice if … same size bag, put fewer chips in it," he added. Not only is this comically unserious, but it's also insulting to Americans struggling with inflation and high grocery costs—no amount of blameshifting should distract from the fact that COVID-era stimulus spending (from both presidents) led to inflation, which has led to interest rate hikes to tame that inflation, which has thankfully not created a severe recession but has certainly led to a lot of budgetary pain for normal Americans. 

Proportionate response: "If you ban TikTok, I will kill myself," one constituent caller told a House GOP office, according to Politico. Right now, members of the House are weighing moving forward on legislation that could possibly result in a TikTok ban for U.S. users within the next six months.

TikTok is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. The legislation, which advanced out of committee with an impressively unanimous vote, "creates a narrow process to let the executive branch prohibit access to an app owned by a foreign adversary if it poses a threat to national security," per the Associated Press, in addition to forcing ByteDance to sell TikTok so it can continue to be accessible to American users.

"If you actually read the bill, it's not a ban. It's a divestiture," Rep. Mike Gallagher (R–Wis.), cosponsor of the TikTok bill, told Politico. In fact, the decision is "squarely in the hands of TikTok to sever their relationship with the Chinese Communist Party." If the U.S. version is sold to a non-Chinese company, "TikTok will continue to survive."

Scenes from New York: "They're gonna hang out in Whole Foods," complains one New Yorker about a migrant shelter proposal that would place recent border-crossers in Gowanus, Brooklyn. (From now on, I will point to this stupid quote when people ask why I abandoned Brooklyn in favor of Queens.)

QUICK HITS

• All about Opill, the first over-the-counter birth control pill that the Food and Drug Administration has approved.
• "A congressional probe of Chinese-built cargo cranes deployed at ports throughout the U.S. has found communications equipment that doesn't appear to support normal operations, fueling concerns that the foreign machines may pose a covert national-security risk," reports The Wall Street Journal. "The installed components in some cases include cellular modems, according to congressional aides and documents, that could be remotely accessed."
• Preliminary data out of Los Angeles suggests that AI is 3.5 times better than social workers at predicting who will become homeless.
• God bless Hawaii: land of poke bowls, hula girls, and the appropriate amount of political disillusionment.

Wow. 29% for uncommitted in the final Hawai'i tally. pic.twitter.com/VMMsu1hX3S

— Read Let This Radicalize You (@JoshuaPHilll) March 7, 2024

• British author J.K. Rowling has been reported to the police for misgendering a trans person. Her thread about free speech is incredible, and ends with this delightful nugget:

Aware as I am that it's an offence to lie to law enforcement, I'll simply have to explain to the police that, in my view, India is a classic example of the male narcissist who lives in a state of perpetual rage that he can't compel women to take him at his own valuation. 5/5

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) March 6, 2024

The post State of the Union (on Stimulants) appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden came into office promising to get American troops out of "forever wars." Tonight, in his State of the Union address, he offered a vision of indefinite U.S. involvement in conflicts around the world.

In April 2021, speaking about the war in Afghanistan, the president railed against those who believe that "withdrawal would damage America's credibility and weaken America's influence in the world. I believe the exact opposite is true." Tonight, Biden attacked skeptics who "want us to walk away from our leadership in the world."

He began his speech with a plea for more U.S. military aid to Ukraine, arguing that "the free world is at risk, emboldening others who would do us harm to do what they wish." Later, Biden announced sweeping plans for U.S. involvement in Gaza.

While the U.S. military will build a new port in Gaza to deliver food to Palestinians—and, the president promised, "no U.S. boots will be on the ground"—the Biden administration will continue to arm the Israeli military campaign that Biden said "has taken a greater toll on innocent civilians than all previous wars in Gaza combined." 

The Biden administration has transferred weapons to Israel at the American taxpayer's expense, and is providing targeting intelligence to the Israeli military. "Creating stability in the Middle East also means containing the threat posed by Iran," Biden added, touting his airstrikes on Yemen.

That air campaign has thrown a wrench into Yemen's peace talks—which, ironically, the Biden administration brokered a couple years before.

Biden positioned himself as a peace dove during the 2020 presidential debates, and one of his first major decisions in office was to go through with a long-planned U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. "It's time to end the forever war," the president announced in an April 2021 speech, rejecting an "approach where U.S. exit is tied to conditions on the ground."

"We have to have clear answers to the following questions: Just what conditions require to—be required to allow us to depart?" he asked in that speech. "By what means and how long would it take to achieve them, if they could be achieved at all? And at what additional cost in lives and treasure?"

Today, Biden answered those questions: The wars will continue for the foreseeable future.

The post Biden Touts More Forever Wars, Breaking His 2021 Promises appeared first on Reason.com.

America's high housing costs got a brief shout-out in President Joe Biden's State of the Union address tonight, with the president mostly proposing policies that would subsidize demand of this heavily supply-constrained good.

"I know the cost of housing is so important to you. If inflation keeps coming down mortgage rates will come down as well. But I'm not waiting," said Biden, proposing temporary tax credits of $400 a month to compensate for high mortgage rates and the end of title insurance fees for federally backed mortgages.

In addition, Biden proposed cracking down on the price fixing of big landlords and urged Congress to pass his plan to build or renovate 2 million affordable homes.

That housing policy got a shout-out at all in a State of the Union address is somewhat rare, despite housing being the largest line item in most Americans' budgets. Regrettably, most of the policies Biden proposed would do little to address the cause of high housing costs and could make the problem worse.

Higher rents and home prices are a natural consequence of local and state zoning laws, labyrinthine approval processes, federal restrictions on mortgage financing, and environmental reporting laws, to name a few.

All these laws limit the supply of new housing, which drives up the price for any given level of demand. That's a diagnosis the Biden administration itself has endorsed in various housing briefs and "action plans."

Despite that insight, the president's proposals to subsidize home buying will, all else equal, increase demand while leaving supply constraints in place. That will only raise prices further. People who claim new federal subsidies will be no better off. Anyone who misses out on the subsidies will be worse off.

Biden's proposal to crack down on price-fixing landlords is likely a reference to the hot new idea that landlords are illegally colluding on rents by paying for third-party algorithms that propose market-clearing maximum rents.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice released a memo earlier this month saying that this could be illegal, without offering any clear guidance on when it would actually be illegal.

Even property owners who set their rents below whatever a third-party algorithm recommends could still be guilty of price fixing.

"Even if some of the conspirators cheat by starting with lower prices than those the algorithm recommended, that doesn't necessarily change things. Being bad at breaking the law isn't a defense," read the memo. One shouldn't expect this garbled threat to do much to move the needle on rents.

In his remarks tonight, Biden didn't elaborate much on the policy he proposed to increase actual housing supply, his plan to build or renovate 2 million affordable homes.

A White House fact sheet circulated earlier today provides a little more detail. The plan, such as it is, would involve increasing the number of tax credits available for low-income housing developers—something the tax bill approved by the House and being considered by the Senate would do.

The White House fact sheet also calls for creating a $20 billion competitive grant program that would directly fund affordable apartments, "pilot innovative models" for affordable housing production, and, more interestingly, "incentivize local actions to remove unnecessary barriers to housing development."

When it comes to housing funding, $20 billion is a lot of money. It's nearly a third of the current budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

As part of its existing "housing supply action plan," the Biden administration has allegedly retooled a number of federal transportation grant programs to incentivize local zoning changes. As I've written, that doesn't seem to have made much of an impact on where those grants go. San Francisco, the nation's beating heart of anti-development regulations, got one of the largest grant awards from one of these supposedly retooled programs.

Congress has also passed a smaller, $85 million "baby YIMBY" grant program more focused on paying local governments to change their zoning rules. Here too, the language of the grant program (and the applications it's received thus far from localities) suggests it will end up being more of a subsidy for routine planning work than a powerful incentive for liberalizing zoning laws.

Given the difficulty state governments have had trying to prod local governments into being more pro-housing with explicit zoning preemptions, I'm skeptical of how much federal carrots can do here.

Perhaps the best thing the president can do for zoning reform is to use his bully pulpit to argue for it. Biden had an opportunity to do that tonight, and he didn't take it. It was a missed opportunity.

The post Biden's Plan To Subsidize Homebuyers Won't Work appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden did not dwell long on the question of how to solve the serious entitlement crisis facing America during Thursday's State of the Union address before pivoting to discuss obviously more serious problems like the size of snack food packages.

Still, one point he made is worthy of deeper analysis.

In trying to draw a contrast between his own plans and what he claimed Republicans are aiming to do, Biden claimed that "working people who built this country pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do. It's not fair."

Moments later, he promised to "protect and strengthen Social Security and make the wealthy pay their fair share."

Though he did not spell it all out in Thursday night's speech, those two comments seem to be pointed toward the same aspect of how Social Security is funded. Under current law, the payroll tax that funds Social Security is capped so that, for this year, only the first $168,600 in earnings are subject to it.

Raising that cap—or eliminating it—is frequently discussed as one possible solution to Social Security's approaching insolvency. That seems to be the idea that Biden was gesturing towards in his speech.

On its face, this isn't necessarily the worst idea. The cap is completely arbitrary, so there's no principled reason why all earnings shouldn't be treated equally. And there's no doubt that raising the cap would generate more revenue to help keep Social Security afloat. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that applying payroll taxes to higher income levels could raise $1 trillion in revenues over a 10-year period (though the amount of revenue would depend on how the cap was altered, and whether benefits increased as well).

But there are also serious trade-offs. For one, this would be a tax increase on working Americans to fund a transfer of wealth to retirees. That's not great. A significant portion of that tax increase would fall on people making less than $400,000 annually—remember, the cap is currently set around $168,000—a cohort that Biden promised again in Thursday's speech would not face tax increases.

Perhaps most importantly, raising or eliminating the payroll tax gap doesn't come close to solving the long-term Social Security shortfall. It might generate $1 trillion over 10 years, which is a lot of money, but it doesn't come close to the $2.8 trillion deficit the program is expected to run over the next decade.

"Eliminating the tax cap would either raise benefits as well (reducing the proposals' savings), or—if the accompanying benefits are canceled—turn Social Security into a true welfare program by delinking contributions and benefits," writes Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former Senate budget staffer, in a recent piece debunking some common myths about Social Security reform. "Moreover, eliminating the cap would not bring permanent solvency or avert the need for benefit changes….The system would return to deficits by 2029. Lawmakers would still need to reform benefit levels and the eligibility age."

Ah, but Biden also used Thursday's speech to kneecap any discussion of making those other changes.

"If anyone here tries to cut Social Security or Medicare or raise the retirement age," he vowed, "I will stop them."

It's nice to see the president at least acknowledge one of the difficult choices that lie ahead for policymakers grappling with the coming insolvency of America's entitlement programs. On that count, he's at least marginally ahead of his prospective electoral opponent, former President Donald Trump, who maintains that Social Security needs no reforms.

Still, Biden's a long, long way from anything that sounds like a workable proposal—and the lack of details in Thursday's speech suggests the White House would prefer to stay away from this topic during an election year.

The post Biden Says He'll Make the Wealthy Pay More To Fix Social Security. Here's Why That Won't Work. appeared first on Reason.com.

"I fixed student loan programs to reduce the burden of student debt for nearly four million Americans," President Biden bragged during his State of the Union address on Thursday night. "Such relief is good for the economy because folks are now able to buy a home, start a business, even start a family."

Despite failing to enact blanket student loan forgiveness, Joe Biden has still managed to forgive more than $130 billion in federal student loans since taking office in 2021—and due to a series of Education Department rule changes, even more loans are set to be forgiven in the coming years.

While Biden lauded his forgiveness scheme as "good for the economy," Biden's student loan reforms are in fact likely to make degrees more expensive to obtain in the coming years.

When the Education Department announced its original plan to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans per borrower in 2022, they also ushered in several, less attention-grabbing rule changes to the federal student loan program. Chief among them was a major change to income-driven repayment (IDR), a popular way for lower-income borrowers to repay their loans.

Under the REPAYE plan, previously the most popular IDR plan, borrowers were required to make regular monthly payments of 10 percent of their discretionary income (calculated as earnings above 150 percent of the federal poverty rate) for 20 years in order to receive forgiveness. But in 2022, Biden announced the Education Department would replace the REPAYE plan. 

In its place, the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan is a significantly more generous alternative, only requiring monthly payments of 5 percent of borrowers' discretionary income (now calculated as earnings above 225 percent of the federal poverty rate), with forgiveness after just 10 years for balances less than $12,000. Late or incomplete payments would still count during the required repayment period, unlike under the REPAYE plan.

While income-driven repayment plans are generally targeted at low-income borrowers who might not be able to afford a traditional repayment plan, the SAVE plan is so generous that it is likely to attract a wide swath of wealthier borrowers. With borrowers required to pay back such a small portion of their loans, universities have a clear incentive to boost prices and encourage students to enroll in the SAVE plan.

"The system has gotten so generous that it's not really a loan anymore," Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity told Reason. "It's more like a grant. And I think at that point, you'll start to see colleges saying, 'Hey, students aren't going to have to pay back their loans in full. So why don't we raise our prices, have students take out more loans, and the loans will just get forgiven by taxpayers?'"

In all, the new IDR plan is estimated to cost taxpayers nearly as much as Biden's original attempt at forgiving $475 billion over the next decade (blanket forgiveness was estimated to cost up to $519 billion). While Biden claimed that his recent forgiveness would help swaths of Americans "buy a home start a business even start a family," it certainly isn't typical taxpayers—the majority of whom do not have the benefits of a college degree, or the student loans to match—who will end up benefiting.

Ultimately, Biden's loan forgiveness efforts are best thought of as a purely political attempt to cater to a large portion of the Democratic base. Forgiving student loans does nothing to make it easier to attend college without taking on student loans—or for young Americans to reach the middle class, regardless of their educational path.

The post Biden Is Wrong About Student Debt Forgiveness appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden will reportedly use tonight's State of the Union address to once more rail against what the White House has taken to calling "shrinkflation"—the annoying corporate practice of shrinking the size of products rather than raising prices.

Politico reported this week that "recent drafts of Biden's State of the Union address have included a reference to shrinkflation as part of a broader segment on administration efforts to pressure companies to lower costs across the board." A White House spokesperson told the outlet that Biden "will continue to call out rip-offs such as shrinkflation, greedflation, and price gouging."

You'll note that, up there in the first sentence, I acknowledged that shrinkflation is annoying. It is, and polls show that consumers are indeed put off by the practice. Even Cookie Monster is upset about it. There are reasons to believe this is, on some level, a politically savvy move by the White House that reflects whatever data it's gleaned from polling.

But Biden's economically illiterate attempts to pin shrinkflation on greedy corporations aren't telling even half of the story. Here are three things to keep in mind when Biden starts spouting off tonight.

First, shrinkflation is just inflation.

It's not a side effect of inflation or a consequence of inflation. It is inflation. So when Biden, or anyone else, is complaining about this, what they are really saying is, "Wow, it sure sucks that your money doesn't buy as much stuff as it used to." Maybe that can score Biden some points for looking like he shares the concerns of regular Americans—even though he hasn't had to worry about a household grocery budget in decades—but this is nothing more than an attempt at rhetorical misdirection.

Second, shrinkflation is not a new phenomenon (because it is no different from inflation, which has also been around for as long as people have been using money).

Corporations didn't suddenly get more greedy and they didn't discover the tradeoff between sizes and prices in the wake of surging inflation during 2022. In fact, shrinkflation has been around since before there were corporations.

"Whenever grain was in short supply in feudal Europe, bakers had two choices: They could either raise prices or sell smaller loaves. They chose the latter," wrote Keith Plocek in Slate in 2022. "To do otherwise would violate the widely-held principle of a "just price"—formulated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century—and invite a bread riot."

That famous business school story about American Airlines saving a ton of money by removing a single olive from the salads it served to passengers in the 1980s? That's shrinkflation! What about Chock full o'Nuts deciding to sell 13-ounce packages of coffee instead of one-pound containers, thus ushering in an industrywide change? Shrinkflation! This is neither a novel idea nor a particularly sinister one, and it is certainly not something that needs to be regulated by the federal government.

Finally, Biden's proposed solution to shrinkflation would automatically cause prices to rise.

We don't yet know exactly what Biden is going to suggest at tonight's speech, but it seems likely that he'll tout a new task force launched this week meant to combat "unfair and illegal" pricing. On Tuesday, Biden announced the joint project of the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice with the goal of "making sure corporations are held accountable when they try to rip off Americans."

It's worth asking: What would happen if this task force succeeds? Assume every company in America decides to immediately undo any reductions in the size or quantity of products. What would happen to prices?

"In an inflationary environment, firms must decide whether to raise their headline prices or trim product sizes," wrote Ryan Bourne, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Banning 'shrinkflation' is effectively a mandate to raise package prices, rather than pursuing a size‐​price bundle that some (particularly low‐​income) consumers might prefer."

To put it in terms even Cookie Monster might understand: If the cost of making a single cookie has increased—because the flour and sugar are more expensive, and the workers making the cookies are making higher wages—then the cost of a package of 20 cookies will increase accordingly. If you want to avoid raising prices, you might only sell 15 cookies per package.

But if the government mandates 20 cookies per package—such an incredibly silly thing to have the federal government regulate, it's worth noting—then the price of that bag of cookies is certainly going up. The inflation that's occurred over the past few years can't be wiped away with a White House edict or canceled by a new task force.

As Dean Baker, a senior economist at the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Politico this week: "Costs have gone up—wages are 20 percent higher than they were in 2019….We're not going to have a world where people get to keep their 20 percent pay increases and pay what they did four years ago for food."

Bizarrely, Biden's attempt to change the conversation away from inflation involves a set of policies that would make Americans even more aware of how inflation is affecting them. The White House should be careful what it wishes for.

The post Not Again With the 'Shrinkflation,' Please appeared first on Reason.com.

There are a variety of reasons to alter, if not actually end, the Section 702 collection. Whatever value it may have in terms of national security, the very real fact is that it has been endlessly abused by the FBI since its inception.

It’s a foreign-facing collection, which means it harvests communications and data involving foreign targets of US surveillance. But there’s a massive backdoor built into this collection. Collecting foreign communications often means collecting US persons’ communications with foreign persons or entities.

That’s where the FBI has gone interloping with alarming frequency. US persons’ communications are supposed to be masked, preventing the FBI from engaging in warrantless surveillance of US-based communications. This simply hasn’t happened. And the FBI has not only performed second-hand abuse of this collection regularly, but it has equally regularly refused to be honest with the FISA court about its activities.

The latest rejection of a clean reauthorization of Section 702 has nothing to do with the FBI’s continuous refusal to play by the rules. Instead, it has to do with the few times it decided to engage in some backdoor action that targeted the party in power or people temporarily involved with inflicting four years of Donald Trump on a nation that was definitely greater before someone started promising to make it great again.

However, the FBI — despite having abused its access for years — continues to insist the program should not be ended or altered. It has actually admitted its backdoor searches would otherwise be illegal without this program and its side benefits — something that should have hastened legislators on both sides of the political aisle to shut the whole thing down until these critical flaws were patched.

Instead, the whole thing have devolved into the expected in-fighting. Some legislators proposed meaningful reforms to the program, which were soundly rejected by a lot of Republicans simply because some Democrats were involved. The Republicans heading up the House Intelligence Committee proposed their own reforms, but the only thing they really wanted to change was the FBI’s ability to place Republicans under surveillance.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration has decided the FBI is right, no matter how often it’s been wrong. Ignoring years of casual abuse, the Biden team has pushed for a clean reauthorization — something it may not have done if it weren’t for all the Republicans demanding (mostly for self-serving reasons) the program be ended or altered.

Unfortunately, Section 702 continues to live on, even if it’s in an unresponsive coma at the moment. Rather than let the surveillance authority expire, a bi-partisan effort did the country dirty by extending it until April 2024 where it could be further disagreed about following the return of Congressional reps to Capitol Hill.

April just isn’t good enough, apparently. The Biden Administration wants to buy even more time without any termination or authorization, presumably in hopes that the current furor will die down and this executive power will be granted a clean re-authorization. (Of course, by that point, there may be an actual Fuhrer in play, given Donald Trump’s early sweeps of critical primaries.)

Here’s Charlie Savage with more details for the New York Times:

The Biden administration is moving to extend a disputed warrantless surveillance program into April 2025, according to officials familiar with the matter.

The decision by the administration, which requires asking for court approval, seemed likely to roil an already turbulent debate in Congress over its fate. The program has scrambled the usual partisan lines, with members of both parties on each side of seeing the program as potentially abusive of civil liberties or as necessary for protecting national security.

This is probably preferable to holding a budget bill hostage in an executive office display of “I’ll hold my breath until I get my way.” And it’s preferable to Republican efforts to alter Section 702 simply to protect themselves from illegal surveillance. But it’s definitely not preferable to actually engaging with the inherent problems of this surveillance program, all of which seem to lead back to the FBI and its insistence on abusing its access.

This throws these problems on the back burner for another year. And it will be yet another year where the FBI abuses its access. We can make this assumption because there’s never been a year where the FBI hasn’t abused this surveillance power. Refusing to address an issue that’s been publicly acknowledged for several years now just to ensure the NSA doesn’t lose this surveillance program is irresponsible. The Biden Administration’s apparently tactic agreement with assertions made by an agency that has proven it can’t be trusted doesn’t bode well for anyone.

And, if this yearlong reprieve results in a clean reauthorization, the Biden Administration will quite possibly be handing this renewed power to Republicans now allowed to engage in their worst excesses, thanks to the re-election of Dumpster Fire Grover Cleveland.

The best thing the current administration could do at this point is allow the authority to die, which would force Republicans who love power (but hate to see it wielded against them) try to reconcile their desire for a surveillance state with the inevitable reality they will sometimes be on the receiving end of this surveillance. The worst thing it can do is what it’s doing now: pressing the pause button because it doesn’t have the desire or willingness to go head-to-head with an agency that claims — without facts in evidence — the only way it can keep this country secure from foreign threats is by warrantlessly spying on Americans.

President Joe Biden announced Friday that the U.S. military will work with Jordan to begin airdropping aid to starving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Ever since it was proposed, this idea has attracted criticisms from experienced humanitarian workers, who say the airdrops are an expensive, wasteful gimmick to avoid addressing the political problems causing the starvation.

The charity Oxfam America, for example, issued a statement Thursday arguing that airdrops "would mostly serve to relieve the guilty consciences of senior U.S. officials whose policies are contributing to the ongoing atrocities and risk of famine in Gaza." Instead, it said, Biden should "cut the flow" of American weapons to Israel.

Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International and a former disaster relief official in the Obama and Biden administrations, outlined the problems with airdrops in a PBS interview a day before Biden's announcement.

"We only used them when we had absolutely no other option, because they're the worst way to get aid in. They cost a lot of money, they're difficult to mount logistically, and they get very little volume," Konyndyk said. "We're only resorting to airdrops because of the blockages by the Israeli government."

Airdropping food costs about $16,000 per ton, as opposed to $180 per ton on average to move food aid by truck, according to a U.S. Air Force study from 2016.

Under pressure from the Biden administration, the Israeli government has opened a land crossing into the Gaza Strip—but Israeli nationalist protesters have physically blocked the crossing several times. Meanwhile, goods entering Gaza from Egypt must still go through the arduous Israeli border inspection process.

Sen. Chris van Hollen (D–Md.), who visited the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing in January, told The New Yorker that some shipments were being held at the border for 20 days, and that he saw entire shipments turned back because they contained just one banned item, such as a tent with a metal pole.

The U.S. government itself has admitted that the starvation is a political problem, although it blames Hamas rather than Israel.

"It is not a question of aid going in," U.S. State Department spokesman Matt Miller told reporters on Thursday. "There is a distribution problem inside Gaza right now because there are police officers—some of whom are members of Hamas—who have been providing the security for that distribution inside Gaza. And what Israel says is that they have a legitimate right to go after Hamas. We would obviously prefer to see members of a security force inside Gaza who are not Hamas members."

Inside the Gaza Strip, distribution has been chaotic. Riots have broken out around aid convoys, and Hamas-affiliated police shot a teenager in a December incident. Israeli forces have also bombed the police officers guarding aid convoys. U.S. official David Satterfield said last month that the attacks on police in Gaza have made it "virtually impossible" to protect aid from "criminal gangs."

The deadliest aid-related incident of the war, known as "flour massacre," took place Wednesday, when Israeli forces opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians seeking aid. According to the Palestinian health ministry, 112 people were killed. The Israeli military claims that its troops opened fire when Palestinians approached them in an unsafe way, that their gunfire caused only 10 casualties, and that most of the deaths were produced by a stampede.

That day, the war's Palestinian death toll reportedly crossed 30,000 deaths. Half a million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, a quarter of the population, are facing imminent starvation, according to U.N. officials.

In addition to announcing the airdrops, Biden said that he was seeking an "immediate" six-week ceasefire and a "surge" of aid on the ground. He has so far resisted calling for a permanent end to the war. When the war resumes, the aid that cost Americans so much to fly in may soon be bombed by American weapons.

The post Airdropping Aid to Gaza Is an Expensive Gimmick appeared first on Reason.com.

Former President Donald Trump's decision to impose huge new tariffs on imported steel came with an explicit promise about resurrecting the American steel industry.

"We're bringing it all back," Trump told reporters in May 2018 as he ordered the placement of 25 percent tariffs on nearly all steel imported into the United States. In exchange for making steel prices "a little bit more expensive," Trump believed the tariffs would boost domestic production "like it used to be in the old days when we actually had steel," he said in August of that same year. And when campaigning for reelection a year later, he was eager to claim credit for taking the steel industry from "dead" to "thriving."

But nearly six years after those tariffs were announced, government data show that America's annual steel output has fallen below the level recorded in 2017—the last full year before Trump's tariffs were imposed.

America produced 80 million metric tons of raw steel in 2023, according to new data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which tracks the annual output of iron, steel, and other industrial commodities. That's down from 80.5 million metric tons of steel produced in 2022.

Both figures ring in below the 81.6 million metric tons that were poured out of American steel mills in 2017.

The USGS data show that Trump's tariffs may have helped goose domestic steel production in the first few years after they were implemented. Production rose to 86.6 million metric tons in 2018 and 87.8 million metric tons in 2019, before cratering in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Production bounced back in 2021, as American steel mills produced 85.8 million metric tons of raw steel that year.

Those modest gains in the immediate aftermath of the tariffs seem to have faded away over the past two years—despite President Joe Biden's unwillingness to remove the Trump tariffs, which have hammered steel-consuming industries and have added to inflation.

That pattern—a short-term boost in production followed by a decline later—is exactly what economists would expect to happen after tariffs are imposed, wrote Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative and vice president and director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Gresser noted that large new tariffs typically create a four-stage chain of events: First, an increase in prices; then, a shift toward domestic production as buyers try to avoid paying the new tax; next, a decline in consumption by domestic industries that consume the tariffed product as they fall behind competitors elsewhere in the world; and finally, that decline in domestic demand rebounds onto the protected producers who see fewer orders for their products—in this case, steel.

When the Commerce Department formally announced Trump's tariffs in 2018, it waved away concerns about the last step in that process.

"If a reduction in imports can be combined with an increase in domestic steel demand" that would result from military and infrastructure spending, then the Trump tariffs "will enable U.S. steel mills to increase operations significantly in the short-term and improve the financial viability of the industry over the long-term," the department predicted.

That plainly hasn't happened. The short-term boost provided by the tariffs has faded and the artificially higher price of steel that American industries (and consumers) now must pay appears to be sapping demand for steel.

The two-year decline in steel output (during a period of robust economic growth, too) makes it easy to assess the Trump steel tariffs as their sixth birthday approaches. There is no need to weigh the benefits of the tariffs against their costs—even though the costs overwhelm the benefits—and no need to be distracted by the theoretical debates about how tariffs supposedly improve American national security.

Tariffs were supposed to resurrect the steel industry. Instead, America now produces less steel than it did before the tariffs were imposed. The debate is over. Trump's steel tariffs have failed.

The post American Steel Production Has Fallen to Pre-Tariff Levels appeared first on Reason.com.

A new candidate is making waves in the Democratic primaries: nobody. Organizers had urged Democrats to vote "uncommitted" in the Michigan primary on Tuesday, a way to show President Joe Biden that his foreign policy risked losing a crucial swing state. Around 13 percent of Democratic primary voters did, exceeding organizers' expectations.

The campaign was led by Arab Americans angry with U.S. military involvement in Gaza and Yemen. Other voters were motivated by a lesser-known side of Biden's foreign policy: The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) also campaigned for uncommitted votes in order to protest Biden's support for Armenia's enemy Azerbaijan.

"We didn't deliver the bulk of those votes, clearly, but we were part of it, and we were happy to be a part of it," says Aram Hamparian, executive director of ANCA. Armenians are looking to organize similar campaigns in Nevada and Pennsylvania, two other swing states with robust diaspora communities, according to Hamparian.

The U.S. Census counts 17,000 Armenian Americans in Michigan, although it may be an undercount, as the Armenian Community Center in Dearborn says that there are 50,000 Armenian Americans in the state. Both the Armenian and Arab communities in the state date back more than a century.

The Armenian uncommitted campaign went public on February 20, when ANCA board member Dzovinar Hatsakordzian published an op-ed in The Armenian Weekly announcing that she would vote "uncommitted" in the Michigan primary.

"I was surprised with the reaction of the community," Hatsakordzian tells Reason. "When we started, we didn't think that they would be open to the idea, but [the support] was overwhelming."

Armenian Americans "tend to align along with the area they live in" in terms of party politics, but "they'll cross a party line if they feel like there's a very stark issue before them," Hamparian says. "The military aid to Azerbaijan is our chief complaint about Biden."

In September 2023, the Azerbaijani military stormed the Armenian-majority territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, driving out almost the entire population, an act that many outside observers have called ethnic cleansing or even genocide. It was the ugly coda to a long, brutal conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

During the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh had attempted to declare their independence from Azerbaijan, leading to a war that involved atrocities and mass displacement on both sides. (The territory is also called Artsakh in Armenian.) The conflict froze in the mid-1990s and restarted with an Azerbaijani offensive in September 2020.

"If they do not leave our lands of their own free will, we will chase them away like dogs and we are doing that," Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said in an October 2020 speech. Aliyev also stated that he would welcome Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenians as fellow citizens, a claim that Armenians were inclined to disbelieve after Azerbaijani troops beheaded two elderly Armenian men on camera.

Azerbaijan's wars have been funded, in part, by the American taxpayer. Congress initially tried to stay out of the conflict, banning military aid to Azerbaijan in 1992. A decade later, the U.S. government reversed course, hoping to gain a new strategic ally, because Azerbaijan is located between Iran and Russia and along key air routes to Afghanistan.

Every president since George W. Bush has waived the congressional aid restrictions, and Washington provided $164 million in "security assistance" to the Azerbaijani military between 2002 and 2020. Most of that aid, over $100 million, came during Donald Trump's presidency.

After the 2020 offensive, then-candidate Biden demanded an end to the aid. But after he took office, Biden continued to sign off on the security assistance programs.

"The bulk of military aid to Azerbaijan went under Trump, and the [2020 offensive] took place in the last months of Trump's presidency, so he bears heavy responsibility for that," Hamparian says, but "having witnessed the war, [Biden] continued the military aid."

There was a particularly strong sense of whiplash within the Armenian-American community in April 2021. That month, Biden recognized the World War I–era mass murder of Armenians in Turkey as a genocide, a move that Armenian Americans have long called for. A few days later, Biden went back on his campaign promise and approved additional aid to Azerbaijan.

The Biden administration announced its genocide recognition with massive media fanfare, while it quietly notified Congress about the military aid. Biden was behaving "as if somehow Armenians will not notice that he's arming a genocidal state in the same week that he's recognizing a genocidal crime," Hamparian says.

U.S. military aid, which mostly focuses on border security, is not a make-or-break issue for the Azerbaijani army. Between 2010 and 2020, the majority of Azerbaijan's weapons came from Russia, with smaller contributions from Israel, Belarus, and Turkey. Russia also supplied nearly all of Armenia's weapons in the same period.

In addition to selling weapons to both sides, Russia has had peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh since November 2020. Those troops have largely not acted to protect the local population.

However small U.S. aid was in the grand scheme of things, Hamparian believes that the very existence of that aid was "morally emboldening" to Azerbaijani leaders, who thought they had an American green light.

Then came the starvation siege. In late 2022 and early 2023, the Azerbaijani army gradually cut off Nagorno-Karabakh's access to the outside world. Severe shortages set in. Azerbaijan was even rumored to be building a concentration camp for Armenian men, a rumor that New Lines journalists were able to corroborate using satellite imagery.

Her voice filled with emotion, Hatsakordzian describes the Armenian-American message to the Biden administration at the time: "We went to them, and we said we know this is going to end with ethnic cleansing…Why is my taxpayer money going to fund a genocidal country such as Azerbaijan?"

Those fears came true in September 2023, when the Azerbaijani army overran the territory, leading to a mass Armenian exodus. The Biden administration then paused military aid to Azerbaijan, and the Senate moved to make it a two-year suspension. At the time, Hamparian called Washington's actions "a day late and a dollar short."

Hatsakordzian says that she does not currently plan to vote for Biden, and that in order to win back her vote, "he can sanction Azerbaijan, he can stop sending weapons to Azerbaijan, and take concrete actions to stop the genocide that is going on."

Some Armenian Americans also sympathize with Arab Americans' campaign against the Biden administration.

The two campaigns "share the exact same frustrations" with U.S. foreign policy, says Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy in the Arab World Now, a Washington-based nonprofit. She is an Armenian American whose own family escaped to Jerusalem in the wake of the Armenian genocide, before fleeing again due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Whitson compares Armenian-American grievances with U.S. support for Azerbaijan to Palestinian-American grievances with U.S. support for Israel: "You have a strong diaspora community that's deeply opposed to an abusive regime, and they find their own government supporting it."

ANCA has been more circumspect about its stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hatsakordzian and Hamparian emphasize that Armenians have good relations with their Arab and Jewish neighbors alike. Yet Hamparian supports, on principle, the other efforts to pressure the Biden administration in the primaries.

"Everyone who voted 'uncommitted' went to the polls trying to bring accountability to our foreign policy system, and that's a good thing," Hamparian says. "Exercises like this remind [politicians] that foreign policy doesn't start and end at the State Department. It's the property of the American people."

The post The Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict Comes to Michigan appeared first on Reason.com.

The White House this month announced plans for how it will direct billions of dollars in funding toward semiconductors, marking a new phase in the implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act.

The $280 billion legislation, signed into law in 2022, aims to bolster semiconductor production in the U.S. President Joe Biden's administration said Monday that it will funnel $1.5 billion to GlobalFoundries, a semiconductor manufacturing and design company, to increase its domestic output. Perhaps more significant, however, was Biden's dispatch earlier this month announcing the administration will use at least $5 billion to establish a National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC), which will, among other things, support "the design, prototyping, and piloting of the latest semiconductor technologies," according to the White House. 

This latest effort is part of the government's expensive and protectionist public-private partnership meant to address concerns over a reliance on foreign countries, like China, for chips.

"Semiconductors were invented in America and serve as the backbone of the modern economy," the White House said in a statement. "But today, the United States produces less than 10 percent of global supply and none of the most advanced chips."

The NSTC will supposedly also play a crucial role in expanding the semiconductor workforce to manufacture computing chips that can complement advances in artificial intelligence and related industries. Semiconductors are projected to become a $1 trillion industry by 2030, according to McKinsey & Company.

The CHIPS and Science Act has several eyebrow-raising elements, including $81 billion for the National Science Foundation—doubling the agency's budget over five years. Another $24 billion will go toward tax credits meant to subsidize and incentivize private companies to invest in semiconductors.

While the legislation was likely well-intentioned, it was doomed to have protectionist ramifications. "To defeat China, the argument goes, the U.S. must adopt the tactics of the Chinese Communist Party, at least when it comes to high-end manufacturing," Reason's Eric Boehm wrote in January 2023. But that ham-handed approach to industrial policy and corporate welfare drives up the deficit and hampers economic growth at very little benefit to the taxpayer, who are forced to fund these initiatives. 

It's likely unsurprising that many large corporations lobbied for the CHIPS and Science Act, including Meta, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, Northrop Grumman, Carrier, Trane, and General Dynamics, as well as labor unions like the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and the Communications Workers of America. "Big government means big lobbying," wrote David Boaz, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "When you lay out a picnic, you get ants. And today's federal budget is the biggest picnic in history."

The CHIPS and Science Act passed with bipartisan support. But its detractors were also made up of strange bedfellows. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and then-Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) both referred to the law as "corporate welfare" and a "blank check." Sanders went as far as to call it a "bribe."

"When the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all the risk and privatizes all the profits, that is crony capitalism," Sanders said.

He's not wrong. The law "is another episode of politicians granting favors to their friends in the semiconductor industry," Veronique de Rugy, a contributing editor at Reason and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, wrote last year. Such an approach "punishes those who aren't elite or can't organize to extract favors from politicians."

Michelle Nuzzo-Kelly is an apt example. She was among the residents of Burnet Road near Syracuse, New York, who received several offers to purchase her home. But those offers didn't come from private buyers: They came from the government, as Onondaga County sought to expand a plot of land so it could attract a developer. Micron, one of the world's largest semiconductor manufacturing firms, is now set to build a facility there, thanks to lucrative taxpayer-funded subsidies from the state and federal government.

"The offers to buy Nuzzo-Kelly's home were never really just offers," Boehm wrote when covering the case in November 2022. "They were demands backed by a threat to use government power to force her to sell."

The post Biden Pours Out Another $6.5 Billion for the CHIPS Act's Costly Protectionism appeared first on Reason.com.

On Wednesday, the Biden Administration announced $1.2 billion in additional student loan forgiveness for more than 150,000 borrowers. This particular round of forgiveness was previously announced last month, though the exact cost of the debt relief was not previously known.

"The Biden-Harris Administration has now approved nearly $138 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 3.9 million borrowers through more than two dozen executive actions," a Wednesday press release stated. "From Day One of his Administration, President Biden vowed to fix the student loan system and make sure higher education is a pathway to the middle class—not a barrier to opportunity."

This latest slate of forgiveness is part of the Education Department's sweeping changes to how the federal government handles student loan repayment. As part of the Biden Administration's original attempt to forgive up to $20,000 in federal loans per borrower, they also made several major changes to other student loan programs. Most notably, they introduced the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE), a new income-driven repayment (IDR) program designed to be much more generous than previous IDR plans.

For example, under the REPAYE plan, which was the most popular IDR plan before SAVE replaced it, monthly payments were set at 10 percent of borrowers' discretionary income, defined as earnings above 150 percent of the federal poverty line, with forgiveness coming after 20 years of consistent payments. 

For borrowers in the new SAVE plan, their monthly payment is only 5 percent of their discretionary income, which is now defined as income above 225 percent of the federal poverty line. If the borrower's balance is less than $12,000, they'll now get forgiveness after just 10 years.

As part of the SAVE plan rollout, the Education Department announced last month that any borrowers who have been paying back their loans for 10 years or more, under any program, and have a remaining balance of less than $12,000 can enroll in the SAVE plan and get automatic forgiveness. While the original announcement did not estimate how much forgiveness would be dolled out, Wednesday's update released the staggering $1.2 billion price tag.

This recent glut of loan forgiveness shows how, even if Biden's attempt at blanket loan forgiveness was defeated at the Supreme Court last year, that doesn't keep his administration from spending billions on student loan forgiveness. Biden's one-time student loan forgiveness proposal was estimated to cost taxpayers more than $500 billion, but the estimated cost of the SAVE plan over the next decade is almost as much, coming in at $475 billion. 

While the Supreme Court halted Biden's most outrageous attempt to forgive massive amounts of federal student loans, the Education Department's wide authority to make sweeping changes to student loan policy means that widespread debt forgiveness—and the huge bill to taxpayers—is here to stay.

The post The Biden Administration Has Forgiven Another $1.2 Billion in Federal Student Loans  appeared first on Reason.com.

Enlarge / Polluted street scenes like this will remain common in the United States, which will abandon ambitious fuel efficiency standards in the face of complaints from automakers and unions. (credit: Getty Images)

It appears as if ambitious new fuel efficiency regulations that would require Americans to adopt many more electric vehicles are to be watered down. Last year, President Biden's administration published proposed new Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations for 2027–2030, regulations that would require automakers to sell four times as many zero-emissions vehicles as they do now.

But opposition to the new CAFE standards has been fierce, and now Reuters reports that the White House is backing down and will issue new guidelines with less ambitious goals in the coming weeks.

The White House's goal had been for US EV adoption to reach 50 percent of all new light vehicle sales by 2030, rising to 60 percent by 2032. In part, it proposed changing the modifier applied to each new zero-emissions vehicle when used to calculate an automaker's fleet emissions.

Read 3 remaining paragraphs | Comments